-
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.
. I suppose Adam and Eve could have been lesser forms of Homo Sapiens and then their children and children's children gradually evolved. Even if you don't believe in evolution how do you explain why man has gotten taller over time?
S
It is possible to believe in both evolution and God unless you actual study science. Then you realize that evolution theory is bunk. Honest scientists recognize that and have tried to come up with alternative theories like life coming from comets, etc. Anything but the obvious.
Unfortunately, for the believers in evolution it is now a religion. They take it on faith and rely on the young and untrained to buy into it.
Unfortunately, for the believers in evolution it is now a religion. They take it on faith and rely on the young and untrained to buy into it.
S
Sharpee, go to google and look up the "Eve Gene." Now that they've mapped the genone they've discovered that every human now living descended from a single female. Christians said "yeah, we know," but scientists were kinda amazed. Remember, God created man in His image, and He is spirit, not body. Humans were separated from animals by being God-breathed. Unlike the other animals, we aren't governed by instinct, we have the ability to make moral choices. Evolution is like global warming...science corrupted to serve an agenda.
S
Sharpee...humans definitely have instincts, but we can operate against instincts through moral conviction. When an ant leaves a chemical trail to food for other ants it isn't doing it because it's a selfless "good" ant...it is programmed to do it. A man instinctually wants to "spread his seed," but can choose to be faithful and true to his mate. A woman instinctiviely wants to improve the nest for progeny, but can stay with a poor man out of love or commitment. Only man can be selfish or selfless.
Much better minds than ours have wrestled with and examined this issue for centuries. The science is fairly conclusive also. We've been conditioned to accept anthropomorphism (animals like people) but it's a foolish affectation and a symptom of a blessed and affluent society that has time to engage in the foolish, and an arrogance to think we control reality.
How do we know anything? How do you know what you know? What makes you trust what you choose to believe?
Much better minds than ours have wrestled with and examined this issue for centuries. The science is fairly conclusive also. We've been conditioned to accept anthropomorphism (animals like people) but it's a foolish affectation and a symptom of a blessed and affluent society that has time to engage in the foolish, and an arrogance to think we control reality.
How do we know anything? How do you know what you know? What makes you trust what you choose to believe?
S
I don't know if your last post was to me but of course we can agree to disagree. And thank you for a reasoned and reasonable response.
If a Christian believes evolution was the mechanism used by God, that is what they believe and I won't fault them for it. I personally think they are in error but so what? I have my reasons, they have theirs, and as long as the basic premise of a personal God, and Christ's sacrifice remains true they are my brothers and sisters in Christ. The apostle Paul talked about these issues of disputable matters and I wouldn't want to put a stumbling block in front of my brother just to be "right." We see things imperfectly and the human heart is deceitful. All we can trust is the Word made flesh and that is the glue that holds us together. Everything else is a fun discussion but not cause for alarm, particularly the stuff of science. Science has moved to the point where God is inferred, particularly in biologics and quantum physics. Most scientists now know this, but most aren't ready to be denounced and have the grants pulled, so they keep it to themselves. Read something from Dawkings or one of the other evolutionists and ask yourself this question: why do their explanations borrow so heavily from the language of purpose and design? Nature "tries" to do this, life is "encoded" (without an encoder, mind you) to do that...they have an impossible task. It was much easier until science caught up and passed quaint 19th century notions. Still, its all they teach and the quickest way for a teacher to get in trouble is to question the orthodoxy so why would I fault someone for incorporating something they've been inculcated to believe is a fact into their core belief system? Most people aren't comfortable shouting out that the emperor has no clothes.
If a Christian believes evolution was the mechanism used by God, that is what they believe and I won't fault them for it. I personally think they are in error but so what? I have my reasons, they have theirs, and as long as the basic premise of a personal God, and Christ's sacrifice remains true they are my brothers and sisters in Christ. The apostle Paul talked about these issues of disputable matters and I wouldn't want to put a stumbling block in front of my brother just to be "right." We see things imperfectly and the human heart is deceitful. All we can trust is the Word made flesh and that is the glue that holds us together. Everything else is a fun discussion but not cause for alarm, particularly the stuff of science. Science has moved to the point where God is inferred, particularly in biologics and quantum physics. Most scientists now know this, but most aren't ready to be denounced and have the grants pulled, so they keep it to themselves. Read something from Dawkings or one of the other evolutionists and ask yourself this question: why do their explanations borrow so heavily from the language of purpose and design? Nature "tries" to do this, life is "encoded" (without an encoder, mind you) to do that...they have an impossible task. It was much easier until science caught up and passed quaint 19th century notions. Still, its all they teach and the quickest way for a teacher to get in trouble is to question the orthodoxy so why would I fault someone for incorporating something they've been inculcated to believe is a fact into their core belief system? Most people aren't comfortable shouting out that the emperor has no clothes.
