Arguments against Theistic Evolution

[KingJ]

Creationist Christians are not driven by a hatred for science, but by a love for God and His word. We accept that scripture is not an encyclopedia of all there is to know but what it does state is inspired by God and cannot be ignored.

2 Pet 1:21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit and 2 Tim 3:16 / John 1:1 / John 14:26.

Claims by evolutionists that oppose scripture require us to properly test them 1 John 4:1. So far there is not a single claim that does not require an element of faith.

Theistic evolution (TE) as described by Francis Collins is 'the position that "evolution is real, but that it was set in motion by God", and "Theistic evolution, which accepts that evolution occurred as biologists describe it, but under the direction of God".

True evolutionists cannot accept evolution is inspired by, or guided by God.

I have prepared a short list of my arguments against TE:

1. Jesus was planned before the foundations of the world for us. It took God billions of years of slow / cruel natural selection to put that plan in action?

2. Scripture teaches a fundamental gap between humans and animals. Not a gradual transition from animal to man.

- Adam was the first man. He cannot be a metaphor. He is mentioned repeatedly in scripture as a historical person Luke 3:23-38 / Rom 5:12-19. Text of his lineage places him at 4004 bc. Not the claimed 200 000 bc when the first fossils of modern man were found in Ethiopia.
- Mankind was created just beneath the angels. Not evolved to a point beneath the angels.
- Mankind was created in the image of God. Now we mixing an ape with the image of God? Adam never sought counsel when he fell from sin with his ape father. Adam never kept his ape father as a pet.
- Eve miraculously evolved at the same time to be a fitting / accountable for sin wife?
- Evolution will never teach that there were ever just two humans…which would then contradict not only Genesis but also Jesus in Matt 19:4.

3. TE's believe God has a guiding hand in evolution. Evolution says no evidence and TE's are forced to believe in an evil God responsible for terrible mutations and natural selection. As opposed to evil man who fell from grace and whose sin corrupted the earth.

4. Repercussions of the fall of man. Evolution will never accept a time as described in the garden of Eden, before sin entered.

Mankind had direct communion and fellowship with God. Mankind had no need to 'work the land', woman would have no pain in childbirth. Mankind went from good to bad in an instant. No evolving altruism.
God looked at the earth and said ''It was good'' Gen 1:31. Would He have said that if there was cruel natural selection taking place?

5. The soul. At which point in our evolution does the eternal soul enter the body?

6. The Literality of the Bible and Other Myths.

Giving parts or all of Genesis an allegorical interpretation, as required by TE, generates deeper problems. Is there any nonarbitrary, independent standard through which we can distinguish between allegorical and literal truths in the Bible? The Bible itself usually gives us no hint of how to decide between these two options. For example, did Jesus literally rise from the dead, or is the Resurrection story merely a metaphor for the political ascent of the poor? Since the text itself gives no indication that either the Resurrection story, the Flood narrative, or the Creation narrative are intended only allegorically, by letting in such sweeping allegorical interpretations, the believer removes the ground under his own feet. When an "sacred" history appears to be no history at all, only myth remains.

From the temptation of Adam and Eve in the Garden, the most effective way to undermine and destroy the Word of God is to question His Creation including the instructions He gave Adam when he was made. Satan was the first one to start this undermining of God’s Word and authority as recorded in Gen. 3:1 – He said to the woman, “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?”

Conclusion: Give the devil your hand and he will come for your arm! Evolution is a sick child that atheists are forcing science to carry.

Good articles for further reading: http://creationrevolution.com/2011/01/creation-compromises-–-the-gap-theory-theistic-evolution/
http://creation.com/biblical-problems-for-theistic-evolution-and-progressive-creation
http://infidels.org/library/modern/bart_klink/evolution.html

This is meant as friendly discussion, not a debate. I will ask mods to remove sarcastic / heated replies.

 

[HammerStone]

This is the problem with Young Earth Creationism (YEC) for me, as it becomes an issue of both having cake and eating it, too.

