Evolution
- Thread starter Unearthed
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Moderators: do feel free to not publish this post if you feel it would cause unwanted negative responses from CC membership 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A simple thought experiment for those who believe the Earth is of the order of 5,000 years old and who do not believe in evolution:
If the story of Adam and Eve is literally true, then when only Adam and Eve existed there could have been a maximum of 4 different human eye colours.
This would be the case if the 4 human eyes (Adam had two, Eve had two) were all different colours.
However, there are now more than 25 human eye colours.
Many people who do not believe in evolution hold this position because they reason that a living thing could not possibly have some feature that its ancestors did not have - e.g. how could a sea creature evolve into a bird over millions of years...
If you take this position, how do you explain the development of human eye colours, as described above?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A simple thought experiment for those who believe the Earth is of the order of 5,000 years old and who do not believe in evolution:
If the story of Adam and Eve is literally true, then when only Adam and Eve existed there could have been a maximum of 4 different human eye colours.
This would be the case if the 4 human eyes (Adam had two, Eve had two) were all different colours.
However, there are now more than 25 human eye colours.
Many people who do not believe in evolution hold this position because they reason that a living thing could not possibly have some feature that its ancestors did not have - e.g. how could a sea creature evolve into a bird over millions of years...
If you take this position, how do you explain the development of human eye colours, as described above?
-
1
- Show all
Firstly, the fact that you are convinced of something does not make that something a fact. Secondly, let's be clear about terms: most Christians do accept the reality of microevolution, but reject macroevolution.
You're wrong. The Bible states that each "kind" of creature is to reproduce after its kind. Dogs produce dogs. Bacteria produce bacteria. Humans produce humans.
You're wrong. The Bible states that each "kind" of creature is to reproduce after its kind. Dogs produce dogs. Bacteria produce bacteria. Humans produce humans.
-
1
- Show all
Moderators: do feel free to not publish this post if you feel it would cause unwanted negative responses from CC membership
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A simple thought experiment for those who believe the Earth is of the order of 5,000 years old and who do not believe in evolution:
If the story of Adam and Eve is literally true, then when only Adam and Eve existed there could have been a maximum of 4 different human eye colours.
This would be the case if the 4 human eyes (Adam had two, Eve had two) were all different colours.
However, there are now more than 25 human eye colours.
Many people who do not believe in evolution hold this position because they reason that a living thing could not possibly have some feature that its ancestors did not have - e.g. how could a sea creature evolve into a bird over millions of years...
If you take this position, how do you explain the development of human eye colours, as described above?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A simple thought experiment for those who believe the Earth is of the order of 5,000 years old and who do not believe in evolution:
If the story of Adam and Eve is literally true, then when only Adam and Eve existed there could have been a maximum of 4 different human eye colours.
This would be the case if the 4 human eyes (Adam had two, Eve had two) were all different colours.
However, there are now more than 25 human eye colours.
Many people who do not believe in evolution hold this position because they reason that a living thing could not possibly have some feature that its ancestors did not have - e.g. how could a sea creature evolve into a bird over millions of years...
If you take this position, how do you explain the development of human eye colours, as described above?
-
1
- Show all
Young earth creationism is the idea that God setup a pool table and took 20 shots to sink 20 billiard balls. Evolution and big-bang models are the idea that God took 1 shot to sink 20 balls.
1) An endorsement of evolution is not to say that the human form happened by mistake, nor to deny Colossians 1:15.
2) There are two aspects to evolution, the ability to predict past events and the ability to predict future events. Even if a concession was made that applying the theory to past events is incorrect, applying the theory to future events is still correct.
Therefore: a Christian can endorse evolution without denying a literal interpretation of Genesis scripture. There is perhaps no conflict at all if the Genesis creation story is not literal. In either case, a Christian may safely endorse evolution without conflict.
1) An endorsement of evolution is not to say that the human form happened by mistake, nor to deny Colossians 1:15.
2) There are two aspects to evolution, the ability to predict past events and the ability to predict future events. Even if a concession was made that applying the theory to past events is incorrect, applying the theory to future events is still correct.
