Do you believe in evolution?

[DavidS]

I believe in both evolution and creation.

The Bible says God created man from the ground ... evolution says we evolved from some single celled organisms from a primordial soup of some kind.

Why couldn't God have created evolution?

 

[elvis]

He could have. my father in law brought up this possibility at church and was treated like a heretic.

 

[Agnapostate]

Well, for one thing, it directly contradicts the book of Genesis, if that's your source.

 

[KittenKoder]

Well, for one thing, it directly contradicts the book of Genesis, if that's your source.

How? I've read that book over and over again (forced to as a child) and nothing in there contradicts any scientific theories, hell, it doesn't even discount alien life.

 

[tigerbob]

He could have. my father in law brought up this possibility at church and was treated like a heretic.

Heaven forbid someone should try to disagree with the Council of Nicea.

 

[KittenKoder]

He could have. my father in law brought up this possibility at church and was treated like a heretic.

Heaven forbid someone should try to disagree with the Council of Nicea.

That's the only real problem I have with a lot of christian churches. I experienced the same treatment when I was growing up and mentioned the alien life thing. At first they were like "hmm ... could be, but then ...", after I got a little older they outright ranted to me whenever I mentioned the fact that the bible doesn't discount alien life.

 

[tigerbob]

He could have. my father in law brought up this possibility at church and was treated like a heretic.

Heaven forbid someone should try to disagree with the Council of Nicea.

That's the only real problem I have with a lot of christian churches. I experienced the same treatment when I was growing up and mentioned the alien life thing. At first they were like "hmm ... could be, but then ...", after I got a little older they outright ranted to me whenever I mentioned the fact that the bible doesn't discount alien life.

Well, they're not all like that, but the ones who are do seem to speak loudly.

 

[KittenKoder]

Heaven forbid someone should try to disagree with the Council of Nicea.

That's the only real problem I have with a lot of christian churches. I experienced the same treatment when I was growing up and mentioned the alien life thing. At first they were like "hmm ... could be, but then ...", after I got a little older they outright ranted to me whenever I mentioned the fact that the bible doesn't discount alien life.

Well, they're not all like that, but the ones who are do seem to speak loudly.

I know, and I don't hold it against the good ones I meet. I have seen a lot of growth from the churches as a whole the more they pull from the original Catholic ideals.

 

[Amanda]

I don't see any major conflict between creation and evolution. I don't think we know all there is to know about either 1.

 

[Agnapostate]

How? I've read that book over and over again (forced to as a child) and nothing in there contradicts any scientific theories, hell, it doesn't even discount alien life.

The most obvious reason would be the time constraints placed on the Week of Creation, which specify days, the time frame of "days" being literal 24 hour periods as specified by Genesis 1:14 and confirmed by Exodus 20:8-11, which is an obvious contradiction of the timeframe of evolution, the Cambrian Explosion alone lasting seventy to eighty million years.

 

[KittenKoder]

How? I've read that book over and over again (forced to as a child) and nothing in there contradicts any scientific theories, hell, it doesn't even discount alien life.

The most obvious reason would be the time constraints placed on the Week of Creation, which specify days, the time frame of "days" being literal 24 hour periods as specified by Genesis 1:14 and confirmed by Exodus 20:8-11, which is an obvious contradiction of the timeframe of evolution, the Cambrian Explosion alone lasting seventy to eighty million years.

However you must recall the time period the original version of each story was writ, in the time that the Genesis story was written a "day" was a very subjective time frame, which had no definitive amount of time. Thus the word they used could represent 1 hour or 1 million years ... or even more. They were using it in reference to a god, which by all definitions would live in a completely alien time frame. So sorry, but it still does not discount evolution or any form of scientific creation, all it offers is a why, not a how and when in reality.

 

[Korimyr the Rat]

The theory of evolution is integral to my worldview.

My father always used to say that he could not understand how the preachers thought they could honor their Creator by denying the wonder of His Creation.

 

[Agnapostate]

However you must recall the time period the original version of each story was writ, in the time that the Genesis story was written a "day" was a very subjective time frame, which had no definitive amount of time. Thus the word they used could represent 1 hour or 1 million years ... or even more. They were using it in reference to a god, which by all definitions would live in a completely alien time frame. So sorry, but it still does not discount evolution or any form of scientific creation, all it offers is a why, not a how and when in reality.

