Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
yes it did just evolve from nothing. tell me, how many computers existed in the 1700s.
Oh, Jet! :rolleyes:
__________________ Your life is God's gift to you. What you do with it is your gift to God. The goodness in each individual's soul enlarges the heart of the world.
Most Christians believe in evolution. YEC has done far more damage to Christianity, as no-one will deconvert through evolution unless they have been told it is incompatible with Christianity be creationists. Also, some Atheists believe that to be Christian you must be a YEC, and this turns them off because of Evolutions superiority as a description of reality.
What is "YEC"?
And also, I don't agree that most Christians believe in evolution. In fact, I have only met one, and that person happened to be 12-years-olds. And I have expecially never been to a church preaching pro-evolution beliefs, but only against it.
Originally Posted by PhantomLlama
No-one is claiming computers evolve, and they show no signs of having done so. Life, on the other hand...
I wasn't implying that anyone was ever claiming that computers evolve, but simply used it as a metaphorical comparison to the belief that life evolved from nothing, and used it to show that everything on this earth is created by something superior to itself.
Need you be reminded that evolution was indeed thought up by a man challenging the entire basis of Christianity?
Thats false. Evolution was an honest attempt to explain the origin of the species using the available data. It was then and it still is today. Thats all any science really is.
Originally Posted by River88
I don't know for sure, but wasn't Darwin an athiest himself? I was very sure I read somewhere that he once believed, but lost his faith to his new ideas.
That is irrelevant. There were 'christians' that burned heretics at the stake. How many people lost their faith simply by looking at such atrocities. If people look at evolution and lose their faith or look at the Salem witch trials and lose their faith...all that proves is that their faith is weak.
In the case of the execution of heretics, need I remind you that such things resulted because some Christians were intent to impose a particular interpretation of scriptures on everyone?
Originally Posted by River88
Many Christians have probably lost their faith to the belief in evolution, as well. The two ideas just don't go together.
But have they lost their faith because of the science or have they lost their faith because some church leaders and other Christians have decided to define evolution as a contradiction of scriptures (on their own authority)? Who gave them the authority to make such assertions?
I think its clear: many Christians have lost their faith because some Christians (claiming to have God's authority in contradiction to scriptures) insist on disregarding good sciece if it conflicts with their interpretations of scriptures. YECs would do the body of Christ a big favor if they would stop making false assertions.
Originally Posted by River88
Also, look at it like this... take a good look at the computer you're using. How did it get there? Did it just "evolve" from nothing? No, it was created by a superior being to itself (being mankind). That is exactly how the world works. It didn't just so happen that one day the world decided to create itself, but God choose to create it.
Think of it this way: All science is really doing is studying God's creation. IOW, we are studying God's methods for creating the universe and life. What if God uses the process of evolution to form the man? If thats true, then why would you reject God's methods?
Last edited by Mike Flynn; 23rd November 2003 at 06:46 PM.
What is "YEC"?
And also, I don't agree that most Christians believe in evolution. In fact, I have only met one, and that person happened to be 12-years-olds.
You may not agree, but the data contradicts you.
I don't suppose you define Catholics as Christian? I'm not sure where you live (US Bible belt?) but I believe more than 80% (the number recently posted?) accept evolution as a possible tool for God's creation.
I don't know for sure, but wasn't Darwin an athiest himself? I was very sure I read somewhere that he once believed, but lost his faith to his new ideas.
I can't find info on this but lucaspa has stated numerous times that Darwin became an agnostic later in his life because of the death of his daughter and because Anglican teachings conflicted with those of his father (or something like that). It had nothing to do with evolution.
__________________
"Creationists are going to distort whatever arguments come up.... Archaeopteryx is half reptile and half bird any way you cut the deck, and so it is a Rosetta stone for evolution, whether it is related to dinosaurs or not. These creationists are confusing an argument about minor details of evolution with the indisputable fact of evolution."
-Dr. Alan Feduccia, in an interview with Discover magazine
But have they lost their faith because of the science or have they lost their faith because some church leaders and other Christians have decided to define evolution as a contradiction of scriptures (on their own authority)? Who gave them the authority to make such assertions?
Just my "interpretation" but I don't think the intention of the bible was to be an depth overview of the workings of God showing how He did what He did. It's always been an invitation as well as a users guide. It contains historical events not to explain them but to acknowledge them as part of the historical record.
"Odd, the way the less the Bible is read the more it is translated."
"Now as myth transcends thought, Incarnation transcends myth. The heart of Christianity is a myth which is also a fact. The old myth of the Dying God, without ceasing to be a myth, comes down from the heaven of legend and imagination to the earth of history. It happens--at a particular date, in a particular place, followed by definable historical consequences. We pass from Balder and Osiris, dying nobody knows when or where, to a historical Person crucified (it is all in order) under Pontius Pilate. By becoming fact it does not cease to be myth: that is the miracle." C.S.Lewis
I personally don't care how God created the universe, He obviously created a very structured and organized system which works in unison using interdependent laws of nature and science. Carl Segan often speculated that with the billions and billions of planets in the universe, there must be thousands of life-filled planets out there. Now it seams the more that is learned of Earth and it's position/relationship in our solar system, the more unique and alone we become. It seems very strange to me that although life, according to the non-creationalist point of view, came about by accident, it can't be re-created in a very controlled lab setting? (life from nothing that is) of course the answer always seems to be to add more time so that the giant evolution roulette wheel can spin again giving it additional chances to win the big one.
__________________
Rom 1:25: "They exchanged God's truth for a lie and worshipped and served the creation rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen."
Joh 1:1-2: "In the beginning, the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God". "He existed in the beginning with God."
Last edited by myutmost4him; 23rd November 2003 at 08:48 PM.
It seems very strange to me that although life, according to the non-creationalist point of view, came about by accident, it can't be re-created in a very controlled lab setting?
If it came about 'by accident' then there is no reason to think that the same accident could be recreated easily in a laboratory.
Life, though, did not come about 'by accident'. It came about through the operations of the laws of chemistry.
And scientists have indeed created life from non life, which they would not have been able to do if it was an accident.
I will find the thread in a moment for you.
(life from nothing that is) of course the answer always seems to be to add more time so that the giant evolution roulette wheel can spin again giving it additional chances to win the big one.
Evolution has nothing to with the appearance of life. Evolution is about the diversity of species and complex living structures arising from non-complex living structures.
Evolution also has nothing to do with chance. Natural selection is the opposite of chance.
__________________ 'Avast, ye scurvy dogs! Rotate the rubber baby buggy bumpers!'
Evolution also has nothing to do with chance. Natural selection is the opposite of chance.
Yeah right. Either you believe there is some intellegent mechanism behind natural selection or it is a mechanism of mere chance where mutations occur randomly and if some beneficial mutation occurs then it sticks...if not then it dies. Of course only good mutations are able to reproduce because they get all the girls. The other thing is that because one mutation occurs, it doesn't mean it gets passed to the offspring. I believe in natural selection but only to a point. Food and climate can effect life possitively and negatively. In good times we may get bigger, faster, stronger and through breeding certain traits can be carried on or erased, but what that's not is eventually growing a set of wings so we can fly so we can get to the nest so we can eat the eggs that taste so good.
__________________
Rom 1:25: "They exchanged God's truth for a lie and worshipped and served the creation rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen."
Joh 1:1-2: "In the beginning, the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God". "He existed in the beginning with God."
Linear Mode
