[_ Old Earth _] What's worse? Theistic or atheistic evolution?

[Barbarian]

Genesis 1:24And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

 

[Caroline H]

Genesis 1:24And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

Thanks Barbarian

This verse clearly states that evolution can't happen, because God told his creation to bring forth after it's "kind"....

Genesis 1 and 2 show that God created the universe, and all that is in it, in 6 literal days. When he was finished creating, he commanded his living works to reproduce after their kind. Evolution teaches gradual mutation over millions of years to arrive at the species we have today....this is clearly in conflict with Scripture.

I don't understand where you see in this passage that YE Creation is in conflict with what God's word says

 

[Aero_Hudson]

Genesis 1:24And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

Thanks Barbarian

This verse clearly states that evolution can't happen, because God told his creation to bring forth after it's "kind"....

Genesis 1 and 2 show that God created the universe, and all that is in it, in 6 literal days. When he was finished creating, he commanded his living works to reproduce after their kind. Evolution teaches gradual mutation over millions of years to arrive at the species we have today....this is clearly in conflict with Scripture.

I don't understand where you see in this passage that YE Creation is in conflict with what God's word says

Personally, I do not see how this passage conflicts with evolution. One could argue that the "6 literal days" are symbolic and offer a very different timeline. At the end of the day, who is to say and who knows for sure?

 

[lovely]

Atheistic evolution is worse, because those people are lost and need the forgiveness of the Lord, and they are convinced that evolution disproves God.

In many cases, that is what convinced them to become atheists. YE creationism is a highly effective atheist-maker.

Sorry Barbarian, I just caught this. I guess from my perspective deception period is a highly effective atheist maker. Anyway, my point was that atheistic evolutionists are in a worse condition being lost, and because they will use evolution to support the false idea that there is no God...which they absolutely do. I am not sure what YE's have to do with it the teaching that there is no God, unless it's just an opportunity to accuse the brethren. (?)


Caroline,
You make a good point about things being brought forth after their own 'kind'. There are variations within kinds, but we have no evidence at all that we evolved from one kind to another, and this is certainly not taught in the Word like it is in science classes.


Areo,
Many have become convinced one way or another in their own minds after studying, and I think that's good. I don't think there is anything wrong with someone saying they don't know, and I don't think there's anything wrong with someone simply believing they are right and standing for the truth they have found in the Word...ID, YE, or christian evolutionists...until God shows them more truth that may cause them to change their mind. For that reason, I don't think any of us should stop studying with a heart to learn whatever God will teach us.

Anyway, I don't think that we can say that the word 'day' could be figurative in the Genesis account of creation, though, because it's followed by the phrase 'evening and morning'. Also, Adam and Eve are an important part of the geneologies in Scripture, especially as they pertain to Christ, and so the day that they were created would be an actual day in time when we think if the listings of generations. Have you ever read, 'Annals of the Word' by James Ussher? No matter what you believe about creation it's good reading for history.

The Lord bless the three of you.

 

[Gabe]

Atheistic evolution is worse, because those people are lost and need the forgiveness of the Lord, and they are convinced that evolution disproves God.

In many cases, that is what convinced them to become atheists. YE creationism is a highly effective atheist-maker.

Sorry Barbarian, I just caught this. I guess from my perspective deception period is a highly effective atheist maker. Anyway, my point was that atheistic evolutionists are in a worse condition being lost, and because they will use evolution to support the false idea that there is no God...which they absolutely do. I am not sure what YE's have to do with it the teaching that there is no God, unless it's just an opportunity to accuse the brethren. (?)

I think Barbarian was referring to (many) YE Creationists who claim that one must believe their interpretation of Scripture, otherwise they're not good/True Christians (tm). This does indeed turn many people away from Christ. You will find a great example of this in the OP. It is not asking if non-theistic or theistic evolution is worse, but whether non-theistic or theistic evolutionists are worse.

 

[Guest]

Sorry Barbarian, I just caught this. I guess from my perspective deception period is a highly effective atheist maker. Anyway, my point was that atheistic evolutionists are in a worse condition being lost, and because they will use evolution to support the false idea that there is no God...which they absolutely do. I am not sure what YE's have to do with it the teaching that there is no God, unless it's just an opportunity to accuse the brethren.

