How could evolution be reconcilable with Christianity?

[bloodbought09]

You've got no idea what you are talking about! - I am a Christian and I have faith in God

And please provide us with some of this so called "evidence" that you have refered to - thanks

Come on evolution is not entirely of God. Who thought of the theories and besides it is called a theory and not a principal or law. Some have assumed it to be law. Who sowed this idea and what has it reaped. God is not mocked, what we sow we will also reap.

You have faith in God and.........

Is there anything else we need than God?

My grace is sufficient........Works for me.

 

[Celtic D]

I repeat - I HAVE FAITH IN GOD

Please do not put words into my mouth which I did not say - thank you!

 

[bloodbought09]

As per the other thread bloodbought09 please can you put your writngs into logical paragraphs I can't follow what you are saying the way it is currently written, and I have better things to do with my time than try and decifer what you are saying - thank you

Now you lean on your logistics. It makes perfect sense to me. But if you were more familiar with the bible you would understand the language I am using.

As for me, I am not tremendously skilled in science or scientific thought. That just is not where my focus is. My focus is on the word of God. Not the words of men. For his thoughts are higher than our thoughts and His ways higher than our ways. Spend some more time in His word than in this line of thinking.

If you have departed from His word it is apparent by lack of understanding of biblical text. You would agree that if Jesus is Lord of your life you would care to know more about what it says.

 

[bloodbought09]

Good night. I must get some sleep now. I am but a pilgrim going through this world and thus the world that is presented in this thread. I will most likely not be here long. I have said what needs to be said and will be gone. Some may miss me and others may be happy I am gone. It all depends on whether you care to be convicted, what side you are on, or if you indeed "sit on the fence" so to speak. Either way take it how you will. I cannot be around doubt or watered down faith for long. I just do not care to be cultivated in it. More important to guard the heart. I bid you adeu.

 

[Celtic D]

Now you lean on your logistics. It makes perfect sense to me. But if you were more familiar with the bible you would understand the language I am using.

As for me, I am not tremendously skilled in science or scientific thought. That just is not where my focus is. My focus is on the word of God. Not the words of men. For his thoughts are higher than our thoughts and His ways higher than our ways. Spend some more time in His word than in this line of thinking.

If you have departed from His word it is apparent by lack of understanding of biblical text. You would agree that if Jesus is Lord of your life you would care to know more about what it says.

Its not your language I have difficulty with, it is the layout of your posts. Your recent monologues with no punctuation breaks are difficult to follow.

As for my knowledge of the Bible I am well aversed with what it says and means

 

[CryptoLutheran]

Come on evolution is not entirely of God.

If God is the Author of the universe, then it is.

Who thought of the theories and besides it is called a theory and not a principal or law.

Let me help you out with something. I'm going to give you the accepted definition of a scientific theory,

"a theory that explains scientific observations" (Source). Or could also be phrased as such:

"A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena." (Source)

And what is a "scientific law" or "scientific principle"?

"A law differs from a scientific theory in that it does not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: it is merely a distillation of the results of repeated observation. As such, a law is limited in applicability to circumstances resembling those already observed, and is often found to be false when extrapolated. Ohm's law only applies to constant currents, Newton's law of universal gravitation only applies in weak gravitational fields, the early laws of aerodynamics such as Bernoulli's principle do not apply in case of compressible flow such as occurs in transonic and supersonic flight, Hooke's law only applies to strain below the elastic limit, etc." (Source)

A theory does not become a principle; rather a theory describes phenomena. Thus calling evolution a "theory" does not mean it is unproven, it only means that it describes the processes and mechanisms of an observed phenomenon that when tested and studied and examined time and again continues to work in accurately explaining said observed phenomenon.

Germ Theory, is only a theory, and yet few call into question the reality that most diseases are caused by microorganisms.

Einstein's Theory of General Relativity is only a theory, and yet it is part of the building blocks of modern physics.

Yes, the Theory of Evolution is "only a theory", but it's a theory precisely because it's proven.

Some have assumed it to be law. Who sowed this idea and what has it reaped. God is not mocked, what we sow we will also reap.

It's reaped a better understanding and appreciation for God's good creation. That Young Earth Creationists get their knickers in a twist about it is their problem and theirs alone. Christians have not only accepted evolution since Darwin, Christians have at many times been in the thick of scientific investigation and study--Francis Collins, a devout Evangelical Christian and unabashed evolutionist was the head of the Human Genome Project.

