Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: nmh
“People who assert evolution have a fundamental problem: origins. Their theory depends upon life appearing spontaneously from non-living matter. Nothing they can say about subsequent life forms on this planet change that fact. Yet, they artfully dodge this essential issue by saying they don’t deal in origins, even as their faith in the secular depends on the very origin they refuse to consider.”

Indeed!

ONLY God, ceates life.

This is where I just don't understand thumpers!

If God created The Universe and therefore every particle of matter and energy in it. Then when life sprang from the primordial cauldron three billion years ago, how could that not be God creating life through evolution? Why should that diminish one's faith?

How could any person of faith attempt to ascribe to God one method of implementing His plan over another?

How is it possible they do not see that Science has only validated the existence of God? "The Big Bang" was the moment at the beginning of time that God Created everything from. This singular causality fits quite adequately in Genesis if you do not attempt to pigeonhole God. Other Biblical evolutions are clearly bolstered by Darwin's Theory running parallel and true. You need not cast around for Magic Aliens or Intelligent Designers when it only took one Creator just as Genesis first explained and Science has not negated.

108 posted on 04/17/2008 2:23:23 PM PDT by higgmeister (In the Shadow of The Big Chicken!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]


To: higgmeister

“If God created The Universe and therefore every particle of matter and energy in it. Then when life sprang from the primordial cauldron three billion years ago, how could that not be God creating life through evolution? Why should that diminish one’s faith?”

Where do you get this “primordial cauldron” idea and “three billion” years ago? My God SPOKE it into existence in 7, 24 hour days. He didn’t need “three billion” years to get His act together. Nor is He an “ape”. I and He are not the image of an ape. What you chose to believe - “three billion years” ago and this “primordial cauldron “ spells out rather clearly that you have NO faith. YOU just don’t see it or want to admit it.

“How could any person of faith attempt to ascribe to God one method of implementing His plan over another?”

A person of “faith” believes what He says. It takes away from the mulitpke choices that evolutionists got through all the time.

Creation and what Genesis states has NOTHING in common with Darwin or evolution. The choice is yours. Believe what you wish. My God delivers on what He says. I don’t know who your god is ... .


109 posted on 04/17/2008 2:43:24 PM PDT by nmh (Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies ]

To: higgmeister
This is where I just don't understand thumpers!

If God created The Universe and therefore every particle of matter and energy in it. Then when life sprang from the primordial cauldron three billion years ago, how could that not be God creating life through evolution? Why should that diminish one's faith?

It shouldn't indeed, but modern biblical literalists simply ignore the contradiction you aptly point out.

Here's yet another example: The Bible repeatedly uses creationistic language to describe God's making of individual human beings in the womb. Pardon my laziness in not looking up all the verses for you just now, but you could probably google them fairly easily. They're mostly the same widely used as anti-abortion "proof texts," and thus are often collected and quoted together. Anyway it's stuff like God saying, or it being said of God (again, pardon approximate quotes) that "He knits you together of bone and sinew," and "forms your inwards parts," or "made you in that secret place (the womb)" and such like.

Granted much of this language is poetic, but nevertheless it is clearly teaching that God is actively, intimately and personally involved in the creation of individual human beings in the womb, and of their physical bodies, not just their "spirits".

Thus, by the same logic that Biblical literalists object to evolution, because it "denies" God by substituting a "purely natural" process in the creation of the human species, they OUGHT to also object to the teaching of embryology as a natural scientific phenomena with no explicit place for God. This "denies" the Bible as much as evolution does, in some respects more.

But of course they don't object to teaching embryology in science classes; even though this is abritrary and contradictory.

Oh, another fun example, although in this case, unlike God's forming fetuses, an isolated one: There is, IIRC, a verse in the book of Amos which asserts that, "God creates the wind." I believe the verb here is a form of the same one used in Genesis, which Biblical literalists sometimes insist ONLY refers to "special" creation or creation "ex nihilo;" that is direct and miraculous creative acts by God, or those that involve creation "out of nothing".

Thus meteorology is also atheistic and denies God and denies the Bible.

122 posted on 04/17/2008 4:50:59 PM PDT by Stultis (I don't worry about the war turning into "Vietnam" in Iraq; I worry about it doing so in Congress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson