Christian Evolutionist:

[fantome profane]

Plant's do not need light, because light has little to no mass which means to plants it would be useless for photosynthesis, they need the energy sent from the sun to create photosynthesis

Are you suggesting that light that does not come from the sun would not allow plants to photosynthesis? Have you studied plants and photosynthesis? Have you ever seen an indoor plant?

The mass of individual photons has nothing to do with photosynthesis, it is the energy from the light. And plants that photosynthesis can do so using any light source, not just the sun. And they absolutely do need light to do so.

 

[painted wolf]

I hate to break it to you Ghostkill... but plants do need light for photosynthesis.

They use the fast moving particles to excite the molecules that do the job.

Also, all energy from the sun is 'light'... from ultraviolet to visible to infrared and x-rays... its all the same stuff moving at different speeds.

You mention the fact that God doesn't lie... Man sure does.
Why would God leave so much evidence that the Earth is old and only one book written by men to say it is young?

wa:do

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Plant's do not need light, because light has little to no mass which means to plants it would be useless for photosynthesis, they need the energy sent from the sun to create photosynthesis: and the bible is the only definitive source of knowledge for a christian. or it is the only one with divine influence. you cannot simply pick parts of the bible to believe (as per your earlier comment when i say believe i mean accept as truth, which can be done off a book) if you only pick parts you are creating your own religion and according to revelation 22:18 "I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book." this may be specifically meaning only revelation but that still means that revelation at least is a whole and should be taken as such furthermore
2 Timothy 3:16 (New International Version)
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

if it's all god breathed and you believe in the god that made any of it who is perfect and can't lie than it is all true

as for the 6000 to 8000 thats a rough estimate going from the average lifespan of people after the flood in the bible and knowing how many generations till joseph arrived at egypt from which we have a physical record

when you actually understand hebrew (I don't but one of my friends can read and speak it fluently) you can see that the way genesis plays out day means the amount of time between on rotation of the earth or between the night and the next night being written by moses who wrote the law books the most literal books in the bible so much later it almost for sure that his day meant a literal 24 hour period or the passing of a single human sleep, and it meant absolutely every "day" in genesis was the same period of time.
now the final point that should wrap this up is this to be honest god would never ever make evolution why would he want to give people an way the world could exist without him when he could have just made everything the way it is. the only good possible reason i have heard was that he wanted belief in him to be based on faith. however if this was true why would he go with evolution which is predicated on several things that have a 1:10 to the 300000 chance of happening, happening? wouldn't he just make a better more reasonable answer?

Sad thing is that your rant is completely WRONG....If you think for one moment plants don't need light then you should quit speaking here at RF because it's obvious you don't what you're talking about. This kind of science (biology) is taught and learned at the elementary school level. It makes it really hard to take you seriously beyond that statement. After reading it...it really didn't matter what else you said.

 

[Jose Fly]

Plants don't need light? C'mon Ghostkill...you're having us on, aren't you?

 

[gnostic]

as for the 6000 to 8000 thats a rough estimate going from the average lifespan of people after the flood in the bible and knowing how many generations till joseph arrived at egypt from which we have a physical record

Evidently there's not much difference between the people who lived before the flood to those who lived after the flood. Physical evidences (and I means human remains) showed that the people were not different in any way before and after the flood. The Flood from the Genesis have taken place between 4400 to 2100 years ago (which would place between 2100 and 2400 BC. There are no evidences that man lived more than the age of 130.

In Egypt, civilisation didn't stop, there's absolute no sign of any great apocalyptic flood to disrupt it. The Sumerian and Akkadian living in 3rd millennium BC, did write about the Flood, but nothing disrupt their civilisation in the 2nd half of the 3rd millennium BC, and absolutely no sign of a great flood.

As to Joseph arriving in Egypt, that supposed happened only 560 years after the Flood. 560 years would only Joseph's arrival between 1840 BC (which is very doubtful) and 1540 BC. The later date, the Hyksos were already expelled from Egypt, so the Hyksos can't be Israelites. Moses and the Israelites proabably left 200 years after Joseph arrival.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Evidently there's not much difference between the people who lived before the flood to those who lived after the flood. Physical evidences (and I means human remains) showed that the people were not different in any way before and after the flood. The Flood from the Genesis have taken place between 4400 to 2100 years ago (which would place between 2100 and 2400 BC. There are no evidences that man lived more than the age of 130.

In Egypt, civilisation didn't stop, there's absolute no sign of any great apocalyptic flood to disrupt it. The Sumerian and Akkadian living in 3rd millennium BC, did write about the Flood, but nothing disrupt their civilisation in the 2nd half of the 3rd millennium BC, and absolutely no sign of a great flood.

