Evolution's Debt to Christianity

[Presbyterian Continuist]

How is that the simple answer? The simplest answer to me seems to be ongoing continuous creation rather than a once-and-for-all style miracle, and that fits perfectly with evolution. I'm not an Intelligent Design theorist, but things like the origin of mitochondria (bacterium eats bacterium, and both survive) intrigue me all the same--only an atheist has to write off divine providence for an evolutionary event as strange as that one.

The plain answer is Genesis 1 which says that God spoke the universe into being in six days. If one does not believe Genesis 1 which is as much God's inspired Word to mankind as the rest of the Bible, then one does not believe the rest of the Bible, and if God has said that He created the universe in six days and one does not believe it, then one is calling God a liar.

Therefore the person who does not believe the Bible in one part, cannot believe any of God's promises to mankind, and cannot believe that Jesus really did come and die on the cross as a sacrifice for mankind. Nor can that person believe any of the salvation promises, because God is either true to His Word in the whole Bible, or not at all. Therefore, one cannot guarantee that any decision he makes for Christ will be valid, and his religion is vain.

 

[DamianWarS]

Some solid and easy to understand reasons not to believe Evolution.
(Comments based on the video content are welcome.)

the video is a reason to believe in God, not a reason to reject evolution.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

the universe within a few 100 million years after the Big Bang is observable . The Big Bang itself is not observable because the universe is too hot and too dense at that point ,to see through. . When you look out into space you can see back in time because light takes time to travel through space. It takes 8 minutes for light to get to earth from the sun . You see the sun as it was and where it was 8 minutes ago . We can see back just over 13billion years by looking out into space . So we know what the universe looked like then . Stars were odd, they didn’t have elements above iron in them . Modern stars have all 92 natural elements

I'm not saying that scientists cannot explore the wonders of the known universe. There are many wonderful discoveries that can be made, especially the exploration of our own solar system.

 

[Quartermaine]

They are just guessing, because there is no empirical data that what is described actually happened that way.

actually there is quite a bit of evidence for the Theia impact. But i get the impression that you would never look at

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

actually there is quite a bit of evidence for the Theia impact. But i get the impression that you would never look at

As I have said before, saying that something "probably" or "might have" happened is just a scientist's words to actually mean, "We don't really know, but we are taking a guess".

Genesis 1 is the only description where someone has said, "This is definitely what happened". So, the author would have had to been absolutely sure of the inspiration that he received to make such a direct statement like that.

In my view, to be a genuine Christian believer, one has to believe the whole Bible. If he says one part is not true, then he has to doubt the rest of it, and seeing that the Christian's salvation depends on the veracity and reliability of what the Bible says, if there are doubts about that then one cannot have any assurance of salvation, but instead, a sense of real fear of death and what may await him afterward.

The early scientists, who believed that God created the universe in six days, spent their time and energy exploring and describing the wonders of the universe and our world, and the amazing laws of science. But during the 18th Century, doubts started to creep in about the existence of God, and other explanations about the origin of the universe and of the species, that left God out of the equation started to arise. Scientists leapt on Darwin's theory of the origin of the species and decided that this was how it all happened, and they turned it into their scientific "religion". They adopted the existential philosophy of the time (which is very similar to the Charismatic "naming and claiming" theology), which states, "If I believe it then it is true". This is basically faith in faith. It works the opposite way for atheists, who say, "If I don't believe that there is a God, then it is true that there is no God". It is just another way of expressing the existential, "faith in faith" philosophy.

 

[LightLoveHope]

Some solid and easy to understand reasons not to believe Evolution.
(Comments based on the video content are welcome.)

Believers miss-understand evolution.
Two aspects exist in science, commonality and change.
Science discovered much commonality in things thought to be distinct and realised change occurred within various constraints. This was then extended through a proposition that everything developed by itself.

It is the extension that is a faith statement, not the commonality or change.

