Does evolution contradict creationism?

Talk Origins ^ | 1998 | Warren Kurt VonRoeschlaub

[shubi]

As a Dr. of Ministry, I think your assertion that there is not enough sin is ludicrous. I work in the inner city. There is still plenty of sin for Christ to die for.

Science never proves anything. The Theory of Evolution explains how life formed after creation of the first life on this planet.

There are over 100 observed speciations.

[shubi]

And I am sure Jesus will not know you when you get to the pearly gates. It will be like Bill Cosby's volkswagen backwards into the bay experience.

Xenia: "I believed in the heresy that the Bible was nonsense and the Ark contained all the species on earth 5000 years ago"

St.Peter: "You go to hell"

[Uri’el-2012]

I

pray,

 Abba, Father,

Creator of the universe,

send your Ruach haKodesh

to warm the heart of shubi

and remove the scales from his eyes

to your word as it is written.

I ask these things in the

Holy Name of Your Son

The Word of G-d:

Y’shua haMashiach

 

Bondslave to the Christ

chuck

[shubi]

LOL, I pray that you will stop judging the salvation of others and leave it to God. I pray that you will stop trying to force people to believe nonsense by condemning them to hell. I pray that you will not end up in hell for heresy.

[Jehu]

My assertion is that sin came into the earth through one man, therefor it could be removed by ONE man. As a "Dr. of Ministry"? don't you even understand the premise of original sin? God does not disobey his own principles and laws.

He does not wave a magic wand over each person, over each sin in all minute details. God is scientific and redemption is more like an equation: Sin came into humanity through Adam. Sin can therefor be canceled for the WHOLE human race by one man...Christ. It is a matter of transference and substitution. If God was capricious He could just wave His hand and make all the bad go away.

If it was easy to cleanse us and the universe of sin do you think God would not have found another way than torturing and killing Himself in a human body? It is a very real thing...for anyone who believes, all your evil, every evil thought and act, all your hatred, bitterness, unforgivingness, lust, pride, insecurity goes onto Christ at that moment of time 2,000 years ago. Or you retain it yourself...and that Dr IS Hell.

This pertains to evolution in that if we descended from tribes of apes...then where and who did the original sin? From which line? Why are all sinners? Wouldn't some lines have stayed pure? If sin came from many sources, then Christ would have to address each source, He would have to have been crucified hundreds, even thousands, of times in human history. That did not happen. So evolution as proposed by current pseudoscience did not happen either.

Natural speciation has NEVER been observed...Gypsy Moths not withstanding. Any speciation that science says has taken place, did so by manipulation by man (who in this instance takes the role of the creator), or it is simply a labeling game, or the observation of variability within a species.

Also your statement: "Science never proves anything. The Theory of Evolution explains how life formed after creation of the first life on this planet."

Is in error, evolution, among other things, tries to describe the process whereby inanimate matter became the first living cell. Something that is mathematically impossible by natural forces alone.

[shubi]

I understand the theological construct of original sin, but I don't think an adapted pagan tale is definitive in understanding it.

I think the original sin IS our animal nature. Then God breathed His spirit into us and made us able to know Him.
Thus, evolution falls right into line with Genesis 1 and the Adam and Eve part tells us about the Spirit, which makes the difference between animals and Man.

The Bible is mostly concerned with spiritual instruction, not science.

[Jehu]

The Bible is not a compilation of "adapted pagan tales." Quite the reverse. All of your pagan tales have ridiculous exaggerations, a near fairy tale flavor. (Gilgamesh Epic for example)

The Biblical accounts are the REAL story, and are embedded in real human history, the people of the Bible actually existed. The pagan tales are the distorted word of mouth from generation to generation. I think your unbelief is apparent in your statement.

For myself I am quite confident that God has the power and foresight to make sure the REAL story was made available to man, to those that seek. To you the Bible appears to be just another account among many, half myth, half allegory.

Why even bother with believing in God if you faith is so half-assed? Why not just be another mediocre intellectual, preening and displaying your "superior intellect"? Why bother with all of this? Either God is who He says He is, or it is all a lie. Get off the fence my friend.

[shubi]

"The Bible is not a compilation of "adapted pagan tales." Quite the reverse. All of your pagan tales have ridiculous exaggerations, a near fairy tale flavor. (Gilgamesh Epic for example)"

There you go again! I didn't say the Bible is a compilation of adapted pagan tales. I said Adam and Eve were adapted from a know earlier pagan tale.

