• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Can you be Christian and believe in evolution?

Status
Not open for further replies.

truthpls

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2023
2,615
556
victoria
✟76,641.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Adam and Eve could be real people living in the beginning of the agricultural era in Mesopotamia. Or they could be mythological representative figures. Both works.
So they could be anything else and and any other time than stated in Scripture according to you. That is disbelief and waving away His word.
However, even if they were real people, the context they are placed in is symbolic (like being formed from the dust and similar) or a mixture of symbolic and real (like the description of the location of Eden mentioning already existing countries around - e.g. Cush and Asshur).
So Eve was taken from a bone of man by God in an operation where God put him to sleep and that is not real? God lied that man was created first before woman, why? As for Cush and etc, it doesn't matter what lands later assumed that name. Also, the first time I notice Cush and Asshur is Gen 10. What has that got to do with Eden? Additionally, many people believe that creation (and therefore Adam and Eve) was at the time when the continents were together. Therefore the present location of rivers is not an issue
Adam and Eve are Jewish names.
Not when they were created. The Jewish language came later.
Genesis is a Jewish literature.
It is about mankind, and creation and such things. Israel was not until later in the book.
Other nations do not have Adam and Eve in their creation myths.
Who cares about myths, especially of pagans?
 
Upvote 0

trophy33

Well-Known Member
Nov 18, 2018
13,831
5,612
European Union
✟236,239.00
Country
Czech Republic
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
So Eve was taken from a bone of man by God in an operation where God put him to sleep and that is not real? God lied that man was created first before woman, why?
Creation mythos are not lies. They are specific ancient genres. Also, the author of Genesis is not God. Its about God and about the beginnings of the Jews.

Also, the first time I notice Cush and Asshur is Gen 10. What has that got to do with Eden?
Read the description of Eden in Gen 2.

Who cares about myths, especially of pagans?
Those who are interested in mythological creation stories, obviously.
 
Upvote 0

o_mlly

“Behold, I make all things new.”
May 20, 2021
3,172
579
Private
✟127,176.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
We will stick with the common scientific definition when we are talking about the scientific theory of evolution.
Then you will not be able to rationally and critically examine the theory of evolution. If real then species are discovered, not invented. If discovered then give us a definition of species that you think is actually scientific, testable and falsifiable.
 
Upvote 0

trophy33

Well-Known Member
Nov 18, 2018
13,831
5,612
European Union
✟236,239.00
Country
Czech Republic
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Then you will not be able to rationally and critically examine the theory of evolution. If real then species are discovered, not invented. If discovered then give us a definition of species that you think is actually scientific, testable and falsifiable.
The definition of species is not a theory to be tested of falsified. Its a matter of definition that is used in the context of biology. You are mixing things together.
 
Upvote 0

o_mlly

“Behold, I make all things new.”
May 20, 2021
3,172
579
Private
✟127,176.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
The definition of species is not a theory to be tested of falsified. Its a matter of definition that is used in the context of biology. You are mixing things together.
So, give us that definition.
 
Upvote 0

trophy33

Well-Known Member
Nov 18, 2018
13,831
5,612
European Union
✟236,239.00
Country
Czech Republic
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
So, give us that definition.
Who is "us"? You are the only one who reports to have a problem with it.

A species is often defined as a group of individuals that actually or potentially interbreed in nature. In this sense, a species is the biggest gene pool possible under natural conditions.
The definition of a species as a group of interbreeding individuals cannot be easily applied to organisms that reproduce only or mainly asexually.


Here is the genetic study of observed speciation I already posted before, but you ignored it:
 
Upvote 0

Oompa Loompa

Well-Known Member
Jun 4, 2020
9,396
4,947
Louisiana
✟296,187.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Well, let's ask a YE creationist who is familiar with the evidence...

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species — include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between
rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and
the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39

Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact.

YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

You would find that within species. The usual criteria is reproductive isolation. This is why most creationists have now conceded the fact of speciation. There's really no point in denying something in evidence.
Instead of copy/pasting a perceived confirmation biased piece, could you explain it for us simpletons.
 
