Finally Picked a creation stance.

[CazPerth]

Thank you Theophilus, I will check out those links. Since I was saved, just prior to Easter this year, I have been on a crash course trying to learn as much as I can about Christianity and examining my former beliefs.

God bless
Carolyn

[wScott905]

I agree that one's view about evolution is a non-essential for salvation in Christ.
As I understand evolution from Darwin to the present, the theory does not allow for the supernatural and it is solely a natural process by mutations and natural selection. This is an essential for evolutionists. Is Theistic Evolution really evolution or slow Creation? By picking the middle ground you will have the evolutionists disagreeing with the supernatural or Theistic part and the Creationists asking for the same burden off proof that is required from the evolutionists. I couldn't feel comfortable being in the middle, but I'm not you. Peace.

[theophilus]

I couldn't feel comfortable being in the middle

God doesn't want people to feel comfortable in the middle. He often calls on people to make a definite choice.

And Elijah came near to all the people and said, “How long will you go limping between two different opinions? If the LORD is God, follow him; but if Baal, then follow him.” And the people did not answer him a word.
(1 Kings 18:21 ESV)

I think that if Elijah were alive today he would challenge people to choose between believing in evolution and in believing what the Bible says about creation.

[jlay]

I think that if Elijah were alive today he would challenge people to choose between believing in evolution and in believing what the Bible says about creation.

Really? you really think that?
That is just plain sad. The prophets all pointed toward Christ, and that is what they would do today. It is a shame in my opinion that people try to reduce the bible to OEC v. YEC, and that the bible itself has an opinion on either. (It doesn't) I think there are good reasons to argue against evolution, but most of that is background noise at the end of the day.

[Kurieuo]

I think that if Elijah were alive today he would challenge people to choose between believing in evolution and in believing what the Bible says about creation.

Really? you really think that?
That is just plain sad. The prophets all pointed toward Christ, and that is what they would do today. It is a shame in my opinion that people try to reduce the bible to OEC v. YEC, and that the bible itself has an opinion on either. (It doesn't) I think there are good reasons to argue against evolution, but most of that is background noise at the end of the day.

Well, let's try bring some music to the foreground.

I had a question come to mind for Christians here who accept "evolution" as they believe it is taught in a modern education today...

1) Who here thinks Dawkins, or any full-blooded biologist the same, would believe your "Theistic Evolution" could be passed off as "Evolution" per se?

And a follow-up question.

2) If the likes of Dawkins would not accept any "divine" in evolution being passed off as "evolution", then aren't you really just kidding yourself that you do truly accept evolution or have reconciled two different accounts together under "Theistic Evolution"?

[neo-x]

dawkins might not, but plenty of christian biologists will, K. And perhaps many atheists and agnostic biologists, will say the same thing as I have written here, that technically, evolution does not talk about origins, only what happened after origins.

You are assuming that evolution MUST be with atheist framework to begin with. As most atheists presume the same, I wonder why would you consider it as such.

And also that even as T.E (and a loose one at that) I don't embrace T.E to get an approval from Dawkins, anymore than you follow christian-faith to please the pope. We all have our reasons to base our conclusions upon. In Light of evidence, evolution is undeniable, atleast thats what I think.

[Ivellious]

I had a question come to mind for Christians here who accept "evolution" as they believe it is taught in a modern education today...

1) Who here thinks Dawkins, or any full-blooded biologist the same, would believe your "Theistic Evolution" could be passed off as "Evolution" per se?

This is a rather unfair question. Of course Dawkins wouldn't believe thestic evolution was true, he's an atheist. Would he accept it as a scientific theory? No, because theistic evolution is not a theory, it is a theological explanation of evolutionary history.

Now myself, being a "full-blooded" biologist, do think that theistic evolution is a valid take on evolution, at least in a broad sense. I will say that it cannot be considered a scientific theory because we have no real evidence for God intervening or guiding evolution. But as an individual, I can not disagree that one could see evolution as a God-guided process and not conflict with science at all.

