My Point Of View On Christianity and Science

davidthefat · Apr 29, 2009

Just a background on me, Im a 15 year old Freshman in Highschool. These are my opinions and theres a big chance they are wrong, most obviously cause of my age... I am a christian, dont think Im an atheist trying to argue or something... So here it goes:

During Biology class today, I sort of had a change in my mind about christianity and science. We were learning about Darwin and his theory on evolution, and I thought to my self "If God gave us a mind to think and discover the world through science, then why are we so against evolution?" I believe that evolution did take place, but not did not start in a pool of amino acids or anything like that. IDK if Pokemon influenced my thinking on this, but in the beginning, I believe God has created alot but not every single one of the animals. God gave them the skill to reproduce and stuff. So I think God made only the "basic" animals like Cat, dog, horse, insect, insect with wing, spiders, ect... and God let them "envolve" to these different species, like there is asian, whites, blacks and other... Just like what happened in Babel, he made the animals disperse and change. Im not saying humans came from monkeys, he made clear that he made humans above all creation, therefor cant be from a monkey. But you get what I'm saying? I also believe in the Big Bang, but it was caused by God, when he spoke, the Big Bang happened, since he is out side the laws of physics and time, one day for him might be for ever, who knows how long it took for it to form the world. I mean a million years for us can be like a second for God. Honestly, I cant imagine Adam naming all the animals if it was as diverse as today... I think we think too much at times though. Christian Theologist and Athiest Scientists arguing all the time. I mean who cares if there was evolution or other crap like that.... It all comes down to this, LOVE, God is LOVE, Jesus Christ died on the cross for LOVE for us, while he obviously can just destroy this world and make us go to heaven back in the days of Babel, he wants to express his LOVE for us... Why do we argue about the stupidest stuff? I mean everyone, I mean EVERYONE agrees Love is the best thing in the world. (may be not those who have been dumped alot, but that wasnt real love in the first place) I mean, if you love, you want the best for that person, no matter what, you would humble your self and go out the way to help them, that is love. You wouldnt lie to them, hurt them, kill them, cheat on their wife/husband, steal from them and other sins if you really love. I think thats what we are lacking right now, LOVE. Its Pride that gets in our way, we are always like "My belief is right and yours is wrong" Instead of debating whether Evolution is true or false, and trying to convince an atheist that he is living a life in sin, ect... Just show through action, and show that its not all talk and then God is love

"KISS" Keep It Simple, Stupid... Just like Matthew 18:3

" 3And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven."

Adoniram · Apr 29, 2009

You're making a lot of sense there, davidthefat. What you describe in the first half of your post is called micro-evolution. I don't know many Christians that have any dispute with that. Macro-evolution, the hypothesis that all life descended from a common ancestor is what many Christians disagree with, because it contradicts what the Bible says about God creating different kinds of animals, including man, by simple command. As far as the Big Bang thing, yah I can see that. I mean God says "Let there be," and bang....there it is....the universe in all it's glory.

And you're also spot on in the second half of your post. Especially "Just show through action, and show that its not all talk and then God is love."

Good job.

theVirginian · Apr 29, 2009

Good for you! You'll go far if you can hold on to your ideals for the next 10 years, and make no mistake, you'll be given many chances to back down. You're entering the most dangerous age bracket for Christians. The decisions you make during this period will affect the rest of your life.

wayseer · Apr 29, 2009

You doing OK. Good post.

DTrain · Apr 30, 2009

I agree, I really do. I asked a very similar question on another forum.

Exact posts--

Hey guys,

Evolution. As many of you know, I do not support this theory. In my science class at school, we have been going over protein synthesis and what has to happen in order for this process to be successful. I had questions in my head about it....but decided not to take on the teacher...at this point...

Basically protein synthesis is separated into two different processes. Transcription, and Translation.

