evolution

[blackhaw]

I have had a question on my heart for awhile now. If evolution is true does it make the Bible false?

Some say that if creationism is not true then there would be no Adam and no garden of Eden. Also no first sin. So then all of the Bible would fall apart. Other disgree and say that the 1st chapters in Genesis are Hebrew poetry and should not be taken as literal. I am not a scientist or very knowledgable in science but the evidence that I hear of evolution is very convincing. However I am a Christian. Can anyone give me help on this one?

[Christ_†_Alone]

Run for your life, the evolutionists are coming!!! (sorry, couldn't resist, he's our Creation page mascot).

Here is an EXCELLENT link on the Creation ministry... you'll find TONS of articles there, that will help you:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...on-matters.asp

[blackhaw]

CA
I could not get your first link to work.

I want to say that I am not a evolutionist. (CA i know you were joking about the evolunist thing) I see the evidence that the scientist claim is for evolution but i have always believed (and still do) in the Literal biblical creation story in Genisis. I just do not know enough to debate or say scientifically that evolution is wrong. I accept it on faith. I was only looking for an answer to if someone believed in evolution does it then make that person reject the Bible. I think it does but I wanted to hear what others had to say.

Thanks CA for the 2nd link it is really good.

[universe]

Hi Blackhaw. The fact that there are two different creation stories in Genesis that are not exactly alike would suggest that the creation story is not an exact accounting of how it happened; they can't both be the exact happenings as they are different is some ways. Hope this helps.

[Faithnhope]

What are the two stories? I've only heard of one. The one in Genesis, in my NIV bible.

[Fledge]

IF, just IF evolution were true, then the story of creation is a myth. If that is a myth, then it would go to reason that any other stories or accounts in the Bible could be myths. Ifff evolution is NOT true, then we can reasonably conclude that creation is true...unless somebody else has another explanation. Either it was all nature or a "higher, intelligent designer" is responsible.

Now...about evolution. There is some pretty interesting and thought provoking "evidences" for it. But I have not seen any that is truly convincing.

I don't claim to be an authority on the subject, but the lectures and books I have read on the subject lead me to believe that the universe was created. That there is a deisgner...that Designer, being God.

[Andrew]

Dont forget that evolution is still a theory that keeps on changing. eg First they said that the dinosaurs were killed by meteorites, then they said they suffocated and now they say they turned into chirpy birds you see today. You are comparing mere human theories to the Word of God.

1. Evolution states that there is no creator never mind the Christ. This shld send alarm bells aringing.
2. Evolution states that one kind turned into another kind and into another kind.... The creation account in Genesis is full of "created according to their kind". I dont think God is a "cant make up my mind" creator.
3. Evolution states that there was bloodshed and killings millions of years b4 man evolved. I thot when God created all things it was good and that blood was only shed after man sinned ie killing of an animal to clothe Adam.
4. The Earth will be restored to its once perfect state. What are we "restoring" to is there was struggling and bloodshed right from the beginning?

And some common sense...

Where are the half-ape half horse, half man half monkey, half fish half bird, half lizard half turtle, etc, etc.... there shld be millions of these freaks all over the earth.

Why are monkeys still around?

Why is the earth and man getting worse and not better (a higher form)?

Dont believe evolution just becos some ungodly person in a lab coat with a PHD says its truth.

Trust God blackhaw, he will show you what a lie evolution is and that his Word is true 100%. he did it for me, he'll do it for you.

When i had my spiritual revival, God led me into this topic. i studied it for some 7 months and came full circle - his Word can be trusted and is true. It's not in the surface reading of scriptures nor lengthy scientific arguments, but the tiny revelations that he pops into your mind that come with love and assurance that His Word is 100% true and trustable.

[Odyssey]

Concerning the idea of two different accounts of creation in Genesis: This is true. If one reads Genesis 1 and then compares this to chapter 2, one will find a very different thing indeed! For example:

The name of god is different in both places.
What was allowed to be eaten is different.
Who was created is different.