Creationist Christians are not driven by a hatred for science, but by a love for God and His word. We accept that scripture is not an encyclopedia of all there is to know but what it does state is inspired by God and cannot be ignored.

Fair enough statement, but the first sentence is a restatement of the same point that leads off every creation posting. The negative suggestion is that theistic evolutionists don't value the Word of God(a-la ignore it) highly enough and therefore have a deficient view of God because they don't read Genesis as a science book. This is problematic because even the historical church allowed disagreement.

Both the theistic evolutionist and young earth creationist affirm that a sovereign God is creator. This is the extent of what should be a closed-handed issue. To go beyond and fence off the area of YEC as the only way of reading Genesis 1 elevates a particular reading of Scripture to an almost salvational level. I missed the passage where Jesus said that he died on the cross so that through faith and an absolute modernist literal view of Genesis would be needed to enter the pearly gates.

To specifically address your points:

1) This is a moot point. God is atemporal and infinite. You're playing around with knowing the thoughts or thought process of God. We cannot comprehend a being that knows the same 500 trillion years ago as he does now. Jesus is eternally begotten (Nicene Creed) and that's a long time ago.

2) Yes, it does do this if it is read with a certain interpretive lens. However, the application of that lens is determine by the genre of literature. For instance, the parables of Jesus are often, but not always explained, letting us know that the figurative subject of the stories was not real. On the other hand, the genre of Genesis is a creation account, which may include both literal elements (God created regardless of evolution or YEC) and figurative elements (how long was a day?). The genre of Genesis is not a science book. It's difficult for the Bible to stand without a literal Adam, but the Bible does not fall if the days of Genesis become years, a thousand years or one million years.

3) This is wrong and a straw man.

4) This account does not account for the fall. Evolution may have been perfected prior to the fall. We know that all creation eagerly groans (Romans 8:19-21), so the process of evolution would have been clearly affected by the fall. In fact, it would explain the introduction of disease and is profound to think what forces perhaps influence the observable evolution of say one of these super virii.

5) The same point that it does for creation. When God says so.

6) The most effective way to undermine the Bible is to use it as a tool to bludgeon views that deny all forms of observable reality. We don't have to 100% embrace every determination of science on faith, but at the same time we do not need to use the Bible as a tool to deny something in another arena, particularly when there is legitimate ambiguity and an ultimate agreement that God did it, either way.

Give the devil your hand and he will come for your arm! Evolution is a sick child that atheists are forcing science to carry.

Not a knock on you, like I know it perhaps sounds, but this reminds me of a local Original Free Will Baptist Church (yes, this is a denomination with all capitalized word) that has something similar on their new church sign. It reads: "Give the devil a ride, and he will drive." (Slightly paraphrased.) While I understand this assertion, this church has maybe 4-5 cars in front of it every Sunday. It doesn't reach out and it has never grown or been viewed (to my knowledge, and I am somewhat of a church geek) actively doing much of anything in the community. If we are turning off people because of something that may be somewhat unclear, then we are doing the faith a disservice. Idol hands are tools of the devil, as many of those Free Will Baptists will say, too.

We'll keep an eye on this thread and all of them.

 

[snr5557]

I have prepared a short list of my arguments against TE:

1. Jesus was planned before the foundations of the world for us. It took God billions of years of slow / cruel natural selection to put that plan in action?

Why wouldn't He? He is the creator of the universe, why must He rush a plan? He has all the time in the universe. Although there is an argument that He is outside of time, but I'm not familiar enough with it to really discuss it.

2. Scripture teaches a fundamental gap between humans and animals. Not a gradual transition from animal to man.

- Adam was the first man. He cannot be a metaphor. He is mentioned repeatedly in scripture as a historical person Luke 3:23-38 / Rom 5:12-19. Text of his lineage places him at 4004 bc. Not the claimed 200 000 bc when the first fossils of modern man were found in Ethiopia.

I have a question for you on this point, do you think that those fossils are a fake? Or that God put them there to confuse others?
- Mankind was created just beneath the angels. Not evolved to a point beneath the angels.

