evolution

[follower2]

This has been bothering me for a while. Can someone tell me how evolution and christianity can cooperate with each other? I dont understand how if god created man in his own image how did man evolve.

Thanks :thumbsup:

[ChamomileFriend]

arunma just posted something in the new christians section that really helped me with this:

http://www.christianforums.com/t2865659-origin-of-life-view-and-end-times-view.html

I am still not sure if I am Old Earth Creationist or a Theistic Evolutionist. I don't know that Christians will ever agree on this issue either!

[rejectreality]

The important thing to understand is the types of evolution. Note: I am no expert and have limited knowledge. Having said that, I am a Creationist, probably an Old Earth Creationist, thus I don't believe that we were ever frogs. I feel that evolution has far too many holes in it to ever be legit. That's my two cents.

God Bless

[Mrs12bfishin]

I don't know how other Christians are able to believe in Evolution either. I am a Christian who believes the Bible, to be God's Holy Word, God-breathed and inspired.

[Wisdom's Child]

Why must creation and evolution cooperate?
If one is True then the other must be False.
Trying to find middle ground is like blending Hot with Cold.
The result is Lukewarm.
Pick which side you are on and stand firm.

[Globulus]

The Law of Biogenesis - Life can only be created from life. (It would be very hard for evolution to have started from nothing).
There are still a few holes in the evolutionists theorys.
Its easier to just belive in god.
Check out this website: www . creationscience.com.

[RichardT]

Evolution is BS lol , why do you need to compromise christianity ?

[ub4me]

Very Good Points Here...

I Always Thought If We Evolved From Apes...why Do We Still Have Monkeys...and Why Would We Not Still See Some In Transition...you Know Two Arms And A Tail With No Legs Or Something...I Have To Admitt I Have Seen Some That Resembled The Ape..but Clearly Just Needed A Shave And A Haircut To Distinguish The Difference.
SHAVE A MONKEY AND IT'S STILL A MONKEY...:P

[prophecystudent]

Too many laws of physics are violated by the concept of evolution.

What is the law that allows something to spring into existence from nothing? Example, the hydrogen the big bang believers claim was the cause of the big bang and thus the whole universe.

A basic law of physics states that gas molecules (hydrogen in this case) will disperse until they are all equi-distant from each other.

Yet the evolutionists would have us believe that all those hydrogen molecules were attracted to each other, and came from the whole universe to one spot.

This causes yet another question, that being what caused the incredibly huge magnetic force required to drag all those hydrogen atoms/molecules across all those billions of light years to one spot? (remember the law of physics that gas particles disperse?)

The simple probability of even the simplest form of life springing into existence, even assuming the big bang actually happened without divine intervention, is so slim as to be unimaginable. As I recall, and I will go back and check the numbers, the odds of the simple one celled "animal" coming together by pure chance are something on the order of 10 to the minus 29,000. That is a 0. (29,000 zeros and then a 1.

The evolutionists have some major problems with their "theory". There is no proof of it, other than some fossils and a circular argument. The age dating of rocks went the way of the wild goose when a couple of years ago some age dating was done on some rocks that came from a recent volcano. ie. the rocks were formed when lava was spewed out of the volcano some 200 years ago.

The dating placed the age of the rocks in the millions of years. One of the favorite pieces of "evidence" for evolution was the Piltdown man. This was the supposed missing link. After quite a long time it was proven that the Piltdown man was, in fact, a fraud.

I don't know exactly how God created the earth and all that are in it in 6 days, but I know that the underlying explanation for "creation" makes more sense to me that does the phony claims for evolution.

Fred

[Jacob4707]

Everything you ever wanted to know about evolution:

http://www.talkorgins.org

They address or attempt to address just about every Christian objection to or argument against evolution.

[brotherChristian]

This has been bothering me for a while. Can someone tell me how evolution and christianity can cooperate with each other? I dont understand how if god created man in his own image how did man evolve.

Thanks


Believing in 'this type of creation' or 'that type of evolution' is not important for your salvation. If God wants to explain how He did things, He'll do it in His own time; and probably no one will have gotten it right.

[Adoniram]

A man once caused quite a commotion
He said that men crawled from the ocean
But when he had passed
He was taken aghast
And by fire reconsiders his notion

[Catechumen]

Evolution is BS lol , why do you need to compromise christianity ?

Do you care to support that? Belief in theistic evolution in no way compromises Christianity, but in fact gives it more substance.
Either way, it's such a trivial issue that we'll never know the answer to so wasting our time trying to figure it out is pointless. But many Christians these days want to invent reasons to hate each other so they argue about this issue instead of focusing on Christ.

