Creation

[busterdog]

Amber, it is awesome that you want your husband to come to know the Lord. It is awesome that you are willing to let God use this to do so. A couple things come to mind.

1) Act and live what you believe.
It is fine to share the truth of the Bible (focus especially on the gospels) and important to do so. Just as important is to make sure you are living and doing what you say you believe. The addage is true, actions speak louder than words. If your husband is totally focused on the intellectual suggest reading Josh McDowell's "The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict." But don't force it. Also encourage him to read the Bible and check it our for himself. Again don't force it. Actually I would suggest reading the Bible (or part of it) as God's word is powerful. I know people who have accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior just because the Holy Spirit convicted them through the Word.

2) Prayer
Pray, pray, pray. Then pray some more. Even get other Christians you know to pray for him. Pray that Satan and his demons would be bound and have their mouths shut so that your husband will not hear their lies. Ask the Holy Spirit to open his spiritual eyes to see the truth about God.

Remember not to hound your husband; that's the Holy Spirit's job.

I'll be praying for you and your husband.

Lord, I pray that Amber's husband's spiritual eyes would be opened and that he will hear from You and only You. Lord, guard him from attacks of the evil one and turn his ear to you. Lord, we pray for his salvation and that he would seek you with all his being. Amen.

Amen

 

[Assyrian]

truly. and yet, we were meant to live forever, thats why Christ physically defeated death so that we may have eternal life. but if we were meant for immortality why would God create us mortal?

If we were created immortal what was the Tree of Life for?

yes. dont you believe in the bodily resurrection?

Doesn't that require our bodies being changed, transformed first?

 

[shernren]

Watch this miracle - an evolutionist is about to quote Scripture!

*shock* *gasp* *horror*

Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, when they see the purity and reverence of your lives. Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes. Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God's sight. For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to make themselves beautiful. They were submissive to their own husbands, like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her master. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear.
(1 Peter 3:1-6 NIV)

Amber4099, I haven't seen you make any replies in this thread yet. You doing alright? =) As gluadys said, you may be very surprised to be moved to Origins Theology. This is essentially a subforum where people discuss how science and Scripture relate to each other, especially in terms of questions about origins and the like.

You will find two broad, different camps here. The first camp is the creationist camp, most of whom are young earth creationists, or people who believe that the earth has been created recently and rapidly based on how they read the Bible. (Though every once in a while you get some slightly different creationist views.) The second camp is the evolutionist camp, most of whom would be labeled "theistic evolutionists". That's the bunch I'm part of, and we believe that evolution makes a lot of sense when we look at nature - and that it also makes sense put together with the Bible. We aren't all that different - we agree that the Bible is important, we just disagree on how it is important. We get quite nasty and terse over it at times; many of us have gotten used to it, but if you're feeling a little shocked, I apologize on behalf of everyone.

Thus you will get some very different views about evolution depending on who you ask. But don't get too hung up on evolution in the first place. Evolution is only a part of atheism, and there are many people here (myself included) who accept evolution and yet firmly believe in the God of the Bible. If you don't think you're a good arguer, there's no need to try and argue your husband into the Kingdom of God in the first place. Just keep praying hard for him and set a good example for him (as the passage above from 1 Peter advises).

It would help, though, if you could find out his views about evolution. Is he an atheist because of evolution? Or for some other reason? There would be no point arguing with him for a year about evolution only to find out that he hates God not because of evolution, but because God let something horrible happen to him when he was a little boy. I'd like to repeat that not everybody who accepts evolution turns into an atheist automatically.

I hope that this will be a safe environment for you to explore what various people believe about this matter. Many of us have spent lots of time thinking about this (though we all still have a long way to go) and hopefully we can help you in any way possible.

(And guys, let's keep it civil. Someone asked for help. Let's help, no matter how much we disagree on how we should help. )

 

[gluadys]

well that wouldnt be what we are taught as evolution,

Don't be too sure about that. Having been a teacher I am well aware of how big a gap there can be between what a teacher teaches and what a student thinks was taught.

