For evolutionists that were christians at one time.

[ikester7579]

Some people do. A lot of people (including on this board) are fans of the "God controls evolution" theory.

Yeah, they sure do. But it's not really a religion .

 

[Arikay]

God is part of religion.

Evolution is not a religion.

Believing god used evolution, is part of a religion.

Yeah, they sure do. But it's not really a religion .

 

[ikester7579]

God is part of religion.

Evolution is not a religion.

Believing god used evolution, is part of a religion.

We can debate this until the end of time. But as long as evolution is not "fact" it takes someone to believe or have faith in it. Because if it were fact, God would not have a foot to stand on now would he? And it would no longer be called a theory now would it?

 

[Arikay]

You do understand what a "theory" is right?

If it was "fact" Yes god would have a leg to stand on.

Evolution is Not Atheism.

If we could possibly prove evolution 100% it would not hurt god One Bit. Only your interpretation of how god created.

However I find it funny that using the same thoughts there are no "facts" the "fact" that you have a nose is not a "fact" its a belief. You only believe you have a nose. but you might not.

 

[Orihalcon]

last time i checked, evolution was fact. did that change?

god would still have a leg to stand on. he just won't be standing on a literal bible.

 

[ikester7579]

LOL, yall two crack me up.

 

[wblastyn]

We can debate this until the end of time. But as long as evolution is not "fact" it takes someone to believe or have faith in it. Because if it were fact, God would not have a foot to stand on now would he? And it would no longer be called a theory now would it?

You've been here for how long now and you're still using the "Evolution is only a theory!" arguement?

 

[strubenuff]

FYI, evolution is a theory because it's an explanation. Since it's not a mathematical equation, so it's not a law. It's not only one piece of information, so it's not a fact. Theories tie facts and laws together.

 

[GJG]

@ ikester7579

Actually dude, the bible shows us that even those followers of Jesus who walked with Him, ate with Him, etc.......they denied Him in a big way!
Matt 26:31 Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad.
KJV

 

[TheBear]

Since comming here, I have had some evolutionists tell me that they were christains at one time(hence, believing in God only). There are many people who believed in God but fell from their faith in him. Most of the time it all boils down to the same reason(which I'll address later).  

When you become a christain it is hard to let go of the way things used to be and some of the friends you have. On earth you are judged by others who you associate with(hang around). And if you become a person of God you are made fun of, mocked and sometimes even beat up for your faith by those same people who used to be your friends. Now you feel all alone and being made fun of and mocked is not very comforting. So your faith is being tested and it is at this point you will make a decision. This is the classic point the Bible speaks of about the struggle between good and evil(the struggle for your soul).

It is at this point the Devil will break out the heavy artillary and your strength in the word of God will be tested. And it feels like the lowest point in your life because it is at this time that you will either feel betrayed and concede to the old life style, or you will reach for the word of God for strength.

Making a complete change from the lifestyle that your used to is scary. And the Bible never said it would be easy (Ex: Read the book of Job). Though I very seriously doubt any of us would be tested like that. It is a fine example of how strong a bound between man and God can be. Job even said that he would not give up his faith, even if God slayed him and took his life.

In this life here on earth we have everything made easy for us. Though it may seem hard at times it is really easy. So when something comes up that is hard we usually take the easy way out. And this is what it all boils down to. Being a christain is hard so we choose the easy and become bitter because we feel betrayed. And what makes us feel betrayed is that we are told all these nice things about being a christain and it sounds easy but it's not.

God's words, rules, and laws are very strick. Not even the most devout christian can truly say I can do all this. And this is the reason why so many people have fallen in and out of being a child of God. And this is the reason God had to send his son(Jesus) to die on the cross. To make the way easier by the blood of his son that was shed on the cross.

I myself, have fallen in and out of being a child of God. This is the reason I write this. I can relate to it. So if you think when I post that I do not understand were your comming form, I understand a lot more than you think. This is the reason I try not to resort to personal attacks, because in a way I would be attacking myself, because I have been there.

Wow!!

Where to begin....

I'll just address two points.

First, you are making an either/or proposition - that a person is either a Christian, or an evolutionist. Let me assure you that my salvation does not depend on your interpretation of the creation story. Thank God for that!

Second, you have "fallen in and out of being a child of God"? What does that mean?

 

[Pete Harcoff]

FYI, evolution is a theory because it's an explanation. Since it's not a mathematical equation, so it's not a law. It's not only one piece of information, so it's not a fact. Theories tie facts and laws together.

That's very concise. Nicely put.

 

[lucaspa]

Yeah, they sure do. But it's not really a religion .

