It boggles my mind!

[flapjack_05]

On the contrary, my feelings were in no way hurt. I simply did not recall saying that all evolutionists where athiest. The atheist evolutionists that I have spoken with (two) reffered to themselves as evolutionists, not atheist. I am glad it is all straightened out now.

 

[flapjack_05]

But what are the chances, (one in...?) that the earth would just happen to be able to sustain human life, and because it just happened to have that capability, we happened to evolve? If, however, God created the earth, he already knew his design for mankind and created the earth with the ability to sustain the life he placed in in.

 

[Dayton]

But what are the chances, (one in...?) that the earth would just happen to be able to sustain human life, and because it just happened to have that capability, we happened to evolve?

Impossible. Totally impossible.

If, however, God created the earth, he already knew his design for mankind and created the earth with the ability to sustain the life he placed in in.

This is true. God created the earth fully mature and fully able to sustain life. That's why the earth appears to be billions of years old, when it is only 6,000 years old.

We (humans) were created by God in our present form on the sixth day, we did not evolve from primates or anything else. We are not animals, we are God's children.

 

[lucaspa]

Sheesh. She's said evolutionists like a hundred-million times. Why is that so hard for you to read?

I can read evolutionist, but evolutionists come in several world-views. Evolution is not a world-view. Also, look at the way Flapjack phrased it:

My question, and perhaps I did not make myself clear, was how can you look around you at the world, the sky, anything, and believe that it evlolved. When I look around I see God. I wanted to know what evolutionists see when they look.

Notice the dichotomy? It either evolved or you see God. Not that evolution and God can go together. One or the other.

So, which evolutionists? Atheistic, theistic, or agnostic? All of them see something different regarding the spritual when they look at the world, the sky, anything.

Richard Dawkins, an atheist, sees an uncaring, impersonal universe that is totally against any idea that it was created by a loving God.

Kenneth Miller, a theist (but also an evolutionist), looks at the same sky and world and sees a universe that God created by evolution so that humans would have meaningful lives.

So, I should have asked you this before, Lambslove: what does the word "evolutionist" mean to you? Particularly in regard to God.

 

[lucaspa]

But what are the chances, (one in...?) that the earth would just happen to be able to sustain human life, and because it just happened to have that capability, we happened to evolve? If, however, God created the earth, he already knew his design for mankind and created the earth with the ability to sustain the life he placed in in.

Out of 100 million stars in just this galaxy and millions of galaxies, the odds that ONE planet would have the characteristics of earth is 1, virtual certainty.

Now, by "we" do you mean our exact physical form or do you mean an intelligent, tool using species capable of communicating with God? If the former, the odds are long. If the latter, then virtual certainty that even unguided evolution would produce such a creature.

Since God is spirit and has no physical form, what would He care what physical form we have?

Now, what are the odds of getting humans if God guided evolution? Also 1.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Impossible. Totally impossible.

Not really. Especially if you factor in the sheer number of planetary systems in the known universe. It pretty much becomes an inevitability.

This is true. God created the earth fully mature and fully able to sustain life. That's why the earth appears to be billions of years old, when it is only 6,000 years old.

Why would God do that? Why would He make it look he created the universe to be so old, when it is so young? Is God trying to deceive us?

 

[lucaspa]

This is true. God created the earth fully mature and fully able to sustain life. That's why the earth appears to be billions of years old, when it is only 6,000 years old.

Oh, no! Not the deceiver god again!! Dayton, if you are an atheist out to destroy Christianity from within, why don't you just say so? This argument makes a deceiver god who can't be trusted. Certainly not a god to worship and follow and trust.

Look, you can follow this god that you have created, but I will stick with the real thing: God. The one who doesn't deceive and therefore the one who's Creation tells us how He created.

We (humans) were created by God in our present form on the sixth day, we did not evolve from primates or anything else. We are not animals, we are God's children.

We are primates and animals. No doubt about either. We are ALSO God's children. Because GOD wants us as His children. Not because of your literal reading of Genesis 1. (ignoring the contradiction with Genesis 2).

 

[Jet Black]

Why would God do that? Why would He make it look he created the universe to be so old, when it is so young? Is God trying to deceive us?

only the scientists

 

[Nathan David]

If God really didn't create the universe as the home of his created beings, to reveal his character to them, would he have created the universe at all anyway?

Who knows? Maybe it's a big computer doing a complex calculation. Maybe God just likes creating stuff. Maybe God didn't do it at all, and existence has no purpose.

 

[Nathan David]

Um, as I recall, no human has ever seen an atom, ever.

