Big Bang, evolution etc.

[humblepie99]

Hi everyone, i'm not 100% sure this is the right forum for this topic - but it's my first post so go easy on me, k? Heh ;-)

Well, something I think a fair bit about is science and how it links up with religion. Personally, I see no problem with the Big Bang theory. I'm not saying it has to be true, but if it is, it'd fit in with Genesis if one was not to take a literal view of events described in the Bible in those first chapters.
Evolution? Claimed to be scientific fact by hundreds, no, millions of researchers and scientists everywhere. Can it fit in as well? Personally, I think it could. The thing is, Genesis states that God created animals and then man. Taking the belief that the 7 days of creation were not our average earth days but in fact much longer periods of time, the evolution of man from primordeal soup could happen. Why not? Does it make humans any less important? Not to me, God created us in a very logical way, evolution fits that terminology.

One thing that does annoy me however, is people who say "I didn't evolve from apes!". Not only is this a disgustingly arrogant thing to say, it contradicts the beauty of all other life on this planet. So what if you evolved from 'an ape'? They might not drive fast cars or work out algebra, but they're still Gods own creation, and beautiful for that and that alone. Intelligence doesn't make humans special, it's Gods love for us that does.

Well, sorry to preach a bit - those are my thoughts anyhow. Anyone else?

 

[Theresa]

I agree with you for the most part but my personal opinions are that God created men and women wholly and entirely from the dust of the earth. He could have created the apes from the dust of the earth and then breathed a soul into them and they became a man, but I don't think he did.

 

[Christ7Life7Truth7]

Agreed. I see taking the 7 days in Genesis not literally is fine. In fact, I think that when people say science MUST be wrong because the Bible says 7 days, and it MUST be 7 days, I think that's rather stupid. Not taking one part of the Bible literall doesn't mean you cannot take another part literally. Fearing a snowball effect is, simply, giving into illogical fear.

 

[Peter North]

There was a message on another board I visit about this very same subject. I'll try and find it and post it here. It basically said that you cannot have the big bang happen without some outside force to start it.

 

[Josh1]

humblepie99: One thing that does annoy me however, is people who say "I didn't evolve from apes!". Not only is this a disgustingly arrogant thing to say, it contradicts the beauty of all other life on this planet. So what if you evolved from 'an ape'? They might not drive fast cars or work out algebra, but they're still Gods own creation, and beautiful for that and that alone. Intelligence doesn't make humans special, it's Gods love for us that does.


I have to disagree with you here. Animals don't have souls and we are more special in Gods sight. He loves his creation, but God cares more for us, for he did create us special. (matt.6:30) I disagree with the big bang, I do not believe it is science. I do believe the Bible ,and the way it said the world started. It does not mention the big bang or anything remotely close to it.


theresa:
I agree with you for the most part but my personal opinions are that God created men and women wholly and entirely from the dust of the earth. He could have created the apes from the dust of the earth and then breathed a soul into them and they became a man, but I don't think he did.

I don't even think thats possible according to the Bibles perspective. Nothing at all indicates this. As far as similar bone structures or such. I think it is just proof of the same creator,that being God.

Christ7life7truth7:
Agreed. I see taking the 7 days in Genesis not literally is fine. In fact, I think that when people say science MUST be wrong because the Bible says 7 days, and it MUST be 7 days, I think that's rather stupid. Not taking one part of the Bible literall doesn't mean you cannot take another part literally. Fearing a snowball effect is, simply, giving into illogical fear.

I disagree, it is all in the context of the Bible of whether you take it literal or not. There is nothing indicating that this is not literal. As far as the "snowball effect"? It is true, if you don't believe days, then I could say that Adam was just a picture of sin and you could nothing refute it. Taking this hermeneutic opens the Bible up to whatever you want it to say. We can not allow this into our interpretation.God Bless.

 

[jbarcher]

Interesting point, Josh1, about the souls. I had never taken that into thought.

 

[d0c markus]

I disagree, it is all in the context of the Bible of whether you take it literal or not. There is nothing indicating that this is not literal. As far as the "snowball effect"? It is true, if you don't believe days, then I could say that Adam was just a picture of sin and you could nothing refute it. Taking this hermeneutic opens the Bible up to whatever you want it to say. We can not allow this into our interpretation.God Bless.

Amen!! silly liberals, those tricks are for kids..

 

[Crazy Liz]

I have to disagree with you here. Animals don't have souls and we are more special in Gods sight.