Upvote 0

Platte

Well-Known Member
Jul 14, 2020
1,478
262
57
Virginia
✟73,393.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Two huge errors there. First, let's see what Darwin wrote about that:
"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."
Charles Darwin, last sentence of On the Origin of Species


Second huge error is, evolutionary theory is only about the way living things change over time. Nothing whatever about the origins of the universe.


‘It ain’t so much men’s ignorance that does the harm as their knowing so many things that ain’t so.’
G.K. Chesterton, citing Josh Billings
I guess you don’t know these things. Take off your naive hat and look deeper.

1st: Darwin was an atheist
2nd: I’m pretty sure based on your posts that you believe in the evolution of the universe. Evolution is about much more than just the changes of living things. I know you know these things.
 
Upvote 0

trophy33

Well-Known Member
Nov 18, 2018
13,831
5,612
European Union
✟236,239.00
Country
Czech Republic
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Upvote 0

trophy33

Well-Known Member
Nov 18, 2018
13,831
5,612
European Union
✟236,239.00
Country
Czech Republic
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
2nd: I’m pretty sure based on your posts that you believe in the evolution of the universe. Evolution is about much more than just the changes of living things.
The evolution of the universe (or of anything else, for example of a software or of somebody's character or of your career) does not belong to the theory of evolution, which relates to biology, only.

I know you know these things.
This is a rhetorical manipulation method.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

truthpls

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2023
2,615
556
victoria
✟76,641.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Creation mythos are not lies. They are specific ancient genres.
Genesis is specific and about beginnings. Any contrary story is a lie
Also, the author of Genesis is not God. Its about God and about the beginnings of the Jews.
No there were no Jews in the garden. None at all.
Read the description of Eden in Gen 2.


Those who are interested in mythological creation stories, obviously.
Yes it was in a place around rivers called Tigress etc.
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
29,737
13,295
78
✟441,268.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
I guess you don’t know these things. Take off your naive hat and look deeper.

1st: Darwin was an atheist
Hard to explain then, why Darwin attributed the origin of life to God. You and I seem to have very different ideas of what an "atheist" is. I always thought atheists deny the existence of God. You might want to go and check that out again.

2nd: I’m pretty sure based on your posts that you believe in the evolution of the universe.
Evolution is defined as a change in allele frequencies in a population over time. How, exactly, do you think the universe has a genome? Sure there are lots of other natural processes out there, besides biological evolution. But they aren't part of evolutionary theory.

Evolution is about much more than just the changes of living things.
Well, that's a testable assumption...

Evolution is defined as a change in the genetic composition of a population over successive generations.

Always a bad idea to be napping in science class.

I know you know these things.
I do. I even taught biology classes in grad school. But this is middle school science. You should know about this kind of thing.
This kind of thing is curable. Libraries are free. Use one.
 
Upvote 0

trophy33

Well-Known Member
Nov 18, 2018
13,831
5,612
European Union
✟236,239.00
Country
Czech Republic
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Genesis is specific and about beginnings.
Regarding the creation, Genesis is not specific at all. Its just a story designed to be easy to tell through generations. Its missing all the scientific details.

Any contrary story is a lie
You seem to be too fixated on this term. Non-literal genres are not lies and neither are scientific theories.

No there were no Jews in the garden. None at all.
Its their story of beginnings. Adam and Eve are Hebrew words.

Yes it was in a place around rivers called Tigress etc.
Eden existed in the same time in which Cush and Asshur existed.
 
