Creationism and Evolution. Conflict or reconciliation.

[whosetosay...]

Just to make sure that this thread also does not become a debate about the definition of creationism, I am not referring to the wave of YEC or is it Young Earth Creationists. By creationism I mean the typical theistic stand that the universe was a creation and God exists and was/is the creator.

Thus, with this understanding it might be an interesting discussion to analyse what you have to say.

In the past there have been some mainstream theologians who propagated evolution. The query is, is evolution necessarily debunking creationism?

No it is impossible for evolution theory could not debunk creationism.My understanding is as follows:-

Creation - God made a mature world, When Adam created he was an adult, The earth likewise created mature, Could not have an adult man on a void form, Though just created by all human examinations and tests would have
been a physical adult and mature earth, I simply do not know why they come up with useless arguments. Could you form a man from soil now> No man will never produce anything God created from the soil or find answers because it is cursed. The life of mankind came from Gods own breath according to the word. Life in the form of creation only gives life, Sorry it wasn't more useful but that is how it reads.

 

[sun rise]

Did not answer the question I asked brother.

• Does it say that stones evolved into metal, metal into vegetable?

No. The developing soul progresses through the stone into the metal and then to vegetation. Physical evolution does not happen before life begins.

• And does it say Worms, insects and reptiles were the first to appear and then fish, birds and so on?

No. The soul progresses through the worms etc kingdom, then through the fish kingdom etc. Biological evolution happens to create forms that the developing soul can use to gather experience. In other words, there is a teleological reason for evolution.

• What does it mean by "Many stars, many suns".

The physical universe contains many stars. The rest of that sentence speaks to the Earth being the place where involution can occur.

I'm summarizing from my understanding a discourse in this book starting on page 20. That might be more responsive to your questions. https://ambppct.org/Book_Files/Beams.pdf

 

[blü 2]

And if this said God declared none of these calamities would happen then you could
call him a Liar.

[He]'s said to be all-knowing and all-powerful, and benevolent, and if that's right, [he]'s as morally culpable as I'd be if eg I just sat and watched a child drown in a swimming pool when with no particular effort I could prevent it.

But God never said anything like that - indeed, as you read the Gospels you get a very real sense that Jesus was warning about the brevity and uncertainty of life.

Matthew 7:7 “Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 8 For every one who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened.

John 15:7 If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you will, and it shall be done for you.

James 5:14 Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; 15 and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; [...]​

None of that is true at any greater rate than pure chance.

Fer instance he spoke to those Jews who thought the falling of the 'tower of Siloam' was meant to strike sinners, "No, but unless you repent you shall likewise perish."So why did some die when this tower fell? Because they were underneath it. That's
all. Life is brief, life is tough and the universe is cruel.

Despite what God and [his] earthly agents claim.

 

[PruePhillip]

[He]'s said to be all-knowing and all-powerful, and benevolent, and if that's right, [he]'s as morally culpable as I'd be if eg I just sat and watched a child drown in a swimming pool when with no particular effort I could prevent it.

Matthew 7:7 “Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 8 For every one who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened.

John 15:7 If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you will, and it shall be done for you.

James 5:14 Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; 15 and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; [...]​

None of that is true at any greater rate than pure chance.
Despite what God and [his] earthly agents claim.

Knock and you shall find did not refer to knocking on the door of your local bakery
or your Lamborghini dealership. This is spiritual language. Saving the sick man also,
the Lord will raise him up. Raise him up where?
Matthew 5,6 and 7 refer to spiritual matters - this is the heart of the Gospels. Sure,
there's the claim that Jesus fed the poor (once or twice) and healed the sick. But
such gestures were to demonstrate who He was - not that the Gospel is about there
being no more poor or sick.

As an aside. The account where Jesus spoke in his local synagogue. He mentioned
how only two people were helped during a great famine in Elijah's day. Neither of
these two were even Jews. The listeners sought to kill Jesus.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yep. Said in the OP.

Right. But not all would agree with that definition, and so therefore, the estimate of what's true and not true cannot really be based on a false premise. (can it?)

 

[YoursTrue]

Knock and you shall find did not refer to knocking on the door of your local bakery
or your Lamborghini dealership. This is spiritual language. Saving the sick man also,
the Lord will raise him up. Raise him up where?
Matthew 5,6 and 7 refer to spiritual matters - this is the heart of the Gospels. Sure,
there's the claim that Jesus fed the poor (once or twice) and healed the sick. But
such gestures were to demonstrate who He was - not that the Gospel is about there
being no more poor or sick.

