Something that I find incredibly interesting is how most of the supposedly objective evolutionist community get so upset when their sacred cow is attacked.
The real questions, first:
Why must God and evolution be mutually exclusive? That's my question. Yes aside from the fact that by creationism we were created a short time ago (by evolution standards). Still things like fruit flies, mayflies, or bacteria with a short lifespan can still evolve, even if we were created a short time ago.
It makes no sense to me that people think it's impossible that both can't be true.
The answer lies in Romans 5:12; ...Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned—...
In Christian teachings, the Fall of Man separated us from God, and it is only through atonement from Jesus that we can be saved, since he pays the price for our sin. Now, in evolutionary teachings, there is no fall from a state of perfection, which is the fundamental reason in which evolution undercuts Christianity.
If evolution were true, and I quote from “American Atheist” here:
“…the whole justification of Jesus' life and death is predicated on the existence of Adam and the forbidden fruit he and Eve ate. Without the original sin, who needs to be redeemed? Without Adam's fall into a life of constant sin terminated by death, what purpose is there to Christianity? None. …
Without Adam, without the original sin, Jesus Christ is reduced to a man with a mission on a wrong planet!"
Some evolutionists understand the issue more clearly than Christians!
People just don't want to merge them, usually according to one side the other is impossible so they can't exist together, according to both sides.
It seems like a great idea to me but I'm still undecided about my beliefs.
Although it seems like a great idea, compromise just isn't possible, as I have briefly shown above. Theistic evolution also implies that God, who is omni-benevolent, and who Christianity teaches “contains no evil” created humans through millions of years of death, disease and suffering; a clear contradiction.
Those appear to be the only legitimate and reasonable questions from the non-Christians (I apologise if I've missed anyone else).
anyway, in the academic circles (people that study this stuff for their entire lives), evolution is not disputed at all
Hand waving and closing ranks against creationists. It is also completely untrue; there are many legitimate scientists who are conservative, Bible believing creationists:
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4983
In any case, you’ve committed the genetic fallacy rather marvellously here. A belief’s truth is not based on who believes it.
on my university I have not found a single person that would question any part of it.
More hand waving.
I'm sad that there are layman out there who think that there is a big controversy surrounding the issue, and that we are all picking sides, when in fact this issue was in reality settled by all people with IQ > 90.
Genetic fallacy (again…), elephant hurling, and an instance of ad hominem!
Please educate yourself. Go on YouTube, search evolution, and listen through a couple of videos.
Another instance of ad hominem. Naturally, all those who dispute evolution are stupid bigots who don't understand a single fact of science. A classic case of poisoning the well.
just... unbelievable.
over and out
It really is unbelievable that YouTube is depicted here as a definitive source of information. I’ve seen some of these so called educational videos, and suffice to say that they are sadly lacking, most (although admittedly not all) consisting of some person ranting at a video camera (yes; this does include some “professional” ones).
I find the distinct lack of real content in your posts quite worrying
Of course, it does not matter that mutations always result in a neutral or downhill change in genetic information and specified complexity, and that natural selection has no creative power, and only really works to cull the more damaging mutations out of the gene pool (the majority are not subject to it, so the mutational load builds up; we're experiencing devolution, not evolution).
And God is useless when it comes to science.
Ah. I find it amusing, then, that real science relies on Biblical axioms, and that science began in earnest only once; in Europe, under the influence of Christianity.
It's useless to do good deeds, if theres no relationship with God.
Yep. It's equally useless for a deed to qualify as good or bad without God. With no standard of absolute morality, good and evil are chemical by-products of our brain, having no more concrete value than air.
The key issue to bear in mind with this debate is that we are dealing with origins, not operational science. Simplistically, origins science is a historical reconstruction of the past, which is naturally heavily influenced by the reconstructor’s philosophy; hence, nobody is perfectly objective in this field, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but one must be aware of it.
Hope that helps to clear some things up.
)
