EvoCreation

This is my stance on the entire Evocreation thing ... Though, this is not written by me. Which goes to show you that I am not alone in this thinking as I've previously thought...

The Story of Creation tells us of a Creator who decided to create the Universe and everything in it, and then 'Poof', there it was. It doesn't really get into the details of how the Creator formed the Universe, just that He formed it. The Theory of Evolution states in great detail how and what things had to come together to form the Universe ...
I believe in the Creator from the Story of Creation, but the Theory of Evolution is a ... description of how He did it.

Creationism Vs Evolution: Two Sides of the Same Coin

I don't knock either side of this coin, and I believe most of both sides! I just can't fathom how the POOFS of both theories can be blindly accepted without the other side of the coin's explaination ...

What are your Thoughts?! Comments?! Concerns?!
Is it possible to merge these to seemingly controversial and contradicting ideas into a hybrid EVOCreation Theory?!?

From a biblical standpoint, this EvoCreation (or theistic evolution) is incompatible. The bible teaches that death entered the world through sin. Now if that is true, evolution could not have been a work in progress prior to Adam and Eve, because sin hadn't occurred yet. If sin hadn't occurred yet, death would not have yet entered into the world.

Originally posted by rschmfem
What are your Thoughts?! Comments?! Concerns?!
Is it possible to merge these to seemingly controversial and contradicting ideas into a hybrid EVOCreation Theory?!?

These threads are always dangerous
Personally I dont see how evolution can be attributed to God as his process. It seems to me as another attempt to attribute things we dont yet understand to God. Its the God of the Gaps argument all over again, using God to fill the gaps in our knowledge. If we were just to accept this on a global scale then people would stop looking for the answers altogether.
Aside from this, Evolution and Creation disagree fundamentally on the age of our planet, to assume evolution is true you have to discount the bibles account of creation and vice versa. Evolution specifically requires a much greater time scale for what we see around us to have come to pass than the bible allows for. And I said this in another thread: If we are to assume that the bible is inaccurate about the details of creation, what's the point in reading past the first page?
As far as I'm concerned, Evolution and Creation by God can not find a common ground, one is right and one is wrong.

Perhaps nature created the vessels (bodies) and God created the spirit. Then th spirit is in the image of God as opposed to us physically looking like him.

reply to post by rschmfem

I don't know of anyone who wasn't raised as a Jew/Christian (most I know are such) feeling the need to take such a position.

Some of them have their own creation story, distinctly different from the bible, and feel it is compatible with evolution.

reply to post by rschmfem


I think god created life to evolve, I wasnt raised with any religion though, I was agnostic until recently, which I think allowed me to think this way

Originally posted by Fretless
... Evolution and Creation disagree fundamentally on the age of our planet, to assume evolution is true you have to discount the bibles account of creation and vice versa. Evolution specifically requires a much greater time scale for what we see around us to have come to pass than the bible allows for. ... Evolution and Creation by God can not find a common ground, one is right and one is wrong.

The age of our planet ... well know one alive today were able to study the Earth in it's infancy so I don't really know how we'll ever truely be able to find out a definate age because there's no recorded information or data collected from that time. This would be the optimal proof of the age of the Earth and quite difficult indeed without the invention of say, time & space travel...

Evolution states a larger time scale than the Creation Stories from the Bible because, in my mind, it's from a different perspective. It is known that the perspective of time is slower in space and if God is in space or otherwise not on the planet of Earth then the perspective of the Creation Stories are from space. A slower time table than that of the one that has been accumulating on the surface of the planet. I highly feel that the stories in most of the bible are parables meant to teach rather lessons rather than historical data of the world's history. I could be missing something here, but many things could have been lost in translation, the thing was originally written in some ancient hebrew/judaic language... And if you've ever read Anglo-Saxon... It's got the English Basics down... Anyway... I digress...

Originally posted by connorromanow
I think god created life to evolve...

I think this too.

I don't know but this is what I'm thinking... Evolution/Creation battles aren't black and white even on just one side... I think a healthy compramise is due.

reply to post by rschmfem


While evolution doesn't require a God and there is no evidence of supernatural guidance for evolution I fully respect those theists open minded enough to include evolution in their beliefs. If only creationists could see that even without taking Genesis literally, that even with accepting evolution, their faith can remain intact.

reply to post by Titen-Sxull


I agree, I also believe that life can't come to being from non-life hence why I believe in a God.

Originally posted by rschmfem

The Theory of Evolution states in great detail how and what things had to come together to form the Universe

The theory of evolution does not make a single statement about how the Universe came to be.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by rschmfem

 

While evolution doesn't require a God and there is no evidence of supernatural guidance for evolution I fully respect those theists open minded enough to include evolution in their beliefs. If only creationists could see that even without taking Genesis literally, that even with accepting evolution, their faith can remain intact.

I realize that you're trying to bridge a divide here, but there's a fundamental problem that you don't understand here. The part of evolution which dictates that lifeforms mutate and the more successful mutations allow that lifeform to survive and maybe even thrive has at it's core the idea that change is determined via the death of the weak.

The problem is that, to a Christian, there could have been no evolution before the introduction of sin, since sin is the origin of death in our view. For a Christian to accept that death was present before the introduction of sin, they would have to accept the premise that death is not the punishment for sin and therefore God Himself is a liar.

I have no problem with atheists and agnostics believing whatever they want to believe, as that is their prerogative and their right, but to expect Christians to accept Evolution as it is currently understood is to expect Christians to dispose of their own religious beliefs, which is as equally wrong as it is to expect atheists or agnostics to believe something just because someone says to do so.

reply to post by Paladin1dcs
I find it hard to believe some supernatural entity set forth a tremendous sequence of molecular events lasting around 15 billion to all culminate in an organism that can finally reflect upon that supernatural being's possibility of existing in millions of different forms, when abstract thought is in itself a by-product of random selection against a larger jaw bone and for an enlarged uterus.

If this was the plan all along then that is one hell of an algorithm. I wonder if the code could be written in brain****

reply to post by uva3021

Did you read my post about time perspective?

reply to post by Paladin1dcs


I am simply stating my beliefs. I am not trying to prove or disprove someone else's let alone Christians or Atheists... This is not a religion hate thread, or anti-religion hate thread.

I am not the WBC!

All I am doing is putting it out there how I see it.

How I see it in simple layman's English --> Since nothing can come from nothing, simple science right? Ok, then how does life come from non-life out of the blue? BANG!

Cell: "Hello, I'm a cell, how do you do Rock."
Rock: *Silence*

reply to post by rschmfem


But thats not evolution, nor is it abiogenisis...

Best robotic accent

(Clink, Buzz) Evolution does not explain how life started. It describes what happened after it started. (Clank Clink)

(Buzzzzzz) Believe whatever creation myth/theory/story you choose there are many good ones. There is only one explanation for how evolution works. (Clank) the theory of evolution. (SHHHHHhh)

(Clonk) Theory in science is (Pop, plink BANG!!!)

Please call service as this repeating machine is plumb worn out.

reply to post by colin42


which is why you need both view points melded together to get the whole picture... one creates ... one continues... it's not evolution it's not creation it's something else..

names limit things...


i prefer to keep my beliefs open and unnamed and unlimited by petty human definitions. Thanks.