Ikester, theistic evolution (evolution depends on God) is part of the Christian religion. Because "evolution depends on God" is a belief. There is no scientific evidence to falsify that evolution doesn't work on its own without God.

Evolution itself says NOTHING about God. As Gould put it:

" To say it for all my colleageues and for the umpteenth millionth time (from college bull sessions to learned treatises): science simply cannot (by its legitimate methods) adjudicate the issue of God's possible superintendence of nature. We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply can't comment on it as scientists. "

Can you understand that? NO COMMENT. A COMPLETE SUSPENSION OF JUDGEMENT OR CONCLUSION. NEITHER "God did it" nor "God did not do it". That is science. That is evolution. To be a theistic evolution and put God into or behind evolution is a statement of faith and is NOT the scientific theory.

Just as for Dawkins or Provine to say that evolution happens WITHOUT God is also a statement of faith and is NOT the scientific theory.

Any questions?

 

[lucaspa]

We can debate this until the end of time. But as long as evolution is not "fact" it takes someone to believe or have faith in it. Because if it were fact, God would not have a foot to stand on now would he? And it would no longer be called a theory now would it?

Ikester, behind the statement "Because if it were fact, God would not have a foot to stand on now would he?" is atheism. Listen carefully. You are ACCEPTING THE BASIC STATEMENT OF FAITH OF ATHEISM. That is, you are saying that atheism is correct!!

DARWIN thought God had both feet to stand on.
"To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual." pg. 449.

Darwin was right. Having a "natural" cause does not eliminate God. "Natural" is just as much due to God as miracle is.

Now, is gravity taken on faith? It's a theory, after all. Is DNA is the hereditary material taken on faith? It's also a theory.

It takes no faith to accept a theory as (provisionally) true. You are saying that all the evidence points to the theory being true, so you will accept it as true unless and until new evidence shows it to be wrong. And then you will abandon it. And abandoning the theory does not depend on faith either, does it?

Many evolutionists claim that common ancestry is a repeated observation. That makes evolution a fact.

It takes faith to believe that evolution happens without God. It also takes faith to believe that evolution happens with God. As long as God is being discussed, the only non-faith position is "I don't know" in reference to God.

But evolution doesn't talk about God. We keep telling you that evolution is not atheism. When are you going to listen?

 

[tcampen]

Biological evolution is a "fact." The debate is over its mechanism, not whether it actually occurs or not. Speciation has been observed many times.

There was a time, only a 100 years ago, that those who opposed biological evolution on religious grounds opposed it in every form. Even basic speciation was roundly dismissed as unbiblical. But as the evidence developed, even those traditional critics came to accept so called "micro-evolution." Now so-called "macro-evolution" is the last pillar of truth too many find in conflict with their religious beliefs. This is a tougher nut to crack considering this type of evolution is not observable in a human lifetime, or even several lifetimes. It takes millennia. So silly requests like seeing fish turn into a human become the mainstay for rejecting sound scientific positions.

What's the big deal? If humans evolved from a common ancester to the apes, does that mean there is no salvation thru Jesus? There are plenty of good christians who recognize evolution as the source of biological diversity on our planet, because it is good science. It's not perfect. Even Einstein greatly revised Newtonian physics - but we still recognize gravity exists.


whew!

 

[pudmuddle]

Hi,
I'm new and haven't had time to read this entire thread, so I'll just jump in with both feet and try not to drown.
I have a few questions for Christians who believe in the Theory of evolution.
Is the Bible the inspired Word of God?
As such, is it absolute truth?
If Genisis, for example, can be interpetated as an allegory, can, say Matthew be interpreted at the same?
Why is it that you believe in the words of fallible men while disbelieving the Word of an infallible God? (If, indeed, you believe Him to be infallible.)
That should do for now. It's past my bedtime.

 

[wblastyn]

Is the Bible the inspired Word of God?

Yes, inspired but not written or dictated by.

As such, is it absolute truth?

The literal Word of God is (ie the part where God is actually speaking), otherwise the Bible was written by fallible men so I don't see why it should be infallible. I think making the Bible infallible is idolatry.

If Genisis, for example, can be interpetated as an allegory, can, say Matthew be interpreted at the same?

No, Jesus' birth/death/resurrection is necessary for salvation.

Why is it that you believe in the words of fallible men while disbelieving the Word of an infallible God?

God never actually says himself "I created everything in it's full form over 6 literal days" so I have nothing to disbelieve. What I disbelieve is a literal interpretation of Genesis, which is not "God's Word" but an interpretation of it.

Why is it that you believe the words of fallible men while disbelieving the evidence left by God in His creation?

