|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Foundations of the Debate | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Righteous Skeptic Inactive Member |
Apart from the quest for knowledge, why are we discussing this?
(by "this" I mean creation/evolution) I've heard many evolutionists say that there is no reason for arguing about creation and evolution because the theory of evolution does not deny the existence of God. Is this claim valid? If it is, why does this website exist?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Righteous Skeptic Inactive Member |
My personal dispute with evolution is not that they don't deny the
existence of God, but that they have created a world in which God is not necessary. The TOE is not dependant on God! This conflicts with Biblical Christianity because the Bible indicates that the method with which God created the Earth made it obvious that He created it. Here's a logical question. If God wanted it to be obvious that He created the Earth, why would He create it in a way where He is not necessary for its creation? Theistic evolutionists and intelligent design proponents have put God at the playwright's desk, where he is merely starting the machine, but the Bible puts God at center stage. According to the Bible, human instinct is to want to live in a world where they are not responsible to God. That is exactly what the many contributors to the TOE have done. They may not say it, but the TOE of evolution makes it so they do not have to be accountable to or even believe in God, whether unconciously or consciously done. A smart man once said (summarized)
Arguing Creation or Evolution from a scientific point of view is pointless, because the conflict is spirtual. It is between worldviews and the faith or lack thereof of the person or persons debating According to the Bible only God can change man's heart. Meaning, unless there is a supernatural intervention, Creationists and Evolutionists will never agree. In conclusion, that is why the debate exists, because evolutionists have insisted on creating a world where they do not need God, and creationists have insisted on disagreeing with them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Righteous Skeptic Inactive Member |
Ringo writes: What makes you think He wanted it to be obvious? David writes: 1 The heavens declare the glory of God;the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Paul writes: 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities”his eternal power and divine nature”have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. He wanted it to be obvious so that those who know him will praise him and those who don't will have no excuse for not praising him.
Ringo writes: Hint: Ever hear of Shakespeare? Who played Hamlet on opening night? Center stage or not, mere actors are soon forgotten. It's the playwright who's remembered You're reading too much into my illustration. What I meant was that in the TOE, God, if he exists takes the back seat to natural selection and abiogenesis, while in the Bible, he is the Creator, orchestrating every part of his creation. I believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis by-the-way. Why? Because context counts when you're studying the Bible. If Genesis was poetry or prophecy, or some other type of writing which used a lot of symbolism, then I would be inclined to a less literal interpretation, but because Genesis is entirely styled in the historical narrative, I take Creation literally as much as I take the fact that Methuselah lived n nearly 1000 years, or that Jacob had 12 sons literally.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Righteous Skeptic Inactive Member |
subbie writes: Does that mean that if incontrovertable evidence were found that showed that some part of Genesis is impossible, you would lose all faith in god? Yes, but I think that producing such evidence would be next to impossible, because Genesis gives very little scientific data, it only summarizes events. Therefore, it would be difficult to point to a specific event and say, "That could never have happened". And anyway, that was not the point I was making. The point is that a literal interpretation of Genesis is the only logical way to take, because it is the only view that is consistent with the rest of the book.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Righteous Skeptic Inactive Member |
Creating worlds is a poor choice of words on my part. The worldview evolution is a part of does not depend on God. That is all I meant.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Righteous Skeptic Inactive Member |
fallacy cop writes:
Maybe I should make a whole new thread based on the obviousness of creation, but if I tried to do it justice here, it would go completely off-topic (the topic is by-the-way why we argue about creation/evolution). And God is clearly referred to as male in the Bible, though, as a spirit, he technically has no gender.
If S/he wanted it to be obvious then explain to me how come it isn't?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Righteous Skeptic Inactive Member |
Archer Opterix writes: If I showed you a story in which the Wright Brothers get their ideas about powered flight from a talking iguana that lives on the Cliffs of Insanity, would you understand the story as 'a type of writing which uses a lot of symbolism' or as a story 'entirely styled in the manner of historical narrative'? I'd like to see that story, it sound very intruiging. I don't mean that as a challenge to whether or not the story is true, by-the-way, it really does sound like an interesting story. As for your question, I really don't know how I would classify the analogy of two geniuses to powered flight. What's your point?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Righteous Skeptic Inactive Member |
sidelined writes: You will not consider this as a possibilty though for whatever reason. You are missing the point of my argument. I am merely representing the Creationist viewpoint in which the possibility of a world without God is a very serious matter indeed. I never said that I will not consider the possibility that God does not exist. I am just saying that the reason that there is a debate because Christians have a very hard time accepting the TOE because it does not need God to work. From a Biblical Christian's point of view, that is not an option, God must have been necessary for the creation of the Earth.
sidelined writes: If, in comparing the creation to the bible, we find that the actual creation contradicts the bible should we not believe the works of God over those of men? Take your doubts about the validity of the Bible to The Bible: Accuracy and Inerrancy forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Righteous Skeptic Inactive Member |
A God who can create evolution is a truly awesome God. True. A God who doesn't need evolution is even more awesome. Aren't you glad I didn't use the word awesomer?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Righteous Skeptic Inactive Member |
The truth as uncovered by science is that it is not obvious that God made the Earth. That depends on the opionion of the person you are talking to. Some people think that the "truth as uncovered by science" is evidence of the existence of God.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Righteous Skeptic Inactive Member |
Rather, evolution does not deny the existence of God, but some creationists claim that it does, hence the debate Or, as I said earlier, the problem Creationists have with evolution is not that it denies the existence of God, but that evolution does not need God. Hence the debate.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024