Please be more specific about which type of creationist you're speaking of...

Please stop promoting the idea that the only alternative to evolution is somehow tied to the bible or religion.

reply to post by JoshF

Please stop promoting the idea that the only alternative to evolution is somehow tied to the bible or religion.

Please stop pretending it isn't.

If you have something to say, say it. What is the "alternative to evolution" to which you subscribe? Don't make us assume what that might be so you can come back with 'not that' and 'not that either'. That is a cowardly way to behave and shows you do not have the honest conviction of your beliefs.

reply to post by Iason321


Iason321 I respect your belief but there's someone who will not agree with you (and I'm with him).

Jesus said this:

Jhn 3:16 KJV - "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

Reconcile it please with what you said in the OP:

That is -

... mankind came about through Darwinian evolution - basically, we believe all of the latest theories about Evolution on top of our Bible

In other words - if "mankind came about through Darwinian evolution" - what was the purpose of Jesus' coming to earth, his suffering and his sacrificial death for mankind?

And who's telling the truth when he said:

Mat 19:4 ASV - "And he answered and said, Have ye not read, that he who made [them] from the beginning made them male and female,".

Quoting Genesis:

Gen 1:27 ASV - And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Gen 1:28 ASV - And God blessed them: and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Is it Theistic Evolutionist or Jesus Christ?

Originally posted by Afewloosescrews

Originally posted by Confusion42

I would argue that ignorance definitely applies to young earth creationists.

First, 99.9999% of people "adhere the basic tenets of Theistic Evolution"; That is, micro-evolution, is a completely proven fact. Macro-Evolution, if you understand it and don't base your understanding of it on bias, debunked and outdated creationist propaganda, is also a proven framework with much evidence supporting change over time for living life.

I am a bit unclear as to what your interest in this discussion might be, since it is evident that you don't believe in the God of the Bible. The OP simply wanted to make a distinction between various God-centered views of the earth's origins/progression. A personal vendetta perhaps? Either way, I accept your challenge. I guess, I have to clarify that I am not an absolutist in regard to the idea of a "young earth," nor have I ever professed to be.

I would argue that the majority of evolutionists are not "Theistic" evolutionists, and therefore you may want to re-examine your stats. My point was this: to rectify a belief in God with a belief in Darwinist evolution is an extremely difficult thing to do, and would take more faith than I possess.

I agree that the evidence for micro-evolution is there, but to be intellectually honest, one has to admit that the transitional fossil record really doesn't cut the mustard when attempting to show the cogency of macro-evolution. In short...I need more evidence (which I just so happen to believe you won't find).

Ok, now, about taking the Bible in it's most literal sense?

Leviticus 20:9.....

So these things you think deserve death?

Deuteronomy 20:10-17

So, you support slavery, and women and children being treated like livestock.

Let's see, what else... oh, how about this

Exodus 21:20-21

So, you support slavery. And, if you almost kill your slave, no punishment.

How about literal fact errors in the Bible?

Leviticus 11:20-22

No insects are four legged.

Matthew 4:8

This would only be possible if the Earth where flat. The Earth is not flat. If you belief the Earth is flat, than.... *facepalm

1 Kings 7:23

Pi does not equal 3...


So take the Bible at face value?

Yea, right

OK, I am almost tempted to try and tackle everything that you just threw at me, and honestly if I thought that you would even remotely approach my answers with some semblance of objectivity, I gladly would. BUT, as you know, time is valuable and let's be honest...are you truly looking for answers to these questions?

I will, however, provide you with a seemingly indirect answer which ultimately when fully understood & applied will shed light on the rest.

John 3:16-17

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

and

Romans 8:1-4

There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

As member rnaa has pointed out..

If Creationists won't make the distinction between Cosmology, Abiogenesis, and Biological Evolution, why should others make the distinction between indistinguishable sects of Creationists?

Didn't you leave Intelligent Designers off your list?.

If Creationists won't even use accepted scientific terminology ('kind' is not a Scientific term) when attempting to discuss Science, again why should others care what your internal personal belief system is and how it is different from other sects that are otherwise indistinguishable.