As an aside. The account where Jesus spoke in his local synagogue. He mentioned
how only two people were helped during a great famine in Elijah's day. Neither of
these two were even Jews. The listeners sought to kill Jesus.

Imagine that.

 

[PruePhillip]

Imagine that.

Yes, imagine that. The Messiah did not come to feed the poor.
There's the account of the 'feeding of the five thousand.' Says
the Jews wanted to make Jesus king. Jesus pointed out that
they ate of his food and were fed - that's all they wanted from
him, a material provider.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No it is impossible for evolution theory could not debunk creationism.My understanding is as follows:-

Creation - God made a mature world, When Adam created he was an adult, The earth likewise created mature, Could not have an adult man on a void form, Though just created by all human examinations and tests would have
been a physical adult and mature earth, I simply do not know why they come up with useless arguments. Could you form a man from soil now> No man will never produce anything God created from the soil or find answers because it is cursed. The life of mankind came from Gods own breath according to the word. Life in the form of creation only gives life, Sorry it wasn't more useful but that is how it reads.

So you believe that God lies.

 

[blü 2]

Knock and you shall find did not refer to knocking on the door of your local bakery or your Lamborghini dealership. This is spiritual language. Saving the sick man also, the Lord will raise him up. Raise him up where?

Same place he'd be if God kept out of it, I dare say.

Matthew 5,6 and 7 refer to spiritual matters - this is the heart of the Gospels. Sure, there's the claim that Jesus fed the poor (once or twice) and healed the sick. But such gestures were to demonstrate who He was - not that the Gospel is about there being no more poor or sick.

So just as I said, the words don't mean what they say.

As an aside. The account where Jesus spoke in his local synagogue. He mentioned how only two people were helped during a great famine in Elijah's day. Neither of these two were even Jews. The listeners sought to kill Jesus.

Tribal prejudices, I dare say, will be with us for a while yet ─ humans have deep tribal instincts.

 

[PruePhillip]

Same place he'd be if God kept out of it, I dare say.
So just as I said, the words don't mean what they say.
Tribal prejudices, I dare say, will be with us for a while yet ─ humans have deep tribal instincts.

Tribal instincts??????
Here's the deal. The Jews want a Messiah. The problem is there are TWO MESSIAHS in the
Old Testament. One is the reigning, conquering king and the second is the Redeemer who
gives his life for His people - the lamb slain for a sin offering.
The Redeemer is not widely accepted of the Jews. Indeed, their own bible tells them this
man will be 'despised and rejected of men, a man of sorrows... he shall bear our sins..."
And he will be believed upon of the Gentiles.
But Zechaih tells us the reigning and conquering king will one day stand upon the earth,
and the Jews will mourn when they realize it's the same lowly man they crucified.

So Jesus knew what would happen when He said what He said.

 

[Clara Tea]

Just to make sure that this thread also does not become a debate about the definition of creationism, I am not referring to the wave of YEC or is it Young Earth Creationists. By creationism I mean the typical theistic stand that the universe was a creation and God exists and was/is the creator.

Thus, with this understanding it might be an interesting discussion to analyse what you have to say.

In the past there have been some mainstream theologians who propagated evolution. The query is, is evolution necessarily debunking creationism?

DNA is used as hard evidence in courts. It can prove or disprove guilt or innocence. Two recent popes have admitted that DNA is real and it constitutes proof that one animal is related to another.

DNA proves that man is related to a bonobo.

DNA proves evolution.

We see evolution happening when viruses mutate. The mutation of viruses is the reason that we have to get booster vaccines every year for the flu. The current vaccine for COVID might be ineffectual against its mutated version. When a virus jumps from one species to another (such as duck from a pond next to a pig sty to a pig), that virus undergoes a rapid and drastic mutation to adapt to the new host. This is how we know that the COVID virus was made in a lab (where it finished mutating by attacking human lung cells in a petri dish.....a fact that experts fail to acknowledge).

Most geneticists think that religious people are uneducated superstitious fools who don't bother to study the facts but assert falsehoods (lies) to continue asserting their superstitions.

Two recent pope concluded that DNA and evolution are real, but God has somehow guided evolution. They have no proof of their assertion.

The belief in God is similar to an Irish leprechaun story. It can be as outrageous as possible, but somehow it involves the leprechaun drinking beer from a mug. Then the bartender points to a mug on a shelf of the bar and says, "see, that empty mug on the shelf proves that the leprechaun is real." Virtually every bar in Ireland has one of those mugs to assert the validity of their wild fairy tales. Of course non-believers think that the mug could have had nothing at all to do with leprechauns.

