Why Chose Creationism?

[Notedstrangeperson]

Before I start, as you may have guessed I'm a theistic evolutionist. Don't worry, I'm not here to belittle you.

These questions have probably been asked a dozen times already but I'd loke to hear your points of view:

1. What would it take for you to believe in evolution?
2. Is the main reason you disbelieve evolution because of it's connection with atheism?
3. Considering the vast majority of people who believe in evolution also believe it was started by a creator (only about 12% of the American population believe in atheistic evolution) - why should creationism be the best or only option?

 

[vossler]

Before I start, as you may have guessed I'm a theistic evolutionist. Don't worry, I'm not here to belittle you.

These questions have probably been asked a dozen times already but I'd loke to hear your points of view:

1. What would it take for you to believe in evolution?
2. Is the main reason you disbelieve evolution because of it's connection with atheism?
3. Considering the vast majority of people who believe in evolution also believe it was started by a creator (only about 12% of the American population believe in atheistic evolution) - why should creationism be the best or only option?

This is really easy for me. It's simply unbiblical...therefore I could never believe in something that is contrary to the Word of God. Atheistic tendancies are just part and parcel evidence of its origins.

 

[llDefectedll]

1.Proof . Now I warn you don'T give me because he/she said so , that DNA is closest to Chips ,and the charts based on evolution thoeries. Give me pure undeniable facts ! Iv read many books on this topic and not one delivers.

2 Yup

3. That's your opinion but I have mine

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

This is really easy for me. It's simply unbiblical...therefore I could never believe in something that is contrary to the Word of God. Atheistic tendancies are just part and parcel evidence of its origins.

The genesis story doesn't differ that much from the theory of evolution - it says how God seperates the earth from the sea (and there was once a giant landmass we call Pangaea), how creatures of the sea came before creatures of the land, and how humans were the last of his creations.

The main problem is that genesis says "days" and evolution says "billions of years". But what day means in genesis is probably not a 24hr period.

To llDefectedll:

I had a feeling the main reason was atheism.
But considering the people who believe in "atheistic evolution" make up only a small percentage, the theory doesn't seem to have impacted too much on religious belief. Why should theists (especially Christians) reject it?

 

[mark kennedy]

Before I start, as you may have guessed I'm a theistic evolutionist. Don't worry, I'm not here to belittle you.

No worries, enjoy yourself while you visit us.

These questions have probably been asked a dozen times already but I'd loke to hear your points of view:

1. What would it take for you to believe in evolution?

A clear line of evidence that demonstrates or directly observes the requisite molecular mechanisms responsible for accelerated adaptive evolution. Of particular interest to me would be the threefold expansion of the human brain from that of apes and the mutational forces responsible for the divergence between humans and chimpanzees.

2. Is the main reason you disbelieve evolution because of it's connection with atheism?

Not atheism per se but naturalistic assumptions that catagorically reject theistic/supernatural acts. The God I worship, the God of Abraham, Issac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, David, Elijah, Esther and the Apostles is a God of miracles from the creation of Adam and Eve until the creation of the new heavens and earth. Not a single TE I have encountered has echoed a single apologetic argument in favor of the historicity of Scripture which makes their philosophy virtually identical to the atheistic materialist.

3. Considering the vast majority of people who believe in evolution also believe it was started by a creator (only about 12% of the American population believe in atheistic evolution) - why should creationism be the best or only option?

The Scriptures are clear that God created the heavens and the earth, life in all it's vast array, Adam and Eve, the nation of Israel and our salvation by supernatural means. Claiming that God exists hardly defines one as a Christian, it's receiving the Gospel by faith and being indwelled by the Holy Spirit that does.

Again, TOE is not a theory of origins is an apriori assumption of exclusively naturalistic, elemental forces acting independant of the Creator. As natural science I am actually a radical evolutionist in that life in all its vast arrays (with certain qualifications) proceeded from an Ark full of survivors of the Deluge. This happened in thousands not billions of years making me one of the most radical evolutionists around.

