On evolution

[DarkProphet]

I know that many Christians don't believe in evolution so my question is what exactly do you believe instead? Also how do you account for the scientific observations that support evolution like fossils, DNA, and geology?
OR
If you believe evolution what evidence convinced you that evolution is a valid theory? Also how do you reconcile the Genesis accounts with this belief in evolution?

 

[Digit]

I know that many Christians don't believe in evolution so my question is what exactly do you believe instead? Also how do you account for the scientific observations that support evolution like fossils, DNA, and geology?
OR
If you believe evolution what evidence convinced you that evolution is a valid theory? Also how do you reconcile the Genesis accounts with this belief in evolution?

I don't believe in evolution. I do believe that God created everything fully formed and aged, yet with the ability to reproduce. Adam and Even certainly couldn't afford to hang around 70 years for a tree to bear fruit, it would need to be ready when they were created.

Digit

 

[DarkProphet]

I don't believe in evolution. I do believe that God created everything fully formed and aged, yet with the ability to reproduce. Adam and Even certainly couldn't afford to hang around 70 years for a tree to bear fruit, it would need to be ready when they were created.

Digit

Does this mean you believe that God put the fossils in the ground when he created the world?

 

[Digit]

Does this mean you believe that God put the fossils in the ground when he created the world?

I can't say I have really thoiught about it in any great detail, at least to do with fossils anyhow, which I was terribly interested in when I was smaller.

From God's point of view, I can't see the point of placing pre-existing fossils, but then I've never thought of that before. But no, I don't think He did, not really. However I should point out that our dating methods are very flawed, the error margins for radiometric dating are between 35-85 million years on top of the original prediction which estimates ages between 0-1000 years.

Digit.

 

[DarkProphet]

From God's point of view, I can't see the point of placing pre-existing fossils, but then I've never thought of that before. But no, I don't think He did, not really.

If not then where did they come from and how long where they there?

However I should point out that our dating methods are very flawed, the error margins for radiometric dating are between 35-85 million years on top of the original prediction which estimates ages between 0-1000 years.

I take it then that you don't believe in radioactive half-life. I find that troubling.

 

[ebia]

If you believe evolution what evidence convinced you that evolution is a valid theory?

The overwhelming scientific evidence that it works.

Also how do you reconcile the Genesis accounts with this belief in evolution?

The same way I reconcile Genesis with a recipe for fruit cake - they are talking about different things.

The theory of evolution deals with one small part of the way creation is created. Genesis deals with the big picture of why it is created, by whom, for what purpose, what our role is within it, where all that went wrong, and points towards the solution and new creation that came in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Genesis is not meant to be scientifically or historically accurate account (why would a people with no concept of scientific or historical accuracy write such a thing anyway) any more than it's an accurate recipe for fruit cake.

 

[DarkProphet]

Genesis is not meant to be scientifically or historically accurate account (why would a people with no concept of scientific or historical accuracy write such a thing anyway) any more than it's an accurate recipe for fruit cake.

Does that mean you believe Genesis to be allegory?

 

[ebia]

Does that mean you believe Genesis to be allegory?

Not strictly speaking allegory, (in fact it's a collection of different genres). But if you mean do I believe it to be a collection of stories that are not necessarly factual, but are designed to communicate important truths, then yes - that's exactly what they are.

To pretend they are a genre (factual history) that wouldn't be invented for hundreds if not thousands of years after they were written and would have been completely alien to the culture that wrote them is absurd. It's trying to stamp a modernist, very limited, and frankly unChristian, understanding of truth back onto an ancient culture.

 

[United]

I know that many Christians don't believe in evolution so my question is what exactly do you believe instead? Also how do you account for the scientific observations that support evolution like fossils, DNA, and geology?
OR
If you believe evolution what evidence convinced you that evolution is a valid theory? Also how do you reconcile the Genesis accounts with this belief in evolution?

Hi DarkProphet,

I generally support TE. I am not convinced on the mechanism (natural selection, punctuated equilibrium etc) but there is considerable evidence in the fossil record to suggest that evolution did occur. I see no discrepancy between this view and the Genesis account. God created through evolution. At a certain point in this process, he "breathed" life and a spirit into one of his creations (i.e. Adam & Eve) to make "man".

Steve

 

[Digit]

If not then where did they come from and how long where they there?

I have no answer to this really. But please don't take that as a hole in my belief, as there are a great many things I do not know. I will admit freely to them, as I feel they are unimportant compared to my standing with God.

I take it then that you don't believe in radioactive half-life. I find that troubling.

