Evolution?

[Pathogen]

Hi everyone!

As you can see I'm new here, and I've been lurking on these forums off and on for quite some time now and I thought I'd make a thread asking a very important question.

Do you believe in evolution? If so, does this conflict with your faith in any way or contradict the validity of the bible (mainly the OT, or the NT's reference to the OT)? If not, on what basis do you reject it?

I myself "accept" evolution just as I accept many scientifically credited theories of which we explain the phenomenons of the world.

I look forward to both reading and discussing your replies!

EDIT: By browsing now a little more recently, I discovered a topic covering science and the bible. I understand the similarity, but would like to emphasize that I don't really want to discuss the accuracy of the bible. I am more curious on what your views on evolution are and if you felt you've ever had to compartmentalize them because of your religion or fellow believers.

 

[ephraimanesti]

Hi everyone!

As you can see I'm new here, and I've been lurking on these forums off and on for quite some time now and I thought I'd make a thread asking a very important question.

Do you believe in evolution? If so, does this conflict with your faith in any way or contradict the validity of the bible (mainly the OT, or the NT's reference to the OT)? If not, on what basis do you reject it?

I myself "accept" evolution just as I accept many scientifically credited theories of which we explain the phenomenons of the world.

I look forward to both reading and discussing your replies!

MY DEAR FRIEND,

MICRO evolution is a proven fact.

MACRO evolution is a bad joke.

Neither one has any bearing on the validity of the Bible given that it is not meant to be a Biology Text.

A BOND-SLAVE OF OUR LORD/GOD/SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST,
ephraim

 

[Pathogen]

MY DEAR FRIEND,

MICRO evolution is a proven fact.

MACRO evolution is a bad joke.

Neither one has any bearing on the validity of the Bible given that it is not meant to be a Biology Text.

Thanks for your reply. I find it interesting that you draw a distinction, although I have to admit I've seen it a number of times. Evolution simply means the change of genetic material overtime i.e. mutations in DNA.

Now what I think you are saying is "a bad joke" is speciation, or when evolution gives rise to separate species sharing a common ancestor. Speciation has been proven so could you clarify on how it is a bad joke?

 

[ephraimanesti]

Thanks for your reply. I find it interesting that you draw a distinction, although I have to admit I've seen it a number of times. Evolution simply means the change of genetic material overtime i.e. mutations in DNA.

MY BROTHER,

YES, God can indeed make it possible for genetic material to change over time to help and organism adapt to a changing environment. The silliness starts when it is attempted to extrapolate from these small observable change adaptions within a species--noted by Darwin in bird's beaks, coloration, etc.--and attempt to apply this micro evolution to the development of new and unique species or, going to a further ludicrous extreme, to apply the idea of genetic change to the very beginning of life itself--complete with the "primal soup", lightning strikes, and other fabricated flights of fanciful thinking.

Now what I think you are saying is "a bad joke" is speciation, or when evolution gives rise to separate species sharing a common ancestor. Speciation has been proven so could you clarify on how it is a bad joke?

Because the unproven speculation you refer to is, with a straight face, used by some to try to disprove the need for, or even the existence of, God and, as St. Paul remarks, ". . . their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools." (Romans 1:21b-22)

A BOND-SLAVE OF OUR LORD/GOD/SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST,
ephraim

 

[Pathogen]

MY BROTHER,

YES, God can indeed make it possible for genetic material to change over time to help and organism adapt to a changing environment. The silliness starts when it is attempted to extrapolate from these small observable change adaptions within a species--noted by Darwin in bird's beaks, coloration, etc.--and attempt to apply this micro evolution to the development of new and unique species or, going to a further ludicrous extreme, to apply the idea of genetic change to the very beginning of life itself--complete with the "primal soup", lightning strikes, and other fabricated flights of fanciful thinking.

I think what first needs to be done is define a species.
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. Let me know if you agree with this definition.

What we see in nature, and I would like to emphasize that this has been observed multiple times, is a species which was separated geographically by islands, mountain ranges, and lakes experiences genetic adaptation to its environment. Because of their separation the diverging organisms mutate differently until, were they to be brought together again, they could no longer produce offspring. Thus two separate species formed.

Now give this observable process thousands of years to occur and we can only speculate at the genetic diversity we will eventually see in the two species.