Talk to a Hebrw scholar before you say animals don't have souls, but humans do. There are two fallacies in this statement.

1) The Hebrew Bible uses the word "soul" (nephesh) in conection with animals. Look up in a Strongs concordance Strongs number 05314 or do a search for it in the Blueletter Bible (www.blueletterbible.org). You will see that in the first 11 chapters of Genesis the word is used more often in connection with animals than with humans.

2) Also, the idea that a human being has a soul is a Greek one. In Hebrew thought, a human being is a soul.

Gen 2:7**
And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

 

[humblepie99]

One thing I would say about the Bible not saying anything about 'the big bang' is that the Bible isn't meant to be a science text book in the first place. It doesn't need to explain creation in scientific terms, how could it? My point is that the Bible isn't about explaining science, that science doesn't have to disagree with religion.

A scientist who quickly discounts religion because he does't see an immediate connection is just as bad as a theologian who discounts science for similar reasons.

Both of the two people above can live in harmony just fine!

Now I never said apes where equal to human beings, did I? Maybe they don't have 'souls', but like I said they're still God's creation. And maybe in the process of evolution whatever human beings evolved from acquired a soul - that might be it. Who knows.

In truth it isn't that important. What I'm saying is from what I've seen evolution seems possible, but that doesn't mean it is an argument against God.

 

[Duggie]

Hi everyone, i'm not 100% sure this is the right forum for this topic - but it's my first post so go easy on me, k? Heh ;-)
Well, something I think a fair bit about is science and how it links up with religion. Personally, I see no problem with the Big Bang theory. I'm not saying it has to be true, but if it is, it'd fit in with Genesis if one was not to take a literal view of events described in the Bible in those first chapters.
Evolution?

I also have many questions regarding the BBT and evolution. I'm a christian who isn't so quick to dismiss what science has to say because it plays such a fundamental part of our lives. Having said that, there are many believers who do take a literal view of events descibed in Genesis. I count myself as one of them.

Taking the belief that the 7 days of creation were not our average earth days but in fact much longer periods of time, the evolution of man from primordeal soup could happen. Why not? Does it make humans any less important? Not to me, God created us in a very logical way, evolution fits that terminology.

To suggest that God would use millions of years of evolution to create man, in His own image just seems nonsensical to me.

One thing that does annoy me however, is people who say "I didn't evolve from apes!". Not only is this a disgustingly arrogant thing to say, it contradicts the beauty of all other life on this planet. So what if you evolved from 'an ape'? They might not drive fast cars or work out algebra, but they're still Gods own creation, and beautiful for that and that alone. Intelligence doesn't make humans special, it's Gods love for us that does.

Why is it an arrogant thing to say that King kong isn't one of my ancestors? You can't on the one hand say you believe in the God of the Bible then on the other hand suggest we evolved from apes

God created us in His image, the Word is clear on how we came into being. I personally believe the accounts taken from scripture as oppossed to the theories taken from man. Peace!!!

 

[Duggie]

Hi everyone, i'm not 100% sure this is the right forum for this topic - but it's my first post so go easy on me, k? Heh ;-)
Well, something I think a fair bit about is science and how it links up with religion. Personally, I see no problem with the Big Bang theory. I'm not saying it has to be true, but if it is, it'd fit in with Genesis if one was not to take a literal view of events described in the Bible in those first chapters.
Evolution?

I also have many questions regarding the BBT and evolution. I'm a christian who isn't so quick to dismiss what science has to say because it plays such a fundamental part of our lives. Having said that, there are many believers who do take a literal view of events descibed in Genesis. I count myself as one of them.

Taking the belief that the 7 days of creation were not our average earth days but in fact much longer periods of time, the evolution of man from primordeal soup could happen. Why not? Does it make humans any less important? Not to me, God created us in a very logical way, evolution fits that terminology.

To suggest that God would use millions of years of evolution to create man, in His own image just seems nonsensical to me.

One thing that does annoy me however, is people who say "I didn't evolve from apes!". Not only is this a disgustingly arrogant thing to say, it contradicts the beauty of all other life on this planet. So what if you evolved from 'an ape'? They might not drive fast cars or work out algebra, but they're still Gods own creation, and beautiful for that and that alone. Intelligence doesn't make humans special, it's Gods love for us that does.

Why is it an arrogant thing to say that King kong isn't one of my ancestors? You can't on the one hand say you believe in the God of the Bible then on the other hand suggest we evolved from apes

God created us in His image, the Word is clear on how we came into being. I personally believe the accounts taken from scripture as oppossed to the theories taken from man. Peace!!!