Now, I am not suggesting that the creation story is not true. I do not hold to the 'myth' or 'symbolic' teaching of the story. I believe the story is fact. God did create those things. If this were not true, then the geneology of Jesus would be off (Luke has it going all the way back to Adam).

Concerning evolution, sure evolution exits! But *not* from one species to another. There is not *one* shred of evidence of species to species evolution. What we do have is evolution within a certian species. This still happens today. There is a rattlesnake in Arizona (I believe) that is evolving. Why? Because its primary source of food, a mouse, has already evolved. It is immune to the snakes venom. So scientists have found that the venom of the snake is changing to counter this process.

If you want to get an evolutionist running, as them where the whale came from!

Grace to you,

jak

[blackhaw]

Thanks everyone. Your posts helped me to come back fully to believing in the creation account in Genesis. If you do not have the beggining everything is off is the easiest way of saying why. The theology of the Bible is off, the history is off, etc.

Andrew: I do not think that all evolutionists believe there is no creator. ( although a lot of them do) I think some would say that evolution really does not tell by whom the Earth was created but How.

However due to the other problems with the theory compared to the Bible I reject macroevolution. Also like Odyssey said there is no real evidence for macroevolution. I do believe in microevolution and maybe should of titled this thread macroevolution but oh well. I do want to know why the other side, that is christians who believe that macroevolution is true, believe what they do. Anyone know of a web site or of a good book that explains what they believe?

[S2Dolphin]

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/ca....faithweb.com/

http://evolutionlie.faithweb.com/


http://www.crosscurrents.org/darwin.htm

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/top.htm

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/20hist12.htm

http://www.yfiles.com/


http://www.talkorigins.org/

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Index.htm

I hope these websites help out...
Godbless

[JohnKrocker]

Reconciling science and the bible is probably one of the most difficult things to do for a christian or someone searching for God.

Beware of all the false information out there... I've seen some of it in the replies to your post. The Theory of Evolution is accepted as fact by the vast majority of scientists and scientific institutions in the world. Does that make it truth? Only in a scientific sense. I'm learning that to have faith in God, one must recognize that there is more to existence than can be described by science.

I view efforts to disprove evolution as efforts to prove God. God cannot be proven, because if he could, why would faith be required?

The scientific evidence for evolution, viewed in it's entirety is quite compelling. Many would disagree with me, but in every case I've come across, there is a glaring lack of knowledge about what evolution really is, and what evolutionists really do.

Caution is the way to go, educate yourself, don't take someone else's word for it...

JK

[JohnKrocker]

went back and reread your last post. I am convinced that macroevolution has and does take place. There are any number of good transitional sequences that show macroevolution.

Good websites:

http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/dmd.htm

http://www.talkorigins.org/

A good book that I found helpful in reconciling this issue is:

Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth Brown

Good luck with this thorny issue.

JK

[Fledge]

While we are naming books...I have two that have been VERY helpful.

Both are written by Phillip E. Johnson

"Darwin on Trial"
and
"Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds"

Yes, they are "christian" books, but they are much more than your "typical" christian responses and arguments. They use science and logic and common sense.

[Andrew]

Odyssey,

what you're talking about is mutation not mirco-evolution, brought about by "in-breeding" within the same species, which usu results in a loss of genetic information. ie mutation is not a form of evolving bcos strictly speaking, to evolve means to become better - more genetic information.

Unless they have changed their theories once again (so what's new), the scientist still believe in evolving from one kind to another ie fish to horse, not variations within a species. why do u think they now believe that the birds u see today were once giant dinos? that's the trend today. Discovery Channel even had a special programme on it. that to me is certainly one kind to another totally diff kind.

and those who try to disprove evolution are not trying to prove God exists. they are just showing that scientist and science is very fallible when compared to the Word. ie they are not perfect in knowledge.

blackhaw,

I wld say Christian evolutionists are double-minded or simply sitting on the fence. from what i've studied, both are opposites (one leaves out God one includes him) -- unless both sides have recently compromised to make it more palatable to the majority.

why do Christians believe in macro-evolution? to me its simply becos of ignorance of the Word and what evolution has claimed and aims to do; and a lack of revelation, ie seeing beyond the surface of things. that's my personal opinion and experience.