[SteelDisciple]

I'm a partial evolutionist. While much of it is false...there is much that can be proven fact.

For instance...it's been proven that our bodies "evolve" to adapt to different living conditions. climates etc) That is how GOD made our bodies to work. But obviously we didn't evolve from sludge. :)

As for the Big Bang. Don't believe it. I do believe that God didn't just *pop!* and the Earth appeared...I believe He took time to form it.

We don't know if God is talking days in human terms or in Heavenly terms when creating the world...but just by reading it...it seems more likely that it's NOT earthly days. (ie..the plants growing so fast. God let's things happen and grow naturally on all other points in history...why only then would he alter the speed of growth? IT would seem to be...judging from the many actions God takes...that he ENJOYS seeing things occur naturally...watching his Creations grow.)

[SteelDisciple]

Believing in 'this type of creation' or 'that type of evolution' is not important for your salvation. If God wants to explain how He did things, He'll do it in His own time; and probably no one will have gotten it right.


you are right in that we may never know till we meet God face to face...but that doesn't mean we stop thinking.

The brain is a muscle...in order for it to grow we need to think. We need to learn. In order for that muscle to get stronger. That's how God made it work.

[Catechumen]

you are right in that we may never know till we meet God face to face...but that doesn't mean we stop thinking.

The brain is a muscle...in order for it to grow we need to think. We need to learn. In order for that muscle to get stronger. That's how God made it work.

We'll never meet God face to face. God doesn't have a face. And when I die and am in the presence of God, the last thing I will care about is how the universe was created. I'm pretty sure my attention will be elsewhere.

[SteelDisciple]

We'll never meet God face to face. God doesn't have a face. And when I die and am in the presence of God, the last thing I will care about is how the universe was created. I'm pretty sure my attention will be elsewhere.


Eh? It's a figure of speech.


Anyway, it's about growing that muscle God gave you. :) Not letting God's creation go to waste. Pondering is a GOOD thing.

[SteelDisciple]

Evolution is BS lol , why do you need to compromise christianity ?

If everyone always believed that...we would all be afraid to go sailing...because we'd think the world was flat. :)

[scisyhp]

This has been bothering me for a while. Can someone tell me how evolution and christianity can cooperate with each other? I dont understand how if god created man in his own image how did man evolve.

Thanks :thumbsup:

Some people interperate genesis as non literal, over the period of billions of years, evolution (guided by god), eventually lead to the creation of adam and eve, the original two humans. So God created evolution and guided it's progress in order to create humans in his image.

[- DRA -]

This has been bothering me for a while. Can someone tell me how evolution and christianity can cooperate with each other? I dont understand how if god created man in his own image how did man evolve.

Thanks :thumbsup:

They cooperate about as well as oil and water -- which don't mix.

Generally speaking, there are two main types of evolution: 1.) atheistic 2.) theistic. Atheistic evolution suggests the world evolved without God in the picture. And, theistic evolution suggests that God created by evolution ... over a long period of time ... and not in literal 24 hr. days as Genesis chapter 1 suggests.

[- DRA -]

Perhaps the continued reading of Genesis 4 will help. Note especially verse 17. Cain (the surviving son) "knew" his wife and a son was born. Therefore, the "impossible" is solved. Cain didn't reproduce by himself, but by sexual relations with his wife.

The issue at this point is who Cain's wife was. Obviously, the text doesn't give her identity or her relationship to Cain prior to becoming his wife.

Could Cain's wife have been from the "many humans" God created as you suggest? While the logical answer may seem to be yes, the scriptural answer is "no." Consider the point Paul makes in Acts 17:26a -- "And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth (NKJV)." Paul's statement would be false if what you suggest is true.

[SteelDisciple]

The Bible plainly shows that there were other people living OUTSIDE the Garden of Eden by the time they were banished out into the world. Read it a few weeks ago.

[Catechumen]

Consider the point Paul makes in Acts 17:26a -- "And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth (NKJV)." Paul's statement would be false if what you suggest is true.
Really? How so?

[Catechumen]

The Bible plainly shows that there were other people living OUTSIDE the Garden of Eden by the time they were banished out into the world. Read it a few weeks ago.

Where is that in the Bible?

[Nadiine]

First off, I'd like to note that we don't have to know 'how' God created all things - just that He IS creator of all.

But IMO, I see no place for evolution - and in fact, science doesn't support evolution. Neither does the Bible.

