Evolution vs. Creation

I agree with the premise of creation. I think you could guess that. But I have some points to raise: 1.) the first section of Genesis is written in poetic form, which is rarely meant to be taken literally in scripture. Don't get me wrong, I believe in ex nihilo creation, but it IS poetic form. 2.) Days... how? There wasn't even a sun until the third day, and the sun causes the rotation of the earth. Plus, the Israelites counted days by sunrises and sunsets. So, I don't believe in one day, two days, three days, etc. progression of creation. To this end, I find it plausible to accept the Big Bang, provided it is allowed that divine activity set the matter in place.

....And so the circle of argument begins again with the same debunked arguments as previously. This should be fun.

My two cents, sorry if this is repeating previously made points. I believe in God. I also believe in evolution. Both are theories. I choose to believe them, cos I've got free will and religion requires faith in things you cannot understand. We cannot cite any evidence in support of the existence of God because by definition, he exists in a realm outside of human material experience. So we have no material evidence that he exists. Otherwise, he wouldn't be a God. It seems to me that there is no material evidence for creationism. The bible isn't literal, surely, or else we'd all be going around chopping our hands off and hopping on one foot. We're not supposed to understand how the world was created, because if we did, we'd be God. To say that evolution isn't real however seems to require a serious amount of trickery in my head. There may be other explanations, but I've not heard any as convincing. So what if God didn't create everything in one 'zap' of his finger? Maybe that's just they way it can be expressed to us so that we understand it. Evolution doesn't stop me believing in God.

One correction: God would be considered a hypothesis rather than a theory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyn

My two cents, sorry if this is repeating previously made points. I believe in God. I also believe in evolution. Both are theories. I choose to believe them, cos I've got free will and religion requires faith in things you cannot understand. We cannot cite any evidence in support of the existence of God because by definition, he exists in a realm outside of human material experience. So we have no material evidence that he exists. Otherwise, he wouldn't be a God. It seems to me that there is no material evidence for creationism. The bible isn't literal, surely, or else we'd all be going around chopping our hands off and hopping on one foot. We're not supposed to understand how the world was created, because if we did, we'd be God. To say that evolution isn't real however seems to require a serious amount of trickery in my head. There may be other explanations, but I've not heard any as convincing. So what if God didn't create everything in one 'zap' of his finger? Maybe that's just they way it can be expressed to us so that we understand it. Evolution doesn't stop me believing in God.

---

There's plenty of material evidence for God. It's just that not all of it is so obvious. I would recommend reading up on the historicity of Jesus' life though. You may have a change of heart with regards to your notion that there's no evidence. Faith is not blind.

Reading up on the historicity of Jesus' life is likely to sway one to the other side, if anything.

That aside, even if the historical person existed that has no bearing on whether he is God or not. I suppose reading up on the historicity of Muhammad's life should convince of us God, otherwise....

Also, I'd like to know what this material evidence is. I was not aware of such evidence when I was a Christian and I'm certainly not aware of it now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark Star

Reading up on the historicity of Jesus' life is likely to sway one to the other side, if anything.

That aside, even if the historical person existed that has no bearing on whether he is God or not. I suppose reading up on the historicity of Muhammad's life should convince of us God, otherwise....

Also, I'd like to know what this material evidence is. I was not aware of such evidence when I was a Christian and I'm certainly not aware of it now.

---

So you even doubt Jesus existed? Well that basically renders your opinions meaningless doesn't it? The only scholars who still believe that are considered kooks, and that's even by people who aren't remotely sympathetic to Christianity.

When inquiring into the subject without the a priori assumption of his existence you'll find that there is not enough evidence of his existence to classify him as a historical figure. He's quite clearly classed as a mythological one, until of course, we can dig up some reliable evidence for his existence (assuming this ever occurs).

As for it rendering my opinions meaningless: No. What would render my opinions meaningless would be if I decided "I am a Christian, therefore Jesus Christ exists. This is a fact. Now, it's time to go find evidence to prove what I know to be a fact and anyone who disagrees with me is insane" like the scholars that you've recommended do and you yourself seem to do.

I fail to see what you mean by the scholars 'who still believe that' since this is a fairly recent development in historical scholarship and is not kooky in any sense. Doherty and Price for example are considered to be high quality scholars even if they are in the minority. If you would try reading works on the historicity or lack thereof of Jesus that aren't by Christian apologists and deal with the subject in a more balanced matter you would realize this.

By the way, I love the evasive tactics there. You will not find any material evidence to support the existence of God, and thus, you attack my point of view on the historicity of Jesus on some rather shoddy grounds.