The lie of evolution

Good points.Amen.

 

DITO!

 

PS

Not bad for a "ramblin' man" ...

 

Just-want-peace,

Good points. But I would not be so fast to say that creation can not be proven.

If I went deep into a cave I had never explored before and that I thought had never been explored before and I found a note with specific instructions about how to get back out of the cave neatly folded and set under a rock in a safe crevice, I would have no doubts that an inteligence had been there and placed the note.

Knowing what we Know about DNA, I consider it proved. The DNA is an alphabet that spells out the most complex beings and functions on earth. It is in every sence a written code. There must have been an inteligent writer. There can be no other conclusion.

 

Right on. The only acceptable answer to your question for Christians is "GOD". Evolution is a theory inspired by atheists and continually propagated by a school system that consistently denies God.

J-W-P you are right on the money.

 

Some of the etc's: liar, un-Christian, non-Christian, not loving, not accepting ...

 

There is no better argument against evolution.

 

That is one of the most well written OP's I have ever read!

 

Thank you just-want-peace, well written and it was something that needed to be said.

 

And yet, we are here - some of us who have been Christian all of our lives, faithful with our tithes and offerings, faithful in our service to our Lord and our church, who have become convinced by the evidence in the favor of evolution and the ancient age of the earth.

We can't help it if we see the sky to be blue - it just looks blue to our eyes. We can't help it if the earth looks 4 and a half billion years old to our investigations - it just turned out that way. We can't help it if the earth bears a history of previous life going back millions and millions of years - its there and more of it keeps coming along. We can't help it if the tree of life that came out from the analysis of the fossils came to be confirmed to the same branches and twigs when the chemical and genetic signatures became available for investigations.

Even if it means we can't accept the literal interpretation some of us have accepted in the past.

Its a psychological impossibility.
Who amoung us would start saying the earth doesn't rotate, as a cause of day and night? We can't do that any more.

It's one thing to ask somebody to give up sin and selfishness. Its a whole other thing to ask somebody to deny a fact they believe to be the truth. Who can do such a thing as that?

 

Very thoughtful and clear, just-want-peace. Thank you!

 

Old Earth and Evolution are two separate things. Just wanted to point that out.

 

Some of the etc's: liar, un-Christian, non-Christian, not loving, not accepting ... </font>[/QUOTE]Funny, it's more the young earthers that I've seen being insulting.

In regards to the opening post: Nothing new, we've been over this many times before. And I would indeed encourage the young earthers to dig for more info--go to the source (academic journals) and read about the data and see how you can resolve the data with a young-earth creation. When I did this, I realized it can't be done without saying that God is a liar. Rather than say that God lies, I believe that the creation account is not literal. This, of course, makes me a second-class Christian in many young-earthers' sight. But I persevere!

 

Paul of Eugene and Petrel,

Very well said. I too would not call God a liar. If observation is not in accordance with any particular interpretation of scripture, then the interpretation is wrong. God does not lie.

The dogmatic insistence on a literal approach to the Genesis account is a major stumbling block to many who think they must accept it literally to be saved by God's grace. Jesus did not say "Believe on me and accept a young earth and you will be saved." Scripture does not tell us "that God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believes in him, and accepts the idea of a young earth and that evolution didn't happen, shall have everlasting life."

 

There are many theistic evolutionists.There are also several different evolutionary theories.I don't think being a theistic evolutionists means someone is unsaved or will lose thier salvation I just disagree with them.

 

"1) Do a lot more digging for info above and beyond what you read on this board.

2) Just because a poster says something is true, don't just automatically assume they are correct."

Absolutely.

I do not think that there is anyone here really knowledgable enough to make an informed decision other than Craigbythesea. The rest of us are pretty much going on our opinions of what other people have said with varying degrees of background to help understand the arguments.

Your best bet is to read as widely and as varying material as you can. I'd encourge you to ask each side for some book recommendations.

