Evolution

[Sassamo]

One thing I'd like to point out is that alot of people try to say that the 6 'days' may represent periods of time, and that's as far as they take it. This really isn't a possibility, it doesn't even fit the evolutionary model. There really are only two ways of looking at this, either literally, or completely allegorically.

First of all, it'd be practically impossible to determine a set timeperiod that fits each 'day', so each 'day' wouldn't be created equal(ly), we would have to be able to dynamically assign different lengths of time according to our necessity.

Secondly, the Big Bang model and the Creation model don't line up at all. The Big Bang starts out with a mass of matter, exploding into free particles, eventually clustering into galaxies, then forming stars, then planets are formed, everything starts out hot and slowly cools over time, life is started in the water, life evolves eventually to move onto land meanwhile new things are evolving in the water, then at some point we have life in the air. This does not line up at all with Genesis, which states that in the beginning was heavens(air, space, heaven) and the earth, which had water on it, so it started out cool. Then light was created(not the sun or stars, just light), then plants, then the sun and stars, then 'every' thing in the water and air, then finally land animals and humans.

Perhaps it would be much more evident if I somehow posted this as a timeline or a table of some sort, but the basic idea here is that the order of events is a complete jumble, and in no way represent each other. Science in no way could allow for the biblical order of events while supporting long timeperiods, it just isn't physically possible. So the only way to even possibly support BB/evolution would be to take an allegorical approach to such an extreme as to ignore every literal word, order of events, synchorious events, conveyed ideas, etc., and recreate our own entirely different view of our origins.

So to recap, it's not just a question as to whether a 'day' equals a day, but rather it's an 'all or none' scenario, and even the most symbolic of passages/dreams/interpratations at least follow some sort of logical flow/side-by-side comparison.

 

[tjguitarz]

No one here has said if it isn't in the Bible than throw it out. What people are contending is where evolution and Scripture seem to be in direct opposition to each other.

This is exactly what people are doing. Evolution is not in the Bible, so it is being thrown out without a careful analysis of evidence. Evolution and Scripture are only in opposition if you are locked in your interpretation. We know with all the groups of Christians (Catholics, Lutherans, Baptists, etc) that we are allowed flexibility in secondary matters, of which evolution is one. It is dangerous when someone becomes so rigid in their beliefs that they refuse to allow those beliefs to be tested. These are the people that say, "Evolution is wrong. I don't need to look at the evidence." They also say, "Homosexuality is wrong. God wouldn't make people that way if he said it is a sin." In both of these situations, the evidence supports that evolution occurred and is occurring, and that same sex attraction is not a choice but genetically decided attribute. This type of dogmatic thinking is so harmful to Christianity. It is fast making Christianity irrelevant in a society that places its faith in scientific truths and frowns on a childish and rigid belief system (emphasis on secondary issues). Like I said, our purpose as Christians is to tell the life and work of Jesus Christ. For this reason, I wonder if our secondary beliefs should mold to our target population.

Note: Let's refrain from a debate on being gay. We can save that for another thread.

 

[Patriot]

This is exactly what people are doing. Evolution is not in the Bible, so it is being thrown out without a careful analysis of evidence.

I disagree.

Evolution and Scripture are only in opposition if you are locked in your interpretation.

I believe a literal interpretation is the only interpretation that makes sense, given the text. As I said earlier in this thread, no one has ever managed to explain where the switch occurs from allegorical to literal in Genesis.

We know with all the groups of Christians (Catholics, Lutherans, Baptists, etc) that we are allowed flexibility in secondary matters, of which evolution is one. It is dangerous when someone becomes so rigid in their beliefs that they refuse to allow those beliefs to be tested.

Assumption. In your eyes my beliefs have not been tested. Unfortunately, you don't know me from anyone else on this board. Again, I have been through this before. I have examined the "evidence" before. I may not have read the books you read, but those books are hardly the keepers of some secret knowledge that evolution is true.

These are the people that say, "Evolution is wrong. I don't need to look at the evidence." They also say, "Homosexuality is wrong. God wouldn't make people that way if he said it is a sin."

Why? Why did you have to go there? I don't declare that homosexuality is wrong. I merely let you know what the Bible says. If you want to throw out the Bible (or certain parts of it) I cannot stop you.

