# Lifestyles & Discussion > Peace Through Religion >  How Do Christians Reconcile Evolution?

## trey4sports

(Disclaimer, I'm not Christian.) 

So, i've been studying a lot of information regarding Human evolution and I'm genuinely curious how Christians can believe in evolution? 

It would seem to me that the two are completely incompatible. Evolution (at least macro-evolution) holds the idea that we evolved from ape to man in a somewhat-linear progression. That is directly contradictory to the "creationist" theory.


So, I would just like to get your thoughts on the subject.

do you believe that evolution is a completely fasle theory and creationism is correct?

do you believe maybe the bible isn't completely correct, but that there is a god who started something, somewhere?

Anything in between?

----------


## squarepusher

Vatican supports evoltion.  Creationism is only taught by a few fringe fundamental american churches.

*The Vatican claims Darwin's theory of evolution is compatible with Christianity* *The Vatican has admitted that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution  should not have been dismissed and claimed it is compatible with the  Christian view of Creation.*  									 									 										 											Gianfranco Ravasi:  Monsignor Ravasi said Darwin's theories had never been formally condemned by the Roman Catholic Church Photo: EPA






 		 		 			 			By Chris Irvine 

 		8:03AM GMT 11 Feb 2009


 	  	Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, head of the  Pontifical Council for Culture, said while the Church had been hostile  to Darwin's theory in the past, the idea of evolution could be traced to  St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas.

Father  Giuseppe Tanzella-Nitti, Professor of Theology at the Pontifical Santa  Croce University in Rome, added that 4th century theologian St Augustine  had "never heard the term evolution, but knew that big fish eat smaller  fish" and forms of life had been transformed "slowly over time".  Aquinas made similar observations in the Middle Ages.

Ahead  of a papal-backed conference next month marking the 150th anniversary  of Darwin's On the Origin of Species, the Vatican is also set to play  down the idea of Intelligent Design, which argues a "higher power" must  be responsible for the complexities of life.

The  conference at the Pontifical Gregorian University will discuss  Intelligent Design to an extent, but only as a "cultural phenomenon"  rather than a scientific or theological issue.

Monsignor  Ravasi said Darwin's theories had never been formally condemned by the  Roman Catholic Church, pointing to comments more than 50 years ago, when  Pope Pius XII described evolution as a valid scientific approach to the  development of humans. 

*Related Articles* Charles Darwin: The man behind the theory of evolution 
  	12 Feb 2009 The Vatican's search for ET 
  	10 Nov 2009

 	Marc Leclerc, who teaches natural philosophy at  the Gregorian University, said the "time has come for a rigorous and  objective valuation" of Darwin by the Church as the 200th anniversary of  Darwin's birth approaches.
Professor Leclerc argues that too many  of Darwin's opponents, primarily Creationists, mistakenly claim his  theories are "totally incompatible with a religious vision of reality".
Earlier  this week, prominent scientists and leading religious figures wrote to  The Daily Telegraph to call for an end to the fighting over Darwin's  legacy.
They argued that militant atheists are turning people away  from evolution by using it to attack religion while they also urge  believers in creationism to acknowledge the overwhelming body of  evidence that now exists to support Darwin's theory.
The Church of  England is seeking to bring Darwin back into the fold with a page on  its website paying tribute to his "forgotten" work in his local parish,  showing science and religion need not be at odds.

----------


## Liberty4life

Having been a Christian my whole life, I have often wondered this same thing, like how can you logically deny the existence of dinosaurs and prehistoric man.

So I figured out that while the Bible is the tool God uses to instruct his flock, it was not meant to be interpreted literally.

Obviously God created man through an evolutionary process, every once in a while He through his Agents would come and do some genetic
modifications to the 'Man experiment'.

Lots of arguments can be made from this point about who started what and who made who, like it was the fallen angels or something that did it and thats why they got into so much doo doo.

A solid argument can be made that God and The Devil are working together to get a desirable outcome for both.  
Like, how can a created creature understand why doing good is preferable over doing evil?  
You can plain out tell them why or you can show them.

----------


## fisharmor

So, I've been watching nonbelievers ask quesitons like this for a long time, and I'm genuinely curious _why someone who supposedly believes evolution to be scientific truth would ask Christians how they can believe in evolution_.

You guys let the cat out of the bag yourselves every time it's discussed.
Nobody asks whether you believe in Newton's laws of motion.

I don't believe evolution, and it has very little to do with dogma.

I don't believe it foremost because all the "evidence" I've seen is horse$#@!.

I don't believe it beause I have no practical application where belief in it is required.

I don't believe it because the practical applications for evolution - they do exist, I simply have no interest in them - all center on the idea of dehumanizing people and are generally totalitarian statist objectives.

There's also the thing about how there is no way logically to balance Christianity with evolution, but believe it or not, this doesn't play a big part in why I think evolution is as big a crock of $#@! as global climate change alarmism, and for mostly the same reasons.

----------


## robert9712000

I believe in the ability of Animals to make small changes through compatible species mingling like horse and a donkey making a new similar version off the two but not a complete transformation into a new species.

 The thing that never made sense to me in the theory of evolution is, you say one animal has a mutation that allows it to survive better,but it is still reliant on random chance to pass on that gene to the next generation.So how would 1 rarity become the dominant gene in a ocean of other genes.Surviving a little longer isn't enough to make it the dominant gene since the prior version was still able to live long enough to breed and continue its genetic info.Since there's 1 copy of the mutated gene and 1000's or more of the other one i would think it would be diluted out like a drop of oil in a ocean.

----------


## TheViper

> So, I've been watching nonbelievers ask quesitons like this for a long time, and I'm genuinely curious _why someone who supposedly believes evolution to be scientific truth would ask Christians how they can believe in evolution_.
> 
> You guys let the cat out of the bag yourselves every time it's discussed.
> Nobody asks whether you believe in Newton's laws of motion.
> 
> I don't believe evolution, and it has very little to do with dogma.
> 
> I don't believe it foremost because all the "evidence" I've seen is horse$#@!.
> 
> ...


If evolutionary theory is a crock of $#@!, do please enlighten us with a better theory.

----------


## bunklocoempire

Natural selection?  Sure.

Evolution?  No.  

*Perhaps a believer in evolution could explain how a mutation is an overwhelmingly positive thing.*  (different thread maybe?)   

And how very "fringe" of me to _not limit the power of my all powerful God_ like the Vatican does.  Why on _earth_ would I be so backwards as to place the _spiritual_ before the _physical_ when talking about _God_ vs. a human _physical "science"_?

----------


## jmdrake

You can't reconcile the belief that man evolved "up" from a lower life form with the belief that man was created perfect, fell as a result of sin, and needed Christ to die to redeem us to a higher state.  That Catholicism accepts evolution simply shows it is out of step with the Bible.  And no, contrary to popular belief it is *not* just a few "fringe American fundamentalist churches"  teach that.  

That said, as the OP pointed out the sticking point is macro-evolution.  Micro-evolution isn't a problem at all.

----------


## Southron

I believe the Creation account in Genesis.   I don't take marching orders from the Vatican either.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> So, I've been watching nonbelievers ask quesitons like this for a long time, and I'm genuinely curious _why someone who supposedly believes evolution to be scientific truth would ask Christians how they can believe in evolution_.


Exactly right.  Darwinism is a religious belief. 

Besides, _science cannot prove anything to be true_.  At best, science can only disprove certain hypotheses.  But science can only approximate.

Einstein said that his theory of relativity was false.  He said it may be a better approximation than Newtonian physics, but it was not "true". Truth can't be discovered by science.  _Also, "false" theories work._  Newton's theories worked for hundreds of years. 

Why can't a scientific experiment give us truth?  

1. Because all arguments based on scientific experimentation commit the fallacy of induction.   A statement of universal truth cannot be constructed from subjective experience.

2. Arguments from scientific experimentation commit the fallacy of affirming the consequent.  An hypothesis is NEVER logically proved from successful experimentation.  Correlation does not imply causation. 


Science is useful, but it can never be _true_.  Science is technological, it is not cognitive.  It doesnt give us truth nor can it do so.  Science is meant to help man subdue God's creation, but it is God alone that gives men truth.

----------


## GeorgiaAvenger

> Natural selection?  Sure.
> 
> Evolution?  No.  
> 
> *Perhaps a believer in evolution could explain how a mutation is an overwhelmingly positive thing.*  (different thread maybe?)   
> 
> And how very "fringe" of me to _not limit the power of my all powerful God_ like the Vatican does.  Why on _earth_ would I be so backwards as to place the _spiritual_ before the _physical_ when talking about _God_ vs. a human _physical "science"_?


This.

Though I have never consumed myself on an issue of the past such as this.

----------


## thoughtomator

If natural selection worked, how do you explain Newt Gingrich?

----------


## GeorgiaAvenger

> If natural selection worked, how do you explain Newt Gingrich?


You are going to have to clean up my screen. You caused it.

----------


## mosquitobite

http://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Black-.../dp/0684834936

If we "evolved" from apes - where did apes come from?

If apes evolved from cosmic goo of some kind - ok fine.  Let's pretend they did.  
Do you know how many amino acids and chain reactions are involved in a simple blood clot?  Honestly asking.

You're asking _me_ to believe that by total *CHANCE* all the amino acids and chain reactions from blood clots happened in the first "evolution" of this creature?  Do you know the astronomical odds of that?  Let's say just one is missing - how would the species have survived as hemophiliacs?

----------


## robert9712000

A interesting verse for non-believers to contemplate is that God gave a hint to the deception of evolution 1800 years before it was suggested

2 Peter 3

 3Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

 4And *saying, Where is the promise of his coming*? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

* 5For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:* 

I believe God gave the willfully ignorant a stumbling block of the perception that the world appears old to baffle there foolish fantasies.

1 Corinthians 27
27But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

----------


## James Madison

I will admit that most of the biologists I've worked with forbid any discussion on the validity of evolution. It's almost cult-like.

----------


## otherone

> If* we "evolved" from apes* - where did apes come from?


Darwinists don't make this claim

----------


## mosquitobite

> Darwinists don't make this claim


From OP:



> It would seem to me that the two are completely incompatible. Evolution (at least macro-evolution) holds the idea that we evolved from ape to man in a somewhat-linear progression. That is directly contradictory to the "creationist" theory.

----------


## TheViper

> http://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Black-.../dp/0684834936
> 
> *If we "evolved" from apes - where did apes come from?*
> 
> If apes evolved from cosmic goo of some kind - ok fine.  Let's pretend they did.  
> Do you know how many amino acids and chain reactions are involved in a simple blood clot?  Honestly asking.
> 
> You're asking _me_ to believe that by total *CHANCE* all the amino acids and chain reactions from blood clots happened in the first "evolution" of this creature?  Do you know the astronomical odds of that?  Let's say just one is missing - how would the species have survived as hemophiliacs?


You have the premise wrong.  Man didn't evolve from modern apes.  Modern apes and man evolved from a common ancestor.

----------


## Gary4Liberty

macro evolution is not compatible with biblical christianity. more and more scientists are realizing how ridiculous evolution is now and thats why you see so much hypothesis that our ancestors came here long ago from other planets. More and more I have noticed theories being advanced by scientists for extra terrestrial life and pre historic visits. Of course they havent proved anything but they are desperately trying to come up with something else because they are realizing that macro evolution makes no sense and is impossible considering the short time earth has existed.

----------


## Gary4Liberty

macro evolution states that human beings evolved from primordial soup regardless of which branches of the evolutionary tree we are on. Ive seen this kind of rationale before. Since a poster doesnt know which branches go where somehow that invalidates what he is really trying to say which is that evolution is ridiculous because there are too many random things that would have had to happen over too short a time period.(yes even billions and billions of years is too short for that kind of change to happen).  and scientists are agreeing now too, thats why they are saying that the junk dna is where the answer is. That whole systems already existed and only needed activation by mutatiions or enivironmental conditions.... . duh.. where did the systems come from. ..  thats why they are theorizing that extra terrestrials had something to do with the programming of the DNA. which is exactly what it is. Computer programming. DNA reads like software. accident my ass!

----------


## mosquitobite

> You have the premise wrong.  Man didn't evolve from modern apes.  Modern apes and man evolved from a common ancestor.


What common ancestor and where did that ancestor come from?  amoebas?  My question remains about blood clots.

----------


## onlyrp

> Vatican supports evoltion.


yeah, but Catholicism isn't REAL Christianity, because they allow child rapists in their membership and collaborated with Nazis. So there you have it.

----------


## otherone

> more and more scientists are realizing how ridiculous evolution is now and thats why you see so much hypothesis that our ancestors came here long ago from other planets. More and more I have noticed theories being advanced by scientists for extra terrestrial life and pre historic visits.


_et suppositio nil ponit in esse_
Only if one is watching the "scientists' on the History Channel.  Science doesn't have a need to discredit Creationism.

----------


## otherone

> yeah, but Catholicism isn't REAL Christianity, because they allow child rapists in their membership and collaborated with Nazis. So there you have it.


Is this necessary?

----------


## gunnysmith

> macro evolution is not compatible with biblical christianity. more and more scientists are realizing how ridiculous evolution is now and thats why you see so much hypothesis that our ancestors came here long ago from other planets. More and more I have noticed theories being advanced by scientists for extra terrestrial life and pre historic visits. Of course they havent proved anything but they are desperately trying to come up with something else because they are realizing that macro evolution makes no sense and is impossible considering the short time earth has existed.


So did that intelligent life form come from macro evolution?
It all started some where.
The accidental formation of amino acids had to begin somewhere, otherwise there would be no ET's to "seed" the planet.

----------


## trey4sports

this is the chart i've been looking at. Some other charts have slight variations.

----------


## trey4sports

> yeah, but Catholicism isn't REAL Christianity, because they allow child rapists in their membership and collaborated with Nazis. So there you have it.


bad form.

----------


## GeorgiaAvenger



----------


## onlyrp

> Is this necessary?


ask a creationist
http://www.creationliberty.com/artic...oncatholic.php
http://www.creationliberty.com/artic...lutionseed.php

----------


## onlyrp

> 


He didn't admit it, he says "I suppose it's possible" but there is no evidence of it. 
Here's him actually responding and explaining the Michael Moore edit job of Ben Stein.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XpP5jsg5kM (skip to 3:30) Or you can read the transcript of the original interview

----------


## onlyrp

> So did that intelligent life form come from macro evolution?
> It all started some where.
> The accidental formation of amino acids had to begin somewhere, otherwise there would be no ET's to "seed" the planet.


This is a meaningless question, people who start by asking macro/micro evolution are people who don't know what those terms mean. 
I know, you're going to tell me "micro is variation within kinds, while macro is introducing new kinds, new information" but you can't tell me what "new information" or "new kinds" are, so you are always free to shift the burden of proof whatever the response is. Not playing this game.

----------


## onlyrp

> macro evolution states that human beings evolved from primordial soup regardless of which branches of the evolutionary tree we are on.


No, it absolutely matters what branch we are on, nice strawman though. 
How much of evolution do you actually accept? Do you accept that all humans living today share a common ancestor?
Do you accept that all humans living today share a common ancestor with chimpanzees? If so, tell me why, if not, then let's not get ahead about what happened prior to that.

----------


## TheViper

> What common ancestor and where did that ancestor come from?  amoebas?  My question remains about blood clots.


It's referred to as the chimpanzee-human last common ancestor or CHLCA (a scientific name for it doesn't exist yet).


Well, to be fair.  If we're going to mock science for not having all the answers to make evolution a perfect solution, then at least answer me how did Noah handled viruses, bacteria and other microbes on his famous voyage.   And what of subterranean animal species?   How did all the plants survive?   If you flood the Earth for 40 days, you'd kill all the plants and there goes our whole oxygen/Co2 cycle.