Transcription--A gene, which is the 2% of DNA that is able to be transcribed into protein, is unzipped by a protein at it's hydrogen bond. A copy of the DNA, which is essentially the chemical 'blueprint', into it's close cousin RNA is made. This copy is referred to as messenger RNA (mRNA). The mRNA then snakes out into the cytoplasm of the cell. This process as happens in the nucleus of the cell. *Note--Uricil (U) replaces Thymine (T)*

Translation--The mRNA then attaches to a ribosome, which is essentially the factory in which the protein is created. This ribosome can read up to three DNA bases at a time (The four bases found in DNA are adenine (abbreviated A), cytosine (C), guanine (G) and thymine (T) Uracil (U)), which are called codons. Now transfer RNA (tRNA) comes into play. The tRNA has amino acids on attached to them and transports the amino acid to the ribosome at which they are matched up specifically to what the mRNA has. This matching up makes the protein. The codons have the three bases, and these three bases call for an amino acid. As I said, once all of the amino acids are matched up, they form a protien.

--

Some more background information--you really are what you eat. Your body gets most of the amino acids that are necessary for protein synthesis. Your body does make some of them, but it is far more efficient for it to just take them from what you eat.

What I am trying to get at is that to basically form protein, and we all are essentially walking globs of protein, according to the theory of evolution, how are these amino acids acquired, in "the beginning"? Because if there is no beginning there is no middle or end.

So, I was wondering what the rest of the community has to say about this...

http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html said:
Evolutionists often call certain chemicals "the building blocks of life", giving people the false impression that you just stack the building blocks together and you get life. No one has ever done that, including the famous 1953 Miller/Urey experiment where all they got were clumps of amino acids. Many people mistakenly think scientists have made life from chemicals in the lab, but they have not (though many have tried very hard). If one were to succeed, you would know about it. He would get every science award there is, be all over the news, and have movies, books, buildings, statues, and schools dedicated to him, so desperate are evolutionists on this matter. For something to be a law of science, it can never be found to have been violated, even once, over thousands of trials. No exceptions. A theory that violates two laws of science is in big trouble.

The second trick is to say that "when you freeze water, the disordered molecules become beautifully ordered ice crystals or snowflakes. If water can bypass the Second Law and organize its molecules by a natural process, why not the chemicals of life?" At room temperature, water molecules are bouncing off each other and you have water. When you take away heat and they freeze, water molecules stick to each other with weak molecular bonds, forming ice crystals and snowflakes because of the shape of the H2O molecule. The same thing happens if you put a bunch of weak magnets in a jar and shake it. The magnets bounce around. When you stop, the magnets stick together. They are at a lower energy level. There is order, yet no complexity - just a simple repetitive structure that does not do anything. The Second Law is not bypassed or violated. But guess what. Amino acid molecules that form proteins, and nucleotide molecules that form DNA and RNA resist combining at any temperature. To combine, they need the help of mechanisms in a living cell or a biochemist in an organic chemistry laboratory.5 It means that nothing happens in the primeval soup, the pond of chemicals where evolutionists believe life began. DNA and RNA dissolve in water12, so there could not even be water in the primeval soup. DNA is made of only right-handed versions of nucleotides, while proteins are made of only left-handed versions of amino acids. Yet any random chemical reaction that produced nucleotides or amino acids would make an equal mix of left and right-handed versions of each. Even if the thousands of nucleotides or amino acids needed to form individual DNA or protein molecules were able to combine from this mix, they would be a jumble of left and right-handed versions that could not function at all. Ilya Prigogene coauthored a paper in 1972 that says in an open "system there exists a possibility for formation of ordered, low-entropy structures at sufficiently low temperatures. This ordering principle is responsible for the appearance of ordered structures such as crystals... Unfortunately this principle cannot explain the formation of biological structures."10 Prigogene won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1977 for research on dissipative structures, such as tornados, for contributions to nonequilibrium thermodynamics, and for bridging the gap between biology and other sciences. Evolutionists wrongly claim he won for showing how thermodynamics could explain the formation of organized systems, from fluctuations in chaos, that lead to the origin of life. They thought he was their hero. Over thirty years later, nothing has come of it. There is no escape from the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It prohibits the spontaneous origin of life and the progression from microbes to man.