Now, having said that, I find it interesting that you first say your literally believe in all of the Bible literally, and won't address the line's of scripture I highlighted.

Please, do tell, how one is supposed to "accept the Bible at face value" , which includes accepting the passages (the one's I quoted) "at face value"....

In other words - if "mankind came about through Darwinian evolution" - what was the purpose of Jesus' coming to earth, his suffering and his sacrificial death for mankind?

reply to post by edmc^2


Personal salvation has nothing whatsoever to do with Biological Evolution. Evolution is biology, salvation is psychology. (Well that is an oversimplification perhaps, human psychology is a product of Biological Evolution, but the point holds anyway).

reply to post by Confusion42


If you look back at my response, I gave an answer to your query...you apparently are choosing to ignore it. And this my friend, is why I simply cannot justify taking time away from my wife and son to systematically address all of what you so adamantly believe to be a scriptural impropriety (or more likely an indiscriminate list found on an atheist's blog which you didn't even bother to study yourself). The answers are there, but only for those who are truly seeking...when you're in that place, look me up and I'll be more than willing to fill you in.

In the meantime, here's a teaser:

Speaking to the alleged "fact error" you found in Leviticus 11:21 regarding insects,

"There are several verses that are translated in our English Bibles to imply that insects have four legs. In reality, the Hebrew word sherets, translated as "insect" is not nearly as specific as the term "insect" would imply. The word really refers to crawling or swimming creatures that tend to swarm together. For example, in Genesis, sherets refers to swarming sea creatures,27 in the flood account (Genesis 7) sherets refers to rodents,28 and in Leviticus, sherets refers to crustaceans,29 insects,30 rodents,31 and reptiles.32 The term sherets was never intended as a biological classification system, so to say that it specifically refers to "insects" is deceptive.

What is common among all the creatures mentioned is that they have short legs and often travel together in groups. In fact, the Bible defines sherets as "crawling on its belly" and "whatever walks on all fours."33 What is common in this group of crustaceans, insects, rodents, and reptiles is that they all crawl on "all four" legs. Some from this group actually have more than four legs. However, the Hebrew idiom "on all fours" refers to any creature that crawls low to the ground on at least four legs. Were the writers of the Bible unaware that insects have six legs? This statement would seem rather silly, but atheists actually make this claim. However, one of the verses clearly indicates that these "four-legged" insects have six legs:

'Yet these you may eat among all the winged insects [sherets] which walk on all fours: those which have above their feet jointed legs with which to jump on the earth. (Leviticus 11:21)

The key part of the verse is the phrase "above their feet jointed legs." The Hebrew uses two different words to describe the "feet" (regel) and "legs" (kera). What the verse says is that these insects walk on four "feet" (their anterior four short legs), with an additional two "legs" that are used for jumping. Therefore, all six appendages are described."

(Source) www.godandscience.org...

Originally posted by rnaa

In other words - if "mankind came about through Darwinian evolution" - what was the purpose of Jesus' coming to earth, his suffering and his sacrificial death for mankind?

reply to post by edmc^2

 

Personal salvation has nothing whatsoever to do with Biological Evolution. Evolution is biology, salvation is psychology. (Well that is an oversimplification perhaps, human psychology is a product of Biological Evolution, but the point holds anyway).

Interesting juxtaposition - trying to place a square peg on a round hole.

Now you see what I'm getting at - in order to reconcile the two concept / belief system - one needs to come out with elaborate explanation.

So again - what does "Personal salvation" has "to do with Biological Evolution" other than to dumb down God?

In other words - is there such a thing as "SIN" for which Jesus died for if "mankind came about through Darwinian evolution"?

Bottom line, this idea that God used "Darwinian evolution" to create mankind - is the most difficult idea ever formulated - next of course to evolution.

Like evolution theory - it's baseless.

Originally posted by edmc^2

Like evolution theory - it's baseless.

No, it's not. It's science. To deny evolution (and the fact the world is 4.54 billion years old, not 6 to ten thousand years) is to deny the following scientific fields (and I am sure I am missing some):

All the Earth Sciences - geology, geophysics, hydrology, meteorology, physical geography, oceanography, and soil science.

