For me, it's either theistic evolution or nothing.

[rjs330]

Except that evolution is the fact, and no amount of lying and making up thigns or going UHUH will change that, anyone that actually understands evolution will just reject your guys tries.

Evolution of all things coming from a single common ancestor is not a fact. A fact is something that can be proven. It cannot be proven. It is a self fulfilling theory of assumptive belief. It is NOT scriptural. But again the emphasis is not that those that believe in are not Christians. I think that's hogwash. I do think those believers who believe in have been deceived by men's unprovable theoretical beliefs.

 

[Speedwell]

And if they still believe that they are sinners in need of salvation through the death and resurrection of Christ, what's the harm in it?

If you think you need a literal and inerrant Genesis to maintain that faith, then ignore evolution.

 

[loveofourlord]

Evolution of all things coming from a single common ancestor is not a fact. A fact is something that can be proven. It cannot be proven. It is a self fulfilling theory of assumptive belief. It is NOT scriptural. But again the emphasis is not that those that believe in are not Christians. I think that's hogwash. I do think those believers who believe in have been deceived by men's unprovable theoretical beliefs.

Keep it up, assumption assumption, not proven not proven, the mantra of those that help atheists, all you did there is just flap your gums so to speak, as someone that actually has a clue about evolution, how it works and why it's true nothing you said means anything, it's just someone desperatly lying to themselves to hold onto untenable beliefs about both the bible and reality. Who do you think your going to convince with such nonsense? do you honestly think questioning everything about how we understand the world is some how going to make people go, "OH dangit....your right evolution is false, it's just assumptions...geeze, forget the mountains of evidence in many different fields, ignore that the fact that the same science that gets us computers and to the moon is what figures out evolution it's just baseless assumptions dang..." yeah sorry your argument is meaningless and dangerous to Christianity, as anyone with even a grade school understanding of evolution can see why it's utter nonsense. And guess what forcing people to chose between the bible and evolution when evolution is that strong is just going to make people leave Christianity so yeah, people like you are killing it, I'm happy where I am because I don't deny reality in order to keep beliefs, I accept both.

 

[loveofourlord]

And if they still believe that they are sinners in need of salvation through the death and resurrection of Christ, what's the harm in it?

If you think you need a literal and inerrant Genesis to maintain that faith, then ignore evolution.

well I think the dangerous part is that when people like them argue that the bible needs to be literal, anyone that understands evolution is either going to accept the bible is a bit wrong, or guys like them will drive them away.

 

[Speedwell]

well I think the dangerous part is that when people like them argue that the bible needs to be literal, anyone that understands evolution is either going to accept the bible is a bit wrong, or guys like them will drive them away.

The notion that the Bible is the literal, inerrant, perspicuous and self-interpreting product of plenary verbal inspiration is distinctly Evangelical Protestant view which I do not share, and would not even if there were no theory of evolution. To insist on it in an aggressive and often hostile fashion as a prerequisite to faith in Christ is, IMO, a serious mistake.

 

[rjs330]

Keep it up, assumption assumption, not proven not proven, the mantra of those that help atheists, all you did there is just flap your gums so to speak, as someone that actually has a clue about evolution, how it works and why it's true nothing you said means anything, it's just someone desperatly lying to themselves to hold onto untenable beliefs about both the bible and reality. Who do you think your going to convince with such nonsense? do you honestly think questioning everything about how we understand the world is some how going to make people go, "OH dangit....your right evolution is false, it's just assumptions...geeze, forget the mountains of evidence in many different fields, ignore that the fact that the same science that gets us computers and to the moon is what figures out evolution it's just baseless assumptions dang..." yeah sorry your argument is meaningless and dangerous to Christianity, as anyone with even a grade school understanding of evolution can see why it's utter nonsense. And guess what forcing people to chose between the bible and evolution when evolution is that strong is just going to make people leave Christianity so yeah, people like you are killing it, I'm happy where I am because I don't deny reality in order to keep beliefs, I accept both.

Wow! Who's forcing? I'm not forcing anything on anyone. Believe in evolution if you wish. Be a Christian and believe that God created by evolution if you wish. I think you are absolutely wrong on the matter, but it is a matter of proper biblical interpretation and if someone decides to disregard it, then that is between them and God. But it doesn't mean they are not saved or going to heaven.

