1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Creation vs. Evolution Apologetics

Discussion in 'Christian Theology Forum' started by Codegrazer, Dec 3, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Unorthodox Christian

    Unorthodox Christian New Member

    Messages:
    501
    Likes Received:
    1
    (kriss;25993)
    you have shown nothing but opinions and mens words All knowledge comes from God not you You will never show a true Christian anything you lead people astray with luke warm watered down doctrines and you will be judged accordingly my opinions dont matter its Gods you had better worry about.
    A Christian from the get go, technically speaking is on fire, but when he strays away he becomes cold. But sense he was once hot, him being cold now makes him lukewarm, and that's exactly what Tyrel has become. His passion or fire is still there, but the oil(Holy Ghost) not longer is kindled in his posts. His dogmas are evil, his reasoning and understanding is his own. Men do not show other men the way, that is the way of the Holy Ghost.
     
  2. Christina

    Christina New Member

    Messages:
    10,900
    Likes Received:
    71
    Come to think of it you never mentioned any scriptures and everytime I do you never respond in fact you steer pretty clear of scripture I think that pretty much says it allI repeat my earlier post Gods proof there is no Evolution that everything is after it own kind That is God Law of Nature. Gods own way he tells us that there is no Evolution how many times are we told one of the rules of Nature is kind after its kind God is not the author of confusion and everything has very perfect Laws evolution is blending/ breaking of the Laws. If God followed this rule then theere would be kaos in things Gen 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, [and] the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed [is] in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Gen 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, [and] herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed [was] in itself, after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Gen 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Gen 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Gen 6:20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every [sort] shall come unto thee, to keep [them] alive. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Gen 7:14 They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Lev 11:14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind; --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Lev 11:15 Every raven after his kind; --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Lev 11:16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind, --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Lev 11:19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Lev 11:22 [Even] these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Lev 11:29 These also [shall be] unclean unto you among the creeping things that creep upon the earth; the weasel, and the mouse, and the tortoise after his kind, Deu 14:13 And the glede, and the kite, and the vulture after his kind, --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Deu 14:14 And every raven after his kind, --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Deu 14:15 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind, --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Deu 14:18 And the stork, and the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.CAN ANYONESHOW ME ONE VERSE ONE WORD THAT SAYS UNTIL IT TURNS INTO ANOTHER KIND????????????????????NO BECAUSE IT IS NOT IN THE WORD NOR GODS WAY HE CREATED EVERYTHING PERFECT AFTER ITS OWN KIND AND SAID IT IS GOODNOT BUT IT WILL GET BETTER ..........AND THAT IS GODS WORD ON IT NO EVOLUTION EVERYTHING AFTER ITS KIND MADE PERFECT BY THE LORD GOD FROM DAY IT WAS CREATED
     
  3. Jordan

    Jordan Active Member

    Messages:
    4,886
    Likes Received:
    4
    Kriss, to come to think of it. We've been disagreeing with Tyrel lies, since the topic of Islam from way back...Jag
     
  4. Wakka

    Wakka Super Member

    Messages:
    1,470
    Likes Received:
    2
    Tyrel, does your family believe in evolution?I ran out of questions to ask, sorry [​IMG].I originally posted to say that this thread isn't going anywhere anytime soon. So I gave it a little push [​IMG].Edit:Lol, Unorthodox Christian is located at Sodom and Gomorrah.
     
  5. Tyrel

    Tyrel New Member

    Messages:
    294
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dear Kriss,I feel you are being unfair. First, the reason I haven't cited scripture is because we all know what is there. However, what I'm proposing is an understanding of scripture, which you consider alien. If I share with you how I think that Genesis 1:12 saying "creatures of the Sea", which clearly is a quotation of the Enuma Elish, as the title of the dreaded sea monster in Canaanite mythology, that Genesis is being once again religiously corrective, given all praise to God, and God alone... you might well think the suggestion odd and out of place, if not worse.So, I didn't bring up my theological stance, because the scripture isn't the point in this discussion, it's the proper understanding of the Word of God, and primarily our understanding and outlook on facts, and what authority they have.I can quote scripture all day, just as can you. We both know what is there. The reason I don't do it, is because I am sure your reaction will be just the same as mine when I see you misusing and mangling scripture.. of course, I don't think you're doing it purposefully. However, regardless, the main issue here is the weight of evidence, the facts, and of course, the actually accurate and truly traditional understanding of Genesis, going back to ancient Jewish Midrashim, rather than Christian evangelicals. The Oral teaching of Genesis, and the recorded teachings surrounding it, and Jewish understandings of it, lend themselves as great evidences for Genesis not being meant literal at all.First thing is first; I want you to understand and work with the facts. First the scientific, then the theological. Then, once that has been done, as I said, there are various opinions of Genesis. Feel free to share what you think.. once you begin thinking clearly, in light of the facts, both theological and scientific.I am attacking the attitude of blinding ourselves to the Truth when it doesn't seem to fit in with our understanding of reality.ps - recall that I would rather throw away my belief in Christ than compromise on the Bible's message, or try to "make it fit" with facts. It's either true or it's not. Let Truth stand for itself I say. Read my sig. and you'll see. However, I have found that I was misunderstanding Genesis all along. Sound study of theology led me to that conclusion, along with it being enforced very strongly the more I learnt about evolution. Recall I was an ardent Creationist. I didn't even accept the "earth ages" as I thought it was "mangling" the text, and though it fit, I didn't accept it because I thought it was a compromise. This is not compromising I am doing. This is called actually learning.In Hope,~Tyrel
     
