Should Christians Follow Evolution? Creationism vs. Evolution

[LadyEm]

Okay, so I thought I'd clear things up - this is the discussion from the "Politics" topic so we can actually discuss "Politics" in there.
Be nice and respectful...
This is for discussing evolution and creationism to your hearts content :)

[Hope96]

Well I guess I can start. Being a devout Christian, I of course believe in Creationism......which I'd say probably the majority of the people on this site do as well.

[inkspot]

I just read something on topic in my devotional today (The Daily Bread, available free online from www.rbc.net.) It paired Romans 1:18-23 with this thought:

Freeman Dyson, one of today's most brilliant scientists, writes that nature's laws are marked by the "greatest mathematical simplicity and beauty."

While I am not a scientist or a mathematician, I am intrigued by this statement. If there is no Designer — no Creator God — how is it that our universe can be a law-abiding system marked by beauty and simplicity? I wonder, why isn't our universe in chaos?

The only reasonable explanation to me is the God of the Bible ...

I have to agree.

[Johan 72109]

I believe that God created the universe, and created man - personally I think that it's easily the most logical explanation... After all, there needed to be something before there was anything. And that something must have a purpose for us, otherwise why do we have emotions, why do we have morals, why do we have such a yearning for purpose?

However, I believe God used The Big Bang to create the universe - not sure I agree with evolution though, too many gaping flaws... :confused: In my opinion, belief in The Big Bang and belief in a Creator is not contradictory beliefs - in fact it is complementary beliefs. I believe that the chances of the Big Bang happening wihtout a Creator are between one in infinity and no chance at all. The idea that God caused it to happen, in my opinion makes Him even more wondrous - imagine the planning involved in making sure that it all happened just so? :)

At it's basics however, the mechanics of creation do not particularly matter. The chief thing that matters is, was there a God that caused it - which in my opinion there is a huge amount of evidence in favour of.

[waterhogboy]

Right guys - if you're gonna discuss this just watch out. This topic has caused BIG arguments in the past, and if it looks like its starting to go that way I'll close the thread...

[TimmyofOz]

I believe in God creating the universe and life on earth. I think 6 or 7 thousand years ago may be reading to much into the genealogies. I also have doubts about a billions and billions year old universe. It is probably younger. :rolleyes:

[Aslan the Wise one]

I think and belive God creating the universe. But i all ways love good Discussions with my fellow fans.......

[LadyEm]

Right guys - if you're gonna discuss this just watch out. This topic has caused BIG arguments in the past, and if it looks like its starting to go that way I'll close the thread...

I opened it to bring the discussion out of the politics thread, because they were discussing this in there, not politics.

[inkspot]

Right guys - if you're gonna discuss this just watch out. This topic has caused BIG arguments in the past, and if it looks like its starting to go that way I'll close the thread...
Do they have that thing in Great Britain when you're a kid and your mum is driving the car and you and your siblings are whining in the back of the car, and she turns around and says, "Don't make me stop this car!"? :p

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Probably, but the kids get all confused because Mom's sitting on the wrong side of the car to drive...

:rolleyes:

[Gryphon]

However, I believe God used The Big Bang to create the universe - not sure I agree with evolution though, too many gaping flaws... :confused: In my opinion, belief in The Big Bang and belief in a Creator is not contradictory beliefs - in fact it is complementary beliefs. I believe that the chances of the Big Bang happening wihtout a Creator are between one in infinity and no chance at all. The idea that God caused it to happen, in my opinion makes Him even more wondrous - imagine the planning involved in making sure that it all happened just so? :)

I'm sorry Johan im going to have to disagree with you. The bible states that He made everything one at a time over the period of seven days starting with light and ending with women :D (sorry that makes me smile) that doesnt sound like the big bang to me because He did it all at once, not gradually. Although, i will agree that some things in this world have shifted and changed but not much.

[Rickb]

There was not and never was a big bang. The universe as we know it was spoken into existence by God in six days (earth days). I think the item that has most people confused, that believe God used a big bang in His creation of the universe is the whole space time continuum. Next, man didn’t evolve. He was created by God in one day and not in stages. The last item we should address, that the big bangers tend to point to as evidence is dinosaurs.

Yes, time maybe relevant in this universe and may occur in a linear fashion. In the bigger scheme of things time is illrelevant and does not occur in a linear fashion. It is all but impossible to measure something with no beginning or end. We cannot even understand this concept as we all have a beginning and end and assume that everything does. God created “The Heavens and the Earth” Genesis 1:1. “Heavens” means our space and everything in it. God already had His space called “Heaven” with Him and the angles already in it. The Bible didn’t say God created angles, and His Heaven on the first day. Genesis 1: 1-5 clearly provides and a clear descriptor of a night and day, a 24 hour period based in our solar measurement and lunar measurements of time. The rest of His creation takes place in that framework as well Genesis 1: 6-31.

One 24 hour day on the earth that God created does not equal a million years. If it took God millions of years to create, why make reference to night and day and light (sun) and fit all the events into that context. Saying that God used a big bang to create the universe and us trashes and make the whole Bible a book of lies, which it is not.

So, that puts creation into the proper linear six day context for our solar and lunar measurement system (which was created by God).

Next, man didn’t evolve in stages from a single celled thing. God created man using His hand out of the dust of the earth Genesis 2:7 No evolution here.

Dinosaurs another misunderstood item, that big bangers and evoluations like to use as part of their aguments. First lets put the word “Dinosaur” in its proper context. “Dinosaur” is a word created by man in the last century to describe biblical creatures created by God. The Bible use words like the following

“Dinosaur” Names, Then and Now

(Colume One) Name and date first written in the Bible, (Colume Two) Scientific Name (best estimate) and (colume Three)date the name appeared

tanniyn (dragon) before 1400 BC dinosaur 1841 AD
behemoth before 1400 BC brachiosaurus 1903 AD
Leviathan before 1400 BC kronosaurus 1901 AD

Tanniyns, behemoths,leviathans were destroyed in the great flood, with the exception of the ones brought into the ark. Yes, you read right the ark. Not big ones, but babies. So, yes they would fit. Yes, God created them, end of story. No evoluation here either, just God's handy work. There extinction was a result of the changed climate after the flood. so another mystery solved.

There is a ton of evidence to support the Bible account of creation. In fact volumes could be written. I don't have the time for the volumes, but it would be fun to put the lies to rest once and for all. And a final parting shot, The man that put the mathematical formula to time believed in God and creation. His name was Albert Eienstien.

[Johan 72109]

As I pointed out... I don't believe in evolution... Frankly, I think that evolution has A LOT of holes in it. There we agree, I don't need to be argued out of it. However, I found the arguments very informative, thank you.:)

Hehe, I knew my point about the Big Bang was going to cause controversy... first I say I hate adorable little puppies in books, and now this... ;) Fair enough... For all I know, you may very well be completely correct. As in most cases however... the mechanics of creation are not important. What is important is that I believe God made it to be wondrous, just like every other Christian does.

The other point is that the Big Bang has nothing to do with Evolution... the two don't necessarily have to agree.

And I didn't know that about Einstein... Cool. :) Was he actually a Christian though? I thought he was Jewish, and had a mistress as well as his wife... :confused:

[inkspot]

And I didn't know that about Einstein... Cool. Was he actually a Christian though? I thought he was Jewish, and had a mistress as well as his wife...
Oh well, Abraham the Patriarch was Jewish and had a mistress and a wife, so I guess we can give Einstein a pass. Tee-hee. :p

Welcome Rickb. I did not see you post before. I hope that you are a Narnia fan as well as a Bible fan?

Many of us here believe in creation, because the Bible tells us so, and cuz there are lots of problems with the theory of evolution.

The Big Bang, I don't know anything about. When God began creating, though, couldn't He have used a Big Bang? What exactly is this Big Bang?

[Gryphon]

Hehe, I knew my point about the Big Bang was going to cause controversy... first I say I hate adorable little puppies in books, and now this... ;)
WHAT?!?! ok i got to know (even though this is off topic) where in the where in the WORLD did puppies come from??? im so confused :confused:

[TimmyofOz]

hey Rickb, your new to us so welcome. I am a creationist too, though it may have been longer ago than 6 or 7 thousand years ago (don't read into the genealogies the age of the universe). I like what you said about dinosaurs, remember some could swim and so didn't need to be in the ark. :)

[inkspot]

WHAT?!?! ok i got to know (even though this is off topic) where in the where in the WORLD did puppies come from??? im so confused :confused:
Man, Johan notoriously HATES cute cuddly puppies and pretty butterflies. He prefers gloom, doom and darkness. It's just his nature. If Jesus hadn't redeemed him, he'd be revelling in some Pullman Dark Materials books right now. It's sad really. :p

[Johan 72109]

I'm afraid you're wrong about Pullman, noble Inkspot, as I constantly remind you...
Pullman's not gloomy enough for me. :p

Sorry to sound like Puddleglum gone wrong, but really, Pullman writes some absolutely terrible cheesy cliches. Come on, one hero takes out a zeppelin and several hundred elite soldiers before he dies... With a handgun. Forgive me if that seems SLIGHTLY improbable. :mad:

Hehe, but apart from that... The merest whiff of a puppy or a butterfly in a cheesy book where the bad guys always get pounded into last week just makes me see red... Which earns me the ridicule and scorn of WHB, who doesn't mind any number of improbable situations, so long as everyone gets to skip through fields of daisies and be happy at the end. :mad:

[Gryphon]

Sorry to sound like Puddleglum gone wrong, but really, Pullman writes some absolutely terrible cheesy cliches. Come on, one hero takes out a zeppelin and several hundred elite soldiers before he dies... With a handgun. Forgive me if that seems SLIGHTLY improbable. :mad:
arent MOST books "slightly" improbable?

[Wallis]

I am going to wax philosophical here and then probably butt out.

About 300 years ago or so, a definitive line was drawn between science and religion. Up to that point, no line was drawn. Science and religion seemed to cooperate to a point and was termed philosophy.

Since that time, this line (which Dr. M. Scott Peck, author of Further Along the Road Less Traveled and other, calls an unwritten contract) has created a fence between science and religion, much to the detriment of both sides.

Obviously, we are all "late-comers" to this age-old discussion. And, we find that the "discussion field" (often termed a "battlefield") is already deeply entrenched. Both sides will claim that they are "right."