As to Joseph arriving in Egypt, that supposed happened only 560 years after the Flood. 560 years would only Joseph's arrival between 1840 BC (which is very doubtful) and 1540 BC. The later date, the Hyksos were already expelled from Egypt, so the Hyksos can't be Israelites. Moses and the Israelites proabably left 200 years after Joseph arrival.

Yep and it's going to be up to the YECers to tell us how the Neanderthal Man fits into this "history" considering their DNA does not match ours (100%)...or where dinosaurs fits into the picture.......

 

[J Bryson]

Yep and it's going to be up to the YECers to tell us how the Neanderthal Man fits into this "history" considering their DNA does not match ours (100%)...or where dinosaurs fits into the picture.......

I'm betting mark of Cain.

*gets popcorn*

 

[ukMethodist]

A frog turning into a human after millions of years is as sign of the evolution of the slow.

In the last six thousand years we have gone from no technology to landing on mars and having rovers on another planet.

And somebody thinks that we took BILLIONS of years to evolve, when in the last few hundred years alone we have done incredible things?

So...did our brain evolve 6 thousand years ago? Or is somebody just trying to get people away from the 'god' of creation by coming up with some stupid theory that we evolved from some form of live that would ironically only start using its brain in the last few thousand years of its existance. If we used our brains for the last million years or so...we would be far more advanced than we are know. So are we becoming smarter? Is there any scienctific evidence that we are becoming smarter? No there isnt. So what were we doing with our brains the last few million years? Lets say we became human in the last million years. Thats still ONE million years of no good brain power. Evolution is for people who like to believe in fairy tales.

Heneni

And here I started to really like your posts

You are confusing one type of evolution with the other. The fact that we have a collective memory system (many actually, it's called language) as a species has enable us to grow our collective knowledge. But that's only one thing, the other is biological evolution, which works with totally different premises.

What's wrong with using your brain? Do you really think it even matters? How are we to say for sure HOW God has made us? Don't you think he is infinitly more complex, messures time differently?

And don't you think that he could tell us in the bible, not HOW (because we're human, try to explain an ant how to built a house/car/etc.) but THAT and WHY he made us and everything. That he tells us how our spirits have become the way they are now, how we became creatures of sin, that the reason He did all this is because he knows how it's gonna end ("and it was good").

He tells us in Genesis of man and woman, good and evil, He tells us that behind all this, there is a loving father.

 

[darkendless]

And here I started to really like your posts

You are confusing one type of evolution with the other. The fact that we have a collective memory system (many actually, it's called language) as a species has enable us to grow our collective knowledge. But that's only one thing, the other is biological evolution, which works with totally different premises.

What's wrong with using your brain? Do you really think it even matters? How are we to say for sure HOW God has made us? Don't you think he is infinitly more complex, messures time differently?

And don't you think that he could tell us in the bible, not HOW (because we're human, try to explain an ant how to built a house/car/etc.) but THAT and WHY he made us and everything. That he tells us how our spirits have become the way they are now, how we became creatures of sin, that the reason He did all this is because he knows how it's gonna end ("and it was good").

He tells us in Genesis of man and woman, good and evil, He tells us that behind all this, there is a loving father.

You're making assumptions as to the character of God. Please tell me why, if in fact a God exists, why he/she/it would have human characteristics like you describe?

I don't think there's anything wrong with a God concept. When using your brain though, don't you think a conclusion might be reached supporting evolution. Or perhaps its easier to ignore or gloss over facts supporting 4.5 billion years of evolution?

 

[gnostic]

Yep and it's going to be up to the YECers to tell us how the Neanderthal Man fits into this "history" considering their DNA does not match ours (100%)...or where dinosaurs fits into the picture.......

Well, considering that the Neanderthal man having all died out by 30,000 years ago, that 17,000 years before the YEC's estimate of 13,000 years ago.

 

[invisible chzbrgr]

I read over 30 pages at the beginning of this thread, and it seemed to turn into a discussion of proving evolution, not necessarily how one reconciles being a Christian with an acceptance of evolution as scientific truth as we know it now.

My question is more theological in nature. Please forgive me if it was addressed in the 20-odd pages I skipped over.

If you are a Christian, the essential belief is that Jesus is the key to everlasting salvation of our souls from sin. (Again, correct me if I'm wrong.)

I read an article by a creationist which stated that the literal account of Genesis was absolutely necessary to lay the foundations for Jesus' appearance on the scene, because it described the original sin, which led to all other sins, from which we were to be saved.

If you are a Christian who accepts evolution, at what point in evolutionary history do you believe the soul entered the human race? When did the sin begin from which Jesus was to save us 100,000 years after the first appearance of our species?

Did sin exist in the primordial soup? Was Adam a single-celled organism, and Eve created from him simply the cell splitting (parallel to being created of him, his rib)? Or was it only after our species developed language and began to think philosophically that sin became a reality?