All Atmospheric Sciences, climatology

Physics, Biology, and Astronomy

Also astrophysics, geophysics, chemical physics and biophysics

Also, psychology, and anthropology.

And Archaeology, and History

Oh, I know I am missing so many! Point being, if you do not believe in evolution (and the world being 4.54 billion years old) than you say every scientist alive who has devoted there life to the study of any of the above fields, has been fruitless and incorrect.

I am done with this thread, people will have there own beliefs, I do not need to justify my stance nor do I have the time or patience to explain why I believe I am right. Good night & God Bless

I also will not entertain all the reasons why I can believe in Jesus and evolution. Check out the links I have posted to understand. Anybody who threw bible verses at me as "proof" that I cannot believe in both, you are absolutely wrong. I do not have the desire to answer you each individually.

reply to post by Iason321

I also will not entertain all the reasons why I can believe in Jesus and evolution. Check out the links I have posted to understand.

While personally, I think belief in God and in science are incompatible, I will still give kudos to those who balance out their beliefs with their knowledge.

Kudos.

reply to post by edmc^2

Now you see what I'm getting at - in order to reconcile the two concept / belief system - one needs to come out with elaborate explanation.

No, I don't see what you are getting at. What is the round peg in what square hole? What elaborate explanation for what?

"God did it" is not an explanation, simple or otherwise, it is a closing of the door on an explanation, a refusal to look for an explanation.

In other words - is there such a thing as "SIN" for which Jesus died for if "mankind came about through Darwinian evolution"?

Of course there is sin. Sin is defined by the moral system of civilization. Whether or not that moral system was imposed on mankind by a deity or arrived at by trial and error consensus of the participants in the society doesn't make it any less sinful to transgress against that morality.

Humanity is a social animal. Societies need rules. A transgression against societal rules is a sin. The fact of Biological Evolution does not contradict the existence of sin. In fact, since mankind as a social animal is a consequence of Biological Evolution, there is every reason to understand the development of taboos and sins as evolutionary imperatives.

But my point is is not that sin is necessarily a result of evolution and therefore God is unnecessary. There is absolutely nothing wrong with understanding morality as imposed by God, and I am perfectly comfortable with you doing so. But at the same time, understanding the variety of life on the planet as the result of biological evolution does not in any way negate human morality, whether imposed by God or by evolutionary pressure.

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by rnaa

In other words - if "mankind came about through Darwinian evolution" - what was the purpose of Jesus' coming to earth, his suffering and his sacrificial death for mankind?

reply to post by edmc^2

 

Personal salvation has nothing whatsoever to do with Biological Evolution. Evolution is biology, salvation is psychology. (Well that is an oversimplification perhaps, human psychology is a product of Biological Evolution, but the point holds anyway).

Interesting juxtaposition - trying to place a square peg on a round hole.

Now you see what I'm getting at - in order to reconcile the two concept / belief system - one needs to come out with elaborate explanation.

So again - what does "Personal salvation" has "to do with Biological Evolution" other than to dumb down God?

In other words - is there such a thing as "SIN" for which Jesus died for if "mankind came about through Darwinian evolution"?

Bottom line, this idea that God used "Darwinian evolution" to create mankind - is the most difficult idea ever formulated - next of course to evolution.

Like evolution theory - it's baseless.

Thank you for being a perfect example of what I said in my last post. Evolution only contradicts with a literal interpretation of ancient translated stories. Not god, not Jesus, not sparking the creation of the universe. If god used evolution as a tool to bring us to where we are today, then sent Jesus to teach peace to a growing civilization, then it makes him that much greater. I'm not saying I believe that, but evolution should not weaken anybody's faith, it should strengthen it. It's based on science.

Originally posted by Barcs
Evolution only contradicts with a literal interpretation of ancient translated stories. Not god, not Jesus, not sparking the creation of the universe. If god used evolution as a tool to bring us to where we are today, then sent Jesus to teach peace to a growing civilization, then it makes him that much greater. I'm not saying I believe that, but evolution should not weaken anybody's faith, it should strengthen it. It's based on science.

