Darwin's evolution theory?

[ArchangelGabriel]

Yes, you could probably use gravity as a tool to help explain how the Red Sox won, but it's only that...a tool. You can't start with gravity and end with Red Sox winning the World Series. You can look at the Red Sox winning the world series and include gravity as one of the things that influenced it, conceded.



Evolution doesn't try to be religious truth. It's only trying to explain, in scientific terms, what we have observed. Now, it is possible to work God into the idea of evolution, but the primary purpose of evolution is not to be a religious study.



Good lord, are you serious? Unless crapping your pants counts as a sin, yes, I am 100% certain that my 6 month old daughter has not sinned.



Is crying a sin? She cries for one of several reasons...dirty diaper, hungery, tired, or uncomfortable. Last I checked, none of those are considered sinful.



I would agree that humans have always had some spiritual beliefs. I would not agree, however, that humans have always had the same concept of God that we have today, or that Jews had 2000+ years ago.



This is just nonsensical.



Again, this makes very little sense. I am sure you were trying to make some point with those last two quotes, so please restate them so that they make sense.

wow i wish i had the time ( yeah i should try to clearify it when i do) have a 2000 word essay to do though : ( *sigh* well until i do have the tiem to reply ill just say:

i wasnt trying to attack your baby girl in any way, not that im saying you thought that but i dont want you to think i was , in fact im complety sure that you have a beatiful, presious, sweet child, who i evny for her innocence
*in fact nvm me even mentioning your child, i did have (i think) a really good point to make through her but i seriously dont trust my vocabulary enough to take the chance of either offending you or indirectly implying anything mean agianst her, i would rather just stop at she is a wonderful little child rather than go on and risk jeopardizing either my honor or far! far! worse somehow hers.

 

[dunkel]

Thank you for answering my questions.

Sure

I understand that evolution itself does not deal with the concept of sin; my questions were specifically in regard to theistic evolution. Everyone who believes in God has to come to some understanding of how the Bible and the Christian teachings on sin and salvation relate to evolution vs. creation. I guess I find it easier to understand how someone can be an atheistic evolutionist and not worry about fitting God into his or her worldview and scientific understanding at all than how someone can believe in theistic evolution and simply interpret those parts of the Bible that don't fit as myths and metaphors.

It's not really a problem for me. I really don't know where to come down on the evolution (as it is understood) vs creation theories. I am thoroughly convinced that the Earth is billions of years old. I am equally convinced that humans, as we know them, evolved from some earlier lifeform. But as to the actual origins of life itself? Not quite sure. I do 100% believe, though, that God, in whatever form, was what got the whole thing started.

If the Genesis account is a myth developed by the ancient Hebrews to explain the natural phenomena that they observed, just as other ancient peoples (Greeks, Romans, Babylonians, etc.) had supernatural explanations for natural occurences, how much of the rest of the Bible was made up? Should any of it be interpreted literally, especially anthing that involves supernatural events? And, most importantly, what is the truth about Jesus' incarnation, life, miracles, death, resurrection--the Bible's version or some other version?

Myth doesn't necessarily equal "made up". I think there is a lot of myth in the Bible, but that doesn't mean it was simply made up out of thin air. Myth is based on reality, even if it doesn't get the details correct. I believe there was a flood...there is much evidence to support this. Do I believe that Noah and his family were the only survivors after putting two of each animal on the Ark? Of course not. But if you get hung up on believing that story to be literally true, you're overlooking the important part of the story. I think people took the event of the actual flood and created a story out of it that made sense. To them, it very well may have been the wrath of God, so the story that created was in that context. It doesn't mean it was made up.

And let's not even get started on the Jesus story. We have a very lively discussion about whether Jesus was a myth going on over in the apologetics section, if you'd care to join us.

Finally, in the context of theistic evolution and a figurative interpretation of the Bible, what does Christianity as a belief system have to offer people that they couldn't find in atheism or paganism or Buddhism or Hinduism or Islam? I know that these questions are not within the scope of evolution as a scientific theory, but I see them as a concern in reconciling evolution with Christianity and a reason that many people question, as the original poster did, whether a Christian should believe in evolution.

