What creationists need to do to win against evolution.

[pitabread]

You have to have as much or more faith to believe the theory of evolution as you do to accept that God created the universe.

Not in the slightest. The theory of evolution simply explains the mechanisms for what we observe in biological populations: how they change over time and the patterns that emerge therein.

Faith isn't required; just a willingness to learn and understand the science.

 

[Speedwell]

I agree with you on that. Science is useful and awesome. But it doesn't explain creation and its current theories on the subject are full of glaring holes. But engaging in that argument is really fruitless in my opinion. It's basically a religious argument. You have to have as much or more faith to believe the theory of evolution as you do to accept that God created the universe.

Do you think that applies to other scientific theories as well?

 

[Al Touthentop]

Can you demonstrate what you mean?

Why the faith in instant creation is needed to understand sin?

If you believe the bible at all, then there are certain 'foolish' propositions (foolish according to man's understanding) that you have to accept, including the description of how it came into the world. And that information includes also the instant creation.

Rob Bell's "Everything is Spiritual" does an amazing job of breaking down the Genesis poem and associating the science that we accept as fact that goes perfectly well with what is revealed in it. I highly recommend it.

 

[GodsGrace101]

My reference is to the root word for serpent, which is what the attributes of the 'serpent' point to in the narrative. The literal 'snake' in Genesis 1 has the same meaning as "snake in the grass" today. It's a metaphor.

I can agree that some Hebrew and Greek words are not translated correctly. It has always been my understanding, however, that it was a literal snake in the garden...this is why God said it would forever crawl on its belly. Genesis 3:14b

I don't understand how that would make it a metaphor...

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I agree with you on that. Science is useful and awesome. But it doesn't explain creation and its current theories on the subject are full of glaring holes. But engaging in that argument is really fruitless in my opinion. It's basically a religious argument. You have to have as much or more faith to believe the theory of evolution as you do to accept that God created the universe.

It sure doesn't make your head hurt thinking about it.

 

[Al Touthentop]

Do you think that applies to other scientific theories as well?

Some. For instance, the theory that DNA rained out of the sky into the ocean so that life would be possible is hilarious.

 

[Al Touthentop]

I can agree that some Hebrew and Greek words are not translated correctly. It has always been my understanding, however, that it was a literal snake in the garden...this is why God said it would forever crawl on its belly. Genesis 3:14b

I don't understand how that would make it a metaphor...

It didn't start out as a snake.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I can agree that some Hebrew and Greek words are not translated correctly. It has always been my understanding, however, that it was a literal snake in the garden...this is why God said it would forever crawl on its belly. Genesis 3:14b

I don't understand how that would make it a metaphor...

God cursed the enchanter after it had done it's dirty work on Eve.

Sometimes you have to sort through the various meanings of Hebrew words to find the ones that fit the narrative, thus you often have to go to the root word. The translators of the KJV didn't always pick the best word.

 

[Hammster]

A search of the term "foundations" indicates that creation involved a process and was not instantaneous.

Okay.

 

[Hammster]

Then Jesus' use of those texts is not the reason you require a literal reading of Genesis.

You’ll need to explain.

 

[Speedwell]

Some. For instance, the theory that DNA rained out of the sky into the ocean so that life would be possible is hilarious.

I'm not familiar with that one. I was thinking more in terms of, say, the theory of relativity. To be considered a scientific theory, a proposition has be be relatively well evidenced. I don't think that's true of your DNA idea.

 

[solid_core]

If you believe the bible at all, then there are certain 'foolish' propositions (foolish according to man's understanding) that you have to accept, including the description of how it came into the world. And that information includes also the instant creation.

Rob Bell's "Everything is Spiritual" does an amazing job of breaking down the Genesis poem and associating the science that we accept as fact that goes perfectly well with what is revealed in it. I highly recommend it.

What is reasonable is not foolish. You need to demonstrate that evolution is not reasonable. Can you do that?

 

[Hammster]

Can you demonstrate what you mean?

Why the faith in instant creation is needed to understand sin?

For one, Paul’s argument in Romans 5 makes no sense without an historical Adam.

 

[Speedwell]

You’ll need to explain.

Sorry, I thought that's the point you were making: That Jesus' use of the texts demonstrated the literal inerrancy of Genesis.

 

[solid_core]

For one, Paul’s argument in Romans 5 makes no sense without an historical Adam.

How the theory of evolution makes historical Adam impossible? It only defines how his body got into existence scientifically instead of mythologically.

 

[Speedwell]

dp

 

[Al Touthentop]

Not in the slightest. The theory of evolution simply explains the mechanisms for what we observe in biological populations: how they change over time and the patterns that emerge therein.

It doesn't. You have faith that it does. There has been no observed change in species or transition to another species in history. We can observe small changes that represent the traits which already exist in the DNA of any given organism, but nobody has ever recorded the emergence of a new species from another.

Riddle me this. How could it be possible for a species to transition from asexual to sexual beyond a single generation? How does an unsexed species transform to sexed? You have to have perfect separation of x and y chromosomes where once the two were contained in one organism. You have to then also generate a mechanism by which the two now sexed pairs, know that they have to have sex to reproduce and know how to do it. Where does that knowledge come from? The seperation of x and y in the DNA ensures extinction of there isn't cooperation between the now sexed pairs.

 

[Speedwell]

It doesn't. You have faith that it does. There has been no observed change in species or transition to another species in history. We can observe small changes that represent the traits which already exist in the DNA of any given organism, but nobody has ever recorded the emergence of a new species from another.

Yes, speciation has been observed.

Riddle me this. How could it be possible for a species to transition from asexual to sexual beyond a single generation? How does an unsexed species transform to sexed? You have to have perfect separation of x and y chromosomes where once the two were contained in one organism. You have to then also generate a mechanism by which the two now sexed pairs, know that they have to have sex to reproduce and know how to do it. Where does that knowledge come from? The seperation of x and y in the DNA ensures extinction of there isn't cooperation between the now sexed pairs.

The development of bisexual reproduction is well understood if you would actually care to learn about it.

 

[Hammster]

Sorry, I thought that's the point you were making: That Jesus' use of the texts demonstrated the literal inerrancy of Genesis.

His use affirms a literal historical Adam and Noah.

 

[Strathos]

This is why I subscribe to the concept of non-overlapping magisteria - God cannot be examined scientifically.