In short I would say to convince me of TOE as natural science you would have to open up the possibility that God indeed acts in time and space both in redemptive and natural history. I will not accept a philosophy that rejects theistic reasoning whether YEC or ID simply because it infers God.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

A clear line of evidence that demonstrates or directly observes the requisite molecular mechanisms responsible for accelerated adaptive evolution. Of particular interest to me would be the threefold expansion of the human brain from that of apes and the mutational forces responsible for the divergence between humans and chimpanzees.

There is a theory that evolution is not a continuous process but occurs in "jumps". So there may gap between species and sub-species.

As for the connection between humans and apes, that is more difficult. For atheistic evolution many see humans as "just another animal". But most theistic evolutionists think there is something very distinctive about humans, which we can't quite put our finger on.

Being a materialist doesn't have to mean rejecting Christian thoughts on the afterlife. St. Paul was a materialist (I think), and Revelations supports the idea. Basically after our bodies die, nothing happens. But when the world ends our bodies (and hence our souls) will be resurrected and sent to heaven.

In short I would say to convince me of TOE as natural science you would have to open up the possibility that God indeed acts in time and space both in redemptive and natural history. I will not accept a philosophy that rejects theistic reasoning whether YEC or ID simply because it infers God.

I'm kind of dumb so you'll have to elaborate: do you mean that even though the Intelligent Design movement and Young Earth Creationists accept God as being key in creating the world, you reject it because it doesn't include "theistic reasoning"? What's that?

 

[llDefectedll]

What if I told you that I have massive proof about the after life ! I do have a question from your views . Are you Mormon ?

Bible does reveal several truths about the afterlife.

Believers can face death without fear.
Psalm 23:4
Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for you are with me; your rod and your staff, they comfort me

Corinthians 15:54-57
Then, when our dying bodies have been transformed into bodies that will never die, this Scripture will be fulfilled:
“Death is swallowed up in victory.
O death, where is your victory?
O death, where is your sting?”
For sin is the sting that results in death, and the law gives sin its power. But thank God! He gives us victory over sin and death through our Lord Jesus Christ.



Believers enter the Lord's presence at death.

• 
  In essence, the moment we die, our spirit and soul go to be with the Lord.
  2 Corinthians 5:8
  Yes, we are fully confident, and we would rather be away from these earthly bodies, for then we will be at home with the Lord.

Jesus prepares a special place for believers in heaven.

• John 14:1-3
  "Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me. In my Father's house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am.
  
  
  

 

[llDefectedll]

I'm kind of dumb so you'll have to elaborate: do you mean that even though the Intelligent Design movement and Young Earth Creationists accept God as being key in creating the world, you reject it because it doesn't include "theistic reasoning"? What's that?





If God wanted man to know this he would of made his case , but as you see the bible has not made one case about this theory , I mean who cares and why care ? It's not like souls are being saved while holding on to mans theories . I think you should give God more credit then this. If Jesus can be raised up in 3 days , then why can't the world be raised up in 7 days ?

 

[mark kennedy]

There is a theory that evolution is not a continuous process but occurs in "jumps". So there may gap between species and sub-species.

I have a phrase you might not be familar with but it's a very important principle in Biology and the related life sciences. It's Natura non facit saltus (Latin for "nature does not make (sudden) jumps") and Darwin's theory of evolution by means of natural selection was based on. Darwinism is also known as gradualism for the expressed reason that nature does not make leaps. What you are thinking about is puntuated equilibrium and the Gould concept of the Hopeful Monster

As for the connection between humans and apes, that is more difficult. For atheistic evolution many see humans as "just another animal".

Of course they see us as animals, we are composed of animalia cells.

But most theistic evolutionists think there is something very distinctive about humans, which we can't quite put our finger on.

The fact that they were specially created from the dust and a rib respectively, that we are direct descendants and the NT indicates Adam and Eve had no parents. Thats not every thing TEs find elusive but I think I can put my finger on it without much effort.