[JohnKrocker]

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. However to accuse those who accept evolution as being "double-minded" simplifies the issue overmuch. You are equating acceptance of a scientific theory with "choosing" not to believe in God, a very common attempt to paint evolutionists as atheists. In propaganda terms this is known as "demonizing your enemy".

I have two scientific degrees as well as a science education degree, have taught science for 20 years, am very familiar with both sides of the geologic argument, and am passingly familiar with the biological side and the anthropological side.

My opinion is that the Theory of Evolution is a fact based on facts. I base that on my experience and knowledge about the theory. Not because I somehow "want" to reject God. In fact my very presence on this board indicates the opposite.

You simplify because you do not understand. My opinion.

JK

[universe]

faithnhope, I assume that by now you have reread your NIV bible for the two stories.....I don't know much about translations in detail, but they wouldn't have edited it out, would they? I think most people probably just haven't read it very closely and never noticed the two accounts.

As for the assertion that random mutation from inbreeding could be causing the rattlesnake situation: MOST random mutations are harmful to the species, not helpful. When it IS helpful and begins to work it's way through the genepool and become the norm, the creature involved has evolved, or changed, to adapt to it's environment.

You know, I am not very clear on presenting this.
JohnKrocker, would you please do us all a favor and explain to us how random mutation fits into evolution? Thanks in advance!

[questian]

I posted this in the Skeptics Debate thread on Science, which may be an appropriate location for the topic of evolution.

http://www.skeptic.com/archives45.html

The Design Detectives
A review of Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology
by William A. Dembski, InterVarsity Press, 1999, 312 pp. ISBN 0-8308-1581-3
and The Wedge of Truth: Splitting the Foundations of Naturalism by Phillip E. Johnson, InterVarsity Press, 2001, 192 pp., ISBN 0-8308-2267-4
By Jason Rosenhouse

Before anyone decides to make assumptions about a particular viewpoint, it would be best to find out what that viewpoint actually says. Terms must be explicitly defined at the start to avoid confusion and over-generalization. Also remarks about "some ungodly person in a lab coat with a PHD" serve only to "demonize your enemy" as John put so well.

Andrew,
Why don't you begin by asking a scientist what they believe about the different theories of evolution instead of taking a single TV show as the position of the entire scientific community? As has already been stated in this thread, there is a significant difference between macro-evolution and mutation, but the terms that really might be used are natural selection or speciation. A single reading of "Origin of Species" should convince you that not even Charles Darwin held the idea that dinosaurs turned into birds.

One final point; the debate about creation vs. evolution usually falls into the trap of False Dichotomy, assuming that only two alternatives exist to a given argument. It's the classic either/or, black/white position with no in-between. What if both sides are wrong? What if both sides are partially right? Just because one is proved wrong does not automatically make the other right. There may be another explanation altogether.

[questian]

Originally posted by Odyssey
Now, I am not suggesting that the creation story is not true. I do not hold to the 'myth' or 'symbolic' teaching of the story. I believe the story is fact. God did create those things. If this were not true, then the geneology of Jesus would be off (Luke has it going all the way back to Adam).

Compare Luke's account in chapter 3 to Matthew 1 and you will find that the geneology of Jesus IS off by several generations and many of the names do not even match, not to mention that this does nothing to prove creation is true.

If you want to get an evolutionist running, as them where the whale came from!

From it's parents. Where did God come from? (If you say God always existed, why couldn't the universe have always existed?)

[blackhaw]

universe:

Actually Genesis 1 is the chronological story of creation while Genesis 2 is the more detailed version. Genesis 1 is the outline and Genesis 2 is the commentary that gives more details about what happened without really worrying about the order in which they occured.

Blackhaw

[universe]

Hi Blackhaw! I never heard anyone explain it that way. Including most biblical scholars who, in the books I have read, generally acknowledge that there are two seperate and unrelated creation stories in Genesis. I would really like to see the reference where you got that explanation. Please post it. I will try to find some of the books where I have read this in the past. I know that it comes out of Jewish tradition. duh.