I'm not sure what to do...

Skibabinz

Skibabinz

New Member
First off, I want to say thanks for caring enough to read what I have to say. Its really nice to know people actually take time to give a thought to others in this troubled world of ours.

So here is my issue. No this isn't a crisis of faith, and I know I'm definately not losing my faith. The problem is evolution, and I just don't know how to handle it. I mean I know there is a ton of evidence that suggests it, and even today in my biology class, my professor showed us how when a person has lice, they kill it off with X chemical, then some remain and their offspring are resistant to it is a form of evolution.

My problem here is accepting evolution. I mean a lot of evidence suggests it, and I know that no matter what is "proven" to be real or what have you, I know for a fact that it is the work of our almighty loving God. I know that. I just don't know about evolution because every time I think about considering it, I am reminded of that scripture in the Bible, I can't remember the place or exact verse but it was something along the lines of "They will exchange the truth of God for a lie" or something similar, and I feel awful for considering it.

I don't know what to do. Any suggestions?
 
Evolution is complete bunk. It fails completely on a macro evolution scale. Every major discovery has proven macro evolution wrong. It works on a micro evolutionary scale as demonstrated by the lice issue your professor brought up. But even then it has it's limitations and is not fully presented with all it's faults and limitations in a standard classroom. It's success on a micro scale is why it is used to explain macro evolution and the fact that there is no other tangible alternative.

Lee Strobel has an excellent book "The Case for a Creator". It does a really good job of explaining why evolution is still taught, the numerous arguments against it and a pretty good argument for creationism.

There is also this interesting web site listing numerous prominent scientist who don't support evolution. http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/index.php

Personally, I believe what the Bible tells us. 6 literal days to create it all and put it in it's place and then one to rest.
 
Macro evolution has not been proven, it only has gained massive support from those that want to deny God.

Micro evolution has been shown, like in your lice example. Humans have gone through similar micro-evolutionary changes. We no longer need our appendix. People that live in far northern regions tend to have less pigmentation in their skin because they don't need it to protect them from the sun. But people in tropical/equator regions have more pigmentation because they need it to block the additional UV radiation. Giraffes with longer necks are more likely to survive because they can reach the taller trees. Faster lions can hunt more prey.

The list goes on and on.

But that does not justify the leap from small changes within a species to cats turning into dogs.
 
"The problem is evolution, and I just don't know how to handle it"

Check out Dr Walt Brown's "In the Beginning". It's free to read online.
It will help you gain a better, much fuller understanding of the issue. So you have more security and confidence built upon "Why" Macro evolution doesn't work as well as the case for ID.

You can also watch a video "Unlocking the Mystery of life" free at Google video.
It's fantastic. Group of scientist from various disciplines exam ID vs. EV

And answersingenesis.org
 
The way I look at it goes as such: Should it be true, it is an unrivaled display of God's genius in his works.

Imo, if micro evolution exists, then why not macro evolution? (But that's just my opinion.)

I hope that helps.
 
Well I mean its like I said, everytime I think about accepting it I get this feeling like I shouldn't. Another thing is the questions I have about it, and the answers I've been given such as:

>If something is in need to evolve to survive, the time it takes to evolve into a new species would be far greater than the time it would take whatever caused the need for evolution to destroy it in the first place wouldn't it? An example of this would be when fish started to move onto land. Why would a fish go for land in the first place, when it would know "Hey if I go out of the water I'm going to die". I just don't see how any fish would develop a reason or method to go onto land without a guiding hand to make it so. I asked my biology professor this after a lecture on evolution and he said he didn't know.

I also know that there are people who accept evolution in terms of intelligent design, but it (evolution) just doesn't seem plausible to me. However I do know like you said, if it is the way it happened, it is a substantial showcase of God's power.

Maybe also, my deal is with atheism, and kind of associating it with evolution. I suppose that could be a logical reason since I have some friends who converted to agnosticism, and one in particular debates me often, however it just kind of broke my heart that they stopped believing.
 
Last edited:
While it may not be wise to directly challenge your prof, it is up to you to decide whether to buy into it or not. Many Christians believe evolution is how God works (and that is what my professor said but he was quoting some Russian bishop I believe) but fundamentalists in general do not tolerate the idea. I don't know what to believe but in class I'd just go along with what the books say, as I'm studying biology, not religion. As for me, I think many numbers in the Bible are symbolic, such as the ages of the people in Genesis, maybe the whole creation story is symbolic as I don't think Adam was the one who wrote it, or anytime that early, because pen and paper wasn't invented yet. A good read (first thing on Google) http://www.british-israel.ca/Genesis.htm

It may all be a parable, as we have so far been unable to find eden with all that satellite stuff and all.