You have faith in God and.........

Is there anything else we need than God?

My grace is sufficient........Works for me.

False dilemma.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[SkyWriting]

I see the exact opposite. A God who has used this amazing process and mechanism to produce all the diversity of life on this planet is an amazing God who is worthy of all my praise and worship.
-CryptoLutheran

He did engineer the process for diversity. It's not the same process that created life in the first place. We know how evolution works and there's not one passage that hints that it could produce any life on it's own. In fact, the scriptures go into good detail to rule out any idea other than God laid the entire foundation in 6 days.

 

[Celtic D]

That's right, evolution doesn't work on its own - it works because of God!

 

[SkyWriting]

These websites are no more scientic than fly in the air. There is NOT a scientific case for Adam and Eve.

Not as a married couple living together. But if you think of a modern separated couple living in different places with joint child custody....it's a very scientic idea:

Geneticist Searches for DNA of "Adam," the First Human
Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam Diagrams
African Origin of Modern Humans in East Asia: A Tale of 12,000 Y Chromosomes
Mitochondrial Eve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Y-chromosomal Adam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[SkyWriting]

... Evolution would not eradicate Chrisitianity, and in no way discredits God. The creation stories are allegorical.

Or completely accurate. Science has no way to discredit any of God's interventions into our world. They seem completely natural.

Is there any mention of a blind man complaining that his new eyes were those of a newborn? Or a lame man complaining that his leg was too short for an adult? No such complaints. What would the CSI squad say?
"Everything was normal."

 

[Celtic D]

Not as a married couple living together. But if you think of a modern separated couple living in different places with joint child custody....it's a very scientic idea:

Geneticist Searches for DNA of "Adam," the First Human
Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam Diagrams
African Origin of Modern Humans in East Asia: A Tale of 12,000 Y Chromosomes
Mitochondrial Eve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Y-chromosomal Adam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hmm random references for what??

And did you never learn at school that you don't quote wiki as a reference.

 

[SkyWriting]

Secondly, evolution ignores none of the scientific "laws" known to man. Anyone who has any genuine interest in looking at any of the science at all knows this.

That depends. If your faith is placed in evolution to form complicated life from simple life, then you've broken the laws of conservation and information science. If you think that rocks backed in the sun long enough will form life and intelligence, then you also broken some laws of science.

But if you just mean that life will diversify on it's own to fill various envoirnmental niches, and that life has been pre-programed through DNA to adapt to conditions, then evolution is ok. As long as we can test our theories, then it's even scientific. Farther back than that, it's all science fiction. And I've read enough SF to know it when I see it.

 

[Celtic D]

Or completely accurate. Science has no way to discredit any of God's interventions into our world. They seem completely natural.

Is there any mention of a blind man complaining that his new eyes were those of a newborn? Or a lame man complaining that his leg was too short for an adult? No such complaints. What would the CSI squad say?
"Everything was normal."

Where have I ever stated that God doesn't intervene???

I am a theistic evolutionist (at least I know what I beleive - you can't decide between young and old earth it would appear!) so yes I believe God created the world.

Most importantly though I am a Christian and I have faith in my Lord and Saviour.

 

[Celtic D]

That depends. If your faith is placed in evolution to form complicated life from simple life, then you've broken the laws of conservation and information science. If you think that rocks backed in the sun long enough will form life and intelligence, then you also broken some laws of science.

But if you just mean that life will diversify on it's own to fill various envoirnmental niches, and that life has been pre-programed through DNA to adapt to conditions, then evolution is ok. As long as we can test our theories, then it's even scientific. Farther back than that, it's all science fiction. And I've read enough SF to know it when I see it.

Prove that creationism happened - and because the Bible says so is NOT an answer!

 

[CryptoLutheran]

He did engineer the process for diversity. It's not the same process that created life in the first place. We know how evolution works and there's not one passage that hints that it could produce any life on it's own. In fact, the scriptures go into good detail to rule out any idea other than God laid the entire foundation in 6 days.

The theory of evolution describes the mechanisms and processes of how life evolves, hence the term evolution. The origins of life is a related, but distinctly different set of questions; and even a naturalistic cause can be identified this does not by any stretch rule out the activity of God anymore than the activity of God is present in other firmly established natural phenomenon--the tides, sexual reproduction, the orbits of celestial bodies, gravitational forces, et al.

