Evolution???? Questions:

  • 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.
Status
Not open for further replies.

RubyCrystal

Junior Member
Dec 2, 2007
4
0
1
29
#1
Science proves that all humans came from one mother. Evolution says that man evolved from a common ancestor (the form between ape and man). So, I asked myself: Do evolutionists think that it is okay for man to wed with a chimp?????

Follow-up question: If they say that it is not okay, on what would they base that? If we're all caused by a big cosmic accident (the Big Bang), then why would anybody say "you can do this/ can't do that"? Shouldn't anyone be able to do whatever they want, moral or not? Morality becomes irrelavent because our entire being is an accident including our opinions. Nothing is right; nothing is wrong. There is no ultimate truth.
 
P

Porphyrios

Guest
#2
There is a way to view evolution in a christian perspective. One that involves God directing evolution, rather then as a random event.
 
S

Slepsog4

Guest
#3
Theistic Evolutionary Theory still calls God a liar. It does not take God's account for what He said He did.

God made every creature with the ability to reproduce after its own kind and likely most fully mature.

One should consider the ability to actually breed different animals is limited. There are boundaries which genetics will not allow crossbreeding. This should tell us that evolution theory is highly questionable.

Similarities between animals is interpreted as having a common ancestor. These similarities make as much if not more sense if attributed to a common designer.
 

pagie

Senior Member
May 13, 2007
137
1
16
#4
I think the big bang theory is great, Albert Einstine tried to apply a fudge factor to prove it wrong but realized his error and turned from Pantheism to Theism, panthism teaches all is God the universe is God the world is God, but theism teaches that there is a creator God who created all things and sustains all things, he knew that if there was a big bang there once was a time the universe didnt exist and if thats true there has to be some thing that created it, and that you do not get a pracise existance out of caos such as a big bang would creat in and of its self without a creator who has an inteligent mind
and in the case with Chimps and humans being after the same cind I agree if thats so there can be no ultimite morality, and if there is on what basis is it found to be ultimately true and indapendent of our own bias and opinion
 
P

Porphyrios

Guest
#5
Theistic evolutionary theory does not call God a liar. Genesis was not written to be a science manual. The words of Genesis can still be true in a spiritual sense (which is deeper imo then any literal sense).
 
Jan 10, 2007
68
1
8
#6
Theistic evolutionary theory does not call God a liar. Genesis was not written to be a science manual. The words of Genesis can still be true in a spiritual sense (which is deeper imo then any literal sense).
With all due respect, you did not write Genesis and have no authority to declare whether it is scientifically accurate or not. It is God's word which mean God inspired it literally exactly as he wanted it. If God said he did it in 6 days then God did it in 6 days. God's word stands forever while the supposed maxims of science change with nearly every new discovery. Why do we want to add evolution to the Bible when there is no empirical evidence for the theory and it is ever changing. It's like taking a rubber ruler and using it to judge and change a perfectly formed steel ruler. Popular science like the rubber ruler is ever changing and what was accepted 100 years ago or less, is laughed at today. The Bible is the permanent inspired word of God which has never changed, and never been proven wrong, even though it has been the most controversial, the most attacked book in history. The worst that satan can through at the Bible have all come up short. Why would you take something so shaky, unreliable and ever changing as popular theories disguised as science theories over something so rock solid and foundational as God's own word?

Science means knowledge. Not guess-edge, not believe-edge. The difference between knowing and believing is vastly different. The best definition I know of science is: Knowledge gained by observation. Evolution is by definition not science because it has never been observed and even the evidence in the fossil record does not support it. Considering all the evidence available in creation to an open minded seeker, I believe it takes far more faith to believe evolution than Genesis.

Further evolution does call God a liar because it contradicts God on so many levels.

God said when creation was complete that it was "very good" and that man was created in his image. God says death is the result of the sin committed by Adam and Eve in the Garden and that death is an enemy that will be destroyed. Evolution says that man was created by millions of years of death through failed and/or incomplete mutations until we finally arrived at what we are now. It also leaves open that we are not finished evolving and that death and mutations are a good thing, a means to a better end in higher evolutionary state.
The God of the Bible is not an ape as evolution would teach since their first humanoid was a form of ape. Adam was created in the image of God, and the Bible says that Jesus is the image of the invisible God (Col 1:15). Therefore Adam was created in the image of Jesus, and Jesus did not look like an ape or humanoid form of ape.
The Genesis account clearly says 6 normal days were the length of time for creation. The verse about a day being like a thousand years doesn't negate this for various reasons. One of which is the very same verse says a thousand years are as one day. It would seem contradictory except the point being is that God is not limited by time. Another reason is that it doesn't merely say this part of creation happened on this day and another part happened another day leaving room for millions of years between each day. On the contrary Gen 1 verses 5, 8, 13, 19, 23, and 31 all say each of the 6 days were marked by "...the evening and the morning..." This clearly delineates 6 normal days and leaves no room for interpretation. At Mount Sinai when God gave the law by his own mouth he reiterated that it was six literal days in Exo 20:11 by saying, "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is..." He was speaking to people living normal length days and spoke his word literally just as he wanted it understood.

