Talk:World History Homework Ten Answers - Student Two
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AddisonDM (talk | contribs) at 22:19, April 20, 2009. It may differ significantly from current revision.
This talk page? To start, we need a definition for evolution. By evolution, I mean the biological process by which less complex organisms slowly become more complex. Of course I reject the standard, naturalistic Theory of Evolution.
But I don't see why creation must necessarily be direct, rather than through evolution. I already consider literal Adam and Eve and original sin to be foregone conclusions. My question is why living organisms need to be separately created. I want to understand why creationists reject this possibility. AddisonDM 16:21, 19 April 2009 (EDT)
- Several reasons for rejecting it:
- it's virtually impossible to construct the complex from the simple. No one would build a car from a bicycle, for example.
- evolution requires enormous time even if it were possible, time that contradicts evidence and the Bible
- flooding, which is occurs often (and was referenced by Jesus), destroys any possibility of an evolutionary process
- there are too many Counterexamples of Evolution for it to be plausible
- why the urge to embrace an atheistic, deceit-ridden theory?
- --Andy Schlafly 13:35, 20 April 2009 (EDT)
- Those are reasons to reject the naturalistic theory of evolution. What about the process being God's means of creation, as suggested in Humani Generis? Also, Humani Generis allows belief in theistic evolution and thus by association also permits belief in an old earth.
- Also, as far as I know, at least the Catholic Church does not require belief in a young earth. So when you combine old earth and the teachings of Humani Generis, is there anything wrong or deceiful about that? AddisonDM 18:19, 20 April 2009 (EDT)