The problem with this sort of thinking is that it truncates or completely disallows any discussion. When there is no discussion, there is no learning. In learning, one does not have to accept the other view. But the benefit in learning is an understanding of the other view, AND the realization that one cannot convert the other side. At best, we will all learn that it is okay to agree to disagree while keeping a healthy respect for one another.

[glamel]

,.. When there is no discussion, there is no learning. In learning, one does not have to accept the other view. But the benefit in learning is an understanding of the other view, AND the realization that one cannot convert the other side. At best, we will all learn that it is okay to agree to disagree while keeping a healthy respect for one another.


i like that one,.. :D
can't say anything more,:D

[Ite]

Is it wrong to believe in creation, and later evolution occured afterwards in some little ways?

[TimmyofOz]

Problem is evolutionist use of mutation that we might see within a specie falls apart as a mechanism to explan how we get from single cell orgins to the variety of very creative life we have now and through out time. Their only answer is to add more zero's to the age of the earth. What you need to do Ite is to try to let go of evolution and think outside the box where God is.

[Pendelton_the_cook]

personally, i believe in god in a faithful sense as in i have faith in religion and i do believe there is a greater being, in christianitys case, god.

but i must admit i do believe in evolution, im not going to go into how we were created or the universe because i just dont know enough about it to start throwing my weight around as if i were an expert.

i believe in facts and scientific explanations i guess thats just my nature. but science and religion are 2 very different things. science relies on facts and being able to solve things logically. Religion on the other hand relies on faith, you cant prove religion, you can however have faith in it.

im must admit im not a typical christian who goes to church, i go for christmas and easter masses and we do have chapel at school but i belive the points of evolution, ive been doing biology this year and even the minor points of evolution to me make sense, but i still believe and have faith in christianity, no matter where u are, who you are or what you are you can always be accepted. thats somehting science cant do, but religion can.

facts are for science, faith is for religion. thats wat i believe in

[Johan 72109]

Is it wrong to believe in creation, and later evolution occured afterwards in some little ways?

Of course not - it's referred to as adaptation, and it's proven fact, that all people, both religious and secular, agree with. :)

And Gryphon... on the book thing, you have a point... :rolleyes:

However, I'm still going to slag off books where the good guys win... :p

[Smog]

i believe in facts and scientific explanations i guess thats just my nature. but science and religion are 2 very different things. science relies on facts and being able to solve things logically. Religion on the other hand relies on faith, you cant prove religion, you can however have faith in it.

PTC, I understand why you are saying this, and I have met many devout Christians who believe excatly the same thing, and I hope this doesn't come across as an attack against you, because it is not meant that way.

However in light of what I just said, I disagree with your statement; you say that science is based upon facts, however, science can only be based upon observations of the created world. A scientist will make an observation of something, and then come up with reasons why whatever has happened happens. Therefore an observation can be interpreted in anyway that the scienctist thinks it should be interpreted. Science can never really "prove" anything, because it is based upon observations, and if the observations are flawed, or they do not collect all the data, then the conclusions made from said observations will also be wrong.

Also, religion, while it is based primarily upon ones faith in God, can also be supported through science. There are whole schools of science that support Biblical claims, showing that the Bible has more truth to it than some would give credit.

im must admit im not a typical christian who goes to church, i go for christmas and easter masses and we do have chapel at school but i belive the points of evolution, ive been doing biology this year and even the minor points of evolution to me make sense, but i still believe and have faith in christianity, no matter where u are, who you are or what you are you can always be accepted. thats somehting science cant do, but religion can.

When you say, you can always be accepted, do you mean you can be accepted by God, or by others?

facts are for science, faith is for religion. thats wat i believe in

Again, I disagree with this statement, because, as I said before, religion can be backed up by evidnence, and science can be flawed. (however, certain things such as the ressurection of Christ, cannot be proven, because they are by definition, miracles ;))

I hope nothing I said has offended you, because that is not my intend, and I hope you come back to debate more on this subject. :)

[inkspot]

Yeah, see Wallis' post on page 2 -- science and religion separated at some time in the past, to the detriment of both. In decades gone by, they weren't separate schools -- observable fact that inspired scientists related to spiritual truths that inspired believers. It's sad that now many intellectuals think they can't believe in both science and faith.

[Dernhelm]

This is an edited bit of a book by my Grandpa – unpublished, as yet – a conversation between two of the characters.


"Remember when you talked of the age of the earth? Were you serious in talking about the earth being several billion
years old? How old is the earth?"

"What's your opinion?"

"I don't know, some people say that
if you believe the Bible you have to say it's only 6,000 years old.
Others say the light from the most distant stars has been traveling
for billions of years and that there's all kinds of evidence that the
earth is maybe even 20 billion years old. There are good people on
both sides. How old do you think the earth and the universe are?"

"I don't think that's a good question. As far as the Bible is concerned many of the best Christian scholars back to the time of Augustine have said the testimony of scripture permits long periods of time but maybe half the Christian scholars have said 'no it doesn't.'
The earth may only be a few thousand years old, and the universe too for that matter. But it's very easy to ask foolish questions, and maybe this is one. It's like asking, 'what was God doing before he created the universe?' That's not a good question because time appears to be a function or property of matter-energy. So before matter-energy was created time did not exist. So the best reply is 'Don't be foolish. There was no time before creation' because there was no matter.
If you can't imagine a timeless universe try to imagine a universe without matter. How could you measure time? Likewise time and space are related in a complicated way if they exist at all in the form we imagine. I worked out the mathematics of a space trip once. If you had ion propulsion so that you could travel through space at nearly the speed of light you might visit a star and find another planet. There are hazards. The light from the stars would become x-rays at certain speeds and you might not survive the trip. But let's say you do.
Much of the time on your trip would be spent getting to the speed of light and slowing down again. But we'll program you for 60 years round trip. When you come back to earth you're 60 years older but you find that on earth 5 million years have elapsed. When you ask a question about time you have to ask whose time, because the observer enters into the picture. We tend to think about absolute time. Is there such a thing? Most scientists would say 'no.' But you say 'light has been traveling a long way from the edge of the universe. How far has it traveled?' Distance is relative too.
If you visit the Stanford Linear accelerator south of San Francisco you'll fine they propel particles in a straight line, a distance of two miles through a vacuum tube. To you as an observer alongside they move two miles. If you traveled at the speed the particles travel that distance would be just a few feet, not two miles. There's no absolute distance.
"'How old is the earth?' appears to be a common sense question and you'd like to have a common sense answer. If I gave you that kind of an answer we could be sure of only one thing. Within 20 years that answer would be wrong. In the history of science no estimate of the age of the universe has lasted longer than a few decades. Even worse, if empirical science could give us truth and that's logically impossible, could science give us truth about creation, a singular event, when it deals only with repetitive events? Science deals with processes but creation isn't a process. Therefore it is the wrong question to ask of science. How could you hope ever to get the answer from science, since it is empirical and depends on unreliable sensation and on fallacious inductive reasoning? How about getting the answer to the age of the earth from the Bible? I'm not sure we understand the first chapter of Genesis. All agree that it says God created the universe by a word. Then mysteries begin. There was light before the sun was made. Was that light the same as the light we get from the sun? There is good reason to doubt it, but we don't know. Were nuclear, gravitational and the electrical forces stronger at creation than now? We don't know. Did time move at the same rate as now? We don't know."

"A lot of things we take for granted then are probably imaginary."

He grinned. "Time, space and matter may be more imaginary than Santa Claus. We do know a lot about Santa Claus don't we? Let me caution you. If science can't prove the age of the universe neither can it prove the age or extent of the flood. As you love the truth don't try to prove scripture true by inferior evidences."

"I think I'm beginning to understand you. You'd rather not answer some questions and be thought dumb than to answer them cleverly but incorrectly and really be stupid."

He answered, "A created man who thinks he can sit in judgment on the Creator is really stupid. [...] Let's thank him that he has told us all we do need to know about creation."

Grandpa thought the big bang was perfectly possible. I really don't see that it should make that much of a difference whether the universe went "Bang" when God created it, or just appeared. Of course, the theory of the big bang could equally well be wrong – scientifically (sp?). I don't think one can say either way from the Bible.

Now, evolution is a completely different thing. The Bible says that God created each kind of animal individually (note that "kind" is not necessarily the same as "species"; each breed of dog is a different species, but all dogs are the same kind. So, whatever dog God originally created had, in its genetic code, all the genes necessary to produce, by selective breeding and so on, all the species of dog there are...and all that will be bred. (That's microevolution, and perfectly alright! :p) But guess what? There are recessive genes (or "alleles") that will not show up in the phenotype ("The observable expression of an organism's genes"; that is, what the dog actually looks like) until you have just the recessive alleles, no dominants. But it will never have a new gene! It can lose information; thus a mutation, but it will never gain information. I find it difficult to believe, even assuming that a "simple" life form could form out of chemicals (isn't that similar to Aristotle's belief that maggots could form out of meat?), that a loss of information could produce a more advanced life form. So the problem with this other type of evolution (macroevolution) is, first, that it contradicts the Bible; second, that it is scientifically impossible. New genes cannot be formed.


Ok; I think that was all I wanted to say! *pants* :p

[Pendelton_the_cook]

just like to add, that smog, non of what you said was offensive, i wouldnt have posted if i didnt want others views on my on ideas. i pretty much agree with all the points you said. there is definatly facts to prove christianity and also i agree that there are more than most people think there are.

when i said accepted, i ment by both, if you accept god, not only are you excepted by god but also by fellow christians. im also interested if anyone has any good sources or peices about both sides of this argument as i believe it is a great argument and will always be a topic open for discussion :)
(btw if my grammar seems off its cos im tired lol)

[waterhogboy]

Meh... I spose I may as well join in. If you can't beat em....... as the old saying goes.

First of all evolution is a definite thing, we have seen it firsthand in human lifetimes. The important thing is to distinguish between macro- and micro-evolution. Micro-evolution is a fact; animals can change within a sepcies to better adapt to the surrounding. The problem lies with macro-evolution, which states that animals can mutate and become a totally different species. We have no evidence from the present that this happens, only what we have dug up from the past.

