Is there room for evolution and Christian belief? Where Christians can't deny the age of the planet, Evolutionist can't prove the jumps they believe in. As far as I know there is no mixed belief system out there but there seems to be people with this mixed belief. Thoughts?
Whenever I imagine the existence of God, I hardly think that creation is a static or even completed process. If God hadn't provided for chnage in animals, then it should be impossible that we could manipulate animals though breeding and genetics.
I don't think we talking about the same thing. Micro Evolution is fact, that is proven but as far as evolutionism, darwinism, the proof that we have evolved as every other animal in present times from a lower form of ourselves like "Lucy" is unfounded. Evolution will tell you that chimps, onobos, humans all evolved from "Lucy" however there is no physical proof other than genitic similarities in our genes. I think that God put in motion a system much like a clock. Something that once it was in motion it stayed in motion with out his contant hand on it. I think that it is foolish to think that there is no intelligent design behind creation since he complexities of it at every level could have only happened if all evolution happened at the same time at every level. Aside from that, darwinism is flawed in the fact that if we humans are evolved why are not bette adapted to the earth?
But the fact we can breed a great dane with a boxer isnt something to marvel at, after all you can have children wit someone from africa or asia can't you?
"Evolution will tell you that chimps, onobos, humans all evolved from "Lucy""
No, Lucy is an Australopithecus. She lived at least a million years after the human lineage split from the chimp/bonobo lineage, and probably more.
"I think that it is foolish to think that there is no intelligent design behind creation since he complexities of it at every level could have only happened if all evolution happened at the same time at every level."
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but this statement doesn't make sense to me because evolution didn't happen at the same time at every level and we know it didn't. If it had, there wouldn't be any fish or reptiles or amphibians left, let alone single celled organisms like bacteria.
I apologize for confusing you. I tend to let my mind go faster than my fingers and what I type tends to never look like what I had thought out. Maybe I can explain what I mean better with this example. Fruit flys are a favorite subject because of how short their life span is, science has tested them in almost every condition and though many mutations and variations occur they have always remained fruit flys. With their life span being nine days from egg to mature adult you would think that we would have been able to force a evolutionary jump. If you did constant testing for a 5 year period that would translate into 202 generations of flys. After two hundred generations for those fruit flys to still be untouched by evolutionary change or jump of any kind leaves me thinking that evolution is unfounded. I am having trouble finding the article I was reading about the change that would have to take place all at the same time for our ape ancestors to turn fom tree dwellers to land walkers but it was something along the lines of, inner ear change, the knee joint would have to change, hips and about 4 more things if I remember correctly. In order for there to be jumps in evolution multiple things would have to happen at once.
Besides that, the entre human evolution theory has always seemed backward to me. To think we went from being perfectly suited to the earth's environment to needing cloths, cooked meat and a varity of tools to survive suggests to me that we have de evolved not evolved. An evolution to better equip us with our surroundings would have been something like keeping our ape like adaptations to the world and growing intellectually.
It's puzzling to me that evolutionist such as Richard Dawkins even says that the evidence to evolution is in the genes....DNA yet there is no progression from one specie to another anywhere at all. If there was I would be inclined to say that evolution is the absolute truth.
We've seen microevolution in progress with fruit flies - mutations spreading throughout the population. However, it takes much more than a couple hundred generations to transition to a new species. The most recent common ancestor of humans and chimps is believed to have lived about 4-8 million years ago. If we say it's 4 million and a generation lasts 20-25 years, which is generous, that's still at least 160,000 to 200,000 generations. In between, admittedly, there were several intermediate species, but we are still talking about tens of thousands of generations each, at minimum.
I think that link must be god's....it doesn't work or doesn't exist!
Would that be the same Dr. Kent Hovind who got his degree from a diploma mill, is considered an embarrassment from young earth creationists and was also charged and convicted on all 58 counts of federal laws including tax evasion?
The funny thing about intelligent design is that it is just a euphamism for creationism. We continually have to change the names of things that develop negative connotations. And don't tell me it is a different way of looking at things all together, it has merely evoved from creationism. In fact we can breed them together and get simpicity. As far as the idea that all this complexity is impossible, without a creator, it just isn't a logical attack on the theory of evolution. It is mystical thinking, a cycle that begins with a lack of understanding and ends with an explanation involving some deity or another.