Many faiths have touched on the truth. On the surface, there is actually very little to differentiate Christianity from other religions. Some of the details, obviously, but overall, and especially the core concepts...be good to your fellow man, obey God, etc, are all pretty universal.

 

[tall73]

Sure



It's not really a problem for me. I really don't know where to come down on the evolution (as it is understood) vs creation theories. I am thoroughly convinced that the Earth is billions of years old. I am equally convinced that humans, as we know them, evolved from some earlier lifeform. But as to the actual origins of life itself? Not quite sure. I do 100% believe, though, that God, in whatever form, was what got the whole thing started.



Myth doesn't necessarily equal "made up". I think there is a lot of myth in the Bible, but that doesn't mean it was simply made up out of thin air. Myth is based on reality, even if it doesn't get the details correct. I believe there was a flood...there is much evidence to support this. Do I believe that Noah and his family were the only survivors after putting two of each animal on the Ark? Of course not. But if you get hung up on believing that story to be literally true, you're overlooking the important part of the story. I think people took the event of the actual flood and created a story out of it that made sense. To them, it very well may have been the wrath of God, so the story that created was in that context. It doesn't mean it was made up.

And let's not even get started on the Jesus story. We have a very lively discussion about whether Jesus was a myth going on over in the apologetics section, if you'd care to join us.



Many faiths have touched on the truth. On the surface, there is actually very little to differentiate Christianity from other religions. Some of the details, obviously, but overall, and especially the core concepts...be good to your fellow man, obey God, etc, are all pretty universal.

Is your definition of myth similar to that of Bultmann etc.?That is to say, you feel you have to "de-mythologize" the essentially true parts of the story of Jesus, the Bible etc.?

 

[calidog]

Not sufficient time based on what, exactly?

how long does it take for inorganic (or organic-you choose) matter to evolve into you and I?

 

[Kripost]

Gravity is a fact. Evolution is a theory. The Bible is the Word of God.

gravity is a law

The problem is that for something facts are basically observations. It deals with what can be observed, and no extrapolation. Thus Gravity is not a fact, since we do not see it directly. The most we can do is to record the velocity and acceleration of an falling object. The recorded velocity or acceleration are facts. Also, do note that facts themselves are rather limited in usage, and can still be criticised (in terms of accuracy and precision, for example).

Laws are general descriptions of these facts. Do note that laws can be disproven, when there exists observations which contradicts them.

Theories are models of reality, and is not a guess or a hypothesis. It explains a given set of observations, and makes falsifiable predictions.

 

[dunkel]

Is your definition of myth similar to that of Bultmann etc.?That is to say, you feel you have to "de-mythologize" the essentially true parts of the story of Jesus, the Bible etc.?

I've never heard of Bultmann, so I can't say for sure whether I agree with him. And I don't have an overwhelming urge to seperate fact from myth regarding the Jesus story. In other words, although I will obviously engage in discussion on that topic here on these boards, I don't go down to the local church yelling at the parishoners that their Jesus is a myth. However, when I read the Bible for myself, I do so with the idea that I need to look past the literal words on the piece of paper and see possible "hidden" meanings.

Not sure if that answered your question, but there ya go.

 

[dunkel]

how long does it take for inorganic (or organic-you choose) matter to evolve into you and I?

Well, since nothing can come from inorganic matter, let's go with organic

I don't know. I'm not a biologist. But since I believe that the earth is billions of years old, I'd say that's plenty of time for stuff to happen. Sorry, this is not my area of expertise, so I can't give you a very technical answer.

 

[tall73]

Well, since nothing can come from inorganic matter, let's go with organic

I don't know. I'm not a biologist. But since I believe that the earth is billions of years old, I'd say that's plenty of time for stuff to happen. Sorry, this is not my area of expertise, so I can't give you a very technical answer.

I am not trying to be critical, but isn't that the point? We are not experts on the question, but you are dismissing the Bible on the basis of largely secular sceintists without examining their claims overly much.

In all of the debates I have had with evolutionists I have found that both sides have problems explaining parts of the data. There is frankly a lot we don't know, a lot that changes etc.

