Evolution and genesis cannot co exist, as one is wrong, and I would favor the inspited scriptures views over those who refuse to acknowledge a Creator!
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Theistic evolution or non-theistic evolution
- Thread starter Robert H
- Start date
- Status
Theistic evolution would deny the historical adam/eve, the Fall as lietral, and would deny that God created all things directly...Science and religion address different things. Science addresses theories many times based on observations about the physical world, the seen. Religion addresses matters of faith, the unseen. Actually, many scientists are strong Christians because they are filled with a sense of aware the more they learn about the magnificence of God's creation. This is the way advances in science effect me. Observing the night sky on a clear night on a mountain top or in the desert convinces me that this couldn't have happened by chance but was the creation of the Lord God almighty. The Bible points this out as a way those who have not heard the gospel can begin to get a belief in at least a superior being.
We need to watch the tendency to revert to the days of the Inquisition in which scientists were jailed or put to death because their ideas did not correspond to the Catholic Church's tenets. One good example is Galileo, who was kept under house arrest for the last two years of his life because he accepted Copernicus' theory that the sun not the earth is not the center of our solar system nor is it the center of the universe. Who has been proved to be right, Copernicus and Galileo or the Catholic Church?
Galileo and the Inquisition
Galileo's belief in the Copernican System eventually got him into trouble with the Catholic Church. The Inquisition was a permanent institution in the Catholic Church charged with the eradication of heresies. A committee of consultants declared to the Inquisition that the Copernican proposition that the Sun is the center of the universe was a heresy. Because Galileo supported the Copernican system, he was warned by Cardinal Bellarmine, under order of Pope Paul V, that he should not discuss or defend Copernican theories. In 1624, Galileo was assured by Pope Urban VIII that he could write about Copernican theory as long as he treated it as a mathematical proposition. However, with the printing of Galileo's book, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, Galileo was called to Rome in 1633 to face the Inquisition again. Galileo was found guilty of heresy for his Dialogue, and was sent to his home near Florence where he was to be under house arrest for the remainder of his life. In 1638, the Inquisition allowed Galileo to move to his home in Florence, so that he could be closer to his doctors. By that time he was totally blind. In 1642, Galileo died at his home outside Florence.
The Galileo Project | Biography | Inquisition
Mankind end result of a long process...
Hence the problem with science.
Gold Dragon
Well-Known Member
I disagree but you are welcome to that opinion.
I join you in that view. It just happens to be that neither the originator of evolution or the Big Bang fall under that second category. Nor myself and many others in scientific fields who subscribe to evolution or the Big Bang.
Last edited:
The purpose in evolution and the big bang is to show there is no God. Atheist scientists mock and ridicule Christians who believe in evolution and a god.
Gold Dragon
Well-Known Member
I subscribe to theistic evolution and I would say none of this describes my position.
Gold Dragon
Well-Known Member
The direct quotes of the originators of evolution and the Big Bang that I referenced earlier state otherwise.
Some atheist scientists and non scientists do. Most atheist/agnostic scientists while they don't believe, do not see any conflict between evolution and a belief in God.
Talk Origins: God and Evolution
PBS: Evolution FAQ
Last edited:
It's funny because it's almost like you feel that science is just this one solitary entity. Like everybody just works in a big ole science building and that your statement can address them all. It's so ridiculous and such an unintelligent generalization of an ideology spanning thousands of different concepts all over the world.
what "proof" is there that apart from God, there can be created energy/matter from nothing, and how did life originate, and what species actually changed from one into a new one then over time?
The Scriptures stated that God created all things after their own kind, so where would be need for evolution as Darwin saw it?
And again, when and where was that species change in fossil record?
Gold Dragon
Well-Known Member
I'm not interested in convincing you about the validity of evolution. I have been down this fruitless rabbit hole more times than I care to remember. You do not believe in evolution and you believe in young earth creationism. That is wonderful. I believe differently on both those things because of my study of both creation and the scriptures. Let's agree to disagree on those issues.
But please do not misrepresent what I, Darwin and lemaitre believe(d) about God or the Bible simply because of that disagreement.
If you really want to understand evolution and different ways of interpreting Genesis other than young earth creationism, there are countless resources on the web about this.
The talk origins FAQ is an old faithful
See this post for more of my view on this.
Last edited:
I am not advocating young earth though, as believe that question on Age is something within the church to disagree/discuss, but again, per evolution, how did life originate, and what species changed from one kind to another kind in history?
Gold Dragon
Well-Known Member
I'm glad we can agree on this
If you are really interested in the science, evolution is silent on the question of the origin of life. Evolution deals with the origin of species or how new genetic diversity and new species come about. Abiogenesis is the field trying to understand how life may have begun. This field is pure speculation as we have no data to support or refute any of the existing models. But even if there were a well supported model of abiogenesis, that does not rule out that model was the mechanism that God may have used to create life. Because no scientific model we have can confirm or deny that God was behind that process, including random processes.
Consider rolling dice or in biblical times, drawing lots. Our understanding is that the probability of outcomes is random. Does that mean that God was not behind the outcome in any given instance? This is something we cannot scientifically prove or deny. But by faith in God's holy inspired scriptures, we believe that God was behind the lots drawn to identify Jonah as the cause of the storm.
This is a question of terminology and understanding the actual concepts of evolution. Species don't change from one to another. New species form when populations are separated over long periods of time and adapt to different environments to an extent where the two populations are no longer the same species. Most folks who don't believe in evolution call this microevolution. The thing is that there is no scientific distinction between micro and macro evolution. That is purely an arbitrary distinction made by opponents of evolution to say "this type of evolution we see and we agree with but that type we do not." Using the micro and macro terms, macro evolution occurs when micro evolution happens for long periods of time. There isn't a different mechanism for macro evolution.
We have plenty of documented evidence of directly observed "micro" evolution because that takes a shorter period of time. We don't have directly observed "macroevolution" because that takes observations that are longer than the proposed existence of our own species. For that we depend on indirect fossil evidence.
Last edited:
When Thomas Edison invented the light bulb are you actually arguing that was a problem because it did not explain salvation or creation?
silly is as silly does
Exactly.
With you as the expert? That's the generally accepted scientific view.
Again , there are NO fossils known to have shown change in kind/species, nor anyhting seen and observed...
Why would God do that, since it stated that he created all things after their own kind?
And why would he use it to make an Adam and eve, as they were both direct and special creations by God?
Gold Dragon
Well-Known Member
Again I have no interest in convincing you of the validity of evolution if you have no interest in learning.
Let's just agree to disagree.
When you are interested in finding out about what evolution and theistic evolution actually says, feel free to ask me.
Last edited:
Just was asking what evidence is there for a species changing to another kind? Far as I know, there is zero!
- Status