What is the main reason for you to Oppose evolutionary theory?

Your #1 reason to oppose evolutionary theory

  • It's Bad Science (inspite of what the major universities say)

  • It leads people away from God (inspite of the majority of TE's here)

  • It causes immorality / society's breakdown / family breakdown

  • I am not against it, it's just that I am not convinced of it (my mind is open)

  • I have always been told to oppose it, and I don't question my opposition

  • Other reasons


Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.

shinbits

Well-Known Member
Dec 4, 2005
12,243
299
42
New York
✟14,001.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
gluadys said:
The problem is your understanding of evolution. Evolution does not affect individuals at all.

Yes it does; it affects the individuals in a population via mutations.


gluadys said:
Mutation affects individuals; variation affects individuals. But evolution does not.


According to evolulution, mutations causes evolution to happen; without mutations there is no evolution. What you've said is in error.
 
Upvote 0

KingZzub

Blessed to Be A Blessing
Dec 23, 2005
14,749
892
47
Dagenham
Visit site
✟19,473.00
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Conservative
shernren said:
You are unjustifiably importing the philosophical constructs of atheistic evolutionism into your assessment of biological evolution, hence your "disagreement on philosophical grounds". Just because evolution caused something doesn't show that God didn't cause it. God works through evolution as well as He works through any other force of nature.

Theistic evolution!

Now there is an oxymoron if ever I heard one.

If you believe in God, you should be believe He created the way He said He did.

Man brought sin into the universe. Sin brought death into the universe.

Not the other way round: Romans 5.12

Blessings,
|ZZ|
 
Upvote 0

Late_Cretaceous

<font color="#880000" ></font&g
Apr 4, 2002
1,965
118
Visit site
✟18,015.00
Faith
Catholic
Zzub said:
Theistic evolution!

Now there is an oxymoron if ever I heard one.

If you believe in God, you should be believe He created the way He said He did.

Man brought sin into the universe. Sin brought death into the universe.

Not the other way round: Romans 5.12

Blessings,
|ZZ|


If a person says they believe in God, what right do you have to say that they really don't? I think that is extremely disrespectful, especially to your fellow Christians.

If you take the tact that "well you don't believe what I believe, therefore you are wrong" , then what you will find is that even amongst Christians who share your beliefs about this and that there will still be disagreeements. Nobody will agree 100% with everything you personally beleive.
 
Upvote 0

KingZzub

Blessed to Be A Blessing
Dec 23, 2005
14,749
892
47
Dagenham
Visit site
✟19,473.00
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Conservative
Late_Cretaceous said:
If a person says they believe in God, what right do you have to say that they really don't? I think that is extremely disrespectful, especially to your fellow Christians.

If you take the tact that "well you don't believe what I believe, therefore you are wrong" , then what you will find is that even amongst Christians who share your beliefs about this and that there will still be disagreeements. Nobody will agree 100% with everything you personally beleive.

I am not actually saying they don't believe in God... I am saying that if they claim to believe the Bible and the doctrines of the church, such as original sin, then their belief system is totally logically inconsistent.

Cheers,
|ZZ|
 
Upvote 0

Mallon

Senior Veteran
Mar 6, 2006
6,109
296
✟15,392.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Zzub said:
I am not actually saying they don't believe in God... I am saying that if they claim to believe the Bible and the doctrines of the church, such as original sin, then their belief system is totally logically inconsistent.
Belief in the truth of the Bible does not equate to taking the entire thing literally, however. I highly suggest you do some more reading on the subject of theistic evolution before making such demonstrably false statements.
 
Upvote 0

KingZzub

Blessed to Be A Blessing
Dec 23, 2005
14,749
892
47
Dagenham
Visit site
✟19,473.00
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Conservative
Mallon said:
Belief in the truth of the Bible does not equate to taking the entire thing literally, however. I highly suggest you do some more reading on the subject of theistic evolution before making such demonstrably false statements.

If you do not believe in the literal fall of a literal Adam, and that death came through the sin of one, how can you possibly hope to believe the same Bible when it talks about redemption being through the resurrection of a literal second Adam?

I don't need to read about a belief system that postulates a god that needs to use millions of years of death to create a man in his image. God is explicit - in six days He made the earth. It is in the ten commandments (Exodus 20) or maybe you don't feel that the commandments should be taken literally either?

