Creation or Evolution?, Which do you believe in? Options

[NoSex]

because using technology requires faith in science, contradicting the whole "only believe in me" commandment.

That is a bit of a stretch. No christian, and not many people for that matter, worship or take science as a great and high power. It doesn't seem to me to be a violation of any commandment for a christian to believe that those things developed by science or technology will work accordingly. Also, the arguement has been made, and will be made again that a Christian could believe that the only reason these things do operate and work properly is because God wills it and wants them to work. Also, God could be noted as the inspiration and preamble to all technology.

[sadolakced acid]

ahh yes. you can believe that it's because god wants it, even though the bible doesn't say this.

it is very similar to believe in evolution. and yet these same christians who use technology reject evolution on basis of the bible?

[*disco infiltrator*]

Your examples are all pieces of machinery made by man. Creatures, as proposed, are made by God. They have souls. God didn't create the machines and technology; man did. That has nothing to do with the Christian faith. Evolution was not made by man. It's not a machine put here to help us.

[*mipadi*]

it is very similar to believe in evolution.  and yet these same christians who use technology reject evolution on basis of the bible?

That's because the Bible specifically outlines how life was created, and that goes against evolution; however, the Bible does not outline a mechanism for the creation of technological marvels, so the two beliefs are not incompatible—at least not by that reasoning.

[sadolakced acid]

rather; the bible does not outline any modern technology.

therefore, it was not made by god and must be evil.

[NoSex]

rather; the bible does not outline any modern technology.

therefore, it was not made by god and must be evil.

You are stretching your logic to death. You did not present a reasonable transition between your premise and your conclusion.

1. Bible does not outline modern tech.
2. Therefore, it [Modern tech.] was not made by God.
3. As a result, modern tech. must be evil.

p1 does not support p2 (c1). Just because the Bible does not outline Modern Technology does not make it evil by that deliberation. You would have to assume that, "All things not outlined in the Bible, were not created by God." You would also have to assume the premise that, "All things not directly made by God are evil." You could propose such premises, but to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt seems difficult.

If you work more, and think it out more, you can create a valid logical argument. However, it doesn't seem like it is going to be any where near creating a true conclusion.

If you want to rebuild this argument, you must first prove that those things which are not outlined in the Bible are, at least believed to have been, not made by God. As well as that those things not made by God are inherently evil.

At this point, your argument is non sequitur.

[sadolakced acid]

rather; technology is not stated by the bible to be good, and therefore it is not.

the bible is the final and only authority on all matters.

[*mipadi*]

rather;  technology is not stated by the bible to be good, and therefore it is not.

the bible is the final and only authority on all matters.

The Bible says that God is good. It's safe to assume that, as a perfect being (in the eyes of a Christian), he's not going to do anything bad. He only wants the best for his children. Therefore, even though the Bible does not specifically outline modern technology as good, if God influenced the creation of modern technological marvels, it follows that their creation was a good thing that was intended to help mankind.

[sadolakced acid]

god also created lucifer.

therefore; god's creations can be evil, whether or not he makes them.

[*mipadi*]

Lucifer's a person, with his own free will.

[*disco infiltrator*]

They're not innately evil from the point of creation.

Justin, if you're going to try to point out contradictions, at least find a contradiction that's actually there. There's plenty.

[sadolakced acid]

then god created disease, war, etc. all of which are good.

(i know my arguement isn't the best. i just want to see how far i can get with it.)

[*disco infiltrator*]

He did not.

Disease came from the evolution of cells.
War came from man's evolved evilness.

God did not make this happen.

You can't get anywhere with this argument Justin. Just stop.

[sadolakced acid]

well, if you don't believe in evolution, you can't exactley believe that disease came from the evolution of cells, now can you?

i've met christians who refused medicines like tylenol because they said they would simply pray and if god wanted them to be better, they would.

that is faith.

praying to god only after the doctors tell you that they can't treat your cancer, that isn't faith.

see my point?

[*disco infiltrator*]

Well, the people you mentioned first are a little extreme.

The latter have faith that God will help them. The doctors are also God's children, so if it is part of his plan, the doctors will help her.

Also, just because you believe in Creationism doesn't mean that faults won't develop from the creation. Diseases and ailments can still develop when trusting in creationism.

[sadolakced acid]

but what if the doctor is nonchristian?

and who honestly has faith in a doctor because of god? those people turn to "faith healers", who con people out of thier money.

most, if not all, people have faith in a doctor becuase of the degree on the wall, and the fact that the drugs and all are proven, by science.

who would trust a doctor that says:

i don't have a degree. and no, this medicine hasn't been tested. but you see, i went to church today and got baptised. i'm a good christian, and i think i've even heard god a few times. he told me that this drug would make you better, so you should take it.

[*mipadi*]

but what if the doctor is nonchristian?

and who honestly has faith in a doctor because of god?  those people turn to "faith healers", who con people out of thier money.

most, if not all, people have faith in a doctor becuase of the degree on the wall, and the fact that the drugs and all are proven, by science.

who would trust a doctor that says:

i don't have a degree.  and no, this medicine hasn't been tested.  but you see, i went to church today and got baptised.  i'm a good christian, and i think i've even heard god a few times.  he told me that this drug would make you better, so you should take it.

You're essentially arguing that to believe in creationism, one must be a fatalist. One needs to belief that if God wants things a certain way (for an ill person to get better, for a plane to stay in the sky, for a building to remain erect), it will happen that way, no matter what action a person takes. Fatalism, however, is a philosophy that has a lot of flaws.

In this example, one can easily see the flaws. A Christian might go to a more educated doctor who uses accepted techniques, because the Christian believes the doctor is truly advancing the will of God, and thus God will take care of him through the doctor.

Why? Any true Christian knows that the world is filled with impostors, and that anyone can pay lip service to Christianity—the Devil comes in many guises. Just because someone says he uses faith to heal, does not mean he truly does—could that not be the Devil talking? Just because a "doctor" says he can heal you because he has heard God, does not mean he has—perhaps he, too, is the Devil in disguise, or even a Jobian test by God. Maybe that real doctor is the only one truly advancing God's will.

[sadolakced acid]

i didn't mean that "faith healers" were christian; they take advantage of faithful christians.

anways, so you're telling me that if i become a doctor, even though i do not believe in god and trust what i do will work becuase of science, i would be doing god's work?

[*mipadi*]

I'm a strong atheist, as I've pointed out before, so I don't personally belief that, but yes, I think a truly faithful Christian would believe that is the case.

[sadolakced acid]

but does even a strong christian believe in the doctor solely because they believe the doctor's doing god's work?

and how do you tell the difference between a doctor that's doing gods work or the devil's work before he does it?

[*mipadi*]

Those aren't really the issues at hand. The issue is whether a Christian can use modern technology and still be faithful, and thus believe in creationism, and that's been shown to be a possibility.

[sadolakced acid]

rather; i'm arguing that a christian cannot have no faith in evolution when they have faith in the science that relys on evolution, like antibiotics, etc.

[*mipadi*]

Rather; you haven't shown your argument to be true.

[sadolakced acid]

well, that needs to be remedied then, right?

take bob.

bob is a devout christian.

bob does not believe in evolution.

bob goes to the doctor.

bob has a bacterial infection.

bob takes an antibiotic developed because of evolutionary theory.

bob does not believe in evolution.

bob, however, believes that he will get better becasue of the antibiotic.

ergo, it is foolish for bob to not believe in evolution, but to trust the drug he takes.

[*mipadi*]

How are antibiotics developed as a direct result of evolutionary theory?