Why is evolution the counter to Jesus?

reply to post by Buddy420

---

I think its the idea that if evolution is correct... All life on earth shares a common ancestor...

This means that the creation story is wrong... unless god only decided to create a single cell... and sat back for a few billion years to watch.

reply to post by nj2day

---

nj2day,

How's decorating going?

Hey have you considered there may be a large amount of time between Genesis 1:1....and verse 2 and following?

Thoughts?

OT

reply to post by OldThinker

---

Whats up OT

its going... slowly lol. Just got a stove/microwave/vent hood combo for the kitchen... Now I just have to get cabinets...

Not to mention we haven't even started re-building the bathroom yet... sigh... We're kind of on a hold for a little while while my brother updates the electrical, and installs outlets/switches in all the rooms...

As far as there being a bunch of time between 1:1 and 1:2... this might be the case... but then the biblical account is wrong...

for all intents and purposes... animals evolved before plants. the bible has it the other way.

reply to post by nj2day

---

Allright....

Think about this verse, ok?

"For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men." 2 Pet 3:5-7

I gonna propose this is NOT speaking of Noah... ???

Well, technically, all life doesn't descend from a common ancestor. There were probably lots and lots of single-celled early life forms which swapped genetic material between each other somewhat similar to how viruses work. So descent wasn't really occurring in any fashion in which we'd recognize. Eventually a clear division between Prokaryotes and Eukaryotes emerged. Eukaryotes then divided into Animals, Plants, Fungus, Protista (which itself is not longer used as classification because it's too diverse). The Prokaryotes divided into Bacteria and Archaea.

So any claims that we are descended from a single origin ancestor or that we are evolved from bacteria are false and ignorant.

aDrtyHippie, do you seriously not know how life reproduced before the advent of sexual reproduction?! Heh... well, how do you suspect that life RIGHT NOW reproduces without sexual reproduction!

reply to post by OldThinker

---

It might be... but the Jews of the new testament were fully aware of the stories in the old testament... In fact, it was their religion.

The books of the Torah are dated to be written around 500 B.C.E. And would have been their "bible".

In fact, it is theorized that the earliest books of the Torah were written around 900 B.C.E.

The story of Noah would have been widespread throughout the entire Jewish community...

reply to post by nj2day

---

Allright...

Not too concerned with the dates of any of the books (perse') in this discussion....


Maybe I was unclear...

What if Genesis 1:1 spoke of the timeframe endorsed by the evidence seen by my 'evolution' supporters?

And....Gen 1:2ff speaks of the timeframe of my 'creation' proponents...?

OT (still searching)

reply to post by OldThinker

---

hehe

seems like you're trying to have your cake and eat it too...

I don't think it could concievably mean both... it would have to be one, or the other...

reply to post by nj2day

---

I'm leaning that way...

Starting to think it is not either/or...

Ready to join OT in the journey ?

OT

Wow, an actual answer to the OP and an honest one that not only makes sense but completely agrees with what I was trying to say in the other thread that made me open this one and how can I not love a post that makes me right. Althought it is said a little more succinctly and politely.

Whoa whoa whoa whoa. Are you actually reading and comprehending this thread? Did you actually pay attention to the many times I explained this thread? Did you actually stop just simply feeling and read and see what it meant for a moment? I think I am gonna tear up. I hope a mod applauds you for being so brave and so lonely.

[edit on 15-12-2008 by angel of lightangelo]

reply to post by OldThinker

---

hrm... I'd love to hear your thoughts :p

go for it OT!

Funny, I did not think so either...

but here we are.

Nor do I...

The opposition happens when you check the OT, not the New Testament.

But, Christians ignore most of the OT anyway... I mean who can blame them...

According to the OT, Dragons and unicorns exist... and God is powerless against iron...

YEAH, think I'm engaged on this one...

I'm gonna do some study and let you and noob know where and when...

Hope to start a new thread later this month, maybe in the closed forum with you and noob...do a little 'role-tending' together...

I'll U2U all later...

OT

Well I sure managed to hit the jackpot when it comes to "Christians" that want to acknowledge part of the OT. I do not understand the picking and choosing at all. Either the bible is the word of God or not, right? I think it would be nice if I could find a Christian here that believes every word literally but is also not an ass about everything.

reply to post by OldThinker

---

Yah, the secret forum is the way to go if you don't want anyone being ignorant...

have you talked to leovirgo? He's got some interesting insight as well.

Sounds interesting to me too.



Oh, it's like that. OK, here I was reading your way off topic conversation, completely interested and it all comes to this. Well all I can really say now is...stop using my thread to gab about it then.



[edit on 15-12-2008 by angel of lightangelo]

reply to post by OldThinker

---

Dern...

Closed, secret forum...

I was really interested in seeing this develop and possibly offer helpful comments about it too.

Oh it gets better than that... not only are some parts recognized... but then it goes deeper, in that some parts are supposed to be literal, and some are supposed to be figurative...

so far, the best I've seen as to how to differentiate the different areas... is that if Science can disprove it beyond a doubt... its supposed to be taken figuratively

If its a nasty little bit... its supposed to be figuratively...

If it can't be disproven, and fits the current moral zeitgeist... its literal



But isn't that a prerequisite of being a "fundy"?