I anticipated that objection and intended to forestall it by referring to passages that specified "day" in the sense of a 24 hour period. We could refer to the mention of "the evening and a morning" in Genesis 1:2, 8, 13, 19, 23, and 31, though if "day" is discounted, that reference could be also. The Hebrew terminology which is used also specifies a 24 hour period, although one could argue that this is contradicted by Genesis 2:4. But as I already noted, the strongest evidence comes from Exodus 20:8-11, which makes it clear that God's "six days" of creation are equivalent to conventional days, the origin of the Sabbath being that God also rested on the "seventh day."

I used to be a theistic evolutionist, and I certainly understand its appeal. But it's simply not consistent with Scripture.

 

[eots]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g[/ame]

 

[KittenKoder]

However you must recall the time period the original version of each story was writ, in the time that the Genesis story was written a "day" was a very subjective time frame, which had no definitive amount of time. Thus the word they used could represent 1 hour or 1 million years ... or even more. They were using it in reference to a god, which by all definitions would live in a completely alien time frame. So sorry, but it still does not discount evolution or any form of scientific creation, all it offers is a why, not a how and when in reality.

I anticipated that objection and intended to forestall it by referring to passages that specified "day" in the sense of a 24 hour period. We could refer to the mention of "the evening and a morning" in Genesis 1:2, 8, 13, 19, 23, and 31, though if "day" is discounted, that reference could be also. The Hebrew terminology which is used also specifies a 24 hour period, although one could argue that this is contradicted by Genesis 2:4. But as I already noted, the strongest evidence comes from Exodus 20:8-11, which makes it clear that God's "six days" of creation are equivalent to conventional days, the origin of the Sabbath being that God also rested on the "seventh day."

I used to be a theistic evolutionist, and I certainly understand its appeal. But it's simply not consistent with Scripture.

Aaaah ... but you are making a very common mistake, even among christians, the bible itself is a combination of a bunch of stories from many different places across the world, each written by different authors, some of the books in the christian bible specifically were written by one person, other books in it written by many people. The wording came from different languages, so the translation to our limited language of Shakesperean English has created many inconsistencies. The time frame in the particular story of creation was written, as I said, subjectively from the perspective of a being so alien to us that it could represent anything. One may argue this was originally done in case of such a discovery as to the origin or the universe, thus it would fit regardless of what science discovers, a lesson taken from the Ancient Egyptians who's whole religion was built around the chance that science may advance to a point in which the stories would be challenged by it. Here's the thing, religion is the why, but it does nothing to approach the how for a reason, thus why in many places it says you are not suppose to assume you know the power of their god. Science is merely a more detailed understanding of the world, it is not a religion and does not conflict with religion, ever, in spite of both extremist arguments on both sides. If you take the christian bible literally you cannot even say that evolution of humanity is not fact, because then you are assuming you know for sure that it is not the christian god's power, thus breaking the same commandment. We know evolution is fact, it happens every day, we see it and without understanding it we would not have any of the vaccines we do now.

 

[Agnapostate]

Aaaah ... but you are making a very common mistake, even among christians, the bible itself is a combination of a bunch of stories from many different places across the world, each written by different authors, some of the books in the christian bible specifically were written by one person, other books in it written by many people. The wording came from different languages, so the translation to our limited language of Shakesperean English has created many inconsistencies. The time frame in the particular story of creation was written, as I said, subjectively from the perspective of a being so alien to us that it could represent anything. One may argue this was originally done in case of such a discovery as to the origin or the universe, thus it would fit regardless of what science discovers, a lesson taken from the Ancient Egyptians who's whole religion was built around the chance that science may advance to a point in which the stories would be challenged by it. Here's the thing, religion is the why, but it does nothing to approach the how for a reason, thus why in many places it says you are not suppose to assume you know the power of their god. Science is merely a more detailed understanding of the world, it is not a religion and does not conflict with religion, ever, in spite of both extremist arguments on both sides. <snip> We know evolution is fact, it happens every day, we see it and without understanding it we would not have any of the vaccines we do now.

I'm well aware of the inconsistencies in the Bible. Their existence necessitates dilution of the allegedly inerrant or infallible text by liberal Christians who wish to diverge from their more conservative brethren. However, as is the case with conservative Christians' same behavior, it's simply not consistent to abandon the literal aspects of some portions of the Bible and claim that they remain intact for others if it's an allegedly "holy book."

