-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Oh, but it does.
It couldn't be any clearer, and that is what God affirmed ~1600 years later (Ex 20:11, 31:17),
and what the NT understands (Heb 4:3-4).
Creation by God is presented throughout the Bible
(Ex 20:11, 31:17; Isa 46:25-26, 66:2; Ac 17:24; Heb: 4:3-4).
Had they consulted Isa 40:22, perhaps they would have know otherwise.
It couldn't be any clearer, and that is what God affirmed ~1600 years later (Ex 20:11, 31:17),
and what the NT understands (Heb 4:3-4).
Creation by God is presented throughout the Bible
(Ex 20:11, 31:17; Isa 46:25-26, 66:2; Ac 17:24; Heb: 4:3-4).
Had they consulted Isa 40:22, perhaps they would have know otherwise.
The Bible cannot be proven to be true nor untrue.
Both beliefs are a matter of faith.
My faith, based on overwhelmingly convincing evidence, is that it is true.
Others' faith is that is it not.
My faith is that the Bible is true, and that Bible tells me that
mankind is without excuse for believing there is no God,
for his existence, even his invisible qualities of eternal power and his divine nature,
have been clearly seen,
being understood from what has been made.
Others' belief about the Bible and the God it reveals; i.e., that it is not true,
is likewise a matter of faith, since the bible cannot be proven to be untrue,
as well as proven to be true.
Both beliefs are a matter of faith.
My faith, based on overwhelmingly convincing evidence, is that it is true.
Others' faith is that is it not.
My faith is that the Bible is true, and that Bible tells me that
mankind is without excuse for believing there is no God,
for his existence, even his invisible qualities of eternal power and his divine nature,
have been clearly seen,
being understood from what has been made.
Others' belief about the Bible and the God it reveals; i.e., that it is not true,
is likewise a matter of faith, since the bible cannot be proven to be untrue,
as well as proven to be true.
F
"The bible clearly does NOT teach a literal six-day creation."
I don't know what Bible you read but mine is very clear.
"For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it." Exodus 20:11
Hi Esanta. Had a nice 4th of July weekend. Hope you are doing well.
Have you ever considered that you believe pharyngeal arches are simply part of how God designed the development of a human ear and has nothing to do with a myth about how fish gills + eons of time = human auditory organs?
The acanthostega appears to have been amphibian. It's no revelation that some amphibians spend their lives in the water.
Would it make any sense to you that living things have similar DNA because they were created out of the same substances?
Have you ever thought that you believe in evolution simply because you were told it was true?
Have you ever considered that you believe pharyngeal arches are simply part of how God designed the development of a human ear and has nothing to do with a myth about how fish gills + eons of time = human auditory organs?
The acanthostega appears to have been amphibian. It's no revelation that some amphibians spend their lives in the water.
Would it make any sense to you that living things have similar DNA because they were created out of the same substances?
Have you ever thought that you believe in evolution simply because you were told it was true?
T
Okay, let me say this. You can hold to evolutionary beliefs and still have a saving faith in Christ. That said, it's a mighty slippery slope. Once you factor in millions and billions of years, ape men, an allegorical fall and a local flood etc. you're walking into nightmare ground. They just don't square with the Scriptures. Once people agree on an evolutionary understanding, they don't believe Genesis 1-11 are literal history, many start to doubt Joseph and Abraham, for example, that were real people, and even Moses. Before you know it, they don't believe most of the OT. Some even begin to believe that there were unknown authors who wrote the OT and that most of it was written around the time of exile in Babylon (in the 6th Century BC and that the book of Genesis was one of the last OT books to be written to counter pagan Mesopotamian creation/flood myths -bull). They start to question the validity of the gospels and from there, it doesn't take much to bring down one's entire faith and question the divinity etc. of Christ. I've heard of many Christians who held to evolutionary beliefs and now no longer believe. Many of them. Once you start to question the Bible for the wrong reasons and don't hold to God's Word as God's Word, the whole pack of cards comes tumbling down ala the Tower of Babel. Genesis is foundational to God's Word. Both in its ancient truth and literal historicity.
A
First of all, even if creationism wasn't supported by science, it would still NOT (like evolution) be a religion. Why? Because science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment which can be applied to various hypothesis that may or may not comport to a religion(s).
Secondly, evolution is a theory that people apply science to just like creationism is a theory that people apply science to. You are right that neither is a religion.
Creationism is an observation of reality. Intrinsically, because a Creator is involved, the Creator's morality is the normative moral standard for the creation. This posits an ultimately meaningful morality in which normative morality is blessed and ultimately rewarded by the Creator and immorality results in a loss of blessing, loss of reward, and in the case of people who die in an unregenerate state rejecting the Creator and His normative morality there is punishment.
God, not Percepi ultimately decide who's "good" and who's "not good." And Percepi's perspective here that evolution is equitable to atheism is false. Many religious people do believe in and accept general evolutionary theory. Some Christians, for example, hold to theistic evolution such as the scientists, researchers, and educators at Biologos ,BioLogos: Science and faith in harmony
So the apologetical attack on atheistic morality, while a completely valid argument, needs to be restricted to atheism and not bleed over to evolution unless an atheist asserts evolutionary theory as a reason to reject Creator God's normative morality. Then the atheist's false assertion can, of course, be rebutted.
