How Have You resolved the Creationism vs Evolution Debate?

[SonOfTheWest]

How have I resolved the debate? By explaining to Creationists that evolution is not abiogenesis and that there was NEVER A DEBATE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

 

[One_In_Christ]

From all that is given from Scriptures, to describe the Creation of man, not to mention the other living creatures on earth ----- the real issue is not "creationism vs. evolution" but rather "does an individual put any credibility in Scriptures as the revealed Word of God?" That is, do you dismiss all scriptures as having no credibility, or do you pick and choose which parts you will accept? Or do you accept all as credible and infallible, but not totally understandable, at this point?

 

[gluadys]

From all that is given from Scriptures, to describe the Creation of man, not to mention the other living creatures on earth ----- the real issue is not "creationism vs. evolution" but rather "does an individual put any credibility in Scriptures as the revealed Word of God?" That is, do you dismiss all scriptures as having no credibility, or do you pick and choose which parts you will accept? Or do you accept all as credible and infallible, but not totally understandable, at this point?

Accepting the facts of evolution doesn't make it necessary to regard the Scriptures as incredible, to dismiss all or even any part of scripture nor to pick and choose what to accept.

In general evolutionary creationists accept the Scriptures with the same reverence, trust and faith as any other Christians.

I understand that you have been told differently, but you are perpetuating a stereotype of evolutionary Christians.

 

[Greg1234]

How have I resolved the debate? By explaining to Creationists that evolution is not abiogenesis and that there was NEVER A DEBATE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Abiogenesis is simply mineral to microbe transition as opposed to fish to man. It's just as theologically unconstitutional, empirically unsound, and metaphysically unlawful. The only place you draw a distinction is in physical science because of its perception and philosophy, though that perception is not one that's emulated. The life in organisms and the laws pertaining to their existence stream down from their transcendent foundation, and not through lateral infringements.

 

[razeontherock]

I would like to read discussions of how other Christians have thought about this debate. Serious and theological discussions only, please.

I spent a lot of time involved in this when I first discovered the www (world wide waste of time) realm of the chat room. That was with fellow trumpet players, on a site specifically devoted to playing trumpet. As those who have come to know me here can attest, there's something abut playing the trumpet that makes one ... eccentric? Excessively focused? Intense beyond what most people can bear?

Anyway I started with the fascination that I had challenged everything I was taught all through school, except evolution. (Ev) I saw many flaws in common scientific thought exposed, and discovered others on my own.

That's all true, but it makes Genesis 1 neither a science textbook nor a literal history. It is quite liberating to be set free from the Hovind-esque mantra of "if you can't take it all literally, you can't trust any of it." There is such a thing as hermeneutics Sometimes Crypto Lutheran posts some good stuff to see how the original audience would've heard Gen 1, and he's done that again recently if anyone wants to search his posts ...

So as someone who is obnoxiously curious by nature, I have come full circle on this issue to rest on the fact that "I wasn't there when it happened and I don't know." Since this is so very contrary to my own nature, it is certainly a manifestation of the Holy Spirit.

 

[artybloke]

Since the Hebrew Scriptures are so meticulously concerned with genealogies, and since Adam is not described as having a mother or (physical, earthly father), why would the Scriptures have left this detail out, unless he was "created" ?

Maybe, just maybe, he was never intended to be seen as a real historical person but was intended to be a symbolic representation of the whole of humanity.

 

[Papias]

artybloke wrote:

OneinChrist wrote:

Since the Hebrew Scriptures are so meticulously concerned with genealogies, and since Adam is not described as having a mother or (physical, earthly father), why would the Scriptures have left this detail out, unless he was "created" ?

Maybe, just maybe, he was never intended to be seen as a real historical person but was intended to be a symbolic representation of the whole of humanity.
​

Another option is the one taken by many Catholics, including the Pope, that Adam was the first transitional ape to cross the line to being human and be given a soul. As such, he would have biological parents, but not human parents, and leaving them out of a geneology makes sense, since it is a human geneology.

More to the point, anyone familiar with the Old Testament, regardless of which Bible you choose (different Bibles have different books), the geneologies are obviously meant by the Holy Spirit to be symbolic, otherwise the same geneology given in Matthew wouldn't contradict the one given in Chronicles. That's a direct hint from the Holy Spirit not to take them literally.


