Does Evolution Make Christians?

[nodak]

Most I've dealt with in the oil field accept micro evolution. They see macro evolution as possible, and most don't swallow the current scientific teaching whole cloth. They recognize both the truth and the limits of the concept of evolution. They accept change within "kind" without thinking a gnat can become an elephant.

But many will not come to faith and stumble over the young earth thing. Now, many of those same people are quite convinced a Creator made the whole shebang and have no trouble with what they read in Genesis. They just believe it happened longer ago than the young earthers accept.

 

[OldRegular]

One simple statement. If you deny that evolution occurs, then you are simply denying clearly observable facts. Facts of nature, God's created nature.

Can you show one clearly observable fact that proves macro evolution occurs?

 

[OldRegular]

Fine Rev, I will bow out. I am certain you are always 100% relevant. But thanks for pointing this out.

Don't bow out. You have claimed that macro evolution was a clearly observable fact. Then present one of those facts! Referencing a book is not demonstrating those facts.

 

[OldRegular]

The so-called theory of evolution does not start with the universe in place; it starts with nothing but some self generated laws of physics or with a self generated infinitesimal speck of infinite matter/energy and whoop-de-do! Behold the man!

 

[quantumfaith]

The so-called theory of evolution does not start with the universe in place; it starts with nothing but some self generated laws of physics or with a self generated infinitesimal speck of infinite matter/energy and whoop-de-do! Behold the man!

Can you prove to me that the "big bang" was indeed NOT the manner in which God brought the universe into existance.....No you cannot.

 

[The Archangel]

Can you prove to me that the "big bang" was indeed NOT the manner in which God brought the universe into existance.....No you cannot.

At the risk of appearing smug and ugly (would that be smugly?), which is not at all my intention, I have to ask:

Why is Genesis 1 not "proof" enough?

The Archangel

 

[quantumfaith]

At the risk of appearing smug and ugly (would that be smugly?), which is not at all my intention, I have to ask:

Why is Genesis 1 not "proof" enough?

The Archangel

Here is an essay I really "like".

http://community.berea.edu/scienceandfaith/essay01.asp

And Archangle, I think you too have known me "arouind here" long enough to at least sense that I am not being smug either" I accept your proclamation as well.

 

[The Archangel]

Here is an essay I really "like".

http://community.berea.edu/scienceandfaith/essay01.asp

And Archangle, I think you too have known me "arouind here" long enough to at least sense that I am not being smug either" I accept your proclamation as well.

Archangel, not "Archangle," thank you. Sadly, most of my "angles" are measurable with a compass, not a protractor (twitter hashtags: #mustloseweight #roundisashape #roundisnotbeinginshape).

I don't think you're being smug, and, as you've observed, neither am I, at least not intentionally.

I'll gladly read the article you posted while at the same time encouraging you to make your own arguments. Of course, we all need to cite things--and that's fine.

In any event, as a Creationist, I hold to a literal six 24-hour day creation. HOWEVER, and this is big, I am sympathetic to what is called "Old Earth Creationism" as long as the adherent to OEC isn't making a case for "theistic evolution."

In any scenario, Genesis, and the rest of scripture, do not work without creation ex nihilo. The OEC argument I'm sympathetic to is the idea of six 24-hour, non-contiguous days. But, to summarize Wayne Grudem's argument, it is not proper to view creation in any macro-evolutionary sense by thinking "after 5 million years, God finally made a mouse that worked." (Paraphrase)

I'm also concerned that those who wish to abandon Creationism in order to gain more people in churches are repeating the very same disastrous error that the main-line protestant churches did in the early 20th century. See, those churches chose to abandon, for lack of a better term, the "supernatural" aspects of Christ and the Bible--no miracles, etc. The reason? Evangelism. They thought if they could make Christianity more "palatable" they would gain more converts and "save" Christianity, which was seen to be withering under the weight of science, specifically Darwinian evolution.

Even thought the Bible, especially Genesis, was not intended to be a scientific text book, nor was it intended to be exhaustive in its scope, It was wrong then and it is wrong now to try to sanitize the Gospel (which it is trying to do by removing creationism) in order to make it easier to believe. This is another example of what rampant and rank Arminianism will try to do, since they think it's all dependent on the man and his arguments and the ability to "convince" others, but I digress...

More later...after the article.

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

Schneider's article is a good read. He, as most of us would, gets bogged down in certain unimportant minutiae. He makes one or two errors of concept, for example the idea that God is "creating" still. The clear portrait is that God has created, period. He is now resting from His creation, but, even in His rest, He is sustaining His creation.

Again, I'm not saying that a biblical view of creation is incompatible with science. What I'm saying is this: Darwinian evolution, macro-evolution, ape-become-man is incompatible with Scripture and a truly biblical worldview.

The Archangel

 

[OldRegular]

Can you prove to me that the "big bang" was indeed NOT the manner in which God brought the universe into existance.....No you cannot.

It is a fact that some "scientists" are now "seeing" real problems with the "Big Bang" theory their imagination developed. Therefore, since that concept is faulty and God does not make mistakes I would say that itself is proof that God did not use the Big Bang in His creation.

