Can you be Christian and believe in evolution?

[olgamc]

I see some fudging going on here. Why?

I don’t know. Lol

You are not God.

Did I say I was God?

Nor is any other creationist. We accept the evidence over the new interpretations of creationists. Don't put words in God's mouth.

Did I put words into God’s mouth? Please provide a quote to substantiate.

And yet, that's exactly what YE creationists do.

Exactly what I said.

 

[The Barbarian]

Both evolutionists and creationists make the same mistake. “This is what we know, therefore it had to be this way”. And then they argue.

I am pretty sure you cannot support this claim with regard to evolutionists - no evolutionist has said anything like this, I believe.

No evolutionist has ever said “people evolved”?

I see some fudging going on here. Why?

I don’t know. Lol

I think honesty would require you answer the question asked, instead of pretending it was a different one.

 

[olgamc]

I see some fudging going on here. Why?

I think honesty would require you answer the question asked, instead of pretending it was a different one.

Huh? I really honestly don’t understand what you mean that you see fudging. Who is fudging what? And “why?” was the only question you asked, so it’s the question I answered.

 

[The Barbarian]

Huh?

See my post above. Up to you.

 

[olgamc]

See my post above. Up to you.

You want me to try and read your mind and guess at what you may have meant? Good luck. I am not that smart. LOL

So, since nothing changed about your statement or your question, nothing changed about my answer.

I see some fudging going on here. Why?

I don't know.

I think honesty would require you answer the question asked, instead of pretending it was a different one.

I think honesty would require you to be straightforward, instead of throwing out an unsubstantiated statement and pretending that you asked a different question.

 

[The Barbarian]

I think honesty would require you to be straightforward, instead of throwing out an unsubstantiated statement and pretending that you asked a different question.

We'll show you again...

• Yesterday at 8:51 PM

• Add bookmark
• #1,322

Both evolutionists and creationists make the same mistake. “This is what we know, therefore it had to be this way”. And then they argue.

I am pretty sure you cannot support this claim with regard to evolutionists - no evolutionist has said anything like this, I believe.

No evolutionist has ever said “people evolved”?

You completely misrepresented the statement. Your initial statement was a falsehood, and when you were called out on it, you tried to change it to something else. Do you think people didn't notice?

 

[olgamc]

You completely misrepresented the statement. Your initial statement was a falsehood, and when you were called out on it, you tried to change it to something else. Do you think people didn't notice?

Both evolutionists and creationists make the same mistake. “This is what we know, therefore it had to be this way”. And then they argue.

Which of these statements is a falsehood and why?

Then I was "called" on it: no evolutionist has said anything like this, I believe.

Then I said that yes, in fact, that is exactly what evolutionists say. Evolutionists say "people evolved".

To answer your question, why you see what you refer to as fudging or misrepresenting my original statement is probably because you didn't understand what I meant by my answer. So ok, let me elaborate.

Evolutionists say "people evolved". How do they come to that conclusion? "Evolution is what we know, therefore people had to evolve".

Young earth creationists say "Adam just appeared". How do they come to that conclusion? "God speaks things into existence is what we know, therefore God said and Adam had to just appear".

 

[The Barbarian]

Both evolutionists and creationists make the same mistake. “This is what we know, therefore it had to be this way”. And then they argue.

Which of these statements is a falsehood and why?

Someone else challenged you to support your claim and you dodged the question. Try again.

Then I said that yes, in fact, that is exactly what evolutionists say. Evolutionists say "people evolved".

So you can't support your original claim, and you substituted somethings else. We go that.

Evolutionists say "people evolved". How do they come to that conclusion?

Observed human evolution. Historical genetic data, Stuff like that. Would you like some details?

Young earth creationists say "Adam just appeared"

All of the YE creationists I know say that God created him from dirt.

 

[olgamc]

Someone else challenged you to support your claim and you dodged the question. Try again.

Just did.

So you can't support your original claim, and you substituted somethings else. We go that.

You got nothing, because I literally just explained what I said. Lol Try reading all of what I said instead of cutting bits out.

Observed human evolution. Historical genetic data, Stuff like that. Would you like some details?

Exactly. “Evolution is what we know therefore…”

All of the YE creationists I know say that God created him from dirt.

Right. Someone on this thread said that God is a spirit, He doesn’t have hands, so He couldn’t have fashioned. He just spoke Adam into existence. My young earth friends think that He created everything instantly. Now there is a bunch of dirt, and suddenly there is an adult Adam.