Humans evolved, but angels are a higher being. I don't see the issue with this.
- Mankind was created in the image of God. Now we mixing an ape with the image of God?

So we have evolved to the point where we look like God. Why not?
.

- Eve miraculously evolved at the same time to be a fitting / accountable for sin wife?

I think I can see the misunderstanding here.

In evolution, it's not like a male and female of a species evolve at the exact same time. The evolution of a species is a gradual process. When an organism gains a new trait, it is not automatically a new species. However, if the descendants of this organism continue to gain more unique traits for that particular species, it will eventually branch off into a different species. Those organisms who are beginning to branch off will reproduce together, because naturally a species will want to reproduce with a mate that is likely to produce children with good traits. Eventually, those organisms will be so different that it would not be possible to reproduce with the species it came from, because it is a different species. Since there are many individual organisms in a species, they would have other individuals to reproduce with.

Hopefully I explained that clearly enough.

- Evolution will never teach that there were ever just two humans…which would then contradict not only Genesis but also Jesus in Matt 19:4.

True, there probably was not a single male and a single female in this process. However, He does not say, "God made one female and one male" in Matt 19:4, He just said them. And technically, them just means more than one.

What about hermaphrodites? Aren't they both male and female? Where do they fit into all of this? I hadn't thought of them until just now. What if they want to get married (which they do), would you stop them because technically, wouldn't they be homosexual since they are both genders? If they married a female, and since they are a girl, they could not get married. At the same time, if they wanted to marry a male, they could not, because they are male as well.

I don't remember the Bible talking about hermaphrodites, so if you know of it tell me.
3. TE's believe God has a guiding hand in evolution. Evolution says no evidence and TE's are forced to believe in an evil God responsible for terrible mutations and natural selection. As opposed to evil man who fell from grace and whose sin corrupted the earth.

I would not say that all mutations are terrible, humanity exists because of it. Do people do bad things, yes. And no one is trying to claim otherwise.
I don't recall anyone calling God evil.

4. Repercussions of the fall of man. Evolution will never accept a time as described in the garden of Eden, before sin entered.

Again, evolution is a process. It cannot accept anything, because it does not think.

Mankind had direct communion and fellowship with God. Mankind had no need to 'work the land', woman would have no pain in childbirth. Mankind went from good to bad in an instant. No evolving altruism.
God looked at the earth and said ''It was good'' Gen 1:31. Would He have said that if there was cruel natural selection taking place?

Natural selection is cruel, but it's beautiful as well. It's a wonderful process when you look at it, so I think He would say that it was good. Plus, humans are on top of the food chain, so I would say that natural selection worked in our favor.

But on this point I can agree with you, why would He have so much suffering? Sadly no one has really been able to give me a good answer to this, but I know they have tried their best. I have C.S. Lewis's A problem of pain back home, and I plan on reading it. Hopefully he might be able to shed some light on this, but to be honest I doubt it.

5. The soul. At which point in our evolution does the eternal soul enter the body?

Not sure, I guess when we officially became human. But I have not studied the evolution of man in depth, so I could not point you to a specific time period.
6. The Literality of the Bible and Other Myths.

Giving parts or all of Genesis an allegorical interpretation, as required by TE, generates deeper problems. Is there any nonarbitrary, independent standard through which we can distinguish between allegorical and literal truths in the Bible? The Bible itself usually gives us no hint of how to decide between these two options. For example, did Jesus literally rise from the dead, or is the Resurrection story merely a metaphor for the political ascent of the poor? Since the text itself gives no indication that either the Resurrection story, the Flood narrative, or the Creation narrative are intended only allegorically, by letting in such sweeping allegorical interpretations, the believer removes the ground under his own feet. When an "sacred" history appears to be no history at all, only myth remains.

From the temptation of Adam and Eve in the Garden, the most effective way to undermine and destroy the Word of God is to question His Creation including the instructions He gave Adam when he was made. Satan was the first one to start this undermining of God’s Word and authority as recorded in Gen. 3:1 – He said to the woman, “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?”