The premise of every anti-evolution argument that has ever been brought up me has been something in the order of, "can you possibly explain all this complexity, beauty, from the atom up to the stars?" Of course I cannot. I daren't blame the big bang or evolution, although these theories are just as tempting as religion must be. I cannot explain this becasue I am a rational human being who requires all information before I can offer a definitive answer to such a question.
I do enjoy thinking hypothetically, however. I think the bit about microevolution is a dodge, and clumsy as the complexity argument. You don't think that a snapshot of time, over the course of a billion years will resemble microevolution in some way. You seem to have a good enough imagination to believe in God, so you can imagine that over the long run, macroevolution would be a series of snapshots looking alot like microevolution?
If you mean creationism as in, "God created the world in seven days" Then no, I do not believe that and anyone with half a brain couldn't believe that either. I am happy to hear though you are too smart for the big bang since it would be the only explosion ever to have created more order than disorder. As far as religion goes please do not lump me into the mindless hill of bible thumpers who only know what their told and never read anything on their own.
As to you question.... "transspecific evolution is nothing but an extrapolation and magnification of the events that take place within populations and species...it is misleading to make a distinction between the causes of micro- and macroevolution” - Ernst Walter Mayr
Thanks for that quote. I apologize for attempting to lumping you. If you look at the seven day thing, one interesting idea I have heard about, from some escatoloist folks was that the act of creation is being done on God's time and has not ceased, the seventh day has not come yet. This idea about the end of the owrld is a bastardized blend of interpretation and funamentalism, but it does give some play to the idea of a seven-day creation timeline.
The teachings of Finis Jennings Dake in his book Gods Plan for Man talks about creation in a very different aspect. If I follow any man's teaching of the Bible it would be his at least some of his. Not everything. Anyway it is an interesting read. I highly recommened it!
I think there may be room for evolution and Christian belief to co-exist. However, it will never happen if each side believes they are right and the other side is entirely misguided and wrong. All parties have to sign on to the goal of finding common ground.
The debate that rages today between Intelligent Design and Evolution need not end in a draw if all parties agreed to search together for an alternate solution that supports elements on both sides. Opposing arguments might suddenly appear valid when viewed from another perspective. Sometimes, selling half a loaf is better then no sale at all. The lack of an explanation acceptable to both sides only leads deadlock. Yet, this doesn't have to be the case for those who are willing to admit that all the evidence may not have been discovered yet.
Perhaps, a long time ago, one extraordinary, unique and clever chimp abandoned the safety of the tree branches when she learned she could run much faster if her feet didn't have to chase after her knuckles. In this scenario, that could have been the day, with enormous pride in herself and her newfound skill, she stood erect before God who smiled down on her and said, "From this day forward, you will be called Man."
You know, this is the first time the question has ever been brought up, so I've never really considered it.
Thanks a lot! Now I'll be up all night
Man got evolved in millions of years as planned by the Creator God; there is no doubt about it.
Human beings did evolve; the truthful religion does not deny it; the Christians should admit it.
I am a pagan. But I agree with you. There are degrees of evolution or at least change within species, but no proof of species to species evolution.
My latest theory is that the Dinosaur die off of 65 million years ago was by water. If birds are dinosaurs they survived. And it might seem a lot of water dwelling species also survived like fish in the sea and crocks. Only the land based animals perished. Maybe the planet flipped over.
yes it does. It flips over every day, unless you see north as up, insetad of west.
Hi Quilligapher. I would suggest that basing a belief system on one of a thousand myths that were only copies of other myths may have a hard time when compared with hundreds of thousands of cross referenced theories based on oodles of information that is already proved up in support of evolution.
I suggest that evolution is proven to a very large degree on the back of many sciences that support the theories it is based on.
Unproven conjecture about what remains of a 4,000 year old nonsense myth is not theory of any sort, it is fantasy, a whole different deal with no viable data to support it's preposterous claims to "truth."
G’day, Earnest. Nice to see you. It has been a while.
