For the christians who believe in evolution.

[chickenman]

This is something someone posted on another board about christians who believe in evolution. I'm an atheist who believes in evolution, so I didn't feel like I could counter his argument, but maybe some of you guys could tell me how you reconcile genesis with evolution. Anyway, here is what the guy wrote;

"darwin may have said he was a christian, but coulnd not have possibly been one. much the same way you guys say you are but aren't really. here's why not (not copied off anything): if there was no creation, there was no Eden. if there was no Eden, there was no original sin. if there was no original sin, there was no condemnation on the world. if there is no condemnation, there is no need for a saviour. if there is no need for a saviour, there is no need for Jesus. if there is no need for Jesus, his death was pointless."

 

[jon1101]

Yeah, creationists quite frequently form a link between creationism and Christianity, saying that evolutionists contradict the Bible. While I am undecided on this issue, it seems to me that it may be similar to burning your bridges before you have a boat - creation science, at this point, is having a hard time refuting evolution and yet they still say that evolution defies Christianity. Thus, if they lose the science argument, they have taken their religion down with them.

Regardless, the science of the Bible is always reinterpretted to fit modern science, sooner or later. If conclusive proof for evolution is someday given - as space shuttle flights so conclusively prove a round earth - then the church at that time will look back with disdain upon the church who battled evolution. Only time will tell.

-jon

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by chickenman
This is something someone posted on another board about christians who believe in evolution. I'm an atheist who believes in evolution, so I didn't feel like I could counter his argument, but maybe some of you guys could tell me how you reconcile genesis with evolution. Anyway, here is what the guy wrote;

"darwin may have said he was a christian, but coulnd not have possibly been one. much the same way you guys say you are but aren't really. here's why not (not copied off anything): if there was no creation, there was no Eden. if there was no Eden, there was no original sin. if there was no original sin, there was no condemnation on the world. if there is no condemnation, there is no need for a saviour. if there is no need for a saviour, there is no need for Jesus. if there is no need for Jesus, his death was pointless."

Okay, just so you know:

The official Christian response to this is a belly-laugh.

That may, in extreme circumstances, fail to convince.

To summarize, as a Christian who has never, in his life, believed in literal creationism... IT IS A METAPHOR. AN ALLEGORY(*). It is a way for us to understand the entrance of sin into the world. I could spend *months* debating what, if any, real world event it represents. I would tend to suggest that it describes the point at which one particular species of primate became ready for God to breath "life" into us, making us *people*, rather than smart animals. However... I have no idea. I don't know.

I also don't *need* to know exactly what it means; it's enough to take out of it the following messages:

1. God made everything.
2. That includes us.
3. We have the knowledge of good and evil.
4. With that knowledge comes the possibility that, knowing what good is, we choose evil anyway.
5. This makes God sad.
6. God loves us anyway.

There's a lot more details, but that's the core message; with this in place, the reasons for Jesus are much more comprehensible.

BTW, I would also point out that saying "well, then there was no need for Jesus" is pretty unsupportable within Christian theology. If God wants to do something, we don't have any grounds to argue. If I believe God sent Jesus because of something that happened in Eden, and then I find out that there wasn't an Eden, the correct conclusion is not "then God didn't send Jesus after all", but rather "my previous theory about God's motives was wrong."

Hope this helps! I'm too lazy to read this forum all the time, but I'll try to pop back in case you have followup questions.

 

[allieisme]

LOL Seebs.. Belly Laugh..

If you are a true Christian, how can you believe in evolution? HMMM

allie

 

[elephanticity]

5 Alrighty then
As posted in 'dinosaurs and the bible' thread, some of the people at TalkOrigins have discussed non-literal interpretations of Genesis, and religion in general:


I would then provide links straight to
Interpretations of Genesis:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/interpretations.html

and God and Evolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html

 

[cjnelson]

just an observation...On my search for knowledge and truth I've come to find that evolution (Darwinian that is) contradicts all that we currently know about science. I have yet to see any evidence that has stood any scientific scrutiny. Correct me if I'm wrong or point me in the right direction to finding some of these tests confirming evolution. Now I don't believe in this young earth view of creation which also ignores the vast database of information that has been acquired over time. When we step back and look at the body of knowledge we have so far, it's hard to see where evolutionary mechanisms can operate when it comes to speciation and doesn't make sense to assume that the creation of the universe and everything that we see today occured in six 24 hour days. I hope this makes sense. In these forums I hear a lot about thinking for yourself. We need to wake up and realize that if we use this great gift of a brain that God has given us, we can understand a lot more than many think we can. like I said just an observation. God Bless...

 

[mac_philo]

Saying 'darwinism contradicts everything we know about science' is so all-encompassing it is content-free. Why not name at least one thing it contradicts, so that we have a topic to work with.