Big Bang Theory is interesting. Personally, I dont care either way. In fact, me and moody Johan were chatting about this after church on sunday (we're so holy), and I said this to him. People who say 'God spoke and it happened in 6 days' are totally correct, but you know, when you actually start thinking about it, it becomes pretty silly-sounding. I mean god says let the water be gathered into one place so dry land appears. As he spoke this, did the water just *pop* to where God decided and suddenly bone dry land appear.... or did it move as God moulded and shaped the world according to his design. Well the answer is - I dunno. But whichever way demonstrates God's amazing power. I'd prefer the latter theory, as I believe it shows God as caring more about the world he creates, spending time rather than (and dont you HP haters come and burn me at the stake for this comment) idly waving a wand around and popping things into place.

So yeh, I was coming to big bang. In the same way, and Johan agreed, the Big Bang - if it was caused by God - shows his immense majesty and amazing planning and love when you think, he started with this chaotic explosion and then carefully crafted the ENTIRE universe with the matter he had created from it.

Now the 6 day = literal thing. Again - I dont care either way. I lean towards the more literal way, as there's no reason why God couldn't create it in 6 days. He's powerful enough. But as I remember, the Hebrew word day is actually 'period of time' aswell so it could be 6 periods that are being talked about. This I think is unlikely though, because why would you categorise them into 6 distinct periods if they were not actual days. Also it talks about morning and evening so that would suggest it was literal two.

Basically, like I said I dont care. God did it, however he did do it it was amazing and he showed his unbounded love for us in doing it. Why do Christians need to know how!??! Its not REALLY important. That's the information scientists seek. We want to know WHY? Arguing about how the world came about with science minded people isnt gonna go anywhere - we need to emphasise the why to people before the start up a creation/evolution debate...

[Johan 72109]

*applauds* Well said sir, well said indeed! :p

[WhiteWitchMeeka]

I've always found evolution silly to be honest. I was taught this in Science class and argued with my teacher. I may not be a Christian but I know we did not all start as monkeys. If you know your biology, you know that monkeys only have one cell and humans have 2.

The big bang theory I was also taught aswell that was the thing I ended up arguing over with my teacher. He shown us how it was done with a watch. I think I laughed too.

[Pendelton_the_cook]

nah i rate evolution, what water hog boy said about macro and micro evolution i think is completely correct, there are numerous examples of animals and species evolving to increase tehir chances of survival.
just like to add this was copy and pasted from BBC website just so its reliable and not sum hungover teenagers views lol

now charles darwin's ideas on evolution also included his views on natural selection. a text book example of natural selection and evolution of a species is the peppered moth example.

White and black peppered moths are a classic example of natural selection in action. Before the industrial revolution in Britain most peppered moths were of the pale variety that were well camouflaged against the pale birch trees that they like to sit on. Moths with the mutant black colouring were easily spotted and eaten by birds - giving the white peppered variety an advantage.

Then the industrial revolution came along in the 19th century. Airborne pollution in industrial areas mottled the birch tree bark with soot, and now the mutant black-peppered moths blended better against the darkened bark, while the white variety became much more vulnerable to predators. Over time the mutated black peppered moths were naturally selected to survive and became far more numerous in urban areas than the pale variety.

and i also like the idea of mutation in humans, mainly because X men is so cool :)

[Eve'sDaughter]

Yes, I can comprehend a species adapting to its surroundings, but the whole idea of one animal Example, A BIRD will NOT nor ever WILL turn into a lizard or a dog, or anything like that. I really think that evolutionists, (some, not all) take things they dig up out of the ground and say, "Oh look! The bone is like a human, but it's also like a monkey! SO that must mean that we all were monkeys."

DUH. THose people need to read Genesis. I cannot stress enough that God had a plan with every single creature he made. He gave some the ability to change and adapt, but he did not give them to ability to mutate into a different animal or being. Especialy humans.

[Dernhelm]

Precisly. The thing about the moths is that both kinds existed; the gene was there already, so the moth could adapt. If the gene for the peppered moth had not existed, the moths would not have adapted.

[Green Knight]

I personally believe in a combination of the two, and like Chrisitianity, there is no one true version of Evolution. One theory states that is was slow and gradual, and another states that it works in fits and spirts.

Here something, DNA has a helix shape, like some crystals. Aren't crystals earth, and doesn't the Bible state that God created man from the Earth. ;)

Mitochondral DNA, you get it from your mother, and it is only passed through women. There is the theory of the Mitochondral Eve. ;)

What is a day to a being like God? Perhaps is it only 24 hours, but what if it is longer. There was a line that George Burns says is Oh, God where he tells John Denver that when he got up this morning, Washington was crossing the Deleware. Providence is an infinite being, so his day would not confrom to our day. The day will be as long as "He" wishes it to be.

It all comes down to the point of what you believe is true for you, and other other people believe is true for them. No one person of group has the whole truth, we all have pieces of the truth.

[Dernhelm]

Does that mean that if one person goes back in time with a time machine, they will find one thing; and if an evolutionist goes back in time, he would find something else?

And what if one person does not belive: "what you believe is true for you, and [what] other people believe is true for them." Does that then make your statement false?

I'm not trying to slam you – just pointing out the problems with your belief. :)

[Green Knight]

I'm trying to say that everybody has a personal idea of what they think happened, but nobody knows what really happened. We all have a bit of an idea, some take inspiration from the religious sources, and some from scientific sources.

Creationalists can't prove their views to Evolutionists, and Evolutionsists can't prove theirs to Creationalists. We all have an idea of what we think happened, but we have no way to prove who is right, or who is wrong. Maybe we were created in God's image, or we evolved from lesser forms, all I was saying is that there is room enough in the world for all views.

[Eve'sDaughter]

All the proof I need is in the Bible.

[Pendelton_the_cook]

All the proof I need is in the Bible.
yeah good call :)

[Dernhelm]

Green Knight:

I'll give that everyone has there own opinion. :) I just wouldn't call it "their truth" as only one can be true; that's what made me think you were saying the other.

Now, I don't agree that Creationists can't prove their views. I think that Evolution was on very shaky ground just from the scientific point of view from the beginning. Now, all the evadence (sp? :o) is gradually pileing up against it...though Evolutionists won't tell you that, so it's not surprising so many people are misled. Just from a scientific point of view, it is really no longer viable (sp?).

:)

[Wallis]

Thomas L. Thompson, in his book The Mythic Past (Biblical Archaeology and the Myth of Israel), 1999, writes:

Does the garden story talk about the first historical human beings? Does it state that such early humanoids lived in a garden paradise at the beginning of time? Is the whole of the cosmos evoved in the space of six days, replete with geological stratification and fossils to test our faith? Or do we have to create scenarios of how seven days might somehow be God-speak for seven eras of millions of years to read geology and anthropology with intelligence? Are we condemned in each generation to argue anew that our knowledge of the great antiquity of the world and of the process of life's development in the past does or does not contradict the Bible? Surely not.

The authors of biblical texts knew precious little about the immediate past and next to nothing about the distant past. They had neither magic glasses nor any special knowledge. But they were good poets and skilful story-tellers. Their theology was adventurous and at times courageous, though their philosophy was unexceptional. With their own human limitations, their stories take us, not back to the beginning of time, but to an imaginary time, a mythical time, before the world was the way it is. Such a time is enclosed within the transcendent space of a Narnia-like, legendary land of Qedem in which our world comes into contact with the transcendent. It is here that our world was born in story and from Qedem that the narrative begins.



While there are few stories in the Bible that match the [I]tour de force of our garden story, many lesser stories use the same techniques of punning declarations of destiny to explain how our world got to be the way it is. These stories talk about the present, not the past. They talk about the real world of the story's narrator. Like the garden stroy and the creation stroy before it, they do not tell us about what God once did, but rather about how the implied authors and their audience saw and viewed their world. Puns and "cue-names" abound. As the Hebrew meaning of Adam's name ['adam for humanity; 'adamah for ground] expresses our humanity, and Eve's [hevah for mother of all living] echoes the word for "life" (Gen. 3:20), Abel's name (from hebel, "dew": Gen 4:2) reflects the fragility of his life, and Enosh's name (Gen 4:26) is the same word for "mankind" that descends from him. Noah's cue-name echoes his story in an ironic joke. Humanity finally "finds rest" (nah) from its alienation from the ground. Babylon (babel) reflects the babble (balal) of voices that once occurred within its walls, as well as the everyday experience of the alienating potential of human communication.

The stories collected in the Bible's first book opens with a poem describing the beginning of the world. In this poem, the divine spirit touches chaos, and, separating and distinguishing what hadben undifferentiated matter, brings form and order from barren darkness. It creates a wolrd that the poem presents as the work of God, a world that is understood by the divine craftsman as good. However, the following stories, from the garden story of Adam and Eve to the tale of the building of the city of Babyon and its tower, complicate the plot, long before the world comes to be anything that any of us might recognize as historical. These stories tell us of the human desire for wisdom and of the dangers of a little knowledge. The stories are humoours and ironic. They are presented in a stream of wordplay and uns. They end with a sceptical story about humans working in harmony and peace, building something for themselves. It will be a great city with a tower as high as the sky! The author, with his Babylonian mirror of Jerusalem, and with his tower hardly veiling David's Zion of legendary fame, offers us a world in conflict with God, where people do their own will and make a world that they see as good. It is a pious narrative, yet it is one that hardly expects much good to come of a creation that increasingly resembles the world we live in. The moral of this whole story from Genesis 1-11 is about conflict and alienation. It is intentionally unsettling.

[Excerpts taken from pp. 83-89]

[Johan 72109]

While your points are interesting, I must point out on the topic of Babel... You realise that they've found the ruins of an enormous, semi-completed tower in Babylon, dating back to before Babylonian civilisation began...?

[waterhogboy]

While your points are interesting, I must point out on the topic of Babel... You realise that they've found the ruins of an enormous, semi-completed tower in Babylon, dating back to before Babylonian civilisation began...?

Exactly!!!! So don't go there sister!!!!!

Here something, DNA has a helix shape, like some crystals. Aren't crystals earth, and doesn't the Bible state that God created man from the Earth. ;)

Ahhhh, but the only reason DNA is an a helix shape is because the peptide bonds in the amino acids are attracted to each other because of 'hydrogen bonding'. This means all the H atoms in the N-H part of the link are attracted to the O part of the C=O part of the group. As a result, the molecules twist into a shape where this can happen most efficiently - voila a helix shape.

In diamonds, you do not have peptide links as these are only found in proteins. Thus your theory falls down, as how can the elements change. The shape may be similar but there is no way the helix from a diamond can be transferred to the helix found in proteins.

[Johan 72109]

Erm...