It seems you decided I was trying to submit an augment favoring one of the sides. Sorry, but you are wrong. The thread topic reads “Is there room for evolution and Christian belief?” I suggested a strategy opposing positions could use to reach some level of agreement by searching together for elements acceptable to both and you reacted with arguments favoring Evolution. But, I thank you for demonstrating how difficult it is to agree on anything when proponents on one side believe they are right and the other side is entirely misguided and wrong.
I hope you are well, Earnest, and you are having a great day.
You are right of course my friend. I did decide that was the case.
I guess my short answer to the op is, no, one is valid scientific theory, the other is fantasy.
I am not a diplomat Quilligrapher, I read the data, stay up to date and call it as I see it.
I am well and enjoying a great day with my 3 grandchildren who are all home from school today, thank you for asking. I hope I find you in gentle circumstance as well.
Hello Earnest, I am greatly interested in reading the material you are saying is valid scientific theory. I have been reading Dawkins and some others and Dawkins seems to teeter on the edge of intelligent design via an alien specie that planted us here or an unknown starting point but he himself said that proof of evolution is mostly in genetic code. Now me being the dummy that I am have had a hard time trying to understand that meaning or literature that I could follow explaining it in common tongue to me. I have a hard time understanding how my blood links me to a ancestor of an unknown specific kind, ape kind presumed.
I have little time for Dawkins myself Quilligrapher.
Lawrence Krauss has done an excellent job of explaining it all in a series of lectures and speeches which are available in a full series of videos, and has a much better capacity to explain current theory in layman's terms than Dawkins.
There are also several excellent series on Discovery science and NatGeo TV.
Thank you! I forgo the bill for cable since it has commercials and I can't see the point in paying for t.v. if I have to watch the commercials that run the stations! But I will be looking on line. I will be you tubing and searching out Lawrence Krauss's work, Thanks!
I know what you mean about the commercials!
I watch all the car shows, NatGeoTV and discovery/science shows. The adds are long and frequent!
I have located the krauss videos before. They are easy to find, and can be watched in sequence.
No religious zealot will have ever seen them.
It would spoil their fun if they had enough grey matter still working to fathom what it all means without a fairy.
I am curious, do you believe that Christ exsisted? I'm not asking if you believe him to be the Messiah but just that he exsisted at all.
No, I do not think he existed, I think the story is a compilation of past jesuses from an historic archetype created back in the times of ra.
Being a jesus in the times of jesus was being the snake oil salesman of the times. Many other Messiahs of Jesus time are actually documented at the time they lived.
One has 50 statues discovered so far that you can see with your own eyes.
I believe it was a common way to earn the daily bread.
Have a story the superstitious mostly bone ignorant would believe and you got somewhere to sleep and food without doing any actual work.
The christian story won the raffle for who was the real son of god in an environment of political back-stabbing, at which the christians excelled.
I don't know, I think he had to at the very least exsisted. Time itself was split for his exsistence, Jews recongnize him to have been around, Muslims and of Christians as well. The entire western world was really founded the principles found in the bible only because of Jesus' exsistence right? I would think bar minimum there would have had to been a guy walking around the middle east 2000 years ago doing something worth note to survive the ages.
The part that is hard to come to with the jesus myth, is that he was probably the third to fifth in line for the title of "Son of god."
Apollonius of Tyana was a far more likely candidate, as he had upper class followers and had the title at one time as I recall.
According to the latest research used in documentaries I have seen (and can link to) there were many evangelicals around at the time, living off manipulating the great unwashed through their superstitions.
The jesus story itself is stolen from the jesus story that came before it and the one before that. Only the names got changed.
I sometimes wonder if the ancient storytellers, who made up the myth stories to satisfy the need of people to know the unknoweable, would be p!@@ing themselves with laughter at the dimwits who think their oral (and much much later) literary creations would be followed by so many sheeple as though they were true
Captain, to answer your original question: Yes!
Not only that, there is room for evolution as reality _and_ Christian truth.
I'm a Christian, but also a scientist. Contrary to what some skeptics "believe," this is not a contradiction. I believe in both Christianity and Evolution.
Some want to fuel conflict for their own selfish purposes, but some of us can see it for what it is and move beyond it.