If you read what God was creating in Gen. 1, after each statement of what was made, it was happening in 'real time'.
And God said "let there be light" "and there was light".
Light certainly isn't seen "evolving" into maturity there.
And in fact, I dont' see any of the account of creation "taking time to evolve" specifically. IF there were evolution, the bible SHOULD make this clear directly as God makes it, then TIME does its work on the object/being!! That doesn't exist in scripture.

You also see 'and it was so' after He spoke other things into existance.
Gen. 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed and all their hosts.
As you read Gen. 2, these things are ALREADY MADE - rivers, mist, ground/dirt,
Gen. 2:19, Animals are made and brought to Adam to name. This isn't evolutionary where they morph & take millions of years to come to maturity of species.

Why would God have Adam name the animals he sees, when the animal's are going to turn into something else years down the line? So adam's naming a Lizard by description, but God knows that in 500 years, that Lizard will be a butterfly?
Talk about "illogical".

I've been to several Creationist websites and from all I read, Evolution is NOT FACT whatsoever. I don't understand why Christians are even buying into that theory as if it's true?

Further, why is it so hard or impossible for God to SPEAK THINGS INTO EXISTANCE and they appear!???
Is God too small or weak that He cannot create spontaneously???

As far as the Adam & Eve issue, the Bible doesn't give the full account of ALL the children they conceived & in what time/sequence - It is merely giving the account of Cain & Abel specifically for a purpose.

We don't know how many children Adam & Eve had prior to Cain & Abel... or when Cain & Abel's account begins in the 'chain of events' as far as offspring they had yet.
The Bible DOES say all are from ADAM & ALL have a sin nature due to his fall in the garden.
Therefore, No other humans were 'formed from the ground' directly by God.

Gen 5:3-5 WE DON'T KNOW HOW MANY CHILDREN ADAM & EVE HAD PRIOR TO CAIN & ABEL'S account.
We can't just ADD doctrine to the bible due to what it DOESN'T tell us in any given area. *ESPECIALLY WHEN IT CONTRADICTS OTHER CLEAR SCRIPTURE FACTS WE ARE GIVEN*.

*close: I am no scientific scholar so I won't be arguing evolution/creation here.
I rely on the Creationist experts who ARE scholars on this subject and I stand by their findings (along w/ scripture that I believe backs them up).
They give plenty of plausible info. from the scientific perspective that I fully accept.

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by: - DRA -

Consider the point Paul makes in Acts 17:26a -- "And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth (NKJV)." Paul's statement would be false if what you suggest is true.


Really? How so?

Consider the context. God gives life to all (nations/people - vs. 25). He made all nations/people from "one blood" (one bloodline/ancestry - vs. 26). Therefore, all nations should seek the Lord (vs. 27). The point? All people stand on common ground. They were given life/created by God from one bloodline. God created Adam, and made Eve from Adam. And, according to Genesis 3:20, Eve is the mother of all living. Therefore, God alone should be the sole focus of their attention and devotion -- not the numerous idols these Athenians were worshipping.

Consequently, to suggest that God made other people besides Adam and Eve contradicts Paul's reasoning. It would mean that there are multiple bloodlines. If this is true, then Paul was wrong. And, since Paul's teaching came directly from the Lord Jesus Himself (Galatians 1:11-12), that would mean the Lord was wrong. To further complicate matters, it would also mean that the Lord must not have understood how He did the creating (John 1:3). Don't you imagine that Jesus understood how He created things in the beginning?

Bottom line. Give some thought and consideration to Jesus' teachings in Matthew 4:5-7 and 22:23-33. He is showing us that Scriptures must harmonize ... assuming that we are after the truth. When Scriptures don't agree, our understanding is amiss somewhere.

Consequently, the idea that God created other people than Adam and Eve causes problems when other Scriptures are considered. That is the point I was trying to make.

[blakey]

Im a Creationalist, I dont believe in evolution, and dont feel that anything in the bible can back up evolution.

[Nadiine]

Originally Posted by: - DRA -

Consider the point Paul makes in Acts 17:26a -- "And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth (NKJV)." Paul's statement would be false if what you suggest is true.

Consequently, the idea that God created other people than Adam and Eve causes problems when other Scriptures are considered. That is the point I was trying to make.

IT DOES cause other problems - which is why I mentioned this in my recent post.... to say God created "OTHER" people outside Adam & Eve, is to also say, ALL OF US DON'T HAVE THE SAME SIN NATURE THAT ADAM BROUGHT THE HUMAN RACE - which scripture emphatically attributes TO ADAM ALONE.
Romans 5:17-18 becomes a hilarious joke or a cruel lie.

