Evidence for God from Science

FL, I agree - each after its kind, "man in our image." When God desired to end up with animals, he created animals after their own kind. When the text indicates that the animal kingdom was completed, and God "then" desires to create man - and that is what He says He created, immediately/instantly and where another special creation (Eve) comes from Adam himself. IF this is not what the text means - as, IF it was full of mere allegorical tales meant to symbolize other things - then it is worthless because only speculation can assert what these supposed meanings really meant or were supposed to teach us. They are as useful as fairy tales. And, IF evolution is true, God would have to have foreknown that those believing Adam and Eve's story is literal/factual/historical, as written, would, one day, be viewed as complete idiots. It makes far more sense that the their story is real and actual/factual, as if they are only allegorical, those allegorical tales make no sense, are usesless, and make the rest of Scripture seem nonsensical.

And if God intended to create man, why would He need to create animals FIRST, over a very lengthy period, and "THEN" turn two of them into man (and woman)? And thus why would He give us some cockamamie story to explain it all? Why show Eve to be another, special and instant creation - that is made from the first one (Adam) - a clear indication that Eve did not evolve, had not existed prior to her becoming the first woman. And IF Adam was previously some type of hominid (an animal NOT made in the image of God), why is there no similar, supposedly allegorical tale (like the one about Eve's creation) told about his creation? Unless Adam and Eve were real human beings that fell, the suggestion that they were once animals or hominids transformed into humans makes very little sense, makes a mockery of the rest of Scripture's core meanings and thrust - especially it's teaching that we all need a savior.

Top it off with a sparse hominid record that remains unconvincing and other shaky details about evolution and I'm amazed so many Christians feel the need to accept evolution as fact. It's not like the scientific community was going to accept a supernatural creation. But the Christian can...

ryanbouma wrote:I'm amazed so many Christians feel the need to accept evolution as fact.

Who says we all do, I accept it as the best current scientific explanation of the evidence we have, if that changes in the future with additional evidence then I will accept that.

There is no conflict with the Bible (if you see conflict then that is your issue to deal with), I however have no issue with allegorical or other interpretations of Genesis, at the end of the day it's all about Christ and not about how God created the Earth.

I can happily accept evolution and I can happily say I don't know how it all fits with the Bible, it all still makes sense to me.

Ultimately, in anthropomorphic terms, I think God must scratch his head a lot at the beliefs we come up with.

Sadly, we rarely have a privileged position. But, since we are to provide reasons for the hope within us, it is admirable that Christians attempt to harmonise beliefs in the best manner they know how.

At the end of the day, I'd hate for there to be no Theistic Evolutionists (and I'm not one)... because there is obviously a large section of society where fully-fledged evolution is so ingrained. YEC certainly wouldn't cut the mustard with such people. Day-Age might albeit perhaps with great suspicion.

This is something perhaps unique to Christianity that is often seen as a weakness. We can all have such divergent beliefs, and yet I believe God uses it all to accomplish much good and speak to people in all different places who normally would not otherwise be reached. Though we might try, we aren't called to all hold to the exact same truths on everything, only One Truth and to try give reason for the hope that is within us so that others may see Christ revealed.

Kurieuo wrote:At the end of the day, I'd hate for there to be no Theistic Evolutionists (and I'm not one)... because there is obviously a large section of society where fully-fledged evolution is so ingrained. YEC certainly wouldn't cut the mustard with such people. Day-Age might albeit perhaps with great suspicion.

I have to agree with you here. A literal interpretation of Genesis 1 is a major stumbling block for many seekers. Even myself, after I came to a saving faith fro atheism, I still needed to believe in evolution and I needed to believe that the word ''day'' in Hebrew could also mean ''epoch'' or ''age.'' It gave me comfort. So, I don't mind if a Christian wants to hold on to bizarre beliefs such as evolution/speaking in tongues/KJV Onlyism, and so on.

