ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Believe Evolution And Christianity

Is theistic evolution compatible with Christianity?

Join Our Free Singles and Take The Evolution Bible Quiz
 ---jerry6593 on 3/21/10
     Helpful Blog Vote (2)

Post a New Blog



He did prove one thing, however. Even a pathetic, sociopathic loser can become famous.
---jerry6593 on 4/6/10

Made famous by same type of eventual loser, people as you describe him. They being weak, having no hope, mentally hook a fruitless hope on him.

Job 32:9
Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgment.
Job 35:11
Who teacheth us more than the beasts of the earth, and maketh us wiser than the fowls of heaven?
---Trav on 4/9/10


Warwick: "Jerry, as far as I know, in his scientific ignorance, Charles Darwin thought natural selection was the motivating force behind what I refer to as microbe-to-man-evolution. "

Exactly right! But my question is: Why do Christians today believe the exact same unscientific garbage, when there is so much REAL science readily available to them? I can only conclude that they are "willingly ignorant" (2 Pet 3:5).
---jerry6593 on 4/9/10


The term "theistic evolution" is an oxymoron & has nothing to do with Bible Christianity.
---Leon on 4/6/10


Jerry, as far as I know, in his scientific ignorance, Charles Darwin thought natural selection was the motivating force behind what I refer to as microbe-to-man-evolution. NeoDarwinism accepts that Charley was wrong and has added mutations into the pot. The idea being that natural selection plus mutations brought about totally new kinds of creatures. As we know they are both wrong, as time will tell.
---Warwick on 4/6/10


Peter,I believe Darwin didn't know enough science to know what was happening. He imagined some simple cell was the first living organism. Modern science has shown there is nothing simple about the 'simple' cell at all. Life is incredibly complex, far too complex to have come about by chance random processes. I read somewhere that the chemistry of a single cell is so complex that it would have to be enlarged to the size of a megga city for us to see its intricate workings!

I and my numerous scientist friends think that special creation by our creator God makes much more sense!
---Warwick on 4/6/10




Warwick: Darwin's version of natural selection (NS) was more than Mendell's. Darwin saw NS as an operating force capable of infusing new information into the genome by environmental forces (rehashed lamarckism). What he had in actuality was plain old dog breeding.

He did prove one thing, however. Even a pathetic, sociopathic loser can become famous.
---jerry6593 on 4/6/10


I would certainly agree with you, Warwick (we meet again).... It is (theoretically) possible that some changes could lead to something we could think of as so different that we might call it a different species, but in fact it would remain the same species, and so we have no evidence that natural selection creates a new species (let alone vertabrates from invertebrates, or animals from plants, etc) which seem ridiculous to me.
---peter3594 on 4/6/10


Also, having downloaded 'The origin of species', I not that in the introduction, Darwin does make the comment 'Natural Selection has been the main but not exclusive means of modification'. Note the NOT EXCLUSIVE part - I suspect Darwin also beleived there were things (chenges) too big to be accounted for by his own theory of natural selection, and was probably only using it for SMSALL changes. Could this be?
---peter3594 on 4/6/10


Jerry you have me a little confused. Natural selection is the situation when a physical force, such as climate, acts upon traits already in the genome, and 'selects' which creatures within a population will survive. For example if a region of average rainfall became arid then within a population some creatures will have genetic traits which confer survival value. Having survived they procreate whereas those not 'fit' to survive will decrease in number.

This does not assist microbe-to-man-evolution at all as no new genetic information is created. In fact it is a net loss.

I see no contradiction between your position and Donna's.
---Warwick on 4/5/10


jerry6593-- You are right. but in Origin of the Species he describes natural selection. The trouble is, many people mistake this for the idea that creatures can "evolve" from one specie to another.
Natural Selection doesn't address anything but changes WITHIN a specie....which, of course, are well documented.
---Donna66 on 4/5/10




Donna66: "What Darwin observed in the Galapagos was natural selection"

I beg to differ. What he observed was simple mendellian genetics, the bringing to the fore certain traits ALREADY in the genome. Just like breeding dogs.
---jerry6593 on 4/5/10


Earl - SORRY - I meant we do NOT have a disagreement here - the universe will end for sure, in a big mess. We only know that God will sort things out
---peter3594 on 4/3/10


Michael,
Correction here,I misread your post.you did say 5th day not 3rd day as I first thought.
---earl on 4/2/10


