Evolution and the origin of life.

[MorningGlory]

Why don

[Miss Elly]

I was always under the impression that ID was simply the scientific term for creationism.

Either way I see lots of evidence for creation, both in actual science as well as in common sense logic.

To say that there is no evidence for creation and only evidence for creation is an insult to all the ID scientists

That would be the wrong impression Sir Gareth.

For something to be scientific, it can only deal with natural phenomena. The instant you involve a supernatural force as part of the explanation, it stops being science.

Can creationism exist without involving the supernatural? If not, it isn't science.

How silly. God IS science; where do you think it came from? Like everything and everybody, science was created by the Creator.

I LOVE your answer, God is the master mind that created science, all the universes and all it's inhabitants including man. All you scientists that do not want to accept the biblical explanation for life and who do not belong to Christ Jesus, where is YOUR comfort? We true christians have the Holy Spirit in our hearts and lives, what do you have? A god of science and the mind only. How can that bring peace and joy?

Edited October 10, 2009 by Miss Elly

[Kem P]

Do you believe God was capable of creating Adam and Eve as sexually mature beings “with the appearance of age”? If He did create the first man and first woman as such – was He being “deceptive”?

Horizoneast, I once heard a pretty good response to this from an old earth creationist. He obviously believes that the God created Adam and Eve via a supernatural creation event, and that they had no evolutionary connection to any other prior organism on earth. However, he put it like this; when Adam for example was first created he probably would have looked old, however he would have measured young. For example, there are medical tests that can be performed to determine the age of a person with a reasonable degree of accuracy, depending on chromosomes and other things in the human body. When we come to the earth and the universe, it is not just that it 'looks' old, it actually measures to be old. Independent methods from different disciplines all essentially converge on the same ancient age for both, around 4.6 billion and 13.7 billion respectively.

Edited October 10, 2009 by Kem P

[CSLewis]

There is overwhelming evidence for evolution so does that make the bible not true? Does that disprove the existence of God? How about instead of worshipping this "inerrant" idol that man has created called the Bible we worship the creator of the universe? How about we ack owledge the merits of science and put our hope and faith in Christ not in the king James version of the bible

[CSLewis]

Well if you ever seek more or ever feel like something is missing in life I would just encourage you to come to an episcopal church sometime - faith and science don't have to be mutually exclusive and I definately want you to know that you are welcome anytime.

[Sir Gareth]

Lurker,

you believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, even though it is only attested to in the bible and there is no extra-biblical evidence-this one would admittadly be very hard for anyone to prove or disprove- so if you do believe this miracle despite the fact that it is impossible-without taking God into account that is-why do you not believe it is even possible for the Biblical creation story to be true? I'm not saying you have to 100% believe it, but don't you think that-if we take God into account-that genesis could be seen as quite literal?

I think God can intervene supernaturally in His creation, sometimes obviously that intervention leaves clear evidence behind and sometimes it does not simply due to the nature of the intervention itself. What should not happen if God is a god of truth is for this intervention to leave clear evidence behind indicating that it did NOT happen. I don't have a problem believing in miracles, I have a problem believing in miraculous explanations for things where clear evidence indicates otherwise. The evidence for an old earth and for evolution is overwhelming and spans vast swaths of physics, biology, archeology, chemistry, and paleontology. The only plausible explanations available are that reality is reliable or that God created an unreliable record of the universe's history that is intentionally deceptive. We have changed our interpretations of biblical teachings about the universe before based on science, prior to Copernicus the overwhelming view of scripture was that it taught geocentrism, following the irrefutable evidence that accumulated for heliocentrism we've since reconsidered our interpretations of passages that indicate a stationary earth. The acknowledgment of an old earth and of evolution is no different; acceptance of methodological naturalism in some areas does not equal acceptance of philosophical naturalism in all areas.

Lurker

I really don't see the evidence for evolution to be all that overwhelming, at least not evolution as in common ancestory evolution. The evidence in science, history, archeology and plain old common sense point more to a creator than common ancestory, and no major evidence supported by darwinists points more to darwinism than creationism.

To be honest I don't really care how old the Earth is, and to be honest I could care less if you believe in darwinian evolution, creationism or that humans are martians seeking a new home, I just want to know why you think its so neccasarry for us to believe in common ancestory.

[CSLewis]

There is overwhelming evidence for evolution so does that make the bible not true? Does that disprove the existence of God? How about instead of worshipping this "inerrant" idol that man has created called the Bible we worship the creator of the universe? How about we ack owledge the merits of science and put our hope and faith in Christ not in the king James version of the bible

Do you not think the Bible is God

[Sir Gareth]

just because the bible was not fully accepted as God's word until the 4th century ad, does not mean it was not God's word before man came to realize it as such

[Rick-Parker]

Just can't answer "yes" or "no" to the questions, can you? No answer is a "no" answer. Matthew 10:33 "But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven." I won't ask again for you have given your answer.

[~candice~]

Sorry, I get side tracked easily.

No problem.

In regards to the geneologies found in the NT I think it's important to remember that we are dealing with first century minds writing for a first century audience and not a 21 century mind writing for 21 century standards of accuracy and literal truth.

A bit confusing. There are not levels of truth. The truth is absolute, something is either true or it is not. So your view casts doubt over the literal truth of the bible genealogies. Were they true, or not? If Gen 1-11 is taken to have a didactic reading, then where in the recounted genealogies do the generations become literal truth? Isn't it rather deceptive to recount a genealogy and mix inspired prehistory and genuine history together as if it is all genuine literal truth?

Geneologies were used in that setting to establish importance and/or prestige and the Gospels support this as their geneologies differ according to the audience they are traditionally regarded as targeting.

Right, they were used to demonstrate lineage, but this doesn't mean that they are necessarily false or anything less than literally true. The genealogies of the different gospels do show the different lines of Christ (Mary and Joseph) but I don't see how this works in your favour. Mary and Joseph are real literal people. The genealogies all eventually show that Jesus is the son of Adam (the second Adam). This is taken to be real and literal.

Beyond this, the previous reasons mentioned for the nature of the creation account would still have applied in the first century; knowledge of the universe had certainly increased, but it was nowhere near the level required to actually understand a literal account of how the universe and all life was formed.

The creation account is surprisingly simple. God did it. They believe the account of creation given to Moses. Just because it is simplified, and non scientific in language, does not mean it is false.

When Christ references Adam He is always making a spiritual point, never a scientific one, which should influence how we interpret such references. . .what was their purpose? In what is their true value found; the literal accuracy of the persons named or the much grander point of an all powerful God who became fully man to die for our sins? I go with the latter.

It is up to you to demonstrate that Jesus, when referencing people and even from Gen 1-11, was making a spiritual point only, and never a literal point. Even if Jesus used these people and events to make a spiritual point, that does not make the account non-literal.

You are also left to explain why and how the didactic account joins with literal history in the bible, where the join is, and why it is not made obvious such that one could not call God deceitful by arranging His Word in this manner. I really wish you had put some more into your answer... there are many accounts in the NT where creation and Gen 1-11 are mentioned literally that you could have accounted for.