It could always be argued that all-powerful and all-knowing God could set up conditions to fool us. That is, it could be that God created dinosaur bones that date to 6,000,000 years ago just to fool us. It could be that God made DNA just to fool us into thinking that evolution is real. But, what is the purpose? Perhaps God wants to offer us free choice to believe in God or not?

Back in the Dark Ages, scientists were tortured (in a very kind and Christian way, screaming in agony until they were dead). Science was thought to be the enemy that was corrupting mankind. Today, science is thought to be taking religion away from people, so science must be stopped. There are campaigns to take science out of schools and replace it with creationism.

Perhaps some also see common sense, facts, and logic as an assault upon their religion. Do we return to the Dark Ages?

Certainly the Ayatollah Khomeni returned Iran to the Dark Ages. Iranians educated in America were put to death for being Americanized. Dancing, singing, and enjoying were seen as evil Satanic influences.

 

[blü 2]

Tribal instincts??????

Yes. The Torah is full of Canaanite tribes. Didn't you notice?

And I don't know where you live, but the odds are very good that you have a local football team with local support. And so on.

Here's the deal. The Jews want a Messiah. The problem is there are TWO MESSIAHS in the Old Testament. One is the reigning, conquering king and the second is the Redeemer who gives his life for His people - the lamb slain for a sin offering.

Please specify the part or parts of the Tanakh that say what you're asserting.

The Redeemer is not widely accepted of the Jews.

Why would they notice Jesus at all? He doesn't touch the Jewish concept of a messiah ─ a christ ─ at any point, and as for being the savior of the Jews, he instead begins two millennia of often murderous Christian antisemitism, cheered on by the author of John.

Indeed, their own bible tells them this man will be 'despised and rejected of men, a man of sorrows... he shall bear our sins..."

No, It doesn't, That's just nonsensical Christian retrofit, trying to pretend Jesus is mentioned in the Tanakh.

 

[PruePhillip]

Yes. The Torah is full of Canaanite tribes. Didn't you notice?

And I don't know where you live, but the odds are very good that you have a local football team with local support. And so on.
Please specify the part or parts of the Tanakh that say what you're asserting.
Why would they notice Jesus at all? He doesn't touch the Jewish concept of a messiah ─ a christ ─ at any point, and as for being the savior of the Jews, he instead begins two millennia of often murderous Christian antisemitism, cheered on by the author of John.
No, It doesn't, That's just nonsensical Christian retrofit, trying to pretend Jesus is mentioned in the Tanakh.

I shouldn't have to give references to the two Messiahs in the Tanakh. They are both liberally sprinkled
throughout that book. The Redeemer is given as specific prophecy and as metaphor. The metaphor is
the rejected and reigning king, the perfect male lamb taken into the household and killed on the third
day so its blood would save the household, Job's Redeemer that lives and will one day stand upon the
earth, the suffering savior of David and Isaiah etc.. Zechariah, amongst others, brings the two Messiahs
together as one - and those who accept the Messiah in His rejection will reign with Him in His glory.

 

[firedragon]

DNA is used as hard evidence in courts. It can prove or disprove guilt or innocence. Two recent popes have admitted that DNA is real and it constitutes proof that one animal is related to another.

DNA proves that man is related to a bonobo.

DNA proves evolution.

We see evolution happening when viruses mutate. The mutation of viruses is the reason that we have to get booster vaccines every year for the flu. The current vaccine for COVID might be ineffectual against its mutated version. When a virus jumps from one species to another (such as duck from a pond next to a pig sty to a pig), that virus undergoes a rapid and drastic mutation to adapt to the new host. This is how we know that the COVID virus was made in a lab (where it finished mutating by attacking human lung cells in a petri dish.....a fact that experts fail to acknowledge).

Most geneticists think that religious people are uneducated superstitious fools who don't bother to study the facts but assert falsehoods (lies) to continue asserting their superstitions.

Two recent pope concluded that DNA and evolution are real, but God has somehow guided evolution. They have no proof of their assertion.

The belief in God is similar to an Irish leprechaun story. It can be as outrageous as possible, but somehow it involves the leprechaun drinking beer from a mug. Then the bartender points to a mug on a shelf of the bar and says, "see, that empty mug on the shelf proves that the leprechaun is real." Virtually every bar in Ireland has one of those mugs to assert the validity of their wild fairy tales. Of course non-believers think that the mug could have had nothing at all to do with leprechauns.

It could always be argued that all-powerful and all-knowing God could set up conditions to fool us. That is, it could be that God created dinosaur bones that date to 6,000,000 years ago just to fool us. It could be that God made DNA just to fool us into thinking that evolution is real. But, what is the purpose? Perhaps God wants to offer us free choice to believe in God or not?