After all, if you accept evolution, you accept that once upon a time our ancestors were animals, and presumably free from sin.

Corollary: The Kepler program is searching for other earth-like planets. If we discover life out there - in any form - does it follow that if that life is intelligent, or will develop into intelligence, that Jesus will need to visit there eventually?

Thanks.

 

[Autodidact]

invisible:

Good questions. I am not Christian, so pardon me for stepping on your legitimate questions.

Looking at it from the outside, it seems to me that Christians have this huge problem. Evolution is true. It seems to me that leaves you with 3 choices. (or maybe you can think of more.)

1. You adopt a theology that takes this into account.
2. You reject reality, making you and your religion a weird fringe element. I think this was the danger Thomas Aquinas was addressing when he said:

The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false.

3. Become an atheist.

I would think if your faith is strong, you would choose door # 1.

 

[Storm]

I'm not a Christian, ic, but excellent post!

 

[fantome profane]

(also not a Christian, but couldn’t help myself. Hopefully many Christians will be by eventually to give you good personal answers)

I read an article by a creationist which stated that the literal account of Genesis was absolutely necessary to lay the foundations for Jesus' appearance on the scene, because it described the original sin, which led to all other sins, from which we were to be saved.

If you are a Christian who accepts evolution, at what point in evolutionary history do you believe the soul entered the human race? When did the sin begin from which Jesus was to save us 100,000 years after the first appearance of our species?

These are really interesting questions but I am not sure just how important they are. A literal interpretation of Genesis is not necessary to provide a foundation for Jesus or for original sin.

If you can accept that the story is an allegorical description of the origin of humans then it should be no more difficult to accept that it is an allegorical description of the origin of sin.

 

[invisible chzbrgr]

Thanks for the responses everyone.

But you're right, I do hope that Christians respond.

I almost wrote that I thought a Christian evolutionist would simply have to reject one or the other ultimately, as they are incompatible (in my eyes). I am sure people have rationalized it somehow and I'd hate to assume the way it's done. Sin and salvation aren't just byproducts of Christianity, they are the central tenets (unless I've got it wrong). More than anything, without being forced to agree, I just want to understand.

...As I am writing the above, I see now fantome's point about it being the allegorical description of sin's origin; sin may be as subject to the forces of evolution as our own brains / capacity for philosophy, logic, and morality have been. In this case, one could argue as such: god made evolution happen, and eventually self-conscious beings came into existence, and started getting uppity (sinning) and finally needed a divine guide.

^^total assumption awaiting Christian input

Thanks again!

 

[Tristesse]

Ok thugg....lets look for one specie..recent...within the last 6000 years or so...that have evolved from one type of say 'cat' into another. (choose any specie you like). And then lets see if the change has been monitored...documented...analysed...and observed.

6,000 years is an extremely short period of time when were talking about evolution in animals or humans occurring. It's shorter than the blink of an eye. So, your comparison is flawed.

 

[painted wolf]

not very.. we have documented several species evolving.

London Underground Mosquito
Apple Maggot Fly
Faeroe Island House Mice
Several species of Drosophila
And my personal favorite... the Pod Mrcaru lizards. Not only a new species, but they also have evolved new gut features to digest vegetable matter more efficiently.

wa:do

 

[Enoch07]

You can be a Christian and believe in evolution. In fact, most pure creationists are dimwitted when I debate them and show how it is impossible to have no evolution. Even the smallest form. God created creatures, and they evolved over time.
I DO NOT believe that "earth is 6000 yrs old" crap due to the evidence in radiometric dating. I have studied evolutionary science, and radiometric systeming, along with ancient Greek, Latin, and Coptic manuscripts for the bible. I have also studied in the areas of historical and theological backgrounds of the bible.

I agree with you to some extent. But if you need biblical proof that the earth is older than 6000 years old, read the book of Peter. In this book he talks of the 3 earth ages. We are currently in the 2nd earth age.

I believe there is some truth to evolution but to what degree I cannot prove or disprove off hand. I do believe even scientist confuse evolutionism and adaptation to some extent. Regardless I see no reason why God would not allow creatures to adapt and evolve, but some people are just so thick headed they have to argue that only one way is right all else is wrong.

 

[Im an Atheist]

You can be a Christian and believe in evolution. In fact, most pure creationists are dimwitted when I debate them and show how it is impossible to have no evolution. Even the smallest form. God created creatures, and they evolved over time.
I DO NOT believe that "earth is 6000 yrs old" crap due to the evidence in radiometric dating. I have studied evolutionary science, and radiometric systeming, along with ancient Greek, Latin, and Coptic manuscripts for the bible. I have also studied in the areas of historical and theological backgrounds of the bible.

Fair play, i respect you for that quote. I think it shows that you can believe in what you want to believe in without being tied down.