FL

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote: I don't mind if a Christian wants to hold on to bizarre beliefs such as Old Earth Creationism/Young Earth Creationism/speaking in tongues/KJV Onlyism, and so on.

Here I fixed that for you.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote: I don't mind if a Christian wants to hold on to bizarre beliefs such as Old Earth Creationism/Young Earth Creationism/speaking in tongues/KJV Onlyism, and so on.

Here I fixed that for you.

YEC and OEC are two more bizarre inventions of the human mind. The Word of God must have the final word: it is clear and says what it says succinctly. Everything we add to it is

FL

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote: I don't mind if a Christian wants to hold on to bizarre beliefs such as Old Earth Creationism/Young Earth Creationism/speaking in tongues/KJV Onlyism, and so on.

Here I fixed that for you.

YEC and OEC are two more bizarre inventions of the human mind. The Word of God must have the final word: it is clear and says what it says succinctly. Everything we add to it is

FL

I agree Fl, the Bible just simply doesn't say, maybe because it is just not that important.

Or maybe, a range of opinions provides the greater reach to people?

Kurieuo wrote:Or maybe, a range of opinions provides the greater reach to people?

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

I agree! All our ''creation stances'' are inventions of our fleshly minds, as the arguments that often accompany them testify.

Both of you make sense! Is it because you're from Oz or am I just getting soft in the head?

FL

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:I agree! All our ''creation stances'' are inventions of our fleshly minds, as the arguments that often accompany them testify.

So why do you think that our doctrines concerning our "creation stances" are just "inventions of our fleshly minds," but our doctrines we call things like "biblical inerrancy," "salvation by grace through faith alone," "sola scriptura," "sin," "baptism," and "the Trinity," among hundreds of others aren't just "inventions of our fleshly minds"?

Jac3510 wrote:

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:I agree! All our ''creation stances'' are inventions of our fleshly minds, as the arguments that often accompany them testify.

So why do you think that our doctrines concerning our "creation stances" are just "inventions of our fleshly minds," but our doctrines we call things like "biblical inerrancy," "salvation by grace through faith alone," "sola scriptura," "sin," "baptism," and "the Trinity," among hundreds of others aren't just "inventions of our fleshly minds"?

All doctrines are unimportant, all we have to do is believe in Jesus.

But Daniel, isn't that a part of doctrine in itself?

Still, even if we can live with more than one doctrinal position under Christ and there is benefit in having multiple positions... but this doesn't mean to me that they're unimportant.

Doctrine is important. Truth mattered to Christ. He talked it of himself and we are to be lights in the darkness. Apostles like Paul took that truth to others, often avoiding sensitive topics of the day (unless pushed) and placing it in a cultural language of those to whom he spoke.

There is some luxury we have if Christians accommodate certain socially sensitive topics without compromising Christ or for that matter spoken truths. Today, perhaps more in online discussions than socially face-to-face, evolution is a big topic. So I'm quite happy to let someone keep it, point out it really is no issue since strong Christians including none other than CS Lewis appears to have embraced such.

To restate another way. When one sees a stumbling block in the path of someone else, there are two approaches. See it as a red flag, ram straight through it and try to smash it to pieces and hope you don't get bogged or snagged... or quite simply jump over it. I find I prefer to jump over a lot of issues a lot more than say 10 years ago. But this doesn't mean I don't think such issues aren't important. Obviously I do think many important since look at me now.

Jac3510 wrote:

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:I agree! All our ''creation stances'' are inventions of our fleshly minds, as the arguments that often accompany them testify.

So why do you think that our doctrines concerning our "creation stances" are just "inventions of our fleshly minds," but our doctrines we call things like "biblical inerrancy," "salvation by grace through faith alone," "sola scriptura," "sin," "baptism," and "the Trinity," among hundreds of others aren't just "inventions of our fleshly minds"?

Jac, your Doctrines on biblical inerrancy, salvation by grace through faith, sola Scriptura, sin, baptism, and the trinity, are from God. But your YEC creation stance is from your fleshly mind.