Evolutionary Creationism

  • Thread starter Thread starter MariaTS
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
And yet, whenever a solution arises that God happens to disapprove of, Christians shrug their shoulders and say, “Hey, it’s part of my faith.” The imperative to them is not to prevent suffering but instead to do whatever God tells them. There’s a difference between caring for others and being an obedient sheep.
I have absolutely no problem being obedient to the truth. It is called humility. Try it sometime. (It is the opposite of arrogance :))
 
Genesis clearly states that there were no males or females in the begging- there was no life!
So “since the beginning he made them male and female” contradicts Genesis.
What was the author conveying?
 
There is much human suffering that is self-inflicted and some that could be solved almost literally overnight but there’s no money in it. The United States could grow enough food to relieve many areas of the world and the rich could spend more on teaching others about sustainable agriculture but there’s no tangible financial reward. Currently, American farmers are paid billions of tax dollars to grow nothing. Why? It would lower prices for food on the market if there was too much production.

In a special issue of Time magazine about 5 years ago, it covered all of the major breakthroughs in medicine that will be introduced starting around now. In the following issue, a doctor, the head of a national organization of doctors, wrote that he was disappointed. Not once, he said, was the word behavior used. He pointed out that even if all of these breakthroughs appeared, half of the population would still needlessly put themselves at risk for serious illness because they would refuse to modify their behavior. Or to put it bluntly: “Who cares what I do to my body. The docs can fix me right up wit da technology dey got.”

Peace,
Ed
 
There is much human suffering that is self-inflicted and some that could be solved almost literally overnight but there’s no money in it. The United States could grow enough food to relieve many areas of the world and the rich could spend more on teaching others about sustainable agriculture but there’s no tangible financial reward. Currently, American farmers are paid billions of tax dollars to grow nothing. Why? It would lower prices for food on the market if there was too much production.

Peace,
Ed
Even at current levels of food production, the United States is producing at an unsustainable level. Even if more food were produced, the associated population increase would lead to a greater food crisis down the road, unless a sociological shift in the LDCs occurs to favored smaller families.

Several attempts at producing sustainable agriculture in other regions have failed, most particularly in Africa where the building of wells to discourage overgrazing has been known to drain groundwater and speed up desertification.
 
Wrong. It is ID theory that suggests new creations, ie. IC systems.

Evolution does not even suggest *creatio ex nihilo. *Evolution merely says that species are instrumental in the production of new forms. How is it that you have yet to correctly grasp even the most basic ideas of evolution theory?
It is Evolution[macro evolution]of the real Evolutionists that suggests new creations via abiogenesis etc. ID suggests great diversity and variations within kind - twinc
 
It is Evolution[macro evolution]of the real Evolutionists that suggests new creations via abiogenesis etc. ID suggests great diversity and variations within kind - twinc
Evolution doesn;t deal with abiogenensis. Evolution does not say that new animals appear by abiogenesis. And while ID might allow for diversity and variations within kind…what is a kind by the way? is it species or something else I hear this kind stuff alot from creationists and never a really clear defination of what it is Ultimately ID is still a form of creationism.
 
Ahhh - no. Revelation clearly shows the arrow pointing down form God. Evolution views the arrow up toward him.
What does this mean? And why do you object to evolution pointing to God?
 
Genesis clearly states that there were no males or females in the begging- there was no life!
So “since the beginning he made them male and female” contradicts Genesis.
no it does not and cannot- true science proves the Bible correct - the problem is not with true science but with phony pseudo non science and nonsense.Adam was humankind[male and female]-the woman was already present in Adam from whom God withdrew her.True science states that the man carries both male and female [x and y]chromosomes whilst woman carries only female[x]chromosomes.Why not simply accept and believe the word/words of God for Jesus also said “in the beginning created He them male and female”-btw good surgeons know that if a rib is removed very carefully another one will grow and replace it - Glory Be - twinc
 
It shows that everything is flowing from the perfect to the imperfect. Evolution says the flow is from imperfect towards perfect.
But our spiritual journey necessarily involves going from our imperfect state to our Heavenly, perfect state, does it not?
 
But our spiritual journey necessarily involves going from our imperfect state to our Heavenly, perfect state, does it not?
That grace flows from God. But bottom line our self mastery is called to journey toward God. That is an opposite flow from the state of the universe (decaying) and without this (name removed by moderator)ut from God (grace) sin and corruption would be the greater force.
 
That grace flows from God. But bottom line our self mastery is called to journey toward God. That is an opposite flow from the state of the universe (decaying) and without this (name removed by moderator)ut from God (grace) sin and corruption would be the greater force.
I’m sorry, I don’t understand this argument at all. How does this point away from evolution?
 
One author was attempting to convey that God created all that exists. The other was trying to relay a statement made by Christ.
God created “all that exists” in the beginning. What do you think Jesus was talking about when He said “But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female”?
 
no it does not and cannot- true science proves the Bible correct - the problem is not with true science but with phony pseudo non science and nonsense.Adam was humankind[male and female]-the woman was already present in Adam from whom God withdrew her.True science states that the man carries both male and female [x and y]chromosomes whilst woman carries only female[x]chromosomes.Why not simply accept and believe the word/words of God for Jesus also said “in the beginning created He them male and female”-btw good surgeons know that if a rib is removed very carefully another one will grow and replace it - Glory Be - twinc
True science reinforces your preconceived notions? And again, it was Jesus who said that since the beginning he made them male and female- a literal Genesis interpretation would contradict this, which was the point of my post.
 
God created “all that exists” in the beginning. What do you think Jesus was talking about when He said “But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female”?
AGAIN, Genesis states that “In the beginning the Lord created the Heavens and the Earth”

There were no males and females. Therefore, in the beginning He did NOT make them male and female- they did not exist.
 
AGAIN, Genesis states that “In the beginning the Lord created the Heavens and the Earth”

There were no males and females. Therefore, in the beginning He did NOT make them male and female- they did not exist.
What do you think Jesus was talking about when He said “But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female”?
 
What do you think Jesus was talking about when He said “But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female”?
Here’s my objection laid out- You said Jesus favored a literal interpretation of Genesis because He said “from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female.” However, this obviously does not favor a literal interpretation of Genesis because God did not make any males or females in the beginning. Is it possible Jesus meant God had made humans male and female since humans came about? Yes- but as per my recollection, TOE does not claim we were ever a unisex species.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top