Evolution is Not Atheistic

[Meowzltov]

So, Jesus dying for our sins is allegorical? I'll go with the clear intent of the Bible as it's written as far as what is intended to be read as literal history and what is not.

You have to read each portion of the Bible as the genre it is written as. The epistles which describe Jesus dying for our sins are prose, not allegory, and the opening of Genesis is a creation myth.

 

[Meowzltov]

I'm surprised by your answer. For me to fully understand it, does that mean that the church does not read Genesis 1-3 as historical narrative, neither does it read these same chapters allegorical or whatever?

The CC does not, for example, require Catholics to believe in a 6 (24 hour long) day creation 6000 years ago.

 

[Meowzltov]

The faith of evolutionists require that they believe all of this is an accident of time and chance, plus they believe in the random, unplanned emergence of life on earth.

I believe in evolution, and at the same time I believe that all these "accidents" are exactly as God intended.

 

[Graham Lloyd Dull]

the opening of Genesis is a creation myth.

The following account of David Attenborough sounds like a creation/evolution myth to me.
.
David Attenborough said: “This baby’s ancestry like that of all of us stretches back over 500 million years to a tiny little worm-like creature swimming in the bottom of the sea.” Continuing to refer to the child, he said, “His backbone and jaw came from..."
.
Does saying that an invertebrate grew a backbone and became a vertebrate, make it true?
There is in reality, not much evidence of this.

 

[As I was saying]

I believe in evolution, and at the same time I believe that all these "accidents" are exactly as God intended.

As I was saying, I don't believe in evolution as I don't have enough faith to believe in it and I don't believe God deals in accidents.

 

[As I was saying]

Numerous studies have show, the majority of Christians accept evolution.

As I was saying the claim is unprovable because you do not know the views of 2.4 billion on earth and bearing in mind that the greater percentage do not even know what evolution is.

It definitely sounds that you want things to be what you want them to be rather than what they are.

 

[As I was saying]

The following account of David Attenborough sounds like a creation/evolution myth to me.
David Attenborough said: “This baby’s ancestry like that of all of us stretches back over 500 million years to a tiny little worm-like creature swimming in the bottom of the sea.” Continuing to refer to the child, he said, “His backbone and jaw came from..."
Does saying that an invertebrate grew a backbone and became a vertebrate, make it true?
There is in reality, not much evidence of this.

And adding to that another evolutionists said in a TV programme that the origin of everyone was a sand word no bigger than a man's thumb. They can't seem to agree on anything can they.

 

[As I was saying]

Any of poll you can find will support it.

Guess based on what? Which countries?

What about the ones who don't believe in God?

Not really.

1. Sweeping claims are not the stuff that interests me.

2. Where christians live.

3. I did not realise that christians don't believe.

4. Yes really.

 

[As I was saying]

While I agree there are many ways to believe in [a] God and believe in evolution, one cannot consistently believe in evolution and believe in the God of the Bible. That is because evolution claims life and the whole universe came about through purely natural causes, while the Bible says God specifically and intentionally created. The two claims are mutually exclusive: only one can be true.

Likewise one cannot believe in long ages (which evolution requires) and believe in the Bible. Long ages puts death before sin, and that contradicts the first part of the central message of the whole OT, that death is a result of Adam's sin. The second part of the central message of the whole OT is that man cannot be reconciled to God through his own efforts; and the central message of the whole NT is an answer to the dilemma of the OT, namely that Jesus died for our sins so we can be reconciled to God. If God created some great length of time in the past, and man is only a recent addition to God's creation, then that means death was here from the beginning, not a result of man's sin. If death is not a result of sin, then death is normal, in fact, by evolution's position, required, then Jesus saving us from death is not required - it is not even welcome.

A great post Rod and well enunciated.

 

[AV1611VET]

That is because unlike religion, where we take things on faith and then look for evidence, Evolution starts with evidence and then reaches conclusions.

Why then do scientists, when it comes to the Bible, start with conclusions then ... stop there?

Doesn't even their scientific method teach them to at least ask questions?

A perfect example is the passage in Joshua that scientists like to say speaks of geocentrism.

Joshua 10:13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

They make a conclusion first: The Bible teaches geocentrism.

Then, after doing that, won't even research how that statement can be true.

They won't even employ their own discovery (general relativity) to explain it.

In addition, they will accept that Genesis 1 is poetic, but will not accept that Joshua 10:13 may be poetic.

At least, as you said, we take things on faith, then look for evidence.