Correct on the first point (evolution contradicts literal interpretation of God's Word), but I think you need to make a further distinction in your following hypothesis. For those who believe God to be who he says he is in His Word (the Bible), evolution is still an impossibility. You're entering the realm of relativism here when you reference God, but don't distinguish him as THE God of the Bible. Also, according to traditional biblical doctrine is that Jesus is not simply some fellow God sent to "teach peace to a growing civilization;" he is part of the divine Godhead...God in human form.

These are important distinctions in this argument of whether theism and evolution are compatible. Sure, I suppose a belief in just about any god (take your pick) could be perfectly resolved with the theory of evolution, but this is simply not the case when it comes to the traditional view of the one true God of the bible.

Simply put, a belief in the theory of evolution is a blatant rejection of Jehovah, Yahweh, Jeshua, I Am that I Am, etc...

Originally posted by Iason321

Originally posted by edmc^2

Like evolution theory - it's baseless.

No, it's not. It's science. To deny evolution (and the fact the world is 4.54 billion years old, not 6 to ten thousand years) is to deny the following scientific fields (and I am sure I am missing some):

All the Earth Sciences - geology, geophysics, hydrology, meteorology, physical geography, oceanography, and soil science.

All Atmospheric Sciences, climatology

Physics, Biology, and Astronomy

Also astrophysics, geophysics, chemical physics and biophysics

Also, psychology, and anthropology.

And Archaeology, and History

Oh, I know I am missing so many! Point being, if you do not believe in evolution (and the world being 4.54 billion years old) than you say every scientist alive who has devoted there life to the study of any of the above fields, has been fruitless and incorrect.

I am done with this thread, people will have there own beliefs, I do not need to justify my stance nor do I have the time or patience to explain why I believe I am right. Good night & God Bless

I also will not entertain all the reasons why I can believe in Jesus and evolution. Check out the links I have posted to understand. Anybody who threw bible verses at me as "proof" that I cannot believe in both, you are absolutely wrong. I do not have the desire to answer you each individually.

edit on 1/28/2012 by Iason321 because: (no reason given)

edit on 1/28/2012 by Iason321 because: (no reason given)

Reason why I say it's baseless - is because no one (evolutionists) wants to own up to it, that is, where the theory was founded on - unless you claim that it's abiogenesis.

But since you're a Theistic Evolutionists I don't think you will go for it - then again I might be wrong.

So what's the foundation of Evolution Theory?

God or abiogenesis?


BTW - I do accept what scientist say about the earth and the universe - that the earth is around 4 byo (based on the earth's strata) and the universe to be around 13 byo (based on mathematical calculations and galactic evidence). And I do use science to further strengthen my belief that:

Gen 1:1, 27 ASV - "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" and that "God created man in his own image".

As for this statement of yours:

Anybody who threw bible verses at me as "proof" that I cannot believe in both, you are absolutely wrong. I do not have the desire to answer you each individually.

Prove it then, otherwise you have have no substance.

Here's what I said again.

Mat 19:4 ASV - "And he answered and said, Have ye not read, that he who made [them] from the beginning made them male and female,".

Quoting Genesis:

Gen 1:27 ASV - And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Gen 1:28 ASV - And God blessed them: and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Do you believe that God created Adam and Eve - a fully grown up persons having the ability to think and reproduce perfect beings like themselves?

Or did God as you stated created mankind (Adam and Eve) by means of Darwinian Evolution?


Please reconcile the two concept - if you can?

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by rnaa

In other words - if "mankind came about through Darwinian evolution" - what was the purpose of Jesus' coming to earth, his suffering and his sacrificial death for mankind?

reply to post by edmc^2

 

Personal salvation has nothing whatsoever to do with Biological Evolution. Evolution is biology, salvation is psychology. (Well that is an oversimplification perhaps, human psychology is a product of Biological Evolution, but the point holds anyway).

Interesting juxtaposition - trying to place a square peg on a round hole.

Now you see what I'm getting at - in order to reconcile the two concept / belief system - one needs to come out with elaborate explanation.

So again - what does "Personal salvation" has "to do with Biological Evolution" other than to dumb down God?

