[_ Old Earth _] Evolution and Christianity

[anthony123]

Can evolution (shared common ancestry) and the Christian Faith both be true?

 

[Blazin Bones]

Shared Common ancestry IS true. We all decended from Adam and Eve. Shard common ancestry with a monkey is NOt true. Evolution cannot be true if Christians believe God when he said there was no Death before sin entered into the world with Adam and Eve. Romans 5:12

 

[LostSoul]

Shared Common ancestry IS true. We all decended from Adam and Eve. Shard common ancestry with a monkey is NOt true. Evolution cannot be true if Christians believe God when he said there was no Death before sin entered into the world with Adam and Eve. Romans 5:12

I agree. Whereas there are a great many mystery behind the overall manner in which God created the life outside of man....evolution seems pretty contradictory to God's word. Not to say I know it all...there is much still I do not know. But we were made in God's image. To say evolution is true or remotely so would suggest that God was possibly a monkey. The very idea of that is unnerving to me.

 

[ProphetMark]

Can evolution (shared common ancestry) and the Christian Faith both be true?

I think it's possible for both to be true, but evolution doesn't explain the origin of life.
Evolution as the explanation of the origin of life and the christian faith can't both be true though.

 

[kevkelsar]

In the scientific definition of evolution, not really. However, don't we all go through an evolution spiritually? When we are converted and choose to accept and follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, don't we become a new creature, as described in the Bible? So, yes, there is evolution in Christianity. ;)

 

[Timf]

Evolution is incompatible with Christianity. Those who try to accommodate some type of synthesis just do so at the expense of Biblical Christianity. When examined close up every so-called scientific support for the theory of evolution falls apart. This is because every scientific model uses some type of adjustment or interpretive tools to get the results they "know are right". For example, ice cores are useless over one or two thousand years because the weight of the ice causes such a level of compression that everything is smeared together. However, "scientists" who "know" that their layers are hundreds of thousands of years old have invented a scale for interpreting what is in fact unmeasurable to produce the results they are looking for.

The only support for evolution is social support. It is impossible to get an advanced degree or funding for any research unless you swear unquestioned allegiance to the evolutionary doctrine. As a result, "everyone knows" evolution is true.

Unless you have a scientific inclination and have dug deeply into the so-called "science" of evolution, you might never have any reason to question it. Since "everybody believes it", you might find that such a compelling social tide of opinion cripples your own faith because if you can't trust the Bible, then can you really trust God?

There are web sites where scientists have written much about the scientific errors of evolution. However, the real way to tell is to surrender yourself to your Savior and grow closer to Him each day. It is His Spirit (the Spirit of Truth) that will illuminate your heart and show you what is true.

There are two types of evolutionists. The first are absolute evolutionists who say that even the concept of God is a ridiculous holdover from a primitive stage of humanity. The second are the appeasers who say that "everything evolves" or that the "days" of the Bible are not literal. What they really say is, "Don't be concerned, it doesn't matter that the Bible is wrong in a few places." They sound like they are being kind, but they are accusing God of being a liar, or powerless to protect His word. They are the equivalent of deists and accomplish the same thing as their age of "enlightenment" predecessors, apostasy.

The light of truth is going out in our world. Public education has been successful in indoctrinating each generation further from Christianity. Our Savior will be returning soon. It would be better for Christians to be found faithful instead of apologizing for the errors in His words.

 

[Ed the Ned]

Believe Creation as it is written in the Bible, Darwinism and evolution are 19th century hogwash. The only reason why people want to believe evolution is because they don't want to be held accountable to their creator.

 

[kenmaynard]

What they really say is, "Don't be concerned, it doesn't matter that the Bible is wrong in a few places." They sound like they are being kind, but they are accusing God of being a liar, or powerless to protect His word. They are the equivalent of deists and accomplish the same thing as their age of "enlightenment" predecessors, apostasy.