The same goes for a number of scientific explanations out there. For instance, take the formation of Earth. Scientifically speaking, Earth's formation and history was a random event (or series of events) that culminated in Earth as seen today. However, I think it is perfectly valid to believe that God played a role in shaping these events, even if from a scientific perspective we can't teach it as such. An atheist scientist might not believe in a God-driven history of Earth, but unless that belief directly contradicts scientific evidence (i.e. young-Earth creationism), they couldn't say that such a view contradicted science.

2) If the likes of Dawkins would not accept any "divine" in evolution being passed off as "evolution", then aren't you really just kidding yourself that you do truly accept evolution or have reconciled two different accounts together under "Theistic Evolution"?

What is wrong with reconciling accounts? Christians have been doing it for centuries. If one interpretation of the Bible is demonstrated to be incorrect by scientific inquiry, many Christians have re-interpreted the biblical account in light of new evidences. Take geo-centrism (the belief that the Bible supports the Earth being at the center of the universe). This idea was a common church teaching until scientific evidence overturned it. Religious groups had to reconcile the biblical account with new information available to them, and their new interpretation supported the new data. Same goes for the age of the Earth/universe. The common biblical interpretation of these ages did not mesh with overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary, so the Genesis account has been reconciled with this science, at least in most countries outside the US.

And the same goes for evolution. As evidence and scientific support for evolution mounted, most churches decided it was enough to reconcile the Bible with this evidence. Sure, it hasn't caught on in the US yet, for the most part, but I honestly think in the next 50 years or so it will happen. Theistic evolution is hardly any different than geocentrism or the age of the Earth in that regard. The case in the US is different because just as evolution started to gain widespread scientific acceptance, a new wave of Christian fundamentalism teaching young-Earth creationism surged into the country. But I really do think that in time that teaching will gradually fade as it has in Europe.

[abelcainsbrother]

I know this is an old thread but I feel like I need to give my say so.

There is no reason to be accepting evolution if you are a Christian as I know it is easy to accept it and just say God directed it but there is no evidence in science that demonstrates life evolves all you have evidence for in evolution is Micro-evolution and adaptation but this does not lead to life evolving and there is no evidence that proves or demonstrates it does.

I don't even believe micro-evolution should be called micro-evolution because with evolution on the end it implies evolution is going on when all you have here is what animal breeders are and were aware of long before Charles Darwin wrote his book which is reproduction with variation and adaptation.Without evidence that life evolves it is a faith based science and yet this is bible territory as we believe the bible by faith and it requires faith but faith and science are two different things and if evolution is going to be propped up and promoted above all other areas of science and taught as scientific truth then it must be demonstrated and it has not been demonstrated.

Therefore there is no reason to believe the bible by faith and evolution by faith too. Kick evolution to the curb and stop thinking you must not take Genesis as the truth.

I have thoroughly researched the evidence in evolution and I know how much evidence one must wade through to realize despite how much evidence it seems like they have none of it can or does demonstrate life evolves and the evolution part is just preached as fervently as a preacher preaching about Jesus and salvation and is believed by faith without evidence that demonstrates it,as a matter of fact the evidence they use to try to demonstrate life evolves actually demonstrates that life does not evolve but it adapts as life can adapt and this is observable all around us but adaptation is not life evolving and their evidence shows that natural selection has no effect on life this is why viruses remain viruses,bacteria remains bacteria,salamanders remain salamanders,frogs remain frogs,fruit flies remain fruit flies,etc and natural selection is non-existent according to their evidence.

Also I am an old earth Gap theorist and it proves evolution wrong because all the life in the former world perished and so there is no way life evolved.The primates lived in the former world and were not man and did not evolve into man.Dinosaurs lived in the former world too.There is a reason God created the beasts of the field,etc after their kind.

[Philip]

Abel, I tend to lean toward OEC, but not militantly so. But did you know that most Hebrew scholars, even if they lean toward belief in an ancient universe and world, nonetheless, reject the Gap Theory, due to the fact that the structure of the pertinent Hebrew grammar refutes it, doesn't allow for it? There are strict rules for how ancient Hebrew was written.