It's nice to see where you are coming from. From how I read this, you believe that if the Bible itself is not literal, you would be forced to accept it as a myth. We may have already discussed that, but I don't always remember who said what, so I'll just say it again.

I know that we have talked about this on other threads, but I'll tell you once again that just because a person does not take the Bible literally, does not mean that person does not believe in God.

However, I don't think that because the Bible itself does not instruct in the method of reading it, that the only way to interpret it is your way.

Thank you for the third article. I found it thought provoking, and I'll definitely be looking into the arguments they have made.

 

[Mr.Bride]

So Snr, you believe we came from apes?

 

[KingJ]

Fair enough statement, but the first sentence is a restatement of the same point that leads off every creation posting. The negative suggestion is that theistic evolutionists don't value the Word of God(a-la ignore it) highly enough and therefore have a deficient view of God because they don't read Genesis as a science book. This is problematic because even the historical church allowed disagreement.

Disagreement within reason. Where scripture states X. X remains as fact until one can prove that scripture also states Y. Scripture is X and Y 2 Tim 3:16.

Both the theistic evolutionist and young earth creationist affirm that a sovereign God is creator. This is the extent of what should be a closed-handed issue.

Not by a long shot. We draw a line on the beginning and end of scripture as a close handed issue Rev 22:19. Example: If we read Matt 4 we find that the devil shut his mouth when Jesus said 'it is written'.

To go beyond and fence off the area of YEC as the only way of reading Genesis 1 elevates a particular reading of Scripture to an almost salvational level. I missed the passage where Jesus said that he died on the cross so that through faith and an absolute modernist literal view of Genesis would be needed to enter the pearly gates.

At least you would read and deal with scripture. Others don't do that! We would both agree that respecting God's word is tied to respecting God.

To specifically address your points:

1) This is a moot point. God is atemporal and infinite. You're playing around with knowing the thoughts or thought process of God. We cannot comprehend a being that knows the same 500 trillion years ago as he does now. Jesus is eternally begotten (Nicene Creed) and that's a long time ago.

God allowing billions of years of cruel natural selection to take place is against the grain of scripture and its defining of His nature.

Evil exists on the earth because of mankinds and the fallen angels sin, not God. To assume God is behind natural selection with mankind over any length of time prior to mankind's fall, is to accuse God of being evil. This may sound too simple, but God is good Psalm 136:1 He is not evil. We must let scripture define God. We can / must apply it's definition of Him to every unknown circumstance.

2) Yes, it does do this if it is read with a certain interpretive lens. However, the application of that lens is determine by the genre of literature. For instance, the parables of Jesus are often, but not always explained, letting us know that the figurative subject of the stories was not real. On the other hand, the genre of Genesis is a creation account, which may include both literal elements (God created regardless of evolution or YEC) and figurative elements (how long was a day?). The genre of Genesis is not a science book. It's difficult for the Bible to stand without a literal Adam, but the Bible does not fall if the days of Genesis become years, a thousand years or one million years.

Genesis 5 is very literal on the age of man. Reading anything in a non-literal manner is bordering heresy. Unless we can say it is 'also' written as explained above. The only clear exceptions are for example where John would use his current vocabulary to explain future events. Many dragons and such could be Apache helicopters. John would not be impressed if anyone did not take his message literally with some common sense on his words used.

Adam can't be older then 5500 bc. The human population, technology, Genesis 5, so long before a worthy man (Abraham) was found?

3) This is wrong and a straw man.

The chief point here is that evolutionists are not your friends. They would think you mad / would never postulate that God has a guiding hand in evolution. Then as explained above, how can we believe God has a guiding hand in barbaric / evil natural selection? If God is for it, why does Jesus teach us to turn the left cheek. Natural selection is 100% against the nature of God and 100% in favour of the devil's nature.

6) The most effective way to undermine the Bible is to use it as a tool to bludgeon views that deny all forms of observable reality. We don't have to 100% embrace every determination of science on faith, but at the same time we do not need to use the Bible as a tool to deny something in another arena, particularly when there is legitimate ambiguity and an ultimate agreement that God did it, either way.