If someone claims a reference says this or that or presents a quote from some authority, go look it up. Google Scholar and PubMed are excellent resources for tracking down references. Go read the originals. If someone gives you a quote, ask where you can go read the whole thing. If someone claims a source, find out what qualifications that person has to be an expert source.

But there is an even better piece of advice. If you have made your mind up one way or the other based on faith and no amount of data one way or the other will affect you, it may not be a subject with which you wish to get involved. It can be challenging and has led to a crisis of faith for some people.

"7) Consider also, that you have never seen, nor will you see, an automobile (nor even a simple ball-point pen) created by a tornado going through a junkyard. Ridiculous thought, is it not? Yet this same premise, complexity evolving from simplicity, order from chaos, is exactly what the evolutionists believe, and want you to blindly accept as fact."

Keep in mind that the tornado in a junkyard analogy has no relation at all to how evolution is theorized to work. The analogy assumes that everything must be assembled in correct working order in one fail swoop. The actual process is one of slow degrees of change. An analogy of the analogy would be someone stating that no one has ever been walking down the street and instantly found themselves a mile further down the street as an argument against why you cannot walk a mile one step at a time.

"8) Keep in mind that neither is PROVABLE by science, and the same evidence is available to both sides, so the answer you choose is just shows where your faith is, not which is true!

Keep in mind that both sides have access to the same observations but only one has a consistent, predictable, testible idea to explain what has been found and what kinds of things you can expect to find in the future.

"If you truly want the whole story, you’re going to have to dig it out yourself! But be prepared to be called “stupid, ignorant, unlearned, narrow minded, old fashioned” etc., etc.

Your choice is 'Do you believe God, or man?'"

If you are interested, you will do yourself much good by digging as much as possible on both sides.

But pay very close attention. See which side is the one that actually depends on slander. Which position will get your faith instantly doubted. Which opinion will get people saying you call God a liar. Which position will get you called heretic. Which position will get unsubstatiated assertion of you being a liar. There is one side in this debate that thrives on slander and it is not those which hold to a non-literal view of the creation account.

One side also makes strong use of the fallacy of the false dilemma. Do not be fooled by claims that to doubt another's interpretation of Scripture is the same as disbelieving God. No matter how many times this faulty piece of logic is used the fallacy of it remains the same. There are many areas where believers differ on what they think the Bible means. How far would we get in discussing these issues if both sides immediately charged that you must not believe God if you reject my view.

 

I have noticed that attitude from you and I appreciate it. Believers can and will disagree on different things but we are all on the same side in the end. We need to be sure that we define ourselves by our similarities and not our differences.

 

Some of the etc's: liar, un-Christian, non-Christian, not loving, not accepting ... </font>[/QUOTE]Funny, it's more the young earthers that I've seen being insulting.

In regards to the opening post: Nothing new, we've been over this many times before. And I would indeed encourage the young earthers to dig for more info--go to the source (academic journals) and read about the data and see how you can resolve the data with a young-earth creation. When I did this, I realized it can't be done without saying that God is a liar. Rather than say that God lies, I believe that the creation account is not literal. This, of course, makes me a second-class Christian in many young-earthers' sight. But I persevere! </font>[/QUOTE]Then, there's no literal Adam and Eve. So, it skews your theology of sin. If we evolved, when and how did sin enter?

Furthermore, the ideas of evolution, the existence of God and Divine Revelation are not compatible. One may claim to believe in God and evolution but there is a basic inconsistency between God and evolution. Either evolution is true and God is a human invention or God exists and evolution is a man-made delusion. Besides, you have destroyed all hope of a meaningful and knowable revelation from God if you reject creation and allegorize Genesis. The creation-evolution debate is a watershed between belief and unbelief. This, of course, is not to say that everyone who believes evolution is a lost hell-bound sinner. It is to say their beliefs are contradictory and their theology is without foundation.

 

Well let's ask the question. Was there a literal Adam and Eve? I believe among Christian evolutionists there are several kinds of evolution ( I got that idea from Erickson)so let's give them a chance to share thier views.