Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The ones I know of do accept biology. Also some creationists believe "God is who, evolution is how".
The ones I know of do accept biology. Also some creationists believe "God is who, evolution is how".
I have plenty of experience of theists who accept evolution and I'm fine with it. When I say creationist I mean as in not-evolution, Go made us separately kind of thinking. I'm sure there are some of those people here (there are certainly some who argue against evolution) and I'm curious as to where they draw the line, if they do explicitly.Hallelujah. I am really tired of the false dichotomy that some non-believers (read, atheists) seem to put people into....anybody believing in a Creator MUST be a young earth literal 7-24 hour day creationist and all the arguments and criticisms are assuming that....OR, if the person they speak to actually figures that the earth is 4 billion (or thereabouts) years old and evolution is real, MUST be an atheist; no god involved.
At least, those who talk to ME seem to do that.
There are those....MOST Christians, actually...who do believe that "God is Who, evolution is how".
For crying out loud, the Catholic church accepts evolution as 'how,' officially...and since it was a Catholic monk who did the definitive work on inherited characteristics (heard of Gregor Mendel? BTW, he was not only NOT criticized for his work, he was made an Abbot).
Ah, well.
I think the main issue with creationists regardless of them being old or young earth is that eventually their "theory" falls apart. I do however think that old earth creationist are seen as being more realistic than young earth are.I mean the observations, findings etc that are not explicitly within the field of evolution?
Got any examples? Because:Also some creationists believe "God is who, evolution is how".
As far as I know, Ken Ham believe it happened exactly as it say in the Bible. And dinosaurs etc. were on it as well, but died off I guess.I'd like to know if hardcore creationists, like Ken Ham, recognized early hominids. Were they placed on Noah's Ark or not?
How creationists accept biology:The [creationists] I know of do accept biology. Also some creationists believe "God is who, evolution is how".
I have a friend who says, if you want tomatoes you plant a tomato plant. For him the universe is a tomato plant and we're God's tomatoes. I guess that's maybe an example of creation via evolution though I did mean it in the creation as opposed to evolution.Got any examples? Because:
.
Wouldn't that be evolutionism, though? With a theistic perspective, sure, but all the same evolutionism?The ones I know of do accept biology. Also some creationists believe "God is who, evolution is how".
As far as I know, Ken Ham believe it happened exactly as it say in the Bible. And dinosaurs etc. were on it as well, but died off I guess.
This is from Ken ham website, think you can find information there:
Human Evolution
They typically wave them away as either "fully human" or "fully ape", without ever explaining the criteria they used in doing so. And from one creationist group to another there is a fair bit of disagreement over which category certain specimens fall into.I'd like to know if hardcore creationists, like Ken Ham, recognized early hominids. Were they placed on Noah's Ark or not?
Catholic church has already been mentioned. One example A philosopher's view of God and evolutionGot any examples? Because:
.
Not sure why you're bringing the Catholic church into this becauseCatholic church has already been mentioned. One example A philosopher's view of God and evolution
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-christian-mans-evolution/
How could humans have evolved and still be in the "Image of God"? - Common-questions
The fact that you asked this, indicates you genuinely want to know.I mean the observations, findings etc that are not explicitly within the field of evolution?
I agree with @nPeace....I mean the observations, findings etc that are not explicitly within the field of evolution?
I have plenty of experience of theists who accept evolution and I'm fine with it. When I say creationist I mean as in not-evolution, Go made us separately kind of thinking. I'm sure there are some of those people here (there are certainly some who argue against evolution) and I'm curious as to where they draw the line, if they do explicitly.
1. Days in the bible is argued to mean a long period of time, which explain why the Earth can be billions of years old. Which obviously makes you wonder why in the creation story it says this:
Genesis 1
13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.
This is typically what we humans understand by a daily cycle and not something that refer to millions or billions of years. Its pretty difficult to get a good explanation for that.