Can you show me where is proof of God's guiding hand in evolution?

I am certainly not for bludgeoning science with scripture. There is a huge difference though between evolution and science.

Science = find a fossil of a dinosaur = lets try date it with our best estimation = oh its likely millions of years old = there were dinosaurs on earth and they were likely millions of years ago.

Evolution = find a fossil = always assume it is millions / billions of years old = its our ancestors.

Evolution = atheist god of the gaps.

A belief system that reeks of satanism = pride / natural selection / living this one life to the maximum... so sin all you want.

 

[snr5557]

The chief point here is that evolutionists are not your friends.

Evolution = atheist god of the gaps. A belief system Christians don't need to entertain or waste time discussing.

A belief system that reeks of satanism = pride / natural selection / living this one life to the maximum... so sin all you want.

Please remember that, "This is meant as friendly discussion, not a debate."

 

[KingJ]

Please remember that, "This is meant as friendly discussion, not a debate."

You replied to early, I edited that piece a bit .

What about hermaphrodites? Aren't they both male and female? Where do they fit into all of this? I hadn't thought of them until just now. What if they want to get married (which they do), would you stop them because technically, wouldn't they be homosexual since they are both genders? If they married a female, and since they are a girl, they could not get married. At the same time, if they wanted to marry a male, they could not, because they are male as well.

I don't remember the Bible talking about hermaphrodites, so if you know of it tell me.

We are all to follow 1 Cor 11:31 and Phil 2:12 on all blurry matters. Hermaphrodites are from weak genes. They can kneel honestly before God and choose the sex they are leaning towards.

But on this point I can agree with you, why would He have so much suffering? Sadly no one has really been able to give me a good answer to this, but I know they have tried their best. I have C.S. Lewis's A problem of pain back home, and I plan on reading it. Hopefully he might be able to shed some light on this, but to be honest I doubt it.

God is not evil. Fallen angels and humans are. If there is any suffering it is linked to us. Sin first entered this world when the devil was put here. The world was prepared / cleaned up for mankind / or made afresh and it was like a sanctified virgin. Until Adam sinned. We would all have done what Adam did. As scripture says in 1 John 1:8.

God knew the fall of man was en route. That is why we were made in a temporary flesh. Lions lay with lambs, yet had teeth. But knowing it and causing us to sin are two very different matters. He cannot be guilty of making us for hell or causing us to sin, it goes against His morale code which He upholds to the maximum as proven by the cross.

So who is to blame?

Gruesome suffering of children / woman / babies in WW2 = Hitler and those who obeyed his orders.
Thousands killed by a hurricane = Adam / us.
Egyptians disobeying Moses = God.

God's wrath comes upon many on earth who are 'beyond hope'. It starts off with plagues / warnings at increasing levels of severity and results in death. This is seen throughout the OT.

As for God's wrath on children and animals. OT they would suffer destruction wtih the parents / owners. But unlike their parents they all go to heaven.

How can God allow children and animals to suffer by others hands? We can ask that of all who have suffered. There are many good men and woman who have died cruel deaths. God has given all free will and the space / ability to exercise it. God may or may not rescue us. Either way we must trust He is with us as He was with Meshack, Shadrach and Abednego. Because soon after our death we will be seeing Him face to face drinking a cup of tea with Him.

Must we now kill all babies? No. Impartiality is part of God's unwavering morale code. If Adam and Eve had the devil in the garden, all of mankind will have their day in the sun with him. We would simply be delaying the inevitable. We do best if we participate as best we can in leading them to the Lord.

This is a more detailed explanation then what I wanted to give. I think I have covered all ^_^.

What are your thoughts?

 

[River Jordan]

Creationist Christians are not driven by a hatred for science, but by a love for God and His word.