In both of these situations, the evidence supports that evolution occurred and is occurring, and that same sex attraction is not a choice but genetically decided attribute.

I disagree. Your interpretation of the evidence may suggest that, but mine doesn't.

This type of dogmatic thinking is so harmful to Christianity. It is fast making Christianity irrelevant in a society that places its faith in scientific truths and frowns on a childish and rigid belief system (emphasis on secondary issues).

I don't follow society and it's leanings. My faith is on Christ and His work. Just because society places it's faith in science (which are not necessarily truths, as discussed earlier in this thread) doesn't mean I should follow suit.

Like I said, our purpose as Christians is to tell the life and work of Jesus Christ. For this reason, I wonder if our secondary beliefs should mold to our target population.

Society rejects the idea of God, Christ, sin, hell, etc. Where do you draw the line? How much are you willing to sacrifice?

Note: Let's refrain from a debate on being gay. We can save that for another thread.

Then don't bring it up. . .

Funny, you use the same phrases again, exemplifying why I tried to agree to disagree with you:
without a careful analysis of evidence
locked in your interpretation
rigid in their beliefs
dogmatic thinking
childish and rigid belief system

Can we at least agree, for the sake of civility and this discussion, that I have a brain and I might exercise it every once in a while? And that I might have looked into evolution a bit further than you seem to want to admit?

 

[Wolfeman]

The problem is that the evidence does not support evolution. Yet any time someone tries to argue against it or ask questions they are immediately labeled an "unintelligent religious nut job" and "anti-science".

It is not that Christians are dogmatic or anti-science, it is the fact that we are attacked and slandered by those who don't want God as any part of the explanation with such ferocity. No one wants to feel ignorant or less than others. Yet every time we open out mouth, no matter how good the argument or question, we are immediately labeled as such. We long ago lost the PR war and are paying for it now. No one wants to be on the losing side.

Scientists are abandoning evolution (and even the big bang theory) in droves because the preponderance of evidence is against it. Even with all the evidence against evolution, we Christians still attempt to support it so we can feel and look intelligent by wrapping it up in the creation story.

As long as evolutionist continue to practice the "big lie" theory and attack anyone who questions them as anti-science or unintelligent, we will never have a fair discussion on this matter.

 

[Abba San]

As long as evolutionist continue to practice the "big lie" theory and attack anyone who questions them as anti-science or unintelligent, we will never have a fair discussion on this matter.

Sounds a lot like the whole global warming debacle.

 

[Wolfeman]

Sounds a lot like the whole global warming debacle.

Same theory. Attack and insult. Make people feel or imply that they are stupid for their belief instead of addressing the issues. If you can avoid discussion, you don't have to make a real case.

To be fair, the catholic church did it first during dark ages. But the humanist crowd has perfected it and media has picked up the drumbeat.

Since people tend to believe the first thing they are taught and then almost always defend it no matter what (to avoid having to admit they were wrong - Thank you ego), by teaching it early and often has had the effect we see today (it also explains the sexual education movement we are seeing in kindergarten-3rd grade the past 20 years.

 

[Patriot]

To be fair, the catholic church did it first during dark ages.

I'd hesitate to give them the honor of being the first. There have been many large powers over time and most probably realized the effectiveness of this tactic. As the Preacher states in Ecclesiastes 1, there is nothing new under the sun.

 

[Wolfeman]

I'd hesitate to give them the honor of being the first. There have been many large powers over time and most probably realized the effectiveness of this tactic. As the Preacher states in Ecclesiastes 1, there is nothing new under the sun.

Fair enough. I was merely referring to the science/Christianity portion of this but you have a very valid point.

 

[tjguitarz]

Patriot, I am not trying to belittle you. In my experience, creationists seek information about evolution from creationist literature. They don't read books about evolution by evolutionists. You can see how this bias makes it impossible to make a balanced evaluation of the evidence. I have seen this in my parents, my schoolmates, those in my small group, leaders of my church, and in myself a few years ago. I have never met a creationist who has read a score of nonfiction about evolution. Maybe you are the first.

I don't feel like this conversation is being productive anymore, so this will be my last post.

 

[ewoksrule]

I don't need to study counterfeit material to know its counterfeit. I will just keep studying truth and avoid the lies.

