What Evolutionists Deny

[AV1611VET]

Here is a list of what evolutionists deny, from my perspective:

1. A literal interpretation of Genesis 1.

2. The universe has only been in existence for some 6000 years.

3. We are all born with a sin nature, thanks to Adam.

4. We are not animals.

5. Catastrophism opposes uniformitarianism.

6. Adam & Eve did not have navels.

7. Jesus did not come to earth as an animal.

I may add more as the thread progresses.

 

[finnfierro]

1: Read some of it, bored me so didnt read the rest of the section.

2: There is proof that the universe has been here for 6000 years, through measuring distance light travels and the age of rocks and dinosaur bones and many other things.

3:Good/Evil is illusory created by mans consciousness. Im pretty sure my dog doesn't know that adultery is bad XD

4:Science proves we are animals through evolutionary theories and biology. We just have smarter brains so tend to diffrentiate ourselves from animals.

5:maybe a bit of both? i haven't researched this area.

6: its impossible to know both ways unless we discover their bones.

7:You just said humans were animals and Jesus was a human (with a holy ghost) so yes, Jesus is an animal.

plus why is there only 1 book defining all of existence when gods knowledge is infinite? Surely he has taught more people with 2016 years since the last book, do you think the dude died? plus we need him now the population is so huge!

I WANT A SEQUEL GOD. BIBLE 2 PLZ

 

[AV1611VET]

1: Read some of it, bored me so didnt read the rest of the section.

2: There is proof that the universe has been here for 6000 years, through measuring distance light travels and the age of rocks and dinosaur bones and many other things.

3:Good/Evil is illusory created by mans consciousness. Im pretty sure my dog doesn't know that adultery is bad XD

4:Science proves we are animals through evolutionary theories and biology. We just have smarter brains so tend to diffrentiate ourselves from animals.

5:maybe a bit of both? i haven't researched this area.

6: its impossible to know both ways unless we discover their bones.

7:You just said humans were animals and Jesus was a human (with a holy ghost) so yes, Jesus is an animal.

plus why is there only 1 book defining all of existence when gods knowledge is infinite? Surely he has taught more people with 2016 years since the last book, do you think the dude died? plus we need him now the population is so huge!

I WANT A SEQUEL GOD. BIBLE 2 PLZ

Thanks for the QED.

 

[Papias]

Here is a list of what evolutionists deny, from my perspective:........

I may add more as the thread progresses.

Yes, I think you are pretty much right. Specifically:

I fully agree with you on points 1, 2, 4, 6 & 7.

For #3: I disagree. Myself, along with many other Catholic and other Christians, see Adam as the first transitional ape with the mental ability to sin, and his sin does indeed give us all original sin. This is all fully consistent with mainstream science. (because sin doesn't fossilize well).

#5. That's an obsolete debate - reality shows that there are plenty of real examples of both, and plenty of cases that are intermediate. So we don't deny it nor affirm it.

Papias

 

[miknik5]

Here is a list of what evolutionists deny, from my perspective:

1. A literal interpretation of Genesis 1.

2. The universe has only been in existence for some 6000 years.

3. We are all born with a sin nature, thanks to Adam.

4. We are not animals.

5. Catastrophism opposes uniformitarianism.

6. Adam & Eve did not have navels.

7. Jesus did not come to earth as an animal.

I may add more as the thread progresses.

I especially like number 5

 

[miknik5]

Yes, I think you are pretty much right. Specifically:

I fully agree with you on points 1, 2, 4, 6 & 7.

For #3: I disagree. Myself, along with many other Catholic and other Christians, see Adam as the first transitional ape with the mental ability to sin, and his sin does indeed give us all original sin. This is all fully consistent with mainstream science. (because sin doesn't fossilize well).

#5. That's an obsolete debate - reality shows that there are plenty of real examples of both, and plenty of cases that are intermediate. So we don't deny it nor affirm it.

Papias

Can you give an example of 5 where a catastrophic event created uniformitarianism (in humans) immediately and instantly

Thanks

 

[miknik5]

1: Read some of it, bored me so didnt read the rest of the section.

2: There is proof that the universe has been here for 6000 years, through measuring distance light travels and the age of rocks and dinosaur bones and many other things.

3:Good/Evil is illusory created by mans consciousness. Im pretty sure my dog doesn't know that adultery is bad XD

4:Science proves we are animals through evolutionary theories and biology. We just have smarter brains so tend to diffrentiate ourselves from animals.

5:maybe a bit of both? i haven't researched this area.

6: its impossible to know both ways unless we discover their bones.