And of course the odds of everything happening at they did are astronomical.  If they weren't, we'd have life popping up from nothing all the time.  Or in extraterrestrial form perhaps.   Yes, the odds are huge.   But there are 200 billion stars in our galaxy alone (making for several trillion plants a plausibility) and over 100 billion other galaxies.   If the odds are a quadrillion to 1 and there are a quadrillion planets.....

----------


## gunnysmith

> This is a meaningless question, people who start by asking macro/micro evolution are people who don't know what those terms mean. 
> I know, you're going to tell me "micro is variation within kinds, while macro is introducing new kinds, new information" but you can't tell me what "new information" or "new kinds" are, so you are always free to shift the burden of proof whatever the response is. Not playing this game.


Evolution in it's intention to get things right did see fit to place more rear ends of horses on the planet than it did front ends, some may think it cruel and inhumane I on the otherhand find it humorous. They will always show at the most in-opertune times and try to insult, when they have no answer.

That being settled, the reply was to ponder the question of where the Intelligent life form came from that seeded the planet.
I didn't need quips from the majority half of the equestrian species.

----------


## Icymudpuppy

I love these threads.


Who F-ing cares.  If we get the Federal Government out of education, it becomes a moot point in regards to the liberty movement.

----------


## Gary4Liberty

> So did that intelligent life form come from macro evolution?
> It all started some where.
> The accidental formation of amino acids had to begin somewhere, otherwise there would be no ET's to "seed" the planet.


Im not advancing the idea of extra terrestrials designing living things or trying to explain their origin. Im only saying that Ive noticed that more and more people of the academia are proposing theories of extra terrestrials starting life at least human life on this planet. This is due the the increasing realization by them that evolution is mathematically impossible. These are not my thoughts only my observations.

----------


## mosquitobite

> It's referred to as the chimpanzee-human last common ancestor or CHLCA (a scientific name for it doesn't exist yet).
> 
> 
> Well, to be fair.  If we're going to mock science for not having all the answers to make evolution a perfect solution, then at least answer me how did Noah handled viruses, bacteria and other microbes on his famous voyage.   And what of subterranean animal species?   How did all the plants survive?   If you flood the Earth for 40 days, you'd kill all the plants and there goes our whole oxygen/Co2 cycle.
> 
> And of course the odds of everything happening at they did are astronomical.  If they weren't, we'd have life popping up from nothing all the time.  Or in extraterrestrial form perhaps.   Yes, the odds are huge.   But there are 200 billion stars in our galaxy alone (making for several trillion plants a plausibility) and over 100 billion other galaxies.   If the odds are a quadrillion to 1 and there are a quadrillion planets.....


I believe the first sentence of the bible.  Therefore, the rest is easy to swallow.  If He created everything - why couldn't he do it again after the flood?  Why couldn't He create a new species tomorrow?

Do you also know the astronomical odds of the earth's placement at *just* the right orbit from the sun?

----------


## Gary4Liberty

> _et suppositio nil ponit in esse_
> Only if one is watching the "scientists' on the History Channel.  Science doesn't have a need to discredit Creationism.


haha ya love the circular reasoning there.  Basically you are saying that if a scientist does not accept macro evolution then it proves they are not a scientist. By this logic it is impossible for any scientist to disagree with macro evolution.  Many things scientists once thought were true have been proved by further examination to be false. By your logic, this could never have happend.  A scientist questions a scientific theory and he is invalidated  because he questions it. Thats the opposite of science.

----------


## onlyrp

> Im not advancing the idea of extra terrestrials designing living things or trying to explain their origin.* Im only saying that Ive noticed that more and more people of the academia are proposing theories of extra terrestrials starting life at least human life on this planet.* This is due the the increasing realization by them that evolution is mathematically impossible. These are not my thoughts only my observations.


you noticed? source please?

----------


## onlyrp

> haha ya love the circular reasoning there. * Basically you are saying that if a scientist does not accept macro evolution then it proves they are not a scientist.* By this logic it is impossible for any scientist to disagree with macro evolution.  Many things scientists once thought were true have been proved by further examination to be false. By your logic, this could never have happend.  A scientist questions a scientific theory and he is invalidated  because he questions it. Thats the opposite of science.


is there anything that would disqualify a scientist, historian, or doctor of his opinions?

----------


## otherone

> Basically you are saying that


A swing and a miss.   _et suppositio nil ponit in esse_.  Just because you say:



> This is due the the increasing realization by them that evolution is mathematically impossible


 Does not make it so.

Science explores evidence as it is discovered.  An interesting field that may one day explain accelerated evolution is epigenetics.  No aliens, involved, I'm afraid.
I'm hopeful that someday science will enable us to harness the gas that comes from both ends of people, as it will eliminate our dependence on foreign energy.

----------


## Gary4Liberty

> No, it absolutely matters what branch we are on, nice strawman though. 
> How much of evolution do you actually accept? Do you accept that all humans living today share a common ancestor?
> Do you accept that all humans living today share a common ancestor with chimpanzees? If so, tell me why, if not, then let's not get ahead about what happened prior to that.


 It doesn't matter for the purpose of this thread. I know that soup to man is problematic for you and thats why you would rather talk about variations of human beings where its much more  blurry.  If you simply answer the bigger questions it renders moot the smaller questions. There can be no doubt that natural selection is true but honestly, random mutations that develop into whole new systems and major structural systems is ridiculous. Especially considering how many millions of years it would mathematically need to take, now consider that if the enivironment is doing the selecting of these traits it would have to stay the same for millions of years. Environments change all the time, they dont stay the same long enough to select out any long progression of gradual mutations over millions of years. You live in a fantasy world due to years of brainwashing in public school. Macro evolution is ridiculous even without any other plausible theory of origin. In other words, just because there is no other plausible theory for origin does not lend any credibility and should not be a reason to cling to evolution. Its a fairy tale even bigger than any spaghetti monster or clergyman that you may check for under your bed every night/

----------


## gunnysmith

> Im not advancing the idea of extra terrestrials designing living things or trying to explain their origin. Im only saying that Ive noticed that more and more people of the academia are proposing theories of extra terrestrials starting life at least human life on this planet. This is due the the increasing realization by them that evolution is mathematically impossible. These are not my thoughts only my observations.


I wasn't suggesting you were, the question was rhetorical.
The concept was that , life had to begin at some time and in some place, be it here or on another planet.
There is a circular aspect to it all, Our past lies just as far ahead of us as our future.
The closer we get to discovering our past origins, the more we will control our own future.

----------


## Gary4Liberty

Science explores evidence as it is discovered.  *(unless it disagrees with you, then they arent scientists)* An interesting field that may one day explain accelerated evolution is epigenetics.  No aliens, involved, I'm afraid. *because you say so. *   if you believed that, you wouldnt conclude now that extra terrestrials are not involved. but you already know.  Very unscientific. and you speak of hypocrisy. you should take your own advice. Its comical you should listen to yourself. haha

----------


## lilymc

> You can't reconcile the belief that man evolved "up" from a lower life form with the belief that man was created perfect, fell as a result of sin, and needed Christ to die to redeem us to a higher state.  That Catholicism accepts evolution simply shows it is out of step with the Bible.  And no, contrary to popular belief it is *not* just a few "fringe American fundamentalist churches"  teach that.  
> 
> That said, as the OP pointed out the sticking point is macro-evolution.  Micro-evolution isn't a problem at all.


Exactly.  And just to add, I always kinda laugh when I hear people say things like, "Well, the Catholic church believes in this..." (or that.)   As if that proves something, other than what you just said, and what many of us know about certain churches who seem to look to man more than they look to God.

----------


## onlyrp

> It doesn't matter for the purpose of this thread. I know that soup to man is problematic for you and thats why you would rather talk about variations of human beings where its much more  blurry.


It's problematic for anybody who doesn't know what he's talking about. I would rather first understand what it is you don't buy, don't understand, and explain to the best of my ability, but I can't and won't if you're not interested or already decided. Now, you can keep making strawman claims if you wish not to learn.

----------


## TheViper

> Im not advancing the idea of extra terrestrials designing living things or trying to explain their origin. Im only saying that Ive noticed that more and more people of the academia are proposing theories of extra terrestrials starting life at least human life on this planet. *This is due the the increasing realization by them that evolution is mathematically impossible.* These are not my thoughts only my observations.


Actually, those few scientists considering extraterrestrial sources are doing so not because of mathematical impossibilities of abiogenesis but because of increases evidence of the likelihood of extraterrestrial life itself.




> I believe the first sentence of the bible.  Therefore, the rest is easy to swallow.  If He created everything - why couldn't he do it again after the flood?  Why couldn't He create a new species tomorrow?
> 
> Do you also know the astronomical odds of the earth's placement at *just* the right orbit from the sun?


1. Well, let's ignore that the flood timeline took place while other Humans lived elsewhere and somehow were untouched by the flood.   The multiplicity factor of human reproduction and our recorded historical documents don't lend well to a population our size today springing forth from 2 people 4,000 years ago.   What of the genetic factors?  How do 2 people of fair skin create people of darker skin, hair colors, eye colors, bone structures, hair densities, and on and on and on?   How did they diverse into thousands of different languages in fewer years than there are languages?   How did they get from Turkey to South America?  How did Noah live to be over 900 years old?   Why is there no evidence of a world wide catastrophic flood?   I could go on and on.

2. Of course I know those odds too.   That was actually taken into account with my first point.  The life zone is a pretty delicate location and set of circumstances but we've already identified dozens in the life zone with several thousands more candidates and an extrapolated estimate of up to 500 million just in our galaxy.

For the record, I'm agnostic.   I don't doubt the plausibility of a God having created everything.  But I do take a very dubious stance on what man says about God.  A watch can never know its watchmaker.  Hop then is a watch supposed to write a book about him and expect it to be accurate?

----------


## hazek

> Having been a Christian my whole life, I have often wondered this same thing, like how can you logically deny the existence of dinosaurs and prehistoric man.
> 
> So I figured out that while the Bible is the tool my invisible friend uses to instruct his flock, it was not meant to be interpreted literally.
> 
> Obviously my invisible friend created man through an evolutionary process, every once in a while He through his Agents would come and do some genetic
> modifications to the 'Man experiment'.
> 
> Lots of arguments can be made from this point about who started what and who made who, like it was the fallen invisible friends or something that did it and thats why they got into so much doo doo.
> 
> ...


FYP

----------


## hazek

> Natural selection?  Sure.
> 
> Evolution?  No.  
> 
> *Perhaps a believer in evolution could explain how a mutation is an overwhelmingly positive thing.*  (different thread maybe?)   
> 
> And how very "fringe" of me to _not limit the power of my all powerful invisible friend_ like the Vatican does.  Why on _earth_ would I be so backwards as to place the _imaginary_ before the _physical_ when talking about _my invisible friend_ vs. a human _physical "science"_?


FYP

Also if you are really interested in answering your question I suggest you watch:

----------


## hazek

> Exactly right.  Darwinism is a religious belief. 
> 
> Besides, _science cannot prove anything to be true_.  At best, science can only disprove certain hypotheses.  But science can only approximate.
> 
> Einstein said that his theory of relativity was false.  He said it may be a better approximation than Newtonian physics, but it was not "true". Truth can't be discovered by science.  _Also, "false" theories work._  Newton's theories worked for hundreds of years. 
> 
> Why can't a scientific experiment give us truth?  
> 
> 1. Because all arguments based on scientific experimentation commit the fallacy of induction.   A statement of universal truth cannot be constructed from subjective experience.
> ...


FYP

----------


## hazek

> A interesting verse for non-believers to contemplate is that my invisible friend gave a hint to the deception of evolution 1800 years before it was suggested
> 
> 2 Peter 3
> 
>  3Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
> 
>  4And *saying, Where is the promise of his coming*? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
> 
> * 5For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of my invisible friend the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:* 
> ...


FYP

----------


## hazek

Are you guys starting to see how funny you sound when I read your posts?

----------


## fisharmor

> Exactly.  And just to add, I always kinda laugh  when I hear people say things like, "Well, the Catholic church believes  in this..." (or that.)   As if that proves something, other than what  you just said, and what many of us know about certain churches who seem  to look to man more than they look to God.


I also chuckle  at how the church body which believes in stigmata, healing relics, and  weeping statues is always upheld as the exemplar of how to balance  science and theology.





> Actually, those few scientists considering extraterrestrial sources are doing so not because of mathematical impossibilities of abiogenesis but because of increases evidence of the likelihood of extraterrestrial life itself.


"Hey, there's something vaguely possible over here!  Everyone come stab in the dark!  _And if you doubt it for a second, you lose your funding!!!!_"




> 1. Well, let's ignore that the flood timeline took place while other Humans lived elsewhere and somehow were untouched by the flood.   The multiplicity factor of human reproduction and our recorded historical documents don't lend well to a population our size today springing forth from 2 people 4,000 years ago.   What of the genetic factors?  How do 2 people of fair skin create people of darker skin, hair colors, eye colors, bone structures, hair densities, and on and on and on?   How did they diverse into thousands of different languages in fewer years than there are languages?   How did they get from Turkey to South America?  How did Noah live to be over 900 years old?   Why is there no evidence of a world wide catastrophic flood?   I could go on and on.


So do you believe we live in a geocentric universe, or a heliocentric universe?  Those are your only two options.  
Oh, and bear in mind that publicly doubting the heliocentric theory means you're going to lose your funding.  Also remember that most of the time evidence in favor of a geocentric universe is not going to be taken seriously enough even to shoot it down.

Hey, there's this remote possibility that someone could start collecting hard data at some point, and come up with a bulletproof third theory of elliptical orbits... but you know, we kind of like the people who have to come rearrange the museum displays every two years because we jumbled all the facts to fit the heliocentric narrative again, so let's not pursue that particular avenue.




> 2. Of course I know those odds too.   That was actually taken into account with my first point.  The life zone is a pretty delicate location and set of circumstances but we've already identified dozens in the life zone with several thousands more candidates and an extrapolated estimate of up to 500 million just in our galaxy.


The Miller-Urey experiment conclusively showed that Earth's (conjectured) early atmosphere could have produced amino acids.
This supposedly led to the formation of life.

That's like saying six consecutive meteor strikes on the same bed of clay could conceivably form a single brick... so the Great Wall of China was therefore built spontaneously.

Only I'm pretty sure my analogy is actually understating the complexity of the matter.

----------


## Phil

Lol, this whole discussion.

----------


## hazek

> The Miller-Urey experiment conclusively showed that Earth's (conjectured) early atmosphere could have produced amino acids.
> This supposedly led to the formation of life.
> 
> That's like saying six consecutive meteor strikes on the same bed of clay could conceivably form a single brick... so the Great Wall of China was therefore built spontaneously.


Your analogy couldn't be more flawed and shows you don't have a clue about chemistry and how organic matter (generally on Earth carbon based molecules) behaves as opposed to inorganic matter or any matter at all. You're just a lay person confused and making flawed lay observations that any scientist would not even laugh at.

----------


## fisharmor

> Your analogy couldn't be more flawed and shows you don't have a clue about chemistry and how organic matter (generally on Earth carbon based molecules) behaves as opposed to inorganic matter or any matter at all. You're just a lay person confused and making flawed lay observations that any scientist would not even laugh at.


Sorry, didn't realize a priest was here.  I forgot myself: I gues organic chemists have figured it out and we don't need to ask questions (and btw if you doubt it, you're going to lose funding).