Why bother believing in God if you don't think he has enough power to create evolution?

[stockpirate]

Evolution and the Big bang are BS and not backed by any form of fact. The Big Bang can be proved wrong in a matter of seconds and evolution is not based on any real knowledge. A person that does not believe in JUNK science can still believe in God.

[PatrickHenry]

The Big Bang can be proved wrong in a matter of seconds ...

I've got a few seconds to spare. If you've got the proof, I'd like to see it.

[VadeRetro]

The man's busy writing his Nobel Prize winning journal article! [Nudge! Nudge!] Better leave him alone so he can finish.

[longshadow]

"waiting with bated breath" placemarker

[Voice in your head]

That was directed to me?

[shubi]

Evolution is as true as any concept of science. It has attained the highest status in science-Theory.

The Big Bang is not a theory, but a hypothesis.

Nothing can be "proved" wrong except a mathematics formula.
So, please falsify the Theory of Evolution for us. No one has been able to do so in over 150 years. But I am sure with the brilliant insights and writings you have done so far, you will be the one to succeed.

[shubi]

Someone questioned the technical reasons for translating day in Genesis 1 as indefinite period of time. I thought you would be interested in one of the reasons: The key to understanding the series of Yoms in Genesis is in Genesis 2:4 where it says: These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, The Holy Bible : King James Version. 1995 (Ge 2:4). Logos Research Systems, Inc.: Oak Harbor, WA The only conclusion that can be drawn is that Yom in the first chapter also means an indefinite period of time, for God did not make everything in ONE day according to Gen 1. He made it in seven "days". Yet in verse four of Gen 2 the Bible contradicts itself if you insist on a one day (24 hr day)translation. I choose not to have the Bible contradict itself, but to be consistent. I choose to believe that my God is smarter than I am and everyone else. I think God would not make such a simple mistake from one moment to the next. So the only translation that can be made, if one believes in God, is to translate each "day" as a period of time. Then when the summary comes in verse Gen2:4 it translates as "in the period God made", referring to the seven periods previously mentioned. If Genesis first seven "days" were really days, then Genesis 2:4 would have had to say days and not day (yomim not yom). This is only one of several reasons the only conclusion that can be drawn without making God inconsistent or a "liar" is that YOM MEANS PERIOD in this context.

[shubi]

"Also your statement: "Science never proves anything. The Theory of Evolution explains how life formed after creation of the first life on this planet."

Is in error, evolution, among other things, tries to describe the process whereby inanimate matter became the first living cell. Something that is mathematically impossible by natural forces alone."

The Theory of (Biological) Evolution does not contain and never has contained speculation on original life formation. You, like all creationists, are creating a strawman argument.
You and the others have purposely left off the last word of Darwin's "Origin of Species" and substituted a new title "Origin of Life". Then you have gone on to rewrite the rest of Darwin's book with other twists, distortions, misrepresentations and out and out lies.

[eagle11]

"...if another theory replaces evolution, the new theory must somehow explain why the current theory passed all the tests. So any new theory that replaces evolution would have to explain why it works so well..."

[eagle11]

Darwin proposed the theory of evolution to explain the diversity of species in the Families, Orders and Geni established by zoologists decades earlier. It provides evidence for how the process of evolution works, not why. Evolution does not (and cannot) explain how life originated. You're asking more of the theory than it can provide, something an honest scientist, or student of evolution would not do.

[Reuben Hick]

Nothing can be "proved" wrong except a mathematics formula.

So, please falsify the Fact of Creation for us. No one has been able to do so in over 5600 years.

So, please falsify the Theory of Evolution for us. No one has been able to do so in over 150 years.

So far you have been batting a .000 on the simple questions concerning your religion of Evolution. It seems that no one has been able to prove the Theory of Evolution (hence it is only a "theory" and generously allowed to be so) in one hundred and fifty years.

[shubi]

Right! Creationism and ID are not helpful in explaining the chronological systematic changes in species over millions of years.

The only thing they propose is who created original life, which is not part of the biological Theory of Evolution.

There is a lot of evidence that God exists and could create original life on Earth. It is not scientific evidence. In fact, if creationists got what they wanted, there would be no merit to faith. If God was definitatively shown to exist
who would not believe? OH! I know, the people who despite mountains of evidence don't think evolution happened.

In other words, it is exactly the same ignorant skepticism that keeps a silly Bible interpretation going that would deny God if scientific evidence of His existence were shown.