Jump to content


Photo

Richard Dawkins Agrees That Evolution Is Incompatible Wiith God.


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
4 replies to this topic

#1 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 04 December 2011 - 09:09 PM

I ran across this video on facebook following a link someone showed me. I figure it will be a good discussion whether evolution is compatible with God. Dawkins even says that TEs are deluded thinking God and evolution can go together. And that evolution is basically the enemy of God.



#2 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pensacola, FL
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Pensacola, FL

Posted 05 December 2011 - 05:08 AM

I'm never inclined to trust anything that Richard Dawkins says. Evolution and God can coexist, but that involves making The Bible metaphorical, which I suppose can make sense on some level considering how Jesus taught through the use of parables. However, I think The Bible, particularly in Genesis was meant to be taken as a literal event. If it was merely metaphorical then why the effort to write down all of the genealogies? While someone can partially justify their claim that evolution and God can coexist, theologically speaking, Genesis being metaphorical doesn't really make a lot of sense.

#3 jason

jason

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • florida

Posted 05 December 2011 - 05:20 AM

I'm never inclined to trust anything that Richard Dawkins says. Evolution and God can coexist, but that involves making The Bible metaphorical, which I suppose can make sense on some level considering how Jesus taught through the use of parables. However, I think The Bible, particularly in Genesis was meant to be taken as a literal event. If it was merely metaphorical then why the effort to write down all of the genealogies? While someone can partially justify their claim that evolution and God can coexist, theologically speaking, Genesis being metaphorical doesn't really make a lot of sense.

genesis isnt meant to be an apologetic agianst evolution. its the jews way of telling the orally transmitted stories of IMPORTANCE.to the next generation.

the days are literal but theres much left out that we wont know and the LORD didnt think we should know.

for instance, how did abraham meet god? was he told or was it by a vision. traditions say it was noah but maybe noah was led to tell him after god revealed himself.

nahor is father was a godly man.but did he tell him?

nor is the any commands listed like the law with noah, abraham and the noahides before the law.

#4 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 05 December 2011 - 05:59 AM

Problem is, the TE belief makes one add doubt where there should be faith. Makes one want physical evidence and reject faith.

I have seen many TE slip to the enemies side because they allowed evolution in where evolution does not exist.

TE's cannot explain:

1) Where the soul came from during the evolution process.
2) They have to deny Genesis 1 and 2 and everything concerning Adam and Eve.
3) They also cannot explain where the first sin came from that Christ had to go to the cross for. Because no Adam no Eve = no explanation for first sin, fall of man, etc...

What is of God does not eventually make someone lose their faith.

What is of God can also be used as part of the salvation message:

1) Where are the TE street preachers bringing people to Christ with the TE message?
2) Where are the TE tracts?
3) Where are the TE crusades for Christ like the Billy Graham crusades?

There is a reason you don;t see these things. What is not of God cannot be used to bring souls unto the kingdom.

jn 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

God the Father controlling the drawing power unto His Son means that God the Father has to approve of what is being used to do this. To allow what is not true to save people is to make salvation itself a lie that requires lies in order to save people. God does not compromise His truth just to make people happy. If someone prefers to believe a known lie over what's clearly written do you guys think that will be acceptable? Would you want a type of salvation that it would be acceptable to lie about to get people saved? Because if so it means you could say anything to get people saved.

And when a person uses a known lie (what is not even mentioned or hinted about in God's word) they are actually making God into a liar as well.

Do we make God happy when we tell a TE that it is okay to compromise the word, or do we become part of the problem?
Is God happy when people use a man made idea to control His creation that even before sin we had death when it is clearly written that sin caused death as to the reason Christ went to the cross for our sins? Because to deny that Sin caused Death is to Deny Why Christ Went to the Cross. So the whole belief denies salvation and the reason we need it.

If we are going to accept this type of compromise why not just accept Mormonism, Calvinism, JWs etc... Are not they also a compromise of God's word? I mean when we start doing this where is the line defined as to where we stop? And can anyone show me where God's word:
1) Says we should compromise?
2) How far is acceptable to compromise?

Anyone? Can anyone provide me with verses on this? So why do it?

Actually, come to think of it. This type of thinking is like the Doctrine of Balaam. The prophet Balaam was sought after by king Balaak. King Balaak was afraid that the Israelites that were camped outside his city would war with him. So he wanted Balaam to put a curse on them. Each time Balaam went to the Lord with this the Lord made it clear that he should not do this. But Balaam wanted the rewards that king Balaak was going to give him for doing this but find away to go around God. So in the last meeting with Balaak, he told Balaak how to make the Israelites curse themselves. To basically make them believe that they could sin and eat things sacrificed to idols and God would not get mad.

Balaak returned to his city and sent out the temple prostitutes to lay with whomever they could and convince them that things things were okay. And with the lure of s@x make them believe that God would not get mad about their sin. God's wrath came upon them and a plague was sent that killed thousands. Then God made them war with Balaaks people and Balaam was killed by the sword for doing this thing.

Making sin (what is not true) a part of God's salvation makes salvation void. For salvation to be true righteous and Holy, sin cannot enter in. TE belief adds that element of sin through the denial of the truth (what is written in the Bible). Does the Bible ever say: Believe in things that make ye deny what is written in the word? I don;t think so because that would also deny the bases of faith.

Also promoting what you know is not right makes you a false teacher in the eyes of God. Why? Sin is sin period. In the eyes of God there is zero justification for committing a sin that is really against God. Why is it against God? Came anyone make a list of what evolution theory does for God?

#5 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1080 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 11 December 2011 - 12:52 PM

I ran across this video on facebook following a link someone showed me. I figure it will be a good discussion whether evolution is compatible with God. Dawkins even says that TEs are deluded thinking God and evolution can go together. And that evolution is basically the enemy of God.

Then he goes further then previously. Earlier he just said something that comes down to "Darwin making it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheists". Bear in mind that Dawkins was convinced by the argument from design, when he was younger.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users