Also, my organic chemist brother didn't think it was so outrageous, but then again he realized I was using an analogy to discuss odds. 

If you'd like to, please tell me how it's a flawed observation.
Are amino acids not building blocks in cells?
Do cells not require millions of them of wildly varying types to do anything of consequence?
What is this mystical force that makes organic matter "behave" differently than inorganic matter?  Is this behavior what makes them come together in ordered fashions of their own volition?
Form walls on their own?  Sort out on their own which ones destroy the system and which ones build the system?

I have a low opinion of public schools, to be sure, but I'd like to know how organic compounds' behavior isn't what I learned in chem and bio classes... I'd also like to know why a college level bio class reinforced this idea too.

----------


## hazek

> Also, my organic chemist brother didn't think it was so outrageous, but then again he realized I was using an analogy to discuss odds.


Yes, by painting an example where for one event we know the odds are 0% and where for another event we know the odds are greater than 0% and pretending both events have similar odds. Good job.

And if you don't know why for one event they are 0% and for the other greater than 0% than you simply don't have a clue about chemistry and I'm not going to even attempt to teach you. If you really want to learn, use google, go to a library or pay someone to help you learn on your own.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> FYP


What's fyp?

----------


## hazek

Fixed your post.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Are you guys starting to see how funny you sound when I read your posts?


Will you please do me the pleasure of refuting what I said so I can find out where I'm wrong?

----------


## mosquitobite

> Will you please do me the pleasure of refuting what I said so I can find out where I'm wrong?


Yeah - same here.

Still haven't had any of these "experts" explain to me about the amino acids & chain reactions necessary for a simple blood clot?  Without ONE of them - we are hemophiliacs.  How did the species survive those millions of years prior to AAAAALLLL the necessary components "evolving"?

----------


## hazek

> Will you please do me the pleasure of refuting what I said so I can find out where I'm wrong?


I already fixed your post. If you want to see what I fixed compare it to the original and to how it looks like in the quote. I bet if you give it a read you'll notice right away.

----------


## Napolitanic Wars

Dr. William Craig explains how evolution doesn't prove or disprove Christianity, although it is hard to _scientifically_ take evolution seriously.

----------


## otherone

> Dr. William Craig explains how evolution doesn't prove or disprove Christianity, although it is hard to _scientifically_ take evolution seriously.


How does being a theologian give one "science cred"?

----------


## Eagles' Wings

Interesting discussion.  You make me laugh and enjoy this topic.   Peace to all!

Louise

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I already fixed your post. If you want to see what I fixed compare it to the original and to how it looks like in the quote. I bet if you give it a read you'll notice right away.


What?  "Invisible friend"?   Well that is not a reply to the arguments in my post.  God is immaterial, yes....so what?  Since when is materiality a condition for existence?  I can list off a bunch of things you, as an atheist, believe are immaterial but still exist, like laws, concepts, thoughts, etc.   There are any number of immaterial realities.

1. and 2. are things that I'd like replies to.

----------


## specsaregood

> Anything in between?


I'm fairly certain that an all powerful God can do whatever he wants.  He could simultaneously make both evolution and creationism true.

----------


## fisharmor

> Yes, by painting an example where for one event we know the odds are 0% and where for another event we know the odds are greater than 0% and pretending both events have similar odds. Good job.


We "know" that the odds of amino acids spontaneously assembling themselves in multiple meaningful ordered systems which interact and depend on each other has a greater than 0% probability?

You sound an awful lot like a Keynesian economist.

----------


## hazek

> What?  "Invisible friend"?   Well that is not a reply to the arguments in my post.  My imaginary friend is immaterial, yes....so what?  Since when is materiality a condition for existence?  I can list off a bunch of things you, as an atheist, believe are immaterial but still exist, like laws, concepts, thoughts, etc.   There are any number of immaterial realities.
> 
> 1. and 2. are things that I'd like replies to.


FYP and:

Laws don't exist, only the thought of laws does. Concepts don't exist, only the thought of concepts does. Thoughts exist as chemical processes in your brain. Scientists only believe something exists 100% sure when they can prove with empirical evidence the rest are merely hypothesis and theories about what may exist and is material. There is nothing I believe exists that is immaterial, nothing.

EDIT: Materiality is a condition for existence because that is what it means for something to exist in our shared reality. As soon as you claim something exists for both you and me, materiality is the condition, since how can something exist for you and me but I can't find any proof, or evidence or experience a consequence for it and only you can? Scientist always, always want to make theories that others can also verify through their own tests.

----------


## hazek

> I'm fairly certain that an all powerful invisible friend can do whatever he wants.  He could simultaneously make both evolution and creationism true.


FYP

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> I'm fairly certain that an all powerful God can do whatever he wants.  He could simultaneously make both evolution and creationism true.


+rep

As I told specs, this is so simply true.

----------


## hazek

> We "know" that the odds of amino acids spontaneously assembling themselves in multiple meaningful ordered systems which interact and depend on each other has a greater than 0% probability?


Given that scientists were able to artificially start life by combining organic material, I'd say yes, we know the odds of amino acids spontaneously assembling themselves in multiple meaningful ordered systems which interact and depend on each other is greater than 0%. Btw this process probably took around 500.000.000 years through a number of "attempts" so big you can't even imagine how many "attempts" there probably were so even a probability of 0.0000000000000001% or even smaller than that would have been enough for life to emerge eventually. 







The way I personally see all life is just some atoms and molecules spontenously reacting to each other in such a way that it caused a chain reaction which caused more chain reactions which caused more chain reactions which caused more chain reactions that managed to fuel each other perpetually. That is what I think life is, a long long long string of many many many chain reactions of certain kind of mater.

Think about it. Think about how many chemical processes happen in your body every second. Interrupt one of the more important ones and it all falls apart. Interrupt any of them for a longer period of time it all falls apart. When you eat you're adding fuel to these perpetual chemical chain reactions, when you breathe you're adding fuel to these perpetual chain reactions, when you drink you're adding fuel to these perpetual chain reactions, when you have sex your current chain reactions are starting new ones, when you grow your current chain reactions are starting new ones.

Have you seen this yet:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GigxU1UXZXo (This is the same video but with a narration of what is being shown.)

Do you even understand what it is that is your body? 





> You sound an awful lot like a Keynesian economist.


Of course when facts don't support your babel a nice little ad hominem is always helpful.

----------


## jmdrake

> Given that scientists were unable to create an artificial cell since we all know that creation is impossible therefore the cell must have evolved from a bunch of chemicals on the lab floor and this lying scientist is just trying to take credit to confuse the masses.


FYP

----------


## hazek

Riiiight, obviously you got me good there since I claimed they created something... FAIL

----------


## jmdrake

> Riiiight, obviously you got me good there since I claimed they created something... FAIL


The title of the video you posted is *Scientist CREATE first synthetic cell*.  But that's irrelevant.  Whatever you want to call it, it was done by *intelligent design*.  Unless, of course, you think these scientists weren't intelligent.  So the failure is all yours.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> FYP and:
> Laws don't exist, only the thought of laws does.


1.  You just refuted yourself by using the law of identity.

2.  Also you committed the fallacy of induction because you are making a universal statement based on your subjective experience (your brain).  Since you do not have universal knowledge and experience, you cannot use it to make a universal statement of truth.  Universal statements must be deductive.





> Concepts don't exist, only the thought of concepts does.


Self-refuting.  What you just stated is a concept.





> Thoughts exist as chemical processes in your brain.


How do you know this?

And what is a chemical reaction and how did you come to know about it? By sensation? 

How have you seen or heard a chemical reaction?


How do you know that you have a brain?







> Scientists only believe something exists 100% sure when they can prove with empirical evidence the rest are merely hypothesis and theories about what may exist and is material. There is nothing I believe exists that is immaterial, nothing.



A confirmed hypothesis says nothing about the truth of the hypothesis.  Correlation does not imply causation.  This is the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

Do you think that because laws of logic are only in your brain, you can break them and still be rational?  

That's an interesting _concept_ (wait, how did I just understand your concept if concepts are only "thoughts" in your brain, Hazek?   Did I just reach into your brain and feel one of your chemical reactions?)  Man, your epistemology and your ontology doesn't make sense bro!







> EDIT: Materiality is a condition for existence because that is what it means for something to exist in our shared reality.


1.  That is a circular argument.  "Our existence is only material because existence is defined by what is material."

2.  What is "reality"?  How did you come to know about it?  Through sensation?  If you only have your sensations to tell you what "reality" is, how can you ever test your sensations against the "reality"?  By another one of your sensations?   But all that shows is that all you have are your sense perceptions.  






> As soon as you claim something exists for both you and me, materiality is the condition, since how can something exist for you and me but I can't find any proof, or evidence or experience a consequence for it and only you can?


What is the proof that you and I do not exist in a purely non-material world?

----------


## newbitech

> Having been a Christian my whole life, I have often wondered this same thing, like how can you *logically deny the existence of dinosaurs and prehistoric man.*
> 
> So I figured out that while the Bible is the tool God uses to instruct his flock, it was not meant to be interpreted literally.
> 
> Obviously God created man through an evolutionary process, every once in a while He through his Agents would come and do some genetic
> modifications to the 'Man experiment'.
> 
> Lots of arguments can be made from this point about who started what and who made who, like it was the fallen angels or something that did it and thats why they got into so much doo doo.
> 
> ...


There is this expanding earth (edit: not universe but it's still a function of expansion) theory.  The only problem is carbon dating, but I think even that is being called in to question.

So my preserved bones are going to expand as the universe stretches out "relative" to its infinite starting point.  So in 6000 years, by 2 foot long humorous bone doubles with the stretching of the universe.  The life force works against this stretching so that when something is "alive" our perception is still tied to the infinite.  

There is more to it obviously and it's certainly not proven, any more than the big bang is proven, but it makes for interesting research.

(Edit: There is the time aspect as stretching out too, which I am not getting into but it's all relative etc..)

----------


## jkr

PROOVE IT.

this is _science_, right?

----------


## newbitech

> PROOVE IT.
> 
> this is _science_, right?


or religion?  

I think both have elements of the same.  I am also sure that there is an intelligent source.  I am sure overtime that things change.  My proof?  Look in the mirror and wait.

----------


## oyarde

I have never felt that my faith in Jesus has anything to do with my learning, research of the natural environment , science , history.

----------


## hazek

> I have never felt that my faith in my invisible friend has anything to do with my learning, research of the natural environment , science , history.


FYP

----------


## Gary4Liberty

> It's problematic for anybody who doesn't know what he's talking about. I would rather first understand what it is you don't buy, don't understand, and explain to the best of my ability, but I can't and won't if you're not interested or already decided. Now, you can keep making strawman claims if you wish not to learn.


  ill decline your offer to make me a disciple of your religion and 'teach' me your dogmas. Thanks anyway. You just keep telling yourself that others are using strawmen so you dont have to face anything that questions your faith.  I dont buy soup to man, feel free to try to explain that to us who dont understand the encrypted things of the academia. It will be a great demonstration of your own ignorance and make my point beautifully.

----------


## Gary4Liberty

> The title of the video you posted is *Scientist CREATE first synthetic cell*.  But that's irrelevant.  Whatever you want to call it, it was done by *intelligent design*.  Unless, of course, you think these scientists weren't intelligent.  So the failure is all yours.


AHAHHAHHAHHA  I LOVE IT!!!   The title of the video should be "SCIENTIST PROVE INTELLIGENT DESIGN BY CREATING A CELL"  Nice.

----------


## opinionatedfool

> (Disclaimer, I'm not Christian.) 
> 
> So, i've been studying a lot of information regarding Human evolution and I'm genuinely curious how Christians can believe in evolution? 
> 
> It would seem to me that the two are completely incompatible. Evolution (at least macro-evolution) holds the idea that we evolved from ape to man in a somewhat-linear progression. That is directly contradictory to the "creationist" theory.
> 
> 
> So, I would just like to get your thoughts on the subject.
> 
> ...


Read the Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel. It may not convince you, but it will make you think about evolution in a different light.

PM me if you have a Kindle. I may be able to loan you mine if that option is available for that book.

----------


## onlyrp

> ill decline your offer to make me a disciple of your religion and 'teach' me your dogmas. Thanks anyway. You just keep telling yourself that others are using strawmen so you dont have to face anything that questions your faith.  I dont buy soup to man, feel free to try to explain that to us who dont understand the encrypted things of the academia. It will be a great demonstration of your own ignorance and make my point beautifully.


That's what you call winning an argument and being skeptical?

You already decided in advance it's "religion, dogma, soup to man, faith". So don't complain when that's ever used against you. 
"Keep telling yourself you're innocent, we decline your offer to make blanket denials"

----------


## Gary4Liberty

in advance of what?  I was indoctrinated with evolution in public schools just like everyone else. I have made conclusions just as you have. Predictably you have not try to explain soup to man. Its comical how delusional you are to think of yourself as a teacher of truth to the lost sheep. The irony is so sweet. Reminds me of the old catholic church that had priests who were the only ones who could understand and had to explain it to everyone. (actually this was also done to control the masses and keep them dependent just like the academia does from high atop their ivory towers).. oh the irony and hypocrisy of your religion. A simple application of logic shows evolution to be a boys fantasy. Logic trumps all.

----------


## onlyrp

You start out with soup to man and you ask to me explain something i never said, then why i try to see what you accept and work fromthere you decline and call it dogma. What do you know about logic and what is you scientific theory that trumps evolution if you have one?




> in advance of what?  I was indoctrinated with evolution in public schools just like everyone else. I have made conclusions just as you have. Predictably you have not try to explain soup to man. Its comical how delusional you are to think of yourself as a teacher of truth to the lost sheep. The irony is so sweet. Reminds me of the old catholic church that had priests who were the only ones who could understand and had to explain it to everyone. (actually this was also done to control the masses and keep them dependent just like the academia does from high atop their ivory towers).. oh the irony and hypocrisy of your religion. A simple application of logic shows evolution to be a boys fantasy. Logic trumps all.

----------


## trey4sports

> Im not advancing the idea of extra terrestrials designing living things or trying to explain their origin. Im only saying that Ive noticed that more and more people of the academia are proposing theories of extra terrestrials starting life at least human life on this planet. This is due the the increasing realization by them that evolution is mathematically impossible. These are not my thoughts only my observations.


I though you were pulling this out of your ass but I just watched an episode of into the universe with Stephen hawking and one of the ideas he brings up is the idea that life originated elsewhere and came here via asteroid. Tuche

----------


## squarepusher

So is God not powerful enough to create man from soup?

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> (Disclaimer, I'm not Christian.) 
> 
> So, i've been studying a lot of information regarding Human evolution and I'm genuinely curious how Christians can believe in evolution? 
> 
> It would seem to me that the two are completely incompatible. Evolution (at least macro-evolution) holds the idea that we evolved from ape to man in a somewhat-linear progression. That is directly contradictory to the "creationist" theory.
> 
> 
> So, I would just like to get your thoughts on the subject.
> 
> ...


Not all Christians believe in a literal interpretation of scriptures. Evolution can be part of a bigger plan.

----------


## otherone

> So is God not powerful enough to create man from soup?


Nope.  It's not about God's power...it's about the Divinity of the bible. The bible doesn't say it happened that way, therefore...it didn't.  Quite scientific, really.

----------


## Southron

> Not all Christians believe in a literal interpretation of scriptures. Evolution can be part of a bigger plan.


You run into all sorts of problems theologically if you don't take a literal view of Genesis, though.