A naturalistic explanation for natural phenomenon does not rule out the presence or activity of God; if one ever were to suggest this (I'm not claiming you explicitly did this here) it becomes theologically problematic at best and produces a "God of the gaps" which is, fundamentally, incompatible with Christian theology which posits God as fully present and active in His creation.

Naturalistic explanations do not rule out the activity of God, whether we're talking about, again, the origins of life, evolution, or gravitational forces.

As far as how we ought to read Genesis 1, we might be wise to listen to what our forefathers in the faith have said:

"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation." - St. Augustine of Hippo, On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis

Now Augustine adhered to an allegorical interpretation, that God created the universe instantaneously, in a single moment, based upon his reading of Sirach 18:1; and read the six days as a wholly allegorical affair.

I don't read Genesis 1 allegorically, but Augustine's wisdom here is as relevant today as it was 1600 years ago. I adhere to the Framework Hypothesis, which is significantly different from either an allegorical or historical-literal interpretation. It's what I think makes the most sense of the text without doing harm to the text, a purely historical-literal reading of Genesis 1 is, I believe ultimately too difficult to maintain given what the text actually says (e.g. in the beginning when God starts creating heaven and earth, there is already a primordial ocean). Additionally, Genesis 2 offers a different list of events entirely: Genesis 2 says clearly that no vegetation existed on the earth before God created Adam, it is only after Adam that God plants a garden (Eden), and after this God forms from the ground beasts and birds and living things.

Genesis 1 - Man -> Vegetation -> Animals
Genesis 2 - Vegetation -> Animals -> Man

If the intended purpose of Genesis 1 was to outline the historic and literal mechanisms and history of how the universe and world came into existence such a reading causes far more problems then it could ever hope to solve; both textually, theologically as well as ultimately scientifically.

I grew up a Young Earth Creationist, I just ultimately could not continue being one if I wanted to take the Bible and my Christian faith seriously.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[berachah]

The theory of evolution describes the mechanisms and processes of how life evolves, hence the term evolution. The origins of life is a related, but distinctly different set of questions; and even a naturalistic cause can be identified this does not by any stretch rule out the activity of God anymore than the activity of God is present in other firmly established natural phenomenon--the tides, sexual reproduction, the orbits of celestial bodies, gravitational forces, et al.

Life does not evolve. Evolutionists, with the assumption that there is no God, tried to think of an alternative to the creation story. With that root and now shrouded in pseudo science, half truths, blind faith in the unknown, no actual evidence or ability to reproduce it seems somehow to be enough to convince the masses

Now if you can find something in the Bible to back up your doctrine, you would have made progress. Maybe try reading Genesis 1 and 2 because your other comments on the matter suggest you need to labour a bit further on this part of the Bible.

I grew up a Young Earth Creationist, I just ultimately could not continue being one if I wanted to take the Bible and my Christian faith seriously.
[CryptoLutheran/quote]

I suggest fasting and prayer for enlightening before failing for this false doctrine...

Let me help you out with something. I'm going to give you the accepted definition of a scientific theory,

"a theory that explains scientific observations" (Source). Or could also be phrased as such:

"A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena." (Source)

or
The Oxford English Dictionary says that scientific method is: "a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses

All the above not possible for evolution...


[quote-CrytoLutheran] Yes, the Theory of Evolution is "only a theory", but it's a theory precisely because it's proven.

It is not proven...not by anyone's imagination. Evolutionists and creationists both look at the same data. The only difference is they rely on different belief systems to intepret the evidence. One says there is a Creator and the Biblical record is the truth. The other says there is no God and devises an interpretation of the evidence. The fact that the latter group has managed to convince liberal Christians to dilute their own Word is irrelevant

Christians have not only accepted evolution since Darwin, Christians have at many times been in the thick of scientific investigation and study--Francis Collins, a devout Evangelical Christian and unabashed evolutionist was the head of the Human Genome Project.

Thank God we are specifically called to not be a respector of persons, to not listen to any other doctrine even if it given by angels and to reject things falsely called science.

Ultimately when all truth is revealed about the natural, celestrial and spiritual realm, we will laugh at the stupidity, the arrogance and presumption of man's attempt to explain creation through evolution.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Hi Dark_Lite, I don't think we have ever conversed! I want to know why you chose to use the words "gather food to eat", in Genesis God says "You may eat fruit from any tree except...". The image this draws in my mind is that Adam and Eve could just walk around the utopia eating fruit.