Our faith is in Gods description of creation. But in this description there is much subjective content, that makes sense only in a spinning world with a single light source. Two separate stories imply perspectives on reality, which show important points, but not the whole picture.

Science has proven creative acts, called Goldilocks events. It has shown the big bang. It has discovered the universe relies on constants so precise, they have to have been created.

Life itself is so complex through DNA even at its simplest forms, it has to have been created and not made through random chance.

But equally the universe is so vast, so unbelievably old, creation in scripture could well be about our world, and our place on our world, and then revealing our world in context to the surrounding universe.

 

[zoidar]

Some solid and easy to understand reasons not to believe Evolution.
(Comments based on the video content are welcome.)

Creation is a mystery. My faith in Christ doesn't stand or fall by the matter of evolution.

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

Creation was a straight miracle that can't be explained by science.

So what is this pathetic need for creationist to try to invent alternate scientific "facts" and "theories" if it was "straight miracle" ?

Just say it was miracle and no of course we can not prove any of it. At least that would be being honest, but for some reason there is this huge need to discredit scientific evidence as if that somehow would make their miracle true.

It is quite bizarre.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

So what is this pathetic need for creationist to try to invent alternate scientific "facts" and "theories" if it was "straight miracle" ?

Just say it was miracle and no of course we can not prove any of it. At least that would be being honest, but for some reason there is this huge need to discredit scientific evidence as if that somehow would make their miracle true.

It is quite bizarre.

If the Bible says that God spoke the universe into being from nothing, then I believe it because I believe that the Bible is inspired by God and there is the way that He has communicated to mankind.

It is the same as the feeding of the five thousand with two loaves and five little fish. Jesus created all the extra food out of nothing, through a miracle. There is no scientific explanation for how that happened. Or how Jesus actually walked on water right in the middle of the sea of Tiberius in the middle of a storm. Or how Jesus spoke to a storm and it immediately ceased. There is no way that science can explain those things.

The truth is that God said, "let there be galaxies, stars and planets throughout the whole universe" and they instantly appeared from nothing. There is no scientific explanation for that at all, that a universe that appears to be quadrillion years old, appeared instantly from nothing.

If if one does not believe the Bible, then there can only be guess work about these things.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

So what is this pathetic need for creationist to try to invent alternate scientific "facts" and "theories" if it was "straight miracle" ?

Even creationists have problems believing that an all-powerful God can just speak a whole universe into being from nothing with just a few words. It is just too mind-boggling for the human intellect to even imagine how that could happen. So they come up with counter theories to try to make sense of it in their own minds.

I have decided to just believe what the Bible says - that God spoke the whole universe into being by saying "Let there be...etc." I wasn't there to prove otherwise, so as a Christian believer, I just take God's word for it.

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

I have decided to just believe what the Bible says

Problem here of course is that other people have decided to believe what some other Holy texts say and none of these can be verified in any way so lots of very meaningful debate around religious circles I guess.

Meanwhile for practical purposes we have

Scientific method - Wikipedia

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Problem here of course is that other people have decided to believe what some other Holy texts say and none of these can be verified in any way so lots of very meaningful debate around religious circles I guess.

Meanwhile for practical purposes we have

Scientific method - Wikipedia

I understand that.
The problem with me is that I was never any good at science at school, so I have no experience or expertise in it. Getting too involved in the Evolution/Creation debate just addles my mind.
I have a Mastorate in Divinity and also one in English Literature (interesting combination), so I guess that is where my expertise lies, and so that may explain my pretty rigid view in the absolute truth of the Bible and that the only true living God inspired it to be His communication with mankind.

Evolution is a very interesting theory and if it satisfies people in their minds as a reasonable explanation for the origin of the universe and of the species, then I respect that.

The one thing that I am enjoying in this thread is that we can have widely divergent views, and yet have fair debate in an attitude of mutual respect. I lose the fun aspect in some threads where some feel it necessary to get personal and start kicking the players instead of the ball.