Even a single cell is not simple. In Darwin's day researchers looked at cells under the microscope and saw little balloons filled with goo they called protoplasm, so they thought cells were simple forms of life. Almost 150 years later we know that there are many types of cells, and each cell is a little city at work. The smallest known genome (Mycoplasma genitalium) has 482 genes.6 The minimum possible for an organism to survive is probably 200 to 300 genes. Most bacteria have 1000 to 4000 genes. A popular textbook on the cell1 is 1600 pages long and weighs 7 pounds. Everything about the cell is stunningly complex. Plants and animals contain a great variety of cells. The human body has about 210 different types of cells.

Cells are made of proteins, and everything that goes on in a creature involves proteins interacting with each other. Proteins are generally 50 to 2000 amino acids long; a typical one has about 300 amino acids.1 A protein is not just a long ribbon of amino acids strung together from the DNA pattern. It folds itself into a 3D structure.

The temperature and chemical concentrations must be right for it to fold correctly, and many proteins get help from special proteins called "molecular chaperones". Chaperones can keep proteins separated from each other while they are folding, prevent mistakes in folding, and even unfold mistakes to give the protein a second chance to get it right. After helping one protein fold, a chaperone will go help another one fold.

Making and folding proteins goes on continuously throughout the body. Misfolding can lead to more than proteins that don't work. In humans, bunches of them (aggregates) can lead to diseases such as Alzheimer's, Huntington's, or sickle cell. "Proteins are so precisely built that the change of even a few atoms in one amino acid can sometimes disrupt the structure of the whole molecule so severely that all function is lost."1 All proteins stick (bind) to other molecules. But each can bind to only a few of the thousands it encounters. "An average protein in a human cell may interact with somewhere between 5 and 15 different partners."1 Their shapes fit each other like a hand in a glove. "Proteins can form enormously sophisticated chemical devices." "The most impressive tasks are carried out by large protein assemblies formed from many protein molecules." "Each of the central processes in a cell... is catalyzed by a highly coordinated, linked set of 10 or more proteins."1 The parts of a cell where proteins are made (ribosomes) are themselves made of many different proteins. "The complexity of living organisms is staggering."1 In the face of this breathtaking complexity, evolutionists have tried to find the fewest things necessary for a cell to function. They came up with 15 general categories (such as energy production and conversion, cell division, etc.). Each category requires many proteins. All have to be in place and working together or the cell is wrecked.

So evolutionists have to believe that for each protein, pure chance laid out long strings of amino acids that fold themselves into the exact shapes needed to interact with other specialized proteins and, where needed, get help from chaperone proteins which themselves appeared by chance. The necessary proteins cannot be invented one at a time. Either they are all there, ready to work together, or nothing happens and they disintegrate. Yet even if it could design proteins, mutation-natural selection would only work on one at a time sporadically over many years. Considering just the complexity of proteins, the notion of creating them with mutation-natural selection is as silly as asking someone to build a television set with a spoon and a toothbrush. If Darwin had known what we have learned about proteins, he probably would have abandoned the theory of evolution.

Anyways, the rest of the converstion basically turned into a debate on abiogenesis. I have had similar questions. I also brought up the micro and macro evolution facts to this hardcore seemingly militant atheist and he said that he had never heard them and that the information that I had shared was not in school text books, which in fact it is. That man really ticked me off....

Back to what I was saying though, when that question arose in my head, I had made a decision. From that point, I know that human life (life in general) was not merely an accident, as many people against Christianity think. Life is much too complicated to be just an accident.

daydreamergurl15 · May 1, 2009

For as long as I have been studying science, I have not found a scientific fact that contradicts God, however the theories that people come up with, sure do try....