And do you know what’s crazy? God could have actually done that! God could have done any number of things, and none of them would contradict Genesis.

Do you understand the difference between could have and did?

 

[expos4ever]

No evolutionist has ever said “people evolved”?

That is not what you said. You said:

“This is what we know, therefore it had to be this way”.

I submit it is a gross mischaracterization to suggest that this how evolutionists think - you are representing them as highy dogmatic and close-minded. And I suggest there is no evidence for this.

Because you are believing fossils and human-made theories over the Word of God.

No, I am believing the facts that the world offers us and suggesting that Scripture is not to be taken literally in all instances.

So if all you ever do is believe evidence, then you cannot allow the possibility of a virgin birth or resurrection.

I never said that I only believe things if there is evidence. I believe quite a few things for which there is little, if no, evidence. Such as the resurrection.

Again, it is not foolish to study, but it is foolish to claim that you know exactly how God brought about a particular event, especially as great an event as creation.

If the evidence for evolution is overwhelming, and I suggest that it is, who is really the fool? Is it not the person who denies the manifest evidence that the world presents us with?

If there is no immaterial soul that inhabits the body, then when the body dies, you die. Your memories, your personality, your dreams, your love. Everything that is you ceases to exist. Like a hard drive that gets erased. So if you cease to exist, who gets resurrected?

I believe that scripture teaches that the resurrection of all believers will be a physical one - so we "get out brains" back, as it were. If this is the case, nothing is "lost". I am suggesting that the idea of an immaterial soul is not that stongly supported in scripture and is really something that has been "imported" into Christian thinking from Greek thinking (where there is indeed an immaterial soul). But even if there is an immaterial soul, how is this inconsistent with the theory of evolution? Could not such a soul be "inserted" by God into a body that is the product of millennia of evolution?

 

[expos4ever]

Just did.

No, you are clearling evading. You said this:

Both evolutionists and creationists make the same mistake. “This is what we know, therefore it had to be this way”. And then they argue.

You are basically saying that proponents of evolution use circular reasoning - that they a priori assume we had to have evolved and then build a theory after the fact to support that conclusion.

What evidence do you have for this implication?

 

[olgamc]

No, you are clearling evading. You said this:

Both evolutionists and creationists make the same mistake. “This is what we know, therefore it had to be this way”. And then they argue.

You are basically saying that proponents of evolution use circular reasoning - that they a priori assume we had to have evolved and then build a theory after the fact to support that conclusion.

I think you might be misunderstanding the word "therefore"? Let me clarify. This is how evolutionists think:

We see some evidence of species changing. We make a theory of evolution and the origin of species. We see more and more evidence to support our theory. Therefore (for that reason - the reason being that there is supporting evidence) we know that our theory is good and evolution is real. Ok, so far so good... there are some issues that I am intentionally overlooking, but for the most part this is perfectly reasonable.

Next comes this:

We know that evolution exists and therefore (for that reason) people had to be created by no other means as evolution.

Do you see the error?

So I am not saying that it is a circular reasoning. First the theory was built and, more or less, proven. More or less. Then the theory was applied to the origin of humans. Which, if you have read what I've been trying to say all along, contradicts the Biblical definition of a person. Because people are not just animals. But I am not going to go there, you can read my previous posts if you'd like and look at my proof here.

Again, I am not denying evolution of animals or even evolution of humans past the initial creation. What I am saying is that it is presumptuous to think that we know how God created people. I mean, we can't even decide if we have a soul or not! How can we have the audacity to state that we know exactly how God created people, while we can't even agree on what a person is.

 

[olgamc]

That is not what you said. You said:

“This is what we know, therefore it had to be this way”.

I submit it is a gross mischaracterization to suggest that this how evolutionists think - you are representing them as highy dogmatic and close-minded. And I suggest there is no evidence for this.

Well, show me evidence to the contrary. Show me an evolutionist that says "we know evolution exists, but it might actually not apply to people". Such people do exist, I am one of them, but I wouldn’t categorize myself as an evolutionist.

No, I am believing the facts that the world offers us and suggesting that Scripture is not to be taken literally in all instances.

I never said scripture is to be taken literally in all instances

I never said that I only believe things if there is evidence. I believe quite a few things for which there is little, if no, evidence. Such as the resurrection.

Right. And the virgin birth? All people have a human mom and a human dad. But not Jesus. So if God could make Jesus as a miracle, why couldn't He make Adam as a miracle? Why did the first person had to have a biological mom and dad?

