Why Do Evolutionist Debate?

[seebs]

Originally posted by s0uljah
Fair enough, but how is one animal eating another one alive, "very good?" It doesn't look "very good" to me when I see it on the Discovery Channel.

I watched a bit of TV the other night where there were lion cubs running around guarding food dishes. It was beautiful.

It looks good, not in the sense of a clean, shiny, disinfected world, but in the sense of a world which is *alive*. If God had wanted shiny, clean, disinfected things, you can bet we would reproduce differently.

It's good because it *works*; because, through struggle and catastrophe, through millions of years, every year there's still life, and it gets *better* at being alive. Looking at that, I can see why God is proud of this creation; it *IS* good.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Originally posted by seebs
I watched a bit of TV the other night where there were lion cubs running around guarding food dishes. It was beautiful.

It looks good, not in the sense of a clean, shiny, disinfected world, but in the sense of a world which is *alive*. If God had wanted shiny, clean, disinfected things, you can bet we would reproduce differently.

It's good because it *works*; because, through struggle and catastrophe, through millions of years, every year there's still life, and it gets *better* at being alive. Looking at that, I can see why God is proud of this creation; it *IS* good.

Nicely put seebs.

However, I have seen a male lion kill those same cuddly cubs because they weren't its offspring.

If lions and sheep are supposed to hang together and eat grass in the new world, why is life like this, or did it happen after the Fall?

 

[seebs]

I always assumed the lions and sheep eating together were *ALSO* metaphorical - or perhaps, at some future point, God will be ready to step in and fix things.

However, given a choice between believing that:
1. God will, at some point, make carnivores eat grass.
and
2. God used a metaphor again.

I will pick the latter. A lion hunting is a thing of beauty; a lion eating grass would be a waste of what it is to speak of a "lion".

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

A lion hunting is a thing of beauty; a lion eating grass would be a waste of what it is to speak of a "lion".

In the eye of the beholder, I suppose then, huh?

It just doesn't seem to mesh with the descriptions we have of a loving God.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by s0uljah
In the eye of the beholder, I suppose then, huh?

It just doesn't seem to mesh with the descriptions we have of a loving God.

I think that depends; if we trust Him when He says that this is good, then we may have to ask some hard questions about morality. I don't see anything wrong with a lion killing a lamb that isn't *more* wrong when we do it - but I eat meat. I guess it doesn't bother me; life survives by ending other life, for now.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Originally posted by s0uljah
In the eye of the beholder, I suppose then, huh?

Well, you were the one who complained about how it looked in the first place:

Fair enough, but how is one animal eating another one alive, "very good?" It doesn't look "very good" to me when I see it on the Discovery Channel.

Cockroaches don't "look good" to me, but God must see something in them, since they're all over the place. "Eye of the beholder," right?

It just doesn't seem to mesh with the descriptions we have of a loving God.

By now you should realize that very little of what we see in the Bible meshes with the descriptions you have of a loving God.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Originally posted by seebs
I always assumed the lions and sheep eating together were *ALSO* metaphorical - or perhaps, at some future point, God will be ready to step in and fix things.

However, given a choice between believing that:
1. God will, at some point, make carnivores eat grass.
and
2. God used a metaphor again.

I will pick the latter. A lion hunting is a thing of beauty; a lion eating grass would be a waste of what it is to speak of a "lion".

Agreed. I can't imagine that God created lions with such powerful jaws and sharp claws for grass-eating purposes. Unless grass was a lot tougher back then.

And what about the buzzards, jackals, and hyenas of the world? These poor creatures seem to survive almost exclusively on the corpses of other creatures. How hungry they must have been before death came to the Garden of Eden!

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Originally posted by Nathan Poe
Agreed. I can't imagine that God created lions with such powerful jaws and sharp claws for grass-eating purposes. Unless grass was a lot tougher back then.

And what about the buzzards, jackals, and hyenas of the world? These poor creatures seem to survive almost exclusively on the corpses of other creatures. How hungry they must have been before death came to the Garden of Eden!