But in all honestly, I really love science. I love studying about the fingerprint of God (His handiwork). He created such an amazing universe and every time I study something in science and go to the bible and start reading His words, it gives me an even more appreciation for what He has done.

And I love the words of Job in Chapter 42 after God has questioned Him about His creation,

Then Job answered the LORD and said:
"I know that You can do everything, and that no purpose of Yours can be withheld from You. You asked, 'Who is this who hides counsel without knowledge?' Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand, things too wonderful for me, which I did not know. Listen, please, and let me speak; You said, 'I will question you, and you shall answer Me."

"I have heard of You by the hearing of the ear, but now my eyes sees You. Therefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes."
Job 42:1-6

BigBadWlf · May 2, 2009

davidthefat said:
Just a background on me, Im a 15 year old Freshman in Highschool. These are my opinions and theres a big chance they are wrong, most obviously cause of my age... I am a christian, dont think Im an atheist trying to argue or something... So here it goes:

During Biology class today, I sort of had a change in my mind about christianity and science. We were learning about Darwin and his theory on evolution, and I thought to my self "If God gave us a mind to think and discover the world through science, then why are we so against evolution?" I believe that evolution did take place, but not did not start in a pool of amino acids or anything like that. IDK if Pokemon influenced my thinking on this, but in the beginning, I believe God has created alot but not every single one of the animals. God gave them the skill to reproduce and stuff. So I think God made only the "basic" animals like Cat, dog, horse, insect, insect with wing, spiders, ect... and God let them "envolve" to these different species, like there is asian, whites, blacks and other...

Yet the evolution of the horse is one of the most complete with numerous transitional fossil examples including adaptive transitional fossils showing the evolution of the foot in relation to the terrain the horses ancestors lived in.
Meaning there was no original basic horse but a common ancestor of horses and their evolutionary cousins zebras and tapirs and rhinoceros(es?)(rhinoceroci?)

Just like what happened in Babel, he made the animals disperse and change. Im not saying humans came from monkeys, he made clear that he made humans above all creation, therefor cant be from a monkey.

Sounds like you need to study more.

Human beings are part of the family of primates which include monkeys, lemurs, baboons, lorids, galagos, tarsiers and apes (humans are part of the ape family). Human beings did not evolve from monkeys and no evolutionist or biologist would say such a thing. All primates descend from a common ancestor which according to fossil evidence started spitting into the various primate families about 65 to 85 million years ago.

timlamb · May 2, 2009

Yes, Good job David tf. Watch the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, with Ben Stein. It will show you some of the pit falls of believing the evolutionary lie. I find most people who dismantle the Genisis account also dispute the book of Revelation. They start taking the bible apart from both ends. the theory of evolution has destroyed the faith of many a young college student. Continue to look at the evidence through God's lens on the microscope, you will see marvelous things.

One piece of evidence that sold me, beside the fact that the eye, be it human or roach, could never have evolved, is the facts about DNA. For evolution to be true knowledge in the DNA would have had to increased millions of times to change from one species to another. The opposite is true, genetic knowledge can only be lost, because knowledge has to come from some where. Nothing can alter the dna of an ape to make it into a man, to make a dog a cat, or a hippo into a whale, it just can't happen.

2ndRateMind · May 3, 2009

Well David, that was a great post. I hope you do well in your studies. You clearly have an enquiring, analytical and synthesising turn of mind; and if you develop these qualities, fearlessly, following where ever the truth may lead you, you will have the constant consolation of actually being on the right side in this kind of argument.

I don't want to load you down with my opinion about evolution; I was allowed to develop my own thinking, and you should have the same privilege. But I do want to say that there is no necessary conflict between science and religion, although both need to modify their metaphysical meanderings to accommodate the other. Rather, think of science and religion as pursuing the same truth from different angles, for, if God made the universe, and assigned humanity a significant part in His program, they cannot contradict each other and still avoid criticism.