  6. Dei-Gnostica

    Dei-Gnostica New Member

    Messages:
    51
    Likes Received:
    0
    (kriss;25951)
    quote)To take God's Word and not know the underlying meaning is blaspheming. Thus as it stands, I do not blaspheme. Rather, through the exploration of Evolution and other sciences, I praise God's Word. Those who blaspheme are those who take God's Word but then reject God's Work: Evolution(quote)DGthen why dont you show me the scripture supporting this.
    Why would I need to show you scripture? That's God's Word. I'm talking about God's Work. In anycase, Genesis would be symbolic for God's Work: Evolution.
     
  7. Dei-Gnostica

    Dei-Gnostica New Member

    Messages:
    51
    Likes Received:
    0
    (thesuperjag;25955)
    Like I said, I don't believe in anything that uses no scriptures in articles or using scriptures OUT OF CONTEXT like Tyrel and Dei-Gnostica does.Jag
    If anything, taking the Word of God literally would be 'taking it out of context'.
     
  8. Tyrel

    Tyrel New Member

    Messages:
    294
    Likes Received:
    0
    (Wakka;25998)
    Tyrel, does your family believe in evolution?I ran out of questions to ask, sorry [​IMG].I originally posted to say that this thread isn't going anywhere anytime soon. So I gave it a little push.Edit:Lol, Unorthodox Christian is located at Sodom and Gomorrah.
    Well, my mother, bless her soul, is not quite like me at all... She's "Christian".. to the best of her ability. However, she's not one for critical thinking. She simply doesn't know whether evolution is true or not. My Dad was raised Anglican, and is not Christian now, but isn't against it. However, he {to my great frustration when i was a teenager} decided to let me come to my own conclusions, only teaching me how to think critically. I owe both of them very much and I love them both.However, no, my family has absolutely no role to play in my conclusions. As I said before, until fairly recently, I was a very ardent Creationist. The most ruthless of literalists you might say. The rest of my family, all younger siblings, don't really have an opinion. My genius {really, she is quite smart} baby sister is beginning to question this already. She has asked me for my opinion, but I keep telling her to think about it, and search for herself. She is quite brilliant enough.. I mean.. to come up with the questions she does at such a young age.. but I'm bragging.. My baby brother is much too young to have anything to say on these things yet. My teenage sister is still growing up, and has moved out without finishing high school. She's grown up a great deal in the past year or so, since she's left the household to live on her own. She's matured so much.. but again, no.. absolutely no role to play in anything I believe.Umm.. let's see.. extended family.. My mother's side is all extremely anti-Christian.. or.. well, not all of them are extreme.. but they surely aren't Christian. Er, My Dad's side is Anglican, smaller family. Out of them, only my grandparents are open with their faith when speaking with me, and are very devout Christians.. but again, no, they have no role to play in my beliefs.Evolution was something I was opposed to strongly most of my life, and Christian walk.... satisfied? [​IMG] I certainly hope so. [​IMG]
     
  9. Jordan

    Jordan Active Member

    Messages:
    4,886
    Likes Received:
    4
    (Dei-Gnostica;26001)
    (thesuperjag;25955)
    Like I said, I don't believe in anything that uses no scriptures in articles or using scriptures OUT OF CONTEXT like Tyrel and Dei-Gnostica does.Jag
    If anything, taking the Word of God literally would be 'taking it out of context'.You must know when to take His words literally, or symbolic. Genesis 1:3-31 is LITERALLY. Evolution is clearly straight from Satan. As we are from His kind. In the image of God and the angels.Jag
     