If we ALL didn't come from Adam (him being the father of the human race), then SOME of us don't have that sin nature he passed down which undermines the entire reason for CHRIST to come and save humanity from its plight.

[hiumble1]

evolution is a theory... there is no proof.....
they continue to try to find proof only have later disproved (but we don't hear as much about htose as we do the initial findings.... put somewhere on the 28th page way in the back)

Look at your eye and all the nerve endings in it.... if one is missing your eye ceases to work.... same way with other body parts....
If we evolved how did we know we needed a change?
When we first came out of the water how did we know we needed lungs? and how did we pass this infromation on to the next generation?
Where are the Transitional Forms?
Where are all the fossil records to back up this claim?
Why is it that scientist continue to change their position if it is FACT... first the earth is this old... WE Know for a Fact it is this old.... then they change their answer..... oh oh oh.... we just found that it is actually this old... we know!.... oh oh oh... now it is changed aqgain, etc...... 1/3 of Scientists have admitted to falsifying findings to further their fundings or to further help support their claims.....
fact smacked...
Do not deny the God who created the world.
Do not deny the God who gave you life.

[Nadiine]

Thanks for being kool about it - I appreciate that.
As illogical as you find the Bible, in all my study & life experience (as I see the world following the exact prophecies laid out in the bible), I find it's more illogical to reject the Bible God as truth.

Anyways, I think I read somewhere that you have to contact a moderator or someone at CF to let them know you want to change your faith symbol & maybe they change it for you?
I know I wouldn't want a faith symbol representing me that I didn't agree with ;)

Take care, thanks for your understanding.

[Catechumen]

evolution is a theory... there is no proof.....

creationism is a theory.. there is no proof of it either.
there's evidence, but not proof

[- DRA -]

The proof is all around you. Even within you. Think about it. Your body constantly maintains a ph of about 7.35 - 7.45 in the blood and body fluids. If changes are needed the body's buffer system kicks in. If additional changes are needed, the body's respiratory system helps out. And, if further assistance is needed, the urinary system helps out. The point? The body has its own calibrated ph probe that lasts a lifetime, and constantly "knows" when it needs to turn-on additional systems to help out, and when it needs to turn those additonal systems off. How does the body "know" when to do these things? The answer? Intelligent design. Not by chance. Statistically speaking, it is impossible for all the numerous body functions to "turn-on" and "turn-off" at just the right time to sustain life. These systems were designed to work that way. They just didn't happen. They were designed. Think about it. The evidence for intelligent design is all around you.

Consider any historical figure from the past? Did you ever see them? Talk to them? George Washington is an example. Personally, I never met him. But, I do consider the historical accounts to be reliable. I believe he lived. And, was the first president of America. Now, think about Jesus. The Bible is not the only book that records information about Him. Historians during the first century wrote about Him also. And, they weren't even believers -- just historians. Overall, there is more historical evidence supporting Jesus and His life than any other person in the past. Far more evidence. Think about it. Investigate it further.

Faith is not blind. Faith is based on evidence. Consider the evolutionist. They have faith in something they can't see. Their faith is that the world and the things in it came about by chance, and NOT by design. Logically, that is the best example of BLIND FAITH that one could expect to see. Once again, please think about it.

:prayer:

[- DRA -]

IT DOES cause other problems - which is why I mentioned this in my recent post.... to say God created "OTHER" people outside Adam & Eve, is to also say, ALL OF US DON'T HAVE THE SAME SIN NATURE THAT ADAM BROUGHT THE HUMAN RACE - which scripture emphatically attributes TO ADAM ALONE.
Romans 5:17-18 becomes a hilarious joke or a cruel lie.

If we ALL didn't come from Adam (him being the father of the human race), then SOME of us don't have that sin nature he passed down which undermines the entire reason for CHRIST to come and save humanity from its plight.

Agreed. Good point. Once again, as previously mentioned, the truth will agree among the Scriptures. If there is a contradiction between Scriptures, it is in our understanding (i.e. 2 Tim. 3:16-17).

[PegasusOnFire]

MOD HAT ON

This thread is only for those who are non-denominational, please read the first Thread in this forum: Please Read Before Posting (http://www.christianforums.com/t2936040-please-read-before-posting-.html) Any non-non-denominational person trying to debate in this thread or anyother will be given a warning/alert.

MOD HAT OFF

[CooL_Genesis]

I believe in the six literal days for Creation because of these passages...