There are so many aspects of this argument that it would be impossible to cover it. It has been well said that evolution is a fairy tale for grownups. A story that happened "long ago and far away" of which there is no empirical evidence. We would do well to remember the admonition from Paul to the young man of God, "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen." 1 Timothy 6:20-21

RubyCrystal, your point is valid and is so scriptural that it also would be impossible to fully explain in the space allowed here. Without God there is no basis for morality, death would be a good thing, and mutations/abnormally born children would just part of evolution instead evidences of a world cursed by sin and under the power of satan, the god of this world. Yes satan is the god of this world, the Bible says in 2 Corinthians 4:3-4, " But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them." Romans 6:16 "Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?" God gave Adam dominion over creation and he gave that power to satan when he yielded to satan's will in sin as do the majority of people in the world today.

The very fact that there is a foundational morality existent in every human being alive, regardless of whether they have ever heard the gospel, is even more proof of God's reality and the accurate truth of his Word. Even cannibalistic tribes declare this truth when they take revenge on a neighboring tribe for killing and eating someone from their tribe. The worst thief in the world would be upset and likely take revenge if someone stole from him. People who commit adultery still get upset if they find out their partner did the same. Romans 2:14-15 "14 "For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another; )"

As I said, the many aspects of this discussion would be impossible to fully lay out in the time allowed here. As God's own word says, creation is proof of the Creator Romans 1:19-20 "Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse" Far be it from us to pervert (alter/change) God's pure word but ever live in submission to God. If ever tempted to do so may we remember the rebuke of Acts 13:9-10 to Elymas, "Then Saul, (who also is called Paul,) filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him. And said, O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?"

May God graciously give us understanding of his word. May we ever remember and heed Paul's admonition to Timothy regarding science falsely so called and never need the rebuke of Elymas for attempting to pervert the revelation of the most High God found in his perfect inspired holy Word.
 
N

NazariteNation

Guest
#7
Just an interesting tidbit of info...

A large number of the greatest scientific minds in the world now agree that the very fabric of space and time hangs on a thin membrane of "micro" sound waves, possible scientific evidence that God literally spoke the universe into existence. In the scientific world it's called "M Theory", feel free to check it out some time. If you're into science this one is gonna rock your world..
 
Jan 8, 2009
7,576
23
0
#8
Do you have a reference for that statement Naz?
 
T

Truth4All

Guest
#9
I'd like to think that if the Creator of the entire universe can do "mundane" things like turning water into wine, making the lame walk, the blind see and the dead live then He can certainly create man in one day. Revelation tells us that when Jesus returns for his own he's going to swap out our corrupted bodies for new incorrruptable ones "in the twinkling of an eye". If evolution will be used in the process it'll be pretty darn fast! But seriously Ruby, it really comes down to a matter of faith. Although in all honesty, belief in macro-evolution requires more faith, in my opinion.
 

RubyCrystal

Junior Member
Dec 2, 2007
4
0
1
29
#10
That's just the thing, isn't it, guys? God doesn't have to make sense to be what he is. Actually, our brains can't really grasp the true meaning of him. He is just to great to comprehend! Science can't prove everything, but people sure think it can.

Quick question: What do people think caused the Big Bang? Is there a cause?
 
T

Truth4All

Guest
#11
Here are a few things that we know:

1) Our universe had a beginning. Why? Because it is defined by space and time. Time implies a beginning and an end.

2) We know that "nothing" cannot create "something". It is a scientific impossibility. Therefore our universe had a Creator.

3) What ever created our universe must have existed outside of our universe. Why? Because anything bound by space and time could not have created space and time. In this other realm the laws of physics and thermodynamics (as we know them) could not have applied.

4) the Creator of the universe is eternal because He is not limited by time or space.


Was there a big bang? Maybe. The real question is if there was a big bang what (or Who) caused it!
 