----------


## onlyrp

> I though you were pulling this out of your ass but I just watched an episode of into the universe with Stephen hawking and one of the ideas he brings up is the idea that life originated elsewhere and came here via asteroid. Tuche


Stephen Hawking isn't a biologist. Just saying.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> FYP and:
> Laws don't exist, only the thought of laws does.



Are you not gonna play, Hazek?

----------


## oyarde

> FYP


 Not really sure what FYP means , is that For Your Post ? As for my post , I did not mention any invisible friends ,  if you would like to make a point about the post { I am ok with that ] , please  use what is was that I said .

----------


## slamhead

Fundamentally for me I look at the fact that evolution cannot explain all things. Even Darwin realized this. I believe that species do evolve over time and those with the preferable traits become the species that survive. I feel that there are certain things in nature that cannot be explained by evolution. I often site the reproduction process of a bot fly. How in the hell can a fly with the brain the size of the tip of a needle come up with laying it's larvae on a mosquito know that this mosquito will then transfer these larvae to a host? 

How did evolution know that a giraffe would need valves in its neck to stem the flow of blood to it's brain as to not kill it when it leans down for water? I think nature and evolution go hand in hand. I often think people who put all their eggs in either basket are fooling themselves.

----------


## MaxPower

> (Disclaimer, I'm not Christian.) 
> 
> So, i've been studying a lot of information regarding Human evolution and I'm genuinely curious how Christians can believe in evolution? 
> 
> It would seem to me that the two are completely incompatible. Evolution (at least macro-evolution) holds the idea that we evolved from ape to man in a somewhat-linear progression. That is directly contradictory to the "creationist" theory.
> 
> 
> So, I would just like to get your thoughts on the subject.
> 
> ...


Evolutionary theory obviously contradicts the strict, literalistic reading of the biblical book of Genesis as an inerrant, historically-factual Word of God. It is, however, quite narrow to apply a blanket label to all of "Christianity" as adhering to this particular doctrine-- and lest you think that all Christians believed in a historically-factual and inerrant book of Genesis up until scientific discoveries disproved it, note, for example, that even St. Augustine, an esteemed and influential church father writing in the _fourth century A.D._, argued that Genesis was not to be taken literally, and was instead a symbolic/allegorical story.

----------


## onlyrp

> Fundamentally for me I look at the fact that evolution cannot explain all things.


Are you saying evolution cannot explain everything in biology? Who ever said it could? What theory could explain all things in biology?

----------


## onlyrp

> How did evolution know that a giraffe would need valves in its neck to stem the flow of blood to it's brain as to not kill it when it leans down for water? I think nature and evolution go hand in hand. I often think people who put all their eggs in either basket are fooling themselves.


Because only the ones who didn't die survived. Do you consider that maybe it happened in reverse order? That is, only those with valves were able to lean down, and only those were able to later acquire (inherit, preserve) longer necks?

----------


## trey4sports

> Stephen Hawking isn't a biologist. Just saying.


no, but but discussing the idea that life originated elsewhere and was brought here via asteroid is within the realm of cosmology as well as biology.

----------


## TheViper

> So do you believe we live in a geocentric universe, or a heliocentric universe?  Those are your only two options.  
> Oh, and bear in mind that publicly doubting the heliocentric theory means you're going to lose your funding.  Also remember that most of the time evidence in favor of a geocentric universe is not going to be taken seriously enough even to shoot it down.


We don't live in either universe.  We do live in a heliocentric solar system.  But universe?  No.

If you are trying to discredit scientific study because it changes theory based on new information then I'd say your trying to clean a window with muddy water.   The whole nature of science is that it is open to new data and the redevelopment of new ideas based on the new data.

And for the record, we've known the sun as at the center of the solar system long before Copernicus gave us the mathematical facts to back it up.  It's just the dissemination of information back then was difficult unless you had the backing of the dominant religion of the time.




> Hey, there's this remote possibility that someone could start collecting hard data at some point, and come up with a bulletproof third theory of elliptical orbits... but you know, we kind of like the people who have to come rearrange the museum displays every two years because we jumbled all the facts to fit the heliocentric narrative again, so let's not pursue that particular avenue.


Did you just suggest scientists don't pursue new theories because they are lazy?




> The Miller-Urey experiment conclusively showed that Earth's (conjectured) early atmosphere could have produced amino acids.
> This supposedly led to the formation of life.
> 
> That's like saying six consecutive meteor strikes on the same bed of clay could conceivably form a single brick... so the Great Wall of China was therefore built spontaneously.
> 
> Only I'm pretty sure my analogy is actually understating the complexity of the matter.


Even better, let's smash 2 rocks together to see how they were formed instead of, you know, building particle accelerators.   If the complexity alludes you, don't assume it's inaccurate.




> There is this expanding earth (edit: not universe but it's still a function of expansion) theory.  The only problem is carbon dating, but I think even that is being called in to question.
> 
> So my preserved bones are going to expand as the universe stretches out "relative" to its infinite starting point.  So in 6000 years, by 2 foot long humorous bone doubles with the stretching of the universe.  The life force works against this stretching so that when something is "alive" our perception is still tied to the infinite.  
> 
> There is more to it obviously and it's certainly not proven, any more than the big bang is proven, but it makes for interesting research.
> 
> (Edit: There is the time aspect as stretching out too, which I am not getting into but it's all relative etc..)


Let me get this straight.   You believe that 'dinosaur' bones are actually just regular animal bones that have 'doubled' in size over 6,000 years because they "expanded after death"?

You sir, just won the cake.

I suppose that we have to ignore molecular density and just assume the expansion of solids wouldn't become a gas at the lower density or become so brittle they'd crumble like ash (instead of petrify)?  




> Read the Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel. It may not convince you, but it will make you think about evolution in a different light.
> 
> PM me if you have a Kindle. I may be able to loan you mine if that option is available for that book.


Read it.   A good friend of mine sent it to me several years back.   Unfortunately, at his expense, it failed to convince me at all.   The irreducible complexity theory doesn't work at all.   Yes, you can only reduce a functioning mouse trap so far but the components of the mouse trap can create lesser complex things as you reduce the complexity.  

Other examples given in the book were even more dubious and largely left me questioning the credibility of some of the sources the author used.

----------


## oyarde

> Because only the ones who didn't die survived. Do you consider that maybe it happened in reverse order? That is, only those with valves were able to lean down, and only those were able to later acquire (inherit, preserve) longer necks?


 They are fascinating.

----------


## jmdrake

> Not all Christians believe in a literal interpretation of scriptures. Evolution can be part of a bigger plan.





> You run into all sorts of problems theologically if you don't take a literal view of Genesis, though.


Yep.  The problem theologically is that if man is "evolving upward" then what does he need a savior for?  Jesus died to save us from our what exactly?  For instance it's a sin to commit adultery.  But for many in the animal kingdom having multiple partners is simply a way to ensure genetic diversity.  Honor your father and your mother?  If the law of the pack is the strongest male takes the herd even if that means killing off dad?  You can go right down the list.  Morality doesn't always equal survival of the fittest.  And yes, I know there are Christians who get angry when you point this out and claim you're "forcing your view" of Christianity on them blah blah whatever.  But the fact is that other religions simply fit evolution better than Christianity.  Hinduism comes immediately to mind.

----------


## onlyrp

> no, but but discussing the idea that life originated elsewhere and was brought here via asteroid is within the realm of cosmology as well as biology.


either case would require evidence, and how life originates/originated wouldn't change the theory of how life evolved with the evidence we have thus far.

----------


## onlyrp

> Yep.  The problem theologically is that if man is "evolving upward" then what does he need a savior for?


What does "evolve upward" have to do with "needing a Savior because you are not perfect by God's standards"?

----------


## squarepusher



----------


## James Madison

God created this Universe to conquer sin. Therefore, He let sin into the Universe and used natural selection, along with occasional Divine Providence, to prepare the Creation for the appearance of man. Likewise, man needed to evolve in order to survive. If man was created perfect he would have no need for the biological systems required for survival and so after the fall his fate would have been a swift death. In a perfect world, evolution would no longer be necessary because we would no longer need to compete for limited resources and fight off infections. That's why Jesus's message was absolute selflessness. It wasn't just altruism, it was darwinian suicide. Jesus was made for a perfect world and His message of helping others, humbling oneself, and giving complete submission to God makes little sense in light of natural selection, even examples of 'altruism' we see from other species. In short, evolution was the only way for God to conquer sin without sin destroying His Creation (and His highest Creation, mankind).

----------


## MaxPower

> Yep.  The problem theologically is that if man is "evolving upward" then what does he need a savior for?  Jesus died to save us from our what exactly?  For instance it's a sin to commit adultery.  But for many in the animal kingdom having multiple partners is simply a way to ensure genetic diversity.  Honor your father and your mother?  If the law of the pack is the strongest male takes the herd even if that means killing off dad?  You can go right down the list.  Morality doesn't always equal survival of the fittest.  And yes, I know there are Christians who get angry when you point this out and claim you're "forcing your view" of Christianity on them blah blah whatever.  But the fact is that other religions simply fit evolution better than Christianity.  Hinduism comes immediately to mind.


This is only the case if we take "biological success strategy" to be synonymous with "moral imperative;" stating that "Evolution progresses through survival of the fittest" is not at all the same as saying, "Therefore, the morally correct decision is the one which is most successful on an evolutionary level." Christianity has taught _from the start_ that worldly success is not the highest end, that Christians should renounce "survival of the fittest" even if it means that they will be in some ways "beaten" by those who devote themselves strictly to worldly success. Surviving, achieving social dominance, mating, and bringing forth offspring were already seen as signs of earthly success long before they were understood as contributing to a process called "evolution," and Christians were _already_ taught to renounce those things to the extent that they interfered with their spiritual salvation.

----------


## eduardo89

One thing that has always bugged me about evolution: how do you get something like a polar bear? It's not an albino, it's an actual white version of a regular old brown or black bear. But there are no in-between shades. How the hell did a branch of white bears appear? That would be like a family living in the desert and giving birth to a kid with skin the exact color of sand.

----------


## otherone

Polar bears aren't white.  Their hair is actually clear.

----------


## hazek

> One thing that has always bugged me about evolution: how do you get something like a polar bear? It's not an albino, it's an actual white version of a regular old brown or black bear. But there are no in-between shades. How the hell did a branch of white bears appear? That would be like a family living in the desert and giving birth to a kid with skin the exact color of sand.


Just because you don't have the answer doesn't mean there isn't one. Do you even realize how many species have gone extinct so far in our planet's history?

I already posted this video and I'll do it again, if you watch it you'll get a pretty good explanation for how organisms evolve and why:

----------


## onlyrp

> One thing that has always bugged me about evolution: how do you get something like a polar bear? It's not an albino, it's an actual white version of a regular old brown or black bear. But there are no in-between shades. How the hell did a branch of white bears appear? That would be like a family living in the desert and giving birth to a kid with skin the exact color of sand.


This goes to show, unless you are sarcastic, how little you know about biology. Are you seriously telling me you believe polar bears are a distinct created species with no common ancestry with other bears? It works like this, polar bears might've either started out as albinos, or lighter shades, and the lighter the shade, the more likely it'll survive. So as soon as white bears came out, they were the most fit, the less fit colors are eliminated in the polar regions. You might as well ask why are there monkeys with no tails, and monkeys with tails, no half tails.

----------


## TheLibertarianNationalist

> One thing that has always bugged me about evolution: how do you get something like a polar bear? It's not an albino, it's an actual white version of a regular old brown or black bear. But there are no in-between shades. How the hell did a branch of white bears appear? That would be like a family living in the desert and giving birth to a kid with skin the exact color of sand.


Because these in-between transitional organisms would be eliminated when a more efficient species is produced. Polar Bears are actually closely related to Grizzlies, so much that they are still known to breed with each other in the wild. So what would need to happen is a few Grizzlies colonizing the Arctic and discovering a new seal-hunting niche. The bears with light fur would have a huge advantage over the darker ones, as seals would mistake them for snow or ice. Their whole method of hunting pinnipeds is sneaking up on them and hoping they won't take notice, afterall.  Once the first true Polar Bears came along, they could easily out compete any darker cousin in the region.

----------


## eduardo89

lol people taking my polar bear post seriously.

----------


## wannaberocker

Both ideas require a certain amount of "Faith". What often bugged me about evolutionist was their claim that "Science Proves" evolution. When in reality "Science" points to some aspects that could be explained by the theory of evolution. While "Science" also points to some points that some aspects that seem centered in a creator. 

Iv been a massive fan of John Lennox and love listening to him. He does make some great points...




In this lecture Professor Lennox deals with the claims of Stephen Hawking and discussed God's footing in the world of science.

----------


## TheLibertarianNationalist

> Not all Christians believe in a literal interpretation of scriptures. Evolution can be part of a bigger plan.


Yeah but why? Why did God go through all the trouble allowing life to evolve for billions of years? From a single cell in the Ocean to land animals? It just seems like evolution is inherently anti-Christian.

----------


## James Madison

> Yeah but why? Why did God go through all the trouble allowing life to evolve for billions of years? From a single cell in the Ocean to land animals? It just seems like evolution is inherently anti-Christian.


Read my earlier post in this thread. Evolution allows life to survive in a fallen world. Without it, sin would destroy the Creation.

----------


## The Mad Arab

Some people's way of thinking hasn't evolved yet. They're afraid if they think outside the old religious box, they're turning their backs on it and the traditions of their families. I think it's unnatural to be so closed-minded and I would imagine God would want people to use the gift of thought, not confine it to only one way.

----------


## robert9712000

> Because these in-between transitional organisms would be eliminated when a more efficient species is produced. Polar Bears are actually closely related to Grizzlies, so much that they are still known to breed with each other in the wild. So what would need to happen is a few Grizzlies colonizing the Arctic and discovering a new seal-hunting niche. The bears with light fur would have a huge advantage over the darker ones, as seals would mistake them for snow or ice. Their whole method of hunting pinnipeds is sneaking up on them and hoping they won't take notice, afterall.  Once the first true Polar Bears came along, they could easily out compete any darker cousin in the region.


Heres the Flaw i see in this argument.You say the white colored bear went from being the rarity to the dominant species because it was more efficient.The common reasoning of survival of the fittest.

 The problem though is the grizzly while not as efficient would still be able to survive long enough to breed,else if it was so inefficient the population would die of that generation.Since obviously it didn't die off and was able to survive long enough to reproduce how does a rarity become the dominant?If its able to reproduce still, it then by that reasoning concludes that some rare mutations can become the majority. That just doesnt make sense.As long as the species can still breed i find it impossible for the rarity to become the dominant even if it is more efficient.The only factor that makes your argument believable is if it couldn't breed,else the rarity would just become diluted into being a rare abnormality in a population of Grizzly's.

  Heres an example.Its like saying if a Irish Man moves to the middle east even though hes the minority he could eventually become the dominant trait in the middle east and all Arabs would eventually have red hair and be pale complected .You'll say that's silly because hair and skin color have nothing to do with survivability but im saying its the same thing, because neither the white fur or the red haired Irish man change the fact that the Arab and the Grizzly can still breed .Since they can they are still and always will be the minority.So to me, logic would say the abnormality of the red haired Irish in a middle east country as well as a white bear amongst grizzly's would become diluted to the point of insignificance in a sea of standard existing traits.

  Just like the Irish Man's descendants might occasionally have red hair,for the most part they'd have black hair and be darker skinned.The same thing for the Polar Bear.There may occasionally be one ,but for the most part if that was how it came to be it would still be a rarity.

----------


## V3n

God _created_ a world that could be explained by _evolution_.

If the world's only explanation was _God_, there would be no faith.

