How many christans believe in Evolution

[ebia]

Hmm then whats the problem?

What problem? I don't have a problem (well, not one to do with reconcilling Genesis and the ToE anyway). It would be inappropriate in this forum for me to comment on behalf of those who do.

 

[aiki]

I am going to keep this short so I dont break any rule.
Creationism: God created everything
Evolution: Species change over time
How they can be used together: God created everything using evolution as a tool to create his animals and humans and perfect them over time.
Would this work christians?

For some but not for others.

You don't seem to understand that true evolution has never been shown to actually occur. Natural selection, mutation, speciation - none of these introduce new genetic information into the process of evolution, which cannot occur without such information. Why then should evolution be given so much authority that even the Bible must be shaped to accommodate it?

Nothing about the Genesis account of creation suggests it is merely metaphor. New Testament writers make much of the parallel between the first Adam and Christ the "second Adam." These writers do not treat the Genesis account as simply symbolic. In their minds Adam was a real, literal person just as Christ is. The six days of work followed by a seventh of rest described in the Ten Commandments is justified by a literal six days of creation and then a seventh during which God "rested." This all becomes rather nonsensical if creation never actually occured in six days. And so the problems go.

Peace to you.

 

[Foreshadow]

I see. Thanks for the responses

 

[Andreusz]

In any event, the Theory of Evolution remains unsubstantiated by science. As I said, there has never been a single instance where the necessary generation of new, never-before-seen genetic information has occurred.

Observed Instances of Speciation

Moreover, the Theory of Evolution cannot account for the genetic information which already exists. It takes information to generate even a single cell, or even the various parts of a cell. Where does this information come from? Evolution cannot say. In light of these facts it seems unnecessary - and theologically dangerous - to attempt to reconcile the Word of God to this unproven theory by suggesting the creation account is merely metaphor.

You need to do more reading about evolutionary theory. You cannot attack something if you don't understand it properly.

 

[ebia]

Observed Instances of Speciation




You need to do more reading about evolutionary theory. You cannot attack something if you don't understand it properly.

You are not allowed to say that in this forum.


As a non-Christian you may start your own threads but you may not comment in threads started by others. Debating is also not allowed - however wrong you may understand someone to be.

 

[aiki]

You need to do more reading about evolutionary theory. You cannot attack something if you don't understand it properly.

Actually, I've done plenty; I know whereof I speak (or write, in this instance).

Peace to you.

 

[brad_0812]

No i can't say i do believe in evo lol, i just don't see how we came from monkeys
Or was it fish first??

 

[Azureknight 773]

Oh man! I have to be short here. I say "NO!" absolutely "NO!".
For God created everything distinct from each other. So even this proves it. Or would we rather argue further? Better not for arguing this matter just makes another argument. So peace out fellow Christians (Although I might be a Catholic) and let's be glad that our Lord YAHWEH is kind for giving us such IQ level like no creature on Earth ever has.

 

[Foreshadow]

Can atheists debate with Christians in this forum? I dont want to reply to Brad until I know.

 

[solarwave]

If you want to debate you might want to put a thread in a different forum, such as philosophy?

By the way your not actually 13 are you

I believe God created the world, but also in the big bang and evolution and that genesis is symbolic. The bible is about the relationship between man and God, not a science book.

Although in the NT they talk about Adam, it doesn't mean they ment it literally. I sometimes talk about genesis as if I think it literal since it is a helpful way to understand the world.

 

[ebia]

Can atheists debate with Christians in this forum? I dont want to reply to Brad until I know.

No.

 

[Foreshadow]

Oh well good thing I didnt do that

 

[Foreshadow]

If you want to debate you might want to put a thread in a different forum, such as philosophy?

By the way your not actually 13 are you

I believe God created the world, but also in the big bang and evolution and that genesis is symbolic. The bible is about the relationship between man and God, not a science book.

Although in the NT they talk about Adam, it doesn't mean they ment it literally. I sometimes talk about genesis as if I think it literal since it is a helpful way to understand the world.

I I am in fact 13 years old.

 

[Stinker]

For some but not for others.

You don't seem to understand that true evolution has never been shown to actually occur. Natural selection, mutation, speciation - none of these introduce new genetic information into the process of evolution, which cannot occur without such information. Why then should evolution be given so much authority that even the Bible must be shaped to accommodate it?

Nothing about the Genesis account of creation suggests it is merely metaphor. New Testament writers make much of the parallel between the first Adam and Christ the "second Adam." These writers do not treat the Genesis account as simply symbolic. In their minds Adam was a real, literal person just as Christ is. The six days of work followed by a seventh of rest described in the Ten Commandments is justified by a literal six days of creation and then a seventh during which God "rested." This all becomes rather nonsensical if creation never actually occured in six days. And so the problems go.

Peace to you.

Theistic Evolutionists believe that the creation account was written not to be understood as literal. That it was an answer that those ancients could understand as to how everything came to be. That God was the inspiration of this writing.

Naturalistic evolution is a theory. It is a Philosophy because it cannot be verified. By verified I mean we cannot witness micro-evolution evolving into macro-evolution across the spectum of earth's species. Therefore, like Creationism (which also cannot be verified) Naturalistic Evolution remains in the realm of Philosophy. Theistic Evolution (which is the only way evolution could have occurred) remains in the realm of Philosphy as well, since it too cannot be verified.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

So when did mankind evolve to the point where there became an Adam with a spirit/soul, and God started placing a spirit/soul within his mate and their offspring, it is asked? I have not read any posts addressing at which point in man's evolution this occurred.

 

[Foreshadow]

thanks Stinker

 

[kotwebck]

Evolution is a theory ... you can not believe in or debate a theory

 

[Andreusz]

Naturalistic evolution is a theory. It is a Philosophy because it cannot be verified..

No it is a scientific theory. Scientific theories are not meant to be verified; they are phrased in such a way that they can be falsified. As long as they remain unfalsified, and as long as they explain all the known facts, they are accepted as correct. The Darwinian theory of evolution by natural selection has never been falsified, instead it has been corroborated by every fact ever observed about living creatures, including, most importantly, the facts of genetics and animal genomes.

 

[ebia]

It depends exactly what he means by Naturalistic evolution.

However:

Scientific theories are not meant to be verified; they are phrased in such a way that they can be falsified. As long as they remain unfalsified, and as long as they explain all the known facts, they are accepted as correct.

Is not quite true.

 

[kotwebck]

Exept in the cases, where they now blame our dating process ... Human skeletons dating at the same time as Neanderthal man (found in Africa) etc.

As scientific discoveries are made, we get more insight into the creation process, and who knows, maybe Adam did look different, who knows maybe it was part of the creation process (the word we translated as day, could also mean age or period).

I just don't believe in the modern tendency to teach and market/proclaim half proven theories as truth.

Yes, and I can't wait to really know the answers oneday ...

 

[Andreusz]

It depends exactly what he means by Naturalistic evolution.

However:


Is not quite true.

Explain?