Augustine also does not envision original sin as causing structural changes in the universe, and even suggests that the bodies of Adam and Eve were already created mortal before the Fall.
It's funny how YE is the evolutionists (and atheists) goto argument. Us Christians who believe in a 6 day creation of modern day man (starting with Adam) should disregard earth age. Let the atheists have that one. Without it, man evolving from chimps and evolution of man over billions of years falls flat on its face. Of course, an infinite God, who is from eternity past, has been around for billions of years (or trillions or even gillions if you wish) and He certainly hasn't been twiddling his thumbs all that time and could easily have had other creations during that time (where we get many of the fossils including some of which appears to be similar to man).
There definitely is evidence of massive destruction on this apparently Old Earth.
A God who spoke the earth into existence could most definitely have destroyed it at one time or another (just the surface with the rest of it kept in tact),
and as far as those creatures who might have been here before us, there's no missing link
If anything, perhaps you could say that God's thinking "evolved" in a sense regarding His creation process over time until He perfected it in our generation (to be completed)
Why is it so hard to just accept that it is what they evidence shows it to be?
The Barbarian said:And even more evidence of ages of gradual change between the occasional catastrophic change. Pretty much the way it works today.
According to who? Or He could have simply done it the way He says He did in Genesis.The Barbarian said:Or He could have done things as the evidence shows He did. One of those.
Like Noblemouse, I don't care what Kurt Wise thinks or says. Many great men of God don't get everything right and are wrong about certain things, just like many of your scientists (how many failures do they have prior to finally having successful results?). How many times do scientists get things wrong before getting them right?The Barbarian said:YE Creationist (and PhD paleontologist Kurt Wise admits that there are many, many transitional forms, which he says are "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory." Would you like to see a partial list of them?
The Barbarian said:Humans didn't evolve from chimps. Humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor, which was neither human nor chimp.
Agree. I just suggested that if you want to say there was some sort of evolution (not the kind you believe in however),The Barbarian said:God is eternal, so He isn't going to evolve.
It's what the Bible says it is, that's why.
Sure. There are physiological changes due to many happenings throughout the earths history, but that doesn't prove that man "evolved" from chimps.
According to who?
Or He could have simply done it the way He says He did in Genesis.
Like Noblemouse, I don't care what Kurt Wise thinks or says.
Many great men of God don't get everything right and are wrong about certain things, just like many of your scientists (how many failures do they have prior to finally having successful results?).
(Barbarian asks why it's so hard to believe the evidence)
The Barbarian said:Barbarian observes:
And even more evidence of ages of gradual change between the occasional catastrophic change. Pretty much the way it works today.
You like to say common ancestor. I prefer common creator.The Barbarian said:I was speaking of geology. However, it is clear that humans did not evolve from chimps. They both evolved from a common ancestor which was neither a chimp nor a human.
The Barbarian said:Barbarian observes:
Or He could have done things as the evidence shows He did. One of those.
The Barbarian said:God. We are told, in scripture, that God is truth. If so, then He would not have planted false evidence.
No. Atheists just found a way to take God out of the picture and although you're not an atheist you purport their doctrine. And for a long time most of your scientists were atheists, believing in science over God. Now, many of them have turned to Theistic Evolution as you, which is a step in the right direction.The Barbarian said:As you know, He didn't say how He did it. Creationists just inserted some ideas to make it more acceptable to them.
I'm not too familiar with Wise (other than what I've seen posted on this forum) and he may be a brilliant theologian, but he's probably wrong about some things, this being one of them. I'm probably wrong about some things, but not being one of them.The Barbarian said:The key is, Wise knows what he's talking about, and you don't. So it really doesn't matter, does it?
The Barbarian said:Failures are the way we get to the truth. But as you see, we know what the failures are. as more evidence accumulates. Creationism, being a religious doctrine, is locked down. Hence:
View attachment 246371
This is the most important difference between science and creationism.
Because the evidence is very limited to what you call evolution and is non-conclusive.
and there's a much better alternative explanation.
The idea that we evolved from monkeys and over billions of years is ridiculous.
Gradual change.
When tsunamis or earthquakes occur, is this gradual?
and since this has perhaps occurred over billions of years this doesn't mean it's been gradual,
it most likely has occurred instantly at various times in history,
You like to say common ancestor. I prefer common creator.
All I need is what the Bible tells me and that's good enough.
You need millennia of rock studying and fossil digging to come to your conclusions.
No. Atheists just found a way to take God out of the picture and although you're not an atheist you purport their doctrine.
And for a long time most of your scientists were atheists, believing in science over God.
I like your cartoon. Does this not apply to science also?
I'd consider Evolution a religious doctrine as well.
The same thing holds true for any field of study (including theology). Before science matured, there were certain assumptions made regarding earth age being young (including scientist) as the study of rocks as well as archaeology and radiometry being relatively young disciplines.
Because the Bible doesn't specifically give us earth age, it was reasonable to consider the earth to be of a young age since the time of Adam is all the Bible gives us. What do you think God was doing all those years before He created Adam since you obviously believe in an old earth?
He just started the evolutionary process billions of years ago and didn't do anything in between?
Doesn't that sound pretty absurd?
Science has certainly evolved in its knowledge and understanding but so has theology.
"Once, a few hundred years ago, people trusted in the clergy. The clergy insisted that the sun revolved around the earth.
Galileo (a believer in Jesus), provided proof that this was not true. Note that the Bible does not say the sun revolves around the earth—this was just a tradition of the authorities at that time. Galileo took issue with the leadership—he did not have an issue with Jesus or the Bible. But, the result was that people began losing trust in the Bible (the supernatural), and began to trust science instead (the natural)."
there's no missing link which might prove that we evolved from them or that they evolved from chimps.