Genesis 1:3-5
3 And God said, Let there be light, and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the drakness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

The Bible speaks of an evening and a morning on all six days of Creation. On Earth, that's 24 hours or one solar day.

God's all powerful and all knowing! He can and will do as He pleases and promises. Six days for Creation? He could've easily done so in one, but... 7 seems to be His lucky number! :thumbsup:

[Catechumen]

The evidence for intelligent design is all around you.

Overall, there is more historical evidence supporting Jesus and His life than any other person in the past. Far more evidence. Think about it. Investigate it further.

Faith is not blind. Faith is based on evidence. Consider the evolutionist. They have faith in something they can't see.

I know the evidence is around. I believe in intelligent design. Go back and reread my post, I think you missed my point.

Not true. You have the burden of proof on that one.

As do you and I. Faith is not blind, but it is necessarily paradoxical.

[mythrainbow]

If everyone always believed that...we would all be afraid to go sailing...because we'd think the world was flat. :)

What does believing the world is flat have to do with Christianity or the Bible. That concept never came from God, it came from the inability of people to understand what God really did.

My two cents is that if God had created the world in a different span of time than stated in Genesis, than that's what would have been written. If God didn't create all the species as quickly, then it would have been written differently. Nature has no power to grow and thrive aside from God.

Maybe to God 1 day is as 1000, and 1000 is as 1, but that doesn't mean He doesn't know how to tell time, but He is outside of it and in control of it, meaning he could have done everything in a split second or chosen to take years,

But He chose to create in six days and rest in one for a purpose.

[JonF]

A lot of Christianities say things about evolution they shouldn’t. They make scientific claims with having little to no understand of what science is. They say things like “science disagrees with evolution!” or “physical laws are violated by evolution” without having a notion of what they are really saying.

This comes about because most people don’t understand what science (natural) really is. Science is the process of acquiring knowledge about how the natural world works based on empiricism, methodology, theory, and experimentation. Already just by looking at the definition of science several objection against the world believing in evolution fall short. People often ask, “God doing is the most logical/easiest/consistent/best explanation, why don’t scientists just accept that?” Because that isn’t what science is. If God did it was the explanation we offer that wouldn’t be a natural explanation, it would be a supernatural explanation.

What is wrong with supernatural explanations? The go against the whole purpose of what science is. One of the reasons humans study science is so we can classify a broad array of physical phenomena, and then make accurate predictions about that phenomena. Super natural explanations simply don’t allow us to do that. If all we can cite is “God did it” as the how something came about, we can’t tell the conditions under which similar events happen.

Evolution is a theory. That is right. What a theory isn’t what many people claim if we are talking about a science. A theory has to be consistent, relate natural phenomena, based on experimental data, and thus predictive. The scientific term theory, an the common usage of the term theory overlap in that they are both tentative, subject to change and modification. Theories aren’t unsubstantiated guesses, or shots in the dark as many would like to claim. Do people really believe that Einstein’s theory of relativity is a guess?

It is important to note that science is predictive; science can’t make claims about what happened in the past. The closest science can get to say that, “this belief would be a consistent view with our understanding of the natural world.” When you read the statement evolution is true. It means several things; first it means evolution is currently happening. Second, it means evolution is the best explanation we can come up with at the present moment for how we came to be.

Now me being a Christian I agree with the first one of these claims, and deny the second. But the only reason I have to deny the second is my belief in God, and my understand of the bible. So an atheist evolution or someone who reads the bible in a different way has no reason to deny the second as far as I can see it. But it’s the first claim is what scientist really care about, and is the claim that is really important. Very few Christians who have a basic understanding of science will deny micro evolution. It’s rather difficult to deny that micro evolution will eventually lead to macro evolution. Because of this I believe macro evolution is happening. Give the planet a couple billion years and im sure you would get some funky looking critters. But I do not hold that evolution is responsible for how we came to be. But if someone doesn’t believe in God, I think it’s silly that we should expect them not to belive in evolution.

[SteelDisciple]

PArtial Evolutionists and Creations are both correct.

Science should be combined with Faith in order to know our creator better THROUGH his creations. Science is a tool given by God in order to have a deeper understanding of the world.

Think about it...learning is an important thing. God made our brains to work as muscles...meaning we have to use them in a variety of fashions in order for them to grow...if we stop thinking, if we stop questing and ASKING questions that muscle weakens. God didn't make it "just because" He made it that way because we encourages us to LEARN and grow in ALL aspects of our lives. Not JUST spiritual.

What better way to know our Creator, than through the COMPLEX world he has created.

[Catechumen]

Science is a tool given by God in order to have a deeper understanding of the world.