----------


## otherone

> Heres an example.Its like saying if a Irish Man moves to the middle east even though hes the minority he could eventually become the dominant trait in the middle east and all Arabs would eventually have red hair and be pale complected .



Based on how badly gingers burn, the obvious answer is variations able to migrate to more accommodating environments would do so, or not survive.

----------


## robert9712000

> Based on how badly gingers burn, the obvious answer is variations able to migrate to more accommodating environments would do so, or not survive.


That single mutated white bear isn't going to migrate very far away from the dominant grizzly region though,because it needs to reproduce.So while it may roam a little bit ,its still a minority in an overly dominant grizzly population.So unless it has incest with its white offspring the mutation variety would be diluted in the overwhelming grizzly population regardless of how more effective it is at surviving because like i said in my last post.The evolution theory only reasons correctly if the original dominant species has problems reproducing(survival of the fittest is a mute point if both versions can reproduce),thus allowing the mutation to become the dominant breed.

----------


## otherone

> The evolution theory only reasons correctly if the original dominant species has problems reproducing(survival of the fittest is a mute point if both versions can reproduce),thus allowing the mutation to become the dominant breed.


What happens when two offshoots of a common ancestor each find niches in the same environment (Like humans and chimps)?

----------


## otherone

> That single mutated white bear isn't going to migrate very far away from the dominant grizzly region though


Color variation is common in animals.  There are 'white' gray squirrels, for instance.  As long as the variation is not a handicap, the gene will survive.   If, for instance, we encountered another Ice Age, and New York was covered in snow 24/7, the 'white' squirrels may have a better chance at survival (until, of course, the white cat variant dominates).

----------


## robert9712000

> What happens when two offshoots of a common ancestor each find niches in the same environment (Like humans and chimps)?


 The problem with that is if they were offshoots why wouldn't you have 1000's of different varying in between versions of humans and apes instead of two distinct species?As long as each type of in between could still breed there should be 1000's of varying versions in between man and ape.

----------


## Sola_Fide

As long as the Christians (or people who think they are defending the Christian position) keep accepting the atheist's terms of the debate, you are going to keep losing.

----------


## otherone

> there should be 1000's of varying versions in between man and ape.


Have you been to Walmart?

----------


## carclinic

Evolution simply is unproven scientifically.  I don't see how a simple bacterium can be made arbitrarily.  Afterall, we don't see junkyards popping out working vehicles just because all the car parts are lying around.

----------


## carclinic

> Have you been to Walmart?


LOL!

----------


## Liberty4life

Now here you nailed it, God did exactly that, and described it in the bible. (hmm, meant to quote someone about God making man from soup)

----------


## onlyrp

> Evolution simply is unproven scientifically.  *I don't see how a simple bacterium can be made arbitrarily.*


Where did you get the idea that was evolution?




> Afterall, we don't see junkyards popping out working vehicles just because all the car parts are lying around.


Poe...nice

----------


## Liberty4life

> Not really sure what FYP means , is that For Your Post ? As for my post , I did not mention any invisible friends ,  if you would like to make a point about the post { I am ok with that ] , please  use what is was that I said .


FYP == fixed your post, usually in regards to errors, in this case just semantics, easy way to bump your posts, *wink Hazek*

----------


## onlyrp

> lol people taking my polar bear post seriously.


you'd be surprised how many people actually believe that, it's not that funny.

----------


## tttppp

> (Disclaimer, I'm not Christian.) 
> 
> So, i've been studying a lot of information regarding Human evolution and I'm genuinely curious how Christians can believe in evolution? 
> 
> It would seem to me that the two are completely incompatible. Evolution (at least macro-evolution) holds the idea that we evolved from ape to man in a somewhat-linear progression. That is directly contradictory to the "creationist" theory.
> 
> 
> So, I would just like to get your thoughts on the subject.
> 
> ...


God never created the universe because the universe has always existed and always will exist.

Christians pick and chose which scientific theories they like then determine they are fact. For example, when the big bang theory came about, the Christians determined it to be generally accepted fact because it shows the universe was created (even though it wasn't). The Christians simply added to the big bang theory that it was God that created the universe, which is complete bs.

----------


## Savvy Jack

In the first chapter of Genesis it explains it very clear. Genesis 1:24 explains that the creatures were created after their kind, each according to its kind. Then in 1:24 God said lets make man in Our image, according to Our likeness (basically referring to moral, ethical and intellectual abilities which rules out apes and monkeys).  As well as letting them have dominion over all fish, birds animals and things that crawl over the earth. Which again, rules out evolution from ape to man....and any other creature. We/they were all made after their own kind.

----------


## anaconda

I think they deemphasize the old testament or consider it to be allegorical, rather than factual.

----------


## PierzStyx

For the OFFICIAL church statement from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: http://www.lds.org/ensign/2002/02/th...ery=origin+man

In essence, mankind is the literal intentional creation of God Almighty. We did not form from lesser beings, but are created in the image of God Himself. Adam and Eve were real people, who really lived in the Garden of Eden. They really did partake of some type of fruit (whatever kind but not an apple) and because they had sinned and brought upon themselves spiritual imperfection, had to leave God's presence and begin mortal life on Earth. This is the Origin of Man. And really not just of man, but life on earth.

Does this mean we refuse elements, or particular principles of the theory of evolution? No we do not. That there have been genetic adaptations in various beings over the course of history is true. We adapt to our surroundings and become the apex creature for those surroundings. We pass those genetic adaptations onward. But the belief that one entirely different animal can become another entirely different animal, even by a few degrees, is false. A cat may become larger or smaller, white or black, checked or striped, feral or tame but it never becomes a monkey or a human. Likewise a primate may become large or small, furry or not, quick or slow, smart or stupid, violent or peaceful, but it is always in the end a primate. It becomes an apex primate but it does not become a human being. Humans are the children of God, physically created as we are by Him in His image with the divine purpose to become like Him.

----------


## PierzStyx

> God never created the universe because the universe has always existed and always will exist.
> 
> Christians pick and chose which scientific theories they like then determine they are fact. For example, when the big bang theory came about, the Christians determined it to be generally accepted fact because it shows the universe was created (even though it wasn't). The Christians simply added to the big bang theory that it was God that created the universe, which is complete bs.


Mormons believe in the eternal nature of matter, that God created the Universe by organizing it from chaos into order. And they've taught this, that the matter of the universe has always existed and wasn't created out of nothingness, since 1840. That si long before Einstein and Relativity or Hawking's claims in his book.  Still b.s.?

----------


## eduardo89

> Mormons believe in the eternal nature of matter, that God created the Universe by organizing it from chaos into order. And they've taught this, that the matter of the universe has always existed and wasn't created out of nothingness, since 1840. That si long before Einstein and Relativity or Hawking's claims in his book.  Still b.s.?


Who created this matter then?

----------


## PierzStyx

> Who created this matter then?


Its eternal. It didn't need to be created out of nothing. It was not the absence of everything and then something. It always has been. Matter, in its most basic form, is eternal. It is not made or unmade. It is changed in form, even converted to energy (as happens in so-called "annihilation" theories) but always exists in some form or another.

As I understand it, the justification for ex nihilio creation is based on the Hebrew word "bara" or "barau" used in Genesis. Many Christians justify ex nihilio creation by saying this word means "create from" and say the thing from which all things are created is God. The problem is that, that is not what the text says.  It says "God created (from)...." Not "God created from Himself....." The question arises then what does God create the heavens and the earth from?  The answers from the modern prophets has been simple: From what was already there. It takes no mental leap or theological twisting of the words to fit an existent creed (the concept of ex nihilio is a 2nd century interpreted into, not from, the scriptures)  for this to be true. It fits best with what is there in the text. Even the argument that Hebrew is a hard language and the word could in fact mean both (it also has been translated as "fat" as well btw) makes it work in the context of the forming of Creation. 

A good concise discussion on it can be found here:http://en.fairmormon.org/Creatio_ex_nihilo


And a longer, deeper discussion can be found here in this pdf: http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publ...33700-17-2.pdf

----------


## eduardo89

> Its eternal. It didn't need to be created out of nothing. It was not the absence of everything and then something. It always has been. Matter, in its most basic form, is eternal. It is not made or unmade. It is changed in form, even converted to energy (as happens in so-called "annihilation" theories) but always exists in some form or another.


So then you don't believe God created the universe. He just formed it out of the matter that already existed?

----------


## PierzStyx

> So then you don't believe God created the universe. He just formed it out of the matter that already existed?


God created the universe. He took the pure chaos and formed it, ordered it, and made it into a universe. He instituted its laws and makes it work. What we call the "laws of science/ of physics/etc." He made and set in place to govern what He had made. The pre-existence of matter does not mean it existed as a "Universe". That is one of the problems I have with Hawking actually. He assumes that complete chaos would randomly order itself and form a universe from disarray. It would not have. It takes God to cause the Universe to exist. He is the Creator. It is a limited understanding of the word "create" that assumes that unless you believe in ex nihilio creation then you can not believe in a creation at all. 

To give it a smaller, earthly comparison its like an inventor making something. The inventor goes "Look what I have made!" and everyone goes "You've created something excellent!" Well that inventor did not create their invention from nothing, but from parts that existed chaotically before but the inventor brought together to work in one greater whole. Yet no one denies the inventor created something that previously wasn't there. In an infinitely greater way it is the same with God. He took the lesser chaos and made a greater, unified, ordered whole out of it-a Universe. He created it.

Or another way to look at it: A person may look over the barrenness of a desert and be asked what is out there. That person's response may very well be "Nothing." And no one would fault them. They see the desert as empty, as full of nothing. But is it? Of course not. If anything it is at least full of sand, randomly and chaotically strewn across the wastes. This is comparable to the state of existence here before the Creation. There was "nothing" because nothing was organized but not because there was an actual absence of some type of matter.

----------


## pcosmar

Can't speak for all Christians.
I simply reject it outright.

----------


## tttppp

> Mormons believe in the eternal nature of matter, that God created the Universe by organizing it from chaos into order. And they've taught this, that the matter of the universe has always existed and wasn't created out of nothingness, since 1840. That si long before Einstein and Relativity or Hawking's claims in his book.  Still b.s.?


Thats slightly more realistic than what most religions teach, that the universe was create by God and everything is finite. However, based on what you said, the Mormons still believe God created the universe. The universe could not have always existed if it was created by God. If they believed the universe has always existed and always will exist and that God did not create the universe, then they would be accurate.

----------


## otherone

> based on what you said, the Mormons still believe God created the universe.


What he said was "God made Order from Chaos."  Kinda like a word jumble.

----------


## James Madison

Evolution is, by and large, correct. Species adapt to their environments and, given enough time, will begin to diverge. This is easy to see across the biological spectrum. The question nobody asks is this: do natural selection, random mutation, and genetic drift have the creative capacity to generate the biodiversity we see in the world today? If so, where are the mathematical models to predict this process? If no, what other mechanisms could possibly be at work here?

----------


## PierzStyx

> Thats slightly more realistic than what most religions teach, that the universe was create by God and everything is finite. However, based on what you said, the Mormons still believe God created the universe. The universe could not have always existed if it was created by God. If they believed the universe has always existed and always will exist and that God did not create the universe, then they would be accurate.


But then you're putting words into the "mouth" of science. The best example I've read of self-existent matter from a scientific perspective is from Stephen Hawkings in "A Brief History of The Universe." He uses mathematics and science to "prove" that matter doesn't need to be, it always has been. And his conclusion is therefore a god doesn't _need_ to exist. It could have spontaneously evolved given infinite time and infinite options to do so. The problem is that this last part. he makes a GIGANTIC unscientific leap because a naturally ordered universe where all the infinitely right and infinitely specific conditions could exist for the spontaneous evolution of life, or even that has order, is impossible. Even given infinite time and infinite variables. This is because that for any given number of states of being entropy, the tending towards breaking down of order into chaos, increases. In effect the laws of the universe are so organized that order as we know it would never have developed. The Universe should still be in the complete chaos that it was in after the Big Bang. In fact there should be no "Universe" as such but only chaotic matter.  That there is a Universe, that there is some form of cosmic law and order, means that something other than the laws of physics had to act upon the matter and order it. That force is not a force, but a being. That being is God. God provided order to chaos and formed the Universe, creating the somethingness of existence from the nothingness of chaotic matter.

----------


## tttppp

> What he said was "God made Order from Chaos."  Kinda like a word jumble.


What exactly does that mean? Does that mean God created the universe, or does that mean there's no beginning or end to the universe?

----------


## PierzStyx

> What he said was "God made Order from Chaos."  Kinda like a word jumble.



Perhaps, if you want to look at God as the being that takes the random letters and arranges them into words. But the comparison has its limitations. I prefer the example of the inventor I used in a previous post.

----------


## tttppp

> But then you're putting words into the "mouth" of science. The best example I've read of self-existent matter from a scientific perspective is from Stephen Hawkings in "A Brief History of The Universe." He uses mathematics and science to "prove" that matter doesn't need to be, it always has been. And his conclusion is therefore a god doesn't _need_ to exist. It could have spontaneously evolved given infinite time and infinite options to do so. The problem is that this last part. he makes a GIGANTIC unscientific leap because a naturally ordered universe where all the infinitely right and infinitely specific conditions could exist for the spontaneous evolution of life, or even that has order, is impossible. Even given infinite time and infinite variables. This is because that for any given number of states of being entropy, the tending towards breaking down of order into chaos, increases. In effect the laws of the universe are so organized that order as we know it would never have developed. The Universe should still be in the complete chaos that it was in after the Big Bang. In fact there should be no "Universe" as such but only chaotic matter.  That there is a Universe, that there is some form of cosmic law and order, means that something other than the laws of physics had to act upon the matter and order it. That force is not a force, but a being. That being is God. God provided order to chaos and formed the Universe, creating the somethingness of existence from the nothingness of chaotic matter.


Infinity accounts for order and chaos. There's no need for a God to create order that already exists. Its a better theory than most religions, but still inaccurate.

----------


## PierzStyx

> Infinity accounts for order and chaos. There's no need for a God to create order that already exists. Its a better theory than most religions, but still inaccurate.


The point is that there aren't infinite anything. First of all we know enough to even hazard a guess at the Universes' "age" which means that it hasn't had "infinite" time to organize itself. Second, thanks to the laws of physics we know there aren't infinite variables to take place. Perhaps if there was an infinitude of both he could be right. But there isn't. And we know it.

That said I take the statement as a kind of backhanded compliment and say thankya.

----------


## tttppp

> The point is that there aren't infinite anything. First of all we know enough to even hazard a guess at the Universes' "age" which means that it hasn't had "infinite" time to organize itself. Second, thanks to the laws of physics we know there aren't infinite variables to take place. Perhaps if there was an infinitude of both he could be right. But there isn't. And we know it.
> 
> That said I take the statement as a kind of backhanded compliment and say thankya.


If you believe in no beginning or end to the universe, you believe in infinite time at the very least. The guesses at the universes age are complete bs. They are ultimately run by religious nuts who ultimately want to prove the universe was created by God. The laws of physics haven't proven or disproven infinity. All we know is our laws tend to work on Earth and what we can see from Earth. Thats a relatively small area.

----------


## onlyrp

> God never created the universe because the universe has always existed and always will exist.


Wrong, everything that exists had a beginning. Just ask William Lane Craig.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCUE10dY3Rc

----------


## onlyrp

> So then you don't believe God created the universe. He just formed it out of the matter that already existed?


why are you willing to believe God is uncaused, uncreated, but the universe is not?

----------


## tttppp

> Wrong, everything that exists had a beginning. Just ask William Lane Craig.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCUE10dY3Rc


No you're wrong. Zero=infinity. Thats the fundamental law of the universe. Everything equals nothing. 

