New earth creation evidence

[timothyroann]

dies-l

I guess there is one thing you and I might agree on is that we do not agree on anything. Great Post and I have loved the debat. Good thing that we both know this.
Roann

 

[dies-l]

Hmm, as many times as I hear this statement, it never makes any more sense to me. Throw in words and phrases like "inevitably" and "reasonable to conclude" then I have to start wondering how people define these words and phrases because it appears, at least to me, that they are not using them correctly.

I am not a scientist, so if I try to explain in great detail how evolution works, I will probably not do so accurately. However, I think we all agree that we can observe significant change within a species, through natural selection, over a relatively brief period of time (such as in the previous example as well as in the case of dog breeding). How would it be unreasonable that we would see even more significant change over many more generations than what we can observe? Sure, the reasonableness of this doesn't prove it to be true, but it does undermine the argument that it is an unreasonable position.

My point is, this is a very dividing issue amongst human beings and even in Christianity itself, when in reality, the only thing evolution may contradict is people's interpretations of Scripture.

I agree. However, many YECs don't see it this way and accuse those who disagree with them of "disagreeing with God."

Some Christians feel the possibility that evolution is true is a threat to their faith and to Christianity.

Exactly, and these people are wrong.

Rather than being on the side of the threat and potentially causing your brothers and sisters to stumble, why not try to convince them that perhaps their interpretation of scripture could be wrong?

I do routinely argue hermeneutics as a basis for refuting YECism. In fact, that is where I tend to be more comfortable, because I think Scripture veru clearly allows for interpretations that are consistent with TEism.

Please do not think I am accusing anyone who discusses evolution on this forum as intentionally trying to steer people from the faith. I am simply suggesting we be sensitive and do not cause others to stumble in the faith.

I try to be sensitive. But, I think it is worth noting here that YECs who refuse to accept that TEs might have a valid point, also cause people to stumble. For years, I thought that I could not be a Christian if I accepted the possibility that what I was taught in school was actually true. When I actually read the Bible, I learned that Scripture not only allows, but supports a less literal reading that is consistent with TE.

I use to be there, and believing in some of the popular YEC interpretations of Scripture can be devastating when trying to process these topics, especially when even your own Christian brothers and sisters are touting them as truth.



I agree with this; however evolution does not have much more going for it.

May God richly bless you my Brother!

Thanks for your comments.

 

[sb81]

I do routinely argue hermeneutics as a basis for refuting YECism. In fact, that is where I tend to be more comfortable, because I think Scripture veru clearly allows for interpretations that are consistent with TEism.



I try to be sensitive. But, I think it is worth noting here that YECs who refuse to accept that TEs might have a valid point, also cause people to stumble. For years, I thought that I could not be a Christian if I accepted the possibility that what I was taught in school was actually true. When I actually read the Bible, I learned that Scripture not only allows, but supports a less literal reading that is consistent with TE.



Thanks for your comments.

Excellent point! I believe YECs should keep the same thing in mind, in addition to realizing that none of our interpretations are infallible and we should not cling to them so stubbornly.

 

[timothyroann]

Well I just have a hard time believing that Fish crawl out of the ocean and adapt and change species and become land animals. Seems like they would just keep crawling out of the ocean and dying not ever having enough time to evolve. Just a thought

 

[timothyroann]

O one more question why is it that some apes adapted to the final out come being humans. Why or even better yet how did they survive if they had to adapt to their surroundings did some Apes stay Apes. Come to think of it why did not all fish become land animals. How or why did only some adapt but not others and if they did not adapt for what ever reason how did they survive. I have to say I really don't know much about all of this because I just did not think it deserved much of my attention.
Roann

 

[John S]

It's easy to believe that fish crawled out of the ocean and started walking if you believe that God helped the process of evolution along.

 

[served]

It's easy to believe that fish crawled out of the ocean and started walking if you believe that God helped the process of evolution along.

I agree with you John. I think Science and God compliment each other. The bible really doesn't go against science as much as people think. If their was a big bang God did that too.

 

[John S]

Served - Thank You. It DOES make sense, doesn't it?

 

[served]

I also think that the things we do find in science (of course science isn't perfect) shows some history of GOD and his creation. The bible does not show every little detail of creation but science actually can help unlock some of those mysteries. Think of gravity, electricity, physics...So whats the beef? Science and archeology does not disprove creation at all. (once again science is not perfect and always changes, its not law but it may help us understand things).
Thy Will Be Done.

 

[dies-l]

O one more question why is it that some apes adapted to the final out come being humans. Why or even better yet how did they survive if they had to adapt to their surroundings did some Apes stay Apes. Come to think of it why did not all fish become land animals. How or why did only some adapt but not others and if they did not adapt for what ever reason how did they survive. I have to say I really don't know much about all of this because I just did not think it deserved much of my attention.
Roann

First of all, evolutionary theory does not state that apes evolved into humans. It says humans and apes both evolved from a common ancestor, which is now likely extinct. So, why do we now have gorillas, orangutans, chimpanzees, and humans? Probably, because each of these species has characteristics that allow them to thrive in their respective environments.

Why did fish not all become land animals? Because some species of fish are able to survive quite well as fish and because they did not develop the genetic trait of breathing air or walking on land. Why did some apparently leave the water? Because they developed a new genetic trait that was beneficial to them.