Concerning science, and this might be a little off-topic, but it is good to have a bit of a relief at times: but I watched some Youtube videos showing amateur rocketeers making rockets and launching them. I am amazed at the complexity to science and maths, just to get the rocket off the ground and flying straight! It is certainly rocket science all right! Also, I have been watching videos about a group of young guys making all sorts of different aircraft out of foam board and electric motors, and am impressed with the complex calculations involved in the design of these model aircraft. This is the type of science that fascinates me. One of them made a model of a Star Destroyer from Star Wars and got it flying! That blew me away!

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

This is the type of science that fascinates me. One of them made a model of a Star Destroyer from Star Wars and got it flying! That blew me away!

Indeed. Imagine how much more seriously people would take religious claims when they saw priests flying those things with faith alone.

 

[Brightmoon]

I’m a Christian and I also have a biology degree . I believe by faith . Science doesn’t work on faith it works on evidence. The evidence is in for evolution/common descent. There is no evidence for separate creation or for a young earth and anyone who tells you that there is, is not telling the truth or they’re leaving out details deliberately to cause you to come to the wrong conclusion. That is probably why I have zero respect for creation “scientists” . There’s no need to lie or to obfuscate if the evidence can speak for itself .

 

[Brightmoon]

By the way evolution is an explanation for the origin of species( note, not life)and has nothing to do with the origin of the universe, star or planetary formation,or the age of any of these . The name of the origin of life science is abiogenesis, not evolution. Biogenesis is a refuted pseudoscience theory and is NOT the modern origin of life science. Creationists tend to conflate these because they don’t like any of them and they want to confuse people. Conflating these separate sciences is a misuse of scientific terminology

 

[Brightmoon]

Of course God could have created a whole universe out of nothing in six days. The question is whether he did in fact do so, and the evidence would suggest otherwise.

And of course Creation cannot be explained by science, but the origin of species can be.



About cosmology or in general? As a former philosophy student, I am regularly shocked by the sorts of things scientists say when they leave their field of expertise and decide that they're qualified to talk about philosophy or theology. The super specialization is also really causing problems, I think.

well , for example of things that laymen don’t know , if a soil layer is buried under other layers , scientists can tell when the last time the older layer was hit by sunlight. it’s a dating method

 

[Quartermaine]

As I have said before, saying that something "probably" or "might have" happened is just a scientist's words to actually mean, "We don't really know, but we are taking a guess".

That's nice but it has nothing to do with your mistaken claim that there is "no empirical data"

 

[joshua 1 9]

I watched the first minute or so .

I did not even get that far before I realized they do not understand science or religion. At least they are making an attempt to think about it though.

 

[His student]

Creation was a straight miracle that can't be explained by science. Evolution is a process given by those who refuse to believe in the existence of God, and that He is powerful enough to create a whole universe out of nothing in six days.

To accept evolution (whether you claim to be a Christians or not) you have to disregard or twist a number of rather basic and crucial doctrines from the Word of God.

I have no doubt that many who believe in evolution are indeed Christians and are saved. But they are liberal Christians and are not being guided by a belief in the authority of scripture as it is written.

Jesus said it best and I suppose I'll second the motion.

"..."How foolish you are, and how slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken!" Luke 24:25

 

[Brightmoon]

To accept evolution (whether you claim to be a Christians or not) you have to disregard or twist a number of rather basic and crucial doctrines from the Word of God.

I have no doubt that many who believe in evolution are indeed Christians and are saved. But they are liberal Christians and are not being guided by a belief in the authority of scripture as it is written.

Jesus said it best and I suppose I'll second the motion.

"..."How foolish you are, and how slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken!" Luke 24:25

. Since God created nature and it doesn’t lie I will take Scientific explanations from nature over anything written in the bible simply because I know that the bible has been edited , poorly translated, and changed over the centuries ......And there’s also the fact that some ideas in the bible are impossible and would have left the earth a bare lifeless rock if they had happened