Being a materialist doesn't have to mean rejecting Christian thoughts on the afterlife. St. Paul was a materialist (I think), and Revelations supports the idea. Basically after our bodies die, nothing happens. But when the world ends our bodies (and hence our souls) will be resurrected and sent to heaven.

A materialist believes that all of reality is composed of the physical universe and nothing, including God or the soul, exists beyond it.

I'm kind of dumb so you'll have to elaborate: do you mean that even though the Intelligent Design movement and Young Earth Creationists accept God as being key in creating the world, you reject it because it doesn't include "theistic reasoning"? What's that?

I mean with regards to the origins of life, for instance TEs universally reject Intelligent Design simply because it infers a creator. That sounds distinctly atheistic to me, at least with regards to the origins of life in general and man in particular. God is not key in YEC, God is the sole Creator and creates from nothing. Naturalistic assumptions do not include God in any capacity and the ones TEs argue from and atheistic materialists argue from are for all intents and purposes identical. Intelligent Design simply infers that certain things are the result of an idea, thus, an intelligent designer and TEs reject them just for that fact. There is a lack of theistic reasoning in that form of reasoning and I suspect many are simply wanting to wrestle religion away while dispensing with the traditional Christian theism of Biblical Christianity.

I reject secular humanism, scientific objectivism and theistic evolution all for the same reasons. None of them affirm the supernatural and historical content of Scripture and they are overtly divisive and contentious toward those who do. I accept the scientific definition of evolution as the change of alleles in populations over time but not the a priori assumption of universal common descent. The former is the genuine article of science while that latter is essentially atheistic and I do not approve of atheistic/agnostic philosophies even when they are argued by professing Christians.

 

[ChristianSoldier85]

I posted this in another thread:

The Bible presents 5 arguments against theistic evolution:

1. Genesis 1:31 God saw everything was very good, the evening and the morning were the sixth day. Also Exodus 20:8-11 Presents the edict analogy, the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

2. Genesis 1:11-12, 22-22, 24-25 God established physical laws governing the propagation of species.

3. Genesis 1:26-28, Psalm 8:5-9, Psalm 139:13-18 God made man in his image and likeness, man's quantitative superiority over apes, chimps, and all animals. (What are the odds on darwinian evolution in statistically succeeding even theistic evolution speaking in making man in God's image and likeness?)

4. Matthew 5:3-11 Darwinian evolution and it's eternal brutality, the neverending struggle, death, and extinction is contrary to God evident by Lord Jesus' ethics and morals presented during the Sermon on the Mount.

5. Genesis 2:1-3 Creation is finished. Evolution begs to differ and theistic evolution dictates creation will never finish.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

What if I told you that I have massive proof about the after life ! I do have a question from your views . Are you Mormon ?

LOL, no.

I think you should give God more credit then this. If Jesus can be raised up in 3 days , then why can't the world be raised up in 7 days ?

I'm sure he could if he wished, but evolution makes more sense not simply because of proof, but because it's more beneficial to the organisms.

I have a phrase you might not be familar with but it's a very important principle in Biology and the related life sciences. It's Natura non facit saltus (Latin for "nature does not make (sudden) jumps") and Darwin's theory of evolution by means of natural selection was based on.

Perhaps I didn't write that clearly; let me rephrase.
Evolution is not a smooth process. Evolution consists of long periods of slow change punctuated by short periods of rapid change (I have a few notes from someone far more educated than I, I'll see if I can find it).

A materialist believes that all of reality is composed of the physical universe and nothing, including God or the soul, exists beyond it.

Materialism means believing that the body and soul (however you define it) are intimately connected. The soul cannot survive without the body.

Atheists often use this argument to suggest there is no life after death, since our souls cannot live without the body. However as IIDefectedII mentioned, Corinthians 15:54-57 suggests that we have "bodies" after we die.

