-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The Theory Of Evolution
- Thread starter waves
- Start date
- Jun 25, 2008
- 16,899
- 4,249
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
Though, I am not an evolutionist but I see a problem with the Ministers argument.
"VI. WHAT ARE SOME OF THE PROBLEMS WITH THE THEORY 0F EVOLUTION?
A. The Problem of Spontaneous Generation this theory teaches that life somehow came from [non-living matter. In Fast Facts on False Teachings, Carlson and Decker explain the evolutionists believe “that some 3.5 billion years ago there was a large inorganic soup of nitrogen, ammonia, salts, and carbon dioxide bubbling away. Out of this noxious caldron arose the first single-cell alga.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
We must remember that Genesis says that God made man out of dirt or the "dust of the ground". This, like the theory of spontaneous generation, is non-living material and God's creation is also spontaneous generation.
"VI. WHAT ARE SOME OF THE PROBLEMS WITH THE THEORY 0F EVOLUTION?
A. The Problem of Spontaneous Generation this theory teaches that life somehow came from [non-living matter. In Fast Facts on False Teachings, Carlson and Decker explain the evolutionists believe “that some 3.5 billion years ago there was a large inorganic soup of nitrogen, ammonia, salts, and carbon dioxide bubbling away. Out of this noxious caldron arose the first single-cell alga.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
We must remember that Genesis says that God made man out of dirt or the "dust of the ground". This, like the theory of spontaneous generation, is non-living material and God's creation is also spontaneous generation.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
...and? What are your thoughts about the above?
tulc(is just wondering)
Hello tulc, i have some thoughts on the above article. I agree with most of it but do not agree with all of it.
First what I dont agree with is the following.
What this article refers to as evolution is some parts is natural selection. We do change over time. Humans and animals due to conditions such as the way food has changed, polution, science, more people on the earth, etc...I think you know where I am going with that. Humans and animals have learned to adapt which is change. Natual selection is just change. The only thing that stayed consistent is our Lord Jesus Christ!! Just look at the world 1000 years ago and how different we are today, now we have a phone attached to our ear and a computer attached to our fingers so we can by on CF (j/k)
Another thing is how they describe Darwin. I don't know if most people know this but Darwin's family were devout Christians and Darwin was a Christian. He came up with the papers he wrote on Evolution, which were not long, he wasn't going to even publish but someone else came along that was going to publish the same thing so he decided to publish because he wanted credit for that idea. A terrible one and no proof of it in my eyes.
Another thing about the article is I dont think who was writing it understands how scientists are very key maybe not to us Christians but non-believers to proving the Bible. As they try to prove the Bible wrong all they do is prove it right, it is so ironic.
However, I do agree darwinism in very influenced by the devil, it is anti-christ. It has been proven wrong so many times but people stick by it. Hitler however didn't just have a darwinistic outlook, he had had a world domination outlook. He wanted it his way, darwin did'nt want to rule the world.
All in all it is a good article but I think some topics should be researched a bit more.
God Bless!!!
Upvote
0
ViaCrucis
Confessional Lutheran
- Oct 2, 2011
- 39,599
- 29,163
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Others
It's important to understand that Social Darwinism has no relationship with the theory of evolution; Social Darwinism attempts to extrapolate a feature of evolutionary theory and apply it politics and social theory. The problem with that is that evolution is entirely biological, it's about how organisms adapt through natural processes which includes what we call "natural selection"--which simply means that organisms best able to survive in their environment have a better chance to pass on their genes to the next generation.
That really is, in a nutshell, all that evolution says. There is also no scientific basis for making a distinction between "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution", there's no reason to make that distinction because it doesn't exist in nature.
Evolution is not in conflict with the Christian faith, it is only in conflict with a rigidly (quasi-)literal interpretation of a selection of biblical texts which many Christians throughout history have never taken literally.
-CryptoLutheran
That really is, in a nutshell, all that evolution says. There is also no scientific basis for making a distinction between "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution", there's no reason to make that distinction because it doesn't exist in nature.
Evolution is not in conflict with the Christian faith, it is only in conflict with a rigidly (quasi-)literal interpretation of a selection of biblical texts which many Christians throughout history have never taken literally.
-CryptoLutheran
Upvote
0
Well you sound like you're on the right track, but to call Darwin a "christian" and then lecture on about doing research - that was a bit much. Most Christians don't refer to the New Testament as "damnable". Neither do they tend to presuppose God never did anything.Hello tulc, i have some thoughts on the above article. I agree with most of it but do not agree with all of it.
First what I dont agree with is the following.
