[_ Old Earth _] Creation vs. Evolution

[Free]

My point is we are not to take part in the world's belief. The bible says in Romans 12:2, be not conformed to this world, but transformed by the renewing of your mind. I guess it is who is the individuals ultimate authority, God's word or the world's point of view.

But that is precisely what we're saying is wrong. It is a baseless claim that choosing to believe that evolution occurred is somehow only "the world's belief," as though one has to choose between evolution and God. It is an error in reasoning based on certain assumptions about what the Bible says. It is a false dichotomy to say we have to choose between "God's word" and "the world's point of view".

 

[thightower]

The principle didn't come about until the 17th century from people with a naturalist view of the world. Not what is taught in the bible.
2 Peter 3: Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

 

[Grazer]

The principle didn't come about until the 17th century from people with a naturalist view of the world. Not what is taught in the bible.
2 Peter 3: Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

On that basis I'm assuming you believe lightening is caused and sent by God? The principle of opposite charges causing lightening came from the naturalistic world view.

By the way what is grass? That's not taught in the Bible.

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[thightower]

On that basis I'm assuming you believe lightening is caused and sent by God? The principle of opposite charges causing lightening came from the naturalistic world view.

By the way what is grass? That's not taught in the Bible.

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

Exodus 19:16
16 So it came about on the third day, when it was morning, that there were thunder and lightning flashes and a thick cloud upon the mountain and a very loud trumpet sound, so that all the people who were in the camp trembled.

Genesis 1:11
Then God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them”; and it was so.

 

[jasoncran]

free i have never heard of a christian who believed in the toe and didnt at one point start to wonder from god. i know several athiest that left christ and it started with the idea of evolution. they werent told it was a salvinic matter but will say that honestly it led them to leave the faith.

i have debated with them on worthyforum, and elsewhere.

 

[Free]

free i have never heard of a christian who believed in the toe and didnt at one point start to wonder from god. i know several athiest that left christ and it started with the idea of evolution. they werent told it was a salvinic matter but will say that honestly it led them to leave the faith.

i have debated with them on worthyforum, and elsewhere.

I'm sure it is possible it happens but I'm more sure that walking away from God begins with sin, regardless of belief in evolution. The problem is when both Christians and non-Christians give this false dichotomy and say that one must choose between evolution and Christianity. If the science is sound, then why wouldn't they believe in evolution? But if the science is sound, then it is plausible that God used evolution to create and therefore there is no contradiction.

The problem isn't with evolution, the problem is with the false dichotomy. When it is so often stated by both sides, then of course if one is torn between the two they will likely choose evolution and reject God.

 

[jasoncran]

I'm sure it is possible it happens but I'm more sure that walking away from God begins with sin, regardless of belief in evolution. The problem is when both Christians and non-Christians give this false dichotomy and say that one must choose between evolution and Christianity. If the science is sound, then why wouldn't they believe in evolution? But if the science is sound, then it is plausible that God used evolution to create and therefore there is no contradiction.

The problem isn't with evolution, the problem is with the false dichotomy. When it is so often stated by both sides, then of course if one is torn between the two they will likely choose evolution and reject God.

im sorry but i dont think that the toe is sound.why does the bible speak of death as the last enemy if death is good? if death for adam is what god meant then why doesnt god say that death is the last enemy then if he ordained men to die whether they are good or bad?

God didnt say eating herbs was bad in the first account. you must also answer these if he called called suffering good before the fall then why bother healing? after death by disease is what he wanted and blessed.

my dad and sister are epileptic. and were born with that trait. if adam had that seisure wouldnt god heal it? or tell him suffer through it as it for your childrens good.

God never called flesh bad or blood, there will be a bodily ressurection. what ever state adam had ere the fall jesus took on. if adam was sickly then jesus would have to be as such. jesus a hungred and thirsted., so why not then if its as you say.

as you know i stand out on some major doctrinal differences

i have asked my pastor on the trinity and does it matter on salvation? his answer is while i believe in the trinity i dont think its a salvational matter.im amil and dont agree with him either and at one time was a oec. never did i hear from him that these were salvational.