Humans didn't evolve from chimps. Humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor, which was neither human nor chimp.
Sure. There are physiological changes due to many happenings throughout the earths history, but that doesn't prove that man "evolved" from chimps.
humans did not evolve from chimps. They both evolved from a common ancestor which was neither a chimp nor a human.
The idea that we evolved from monkeys and over billions of years is ridiculous.
humans didn't evolve from monkeys
So I guess this means that because Kurt Wise agrees with you on this one point, that you agree with him on every point and because I may disagree with him on one point then I must disagree with him on all points?Your fellow YE creationist (who actually has knowledge of the evidence, disagrees with you. He says there is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory." And as I said, he's actually familiar with the evidence.
The Barbarian said:Without scriptural support or scientific evidence, you're really left with nothing but faith in some men's wishful thinking.
The Barbarian said:No kidding humans didn't evolve from monkeys. They are far too evolved in a different directiun to give rise to humans.
The Barbarian said:By degrees? Yep. Pacing is another story. Most people don't realize that evolution proceeds at different speeds (although it remains gradual).
Gradual? Maybe but not over millions of years. Not even thousands. A week or a month maybe? That's not what evolution purports I'm afraid.The Barbarian said:In the sense that punctuated equilibrium is gradual. The tsunami doesn't appear a hundred miles away, and then appear on the shore without having been at every point between the two. Likewise, evolution may take a very long time, or a few decades in one notable case, but not without doing so by graduated changes, regardless of the time it took.
You call that evolution? I'd say it's more like de-evolution or entropy.The Barbarian said:When Himalyas rise up as India collides with Asis, is this gradual? Yes, it is. A few centimeters a year. If Columbus made his trip today, he'd have to go a about a meter farther than last time. Is that gradual?
The Barbarian said:This is what changes the earths landscape.
The Barbarian said:Yes, it does. We've been around to watch it moving. Continental plates move a few centimeters a year. If it happened in a thousand years or so, the frictional energy would have boiled the seas.
Interesting, but not evolution.The Barbarian said:Nope. For reasons of physics as well as observed behavior of plates. We even have magnetic evidence of very gradual movement from the Mid-Atlantic Ridge.
The Barbarian said:However, it is clear that humans did not evolve from chimps. They both evolved from a common ancestor which was neither a chimp nor a human.
The Barbarian said:Christians all recognize the Creator; you just don't approve of the way He did it.
The Barbarian said:Nope. Since the Bible says nothing about how the mountains came to be, all you can do is insert your own ideas and attribute them to God.
The Barbarian said:As you learned, the evidence is overwhelming. The only way to dismiss it is to suppose God faked evidence for great age.
So do you.The Barbarian said:No. You purport their doctrine. They say that the Bible is incompatible with evolution.
The Barbarian said:Darwin, for example supposed that God just created the first living things. You've been badly misled.
The Barbarian said:Yes. Science looks at the evidence and tries to find a theory to fit it. YE creationism starts with a man-made assumption and tries to find evidence to support it.
The Barbarian said:Evolution is an observed phenomenon. Evolutionary theory explains it. I'm always surprised that YE creationists have so little respect for religion that they want to drag it down to the level of science.
The Barbarian said:Actually, YE scientists rejected a young Earth long before radioisotope dating, just on the evidence Komatiite mentioned.
The Barbarian said:Being God. You think time is a constraint on Him. But it is not.
The Barbarian said:You're thinking of deism. God is intimately involved with every particle of this world.
The Barbarian said:It would if he was a creature, limited by time. Is that what you think?
The Barbarian said:Tell,me about the important breakthroughs in theology lately.
The Barbarian said:You do know that the Church never made that a doctrinal statement, right?
This was in the 16th century.The Barbarian said:Galileo was persecuted largely for political reasons. The Pope had even given him cautious approval to continue his work, until he got himself involved in politics. But even then, the Church never made geocentrism a doctrine.
The Barbarian said:Some Catholic clergy and many Protestant clergy like Martin Luther and John Calvin insisted that a geocentic universe was part of Christian belief. But it was never Catholic doctrine, and I suspect it was never the doctrine of Lutherans or Calvinists as a group.
And how many scientists believed this, back then? It was a long time later before this was accepted by most of the scientific community. This goes back to the Book of Job, which many consider that oldest book in the Bible. Perhaps Aristarchus had read the Bible and found determined that the earth was round. Incidentally, there is an Aristarchus mentioned in the Bible, who was a companion of Paul. Probably a different one?The Barbarian said:Again, men of God who study the word can figure out a lot of things that the average person wouldn't and don't necessarily need science in order to do it.
Indeed, Aristarchus of Samos had, long before Christ, shown that the Earth goes around the Sun. This knowledge was lost during the Dark Ages, but shows that heliocentrism is a lot older than you were told.
So I guess this means that because Kurt Wise agrees with you on this one point, that you agree with him on every point and because I may disagree with him on one point then I must disagree with him on all points?
You forget that part of faith is evidence of things not seen.
2tim_215 said: ↑
The idea that we evolved from monkeys and over billions of years is ridiculous.
Good to finally hearing you say that.
Gradual? Maybe but not over millions of years. Not even thousands. A week or a month maybe? That's not what evolution purports I'm afraid.
Agreed.
From God.
What evidence is overwhelming?
Don't know where you got that one from.
So do you.
Science has certainly evolved in its knowledge and understanding but so has theology.
We don't need any "breakthroughs".
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?