The example you give, that billions of years is time enough for it to happen, is simply a faith statement. If you don't understand the mechanism, or the time required, how can you be sure? What if they were wrong? Does adding a few more billion make it work?

Think over this for just a moment.

The step from one cell organisms to two cell requires a mutation. Any change to the nature of each cell requires a mutation.

The process by which the body differentiates muscle cells, and nervous cells etc. involved tons of mutations.

The connecting of all these systems together requires mutations.

Every single change required, each and every one, must be the result of a random mutation that not only is beneficial for adaptation, but that manages to be passed on in reproduction and established in a significant sample to pass to later species. This is a rare thing!

There is dispute over the number of cells in the body, and of course, variance in each body, but the average guess is around 10-100 trillion. Think about the number of mutations that must come about to produce even 10 trillion cells in a complex, inter-connected system.

Now, are billions of years enough? That is up to the evolutionists to show. Especially when they have prescribed times for it to happen, such as human evolution. There is great doubt that the amount of genome change could happen in that time period.

It is also up to them to show why some elements of the geologic record , the fossil record, etc. don't match their theory.

Now, it is also up to those who hold to a literal account to show that their account is feasible.

If I am going to reject the Scriptures on any point, I had better be sure. So if I feel that something is at variance with the Bible I would study everything I could to be sure one way or the other. I wouldn't leave it up to just the experts to inform me.

 

[BarbB]

how much of the rest of the Bible was made up?

A fair amount if you ask me. Things like selling daughter into slavery and the murder of the firstborns of egypt have to be discarded. What also need to be taken with a grain of salt is Paul's misogyny and a litteral reading of the revelation.

I can't believe what I'm reading. The Christian Church is certainly throwing the power out with the bathwater/Bible.

Read what linissue and Tall have to say. They've got their heads and research on straight!

 

[calidog]

Well, since nothing can come from inorganic matter, let's go with organic

I don't know. I'm not a biologist. But since I believe that the earth is billions of years old, I'd say that's plenty of time for stuff to happen. Sorry, this is not my area of expertise, so I can't give you a very technical answer.

ok, so in the beginning there was organic matter, in its most primitive form. In time it mutated and evolved over billions of years to this day. And here we are, intelligent creatures on this lonely but lush planet. Others have done the math and have demonstrated, through probability and chance, there was'nt enough time. To explain that away, the evolutionists have added on time over the years. The age of our universe has gone from a few billion years old to about 14 billion in my lifetime. But 14 billion still is'nt enough time.

 

[Donkeytron]

ok, so in the beginning there was organic matter, in its most primitive form. In time it mutated and evolved over billions of years to this day. And here we are, intelligent creatures on this lonely but lush planet. Others have done the math and have demonstrated, through probability and chance, there was'nt enough time. To explain that away, the evolutionists have added on time over the years. The age of our universe has gone from a few billion years old to about 14 billion in my lifetime. But 14 billion still is'nt enough time.

Theory of evolution =/= the big bang theory

 

[zaire]

I believe in creation.


Genesis 1:27
27God created human beings;
he created them godlike,
Reflecting God's nature. He created them male and female.


Adam and Eve would have looked class.

Lets have a child like faith.

 

[calidog]

Theory of evolution =/= the big bang theory

agreed. the thiestic evolutionist includes God. I discard the theory simply because I interpret Genesis literally, not an all popular position to take. The theory of evolution makes for intersting dialogue though.

 

[dunkel]

While I never claimed to understand the mechanics behind evolution or the Big Bang theory, I can look at something and tell whether it makes sense to me or not. So I have two theories about the beginning of the universe...one that takes observations and trying to come up with explanations that follow a certain set of rules. The other theory requires the basic laws of the universe to be changed. Now, while it is certainly possible for God to do this, for my puny human intellect, I'll go with the theory that doesn't require changing the laws of physics. But that's just me

 

[tall73]

While I never claimed to understand the mechanics behind evolution or the Big Bang theory, I can look at something and tell whether it makes sense to me or not. So I have two theories about the beginning of the universe...one that takes observations and trying to come up with explanations that follow a certain set of rules. The other theory requires the basic laws of the universe to be changed. Now, while it is certainly possible for God to do this, for my puny human intellect, I'll go with the theory that doesn't require changing the laws of physics. But that's just me

If all you want is natural law, why put God as creating it at all?