Actually I believe that Genesis 1 provides the correct answer:

And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. [Genesis 1:3]

 

[quantumfaith]

It is a fact that some "scientists" are now "seeing" real problems with the "Big Bang" theory their imagination developed. Therefore, since that concept is faulty and God does not make mistakes I would say that itself is proof that God did not use the Big Bang in His creation.

Actually I believe that Genesis 1 provides the correct answer:

And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. [Genesis 1:3]

OR, that is indeed the very nature of science, to leave open to new information and data in order to refine what has been described and modeled to date. No scientist, worth their weight, would EVER claim that we know and understand all about all, that is simply not the nature of the inquisition of science. Scientists who do so, are just as unattractive as those in the realm of theology which make the claims to have all things theologically "buttoned up".

 

[quantumfaith]

It is a fact that some "scientists" are now "seeing" real problems with the "Big Bang" theory their imagination developed. Therefore, since that concept is faulty and God does not make mistakes I would say that itself is proof that God did not use the Big Bang in His creation.

Actually I believe that Genesis 1 provides the correct answer:

And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. [Genesis 1:3]

Are you wishing to imply that I attempt to say anything other than creation is the result of God's actions, word or involvement in any way?

 

[OldRegular]

[/B]

Are you wishing to imply that I attempt to say anything other than creation is the result of God's actions, word or involvement in any way?

Not at all. I am not shy when it comes to my belief about the error of evolution. I do believe it is misleading to speak about evolution in terms of biological evolution alone. The "scientific?" concept of evolution involves the spontaneous creation of all that exists whether in this universe or a myriad of universes.

Some days ago I had decided to restrict my comments to the Politics Forum only. However, when I came across this thread I was tempted beyond that which I was willing to endure, thus my responses to you. I now understand that I must take an extended hiatus from the Baptist Board.

You and I will never agree on the issues posed by the concept of evolution. That being said I appreciate your thoughtful and courteous posts and particularly your intellectual honesty!

 

[quantumfaith]

Not at all. I am not shy when it comes to my belief about the error of evolution. I do believe it is misleading to speak about evolution in terms of biological evolution alone. The "scientific?" concept of evolution involves the spontaneous creation of all that exists whether in this universe or a myriad of universes.

Some days ago I had decided to restrict my comments to the Politics Forum only. However, when I came across this thread I was tempted beyond that which I was willing to endure, thus my responses to you. I now understand that I must take an extended hiatus from the Baptist Board.

You and I will never agree on the issues posed by the concept of evolution. That being said I appreciate your thoughtful and courteous posts and particularly your intellectual honesty!

Thank You. There are a multitude of scientists who are believers who do not come to the conclusion of spontaneous development of biological life. I do agree, many in the realm of science have an "anti-faith" agenda, or more appropriately "anti-god" agenda. In the end, whatever we as believing, professing christians and even the militant "unbelievers" come down in an odd way to "faith". We are people who acknowledge the revelation of our creator in creation itself, the Word, and the testimony of our hearts. Blessings.

 

[Aaron]

Can we call adaptation evolution? Science is calling it evolution. While I can agree humans have an adaptive quality to there environment but, it does not mean we evolved from Apes.

I would agree with you if by "adaptation" you mean something like body building, where muscles are strengthened and lung capacity is increased through exercise. If that is what you mean, then "adaptation" is a poor choice of terms. You cannot mean that new genetic information was created either in an individual or a population, because that does not happen.

 

[quantumfaith]

Many interesting reads.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vi...y=author&searchType=all&includeBlogPosts=true

 

[saturneptune]

[/B]
Are you wishing to imply that I attempt to say anything other than creation is the result of God's actions, word or involvement in any way?

Although I believe in the young earth theory, and a literal six day Creation as described in Genesis 1, I find your posts on this and other scientific subjects fascinating to ponder. Also, even though we may disagree on the timing or manner of Creation, there is no doubt in my mind that you believe the origin of the Universe or anything else is the God of the Bible.

 

[quantumfaith]

:thumbsup:

Although I believe in the young earth theory, and a literal six day Creation as described in Genesis 1, I find your posts on this and other scientific subjects fascinating to ponder. Also, even though we may disagree on the timing or manner of Creation, there is no doubt in my mind that you believe the origin of the Universe or anything else is the God of the Bible.

As I wrote to another in PM, it is not my "intention" to persuade anyone to change their "cherished" and determined positions on such issues. However, the "educator" in me would like to help people to "think" on such things and perhaps make their own positions more solid and resolute. Such issues, do create much heat and often condemnations. I honestly "don;t know" the answers, what I DO KNOW, is that where ever we come down, faith in some form is required. Faith, because in fact we don't know all the answers or explanations.

 

[quantumfaith]

A great lecture on the some of the current issues relative to ID, evolution etc. Dr. Meyer clarifies some of the nuances of terminology related to biological science issues.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9a-h88ziYA4

 

[Aaron]

....oops....