Evolution/Creation Poll -- Please Vote!

God Created the earth and every living thing that lives on it in 6 literal days.

that is what my Bible says so that is whay I believe
the Bible shows us no gaps.

 

I'm a YEC, 6-literal days, no death before sin, etc.

I'm curious who voted for atheistic evolution?

 

Why does it matter how God created anything, isn't enough that God is the creator?

 

It matters because it goes to how one sees God's word in Genesis.

If God created by "evolution" and death came before sin, we have a contradiction to the Bible.

By now, I even know who all is going to post to argue this, if they decide to.

 

What?

 

What? </font>[/QUOTE]I'm referring to several people on the BB who believe Genesis is a myth or fable.

Check out the thread on whether the Bible is inerrant or not. It's right here in this forum. The Genesis issue came up there around page 14 or 15.

 

YOUNG EARTH, BABY!!!!!!!!!!



Romans 10:17
So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

 

You might be surprised to learn that it wasn't me. My vote was not that far down the list.

Surprise!

 

OTOH, if animals did not eat other animals until after the fall, then we still have an issue, because it means that enimals evolved after the fall to eat flesh (most carnivourous animals alive today are incapable of eating animal flesh).

Then again, to be completely objective, there's generally not an arguement to evolution taking place after the fall, just before the fall. This does not compromise a YEC literalist point of view.

 

My point exactly, ChurchBoy. I thought only Baptists were allowed on the "BAPTIST DEBATE FORUMS (BAPTIST ONLY)".

Personally, I don't know too many athiest Baptists. I know some 'unsaved' Baptists, but I think most of them believe in God. </font>[/QUOTE]Oops! Sorry, I'm a non-Baptist. I thought non-Baptists are allowed to post but not allowed to start threads in Baptist only threads. If I am in error I will refrain form posting in this forum.

 

Carnivorous animals are incapable of eating animal flesh? Then how can they be carnivorous?

 

Oops, I meant to say that most carnivourous animals alive today are incapable of eating plant material.

 

"Personally, I don't know too many athiest Baptists. I know some 'unsaved' Baptists, but I think most of them believe in God."

and

"I'm curious who voted for atheistic evolution?"

I doubt that whoever the two are who went with completely natural evolution are atheists and neither is it an "atheistic" theory. I think that chemistry proceeds entirely without supernatural intervention but that does not make it "atheistic" chemistry. Evolution is perfectly capable of explaining the current diversity of life on earth also without supernatural intervention. That does not necessarily make it "atheistic." I expect that you may strongly disagree with whether it is the best explanation.

 

I offer a small complaint upon the choices given. One can believe in evolution and still think of it as “supernatural” just as one can not believe in evolution and think the creation of man as “natural”. If we believe in the “miracle” of Jesus walking on water as “literally” happening but do not believe that God violated any natural laws of the universe in doing so then the implication that evolution is contrary to God’s work by basis of its “naturalness” is somewhat moot.

A meteor falling from the sky is not supernatural. But a meteor falling from the sky the minute Elijah prays for fire from the sky on Mt. Carmel --- is that supernatural? Now I am not saying that God used a meteor to bring down fire from the sky --- I do not know how God did it --- but perhaps something can be “natural” but the timing of the event is “supernatural”.

I think that there is so much that we do not know about how the universe works that God can perform what we perceive to be supernatural but is actually very natural to the laws of the universe. It is not God breaking the laws of creation but our limited understanding of those laws.

I think we need a good definition of “supernatural”.

I did vote for “evolution”, though I am more of a non-concordanist. I do not think that the Bible speaks about the process of how God created man so I do not think that the issue of evolution is contrary to Scripture. It is not contrary because the Bible is silent on the issue. The Bible does not agree with the process of the creation of man because it is not teaching that issue.

Also, I think that the immediate equation of evolution to atheism is unfair. One can believe in evolution and still believe in God.

Is that physical death or spiritual death?

If we say that no animal life died before Adam, then what about plant life? Did no plants die before Adam? What about insects? Did Adam not step on any bugs in Eden? What about microscopic organisms, did they die? Or perhaps only "soulish" (nephesh) beings physically died?

I do not think that a contradiction exists in the Scripture if physical death occurred before Adam. I think man was created as a mortal being. Rather, if our interpretation of Scripture appears to contradict another of our interpretations of Scripture then perhaps it is our interpretations that are contrary and not the scriptures.

 

I'm with majority on this one

43 votes: 6 day Creation -- Genesis is literal 67% (29)

 

Well, Baptists have never been content to say that one should settle matters solely by what does the majority say! After all, we have a history of being persecuted in countries where we were a minority!

Still, I know what you mean. One of these days the theistic evolutionist baptists will be the majority (should our Lord tarry) and we'll certainly do our share of gloating when that happens, so enjoy your turn for gloating now!