Either way you have something going against the laws of the universe and putting something in place.

 

[dunkel]

If all you want is natural law, why put God as creating it at all?

Either way you have something going against the laws of the universe and putting something in place.

Well, the problem with leaving God out of natural law is that if we go strictly by natural law, none of this should exist. Matter cannot be created or destroyed, so none of this could simply pop up out of nowhere. So, at the very least, God created whatever ball of junk that blew up to cause the Big Bang. After that, everything seems to make sense.

 

[dunkel]

I am not trying to be critical, but isn't that the point? We are not experts on the question, but you are dismissing the Bible on the basis of largely secular sceintists without examining their claims overly much.

Their claims make sense. I don't need to know the technical stuff if I can look at something it is logical and consistant. What's the alternative? To believe that 6000 years ago (give or take) God just said "poof" and everything showed up? That may suffice for some, but it doesn't make sense, it isn't logical, and it's not consistant.

In all of the debates I have had with evolutionists I have found that both sides have problems explaining parts of the data. There is frankly a lot we don't know, a lot that changes etc.

And when a scientist sees that there is more we don't know, he goes out, does some tests, asks some questions, and keeps on it until he does know. A creationist sees something he doesn't understand and says "God made it that way". I'll go with option 1.

The example you give, that billions of years is time enough for it to happen, is simply a faith statement. If you don't understand the mechanism, or the time required, how can you be sure? What if they were wrong? Does adding a few more billion make it work?

Again, what's the alternative? At least one side is TRYING to figure it all out, as opposed to throwing up their hands and saying "God did it". And, no, science is not simply another leap of faith...there is evidence to support it. We may come up with faulty conclusions, granted, but it's not just taking it on faith. Observing something, doing tests, making comparisons, those are the tools of science. The tools of "faith" is "God did it, so I don't have to understand".

Think over this for just a moment.

I did and came up with my above answer.

The step from one cell organisms to two cell requires a mutation. Any change to the nature of each cell requires a mutation.

That is one theory, yes. I've just recently read another theory that takes single celled organisms to multi-celled organisms without requiring mutation. I want to look at it more closely, but it's very interesting, to say the least.

The process by which the body differentiates muscle cells, and nervous cells etc. involved tons of mutations.

The connecting of all these systems together requires mutations.

Every single change required, each and every one, must be the result of a random mutation that not only is beneficial for adaptation, but that manages to be passed on in reproduction and established in a significant sample to pass to later species. This is a rare thing!

There is dispute over the number of cells in the body, and of course, variance in each body, but the average guess is around 10-100 trillion. Think about the number of mutations that must come about to produce even 10 trillion cells in a complex, inter-connected system.

Now, are billions of years enough? That is up to the evolutionists to show. Especially when they have prescribed times for it to happen, such as human evolution. There is great doubt that the amount of genome change could happen in that time period.

It is also up to them to show why some elements of the geologic record , the fossil record, etc. don't match their theory.

And when it turns out that a mistake has been made somewhere, they go back and find out why and try to figure out the right answer, something that creationists don't do. Don't have to do, really...God made it that way.

Now, it is also up to those who hold to a literal account to show that their account is feasible.

Which you really can't do, hence the emphasis on having faith. Creationism simply doesn't make sense. It flies in the face of logic and reality as we know it. That's why you have to just take it on faith. It is unprovable. How do you prove something that is impossible? It should be, by its very nature, impossible to prove. I'm not saying God can't do what is impossible to us, but how do you test something, when you only have the natural laws as tools, that goes against natural law?

f I am going to reject the Scriptures on any point, I had better be sure. So if I feel that something is at variance with the Bible I would study everything I could to be sure one way or the other. I wouldn't leave it up to just the experts to inform me.

That is a healthy attitude to a point. But to simply throw out all experts and everything outside of the Bible on this position is taking it to an unhealthy extreme. Science isn't sure about something, so you reject all of science...how is that different from someone finding some discrepency in the Bible and wanting to throw out the whole book?