Michael,
But what do the 20 th.century scientists say?I read sponges are a transitional type not fully plant and not fully animal.one kind having animal characteristics greater than plant characteristics yet remaining a transition organism.
If you say transitions are impossible then how are animal and plant characteristics found in this organism when it is not either?
If animal characteristics are evident in sponge organisms then this organism clearly was not visible until the the fifth day of your creation peroids,not the third as you say.All plant life requiring the sun and photosynthesis activity did not exist until after the sun shined upon the earth,after day 4.
---earl on 4/2/10


Michael,p2,
It was not until the 5th. day that the seas was occupied with aquatic life-organisms not the third by your creation peroids as you stated.Sponges are not found anywhere except in ocean waters.
---earl on 4/2/10


Michael,
But what do the 20 th.century scientists say?I read sponges are a transitional type not fully plant and not fully animal.one kind having animal characteristics greater than plant characteristics yet remaining a transition organism.
If you say transitions are impossible then how are animal and plant characteristics found in this organism when it is not either?
If animal characteristics are evident in sponge organisms then this organism clearly was not visible until the the fifth day of your creation peroids,not the third as you say.All plant life requiring the sun and photosynthesis activity did not exist until after the sun shined upon the earth,after day 4.
---earl on 4/2/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Marriage


Michael,p2,
It was not until the 5th. day that the seas was occupied with aquatic life-organisms not the third by your creation peroids as you stated.Sponges are not found anywhere except in ocean waters.
---earl on 4/2/10


Sponge is an aquatic animal, thus being created on day 5 with the other sea creatures.
phylum porifera (sponges)
kingdom metazoa (animal)
They were classified as plant thru the 19th century, over a hunred years ago...
But it is a good question whether sea plants were made on day 3 or 5.
---MIchael on 4/2/10


Peter ,I disagree with your statement.Each generation of recorded history says life is becoming more unbearable.
Time to observe spirit progress is not on our side.An easy observation to see progress is the time we spend at the computer.It is leisure time.It is what men or women in an earlier age never had.
---earl on 4/2/10


Michael, I assume you are meaning what is more commonly reffereed to (recently) as the zeroeth law, not the third law (of thermodynamics). But that is not actually a barrier for any one creature - it only says that the universe itself can never 'improve', only go down - which it is doing.
---peter3594 on 4/2/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Debt Consolidation


Michael,
There is one currently living creature that is a result of transition is the sponge.At this time it is neither vegetable or animal .And you say the sponge is an impossibility?
On what day was the sponge created in the six day creation peroid you favor?
---earl on 4/1/10


Micheal -- Absolutely correct. What Darwin observed in the Galapagos was natural selection, that is, adaptations within a specie, (microevolution) He conceived the theory of Evolution (macroevolution) from there, but it has never been substantiated.
More important, as you say, is that according to the fundamentals of physics macroevolution is impossible.
---Donna66 on 4/1/10


transitional steps from one kind to another are impossible according to DNA and the third law of thermodynamics. Among the hundreds of kinds of animals, there has yet to be discovered or seen happen a transition.
---MIchael on 3/31/10


Theistic evolution is incompatible with christianity.
There are those who support,mainly christians,the genesis writer who states "after their kind".
There are those who support a form of evolution while being God conscious who recognize progressive "transitional steps" in development of species,man included.
The question, is transitions real and did occur as part of biologic history?
---earl on 3/31/10


Send a Free Thank You Ecard


jerry,
The catipillar metaphor.A catipillar must first live as a catipillar before becoming a butterfly.
Likewise must man live as a human before man may become immortal.
---earl on 3/31/10


earl: "We first must live in the embodiment of a catipillar." I think you have just achieved the transformation - from strange to totally whacked.
---jerry6593 on 3/30/10


Earl:

"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom" Proverbs 1:7.

"It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." Hebrews 10:31
---Warwick on 3/30/10


Earl, God's word is forever new, nothing to do with any human concept of the good old days. It never changes because He got it right the first time.
---Warwick on 3/30/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Refinancing


Earl, are you claiming God purposefully made Adam imperfect, but then said His creation was 'very good?' Wouldn't God's very good be far far above even our concept of good?
---Warwick on 3/30/10


The truth that God instructs us that he should not be feared is the beginning of wisdom.
---earl on 3/29/10


Michael,
If you do not have knowledge then how do you know how much brain power you have?
How do you test yourself?-with applied knowledge.
Jerry,
A & E was not alone in the world.Cain left his parents to find a wife .He went to Nod.
Warwick,
What I have discovered is that many like you say the old ways are best but I see no one leaving the net to get back to the good ol' days.
---earl on 3/29/10


Jerry,
All humans wear animal skins.But we ,with 'will' may consider spiritual thinking as our catipillar to butterfly transformation.We first must live in the embodiment of a catipillar.
---earl on 3/29/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Franchises


Many have become so soaked in evolutionary indoctrination they imagine we are more evolved and more intelligent than Adam, and those who followed. No evidence supports this view and much says otherwise.