To ChristianSolider85:

Points 1-2 don't seem in conflict with evolution.
Point 3 varies according to opinion. As I said, some believe we are "just another animal" and nothing more, others believe that there is something special about humans.
Point 4 has been heavily debated. When the theory of evolution was first brought to the public, some used it to promote "Social Darwinism". A cruel and disasterous philosophy. However there is more and more evidence to suggests many animals (especially mammals) are wired to empathise and help one another.
Point 5 suggests that creation is over, but I disagree. Creation is everywhere: our inventions, our works of art, having children, learning new things etc.

I do not think creation is over - far from it, God encourages creation. As Genesis says, God created man in his image.

 

[Musa80]

1. What would it take for you to believe in evolution?

There are many, many theories tied together under the umbrella term of evolution. Evolution as far as adaptation to environment is fine. This is a known fact that's been observed since forever. The sticking point for me is universal common decent and the billions of years used to excuse it. While there was disagreement among the ECFs at times, whether the six days were literal or not, never did any of them allude to the earth being billions of years old. And man evolving from an ape-like ancestor is just right out the window into heresy-land. When the ECFs change their minds, I suppose so will I.

2. Is the main reason you disbelieve evolution because of it's connection with atheism?

Nope. The main reason is because it's not true. Atheism really never need enter into the issue.

3. Considering the vast majority of people who believe in evolution also believe it was started by a creator

What you describe is Deism. I'm not a Deist. I'm a Christian.

(only about 12% of the American population believe in atheistic evolution) - why should creationism be the best or only option?

Why should following along with the crowd, whether right or wrong, be the best or only option?

 

[mark kennedy]

Perhaps I didn't write that clearly; let me rephrase.

By all means

Evolution is not a smooth process. Evolution consists of long periods of slow change punctuated by short periods of rapid change (I have a few notes from someone far more educated than I, I'll see if I can find it).

Like I said, you are talking about punctuated equilibrium and even provided a link from a famous evolutionist. But you go ahead and look up...whatever it is that actually educated you.

Materialism means believing that the body and soul (however you define it) are intimately connected. The soul cannot survive without the body.

The kindest response I can muster is simply this...no it doesn't.

The philosophy of materialism holds that the only thing that can be truly proven to exist is matter, Materialism

Atheists often use this argument to suggest there is no life after death, since our souls cannot live without the body. However as IIDefectedII mentioned, Corinthians 15:54-57 suggests that we have "bodies" after we die.

The Gospels suggest that the soul survives physical death:

I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. (Mat 22:32)

Unless you have no regard to for the authority of Scripture you will or should reconsider this idea that the soul does not survive physical death. Unless of course you are a materialist.

 

[ChristianSoldier85]

I stopped listening to evolution, it is a humanistic conspiracy. I remember reading a quote from the 1980s stating all the fossils of these hominids ever collected one cant even fill a single billiard table. *QUESTION* All the fossilized hominid remains found up to this very day, are they still unable to fill a single billiard table? Geewiz, man, and our evolution from apes occured over hundreds of millions of years?????? And that farce about the whales, once one learns how little valid evidence they truly have and how the TEs massively programmed the viewing public with that hoax.

I mostly shut them out (TEs).

 

[Mallon]

And that farce about the whales, once one learns how little valid evidence they truly have and how the TEs massively programmed the viewing public with that hoax.

Psst! Careful what you say here. Some YECs here actually believe there is evidence that whales descended from terrestrial ancestors! They believe that whales and archaeocetes all belong to the same 'kind'.

 

[ChristianSoldier85]

Psst! Careful what you say here. Some YECs here actually believe there is evidence that whales descended from terrestrial ancestors! They believe that whales and archaeocetes all belong to the same 'kind'. Wotta buncha kooks!

 

[mark kennedy]

Psst! Careful what you say here. Some YECs here actually believe there is evidence that whales descended from terrestrial ancestors! They believe that whales and archaeocetes all belong to the same 'kind'. Wotta buncha kooks!

A bunch of Kooks, so typical. Like we care about whales. If you were trying to post a fellowship post you failed. The Scriptures make it clear that we descended from God, do you have something to contribute beyond that because I think you are an advocate of an atheistic philosophy. Care to contradict?


.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

The sticking point for me is universal common decent and the billions of years used to excuse it.

Why is this point a problem? Almost all animals seem to have the same basic design.

And man evolving from an ape-like ancestor is just right out the window into heresy-land.

Well we must be descended from something. Nothing, apart from perhaps God himself, appears out of thin air.

What you describe is Deism. I'm not a Deist. I'm a Christian.

Deism was one of the "creator catagories" but so was the intelligent design movement, theistic evolution and of course Creationism.

But you go ahead and look up...whatever it is that actually educated you.

Unfortunatly I can't, not at the moment (because I'm rummaging through mountains of New Scientist magazines). I realise not being about to give a source or link weakens my argument.

The original argument that made me say (somewhat incorrectly) that evolution occurs in "jumps" was that it would take "a clear line of evidence" to make you believe that evolution was true -

I remember reading a quote from the 1980s stating all the fossils of these hominids ever collected one cant even fill a single billiard table.

Basically there are distinct "gaps" between the species. Considering fossils are relatively rare (conditions have to be just right in order for bones to become fossilized) it's not every surprising that we have not yet found every single mutation that would leave a clear line from one species to the next. There are many factors which makes finding and catagorizing fossils difficult.

Materialism means believing that the body and soul (however you define it) are intimately connected. The soul cannot survive without the body.

The kindest response I can muster is simply this...no it doesn't.

The philosophy of materialism holds that the only thing that can be truly proven to exist is matter, Materialism

It might be that matter itself is the only thing that can be 'proven' but just because non-physical things cannot be proven doesn't mean they don't exist.

There is a subsection of materialism which thinks that the soul (however you define it) does not exist as a seperate entity trapped inside a fleshy cuccoon but is the result of our body and brain being "able to generate more than it should be capable of". Or to put it another way, the sum is greater than the parts.

We don't know how it is able to do this (traditional religious thinking believes that it's because there is something "extra" inside us) but most materialists believe that we called this 'extra something' our brains were capable of creating the 'soul'.

This certainly must seem like an atheistic way of viewing the world but only if we believe we have no bodies in the afterlife.

 

[ChristianSoldier85]

Basically there are distinct "gaps" between the species. Considering fossils are relatively rare (conditions have to be just right in order for bones to become fossilized) it's not every surprising that we have not yet found every single mutation that would leave a clear line from one species to the next. There are many factors which makes finding and catagorizing fossils difficult.

Yes but we are talking tens of millions of years of hominid ancestry, tens of millions of years, compare that to the population growth of humanity in the last mere six hundred years or heck the sheer growth in the last century, the 20th century. However, I'll give evolution one thing, the neolithic age to modern age and the bible correlate quite soundly. There is a quite a uniformity between the two.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Yes but we are talking tens of millions of years of hominid ancestry, tens of millions of years, compare that to the population growth of humanity in the last mere six hundred years or heck the sheer growth in the last century, the 20th century. However, I'll give evolution one thing, the neolithic age to modern age and the bible correlate quite soundly. There is a quite a uniformity between the two.

True, it may seem that tens of millions of years of evolution would leave an abundance of fossils, but there are many problems:

1. For the bone to become fossilized the conditions have to be just right. Too dry and hot or too wet and humid and the bone will simply rot.

2. Conditions change over time. Even if the bone becomes fossilized it may not STAY fossilized. The environment the organism died in may become, millions of years later, unsuitable to preserve bones.

3. Destruction - we use fossil fuels all the time. Not to mention all the accidental damage we don't even realise we're doing.

4. Even once we find a fossil, catagorising it is hard. Is the skeleton a pygmy? A child? An ape? If it is "something in between" naturally the evidence will be in conflict.

Of course there are about half a dozen different ways remains can become fossilized, so some are less likely to be damaged than others.