S

Slepsog4

Guest
#12
Poly,

Any topic to which God addresses himself in the Scriptures his statements are true.

Any THEORY of man that contradicts a direct statement or a necessary implication must be false.

Theistic evolution tries to blend the lies of man with the truths of God.

How does that not make God a liar.
 
P

Porphyrios

Guest
#13
The writer(s) of Genesis were writing in a specific cultural context. Its divinely inspired, there is no doubt of that, but not everything contained in it is relevant for all ages. The creation stories (since there are TWO of them) are for one not even completely compatible with each other, and they are a product of the writer(s)' culture.
 

pagie

Senior Member
May 13, 2007
137
1
16
#14
I have heard Christian Apoligests use the statements "there is no science in the bible" it isnt to say that the things in the Bible arent scientific but that the bible isnt a scientific book, it is historical narative, Apocoliptic litriture, poetic litriture, and so on, for instance they say "you can not scientificly prove Jesus rose from the dead, or you can not scientificly prove that the Red Sea parted, or you can not scientificly proove the bible is the word of God" you might be able to explain scientificly how these things happen and use science for the credabilaty of the bibles claims but the bible isnt a scientific book. science has been great for the biblical defence but you cant spercificly do a scientific experament on past biblical events like Jesus resarection and the parting of the red sea and so on. now with creation science works wonderfully consistant with the bibles claims but you have to go ferther than science for instance in the case of ultimate morality and the value of human life who determines that and can you do a science experament on them. science plays a good part I believe and presents convincing evidence but it doesnt stop there. whats your thoughts?
 
N

NazariteNation

Guest
#15
Do you have a reference for that statement Naz?
I haven't looked it up in some time but if you google "M Theory" (Membrane Theory) I'm sure that you will find something. Physicists have been debating this issue for at least a decade now. It's based on the concept that, while man can only perceive 3 dimensions with his own eyes, there are actually 11 different dimensions to our universe (time, gravity, etc.).
 
P

pogrud

Guest
#16
OK, to answer RubyCrystal's question on Humans marrying Chimps:

There does not necessarily have to be a divide between being in evolution and creation. Certain branches of Christianity do merge the two. Many scientists believing in evolution also believe in creation.

Personally I think it's a slightly irrational proposition about whether its ok to marry a chimp. As a Christian, do you feel able to make moral judgements outside of Christian teachings? Atheists do have morals without being told. I don't believe most people need to be told that things like killing are wrong. Likewise, I'm sure the majority of non-Christians don't believe it's moral or even rational to wed a chimp.

The connection between humans and chimps is similar to that of a caterpillar and a butterfly - they change over time and become different creatures. The change from chimp to human is even more radical.

Summary: No believing in evolution doesn't make you any more likely to believe marrying chimps is right.

Big bang and morality:

As I stated before, humans can make up their decisions on what is right and wrong without being told. The bible doesn't mention whether it's sinful to use internet forums so we've made our own choices.

Most humans instinctively know it's wrong to do things like kill. Morals like these our part of human nature. As with all religions there are grey areas which are open to to interpretation, these human morals are the same. The laws we live by are a legal manifestation of these human morals.

The whole subject of truth is an issue too big for this post.

M-Theory

OK, I'm no physicist but I read a lot of science. I'm not sure what you mean by 'fabric of space and time hangs on a thin membrane of "micro" sound waves'. No, this isn't at all true as I understand it. M-Theory is a subset of String Theory, replacing 2D Strings with N dimensional 'branes'.

To sum string theory up: as we all agree, everything is made of atoms. These atoms are made up of electrons, protons and neutrons. Protons and neutrons are made up of other smaller particles. The lowest level of particles we know today are known as elementary particles these are defined in something called the standard model - this includes things like quarks, electrons, neutrinos and higgs bosons. Some theoretical physicists believe that these elementary particles are made of smaller strings/branes. The 'vibrations' of a string/brane manifests as the different elementary particles. This is much like how a different frequency on a violin makes a different note.

Not sure how 'hanging on a thin membrane' or speaking into existence fits with that.
 