 

[ikester7579]

Ikester, theistic evolution (evolution depends on God) is part of the Christian religion. Because "evolution depends on God" is a belief. There is no scientific evidence to falsify that evolution doesn't work on its own without God.

Evolution itself says NOTHING about God. As Gould put it:

" To say it for all my colleageues and for the umpteenth millionth time (from college bull sessions to learned treatises): science simply cannot (by its legitimate methods) adjudicate the issue of God's possible superintendence of nature. We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply can't comment on it as scientists. "

Can you understand that? NO COMMENT. A COMPLETE SUSPENSION OF JUDGEMENT OR CONCLUSION. NEITHER "God did it" nor "God did not do it". That is science. That is evolution. To be a theistic evolution and put God into or behind evolution is a statement of faith and is NOT the scientific theory.

Just as for Dawkins or Provine to say that evolution happens WITHOUT God is also a statement of faith and is NOT the scientific theory.

Any questions?

So If science cannot commit to the existance of God, would not that also mean that God and science do not belong together in explaining the begining of everything? And those who mix the two are actually making their own religion? Because the word of God has nothing to do with science?

 

[pudmuddle]

(The literal Word of God is (ie the part where God is actually speaking), otherwise the Bible was written by fallible men so I don't see why it should be infallible. I think making the Bible infallible is idolatry)

Ok, just so I understand you correctly, do you believe any of the history in the Bible is true? Genesis is more than just creation. Is the story of Joseph fact, allegory, partly true or just a fun fairytale? Did men really live to be 600 years old? I'm sure you don't believe the flood was really worldwide, so why does God's inspired word indicate that is was? How do we seperate the fact from the fairytales? Or do we just dismiss the whole OT and believe in the new?

(God never actually says himself "I created everything in it's full form over 6 literal days" so I have nothing to disbelieve. What I disbelieve is a literal interpretation of Genesis, which is not "God's Word" but an interpretation of it.)

"and there was evening, and there was morning-the first day." Genisis 1:3
This phrase is repeated with "the second day" and so on. Sure sounds like God was indicating to his fallible creation, man, that these were, indeed, six literal days. Why else would he emphasize morning and evening or each day?

(Why is it that you believe the words of fallible men while disbelieving the evidence left by God in His creation?)

I see the evidence of God's hand in creation quite often. I'm blessed to live in a rural area and even do a bit of what we call homesteading, so I get to see more of the natural world than city-dwellers. But I know that isn't the kind of evidence you'll talking about.

I ask you, who is interpeting this so-called evidence? Not only men, but in most cases, men who have been indoctrinated in the evolutional theory since grade-school. What they find is interpretated with the belief that evolution is fact and the Bible is not.

 

[ikester7579]

Yes, inspired but not written or dictated by.


The literal Word of God is (ie the part where God is actually speaking), otherwise the Bible was written by fallible men so I don't see why it should be infallible. I think making the Bible infallible is idolatry.


No, Jesus' birth/death/resurrection is necessary for salvation.


God never actually says himself "I created everything in it's full form over 6 literal days" so I have nothing to disbelieve. What I disbelieve is a literal interpretation of Genesis, which is not "God's Word" but an interpretation of it.

Why is it that you believe the words of fallible men while disbelieving the evidence left by God in His creation?

I guess God is so weak, he cannot keep his word true.

And if that's so in what you say, Who makes this determination of what is true and untrue in the word of God? Fallible man? Seems even that won't work. Fallible word of God(as you say) being judged by fallible man over what is true?
Ever thought that this might just be an untruth you were told to confuse you about God's word?
Go to a search engine and type in "KJV 1611 bible online". This is the first translation of this version which is the direct translation from the greek which was from the original hebrew. Then find which translation is like it. Not many but one. I'll let you figure that out.

 

[Nathan Poe]

So If science cannot commit to the existance of God, would not that also mean that God and science do not belong together in explaining the begining of everything? And those who mix the two are actually making their own religion? Because the word of God has nothing to do with science?

Not at all. "theistic evolution" is an attempt (and a good one, at that) to rationalize what is believed (creation; God made it all), with what we know and observe (evolution).

The theistic evolutionist understands that the Bible is meant to explain why God created, and observing the creation itself teaches us how God created.

I believe it was St. Augustine who explained that God actually left two books for His believers to follow and learn from. The Bible is one. The creation itself is the other.

If I were a believer, I would believe that my understanding of God is incomplete unless I delve deep into both books. I would see science as simply our way of reading the second book.

But of course, I'm not a believer, so you have no reason to accept any of this