[abelcainsbrother]

Abel, I tend to lean toward OEC, but not militantly so. But did you know that most Hebrew scholars, even if they lean toward belief in an ancient universe and world, nonetheless, reject the Gap Theory, due to the fact that the structure of the pertinent Hebrew grammar refutes it, doesn't allow for it? There are strict rules for how ancient Hebrew was written.

Yes I am aware that most modern scholars think that however not the older ones from what I've researched also most modern scholars are young earth creationists.The Gap theory is not new it is a lot older than most think,it is just not as known about as the other creationist theories and it is not understood by critics of it.I think that people are already settled on a creation theory whether it be young earth,old earth,ID,theistic evolution,Phylosophical apologetics,etc and so overlook or don't know about the Gap theory.

You have to look for the Gap theory to research it but not so much with the others,they are much easier to find and research so most people do that The Gap theory has been suppressed and does not get the exposure the others get.I am not closed off to any of the other creation theories too and can find truth in all of them but I really believe the Gap theory is the truest one and would be more effective against evolution than the others and would give evolution much more competition too than the others.The Gap theory is the theory of evolution's worst nightmare IMO.The church is battling evolution with the least effective creation theories although I would say ID makes the most impact right now but the Gap theory would be even more effective although The Gap theory does not hurt ID and they could/can be blended to be even more effective.

[abelcainsbrother]

I think most creationists whether young earth,old earth,ID,etc know evolution has serious problems and it has never really been demonstrated that life evolves and yet we oppose it with creation theories that just polk holes in it and young earth creationism has lost against evolution so much so that evolutionists do not worry about it much,but the old earth Gap theory would go beyond this because we could point out the serious problems with evolution and then present an alternate scientific theory both biblical and scientific and it would back evolutionists into a corner and give serious competition problems while using both the bible and scientific discoveries to back it up,thus God's word is promoted as truth and it is scientifically sound also.

All we would have to do is say to the evolutionist demonstrate to us life evolves like is taught,How do you know dinosaurs evolved into birds when you have no evidence that demonstrates it can happen?Then we can explain how if you look at the evidence for evolutuion viruses,bacteria,salamanders,fruit flies,etc it only really demonstrates reproduction and adaptation NOT evolution.

And then they will be stunned and then we could present the old earth Gap theory and explain how the fossils,coal and oil actually prove the bible true about a former world full of life that perished and show all kinds of fossils that have been found then explain this evidence has been looked at as if life evolves when not one scientist can demonstrate it. It is time to pull out the big guns church and stop playing patty-cake with evolution. Just this right here would do serious damage to evolution even if we did not get into any other evidence for the Gap theory,this alone in front of an audience - creationism vs evolution would make the evolutionist look silly. If life truly evolves like they believe they would be forced to demonstrate it does or lose support.

[abelcainsbrother]

I just finally read through all of this thread and it was a very interesting debate from different perspectives.I wish I could have been apart of this discussion.It was passionate yet still respectful.

[RickD]

I just finally read through all of this thread and it was a very interesting debate from different perspectives.I wish I could have been apart of this discussion.It was passionate yet still respectful.

ACB,

I'm glad you finally came to your senses, and dropped that silly Gap Theory!

[neo-x]

It is time to pull out the big guns church and stop playing patty-cake with evolution. Just this right here would do serious damage to evolution even if we did not get into any other evidence for the Gap theory,this alone in front of an audience - creationism vs evolution would make the evolutionist look silly. If life truly evolves like they believe they would be forced to demonstrate it does or lose support.

Hi Acb, just as a thought on what you wrote, could you demonstrate, in front of an audience, the act of creation?

[abelcainsbrother]

I just finally read through all of this thread and it was a very interesting debate from different perspectives.I wish I could have been apart of this discussion.It was passionate yet still respectful.

ACB,

I'm glad you finally came to your senses, and dropped that silly Gap Theory!

But it would actually destroy and defeat the theory of evolution.Don't ya know? Think about evolution losing finally! And we could actually reach scientific minded people for a much better theory and bible truth.