Don't quote me, I'm not sure, just stating my mind at present and my reasons for taking a soft stance to this issue.

TL;DR: I don't know, but to me, Evolution neither proves nor disproves God (David Attenborough - but note that guy is not/no longer a Christian)
 
Could you all keep this thread for prayers and move the discussion part over to "What does God Say?" please. We need to be able to encourage each other in prayer in this area. Thank you. Actually I just moved this thread. If you want to repost to be lifted up in prayer please feel free to do so.


Blessings and Hugs, "Angel"
 
Last edited:
Skibabinz said:
I mean I know there is a ton of evidence that suggests it, and even today in my biology class, my professor showed us how when a person has lice, they kill it off with X chemical, then some remain and their offspring are resistant to it is a form of evolution.
Click to expand...
That evidence suggests micro-evolution. The question you should ask is will any of their future offspring be something other than lice (with a better resistance to X chemical)?

If someone says that yes they will eventually be something other than lice, you should also ask, why has this not been repeated in a laboratory environment? The scientific method determines that a hypothesis should be accompanied with testing. If testing proves your theory, it needs to be repeatable. All proponents have been able to do is offer hypothesis and point to evidence that they say supports their theory, there are no experiments that provide conclusive evidence (unless they cheat and use a micro-evolution experiment to say macro-evolution is real).

Skibabinz said:
My problem here is accepting evolution. I mean a lot of evidence suggests it, and I know that no matter what is "proven" to be real or what have you, I know for a fact that it is the work of our almighty loving God. I know that. I just don't know about evolution because every time I think about considering it, I am reminded of that scripture in the Bible, I can't remember the place or exact verse but it was something along the lines of "They will exchange the truth of God for a lie" or something similar, and I feel awful for considering it.

I don't know what to do. Any suggestions?
Click to expand...
I think you should take a good look at the "evidence" that evolution has to offer and compare/contrast with what the Bible says and how creation scientists examine the same "evidence." I think you will find the problem lies not in the evidence but in the interpretation.

You will also find a number of eccentric Christians who, although the mean well, have turned Christianity into a defense of creationism. While I believe that creationism is the truth and important, it is not the primary message we are tasked with delivering to a lost world.

Odale said:
Imo, if micro evolution exists, then why not macro evolution? (But that's just my opinion.)
Click to expand...
Non Sequitor. It does not follow that if one exists the other should as well. I could just as easily say, "If horses exist, why not unicorns?"

silverleaf said:
I don't know what to believe but in class I'd just go along with what the books say, as I'm studying biology, not religion.
Click to expand...
To assume that because it is in a book that it is truth is a bad way of approaching things. You may have to learn their view to pass the class, but I wouldn't accept it at face value.

silverleaf said:
As for me, I think many numbers in the Bible are symbolic, such as the ages of the people in Genesis, maybe the whole creation story is symbolic as I don't think Adam was the one who wrote it, or anytime that early, because pen and paper wasn't invented yet.
Click to expand...
Moses is generally accepted as the author of Genesis. He most likely had the story passed down through oral tradition or God divinely inspired him. Or perhaps both.

silverleaf said:
It may all be a parable, as we have so far been unable to find eden with all that satellite stuff and all.
Click to expand...
Think "giant, world-wide flood." The earth probably looks much different than it used to.
 
Ey guys, got an update. I've decided that despite what might be said in text books, or by the so called "evidence" for evolution, I don't buy it.

Thanks for all the help, God bless.
 
Looks like a great discussion, there's a few things I'll add (since I happen to love this subject so much).

First, there should be no such thing as "creation versus evolution". It should be "creation versus natural abiogenesis". Know why it isn't? Because people have no clue how things got here "naturally". There are many competing models/theories, and they all have their problems. So, people pin evolution up against creation instead, and say "ok so evolution is true and the natural changes must go back to the beginning of time". God could have created Adam and Eve to look like cavemen in the Geico commercials. Ameoba's? No, but I don't think any type of evolution is necessarily incompatible with the bible.

However, the belief folks have in macro-evolution is indeed mostly un-merited and un-scientific.

I think part of the thing folks have to realize is that there is an awful lot of evidence counted "for" evolution that should be counted against it. One of the big things cited is the fossil record. People say "oh, well we have these old and more simple fossils, must be evolution!" The truth is, however, that spradic "clumps" of fossils (which is what we have) are great arguments against evolution. If animal A evolved into animal B over millions of years with tens of thousands of tiny changes, we should SEE that in the fossil record. Instead, we see a bunch of animal A, and a bunch of animal B.

Evolutionists say "oh, there are similarities in animals, MUST be related!". Creationists say "hmm, must be one Creator!". And on and on.
 