 

[Barbarian]

im sorry but i dont think that the toe is sound.why does the bible speak of death as the last enemy if death is good?

Spiritual death is bad. Physical death has no hold on us as Christians.

if death for adam is what god meant then why doesnt god say that death is the last enemy then if he ordained men to die whether they are good or bad?

That's how He created Adam. In Genesis, He expresses concern that Adam might become immortal, and takes steps to make sure that he doesn't.

 

[jasoncran]

Spiritual death is bad. Physical death has no hold on us as Christians.



That's how He created Adam. In Genesis, He expresses concern that Adam might become immortal, and takes steps to make sure that he doesn't.

paul shouldnt consulted darwin then. well especially that paul that wrote much on the ressurection or does the rcc not teach a bodily ressurection, jesus wasnt a spirit when he rose. he had a body and that bore its wounds.

why then did paul teach these?
ephesians 2:5

Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)

that happened when jesus died.

now this.
1 cor 15:26

26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death

what did he mean by that if christians are dead? if we already HAVE eternal life NOW then why does paul mention the ressurection of the saints and also death being the last enemy?

 

[Grazer]

Exodus 19:16
16 So it came about on the third day, when it was morning, that there were thunder and lightning flashes and a thick cloud upon the mountain and a very loud trumpet sound, so that all the people who were in the camp trembled.

Genesis 1:11
Then God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them”; and it was so.

Thank you for complety avoiding the question

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[cupid dave]

free i have never heard of a christian who believed in the toe and didnt at one point start to wonder from god. i know several athiest that left christ and it started with the idea of evolution. they werent told it was a salvinic matter but will say that honestly it led them to leave the faith.

i have debated with them on worthyforum, and elsewhere.

Of course... the other church people bashed and ridiculed them and were hard headed and insistent that evolution is the devil.
He left them, and they let him go.

They left the church where the other members refused to accept that Genesis is all about a step-by-step Cosmic unfolding.

They have embraced the medieval teachings of those previous generations of readers who could never have thought the Big Bang was what was meant by "In the beginning."


They had to assume the six "days" were 24 hours long because they had no clue this referred to to the six Geological Eras.

Unbelievable but true things stated in Genesis were explained with metaphysical nonsense, because they never suspected that Pangea had actually taken place when "god collected all the waters under heaven together into one place."


They could never have suspected, let alone interpret the geneaogy as referring to the 22 now exinct humans in our "flooding" Out-of-Africa 40,000 years ago:

Book:

The Last Human: A Guide to Twenty-Two Species of Extinct Humans
by G.J.Sawyer, (Author)

 

[jasoncran]

really. show me a church today that did that and these that said that didnt EVEN mention it. they werent even taught on genesis.save this one below.

i didnt know that our apelike ancestors could talk, and murder each other.before there was sin.

her user name viole

I am a naturalist, and a born again skeptic. According to Christian philosopher A. Plantinga, naturalists are atheists on steroids or atheists++. That means we do not simply disbelieve God but we actively believe in His non-existence. I agree with him. I also think that religious and spiritual beliefs are induced by impersonal and opportunistic evolutionary adaptations.

But it was not always like that. This is my spiritual path:

1) Young earth creationist until my very early twenties (lutheran). I rejected evolution and all scientific theories which denied the young universe. I thought I was saved when I was 14. I was indistinguishable from what you call a born-again evangelist.
2) During university I embraced evolution and old earth creationism, whilst still believing in the Christian God
3) Small new age phase
4) After that I embraced unitarian universalism and I was close to Spinoza's God. But still believing in Jesus and His love for us.
5) Recently I moved to full blown scientific naturalism and the consequent atheism++

Feel free to collect points 2) 3) and 4) under the common name of "intellectual confusion".