I know all about evolution and how it is supposed to work etc. It's still nonsense and impossible. But that's my decision and as far as atheists are concerned, they CANNOT believe in creation because if they did they would have to admit there was a God. So, I don't really care if my stance on creation bothers them.

 

[loveofourlord]

Wow! Who's forcing? I'm not forcing anything on anyone. Believe in evolution if you wish. Be a Christian and believe that God created by evolution if you wish. I think you are absolutely wrong on the matter, but it is a matter of proper biblical interpretation and if someone decides to disregard it, then that is between them and God. But it doesn't mean they are not saved or going to heaven.

I know all about evolution and how it is supposed to work etc. It's still nonsense and impossible. But that's my decision and as far as atheists are concerned, they CANNOT believe in creation because if they did they would have to admit there was a God. So, I don't really care if my stance on creation bothers them.

Keep lying to yourself that evolution is just a excuse to not believe in god, how about learning about things, and you don't or your the first creationist that does, because no one else here can even explain how evolution works.

 

[rjs330]

Keep lying to yourself that evolution is just a excuse to not believe in god, how about learning about things, and you don't or your the first creationist that does, because no one else here can even explain how evolution works.

You misunderstand. For atheists evolution is not the reason they don't believe. They don't believe for any number of reasons. There were atheists long before evolution became the pedominant theory of the day. There were atheists when creation was the thought. They just don't believe in God and now they have a stronger reason not to because they can fall back on evolution as a scientific theory that in their eyes completely disproves creation. Therefore furthering their thought that there is no God. It's not THE excuse it is just one of many. Just by definition an atheist cannot believe in creation. They didn't before evolution was the predominant theory and they still don't now that it is.

 

[loveofourlord]

You misunderstand. For atheists evolution is not the reason they don't believe. They don't believe for any number of reasons. There were atheists long before evolution became the pedominant theory of the day. There were atheists when creation was the thought. They just don't believe in God and now they have a stronger reason not to because they can fall back on evolution as a scientific theory that in their eyes completely disproves creation. Therefore furthering their thought that there is no God. It's not THE excuse it is just one of many. Just by definition an atheist cannot believe in creation. They didn't before evolution was the predominant theory and they still don't now that it is.

Ahhh okay that makes more sense :> Sorry I thought you were going with the they believe in evolution so they don't have to believe in god rather they accept evolution because they are atheists heh. Not a fan of the other one that tries to tell others their reasons and such.

I've spent years coming to underststand evolution, I'm far from a expert or anything, but I underst5and it I accept evolution as a fact because everything I see about it works. I see the patterns, I see the information, my concern with creationism is that it just isn't tenable with the facts I see. You have the bible that says one thing, and everything we can study in the world says another thing, I believe in god, and Jesus, so reality is what reality is, there is no assumptions, unless you want to go into nihilist level of questioning things, because to say were making assumptions about evolution is equivalent of saying were making assumptions that reality is real, least with everything I've seen. I acept evolution because there is a great tapestry of facts and evidence woven together by other facts, you have evidence from too many different things, including the age of the earth and things, things that are unrelated to each other excpet that they both point towards evolution.

The pattern of morphology fits the pattern of DNA, wich fits the pattern of unexplainable simularities. Things like genes that we have wich are only explainable if we evolved from earlier species that used said genes, same with many animals, The number of broken genes we and many animals carry that would be useless to us but are useful to ancestors fits what we see.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

Then why do you all work so hard to convince people that it is impossible to believe in Christ unless they also believe in a literal Genesis? No other explanation accounts for the hostility, the snide comments about "so-called Christians" and the like. Atheists are treated with more civility.
When I lived in the Bible Belt I am ashamed to say I kind of let it out that I was one, because it was better than being a "Bible-hating, Christ-denying commie." There wasn't a church with four hours drive I would have been welcome in anyway. I know you, you are a relatively decent fellow for a Fundamentalist, but look at some of your colleagues, read some of their posts and see if I'm not right.

I've never come across anyone who believes the account in Genesis to be describing literal history, what you may commonly refer to as "Creationists," to say that it is impossible to believe in Christ. The views expressed here are the ones with which I am familiar amongst Creationists, so I'd be interested to see some examples of the hostility to other Christians that you refer to above, originating from people with creationist beliefs. I would venture to suggest that if they or anyone else is behaving in that way, then they are not doing so with our Lord's approval and therefore ought to re-examine their hearts.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

Ahhh okay that makes more sense :> Sorry I thought you were going with the they believe in evolution so they don't have to believe in god rather they accept evolution because they are atheists heh. Not a fan of the other one that tries to tell others their reasons and such.

