Christianity vs. Evolution

I'm a Christian and I beleive in Evolution.

So ******* what!?

[QUOTE="andyb1205"][QUOTE="crimson90"]

The topic title makes no sense and is quite deceiving (since both things are not contradictory and are compatible), therefore the topic is flawed.

As is often said, the Bible shows us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go, which means do not look to the Bible for factual scientific information since it was written in an age and place where science was barely developed, and was not intended to state an account of the scientific creation of the universe. If the Bible is truely inspired by God, then it is likely that God explained creation in a simple way so that those of ancient times who had no knowledge of advanced science or theories such as evolution could understand creation in an easy to understand and personal way.

Modern science, I believe, is just leading us to a deeper account of the specifics of the way God created man, specifics which people 2000 years ago were not capable of knowing or understanding.

crimson90

If God exists...

God is God. He MADE SCIENCE. The choice of words in the Bible is so simple that anyone could have wrote it, and the words can be interpreted in any way. Some of it is from the original, but most of it is not.

In Koran (I'm not Muslim but this is fascinating) the details are clearly there. God knows everything, because He's the creator. You have stuff in the Koran that we are only knowing today.

You can say that the metaphors can be interpreted into anything, but what about the metaphors that are actually literal, such as "iron was sent down to Earth". We know that iron must have came from outer space into Earth. The first iron used by mankind, far back in prehistory, came from meteors.

well the point i was trying to make was that the Bible was not intended to serve as a scientific book like you physics and chemistry school book, it was meant to simply and easily explain God and how he created man in a manner that ancient people would understand. Saying that since the Bible does not include evolution in it and that thus Christianity is false is a wrong claim to make, since the Bible was not meant to serve as a scientific textbook book (it was meant to tell the story of God and man, not be a scientific book). I could say that since quantum mechanics is not included in the Bible, Qu'ran, or any other religoius text, that all those religions are worng, but that would be an equally false claim.

Also, when you say that the words are so simple they could be translated in any way, that is not true because it is possible to understand the direct meaning of the texsts of the Bible through careful study of the author, time period, literary **** and other things on each book. Confusion arrised when one does not undertsand compeltely the context in which each book of the Bible was written. I'm not a Muslim, but I am guessing that both the Bible and the Qu'ran work this way, and that you have to have a thorough background in history and the culture of the time to understand both books.

ok, the bleeped out word was apparently, ****(must have mispelled it...)

You can say that the metaphors can be interpreted into anything, but what about the metaphors that are actually literal, such as "iron was sent down to Earth". We know that iron must have came from outer space into Earth. The first iron used by mankind, far back in prehistory, came from meteors.

andyb1205

what about the Iron already on the Earth? :|

tell me... is evolution really the answer... i just dont see where the hope is... if yur right u go in the dirt.. and thats it... if yur wrong u go to hell and suffer forever... think about that... forever..of eternal suffering... wow.. sounds very scary to me... both ways its a lose-lose situation... how does one live with those alternatives for an after life...Bolvar_11

[QUOTE="andyb1205"]

You can say that the metaphors can be interpreted into anything, but what about the metaphors that are actually literal, such as "iron was sent down to Earth". We know that iron must have came from outer space into Earth. The first iron used by mankind, far back in prehistory, came from meteors.

Hewkii

what about the Iron already on the Earth? :|

Chuck Norrism. I don't take any chances

uumm..im taking into consideration your a satanist..(because of your very pretty picture u always post for the satanist union.. shouldnt u believe in creation if u believe in satan? im i making any sense... nod 1ce if yesBolvar_11

Actually, not really. Like darklyghter said, you don't have to believe in the Christian Satan to be a "Satanist".

Anyone who says Evolution never exsisted is an ASS.

Anyone who truly believes the story of Adam and Eve is a DOUBLE ASS.

Now with GOD, no one is sure.

martialbullet

Win.

[QUOTE="Bolvar_11"]are u kiddong me... evolution takes muh more faith to believe in than god let alone a creatore... here try this... 0 + 0 = 0...its that simple...our owm math proves evolution wrong.. u cant get something from nothing... there has to be a creator...jodamn

Shockingly insightful. You've not only proved the existence of god, you've also proved that he's a flying spaghetti monster. Infallible logic, really.