Look at what people built, in the distant past, their literature, and their art-supreme intellect.

Today we are a physically and morally degenerate people who mostly have turned their backs upon God and pay the price for this. Our thinking is clouded and perverse. Consider the amazing fuss which is still being made because a golfer slept around. In that country more than a million unborn children are murdered each year, but there is no fuss! Yes we are so intelligent-not!

The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom.
---Warwick on 3/29/10


Michael,If Adam was made perfect -in the true sense and clarity of it's meaning then he would not have made any mistakes.
A perfect being does not make mistakes.
---earl on 3/29/10


earl -- .Unfortunately man did not have the brain power at that time to capture and preserve their images like we do today.
---earl on 3/28/10
In other words, they hadn't got around to inventing the camera yet. Who says they didn't have the "brain power" to do it?
---Donna66 on 3/29/10


Unfortunately man did not have the brain power at that time to capture and preserve their images like we do today.
---earl on 3/28/10
Brain power does not equal knowledge.
Adam did not have the knowledge to do alot of things, but he had the intelligence since he was made perfect on day 6.
Today we are imperfect, having more errors in our DNA every generation, thus descending not ascending.
Technology and knowledge on the other hand is ascending, increasing exponentially from improving previous inventions and discoveries through man's imagination.
---MIchael on 3/29/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Lead Generation


Simon, We evolved into what is classified as man.We are at present what God elected to create, a biped,bicranial,self conscious intelligence with 'will'...---earl on 3/28/10

God created Adam from the dust of the earth and He breathed life into Him. He created Adam and Eve in His own image (Genesis 1:27). Nowhere in the Bible do we get told of a being that evolved into Adam. Whilst we have no images of Adam and Eve, how much "evolving" could be done in such a short space of time and when have we ever seen a gain in "information"?
---simon7348 on 3/29/10


earl: "I have never observed any animal that worships God."

Good point! That could explain why 'atheist' considers himself to be an animal.

But that is off the point. The undeniable fact is that you are the son of your father, who was the son of your grandfather, who was the son of your great-grandfather, etc, etc. Thus, if you go back far enough, you were DESCENDED either from Adam - the first man - or from some brute beast. The important question for us all is: Which are we descended from? 'Atheist' thinks he came from some brute beast. How about you?
---jerry6593 on 3/29/10


Atheist the terms animal, vegetable or mineral, like animal clasifications are a convenient human construction. We are not limited by them. They could change next week.

I am not an animal, not descended from any animal. I am a human, created in the image of God who loved me (and you) so much He came as a man and died that we all (not any animals) would accept He died in our place, payng the due pemalty of our sin, that we may be forgiven, saved, and inherit eternal life.

Being enamoured of animals I none the less see the uncrossable gulf between them and we.

It is no wonder that so many humans behave like animals, convinced they are descended from them.
---Warwick on 3/28/10


Simon,p2,
Capturing images and preserving them in 'their time' was at best with the use of stone and chisel,or paint techniques.I believe A & E surely knew the best preservation methods to capture images of themselves or others,even records of their physical description in their 'time'but they either do not exist, did not survive,destroyed or have yet to be discovered.Later on artistic images was abolished by the hebrew Mosaic law.Regardless of appearance man is known as man when the image of God is inside him.Only man posesses the want to worship , wisdom from it and the image of God.
---earl on 3/28/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Mortgages


Simon,
We evolved into what is classified as man.We are at present what God elected to create,
a biped,bicranial,self conscious intelligence with 'will'.Animals, by comparrison,do not have self consciousness-if an animal looks into a mirror they will only see another animal.
And,a self conscious will creature who is capable and has capacity of becoming God conscious.God conscious people worship God.
It would be interesting to see what changes will come but man's life span is normally under 100 yrs..It would be interesting to see what Adam and Eve clearly looked like and compare that to ourselves today.Unfortunately man did not have the brain power at that time to capture and preserve their images like we do today.
---earl on 3/28/10


Simon, First usage of Ascend -to move upward as in evolving from a lower state to a higher state.Second usage of ascend-man is capable of deciding to take the next eternal step upward.

