Does evolution contradict creationism?

Talk Origins ^ | 1998 | Warren Kurt VonRoeschlaub

[shubi]

There are two parts to creationism. Evolution, specifically common descent, tells us how life came to where it is, but it does not say why. If the question is whether evolution disproves the basic underlying theme of Genesis, that God created the world and the life in it, the answer is no. Evolution cannot say exactly why common descent chose the paths that it did.

If the question is whether evolution contradicts a literal interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis as an exact historical account, then it does. This is the main, and for the most part only, point of conflict between those who believe in evolution and creationists.

[Safrguns]

You know, just once, I would actually like to discuss something with these airheads that ACTUALLY is in the Theory of Evolution! Go back to gradeschool... they are teaching plenty of it there. Your THEORY of evolution apparently differs from everyone elses.

[shubi]

It would have nice if you had actually addressed the issue, that abiogenesis is not in the TOE.

"Yom" is not a 24 hr day. I demonstrated that on an earlier post here. It is an indefinite period of time. Look at Gen 2:4 for confirmation.

[shubi]

No, you creationuts put in things that are not in the Theory and then argue against them. It is a standard strawman.

It is reprehensible that you call yourself a Christian and then attack a genius (Darwin) with lies to defend a God that doesn't need defending, because you misinterpret His word.

[shubi]

Your argument has no science in it at all and your theology is worse.

Irreducible complexity was debunked a hundred years ago. It is the old "watchmaker" nonsense redux.

[shubi]

Please state the Theory of Evolution.

[Safrguns]

It is reprehensible that you call yourself a Christian and then attack a genius (Darwin).... I never mentioned Darwin... but since you did, make no mistake that he was an atheist. You demonstrate who your true god is by referring to him as a genius. ... with lies to defend a God that doesn't need defending, because you misinterpret His word. Well Shubi?... which is it? am I lying or misinterpreting? I never defended God... I attacked man's sin of pride. Sounds to me like it is YOU that is putting things in places where they don't belong, and arguing against them.

[shubi]

shubi:It is reprehensible that you call yourself a Christian and then attack a genius (Darwin)....

guns:I never mentioned Darwin... but since you did, make no mistake that he was an atheist.

I said he was a genius. I didn't opine as to his religious views. He did consider seminary and was quite devote until his son died. Then he got angry at God. But to say he was an atheist is probably a little strong. His wife was very devout and he may have accept Jesus as his lord and savior on his death bed to honor her.

guns:You demonstrate who your true god is by referring to him as a genius.

Yeah, right. Do you really think you can bully someone out of reality.


shubi:... with lies to defend a God that doesn't need defending, because you misinterpret His word.

guns:Well Shubi?... which is it? am I lying or misinterpreting?

Both.


guns:I never defended God... I attacked man's sin of pride.
Sounds to me like it is YOU that is putting things in places where they don't belong, and arguing against them.

Well, you don't defend God very well, based on a silly literalist take on the Bible.

Nice try at distraction with that last sentence. Do you want to tell us what an allele is or the definition of mutation?

[conservative_crusader]

you make me laugh... where you speak of how Judaism must be evil because it killed babies i need to remind you that the Third Reich was entirely secular and killed a heck of a lot more people than were ever killed in the old testament.

[conservative_crusader]

I really agree with a lot of what you say, but my position stands:

whether or not God used evolution or not is secondary to the need for salvation. I proved earlier in the thread that God must exist via logic (see post #126). So given that that is true the position of the atheist is incredibly shaky.

Even if the theory of evolution is correct the question that remains is the following: What created the original bacteria from which we "allegedly" evolved? My answer is since that For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, that bacteria (if it existed,) must have been created by God.

Still I don't support the TOE, I'm just saying that If it is true, it does not contradict creationism.

Now you said:"It is for this primary reason that I reject TOE. Man could NOT have descended from many sources (various tribes of apes). He must have descended from one set of parents. Otherwise Christ would have to have been Crucified for each line, perhaps even for EACH of us individually. "

Now my point is that the Apes are not humans. Even if we are evolved from them, they are not *Homo Sapien* they are *Hominidae* and other such races. Christ did not die for these, because they are not guilty of sin as humans are, Christ died for the *Homo Sapiens.*

I don't guarantee my position, and when I walk through the gates of Heaven Saint Peter may point and laugh at me, but the point remains, The TOE does not necessarily contradict creationism.

P.S. I do not believe in the TOE in matters theological or scientific. I am literally playing the part of the Devil's Advocate.

[conservative_crusader]

Also, killing people in war, is also not a sin. As a matter of fact the only killing that is actually a sin, is murder. The translations that say: "Thou shalt not kill" I believe are mistranslated. They must be or god wouldn't have commanded stoning as a punishment for some crimes, or have commanded Israel to go to war.

[conservative_crusader]

Also, killing people in war, is also not a sin. As a matter of fact the only killing that is actually a sin, is murder. The translations that say: "Thou shalt not kill" I believe are mistranslated. They must be or god wouldn't have commanded stoning as a punishment for some crimes, or have commanded Israel to go to war.

[shubi]

Placemarker

[shubi]

You are exactly right. The Hebrew word used in "Thou shalt not kill" means specifically unjustified murder.

[shubi]

The TOE contradicts literalist creationutism, mostly because they think the TOE has something to do with creation.

Also, they believe in special creation and the TOE debunks that completely.

[balrog666]

i need to remind you that the Third Reich was entirely secular and killed a heck of a lot more people than were ever killed in the old testament.

Entirely secular, you say?

Try again.

[derheimwill]

Hitler espoused the worship of the old germanic pantheon within his inner circle. He co-opted the German version of the boy scouts - a very back-to-nature group - to become his Hitlerjugend. The SS insignia is shaped like two lightning bolts: the sign of Thor. Hitler was neither secular nor Christian.

[conservative_crusader]

that is so incredibly pathetic... just because certain members of the Socialist German workers party were religious, does in no way imply that their leader was. Just because members of the KKK talk about God does not mean that every member of it is a God-fearing Christian. Yes, not only was the Third Reich entirely secular, they burned down churches, massacred Christians, and some (including Der fuhrer himself) actually became pagans during the war. Okay, sure, maybe being pagan doesn't meet your definition of "secular" but I am allowed to define my own terms. so here I define secular for myself so that you can understand it.

Secular- 1.)having nothing to do with the God of Abraham. 2.) being violently opposed to the God of Abraham.

The Third Reich meets that definition. And you don't even try to refute the point that killing is not a sin.

I label you: "A terrible excuse for a debater."

[sayfer bullets]

Why would an omniscient and omnipotent God have to continually intervene in a system He designed (evolution)?

Your argument against ID (for the purpose of defending your belief system) requires the God-connection, not mine. The "I" could be represented in many forms. It is your dogma that demands the Christian God is connected to any challenge of evolution. Like I said, evolution makes aetheism intellectually fulfilling

How could you tell if He did? ID is not science. It is an attempt to insert your cult into schools. If your kids learn ID instead of biology, they will be more stupid than my grandkids and lose all the good jobs to them.

That's a pretty stupid leap in itself. Both are belief systems and neither is proveable.

[conservative_crusader]

Yes creationism is provable... see post #126.

[sayfer bullets]

I'll have to chew on that...

Evolution as origin cannot. That I know.