Our god isn't a puddle of noodles. He is Odin, the All-Father. You will burn in Hel, blasphemer!

And the Earth was flat.

andyb1205

Actually it's a Time Cubw.

the man acctually killed 800 with a donky's jaw boneBolvar_11

wow...theres a lot of hope for after yur dead... have a good life...apparently yur only getting 1Bolvar_11

As a Christian, I only believe in one life. And I'm going to make the damned best of it I can.

Christianity is the truth. Evolution is made upMichaeltheCM

More like the other way around.

but because jesus died for u and me... he paid the ultimate price do that we may go to heaven even though we are all sinners and undeserving... itse to do is accept the jesus loves u and a free gift... all u have to do accept that jesus loves u and ask forgivness of your sins and your sins and your in the clear... idk why any1 wouldnt accept it... Bolvar_11

Dude, I'm not quite sure that Jesus even knew who I was when he was around.

I've never understood why Christianity and Evolution have to be in conflict with each other. I think they can go together very well.

jackelhunter

Because many Christians believe the Bible (which was written two thousand years ago) is the ultimate science textbook and the lack of evolution being mentioned means that the Biblical creation story is correct.

[QUOTE="Bolvar_11"]The_Ish... u make me laugh... religion and conversation is important.. its how we leard... and by the way... Jesus loves u.. and every single person in this forumandyb1205

ZEUS LOVES YOU! I can't prove Zeus exists but he LOVES YOU!

Blasphemer! Odin loves you! Not Zeus!

tell me... is evolution really the answer... i just dont see where the hope is... if yur right u go in the dirt.. and thats it... if yur wrong u go to hell and suffer forever... think about that... forever..of eternal suffering... wow.. sounds very scary to me... both ways its a lose-lose situation... how does one live with those alternatives for an after life...Bolvar_11

Evolution does not conflict with Christianity. And if hell exists, then I'd rather hang out with Gandhi and Hunter S. Thompson then go to heaven with Hitler.

omg.. read scripture man... no prephecy in resurection... wow.. wow.. this is easy ok... jesus said that the temple (himself) would be rebuilt three days after his crusifix.. so yes that was prophesized... and in the old testament(long time before the birth of christ).. it said that the messiah(son of god, savior, prophet, etc.) would be born in bethlhem of a virgin... so...yur wrong... and the bible is not a fake or farse... it is refered to as a accurate historicle document more than any other doucument in history... so dont say that the bible made it up....BULL MAN!!! Bolvar_11

If the Bible wasn't made up, then wouldn't the apocalypse have happened a few days after Jesus was supposedly resurrected? And wouldn't burning bushes have stopped people on the streets?

Creationism is christianity... Evolution does not coencide with creationismBolvar_11

Incorrect. Evolution does not try to explain the origins of life. It only explains the diversity in the animal kingdom.

[QUOTE="Bolvar_11"]omg.. read scripture man... no prephecy in resurection... wow.. wow.. this is easy ok... jesus said that the temple (himself) would be rebuilt three days after his crusifix.. so yes that was prophesized... and in the old testament(long time before the birth of christ).. it said that the messiah(son of god, savior, prophet, etc.) would be born in bethlhem of a virgin... so...yur wrong... and the bible is not a fake or farse... it is refered to as a accurate historicle document more than any other doucument in history... so dont say that the bible made it up....BULL MAN!!! _Marisa_

Quoted for truth.

Evolution does not conflict with Christianity. And if hell exists, then I'd rather hang out with Gandhi and Hunter S. Thompson then go to heaven with Hitler.ninjacat11

You say that like Hitler's in Heaven.:|

BTW, In Hell, you're isolated from other humans. You won't be "hanging out" with anybody.

If the Bible wasn't made up, then wouldn't the apocalypse have happened a few days after Jesus was supposedly resurrected? And wouldn't burning bushes have stopped people on the streets?

I REALLY want to know your reasoning behind these?

Actually, the Bible is VERY historically accurate, and is the most detailed history book on Earth.;)

Let me point out I am taking no stance on either side at this time.. I would just like to point out you can not take old scriptures such as the Bible as "perfect" or the word of god..