Upvote 0

truthpls

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2023
2,615
556
victoria
✟76,641.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Regarding the creation, Genesis is not specific at all. Its just a story designed to be easy to tell through generations. Its missing all the scientific details.
There are no scientific details. No more than there are Hans Christian Anderson details. So how could the bible include them? God did not use modern science. Any limited little understanding man attains about how His creation works does not mean God was limited to that! Once man begins to really understand how things work, he will comprehend that God speaking results in things happening. Science has not begun to understand that yet. They should not dare to say that creation needed to consist of 'scientific details' God formed a man like we form a clay vessel. What kind of dirt He used does not matter. God made woman from a bone. What bone does not matter. What matters is that the details and sequence and order He gave are accepted. Or not
You seem to be too fixated on this term. Non-literal genres are not lies and neither are scientific theories.
The bible is not a non literal genre. Other books must fall in line.
Its their story of beginnings. Adam and Eve are Hebrew words.
Only after Hebrew came to Exist. God gave Hebrews the names, so naturally they would now be considered Hebrew names.
Eden existed in the same time in which Cush and Asshur existed.
Chapter and verse?
 
Upvote 0

Jipsah

Blood Drinker
Aug 17, 2005
13,866
4,510
72
Franklin, Tennessee
✟295,581.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
You seem to be lumping me into some imaginary strawman group. The bible tells us about the future world coming, His return as well as His first coming and creation. Why lobotomize your perspective. It seems to me any onlooker would see through that act and view such a person as narrow minded.

And it dovetails with Genesis of course. It identifies Jesus as the one who made stuff

He cannot lie. Really. There is no need to wonder, He spelled it out. Evolution was not in the mix. Any and all changes happened after the fact.

No. He created just the way He said He did whether or not you find it acceptable or believable.

The Lord Himself created it all. The Lord Himself is coming here again soon to rule. The 'Lord Himself' is not limited to a few months on earth thousands of years ago

Yes and He will come to save us in the end. He also created us. It is not some silent onlooking partner of evolution that died for us.

No need to worry, just believe. Or not

All the characters at that time knew Scripture basically. Not just the evil Pharisees that used it for their own advantage.

Yes we need the good news. Part of that great news is that we will live forever in a heavenly place with Him in the future. Part of it is also knowing Him and who He is. He took great effort to point out He is the creator and only God.

He that comes to God must believe that He is. The fact that spirits also do that does not mean it would be a bad thing for us to believe!

He cannot be a liar. That means He did what He says He did and will do what He says He will do.

Who do you think it looked old to? Adam? I doubt it. Adam and Eve knew well that He had just created them and the animals and world and everything.

God said how it was made. You simply believe it or not.

I never invented some sun that was here and vanished before the sun was made. That is all you.

No one suggested God was limited by time.

Show us how Jesus lights a moon sized city called New Jerusalem so that the sun is not needed there?

Beliving the past and future God tells us about is not being stuck.

No. Only for Israel at the time was there dietary restrictions. Not for all the world. Not for mankind. Diets change such as after the flood when meat was added as cool.
 
Upvote 0

Jipsah

Blood Drinker
Aug 17, 2005
13,866
4,510
72
Franklin, Tennessee
✟295,581.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
You seem to be lumping me into some imaginary strawman group.
The group who seem to set more store by Genesis than they do by the Gospels? Funny, they sure seem to exist, and they sure seem to care a lot more about thigs that have little or no direct bearing on the Christian Faith than they do in the faith itself. Seriously, both Jews and Muslims accept the creation story from Genesis as being true insofar as it teaches (remember that word, teaches, it's important) that God created the universe. But it doesn't seem to have the effect of drawing them toward the Gospel of Christ, does it? You can believe every letter in the KJV Genesis is perfectly true. and be a right infidel, but that's what the Imaginary Strawman Group of which you're evidently a member insists.

The lunacy of such a position is evident from even a cursory reading of the New Teasment. Lessee, "Go ye into all the world, and preach that God created the universe in six 24 hour/ 1440 minute days and he that believeth not shall be damned." Hmmmm... that sounds wrong somehow, doesn't it? Probably because it isn't there. The Apostles didn't tell their converts "Alright all you heathens, turn to and start reading the Old Testament, because if you don't believe every word of it is literally true then you may as well go back to heathening again, because believing Christ just ain't en.ough. Right?
The bible tells us about the future world coming, His return as well as His first coming and creation. Why lobotomize your perspective.
Why insist that something is literally true when it was never intended to be? I'm sorry, mate, but the Genesis account is remarkable for the unbelievable anout of stuff it doesn't say. Take gravity, for instance. Sticks all of God's creation together, affects everything we do, is utterly inescapable, and we know almost nothing about how it really works. The thing that the whole creation is constructd with and around, and nary a mention of it. Oops, I guess God just forgot to include that in Genesis. Or maybe that wasn't withing tor scope of what He intended to reveal. Maybe He was saving that for an account of His creation that took more than two pages, you reckon?