Are you talking about the bacteria that lives in reactors? I know very little of this.

Digit

 

[NeedingPrayersDaily]

I wanted to respond to this post. Something I posted on another thread sparked a memory of sorts and I did not want to get too off topic therein.

I am an evolutionist. That is a fact. No, not evolution, the fact is that I am an evolutionist. I am an evolutionist and that is a fact. I am A follower of the Teachings and life of Jesus Christ, too.
Go figure.
When I was growing up, in a fundy church, we were forbidden to read Darwin's The Origin of Species. We were told taht it was everything from lies to satanic, yet we were contstantly told what it said. To my knowledge, only two people in the whole town probably actually ever read it. One of them was me. (The easy way to get me to do something back then was to ban it)
I found that the book was nothing at all like what was being preached and teached by the church about it.

Of course, I am labeled as a sinner and a rebel probably to this day by any of those people because I dared to tread on their sacred legalistic authority and read something that they in their divine essence banned. LOL

The fact is, they did not even understand the book, much less know what it contained. They had probably never read it themselves, and they probably could not have understood it (It is not a super easy read) and yet they preached openly against it.

All they did, in my sight, is make fools of themselves.

If you are going to preach against something, at least know what you are preaching about.

Since that book was written, so many scientific discoveries have been made which strongly reinforce Darwin's initial theory.
Science is a most fascinating area. And so is religion, but it can breed ignorance when it is placed in the hands of the unenlightened.

THANKS for reading and comments are welcome and have a great day.

 

[childofGod31]

I have studied creation and evolution a little bit. I have discovered that there is much evidence that evolution is wrong. It's just a matter of reading on both opinions: for and against. The people FOR evolution, will try to defend their position and IGNORE the discrepancies, that way they can convince you to believe in it. But if you read the opposite side, then you will find out about those discrepancies...

Since they found the fossils, then they exist and it's a fact. But the dating method is questionable and since they claim 100000s of years, I believe it's wrong.

The missing links - are still missing.

Evolutionists took a jaw and called it a "lucy" for example (I don't remember the names). They didn't even know for sure that the bones they found besides that "jaw" came from "lucy" (but they won't tell you that)

Fossils of primitive animals were found together with fossils of complex animals in the same layer, which means they lived at the same time, and didn't evolve from one to another.

There are scientists -Christians as well, and they know as much as non-Christians and they have their claims that explain things or show where evolution theory is wrong.

I also believe that a lot of non-christian scientists don't believe in evolution (because they know its flaws). I think our time period is the time when evolution theory will be starting to die out. But only those who study (objectively) know that. Common folk still will believe it for a while.

 

[DarkProphet]

I have no answer to this really. But please don't take that as a hole in my belief, as there are a great many things I do not know. I will admit freely to them, as I feel they are unimportant compared to my standing with God.

I would find it important because if you cannot explain it with your understanding of the world then there is an error with either the fossils or with your understanding.

Are you talking about the bacteria that lives in reactors? I know very little of this.

Bacteria? I fear to ask where you got that idea from. Before you said that the error margins for radiometric dating is very high but how can you make such a claim if you don't understand how that dating method works? In any case halflife is the principle on which that dating method works.

 

[DarkProphet]

If you are going to preach against something, at least know what you are preaching about.

Yes, THANK YOU

Science is a most fascinating area. And so is religion, but it can breed ignorance when it is placed in the hands of the unenlightened.

I'll have to save this quote, it's a good one.

 

[IPbrown]

I agree with ebia with most of this but I'd just like to make a couple of points:

1. genesis was written by humans who had no understanding of science in the way we do now, they could not have researched evolution as we do now. HOWEVER, the order that God created earth in in Genesis is pretty close to the order suggested by scientists - statistically highly unlikely

2. Why do people take the "7 days and nights" idea so literally when elsewhere in the Bible numbers (particularly 12 and 40) are used to indicate that it was a long time (e.g. in the desert, Noah's flood) rather than a specific time length? Or do people take these figures literally too?

3. slightly off topic, I really don't think the specifics of how the earth was made are all that important. It certainly was an event far bigger than anything a human can imagine. The important thing surely is that God made the earth and loves us (and sent down Jesus, etc). Whether you take the Genesis account literally or not, so long as people come to this same conclusion I don't think it matters who is right.

Isla

 

[Deren]

I know that many Christians don't believe in evolution so my question is what exactly do you believe instead?

Well, there's really only one other option, and that is creation. And being a Christian, I believe that not only does everything in existence bear the earmark of intelligent design, I believe that Intelligent Designer was none other than God Himself.

