Prove creationism...I'll shut up!

Started by Wild Shadow63 pages
Originally posted by Final Blaxican
That's not true.

see what i mean i have know problem it the fundamentalist that are the problem.

look up past my post at look what a fundamentlist just said.

Actually no, I don't see what you mean.

I'm a Christian, but I think that the process of how the universe was created (Know that's not evolution) and how animals evolve over time is perfectly plausible. The Bible never specifically states how God created life except for man though I don't believe that parts literal, so there is no contradiction.

We're not all Fundie idiots, like a lot of people like to believe. 😬

My personal problem with excluding Creationism all together is that I find it hard to believe that so many extremely complicated and improbable phenomena such as the Big Bang and the Evolutionary process just... happened, for literally no real reason. It's all too complicated to have happened so coherently imo.

I say that I am a Christian though technically I'd be classified as an Agnostic.

Originally posted by Final Blaxican
Actually no, I don't see what you mean.

I'm a Christian, but I think that the process of how the universe was created (Know that's not evolution) and how animals evolve over time is perfectly plausible. The Bible never specifically states how God created life except for man though I don't believe that parts literal, so there is no contradiction.

We're not all Fundie idiots, like a lot of people like to believe. 😬

My personal problem with excluding Creationism all together is that I find it hard to believe that so many extremely complicated and improbable phenomena such as the Big Bang and the Evolutionary process just... happened, for literally no real reason. It's all too complicated to have happened so coherently imo.

I say that I am a Christian though technically I'd be classified as an Agnostic.

i am not sure if in my last post i mention fundamentlist because those were the one i was referencing. also i neither have any problem with religious ppl regardless of faiths to be scientist or have a supporting yet different view of creation.. but like you said the problem comes with ppl who view their religion as factual literal with no possibility in between.

Originally posted by Final Blaxican
Actually no, I don't see what you mean.

I'm a Christian, but I think that the process of how the universe was created (Know that's not evolution) and how animals evolve over time is perfectly plausible. The Bible never specifically states how God created life except for man though I don't believe that parts literal, so there is no contradiction.

We're not all Fundie idiots, like a lot of people like to believe. 😬

My personal problem with excluding Creationism all together is that I find it hard to believe that so many extremely complicated and improbable phenomena such as the Big Bang and the Evolutionary process just... happened, for literally no real reason. It's all too complicated to have happened so coherently imo.

I say that I am a Christian though technically I'd be classified as an Agnostic.

Have you called upon the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation from your sins?

Originally posted by Final Blaxican
Actually no, I don't see what you mean.

I'm a Christian, but I think that the process of how the universe was created (Know that's not evolution) and how animals evolve over time is perfectly plausible. The Bible never specifically states how God created life except for man though I don't believe that parts literal, so there is no contradiction.

We're not all Fundie idiots, like a lot of people like to believe. 😬

My personal problem with excluding Creationism all together is that I find it hard to believe that so many extremely complicated and improbable phenomena such as the Big Bang and the Evolutionary process just... happened, for literally no real reason. It's all too complicated to have happened so coherently imo.

I say that I am a Christian though technically I'd be classified as an Agnostic.

The Bible should be interpreted literally unless it is obvious that the Scripture is symbolic or metaphorical.

How is evolution plausible from a Biblical standpoint?

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
i am not sure if in my last post i mention fundamentlist because those were the one i was referencing. also i neither have any problem with religious ppl regardless of faiths to be scientist or have a supporting yet different view of creation.. but like you said the problem comes with ppl who view their religion as factual literal with no possibility in between.

What problem?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
The Bible should be interpreted literally unless it is obvious that the Scripture is symbolic or metaphorical.

I respectfully disagree. I think that seeing it in a literal light is dangerous and narrow-minded, because, no disrespect intended, it's outdated in many aspects.

How is evolution plausible from a Biblical standpoint?[/COLOR] [/B]

How is it not, if the Bible is looked at from a mostly metaphoric point of view?

The Bible states that God created the universe. The Big Bang is a theory on how the universe was created. Is it not out of the realm of possibility that it was by God's design that the big bang took place?

I, personally, view things like Evolution and the big bang and such as a sort of cookie crumb trail of clues that help us understand a bit how God operates.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
The Bible should be interpreted literally unless it is obvious that the Scripture is symbolic or metaphorical.

