Christians battle each other over evolution

[Gauntlet]

Logically evolution makes very good sense.

What was a human before he became human?

Describe the mental state of Adam before he realized he was naked.

So Adam was not a human being before the fall?

A small child of will run around the house naked, not a care in the world. He simply doesn't realize what he is yet. Of course he's human, but he doesn't think of himself that way just yet. Small children are totally un-selfconscious and as they grow up they become more and more self-conscious. When I was that age, I used to take baths with my sisters. We had no idea about sex, so being naked in each other's presence was a non-issue.

[Guest shiloh357]

Are you serious? Mankind as a society and culture rejected God's word long ago that boat sailed with the enlightenment hundreds of years ago.

I didn't say it was the ONLY means by which man challenges God's integrity. I did not even say there were not previous attempts to do so now. The fact is Evolution IS a challenge to God's integrity.

Mankind has already successfully challenged what the bible says about the resurrection of Christ,

No they have not successully challenged it. In order for their challenge to be successful, they would needed to have proved that Jesus did not rise from the dead. They have tried to refute the Bible on that issue, but they have failed in every attempt.

they already teach as fact that the earth is millions of years old and that human beings first came about 10,000 or so years ago, this is taught as fact in pretty much all academic life.

Which doesn't necessarily make it true.

How far will you get as a student in a university today by talking about virgin births and men rising from the dead?

I guess you have to decide between pleasing man and pleasing God. You can either believe the Bible or you can believe man. "Choose this day whom you will serve...."

Of course the world challenges the concept of sin; the idea of sin has already been totally rejected by our culture. You act as if we are living in a Christian society and culture that is just now being challenged by these things; I think you are about 500 years too late.

That is ridiculous. I never said that this was the first attempt and I did not imply such either. Maybe you need to invest in some reading comprehension classes.

[Guest man]

He may have a childlike being in a man's body until he ate of the forbidden fruit from the Tree of Knowlede.

The topic here is the evolution of a species, not the evolution of sin.

[Guest shiloh357]

It is not a "distraction." That is not the problem

The problem is that Evolution is seen by those opposed to biblical Christianity as an escape from accountability before the Universal Moral Lawgiver and the Judge of all mankind.

It is not a distraction at all, but rather a smokescreen. If mankind can successfully challenge what the Bible says about man's origin, he then has a right to challenge what the Bible says about sin.

Evolution is a challenge to God's credibility. If God cannot get it right when it comes to where man comes from, if God can be shown to fallible in the very first chapter of the Bible, then what right does God have to define sin and hold man accountable for it?

Very good insight, shiloh!

If Genesis can be unravelled by the intellect, does that mean the entire Book comes unravelled? IN other words, what is the absolute linchpin of Scripture as a whole-- Genesis or Jesus? I tend to think that Christ is the one element that holds it all together. If just that one element where removed, the Bible would come unravelled.

The Bible is a system of progressive revelation, meaning that it builds on itself. Genesis is the seedbed for rest of Scripture. It is the foundation. If the foundation is in error, then everything built on that foundation will be in error as well. The Bible is not a disjointed set of documents. It is one unified book with several concurrent and interlocking themes. You cannot unravel one with out doing violence to the rest. So yes, the creation account (which is the foundation for redemption) is an important "lynch pin" that is fundamental to the Christian faith.

[Guest man]

Logically evolution makes very good sense.

What was a human before he became human?

[Gauntlet]

He may have a childlike being in a man's body until he ate of the forbidden fruit from the Tree of Knowlede.

The topic here is the evolution of a species, not the evolution of sin.

Genesis shows that sin is inherent to the existence of Man. If the Fall of Eden was pre-ordained, the sin-nature of mankind was also pre-ordained. Or am I wrong?

[Guest man]

He may have a childlike being in a man's body until he ate of the forbidden fruit from the Tree of Knowlede.

The topic here is the evolution of a species, not the evolution of sin.

Genesis shows that sin is inherent to the existence of Man. If the Fall of Eden was pre-ordained, the sin-nature of mankind was also pre-ordained. Or am I wrong?

The topic here is the evolution of a species, not the evolution of sin.

[Guest shiloh357]

But I believe in a literal 6 day creation. I also believe in the literal understanding of the Body and Blood of Christ so if you want to talk about taking things literally or not..... I guess we all pick and choose in that area.

I don't. The Bible is not a smorgasboard.

But evolution says nothing about how or why.

Which highlights it inferiority to Scripture. The Bible answers BOTH of those questions and more.

It is simply a theory of a process based on both fossil records and observed experiments. Biological entities do evolve, this has been shown in the lab, and it is not totally without merit.

What has been "observed" is microevolution within a species. There is not ONE observed case of a lizards turning to birds, or vice versa. I don't suppose though as far as macroevolution is concerned that it has occurred to anyone that the evidence is being misinterpreted.

Collins was the head the human Genome project; he is a respected scientist and a Christian. I guess now the new Litmus test to be a Christian is if you don't totally reject evolution?

A serious evolutionist cannot believe in the inerrancy or infalibility of the Bible. I have NEVER met a "theistic evolutionist" who was able to say that they believe the Bible is fully the Word of God. That opens up some serious problems all on its own. In fact, the theistic evolutionists I have met are usually very liberal in just about every area of their life.

Most Christians including you guys are not scientifically qualified to make scientific judgments in that way.

I am not making a scientific judgment. There are some essential, defining elements to the Christian faith that cannot be compromised. Evolution as it is defined by its mainstream, orthodox proponents precludes a belief in God, much less a relationship with God.

You are qualified however as I am to say what God says, and that is what I believe, but that does not mean we cannot look at what the scientific process comes up with and accept it for what it is. I don't see the big deal?

When a scientific process is predicated on the absence of a Creator (such as Evolution is), then it cannot be acceptable for a true Christian.

I think my analogy is a pretty good one.

No it is not, as it is completely dissimilar to the topc of Evolution

Medical science TOTALLY rejects both the Virgin birth and the Resurrection and ascension of Christ, not to mention His miracles, and the soul of a human being. But we do not totally reject medical science as a tool.

No medical science does not "reject" those things. It cannot explain them, but it does not "reject" them. That is an overstatement on your part. Medical science simply tries to heal the Body. Evolution, on the other hand deals with where man came from. You cannot compare that with medical science.

[Gauntlet]

Logically evolution makes very good sense.

What was a human before he became human?

Before he he realized he was human, the human was an un-enlightened savage. In other words, sentient but not sapient. Lacking the epiphany of self-knowledge. What does it mean to be human? He does not know yet.

[Guest shiloh357]

Logically evolution makes very good sense.

What was a human before he became human?

Before he he realized he was human, the human was an un-enlightened savage. In other words, sentient but not sapient. Lacking the epiphany of self-knowledge. What does it mean to be human? He does not know yet.

Not hardly. Gauntlet, do you read the Bible? Adam was created perfect and sinless. The Bible does not say he was an "unenlightened savage." Adam was very intelligent and created in God's image and fully human. I don't know where you get your information, but you really need to read the scriptures to get an accurate understanding of these things.