Or, we can keep reading and realize that God put a curse on the world, which changed it.

By now you should realize that very little of what we see in the Bible meshes with the descriptions you have of a loving God

My description of God in my Bible is of a loving God. You are free to have another one if you want to do that.

 

[seebs]

The question is, is that history, or is it a clever story to explain to us the observed outcomes? I think it's the latter; both theories are viable, but one allows me to study a much larger and more complicated world.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Originally posted by seebs
The question is, is that history, or is it a clever story to explain to us the observed outcomes? I think it's the latter; both theories are viable, but one allows me to study a much larger and more complicated world.

According to Jesus and the apostles it is history. *shrug*

 

[ifriit]

s0uljah: Or, we can keep reading and realize that God put a curse on the world, which changed it.

s0uljah: My description of God in my Bible is of a loving God.

In the same post, even!

'nuff said.

 

[Warrior FC]

Originally posted by kern
For certain definitions of "truth". Genesis is not a science textbook, it's a religious work showing the origin of life in God. It's not specific about methods used, and it speaks in general non-scientific terms.

And yes, I do "claim" to be a Christian. I also "claim" to accept evolution. I'm sorry if you have a problem with that.

-Chris

If you accept evoultion then what FORM do you believe the human race was originally? 

We had to start out with some form... Right?

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Originally posted by ifriit
In the same post, even!

'nuff said.

Um, yeah, because God is also Just and punishes sin.

 

[kern]

Originally posted by Warrior FC
If you accept evoultion then what FORM do you believe the human race was originally? 

We had to start out with some form... Right?

If human means "homo sapien", then the form we started out with is pretty much what we've got today.

-Chris

 

[Warrior FC]

Originally posted by kern
If human means "homo sapien", then the form we started out with is pretty much what we've got today.

-Chris

Does that mean you believe that our ancestors were not monkeys at one time as evolution teaches?

 

[kern]

Originally posted by Warrior FC
Does that mean you believe that our ancestors were not monkeys at one time as evolution teaches?

Evolution does not teach that our "ancestors" were monkeys. It teaches that monkeys and humans are both descended from a common ancestor, and that they are fairly "close" on the evolutionary tree/bush. That common ancestor was not "human".

-Chris

 

[Warrior FC]

Originally posted by kern
Evolution does not teach that our "ancestors" were monkeys. It teaches that monkeys and humans are both descended from a common ancestor, and that they are fairly "close" on the evolutionary tree/bush. That common ancestor was not "human".

-Chris

What may I ask is that common ancestor?

 

[wildernesse]

Originally posted by Warrior FC
This debate has nothing to do with salvation!

Those who call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved!

Do you believe man was once a monkey?

The bible tells us that all animals, creatures of the sea, man, etc. will reproduce AFTER IT'S OWN KIND! (Gen.1)

If the debate has nothing to do with salvation, why make the false dichotomy between Christians and people who accept evolution?

And, for what it's worth, humans are still classified as great apes/primates so I would say that man is still a "monkey". We weren't once chimps and now humans, but we do share a common ancestor in the past that was neither of those things.

Individual animals do not evolve--populations evolve. Who was the first person to speak French or Spanish? These are languages descended from Latin, yet no one woke up one day and decided to speak all on his own a new language. As populations of people were geographically separated, their language changed with them. Eventually French became a separate language from Latin and Spanish did likewise, but they share a common ancestor in Latin. Sometimes if you move out of the charged environment of biology , a concept is easier to grasp.

I'm sorry that I haven't responded more quickly to this topic, and now I have to refer everyone back to page 4, but I wanted to address your reply.

--tibac

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

why make the false dichotomy between Christians and people who accept evolution?

Assuming evolution is a Satanic lie for a moment, then don't you imagine that it also might be damaging to Christians?

 

[lithium.]

Originally posted by s0uljah
Assuming evolution is a Satanic lie for a moment, then don't you imagine that it also might be damaging to Christians?

But it's not a Satanic lie, like a few christians think. Evolution doesn't even say there isn't a god. Evolution doesn't say where the origin of life came from, but only how we got here.