Oh so it's our decision about taking the next step upwards... It's all clear now. You believe that we are evolving into "higher state" creatures (despite the moral depravity around us) Romans 8:28-30, Ephesians 1:4-14. Whilst we still accept His offer of Grace, we are incapable of taking that step without Him.
---simon7348 on 3/27/10


Jerry,
As I said there is a difference between animal and man.We may think of an animal as having some degree of intelligence but an animal cannot manipulate it's enviroment like building a fire but an animal can adapt to it ,curl up beside the fire to keep warm.
However, how many times have you and I said to ourselves that someone we observe is acting like an animal.Therefore the animal nature remains within us all- the "beast" within.
I have never observed any animal that worships God.
There is no external influence seen whereby a biologic form like man is influenced to be spirit like.So it is an influence within which animals do not have as man does.
Is to worship God intelligent wisdom?
---earl on 3/27/10


Jerry,

I take it that you do not consider yourself to be an animal.

Therefore you must not be 'living' or you must be a plant.

Again you have managed to confuse me.

Neither of these remaining two options make any sense.
---atheist on 3/27/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Personal Loans


earl: Darwin published a book in 1871 called "The DESCENT of Man." Thought you'd like to know. BTW, do you consider yourself an animal - albeit an intellegent one?
---jerry6593 on 3/27/10


Simon,
First usage of Ascend -to move upward as in evolving from a lower state to a higher state.Second usage of ascend-man is capable of deciding to take the next eternal step upward.
---earl on 3/26/10


jerry,your fourth word in your previous post was evolution...discarding his animal -carnal nature.---earl on 3/26/10

From where do you get proof of "pre-man"? The Bible doesn't talk of "pre-man" but of Adam who was created and God breathed life into him. And the other animals were created just days before so hardly time for "millions of years of evolution". We "ascend" because of the gift of grace. We are incapable of ascending ourselves in such a way (it sounds more like Eastern mysticism). The "ascension" accorded by grace is in the individual's life and does not affect ancestors through genes else our faith would depend directly on our parents, not the work of the Holy Spirit.
---simon7348 on 3/26/10


jerry,your fourth word in your previous post was evolution.Evolution invites the term ascention into play.But it is true we are descendants of ancestors belonging to the species called man but not pre man for pre man was unable to worship or have wisdom.
Man is capable to ascend even higher than he is now in status.From animal nature to spiritual status and discarding his animal -carnal nature.
---earl on 3/26/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Auto Insurance


earl: In context, you are a DECENDANT of your parents, grandparents, etc. - not an ASCENDANT. Can you honestly look around you and conclude that the moral nature of mankind is improving? If, as you claim, God injected himself into us at some point in our 'evolution', at just what point did that injection occur? When we were still ape-like, after we became bipedal, when we were slime, or ???? What is your justification for this theory, and does it bother you that it contradicts the biblical account?
---jerry6593 on 3/26/10


Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul.
---MIchael on 3/25/10


compatable?God made adam,God made eve from adams rib,read the story in genesis.
---tom2 on 3/26/10


Jerry,
Your last statement-"beyond this if man is indeed descended from animals,then he is himself an animal and cannot be expected to exhibit moral nature".
Man has not descended but ascended -progressively from prior animal origin.Man's beginnings was when he began to worship and have wisdom ,that an animal cannot do.Once ascended to where worship and wisdom is functioning then man's evolutional status becomes a new classification -man.True,man retains much of his animal nature and if it were not for God who placed himself in him/us he would not exhibit or progress in moral nature.Man seeks out the manner of spirit within himself to become like that spirit.
---earl on 3/25/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Holidays


My biggest objection to evolution is that it would rob us of our noble heritage. Even theistic evolution admits that the creation of man came from lower life forms and proceded by naturalistic random accidents rather than by the personal intervention of God.

The Bible traces man's noble ancestry all the way back to God, as:

Luk 3:38 .... which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

The ancestry of man according to evolutionists is:

.... which was the son of a slime worm, which was the son of an amoeba, which was the son of ?????