Read: Atheism Doesn't Lead to Immoral Behavior or Poor Ethics - Or Does It?
Secondly, evolution is a theory that people apply science to just like creationism is a theory that people apply science to. You are right that neither is a religion.
Creationism is an observation of reality. Intrinsically, because a Creator is involved, the Creator's morality is the normative moral standard for the creation. This posits an ultimately meaningful morality in which normative morality is blessed and ultimately rewarded by the Creator and immorality results in a loss of blessing, loss of reward, and in the case of people who die in an unregenerate state rejecting the Creator and His normative morality there is punishment.
God, not Percepi ultimately decide who's "good" and who's "not good." And Percepi's perspective here that evolution is equitable to atheism is false. Many religious people do believe in and accept general evolutionary theory. Some Christians, for example, hold to theistic evolution such as the scientists, researchers, and educators at Biologos ,BioLogos: Science and faith in harmony
So the apologetical attack on atheistic morality, while a completely valid argument, needs to be restricted to atheism and not bleed over to evolution unless an atheist asserts evolutionary theory as a reason to reject Creator God's normative morality. Then the atheist's false assertion can, of course, be rebutted.
Read: Atheism Doesn't Lead to Immoral Behavior or Poor Ethics - Or Does It?
Actually I used this term in a very broad sense, meaning changes in inherited characteristics, therefore, this is what is being taught as evolution. But it is not evolution in the narrower sense, a mechanism by which all forms of life evolved from a common ancestor.
God created his kinds (Heb. "min") with a large amount of variability. As variability occurs within the kinds through the natural gene pool distribution (offspring), then adaptation will occur as some of the offspring will be able to adapt to different environments better than others. There is a limit to the variability however which is at the family level of the taxonomic classification in most cases. This corresponds to the Genesis word "kind". To evolve to a different kind of animal, there must be additional DNA information which was not available to that kind in the original creation.
Mutations, which are extolled as being able to produce more information into the gene pool, always result in information being lost, not gained. There is a possibility that the mutation may result in genetic favorability in certain environments, and thus an increase in the offspring of animals with that temporary advantage. But in no case is there additional genetic information which would result in an evolving to a different kind of animal.
Atheists and Theistic Evolutionists would have us believe that life started with no information, and new information came about from nothing, and then more and more information was somehow created through mutations and natural selection and this somehow developed into the language of DNA. What we actually observe (THROUGH SCIENCE) is the exact opposite. We begin with lots of information in the DNA, and through mutations information is lost, resulting in most cases in imperfections in the offspring, which can be compensated to some degree by mating within large gene pools where good genes can mask bad genes resulting from mutations. This is why we cannot marry close relatives, whereas, in Adam and Eve's day, close marriage was not only necessary, but was possible, because the gene pool was relatively unscarred by thousands of years of mutations.
God created his kinds (Heb. "min") with a large amount of variability. As variability occurs within the kinds through the natural gene pool distribution (offspring), then adaptation will occur as some of the offspring will be able to adapt to different environments better than others. There is a limit to the variability however which is at the family level of the taxonomic classification in most cases. This corresponds to the Genesis word "kind". To evolve to a different kind of animal, there must be additional DNA information which was not available to that kind in the original creation.
Mutations, which are extolled as being able to produce more information into the gene pool, always result in information being lost, not gained. There is a possibility that the mutation may result in genetic favorability in certain environments, and thus an increase in the offspring of animals with that temporary advantage. But in no case is there additional genetic information which would result in an evolving to a different kind of animal.
Atheists and Theistic Evolutionists would have us believe that life started with no information, and new information came about from nothing, and then more and more information was somehow created through mutations and natural selection and this somehow developed into the language of DNA. What we actually observe (THROUGH SCIENCE) is the exact opposite. We begin with lots of information in the DNA, and through mutations information is lost, resulting in most cases in imperfections in the offspring, which can be compensated to some degree by mating within large gene pools where good genes can mask bad genes resulting from mutations. This is why we cannot marry close relatives, whereas, in Adam and Eve's day, close marriage was not only necessary, but was possible, because the gene pool was relatively unscarred by thousands of years of mutations.
Last edited:
Hello Elin,
I am not familiar with this statement and so I would have to research it before answering.
I think it safe to say that in the beginning there was perfect order, and it is man's sin that has introduced disorder into the universe, as God has chosen not to perfectly maintain an universe stained by sin.
Most scientists today have abandoned the idea that naturalism is a "closed system". Certainly a decrease in entropy does not imply a cessation. Most scientific atheists maintain that the universe will eventually experience "heat death". What a happy story ending!! Sure makes me want to be an atheist!!!
I am not familiar with this statement and so I would have to research it before answering.
I think it safe to say that in the beginning there was perfect order, and it is man's sin that has introduced disorder into the universe, as God has chosen not to perfectly maintain an universe stained by sin.
Most scientists today have abandoned the idea that naturalism is a "closed system". Certainly a decrease in entropy does not imply a cessation. Most scientific atheists maintain that the universe will eventually experience "heat death". What a happy story ending!! Sure makes me want to be an atheist!!!
T
The sooner you realise it's better to look foolish in the eyes of the world, rather than to compromise His Word, the better off we'll all be. God didn't call us to be accepted by the world, but instead, we are called to offer a message of grace and hope to a world that rejected Christ and rejects His followers.