If you are a Theist, you are a Creationist!

[juvenissun]

You seem to be the one who doesn't want to be called a creationist, you think your body is only indirectly created by God. What sort of percentage would you assign to that?

And what is the difference between God creating 'indirectly' through through your mum and dad, and creating indirectly through evolution? Is it just that you see God using indirect means to create as somehow lessening his role as creator? That is you idea. We are perfectly happy to describe everything God creates as his work of creation - through him all things were created. It looks like your whole problem with evolution comes not from evolution but from your own denial as a creationist of God's work of creation.

You know what? I did learn something by writing through these arguments.

To answer your question: there is no difference between the two.

And, what I learned is that the idea of evolution, even has a lot problems, may still be acceptable.

Evolution only dealt with the physical body. It has nothing to do with the real person which God created directly. If I can separate these two identities of a person, then I shouldn't care so much about the evolution of human. Because it only talks about the body, not the soul/spirit of a person.

With this recognition, then the debate about evolution process would be limited to science only, and is mostly not related to creation.

 

[juvenissun]

If the physical body doesn't matter than why do you consider it important if my physical body is the product of evolutionary design rather than divine design?

Very good question. Scientifically, I should not.

Thanks to everyone. I think I may have a break through in understanding. Nevertheless, the Bible is ultimately correct. What I just learned was actually mentioned in Eccl 3: 18-21. a few thousands years ago.

[BIBLE]3:18 I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts.
3:19 For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity.
3:20 All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.
3:21 Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?[/BIBLE]

I have read these verses at least tens of times. But I never saw it as I see it this time.

-------

However, your question is, in fact, a different one. Since you mentioned "design". Which is an entirely different subject.

 

[Papias]

 

[philadiddle]

You know what? I did learn something by writing through these arguments.

To answer your question: there is no difference between the two.

And, what I learned is that the idea of evolution, even has a lot problems, may still be acceptable.

Evolution only dealt with the physical body. It has nothing to do with the real person which God created directly. If I can separate these two identities of a person, then I shouldn't care so much about the evolution of human. Because it only talks about the body, not the soul/spirit of a person.

With this recognition, then the debate about evolution process would be limited to science only, and is mostly not related to creation.

I just gained a lot of respect for you. Thanks for posting this. Even though you may never agree with me that evolution happened, at the very least I hope you can understand my view.

 

[juvenissun]

I just gained a lot of respect for you. Thanks for posting this. Even though you may never agree with me that evolution happened, at the very least I hope you can understand my view.

With that said, I still don't think evolution is true. Scientifically, there are simply too many problems with it. Also, as I said in many other threads, the idea of evolution is practically useless. It is something similar to a faith. And we do not need that faith. (sorry, I won't open an old debate on that in this thread)

What I learned is this: The idea of evolution does not necessary offend the idea of creation.

The implication is: TE may be an acceptable theology if the part of E is "correctly" interpreted. It should not include the appearance (origin) of human nature. This is basically what Solomon said in his songs.