Evolution

When it just doesn't fit anywhere else.
Post Reply

Do you believe in evolution

 
Total votes: 0

Joy
Posts: 1125
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 11:06 pm
Location: Under His wings
Affiliation: Baptist

Re: Evolution

Post by Joy »

Did Adam have the appearance of age?
0 x
2Tim. 3:16,17 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
RZehr
Posts: 7257
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 12:42 am
Affiliation: Cons. Mennonite

Re: Evolution

Post by RZehr »

Josh wrote:
RZehr wrote:That is true, but it’s worth noting that for hundreds of years Christians believed in Genesis 1, while also understanding Jesus being a figurative door.

I don’t think the fall in acceptance of a literal 6 day creation is unrelated to modernism.

As happens often, Christians became seduced by the worlds ideas of evolution and became open minded instead of canon minded. And because the Christians couldn’t handle the scoffing of society, they try to balance the two ideas.
It’s a rather big assumption that Christians used to believe in Ken Ham-style Genesis literalism, particularly his demands that we believe in a specific age of the universe (despite him changing this exact number in the 1980s).
Speaking of rather big assumptions, do we believe in a literal 6 day creation, or do we believe in “Ken Ham-style Genesis literalism, particularly his demands that we believe in a specific age of the universe (despite him changing this exact number in the 1980s)”?
0 x
silentreader
Posts: 2514
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 9:41 pm
Affiliation: MidWest Fellowship

Re: Evolution

Post by silentreader »

RZehr wrote:
Josh wrote:
RZehr wrote:That is true, but it’s worth noting that for hundreds of years Christians believed in Genesis 1, while also understanding Jesus being a figurative door.

I don’t think the fall in acceptance of a literal 6 day creation is unrelated to modernism.

As happens often, Christians became seduced by the worlds ideas of evolution and became open minded instead of canon minded. And because the Christians couldn’t handle the scoffing of society, they try to balance the two ideas.
It’s a rather big assumption that Christians used to believe in Ken Ham-style Genesis literalism, particularly his demands that we believe in a specific age of the universe (despite him changing this exact number in the 1980s).
Speaking of rather big assumptions, do we believe in a literal 6 day creation, or do we believe in “Ken Ham-style Genesis literalism, particularly his demands that we believe in a specific age of the universe (despite him changing this exact number in the 1980s)”?
As for me and my house....
0 x
Noah was a conspiracy theorist...and then it began to rain.~Unknown
ken_sylvania
Posts: 4093
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2016 12:46 pm
Affiliation: CM

Re: Evolution

Post by ken_sylvania »

Joy wrote:Did Adam have the appearance of age?
Yes
0 x
User avatar
ohio jones
Posts: 5305
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 11:23 pm
Location: undisclosed
Affiliation: Rosedale Network

Re: Evolution

Post by ohio jones »

Joy wrote:Did Adam have the appearance of age?
Genesis isn't entirely specific about Adam, but it seems clear that Eve was created in the prime rib of life.
0 x
I grew up around Indiana, You grew up around Galilee; And if I ever really do grow up, I wanna grow up to be just like You -- Rich Mullins

I am a Christian and my name is Pilgram; I'm on a journey, but I'm not alone -- NewSong, slightly edited
User avatar
Robert
Site Janitor
Posts: 8583
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 4:16 pm
Affiliation: Anabaptist

Re: Evolution

Post by Robert »

ohio jones wrote: Genesis isn't entirely specific about Adam, but it seems clear that Eve was created in the prime rib of life.
One of my biggest regrets was not meeting you in person when I lived in Indiana. I fear the place we met would never be the same and they would have to close it down and scrub it to ensure it stayed pun free.
0 x
Try hard not to offend. Try harder not to be offended.
Just because you are paranoid, doesn't mean they are not after you.
I think I am funnier than I really am.
Hats Off
Posts: 2532
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 6:42 pm
Affiliation: Plain Menno OO

Re: Evolution

Post by Hats Off »

Joy wrote:Did Adam have the appearance of age?
The chicken definitely came before the egg. God created all things mature - when God drove Adam from the garden, all living things were able to reproduce.
0 x
Joy
Posts: 1125
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 11:06 pm
Location: Under His wings
Affiliation: Baptist

Re: Evolution

Post by Joy »

Hats Off wrote:
Joy wrote:Did Adam have the appearance of age?
The chicken definitely came before the egg. God created all things mature - when God drove Adam from the garden, all living things were able to reproduce.
Of course.
0 x
2Tim. 3:16,17 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
Joy
Posts: 1125
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 11:06 pm
Location: Under His wings
Affiliation: Baptist

Re: Evolution

Post by Joy »

RZehr wrote:
Josh wrote:
RZehr wrote:That is true, but it’s worth noting that for hundreds of years Christians believed in Genesis 1, while also understanding Jesus being a figurative door.

I don’t think the fall in acceptance of a literal 6 day creation is unrelated to modernism.

As happens often, Christians became seduced by the worlds ideas of evolution and became open minded instead of canon minded. And because the Christians couldn’t handle the scoffing of society, they try to balance the two ideas.
It’s a rather big assumption that Christians used to believe in Ken Ham-style Genesis literalism, particularly his demands that we believe in a specific age of the universe (despite him changing this exact number in the 1980s).
Speaking of rather big assumptions, do we believe in a literal 6 day creation, or do we believe in “Ken Ham-style Genesis literalism, particularly his demands that we believe in a specific age of the universe (despite him changing this exact number in the 1980s)”?
And yet "science" expects us to automatically accept its constantly changing claims as to the age of the universe. My high school science teacher was required to teach evolution, and she passed off exact figures by saying, "Give or take a few million/billion years."(Of course it must be noted, it was back in the Dark Ages that I was a teenager. ;))
0 x
2Tim. 3:16,17 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
RZehr
Posts: 7257
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 12:42 am
Affiliation: Cons. Mennonite

Re: Evolution

Post by RZehr »

My post could have been written better.
What I'm saying is that we believed in a "young" earth back when 6,000 years was considered quite old.
And this belief is based squarely on Genesis 1, in Faith. This belief is not dependent on proof.

So when hundreds of years later Ken Ham comes along with proof, that is neat, but really is not what our belief is based upon. Ken Ham can be proven wrong on something and our belief system will not need much re-calibration. I don't even know or care what Ken Ham says the exact age of the earth is. But on that subject, who has changed the specific age of the earth more often and more drastically in the last century, Ken Ham or evolutionists? The evolutionists have.
0 x
Post Reply