Because the unproven speculation you refer to is, with a straight face, used by some to try to disprove the need for, or even the existence of, God and, as St. Paul remarks, ". . . their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools." (Romans 1:21b-22)

As my profile accurately states, I am uncertain as to the existence of god. However, I am not using evolution to disprove god as I believe it doesn't inherently do that. I do however fail to understand why belief in a god and acceptance of evolution is contradictory to some.

 

[BobW188]

I think that's readily answered. A substantial number of Christians - perhaps a majority in the United States - take the Bible literally, as word-for-word truth; and the Genesis narratives so taken simply cannot be reconciled with current evolutionary theory.

 

[ephraimanesti]

As my profile accurately states, I am uncertain as to the existence of god. However, I am not using evolution to disprove god as I believe it doesn't inherently do that. I do however fail to understand why belief in a god and acceptance of evolution is contradictory to some.

MY BROTHER,

YOU do not "use evolution to disprove God"; many, however, in their desperation, do make this futile attempt.

Personally, i could care less what method God used to create the animal, vegetable, and mineral components of our Universe. i probably wouldn't understand it anyway if He did choose to spell it out. i don't even understand my own spiritual workings yet. The rest has no importance to me besides this undertaking!

GOD'S PEACE TO YA!

ephraim

 

[drich0150]

I have a question, What's wrong with not knowing how the universe and the rest of creation was started? I'm not saying we shouldn't know what the various theories say, but why do we have to definitively subscribe to anything? Doesn't anyone think it's a little foolish to proclaim complete authority as to how anything got started when there isn't a COMPLETE record of the events?

Again I can discuss the argument for both sides in dept (I wasn't always a Christian) and I think it is OK not to definitively know. That said, I do lean toward creationism. But do I think Genesis is complete in it's descriptions of the account? no.. But, at the same time, Genesis is not a text book, nor was it meant to be one. Genesis is meant to establish the Authority and Power of the Almighty God. It does that, what it doesn't do is explain the intricate processes in which God accomplished what He set out to do.

Our religion was not intended for us to have All of the answers so that we may decide whether or not to believe in God. Belief or acceptance in God as a means of salvation, means little to nothing compared to the Love we are to have for Him. Demons all believe, but none are "saved."

 

[Van]

Hi Pathogen,

"Do you believe in evolution? If so, does this conflict with your faith in any way or contradict the validity of the bible (mainly the OT, or the NT's reference to the OT)? If not, on what basis do you reject it."

I believe in change, that the life forms in the fossil record are different from today's life forms. Do I believe in Darwin's mechanism for causing that change? Nope, and not too many folks today do. Darwin's mechanism has been "changed" to a "neo-Darwinism."

No, my belief in change does not conflict with my faith, I believe God did it, but did not tell us exactly how (the mechanism) He did it. Job 38 written well after Genesis 1 tells us we do not know how God did it. It is relatively difficult to harmonize current scientific thinking on origins with the Biblical account, but I have certainly held mistaken understandings of the Bible, and the history of science is a history of complete revisionism.

 

[Pathogen]

I have a question, What's wrong with not knowing how the universe and the rest of creation was started? I'm not saying we shouldn't know what the various theories say, but why do we have to definitively subscribe to anything? Doesn't anyone think it's a little foolish to proclaim complete authority as to how anything got started when there isn't a COMPLETE record of the events?

Well in my opinion, there is nothing inherently wrong with not knowing. However, I do feel that one should seek to know, and ultimately learn as much as possible. I'm sure everyone here can personally attest to the luxuries that biological knowledge have given us. Take for example antibiotics: were it not for our curiosity and search for knowledge thousands would die everyday from plague, meningitis, and strep.

I personally was recently hospitalized due to an extremely rare bacterial infection that I can say with near 100% certainty would have killed me were it not for modern medicine. Therefore I personally believe direct cause can come from disinformation and discouragement from scientific progress.

I just personally don't understand why people reject evolution, because it contradicts with their beliefs. Where does it do so and why?

 

[Pathogen]

I think that's readily answered. A substantial number of Christians - perhaps a majority in the United States - take the Bible literally, as word-for-word truth; and the Genesis narratives so taken simply cannot be reconciled with current evolutionary theory.

Do you take the bible as word-for-word truth?