Cheers,
\zz/
 
Upvote 0

Mallon

Senior Veteran
Mar 6, 2006
6,109
296
✟15,392.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Zzub said:
If you do not believe in the literal fall of a literal Adam, and that death came through the sin of one, how can you possibly hope to believe the same Bible when it talks about redemption being through the resurrection of a literal second Adam?
Can you please tell me where TE postulates that humans are not sinful or in need of a saviour?
I don't need to read about a belief system that postulates a god that needs to use millions of years of death to create a man in his image.
You do if you are going to make wild claims against it, without any understanding as to what it actually says. You think you are the first to bring these issues to the table? Even in my short stay here, they've been dealt with time and again.
It is in the ten commandments (Exodus 20) or maybe you don't feel that the commandments should be taken literally either?
The Ten Commandments speak the truth as to how God wants us to live our lives, irrespective of the story as to how we got them. If truth is revealed only through historical factuality, then we can learn nothing from Jesus' parables.
 
Upvote 0

KingZzub

Blessed to Be A Blessing
Dec 23, 2005
14,749
892
47
Dagenham
Visit site
✟19,473.00
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Conservative
Mallon said:
Can you please tell me where TE postulates that humans are not sinful or in need of a saviour?

By denying the fall of Adam. By denying that death comes from sin, by having millions of creatures die before sin entered the world. By denying that there was a literal Adam and Eve and a perfect world without sin. What was God saying "It is very good" while Adam and Eve are standing in the midst of vicious creatures and sickness and disease? Come on!

You do if you are going to make wild claims against it, without any understanding as to what it actually says. You think you are the first to bring these issues to the table? Even in my short stay here, they've been dealt with time and again.

Not successfully, and not Biblically. How could they when they cut away at the heart of Biblical theology and doctrine?

The Ten Commandments speak the truth as to how God wants us to live our lives, irrespective of the story as to how we got them. If truth is revealed only through historical factuality, then we can learn nothing from Jesus' parables.

Jesus never said his parables were historically accurate. Genesis 1-11 is only ever presented as literal truth, Jesus and Paul reference Adam as a true person. What are you saying? That the fall of man is a myth? How can redemption be real if the fall was mythical?

The ten commandments tell us that God made the earth in six days. If you believe the ten commandments then you believe that the earth was made in six days. You don't get to pick and choose what you want God to say, He is God and you are not.
 
Upvote 0

kenneth558

Believer in the Invisible
Aug 1, 2003
745
22
65
Omaha, NE
Visit site
✟19,596.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
gluadys said:
The problem with your approach is that you are trying to show that something which did happen can't happen. You are trying to make theory trump fact. But it is totally illogical to claim that something can't happen when it has already happened.
We're both closed minded. We should have realized that before we wasted these posts.
 
Upvote 0

Willtor

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor
Apr 23, 2005
9,713
1,429
43
Cambridge
Visit site
✟32,287.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Zzub said:
By denying the fall of Adam. By denying that death comes from sin, by having millions of creatures die before sin entered the world. By denying that there was a literal Adam and Eve and a perfect world without sin. What was God saying "It is very good" while Adam and Eve are standing in the midst of vicious creatures and sickness and disease? Come on!

This argument is not consistent with Church theology, the bulk of which argues that the death in Genesis is a spiritual death, and does not make reference to the physical death.

Zzub said:
Not successfully, and not Biblically. How could they when they cut away at the heart of Biblical theology and doctrine?

I ceased to be a YEC because of theology and doctrine.

Zzub said:
Jesus never said his parables were historically accurate. Genesis 1-11 is only ever presented as literal truth, Jesus and Paul reference Adam as a true person. What are you saying? That the fall of man is a myth? How can redemption be real if the fall was mythical?

The ten commandments tell us that God made the earth in six days. If you believe the ten commandments then you believe that the earth was made in six days. You don't get to pick and choose what you want God to say, He is God and you are not.

Do you see how easy it is to mischaracterize a position? Mallon never said that he didn't think God said what He said. Mallon said you were misinterpreting it. I think you will find this is the general view among TE's on this forum. I know you say you don't have to listen to TE views, but you have an awful lot of misunderstandings and mischaracterizations about it, and it comes across when you post.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

shernren

you are not reading this.
Feb 17, 2005
8,463
515
36
Shah Alam, Selangor
Visit site
✟18,881.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
In Relationship
I am not actually saying they don't believe in God... I am saying that if they claim to believe the Bible and the doctrines of the church, such as original sin, then their belief system is totally logically inconsistent.

Are you therefore renouncing this that you said:

If you believe in God, you should be believe He created the way He said He did.

because the only logical conclusion that can be drawn from the second quote is that you believe that theistic evolutionists do not believe in God.

Man brought sin into the universe. Sin brought death into the universe.

Not the other way round: Romans 5.12

Man did bring sin into the universe. Sin did bring human death into the universe. And Romans 5:12 says nothing about the millions of animals which died before man walked the earth: it talks exclusively of human death, which is evident both in the text of the verse itself and the context within which it is found. Next.

Jesus never said his parables were historically accurate. Genesis 1-11 is only ever presented as literal truth, Jesus and Paul reference Adam as a true person. What are you saying? That the fall of man is a myth? How can redemption be real if the fall was mythical?