I've spent years coming to underststand evolution, I'm far from a expert or anything, but I underst5and it I accept evolution as a fact because everything I see about it works. I see the patterns, I see the information, my concern with creationism is that it just isn't tenable with the facts I see. You have the bible that says one thing, and everything we can study in the world says another thing, I believe in god, and Jesus, so reality is what reality is, there is no assumptions, unless you want to go into nihilist level of questioning things, because to say were making assumptions about evolution is equivalent of saying were making assumptions that reality is real, least with everything I've seen. I acept evolution because there is a great tapestry of facts and evidence woven together by other facts, you have evidence from too many different things, including the age of the earth and things, things that are unrelated to each other excpet that they both point towards evolution.

The pattern of morphology fits the pattern of DNA, wich fits the pattern of unexplainable simularities. Things like genes that we have wich are only explainable if we evolved from earlier species that used said genes, same with many animals, The number of broken genes we and many animals carry that would be useless to us but are useful to ancestors fits what we see.

You might find Evolution's Achilles' Heels an interesting read, if the reviews are anything to go by. I have the DVD version, which I found to be very enlightening and I may yet buy the book as well as it has received largely very positive reviews on Amazon. The "What you aren't being told about astronomy" series is also fascinating and contains some stunning photographs of the universe created by "The Word" of God.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

ignore that the fact that the same science that gets us computers and to the moon is what figures out evolution

Sensible thing to do because they are apparently not the same type of science at all: See example explanations here, here and here.

 

[loveofourlord]

Sensible thing to do because they are apparently not the same type of science at all: See example explanations here, here and here.

No offense, but thats just idiotic nonsense stuff made up by creationists that didn't like that science didn't fit their preconcieved ideas, no one in actual science considers them valid. It's the same method, it's the same science, the method that lets us learn about the world and brought us towards making computers is the same science that tells us the earth is billions of years old. The same physics and quantum physics that explain how a computer works, is the same one that tells us how old the rocks on earth are, and wouldn't work if they were based upon asumptions.


Take carbon dating, we can use multiple references to prove something.

we know that a town was in a area 6300 years ago from carbon dating of objects and bones there, the trees that are still in that area line up with tree rings from older trees and stumps, we can carbon date a fire that went through the area and left burn marks on the tree to the same period and so on.

Same with any radiometric dating, when you can get 10 different methods getting the same result, it's unlikly that something could make all 10 of them inacurate in the same way.

This is how science works, you guys say were making asumptions, only assumption we make is that the methods we devise now are usable to find the past, since there is no known way that could change the decay rates of things, or change the speed of light in a vacuum and such, there is no reason to assume that these methods would be inacurate. What creationists have to do is come up with ad hoc reasoning, "Well maybe the speed of light was faster in the past, or something some how caused radioactive decay rates to go up without killing all life on the planet through radiation or heat." and such.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

Oxford English Dictionary Definition:-
sci·ence / Ñ 'saIJns; NAmE Ñ / noun 1 knowledge about the structure and behaviour of the natural and physical world, based on facts that you can prove, for example by experiments [emphasis added]
I'd be interested to see a list of facts that have been proven and the repeatable experiments that have been carried out to support such proofs.

Same with any radiometric dating, when you can get 10 different methods getting the same result, it's unlikly that something could make all 10 of them inacurate in the same way.

So what would you conclude when the opposite happens, i.e., several different methods return totally different dates and all of them wrong? Would that not suggest that the method is not as foolproof as is often claimed?

 

[loveofourlord]

Oxford English Dictionary Definition:-
sci·ence / Ñ 'saIJns; NAmE Ñ / noun 1 knowledge about the structure and behaviour of the natural and physical world, based on facts that you can prove, for example by experiments [emphasis added]
I'd be interested to see a list of facts that have been proven and the repeatable experiments that have been carried out to support such proofs.
So what would you conclude when the opposite happens, i.e., several different methods return totally different dates and all of them wrong? Would that not suggest that the method is not as foolproof as is often claimed?

Well yeah, any method isn't 100% correct, wich is why scientists know their limitations, some dating methods can't be used too recently, or too far away, things like the resevoire *sp?* effect can throw off methods and so on.