Young Earth Creationism is often accepted and defended with certainty. That is, many YEC proponents view a six-day twenty-four day creation as absolutely essential to accepting the Bible as true. Thus, for many YEC proponents, either there was a six-day twenty-four day creation or the Bible is not true. And so, when a YEC proponent loses faith in YEC they "must" reject the Bible as well. (Must because of their establish reasoning framework, not because it's logically necessitated.) One of the consequences which often follows is that the Bible accepts God's existence. Well, if the Bible is wrong then it's clear God cannot exist. Hence, the former YEC becomes and atheist.

Thus, I partly disagree with Barbarian's assessment. It is not so much YEC creationism which leads to atheism, but the either/or (i.e., black and white) thinking which is common amongst YEC proponents. Though, YEC has likely been the catalyst for a few Christians turn atheist.

 

[Caroline H]

Though, YEC has likely been the catalyst for a few Christians turn atheist.

I'd say they were never Christians to start with...

 

[Guest]

Though, YEC has likely been the catalyst for a few Christians turn atheist.

I'd say they were never Christians to start with...

Welcome to the Grand Impasse.

 

[Barbarian]

I'd say they were never Christians to start with...

No true Scotsman...

And understand, Genesis does not rule out creationism; it only rules out YE creationism. The Bible is neutral as to creationism/evolution.

Christian faith and your salvation does not depend on your take on the way He created things.

 

[Caroline H]

it only rules out YE creationism.

How? You haven't answered that, but you have said it twice already that scripture you provided does not support your claim.

 

[Guest]

I'd say they were never Christians to start with...

No true Scotsman.

Well, not exactly. The "no true Scotsman" fallacy is a fallacy of equivocation. This means a person is redefining a term to achieve a more desirable outcome. Caromurp is not actually redefining any terms. Actually, she is following a direct logical path from her strict adherence to the doctrine of unconditional eternal security (i.e., once saved, always saved) to the conclusion above. Thus, quite contrary to the claim, she is being quite logical.

That said, I disagree with her conclusion because I do not adhere to the doctrine of unconditional eternal security.

 

[Barbarian]

Sound to me like there's an equivocation. Redefining "Christian" to mean "only those who follow my particular doctrine" would certainly be such a case.

And it's not even logical, given that doctrine, since it holds that apostates are still saved.

 

[lovely]

Minnesota, thanks for your posts, and I see your point. In my experience, those in my generation who lost their faith in science class weren't even aware of YEC Creationism, and so I think the matter is more than a specific Christian teaching. The Gap theory was still very popular at that time, and so the timeline wasn't the issue so much as a supernatural creation...'God spoke the world into existence'. To be honest, I don't think the issue was addressed by the churches at all too much back then. Either way, rejecting God is not the fault of believers. I think the black and white thing is really just how children think because of lack of experience, but I do not think this is the same as holding to the absolute Truth of Christ and the Word. Another thing, many children come out of christian homes not having the power of faith, but just the appearance, and it doesn't take much to shake it later...which in the long run may be a good thing if it truly brings them to the Lord and prevents them from being lukewarm. I think that Caroline has a really good point about many of them simply just not truly being saved, and I was sorry to see her dismissed. The education system is really designed to shatter faith in that it simply omits God and creates a secular culture that isn't reality.

Gabe, I appreciate your post, and while I have no problem with people defending what they believe as the truth, I am not a fan of the 'you're not a beliver' thing either. In the same breath, I will say I am also not a fan of accusing the brethren of sending others to hell when they don't agree with you. The effort to dehumanize other believers by labeling them instead of just seeing them as brothers, because their ideas and beliefs are something that might make one ashamed, is just awful and the same judgemental behavior that the fundies are always being accused of. Internal debates are good, because we should be sharpening each other, but condemning others as 'bad' christians, or less intelligent christians because someone may speak out differently, or believe differently, is just the same prideful attitude. Both of these things fall into the same category in my mind. In these debates we should consider others more important than ourselves and seek to understand and love. I speak to myself here too.