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Duggie - if you want to debate mainstream science, I'd do it in the science forum.

If you want to debate the Christian's response to science, do it in the Creation and Theistic Evolution forum.

If you want to suggest that those who aren't six day creationists aren't proper Christians, then read Forum Rule 1. You should know this isn't true coming from the UK - most Christians here are not literalists.

 

[Josh1]

Liz:Talk to a Hebrw scholar before you say animals don't have souls, but humans do. There are two fallacies in this statement.

me: A question: Do all dogs go to heaven?


Liz:1) The Hebrew Bible uses the word "soul" (nephesh) in conection with animals. Look up in a Strongs concordance Strongs number 05314 or do a search for it in the Blueletter Bible (www.blueletterbible.org). You will see that in the first 11 chapters of Genesis the word is used more often in connection with animals than with humans.


Me: If you would do the search and show me the verses I would much apreciate it. Another question: Do all dogs go to heaven 2?

2) Also, the idea that a human being has a soul is a Greek one. In Hebrew thought, a human being is a soul.


Me: The whole point is that we have a soul. We are a living soul as that verse stated below. One more question: Do you believe animals are on the same scale as humans in Gods sight? GOd Bless.

 

[Josh1]

humblepie99:One thing I would say about the Bible not saying anything about 'the big bang' is that the Bible isn't meant to be a science text book in the first place. It doesn't need to explain creation in scientific terms, how could it? My point is that the Bible isn't about explaining science, that science doesn't have to disagree with religion.

A scientist who quickly discounts religion because he does't see an immediate connection is just as bad as a theologian who discounts science for similar reasons.

Both of the two people above can live in harmony just fine!


No, because if the Bible is wrong in one area then it is discredited in others. So there is no way they can live in harmony.It does agree with science, evolution is not a proven theory and never will be.


humblepie99: Now I never said apes where equal to human beings, did I? Maybe they don't have 'souls', but like I said they're still God's creation. And maybe in the process of evolution whatever human beings evolved from acquired a soul - that might be it. Who knows.

In truth it isn't that important. What I'm saying is from what I've seen evolution seems possible, but that doesn't mean it is an argument against God.


Read first john 1:1. Whatever is an argument against his word is an argument against him. They are definately out to disprove his word. God Bless.

 

[dctalkexp]

Rejecting evolutionary theory is not rejecting science. It is rejecting false assumptions that are contrary to the word of God.

There are many problems when you try to reconcile the evolutionary theory (bad science) with God's word.
Evolutionary theory states that ALL life, including all the lush gardens and forests, all the sea creatures, every mammal, human being etc, etc is derived from a microscipic cell in the ocean billions of years ago. It says that rain forests and human beings have a common ancestor (though very distant).
Evo. theory states that through mistakes in the DNA of that microscopic cell (mutations), every living creature has developed over billions of years. In order for this to be so, there must have been countless deaths, mistakes, deformaties, diseases etc. involved in the creation and forming of all life. That's the nature of mutations, they are inherently a destructive force that produce anomalies, not a creative force for good!
And if you accept this, that all life devoloped through mutations shaped by natural selection, then you accept that God created every living thing through death, suffering, and disease, and then at the end called it all "Very good!" I'm sorry, but that doesn't seem logical to me, nor does it seem very good.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Rejecting evolutionary theory is not rejecting science. It is rejecting false assumptions that are contrary to the word of God.

There are many problems when you try to reconcile the evolutionary theory (bad science) with God's word.

It's extremely good science. If you have scientific reasons for rejecting it, I suggest you air them on the science forum.

1) Evolutionary theory states that ALL life, including all the lush gardens and forests, all the sea creatures, every mammal, human being etc, etc is derived from a microscipic cell in the ocean billions of years ago. It says that rain forests and human beings have a common ancestor (though very distant).

And has extremely good reasons for supposing this. Do you know what they are? Are you aware of the evidence? If you do, why do you think it's wrong? If you don't, why are you criticising what you don't know?

Evo. theory states that through mistakes in the DNA of that microscopic cell (mutations), every living creature has developed over billions of years. In order for this to be so, there must have been countless deaths, mistakes, deformaties, diseases etc. involved in the creation and forming of all life. That's the nature of mutations, they are inherently a destructive force that produce anomalies, not a creative force for good!