That video clip is a bunch of gibberish. Just a bunch of religious people who want to try to justify the existence of God. Neither of them knew what they are talking about.

----------


## anaconda

> But then you're putting words into the "mouth" of science. The best example I've read of self-existent matter from a scientific perspective is from Stephen Hawkings in "A Brief History of The Universe." He uses mathematics and science to "prove" that matter doesn't need to be, it always has been. And his conclusion is therefore a god doesn't _need_ to exist. It could have spontaneously evolved given infinite time and infinite options to do so. The problem is that this last part. he makes a GIGANTIC unscientific leap because a naturally ordered universe where all the infinitely right and infinitely specific conditions could exist for the spontaneous evolution of life, or even that has order, is impossible. Even given infinite time and infinite variables. This is because that for any given number of states of being entropy, the tending towards breaking down of order into chaos, increases. In effect the laws of the universe are so organized that order as we know it would never have developed. The Universe should still be in the complete chaos that it was in after the Big Bang. In fact there should be no "Universe" as such but only chaotic matter.  That there is a Universe, that there is some form of cosmic law and order, means that something other than the laws of physics had to act upon the matter and order it. That force is not a force, but a being. That being is God. God provided order to chaos and formed the Universe, creating the somethingness of existence from the nothingness of chaotic matter.


Have you considered that the system as a whole might, in fact, experience a net loss of order and energy despite living organisms consolidating, within, more order and a higher energy state? In other words, for every incursion into the universe of a life form, there may be a corresponding or greater loss of order elsewhere. And that ordering in life forms is a statistical inevitability given that certain random configurations have a relative statistical advantage for surviving in their micro environments?

----------


## onlyrp

> No you're wrong. Zero=infinity. *Thats the fundamental law of the universe. Everything equals nothing. 
> *
> That video clip is a bunch of gibberish. Just a bunch of religious people who want to try to justify the existence of God. Neither of them knew what they are talking about.


doublespeak much?

----------


## carclinic

> Where did you get the idea that was evolution?
> 
> 
> 
> Poe...nice


I don't get it.

----------


## onlyrp

> I don't get it.


http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poe's_Law

----------


## slamhead

> Because only the ones who didn't die survived. Do you consider that maybe it happened in reverse order? That is, only those with valves were able to lean down, and only those were able to later acquire (inherit, preserve) longer necks?


Well evolution suggest all creatures came from a primordial soup. Species grew over time and adapted. I would think that as food became scarce the giraffes with longer necks out competed the those who could not reach the higher branches. But my question is where was the tipping point? I guess one could argue there was a certain mutation before their necks got to long where leaning down could kill them. Even if it was a mutation, how intuitive it was. I just see an intelligent design in somethings.

----------


## slamhead

> Yeah but why? Why did God go through all the trouble allowing life to evolve for billions of years? From a single cell in the Ocean to land animals? It just seems like evolution is inherently anti-Christian.


Now you get into the concept of time. Time is relative to the speed of light. It baffles me how Einstein figured all that out. You take two perfectly synchronized clocks. You put one on the top floor and one on the bottom floor of a skyscraper and the one on the top floor will run faster. It is just crazy $#@! to wrap your mind around. This is why people turn to God to explain things that we will perhaps never know.

----------


## TheViper

> Now you get into the concept of time. Time is relative to the speed of light. It baffles me how Einstein figured all that out. You take two perfectly synchronized clocks. You put one on the top floor and one on the bottom floor of a skyscraper and the one on the top floor will run faster. It is just crazy $#@! to wrap your mind around. *This is why people turn to God to explain things that we will perhaps never know.*


This has been the human maxim since the beginning.  Our lack of understanding suggested a force greater than the natural world around us.

Over time, many of those original misunderstandings have lost their spiritual circumstances in light of critical thinking and comprehension.

And this should never be confused with the idea that science is anti-God.  Merely that science is anti-old data.

----------


## MaxPower

> Evolution simply is unproven scientifically.  I don't see how a simple bacterium can be made arbitrarily.  Afterall, we don't see junkyards popping out working vehicles just because all the car parts are lying around.


You're conflating two separate things, here; evolution is the gradual adaptation of organisms to their environment over the course of generations. It is not life arising from non-life akin to vehicles arbitrarily coming out of junkyards (an analogy I have also used on this forum, by the way); _that_ is called abiogenesis. And abiogenesis most certainly is unproven.

----------


## nobody

Evolution in and of itself cannot be a correct scientific fact.  The Evolution process denotes that information in DNA can change.  If this were possible there would exist nothing but mutations.  There would be no limiting bounderies for tissue and organisms to mutate towards, to accomplish something into existence. Life could not exist.  It takes an unseen World to create a seen World.  The seen World cannot create an unseen World in a physical sense.  The physical senses are what Evolution would have to use.  The physical senses that are available for Evolution to use, can only receive information.  They are limited and cannot change DNA or matter structure.

----------


## jmdrake

It's funny how this has predictably morphed into a debate about whether or not evolution or creation is scientifically plausible.  Lost in this thread derail is the original discussion of whether you can reconcile the theory that man evolved from a lower species through natural selection to the Christian view of salvation.  Central to the Christian view is that *death did not exist prior to sin* and that Jesus came *to save us from sin and death*.  (Romans 5:12-12)  So the two belief systems are irreconcilable.  At least Christianity as currently taught and believed by the majority of Christians.  (Evolution may be compatible with gnosticism or some other branch of Christianity).  That the Vatican now accepts Darwinism just shows that Rick Santorum got it backwards.  Note, I'm not saying this to bash Christians who accept Darwinism.  I'm just showing the contradiction not just with Genesis, but also with the main thesis of New Testament teaching.  Without the belief of man being created in a perfect state, the fall of man, and Jesus coming to restore man to a prefect state, Jesus becomes more of a "Yoda" figure helping man on the path to enlightenment that would happen anyway without God's intervention.

_Death Through Adam, Life Through Christ

 12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—
 13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

 15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16 Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!

 18 Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

 20 The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, 21 so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord._

----------


## James Madison

> It's funny how this has predictably morphed into a debate about whether or not evolution or creation is scientifically plausible.  Lost in this thread derail is the original discussion of whether you can reconcile the theory that man evolved from a lower species through natural selection to the Christian view of salvation.  Central to the Christian view is that *death did not exist prior to sin* and that Jesus came *to save us from sin and death*.  (Romans 5:12-12)  So the two belief systems are irreconcilable.  At least Christianity as currently taught and believed by the majority of Christians.  (Evolution may be compatible with gnosticism or some other branch of Christianity).  That the Vatican now accepts Darwinism just shows that Rick Santorum got it backwards.  Note, I'm not saying this to bash Christians who accept Darwinism.  I'm just showing the contradiction not just with Genesis, but also with the main thesis of New Testament teaching.  Without the belief of man being created in a perfect state, the fall of man, and Jesus coming to restore man to a prefect state, Jesus becomes more of a "Yoda" figure helping man on the path to enlightenment that would happen anyway without God's intervention.
> 
> _Death Through Adam, Life Through Christ
> 
>  12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned
>  13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyones account where there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.
> 
>  15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did Gods grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16 Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one mans sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive Gods abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!
> 
> ...





> God created this Universe to conquer sin. Therefore, He let sin into the Universe and used natural selection, along with occasional Divine Providence, to prepare the Creation for the appearance of man. Likewise, man needed to evolve in order to survive. If man was created perfect he would have no need for the biological systems required for survival and so after the fall his fate would have been a swift death. In a perfect world, evolution would no longer be necessary because we would no longer need to compete for limited resources and fight off infections. That's why Jesus's message was absolute selflessness. It wasn't just altruism, it was darwinian suicide. Jesus was made for a perfect world and His message of helping others, humbling oneself, and giving complete submission to God makes little sense in light of natural selection, even examples of 'altruism' we see from other species. In short, evolution was the only way for God to conquer sin without sin destroying His Creation (and His highest Creation, mankind).


See my original post that everyone ignored.

----------


## jmdrake

> God created this Universe to conquer sin. Therefore, He let sin into the Universe and used natural selection, along with occasional Divine Providence, to prepare the Creation for the appearance of man. Likewise, man needed to evolve in order to survive. If man was created perfect he would have no need for the biological systems required for survival and so after the fall his fate would have been a swift death. In a perfect world, evolution would no longer be necessary because we would no longer need to compete for limited resources and fight off infections. That's why Jesus's message was absolute selflessness. It wasn't just altruism, it was darwinian suicide. Jesus was made for a perfect world and His message of helping others, humbling oneself, and giving complete submission to God makes little sense in light of natural selection, even examples of 'altruism' we see from other species. In short, evolution was the only way for God to conquer sin without sin destroying His Creation (and His highest Creation, mankind).





> This is only the case if we take "biological success strategy" to be synonymous with "moral imperative;" stating that "Evolution progresses through survival of the fittest" is not at all the same as saying, "Therefore, the morally correct decision is the one which is most successful on an evolutionary level." Christianity has taught _from the start_ that worldly success is not the highest end, that Christians should renounce "survival of the fittest" even if it means that they will be in some ways "beaten" by those who devote themselves strictly to worldly success. Surviving, achieving social dominance, mating, and bringing forth offspring were already seen as signs of earthly success long before they were understood as contributing to a process called "evolution," and Christians were _already_ taught to renounce those things to the extent that they interfered with their spiritual salvation.





> See my original post that everyone ignored.


Okay.  This got lost to me in the shuffle.  I'll answer both of these simultaneously because I see common themes:

1) God isn't necessarily interested in "biological success".
2) God created the universe to conquer sin.  (Not common to both posts, but worth addressing)
3) Jesus' teaching not a "success" in terms of self propagation.  (That's not how either of you worded it exactly, but I see that as the logical conclusion).

I'll take these out of order.  If God's purpose for creating the universe was to "conquer sin", why bother?  Sounds like the video game maker looking for a new "challenge".  Not impossible, but to me implausible.  Sounds petty.

I think God was interested in biological success.  I think He created prefect beings who also had the ability to adapt.  When things became imperfect, that adaptation ability kicked in.

Christianity has its fastest growth during its most altruistic stage.  When Judaism was almost wiped out.  And Mahatma Ghandi used Christianity's principles successfully against the British empire even though he never embraced Christianity. 

Lastly, what do either of you make of Romans 5 saying that through one man sin entered the world and through sin death?  Just a mistake by Paul?  And if that teaching can't be believed then how do you decide what parts of Christianity you accept?

----------


## AFPVet

How do I as a Christian reconcile evolution? Well, I do not believe creationism and evolution are dichotomous. Somehow, something occurred to "create" a situation where evolution could start.

----------


## otherone

> How do I as a Christian reconcile evolution? Well, I do not believe creationism and evolution are dichotomous. Somehow, something occurred to "create" a situation where evolution could start.


I've always been comfortable with theologians arguing "why?" and scientists arguing "how?"

----------


## EricJ

Check out some Christian science apologetic groups like Answers in Genesis.

----------


## TheViper

> Check out some Christian science apologetic groups like Answers in Genesis.


Been there.  Couldn't read much without nearly spewing my drink everywhere.

The biggest problem with groups like that is that they work backwards from a scientific viewpoint.  They have an already established conclusion to their question and then they work any 'science' in they can to support that conclusion while ignoring all that sits on the contrary.

As I said, that's backwards and distorts true scientific progress.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Been there.  Couldn't read much without nearly spewing my drink everywhere.
> 
> The biggest problem with groups like that is that they work backwards from a scientific viewpoint.  They have an already established conclusion to their question and then they work any 'science' in they can to support that conclusion while ignoring all that sits on the contrary.
> 
> As I said, that's backwards and distorts true scientific progress.




Are you saying that atheists don't have an established conclusion that they work back from???

  (how can a person be so blind as to not see this?)

----------


## TheViper

> Are you saying that atheists don't have an established conclusion that they work back from???
> 
>   (how can a person be so blind as to not see this?)


Why yes, yes I am saying just that.  But how many atheists have actually undertaken scientific study to prove God doesn't exist?   Point being, you're attempt to redirect my criticism back at me is baseless.

Answers in Genesis base their entire scientific direction on the information in the Bible.   This means they already have their 'answer' and are merely looking for a scientific means to validate it.

Atheist scientists don't have a book of 'answers' they are trying to validate.  They, as should any good scientist regardless of religious or non-religious creed, do not establish their answer first.   They follow the course of discovery and the application of previous validations.  A leads to B which leads to C, etc....   And if they later learn that B was not quite correct, they replace it with a more accurate B.    Answers in Genesis won't do that.  They care only about validating what they've already concluded (words in the Bible).    

Now you are probably asking about scientific hypotheses and theories.   The difference between those and the way AIG approach them is that if a theory is incorrect or a hypothesis is unfounded after research, a new hypothesis or theory is crafted to explain the results and is tested again.   With AIG, you can't change those theories or hypotheses because the Bible IS their theory/hypotheses.

----------


## onlyrp

> Well evolution suggest all creatures came from a primordial soup.


"Came from"? Is that how we typically use that phrase? Did you "come from" Europe? Did you "come from" Noah's Ark? Did you "come from" 6000 years ago?




> Species grew over time and adapted.


Grow, as in expand or improve? Or simply not die, and reproduce?




> I would think that as food became scarce the giraffes with longer necks out competed the those who could not reach the higher branches. But my question is where was the tipping point?


I don't know what you mean by tipping point, are you asking why giraffes have 6 ft necks, not 3 ft? 




> I guess one could argue there was a certain mutation before their necks got to long where leaning down could kill them. Even if it was a mutation, how intuitive it was. I just see an intelligent design in somethings.


Where can't you see intelligent design? Can you give me an example of biology that's poor design?

----------


## onlyrp

> It's funny how this has predictably morphed into a debate about whether or not evolution or creation is scientifically plausible.  Lost in this thread derail is the original discussion of whether you can reconcile the theory that man evolved from a lower species through natural selection to the Christian view of salvation.


Because if one theory is not scientifically proven or plausible, there is nothing left to reconcile, isn't that great?

----------


## onlyrp

> Are you saying that atheists don't have an established conclusion that they work back from???
> 
>   (how can a person be so blind as to not see this?)


I'm sure we do to some extent, but "god does not exist" is not usually one of them.

----------


## jmdrake

> Because if one theory is not scientifically proven or plausible, there is nothing left to reconcile, isn't that great?


Sure there is.  People are free to postulate about based on presuppositions.  If you presuppose that evolution (as in man evolving from lower species) is scientifically correct then what are the ramifications for Christianity as a religion which teaches that God came to earth to die to restore man to a pre-fallen state.  If our pre-fallen state is an single celled amoeba then that's nothing worth trying to be restored to.  Evolution is more compatible with the Hindu idea of reincarnation to higher and higher forms than it is to Christianity.  That's my point.

----------


## otherone

> If you presuppose that evolution (as in man evolving from lower species) is scientifically correct then what are the ramifications for Christianity as a religion which teaches that God came to earth to die to restore man to a pre-fallen state.  If our pre-fallen state is an single celled amoeba then that's nothing worth trying to be restored to.


I think you are making a lot of assumptions with this. 
 First, I don't know what you mean by 'lower' species.  'Different' species have evolved based on environmental influences.  The only hierarchy is chronological.  Therefore, we did not evolve from 'lower' species, all life has evolved from 'prior' species. 
Second, That God came to earth to restore man to a pre-fallen state does not mean that man's previous 'state' was a different species.  Amoebas are not men, neither are **** Erectus.  They are different species.  Man is Man.   If one wishes to imagine that God's intent was to return man to our previous state, simply look at Man's previous state.  A zygote is not a man, but it is every man's previous state, and while amoeba-like, it is quintessentially human.  Each Man's previous state was perfect, original, and with God, prior to conception.  Do our souls exist before our conception?  Did Christ die for **** sapiens, or did Christ die for each one of us?