Does anyone actually understand that post of WHB's? :confused:

Hehe... ;)

On the topic of Noah, I'll say that they've found a boat matching the exact dimensions of the ark in the Mountains of Ararat. In addition, they've proved that it certainly would be entirely possible to flood the river basins of the Tigris and the Euphrates, flooding pretty much the entirety of the Middle East, which would have been the only places inhabited by human beings if the Bible is to be believed. (Obviously, here I'm assuming that the flood refers to a flooding of the entire world as people knew it at the time, which may well be wrong - the flood may well have encompassed the entire planet. After all, we're talking about God here. :) )

[PrinceOfTheWest]

I've always thought the interesting stuff about the early Genesis period is what we aren't told. Just looking at the story tells you there are volumes missing there. I also find it interesting that though every civilization has a flood story, the details differ depending on the culture and location. For instance, in the mountainous regions of Iran, the flood legend tells of great cold and immense snowfall that smothered everything - just what you'd expect at a higher latitude.

Now, dispute there may be about floods, where and how high and how far. But there's no dispute at all that our globe is just coming out of an ice age. In fact, the last remnants of the last glaciers of the last ice age were melting in Hudson Bay while the pyramids were being built. Geologically, that was yesterday.

I'm not trying to draw any conclusions. I just find it interesting.

[Maximos]

On the topic of Noah, I'll say that they've found a boat matching the exact dimensions of the ark in the Mountains of Ararat.

Actually, the boat that they "found" has never been explored, measured, or even substaniated :-/. The flood myth (and I do not mean to imply it is not true, but instead adhere to the true word myth "A story of great but unknown age which originally embodied a belief regarding some fact or phenomenon of experience, and in which often the forces of nature and of the soul are personified") existed long before the Torah in tales like that of Gilgamesh. The important part of the flood story is not wheter or not we can find the ark or not, but instead the moral of the story and what it teaches about who man is and how God relates to man. Same things with the creation story, is it more important whether or not God created only the world and only 2 people in exactly and literally 7 days, or is the idea that we each take our own bite from the preverbal tree and fall from our innocent state and are in a place where we are in need of redemption?

As for Babylon, as a student of Near & Middle Eastern Anthropolgy, I must take up defense of the Babylonian empire. The Babylonian empire as one of the 3 most antiquated of all civilizations (along with the Sumernians and the Assyrians). Now if you mean the Tower of Babel that is a different thing and I must point out etemoligcally speaking, our word "babble" probably derived from this source.

[Johan 72109]

On the point of the Ark... surely, if there is more ancient texts dealing with a world flood, does this not indicate that it quite possibly happened? Nor was my point that we should find the Ark - I was just suggesting that maybe the story is true, and not just a metaphor? Perhaps I misunderstood you however... (Actually, misunderstanding people's common with me... :p )

Also, I don't understand your comments about Babylon - I wasn't talking about it, or how old it was. It's just the Tower was found beneath the remains of the City of Babylon, so predates it...

However, your point about the boats dimensions... Point taken... :o My bad. Still... you've got to admit, it's interesting... :)

[Maximos]

Oh it is very interesting and I do not discredit the possiblity of a flood by any means, just throwing that out there.

On the Babylon comments, I was actually replying to Wallis who made it sound like Babylon did not exist when he was discussing it with Noah and other topics found in Genesis, sorry for the lack of clarification. I agree about the tower predating the Babylonians, as a matter of fact, most people believe the tower was probably a Ziggarat from the Sumernian empire :)

Sorry for the confusion

[Johan 72109]

Hehe... Sorry... silly me... :o Whoops. :o

:)

[Wallis]

Archaeology has been able to substantiate many place names and accomplishments that are named in the Bible. Mr. Thompson points out, however, that so far archaeology has yet to confirm many historical ties directly into the Old Testament.

The flood story is not unique to the Bible, as many of you know. Legends of a great flood are abound throughout the world on every continent and every people.

I've done a lot of researching into a global flood, both for story ideas and an interest in the so-called galactic calendar.

There appears to be enough circumstancial evidence that supports three major floodings that greatly affected the ancient world: 12,000 years ago, 9,000 years ago, and 6,000 years ago. These floodings were so great that they would have made the recent tsunami pale by comparison. Apparently, the flood of 12,000 years ago was so bad that it caused mankind to have to abandon the surface of the Earth for a while. Huge caves found in Europe and the Middle East show that people lived underground for a very long time. Myths from Native Americans indicate that North Americans also had to live underground for a while.

The flood 9,000 years ago caused a great lapse in the Egyptian (or whatever they might have called themselves at the time) time line. It is interesting to find boats and piers near many of the ruins in the southern half of Egypt, when they are now surrounded by sand.

6,000 years ago, a great flood affected the civilizations of the Bosporous, Black Sea, and surrounding landmasses, causing wholesale exportations/evacuations of people.

Again, before I should upset anyone, a lot of this information is supported by some archaeology finds and geological theory. Still, it is worth exploring with a dash of speculation, and keeping an open mind.

[Dernhelm]

I'm not absolutly certain what you're trying to support with the above...I've lost track of who is replying to who...but, I would ask...how were these things dated? Radioactive dating?

[Wallis]

Let me get back to you, Dernhelm. I want to consolidate some research into something coherent. As an interim answer, much of the support for these three floods is archaeological and carbon dating ruins found. There is also some geological evidence to indicate that the landmass formations, especially in the Black Sea area, Turkey, and Greece, had changed considerably.

BTW, since the flood was brought up, I was responding to that sub-topic. I have a theory--or a plausible idea at this point--that much of our history and theology begin around 6,000 years ago--give or take a thousand--because of a catastrophic event. However, our ancestory as humans go back much further into antiquity. Conservative estimates are around 20-30 thousand years, and there are some scientists who feel that mankind has been around for up to a million years.

The curious point that pricks my mind is this rough 3,000 year cycle. It makes me wonder what had happened around 3,000 years ago, and there are examples of nature going beserk--as it were. Ruins now underwater, for example. There was a great decline of many cultures around 2300 B.C., thought to be brought on by a meteor strike in southern Iraq.

[Green Knight]

Check out Wikipeida, there are all kinds of articles on the different types of Creationism.

After looking some of them over, I find that I believe in Theistic Evolution. Basically, this belief stipulates that God created the world, and the creatures therein, then left them alone to grow and change.

[Saruman]

Curiosity compels me to write and ask, Green Knight, why it is you believe God "created" things and then suddenly allowed them to evolve in random patterns? I am just curious to know your train of thought, and what sort of particularities there are that lead you to this conclusion.

[Green Knight]

Did I say that Providence allowed to evolve in random patterns? Humanity doesn't have fur, or claws. Our teeth are blunt, we can't see in the dark, we are not fast, and our eyesight is not the greatest, the only things we have going for us is our opposible thumbs, our ability to work together, and our ability to make complex tools. Providence has been watching our backs while we climbed up to the level we are are at now. It has been the force that has been giving us hints on how to survive, the curiosity to search for answers, and the success in our endevors. When we reach a certain pennicle, Providence inspires the search of new knowledge and answers, and then gives us the wisdom to use it.

[LionessVoyager]

Did I say that Providence allowed to evolve in random patterns? Humanity doesn't have fur, or claws. Our teeth are blunt, we can't see in the dark, we are not fast, and our eyesight is not the greatest, the only things we have going for us is our opposible thumbs, our ability to work together, and our ability to make complex tools. Providence has been watching our backs while we climbed up to the level we are are at now. It has been the force that has been giving us hints on how to survive, the curiosity to search for answers, and the success in our endevors. When we reach a certain pennicle, Providence inspires the search of new knowledge and answers, and then gives us the wisdom to use it.

But how would it be possible, truely, for evolution or anything similar to exist? Just take one cell, a single cell, and examine it. You will find so much complexity, and Evolutionists expect us to believe that that evolved from a... monkey?

[Green Knight]

But how would it be possible, truely, for evolution or anything similar to exist? Just take one cell, a single cell, and examine it. You will find so much complexity, and Evolutionists expect us to believe that that evolved from a... monkey?

Darwin never said that we evolved from a monkey, he said that we evolved from a "Common Ancestor". Perhaps Providence got to liking a group of these creatures, over time there descendents became Humanity, and the descendents of the others became the Prosimians, the Monkeys, and the Great Apes.

We'll only know what really went on when we shuffle off this mortal coil.

[Charn_Tim]

Hello all,

I feel it is my duty as a christian physicist to put my 2 cents in here and weigh in on the creation/big bang debate.

First, I believe that both science and the bible are correct, and that special reveletion (the Bible-the inerrant word of God) and general revelation (the record of nature) are completely compatible with one another. I also believe that mistakes have been made by both scientists and christians in the past when it comes to interpreting the record of nature and the Bible respectively.

Having said this, I firmly embrace the "fact" that the big bang is the correct cosmological model of the creation of the universe, and that is in fact, how God created the universe-from an infinitesimal volume, with an infinite density, "evolving" into the univers that it is today with divine, intervening miracles by the hand of God along the way.

I think the reason so many christians find the big bang so hard to accept is that it requires that the universe be about 14 billion years old, and the earth about 4 and 1/2 billion years old. This seemingly conflicts with the creation in seven days account of Genesis 1. So what do we do in this conundrum? Do we reject the field of astrophysics and astronomy and say that they must be incorrect because it conflicts with the inerrant word of God? or do we reexamine our interpretation of Genesis 1?

Having undergone this same line of questioning myself (and having previously believed in a 24 hour 7 day creation about 10 000 years ago), I can tell you that it isn't easy to re-evaluate your beliefs. However, here are some biblical reasons why I believe in the big bang and the 14 billion year old universe:

1) the Hebrew word for day in genesis 1 is "yom" which is used in many other places in the old testament and depending on the context, means one of 3 things:
a) the 12-hour sunrise to sunset time period, a day
b) the 24 hour sunrise to sunrise day
c) an open ended period of time, possibly an epoch, or many (hundreds or
thousands of years). For example, Obadiah 15 " The day of the Lord is near..." or Leviticus 23:28 "Because it is the day of atonement..."

2) in the new testament, in 2 Peter 3:8 "With the Lord a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years are like a day."

Clearly, one "day" can mean many different time periods, not necessarily a 24 hour time period.

