More on why I reject evolution

Derek1234 said:

I hope I don't sound like I am trolling you, but I am genuinely curious. Are you arguing in the bottom part of your post that the earth is flat and stationary? And related to that, do you think it is an important part of our faith that we have the doctrine of creation right?

Click to expand...

It is not needed to to receive God's free gift of Eternal Life that comes only by faith in The Messiah.

It would be more just simply believing God creation given in the Bible, a discipleship area. It could be possibly something that would fall into the rewards category for believers.

d taylor said:

It is sad for you and others (who are placing faith in man), but not for me. I love that God communicated to His creation (humanity) the descriptions of His work in creating His creation.

The Hebrews learn it is mighty costly to believe lying man (the 12 spies) over God's word.

Click to expand...

The same when God tested Abraham when he was told to sacrifice Isaac. Had Abraham, using his finite and fallen human reason, not obeyed he would have failed that test and God would have used someone else to accomplish His purposes. Jesus and Paul believed in a literal Adam.

Derek1234 said:

And related to that, do you think it is an important part of our faith that we have the doctrine of creation right?

Click to expand...

Jesus made it very clear in Matthew 25, what will determine whether we spend eternity with Him or with the devil and his angels. And it's not our opinion of the Earth's shape or if we approve or disapprove of evolution.

East of Eden said:

Jesus and Paul believed in a literal Adam.

Click to expand...

People sometimes believe that, but for some reason, they can't find a verse where either of them say that there was a literal Adam. It so happens that there was, but of course, the Bible never actually says that.

Derek1234 said:

I hope I don't sound like I am trolling you, but I am genuinely curious. Are you arguing in the bottom part of your post that the earth is flat and stationary? And related to that, do you think it is an important part of our faith that we have the doctrine of creation right?

Click to expand...

There are a variety of creationist beliefs here.
From flat earth, to two creations.

I believe in one creation over 6 days some 6-15 thousand years ago. It can be helpful to know who believes what when talking but remembering that isn't always easy.
I try and focus on what we share-which is literal creation rather than what separates us unless it is pushed on me.

coffee4u said:

There are a variety of creationist beliefs here.
From flat earth, to two creations.

I believe in one creation over 6 days some 6-15 thousand years ago. It can be helpful to know who believes what when talking but remembering that isn't always easy.
I try and focus on what we share-which is literal creation rather than what separates us unless it is pushed on me.

Click to expand...

For me i believe God created heaven and earth in Genesis 1:1 that was satans and i guess other angels original home as satan walked in the garden of God.

satan sinned and God judged satan and any angel who followed satan in rebellion. With that judgment also came the judging of the original earth it was flooded and the light was cut out (actually God may have not only flooded the earth but may have frozen the waters).

Now in verse 2 of Genesis 1 it is seen of God to began to restore (not create again) the earth created in Genesis 1:1. God is restoring the earth for eventual habitation of humanity and animals, trees, plants etc.. So what is seen in Genesis 1:3 to the end of chapter one is a restoration but a restoration for humans, so the earth now may be a little different than the earth created in 1:1 for satan. So this may well be a new creation, because humans and angels may have lived in different types of environments.
This restoration took place in 6, 24 hour days same as we know now. But i still use restoration because God used the same earth/land created in Genesis 1:1 for Genesis 1:3-31

As for the creation account in Genesis 1:3 to end of chapter. I believe the original earth God brought forth out of water in Genesis 1:9 was a flat possible circular (or could have been square) singular piece of land, surrounded by water (the ocean) with a dome (raqia) placed over this creation (the whole creation not just the earth/land). This raqia/dome is where God placed the sun, moon and stars as a huge time piece and as Genesis 1:14 states - signs and seasons, and for days and years;

Now the single piece of earth/ land in Genesis 1: 3-31 was broken up into our separate land areas (continents) we now have. This happened in Genesis 6 with the flooding of the earth.

This is a short run down of my creation belief.

coffee4u said:

There are a variety of creationist beliefs here. From flat earth, to two creations. I believe in one creation over 6 days some 6-15 thousand years ago.

Click to expand...

"The Neolithic saw the Agricultural Revolution begin, between 10,000 and 5000 BCE, in the Near East's Fertile Crescent. During this period, humans began the systematic husbandry of plants and animals.[2] As agriculture advanced, most humans transitioned from a nomadic to a settled lifestyle as farmers in permanent settlements."

