How many Christians accept evolution, and how many reject it?

[TheBear]

Originally posted by ThienAn
seebs & and all other evolutionists,

if we have evolved, then what did we evolve from?

We evolved from very first thought God had, when He decided to create us.

 

[Andrew]

Why do you need to evolve? Weren't you good enough to just remain as an ape? Having to evolve sounds like something isnt goo enough yet, more has to change, new information added etc.

Yet God said it was good after he created! For that matter the Bible says "created" not "evolved". Yah big revelation for some.

quote: "The Chinese etymology thing is, quite simply, totally wrong."

I'm Chinese Singaporean. And I'll say its certainly NOT totally wrong.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by Andrew
Why do you need to evolve? Weren't you good enough to just remain as an ape? Having to evolve sounds like something isnt goo enough yet, more has to change, new information added etc.

Even Answers In Genesis accepts microevolution. As to "new information added", if you don't know information theory, you're not gonna be able to argue this.

Yet God said it was good after he created! For that matter the Bible says "created" not "evolved". Yah big revelation for some.

The Bible also says that the earth is fixed in place, and refers to the "corners" of the earth, and talks about the "evil spirits" which cause diseases.

If we are to interpret the Creation story as literal, then God is a liar, and Paul's comment in Romans about looking at the world around us for testimony to His power is a lie too.

quote: "The Chinese etymology thing is, quite simply, totally wrong."

I'm Chinese Singaporean. And I'll say its certainly NOT totally wrong.

I speak and read Chinese, and I've checked my notes with a bunch of other people who speak Chinese. The etymologies provided are just plain wrong, in the following ways:

1. They always assume that there's no "sound" radical in a character; this is very rarely the case in Chinese, so at least one of the "meanings" is being added.

2. They subdivide radicals into components as if they were other radicals, which is not how Chinese written language works. (e.g., given a bull, they separated it into "life" and "dirt", but that's not how that radical works.)

3. Sometimes, they're just plain wrong; in the famous 8-people-boat, the thing they say is an eight isn't an eight, and the thing they say is "people" isn't that either.

The etymologies are plausible enough to fool someone who doesn't know anything about Chinese etymology or linguistics. However, even casual study by an honest party quickly reveals them to be nonsense.

Even apart from all of that, the most serious problem is simply that there's a huge amount of hand-waving and "obviously this means..." going on. When there's a mouth/breath symbol in the word for create, it takes a bit of running around to say "breath (from God)". The idea that the alleged breath comes from God (if indeed that's the meaning of that part, which is hardly guaranteed in Chinese characters) is totally unsupported by the characters.

If you start by assuming that Genesis is literally true, you can find a few dozen, out of fifty thousand, Chinese characters for which you can compose stories that sound similar to Genesis.

This is not particularly informative. You can make up stories for any language. The "Chinese etymology" argument has all the argumentative power of saying that, since Eden is an anagram for "need", it proves that we all "need" to be with God.

Whether the conclusion is true or not, the argument is totally uninformative.

I recommend you pick up a basic linguistics text and study how Chinese writing *actually* came to be, or what the early creation stories were actually like.

 

[TheBear]

Originally posted by Andrew
Why do you need to evolve?

Why do we need to grow and change, emotionally, mentaly and spiritually, after we become Christians? The plain fact is, evolution, (or change), is a constant fact of life and the universe.

 

Weren't you good enough to just remain as an ape?

Please do some studying on the subject. Man did not descend from apes.

 Having to evolve sounds like something isnt goo enough yet, more has to change, new information added etc.

And, who among us are ever good enough to say, "I have no need to mature, learn or grow in the Lord. I am perfect just the way I am. No need for change."? Yet, aren't we perfect in the eyes of God? Think about it.

Yet God said it was good after he created! For that matter the Bible says "created" not "evolved". Yah big revelation for some.

And, we are perfect, in the eyes of the Father, but we have our work cut out for us, here on earth.

 

John

 

 

[TheBear]

Here is something to ponder. Why didn't God just snap His fingers, and create everything instantaneously, instead of it taking minutes, hours and days?

 

 

[Andrew]

"Even Answers In Genesis accepts microevolution. As to "new information added", if you don't know information theory, you're not gonna be able to argue this. "

And if you dont have Spirit revelation you're never gonna see it in the Scriptures.

"Why do we need to grow and change, emotionally,Êmentaly and spiritually, after we become Christians? "

Whats that gotta do with turning from a fish to a horse to an ape to a human to a humanoid....what's next? Are we talking abt evolution or something else altogether?

"Please do some studying on the subject. Man did not descend from apes. "

Oh so now they're changing their faulty theories again. So what did men descend from this time? a dog?

"And, we are perfect, in the eyes of the Father, but we have our work cut out for us, here on earth"

Amen, and its got nothing to do with evolving into something with wings or eyes behind your head.

One thing i know about the evolution debate is this: Those who stand in the middle and try to mix the two (creation with evolution) are 'laughed at' by those who know their Bibles and by the evolutionist scientists themselves.

 

[seebs]

Andrew, what you "know" is not true. Many evolutionary biologists are religious. They are not "laughed at" by other scientists.

I'd also point out that "evolutionism" is a pretty ill-chosen word; it's not a "belief" in the same way that "creationism" is. Acceptance of evolution is a consequence of multiple different kinds of evidence; acceptence of creation is based on a specific interpretation of a specific text.

 

[TheBear]

Oh so now they're changing their faulty theories again. So what did men descend from this time? a dog?

Whoever said that man descended from apes?