As for the age of the planet, there are some Christians who are "biblical literalists." That's another name for "lazy." But this term, "lazy," can also be applied to some skeptics, too. Why? Because there is a great deal of truth in the Bible, plus hidden wisdom, but no one is going to find it if they think they have it already figured out before looking. That's just laziness. That's just human nature. Why look for anything else if they already know it all?
I'm not sure what you mean by "mixed belief system." Certainly there is no such thing as Evolutionary Christianity. There's "Christian Science," but that's something entirely different.
Truth is truth. The search for answers takes us toward "truth" in various subject areas including evolution and spirituality, but also physics, chemistry, mathematics, logic and more. The search for answers is not a "mixed belief system." It is simply a search that doesn't need prejudicial boundaries.
There seem to be three types of people. There are those who, because of their religious belief deny all of the evidence which proves that the universe is 15 billion years old, and that man has evolved from lower species.
Then there are the religious, who manage to merge their religious belief with the facts as presented by science.
Then there are those, for whom any attempt to merge the ideas is dishonest, because the facts of evolution go against religious belief.
It depends how much you need to believe. It is possible to be an atheist, who would like to believe in God, but evidence as it presents itself will never allow for this.
Personally, I am an atheist, who accepts the evidence of evolution and disagree with those who deny the real scientific evidence. However, I understand why they do so, because belief in God gives people a hope, which pure ahteism doesn't. People should be allowed though to believe as they see fit, and there should ideally be no anger towards people who have different views.
What? Where do you get the notion that atheism doesn't promote hope?
My son suffers from rheumatoid arthritis and says that he can't wait for death because his back won't hurt anymore. He is nine and it kills me to hear him say stuff like that. I think whether or not you have a faith in an after life or faith that this is all there is, death holds alot of hope for alot of people.
I believe there is a "god". But I also believe in evolution. I believe god created evolution as a mechanism of perpetuality. Just like weather is cyclic, so is reproduction. To tell 'yall the truth, I don't believe anything in the Bible as being true. I think the whole story is cosmetic and could be changed. What is important to me is the act of teaching forgiveness. The sermon on the mount, or the Beatitudes. I don't even think it matters if Jesus was a real person or not. It is the IDEA of someone like that which matters to me, although I don't go for all of the conversion stuff. Too many religions have a "It's my way or the highway" attitude to them, and ideally if everyone was converted it would be a boring world.
It's heartbreaking even to hear about the problems that your children are dealing with. All I can do is express my hope that Lupus and arthritis are cured with new medical breakthroughs very soon.
by thetruthhurts2009 9 years ago
Rules of this forum, no swearing, no straw men arguments and no FSM nonsense. Most importantly remember, Ridicule is not an argument. Enjoy. If want to continue to believe you come from a rocky soup. You can stop reading and leave now, but if you seek the truth you are most welcome to...
by Topaz 11 years ago
Here in this dilemma lays the full concept of the descriptive meaning of two little words, They are not nouns, but they should be," How or Who."Lets start with the "How" this goes all the way back to which came first the hen or the egg.The big bang theory leaves a lot to wonder...
by Alexander A. Villarasa 2 years ago
There I said it.....for if there is anything at all in the universe that could indirectly prove God's existence, the DNA is it.The Higgs-Boson particle may just be what scientist says it is, the basic unit of all that is material in the universe, but the DNA molecule in its sublime complexity...
by Alexander A. Villarasa 8 years ago
Creationists of all stripes (with their literalist view of the Bible) like to enunciate that Adam and Eve were created by God exactly in his own image. In tne process He imbued in them the concept of a unitarian God (one God and no other) as well as the aptitude to...
by Sherlock221b 5 years ago
Since joining HubPages, I have read the many evolution versus creationism and atheism versus religion debates. As an atheistic evolutionist, I have read what I considered to be the strange views of a religious minority, including beliefs in intelligent design and other forms of...
by Timothy Donnelly 7 years ago
There’s a link below for starters, folks.Watch it first, and then go on with your reckoning. It goes by the title: The Fossil Record, Dr. Don Patton, Ph.D. It can be be seen on YouTube.com at this address: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl … mmngKew5EE Happy hunting. I’ll check in...
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|