  10. Tyrel

    Tyrel New Member

    Messages:
    294
    Likes Received:
    0
    (thesuperjag;26004)
    You must know when to take His words literally, or symbolic. Genesis 1:3-31 is LITERALLY. Evolution is clearly straight from Satan. As we are from His kind. In the image of God and the angels.Jag
    ah, superjag, If there is one good thing I can say for you, is that you do provide amusement in the midst of serious discussion. [​IMG]
     
  11. HammerStone

    HammerStone Well-Known Member Staff Member

    Messages:
    5,111
    Likes Received:
    214
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    CAN ANYONESHOW ME ONE VERSE ONE WORD THAT SAYS UNTIL IT TURNS INTO ANOTHER KIND????????????????????NO BECAUSE IT IS NOT IN THE WORD NOR GODS WAY HE CREATED EVERYTHING PERFECT AFTER ITS OWN KIND AND SAID IT IS GOODNOT BUT IT WILL GET BETTER ..........AND THAT IS GODS WORD ON IT NO EVOLUTION EVERYTHING AFTER ITS KIND MADE PERFECT BY THE LORD GOD FROM DAY IT WAS CREATED
    Kriss, you don't even have to take it that far. God created plants before he created the sun in Genesis 1.
     
  12. Tyrel

    Tyrel New Member

    Messages:
    294
    Likes Received:
    0
    (Denver;26006)
    [/COLOR]Kriss, you don't even have to take it that far. God created plants before he created the sun in Genesis 1.
    Yes, I mentioned that. [​IMG]
     
  13. Dei-Gnostica

    Dei-Gnostica New Member

    Messages:
    51
    Likes Received:
    0
    (thesuperjag;26004)
    You must know when to take His words literally, or symbolic. Genesis 1:3-31 is LITERALLY. Evolution is clearly straight from Satan. As we are from His kind. In the image of God and the angels.Jag
    Not really, Genesis is meant to be taken symbolically.
     
  14. Jordan

    Jordan Active Member

    Messages:
    4,886
    Likes Received:
    4
    (Dei-Gnostica;26021)
    (thesuperjag;26004)
    You must know when to take His words literally, or symbolic. Genesis 1:3-31 is LITERALLY. Evolution is clearly straight from Satan. As we are from His kind. In the image of God and the angels.Jag
    Not really, Genesis is meant to be taken symbolically.Would you like to show me scriptures please where we are made from other kinds, instead of our own kind? God say "after his kind" or "after their kind".Jag
     
  15. Tyrel

    Tyrel New Member

    Messages:
    294
    Likes Received:
    0
    We've been through this have we not?The Bible is a book which does not contain information about everything. Surely you can agree, then, that it cannot be our only source of knowledge. Now, if that's the case, you shouldn't be opposed to anything which the scriptures are likewise not opposed to.Now, you believe that Genesis teaches that things come after their own kinds, as in, exclusively after their observably defined species. I do not think that's what Genesis is trying to teach us at all. I believe it's using much the same language as any other creation myth, to describe all things created, and teach us the most basic of truths about life. It does not go into great detail, such as naming every single animal. It reflects that animals mate, and produce more animals like them. ie - according to their kinds {not other kinds}. It says nothing about these kinds changing over time. It doesn't even mean to address that.It's speaking with the simplest intent, and you are trying to take it literally as a perfect scientifically accurate unquestionable statement. It's like telling a child that "horses make horses, and that's where horses come from", and you turn around and say "Aha! therefore, horses do NOT evolve, for only HORSES come from horses."It's a tad ridiculous really, that I should even have to explain this to you.
     
  16. Pariah

    Pariah New Member

    Messages:
    416
    Likes Received:
    0
    Umm... not to throw a wrench into the woodworks, but I'll just make this point.To Jag and kriss and Denver!
    Jag's quote: Would you like to show me scriptures please where we are made from other kinds, instead of our own kind? God say "after his kind" or "after their kind".