In other words - is there such a thing as "SIN" for which Jesus died for if "mankind came about through Darwinian evolution"?

Bottom line, this idea that God used "Darwinian evolution" to create mankind - is the most difficult idea ever formulated - next of course to evolution.

Like evolution theory - it's baseless.

Thank you for being a perfect example of what I said in my last post. Evolution only contradicts with a literal interpretation of ancient translated stories. Not god, not Jesus, not sparking the creation of the universe. If god used evolution as a tool to bring us to where we are today, then sent Jesus to teach peace to a growing civilization, then it makes him that much greater. I'm not saying I believe that, but evolution should not weaken anybody's faith, it should strengthen it. It's based on science.

Barcs - you have no idea of what you're talking about.

...better quit here before you bury yourself.

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by Iason321

Originally posted by edmc^2

Like evolution theory - it's baseless.

No, it's not. It's science. To deny evolution (and the fact the world is 4.54 billion years old, not 6 to ten thousand years) is to deny the following scientific fields (and I am sure I am missing some):

All the Earth Sciences - geology, geophysics, hydrology, meteorology, physical geography, oceanography, and soil science.

All Atmospheric Sciences, climatology

Physics, Biology, and Astronomy

Also astrophysics, geophysics, chemical physics and biophysics

Also, psychology, and anthropology.

And Archaeology, and History

Oh, I know I am missing so many! Point being, if you do not believe in evolution (and the world being 4.54 billion years old) than you say every scientist alive who has devoted there life to the study of any of the above fields, has been fruitless and incorrect.

I am done with this thread, people will have there own beliefs, I do not need to justify my stance nor do I have the time or patience to explain why I believe I am right. Good night & God Bless

I also will not entertain all the reasons why I can believe in Jesus and evolution. Check out the links I have posted to understand. Anybody who threw bible verses at me as "proof" that I cannot believe in both, you are absolutely wrong. I do not have the desire to answer you each individually.

edit on 1/28/2012 by Iason321 because: (no reason given)

edit on 1/28/2012 by Iason321 because: (no reason given)

Reason why I say it's baseless - is because no one (evolutionists) wants to own up to it, that is, where the theory was founded on - unless you claim that it's abiogenesis.

But since you're a Theistic Evolutionists I don't think you will go for it - then again I might be wrong.

So what's the foundation of Evolution Theory?

God or abiogenesis?


BTW - I do accept what scientist say about the earth and the universe - that the earth is around 4 byo (based on the earth's strata) and the universe to be around 13 byo (based on mathematical calculations and galactic evidence). And I do use science to further strengthen my belief that:

Gen 1:1, 27 ASV - "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" and that "God created man in his own image".

As for this statement of yours:

Anybody who threw bible verses at me as "proof" that I cannot believe in both, you are absolutely wrong. I do not have the desire to answer you each individually.

Prove it then, otherwise you have have no substance.

Here's what I said again.

Mat 19:4 ASV - "And he answered and said, Have ye not read, that he who made [them] from the beginning made them male and female,".

Quoting Genesis:

Gen 1:27 ASV - And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Gen 1:28 ASV - And God blessed them: and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Do you believe that God created Adam and Eve - a fully grown up persons having the ability to think and reproduce perfect beings like themselves?

Or did God as you stated created mankind (Adam and Eve) by means of Darwinian Evolution?


Please reconcile the two concept - if you can?

edit on 28-1-2012 by edmc^2 because: if you can

I'm not sure when and how God used abiogenesis. I am also not sure if Adam and Eve were fully grown when they were made. I was not alive billions of years ago. I do not dwell on such thoughts, as they are fruitless. I do not know how God did it, I just know he did.

To claim you know exactly how things happened - whether you take the stance of evolution, or creationism, or YEC, in my eyes, is ignorant. We can only speculate and take educated guesses as to what happened.

I do firmly believe in the Genesis account, and I also firmly believe in evolution and science. I do not understand how you can't comprehend me having perfect faith in both.

Maybe if you did research through the links I provided in the OP, you would understand better.