For a start, the science faculties at every reputable university in the world, who are trained to detect inconsistency, disagree with you. Doesn't that somewhat rattle your conviction that every single scientific observation, theory, and conclusion directly contradicts something that 99.9% of them accept?

 

[cjnelson]

I apologize for making an "all encompassing" statement like that. What I should have specified is that I haven't seen anything yet that supports the evolutionary model to the extent to 'rattle my conviction'. I am not convinced that evolution is the answer. I have not seen anything to convince me.

I didn't give an example to contradictions due to the fact that I don't have the sources on my at the moment, and I know how ya'll like to have the source of my info. I will, however, in a future post do just that. I just wanted to express my view and I guess, more importantly, a way of thinking about this issue, or debate, or whatever you want to call it.

God Bless

 

[mac_philo]

Here's a good example of observed evolution in salamanders:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/05/2/l_052_05.html

It's clear case of observed evolution. It also explains how speciation occurs, as these salamanders are a 'ring species.' Plus, salamanders are just cool.

Have fun.

 

[cjnelson]

I wouldn't exactly say that this was a good example. The article didn't give any source information itself. To even consider this information I would need some references to back up some of the statements that they made like "These two populations coexist in some areas but do not interbreed -- and evidently cannot do so." It's one thing to say the they do not interbreed but something totally different to state the they can't. I wouldn't be suprised, though, if they couldn't but they didn't give references to how they determined this. But I won't dismiss this article just for that but I wanted to point that out. More importantly, I don't think this makes the case for biological evolution to the extent of changing from one type of animal to another. If you take the mechanisms involved in the processes that caused these changes there are limits in what can accomplished. you keep going down the road and you still have salamanders.

God Bless

 

[mac_philo]

If you want to read primary sources, which it seems you do, you're probably going to have to go to the nearest university library, or find a website that will give you access (free or paid) to an academic database. Reputable academics publish in journals, and posting their primary work on the web is the exception, not the rule.

The web is full of reputable secondary sources and a lot of bogus primary sources. Perhaps if you searched for David Wake's homepage, you'll find that he has put some of his pubished articles online. But you'll probably have to either read the actual print journals or find an account for an academic database like JSTOR.

Otherwise you could explore the rest of that site's resources:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/index.html

 

[RufusAtticus]

CJNelson,

If you're willing to read a scientific paper, I suggest you get a copy of this one. It describes research done in the London Underground with mosquitoes. Basically, underground populations, although descended from surface ones can no longer breed with them. It's a wonderful example of reproductive isolation occuring in the last 200 years.

The TalkOrigins Archive is good source on the internet for information on evolution.

You might also want to find a copy of Evolutionary Biology by Douglas Futuyma. It's the standard text in undergraduate evolutionary biology.

 

[chickenman]

I realised he was being ridiculous, I just didn't want to speak for christians

 

[Sinai]

Originally posted by chickenman (who copied it from another source and asked for responses from Christians):
if there was no creation, there was no Eden. if there was no Eden, there was no original sin. if there was no original sin, there was no condemnation on the world. if there is no condemnation, there is no need for a saviour. if there is no need for a saviour, there is no need for Jesus. if there is no need for Jesus, his death was pointless."

The reality and validity of sin is not negated just because someone at some website uses faulty or questionable logic in setting up a premise. It also does not negate our need for a Savior.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by allieisme

If you are a true Christian, how can you believe in evolution? HMMM

It's easy for me; I believe that God made everything, but I don't think the Bible is a science textbook. He told people that He made everything; they interpreted, embellished, adapted, and incorporated things into the story to make it remotely plausible, and we have a nice allegory with a bit of pure myth thrown in to make people stop asking "What's the sky made of" until we had the ability to understand some of the real answers.

 

[mac_philo]

Good thing you're a believer, bigjohn, or that post would be history.

It's clear that you aren't here to discuss evolution, just to issue your proclamations. Well, we've all heard them now. In case you may be unaware, you're not a particularly convincing or gracious speaker, so if your goal is to enlist people to your side, you'd do better to let others do the talking for you. Just a strategic tip.

 

[BigJon]

i done gave up on discussing on any real deep subjects mainly due to the lack of sense some of you people have, to tell the truth I've seen 1 person on these evolution threads with smarts, the rest of you are either 1 rationalizing things to fit God in to evolution or 2 you dont give a rats behind about God your just here to claim evolution is right and ask wheres the science in creation.

 

[chickenman]

bigjon, I don't think you're the person to be evaluating "smarts", your arguments are pure rhetoric, with no evidence or logic behind them

 

[edgeo]

Originally posted by BigJon
i done gave up on discussing on any real deep subjects mainly due to the lack of sense some of you people have ...

Then why are you here? If it is such an ordeal for you, why not consider going someplace else?

 

[TheBear]

Okay everyone. I just moved one post to the trash bin. Let's keep things civil, and discuss the topic, not the intelligence or motives of other members.

Thanks,
John