If you take the christian bible literally you cannot even say that evolution of humanity is not fact, because then you are assuming you know for sure that it is not the christian god's power, thus breaking the same commandment.

No, it wouldn't. It would simply assert that he chose not to cause evolution, despite theoretically having the power to do so.

 

[KittenKoder]

Aaaah ... but you are making a very common mistake, even among christians, the bible itself is a combination of a bunch of stories from many different places across the world, each written by different authors, some of the books in the christian bible specifically were written by one person, other books in it written by many people. The wording came from different languages, so the translation to our limited language of Shakesperean English has created many inconsistencies. The time frame in the particular story of creation was written, as I said, subjectively from the perspective of a being so alien to us that it could represent anything. One may argue this was originally done in case of such a discovery as to the origin or the universe, thus it would fit regardless of what science discovers, a lesson taken from the Ancient Egyptians who's whole religion was built around the chance that science may advance to a point in which the stories would be challenged by it. Here's the thing, religion is the why, but it does nothing to approach the how for a reason, thus why in many places it says you are not suppose to assume you know the power of their god. Science is merely a more detailed understanding of the world, it is not a religion and does not conflict with religion, ever, in spite of both extremist arguments on both sides. <snip> We know evolution is fact, it happens every day, we see it and without understanding it we would not have any of the vaccines we do now.

I'm well aware of the inconsistencies in the Bible. Their existence necessitates dilution of the allegedly inerrant or infallible text by liberal Christians who wish to diverge from their more conservative brethren. However, as is the case with conservative Christians' same behavior, it's simply not consistent to abandon the literal aspects of some portions of the Bible and claim that they remain intact for others if it's an allegedly "holy book."

If you take the christian bible literally you cannot even say that evolution of humanity is not fact, because then you are assuming you know for sure that it is not the christian god's power, thus breaking the same commandment.

No, it wouldn't. It would simply assert that he chose not to cause evolution, despite theoretically having the power to do so.

So then you are assuming that you know his will and power ... that's a direct violation of what was written in the christian bible. Also, are you suggesting that it was written in English first? Many other languages have more variable words available, so translating to English from any other language would create natural inconsistencies. Another factor is that there are many versions of the same book in English to add to the inconsistencies. However, all that aside, the word "day" could mean a million years, if you take the book literally then even it's own time-line is impossible as it says elsewhere that the world is only about 6K years old.

 

[Agnapostate]

So then you are assuming that you know his will and power ... that's a direct violation of what was written in the christian bible.

I don't know what this is supposed to mean or refer to.

Also, are you suggesting that it was written in English first? Many other languages have more variable words available, so translating to English from any other language would create natural inconsistencies. Another factor is that there are many versions of the same book in English to add to the inconsistencies.

I'm quite aware of the history of the Bible. Modern Christians, regrettably, aren't.

However, all that aside, the word "day" could mean a million years, if you take the book literally then even it's own time-line is impossible as it says elsewhere that the world is only about 6K years old.

That's precisely right, and is an excellent reason to reject the literal interpretation of the Bible.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I believe in evolution with IN a species, it is pretty much a proven fact that happens ( try the horse for evidence) . However there is NO evidence that one species of NON plant life, or virus, or single cell life has ever evolved into 2 or more other species.

And Yes even if they prove man evolved from an ape like creature that JUST MEANS that is how God made man evolve. I keep asking who it was that Cain lived with once cast out for the murder of his brother, and who it was his siblings all married.

Religious people will not be effected by actual evidence that evolution occurs in the manner that science claims. Of course for now it is unimportant since it is totally unproven.

 

[Care4all]

I was watching, (Sort of watching, I was doing housework and mostly listening to it, occasionally) a discovery channel science special the other day, can't remember what it was on specifically, I think it was called, How the Earth was Made....anyway, I just caught the ending part of it saying that our days were much longer when the earth was first created...I didn't hear exactly WHY....? But I did get a little chill for a nano=second that made me smile as well, thinking, Lord forgive me for doubting your Creation timeline and being such a doubting Thomas....

I believe in both, to answer the original post...nothing in the Bible rules out the evolution of a species or the Earth....the whole creation story was an evolution.