Reasons? The language of man has always been seen as imperfect.. How are we to arrogantly assume that such a supposedly perfect and powerful being such as god could accurately illustrate their message with a imperfect language.. We have trouble describing our feelings through our languages alot of times.

Secondly, the mere fact it has been translated makes it not 100% accurate what so ever. Translations between two languages can be hard to do.. Some word decriptions can mean completely different things from the equivlent word in the next language.. Some words just don't flat out exist.. Such change has fundamentally changed the bible..

Thirdly, it has been rewritten hundreds of times by man, a imperfect being. Such a imperfect being could never correctly copy such a supposedly perfect text as the Bible or any other holy scripture for that matter.

Last but not least, this is all assuming that the authors had no immense bias which they removed bits or added bits to their own content.. Which I assure you is true due to the immensely different versions of the bible, sects etc etc..

In the end I am not saying God doesn't exist or what not.. But people need to stop saying its the perfect text that needs no other proof.

To conclude as well I find this argument really useless.. Christanity as it stands has trouble agreeing on ideas such as Adam and Eve is factual, exggeration or metaphorical as well as the other stories.. Let alone to argue against the ideas of Evolution (which if your a rational person you could see that they really don't... But then again if you believe in fairy tales like Noah's Ark then you need a serious reality check.)

I still cant believe that 44% of americans believe that the earth is 6000 years old.

I also cant believe that 66% of americans want creation "science" taught alongside evolution, and 44% of americans want creation "science" taught exclusively

Reasons? The language of man has always been seen as imperfect.. How are we to arrogantly assume that such a supposedly perfect and powerful being such as god could accurately illustrate their message with a imperfect language.. We have trouble describing our feelings through our languages alot of times.sSubZerOo

Secondly, the mere fact it has been translated makes it not 100% accurate what so ever. Translations between two languages can be hard to do.. Some word decriptions can mean completely different things from the equivlent word in the next language.. Some words just don't flat out exist.. Such change has fundamentally changed the bible..

Thirdly, it has been rewritten hundreds of times by man, a imperfect being. Such a imperfect being could never correctly copy such a supposedly perfect text as the Bible or any other holy scripture for that matter.

first it was planetary revolution, no its human evolution. it seems that our perception of God and his creation of man evolves as we evolve, and everytime we experience a scientific revolution we experience a theological evolution as we try to combine new found scientific knowledge that was not known to the ancients to complement itself with theological knowledge to better understand the truth of God.
crimson90

That makes sense, though I still don't agree with (macro) evolution.

Silver your not worth argueing with.. Not only are you immensely bias to your own end.. To the average reader your not persuasive at all due to the immense bias you show on your sig alone. Most accurately depicted translation? How the hell would you know it was 2000 years ago and we have no evidence what so ever how much it has changed... The mere fact that there are hundreds of different Bible versions out there is testament to that..

And to even say its historically accurate is beyond all belief.. YOU CAN NOT USE IT as historical factual evidence in a paper.. With the use of widely argued ideas of being not true what so ever such as Noah's Ark you can not use it as the ends all of text.. And with the mere idea of that you believe Noah's Ark is true shows how bias you are.. Noah's Ark for instance has immense logical pit falls.

In the end it can not be used as the ends all of evidence for anything.. It has interesting amounts of messages to take to heart for some.. But to compare it to factual emperical evidence is rediculous.. IN the end it has been rewritten by hundreds of times over by a imperfect being.. Thus no matter how accurately we try to make it, it will always be imperfect.. And certainly can never be considered the perfect text regardless if the original was perfect..

Then again your presuming gods power on the first point.. Who's to say that the true message in the end will only be discovered hundreds if not thousands of years later if we are still around when our philosophical reasoning and ideas will be far more advanced.

Yet again I am not saying god doesn't exist or does exist.. I am merely saying texts such as the Bible not to mention alot of the radical ideas and stories such as hell and Noah's Ark fail against due to contridictions on a few levels. If the religion truely was from god, it does not matter due to the fact that the religion has been so fundamentally changed by man through out histoy.

To conclude you can not such texts for arguements like this what so ever, regardless what people say. Because it can not be trusted on any level to be factual and the mere fact that peopel can't agree on numerous passages towards their meaning is a testament to this.. Now this is not to say evolution is better, or contridicts it etc etc.. IT just needs a better approach for a logical more unbais view of a argument.