Beyond this, if man is indeed descended from animals, then he is himself an animal, and can not be expected to exhibit a moral nature.
---jerry6593 on 3/25/10


I agree Eloy, and am confident Atheist would also. Evolution needs no God or gods and our God needs no time for evolution. The very term theistic evolution is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms.
---Warwick on 3/24/10


There is no such thing as theistic evolution.
---Eloy on 3/24/10


Leon: I love that commercial, and no, I'm not offended at all by a little word play at my expense. Anyone with skin that thin should not blog here.
---jerry6593 on 3/24/10


Except that not everyone will know that commercial (although I know Elmer I did misread it as "Jew"ey). Afterall I'm not in the US! I don't think it should be about thickness of skin unless a warning is put on the page you sign-up as there are helpful people and people come for help or guidance. I know most of us try to be loving and point to God/the Bible with appropriate humour but sometimes we make mistakes (which is perhaps what I'd attribute this one to). What I'd call an honest mistake!
---simon7348 on 3/24/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Health Insurance


Leon: I love that commercial, and no, I'm not offended at all by a little word play at my expense. Anyone with skin that thin should not blog here.
---jerry6593 on 3/24/10


No Atheist, I accept the truth of God's word. My opinion is irrelevant. God's word says death is the consequence of Adam's sin. See:Romans 5:12,14, 6:23, 1 Corinthians 15: 21, 22.

Very clear. Only those who reinterpret Scripture via changing cultural beliefs see it otherwise.

"If one is disinclined to surrender to God, one is inclined to read the text in the light of our own culture

Are we submitting to the picture of God in Scripture? Or are we putting ourselves over Scripture and rewriting it in terms of our own preferences?"

Kenneth Matthews, Old Testament scholar at Alabamas Samford University, Time 4th November, 1996, p.79. Genesis Reconsidered , commenting on Genesis chapters 1-11
---Warwick on 3/23/10


Cluny I am well aware that you 'play' (and that is the operative word), by your own rules. Therefore any Scripture/s which contradict your man-made ideas are ignored. See Romans 5: 12, 14, 6:23, 1 Corinthians 15: 21, 22.

See also Romans ch. 8: and you will see Paul says that Adam's sin has affected the whole of creation, which 'groans' because of it.

As pointed out before, and ignored because of necessity, man's sin also brought about the death of untold numbers of animals in Noah's flood.

Give me a Scripture which says death (of animals or man) was in the world before Adam's sin.
---Warwick on 3/23/10


Warwick,

"Therefore belief in theistic evolution undermines the only historical basis of the only historical gospel, because it places the death of humans before sin. This is in direct contradiction of God's word."

Therefore any idea that contradicts you particular interpretation of what you consider to be the historical gospel, must be wrong because it further contradicts you interpretation of "God's word".

It is that simple.
---atheist on 3/23/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Dating


Genesis 3:17b cursed [is] the ground for thy sake, in sorrow shalt thou eat [of] it all the days of thy life,
Rom 8:22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
Again, How much time elapsed from God pronouncing it 'very good' and the fall?
Did animals even have time to die before the fall?
---MIchael on 3/23/10


\\Cluny, in reality it is you who is assuming that Adam's sin only brought human death. I know of no Scripture which supposts your view.\\

And I know of no scripture which supports YOUR view.

Please give me a Scripture that says that death of animals and plants was the result of the fall of mankind.

However, Sola Scriptura is NOT the rule that I am bound by, so I don't have to play according to that rule.
---Cluny on 3/23/10


Friendly, those who propose God created in 6-days for example, understand this from what God has written in both OT and NT. This is therefore not assumption or human opinion.

Conversely those who say God created in some way not mentioned in Scripture, are ignoring Scripture, making assumptions.

I also do not find conflict between God's word and empirical science. I do however reject microbe-to-man-evolution as it is a belief which cannot be scientifically proven.

Further it is contradicted by God's word. And God being the only witness alone knows what actually happened, and has told us.

Man, apart from the Bible knows nothing of the beginnings as he was not there to witness it.
---Warwick on 3/23/10


Cluny, in reality it is you who is assuming that Adam's sin only brought human death. I know of no Scripture which supposts your view.

Consider the fact that it was human sin which caused the death of untold animals in Noah's flood.