Maybe y'all ought to leave off adding stuff to Genesis that it doesn't say, and trying to make it into something it wasn't intended to be.
It seems to me any onlooker would see through that act and view such a person as narrow minded.
IYeah, all it takes is a bit of over-active imagination to make Genesis relevant to literally everything. But it isn't. It's not a manual. It isn't a science book. It isn't even a proper history. It's a very brief overview of Creation. Summarize it as "In the beginning, God created everthing, in logical steps. End of.
It identifies Jesus as the one who made stuff
In the New Testament, quite explicitly.
He cannot lie.
He could if He was so inclined. He's God, after all, and thus omnipotent. Any sentence that includes the phrase "God cannot" is false. God doesn't lie, although a good many of your lot believe that He designed the universe to look old, which would imply dishonesty on His part, wouidn't it?
He spelled it out. Evolution was not in the mix. Any and all changes happened after the fact.
No. He created just the way He said He did whether or not you find it acceptable or believable.
He spelled it out. A=V/O wasn't in the mix..
He spelled it out. H+O2=H2O wasn't in the mix.
He spelled it out. Gravity wasn't in the mix.
He spelled it out. 299,792,458 metres per second wasn't in the mix.
Doesn't matter whether you find that acceptable or believable.
The Lord Himself created it all.
Yep. I got that from John the Gospel of John. The Jews and Muslims didn't, they only accept the OT.
The Lord Himself is coming here again soon to rule.
Gospel again.
The 'Lord Himself' is not limited to a few months on earth thousands of years ago
But He is limited to six 24-hour days.
It is not some silent onlooking partner of evolution that died for us.
But are you sure He created the elements? Genesis is silent on the subject. What day were chemical reactions created on?
No need to worry, just believe. Or not
A shame God didn't create electricity. It's amazingly useful.
All the characters at that time knew Scripture basically.
I'm sure Cornelious and his fam all learned Hebrew just so they could read the OT and convert to Christianity.
Yes we need the good news.
Are you sure? Y'all don't to set much store by it.
He that comes to God must believe that He is.
James 2:19
God said how it was made.
That He did not. He says He did it. He left it to you lot to make up rules for Him to have followed.
You simply believe it or not.
I believe His version, your's is rubbish
I never invented some sun that was here and vanished before the sun was made. That is all you.
Nope, that's the means by which yiour lot "explain" evenings and mornings when therre was no sun there to caue them. Adding to Scripture much?
No one suggested God was limited by time.
Your lot explicitly deny that Psalms 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8 are true, instead insisting that human-invented "hours" and symbolic "evenings and mornings" inescapably restrict God to the same time constraints that limits His creatues. Another of those "God cannot..." moments againg apparerntly.
Show us how Jesus lights a moon sized city called New Jerusalem so that the sun is not needed there?
Can I use your imaginary sun for a coiuple of days? I'll give it right back,
Beliving the past and future God tells us about is not being stuck.
As long as He knows that by a Day for Him is the same as a Day for everybody else, right? No cheating just because you're God.
 
Upvote 0

Jipsah

Blood Drinker
Aug 17, 2005
13,866
4,510
72
Franklin, Tennessee
✟295,581.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Sorry, there is no “God created it” in the Theory of Evolution.
Neither is there in Ohm's Law, or the laws of Chemistry. Reckon God didn't create that stuff?
 
  • Winner
Reactions: The Barbarian
Upvote 0

Jipsah

Blood Drinker
Aug 17, 2005
13,866
4,510
72
Franklin, Tennessee
✟295,581.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
29,737
13,295
78
✟441,268.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Maybe y'all ought to leave off adding stuff to Genesis that it doesn't say, and trying to make it into something it wasn't intended to be.
And that's a winner.
 