Silver your not worth argueing with..

sSubZerOo

Then why the hell are you arguing with me? I pointed out some very basic facts, and BTW, You, as an atheist, are also biased and not worth arguing with. I'm not going to even acknowledge your post, because

1. I am NOT in any way, shape or form required to, and

2. I don't particual;rly want to argue with somebody who simply resorts to "Teh biased!!1" and insults.

[QUOTE="crimson90"]first it was planetary revolution, no its human evolution. it seems that our perception of God and his creation of man evolves as we evolve, and everytime we experience a scientific revolution we experience a theological evolution as we try to combine new found scientific knowledge that was not known to the ancients to complement itself with theological knowledge to better understand the truth of God.
Silver_Dragon17

That makes sense, though I still don't agree with (macro) evolution.

Both are theories. But evolution makes more sense in my mind.Timesplitter14

[QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"]

[QUOTE="crimson90"]first it was planetary revolution, no its human evolution. it seems that our perception of God and his creation of man evolves as we evolve, and everytime we experience a scientific revolution we experience a theological evolution as we try to combine new found scientific knowledge that was not known to the ancients to complement itself with theological knowledge to better understand the truth of God.
353535355353535

That makes sense, though I still don't agree with (macro) evolution.

Huh? Macroevolution, last I checked, takes millions of years to accomplish.:| Don't you mean microevolution?

[QUOTE="353535355353535"][QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"]

[QUOTE="crimson90"]first it was planetary revolution, no its human evolution. it seems that our perception of God and his creation of man evolves as we evolve, and everytime we experience a scientific revolution we experience a theological evolution as we try to combine new found scientific knowledge that was not known to the ancients to complement itself with theological knowledge to better understand the truth of God.
Silver_Dragon17

That makes sense, though I still don't agree with (macro) evolution.

Huh? Macroevolution, last I checked, takes millions of years to accomplish.:| Don't you mean microevolution?

[QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"][QUOTE="353535355353535"][QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"]

[QUOTE="crimson90"]first it was planetary revolution, no its human evolution. it seems that our perception of God and his creation of man evolves as we evolve, and everytime we experience a scientific revolution we experience a theological evolution as we try to combine new found scientific knowledge that was not known to the ancients to complement itself with theological knowledge to better understand the truth of God.
353535355353535

That makes sense, though I still don't agree with (macro) evolution.

Huh? Macroevolution, last I checked, takes millions of years to accomplish.:| Don't you mean microevolution?

That isn't macroevolution.:|

[QUOTE="353535355353535"][QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"][QUOTE="353535355353535"][QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"]

[QUOTE="crimson90"]first it was planetary revolution, no its human evolution. it seems that our perception of God and his creation of man evolves as we evolve, and everytime we experience a scientific revolution we experience a theological evolution as we try to combine new found scientific knowledge that was not known to the ancients to complement itself with theological knowledge to better understand the truth of God.
Silver_Dragon17

That makes sense, though I still don't agree with (macro) evolution.

Huh? Macroevolution, last I checked, takes millions of years to accomplish.:| Don't you mean microevolution?

That isn't macroevolution.:|

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDFJviGQth4 watch this video and speed up to 5:50

That makes sense, though I still don't agree with (macro) evolution.

Silver_Dragon17

If macroevolution doesn't happen, then how can you explain the fact that every single organism is composed of the exact same hereditary material? If organisms were created spontaenously by a creator, then there is no reason that every organism on the plant is composed of DNA that is made up of the exact same nucleotides.

Also, if organisms were created then how can you explain the similarities of our genome with the genomes of other animals? With the almost unlimited combinations of DNA sequences that could make up an organism, there is no reason other than common ancestory that could account for the similarities in DNA sequence.

Huh? Macroevolution, last I checked, takes millions of years to accomplish.:| Don't you mean microevolution?

Silver_Dragon17

It all depends on what you mean by "macroevolution".

Do you mean one species turning into another?

[QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"]

That makes sense, though I still don't agree with (macro) evolution.

