You indulge in exactly the same narrow-mindedness you accuse others of. The God of Abraham, the Father, is my God. Nevertheless, my Church does not insist that accepting a specific cosmogony is a vital matter for salvation. Likewise, where, specifically, in Scripture are all terms defined? While metaphoric terms of days are used, where, specifically, in Scripture is it stated that these are not metaphors?
DogfaceI didn’t imply that believing the literal-day creation was a necessity for salvation.
You may be right about the Carbon, Sentient Meat. I just choose to believe the literal Creation instead of science. Science isn’t infallibe. But, I could be wrong on how it all played out. After all, the account in Genesis is considered by some to be a re-creation (I’ve heard there’s a gap between Gen 1:1 and 1:2) and I heard one preacher say there could’ve been a pre-Adamic race. I have no idea whether that’s true or not.
Lynn, I understand that it is difficult to truly question oneself about matters of such importance. But do you entertain the possibility that the Earth is millions of years old?
Look at a map of the world: you will see how closely South America fits Africa. There is overwhelming evidence that they were joined to each other, and moved apart at a rate of inches per year.
Do you simply ignore things like this?
It sounds like the last sentence is the rationale you have for dismissing science out-of-hand. Seems a bit odd to me, considering you use the benefits of science in your daily like without a second thought.
Are these two senteces of yours to imply that literal Creation is infallible?
I think God certainly conceived the world and all being, I believe he set it into motion, beyond time. I don’t see evolution as something that denies God’s power - saying he did it all in six days, cause he’s so powerful attributes very “human” signs of “power” - Hey, look at me, I can do it all in 6 days while riding a bike AND chewing gum.
I think evolution is a very plausible theory - and many theories WITHIN it stir up some very interesting reasoning, especially when they disagree with one another.
So the fact that the creator managed to conceive of something as intricate and fascinating as the evolution fills me with much more admiration and awe, than if he had made the world all-ready-to-go, cardboard-cutout-style: THERE!
nah.
A world like that would lack the motion, and the “life” that it should have.
I’ll concede that some of you could be right about how creation has played out. What I believe about it doesn’t affect my salvation I don’t think. But if evolution is correct, where are all the fossils of transitional life forms? It certainly is interesting no matter what theory you believe in. As someone else said, vanilla I think, we’re not hurting anyone by believing in the literal 6-day creation. I don’t know, I just don’t think that on this matter, science should be considered to be totally infallible. These men weren’t there. God was. And,yes, I know you say there’s the evidence. Different people have examined the same evidence and come to different conclusions or we wouldn’t have scientists who believe in the creation account.
Here’s a few hundred to be going on with.
Regarding the “fallibility” of science, then where there is doubt about a particular hypothesis, good science will always admit so. But the age of the Earth is known beyond all reasonable doubt.
Sorry, Lynn, but Young Earth Creationists are not scientific in their method. Again, they are wilfully ignoring the most basic scientific principles and the mountains of evidence produced thereby.
Here are some transitional fossils, but technically, all fossils are transitional.
Science isn’t considered totally infallible - quite the contrary, in fact, science contains self-correcting mechanisms because it expects to make wrong initial guesses - it is a methodology by which we approach the truth (truth in a non-metaphysical, factual sense).
It’s creationism that is making all the claims about infallibility. Nobody is harmed by what you believe, however, if we were to insist that mythology that has no solid factual grounding is taught in science classes (as is the objective of many creationist organisations), then I think that’s where harm starts to be done - in the same way that harm might come about from teaching medical students that the germ theory of disease is only one interpretation of the data and that they should also consider althernatives such as the four humours and the miasma hypothesis.
I may be wrong about this next bit, but in my experience, many of the scientists who believe in literal Biblical creation, tend to be engineers, and mathematicians rather than biologists, paleontologists and geologists - i.e. they are not necessariy in direct, intimate exposure to the evidence and do not have a the same kind of (appropriate)training and study under their belts. There is, of course, the other kind of creation scientist, which has qualifications that are simply invented to add plausibility - Kent Hovind (DrDino), for example. As I said, this is just my perception, so feel free to correct me - Do you know of any notable exceptions?
I don’t see why it has to be one OR the other. Allowing for the possibility of misinterpretation or incorrect translations regarding WHEN the Creation occurred, I think it is reasonable to assert that both creationists and evolutionists could be correct.
Also, if you believe GOD is the creator, you probably also believe that Satan was cast down to Earth. You should then also know that he is the deceiver. He would do everything within his power to destroy what GOD created. Could he or would he not then set forth in motion his own inferior attempt at shaping the world. He would be responsible for much of the unexplained phenomena, strange fossils, plants, animals and even proto-humans, and other confusing information which goes against the beliefs held by the faithful.