    kriss's quote: CAN ANYONESHOW ME ONE VERSE ONE WORD THAT SAYS UNTIL IT TURNS INTO ANOTHER KIND????????????????????NO BECAUSE IT IS NOT IN THE WORD NOR GODS WAY HE CREATED EVERYTHING PERFECT AFTER ITS OWN KIND AND SAID IT IS GOODNOT BUT IT WILL GET BETTER ..........AND THAT IS GODS WORD ON IT NO EVOLUTION EVERYTHING AFTER ITS KIND MADE PERFECT BY THE LORD GOD FROM DAY IT WAS CREATED
    If kinds can only reproduce after its own kind, doesn't that throw the whole serpent seed teaching out the window? But I digress. Sorry.For the ongoing discussion, I would like to point out that man had ceated a hybrid through gene splicing for a liger, a lion and a tiger for which the result is sterile. Cannot reproduce even with a male and female liger.This one supposedly from just trying to mix a lion with a tiger. Notice the same result which will be. Sterilization. Probably close enough in kind to produce one in kind but not enough to function as another kind of that kind in the "cat" family. http://gothamist.com/2003/07/18/lions_and_...igers_oh_my.phpSo how does macro-evolution make it if micro-evolution has limitations in variations? If the evolutionary tree is true, would we not be able to reproduce with where we came from? The answer is "no" because that is not where we came from.AND do note... if blacks, orientals, and whites were all different kinds... they would not be able to reproduce, huh? Hmm........... does the possibility of no other races becoming more credible now as we are all related to Adam and Eve and thus Noah and His family ... or..? But I digress again... sort of. Just agreeing with thesuperjag, kriss, and Denver that kinds can only reproduce after its own kind.
     
  17. For Life

    For Life New Member

    Messages:
    233
    Likes Received:
    0
    I happen to believe in Gods own suttle way he tells us that there is no Evolution how many times are we told one of the rules of Nature is kind after its kindGod is not the author of confusion and everything has very perfect Laws evolution is blending/ breaking of the Laws. If God followed this rule then theere would be kaos in things
    I wanted to bring this up but Kriss beat me to the punch. God's word says we were made in his image. If we descended from apes I would think this would prove God's word wrong. The image of an ape and the image of a man are different. "That's not my culture and heritage. Is that your culture and heritage?"- O brother where art thou? I also think what Denver said is correct too when he said at some point you have to decide to either go with the bible or don't. If one part of the bible is wrong what other parts are wrong? It is my personal decision to go with the bible. Does that make me ignorant? I guess in some ways we are all ignorant...
     
  18. Tyrel

    Tyrel New Member

    Messages:
    294
    Likes Received:
    0
    (Pariah;26028)
    Umm... not to throw a wrench into the woodworks, but I'll just make this point.To Jag and kriss and Denver! If kinds can only reproduce after its own kind, doesn't that throw the whole serpent seed teaching out the window? But I digress. Sorry.For the ongoing discussion, I would like to point out that man had ceated a hybrid through gene splicing for a liger, a lion and a tiger for which the result is sterile. Cannot reproduce even with a male and female liger.This one supposedly from just trying to mix a lion with a tiger. Notice the same result which will be. Sterilization. Probably close enough in kind to produce one in kind but not enough to function as another kind of that kind in the "cat" family. http://gothamist.com/2003/07/18/lions_and_...igers_oh_my.phpSo how does macro-evolution make it if micro-evolution has limitations in variations? If the evolutionary tree is true, would we not be able to reproduce with where we came from? The answer is "no" because that is not where we came from.AND do note... if blacks, orientals, and whites were all different kinds... they would not be able to reproduce, huh? Hmm........... does the possibility of no other races becoming more credible now as we are all related to Adam and Eve and thus Noah and His family ... or..? But I digress again... sort of. Just agreeing with thesuperjag, kriss, and Denver that kinds can only reproduce after its own kind.
    Dear Pariah,I think perhaps you would do well to study evolution a little more extensively, as these questions are all answered... and some of them present obvious misunderstandings about evolution.I'll try to deal with them concisely. First, the Liger was simply found to not be able to produce offspring. That explains why it isn't a creature in nature. Because even when one could possibly come into existence, it cannot mate, and would likely be an outcast in the pack. This is called Natural Selection. See, animals are born with specific features. They aren't really ever perfect replicas of either parent. When a certain animal in a pack changes in a positive way, rather than a negative way {such as we see with the liger}, then that one happens to mate more, the characteristic is passed on more, and eventually more elephants are bigger, or more sharks are smaller, or more Tigers change color with the seasons, or more Finches act like woodpeckers with their skinny beaks, etc.That's basically how natural selection works. It says that if you give things ample time, nature itself sort of takes its course and naturally the better, stronger, or more fit for the environment specimen have their characteristics passed on more often.Now, let's imagine a scenario. First, you get a pack of wild cats. Then the pack gets really large, and at one point, splits due to some geological disaster, or something of the sort, you can feel free to use your imagination. So, the pack splits, and resides in two different environments. Then, over time, each pack develops characteristics which are beneficial given their habitat throughout the pack. When these two packs find each other again, they do not seem recognizable. Say, Tigers and Lions. Now, can they still mate? Well, sometimes yes, and sometimes no {Tigers and Lions can, but I'm speaking to the broad example.} There is no guarantee that they will be able to mate successfully at all. They have both changed variously. Sometimes creatures can, sometimes they can't. Generally the longer one pack is secluded from the other, the less likely they are still compatible, and the more often one is exposed to the other, the more likely they are still compatible.However, there are a few things to understand beyond this as well, and clarify. For example, you seem to think that we can't go back and "recreate" ourselves... here;(Pariah;26028)
    If the evolutionary tree is true, would we not be able to reproduce with where we came from? The answer is "no" because that is not where we came from.
    First, if you are talking about being able to reproduce with our ape like ancestor, then I would imagine we could, but evolution does not by any means guarantee that {to my knowledge of genetics anyway}. However, this isn't something we can test, as the other "packs" {Orangutans, Gorillas, and Chimpanzees} have all evolved as well, and we've all been secluded from each other.Keep in mind, we have observed species splitting into packs, forming different characteristics, and not being able to mate with each other any longer when we bring them back together. This isn't uncommon. However, it shouldn't be mistaken as a "limitation" to "micro-evolution", because micro-evolution does not always produce a positive trait which can be successfully passed on, nor does it always produce a trait which cannot be successfully passed on.So, no, there is no problem with Micro-evolution in the way that you suggest. [edit because of misinformation. My bad [​IMG] ]As to your last paragraph... would you mind making that a little more clear? [​IMG]
     