If the evidence for evolution is overwhelming, and I suggest that it is, who is really the fool? Is it not the person who denies the manifest evidence that the world presents us with?

Again, nobody denies that evidence exists, but we need to consider all evidence. And we need to allow for possibility of other explanations of the origins of the species that would be compatible with the evidence. Evolution is just one explanation. It's a pretty good one, but still, it's only one of many possibilities. In case of people, there is scriptural evidence for how God defines a person that is incompatible with the theory of evolution.

I believe that scripture teaches that the resurrection of all believers will be a physical one - so we "get out brains" back, as it were. If this is the case, nothing is "lost". I am suggesting that the idea of an immaterial soul is not that stongly supported in scripture and is really something that has been "imported" into Christian thinking from Greek thinking (where there is indeed an immaterial soul). But even if there is an immaterial soul, how is this inconsistent with the theory of evolution? Could not such a soul be "inserted" by God into a body that is the product of millennia of evolution?

Sure, God could have taken a human ancestor and “inserted” a soul into him. But then people were not created by evolution. Even our bodies could not have been created by evolution. Maybe by some form of genetic engineering coupled with supernatural “soul insertion”, but not by natural evolution the way we understand it. Look at my proof, it actually has very little to do with an immaterial soul.

 

[The Barbarian]

We see some evidence of species changing. We make a theory of evolution and the origin of species. We see more and more evidence to support our theory. Therefore (for that reason - the reason being that there is supporting evidence) we know that our theory is good and evolution is real. Ok, so far so good... there are some issues that I am intentionally overlooking, but for the most part this is perfectly reasonable.

Next comes this:

We know that evolution exists and therefore (for that reason) people had to be created by no other means as evolution.

Major errors there.

Do you see the error?

Yep. Actually, several. For example, evolution can be a fact, and yet humans could have been poofed into existence by God. Or our bodies can be naturally produced, and our souls given directly by God.

And of course, since we see allele frequencies changing in populations constantly, and since that's the definition of biological evolution, scientists says that we know evolution happens, since we observe it happening.

 

[olgamc]

For example, evolution can be a fact, and yet humans could have been poofed into existence by God.

Right. God is God. He can do whatever He wants.

Or our bodies can be naturally produced, and our souls given directly by God.

Sure... until you think carefully about human souls and human bodies and moral implications of asserting that human bodies evolved naturally until one day a hominid named Adam was given a soul and became the first person. This has already been discussed earlier in this thread.

And of course, since we see allele frequencies changing in populations constantly, and since that's the definition of biological evolution, scientists says that we know evolution happens, since we observe it happening.

Right.

 

[Diamond72]

Right. God is God. He can do whatever He wants.

That is like the pastor that says I can sin all I want, I just do not want to sin. Because when we are born again we take on a new nature in Christ. There is a lot God can not do. He can not lie, cheat, steal, trick or deceive people. It is not in His nature or His way of doing things.

 

[The Barbarian]

Basically right... until you think carefully about human souls and human bodies and moral implications of asserting that human bodies evolved - as discussed earlier in this thread.

There are no moral implications. Whatever God did, it is good and proper.

 

[The Barbarian]

There is a lot God can not do. He can not lie, cheat, steal, trick or deceive people. It is not in His nature or His way of doing things.

2 Thessolonians 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

 

[Diamond72]

Even our bodies could not have been created by evolution.

To evolve or change over time is different from the theory of Evolution. The theory say that God uses mistakes or errors to create us. I can not think of any nonsense greater than to say God uses mistakes and errors. In fact errors in DNA tend to fix and repair themselves. The intricate machinery of DNA repair ensures that errors and damage are promptly addressed, maintaining the integrity of our genetic information.

• DNA polymerases act as meticulous editors.
• As each new base is added to the growing strand, the polymerase checks for correct pairing.
• If an incorrect base is added, the polymerase removes it and replaces it with the correct one.
• This process, called proofreading, significantly reduces replication errors.

This is also true with Hebrew. The errors or mistakes fix themselves. So there are little if any copy errors in the Hebrew.

 

[Diamond72]

God shall send them strong delusion

I think that God takes responsibility for allowing them to be deceived. Because He gives us freedom to choose. If we were not allowed to think for ourselves we would be robots. Or a matrix where we just follow the program written for us to follow. The question of whether our existence is base reality or a simulation remains open for contemplation.

This is an issue we first see when Pharaoh’s heart is hardened. This results in the plagues.