"Humans may have started smelting copper as early as 6,000 B.C. in the Fertile Crescent, a region often called “the cradle of civilization” and a historical area of the Middle East where agriculture and the world’s first cities emerged."

The above statements seem to correspond to Biblical chronology starting in Gen 2.

Aussie Pete said:

He is an intelligent human being. There is nothing mystical about the theory of evolution. Or any of the related subjects.

I recently read an article about the origin of life. The origins of life on Earth

They obviously know nothing about biology either. All they can say is that life evolved. There is no explanation as to the mechanism. There are just sweeping generalisations that are typical of evolutionists. For example:

"Yet without them we may not be here at all. Prokaryotes were the earliest life forms, simple creatures that fed on carbon compounds that were accumulating in Earth’s early oceans. Slowly, other organisms evolved that used the Sun’s energy, along with compounds such as sulfides, to generate their own energy. Cyanobacteria then went a step further: they started to utilise water during photosynthesis, releasing oxygen as a by-product. Over time, enough oxygen accumulated in Earth’s atmosphere to allow for the evolution of oxygen-metabolising organisms."

It is a series of statements with no evidence to back them up. Life has never been formed in a lab under ideal conditions. How can it form in the hostile environment that supposedly existed at the time? What imparts life to simple chemicals just floating around water? What caused those chemicals to organise into a complex structure? Even the simplest cell is remarkably complex. What made the cells divide to reproduce? How does a hyper simple creature like a Prokaryote recognise what food is? Nothing "just happens". Yet that is the basis for evolutionary theory.

Click to expand...

No mechanism? Hmmm mutations that every person has least around one hundred over time cause changes to animals, those changes that benefit them or don't harm them stick in the population.

Then you have natural selection that deals with those changes. Name one thing between humans and other great apes that is impossible for evolution to cause. Creationists like to say it's impossible, if so I'm sure you can think or find something that isn't just changes to what already exists in apes.

Aussie Pete said:

Evolution falls at the very first hurdle. Sorry, from there the race is over. Putting a few chemicals in a lab over a period of 50 years to form amino acids is NOT producing life. Industry has been doing that without all the hoo ha that OOL researchers get up to. Amino acids are NOT alive. Humans don't even produce the amino acids that are essential to our own existence.

Click to expand...

Aussie Pete: “Evolution falls at the very first hurdle.”

Only because you’re not interested in it. What do you claim the first hurdle is?

Aussie Pete: “Amino acids are NOT alive.”

I have a degree in chemistry. I’ve never heard anyone say that they are alive.

Aussie Pete: “Humans don't even produce the amino acids that are essential to our own existence.”

To me that proves that the human body is the product of an evolutionary process. If God had directly produced the human body as an example of His handiwork, He would have seen to it that the human body DOES produce all of the amino acids it needs to make protein. The fact that we must take in many amino acids in our food only proves that our bodies descended from other organisms and somewhere along the way they lost the ability to make some of those amino acids.

Aussie Pete said:

Part of the confusion is because the theory of evolution changes. What used to be called "adaptation" is now considered evolution and is used to justify the case for macro evolution. This is patent nonsense, but try getting people to understand the difference. Evolution is presented as fact and those who reject as mentally incompetent, whatever their qualifications and experience.

Click to expand...

Aussie Pete: “Part of the confusion is because the theory of evolution changes.”

Take a look at the changes in theology. Creationism changes. Today’s creationists believe all kinds of things that creationists hundreds of years ago didn’t know, or wouldn’t agree with.


Aussie Pete: “ What used to be called "adaptation" is now considered evolution and is used to justify the case for macro evolution.”

Adaptation has always been an essential part of evolution. Charles Darwin thought so.

coffee4u said:

There are a variety of creationist beliefs here.
From flat earth, to two creations.

I believe in one creation over 6 days some 6-15 thousand years ago. It can be helpful to know who believes what when talking but remembering that isn't always easy.
I try and focus on what we share-which is literal creation rather than what separates us unless it is pushed on me.

Click to expand...

I agree with the last part. There is enough that divides us, and - as others here have commented - this is not a salvation issue. Our salvation hangs on our faith in Christ and acceptance of His substitutionary atonement for our sin; not our understanding of how God authored creation.