That path did not change anything about my personal happiness whatsoever. Actually, I am slightly more happy than before and I even enjoy my little nihilistic and absurdist moments. Another advantage is that I do not fight with my family on spiritual issues anymore, since it is composed by atheists only, like most of my country. However, I am a bit concerned about my oldest one, he is moving towards some kind of Jedi universal immaterial force: probably only a teenage phase, though: we all need to believe in something above us when we are young, don't we?

This is my stance about some controversial topics:

- death penalty and life sentences: no go
- abortion: like the stance of most of Swedes, French people, etc.
- voluntary euthanasia: like the stance of most of Swiss people
- gay marriage: like the stance of the official church of Sweden
- homeopathy, UFO, new age, astrology, chiropractics, telepathy, alternative medicine, life forces, talking to the dead, spiritualism, life after dead, etc.: you can guess
- Politically I am a mix. I have some conservative ideas and some liberal ones. But this is normal in Europe. I despise Marxism and fascism and all personality cults (although I flirted with Marxism in my silly periods of life).

I hate eating fish, listening to hip hop, being in a crowd and sunny hot weather and summer in general. I love our long, dark and cold winters, cheese, wine, cocktails, cigars (yes, I smoke Montecristos) and solitary places.

I am pretty misanthropic and asocial. For some mysterious reason, this dark side of my character makes me popular: I am always invited at parties and stuff, although I hate them. mmh, maybe happiness is not achievable on this world

 

[cupid dave]

really. show me a church today that did that and these that said that didnt EVEN mention it. they werent even taught on genesis.

i didnt know that our apelike ancestors could talk, and murder each other.before there was sin.

?

Apes... talk...?

How about KoKo the signing Ape?

Apes... Kill...?

They believe this happened when the meat eating Apes were exterminated by vegetarian Apes way back 6 million years ago:

Gen. 4:2 And she, (as a line of human ascent), again (evolved a new sub-species), bare his brother, Abel, (Australopithecus anamensis). And Abel (was carnivorous,) was a keeper of sheep, (a meat eater) but Cain (Ardipithecus ramidus, a vegetarian), was a tiller of the ground.

Gen. 4:3 And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain, (Ardipithecus ramidus, a vegetarian), brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD, (who is the Almighty Reality to whom all creatures must adapt).

Gen. 4:4 And Abel, (Australopithecus anamensis, was carnivorous), he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD, (Father Nature, our Reality), had respect, (in regard to the evolutionary value of a high protein diet), unto Abel, (Australopithecus anamnesis), and to his offering:

Gen. 4:5 But unto Cain, (Ardipithecus ramidus was vegetarian), and to his offering, (as concerning the nutritional value to brain metabolism), he, (Father Nature, our Reality), had not respect, (in regard to the demands of the expanding mental abilities of evolving man which has allowed man to hope for eternal existence). And Cain, (Ardipithecus ramidus), was very wroth, and his countenance fell.

 

[jasoncran]

?

Apes... talk...?

How about KoKo the signing Ape?

Apes... Kill...?

They believe this happened when the meat eating Apes were exterminated by vegetarian Apes way back 6 million years ago:

Gen. 4:2 And she, (as a line of human ascent), again (evolved a new sub-species), bare his brother, Abel, (Australopithecus anamensis). And Abel (was carnivorous,) was a keeper of sheep, (a meat eater) but Cain (Ardipithecus ramidus, a vegetarian), was a tiller of the ground.

Gen. 4:3 And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain, (Ardipithecus ramidus, a vegetarian), brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD, (who is the Almighty Reality to whom all creatures must adapt).

Gen. 4:4 And Abel, (Australopithecus anamensis, was carnivorous), he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD, (Father Nature, our Reality), had respect, (in regard to the evolutionary value of a high protein diet), unto Abel, (Australopithecus anamnesis), and to his offering:

Gen. 4:5 But unto Cain, (Ardipithecus ramidus was vegetarian), and to his offering, (as concerning the nutritional value to brain metabolism), he, (Father Nature, our Reality), had not respect, (in regard to the demands of the expanding mental abilities of evolving man which has allowed man to hope for eternal existence). And Cain, (Ardipithecus ramidus), was very wroth, and his countenance fell.