There is nothing in the text that explicitly indicates that the garden and people in it lived in some kind of immortal utopia. The world was created "very good," not perfect. Even after it was said "you shall die if you eat this fruit," Adam and Eve supposedly lived another 900 years. All signs point to a very good (not perfect) world with mortal inhabitants.

Is fruit a living entity?

Yes.

I tend to think of fruit as being an organic shell for the life contained within (the seed).

It grows from plants and has cells. Saying it's an "organic shell" and not living is playing with semantics.

 

[CryptoLutheran]

Life does not evolve. Evolutionists, with the assumption that there is no God, ...

False statement. Evolution is not inherently atheistic, thus this premise is false from the outset.

Now if you can find something in the Bible to back up your doctrine, you would have made progress. Maybe try reading Genesis 1 and 2 because your other comments on the matter suggest you need to labour a bit further on this part of the Bible.

I have. That's precisely why I don't read it historically/literally, but instead theologically/poetically/narratively.

It is not proven...not by anyone's imagination. Evolutionists and creationists both look at the same data. The only difference is they rely on different belief systems to intepret the evidence. One says there is a Creator and the Biblical record is the truth. The other says there is no God and devises an interpretation of the evidence. The fact that the latter group has managed to convince liberal Christians to dilute their own Word is irrelevant

Again, the premise you mentioned in the beginning is patently false. Since Darwin devout Christians have accepted evolution, and much groundwork has been laid in regard to evolution by devout Christians, I mentioned Francis Collins before--the former head of the Human Genome Project and a devout Evangelical Christian.

Thank God we are specifically called to not be a respector of persons, to not listen to any other doctrine even if it given by angels and to reject things falsely called science.

Ultimately when all truth is revealed about the natural, celestrial and spiritual realm, we will laugh at the stupidity, the arrogance and presumption of man's attempt to explain creation through evolution.

Perhaps, or perhaps we will discover at the Eschaton just how marvelous this evolution stuff was in the whole grand scheme of God's teleological purposes for all creation as purposed and revealed in and through Jesus Christ.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Dark_Lite]

K guys,

This is not a debate forum. The debate between Christians here should be taken to Origins Theology. A thread split might be in order, actually...

 

[berachah]

False statement. Evolution is not inherently atheistic, thus this premise is false from the outset.

I think we differ because I look at the spiritual root of a natural manifestation whereas as you do the reverse. One can always tell the root of something by it's fruit. The theory of evolution has done more harm to Christianity, the Body of Christ and even society as a whole than any other demonic doctrine.

I have. That's precisely why I don't read it historically/literally, but instead theologically/poetically/narratively.

Rather stick to the NT if God has been unable to break thru and give revelation of the OT. That way one can avoid having to jump through hoops to develop a doctrine or be forced to import secular beliefs and theories. Alternatively a healthy dose of prayer and fasting will give clarity.

If Genesis is a myth, a story or whatever else besides actual events, then that must be true for the whole of the book, the Pentateuch and indeed the whole OT. And without the OT there is nothing because the NT is essentially revelation and fulfilment of the OT.

[CryptoLutheran] Again, the premise you mentioned in the beginning is patently false. Since Darwin devout Christians have accepted evolution, and much groundwork has been laid in regard to evolution by devout Christians, I mentioned Francis Collins before--the former head of the Human Genome Project and a devout Evangelical Christian. [/quote]

Devout Christians also believed the earth was flat...Does being "devout" make one right or "devoutly wrong"? Rather aligning with the Word of God make one right?

Perhaps, or perhaps we will discover at the Eschaton just how marvelous this evolution stuff was in the whole grand scheme of God's teleological purposes for all creation as purposed and revealed in and through Jesus Christ.

And maybe God will show us how basic organisms sucked genetic material out of the atmosphere to evolve into more complex creatures. NOT!
Lest we forget natural selection ultimately results in the loss of genetic material and not gain....

In this age we will still see evolution being exposed as a scam and false science. Unfortunately it will not be but the hands of Bible believing Christians but rather by a new order thats ushers in the end time anti-Christ.

This is not a debate forum. The debate between Christians here should be taken to Origins Theology. A thread split might be in order, actually...

The question was asked and two opinions have emerged. Seeing as evolution has its root in a doctrine contrary to the Bible it should not be presented as a Christian view, but rather a secular view in Christian disguise, and excluded from this forum......therefore no debate.