Think about it...learning is an important thing. God made our brains to work as muscles...meaning we have to use them in a variety of fashions in order for them to grow...if we stop thinking, if we stop questing and ASKING questions that muscle weakens. God didn't make it "just because" He made it that way because we encourages us to LEARN and grow in ALL aspects of our lives. Not JUST spiritual.

What better way to know our Creator, than through the COMPLEX world he has created.

:amen: reps to you

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by: - DRA -

The evidence for intelligent design is all around you.

Overall, there is more historical evidence supporting Jesus and His life than any other person in the past. Far more evidence. Think about it. Investigate it further.

Faith is not blind. Faith is based on evidence. Consider the evolutionist. They have faith in something they can't see.



I know the evidence is around. I believe in intelligent design. Go back and reread my post, I think you missed my point.

Not true. You have the burden of proof on that one.

As do you and I. Faith is not blind, but it is necessarily paradoxical.


First off, please allow me to clarify. The post you pulled this quote from wasn't addressed to you. It was addressed to another poster. That person's posts were later deleted by one of the moderators. Note the comment on the bottom of post #32. It was edited by one of the moderators. The moderator removed the quote that I was addressing. In fact, all posts and quotes of that particular person were removed by the moderator. Now, after they were removed, since my post immediately follows yours, it appears as if I was responding to your post. I wasn't.

However, there does seem to be one part of your post that I need to address. I'm not exactly sure what burden of proof you think is mine, but suspect it involves my statement, "They [the evolutionists] have faith in something they can't see." Assuming this is the case, I will attempt to comment further. Obviously, none of us were there to "see" the beginning of the world -- neither creationists or evolutionists. Therefore, our determination of how the world came to be is based on evidence. The evolutionists chide Christians because they believe in a God they can't see and a process they can't scientifically duplicate, while in reality the evolutionists also believe in a process they can't see or scientifically duplicate -- macro evolution. Therefore, it all boils down to what we "see" about us now. Simply stated, it's really about the conclusions we make based on the evidence before us. I see intelligent design. It confirms the Bible account that God created the world and put the various complex systems in place that exist among all things He created. On the other hand, the evolutionists don't "see" this at all. Instead, they "see" these things happening by chance. Logically or statisically speaking, the chances of these systems developing and operating as they do are zero. Therefore, where the evolutionists chide the Christians for having blind faith, they, in turn, believe in something that has no sound basis at all. I see that as the ultimate example of a faith/belief that is truly "blind."

Hope this helps.

[- DRA -]

A lot of Christianities say things about evolution they shouldn’t. They make scientific claims with having little to no understand of what science is. They say things like “science disagrees with evolution!” or “physical laws are violated by evolution” without having a notion of what they are really saying.

This comes about because most people don’t understand what science (natural) really is. Science is the process of acquiring knowledge about how the natural world works based on empiricism, methodology, theory, and experimentation. Already just by looking at the definition of science several objection against the world believing in evolution fall short. People often ask, “God doing is the most logical/easiest/consistent/best explanation, why don’t scientists just accept that?” Because that isn’t what science is. If God did it was the explanation we offer that wouldn’t be a natural explanation, it would be a supernatural explanation.

What is wrong with supernatural explanations? The go against the whole purpose of what science is. One of the reasons humans study science is so we can classify a broad array of physical phenomena, and then make accurate predictions about that phenomena. Super natural explanations simply don’t allow us to do that. If all we can cite is “God did it” as the how something came about, we can’t tell the conditions under which similar events happen.

Evolution is a theory. That is right. What a theory isn’t what many people claim if we are talking about a science. A theory has to be consistent, relate natural phenomena, based on experimental data, and thus predictive. The scientific term theory, an the common usage of the term theory overlap in that they are both tentative, subject to change and modification. Theories aren’t unsubstantiated guesses, or shots in the dark as many would like to claim. Do people really believe that Einstein’s theory of relativity is a guess?

It is important to note that science is predictive; science can’t make claims about what happened in the past. The closest science can get to say that, “this belief would be a consistent view with our understanding of the natural world.” When you read the statement evolution is true. It means several things; first it means evolution is currently happening. Second, it means evolution is the best explanation we can come up with at the present moment for how we came to be.