God bless you

Reading over your post again, I see you take the stance of an Old Earth Creationist. That's perfectly fine with me, and I do not wish to argue with you about how God may or may not have used evolution, because I am no evolutionary biologist nor am I a Biblical scholar. My beliefs are constantly evolving (proof of evolution), as am I. Maybe Theistic Evolutionists are right. Maybe OEC's are right. Maybe YEC's are right. Hell, maybe Atheists are right and we're all delusional and believe in the biggest lie of all time. How can we know 100% for sure? We cannot. Therefore, we have faith, and stick to the beliefs that cling to out hearts and strike us as true.

reply to post by rnaa

No, I don't see what you are getting at. What is the round peg in what square hole? What elaborate explanation for what?

What elaborate explanation for what?

These elaborate explanations:

Of course there is sin. Sin is defined by the moral system of civilization. Whether or not that moral system was imposed on mankind by a deity or arrived at by trial and error consensus of the participants in the society doesn't make it any less sinful to transgress against that morality. Humanity is a social animal. Societies need rules. A transgression against societal rules is a sin. The fact of Biological Evolution does not contradict the existence of sin. In fact, since mankind as a social animal is a consequence of Biological Evolution, there is every reason to understand the development of taboos and sins as evolutionary imperatives.

But my point is is not that sin is necessarily a result of evolution and therefore God is unnecessary. There is absolutely nothing wrong with understanding morality as imposed by God, and I am perfectly comfortable with you doing so. But at the same time, understanding the variety of life on the planet as the result of biological evolution does not in any way negate human morality, whether imposed by God or by evolutionary pressure.

But the simple explanation is found at:

Rom 5:12 ASV - "Therefore, as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin; and so death passed unto all men, for that all sinned:--"

This means that before the fall of man - man was perfect in all aspect - no sin and death.

Rom 6:23 ASV - "For the wages of sin is death; but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."

Jhn 3:16 NKJV - "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

But because of Jehovah God's love for mankind - he gave his only begotten son so that those who have faith in the ransom sacrifice will have hope - everlasting life!

Like said - you can't reconcile the two - try as you may you will just bury yourself deeper - with more elaborate explanation.

reply to post by Iason321

Reading over your post again, I see you take the stance of an Old Earth Creationist. That's perfectly fine with me, and I do not wish to argue with you about how God may or may not have used evolution, because I am no evolutionary biologist nor am I a Biblical scholar. My beliefs are constantly evolving (proof of evolution), as am I. Maybe Theistic Evolutionists are right. Maybe OEC's are right. Maybe YEC's are right. Hell, maybe Atheists are right and we're all delusional and believe in the biggest lie of all time. How can we know 100% for sure? We cannot. Therefore, we have faith, and stick to the beliefs that cling to out hearts and strike us as true

I take it that you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as the savior of mankind - judging from your avatar. If so why do you not trust him then?

Remember what he said -

[Jhn 17:1 NKJV] - "Jesus spoke these words, lifted up His eyes to heaven, and said: "Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son also may glorify You,"

[Jhn 17:3 NKJV] - "And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent."

Why adulterate the crystal clear teachings of the Bible with the unfounded teachings of evolution theory?

Nothing good will come out of it but confusion and meaningless existence.

Remember again his words:

[Jhn 17:8 NKJV] - ""For I have given to them the words which You have given Me; and they have received [them], and have known surely that I came forth from You; and they have believed that You sent Me."

But you say:

My beliefs are constantly evolving (proof of evolution), as am I.

No, it's constantly shifting and changing because it's not founded on the truth.

It's like this:

[Mat 7:24 NASB] - ""Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them, may be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock."

[Mat 7:25 NASB] - ""And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded on the rock."

[Mat 7:26 NASB] - ""Everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not act on them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand."

[Mat 7:27 NASB] - ""The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and it fell--and great was its fall.""

How can we know 100% for sure?

Jesus' own admission:

[Jhn 17:17 NKJV] - "Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth."

reply to post by edmc^2

These elaborate explanations:

I didn't explain anything what-so-ever about anything except my answer that the existence or non-existence of sin has nothing to do with evolution. The only connection is that sin is a concept in the mind of man and the mind of man is a result of evolution.