Well as was pointed out in another thread many people say the KJV version of the commandant of not to kill is wrong, and that is should be not to murder. That is a fundamental difference. One does need to call God a "liar" to question a strict literal interpretation of the bible. No need to be dramatic.

 

[seekandlisten]

Believe Creation as it is written in the Bible, Darwinism and evolution are 19th century hogwash. The only reason why people want to believe evolution is because they don't want to be held accountable to their creator.

We now have a lot more information and knowledge then we did when the evolutionary theory came out and it changes as new knowledge and facts come into play like all science to my understanding. To solely base our claim of creation off of a few verses and claim that is when the world came into existence and everything created on it happened only the way it says in Genesis and the earth is young and diregard all scientific evidence it just not rational logic.

Don't get me wrong, I believe God created the world and everything in this world is from him but we don't know how he did it nor is it important. We agree God is eternal so when Genesis 1:1 says in the beginning God created the heavens and earth one would assume that that could be anytime from the first day of creation to infinity yet most people diregard this because it doesn't actually say the world is billion of years old.

I'm just going to stop now as not to go off on a big rant. The point is creation can't be proved unless you have a belief in God and that He created the world and evolution can't be proven because no one witnessed it happened we can only speculate and go off of things we know now so while it is a true scientific theory it still takes belief as to the beginning. Arguing the two theories is useless as it takes a belief in one or the other depending on the person so in my opinion a useless argument.

 

[Armor of God]

I am an engineer and having studied the concept of entropy in depth, evolution is scientifically impossible.

 

[kenmaynard]

I am an engineer and having studied the concept of entropy in depth, evolution is scientifically impossible.

Then you know as an engineer entropy doesn't apply to an open system like the earth, and that entropy doesn't matter when energy is being added like light from the sun. Hello engineer!

Well the law of entropy does apply, but you as an engineer miss applied it to the science of biology in an open system.

 

[Armor of God]

I am an engineer and having studied the concept of entropy in depth, evolution is scientifically impossible.

Then you know as an engineer entropy doesn't apply to an open system like the earth, and that entropy doesn't matter when energy is being added like light from the sun. Hello engineer!

Well the law of entropy does apply, but you as an engineer miss applied it to the science of biology in an open system.

Please read the following and it will help explain your error and misunderstanding. It's too long to cut and paste here.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/ ... amics.html

 

[kenmaynard]

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/ ... amics.html[/url][/quote:21x15vs7]

It doesn't explain anything. The earth isn't a closed system. You miss applied either through ignorance or willful misleading the second law.

The second law of thermodynamics simply says that the entropy of a closed system will tend to increase with time. "Entropy" is a technical term with a precise physical definition, but for most purposes it is okay to think of it as equivalent to "disorder". Therefore, the second law of thermodynamics basically says that the universe as a whole gets more disordered and random as time goes on.

However, the most important part of the second law of thermodynamics is that it only applies to a closed system - one that does not have anything going in or out of it. There is nothing about the second law that prevents one part of a closed system from getting more ordered, as long as another part of the system is getting more disordered.

There are many examples from everyday life that prove it is possible to create order! For example, you'd certainly agree that a person is capable of taking a pile of wood and nails and constructing a building out of it. The wood and nails have become more ordered, but in doing the work required to make the building, the person has generated heat which goes into increasing the overall entropy of the universe.

Or, if you prefer an example that doesn't require conscious human intervention, consider what happens when the weather changes and it gets colder outside. Cold air has less entropy than warm air - basically, it is more "ordered" because the molecules aren't moving around as much and have fewer places they can be. So the entropy in your local part of the universe has decreased, but as long as that is accompanied by an increase in entropy somewhere else, the second law of thermodynamics has not been violated.

That's the general picture - nature is capable of generating order out of disorder on a local level without violating the second law of thermodynamics, and that is all that evolution requires.

The idea of evolution is simply that random genetic mutations will occasionally occur that lead an individual organism to have some trait that is different from that of its predecessors. Now, it is true that these mutations, being random, would probably tend to increase the "entropy" of the population as a whole if they occurred in isolation (i.e., in a closed system). That is, most of the mutations will create individual organisms that are less "ordered" (i.e., less complex) and only some will create individual organisms that are more complex, so overall, the complexity goes down.