----------


## jmdrake

> I think you are making a lot of assumptions with this.


Of course.  All arguments are based on some assumptions.  




> First, I don't know what you mean by 'lower' species.  'Different' species have evolved based on environmental influences.  The only hierarchy is chronological.  Therefore, we did not evolve from 'lower' species, all life has evolved from 'prior' species.


Species that are less complex and/or less intelligent.




> Second, That God came to earth to restore man to a pre-fallen state does not mean that man's previous 'state' was a different species.  Amoebas are not men, neither are **** Erectus.  They are different species.  Man is Man.   If one wishes to imagine that God's intent was to return man to our previous state, simply look at Man's previous state.  A zygote is not a man, but it is every man's previous state, and while amoeba-like, it is quintessentially human.  Each Man's previous state was perfect, original, and with God, prior to conception.  Do our souls exist before our conception?  Did Christ die for **** sapiens, or did Christ die for each one of us?


A human zygote is genetically a human.  But I will be more specific.  According to Christian dogma the pre-fallen state was sinless and immortal.  "By one man sin entered the world and by sin death".  The Christian view is that Jesus died to save us from death and sin.  "For the wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life."  If the previous state was "prefect" and if death comes from sin and if evolution requires death (and my current understanding it does, because without death how can you have natural selection) then where did the death come from?  Describe for me this sinless, deathless, pre-human state that still allowed for natural selection to occur.  If you are going to challenge my assumptions you have to come with some of your own.

----------


## TER

Christ died for us meaning mankind, in order to save mankind, and in doing so, saving all of creation which groans with birth pangs in anticipation of the Kindgom of Heaven.  For we were made 'a little lower then angels' and yet the angels serve us who God made priests over creation.  For God breathed the Spirit into man and made us children of God, alone made in His image and likeness.  And He bestowed upon us the heavenly attributes of God, reasonable persons with the ability to create and destroy.  Placing humans above all other creatures, bestowing the grace of adoption and kinship and lordship.   

That God took clay from the ground and created Adam is enough for me, literally or otherwise.  It does not affect my faith in the smallest way what that actually means.  If it is literal, 'Glory to God!'.  If it metaphorical, 'Glory to God!'

My worship is still to God the Father.  And frankly, I have greater things to think about and more pressing issues in my life to work on then how I got here.  I am much more interested in the why, which is not malleable and according to the time, but instead is eternal.  If I ever get time to learn more about what God has revealed in man's quest for truth using the science of this world, that is, stay current with what new scientific experiments and findings suggest, then I would have items to debate in what must be fascinating fields of human endeavor (as biased and incomplete these fields may be).

Until then, I pray to the Lord for mercy and hope that one day He might 'bring me to all truths' by His Holy Spirit, whether it be in regards to the mystery of our creation or more importantly, why He created us at all.

And Christ reveals to all mankind why He created us and it pertains to the His very nature, that is, in the mystery of Love between persons, the very trinitarian expressed reality of eternal life which comes from the Father, through the Son, and in the Holy Spirit.

And even _now_ the Kingdom is available and can be experienced.  Even in this _life_, in this fallen world, can we partake in the divine and ineffable mysteries of the Kingdom.  This is because Christ has sanctified us by His Incarnation, Death, Resurrection, and Ascension.  God entered into creation to _change_ creation, as High Priest, _sanctifying_ creation and promising to be with us, always, and unto the end of the world.

This is the cry of the faithful and the testimony of the Church and can most evidently be seen in the lives of the holy men, women, and children, who by living Christ-bearing lives, became lights to the world, the very salt of the world, by whose prayers they have preserved the world until the glorious return of Christ, Who will come no more as an infant in a cave in a fallen world surrounded by the meek beasts of burden and poor shepards in the cold night, but as King and Lord and Judge of creation, the creation which He has sanctified as High Priest, upon a throne held by angels and before the congregation of saints and the entire world.  This is a much more worthy evolution to consider and learn from.

----------


## otherone

> According to Christian dogma the pre-fallen state was sinless and immortal.  "By one man sin entered the world and by sin death".  The Christian view is that Jesus died to save us from death and sin.  "For the wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life."


Why must this transformation be played out as a species, historically?  Prior to our individual births, were we sinless and immortal?   Only by being born must we necessarily be subject to death...and that by Christ's sacrifice, don't we_ regain_ eternal life?

(btw, I don't make assumptions, I just ask questions)

----------


## otherone

> Christ died for us meaning mankind, in order to save mankind, and in doing so, saving all of creation which groans with birth pangs in anticipation of the Kindgom of Heaven.


So every member of mankind is saved?  Or does Christ save individuals?

----------


## TER

> Why must this transformation be played out as a species, historically?  Prior to our individual births, were we sinless and immortal?   Only by being born must we necessarily be subject to death...and that by Christ's sacrifice, don't we_ regain_ eternal life?
> 
> (btw, I don't make assumptions, I just ask questions)


I know you did not address me but if you don't mind, I would like to give an answer to your very good question.

First, we have to understand what it means when you say 'death'.  According to Christian theology, death is separation from God.  God created us to be eternal, as this is His good pleasure and according to His loving kindness.  It is one way in which He created us in His image.  

When Adam disobeyed God, he separated himself from God.  He distanced himself from life itself, as life can only come from God.  In doing so, corruption and decay was introduced into the world because that is the natural consequence of existence without the life giving energy of God, Who permeates all things and is present everywhere and gives meaning and substance and existence to everything in creation.  All who died under the Old Covenant, whether Jew or Gentile, prophet or sinner, tasted in this separation from God and ented into Hades, a place (or condition) which was the final destination of all souls prior to Christ's saving work.  As the power of death still reigned over man because of our separation from God, likewise, the souls of all who died in the flesh languished in this sad existence apart from God.

Christ changed all that, because when He died, He entered into Hades, spotless and with no guile and with the power of God, He broke free the gates of Hades and the power of death over man because Hell could not hold Him and had nothing of which with which to accuse Him.  This is called the harrowing of hell.

Because of this and of His Resurrection, we will all one day also rise from the dead, whether Jew or Gentile, sinner or saint.

We will not be resurrected like Lazarus was, for he eventually did die again and his soul awaits for the General Ressurection.  Rather, we will rise again in our new bodies, in a new creation, and for all eternity, either in the blessed Kingdom of God or in hell, according to the just judgment of Christ.  For this reason we say 'Lord have mercy'.

----------


## TER

> So every member of mankind is saved?  Or does Christ save individuals?


There is a famous old Orthodox saying which says "We sin alone but are saved together".

Our salvation is indeed personal and unique to us, but is never alone and apart from the Body of Christ.

The personal God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit, determined that salvation for humanity could only take place as we lived fully and truly into the existence for which we were and are created: the Church. In the Church we do not exist as mere individuals but as members of the Body of Christ. My life is the life of Christ. What happens to me is essential to what happens to all the members of the Body and what happens to the members of the Body is essential for what happens to me. Their life is my life.

Thus when we approach the cup of Christ’s Body and Blood, we never approach it for our private good but as members of the Body. We are thus enjoined to be in love and charity with our neighbor and to forgive the sins of all – otherwise the cup is not for our salvation but our destruction.

The salvation into which we are Baptized is a new life – no longer defined by the mere existence of myself as an individual – but rather by the radical freedom of love within the Body of Christ. To accept Christ as our “personal” savior, thus can be translated into its traditional Orthodox form: “Do you unite yourself to Christ?” And this question is more fully expounded when we understand that the Christ to whom we unite ourself is a many-membered body.

After the resurrection, Christ appeared to the Apostle Peter. Their dialog must have been the most profound dialog ever to take place between man and God. “Do you love me?” Christ asked Peter. Peter hedged his answer. But Christ responded, “Feed my sheep.” For to love Christ and to feed His sheep are not two things but one. For Peter to finally know this was indeed his personal salvation. It is ours as well. Glory to God.

----------


## otherone

> When Adam disobeyed God, he separated himself from God.  He distanced himself from life itself, as life can only come from God.


Thanks for the reply, but if one accepts Adam as a historical figure, then one disallows for the possibility of evolution.  If one accepts Adam as metaphor, then the conversation can continue.

----------


## otherone

> Our salvation is indeed personal and unique to us, but is never alone and apart from the Body of Christ.


Is the Body Of Christ the entirety of **** Sapiens?

----------


## TER

> Thanks for the reply, but if one accepts Adam as a historical figure, then one disallows for the possibility of evolution.  If one accepts Adam as metaphor, then the conversation can continue.


Which is why I don't waste time arguing if Adam is a historical figure or a metaphor, because it makes no theological difference in _how_ I am saved, which is by Christ, who is the Second Adam, both historically and metaphorically.

----------


## TER

> Is the Body Of Christ the entirety of **** Sapiens?


No, though I wished it were.

----------


## otherone

Which is how, my friend TER, Christians may reconcile evolution.  If Christ is a personal Savior, as opposed to a species savior, the question of origin is moot.

----------


## TER

I should say, so as not to give the appearance of pride or special status like some do by going around and calling themselves the elect, I don't claim that I will enter the Kingdom.  God will be Judge.  The Orthodox believe that we are saved by the work of Christ on the Cross and His Glorious Resurrection and Ascension, we are _being_ saved by following His commandments and by the grace of the Holy Spirit, and that, God willing, we _will be_ saved by the mercy and love of God in the Last Day.

Also, the Orthodox do not claim to have sovereign rights over who is in the Body of Christ, for God alone knows the hearts of men, and it is indeed possible if not most likely that many who are not Christians, let alone baptized Orthodox Christians, will find mercy at the Judgement and were indeed members of the Body, though not apparent or visible to those who confess to be in the Church.  While we claim to have the most direct path to Christ, we do not limit God in either knowledge, wisdom or power.  That is why, even when heretics were excommunicated by the Church, they were anathamitzed and not condemned as it is often casually asserted by so many.  Indeed, the word anathema translated literally from the original Greek means 'to lift up', that is, to place in the hands and mercy of God.   This is because, while it may seem impossible for us to understand how one outside of the Church can find salvation, we assert even more strongly that nothing is impossible with our merciful God and to Him we afford all Judgment.

----------


## otherone

> Thus, while it may seem impossible for us to understand how one outside of the Church can find salvation, we assert even more strongly that nothing is impossible with God and to Him we afford all Judgment.


I'm guessing you aren't a Calvinist.

----------


## Voluntary Man

Can you define Evolution? 

What are its attributes?

Are their inconsistencies?

Contradictions?

You want me to accept your doctrine?

Define it.

----------


## TER

> Which is how, my friend TER, Christians may reconcile evolution.  If Christ is a personal Savior, as opposed to a species savior, the question of origin is moot.


As a Christian, we should never have to reconcile science nor fear the study of the natural sciences.  Now, we should question certain hypothesis or theories, especially ones which use the tremendously historical fallible method of human extrapolation and makes claims with underlying bias and prejudice.  But honestly, I don't have the inclination or any desire to make arguments knowing I know so little about things that happened before I ever existed.  My focus is on here and now, in this life, in this world, and the field of evolution adds little to my task at hand which is following Christ.

----------


## PierzStyx

> I'm guessing you aren't a Calvinist.


Nope. If I understand correctly, TER is an Orthodox Christian. Am I correct, TER?

----------


## TER

> Nope. If I understand correctly, TER is an Orthodox Christian. Am I correct, TER?


Yep, and not a very good one at that!

I am pretty sure people are probably starting to get a little sick and tired of me by now speaking about the Eastern Orthodox faith.  lol  

I can imagine my zeal can get irritating for some, which is why I should try to control myself a little better and stop posting so much!

----------


## jmdrake

> Why must this transformation be played out as a species, historically?  Prior to our individual births, were we sinless and immortal?   Only by being born must we necessarily be subject to death...and that by Christ's sacrifice, don't we_ regain_ eternal life?
> 
> (btw, I don't make assumptions, I just ask questions)


A zygote may be sinless but it is hardly immortal.  If you are talking about some "pre-birth spirit" fine and dandy, but that doesn't answer the question of how sin caused death.  The "pre-birth" spirit "sinned" by being born?

_Romans 5:12
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:_

I don't think you can get around this by going with a metaphorical Adam.  It seems Paul didn't view Adam as a metaphor.  And even if he did, then Christ is saving us from what exactly?

----------


## jmdrake

> Thanks for the reply, but if one accepts Adam as a historical figure, then one disallows for the possibility of evolution.  If one accepts Adam as metaphor, then the conversation can continue.


A metaphor for what exactly?

----------


## AFPVet

> A zygote may be sinless but it is hardly immortal.  If you are talking about some "pre-birth spirit" fine and dandy, but that doesn't answer the question of how sin caused death.  The "pre-birth" spirit "sinned" by being born?
> 
> _Romans 5:12
> Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:_
> 
> I don't think you can get around this by going with a metaphorical Adam.  It seems Paul didn't view Adam as a metaphor.  And even if he did, then Christ is saving us from what exactly?


Well, by knowing both good and evil, Adam and Eve chose to fall short by their own free will. This may have caused the knowledge to be tattooed onto the diversified DNA within Eve and passed down. Yes, spiritually, we are clean; however, the flesh is not—due to the aforementioned theory. This is what I got out of it....

----------


## jmdrake

> Well, by knowing both good and evil, Adam and Eve chose to fall short by their own free will. This may have caused the knowledge to be tattooed onto the diversified DNA within Eve and passed down. Yes, spiritually, we are clean; however, the flesh is not—due to the aforementioned theory. This is what I got out of it....


Yes.  But "otherone" isn't willing to go with the assumption that Adam and Eve were historical figures.  So the zygote is sinful already because....?

----------


## jmdrake

> Which is how, my friend TER, Christians may reconcile evolution.  If Christ is a personal Savior, as opposed to a species savior, the question of origin is moot.


Personal savior from what?

----------


## otherone

> A metaphor for what exactly?


If Adam didn't exist historically, then what purpose would it serve for his inclusion biblically?  Christians that recognize evolution can't accept that Adam was the literal first man.  To attempt a reconciliation, Adam must be figurative, or metaphor, or some other literary device.

----------


## otherone

> Personal savior from what?


Did we exist prior to conception?

----------


## jmdrake

Hello TER.  Quick question.  How do you decide which metaphors are important to you and which aren't?  I know you take the Eucharist literally.  I see it as a metaphor.  Who's right?  I can't say for sure, though of course I have my opinion.  But to me that's something that I don't see as important to understanding salvation as Adam and Eve and the fall of man.  That's where we get the first promise of the coming of the Messiah after all.  Not posing this as a criticism, just a question.