Now me being a Christian I agree with the first one of these claims, and deny the second. But the only reason I have to deny the second is my belief in God, and my understand of the bible. So an atheist evolution or someone who reads the bible in a different way has no reason to deny the second as far as I can see it. But it’s the first claim is what scientist really care about, and is the claim that is really important. Very few Christians who have a basic understanding of science will deny micro evolution. It’s rather difficult to deny that micro evolution will eventually lead to macro evolution. Because of this I believe macro evolution is happening. Give the planet a couple billion years and im sure you would get some funky looking critters. But I do not hold that evolution is responsible for how we came to be. But if someone doesn’t believe in God, I think it’s silly that we should expect them not to belive in evolution.


I don't oppose micro evolution, but oppose macro evolution. Consider Genesis chapter 1. "According to its [or their] kind" (NKJV) is how the reproductive process is described. Thus, grass makes grass, herbs make herbs, trees make trees, ... and people make people. Frankly, I don't see how macro evolution harmonizes with God's law of reproduction. Can you explain further.

Unless I'm mistaken in my understanding of Genesis 1, and assuming that the world lasts a couple billion additional years, then grass will still be producing grass, herbs herbs, trees trees, birds birds, fish fish, cattle cattle, animals animals, and people people.

I don't think people who believe in macro evolution are silly. However, I do think they're wrong.

[JonF]

I don't oppose micro evolution, but oppose macro evolution. Consider Genesis chapter 1. "According to its [or their] kind" (NKJV) is how the reproductive process is described. Thus, grass makes grass, herbs make herbs, trees make trees, ... and people make people. Frankly, I don't see how macro evolution harmonizes with God's law of reproduction. Can you explain further.

Unless I'm mistaken in my understanding of Genesis 1, and assuming that the world lasts a couple billion additional years, then grass will still be producing grass, herbs herbs, trees trees, birds birds, fish fish, cattle cattle, animals animals, and people people.

I don't think people who believe in macro evolution are silly. However, I do think they're wrong.
Can we agree given enough time micro evolution will lead to things that could once bread together not being able to any more?

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by: - DRA -

I don't oppose micro evolution, but oppose macro evolution. Consider Genesis chapter 1. "According to its [or their] kind" (NKJV) is how the reproductive process is described. Thus, grass makes grass, herbs make herbs, trees make trees, ... and people make people. Frankly, I don't see how macro evolution harmonizes with God's law of reproduction. Can you explain further.

Unless I'm mistaken in my understanding of Genesis 1, and assuming that the world lasts a couple billion additional years, then grass will still be producing grass, herbs herbs, trees trees, birds birds, fish fish, cattle cattle, animals animals, and people people.

I don't think people who believe in macro evolution are silly. However, I do think they're wrong.

Can we agree given enough time micro evolution will lead to things that could once bread together not being able to any more?

Biotechnology (by genetic engineering) has developed seeds that produce plants with their own built-in pesticide. Presently, seed companies using this technology patent the seeds so farmers cannot save the seeds from their crops and reuse them the next year. In addition, biotechnology can also make the plants produce sterile seeds. It is a no-brainer that this would make the farmers dependent upon the seed companies for seeds. Having said this, yes, I think that changes can occur or be made to a species to stop reproduction.

However, I still believe that grass produces grass, herbs herbs, ... and people people. You didn't comment on Genesis chapter 1. Do you see room for macro evolution in that chapter?

[JonF]

Originally Posted by: - DRA -

I don't oppose micro evolution, but oppose macro evolution. Consider Genesis chapter 1. "According to its [or their] kind" (NKJV) is how the reproductive process is described. Thus, grass makes grass, herbs make herbs, trees make trees, ... and people make people. Frankly, I don't see how macro evolution harmonizes with God's law of reproduction. Can you explain further.

Unless I'm mistaken in my understanding of Genesis 1, and assuming that the world lasts a couple billion additional years, then grass will still be producing grass, herbs herbs, trees trees, birds birds, fish fish, cattle cattle, animals animals, and people people.

I don't think people who believe in macro evolution are silly. However, I do think they're wrong.



Biotechnology (by genetic engineering) has developed seeds that produce plants with their own built-in pesticide. Presently, seed companies using this technology patent the seeds so farmers cannot save the seeds from their crops and reuse them the next year. In addition, biotechnology can also make the plants produce sterile seeds. It is a no-brainer that this would make the farmers dependent upon the seed companies for seeds. Having said this, yes, I think that changes can occur or be made to a species to stop reproduction.

However, I still believe that grass produces grass, herbs herbs, ... and people people. You didn't comment on Genesis chapter 1. Do you see room for macro evolution in that chapter?
You didn’t read all of my post I think. I don’t think macro evolution happened in the past, but given enough time I think it could happen in the future.

Do you think given enough time, an organism could recessively lose or gain an appendage?