Decessus

If macroevolution doesn't happen, then how can you explain the fact that every single organism is composed of the exact same hereditary material? If organisms were created spontaenously by a creator, then there is no reason that every organism on the plant is composed of DNA that is made up of the exact same nucleotides.

Also, if organisms were created then how can you explain the similarities of our genome with the genomes of other animals? With the almost unlimited combinations of DNA sequences that could make up an organism, there is no reason other than common ancestory that could account for the similarities in DNA sequence.

I wonder if anyone out there actually believes that:?

[QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"]

Huh? Macroevolution, last I checked, takes millions of years to accomplish.:| Don't you mean microevolution?

Decessus

It all depends on what you mean by "macroevolution".

Do you mean one species turning into another?

I still cant believe that I was once a young earth creationist:lol:

[QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"]

That makes sense, though I still don't agree with (macro) evolution.

Decessus

If macroevolution doesn't happen, then how can you explain the fact that every single organism is composed of the exact same hereditary material? If organisms were created spontaenously by a creator, then there is no reason that every organism on the plant is composed of DNA that is made up of the exact same nucleotides.

Also, if organisms were created then how can you explain the similarities of our genome with the genomes of other animals? With the almost unlimited combinations of DNA sequences that could make up an organism, there is no reason other than common ancestory that could account for the similarities in DNA sequence.

[QUOTE="Decessus"][QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"]

That makes sense, though I still don't agree with (macro) evolution.

Bolvar_11

If macroevolution doesn't happen, then how can you explain the fact that every single organism is composed of the exact same hereditary material? If organisms were created spontaenously by a creator, then there is no reason that every organism on the plant is composed of DNA that is made up of the exact same nucleotides.

Also, if organisms were created then how can you explain the similarities of our genome with the genomes of other animals? With the almost unlimited combinations of DNA sequences that could make up an organism, there is no reason other than common ancestory that could account for the similarities in DNA sequence.

[QUOTE="Decessus"][QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"]

That makes sense, though I still don't agree with (macro) evolution.

Bolvar_11

If macroevolution doesn't happen, then how can you explain the fact that every single organism is composed of the exact same hereditary material? If organisms were created spontaenously by a creator, then there is no reason that every organism on the plant is composed of DNA that is made up of the exact same nucleotides.

Also, if organisms were created then how can you explain the similarities of our genome with the genomes of other animals? With the almost unlimited combinations of DNA sequences that could make up an organism, there is no reason other than common ancestory that could account for the similarities in DNA sequence.

Does God want people to believe in him?

Evolution = proof

Christianity = blind following

until i SEE a miriacle then i will carry on safe in the knowledge that the profit jesus's teachings were exploited by corrupt priests from mars in order for personal gain.

the culex molestus evolved from the culex pipeins. these are 2 different species353535355353535

And why is it that evolutionists are astonished that something like this would happen so fast?

If macroevolution doesn't happen, then how can you explain the fact that every single organism is composed of the exact same hereditary material? If organisms were created spontaenously by a creator, then there is no reason that every organism on the plant is composed of DNA that is made up of the exact same nucleotides.

Also, if organisms were created then how can you explain the similarities of our genome with the genomes of other animals? With the almost unlimited combinations of DNA sequences that could make up an organism, there is no reason other than common ancestory that could account for the similarities in DNA sequence.

Decessus

Is this the homology again?

[QUOTE="Decessus"]

If macroevolution doesn't happen, then how can you explain the fact that every single organism is composed of the exact same hereditary material? If organisms were created spontaenously by a creator, then there is no reason that every organism on the plant is composed of DNA that is made up of the exact same nucleotides.

Also, if organisms were created then how can you explain the similarities of our genome with the genomes of other animals? With the almost unlimited combinations of DNA sequences that could make up an organism, there is no reason other than common ancestory that could account for the similarities in DNA sequence.

Silver_Dragon17

Is this the homology again?

Call it what you want. Can you explain its significance?

[QUOTE="353535355353535"] the culex molestus evolved from the culex pipeins. these are 2 different speciesSilver_Dragon17

And why is it that evolutionists are astonished that something like this would happen so fast?

[QUOTE="Decessus"][QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"]

That makes sense, though I still don't agree with (macro) evolution.