Except for the ones that are, such as those that allow bacteria to use new food sources, that allow organisms to resist disease and so on and so forth.

And if you accept this, that all life devoloped through mutations shaped by natural selection, then you accept that God created every living thing through death, suffering, and disease, and then at the end called it all "Very good!" I'm sorry, but that doesn't seem logical to me, nor does it seem very good.

It's not up to you to decide what's "very good". Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the same God who crafted the nation of Israel out of the oppression and slavery of Egypt, and who crafted our salvation out of the passion and death of His Son?

 

[dctalkexp]

It's extremely good science. If you have scientific reasons for rejecting it, I suggest you air them on the science forum.

Nice. I will.

And has extremely good reasons for supposing this. Do you know what they are? Are you aware of the evidence? If you do, why do you think it's wrong? If you don't, why are you criticising what you don't know?

Yes, I know the assumptions of evolutionary theory. They are very bad assumptions. In evolutionary theory, many things are assumed, and the evidence that we have before us today (fossils, etc) is wrongly and forcibly interpreted into those assumptions. Even if certain evidence appears to go against thier assumptions, they must find a way to reconcile it

Except for the ones that are, such as those that allow bacteria to use new food sources, that allow organisms to resist disease and so on and so forth.

And you believe that thse types of changes within organisms are the kind that formed people out of particles? Interesting, that seems like a huge leap of faith there dude.

It's not up to you to decide what's "very good". Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the same God who crafted the nation of Israel out of the oppression and slavery of Egypt, and who crafted our salvation out of the passion and death of His Son?

Yes, the death of Christ was done to redeem us from our SINS! The death of Christ was done because of our wrongs. You believe that God would create all life by death, disease, and deformaties and then call that very good? That seems to be an awful lot of suffering for a lot of life for no apparent reason other than creating. That seems cruel.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Nice. I will.



Yes, I know the assumptions of evolutionary theory. They are very bad assumptions. In evolutionary theory, many things are assumed, and the evidence that we have before us today (fossils, etc) is wrongly and forcibly interpreted into those assumptions. Even if certain evidence appears to go against thier assumptions, they must find a way to reconcile it

I suggest you raise thses questions on the science forum.

And you believe that thse types of changes within organisms are the kind that formed people out of particles? Interesting, that seems like a huge leap of faith there dude.

And these.

Yes, the death of Christ was done to redeem us from our SINS! The death of Christ was done because of our wrongs. You believe that God would create all life by death, disease, and deformaties and then call that very good? That seems to be an awful lot of suffering for a lot of life for no apparent reason other than creating. That seems cruel.

You know that evolution doesn't actually depend on disease and deformity? Just on some organisms being more successful in the reproduction game than others within their population. No more. Is selective breeding to create everything from red setters to show guppies inherently cruel?



Edit to add - I get the impression the mods set up seperate science and creationism forums to avoid the general sections getting filled up with stuff about origins, like they did with the Sexuality forum. Best if we move it to there, really.

 

[Duggie]

Duggie - if you want to debate mainstream science, I'd do it in the science forum.

If you want to debate the Christian's response to science, do it in the Creation and Theistic Evolution forum.

If you want to suggest that those who aren't six day creationists aren't proper Christians, then read Forum Rule 1. You should know this isn't true coming from the UK - most Christians here are not literalists.

With the greatest respect I never even, remotely suggested that those who don't believe in a literal 6 day aren't proper christians!!! As for what christians in the Uk think about interpretation of scripture literally, I really can't see what that has to do with me. The question was posted and I responded. Now if the moderater chooses to step in and suggest that I shouldn't post here then I'll humbly accept that, but please don't take what I say completely out of context!!!

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

With the greatest respect I never even, remotely suggested that those who don't believe in a literal 6 day aren't proper christians!!! As for what christians in the Uk think about interpretation of scripture literally, I really can't see what that has to do with me. The question was posted and I responded. Now if the moderater chooses to step in and suggest that I shouldn't post here then I'll humbly accept that, but please don't take what I say completely out of context!!!

Duggie - you need to be more careful with statements like "You can't on the one hand say you believe in the God of the Bible then on the other hand suggest we evolved from apes ", since I claim to do just that. It sounds very much like "You can't be a proper Christian and suggest we evolved from apes". Just be careful.

As regards the UK element, since you have a union flag under your name I assumed you're from the UK, so you'd know that most Christians here do not take a literalist line on this, and would be equally surprised to hear they can't "believe in the God of the Bible".