Jet Black

Why? Given an omnicognescent God, surely he would know the ourcome of universe creation?
so? that only cuts to the core of catholicism. Many Christians do not agree with the notion of original sin anyway, so your argument becomes mute. Furthermore, animals are not nescessarily driven by selfish instinct. Vampire bats, meercats, ants, wasps gorillas and many other animals demonstrate altruism. Furthermore Humans have complex social structures, brains and a different type of environment, meaning that it is not nescessary for humans to be selfish, either.
Again, an omnicognescent God would know the outcome. Perhaps God's intent was simply to create sentience, and evolution is His method of doing so. There is no real necessity for that destination of sentience to be in the form of a bipedal primate. Perhaps Evolution is the best way of making Sentient free willed life?

Jet Black

well in the context of arguing with creationists, I agree. I would refer to myself as a scientist, since the model of creationism is clearly not scientific in the way it is constructed or treated (conclusion first then shoehorn the evidence). The argument is not evolution/creationism, but science/creationism. On it's own though, I see no problem with the label evolutionist. It is just a narrowing down of a scientific field, like physicist, cosmologist, biologist or alchemist...I mean chemist.

I would like to be a stellar mechanic. what a job

Blueskyboris

A) Evolution destroys the notion that God created the universe for Man. At best evolution allows a Metaphorical Creationist to argue that the end result of evolution, after billions and billions of years of the universe existing without Man, is Man. The argument, as you can see, is very weak.

Why? Given an omnicognescent God, surely he would know the ourcome of universe creation?

Sorry Jet Black, "Creationist" in common usage clearly means of the JChristian variety rooted in the stories of Genesis in the Holy Bible. Certainly from a non-Christian theist perspective the idea of God as creator is still valid.

Many Christians do not agree with the notion of original sin anyway, so your argument becomes mute.

Which Christians are these? Protestants certainly do believe in original sin. The only difference between a Catholic and Protestant is that of power of interpretation. The Catholic understanding of original sin is through the clergy interpretation whereas the Protestant interpretation is through the preacher and/or individual Christian.

Again, an omnicognescent God would know the outcome. Perhaps God's intent was simply to create sentience, and evolution is His method of doing so. There is no real necessity for that destination of sentience to be in the form of a bipedal primate. Perhaps Evolution is the best way of making Sentient free willed life?

Again, your confusion between "Christian Creationists" and independent theism, aka deism, is obvious. "Creationist" is a word specifically used for JChristians. Please do not confuse the issue in the future.

RBH

Boris wroteThere's a small but vocal Islamic creationist movement that even borrows materials from Christian creationists. Don't be parochial.

RBH

pangloss

I think the more 'derogatory' term, at least in the creationist's eyes, is "Darwinist."
By using that term, it makes it appear that the evolutionist is deferring to a person rather than acknowledging a concept.
A sly attempt to religionize evolution.

Blueskyboris

RBH,

There's a small but vocal Islamic creationist movement that even borrows materials from Christian creationists. Don't be parochial.

Heh. I'm glad you want to debate.

"Evolution" as a theory developed in a ultra-dominant JChristian context. Therefore, in order to understand the resulting extreme dichotomy between so-called "Evolutionists" and "Creationists" one must examine those concepts in relation to JChristian creation stories and the "defining" characteristics of JChristian Faith.

Bluesky.

Nice Squirrel

And there is something wrong with that. Why must man be the end all to creation? Aren't there more wonderful and fascinating things in creation besides man? Quit being so speciocentric.

:wave: Hello. I am that Christian. The original sin story is a precautionary tale against separating the world into a dichotomous catagories such as good/evil (and Creationist/Evolutionist) and forgetting that God created all.

Blueskyboris

Nice Squirrel,

And there is something wrong with that. Why must man be the end all to creation? Aren't there more wonderful and fascinating things in creation besides man? Quit being so speciocentric.

Who said I was being anthropocentric?

Hello. I am that Christian. The original sin story is a precautionary tale against separating the world into a dichotomous catagories such as good/evil (and Creationist/Evolutionist) and forgetting that God created all.

You do realize that a certain character in the Bible died for our Sin? |

Bluesky.

DaninGraniteCity

And our sin is our ability to learn. :huh:

Harry Bosch

Bluesky: I agree with you!! However, what does our opinion have to do with the price of tea in China? As a liberal Christian, I have been searching for positive evidence of creation all my life. I haven't found any. I'm sure that you haven't either. So - what do we do. Do we make up evidence? Do we attack others who don't agree with our opinions?