Creationists opinions...

Being new to this forum I thought I would ask a basic and straight forward question from all those who may be 6 day creationists.
What precludes you from accepting evolution as fact? I know I will get the obligatory, "Because it's not true." or "Because the Bible doesn't say this is what happened." And I get that. But what I am looking for is your first blush reaction to the theory itself. Is it because you will have to admit your flesh is not infallible and admit you have more in common, physical, with apes than you would like to admit?
Really, tell me what you think. I am curious and would never judge someone for their beliefs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by creatolution

Being new to this forum I thought I would ask a basic and straight forward question from all those who may be 6 day creationists.
What precludes you from accepting evolution as fact? I know I will get the obligatory, "Because it's not true." or "Because the Bible doesn't say this is what happened." And I get that. But what I am looking for is your first blush reaction to the theory itself. Is it because you will have to admit your flesh is not infallible and admit you have more in common, physical, with apes than you would like to admit?
Really, tell me what you think. I am curious and would never judge someone for their beliefs.

---

Greetings Creatolution and welcome,
Quite a "creative" name.
Having something in common with apes is not a factor as we know that our flesh is corrupt and our hearts are wicked so admitting we are fallible is not a problem. Actually its also a good reason not to trust the conclusions of man when they are opposed to God. Almost all we know and believe about God, His nature, His plans, His will, etc. comes from the scriptures so it is hard to have a reaction without considering the Bible. There are many reasons why I feel evolution is incorrect but the main one is that for evolution to work there must be death, lots of time and death. The scriptures tell us that before sin came into the world, by man, there was no death. Man existed before sin, man existed before death, God created man to live forever but then he chose to disobey and we know the rest. Evolution does not fit nor is it needed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by disciple

we know that our flesh is corrupt and our hearts are wicked so admitting we are fallible is not a problem. Actually its also a good reason not to trust the conclusions of man when they are opposed to God.

---

I think it's also a good reason not to trust what man writes, especially when he says he speaks for God.

Quote:

---

What precludes you from accepting evolution as fact? I know I will get the obligatory, "Because it's not true." or "Because the Bible doesn't say this is what happened." And I get that. But what I am looking for is your first blush reaction to the theory itself. Is it because you will have to admit your flesh is not infallible and admit you have more in common, physical, with apes than you would like to admit?
Really, tell me what you think. I am curious and would never judge someone for their beliefs.

---

#1 it can't be proven true.

#2 the time frame is too long and any results cannot be proven as evolution in action

#3. you can't put the process of evoloution in a test tube, you can only put what you think is the result of that process 'efforts' and then claim it is evolution

#4 you cannot prove that the process of evolution actualy exists and can instill in people, animals, plants the things it does not possess itself

#5 the process of evolution cannot think, feel, talk, and has no concept of what food is, does not have emotions, creativity, no morality, no good or evil in it thus it cannot direct its 'offspring' to obtain such things.

#6 natural selection does not exist.

#7 Gen. 1:30 or 31 states that creation was complete in all of its vast array.' thus there is no ongoing process tweaking humans and animals.

My view is that nothing in Genesis teaches against eviolution being true.

I also remember that Walter martin allowed for evolution being true and the earth being old...It might not have been his understanding, but he did allow for the chance

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

My view is that nothing in Genesis teaches against eviolution being true.

I also remember that Walter martin allowed for evolution being true and the earth being old...It might not have been his understanding, but he did allow for the chance

---

I still think this

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

I still think this

---

I agree with you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asdf

I agree with you.

---

Im sorry, you may not agree with me.
I forbid it...

...You must take the counter position and argue strongly for it....Untill my logic proves too much for you,,,whereupon you will abandon your former views,
embrace my own,
and likely rename your first born man child in my honor...(Its the least you can)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

Im sorry, you may not agree with me.
I forbid it...

...You must take the counter position and argue strongly for it....Untill my logic proves too much for you,,,whereupon you will abandon your former views,
embrace my own,
and likely rename your first born man child in my honor...(Its the least you can)

---

:D All right then, you asked for it—

~attacks alanmolstad with a wet noodle~

I find all the arguments that try to support the 6-day creation teachings to be wrong and a bad reflection on the church

Quote:

---

There are many reasons why I feel evolution is incorrect but the main one is that for evolution to work there must be death, lots of time and death.

---

I think for evolution to work it takes life...dead things don't evolve er uh adapt. :)

Quote:

---

What precludes you from accepting evolution as fact?

---

Micro or macro? Your use indicates macro and the replies as well do. The reason I mention this is that so many people use macro evolution as a hot brand to label creationists as anti-science when virtually every creationist will agree to the scientific description of micro evolution.

Did you know that scientists believed we were heading into an age age in 1977? UNSTOPPABLE! WE ARE GOING TO FREEZE TO DEATH! It seems they did not have enough information at the time to know better but they were beating that drum for all their grant was worth. Now they have ALL the variables in their Global Warming models - right?

Fear on both sides of the argument of being found open minded and cavorting with them dern Hatfields or McCoy's prevents understanding and finding common respect.

The 24/7 creationists I think er in trying to make the Bible be better at science than a 21st Century science book. By disallowing for various genre of an ancient people's written language (Yes inspired but though an ancient people with a message for all of time) they miss the prose of it all and find themselves ram head****ing science. I find it interesting however that while they are willing to 'take a hit' for 'holding to the true word' in the 'face of persecution' they all seem to have both hands, feet and eyes...

Where they would do better is to read it as it is intended, as a relationship book. The point of Genesis is that God is the author of all which we see and how He pursues and paradoxically waits for us to engage Him outside the Garden whose entrance is by the way, blocked by a dancing flaming sword and a winged man-horse creature.

To a scientist I might say how I marvel at the way calcium 'automatically' 'knows' to form two unequal but intrinsically matched halves of a crab's claw complete with locking ball and socket hinge which stays intact and functional after life has left it and a protective fleshy elastic bellows type of gasket membrane and a mohair like brush to keep it all clean. When it is too small it falls off and a new, larger bunch of calcium takes it place to accommodate the growing flesh inside. The choice is a grand intelligence behind it all or just another set of Bob Ross 'Happy accidents'.

I must say I did hold tightly, adamantly to a 24/7 creation but as I journeyed on I found that it became a type of stumbling block for me and closing off any conversation with nonbelievers so as I said I came to realize that the point of the creation story is to introduce the Creator. As for the appearance of an old earth in the young earth scenario I know that God made us with perceptual blind spots so anything we are sure of in this world may not be so. The point is to find out the point of the recorded word of God. I am sure the bible is the recorded word of God what I am not always sure of is how my 21st century western mind interprets it.