Creationist Theory flaws itself
Basically, nature only exists by survival of the fittest, ie. if one species is not stronger than another, threatening species, then it is likely to die out and obviously not exist. This is also seen within a species – take a pride of lions for example.Now, there is a part of the Bible (I cannot remember for the life of me where in the Bible, but it is there….Revelations maybe??) which says that at the second coming of Jesus, the lion will lie with the hare, ie. it won't try to eat it to stay alive. I think this is meant to be generalised to all species, ie. no species will try and survive over another. Well then, surely they will die out. So, it appears that the only way for life to exist is for it to have a certain element of selfishness, exploit certain situations and kill other lives in order for it to survive.
Now, if God made life perfect to start with, and if it had remained perfect rather than giving in to sin, then it would surely have died out almost immediately. You would have thought God would think of this, as He is God and all.
So, it appears that for life to exist in the first place, is has to do so sinfully and be a result of sin.
Thus God couldn't have created life.
What implications does this have for Christianity, or any other God worshipping religion? Many, I would think.
13 Nov 2005 13:57
| 
Comments (2)
| 
Report a problem
Loading…
You make the assumption that an animal eating another animal is being sinful, which it isn't. I stand open to correction, but I don't believe animals are deemed capable of committing sin at all, let alone by killing for food as is their nature. Nor is it a sin for humans, who are capable of sin, to kill & eat animals (with obvious exceptions if you're looking at Judaism or Islam). If that interpretation were correct, vegetarianism would be at the core of Christianity and most significant monotheistic world religions.
I've not read the relevant passage, but the significance of the Second Coming is that it marks the end of time, when the dead rise and God's Kingdom is brought to Earth. Therefore the lion doesn't need to eat the hare – the fact it "lies with the hare" is simple imagery to show complete peace between even the most natural enemies.
13 Nov 2005, 16:05
Thanks for your input. I hadb't really thought of it like that before, but it still leaves me with a coupla questions. As to whether it's right to kill an animal for food, I'm as of yet undecided. I think ultimately, it is wrong, but it's something I would need to think about more, being a meat eater myself…well, at least for the time being.
Anyhoo, to the questions:
Firstly, eating another animal was an example. The same idea applies to any kind of killing though, perhaps in self defence. Is it right to kill another if it meant that you yourself did not get killed? After all, a lion may have been starving for days, and its killing you would keep it alive. Obviously, if you could kill it first, you would, so that you may stay alive. But then, where does the line of killing stop? In order to maintain the lives of many who are dieing in the third world, we should possibly consider culling several billion people, that there might be enough sustainable resources in the world to keep us all alive. Far fetched, but valid nonetheless.
Secondly, what exactly is meant by the end of time? Does everything cease to exist? in which case, from where did it arise in the first place? Is God just experimenting with different universes? Effectively, what is the meaning of life? Perhaps there is no meaning. These are very difficult questions to answer, I know, but is there a logical answer to them?
For me, one of the logical answers would be that Creationism isn't correct in an entirity, if at all.
In which ways would I be wrong to say this?
13 Nov 2005, 22:59
Add a comment
You are not allowed to comment on this entry as it has restricted commenting permissions.