Christianity & Evolution Are Compatible...A Reflection

Amoeba · #1 19th July 2009, 01:58 AM

Hi, I'm new, and I just wanted to expound on creationism. Also, when I use the word creationism, I also mean intelligent design.

First of all, Christians can believe in God and evolution, and be 100% content in their compatibility. If anyone states that evolution disproves god, or that you can't be a christian and believe in evolution, just know...they are full of it...

Creationism is full of logical holes and assumptions based on ideological grounds...in fact, I believe it puts God in a box, a box which he does not belong. It limits God to an interpretation not based in reality. Why is it not based in reality? Because the scientific data does not support it. Science itself allows the experiment to dictate the results. But creationists turn this on its head. They know the answer. They are simply trying to make the experiment fit into their preconceived view of reality. That is not science. And if you believe in God, you should also believe that science is the pursuit of knowing the mind of God.

Creationism relies on a false dichotemy. The creationists I have seen (i.e. Ken Ham, etc) main goal is not to prove creationism. Their main goal is disprove evolution, and the logic is, "If we disprove evolution, then creationism must be right." Unfortunately for them, disproving evolution does not prove creationism, especially given the fact that the proposition, "God created the universe", is a completely unprovable proposition within the realm of science. So to say creationism is science is a blatant oxymoron because "God" cannot be empirically studied. Intelligent design included.

Evolution says nothing about god or the existence god. If anything, if you are a Christian, you should be amazed at the fact of evolution, biological and cosmic. That God, in his logic, created a universe which evolves according to physical laws, and this evolution, after 13.7 billion years, resulted in you. It took 13.7 billion years of evolution for you to exist, and the fact that you even exist, that all the events during this insurmountable amount of time, resulted in your birth, is simply amazing. Evolution is a miracle and to deny it, in my opinion, is to deny reality. It is a fact, and if God created this universe, and us, it was done by evolution.

The Bible is full of wisdom, history, and theology. But it is NOT a scientific document. Let me repeat that. THE BIBLE IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC DOCUMENT. There is a real problem with creationist "science" because it is based on a non-scientific document and assumed to be the answer to all scientific questions of our origins.

One of creationists main focuses are human evolution. They just cannot believe that we evolved from ape-like ancestors, or single-celled organisms. A good one I've heard while in church was, "They want us to believe we evolved from pond scum! Pond scum." Well, perhaps not "pond scum", but we are essentially made out of dirt. Even the bible says (Gen 2:7), "the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being." 13.7 billion years condensed into one sentence! Amazing! All living things are made of the same carbon based chemical concoction. Yes, we are made of the same stuff as trees, fish, and yes, apes. That is not to say we are a tree or fish or an ape (though we are in the same super-family).

So to conclude. Evolution is a fact. If you are a Christian and questioning whether you can believe in God and evolution, you can! Wonder in amazement that an almost infinite number of events over a incomprehensible amount of time (13.7 billion years), led to your birth, your life, both of which, should have statistically never happened! Reflect on that.

atomweaver · #2 23rd July 2009, 01:29 PM

Hi Amoeba, nice to meet you, and great post. Unfortunately, you put it in the "Formal Debate" sub-section... You'll get a lot more replies if you re-post it in the main Creation and Evolution Forum LINK

salida · #3 17th September 2009, 01:00 PM

Creationism has logical holes and its a false dichotomy you claim? Even intelligent design? Please be very specific here. Your automobile didn't appear in this air; but a human body cell that is 1000 times more complicated did? Hmm. Show me this logically. The bible isn't a scientific document? Again, whats the point? It has an overwhelming amount of circumstantial evidence that supports it. Are you claiming that things can be proven only using the scientific method? Can you prove love and hate this way? Just because evolution can be disapproved creationism is right? No, this isn't my case sir. Show me that your brand of evolution definition is a fact. I believe in some macroevolution and all microevolution-this is fact. Something coming from nothing and a one celled organism is a farce. Science is merely an interpretation of things by men that God has done - thats it.

First we can end this debate faster on creationism possibly because the book its in called the Bible does have empirical evidence that supports it- an overwhelming amount. When this is accomplished, it will logically put this debate to rest because it will also answer the intellectual design and your brand of evolution question.

TerranceL · #4 19th September 2009, 05:39 AM

Originally Posted by salida

First we can end this debate faster on creationism possibly because the book its in called the Bible does have empirical evidence that supports it- an overwhelming amount. When this is accomplished, it will logically put this debate to rest because it will also answer the intellectual design and your brand of evolution question.