7:You just said humans were animals and Jesus was a human (with a holy ghost) so yes, Jesus is an animal.

plus why is there only 1 book defining all of existence when gods knowledge is infinite? Surely he has taught more people with 2016 years since the last book, do you think the dude died? plus we need him now the population is so huge!

I WANT A SEQUEL GOD. BIBLE 2 PLZ

But when you post it appears you already are biased and bothered

I hope you don't mind but because of your opening comment I didn't bother to read the rest of your input

 

[Pastor Jared]

Here is a list of what evolutionists deny, from my perspective:

1. A literal interpretation of Genesis 1.

I am assuming by "literal interpretation" you mean what many would refer to as the historical-grammatical approach. If so, I would agree with you. I would also add that most Christians ignore this too, young and old earth alike.

 

[Strivax]

Here is a list of what evolutionists deny, from my perspective:

1. A literal interpretation of Genesis 1.
2. The universe has only been in existence for some 6000 years.
3. We are all born with a sin nature, thanks to Adam.
4. We are not animals.
...

I may add more as the thread progresses.

The thing 'creationists' seem to accept, which I can't, is that a God who created the world in 6 days 6000 years ago must also have deliberately created the fossil and geological record, not to mention astronomic data, deliberately to deceive well-meaning people who rigorously, meticulously and scrupulously pursue the the truth of the matter. Such a 'trickster' God, consciously and misleadingly falsifying His handiwork, is not, to my mind, consistent with the absolute virtue we know God possesses.

It's not as if we have to choose between Science and the Bible; we can, perfectly reasonably, have both.

We can read Genesis as it is, as an accurate account of an early creation myth, providing insight into the way a primitive stone-age tribe, namely the Jews, grappled with some of the big questions that still trouble us today, and presumably will continue to do so for ages to come. Where did we come from? Why are we here? Is human nature fundamentally good or evil? Do I intrinsically embody any greater purpose than the selfish pursuit of my own pleasures? What is the meaning of life?

The answers the Jews found, as first approximations to truth, historically interesting though they are, are nevertheless to me less important than the debate they started. That is the 'Great Debate', to which we are all party, and which continues today in both popular and academic culture, as well as among and within the religions.

Best wishes, Strivax.

 

[miknik5]

I am assuming by "literal interpretation" you mean what many would refer to as the historical-grammatical approach. If so, I would agree with you. I would also add that most Christians ignore this too, young and old earth alike.

A historical grammatical approach

Or a literal understanding of that historical grammatical approach

Which kind of translates to a literal reading (and understanding) of what is written

As opposed to someone saying:

GOD did NOT really say

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Here is a list of what evolutionists deny, from my perspective:

1. A literal interpretation of Genesis 1.

2. The universe has only been in existence for some 6000 years.

3. We are all born with a sin nature, thanks to Adam.

4. We are not animals.

5. Catastrophism opposes uniformitarianism.

6. Adam & Eve did not have navels.

7. Jesus did not come to earth as an animal.

I may add more as the thread progresses.

Sounds about right, if by "deny" you mean "doesn't by into".

 

[Speedwell]

4. We are not animals.

So, AV, are we vegetables or minerals?

 

[miknik5]

So, AV, are we vegetables or minerals?

We are humans
Are you a vegetable or a mineral?
Would anyone "by into" that?

 

[Speedwell]

We are humans
Are you a vegetable or a mineral?
Would anyone "by into" that?

Well, we're either animal, vegetable or mineral. Take your choice.

 

[miknik5]

Well, we're either animal, vegetable or mineral. Take your choice.

You're being difficult. You can't confuse Hunan in with the other classes sir
And you know we aren't discussing the other classes

 

[Speedwell]

You're being difficult. You can't confuse Hunan in with the other classes sir
And you know we aren't discussing the other classes

Yet we have the same kind of bodies as the animals, that is undeniable. I just wonder why you find the idea so offensive; is having an immortal soul not distinction enough for you?

 

[miknik5]

Yet we have the same kind of bodies as the animals, that is undeniable. I just wonder why you find the idea so offensive; is having an immortal soul not distinction enough for you?

Is it enough for you?
And why would you believe that we have an immortal soul?
And where after this temporal world will that immortal soul go?
And have you tested this "theory"?

 

[Speedwell]

Is it enough for you?
And why would you believe that we have an immortal soul?
And where after this temporal world will that immortal soul go?
And have you tested this "theory"?

No, I take it on faith.

 

[miknik5]

No, I take it on faith.

your faith being in_____?

 

[miknik5]

Depending on your answer, would you like to discuss bullet 1 of this thread?