There is nothing elaborate about that description. It is, in fact, simple and concise.

Second thoughts: On second or third reading, I see maybe you could read into my post what I think is a clumsy beginning of a non-theistic explanation for the existence of sin. OK, fine. Sin exists because society exists, Evolution or no Evolution. Whether God put the idea in the human mind, or man 'invented' it to account for guilt of failure or personal lack in a interdependent community, is irrelevant to the actual existence of sin. The validity of Evolution does not in any way deny the existence of sin.

I'll introduce a slight change of subject to explore your anti-Science views. You appear to like hiding behind Bible verse instead of discussing your own ideas on these topics. Can you discuss the following verse, and my analysis, in your own words, and without resorting to Bible verses that have no apparent context to the discussion at hand?

Genesis 2:19 (KJV) And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

This verse is quite explicitly telling us that the God of the Old Testament appointed Adam as the first Taxonomist, and that is to say the first Biologist, and that is to say the first Scientist. God is giving man the 'command' to learn truth about the world he/she/it had created.

Why is it that you insist on remaining blind to the beauty of the world you insist God created? I'm sure God knows that you believe in him/her/it, you don't have to prove any thing to him/her/it by spouting Bible verse on teh Internet. Surely there is more honor in to God by dedicating yourself to learning about God's creation. Refusing to acknowledge that God wants you to know the world you live in is, I would think, the ultimate insult.

If you want to stop at 'God did it', that is fine for you, but I would really think that your God would take that as a given and encourage you to move on. Certainly other folks want to know what it is that God did.

Originally posted by Afewloosescrews
Correct on the first point (evolution contradicts literal interpretation of God's Word), but I think you need to make a further distinction in your following hypothesis. For those who believe God to be who he says he is in His Word (the Bible), evolution is still an impossibility. You're entering the realm of relativism here when you reference God, but don't distinguish him as THE God of the Bible. Also, according to traditional biblical doctrine is that Jesus is not simply some fellow God sent to "teach peace to a growing civilization;" he is part of the divine Godhead...God in human form.

The reason I didn't specify "god of the bible", is because there are several mythical gods, with several different versions of the creation story, based on the various religions out there. I didn't want to discriminate, so I said ancient translated stories instead of just the bible, because the bible certainly isn't the only one. And also, you are talking literal translation again. I know what the bible says about Jesus, I just don't find it to be a true, literal account.

These are important distinctions in this argument of whether theism and evolution are compatible. Sure, I suppose a belief in just about any god (take your pick) could be perfectly resolved with the theory of evolution, but this is simply not the case when it comes to the traditional view of the one true God of the bible.

Simply put, a belief in the theory of evolution is a blatant rejection of Jehovah, Yahweh, Jeshua, I Am that I Am, etc...

Again, it is only a "blatant rejection" if you take the bible as literal truth which was my exact point. If you consider the bible a story book to teach morality, as many do, evolution contradicts nothing. My point was that fundamentalism is bad, especially when there's no evidence whatsoever to suggest the stories are true, and you try to tell scientists that their studies are wrong simply because of an ancient story book. It's just not conducive to learning and knowledge.

Originally posted by rnaa

Please stop pretending it isn't.

Its not pretending, its a fact. Just because you don't believe in the current model of evolution does not mean that your belief is tied to any religion. Do you know much about critical thinking? You should really look into that, learning about critical thinking would be 100 times more helpful in day to day life than the knowledge of evolution.

If you have something to say, say it.

I did and you responded lol. Are you on medication or something?

What is the "alternative to evolution" to which you subscribe?

Don't make us assume what that might be so you can come back with 'not that' and 'not that either'.

You are aware that there is a difference between micro and macro evolution right? And even among scientists there are raging debates over the different theories that make up evolution, like Abiogenesis vs panspermia. Transpermia is something i believe in by the way which is an alternative to an evolutionary theory like Abiogenesis where life evolves from chemicals.

That is a cowardly way to behave and shows you do not have the honest conviction of your beliefs.

Oh please don't make yourself out to be another one of those atheist e-crusader, it is really cliche.