Please list this empirical evidence.

plindboe · #5 19th September 2009, 03:35 PM

Originally Posted by salida

Your automobile didn't appear in this air; but a human body cell that is 1000 times more complicated did?

No, of course it didn't.

Originally Posted by salida

Hmm. Show me this logically.

Why? No one has made such a ridiculous claim.

Originally Posted by salida

Show me that your brand of evolution definition is a fact. I believe in some macroevolution and all microevolution-this is fact. Something coming from nothing and a one celled organism is a farce.

No scientist says that something came from nothing. Creatio ex nihilo is a christian concept.

Ask yourself this: Why do you feel you have to make up claims to attack, rather than listening to the actual claims people make and addressing them instead?

Peter

salida · #6 21st September 2009, 03:15 PM

I will prove the Bible is true just by using biblical prophecies alone. For thousands of years the Hebrew scriptures predicted that a Messiah would one day come. The Old Testament details over three hundred prophecies about Jesus that were fulfilled in the New Testament. Prophecies such as his birth, where he was born, lineage, betrayed by a friend for 30 pieces of silver, he was spat on and beaten, he was silent before accusers.

Virgin birth
Jesus Birth:Isaiah 7:14
Prophecy written:701-681BC
Prophecy fulfilled:5 BC

Messiah born in Bethlehem: Micah 5:1-2
Prop written: 750-686BC
Prop fulfilled: 5BC

Messiah Tribe of Judah: Gen 49:10
Prop written: 1400BC
Prop fulfilled: 5BC

Messiah descendent of King David: Jeremiah 23:5
Prop written: 626-586BC
Prop fulfilled: 2000 years ago

Jesus betrayed by friend: Ps 41:9
Prop written: 1000BC
Prop fulfilled: 31AD

Betrayed by 30 pieces of silver: Zech 11:12-13
Prop written: 520-518BC
Prop fulfilled: 31AD

Jesus spat on and beaten: Isaiah 50:6
Prop written: 701-681BC
Prop fulfilled: 31AD

Jesus silent before accusers: Isaiah 53:7
Prop written: 701-681BC
Prop fulfilled: 31AD

Mathematically, the odds that one person would fulfill just 8 prophecies is 1 in 10 to the 17th power. If 48 of these prophecies are fulfilled these odds get even higher - to 10 to the 157th power. Mathematicians say that anything over 10 to the 50th is impossible. The bible has well over 48.

plindboe-

The millions of years theory is darwinism; evolving over time and improving throughout millions of years. What counts is who has the most evidence here; I don't care what concept you want to call it.

CoderHead · #7 21st September 2009, 04:26 PM

Originally Posted by salida

Messiah descendent of King David: Jeremiah 23:5
Prop written: 626-586BC
Prop fulfilled: 2000 years ago

I have problems with this one. Jesus wasn't a descendant of King David - that lineage was traced through Joseph, who had absolutely no part in Jesus' birth whatsoever. How do you figure this is accurate?

Markus6 · #8 21st September 2009, 04:39 PM

I am a believer and I don't mean to attack your post. I actually accept the rest of it but...

Originally Posted by salida

Mathematicians say that anything over 10 to the 50th is impossible.

Only mathematicians who are wrong. It's a negligible probability (though every single birth since the prophecies gives a chance of it happening, thus increasing the expectation) but impossible only refers to things that have a probability of exactly zero.

70x7 · #9 21st September 2009, 05:52 PM

So since we cannot "prove" the existance of God using our science, He does not exist?

"Creationism is full of logical holes and assumptions based on ideological grounds...in fact, I believe it puts God in a box, a box which he does not belong. It limits God to an interpretation not based in reality. Why is it not based in reality? Because the scientific data does not support it. Science itself allows the experiment to dictate the results."

....interesting.

salida · #10 21st September 2009, 08:43 PM

Jesus lineage was a descendent of King David-the bible is historically accurate with christian and nonchristian scholars.

I gave evidence but since it doesn't seem to fit your idea of evidence since it wasn't proven using naturalism it doesn't count. I can give you evidence but I can't force you to accept it. Then this can evolve into circular reasoning thereby getting no where. I'm not surprised at this because this is the standard result of debating with darwinist- they want naturalistic evidence when God is supernatural. God isn't in a naturalist box because he isn't natural.

Mathematicians can be wrong? Yes, but they can do 1 plus 1 sir and the statistics here is not at an advanced level. If this isn't what you want to read, this isn't my issue.