sorry, koko formed what words? and language? so sin only from adam? what of these others that are to be because evolution is in groups not indiviuals. that means in eden there would still be some apes that didnt die nor sin.

yet god judge and didnt kill adam and allowed them the sinful apes to spread. make sense

and well is eating an ape a sin today ? it isnt in the kosher laws.odd if we are to eat a potential sentient being of today that can form and function words and a culture.

im sorry its as i thought,koko doesnt help your case

http://creation.com/the-language-faculty-following-the-evidence

http://creation.com/project-nim-review

 

[jasoncran]

An aside
Bioethicists like Peter Singer have advocated ‘human’ rights for apes, while at the same time proposing infanticide—that ‘unwanted’ human children could be killed up to 28 days after birth (sadly, even President Obama refused to vote for a law that would require that babies born as a result of an attempted abortion be given proper medical care). In essence, this is because he has downgraded the status of humans rather than elevate that of the apes. However, the Nim experiment shows clearly that his claims have no scientific basis. Apes are created to do what apes do, and human capacities far exceed any of the ‘smartest’ animals. This is because human beings are made in the image of their Creator and endowed with some aspects of His nature.

if the lower apelike men are human then this is your problem.for all we know one day we may find them alive. then what? oops.

 

[cupid dave]

if the lower apelike men are human then this is your problem.for all we know one day we may find them alive. then what? oops.

Who are you to call human lower like Modern Homo sapeins is so great???
You wouldn't like it when homophobics or racial slurs are mad against humans would you?
Just because Noah was a Cro-magmon didn't excuse Ham for calling him stupid, did it?



Gen. 9:22 And Ham, (the negroid stock of Modern Homosapiens), the father of Canaan, saw the (intellectual), nakedness (of understanding the times and processes and technical abilities) of his father, (Cro-Magnon), and told his two (Modern Homo sapiens) brethren without (that the Stone Age of Noah was past, and the day of their own Times had begun).

Gen. 9:23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment (of sorts, to veil the past of this Noahian species), and laid it upon both their shoulders (to honor their association with this sub-species), and went backward (in time), and covered the nakedness (of his lack of understanding those pre-historic times and stone-age processes and tecnologies) of their father; and their faces were backward, (to the past) and they saw not (a continuum with) their father's (intellectual) nakedness.

 

[thightower]

Thank you for complety avoiding the question

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

How was that avoiding the question? I showed where God used lighting on top of Mount Sinai, proving to me he set the principle of opposing charges to cause lighting. Also showed where God created the grass on the 3rd day.

 

[Grazer]

How was that avoiding the question? I showed where God used lighting on top of Mount Sinai, proving to me he set the principle of opposing charges to cause lighting. Also showed where God created the grass on the 3rd day.

Neither passage teaches what it is. The first one indicates that you believe lightening is caused by God not naturally occurring opposite charges. Second passage doesn't explain what grass is.

Bear in mind you're saying that evolution came out of a naturalistic world view and is not in the Bible. I'm just showing 2 other examples of things that came out of a naturalistic world view and are not taught in the Bible.

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[thightower]

Neither passage teaches what it is. The first one indicates that you believe lightening is caused by God not naturally occurring opposite charges. Second passage doesn't explain what grass is.

Bear in mind you're saying that evolution came out of a naturalistic world view and is not in the Bible. I'm just showing 2 other examples of things that came out of a naturalistic world view and are not taught in the Bible.

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

Job 38:35- “Can you send forth lightnings that they may go
And say to you, ‘Here we are’?
Job 38:27-To satisfy the waste and desolate land
And to make the seeds of grass to sprout?

These are the words God spoke to Job. How much clearer does it have to be.

 

[Grazer]

Job 38:35- “Can you send forth lightnings that they may go
And say to you, ‘Here we are’?
Job 38:27-To satisfy the waste and desolate land
And to make the seeds of grass to sprout?

These are the words God spoke to Job. How much clearer does it have to be.

When you actually answer the question not just spout scripture at me.