There is also, often, a gap between actual science, and what is taught as "science" in high school.

So given that you could have misunderstood the teacher, or the teacher could have been wrong, let's explore this.

Why do you think that death is essential to evolution? What role does death play in evolution?

(It might help as well for you to explain what you think evolution is.)

 

[vossler]

My husband is an intelectual and an athiest. He believes in evelution, and I don't know how to argue my side. I want to learn and I am hungry for the truth. What are good arguments other than I know in my heart it's true and the bible says so?

Amber,

Welcome to OT, as you can see we're a fiery bunch. Please don't let that scare you away, sometimes we lose sight of what's important and your question is far more important than any of the discussions that normally take place here. You were given some excellent advice from gluadys on this:

you can seldom win a person to Christ through argument or debate. Focus on how you live and how you love him. That's worth more than a thousand arguments.

She, unknowingly, did however forget the most important element of all, prayer. Prayer will be your comfort and draw you near to God as He guides you through this difficult situation. Please, there is nothing more important that you can do than to pray. I promise to do likewise and I'm sure there are others here who will join us.

Please come back and tell us how things are going. I sincerely would like to know.

 

[Assyrian]

Vossler, the post just before gaudys' post had just said

2) Prayer
Pray, pray, pray. Then pray some more.

Did glaudys really have to say it again? She gave good advice. So is praying.

I would also say don't just pray for his conversion, cover every area of his life in prayer, his friendships, his work, his hobbies and fun, his health his safety. Cover him in blessings, quietly. And love him to bits.

 

[mark kennedy]

My husband is an intelectual and an athiest. He believes in evelution, and I don't know how to argue my side. I want to learn and I am hungry for the truth. What are good arguments other than I know in my heart it's true and the bible says so?

Tell him you believe in evolution as science, just not as natural history. Evolution is defined scientifically as the change of allele frequency in populations over time. There is not reference to how much time or how much change. Evolutionary Biology is about living systems not dead ancestors, anyone who tells you different isn't working from a scientific definition for evolution.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Assyrian]

Tell him you believe in evolution as science, just not as natural history. Evolution is defined scientifically as the change of allele frequency in populations over time. There is not reference to how much time or how much change.

Nor has biology found any barriers to how much a population can change over billions of years.

Evolutionary Biology is about living systems not dead ancestors, anyone who tells you different isn't working from a scientific definition for evolution.

I think you are playing with word here Mark. Biology studies living systems, but it is quite happy to study systems like T.Rex and Trilobites that were alive in the past. You are really not helping Amber if you arm her with word games that her husband will see through. He sounds pretty intelligent.

 

[mark kennedy]

Nor has biology found any barriers to how much a population can change over billions of years.

Yes it has, the specified complexity of the amino acid sequence.

I think you are playing with word here Mark. Biology studies living systems, but it is quite happy to study systems like T.Rex and Trilobites that were alive in the past. You are really not helping Amber if you arm her with word games that her husband will see through. He sounds pretty intelligent.

Why, because he is an atheist or because he is an intellectual? As far as the word biology it simply means the study of living organisms. This does not include long dead ancestors by any stretch of the meaning of the word unless projected beyond the reach of the mental and physical tools of science. Modern science is essentially inductive and sweeping generalities from naturalistic assumptions are unproductive and unwarranted.

Evolution as natural science is perfectly consistent with Biblical Christianity. It is evolution as natural history that is contrary the Bible as redemptive history; past present and future. Creationists do well to discern the difference between evolution as science and evolution as natural history because the former is directly observed and demonstrated while the latter is an a priori assumption. They are poles apart in the intellectual spectrum.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Amber, as you can see by the replies in this thread, there is still debate in Christianity about origins.

You can be a Christian and not check your brain at the door. If your significant other has only this against Christianity, send him to the TE forum here and we can talk about how science can be compatable with belief.

Other than that, pray for him and yourself, and just show him Christian love, let God work the rest out.