And like many creationists you missunderstood the quote, the tests that are used to discover evolution can be performed by anyone, I can send the samples to 30 different labs and each can verify the dates, I can have multiple people independantly look at the data and so on.

Thats what science is all about, there is no money proving, "Yup we were right about evolution all along." what gets you famous is disproving it, but lets say cerationism is correct, it won't happen over night, the times when science changed it's minds took time because science isn't going to change by one or two experiments, maybe the method is wrong, or maybe there is something else going on.

Most creationist attempts to disprove evolution or a old earth are flawed this way, they find a anomoly like snail shells showing to be thousands of years old when they are still alive, science goes, "hmmm this is interesting why is this." Well turns out that some animals like seals and snails feed on sources of old carbon, throwing off data, this is well known. This is why you use multple independant methods to find information and use the methods as designed.

 

[myownmynativeland]

There are mountains of evidence for evolution. It is corroborated by research in every field. Scientists are basically unanimous these days. The only ones who won't give in, after 150 years, are the fundamentalists.

So for me, and many others I'm sure, it's either theistic evolution or we simply can not believe in Christianity.
This is why Christians should stop telling people they can't believe in evolution. Is a person's belief in evolution going to send them to Hell, as long as they believe that Jesus has saved them and they have accepted him? No! As long as the central belief is there, it doesn't matter what a person thinks about the origin of the earth. It's like whether a person believes in post-Trib or pre-Trib. Who the hell cares?

If Christians keep pushing the view that people can't believe in both Christianity and evolution, many potential Christians will be lost. They will be pushed away from the church as it becomes increasingly anachronistic. The will say, "I believe in evolution; of course I can't be a Christian." But that's only because Christians themselves have promoted this view. They have a damn grudge match with evolution. Christianity and evolution need not be mutually exclusive.

I believe in evolution, and in my view, if God was involved, it is an absolutely beautiful phenomenon. It is the work of a master artist, a supremely brilliant engineer. A single-celled organism gave way to all of the life we see on earth around us. It's amazing! Praise be to God for this glorious master work that shows us his incredible ingenuity.

Evolution of the darwinian sort cannot even explain how the first cell came to be. Evolution is accepted by 'science' only because 'science' has been carefully redefined to remove Intelligent Design from consideration as 'unscientific'. Once that has been done of course evolution must be 'true' because its the only possible explanation for life remaining.

 

[loveofourlord]

Evolution of the darwinian sort cannot even explain how the first cell came to be. Evolution is accepted by 'science' only because 'science' has been carefully redefined to remove Intelligent Design from consideration as 'unscientific'. Once that has been done of course evolution must be 'true' because its the only possible explanation for life remaining.

You say that like it's 0%, oh no science doesn't even have a clue...actually we have a pretty good idea how the first cells formed, we may not know the direct method used, but there is enough information out there that show just about every part of the cell can form on it's own, but sure...lets just pretend like we know nothing, keep telling yourself that.

 

[myownmynativeland]

You say that like it's 0%, oh no science doesn't even have a clue...actually we have a pretty good idea how the first cells formed, we may not know the direct method used, but there is enough information out there that show just about every part of the cell can form on it's own, but sure...lets just pretend like we know nothing, keep telling yourself that.

If the 'information' was 'out there' yu would be quoting it. Truth is darwinian evolution simply does not pass the irreducible complexity test even close to the point of getting to that first cell. I mean REALLY- ya think 10 trillion trillion monkeys given 10 billion years would by shear accident build the computer industry of Silicon Valley?

Right now science is on the early verge of assembling some made to order life forms- some of which may be able to survive outside the lab even when our civilisation has collapsed in ruin. The next civilisation when/if it adapts that darwinian slant on science will be utterly unable to recognise these products of Intelligent Design due to their distortion of what science really is.

 

[sfs]

Evolution of all things coming from a single common ancestor is not a fact.

Sure it is, in the only sense that means anything in a scientific context: it's so well supported by such a wide range of evidence that we don't have to worry that it might be false.

 

[Speedwell]

If the 'information' was 'out there' yu would be quoting it. Truth is darwinian evolution simply does not pass the irreducible complexity test even close to the point of getting to that first cell. I mean REALLY- ya think 10 trillion trillion monkeys given 10 billion years would by shear accident build the computer industry of Silicon Valley?

LOL! They did, and it didn't take that long or take that many monkeys.