S
Ok i dont believe in evolution in the sense that scientists say we have evolved. But I do believe humans have evolved or a better word "adapted" we have gained knowledge and have changed to our climate and such. If you look back at archeology every generation of human is a little bit different, but that still coninsides with God creating us in his image and who he wants us to be.
V
Evolution as a species adapting-Yes
Evolution as an explanation for the variety of animals of the earth- No
Well, they CAN believe it, and while they'll be believing something that I see no reasonable explanation for, they still believe in God also and they're fine with me. Like dude above said, it makes for fun discussions (some unfortunately turning hateful), but God is God and he DOES exist, and I only have a problem with people using evolution as a way around God ~_o
Evolution as an explanation for the variety of animals of the earth- No
Well, they CAN believe it, and while they'll be believing something that I see no reasonable explanation for, they still believe in God also and they're fine with me. Like dude above said, it makes for fun discussions (some unfortunately turning hateful), but God is God and he DOES exist, and I only have a problem with people using evolution as a way around God ~_o
S
Sharpee, the bottom line in my opinion is this; you'll find wide disparity of opinions about evolution or a number of other topics among Christians. Ultimately for most Christians can accommodate evolution...certainly much better than an evolutionist could accommodate Christ. Despite the stereotypes, most of the Christians I meet are far better read and more thoughtful than most of the non-Christians I meet. I don't mean to imply a lack of intelligence on the part of non-Christians; it is simply a function of faith. We are called upon to seek understanding, not only of the Word but of Creation. Christianity drove science for centuries and the schism of recent times is really an anomaly. Christians seek truth as well as faith, and I for one am confident that truth and revelation will bear out Christianity. In fact, I find it enhances my faith to watch the hoops people will jump through to avoid the obvious conclusion, and how often the "smoking gun" becomes the wet firecracker.
If someone walks down the beach and finds an intricately carved sand castle and wants to wonder how many millions of years it took the wind and waves to create it, why should I argue with them? Let them deal with their own self-deceptions and when the come seeking they're ready.
If someone walks down the beach and finds an intricately carved sand castle and wants to wonder how many millions of years it took the wind and waves to create it, why should I argue with them? Let them deal with their own self-deceptions and when the come seeking they're ready.
V
I believe there is a president, and thus the conspiracy that the H1N1 vaccine contains something hidden by the government. The vaccine is necessary for this substance to be transported to the nation's people. The vaccine exists, therefore this strange substance is undoubtedly being transferred to everyone taking the vaccine.
Are you following my (and by "my" I mean "your") logic?
Another example. I have a quadrilateral. |====|. A square |=| is part of the group of quadrilaterals. My quadrilateral must be a square.
Point- Evolution requires adaptation, but adaptation does not necessarily prove evolution.
Also, you're missing a few important areas in the theory of evolution. There are a TON of possible points to hit on, but I'll just hit on these three for you to deal with ~_o
#1- The start of life, period. Sure, this has little to do with evolution, but it's still important if you're using evolution to promote atheism. Guess what- it's impossible. Scientists can't reproduce all of the pieces of life even if they're TRYING. The chances of it randomly happening are impossible.
#2- The beginning of multicellularity. Guess what- it's happened thrice. Once for the animal kingdom, once for the fungal kingdom, and once for the plant kingdom. guess what else- We can't explain how or why, and we can't reproduce it. The idea of symbiosis leading to multicellularity is laughable- It provides ZERO genetic evidence. It's like saying, "I shave my hair every day, and if my son does the same, and his son the same, ect. eventually we will grow no hair." How stupid is that?
#3- The beginning of sexual reproduction. Similar to the multicellularity case, but worse. When scientists explain it, they say "Sexual reproduction evolved to weed out mutations/increase variety or adaptability/ect." The problem is the word I bolded- Evolution evolves TO nothing. The way it is presented, it is 100% random, and does not work towards a visible "end point." It's either immediately useful or scrapped. Sexual reproduction has NO halfway points. There are certain organisms, mainly insects I think, that can produce both ways, but that's not a viable half-way point, because they are still 100% sexual also. Also, those are only found in the animal kingdom anyway ~_o
It makes no sense. There are phenomenal "chances" that have undoubtedly happened if evolution is a means of explaining the origins and variety of life. This isn't just a chance of 1/(10^20), which is the chance of life EVER originating EVER over billions of years to this point in time today, if chemicals were able to combine a billion times faster than they can already.