Mt Gen# .....................Gospel of Matthew has.............................. 1st Chron. Has:
1....................................Solomon the father of Rehoboam, .................Solomon's son was
2 ....................................Rehoboam the father of Abijah,............... Rehoboam,
3 ....................................Abijah ..............................................Abijah his son'
4....................................Asa .....................................................Asa his son,,
5 ....................................Jehoshaphat ....................................Jehoshaphat his son,
6.................................... Jehoram ....................................Jehoram his son
....................................Skipped....................................Ahaziah his son,
....................................Skipped ....................................Joash his son,
....................................Skipped ....................................Amaziah his son,
7..........................Uzziah the father of Jotham, ......Azariah his son,
8.................................... Jotham ....................................Jotham his son,
9 ....................................Ahaz ....................................Ahaz his son,
10.....................Hezekiah ....................................Hezekiah his son,
11.................................... Manasseh ....................................Manasseh his son,
12 ....................................Amon ....................................Amon his son,
13.................................... Josiah the father of Jeconiah, ..............Josiah his son,

Papias

P.S. As others have pointed out, there is no "Evolution/Creationism" controversy. Or more specifically, there is no controversy among those familiar with the evidence, the experts (who include millions of Christians), practically all of whom agree that evolution describes our origin from a scientific standpoint. There is only a controversy among Christians, as to how to properly interpret Genesis.


​

 

[artybloke]

My problem with the Catholic view is simply that evolution is something that happens to populations, not to individuals, so there would not have been one "Adam..."

But it's a perfectly acceptable interpretation if you want to cling to the need for theire to be a single historical Adam. But I don't see why myself, as I don't see original sin as some thing that is passed on through the genes or whatever...

 

[shernren]

But it's a perfectly acceptable interpretation if you want to cling to the need for theire to be a single historical Adam. But I don't see why myself, as I don't see original sin as some thing that is passed on through the genes or whatever...

If humanity was at any point sinless, and then later on sinful, then there must have been a first sin, and therefore a first sinner, whose first sin guaranteed sinful destinies for all of us. That is how I view this doctrine - as an exploration of the effects of what was quite literally "the original sin".

 

[Jig]

Death before sin.

 

[Jig]

Adam was born a human but didn't have human parents.

 

[One_In_Christ]

Adam was not "born".

 

[shernren]

Death before sin.

And why can't there be? After all, Romans 5 says that death spread to all men before Adam's sin. Not that it spread to all life.

And if you believe otherwise, I hope you find comfort in knowing that the next time you eat a steak or a chicken wing you have just played your part in intensifying the consequences of sin on Earth. (A lot of creationists who think they believe animal death is awful ... actually don't.)

 

[Jig]

And why can't there be? After all, Romans 5 says that death spread to all men before Adam's sin. Not that it spread to all life.

Where does it say that in Romans 5?

This is what my ESV says:

Romans 5:12-13
Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned. For sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law.

And if you believe otherwise, I hope you find comfort in knowing that the next time you eat a steak or a chicken wing you have just played your part in intensifying the consequences of sin on Earth. (A lot of creationists who think they believe animal death is awful ... actually don't.)

Correct, but I do not see how this refutes my position. We were not meant to originally eat animal meat - Adam and all the antediluvian people were vegetarian.

 

[One_In_Christ]

Abiogenesis is simply mineral to microbe transition as opposed to fish to man. It's just as theologically unconstitutional, empirically unsound, and metaphysically unlawful. The only place you draw a distinction is in physical science because of its perception and philosophy, though that perception is not one that's emulated. The life in organisms and the laws pertaining to their existence stream down from their transcendent foundation, and not through lateral infringements.

Allright. You lost me there. You lost me at "abiogenesis" !
Can you restate this paragraph for me, in "dumb down" English, please?

 

[Keachian]

We were not meant to originally eat animal meat - Adam and all the antediluvian people were vegetarian.

So if the antediluvian people were vegetarian why is it stipulated that there be seven pairs of clean animals taken into the ark? (Gen 7:2) After all the sacrificial animals are of a smaller subset of the clean animals....

 

[razeontherock]

And why can't there be? After all, Romans 5 says that death spread to all men before Adam's sin.

I challenge your assertion.

 

[razeontherock]

So if the antediluvian people were vegetarian why is it stipulated that there be seven pairs of clean animals taken into the ark? (Gen 7:2) After all the sacrificial animals are of a smaller subset of the clean animals....

This is not intuitive for you? Did God not know the end from the beginning?

 

[Jig]

So if the antediluvian people were vegetarian why is it stipulated that there be seven pairs of clean animals taken into the ark? (Gen 7:2) After all the sacrificial animals are of a smaller subset of the clean animals....

Read Genesis 9. God tells Noah and his family that they can now eat animal meat and sets instructions on how to do it - this would be an odd thing for God to tell Noah if he had been allowed to eat animal meat before. In Genesis 1 only plants were given to eat.

 

[Keachian]

ok so God is now interfering with human biology to give them the ability to be omnivorous, why doesn't he just go ahead and create some more clean creatures while he's at it?