One last point and I'll stop:

Finally, we have to consider the purpose for which Moses recorded Genesis 1: it was clearly not to give a 21st century scientific account of creation, but rather to paint a (100% truthful and accurate) picture of the creation story so that amazingly, all people at all times in history can understand it and find meaning in the fact that God loves and cares for them through this story. He could have described exactly the order of events in the universe's origins-when photons became transparent to the universe, when stars and galaxies formed, when our solar system formed, and when the earth was finally prepared enough to support life...etc but he left those exciting discoveries up to science.

Sorry this was so long, :) but if anyone has any further questions/disagreements/discussion, I'll be glad to respond.

[inkspot]

Welcome Charn Tim, I didn't see you post before. Are you saying then that big bang and evolution are the correct story of life on earth?

I understand your rationale for the big bang, I just want to make sure that you also think after the big bang, life sprang into existence on its own, in a single cell, that turned into all life on earth today over millions of years (as opposed to God creating Adam and all the animals).

[PrinceOfTheWest]

If I read Charn Tim's posting correctly, all he seems to be saying is that from what we can tell of the natural world, it's quite old and started with something like a Big Bang, and that such an understanding does not necessarily conflict with the Genesis account of creation, since the term "day" in Genesis does not necessarily mean "a 24-hour period". It doesn't look to me like he was trying to extend the meaning any further than that, at least in this post. Perhaps I should let him speak for himself? :)

[inkspot]

If I read Charn Tim's posting correctly, all he seems to be saying is that from what we can tell of the natural world, it's quite old and started with something like a Big Bang, and that such an understanding does not necessarily conflict with the Genesis account of creation, since the term "day" in Genesis does not necessarily mean "a 24-hour period". It doesn't look to me like he was trying to extend the meaning any further than that, at least in this post. Perhaps I should let him speak for himself? :)

You are right, in his post he didn't address evolution, but as that's the topic for this thread, I wondered if he were going there?

I can agree that a scientifc description of the creation of the universe might come out like the BIG BANG, but I can't read the rest of Genesis as the adaptation of a single cell into alll forms of life over millions of years, and I wondered if that's where Tim was heading ... :o

[PrinceOfTheWest]

That's a good point. Any thoughts, Charn Tim? For my part, my rejection of popular evolutionism lies on purely scientific grounds. Lewis makes some excellent points about the philosophical basis, but it's the genetic and microbiological advances that make it untenable for me.

[Charn_Tim]

That's a good point. Any thoughts, Charn Tim? For my part, my rejection of popular evolutionism lies on purely scientific grounds. Lewis makes some excellent points about the philosophical basis, but it's the genetic and microbiological advances that make it untenable for me.

Welcome Charn Tim, I didn't see you post before. Are you saying then that big bang and evolution are the correct story of life on earth?
I understand your rationale for the big bang, I just want to make sure that you also think after the big bang, life sprang into existence on its own, in a single cell, that turned into all life on earth today over millions of years (as opposed to God creating Adam and all the animals).

Thanks for the welcome, this is my new favorite website. ;)

Well, although I believe in the currently accepted scientific theories regarding the creation of the universe, I certainly don't embrace the current naturalistic "scientific" theories regarding life on earth, that is, that life sprang up into existence over millions of years on its own, without the divine intervention of a creator, because as has been stated in this thread already, even a single celled organism is just too complex. For more on this, I would consult Michael Behe's excellent book, Darwin's Black Box, in which he, a Christian Biologist, scientifically argues against evolution as the explanation for life on the grounds that life is "irreducibly complex." If anyone is interested I can summarize his arguments further, or you can just consult the book... :)

You are right, in his post he didn't address evolution, but as that's the topic for this thread, I wondered if he were going there?
Oh, yes, that's correct, I didn't actually address evolution in my previous point, I was more trying to clear up (what I regard to be) the false view of the creation of the universe-a 7 24 hour day creation period, which alienates the scientific community from Christians unnecessarily.

[inkspot]

I see, very good. I agree with you.
And I agree with PoTW that the evolution theory as presented today has too many holes to be a likely thing.

So that Darwin's Back Box is a good book, is it? It's on my list to read when I can get to it.

[Charn_Tim]

I see, very good. I agree with you.
And I agree with PoTW that the evolution theory as presented today has too many holes to be a likely thing.

So that Darwin's Back Box is a good book, is it? It's on my list to read when I can get to it.
Oh, yes, it is an excellent book. I got interested in it when Michael Behe came and spoke at my school (Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo) and he very much convinced me of "irreducible complexity." His arguments are very sound, and as he said in his talk, the best arguments against his view by his pro-evolution peers was nothing other than an ad hominem argument-that is, others have said, "The only reason Behe says this is because hes a Christian, and its biasing his views." Not one successful argument to my knowledge has been launched against his idea.

[inkspot]

Excellent, thanx. I'll check it out. :)

[Elendil]

Let God be true and every man a lier (that is in the bible, somewhere)
If you belive in God, then why not belive him. If God said he created everything in 6 days, you better belive it. If God lied in Genisis, that would mean that the rest of the bible could just as easily be a lie...
In other words:
Anyone who belives in Evalotion is a crackpot.

[Charn_Tim]

Let God be true and every man a lier (that is in the bible, somewhere)
If you belive in God, then why not belive him. If God said he created everything in 6 days, you better belive it. If God lied in Genisis, that would mean that the rest of the bible could just as easily be a lie...
In other words:
Anyone who belives in Evalotion is a crackpot.
"Let God be true and every man a liar" - Romans 3:4, when Paul is talking about the advantages/disadvantages to being a Jew or Gentile...

Of course I believe God created everything in 6 "days." The question is, what does "day" mean. As I have stated earlier, a "day" elsewhere in the O.T. means one of 3 different things. Why should we pick out one of the three meanings over the other two? I submit that we have no reason to, except by general revelation-true science which tells us the universe is pretty old, so God must have created it a long time ago. Believing this has nothing to do with denying the inerrancy of scripture; it only has to do with how we interpret through our imperfect human minds this perfect book.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

I think that the gist of Charn Tim's original post (which didn't actually address evolution, but the creation of the universe and the time span question), you'll see that he is not questioning the veracity of God's Word, but merely pointing out that the word used for "day" is used in Scripture multiple ways. To superimpose a more narrow, modern usage on it (i.e. day must always and only equal 24 hours) is, in fact, to do the greater damage to the text.

Another example is the use of the term "son". Usually it means "immediate male descendant", but the Scripture uses it also to mean male descendant of any generation - as in "Jesus, son of David". If you were to superimpose the narrower definition on the word "son", you'd be saying Scripture was lying, since we know Jesus was not the immediate male descendant of David.

I learned this distinction from Dr. Francis Schaeffer, evangelical apologist and theologian, and the late 20th century's strongest defender of the integrity, inerrancy, and literal truth of the Sacred Scripture. He was the last person on earth who would seek to undermine the authority of Scripture, yet in the interest of preserving that authority, he pointed out that words could legitimately be understood several ways.

[Charn_Tim]

PoTW~

Excellent point...I really like that analogy of Schaeffer's with "son." I am also a big Francis Schaeffer fan, and I have read several of his books; I'm curious-which of his books was this discussion in? or maybe its not in print? It would be cool to follow his thoughts a little further on that.

[inkspot]

[I]
Anyone who belives in Evalotion is a crackpot.
Play nice, Elindil. There are many non-crackpots who have believed in evolution, such as Isaac Asimov, a very good and renowned sci-fi writer. You have to understand that evolution is taught to kids in school as a fact, so if their parents are not interested in the subject, they grow up believing it. That doesn't make them crackpots, just deceived.

As it stands, evolution theory is full of holes, but some folks are so enthralled with the idea of denying God's existence, they have rallied around bad science in their zeal. They have gained the upper hand in education, so a generation of youngsters are being poorly educated as regards this topic. It is not their fault, and it doesn't make them crackpots. :o

[PrinceOfTheWest]

I am also a big Francis Schaeffer fan, and I have read several of his books; I'm curious-which of his books was this discussion in? or maybe its not in print? It would be cool to follow his thoughts a little further on that.Sadly, I think I read that in a magazine interview, and it was years ago, so I don't even remember which magazine, much less which issue. Sorry!:o

Schaeffer is great - firm, uncompromising, and always scholarly. In my experience, the three greatest warriors who have helped arm me against the flood tide of modernism have been Lewis, Schaeffer, and Peter Kreeft.

[Elendil]

There is so much proof against E. why would anyone belive it? (Okay inkspot, anyone who has reserched it and all that.)
There are many reasons that it can't possibly be true. Like if the earth was millions of years old. I read a study on it, (by scientists) and they said it couldn't be that old for 2 reasons:
1. If the earth was millions of years old the world's population would be at least 600,000,000,000. (I'm sure it was more than that but this is off the top of my head.)

2. An everlutionist did a study, on the earth. (You know how things go from good to not-so-good, to not-good, to bad, to very-bad, and so on) This study he did showed that if you went back 6,000 years, the world would have been completly perfect. (eg. Garden of Eden)

There are many other reasons, but this is just quickly. :rolleyes:

[Queen Swanwhite]

i think of it like this, if the bible says He created the earth, then He did.

[Bitter Milton]

2 reasons why evolution is flawed


Uh, what

I suppose that might be the case if humans had existed since the formation of Earth several billion years ago, but you have to remember, from a geological perspective, humans have not been on the earth for very long at all. Also, it does not seem logical that the earth could reach a population upwards of 6 billion in only several thousand years.

Your second point doesn't really make sense to me. Could you please expand upon it a bit? Thanks

[Charn_Tim]

There is so much proof against E. why would anyone belive it? (Okay inkspot, anyone who has reserched it and all that.)
There are many reasons that it can't possibly be true. Like if the earth was millions of years old. I read a study on it, (by scientists) and they said it couldn't be that old for 2 reasons:
1. If the earth was millions of years old the world's population would be at least 600,000,000,000. (I'm sure it was more than that but this is off the top of my head.)