Back in the Dark Ages, scientists were tortured (in a very kind and Christian way, screaming in agony until they were dead). Science was thought to be the enemy that was corrupting mankind. Today, science is thought to be taking religion away from people, so science must be stopped. There are campaigns to take science out of schools and replace it with creationism.

Perhaps some also see common sense, facts, and logic as an assault upon their religion. Do we return to the Dark Ages?

Certainly the Ayatollah Khomeni returned Iran to the Dark Ages. Iranians educated in America were put to death for being Americanized. Dancing, singing, and enjoying were seen as evil Satanic influences.

Good topics for another thread I see.

 

[blü 2]

I shouldn't have to give references to the two Messiahs in the Tanakh.

Since I don't know what you're talking about unless you tell me, it would be helpful if you tell me. It's my habit to look at texts in cases like this, so I'm clear on what the point of discussion is.

 

[PruePhillip]

Since I don't know what you're talking about unless you tell me, it would be helpful if you tell me. It's my habit to look at texts in cases like this, so I'm clear on what the point of discussion is.

Okay, I can't just Google such references, but from memory

Job "I know my Redeemer lives and he shall stand on the earth in the latter days"
David "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me.. they cast lots for my vesture... I see all my bones... they pierced my hands and feet"
David "I am an alien to my mother's children...they gave me gall... and vinegar to drink"
Zechariah "I will destroy the nations that come against Jerusalem... and they shall look upon me whom they pierced... mourn..."
Isaiah "despised and rejected... after he has suffered he shall see the light of life and be satisfied"
David "It shall be told to generations not yet born that he has done this."
Daniel "and the annointed one will be cut off, but die for his people, and the ruler will come and destroy the city and the sanctuary"

Off the top of my head, paraphrasing some verses. Can't remember without following these up.
My favorite is Jacob's prophecy of the line of Judah, leading to a Hebrew nation that would last until the Messiah comes, and in
him shall the Gentiles trust.

 

[YoursTrue]

Tribal instincts??????
Here's the deal. The Jews want a Messiah. The problem is there are TWO MESSIAHS in the
Old Testament. One is the reigning, conquering king and the second is the Redeemer who
gives his life for His people - the lamb slain for a sin offering.
The Redeemer is not widely accepted of the Jews. Indeed, their own bible tells them this
man will be 'despised and rejected of men, a man of sorrows... he shall bear our sins..."
And he will be believed upon of the Gentiles.
But Zechaih tells us the reigning and conquering king will one day stand upon the earth,
and the Jews will mourn when they realize it's the same lowly man they crucified.

So Jesus knew what would happen when He said what He said.

I'm saying family ties (not calling them tribal ties, although history is interesting as "families" expanded into national groups) can be very, very strong. Yes, I was thinking, too, that he was despised, a man of sorrows.

 

[YoursTrue]

DNA is used as hard evidence in courts. It can prove or disprove guilt or innocence. Two recent popes have admitted that DNA is real and it constitutes proof that one animal is related to another.

DNA proves that man is related to a bonobo.

DNA proves evolution.

We see evolution happening when viruses mutate. The mutation of viruses is the reason that we have to get booster vaccines every year for the flu. The current vaccine for COVID might be ineffectual against its mutated version. When a virus jumps from one species to another (such as duck from a pond next to a pig sty to a pig), that virus undergoes a rapid and drastic mutation to adapt to the new host. This is how we know that the COVID virus was made in a lab (where it finished mutating by attacking human lung cells in a petri dish.....a fact that experts fail to acknowledge).

Most geneticists think that religious people are uneducated superstitious fools who don't bother to study the facts but assert falsehoods (lies) to continue asserting their superstitions.

Two recent pope concluded that DNA and evolution are real, but God has somehow guided evolution. They have no proof of their assertion.

The belief in God is similar to an Irish leprechaun story. It can be as outrageous as possible, but somehow it involves the leprechaun drinking beer from a mug. Then the bartender points to a mug on a shelf of the bar and says, "see, that empty mug on the shelf proves that the leprechaun is real." Virtually every bar in Ireland has one of those mugs to assert the validity of their wild fairy tales. Of course non-believers think that the mug could have had nothing at all to do with leprechauns.

It could always be argued that all-powerful and all-knowing God could set up conditions to fool us. That is, it could be that God created dinosaur bones that date to 6,000,000 years ago just to fool us. It could be that God made DNA just to fool us into thinking that evolution is real. But, what is the purpose? Perhaps God wants to offer us free choice to believe in God or not?