> Christ died for us meaning mankind, in order to save mankind, and in doing so, saving all of creation which groans with birth pangs in anticipation of the Kindgom of Heaven.  For we were made 'a little lower then angels' and yet the angels serve us who God made priests over creation.  For God breathed the Spirit into man and made us children of God, alone made in His image and likeness.  And He bestowed upon us the heavenly attributes of God, reasonable persons with the ability to create and destroy.  Placing humans above all other creatures, bestowing the grace of adoption and kinship and lordship.   
> 
> That God took clay from the ground and created Adam is enough for me, literally or otherwise.  It does not affect my faith in the smallest way what that actually means.  If it is literal, 'Glory to God!'.  If it metaphorical, 'Glory to God!'
> 
> My worship is still to God the Father.  And frankly, I have greater things to think about and more pressing issues in my life to work on then how I got here.  I am much more interested in the why, which is not malleable and according to the time, but instead is eternal.  If I ever get time to learn more about what God has revealed in man's quest for truth using the science of this world, that is, stay current with what new scientific experiments and findings suggest, then I would have items to debate in what must be fascinating fields of human endeavor (as biased and incomplete these fields may be).
> 
> Until then, I pray to the Lord for mercy and hope that one day He might 'bring me to all truths' by His Holy Spirit, whether it be in regards to the mystery of our creation or more importantly, why He created us at all.
> 
> And Christ reveals to all mankind why He created us and it pertains to the His very nature, that is, in the mystery of Love between persons, the very trinitarian expressed reality of eternal life which comes from the Father, through the Son, and in the Holy Spirit.
> ...

----------


## otherone

> Yes.  But "otherone" isn't willing to go with the assumption that Adam and Eve were historical figures.  So the zygote is sinful already because....?


Not at all.... assume away.  I only said one can't believe that* both* Adam was historical and evolution exists.  Do you?

----------


## otherone

> If you are talking about some "pre-birth spirit" fine and dandy, but that doesn't answer the question of how sin caused death.


What is 'death', Biblically?

----------


## AFPVet

> What is 'death', Biblically?


Here you go: http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/die.html




> Adam and Eve will Surely Die, Sudden Death?
> 
>     There are some significant differences in the Hebrew words that have been translated as "die" and "surely die" in the recording of the communications of the Lord, Adam, Eve, and the serpent. The quote from the Scriptures that follow are Word by Word translations from the "Interlinear Bible" by J. P. Green and following each passage there is a magnified selection from the "Interlinear Bible" which is included to show in detail the recorded Hebrew words that are translated as die in each Passage. (Remember that Hebrew is read from right to left.)
> 
>     "... Of every tree of the garden surely you may eat;
>     but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil
>     not you shall eat from it;
>     in the day of your eating from it
>     surely you shall die". (Genesis 2:16-17)
> ...

----------


## TER

> Hello TER.  Quick question.  How do you decide which metaphors are important to you and which aren't?  I know you take the Eucharist literally.  I see it as a metaphor.  Who's right? I can't say for sure, though of course I have my opinion.  But to me that's something that I don't see as important to understanding salvation as Adam and Eve and the fall of man.  That's where we get the first promise of the coming of the Messiah after all.  Not posing this as a criticism, just a question.


Hi jmdrake!  

My understanding of the Genesis story is that it was a vision given to Moses about the origin of creation, the origin of man, and of our fall from Paradise.  It is not a meant to be a scientific text book but of a revelation given to a man by God in a vision, in this instance to Moses, so that people thousands of years ago could understand.  That is not to say that there wasn't a man named Adam, because I do believe there was a real man named Adam who God breathed the Spirit into (the possibility of evolution not withstanding).  I can understand that a vision given of God may be simplified so as to make it understandable for us who are limited in knowledge and understanding compared to Him.  

Take the example that God took clay from the ground and breathed the Spirit into Adam.  Yes, that is easily understandable for someone circa 1500 BC to relate and to experience in a vision.  Does that necessarily mean that God scooped down, picked up dirt, formed man with hands and then breathed unto him?  Well, it might.  It might also mean something much more complicated and much more mysterious, in fact, something (most likely) way way way beyond our human comprehension and understanding.  But it doesn't really matter.  The important thing is that God created man, that He loves us, that He wished for us to live together with Him in loving communion, and that by sin, we were separated from Him.  This is the real meat of the story.  This is much more important to meditate and ponder rather then which hand God picked up the clay and whether He formed a head first or the feet.

Understanding Scripture this way is perfectly orthodox and consistent with the teachings of the Church Fathers.  Indeed, if one reads St. Basil the Great 'The Hexaemerion (the Six Days)', the understanding within it is simply MIND BOGGLING on how closely he relates the Genesis story to what science is suggesting today almost 2000 years later (that is, a Big Bang, a common seed, etc etc), and this coming from one of the greatest Christian minds ever to grace the planet.  Indeed, I urge you or anyone else who is interested in how the early Church considered the Genesis story to read this masterpiece of early Christian theology.  It can be found here.

Indeed, many of the earliest Church Fathers understood that many of the stories in the Old Testament were to be understood in more then just one way, that is both literal and metaphorical.  In fact, much of the foretelling of Christ in the Old Testament is found metaphorically all throughout the Holy Scriptures.

A classic exam of this would be in a work of St. Gregory of Nyssa who is considered one of the greatest theologians of the early Church.  If you have the opportunity, I also strongly urge you to read the book '_The Life of Moses_'.  It is well worth the read, I can guarantee, and you will thank me for it.  The hints of Christ and how He saves us is found all throughout the life of Moses, both literally and metaphorically, and St. Gregory expounds on it in such a way that you will never look at the life and person of Moses the same again (and in a good way).

Now, as for the Eucharist, there is simply no comparison in an Eastern Orthodox mind, because Christ states in no uncertain terms what it is, that is, His Body and His Blood.  In obedience to His commandment and in faith in His power, this is not seen as a metaphor but exactly what Christ said it is, neither a vision nor as a metaphor, but 'Food indeed' and 'Drink indeed' just as He described it.

Well, anyway, I don't know if I really answered your question.  In general within the Scriptures, visions given by God to those who He has found worthy tend to be metaphorical and deep in layers of understanding.  Indeed, I would say that perhaps even most things in the Scriptures have deeper meanings then what it may at first glance appear.

But I accept that I am fallible, indeed very fallible, and that I may come up with conclusions and interpretations which are not accurate and indeed completely and utterly wrong.

This is why, in the end, I rely on the witness of the saints and theologians of the Church to help me in such matters of faith, because they have excelled where I have failed, climbed heights which I have barely begun to climb and most likely never will, and have lived holy lives full of prayer and the Holy Spirit, with the gifts of the Spirit which come with it, including above all the knowledge of God.  That is true theology, and not just the opinions of mine coming from a person living in New Jersey circa 2012.  Not that there is no one living in NJ who has reached such heights of divine illumination, but rather, that I know I am not that person.

----------


## jmdrake

> Not at all.... assume away.  I only said one can't believe that* both* Adam was historical and evolution exists.  Do you?


I believe micro-evolution exists.  I believe in a historical Adam.  I also believe that Christianity requires a historical Adam.  At least as much as it requires a virgin birth, but in my opinion much more so.  Luke records the geneology of Jesus as going back to Adam.  If Adam was just a metaphor then why not Mary?  But it's not even the prophecy itself that's the problem.  If Adam was a metaphor then he was a metaphor for what?  You can't just leave that blank and say "I've solved the dilemma of reconciling Christianity to evolution.  Hallelujah!"  Nor can you pass the burden off to me by asking questions rather than answering them.  Again I'll ask the question you won't answer.  The zygote is sinful already because?  We know the zygote is subject to death.  It isn't "perfect".  It's formed in sin.  It has a propensity to sin.  It might have genetic defects that don't even allow it to live long enough to get out of the womb.  Why?

----------


## jmdrake

Okay.  That's all well and good.  But Luke states in no uncertain terms the geneology of Jesus which goes back to a historical Adam created by God and no further.  And a metaphor is something that is said "in no uncertain terms" but meant to be taken a different way.  So Jesus saying in no uncertain terms "this is my body and my blood" wouldn't mean that wasn't a metaphor.  That's the definition of a metaphor.  In John 6 Jesus said "I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty."  Yet Christians die of hunger and thirst just like anyone else.  As in _physical_ hunger and thirst.  So that part had to be a metaphor right?  A metaphor for spiritual hunger and thirst?  Because that's how I understand the entire passage.  Spiritually as opposed to physically.

But if the sticking point is "Anything said by Jesus in no uncertain terms isn't a metaphor, but other things may be" then what about the virgin birth?  Jesus never said that.  That was the gospel writers.  If Luke declaring that Adam's only ancestor was God was really a metaphor for...what I don't know (Adam being the first person to believe in God?) then "A virgin will conceive" can be a metaphor.  Some Christians believe that.  I don't.  I know you don't.  

Oh, I'm reading the "The Great Hexaemeron".  Interesting read.  I'm unsure, however, of how you conclude that it reconciles Christianity with evolution.  It seems to take the opposite view.  For example:

http://www.elpenor.org/basil/hexaemeron.asp?pg=39
_The production of vegetables shows first germination. When the germs begin to sprout they form grass; this develops and becomes a plant, which insensibly receives its different articulations, and reaches its maturity in the seed. Thus all things which sprout and are green are developed. "Let the earth bring forth green grass." Let the earth bring forth by itself without having any need of help from without. Some consider the sun as the source of all productiveness on the earth. It is, they say, the action of the sun's heat which attracts the vital force from the centre of the earth to the surface. The reason why the adornment of the earth was before the sun is the following; that those who worship the sun, as the source of life, may renounce their error. If they be well persuaded that the earth was adorned before the genesis of the sun, they will retract their unbounded admiration for it, because they see grass and plants vegetate before it rose. [1536] If then the food for the flocks was prepared, did our race appear less worthy of a like solicitude?_

The idea that the plants existed before the sun doesn't seem to jive well with evolution.  The earth was around for millions of years prior to the sun while the plants evolved?  That doesn't make sense. At least from a scientific point of view.  I agree with the point the author is making.  Don't worship the sun.  But the premise he takes to get there negates evolution as I understand it.  The Great Hexaemeron doesn't seem at all concerned with reconciling with the scientific view of the origin of the planet or man.  That's cool.  I'm not either.  

Okay.  But let's play with the "metaphorical but real" Adam for a moment.  Three questions.
1) When did he first sin?
2) What was the results of his sin?
3) Did his and mother father die?




> Hi jmdrake!  
> 
> My understanding of the Genesis story is that it was a vision given to Moses about the origin of creation, the origin of man, and of our fall from Paradise.  It is not a meant to be a scientific text book but of a revelation given to a man by God in a vision, in this instance to Moses, so that people thousands of years ago could understand.  That is not to say that there wasn't a man named Adam, because I do believe there was a real man named Adam who God breathed the Spirit into (the possibility of evolution not withstanding).  I can understand that a vision given of God may be simplified so as to make it understandable for us who are limited in knowledge and understanding compared to Him.  
> 
> Take the example that God took clay from the ground and breathed the Spirit into Adam.  Yes, that is easily understandable for someone circa 1500 BC to relate and to experience in a vision.  Does that necessarily mean that God scooped down, picked up dirt, formed man with hands and then breathed unto him?  Well, it might.  It might also mean something much more complicated and much more mysterious, in fact, something (most likely) way way way beyond our human comprehension and understanding.  But it doesn't really matter.  The important thing is that God created man, that He loves us, that He wished for us to live together with Him in loving communion, and that by sin, we were separated from Him.  This is the real meat of the story.  This is much more important to meditate and ponder rather then which hand God picked up the clay and whether He formed a head first or the feet.
> 
> Understanding Scripture this way is perfectly orthodox and consistent with the teachings of the Church Fathers.  Indeed, if one reads St. Basil the Great 'The Hexaemerion (the Six Days)', the understanding within it is simply MIND BOGGLING on how closely he relates the Genesis story to what science is suggesting today almost 2000 years later (that is, a Big Bang, a common seed, etc etc), and this coming from one of the greatest Christian minds ever to grace the planet.  Indeed, I urge you or anyone else who is interested in how the early Church considered the Genesis story to read this masterpiece of early Christian theology.  It can be found here.
> 
> Indeed, many of the earliest Church Fathers understood that many of the stories in the Old Testament were to be understood in more then just one way, that is both literal and metaphorical.  In fact, much of the foretelling of Christ in the Old Testament is found metaphorically all throughout the Holy Scriptures.
> ...

----------


## jmdrake

> What is 'death', Biblically?


The Bible talks about two deaths, physical and spiritual.  Revelation speaks of those who are destroyed in hell as dying the "second death".  But Jesus clearly said "Lazarus is dead" when talking about physical death.  Still, if you believe differently, that the Bible is only talking about spiritual death, then do you believe that Jesus only saves us from spiritual death and that there is no resurrection or eternal life?  Fine if you believe that.  So far you haven't really staked out what you believe.  I'm starting to wonder if that is on purpose.  Nothing can be reconciled to everything.

----------


## jmdrake

> Here you go: http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/die.html


Very good read!  Yes.  Adam and Eve, according to Bible, started dying and became subject to death the moment they sinned.

----------


## otherone

> Still, if you believe differently, that the Bible is only talking about spiritual death, then do you believe that Jesus only saves us from spiritual death and that there is no resurrection or eternal life?  Fine if you believe that.  So far you haven't really staked out what you believe.  I'm starting to wonder if that is on purpose.  Nothing can be reconciled to everything.


I was taught that sin=death=separation from God, that flesh is necessarily sinful, and that eternal life is spiritual.  I see Adam as a metaphor, not for the fall of Man, but for the fall of each man.  I see Jesus as not Mankind's Savior, but each Adam's Savior.

----------


## jmdrake

> I was taught that sin=death=separation from God, that flesh is necessarily sinful, and that eternal life is spiritual.  I see Adam as a metaphor, not for the fall of Man, but for the fall of each man.  I see Jesus as not Mankind's Savior, but each Adam's Savior.


Jesus is both.  Since all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, mankind in general needs a savior.  But salvation is personal because each person has to chose it.  (Or if you are Calvinist then you believe the choice is made for you).  Yes the flesh is necessarily sinful.  But the Bible teaches that it was not originally created sinful.  By one man's sin, our genetic makeup was changed.  Modern science has backed that up with the discovery of the epigenome.  Your life choices can effect the traits you pass on to your offspring that haven't even been born yet.

----------


## Chrysamere

> Where can't you see intelligent design? Can you give me an example of biology that's poor design?


Humans: Tail bone, appendix.

Or what about whales still having legs inside of their bodies that serve no purpose at all?

That would be poor design doncha think?

----------


## jmdrake

> Humans: Tail bone, appendix.
> 
> Or what about whales still having legs inside of their bodies that serve no purpose at all?
> 
> That would be poor design doncha think?


And here's your rebuttal.  http://creation.com/the-strange-tale...g-on-the-whale

----------


## onlyrp

> Humans: Tail bone, appendix.
> 
> Or what about whales still having legs inside of their bodies that serve no purpose at all?
> 
> That would be poor design doncha think?


The problem with your response is, only evolutionists think that's poor design, no intelligent designer or creationist will say that. So, I was asking creationists if they can give me one.

----------


## weatherbill

Christians do not reconsile evolution because CHristians are not dooped by mass media propaganda - 
 see http://evolutiondeception.blogspot.com/

----------


## otherone

> Christians do not reconsile evolution because CHristians are not dooped by mass media propaganda -


Not the current one, anyway.

----------


## trey4sports

> Christians do not reconsile evolution because CHristians are not dooped by mass media propaganda - 
>  see http://evolutiondeception.blogspot.com/


Lol, those headshots obviously came from 1985

----------


## Gimme Some Truth

Reading through threads like these, it really is no wonder how easy it is for liberals to discredit the right

All they need to do is point to such brain drool and say "look, do you really think these wackjobs could be correct about anything?? ...let alone economics?!" And they do indeed do this and it works a treat. Bill Maher makes a tidy living off doing exactly this.

You probably scare off more people than you 'convert'. It's an embarrassment to be associated with this ignorant garbage.

----------


## FCArchitect

Christians will never be able to reconcile evolution because they will never understand that their beliefs, as good intended as they are, are just a beliefs.

----------