 

[drich0150]

Well in my opinion, there is nothing inherently wrong with not knowing. However, I do feel that one should seek to know, and ultimately learn as much as possible. I'm sure everyone here can personally attest to the luxuries that biological knowledge have given us. Take for example antibiotics: were it not for our curiosity and search for knowledge thousands would die everyday from plague, meningitis, and strep.

I personally was recently hospitalized due to an extremely rare bacterial infection that I can say with near 100% certainty would have killed me were it not for modern medicine. Therefore I personally believe direct cause can come from disinformation and discouragement from scientific progress.

I just personally don't understand why people reject evolution, because it contradicts with their beliefs. Where does it do so and why?

I see alot of this in those who wish to lend creditability to the realm of evolution. Because This theory is based in "science" or at least is taught from a scientific prospective, one takes legitimate scientific discovery or scientific law and pairs it with their favorite or latest version of evolution..

There is a large difference between the work being done in the fields of micro biology, and the speculative nature of underlining work that supports the current theories of the evolutionary process. In micro biology there is underlining truths that can be discovered, experimented with, producing consistent results, and no matter who does the work, if all the variables have been accounted for, the product is always the same. unless there is mutation involved. If That is the case those results are generally reproducible as well..

This is not the case for your favorite theory and the origins of life. Even though there is a given amount of evidence to be had, the theory changes to suit the guy with the largest most prestigious degree, or various accolades with in a very select community, who's primary goal is to discredit the last guy, so he can get to "thinkers' heaven and have their name be synonymous, with that of Darwin. Not to mention all of these men are corporately owned through various universities and highly regarded organizations.. I say that to say that despite all of the pride that the "thinkers" have in the antimony they have found away from the archaic church, you seem to be tethered to what you have been taught to think by the universities sponsoring all of the Big thinkers..

..And still yet, despite what you believe to be true, at it's core, it all still boils down to simple belief/faith. It's belief and or Faith in what it is you want to believe and or have faith in,. and That is a product of what you personally believe about God.

I have found there are those who want to think so independently from God they will think whatever they are told to think.. Just to put distance between themselves and God.

Then there are those who refuse to think beyond what they understand to be doctrine..

To me both are fruitless. On the one hand the "thinkers" literally sell their souls their escape God and the church, for a legalistic faith that would rival any dark ages church.

And on the other you have those who sell their "re-birth rights" for this bowl of lentil soup in spending the lions share of their time trying to legitimize an intentionally vague account of creation to a faith that demands membership in a select club, before one is even taken seriously..

That's why I truly believe it is better to simply say: "I don't know." Again nothing wrong with knowing both sides of the argument. I just think it foolish to proclaim anything when no one in this life truly knows for sure.

 

[ebia]

Hi everyone!

As you can see I'm new here, and I've been lurking on these forums off and on for quite some time now and I thought I'd make a thread asking a very important question.

Do you believe in evolution?

I accept it as a scientific theory as valid as any other. I wouldn't use the world 'believe' particularly.

If so, does this conflict with your faith in any way or contradict the validity of the bible (mainly the OT, or the NT's reference to the OT)?

No.

 

[Van]

Hi Pathogen, how does "evolution" contradict the beliefs of Christians. In the New Testament, the miracles of Jesus occurred in very short order, minutes if not seconds.
So when Genesis chapter 1 says God causes something to happen, many Christians believe the something happened over a short period of time, less than a twenty-four hour day. On the other hand, science asserts that change occurred over a long time, millions if not billions of years. The second problem many Christians have is the date for the first man - Adam. If you allot a reasonable period for each generation from Adam to Jesus, you end up only 6 or 7 thousand years ago. But science dates cave paintings - clearly drawn by a creature able to handle abstract thought - to more than 10 thousand years ago. And many scientists believe the first man existed more than 30,000 years ago, and some as much as 125,000 years ago.

On the other hand, the theory of evolution has nothing to do with modern medicine. Modern medicine grew out of the invention of the microscope, and experimentation, not a theory of origins.

 

[UnionJack]

Well obviously I believe God created humans......but I do think through evolution we have changed a bit....for an example humans nowadays are generally taller than humans 500 years ago. Some of it has to do with a more nutritional diet and better living conditions etc...