IMO, fundamentalist creationism both fears and admires science. On one hand fundamentalists fear the discoveries and conclusions science (due to the all-or-none, either/or parameters the fundamentalists have set up); if you run around claiming "no transitional fossils" and the like, then every new find or discovery carries the potential to negate your faith. On the other hand, by pretending that YEC has scientific validity, fundamentalists are seeking to acquire the status that comes with something being "scientifically proven". They wouldn't do this unless they saw science as a credible determinant of reality.

1. Jesus was planned before the foundations of the world for us. It took God billions of years of slow / cruel natural selection to put that plan in action?

It's funny to see a fundamentalist make this argument, given how many times they argue "Are you saying God couldn't have created everything in 6 24-hour days?"

2. Scripture teaches a fundamental gap between humans and animals. Not a gradual transition from animal to man.

- Adam was the first man. He cannot be a metaphor. He is mentioned repeatedly in scripture as a historical person Luke 3:23-38 / Rom 5:12-19. Text of his lineage places him at 4004 bc. Not the claimed 200 000 bc when the first fossils of modern man were found in Ethiopia.

No one here is arguing that Adam is a metaphor or wasn't a real person. And as we've been over before, the genealogies don't agree with each other, so taking them as 100% complete lineages produces its own problems.

- Mankind was created just beneath the angels. Not evolved to a point beneath the angels.
- Mankind was created in the image of God. Now we mixing an ape with the image of God? Adam never sought counsel when he fell from sin with his ape father. Adam never kept his ape father as a pet.
- Eve miraculously evolved at the same time to be a fitting / accountable for sin wife?
- Evolution will never teach that there were ever just two humans…which would then contradict not only Genesis but also Jesus in Matt 19:4.

Your problem is you're assuming that "created" and "evolved" are mutually exclusive. It gets back to that same question I kept asking you before: Scripture teaches that God created the mountains. Does that therefore mean that volcanic mountains aren't real?

3. TE's believe God has a guiding hand in evolution. Evolution says no evidence and TE's are forced to believe in an evil God responsible for terrible mutations and natural selection. As opposed to evil man who fell from grace and whose sin corrupted the earth.

This is a version of TE that I don't agree with.

4. Repercussions of the fall of man. Evolution will never accept a time as described in the garden of Eden, before sin entered.

Sin cannot enter into the equation until there's humanity fully capable of conscience and is therefore, accountable. So the "time before sin" is simply the time before there was anything on earth that was capable of understanding God.

Mankind had direct communion and fellowship with God. Mankind had no need to 'work the land', woman would have no pain in childbirth. Mankind went from good to bad in an instant. No evolving altruism.

This doesn't make sense. If you're going to read Genesis 2 100% literally, then when it says "there was no one to work the land" and then God made man, clearly to "work the land". And notice too how that verse says God made "man" not "Adam".

God looked at the earth and said ''It was good'' Gen 1:31. Would He have said that if there was cruel natural selection taking place?

You're just presuming your own prejudice and agenda onto God.

5. The soul. At which point in our evolution does the eternal soul enter the body?

?????? Do you believe the soul is a physical trait?

6. The Literality of the Bible and Other Myths.

That's nothing more than an empty assertion.

Giving parts or all of Genesis an allegorical interpretation...

Again, I'm not asserting an allegory for anything.

Conclusion: Give the devil your hand and he will come for your arm! Evolution is a sick child that atheists are forcing science to carry.

So you see it as a threat, just as I described.

 

[Secondhand Lion]

The assertion keeps being made that we read the account in Genesis as a science text book. I can not speak for KingJ, but I do not read Genesis as a science text book but rather a factual statement. I do not understand the assertion that we read it as a "science text book".

Does this come from thinking science is "fact" and somehow is read the same as Genesis? Science is certainly not fact the same way God's word is fact, is it?

Can someone explain the idea behind the assertion that we read Genesis as a science text to me.

KingJ do you read Genesis as a "science text"?

 

[KingJ]

IMO, fundamentalist creationism both fears and admires science.

Sorry River I will not waste any more effort discussing with you. You just repeat your same arguments as though they have not been dealt with. When you respect scripture as much as your evolution studies, I will gladly discuss with you.