T

Truth4All

Guest
#17
Not sure how 'hanging on a thin membrane' or speaking into existence fits with that.
I don't know...I think the "speaking into existence" idea could actually have some merit (although I'm no physicist either). Consider the fact that an opera singer can shatter a glass when she hits a note that matches the resonant frequency of a wine glass, or that tumors and kidney stones can be shrunk or destroyed using the same technique. Granted both of these examples demonstrate destruction and not creation, but perhaps "guided" frequency generation could actually be constructive. I recently watched an episode of "Fringe" (bear with me here <g>) where some bank robbers used a device to excite the molecules of the vault wall so that the thieves could walk THROUGH it to steal the item they wanted. I thought it was a bit far out but then the mad scientist guy on the show demonstrated how the thieves probably pulled it off. He placed a small plastic football player on top of a container of sand and then put the container of sand on one of those vibrating football games (where the little football players vibrate down the field). When he flipped the switch on that little football player went right down to the bottom of the container, as if he just fell through quicksand. Way cool! Anyways, didn't Jesus walk right through a locked door to visit his terrified apostles? Maybe it's the same principle. Or maybe I'm just spending too much time watching TV. :)
 
Jan 8, 2009
7,576
23
0
#18
re : M-theory and sound-waves and speaking into existence



A large number of the greatest scientific minds in the world now agree that the very fabric of space and time hangs on a thin membrane of "micro" sound waves, possible scientific evidence that God literally spoke the universe into existence. In the scientific world it's called "M Theory", feel free to check it out some time. If you're into science this one is gonna rock your world..
I think the "speaking into existence" idea could actually have some merit
Like Pogrug I couldn't find any connection between sound-waves and M-theory in my searches on the internet. It might be simply a rumor. Maybe an attempt at unifying science and the bible?

In any case, there is one big problem with the idea that God literally spoke the universe into existence.
For sound-waves to exist there needs to be atmosphere. There is no sound in the vacuum of space. So God could not have literally spoken things into existence.
 
P

pogrud

Guest
#19
Yes, as MahogonySnail said, sound does not travel in a vacuum. Say for the purpose of argument that God's voice travelled by some other form of transmission beyond our current understanding.

To clear Truth4All's argument up:


The crux of the issue is the creation of matter v alteration of the state of matter. In both the opera singer and kidney stone examples matter does not disappear. Some sort of change occurs to the structure of the matter. This is known as forced oscillation resonance.

To explain the concept: some items have a natural rate of resonance (i.e a wine glass has a pitch), pumping in more energy of the same type (i.e frequency) will cause greater vibration than normal and shatter the structure. It's the same reason that armies can't march over bridges. It's similar for kidney stones - the shockwaves only break the stones into smaller pieces. Matter is neither created or distroyed in these cases.

What we're proposing by God speaking into existence is the creation of elementary particles. The only way this can be done is through a great deal of energy - hence Einstein's famous equation - E = mc^2. A little bit of matter equals a huge amount of energy. Breaking apart atoms releases energy, hence atomic bombs. A massive amount of energy makes a tiny amount of matter. So where did the energy come from? Back to square one.

Walking through walls

There is no scientific way you could 'excite' molecules to walk through something like a wall. There is a significant difference in the sand/football example and walking through a wall.

Some background: There are four forces as we currently know: electromagnetic, weak nuclear, strong nuclear and gravity. These forces act on very different scales. For example - we think gravity is strong - it's the whole weight of the earth forcing us towards it. If however you had a paperclip being pulled by the whole earth, it can easily be overcome by a tiny magnet. Gravity is much weaker than the other three but works over a far larger range. In the above example, if the magnet is only a few inches away it will have little affect.

So why are the examples different? The electromagnetic force is really strong over short distances. It is the reason we can't walk through the walls (or don't fall through the ground). The atoms that make 'us', don't actually touch anything else - they are always repelled. It's the scale of the two scenarios is the difference. Imagine you're making your way through a busy train station. In the sand/football scenario (a macro level) the electromagnetic force has no affect, i.e. you can get close to people and slowly josstle you way through the station. In the atomic level (walking through walls), we have to deal with the electromagnetic force. This force is so strong that there is no way you could get closer than say 100m to the nearest person - it'd be far harder to force yourself through.

Did that make sense? Valid question Truth4All.
 
Jan 8, 2009
7,576
23
0
#20
re: speaking into existence.

I've been thinking about God speaking into existence. I personally don't think the power came from the speaking but from the Spirit. God's voice is His intention, His will..the power to carry that out is by His Spirit. If the power was in God's ability to speak, then we should see creative miracles everytime God has spoken throughout scripture, but this is not the case.

We also have the modern day ideas of "speaking things into existence", positive confession, etc.
The idea that simply by speaking we can control the world around us. This is closely tied in with the word-faith movements, and "name it claim it" movements.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.