First, you don't understand how TEs use the word "myth".
Second, not all TEs claim that the fall of man is a myth. I for one believe that Adam was a real human and he really experienced the Fall.
Third, Jesus did present His parables as "literal truth":

[The Parable of the Two Debtors]
"A certain moneylender had two debtors. One owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty."
(Luke 7:41 ESV)

[The Parable of the Good Samaritan]
Jesus replied, "A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who stripped him and beat him and departed, leaving him half dead."
(Luke 10:30 ESV)

[The Parable of the Rich Fool]
And he told them a parable, saying, "The land of a rich man produced plentifully,"
(Luke 12:16 ESV)

[The Parable of the Great Banquet]
But he said to him, "A man once gave a great banquet and invited many."
(Luke 14:16 ESV)

[The Parable of the Prodigal Son]
And he said, "There was a man who had two sons."
(Luke 15:11 ESV)

[The Parable of the Shrewd Steward]
He also said to the disciples, "There was a rich man who had a manager, and charges were brought to him that this man was wasting his possessions."
(Luke 16:1 ESV)

[The Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man]
"There was a rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day."
(Luke 16:19 ESV)

Now can you show me how any of the above are any "less literal" than:

[The Creation]
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
(Genesis 1:1)
 
Upvote 0

Mallon

Senior Veteran
Mar 6, 2006
6,109
296
✟15,392.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Zzub said:
By denying the fall of Adam.
Already, though, even you aren't taking the Bible at its word. According to Genesis sin came into the world not through Adam, but through Eve.
By denying that death comes from sin, by having millions of creatures die before sin entered the world.
There are many reasons (biblical and otherwise) for thinking that the Creation story here refers to spiritual death rather than physical death. Why would man have to eat in the Garden of Eden if he could not starve?
By denying that there was a literal Adam and Eve and a perfect world without sin.
As one creationist pointed out to me already, "very good" does not mean "perfect". And if it does, then God wouldn't have given Tyrannosaurus rex such teeth for munching on plants (see the Tyrannosaurus rex thread in the Creationism subforum for more).
How could they when they cut away at the heart of Biblical theology and doctrine?
Whose biblical theology and doctrine? Yours?
Jesus never said his parables were historically accurate.
Exactly. And yet they speak truth.
Jesus and Paul reference Adam as a true person. What are you saying?
By "true", do you mean "literal"? If so, where does Jesus refer to Adam as a literal man?
If you believe the ten commandments then you believe that the earth was made in six days.
Why does this necessarily follow? This is a non sequitur.
You don't get to pick and choose what you want God to say
You mean like how creationists get to pick and choose which science they use to support their belief in literalism?
In any case, I'm not the one imposing a literal hermeneutic in the Bible. Such an approach would have been foreign to both the Old and New Testament communities.
 
Upvote 0

rmwilliamsll

avid reader
Mar 19, 2004
6,006
334
✟7,946.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Green

By denying the fall of Adam. By denying that death comes from sin, by having millions of creatures die before sin entered the world. By denying that there was a literal Adam and Eve and a perfect world without sin. What was God saying "It is very good" while Adam and Eve are standing in the midst of vicious creatures and sickness and disease? Come on!


1-i don't deny a historical Adam and Eve and a historical Fall, nor does G.Morton, D.Fisher, H. VanTill, T.Gray for some prominent TE's online that you can google for their essays on the topic.

2-for people who pride themselves on careful literal exegesis, why do i have to continually fix the 'perfect' in your descriptions of the creation and replace it with 'good' which is what the text says. why this extraordinary transmogrification of good into perfect that occurs everytime a new YEC enters into this discussion.

good is complete, mature, suitable, able to do its assigned task etc.

perfect is without errors or blemishes.

BIG difference.

(this was got to be the dozenth time i've pointed this out here, it is getting just a little old)

3-animals and animal death have NO moral consequences (unless human beings involved in it, then the morality is still attached to the people)
 
Upvote 0

Late_Cretaceous

<font color="#880000" ></font&g
Apr 4, 2002
1,965
118
Visit site
✟18,015.00
Faith
Catholic
If you do not believe in the literal fall of a literal Adam, and that death came through the sin of one, how can you possibly hope to believe the same Bible when it talks about redemption being through the resurrection of a literal second Adam?

It's called faith.
 
Upvote 0

KingZzub

Blessed to Be A Blessing
Dec 23, 2005
14,749
892
47
Dagenham
Visit site
✟19,473.00
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Conservative
shernren said:
Are you therefore renouncing this that you said:

Not renouncing anything. You just need to read what I wrote, not what you *think* I wrote.


because the only logical conclusion that can be drawn from the second quote is that you believe that theistic evolutionists do not believe in God.