 

[calidog]

Their claims make sense. I don't need to know the technical stuff if I can look at something it is logical and consistant. What's the alternative? To believe that 6000 years ago (give or take) God just said "poof" and everything showed up? That may suffice for some, but it doesn't make sense, it isn't logical, and it's not consistant. (( God could have said poof, but He chose to take six days.))




And when a scientist sees that there is more we don't know, he goes out, does some tests, asks some questions, and keeps on it until he does know. A creationist sees something he doesn't understand and says "God made it that way". I'll go with option 1.
((not exactly. He says "God says He made it that way"))


Again, what's the alternative? At least one side is TRYING to figure it all out, as opposed to throwing up their hands and saying "God did it". And, no, science is not simply another leap of faith...there is evidence to support it. We may come up with faulty conclusions, granted, but it's not just taking it on faith. Observing something, doing tests, making comparisons, those are the tools of science. The tools of "faith" is "God did it, so I don't have to understand".

((again the man of faith says "God said He made it that way"))

I did and came up with my above answer.



That is one theory, yes. I've just recently read another theory that takes single celled organisms to multi-celled organisms without requiring mutation. I want to look at it more closely, but it's very interesting, to say the least.



And when it turns out that a mistake has been made somewhere, they go back and find out why and try to figure out the right answer, something that creationists don't do. Don't have to do, really...God made it that way.



Which you really can't do, hence the emphasis on having faith. Creationism simply doesn't make sense. It flies in the face of logic and reality as we know it. That's why you have to just take it on faith. It is unprovable. How do you prove something that is impossible? It should be, by its very nature, impossible to prove. I'm not saying God can't do what is impossible to us, but how do you test something, when you only have the natural laws as tools, that goes against natural law?



That is a healthy attitude to a point. But to simply throw out all experts and everything outside of the Bible on this position is taking it to an unhealthy extreme. Science isn't sure about something, so you reject all of science...how is that different from someone finding some discrepency in the Bible and wanting to throw out the whole book?

((unfortunately, thats why some throw out the bible))

 

[MC80a]

Hello eh7,

Some Christians do believe in Darwin's evolutionary theory. As for whether or not they should, in my opinion they are actually stating that science has authority over the Bible - whether or not that was actually their intent. I believe that the Bible's authoratitive statements should be placed on top of science's speculations because it is divinely inspired by our Creator God who doesn't lie and was there in the beginning (scientists were not). The Bible is the history book of the universe, if you like.

Many people have a false understanding of what the Bible is - they say that it's a religious or spiritual book and nothing more. A book of morals. As true as this is for some part, it's also incredibly false. The Bible is largely a book of history for the most part. A book describing mankind's historical relationship with God - how it was in the beginning, what happened to break this relationship and what God has done to restore it. A book describing the people of Israel's (God's chosen people for the salvation of the world) history and future.

I feel that I should make it clear that I don't reject the changes that we see today. I accept these changes and believe that they fit perfectly in the Christian creationary model that I believe. What I reject is the philosophical idea that man has evolved over eons of years rather than being created in the image of God on a literal day six of the creation week. I don't believe that if you take the changes that we see today and extrapolate them back eons of years that you'll end up with molecules-to-man evolution.

Yes, there are quite a few Christians who reject the molecules-to-man idea evolution (or microbe-to-man), myself included. I reject the microbe-to-man belief partially because of the scientific evidence (i.e. how evolution is inconsistent with the evidence) and also because of how unbiblical it is.

May God bless you,
MC80a CRS.

 

[MC80a]

Hello dunkel,

Actually, there are many explainations put forward by atheists to defeat this point that you brought up:

"Well, the problem with leaving God out of natural law is that if we go strictly by natural law, none of this should exist. Matter cannot be created or destroyed, so none of this could simply pop up out of nowhere. So, at the very least, God created whatever ball of junk that blew up to cause the Big Bang."

Some atheistic proponents assert that quantum mechanics can create something from nothing. Others yet try to explain this by using various infinitely old universe explanations such as the yo-yo theory and others, thus avoiding the implication of a creator.

These theories have flaws, but the atheists may be using newer explanations. I'm not quite sure, my information is a little out dated.

May God bless you,
MC80a CRS.