Genesis is obviously symbolic...

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Genesis is obviously symbolic...

Actually it is very literal.

According to... who?

Originally posted by Final Blaxican
According to... who?

da da and my point has bn made and didnt have to make any negative comments..

Originally posted by Final Blaxican
I respectfully disagree. I think that seeing it in a literal light is dangerous and narrow-minded, because, no disrespect intended, it's outdated in many aspects.

How is it not, if the Bible is looked at from a mostly metaphoric point of view?

The Bible states that God created the universe. The Big Bang is a theory on how the universe was created. Is it not out of the realm of possibility that it was by God's design that the big bang took place?

I, personally, view things like Evolution and the big bang and such as a sort of cookie crumb trail of clues that help us understand a bit how God operates.

Originally posted by Final Blaxican
I respectfully disagree. I think that seeing it in a literal light is dangerous and narrow-minded, because, no disrespect intended, it's outdated in many aspects.

How is it not, if the Bible is looked at from a mostly metaphoric point of view?

What is outdated, the Bible? The Bible is timeless in terms of doctrine, reproof, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God (i.e. the believer) should be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

The Bible states that God created the universe. The Big Bang is a theory on how the universe was created. Is it not out of the realm of possibility that it was by God's design that the big bang took place?

I, personally, view things like Evolution and the big bang and such as a sort of cookie crumb trail of clues that help us understand a bit how God operates. [/B]

That is not out of the realm of possibility no, but evolutionary process is because humans are not descended from animals, nor were the first humans descended from a primordial soup (according to the Bible).

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Actually it is very literal.

So why don't you take Matthew 16:17-19 literally?

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
So why don't you take Matthew 16:17-19 literally?

I do as much as is practical and possible based on the context.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive

What is outdated, the Bible? The Bible is timeless in terms of doctrine, reproof, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God (i.e. the believer) should be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Some of it is. Some of it isn't.

That is not out of the realm of possibility no, but evolutionary process is because humans are not descended from animals, nor were the first humans descended from a primordial soup (according to the Bible). [/B]

You're thinking like someone who takes every aspect of the Bible literally.

I do as much as is practical and possible based on the context.

So then you admit that there are aspects of the Bible's teachings that simply can't be applied completely because in today's age, they're not practical?

And by the way, I have bad vision, so if you could please be so kind as to not use such a dark text I'd appreciate it, at least when talking directly to me. 🙂

Dark blue is hard for me to read when it's against a black background. It literally hurts.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I do as much as is practical and possible based on the context.

That Peter was literally the rock as Jesus said and not some abstract concept like a confession of faith?

Oh, and I was just in a lecture that you would have hated...

Originally posted by Final Blaxican
I'm not quite sure why some people feel that Creationism and Evolution can no co-exist.

Because they have entirely different and contradiction stories. Intelligent Design and Evolution, yeah, those can.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Because they have entirely different and contradiction stories. Intelligent Design and Evolution, yeah, those can.

It depends on what your definition of creationism is.

If you understand creationism to mean "there was a creator" then it can certainly exist alongside evolution.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
It depends on what your definition of creationism is.

If you understand creationism to mean "there was a creator" then it can certainly exist alongside evolution.

Obviously, but at least as it is used in the debate that rages in the US about inclusion of either. Creationism is the very literal belief of Genesis as JIA portrays it, while your and Blaxican's believes fall more in the realm of Intelligent Designs. Personally I don't really mind, I think ID is a stupid invention to make something religious sound scientific, but that's how the terms are used there, atm, I believe.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Obviously, but at least as it is used in the debate that rages in the US about inclusion of either. Creationism is the very literal belief of Genesis as JIA portrays it, while your and Blaxican's believes fall more in the realm of Intelligent Designs. Personally I don't really mind, I think ID is a stupid invention to make something religious sound scientific, but that's how the terms are used there, atm, I believe.

My beliefs? From what I have posted it would appear I fall more on the side of evolution than intelligent design...

I think the most revealing thing I said about my beliefs concerning the origins of man was that I didn't know enough about evolution to fall onside with it as anything but a matter of faith. I do believe in an intelligent designer though yes...not quite in the way Behe uses that term perhaps, again I am unsure.