These impossible "chances" have occurred time after time. You know what this means? The chance of life today isn't 1/(10^20). The chance is 1/(10^20) TIMES 1/(so many trillion) TIMES 1/(blahblahblah), ect. It's completely insane to believe it ^_^
Are you following my (and by "my" I mean "your") logic?
Another example. I have a quadrilateral. |====|. A square |=| is part of the group of quadrilaterals. My quadrilateral must be a square.
Point- Evolution requires adaptation, but adaptation does not necessarily prove evolution.
Also, you're missing a few important areas in the theory of evolution. There are a TON of possible points to hit on, but I'll just hit on these three for you to deal with ~_o
#1- The start of life, period. Sure, this has little to do with evolution, but it's still important if you're using evolution to promote atheism. Guess what- it's impossible. Scientists can't reproduce all of the pieces of life even if they're TRYING. The chances of it randomly happening are impossible.
#2- The beginning of multicellularity. Guess what- it's happened thrice. Once for the animal kingdom, once for the fungal kingdom, and once for the plant kingdom. guess what else- We can't explain how or why, and we can't reproduce it. The idea of symbiosis leading to multicellularity is laughable- It provides ZERO genetic evidence. It's like saying, "I shave my hair every day, and if my son does the same, and his son the same, ect. eventually we will grow no hair." How stupid is that?
#3- The beginning of sexual reproduction. Similar to the multicellularity case, but worse. When scientists explain it, they say "Sexual reproduction evolved to weed out mutations/increase variety or adaptability/ect." The problem is the word I bolded- Evolution evolves TO nothing. The way it is presented, it is 100% random, and does not work towards a visible "end point." It's either immediately useful or scrapped. Sexual reproduction has NO halfway points. There are certain organisms, mainly insects I think, that can produce both ways, but that's not a viable half-way point, because they are still 100% sexual also. Also, those are only found in the animal kingdom anyway ~_o
It makes no sense. There are phenomenal "chances" that have undoubtedly happened if evolution is a means of explaining the origins and variety of life. This isn't just a chance of 1/(10^20), which is the chance of life EVER originating EVER over billions of years to this point in time today, if chemicals were able to combine a billion times faster than they can already.
These impossible "chances" have occurred time after time. You know what this means? The chance of life today isn't 1/(10^20). The chance is 1/(10^20) TIMES 1/(so many trillion) TIMES 1/(blahblahblah), ect. It's completely insane to believe it ^_^
V
As far as the actual chances thing, I forgot the exact numbers and where I got it, but it was some insane number like that, probably even bigger.
As for as the three points I made, the information is what evolution is taught as in the science books. In the books, it is taught as, in a simplistic way of putting it, the accumulation of mutations over time, some of which favor certain environments. Over time, a species will form adapted towards a certain environment. Over time, many species take different paths and become more diverse.
This is why I'm opposed to Christians spouting off that atheists believe we "came from monkeys." If you don't know anything, you should keep your mouth shut ~_o Evolution states simply that monkeys and humans had a common ancestor, and one mutated towards a human while one mutated towards a monkey. The implication is that both have evolved upwards, so the "missing link" would be less evolved than both a monkey AND a man, not a step between them ~_o
Anyway, go do some research on the origins of life, multicellularity, and sexual reproduction. There's actually little known info, and everything is purely guesswork, much of which ignores evolutionary law ^_^
As for as the three points I made, the information is what evolution is taught as in the science books. In the books, it is taught as, in a simplistic way of putting it, the accumulation of mutations over time, some of which favor certain environments. Over time, a species will form adapted towards a certain environment. Over time, many species take different paths and become more diverse.
This is why I'm opposed to Christians spouting off that atheists believe we "came from monkeys." If you don't know anything, you should keep your mouth shut ~_o Evolution states simply that monkeys and humans had a common ancestor, and one mutated towards a human while one mutated towards a monkey. The implication is that both have evolved upwards, so the "missing link" would be less evolved than both a monkey AND a man, not a step between them ~_o
Anyway, go do some research on the origins of life, multicellularity, and sexual reproduction. There's actually little known info, and everything is purely guesswork, much of which ignores evolutionary law ^_^
S
Adaptation is NOT evolution. Evolution is becoming a new species. An earthworm that over time becomes an elephant. Adaptation leaves a dog a dog, a horse a horse, a sheep a sheep. Whether they have more or less hair, different coloration to match different backgrounds, or any other adaptive mechanism, they remain the same species. In fact, the ability to adapt is already encoded in the genes, but trans-specieism ISN'T. Adaptive coding actually argues AGAINST evolution and more to creationism.