Upvote 0

truthpls

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2023
2,615
556
victoria
✟76,641.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
The group who seem to set more store by Genesis than they do by the Gospels?
I don't believe that Jesus or the apostles, when mentioning and believing aspects of Genesis were putting that above the gospel.
Seriously, both Jews and Muslims accept the creation story from Genesis as being true insofar as it teaches (remember that word, teaches, it's important) that God created the universe. But it doesn't seem to have the effect of drawing them toward the Gospel of Christ, does it?
Says who? If people first believe in Him for who He is, that is great when coming to Jesus.
You can believe every letter in the KJV Genesis is perfectly true. and be a right infidel, but that's what the Imaginary Strawman Group of which you're evidently a member insists.
Strange pipe dream. I like the KJV and also some other translations and often compare them.
The lunacy of such a position is evident from even a cursory reading of the New Teasment. Lessee, "Go ye into all the world, and preach that God created the universe in six 24 hour/ 1440 minute days and he that believeth not shall be damned."
Jesus never said that. No more than it says we must believe Jesus was dead for precisely 340,000 seconds. However if someone said He did not die or was raised from the dead or that He was still dead thousands of years later etc...they would be very wrong.
Why insist that something is literally true when it was never intended to be?
Why not believe what He told us?
I'm sorry, mate, but the Genesis account is remarkable for the unbelievable anout of stuff it doesn't say. Take gravity, for instance. Sticks all of God's creation together, affects everything we do, is utterly inescapable, and we know almost nothing about how it really works.
By Him all things consist. Think about it It also shows clearly that we will not be bound by gravity soon, like Jesus was not.
IYeah, all it takes is a bit of over-active imagination to make Genesis relevant to literally everything. But it isn't.
Let's test your theory. Name something and we will see if Genesis relates or not?
It's not a manual. It isn't a science book.
Why would it be a recipe, a manual, a fairy tale or a science book? None of those things can cover the breadth and depth of Scripture.
It isn't even a proper history. It's a very brief overview of Creation. Summarize it as "In the beginning, God created everthing, in logical steps. End of.
Say what? What is improper about the account of Genesis?
He could if He was so inclined. He's God, after all, and thus omnipotent. Any sentence that includes the phrase "God cannot" is false.
False. He cannot lie.
God doesn't lie, although a good many of your lot believe that He designed the universe to look old, which would imply dishonesty on His part, wouidn't it?
No. He made it for us and some thing needed to be mature or beautiful or etc. Reading insane old ages into that is offensive.
He spelled it out. A=V/O wasn't in the mix..
He spelled it out. H+O2=H2O wasn't in the mix.
He spelled it out. Gravity wasn't in the mix.
He spelled it out. 299,792,458 metres per second wasn't in the mix.
Doesn't matter whether you find that acceptable or believable.
He told us He made it and later, man was able to detect some things about how it was made.
But He is limited to six 24-hour days.
The plants created before the sun, and the clear extra detail of morning and evening as a day make it clear that the time was six days.
But are you sure He created the elements? Genesis is silent on the subject. What day were chemical reactions created on?
What reactions? If we make a reaction in a lab, that was made today! If you mean the laws in place that make reactions happen, then again, we would need to look at when you are talking about, In the Millennium we might expect some different reactions for all we know. In heaven as well. In Eden as well.
A shame God didn't create electricity. It's amazingly useful.
How do you know? Many things were lost after the flood.
Nope, that's the means by which yiour lot "explain" evenings and mornings when therre was no sun there to caue them. Adding to Scripture much?
No one said the sun caused them.
Your lot explicitly deny that Psalms 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8 are true, instead insisting that human-invented "hours" and symbolic "evenings and mornings" inescapably restrict God to the same time constraints that limits His creatues. Another of those "God cannot..." moments againg apparerntly.
Perspective and context are needed.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.