However, evolution does not take place in a closed system, but rather requires the existence of outside forces - i.e., natural selection. The idea is that there can be some environmental effect that makes organisms with a particular mutation (one that makes them more "complex") more likely to survive and pass their genes on to the next generation. Thus, as generations go by, the gene pool of the species can get more and more complex, but notice that this can only occur if the gene pool interacts with the outside world. It is through the course of that interaction that some other form of entropy (or disorder) will be generated that increases the entropy of the universe as a whole.

If the above is too esoteric, consider a simple analogy: a poker tournament. In poker, good hands are less likely to be dealt than bad ones - for example, the odds of getting three of a kind are much less than the odds of getting two of a kind. So in a poker tournament, most people will be dealt bad hands and only a few will be lucky enough to be dealt good hands. But it is the people with good hands who will be more likely to win and "survive" to the next round. So the "outside forces" (in this case, the rules of poker) acting on a random distribution (all the poker hands that were dealt) will tend to select out the best, least likely ones.

For further information, the Talk.Origins website has an extensive discussion about the evolution/thermodynamics controversy.

 

[kenmaynard]

Snowflakes are pretty complex. I guess they don't exist since according your your version of thermodynamics they can't.

A seed is less complex than a giant redwood. How did that happen? Very odd. Indeed if things can't get more complex.

 

[Armor of God]

You obviously did not read the article link I posted because it refutes every point you are making (open vs closed system & energy from the sun, growth of crystals, ect).

I've argued with you on too many topics now and I'm done. I'm going to try reaching others that have a genuine desire to have a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. You do not.

..shaking dust off my feet..... Matthew 10:14

 

[Stoneface]

I haven't put much effort into the idea, but I just had a thought. God created us in his image - perfect - but Adam and Eve strayed and introduced imperfection into the world. If things were perfect then there would be no need for evolution, but after Adam and Eve ate the apple maybe humans and the other subjects of earth began to evolve to adapt to the newly incorporated imperfections. Any thoughts?


Rowdy

 

[kenmaynard]

You obviously did not read the article link I posted because it refutes every point you are making (open vs closed system & energy from the sun, growth of crystals, ect).

I've argued with you on too many topics now and I'm done. I'm going to try reaching others that have a genuine desire to have a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. You do not.

..shaking dust off my feet..... Matthew 10:14

Believing in Jesus has nothing to do with evolution. One can believe in Jesus, and acknowledge that evolution has and continues to occur. The Theory of evolution says nothing about the origin on life. It simply explains what happened after life came to be.

 

[RND]

Can evolution (shared common ancestry) and the Christian Faith both be true?

Nope.

 

[kenmaynard]

Can evolution (shared common ancestry) and the Christian Faith both be true?

Nope.

Why not?

How do you explain that medicines tested on animals work for humans if we aren't related? How is it that DNA testing to show paternity or maternity show all animal life is related?

 

[RND]

Why not?

Because there is nothing in the Bible to suggest that man evolved from anything. Man was created with the dust of the earth and the breath of God. Any thought that suggests something different is not scriptural.

How do you explain that medicines tested on animals work for humans if we aren't related?

All animal life on the planet is related, of this there can be little doubt. That is not to say that being related is proof of evolution because it is not. It is however evidence of common design.

How is it that DNA testing to show paternity or maternity show all animal life is related?

Again, being related is not the equivalent of evolution. It is evidence of common design. For example, a Mercedes Benz did not evolve from a Caterpillar combine tractor but both bear evidence of common design. They both have tires, steering wheels, GPS systems, air conditioning, etc. That isn't evidence that one evolved from the other but it is evidence of common design.

To take this thought even further water and granite are two different substances. Yet they both contain molecules and atoms. That isn't evidence that water evolved from granite or granite evolved from water. It is however evidence of common design.