2. An everlutionist did a study, on the earth. (You know how things go from good to not-so-good, to not-good, to bad, to very-bad, and so on) This study he did showed that if you went back 6,000 years, the world would have been completly perfect. (eg. Garden of Eden)

There are many other reasons, but this is just quickly. :rolleyes:

Elindil, it is important to not pick out the one thing that suits your interests that you have read by a "scientist" who claims to have "proved" evolution can't happen, and claim that it is a done deal. First of all, I would personally like to see a reference to this study, because I have never heard anything like it by a "scientist" I have ever come across from any of my classes in college. On the contrary, like it or not, evolution is a more dominant view than creationism in our country's top educators in the sciences, and to make a blanket statement that they are all "crackpots" is pushing it a little too far, and not helpful in reaching these people for Christ. :)

By the way, you also seem to be confusing the issue between how old the universe is vs. biological evolution, and assuming that believing in a universe that is around 14 billion years old and believing in biological evolution is synonymous. There are plenty of born again christians (myself included) who feel that the belief in an "old" earth (around 14 billion years) is completely compatible with Genesis 1 (see my lengthy post above) and that it is perfectly reasonable to believe that God created the universe 14 billion years ago, and had been divinely creating new life forms over the period of millions of years in preparation for his ultimate creation, humankind. Where I (and others who hold this view) differ from evolutionists is that they think that these new life forms spring up "naturally" with no divine intervention from God, and I feel that is where their argument breaks down for two reasons- 1) Scientifically, it is impossible (see the work of Michael Behe on "irreducible complexity") and 2) it is contradictory to scripture (see genesis 1/2, psalms 139/104, etc. etc.) :)

[Bitter Milton]

Just something to keep in mind: Evolution does not deny the existence of God in the least. It does not adress the claim by many that God created all life, simply because that cannot be tested scientifically and has no scientific backing.

[Gryphon]

You refuse to see the evidence of God when you say that there is no scientific backing for creation. In the universe there is a series of numbers that make up everything, EVERYTHING! exsactly perfect, how can this happen by chance? You refuse to see the evidence of God that we give you and you also blow off what we say so why should we try to debate YOU Bitter Milton? Also, it is possible to get several billion people on the earth in a short amount of time. What im wondering is, why dont you think its logical?

[Charn_Tim]

wow, Gryphon, I encourage you not to overreact, it may be that we all must agree to disagree on this if there can be no civil, controlled discussion. :) Keep in mind that God does not need us to defend him-he can take care of that for himself, and if someone (I'm not saying Bitter Milton is doing this necessarily) rejects the truth, he's not rejecting you, but God.

I'm actually wondering if Bitter Milton would care to expound on his statement that "It [evolution] does not address the claim by many that God created all life, simply because that cannot be tested scientifically and has no scientific backing." It seems to me that believing in evolution alone as the cause and source of life here on planet earth does in fact contradict the Bible-see Genesis 1/2, Psalm 104 (and numerous other that I had not time to look up). Perhaps you mean that it does not contradict the fact that there is a God in general, not necessarily the specific Christian God?

[Bitter Milton]

Yes. While the some parts of the theory of evolution may contradict the bible, this does not mean that evolution is an outright rejection of god. The theory of evolution attempts to explain how life originated, nothing more. Evolution does not adress god, because simply put, God is outside the realm of science. You cannot prove or disprove the existence of God.

[inkspot]

Just something to keep in mind: Evolution does not deny the existence of God in the least. It does not adress the claim by many that God created all life, simply because that cannot be tested scientifically and has no scientific backing.
Evolution theory may not address the question of God, in fact Darwin notes (weakly) that perhaps an intelligent creator had designed evolution to work the way it did ... but it certainly contradicts Scripture and implies that life is an accident.

[Charn_Tim]

Yes. While the some parts of the theory of evolution may contradict the bible, this does not mean that evolution is an outright rejection of god. The theory of evolution attempts to explain how life originated, nothing more. Evolution does not adress god, because simply put, God is outside the realm of science. You cannot prove or disprove the existence of God.
Okay, yes, I agree with you on most of this. For us Bible believing Christians, this is an important point-that evolution/science can disprove the Bible and it is important for us to interpret science and the Bible intelligently and correctly so that our beliefs correspond to ultimate reality.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

To the people that believe it, the Creation is true, the same goes for those who believe in Evolution.That's an interesting statement. The universe is an objective reality - it only happened one way. Now, if you want to state that it doesn't matter very much how it came about, and the important thing is how we live in it now - well, that's another issue. But two contradictory statements cannot be true at the same time.

[Green Knight]

Science is not trying to say why Providence did it, just how it might have been done. Science has, mostly, proven the existence of Eve, via mitacondrial DNA.

[Green Knight]

That's an interesting statement. The universe is an objective reality - it only happened one way. Now, if you want to state that it doesn't matter very much how it came about, and the important thing is how we live in it now - well, that's another issue. But two contradictory statements cannot be true at the same time.

I was speaking of subjective reality, each person's personal reality. When it comes to that, then both statements are true. The rest is true. It is one of those arguments that piss people off, and will probably never be solved, unless someone finds away to use wormholes to travel in time.

[inkspot]

I was speaking of subjective reality, each person's personal reality. When it comes to that, then both statements are true. The rest is true. It will probably never be solved, unless someone finds away to use wormholes to travel in time.
What, now? You are saying one thing is true for me, another true for Bitter Milton -- but in the end, one of those truths is not true? I am not getting the picture here ... :o

[Green Knight]

I was trying to be clever and say that all of us contribute, with our beliefs, ideas, and notions to what is called "objective reality". The reality that we all agree upon, and share. As opposed to our personal realities.

[Charn_Tim]

I was trying to be clever and say that all of us contribute, with our beliefs, ideas, and notions to what is called "objective reality". The reality that we all agree upon, and share. As opposed to our personal realities.
Yes, it is true that each of us has a subjective experience; however, metaphysical reality exists independently of our ablility/experience of observing it or believing in it. While personal reality, made up of our own individual unique life experiences, may be different from one person to the next, the fact is, that an objective universe and metaphysical reality exists, and we are simply trying to figure it out and get it straight here on earth before we die and face an afterlife for eternity (if it exists...). So we cannot just chalk up our disagreements to the attitude of, "well, that's true for you, but this is true for me."

In light of this, I'm not sure what this "objective reality" that we all agree upon and share is that you're referring to. Like Prince of the West says, because the universe and metaphysical reality exists and operates independently of our "beliefs, ideas, and notions" it is important to figure it out as best we can, and hence this discussion.

GreenKnight, after responding to some of my questions in the above paragraphs, perhaps, we should get back to the discussion which is the topic for this thread. Would you (or BitterMilton or anyone else) care to offer any ideas, theories, discussion for why you think evolution is correct?

[unseen_dreams]

Oh man, this is one of those subjects that you can talk and talk about and never come to an agreement, but here's my view:

I have no problem believing in the possibility of evolution or any other theories about how we got to be the way we are and also believing that God is the Creator. I know that somethings in the Bible seem to be contradicted by those theories, but that depends on how you read those words. If you don't take the Bible word for word then three days could be any number of years, but, for the amount of work done, a very short amount of time. Or it could be three stages of creation. Anything. Depending on how you think about it, it may not be contradicting at all. And in any case, I believe that there has to be Someone keeping the universe from going into (as someone said earliar) total chaos. Too many things work together for a single purpose for it all to be unplanned. Even more amazing is the fact that it was all done in a way that our puny minds can even partially understand. Otherwise some of the more practical people in the world would be forced by lack of explanations into Christianity or some other religion and that would take away one of God's gifts to us: free will.

Sometimes I think about how humans can discover as much as we want about how we all got here and where we're all going, but we can never completely understand and I'm not sure which one amazes me more: the fact that we can understand so much or the that the universe is so complicated that we can never understand it all.

[narnianfoxx]

one point that can pretty much shut down all evolutionary theories. its a scientific fact that all things in the cosmos work in a breaking down motion...everything decomposes over millions of years. how then could the theory of evolution be true? evolution is all about composition. it is a contradiction to science.

[nFx]

[Green Knight]

I guess what I am trying to say is that I can believe in both evolution and creation, and that both work for me. The type of creation that I think could be possible is a theory call Old-Earth Creation. Providence created the world, and it is 4.5 billion years old.

[Charn_Tim]

one point that can pretty much shut down all evolutionary theories. its a scientific fact that all things in the cosmos work in a breaking down motion...everything decomposes over millions of years. how then could the theory of evolution be true? evolution is all about composition. it is a contradiction to science.

[nFx]
With all due respect, this is actually not a valid argument...How then do you explain how a little seed in the ground can "evolve" into a plant if all things are running down? or how do you explain star formation from giant molecular clouds or nebulae? Unfortunately, the argument of the 2nd law of thermodynamics that all things are running down does not contradict evolution. Fact: the entropy of the universe is always increasing, but locally, the entropy of a system can decrease, and become more "ordered," like star formation from a nebula in a galaxy provided it gives some of its entropy to the universe and the total entropy of the universe increases.

However, as has previously been stated in other threads and this one, the best argument against evolution (in my opinion) comes from Michael Behe's book, Darwin's Black Box, in which he explains (and gives examples of many of these) the fact that biological systems are "irreducibly complex" and that it is scientifically impossible for these biological systems (like a cellular component) to operate if it is missing one single piece.

These biological machines work in the same way as does a mousetrap for example; if one piece of the mousetrap is missing, you get no mousetrap. Not a half-working, incomplete moustrap, but no mousetrap working at all. It is the same for thousands (if not millions) of biological systems in your body, and I encourage you to consult Darwin's Black Box for more examples of this. Thus, the species gains no reproductive advantage by having all of the components necessary to create this biological machine in place except one or two of them, and the argument for "slowly varying gradual speciation" has no merit at all. If an evolutionist seeks a naturalistic explanation for the "evolution" of life, he must refute this point of irreducible complexity.

[Charn_Tim]

I guess what I am trying to say is that I can believe in both evolution and creation, and that both work for me. The type of creation that I think could be possible is a theory call Old-Earth Creation. Providence created the world, and it is 4.5 billion years old.
I think I half agree with you on this. I also believe in an "old" earth of around 4.5 billion years, give or take a few hundred million years or so. I also believe that "Providence" (I would say Jesus Christ) created the universe around 14 billion years ago which he has been preparing for his ultimate creation-humankind.

I would disagree that purely "naturalistic evolution" whereby genetic material which gives a reproductive advantage has been "naturally selected" to give the diverse set of species that we see today. I think that there are gaping holes in the current naturalistic evolutionary theories which cannot be satisfied without a creator who divinely intervened and created life here on planet earth. Furthermore, I submit that both the bible and the record of nature agree on this, and I would be happy to discuss my reasons for this if you would like.

[Smog]

Well, I am interested as to why you believe that this is what the Bible teaches; could you please explain?