Back in the Dark Ages, scientists were tortured (in a very kind and Christian way, screaming in agony until they were dead). Science was thought to be the enemy that was corrupting mankind. Today, science is thought to be taking religion away from people, so science must be stopped. There are campaigns to take science out of schools and replace it with creationism.

Perhaps some also see common sense, facts, and logic as an assault upon their religion. Do we return to the Dark Ages?

Certainly the Ayatollah Khomeni returned Iran to the Dark Ages. Iranians educated in America were put to death for being Americanized. Dancing, singing, and enjoying were seen as evil Satanic influences.

Again -- the discussion really does revolve around what defines evolution and/or creation. Not everyone will agree with me, but evolution basically starts from the theory that living matter came from non-living matter. While others will tell me, "oh, no, that's abiogenesis," I am realizing one cannot possibly have (believe) the evolution theory without accepting or believing the idea that living matter came from non-living matter. Evolution (the theory of) simply cannot exist (in theory) without the primary theory (or supposed cause) that life (living matter) came from non-living matter.

 

[YoursTrue]

Okay, I can't just Google such references, but from memory

Job "I know my Redeemer lives and he shall stand on the earth in the latter days"
David "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me.. they cast lots for my vesture... I see all my bones... they pierced my hands and feet"
David "I am an alien to my mother's children...they gave me gall... and vinegar to drink"
Zechariah "I will destroy the nations that come against Jerusalem... and they shall look upon me whom they pierced... mourn..."
Isaiah "despised and rejected... after he has suffered he shall see the light of life and be satisfied"
David "It shall be told to generations not yet born that he has done this."
Daniel "and the annointed one will be cut off, but die for his people, and the ruler will come and destroy the city and the sanctuary"

Off the top of my head, paraphrasing some verses. Can't remember without following these up.
My favorite is Jacob's prophecy of the line of Judah, leading to a Hebrew nation that would last until the Messiah comes, and in
him shall the Gentiles trust.

You bring in many ideas. All good, but obviously require discussion and understanding. All the scriptures you quote are beautiful.

 

[wellwisher]

The debate between evolution and creation is connected to atheism trying to use evolution to politically bludgeon religion. Modern evolutionary theory is not a good science weapon, since this theory cannot explain when life first appears nor can it make accurate predictions, in real time. These are huge philosophy of science problems, that should have red flagged the theory. There is no other main line theory, in all of science, that gets such a pass in terms of making detailed predictions. Name me one other! Politics is running this scam, covering up for a half baked theory that fails the full philosophy of science.

If we put aside the formation and evolution of life on earth, before 6000 years ago, all humans have witnessed changes in nature and how nature seems to favor the fittest. This time period is not in disagreement, with change, by either science or religion. All, both in religion and science, have seen how humans make artificial selections, in terms of food plants and animals, to reach a given goal. Natural selection is part of continuing natural potentials.

The real source of disagreement has to do with the foundation philosophies that underly each approach. Creation assumes an omniscience God, which implies he is smart enough to know how to build a universe and how to form a sequential plan. The natural change over the last 6000 years is part of a design and plan; rational universe based on access to the best of data; omniscience.

Evolution, is now more based on statistical modeling, which is the same math used in gambling casinos. We put money in the slot machines, hoping for a jackpot. But, like evolutionary theory, we cannot predict which machine will hit and when. There is no real plan. If you do plan you will be escorted out for card counting. If this was a theology, it would be about an idiot savant God, who has no plan, but who likes to roll dice and play the slots, and every now and then, wins a big pot. We can spot that jack pot, but only after someone wins. Then we dream of winning and luxury.

Darwin never took the casino approach to evolution. Rather he theorized natural selection, which was not based on whim of the gods or luck, but it was the sum of all the natural potentials; weather, competition, types of fauna and flora, helping to pick the most adapted. He assumed a logical explanation, which he felt, if we could rationally quantify all the local potentials, we would make the same choices and selections. Darwin was not omniscient, so he saw the goal of defining these natural potentials as being in the future.

Somewhere along the line, this rational approach got perverted into a gambling and casino approach, based on closet version an idiot savant God. This is not new, but was the basis for the whims of the Gods in polytheism. They all seem to have a trickster figure. They too used a gambling approach, but also try to appeal to the gods, with math oracles, to be help them be more aware of the politics on Olympus.

If you look at politicians they also use the same math as gambling and evolution. Polling is part of a math oracle, to help determine the whimsical needs of the electorate. But polling was also used by fake news to brain wash those who like to gamble. It was used like the rumors at the race track to help get people to bet a certain way, to help the house.