 

[Wolfeman]

In my experience, creationists seek information about evolution from creationist literature. They don't read books about evolution by evolutionists. You can see how this bias makes it impossible to make a balanced evaluation of the evidence. I have seen this in my parents, my schoolmates, those in my small group, leaders of my church, and in myself a few years ago. I have never met a creationist who has read a score of nonfiction about evolution. Maybe you are the first.

There is a certain amount of truth in what you say. We as humans don't like to admit we are wrong about anything we believe. This compounds itself if we feel or believe that our knowledge somehow makes us better than others. This is especially true in my case. For almost 35 years of my life I believed and supported evolution. As you suggested, I only sought information from evolutionist. I did not care to make a balanced or fair evaluation of the evidence. I looked down upon those who took a literal interpretation of Genesis even to the point of attacking those who didn't believe the way I did in my younger years. When presented with evidence that did not support my views I ignored or attacked it. I knew what I knew and science had proven it. Anyone who suggested differently was just a mush headed idiot who needed religion as a crutch because they just weren't smart enough to understand the evidence. Me and my Mensa card could easily prove that. Once I got saved the Lord opened my heart and allowed me to look at all the evidence with an open mind. The evidence for evolution is truly flimsy. Evidence for an earth only 6000-10,000 years old is no where near as much as I'd like to take into a debate with but it's there if you approach the subject with an open mind.

I don't feel like this conversation is being productive anymore, so this will be my last post.

We seem to be having a constructive discussion with no personal attacks or belittlement. You are correct in your first point that Christians are viewed with a backwoods or anti-science viewpoint. Unfortunately, that is a view others have of us because they have been told that's how we are. We might strengthen that viewpoint with the way we defend ourselves (no one likes to be attacked the way we are routinely attacked) but nothing we do short of admitting we are wrong and they are right will change the attacks.

 

[Patriot]

I don't feel like this conversation is being productive anymore, so this will be my last post.

Right. Agree to disagree.

 

[Cool_Hand_Luke]

To actually answer the initial question, by definition the Bible and Evolution is diametrically opposed.

You cannot be a Christian and believe in evolution...ask me why.

 

[Lloren]

To actually answer the initial question, by definition the Bible and Evolution is diametrically opposed.

You cannot be a Christian and believe in evolution...ask me why.

Oooh! Can I guess!?? Is it because Jesus alone isn't enough for salvation?? Because we need to have other culturally acceptable religion beliefs tucked away into our nutter bag to qualify for heaven?? /s

 

[Lloren]

Science excels when it mimics God's creation.

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/janine_benyus_biomimicry_in_action.html

Pretty neat video about how science is developing technologies copying what God has already created in nature.

 

[Odale]

Very cool video, too bad that lady sounds like shes always out of breath heh (I didnt make it all the way through.. going to bed).

 

[Sassamo]

That was a cool presentation, with a lot of interesting facts and new concepts. It's just to bad she attributes this all to evolution forming these amazing abilities, instead of God.

To actually answer the initial question, by definition the Bible and Evolution is diametrically opposed.

You cannot be a Christian and believe in evolution...ask me why.

I'm asking you why. Not because I don't believe it, I do agree, but I'd just like to hear what your input is on the topic, perhaps it's some useful information I haven't heard yet.(Well, to be clear, you can be a christian and believe in evolution, just like you can be christian and still sin, but I do believe that the Bible and evolution are opposed.)

 

[Avesther]

If I might add, the Theory of Evolution (via Darwinism) does not attempt to explain where life came from or how it started. It attempts to explain how we came by the species we have today coming from common ancestors. There are many parts within the Theory of Evolution and Darwinism that I outright reject (takes God out of the picture) and others parts that make sense and is compatible with God.

You can not dispute the evidence that certain aspects of evolution have occurred and continue to do so today. Everything evolves and adapts to the environment they live in. There are too many examples in the world to simply dismiss aspects of the theory out of hand.

 

[Patriot]

You can not dispute the evidence that certain aspects of evolution have occurred and continue to do so today. Everything evolves and adapts to the environment they live in. There are too many examples in the world to simply dismiss aspects of the theory out of hand.

Which aspects?

 

[ewoksrule]

Variation within a species.