Science is about material things, and things one can measure, and how they interract, and that is where it is strong. Religion is about immaterial things, and things one can't measure, such as the nature of love, or the actual meaning of life, the universe, and everything, and that is where it is strong. It should be clear to you that these are different fields of enquiry, with different methods of investigation appropriate to each. Both illuminate the grand scheme of things, but from different directions. And that is the point, the only point, that I want to stress in this post.

Best wishes, and enjoy the 'great debate'.

2ndRateMind.

timlamb · May 4, 2009

I don't want to load you down with my opinion about evolution;

So I'll load you down with other opinions to influence you

I was allowed to develop my own thinking, and you should have the same privilege.

but I'm going to tell you how to think.

Nice post 2rm

Examine everything through the lens of scripture. You seperate sicence, (or anything for that matter) from the word of God and you get lead astray. God is in every particle of His creation, look for Him everywhere you seek truth.

2ndRateMind · May 4, 2009

timlamb said:
So I'll load you down with other opinions to influence you

timlamb said:
but I'm going to tell you how to think.

Sorry, Tim (may I call you Tim?), but I didn't think I was saying anything particularly controversial. Nevertheless, it did take me a long time to weave my way through the implications of the arguments surrounding evolution, and if I can offer David a short cut, then I am pleased to oblige.

timlamb said:
Nice post 2rm

Thank you. I am making a special effort to be nice, from now on. I don't really care for the tone of some of the arguments I have been involved with, on this forum. After all, we are commanded to love each other!

timlamb said:
Examine everything through the lens of scripture. You seperate sicence, (or anything for that matter) from the word of God and you get lead astray. God is in every particle of His creation, look for Him everywhere you seek truth.

Problem with this is, you are examining sophisticated scientific findings through the eyes of a primitive, conceptually naive, culture, ranging in age from 6000 to 1500 years ago. I really do think we have made progress in knowledge since then, and that this progress should be readily admitted. That said, there are some truths that relate to human nature, and the human condition, and on these matters what the ancients had to say is quite as relevant as our own perspectives, provided we take into consideration the cultural context in which they found themselves, and in which we find ourselves.

Best wishes, 2ndRateMind.

timlamb · May 4, 2009

2ndRateMind said:
Sorry, Tim (may I call you Tim?), but I didn't think I was saying anything particularly controversial. Nevertheless, it did take me a long time to weave my way through the implications of the arguments surrounding evolution, and if I can offer David a short cut, then I am pleased to oblige.

Thank you. I am making a special effort to be nice, from now on. I don't really care for the tone of some of the arguments I have been involved with, on this forum. After all, we are commanded to love each other!

Problem with this is, you are examining sophisticated scientific findings through the eyes of a primitive, conceptually naive, culture, ranging in age from 6000 to 1500 years ago. I really do think we have made progress in knowledge since then, and that this progress should be readily admitted. That said, there are some truths that relate to human nature, and the human condition, and on these matters what the ancients had to say is quite as relevant as our own perspectives, provided we take into consideration the cultural context in which they found themselves, and in which we find ourselves.

Best wishes, 2ndRateMind.

By all means, call me Tim.
Sorry for the poke, but it appeared to me you were makeing an obvious effort to sway his perception on science. That cannot be avoided, if you comment you influence.

You seem to have the same problam with scripture that most of the church has, you see an old book. That piece of writing is as alive and pertinant today as the day it was written. But most important is the fact that if you look at science there are alot of puzzling things that need answered. If you look at the earth as a created thing and study to understand the Creator, you will learn much about the character of God. You get the same results, good science will always produce the same results; evolutionist or creationist you use the same evidence, but the evidence will lead you to an understanding of God and His marvelous handiwork if you see it through the lens of scripture.

2ndRateMind · May 4, 2009

Yes, I think I mostly agree. The last Pope said much the same thing, in his Fides et Ratio (faith and reason) encyclical. If I have any reservation at all, it is only that those who 'think outside the box' often have a great contribution to make. Their sideways look at the world tends to puncture complacency, and to keep debate alive and relevant is worth it's weight in gold, even if no lasting contribution to science or theology is produced. But often it is, and that is how progress happens, with paradigm after paradigm being found wanting and being rejected for the succession of something more encompassing, and more fulfilling, and more revealing of the God who created the whole thing in the first place.

