Need Help!!

[kindred_spirit16]

We had a debate in history class and it wasn't even supposed to be a debate but it was about creationism vs evolution and I was one of the only people in my class that believed strongly that God created life and I know that I shouldn't judge people but it was just so hard to not say that God created life and that was it and not be open-minded.

 

[OnceDust]

Go here:

http://www.christianforums.com/f143

This forum is all about what you had an arguemnet over in class. If you cant find a thread with your answers, post and ask. I KNOW these people will give you more advice than you need

Blessings

 

[MetalBlade]

What grade are you in? I am thinking you are in high shcool, if I am wrong, please forgive me. I am in college and every course ever about history or anything that deals with past or future has to deal with creationist vs. evolutionists. Like in college there is not A.D. OR B.C. It is B.C.E. (before common era) and C.E. (common era). Which in itself is stupid, because it still revolves around the birth of Jesus.

One thing you must understand about evolution is that it asks too many questions that cant be answered. Take for example Darwins actually theory. It states that in order for organisms to survive they must evolve. Survival of the fittest. And essentially humans evolved from apes. Place this in the survival of the fittest mode. Apes evolved into early hominids because they had to survive. So why are apes still around then?

 

[markmayer23]

well regarding creationism vs evolutionism, the only thing you could do when you're in a class like that is take your stand what you truly believe. There are a lot of things written in His Word concerning about His creation and self-existense. Even the Bible itself is a a great creation how it really survived. Book of genesis and psalms and other books tells about it. In the contrary evolutionism is just theory without significant answers. Others are exaggerated like for example that the earth is already millions and millions of years old. I don't really don't believe it coz to the fact that at this point in time we're not that highly equipped in technology yet. Even the dinosaurs, I dont believe that they have existed millions of years ago, but i do believe that they existed in earth. Well, my advice to you is that you hold and fight on for your faith coz you are not the one who is blinded, they are the ones... Trust in God and ask Him wisdom so you will know more about Him by reading and studying more through His Word.... God bless you!!!!!

 

[mazda]

i have had this argument with alot of different people and it never seems to get esier. but remember that if we evolved from nothing , forma freak accident, then there is no meaning to life and there are no morals and no laws that we should abide by, but there is also alot of other things that can be said about the matter, as one of the youth pastors in my church i have found so many young people who struggle with this issue and sometimes and can be the thing that will change someones mind on christianity

 

[Mr.Cheese]

how on earth did you get on this topic in history class?

 

[ThePhoenix]

God created life. That is what I believe and there is no evidence of any form that that belief is incorrect. However there is a lot of evidence that god created through evolution.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

What grade are you in? I am thinking you are in high shcool, if I am wrong, please forgive me. I am in college and every course ever about history or anything that deals with past or future has to deal with creationist vs. evolutionists. Like in college there is not A.D. OR B.C. It is B.C.E. (before common era) and C.E. (common era). Which in itself is stupid, because it still revolves around the birth of Jesus.

One thing you must understand about evolution is that it asks too many questions that cant be answered. Take for example Darwins actually theory. It states that in order for organisms to survive they must evolve. Survival of the fittest. And essentially humans evolved from apes. Place this in the survival of the fittest mode. Apes evolved into early hominids because they had to survive. So why are apes still around then?

Populations do not need to evolve. If their environment is stable, they will approach a set of traits that is best suited to their environment and ecological niche.

The original population does not have to disapear for a sub-population to evolve into a new species.

 

[wblastyn]

We had a debate in history class and it wasn't even supposed to be a debate but it was about creationism vs evolution and I was one of the only people in my class that believed strongly that God created life and I know that I shouldn't judge people but it was just so hard to not say that God created life and that was it and not be open-minded.

I believe God created life in all it's various forms through evolution.

 

[wblastyn]

well regarding creationism vs evolutionism, the only thing you could do when you're in a class like that is take your stand what you truly believe. There are a lot of things written in His Word concerning about His creation and self-existense. Even the Bible itself is a a great creation how it really survived. Book of genesis and psalms and other books tells about it. In the contrary evolutionism is just theory without significant answers. Others are exaggerated like for example that the earth is already millions and millions of years old. I don't really don't believe it coz to the fact that at this point in time we're not that highly equipped in technology yet. Even the dinosaurs, I dont believe that they have existed millions of years ago, but i do believe that they existed in earth. Well, my advice to you is that you hold and fight on for your faith coz you are not the one who is blinded, they are the ones... Trust in God and ask Him wisdom so you will know more about Him by reading and studying more through His Word.... God bless you!!!!!

Yes, evolution is "just a theory", just like the theory of gravity and germ theory are also "just theories".

We're blind? We aren't the ones who can't see the evidence in Creation when it's sitting in front of our noses.

 

[wblastyn]

i have had this argument with alot of different people and it never seems to get esier. but remember that if we evolved from nothing , forma freak accident, then there is no meaning to life and there are no morals and no laws that we should abide by, but there is also alot of other things that can be said about the matter, as one of the youth pastors in my church i have found so many young people who struggle with this issue and sometimes and can be the thing that will change someones mind on christianity

Abiogenesis and Evolution are not "freak accidents" or random, abiogenesis works by chemistry which has fixed laws, evolution works by Natural Selection, which is the opposite of random.

