There is no basis for conflict with Evolution.

[gluadys]

What would be good is to give a definition of evolution. That way people wouldnt have different ideas of it. THen we could argue it correctly.

One of the most respected evolutionary biologists has defined biological evolution as follows:

"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."
- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986​

It is important to note that biological evolution refers to populations and not to individuals and that the changes must be passed on to the next generation. In practice this means that,

Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.​

This is a good working scientific definition of evolution; one that can be used to distinguish between evolution and similar changes that are not evolution. Another common short definition of evolution can be found in many textbooks:

"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."​

- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974

http://www.talkorigins.org/pdf/evolution-definition.pdf


These definitions give a good view of what scientists say evolution is. But while your idea is a good one, I am afraid it will founder as creationists do not accept these definitions.

So all that happens is that instead of arguing about evolution, one argues about definitions of evolution. I expect the reason for this is that if creationists used actual working definitions of evolution, they could not dispute it. So they need to create strawman definitions to attack.

 

[Enoch7]

It does. In detail.

Read this:

"And God formed man of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Genesis. Chapter II.

There it is plain and simple. It may sound unreal or unbelievable to you. That I can understand. But claiming the way he made the earth and universe and then man is not described in the Bibke is false.

You're actually telling me that Dust and Nostril breath explains how God created us? What part of the earth was the dust taken from? What kind of breath? Did he do this all with his hands, or did God order the Angels to do it? It is not specific. It's plain (I'll give you that) but it certainly isn't simple. It only tells us the materials, and how we got our breath. It doesn't explain nearly enough. And I think it's "false" that you say it's detailed.

So it doesn't really matter if Jesus did in fact rise from the dead
or that Mary was a virgin when the conception of Christ occured.

Why did Jesus rise from the dead? And why was Mary a virgin? To show God's compassion. Believing Christ rose from the dead is to believe that God was giving us a helping hand. That's why you are supposed to believe that. What Jesus did was an act of love -- point being -- God is loving.

Or you can just ignore everything I said about God being loving, and concentrate on Mary being a virgin and Jesus rising from the dead. That way you won't have to be caring, and you'll miss the whole point.

John 6:63 "The Spirit gives life, the flesh counts for nothing..." so I don't see what the big deal is with evolution. And frankly I feel the Old Testament isn't nearly as valid as the New, 2nd Timothy 4:4 "They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths."

I mean, it doesn't even matter if you found something in the Bible that said, "Everything written here are the words of God," because it would only apply to that single book where it is written. The entire Bible didn't come together until long after the books were written, so to take those handful of verses and apply them to the whole Bible -- to me -- seems foolish. Because whoever wrote it couldn't have known about the other books -- or at least which ones would be included in the Bible. And even if you wanted to argue that through some "miracle" they did know, it doesn't say it in the Bible, and that would be reserved to a personal opinion. (that is, according to your logic of taking the Bible literally, because you'd be applying a personal opinion to your belief to take the Bible literally)

Not to say that "belief" is unnecessary, quite the contrary, it's very necessary. To believe, to trust, have faith in, and love God. But I think it has gotten out of hand because people think "I have to believe, trust, have faith in, and love everything in the Bible too!" When that's not really the case: through the Bible we believe in God. The Bible leads us to God. It isn't necessary to believe the stories themselves, because the reason behind to story is to lead you to God.

And hey, I don't think it's harmful to believe everything you read, as long as you get the point that's trying to be made. And as long as you're not starting fights over it.

Besides, want to take the Bible literally? Well, since heaven is a spiritual resting place after death, then technically God doesn't create the Universe in Genesis. He creates the earth, the sun, and the moon -- that's all (as far as the stuff in space goes). Now, you may argue that since "heavens" is plural that it's a loose term that's refering to the sky and the stars. But as it says in 2 Corinthians 12:2 "I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up in the third heaven." there are more than one levels in heaven, and would explain why "heavens" in Genesis is plural. And I think the New Testament in general pushes that "heaven" is more a spiritual resting place, so as a "Christian" you should be more inclined to believe that anyway.

Or we can all just put away our diapers and rattles, and understand this is simply a figurative story that is not to be taken literally. I mean, it's the most logical and blatant explaination. And it doesn't conflict with anything you believe. It just requires some thought.

 

[rmlittleone]

Or we can all just put away our diapers and rattles, and understand this is simply a figurative story that is not to be taken literally. I mean, it's the most logical and blatant explaination. And it doesn't conflict with anything you believe. It just requires some thought.

Actually it does conflict what what people believe. To be short and to the point, when you see fossils and believe that they are millions of years old you run into a problem. When God made the creation he said that it was "good". But if there was death and suffering during the creation how can God call it "good". The Bible teaches that death was the penalty of Adam's sin, so there should not have been death before he sinned. If we think that death occured before Adam's sin, then we believe in a cruel God.

 

[Marshall Janzen]

But if there was death and suffering during the creation how can God call it "good".

The same way Scripture can call prey for a hungry young lion a good thing from God's hand.

[BIBLE]Psalm 104:21-28[/BIBLE]

 

[gluadys]

Actually it does conflict what what people believe. To be short and to the point, when you see fossils and believe that they are millions of years old you run into a problem. When God made the creation he said that it was "good". But if there was death and suffering during the creation how can God call it "good". The Bible teaches that death was the penalty of Adam's sin, so there should not have been death before he sinned. If we think that death occured before Adam's sin, then we believe in a cruel God.

Is it not good because God said it was good?

Or does God's judgment of what is good have to agree with yours?

 

[shernren]

Here is a passage from Job 38:

39 "Do you hunt the prey for the lioness
and satisfy the hunger of the lions 40 when they crouch in their dens
or lie in wait in a thicket?

41 Who provides food for the raven
when its young cry out to God
and wander about for lack of food?

God takes pride in carnivorous animals. Do you think He would if they were massively corrupted versions of God's originals, the way some creationists imply?