 

[Jesusfreak93]

This does a pretty good job of describing my beliefs on evolution.
Biblical Evidence Against Theistic Evolution - Top Ten Proofs

 

[Harry3142]

I personally accept The Creation Story as a demythologization, rather than as a scientific statement. We should remember that the people for whom Moses wrote this had just left Egypt at the time when it worshipped over 40 different gods and goddesses. These all had idols made in their likeness, or paintings depicting them. Every animal, the sun, the moon, and the stars went to make up either their form or their attire.

Moses methodically stripped away all thoughts of these animals and objects as being divine. When we study Genesis 1:1 to 2:1 with the mindset that the ancient Hebrew nation had, we come to the realization that by the end of that passage, the only divine being left is one who is invisible, and therefore no idol can ever be made which would depict him.

As for the theory of evolution, scientists have already discovered events that have shot holes in it. Evolutionists claim that the last extinction level event occurred 65 million years ago, and that it's been 'clear sailing' ever since, culminating in homo sapiens. but scientists have discovered at least 8 different cataclysms which have occurred since that time, any one of which could be classified as an ELE due to the massive explosion and severe cold which they admit would have followed it. Here are those events:

1. A meteor hit Canada, and left a crater 17.36 miles in diamenter 38 million years ago.

2. A meteor hit Chesapeake Bay and left a crater 53 miles in diameter 35 million years ago.

3. A meteor hit Canada and left a crater 15 miles in diameter 23 million years ago.

4. A meteor hit Germany and left a crater 15 miles in diameter 15 million years ago.

5. A meteor hit Tajikistan and left a crater 32.24 miles in diamenter 10 million years ago.

6. A meteor hit Ghana and left a crater 6.5 miles in diameter 1.5 million years ago.

7. The Yellowstone supervolcano erupted 650,000 years ago, causing temperatures worldwide to plunge by 50 degrees F. in both the northern and southern hemispheres, and by 86 degrees F. at the equator. This lasted for three to five years, and resulted in a yearlong blanket of snow literally worldwide for that length of time.

8. Mt. Toba's supervolcano erupted 70,000 years ago, and caused temperatures again to plummet, as in example #7. This also lasted at least three to five years.

Evolutionists claim that some animals had to survive in order to evolve into either more advanced species of the same genre, or entirely new species. But that is what is called 'a circular argument'. An argument that defends evolution by saying that animals had to survive conditions which we recognize as unsurvivable in order to evolve is illogical at best, and recognized as blind rationalism by many.

 

[Van]

"Do I believe in Darwin's mechanism for causing that change? Nope, and not too many folks today do. Darwin's mechanism has been "changed" to a "neo-Darwinism."

To clarify, lets take the idea that natural selection results in the adoption of novel adaptive variations. This Darwinian mechanism has been replaced with the neo-Darwinian mechanism of mutation of the genetic information. Thus a moth going from light to dark and then from dark to light does not add or alter the genetic information, and therefore the mechanism fails to explain changes at the genetic level.

 

[Van]

This is not a debate forum, I have provided my view, and I am sure the OP writer would well-come other Christian views. But only one non-Christian is supposed to post on the thread, the OP author.

 

[ephraimanesti]

As my profile accurately states, I am uncertain as to the existence of god. However, I am not using evolution to disprove god as I believe it doesn't inherently do that. I do however fail to understand why belief in a god and acceptance of evolution is contradictory to some.

MY DEAR BROTHER,

i think there are at least two main reasons why Christians feel so negatively about the THEORY of evolution:

#1. As already mentioned, it has been used by atheists as a tool for "demonstrating" that there is no need for a Creator/Savior God because the material universe is quite capable of existing on its own and producing, "by accident," all the wonders of life--including man--surrounding us today.

#2. Christians believe that human beings are composed of a body, a mind, and a soul/spirit. If man was just another animal that evolved from something lower, this would explain the body and the mind, but it can in no way explain mankind's possession of a soul/spirit.

Genesis states that God created man in His Image and Likeness (Genesis 1:27), and God, being a Spirit (John 4:24), created man as an enfleshed spirit. Spiritual attributes cannot be "evolved"--especially not an eternal soul.

So i, personally, have no problem with the possibility of evolution explaining the millions of varied lifeforms on planet earth--after all, the Ark was only 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high!--but man, created in the image and likeness of God, is in a class by himself and his existence cannot be explain by the theory of evolution.

ABBA'S BRAT,
ephraim