Caroline, I think it is good that you are seeking those Sciptures, and I think your points have been good. The Lord bless all of you.

 

[Barbarian]

The point is, if you want to declare any particular way God handled creation as the "only Christian way", you've just put another stumbling block before those who might otherwise come to him, and have provided another way to become an atheist.

We should avoid such things, as they do a considerable amount of evil in this world.

 

[Gabe]

I will say I am also not a fan of accusing the brethren of sending others to hell when they don't agree with you. The effort to dehumanize other believers by labeling them instead of just seeing them as brothers, because their ideas and beliefs are something that might make one ashamed, is just awful and the same judgemental behavior that the fundies are always being accused of.

I was not labelling anyone. I mentioned that there were many (not all) YE Creationists who do this. In this forum it is many of the "Creationists" who spend their time attempting to shame and constantly accuse their brethren of not being Christian, not the other way around. Take a look for yourself, I couldn't care less if a Christian believed in a 6 day creation or not. Its not a salvation issue.

As you have stated; there is nothing wrong with some healthy debate between believers, but you rarely find that here when it comes to YE creationism and theistic-evolution. What I never understood is how people can discuss such issues as OSAS without accusing the other of not being Christian, but then fail to do so on something as unimportant to our faith in Christ as the interpretation of the creation accounts? Not only this, but I've seen more tolerance for people who go around this forum propagating some extremely bizarre (and imo sometimes dangerous) beliefs.

 

[Guest]

Sound to me like there's an equivocation. Redefining "Christian" to mean "only those who follow my particular doctrine" would certainly be such a case.

Two problems. (i) She was not equivocating. She was using a different definition from the beginning. (ii) She, nor the doctrine of unconditional eternal security, require a person accept the doctrine itself to be considered a Christian.

And it's not even logical, given that doctrine, since it holds that apostates are still saved.

Whether the doctrine itself is logical or not is not relevant to whether or not she was committing a logical fallacy of equivocation.

 

[lovely]

I will say I am also not a fan of accusing the brethren of sending others to hell when they don't agree with you. The effort to dehumanize other believers by labeling them instead of just seeing them as brothers, because their ideas and beliefs are something that might make one ashamed, is just awful and the same judgemental behavior that the fundies are always being accused of.

I was not labelling anyone. I mentioned that there were many (not all) YE Creationists who do this. In this forum it is many of the "Creationists" who spend their time attempting to shame and constantly accuse their brethren of not being Christian, not the other way around. Take a look for yourself, I couldn't care less if a Christian believed in a 6 day creation or not. Its not a salvation issue.

As you have stated; there is nothing wrong with some healthy debate between believers, but you rarely find that here when it comes to YE creationism and theistic-evolution. What I never understood is how people can discuss such issues as OSAS without accusing the other of not being Christian, but then fail to do so on something as unimportant to our faith in Christ as the interpretation of the creation accounts? Not only this, but I've seen more tolerance for people who go around this forum propagating some extremely bizarre (and imo sometimes dangerous) beliefs.

Gabe, first of all, I am in no position to correct anyone. I was really just trying to encourage by lumping us all into the same boat, and my first desire is to ask the Lord to help me get my own spirit under control. You, and everyone else here, are repsonsible to God alone for yours. I am just speaking about the things I observe on my end as honestly as I can. I've been coming on this board for some time now, and have seen it shift from one side to the other depending on who's posting...I have seen some people grow, learn, and become more loving, and I have seen others just grow more bitter, rude, and prideful with one another...and I have seen others just simply leave. I think God is very patient with us, and still loves us all from the most extreme fundamentalist to the loosest liberal. I think as far as the tolerance thing goes, things are pretty equal, though I may not feel that way when my views are the one's in the hot seat. ;) As far as bizarre, and sometimes dangerous, views, I think that is pretty equal across the spectrum too. In the past it's been easy for me to accuse one side over another, but now I see that pride, unloving behavior, and dangerous teachings can characterize believers across the board. Anyway, I guess we have gotten way off track with this thread. The Lord bless you.