Also in evolutionary terms (whether atheistic or theistic evolution) the fossil record is considered to be a history of life and death for billions of years. In this record (in their terms, long before Adam appeared) there are numerous fossils of dead humans. Therefore belief in theistic evolution undermines the only historical basis of the only historical gospel, because it places the death of humans before sin. This is in direct contradiction of God's word.
---Warwick on 3/22/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Health Treatments


ger.toshav: I don't know where you're at in the world. However, I assure you my remarks weren't intended to be anti-semitism. God forbid! In hindsight, I can see how you'd come to that conclusion based on how I spelled Jerry's name. I was just poking fun at him. If you're not in the U.S., there's a tv commercial here for GEICO car insurance. In the commercial, the cartoon character Elmer Fudd is reputed for having an impossible time pronouncing the letter R. The question asked in the commercial is as I stated, but not the letter Q. My point is E. Fudd doesn't have a hard time with Q, but as most Americans know he has a bad time with R. In short, I was saying NO to Jerry's question. :)

Sorry if I offended you or anyone else on the blog.
---Leon on 3/22/10


I have never found a conflict between science and God creating the Universe...
Are you talking about empirical, repeatable science? I'd agree, but historical theoretical science is different.
Just because it did not happen according to your favourite Bible story...
Favourite Bible story? So you don't believe the Bible in its fullness?
We just have too many people on ChristiaNet that try to keep the magnitude of the creation... ...conform literally to their favourite Bible tribal story.---Friendly_Blogger
We have too many people trying to fit the Biblical account into their evolutionary theoretical thinking. Where do you get the "tribal" idea from? "Creationism" is Biblical.
---simon7348 on 3/22/10


Leon, enough with the sarcasm and anti-semitism. Thanks.
---ger.toshav on 3/22/10


Cluny, I refer to Genesis 1:31 - 31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning the sixth day.

If there was pain, death and suffering of animals or humans prior to this then God sees that as good...? I'm sorry, but as much as I know I cannot "box" God up into how I want to view Him, I do not see how you can believe that He views any form of death as "very good" because following your theory (and that of any long-ager) you would expect death in God's perfection. Search for "Cosmic death in Romans 8 pdf" on Yahoo and read the top answer from the BibleArchaeology website...
---simon7348 on 3/22/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Affiliate Program


I have never found a conflict between science and God creating the Universe and all that it contains.

Just because it did not happen according to your favorite Bible story dose not mean God did not start the process.

We just have too many people on ChristiaNet that try to keep the magnitude of the creation ability of almighty God in their personal little box and and believe all creation must must conform literally to their favorite Bible tribal story.
---Friendly_Blogger on 3/22/10


Evolution and Creation have opposing chronological steps.
Evolution says Universe, Stars, Sun/Light, Earth, Moon, Water/Atmosphere, Plants, Water animals, Land animals, Flight, Man.
Creation says Universe, Earth/Water, Light, Atmosphere, Plants, Sun, Moon, Stars, Water animals, Flight, Land animals, Man.
One must be true and the other false because any change in a theory would make the original false.
The same can be said for other 'beginnings' theories, One must be true, the others false.
I wonder how many times the evolution theory has changed whereas creation has remained unchanged.
Also, according to evolution, new classes are still being created whereas God finished His creation and pronounced it 'very good'.
---MIchael on 3/22/10


\\Ger.toshav, the issue is that if evolution is a proven fact then God's word is wrong, and is therefore not God's word.\\

This is a false dichotomy.

Next, it's nothing but an a priori assumption to say that there was NO death before Adam's fall. The "death" that entered the word was the death of mankind, not other species.
---Cluny on 3/22/10


Ger.toshav, the issue is that if evolution is a proven fact then God's word is wrong, and is therefore not God's word.

Secondly theistic evolution is somewhat of an oxymoron as evolution is a belief which needs no God, and Christianity is faith in God who speaks and creation happens, who needs no evolution. He needs no long-ages to achieve His creation and has clearly told us so.

Also, and most importantly, in the theistic evolution belief, death was in the world before Adam sinned. However the gospel is based upon the historical reality that death is the result of Adam's sin.
---Warwick on 3/22/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Abortion Facts


Does Elmer Fudd have trouble with the letter "Q" Jewwy?!

An infinite numbew of light yeaws fwom being compatible with Chwistianity, Theistic evolution (TE) teaches God isn't the omnipotent Lowd or all things, whose WORD has to be taken sewiously by all men. The TE theowy subtly intergwates God into the biological evolutionawy mold. To the contwawy, the Bible teaches GOD "SPOKE" evewything into existence.
---Leon on 3/21/10


I really don't quite understand why belief or disbelief in evolution is at issue.
---ger.toshav on 3/21/10


Oh?

Are we arguing about theistic evolution (which the Bible teaches) and its compatibility with Christianity for a change?
---Cluny on 3/21/10


Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.