 

[Mick116]

well that wouldnt be what we are taught as evolution, i dont think scientists would agree to that. it might sound nice to fit science and the Bible, but its bad science and its bad theology methinks cause its trying to make a concession to both.

gluadys comment was based on an extremely hypothetical "no death" scenario that she obviously does not believe, but her comment on evolution is valid, if brief.

Evolution can be described as a change in genetic variation within a population over time; the death of a population or extinction of a species would definitely qualify as evolution according to this definition, but to say that evolution requires death is not so obvious. Differential fecundity resulting from genetic differences within a population should be enough, I would say.

Remember, this is only hypothetical.

 

[Assyrian]

Not necessarily. If you think about it the most common form of life on earth are unicellular, bacteria and so fourth. For most of the history of evolution on the planet, life was unicellular and asexual. Do bacteria need to die to evolve? They just split in two. If one of the cells has a variation in the DNA that helps it do better, then it will multiply faster and you get more of them. Or the variant form will take over a niche that suits it.

There is no need for death in this form of evolution. I think I read in New Scientist a while back that they actually do die. If you trace the original DNA down through all the copies, eventually it stops reproducing. But whether this has some advantage to the bacteria or the DNA simply wears out after being through the copier enough times, this is not a requirement of bacterial evolution.

There are two reason death would eventually be necessary. One is to provide food, not totally necessary if you are a cyanobacterium or live off sulphides. The other is the problem of running out of space. Interestingly these are same problem YECs have with their claim of a death free Eden.

 

[crawfish]

Amber, if Creationism is a stumbling block to your husband then it's best to not approach that subject, in my opinion. Simply tell them that there are plenty of Christians who have no problem with evolution, who still have great faith in God despite not holding a literal view. It it really so important to hold to a literal understanding of creation, if it's going to hold him back?

Concentrate on the gospel. We'll be praying for you.

 

[gluadys]

gluadys comment was based on an extremely hypothetical "no death" scenario that she obviously does not believe, but her comment on evolution is valid, if brief.

Evolution can be described as a change in genetic variation within a population over time; the death of a population or extinction of a species would definitely qualify as evolution according to this definition, but to say that evolution requires death is not so obvious. Differential fecundity resulting from genetic differences within a population should be enough, I would say.

Remember, this is only hypothetical.

Yes, that is exactly the point. As Assyrian says, there are other factors that do require death. And the evidence is that death has been a part of history on earth for as long as life has been.

But neither of these things means that evolution requires death. Differential fecundity is enough to change the proportional frequency of alleles in a population, and that is evolution.

So the "evolution requires death" argument is a creationist strawman, not a valid argument against evolution.

But "no death before the fall" is also statement that has no evidential or biblical support either. At best it can apply only to human death. And possibly only to spiritual death.

 

[Mallon]

Since the beginning, God gave man the command to procreate, which inevitably involves death regardless of whether you subscribe to evolution or not. Children cannot reproduce from birth, and must grow to become fertile. The act of growth necessarily involves cell division, and the act of cell division leads to chromosome telomere degradation. And, lo and behold, telomere degradation leads to death. So unless God was constantly playing with our genes or magically injecting telomerase into our systems, our physical bodies were not designed to live forever. This certainly lines up nicely with the presence of the Tree of Life and Death in the garden. What purpose did it serve otherwise???

 

[jckstraw72]

ok, so i didnt mean evolution "requires" death, but in the supposed process of everything evolving to how it was when humanity came into the picture, there was certainly death.

 

[Assyrian]

Where does the bible say animal death came from?

 

[gluadys]

ok, so i didnt mean evolution "requires" death, but in the supposed process of everything evolving to how it was when humanity came into the picture, there was certainly death.

Yes, there was certainly physical death. But for other reasons, not because it was necessary to evolution. Death is necessary to balance off expanding populations and limited resources. Death is necessary because, other than photosynthetic plants and a few other autotrophs, all forms of life depend on the death of other life forms to live themselves. Death is necessary to dispose of bodily wastes (through decay), whether that be petals falling from flowers that have completed their blooming cycle or feathers from a bird's wing, not to mention animal excrement.

So even if evolution did not happen, death did.

And, in fact, there was and is both.