They do. They are just holding a logical inconsistent point of view, and believe in a god who is not the God of the Bible. Many of them are still saved, however their belief system makes no sense.

Man did bring sin into the universe. Sin did bring human death into the universe. And Romans 5:12 says nothing about the millions of animals which died before man walked the earth: it talks exclusively of human death, which is evident both in the text of the verse itself and the context within which it is found. Next.

Romans 5.12 says death entered THE WORLD through Adam's sin.

Quick question: are millions of animals in the world or in space?

Sorry, your dismissal of the verse is a little premature.

First, you don't understand how TEs use the word "myth".

I assure you I do...

Second, not all TEs claim that the fall of man is a myth. I for one believe that Adam was a real human and he really experienced the Fall.

Was his mum a gorilla?

Third, Jesus did present His parables as "literal truth":

No, he didn't. His style was totally consistent with the story telling of the day. Genesis 1 is cited as literal history in Exodus 20 as part of the 10 commandments. No part of the ten commandments demands we believe in a literal good samaritan, but they do demand we believe in a literal six days.

Now you can ignore that, and you can choose to disbelieve that, but you are diminishing the Word of God from doing so, and there is no scientific reason why you should hold on to evolution.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Late_Cretaceous

<font color="#880000" ></font&g
Apr 4, 2002
1,965
118
Visit site
✟18,015.00
Faith
Catholic
[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica] Belief in creation science seems to be largely a U.S. phenomenon. A British survey of 103 Roman Catholic priests, Anglican bishops and Protestant ministers/pastors showed that:
[/FONT]
topbul1d.gif
[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]97% do not believe the world was created in six days.[/FONT]
topbul1d.gif
[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]80% do not believe in the existence of Adam and Eve. 4[/FONT]
From http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

I don't know but it seems to me that most clergy are well versed in the bible, and are quite religous too - yet a great many don't find it "necessary" to believe in a literal adam and eve.
 
Upvote 0

KingZzub

Blessed to Be A Blessing
Dec 23, 2005
14,749
892
47
Dagenham
Visit site
✟19,473.00
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Conservative
Firstly, Roman Catholics have to belief in creation because Papa tells them to.

Secondly, would these be the same Anglicans that allow the ordination of homosexuals, sex before marriage, abortion, and are actively in favour of euthanasia?

You don't decide truth by consensus.

As to Anglican bishops being well versed in Scripture, I met one last week, and he was in a Bible Quiz. I would not call him well versed by any measure. I had 14-15 year olds with me who were embarassed by his ignorance.

Cheers,
|ZZ|
 
Upvote 0

Late_Cretaceous

<font color="#880000" ></font&g
Apr 4, 2002
1,965
118
Visit site
✟18,015.00
Faith
Catholic
Zzub said:
Firstly, Roman Catholics have to belief in creation because Papa tells them to.|

Ahh, here we go. I have this philosphy; I don't denigrate other denominations (or religions for that matter) because "[SIZE=-1]we all fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23)[/SIZE] .


Zzub said:
Secondly, would these be the same Anglicans that allow the ordination of homosexuals, sex before marriage, abortion, and are actively in favour of euthanasia?

I don't know what Anglican positions are on these matter, and I have no idea whatsoever if the respondants to that survey think.

You forgot to mention that these priests are probably the very same ones molesting alter boys.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

shernren

you are not reading this.
Feb 17, 2005
8,463
515
36
Shah Alam, Selangor
Visit site
✟18,881.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
In Relationship
Romans 5.12 says death entered THE WORLD through Adam's sin.

Quick question: are millions of animals in the world or in space?

Sorry, your dismissal of the verse is a little premature.

It's not.

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned--
(Romans 5:12 ESV)

emphasis added.

The Bible does not say that death spread to all life: it is something you have to read into the text from your own private belief. As to your objection: something can enter the world and still impact only humans.

For example, I could say that "The Greeks believed that the secret of fire entered the world when Prometheus told all men about it." You wouldn't look at "entered the world" and say that every living thing on the planet knows how to kindle fire, you would look at "told all men" and say that humanity now knew how to kindle fire. So why should you treat Romans 5:12 any differently?

Are you going to move on to Romans 8? ;)

I assure you I do...

We'll see.

Was his mum a gorilla?

Actually, australopithecine. Why not?

No, he didn't. His style was totally consistent with the story telling of the day.

Genesis 1's style was totally consistent with the story telling of the day - the surrounding ANE creation myths. Genesis 1 resembles them greatly in form but has radically different content.

Genesis 1 is cited as literal history in Exodus 20 as part of the 10 commandments. No part of the ten commandments demands we believe in a literal good samaritan, but they do demand we believe in a literal six days.

This should be interesting, then: http://www.christianforums.com/t2823209-yecism-and-sabbatarianism.html
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.