We can see atoms using electron microscopes:

lithium atoms

IBM page on viewing atoms with electron microscopes

 

[revolutio]

Hehe IBM once arranged thirty five xenon atoms to form the letters i-b-m. Here is a link.

 

[lucaspa]

If God really didn't create the universe as the home of his created beings, to reveal his character to them, would he have created the universe at all anyway?

Who knows? Ask Him someday.

Lambslove, the discussion has veered somewhat. You are answering the questions "Why does the universe exist?" and "Why does it have this order rather than some other order?" with "God created the universe as the home of his created beings".

That's a legitimate answer. And comes from your beliefs.

What the others are saying is that it is not the ONLY answer. Just because the universe has us in it doesn't mean it HAD to have us in it.

You are saying we MUST be in the universe. That isn't true. Think of a similar chain of logic:

John is single. He must be a bachelor. Poor, John, now he can never get married!

If John marries, he simply isn't a bachelor anymore. He doesn't HAVE to be a bachelor. The universe doesn't HAVE to have us in it. If the universe is different, then it simply doesn't have us in it anymore.

 

[alexgb00]

But here we will discuss evolution and creationISM.

What's with the funny capitalization? Does it discredit the idea, if you put an "ism" at the end? Let me give you a few words that share the same suffix:

Patriotism
Symbolism
Heroism
Organism
Colloquialism
Aphorism
Vandalism
Criticism
Nazism
Darwinism
Aneurism
Terrorism
Colonialism
Cubism
Historicism
Romanticism
Naturalism
Alcoholism
Anarchosyndicalism
Antidisestablishmentarianism
Capitalism
Optimism

Please tell me how they all specifically relate to creationISM, which is what you seem to be implying.

 

[vajradhara]

What's with the funny capitalization? Does it discredit the idea, if you put an "ism" at the end? Let me give you a few words that share the same suffix:

Please tell me how they all specifically relate to creationISM, which is what you seem to be implying.

Namaste alexgb,

actually, what he's saying is that "Creation" and "Creationism" are not the same thing.. and the emphasis on the "ISM" is to clearly denote it from simple creation. does that clear it up?

 

[Taffsadar]

Charles Darwin's parents wanted him to be a preacher. There was another man, (a Christian) who was going on an quest to prove creation. Darwin went, and ended up "proving" evolution. Did you know that Darwin became a Christian before he died? Amazing isn't it! The man who developed the theory of evolution changed his mind, and followed Christ.

I suggest you read "On the origin of species by the means of natural selection" by Charles Darwin. You will see that nowhere in the book is he arguing against christianity. Changing his mind would require him to become atheistic...

 

[lucaspa]

Charles Darwin's parents wanted him to be a preacher. There was another man, (a Christian) who was going on an quest to prove creation. Darwin went, and ended up "proving" evolution. Did you know that Darwin became a Christian before he died? Amazing isn't it! The man who developed the theory of evolution changed his mind, and followed Christ.

Darwin's father wanted him to be a doctor like himself. Darwin couldn't stand the pain of the patient during surgery in those days before anesthetics. Darwin was interested in science, and the major employer of scientists in those days (since science was not a career in itself but you needed a day job) was the Anglican Church. Most scientists were also Anglican ministers.

Darwin dropped out of school to sail on the Beagle as gentleman companion of Captain Fitzroy. Fitzroy was a dedicated creationists (and racist). Darwin got along with him on creationism but argued violently over his racism.

Darwin's other job on the Beagle was to collect samples of the biology and geology of South America (Beagle was making more accurate charts of the coastline). During this process Darwin found evidence that couldn't possibly be there if young earth creationism were right. Other scientists were finding the same, and while Darwin was on the Beagle, scientists in England decided that YEC was wrong.

Anyway, when Darwin wrote Origin he was a devout theist. He lost much of his faith later due to personal issues, NOT EVOLUTION, and wavered between theism and agnosticism.

The so-called deathbed recantation is a made-up story. There was nothing for Darwin to recant. By the time he died the Anglican Church had accepted evolution.

 

[lucaspa]

What's with the funny capitalization? Does it discredit the idea, if you put an "ism" at the end?

Alex, Vajradahtra (spelling probably incorrect, my apologies) has read my posts on the subject before and gave the answer. Thank you Vaj.

Many creationists equate creation and creationism. They are two separate concepts, so I often use creationISM to call attention that I am discussing the scientific theory of creationism and not the idea that God created.

Creationism is discredited by the data. It doesn't need any semantic tricks of mine. It was THE accepted scientific theory between 1700 and 1831 but scientists (all Christian and most ministers) showed it to be wrong by 1831.

Does that clear up all your questions?