The assertion keeps being made that we read the account in Genesis as a science text book. I can not speak for KingJ, but I do not read Genesis as a science text book but rather a factual statement. I do not understand the assertion that we read it as a "science text book".

Amen! 2 Pet 1:21

Does this come from thinking science is "fact" and somehow is read the same as Genesis? Science is certainly not fact the same way God's word is fact, is it?

Scripture is fact and so too is science. Evolution however is a theory in the literal sense.

KingJ do you read Genesis as a "science text"?

Definitely. But it is a summary of 'God's science' which includes means beyond the laws of physics.

 

[Secondhand Lion]

Scripture is fact and so too is science. Evolution however is a theory in the literal sense.


Definitely. But it is a summary of 'God's science' which includes means beyond the laws of physics.

I agree with all of this except that any science is a fact, rather I believe it to be "fact" as we currently know things to be, but we have no idea what it is that we do not know that will be a "game changer" to said fact. This is not a big enough difference in what we are saying to argue about and I could be completely wrong in my viewpoint.

We agree completely on everything else! not often I get to say that on here! haha!

In points where the bible and science disagree on fact...I side with the bible...this we both agree on!

 

[River Jordan]

In points where the bible and science disagree on fact...I side with the bible...this we both agree on!

Do you believe volcanoes or God creates mountains? Do you believe there's a mountain from which all the earth can be simultaneously seen?

 

[KingJ]

Do you believe volcanoes or God creates mountains? Do you believe there's a mountain from which all the earth can be simultaneously seen?

Your point is?

 

[River Jordan]

They're pretty straightforward questions.

Do you believe volcanoes or God creates mountains? Do you believe there's a mountain from which all the earth can be simultaneously seen?

 

[KingJ]

They're pretty straightforward questions.

Do you believe volcanoes or God creates mountains? Do you believe there's a mountain from which all the earth can be simultaneously seen?

Your point is?

 

[snr5557]

Your point is?

If you don't know the answer just say so.

 

[DPMartin]

KingJ

Your concern to resolve is admirable, but I do believe we (Christian) have forgotten one thing. Our system of belief (the Torah, note the rest of the bible OT/NT is pretty much a fulfillment of the Torah) is not the system of belief of the world. Something like “evaluation” is a system of belief, or in the terms used for system of belief, “religion”. Thing is, the Torah the system of belief that the Creator and Judge of the universe (creation) is the reason why all things are and what they are, and their system of belief is that it is the nature of the universe to evolve from one state to another without provocation or guidance from a God, and so on and so forth.

We Christians have to accept that these who believe these things are following their religion (system of belief) whether they admit it or not. Everyone embraces, looks to, or trusts, a system of belief to explain their circumstances in creation which is what God wants, and expects. He expects us to look to Him, embrace Him, trust Him through His Word given. Our Lord Jesus Christ. But men do otherwise with what belongs to God.

 

[River Jordan]

Not everyone thinks that knowing through scripture and the Holy Spirit is incompatible with knowing through studying God's creation. In fact, I'd say the two are very, very complimentary.

 

[Secondhand Lion]

Do you believe volcanoes or God creates mountains? Do you believe there's a mountain from which all the earth can be simultaneously seen?

Do you believe in the seven day week?

Sorry so long in response, had a bit of snow to deal with...in my business....that's a good thing

 

[DPMartin]

Not everyone thinks that knowing through scripture and the Holy Spirit is incompatible with knowing through studying God's creation. In fact, I'd say the two are very, very complimentary.

Without getting into it, that’s really not the issue is it?

Scripture is a documentation of witness as apposed to speculation and theorizing of evidence. Though there be evidence to support a theory, there is no witness to verify the theory. Therefore it’s still that, a theory, and in most cases the theory changes according to whom has the authority to change it when new evidence is found.

And in many cases those who try to reconcile science with scripture fail miserably do to the efforts to change what scripture says, or how it should be read to fit a theory. Again, the scriptures are a documentation of witnesses, therefore what was seen, and or experienced by the witness hasn’t changed and will not change.