Bolvar_11

If macroevolution doesn't happen, then how can you explain the fact that every single organism is composed of the exact same hereditary material? If organisms were created spontaenously by a creator, then there is no reason that every organism on the plant is composed of DNA that is made up of the exact same nucleotides.

Also, if organisms were created then how can you explain the similarities of our genome with the genomes of other animals? With the almost unlimited combinations of DNA sequences that could make up an organism, there is no reason other than common ancestory that could account for the similarities in DNA sequence.

Can he make a rock so big he can't lift it?

[QUOTE="Decessus"]

If macroevolution doesn't happen, then how can you explain the fact that every single organism is composed of the exact same hereditary material? If organisms were created spontaenously by a creator, then there is no reason that every organism on the plant is composed of DNA that is made up of the exact same nucleotides.

Also, if organisms were created then how can you explain the similarities of our genome with the genomes of other animals? With the almost unlimited combinations of DNA sequences that could make up an organism, there is no reason other than common ancestory that could account for the similarities in DNA sequence.

Silver_Dragon17

Is this the homology again?

Here is another thing to ask yourself. If human beings were created, instead of having evolved, why is it that we were so poorly designed?

[QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"][QUOTE="Decessus"]

If macroevolution doesn't happen, then how can you explain the fact that every single organism is composed of the exact same hereditary material? If organisms were created spontaenously by a creator, then there is no reason that every organism on the plant is composed of DNA that is made up of the exact same nucleotides.

Also, if organisms were created then how can you explain the similarities of our genome with the genomes of other animals? With the almost unlimited combinations of DNA sequences that could make up an organism, there is no reason other than common ancestory that could account for the similarities in DNA sequence.

Decessus

Is this the homology again?

Here is another thing to ask yourself. If human beings were created, instead of having evolved, why is it that we were so poorly designed?

He's going to say we are perfect.

I bet. :D

Or if he doesn't because he sees this, he will say no human is perfect.

Oh the duality.

He's going to say we are perfect.

I bet. :D

Or if he doesn't because he sees this, he will say no human is perfect.

Oh the duality.

The_Ish

Perhaps. Either one would not be a very good answer however.

We are far from perfect. Bipedalism puts a tremendous amount of stress on our spine, knees, and feet. There's a reason that so many people become plagued with back problems when they get older. All that weight takes its toll over a span of 40 to 50 years.

These issues are also not the result of any kind of choice that humans have made. We certainly are not able to choose what are bone structure is going to look like. Trust me, if we could, I wouldn't look the way I do now. :) So, you can't really use the excuse that "no humans are perfect". A competent creator surely would have been able to make a more efficient bipedal human.

Im still baffled as to how people still think evolution is false and creationism is true.

Radiometric dating proves evolution

Im still baffled as to how people still think evolution is false and creationism is true.

Radiometric dating proves evolution

353535355353535

How does radiometric dating prove evolution?

He's going to say we are perfect.

I bet. :D

Or if he doesn't because he sees this, he will say no human is perfect.

Oh the duality.

The_Ish

Also, let's just assume for the sake of argument that we do find evidence that we were in fact created. Even if such evidence were to surface, this would not be evidence that our creator was in fact God.

We could have just as easily been created by some intellectually superior alien beings. After all, the universe is something like 14 billion years old and the earth is only about 4 billion years old with life having been around about 2.5 billion years. Who's to say that on some other planet that had a head start on us by a couple of billion years, that the life there hasn't evolved to a point and complexity that far exceeds our own? Maybe we were created by the Protoss. ;)

[QUOTE="The_Ish"]

He's going to say we are perfect.

I bet. :D

Or if he doesn't because he sees this, he will say no human is perfect.

Oh the duality.

Decessus

Also, let's just assume for the sake of argument that we do find evidence that we were in fact created. Even if such evidence were to surface, this would not be evidence that our creator was in fact God.

We could have just as easily been created by some intellectually superior alien beings. After all, the universe is something like 14 billion years old and the earth is only about 4 billion years old with life having been around about 2.5 billion years. Who's to say that on some other planet that had a head start on us by a couple of billion years, that the life there hasn't evolved to a point and complexity that far exceeds our own? Maybe we were created by the Protoss. ;)

That would be best, I think.

Or the Xel' Naga.

Oh my yes. :D