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by: - DRA -

I don't oppose micro evolution, but oppose macro evolution. Consider Genesis chapter 1. "According to its [or their] kind" (NKJV) is how the reproductive process is described. Thus, grass makes grass, herbs make herbs, trees make trees, ... and people make people. Frankly, I don't see how macro evolution harmonizes with God's law of reproduction. Can you explain further.

Unless I'm mistaken in my understanding of Genesis 1, and assuming that the world lasts a couple billion additional years, then grass will still be producing grass, herbs herbs, trees trees, birds birds, fish fish, cattle cattle, animals animals, and people people.

I don't think people who believe in macro evolution are silly. However, I do think they're wrong.

Biotechnology (by genetic engineering) has developed seeds that produce plants with their own built-in pesticide. Presently, seed companies using this technology patent the seeds so farmers cannot save the seeds from their crops and reuse them the next year. In addition, biotechnology can also make the plants produce sterile seeds. It is a no-brainer that this would make the farmers dependent upon the seed companies for seeds. Having said this, yes, I think that changes can occur or be made to a species to stop reproduction.

However, I still believe that grass produces grass, herbs herbs, ... and people people. You didn't comment on Genesis chapter 1. Do you see room for macro evolution in that chapter?


You didn’t read all of my post I think. I don’t think macro evolution happened in the past, but given enough time I think it could happen in the future.

Do you think given enough time, an organism could recessively lose or gain an appendage?


I read the post. Did you read mine i.e. "However, I still believe that grass produces grass, herbs herbs, ... and people people"? You didn't comment on Genesis chapter 1. Do you see room for macro evolution in that chapter?"

Gaining or losing an appendage would be an example of micro -- not macro -- evolution.

[Catechumen]

I'm not exactly sure what burden of proof you think is mine, but suspect it involves my statement, "They [the evolutionists] have faith in something they can't see."

It doesn't. The burden of proof is yours pertaining to the statement you made about Christ.

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by: - DRA -

I'm not exactly sure what burden of proof you think is mine, but suspect it involves my statement, "They [the evolutionists] have faith in something they can't see."


It doesn't. The burden of proof is yours pertaining to the statement you made about Christ.

This takes us back to post # 26 on page 3.

Do you deny that Jesus did the creating i.e. John 1:3, Colossians 1:16, Hebrews 1:2?

Or, that He was the source of Paul's teaching i.e. Galatians 1:11-12?

Or, that the reasoning you presented contradicted the point the Lord made ... through the apostle Paul ... in Acts 17:26?

[JonF]

Originally Posted by: - DRA -

I don't oppose micro evolution, but oppose macro evolution. Consider Genesis chapter 1. "According to its [or their] kind" (NKJV) is how the reproductive process is described. Thus, grass makes grass, herbs make herbs, trees make trees, ... and people make people. Frankly, I don't see how macro evolution harmonizes with God's law of reproduction. Can you explain further.

Unless I'm mistaken in my understanding of Genesis 1, and assuming that the world lasts a couple billion additional years, then grass will still be producing grass, herbs herbs, trees trees, birds birds, fish fish, cattle cattle, animals animals, and people people.

I don't think people who believe in macro evolution are silly. However, I do think they're wrong.

Biotechnology (by genetic engineering) has developed seeds that produce plants with their own built-in pesticide. Presently, seed companies using this technology patent the seeds so farmers cannot save the seeds from their crops and reuse them the next year. In addition, biotechnology can also make the plants produce sterile seeds. It is a no-brainer that this would make the farmers dependent upon the seed companies for seeds. Having said this, yes, I think that changes can occur or be made to a species to stop reproduction.

However, I still believe that grass produces grass, herbs herbs, ... and people people. You didn't comment on Genesis chapter 1. Do you see room for macro evolution in that chapter?




I read the post. Did you read mine i.e. "However, I still believe that grass produces grass, herbs herbs, ... and people people"? You didn't comment on Genesis chapter 1. Do you see room for macro evolution in that chapter?"

Gaining or losing an appendage would be an example of micro -- not macro -- evolution.
i read it i just didn't address it since it has no relevancy to my claims, gen chapter 1 is a statement about the past not the future. What I do think about gen chapter 1 though? I think it’s possible that evolution could fit in there. But I think it certainly isn’t the best interpretation, or the one the one that seems the most biblical. This is largely why I don’t think macro evolution happened in the past.

Follow up question: Do you think that micro evolution can lead to internal structural changes of organs. Such as appendixes or the Coccyx, or even give rise to new organs if the environment deems it necessary?