Also how do you account for the scientific observations that support evolution like fossils, DNA, and geology?

There is no scientific support for evolution that is not heavily tainted with atheistic religious presuppositions which are easily refutable. Nevertheless, just because there are fossils, DNA, and geology in no way undermines the fact that an Intelligent Designer brought everything to be. In fact, those evidences only serve to support the Creator argument.

 

[aiki]

As far as I'm concerned, the matter of evolution vs. creation comes down to interpretation. The facts are what they are; but, what those facts mean, what they point to, well, that becomes inevitably a matter of presupposed beliefs. Creationists don't have a mound of facts separate from what Evolutionists have; they both work with the same set of facts. So it isn't that a Creationist holds up a fact and then an Evolutionist holds up a different counter fact. Instead, both Creationists and Evolutionists talk about the same facts but from different points of view.

Creationists believe that their interpretation of the facts (fossils, geography, physical laws, biology, etc.) point to a Creator -- the one spoken of in Scripture. Many (tho' not all) of them, however, have a pre-existing belief in a Creator. So, when they approach the facts pertaining to the origins and development of life on Earth, they do so with a view to reconciling them to their belief in a Creator.

Likewise, the Evolutionist comes with his/her own set of presuppositions and beliefs. Often (tho' not always) this includes an atheistic viewpoint, or a belief that God is completely separate from science. Holding these views, Evolutionists interpret the facts of the origin and history of life on Earth accordingly.

I think the Creationist interpretation better fits the facts.

Peace to you.

 

[Deren]

As far as I'm concerned, the matter of evolution vs. creation comes down to interpretation. The facts are what they are; but, what those facts mean, what they point to, well, that becomes inevitably a matter of presupposed beliefs. Creationists don't have a mound of facts separate from what Evolutionists have; they both work with the same set of facts. So it isn't that a Creationist holds up a fact and then an Evolutionist holds up a different counter fact. Instead, both Creationists and Evolutionists talk about the same facts but from different points of view.

Actually the debate boils down to worldviews. Either one is going to accept the worldview that God created all things by design, and is instrumental in moving His creation to perform His will, or, one is going to advocate that there is no God, everything is a big, fat accident, and ultimately there is no meaning to anything.

I think the Creationist interpretation better fits the facts.

Me too!

 

[DarkProphet]

Well, there's really only one other option, and that is creation. And being a Christian, I believe that not only does everything in existence bear the earmark of intelligent design, I believe that Intelligent Designer was none other than God Himself.

And why do you believe that the Creator in Intelligent Design is God rather then something like aliens like the Raelians believe? If you apply Occam's razor to the situation then aliens would be a more logical choice, assuming Intelligent Design is correct.

There is no scientific support for evolution that is not heavily tainted with atheistic religious presuppositions which are easily refutable. Nevertheless, just because there are fossils, DNA, and geology in no way undermines the fact that an Intelligent Designer brought everything to be. In fact, those evidences only serve to support the Creator argument.

Atheistic religion is an oxymoron, people are atheists so they can be independent of any religion. In any case what presuppositions do you mean?

 

[DarkProphet]

As far as I'm concerned, the matter of evolution vs. creation comes down to interpretation. The facts are what they are; but, what those facts mean, what they point to, well, that becomes inevitably a matter of presupposed beliefs. Creationists don't have a mound of facts separate from what Evolutionists have; they both work with the same set of facts. So it isn't that a Creationist holds up a fact and then an Evolutionist holds up a different counter fact. Instead, both Creationists and Evolutionists talk about the same facts but from different points of view.

Sort of, it seems to me that Creationist spend a lot of time disputing the facts, like attacking carbon dating and the like.

Creationists believe that their interpretation of the facts (fossils, geography, physical laws, biology, etc.) point to a Creator -- the one spoken of in Scripture. Many (tho' not all) of them, however, have a pre-existing belief in a Creator. So, when they approach the facts pertaining to the origins and development of life on Earth, they do so with a view to reconciling them to their belief in a Creator.

Likewise, the Evolutionist comes with his/her own set of presuppositions and beliefs. Often (tho' not always) this includes an atheistic viewpoint, or a belief that God is completely separate from science. Holding these views, Evolutionists interpret the facts of the origin and history of life on Earth accordingly.

If it were simply a matter of interpreting facts then there would be no problem. The problem occurs when people distort the facts.

I think the Creationist interpretation better fits the facts.

This depends on what you mean by Creationist interpretation.