Evolution does not say anything about life having meaning or not.

Rubbish, humans have morals because we evolved as social animals so we need laws to survive.

Well if people would bother to educate themselves they would know that Christianity and Evolution are not mutually exclusive.

 

[nephilimiyr]

Rubbish, humans have morals because we evolved as social animals so we need laws to survive.

Did love evolve? The basis for morals is love for our fellow man, not our need to survive.

 

[Vance]

Did love evolve? The basis for morals is love for our fellow man, not our need to survive.

Right, thus the dichotomy between human nature and the love God instilled within us.

 

[troodon]

Did love evolve? The basis for morals is love for our fellow man, not our need to survive.

Does a human being dying to protect his mother show a human capacity for love?

Does an ant dying to protect its queen show an ant has the capacity for love?

 

[nephilimiyr]

Does a human being dying to protect his mother show a human capacity for love?

Does an ant dying to protect its queen show an ant has the capacity for love?

In order my answer's are Yes/No.
Humans don't protect their mother because of a need to survive. They do it because of love, not so that the mother will be able to produce other humans.

An ant gives his life for the queen so that the queen may continue to produce thousands of other ants. The ant does not give his life for other ants because of love.

 

[troodon]

In order my answer's are Yes/No.
Humans don't protect their mother because of a need to survive. They do it because of love, not so that the mother will be able to produce other humans.

An ant gives his life for the queen so that the queen may continue to produce thousands of other ants. The ant does not give his life for other ants because of love.

But, couldn't both actions could have come as a result of both animals being social creatures? The ant must protect its queen in order to protect the gene flow, that is correct. Similarly, the human must be willing to work together and even sacrifice itself for the good of the community. Humans are, let's face it, pretty useless when we are alone (modern technology aside). But, in groups we can work wonders and it seems very probable (to me at least) that this instinct of protecting not only the group but those genetically close to you could have evolved due to this social nature.

Although I agree my argument is a tad flimsy; hence I'm not dogmatic about it.

 

[nephilimiyr]

But, couldn't both actions could have come as a result of both animals being social creatures? The ant must protect its queen in order to protect the gene flow, that is correct. Similarly, the human must be willing to work together and even sacrifice itself for the good of the community. Humans are, let's face it, pretty useless when we are alone (modern technology aside). But, in groups we can work wonders and it seems very probable (to me at least) that this instinct of protecting not only the group but those genetically close to you could have evolved due to this social nature.

I think Vance hit the nail on the head when he said...

Right, thus the dichotomy between human nature and the love God instilled within us.

I do believe all animals, including humans, have the instinct of survival not only for the self but for the group. So far this is what you have said and we do agree. However love is not an instinct and it did not evolve in us rather it was instilled in us. Morals, in my view are based more on our love for each other then our instincts for survival.

Not all morals concern the survival of the human race. It's the ability of makeing the distinction between right and wrong. Animals do not have this ability but act on instinct. A dog sniffs another dogs butt not because it's morally correct to do so but because his instincts tell him to do so. There is no instinct in the animal kingdom that tells animals to love their fellow kind. Love is not an instinct but an emotion.

If you want to make a case that love did evolve I might ask you then whether God evolved. Since the Bible tells us God is love...1 John 4:8, He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

 

[troodon]

There is no instinct in the animal kingdom that tells animals to love their fellow kind. Love is not an instinct but an emotion.

What about dogs that will protect their masters; to the death if need be?

 

[nephilimiyr]

What about dogs that will protect their masters; to the death if need be?

Dogs that would go that far have been trained to do so. They also have the instinct to protect the pack. Yes dogs are social animals and as pets they view their masters as part of their pack. Dogs instinctively fight to protect the pack, they don't do it out of love.

Actually I'm about as dogmatic about this as you are. I just saw what wblastyn wrote and knew there was something about it that I couldn't agree with. Perhaps I'm more dogmatic about it then I first thought? But any who it looks like we're just going in circles here so what da yah say we just agree to disagree on this and move on?

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Dogs that would go that far have been trained to do so. They also have the instinct to protect the pack. Yes dogs are social animals and as pets they view their masters as part of their pack. Dogs instinctively fight to protect the pack, they don't do it out of love.

Actually I'm about as dogmatic about this as you are. I just saw what wblastyn wrote and knew there was something about it that I couldn't agree with. Perhaps I'm more dogmatic about it then I first thought? But any who it looks like we're just going in circles here so what da yah say we just agree to disagree on this and move on?

Actually, I feel that this thread may have stumbled into something very interesting here... Maybe something that deserves it's own thread.

First of all, if God did create by evolution as the theistic evolutionists standpoint says, then love, even if it came from this process, is no less of a creation of God than if He were to have just zapped it into place. TE's are not arguing that love or anything for that matter is not a creation of God, just that God may have not zapped everything into place, but like a shepard or gardener, pruned a little bit, but basically let things just grow naturally.

I do feel that many animals, in particular some mammals, have the capacity for love and other emotions, most who have grown up around dogs and cats that I have talked to agree. So they have some capacity for emotions too, given by God, whether it evolved or was zapped there.

Some seem to find it disturbing that God would give these animals the same gifts as us, but I do not. I would be more disturbed by a God that would be so stingy with his love as not to share it with more than just one of His creation.