[narnianfoxx]

do you all think intelligent design (all religions aside) is plausible? or do you all think that it is all by chance?

[Charn_Tim]

Well, I am interested as to why you believe that this is what the Bible teaches; could you please explain?
I'd be happy to :)

First of all, in the "Creation vs. Evolution Discussion" thread on page 6 (this is in the Land of the Duffers section; sorry I can't figure out how to provide a link to it), I expound upon my biblical reasoning for this assertion (that the earth is approx. 14 billion years old, like modern science has discovered). Here is an excerpt if you are interested:


1) the Hebrew word for day in genesis 1 is "yom" which is used in many other places in the old testament and depending on the context, means one of 3 things:
a) the 12-hour sunrise to sunset time period, a day
b) the 24 hour sunrise to sunrise day
c) an open ended period of time, possibly an epoch, or many (hundreds or
thousands of years). For example, Obadiah 15 " The day of the Lord is near..." or Leviticus 23:28 "Because it is the day of atonement..."

2) in the new testament, in 2 Peter 3:8 "With the Lord a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years are like a day."

Clearly, one "day" can mean many different time periods, not necessarily a 24 hour time period.

Finally, we have to consider the purpose for which Moses recorded Genesis 1: it was clearly not to give a 21st century scientific account of creation, but rather to paint a (100% truthful and accurate) picture of the creation story so that amazingly, all people at all times in history can understand it and find meaning in the fact that God loves and cares for them through this story. He could have described exactly the order of events in the universe's origins-when photons became transparent to the universe, when stars and galaxies formed, when our solar system formed, and when the earth was finally prepared enough to support life...etc but he left those exciting discoveries up to science.


We as Christians have to avoid falling into the trap of using scriptures falsely to combat valid developments in science. I liken this dilemma (young earth vs. old earth) to the dilemma involving Galileo and the church of the 17th century. The current christian view of the solar system was that of a geo-centered system-that is, that the earth was at the center of the universe. The clergy and others used Psalm 104:5 to justify their position: "He sets the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." To them this meant that (literally) the earth remained stationary relative to all other celestial bodies in the universe, including the sun; therefore, we have a geocentered universe. But what the church failed to realize was that this is poetic license taken on the part of the psalmist; it was using poetic language to describe reality. It was simply not their intent to speak "accurately and scientifically" in the 21st Century sense regarding the orientation of the earth with respect to the rest of the universe. After all, the last I checked, it makes for a pretty lame poem (or psalm) to discuss "scientifically" nuclear physics or astrophysics, for example.

In the same vein, we need to understand the purpose of Moses when he recorded Genesis 1. Was it to give a detailed "scientific" explanation of the origin of the universe? I submit that it was not, and that the Biblical account of creation is perfectly reconciled with modern cosmology/astrophysics.

What does this have to do with creation/evolution? Well, I think it is important to push the right things when arguing with atheists/agnostics. If you have to argue that the Biblical view of creation is that the earth/universe is 10 000 years old to combat the evolutionary theories, you don't have much of a scientific leg to stand on. But if you only argue against the falsity of evolution (see "irreducible complexity") then you are much more effective and can give a much better argument for Christianity and the inerrancy of the Bible.

Sorry this was so long; hope it helps. I'd be happy to discuss your ideas, opinions, thoughts further. :)

[Gryphon]

wow, Gryphon, I encourage you not to overreact, it may be that we all must agree to disagree on this if there can be no civil, controlled discussion. :) Keep in mind that God does not need us to defend him-he can take care of that for himself, and if someone (I'm not saying Bitter Milton is doing this necessarily) rejects the truth, he's not rejecting you, but God.


haha, im sorry, sometimes i come across angry or rude about these things when in fact i am very calm indeed, i apologise for seeming this way. Bitter Milton is a part of the Narnia Fans family and i choose not to forget that. and so i leave this discussion...

[Jedi of Narnia]

**FORGOT TO ADD... I AM GOING TO BE GONE FOR A DAY OR TWO SO I WON'T BE ABLE TO RESPOND, HOPEFULLY I WILL BE BACK BY THURSDAY**

wow... read through all the posts (well most of them) and I think I am the first aethist to take a shot... here it goes. Hopefully I will just state my general view and maybe address a couple of things I remembered reading and then we can go from there because there was A LOT of questions that people were posting... so here it goes.

I am an extremely strong aethist. I started out in Catholic church probably when I was 3 or 4 because my Mother is Catholic. I think I attended church for about 10 years. I don't think I really ever had faith in God, I can never remembering actually believing in God but I finally told my mom I was going to stop going when I turned 13. I read the Bible for Sunday school and researched when I was in High School, but I've never read it cover to cover.

One of my reasons for being aethist is just I could never understand God. It just seemed stupid to me why I would think there is an entity that is above all physical law. I mean I just can't believe that there is a thing up in the sky or in another dimension or whatever that just sits and has watched us for billions of years. I mean you actually believe there is some entity watching us right now, that created us... I take a lesson from a movie called Contact, they used a thing called Ackham's Razor: the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. What more likely and simple, there is an all knowing, all seeing God that has existed forever or we simply have evolved over billions of years and we just made him up to not feel alone. A lot of people have talked about the complexity of our universe and the science of our world being impossible to have just happened. I see this as a reason why God doesn't exist, why not make our system simple. Why would God put all this complexity into the world when he created the world in just 6 days (I thought it was 7 days, doesn't really matter). Why not make things very simple?

I also think that religion was made up to make us feel good about what happens when we die. I think a lot of people, including myself are scared of death. I mean loss of conscience is a pretty scary thought but I really think it is what happens. I think religion was designed to give us a reason not to be scared, oh look there is another place to go after this and it also makes us abide by rules. I don't like it when people say that the Bible is the reason people have morals or gets morals. I don't get my morals from the Bible, I get my morals from me, from my parents, from my friends. Why is it so hard to believe that we can think for ourselves and be able to say that is right and that is wrong? And just because the Bible is old doesn't make it an authority, if I buried the Chronicles of Narnia in the ground for thousands of years, would people dig it up and believe it is true? I just don't understand where that faith comes from where you just accept the Bible as truth, it just doesn't register with me.

The earth is 4.5 billion years old, possibly older. It's called carbon dating. Using radio active isotopes they date things on the earth with half life calculations. Please don't say that it isn't true because carbon dating is accurate. We also have platetectonic records of plates shifting beneath the earth. At one time these plates were very close together and over time they have separated. When people say I don't really understand what the bible means by a day and then you tell us that our argument has holes. You are actually debating what a day means, a day is A DAY. It is 24 hour period, one rotation of the earth. It has always been that way, it will always be that way until something crashes into us. Astro-physics are complicated, but they involve mass, attraction and time, things that don't change easily.

The DNA argument is one that I am surprised people are making. If you compared the DNA of a primate and the DNA of a human, they differ by only 1.2 percent. Out of 3 billion nucleotides, they only differ by 1.2 percent. People and primates differ by only 1.2 percent. Now that is actually a lot of nucleotides but scientists are learning that the vast range of nucleotides in the middle of the entire DNA strand are actually useless. They code for nothing, they are simply meant as separators. Although this isn't confirmed yet, they think it is true because it is important to the keep some coding genes far from other coding genes. So really, we aren't that far away from chimps. The farther you move away from chimps down the animal line, the more the differing percentage grows. This implies that we have mutated down the line. Mutation is part of life, mistakes are made in nature. What do you think happens when we get retardation, birth defects, etc... This is DNA mutation that occurs in chromosomes. Chromosomes are tightly wound DNA that code for everything. If you have 46 chromosomes (I think it is 46)... you have a biological organism. We are getting to the point in science where we can fabricate human beings, build them from the ground up. While I don't agree with this, it implies that we are God. How could we create human beings in a way God had not intended? It's also possible for 2 women to create conception although it has to be done artificially, it can still be done. It seems like the Bible would imply this isn't possible.

Wow... alright I wrote a lot. I have more to say but I think I will leave it at that and see how people respond and then go from there.

[Charn_Tim]

Jedi of Narnia~

Thank you so much for openly expressing your beliefs here in this excellent post :). I appreciate your honesty and candidness, and I will respond to this thread tomorrow (hopefully morning), as it is pretty late right now and I am about to go to sleep. And of course that's cool to be out of it for a couple days...I see no reason to rush this discussion :) .

[Charn_Tim]

Okay, here goes. If I am reading your post correctly, it seems that we have a number of issues to discuss here if you don't mind. Rather than taking them all on at once, let's take the "divide and conquer" approach-split them up and discuss these issues one at a time. So, as I understand it, here are some main points of your beliefs that I would like to discuss:

1. One of my reasons for being aethist is just I could never understand God. It just seemed stupid to me why I would think there is an entity that is above all physical law. I mean I just can't believe that there is a thing up in the sky or in another dimension or whatever that just sits and has watched us for billions of years. I mean you actually believe there is some entity watching us right now, that created us... I take a lesson from a movie called Contact, they used a thing called Ackham's Razor: the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. What more likely and simple, there is an all knowing, all seeing God that has existed forever or we simply have evolved over billions of years and we just made him up to not feel alone. A lot of people have talked about the complexity of our universe and the science of our world being impossible to have just happened. I see this as a reason why God doesn't exist, why not make our system simple.

If I understand you correctly, it seems that you are saying that you see no reason for a God when you look at nature, and we should explain our observations using the simplest possible theories, and you back this up with a quote/worldview from a movie/science. Furthermore, you don't see how all the complexity/science implies the existence of a creator.

2.I also think that religion was made up to make us feel good about what happens when we die. I think a lot of people, including myself are scared of death. I mean loss of conscience is a pretty scary thought but I really think it is what happens. I think religion was designed to give us a reason not to be scared, oh look there is another place to go after this and it also makes us abide by rules.

Here you seem to be saying that religion in general and Christianity in particular is made up to give us comfort/hope for when we die.

3.The earth is 4.5 billion years old, possibly older. It's called carbon dating. Using radio active isotopes they date things on the earth with half life calculations. Please don't say that it isn't true because carbon dating is accurate. We also have platetectonic records of plates shifting beneath the earth. At one time these plates were very close together and over time they have separated.
Here you are claiming that you believe in all the facts of physics/geology/paleontology, etc. that say the earth is around 4.5 billion years old and that the yourg-earth creationists appeal to the flood as the source of the geological record/fossil record, etc. is invalid and contradictory to science.