Scientists state conclusions* about the Bible, then stop there.

* And it's really not a "conclusion," per se, since their R&D department is always closed to passages in the Bible.

Probably because they don't get paid to research the Bible.

The love of money.

 

[As I was saying]

Why then do scientists, when it comes to the Bible, start with conclusions then ... stop there?

Doesn't even their scientific method teach them to at least ask questions?

A perfect example is the passage in Joshua that scientists like to say speaks of geocentrism.

Joshua 10:13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

They make a conclusion first: The Bible teaches geocentrism.

Then, after doing that, won't even research how that statement can be true.

They won't even employ their own discovery (general relativity) to explain it.

In addition, they will accept that Genesis 1 is poetic, but will not accept that Joshua 10:13 may be poetic.

At least, as you said, we take things on faith, then look for evidence.

Scientists state conclusions* about the Bible, then stop there.

* And it's really not a "conclusion," per se, since their R&D department is always closed to passages in the Bible.

Probably because they don't get paid to research the Bible.

The love of money.

Ha ha. Nice bit of writing AV1611

 

[AV1611VET]

Ha ha. Nice bit of writing AV1611

Thank you, sir!

That came from the heart.

I have no respect for most scientists today.

I see them as enemies of the Gospel, doing Satan's work.

But I also see some of them as doing God's will.

But the tares have outgrown the wheat.

 

[As I was saying]

Thank you, sir!

That came from the heart.

I have no respect for most scientists today.

I see them as enemies of the Gospel, doing Satan's work.

But I also see some of them as doing God's will.

But the tares have outgrown the wheat.

Yeah, I guess if you are not a christian and a scientist, money speaks louder than conviction. After all, we must keep the funds flowing at all cost for research work.

 

[SteveB28]

And adding to that another evolutionists said in a TV programme that the origin of everyone was a sand word no bigger than a man's thumb. They can't seem to agree on anything can they.

Sand word?

Dune perhaps? Castle? Volleyball?

 

[AV1611VET]

Yeah, I guess if you are not a christian and a scientist, money speaks louder than conviction.

I suppose even if you are a Christian and a scientist, you go where the money leads you, and check your theology at the door.

I'm guessing though, as I have never worn a white coat.

I'm waiting for a white robe, instead!

 

[SkyWriting]

Most Christians accept Evolution. Notice I say accept rather than believe. That is because unlike religion, where we take things on faith and then look for evidence, Evolution starts with evidence and then reaches conclusions.

As long as your re-testing the events, that's fine.

• The steps of the scientific method are to:
  • Ask a Question
  • Do Background Research
  • Construct a Hypothesis
  • Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
  • Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
  • Communicate Your Results

Anything not being re-tested, is taken on faith.

 

[AV1611VET]

Anything not being re-tested, is taken on faith.

That's why I chuckle when I hear that 150 or 200 years ago they searched for evidence of a global flood and didn't find any.

Then, when I ask why they don't search again today with their super-duper, upgraded, self-calibrated, made-to-corroborate, just-as-myopic equipment, they don't have an answer.

 

[True Science]

[deleted]

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

Most Christians accept Evolution. Notice I say accept rather than believe. That is because unlike religion, where we take things on faith and then look for evidence, Evolution starts with evidence and then reaches conclusions.

I am a Christian and I accept Punctuated Evolution, complete with genetic drift. Now I am a theistic evolutionist, which means that I have a hard time believing that Survival of the Species ALONE is enough to explain evolution. I think that evolution may be drivin by God. (This is not the same thing as intelligent design, which assumes that whole species appear intact.) However, this belief is red flagged because I MAY BE WRONG. The truth is that evolution may be completely NATURAL. But who is the author of the natural world and its laws? God! So even if Natural Selection and Genetic drift turn out to be the sufficient explanation for evolution, it doesn't rule out a Creator.

Evolution only explain life once it got here, and how it developed into the myriad of species that we see today. Evolution does NOT explain how life came from nonlife. We know you can get amino acids and peptides naturally, but there is a chasm between this and a living cell with DNA. It cannot be replicated in the lab, nor do we have any model for it. Science is completely clueless how it happened. A person is as free to speculate the God did it as they are to speculate that it happened as a result of as much an infinite set of accidents as random waves on the beach could produce "Amy loves Joe" in the sand. The point is one can believe in evolution yet still believe that God created life.

All this to say that there are MANY ways to believe in God yet also believe in evolution.

Or, Pope Benedict just told you that you should.

 

[True Science]

[deleted]