What this article refers to as evolution is some parts is natural selection. We do change over time. Humans and animals due to conditions such as the way food has changed, polution, science, more people on the earth, etc...I think you know where I am going with that. Humans and animals have learned to adapt which is change. Natual selection is just change. The only thing that stayed consistent is our Lord Jesus Christ!! Just look at the world 1000 years ago and how different we are today, now we have a phone attached to our ear and a computer attached to our fingers so we can by on CF (j/k)
Another thing is how they describe Darwin. I don't know if most people know this but Darwin's family were devout Christians and Darwin was a Christian. He came up with the papers he wrote on Evolution, which were not long, he wasn't going to even publish but someone else came along that was going to publish the same thing so he decided to publish because he wanted credit for that idea. A terrible one and no proof of it in my eyes.
Another thing about the article is I dont think who was writing it understands how scientists are very key maybe not to us Christians but non-believers to proving the Bible. As they try to prove the Bible wrong all they do is prove it right, it is so ironic.
However, I do agree darwinism in very influenced by the devil, it is anti-christ. It has been proven wrong so many times but people stick by it. Hitler however didn't just have a darwinistic outlook, he had had a world domination outlook. He wanted it his way, darwin did'nt want to rule the world.
All in all it is a good article but I think some topics should be researched a bit more.
God Bless!!!
Upvote
0
I disagree. It is never important to be deceived.
Darwinism was derived largely from Malthus' economics and it was financed and sold on the appeal of its implications for society.
It wasn't ever a matter of merit. Nobody can name even 3 "YEC"-style creationist men of science who converted to evolutionism based upon the evidence prior to 1900.
Darwinism was properly rejected by the scientific community - not just "YEC"-style creationists - when it was initially introduced. Several reviews are available online, and one can see the bulk of what was said was right on target.
Eyewitness Testimony
Only after a new generation came along was Darwin's garbage accepted.
Upvote
0
Oh. Are you one of those Creationists who thinks that modern evolutionary theory is identical what was proposed by Darwin generations ago?
Upvote
0
- Jun 25, 2008
- 16,899
- 4,249
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
Spontaneous has several meanings but I have seen nothing that the term Spontaneous generation means generation from no apparent cause.
Wiki says: Spontaneous generation refers to both the supposed process by which life would systematically emerge from sources other than seeds, eggs or parents and to the theories which explained the apparent phenomenon.
We can fit Genesis into this since God created man from a source other than seeds, eggs, or parents.
Spontaneous can mean, produced without being planted or without human labor, according to Webster's.This fits into definition given by Wiki.
Upvote
0
Oh, do I look fool enough to waste my time on such a silly question? Does my identity alter any of the relevant facts?
Upvote
0
B
brightmorningstar
Guest
I mostly agree, except of course that one cant deny the literal creation accounts in Genesis without begging fundamental questions about whether a God who creates it all couldnt do it how it is described if He wanted to. So much for a God who creates it all being unable to do it outside what humans think is possible.
The sensible way to look at this is to note the evidence and make an informed interpretation. Most Christians take at least some spiritual revelation rather than a purely literal view of the Genesis account.
The philosophy of science insists on the theory of evolution as fact even for different kinds where it cant even be demonstrated in the lab, and the idea that Tiktaalic did become a Tetrapod even though no-one actually saw it. The concept that Titaaklic evolved to a tetrapod would surely involve some intelligent knowledge of the new environment? The mule cant reproduce, and the pepper moth surely is still a pepper moth, mostly light coloured as it was when it was first tracked. Would be be able to tell the tadpole and the frog, the caterpillar and the moth were the same species from fossil evidence if they had both died out?
Some people have their faith in science, some in God. The best is to see what science can tell us about God's creation.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
56Bluesman
Newbie
- Jul 10, 2008
- 409
- 16
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Well if you want to read the view point of theistic evolution, just for the sake of educating oneself to viewpoints outside of the Christian norm, Francis S Collins who headed up the Human Genome project, is a devout evangelical Christian and he argues for theistic evolution rather well in his book ' The Language Of God '. He also started a website called Bio logos.org, if I remember it correctly to express his views further. I'm not saying I share his position, as I don't, but he takes on the bad science that YEC proponents fall into, and the flaws in intelligent design theory too. He also dismantles the arguments of atheists such as Richard Dawkins rather well. Once again I stress that he hasn't converted me to theistic evolution, his book is a very interesting read to say the least imo.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
lemon-aid stand
Active Member
what is sad about darwins findings of evolution is that he never even had fossils to compare.. he didn't have the knowledge of today.. i find it fascinating how science is now using the bible as a primary source of reference.. that is the wonderful nature of God.. how can we not just stand in "awe" when we marvel at how He turns these things all around in His own time.. praise the Lord of Hosts..
Upvote
0
B
brightmorningstar
Guest
thanks to you for an informative post. I note the flaws in intelliegnt design theory is also valid, though it is of course also a theory and which poses some fundamental potentially deal breaking questions about the theory of evolution.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