4.When people say I don't really understand what the bible means by a day and then you tell us that our argument has holes. You are actually debating what a day means, a day is A DAY. It is 24 hour period, one rotation of the earth.

I believe the issue you are raising here is what the Bible means when you (and any of us) reads their english translation of Genesis 1 and it speaks of the "Days of creation" and "evening and morning on the xth day." You (and incidentally many other "young-earth creationists") submit that when Moses recorded Genesis 1 he intended "Day" to mean a 24 hour time period.

5.The DNA argument is one that I am surprised people are making. If you compared the DNA of a primate and the DNA of a human, they differ by only 1.2 percent. Out of 3 billion nucleotides, they only differ by 1.2 percent...scientists are learning that the vast range of nucleotides in the middle of the entire DNA strand are actually useless...Although this isn't confirmed yet, they think it is true because it is important to the keep some coding genes far from other coding genes. So really, we aren't that far away from chimps. The farther you move away from chimps down the animal line, the more the differing percentage grows. This implies that we have mutated down the line. Mutation is part of life, mistakes are made in nature.
Although I have not heard of this biological/DNA information regarding a human and a chimp (and if you could provide further reading on this material I would be grateful-perhaps where you got this information), I think the argument you are making here is that since the differences in genetic material are so small between chimps and humans, we can assume that we must have evolved from chimps. And subsequently, the genetic material of a chimp and other animals differes similarly, implying that chimps evolved from still lower lifeforms.

6.We are getting to the point in science where we can fabricate human beings, build them from the ground up. While I don't agree with this, it implies that we are God. How could we create human beings in a way God had not intended? It's also possible for 2 women to create conception although it has to be done artificially, it can still be done. It seems like the Bible would imply this isn't possible.
Finally it seems that you are implying that since human beings are getting to the point where we can fabricate life on our own, and since you claim that it seems against the Biblical worldview, this is another piece of evidence against the divine inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Okay, so if I misinterpreted your words in any way, I apologize; I really just want to get what you are saying straight so we can avoid arguing past each other-I've done this many times with some of my friends and it is no fun at all :o . So in the interest of clarity and the "divide and conquer approach," I will title my posts with the number of the point that I am discussing and it might be a good idea if you do the same.

Once again, if it takes a while to finish discussing this, then so be it. If we have to put our discussion on hold for a while or indefinitely, then so be it-obviously we have our lives to go live. But I hope this will provide some civil, interesting, enlightening, and informed discussion that both sides can learn something from. It irritates me (and you no doubt as well) when people speak about these topics in vague form and misrepresent the other side so much. My purpose in this discussion is to get a better understanding of the facts of science and the Bible, which hopefully will lead to the acceptance of Theism-and ultimately Christianity. But if it doesn't, then so be it; we are all in a learning process in this life-no one knows truth exhaustively, and we have until we die to figure this stuff out :).

P.S. MODS- If you would like to move this discussion to a new thread, that would be fine. I hope this is okay what we are doing, and I hope it does not have to be closed like so many other threads that have come before. :)

P.P.S If anyone else wants to jump in, I welcome that of course. I just ask that we stay on topic and discuss facts, not feelings or emotions. :)

[Charn_Tim]

Okay, well, I'll start by addressing this one-it's probably best to start with some common ground and go from there :) .

I fully agree with everything you have said about the facts of the record of nature-that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old, the universe is around 14 billion years old, and that tectonic activity is responsible for the current state of the continents being as they are today (and all other mountains, hills, valleys, rivers, etc.); I will later show (or perhaps I already have in a previous post) how I feel that this does not contradict what the Bible says.

However, not that it is very important to this discussion, but I learned in my nuclear physics class (and I can give references if you like) that carbon dating has a half life of only about 4 000 years and it can only be used to measure ages up to about 50 000 years. They actually use the uranium/lead radioactive decay process to determine the age of the earth and other things on similar time scales. :)

[dazzascfc]

Ive never understood why this is debated so much, it always seems to be one or the other.

I am a big believer in evolution, it is a subject that i have been interested in since a young age, it makes a lot os sense to be me, but i dont see any reason why it should go against what the bible says, i think that they could easily co exist and both theories be true.

[Jedi of Narnia]

Ive never understood why this is debated so much, it always seems to be one or the other.

I am a big believer in evolution, it is a subject that i have been interested in since a young age, it makes a lot os sense to be me, but i dont see any reason why it should go against what the bible says, i think that they could easily co exist and both theories be true.

See I don't think they can. God CREATED Adam and EVE, they didn't evolve. How did humans evolve from single cell organisms if God created them? If you want to the view that God created the Earth and laid the "primodial soup," that's fine, but you can't believe in Genesis and believe in Evolution. I think some sort of God creating the earth is more vialable, it is sort of an intelligent design theory.

But let me make it clear, if you believe in Genesis and the Bible, you believe in creation, NOT EVOLUTION. That's fine if you believe in creation, it's possible that it is right, but you can't believe in evolution and the Bible at the same time. Adam was create by God and then Adam's rib was taken to create Eve.

By the way, that was a good summary of my views, I mean some points were a little off but the basic idea was pretty much correct. I figure if there is a minor misunderstading we can always clear up and let me add I have a lot more reasons why I believe what I believe, I just thought of those as being some of the easiest to write out in paper. Charn_Tim was also correct about the Carbon dating, it only works for recent fossils but I was just using that as an example, they use loads of of radioactive materials and bone marrow chemicals to track age. Thanks for giving me a welcome, I think I got started off on a bad foot in the other thread...

I like the idea of titling the threads and trying to keep it organized but I think as more people post it will just breakdown, I will try to cite and address posts as much as possible. I think as long as people read every post (which I do) I think we will understand what posts are addressing what topics.

PS - the information about the chimps I found in my AP Biology book a while back but I also find it on this website. It is actually an article from a Seattle newspaper (I am from Seattle).
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/238852_chimp01.html

[Elendil]

Well said Jedi!!!

[dazzascfc]

they didn't evolve. How did humans evolve from single cell organisms if God created them?
Evolution is a proccess which happens after life has begun, about how one life form can evolve from another life form, Evolution is NOT how life started.

Humans didnt evolve from single cell organisms, humans are homo-sapiens which are a member of the monkey family, we are very very similar to the early homo-sapiens which is why its widely believed that we evolved from apes.

There was life on earth for billions of years before humans first stepped foot on the planet.

Im not very religious and i dont believe everything that is written in the bible, i do believe some stories though. But i dont see any reason whatsoever why evolution, and other scienfific reasons for how the earth was created can co-exist with some of the biblical stories.

[Jedi of Narnia]

Well said Jedi!!!
Thanks :)
Evolution is a proccess which happens after life has begun, about how one life form can evolve from another life form, Evolution is NOT how life started.

Humans didnt evolve from single cell organisms, humans are homo-sapiens which are a member of the monkey family, we are very very similar to the early homo-sapiens which is why its widely believed that we evolved from apes.

There was life on earth for billions of years before humans first stepped foot on the planet.

Im not very religious and i dont believe everything that is written in the bible, i do believe some stories though. But i dont see any reason whatsoever why evolution, and other scienfific reasons for how the earth was created can co-exist with some of the biblical stories.
some scientific reason you can believe in while believing in the Bible. But this Genesis vs. Evolution is the main difference. Not even interpreting and twisting the words can get around that creation is set in stone in the bible.

This was taken straight from Reverand's website
"In Genesis 1: 27, it is written that when God created man in His own image"
http://www.tparents.org/Moon-Books/bif1/BIF1-1-103.htm

"God CREATED man." It doesn't say God created apes, primates or even homosapiens as a species, it says God created man and it also goes on to say he separated them into female/male on purpose. I didn't read the entire section but its point seemed to be demonstrating against homosexuality so ignore that. The important part is the first few sentences.

This was also taken a few lines down from the Reverand's website
Needing an object partner, He created the world. Therefore, God created one man and one woman.
http://www.tparents.org/Moon-Books/bif1/BIF1-1-103.htm

It goes on to say that God had created the Earth so man/women could inhabitat. Therefore, he created the earth and then inserted the man and women in. Even if you don't buy that God had inserted some other kind of lifeform in, how would it be possible for humans to be reponsible for original sin. If original sin was comitted by primates, then primates would have souls. I mean it's possible primates have souls, but I don't think the Bible would say they wouldn't.

It may sound radical, but if you believe in Genesis and the Bible you don't believe in Evolution. They are just two completely opposite theories. Hopefully I have demonstrated that here because it's not a matter of opinion, Genesis and Evolution are different. I will admit that it is possible to have creation and evolution. A creator could have possibly introduced organic materials which jump started the life on this planet, but this is not what it says in Genesis.

I hope the Bible people (sorry, I can't think of the word for people who believe in the Bible) agree with me. Sorry if I came across as pushing evolution onto you, I am just saying that Genesis DOES NOT mix with Evolution. I have more to say about other stuff but I will stop, this post is a little long...

[Charn_Tim]

By the way, that was a good summary of my views, I mean some points were a little off but the basic idea was pretty much correct. I figure if there is a minor misunderstading we can always clear up.
Excellent. I agree completely.

PS - the information about the chimps I found in my AP Biology book a while back but I also find it on this website. It is actually an article from a Seattle newspaper
Thank you; I am looking this over...I am always interested in scientific studies regarding these things.

...To be continued...

[Charn_Tim]

It may sound radical, but if you believe in Genesis and the Bible you don't believe in Evolution. They are just two completely opposite theories. Hopefully I have demonstrated that here because it's not a matter of opinion, Genesis and Evolution are different. I will admit that it is possible to have creation and evolution. A creator could have possibly introduced organic materials which jump started the life on this planet, but this is not what it says in Genesis.

I hope the Bible people (sorry, I can't think of the word for people who believe in the Bible) agree with me. Sorry if I came across as pushing evolution onto you, I am just saying that Genesis DOES NOT mix with Evolution.
Haha, I guess I am one of the "Bible people." :) Well, I would like to say that I 100 % agree with Jedi of Narnia on this point-one cannot believe in BOTH the infallibility and divine inspiration of the scriptures and believe in evolution by natural selection as the reason for the diversity of life on planet earth. Indeed, I do believe in Genesis and the Bible and I don't believe in Evolution by natural selection as the cause for the diversity of life (or the creation of life for that matter).<