  19. Tyrel

    Tyrel New Member

    Messages:
    294
    Likes Received:
    0
    (For Life;26031)
    I wanted to bring this up but Kriss beat me to the punch. God's word says we were made in his image. If we descended from apes I would think this would prove God's word wrong. The image of an ape and the image of a man are different. "That's not my culture and heritage. Is that your culture and heritage?"- O brother where art thou? I also think what Denver said is correct too when he said at some point you have to decide to either go with the bible or don't. If one part of the bible is wrong what other parts are wrong? It is my personal decision to go with the bible. Does that make me ignorant? I guess in some ways we are all ignorant...
    For life... oy vey..ok, I'll reiterate this point yet again. Please do pay attention, and that goes for all others who just skip over the pages we've just been through.The image of God has nothing to do with the physical. That would mean that humans without five fingers on each hand, born that way, are lesser like his image, than are people with. It would mean that either Black, or White, or Asians, or other, are closer to his image, than are others. There is NO physical image of God. None whatsoever. HE took on human form, NOT the other way around. He created us in his image. What is his image?This is the reason the psalmist can call us 'gods' {John 10:34}. We are in his image, in that we have moral judgment, and capacity to consider beyond. This is actually what ties in with the true nature and root of original sin. The Image of God, is not physical. This is clear beyond doubt. ... and nobody is suggesting that the Bible is wrong! Not one person in this thread.
     
  20. Jordan

    Jordan Active Member

    Messages:
    4,886
    Likes Received:
    4
    (Biblical Tetragramaton;26035)
    (For Life;26031)
    I wanted to bring this up but Kriss beat me to the punch. God's word says we were made in his image. If we descended from apes I would think this would prove God's word wrong. The image of an ape and the image of a man are different. "That's not my culture and heritage. Is that your culture and heritage?"- O brother where art thou?I also think what Denver said is correct too when he said at some point you have to decide to either go with the bible or don't. If one part of the bible is wrong what other parts are wrong? It is my personal decision to go with the bible. Does that make me ignorant? I guess in some ways we are all ignorant...
    For life... oy vey..ok, I'll reiterate this point yet again. Please do pay attention, and that goes for all others who just skip over the pages we've just been through.The image of God has nothing to do with the physical. That would mean that humans without five fingers on each hand, born that way, are lesser like his image, than are people with. It would mean that either Black, or White, or Asians, or other, are closer to his image, than are others. There is NO physical image of God. None whatsoever. HE took on human form, NOT the other way around. He created us in his image. What is his image?This is the reason the psalmist can call us 'gods' {John 10:34}. We are in his image, in that we have moral judgment, and capacity to consider beyond. This is actually what ties in with the true nature and root of original sin.The Image of God, is not physical. This is clear beyond doubt.... and nobody is suggesting that the Bible is wrong! Not one person in this thread.You are, because thou speakest lies and preaching them. And I am not God, nor do I want to be worshipped as a god.And It is indeed a physical image because how do I explain Satan (who is an fallen angel) who is an image of God, who looks like a MAN without the FLESH body. And God came in the FLESH which is a MAN's body.Jag
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...