Patriot said:
Non Sequitor. It does not follow that if one exists the other should as well. I could just as easily say, "If horses exist, why not unicorns?"
Click to expand...

That was more of a hypothetical statement than anything else. Besides, horses would need to evolve first! :D

I don't believe this is a non sequitur because if evolution exists in some form (it does exist and has been scientifically proven to exist, both micro - within species, and macro - old species to new species) then we can likely assume that it exists in other forms. But this isn't the place for that discussion. :)

I'm glad you came to a conclusion Skibabinz.
 
Last edited:
Odale said:
I don't believe this is a non sequitur because if evolution exists in some form (it does exist and has been scientifically proven to exist, both micro - within species, and macro - old species to new species) then we can likely assume that it exists in other forms. But this isn't the place for that discussion. :)

I'm glad you came to a conclusion Skibabinz.
Click to expand...

The bold statements is what I don't buy into. On one hand, we can't prove with 100% certainty that yes this was how it happened, we can only say with 100% certainty that this is looks to be a possible way for it to have occurred. On the other hand, exactly at what point would species A, become species B? For arguments sake, lets say that a woman gives birth to a child that is the new "species" humans evolve into, is this how it occurs in nature?

Edit: I suppose this post sounds a bit mean or something. If offense is taken, I'm sorry.
 
Last edited:
Odale said:
I don't believe this is a non sequitur because if evolution exists in some form (it does exist and has been scientifically proven to exist, both micro - within species, and macro - old species to new species) then we can likely assume that it exists in other forms. But this isn't the place for that discussion. :)
Click to expand...
Please provide a link to the scientific proof of macro-evolution.

I can tell you right now that it doesn't exist and whomever told you it was proven was lying to you.
 
The thing you have to keep in consideration is that moving from a fly species to a fly species is not macro evolution. Reading the article (focusing on the conclusion, as I'm too stupid to understand the meat in the middle), it says:

There appears to be a widespread agreement among evolutionary biologists the the geographical model of speciation is a feasible and important speciation mechanism
Click to expand...

This is similar to the less-scientific statements that Darwin made about the finches. Different colors and beak structures were evident, and has been supported. But at no point did a finch become a bluebird or a cardinal, much less an osprey, eagle, or turkey....much less a dog, elephant, or fish.

Scientists generally want to take this proof of change within a species and say "it could mean that XYZ." But they have no proof, no evidence, no working model. It's simply a non-sequitur to say that because a house fly species, under perfect lab conditions, become (over hundreds of generations of flies) a fruit fly, then giraffes, apes, and whales are related.

But because scientists refuse to accept God as a possible input, they eliminate the theory that most likely will survive Hoccam's Razor. But that's why they're scientists, not theologians or philosophers.
 
Last edited:
Durruck said:
The thing you have to keep in consideration is that moving from a fly species to a fly species is not macro evolution.
Click to expand...

Actually, that is the very definition of macro evolution (any evolutionary change at or above the level of species - Source).

Durruck said:
Scientists generally want to take this proof of change within a species and say "it could mean that XYZ." But they have no proof, no evidence, no working model. It's simply a non-sequitur to say that because a house fly species, under perfect lab conditions, become (over hundreds of generations of flies) a fruit fly, then giraffes, apes, and whales are related.
Click to expand...

That's how research works though. You aren't sure how something works, so you do some research, form hypotheses, run experiments and observe the outcomes. It very well could mean that giraffes are related to dogs (just an example), but thats just an implication of the research (it may or may not be, I don't know, just another example).

Also, these perfect lab conditions you mention are just slow changes in climate. I have to doubt the idea that these researchers made the lab environment in such a way that it would promote evolution (if they did do that, then these experiments weren't ethical, and yes there is such a thing in science. :D). In these lab experiments, evolution is simply what happened because of the changes in the independent variable.

Additionally... giraffes, apes, and whales are related - they're all mammals. :D

Durruck said:
But because scientists refuse to accept God as a possible input, they eliminate the theory that most likely will survive Hoccam's Razor. But that's why they're scientists, not theologians or philosophers.
Click to expand...

That is an over-generalization. Not all scientists apply to the atheist stereotype people ascribe them to. It isn't un-Christian to do research to find whether macro-evolution is possible. Also, science cannot study God. There is no direct way to measure God (we no longer have burning bushes or separations of the Red Sea, we have the Holy Spirit).

To my knowledge, the Bible doesn't mention anything about evolution, why not study it?
 
Last edited:
I'm thinking the type of macro evolution we aren't buying is the type that says we came from apes, and all life originated from a single cell magically out of the blue with no reason or purpose what so ever. I still don't feel that article answers my questions though :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top