Three forces working simultaneously. The two described in the Bible and the other a natural process explained by Darwin. The race of people that existed in the world into which Cain married. These “humans” could have been the result of Satan’s manipulation. Lifeforms he developed and through evolution and selective breeding and then bred with the fallen host. Ultimately resulting in a race of people, his own “Nephilim” I guess you could say.
Anyway, just thought I’d add a little different seasoning to the pot. Spice it up a bit, ya know. 
I don’t see how an otherwise intelligent and informed person like yourself can take such an obvious allegory as literal truth. There is so much evidence, and every last bit of it points to your illogical belief as being nonsense.
I have several friends who are priests, and even they don’t believe in literal creationism as stated in the contradictory Genesis 1 and 2. Why would anyone so limit their worldview?
So now we have 2 supernatural agents that we have no objective or empirical proof of? Since we can’t tell the difference between God caused, Satan cause and physical law caused why bother with the first two?
The “missing link” is a red herring. The evolutionary tree is one of gradients and subtlety. There are not “links” in it, and we only have pseudo-links because only a few examples of proto-humans remain, creating an unrealistic view of the evolution of man.
The “missing link” can never be found, because every new link creates two new “missing links.”
If you have:
Proto-Human 1, Missing Link, Proto-human 2
and then you find a third form of human that falls between the two, you now have:
Proto-human 1, Missing Link, Proto-human 1a, Missing Link, Proto-human 2
And thus it never ends.
Very interesting, t-keela. And I do believe in Satan and what the Bible says about him.
Incidentally, it should be noted that a round Earth would contradict several passages in the bible, which explicitly speaks of “up” and “down” in terms of the direction to heaven or elsewhere, since “up” in Australia would be “down” in Europe.
Should Young Earth creationists therefore also be Flat-Earthers, and any evidence of a round Earth simlpy be ignored or “interpreted differently”?
Oh, please. Satan created a fully consistent fossil record, formed the very layers of the ocean floor, and created dead stars which look like they’re exploding?
One might as well believe you are in the Matrix.
I will agree that it is, indeed, an interesting question. It is, however, a question which has already been answered in many ways.
My concern is not with what people believe, but in what they don’t believe, and why. Your non-belief in evolution is really not so much a non-belief in evolution as it is a non-belief in a caricature of evolution (I’m not necessarily singling you out here, as there are many such responses in this thread alone). Which, I should point out, evolutionists don’t believe in, either.
Asking the question about transitional fossils demonstrates that you really don’t know a lot about the topic. That is no crime, certainly, but it does not paint you in a favorable light to claim, “I don’t believe in evolution” when you really don’t even understand evolution! You should at least make an attempt to know what it is you are discarding; to do otherwise is simply willful ignorance.
To address your question specifically, it should be pointed out that the fossil record is a complex beast. To fully understand even what we currently know, you need to have a grounding in such varied fields as geology, taphonomy, comparative anatomy, statistics, paleontology, and evolution. The same is true for many such perceived problems with evolution: nature is complex, so the explanations for why things are the way they are are also complex. You won’t disprove evolution by pointing to any single “problem”, and saying, “OK, explain this!” Others have already mentioned that there are in fact transitional fossils, but to really understand why they are not as prevalent as some might like requires more involved explanations (which I am sure many would be happy to provide, though I’m not sure if this thread is the proper place for them).
So, again, if you want to disbelieve, great. But at least make sure you know what you are really disbelieving, instead of just parroting what you may see on a creationist website, or have heard from a pastor or some such. The people who best now what evolution is about are those who study it. And they are the ones you should really be asking if there’s something you don’t know or understand. There are many such people on this very board, in fact!
Neither is scriptural exegesis. We can get an inkling, a trend, even a fairly good idea, but certainty? What we have is faith, and true faith is humble, true faith admits to the possibility of error.
There’s a problem with this reasoning. (understatement) Where does it end? If the universe were created to look old, it could have been done today. Just because we woke up this morning with brains full of memories doesn’t mean we weren’t just created, does it? According to your beliefs it’s entirely possible we only think we remember our childhoods and what we had for dinner last night and everything else. They could all be false memories. Right?
All of which presumes that Satan has the power of creation, which would itself be something of a blasphemous belief, would it not? If Satan has the power of creation, then why is he not worthy of worship? If Satan has the power of creation, why does he even care what God does? Can’t be jealousy, as God’s creations aren’t exactly the pinnacle of perfection, either.
Is there any actual dogma or theological teaching which states that Satan does have such powers, or is this simply baseless theological speculation?