Therefore: a Christian can endorse evolution without denying a literal interpretation of Genesis scripture. There is perhaps no conflict at all if the Genesis creation story is not literal. In either case, a Christian may safely endorse evolution without conflict.
-
3
- Show all
sure it is a supposition which is an uncertain belief. an example would be Darwinian Evolution.
Truth is the state of being true. And it is the truth even if it is denied or believed not to be true. Truth and Law stands. The only way truth doesn't stand is when it is a lie, unproven, or if one is seeking the truth and performs analysis, gathers data, and form a hypothesis which leads to a theory that has to still be proven the truth or a LAW.
Darwinian Evolution is not true. it is a belief system founded in error. the error was a man tried to prove the non-existence of God and became a FOOL>. Yet he was able to deceive many and they too became utter fools.
Truth is the state of being true. And it is the truth even if it is denied or believed not to be true. Truth and Law stands. The only way truth doesn't stand is when it is a lie, unproven, or if one is seeking the truth and performs analysis, gathers data, and form a hypothesis which leads to a theory that has to still be proven the truth or a LAW.
Darwinian Evolution is not true. it is a belief system founded in error. the error was a man tried to prove the non-existence of God and became a FOOL>. Yet he was able to deceive many and they too became utter fools.
I wouldn't say Jesus is a fact and I wouldn't say I believe in evolution.
I believe in Jesus and evolution is a fact. There is no conflict in my mind between those two statements.
God made Adam and Eve long after the first humans. Adam was the first man and Eve became the mother of all living. Before them, humans were just special animals that God decided to make in His image.
I believe in Jesus and evolution is a fact. There is no conflict in my mind between those two statements.
God made Adam and Eve long after the first humans. Adam was the first man and Eve became the mother of all living. Before them, humans were just special animals that God decided to make in His image.
-
1
- Show all
I get the feeling that in many cases detractors to modern evolutionary theory don't understand how science works. Or how theories are handled. Or what the current model of evolutionary theory is (hint: it's not Darwin's model). Ignorance is a sign of hardened heart (Ephesians 4:18).
The purpose of scientific theories is to help make predictions. It must have observational utility. For those that interpret evolutionary theory as being at odds with Genesis, the question is why do you feel this way? It is not necessary to interpret Genesis literally, and to do so is at the expense of other valid interpretations of the creation story.
Ultimately, whether it contradicts the creation story or not is irrelevant. If the creation story is literal, evolutionary theory still has utility for future events. It is an observation of "this is the way things have been set in motion". No different than looking at the orbits of stars and projecting forward or backward in time to calculate a star's position. If 10,000 BC didn't exist, it doesn't mean that calculations of star movements are suddenly invalid, it just means that there is a limitation in how the model can be applied. Likewise with modern evolutionary theory! If 10,000 BC didn't exist, it just means that the model can't be applied backward to that time. It doesn't render calculations for the future incorrect.
Use scripture, use modern scientific theory. Demonstrate logically why it is necessarily the case that modern evolutionary theory is false.
The purpose of scientific theories is to help make predictions. It must have observational utility. For those that interpret evolutionary theory as being at odds with Genesis, the question is why do you feel this way? It is not necessary to interpret Genesis literally, and to do so is at the expense of other valid interpretations of the creation story.
Ultimately, whether it contradicts the creation story or not is irrelevant. If the creation story is literal, evolutionary theory still has utility for future events. It is an observation of "this is the way things have been set in motion". No different than looking at the orbits of stars and projecting forward or backward in time to calculate a star's position. If 10,000 BC didn't exist, it doesn't mean that calculations of star movements are suddenly invalid, it just means that there is a limitation in how the model can be applied. Likewise with modern evolutionary theory! If 10,000 BC didn't exist, it just means that the model can't be applied backward to that time. It doesn't render calculations for the future incorrect.
Use scripture, use modern scientific theory. Demonstrate logically why it is necessarily the case that modern evolutionary theory is false.