Best wishes, 2ndRateMind.

timlamb · May 4, 2009

2ndRateMind said:
Yes, I think I mostly agree. The last Pope said much the same thing, in his Fides et Ratio (faith and reason) encyclical. If I have any reservation at all, it is only that those who 'think outside the box' often have a great contribution to make. Their sideways look at the world tends to puncture complacency, and to keep debate alive and relevant is worth it's weight in gold, even if no lasting contribution to science or theology is produced. But often it is, and that is how progress happens, with paradigm after paradigm being found wanting and being rejected for the succession of something more encompassing, and more fulfilling, and more revealing of the God who created the whole thing in the first place.

Best wishes, 2ndRateMind.

Great, Amen, Blessings,
Tim

Honkytnkmn · May 6, 2009

BigBadWlf said:
Yet the evolution of the horse is one of the most complete with numerous transitional fossil examples including adaptive transitional fossils showing the evolution of the foot in relation to the terrain the horses ancestors lived in.
Meaning there was no original basic horse but a common ancestor of horses and their evolutionary cousins zebras and tapirs and rhinoceros(es?)(rhinoceroci?)

Show me, I've seen no proof of this.

GoodNewsJim · May 7, 2009

I believe in both evolution and creationism. Evolution says how things change. Creationism says how things began.

Armistead · May 8, 2009

Great post for a young man. No doubt species evolve within themselves due to many factors.

However, I, like many can't believe that species have changed into different species billions of time, nor can it be proven as fact.

Poverello78 · May 8, 2009

I'd say that the physical sciences in general provide us with a way to continually renew our sense of wonder and awe regarding God. To me, there is no other eternally practical value to be found in it.

Evolution is simply a scientific theory and, since I'm not a scientist, I therefore humbly accept the current findings and theories of the world's scientific authorities, not necessarily as fact, but as the most probable theories currently available regarding how the physical universe operates.

Creation, to me, is not some sort of opposing theory; In fact, it's not even on the same plane as the physical sciences. While evolution is a theory based on the study of sensory phenomena, creation is the persistent underlying cause behind all phenomena (including not only that which can be studied, but also the one who does the studying); That is, creation is what causes every necessary component to even derive a "theory of evolution" in any sense whatsoever.

So far as the "Big Bang" vs "Creation Story" argument, I think that because neither can be truly known in the scientific sense of the word (that is, historical events can be neither experienced nor confirmed), the best bet is to consider what beneficial spiritual truths regarding the nature of God might be drawn from both of them. Such an outlook, in my belief, is the only truly practical and, in the end, loving position--it allows oneself to see past the superficial doctrines and debates and get right to the heart of the matter on a deeply loving and constructive level, regardless of beliefs about talking apes and talking snakes.

Poverello78 · May 8, 2009

I'd like to add that I understand the "faith in God's word" argument, but to take everything literally in the Bible on faith, regardless if it's at odds with what we actually experience, does nothing but make fools out of us. I've seen people go so far as to say that Satan planted dinosaur bones in the earth to "test our faith", but this comes from a materialistic "faith" which is completely ignorant of inner spiritual matters.

Projection of faith from what is 'internal' to what is 'external' is the ultimate cause of all division and suffering in the world--this is a universal truth, found in nearly every religion and wisdom tradition, not just ours.

Poverello78 · May 9, 2009

Am I the thread closer again?

My Point Of View On Christianity and Science

Newbie

Senior Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Libertatem Defendimus

Daughter of the King

BigBadWlf

Guest

Senior Veteran

Pilgrim Defiant

Senior Veteran

Pilgrim Defiant

Senior Veteran

Pilgrim Defiant

Senior Veteran

Newbie

Senior Veteran

Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency