Simple question. Under the assumption that the Bible is true, should we Christians accept evolution as truth? If so, how should it fit in with our theology?
Remember, this is a religion discussion; there's another thread for the scientific aspect.
Is evolution compatible with religion?
Started by
arunma
, Nov 26 2004 11:06 PM
52 replies to this topic
#1
arunma
-
- Members
-
- 3,615 posts
Physics and math maniac
- Location:University of Minnesota
- Gender:Male
Posted 26 November 2004 - 11:06 PM
#2
GraniteJJ
-
- Members
-
- 807 posts
King of Scarcity
- Location:The Great White North
- Gender:Male
Posted 26 November 2004 - 11:09 PM
Under the assumption that the Bible is true, you should accept evolution under the certain circumstances:
1) Evolutionary advancements do not compromise the integrity of the religious belief.
2) The Bible isn't "re-read" to prove Christianity was right all along.
Otherwise, go nuts. Frankly, you cannot force Christians to accept or not accept something like evolution. There are some things the Bible strictly states as "dos and do nots". Evolution isn't really one of them, and is more of a judgement call of humanity. Since Christians are a huge group, tallying the votes of a "yay or nay" for evolution might be...how should I say this...stupid.
1) Evolutionary advancements do not compromise the integrity of the religious belief.
2) The Bible isn't "re-read" to prove Christianity was right all along.
Otherwise, go nuts. Frankly, you cannot force Christians to accept or not accept something like evolution. There are some things the Bible strictly states as "dos and do nots". Evolution isn't really one of them, and is more of a judgement call of humanity. Since Christians are a huge group, tallying the votes of a "yay or nay" for evolution might be...how should I say this...stupid.
#3
SteveT
-
- Members
-
- 5,060 posts
100% a Dick
- Gender:Male
Posted 26 November 2004 - 11:27 PM
True, but not necessarily accurate.
#4
Guest_Windmill_*
Guest_Windmill_*
-
- Guests
Posted 27 November 2004 - 01:48 AM
No. Contrary to popular belief, evolution does play with what the bible taught us is true. For evolution to work, that must mean the reath has been around for billions of years! The bible teaches something completley different to that.
#5
arunma
-
- Members
-
- 3,615 posts
Physics and math maniac
- Location:University of Minnesota
- Gender:Male
Posted 27 November 2004 - 12:08 PM
I assume you're getting this from the Old Testament geneologies. But consider this. New Testament geneologies are abbreviated, so why can't Old Testament geneologies be abbreviated too? If they are, then the Bible provides no evidence on the age of the earth.
#6
Alakhriveion
-
- Members
-
- 4,718 posts
Anyone who tells you chemistry is an exact science is overthinki
- Location:Connecticut
Posted 27 November 2004 - 01:28 PM
Yeah, and who's to say that a day before the sun was created is 24 hours?... and so on.
Anyway, if you're going to be literal about the Bible, then no. If you're willing to think at least looking outside the box, then yes.
Also, the topic does say religions, not Christianity, so in general, yes.
Anyway, if you're going to be literal about the Bible, then no. If you're willing to think at least looking outside the box, then yes.
Also, the topic does say religions, not Christianity, so in general, yes.
#7
arunma
-
- Members
-
- 3,615 posts
Physics and math maniac
- Location:University of Minnesota
- Gender:Male
Posted 27 November 2004 - 01:49 PM
Yeah, but I was specific by saying, "should we Christians accept evolution?" So ha!
But you can say stuff from a Jew perspective too.
And I guess Islamic, except I don't know how they write the creation story.
But you can say stuff from a Jew perspective too.
And I guess Islamic, except I don't know how they write the creation story.
#8
Guest_Windmill_*
Guest_Windmill_*
-
- Guests
Posted 27 November 2004 - 03:50 PM
*Is going to take the bible literaly* if you don't do that, then who's to say that stuff in the new testimant should be taken literley? Maybe jesus was just a figure of someones imagination!Yeah, and who's to say that a day before the sun was created is 24 hours?... and so on.
Anyway, if you're going to be literal about the Bible, then no. If you're willing to think at least looking outside the box, then yes.
Also, the topic does say religions, not Christianity, so in general, yes.
#9
Alakhriveion
-
- Members
-
- 4,718 posts
Anyone who tells you chemistry is an exact science is overthinki
- Location:Connecticut
Posted 27 November 2004 - 04:06 PM
It's a pretty long way from alegory to hallucination, man.
#10
Jasi
-
- Members
-
- 2,348 posts
Hooray for Zoidberg!
- Location:NYC
- Gender:Female
-
Posted 27 November 2004 - 04:16 PM
In relation to Christianity, I definitely think it's possible for evolution and creationism to somewhat coexist.
Evolution follows basically the same pattern as is laid out in Genesis 1.
It says somewhere in the Bible (couldn't give you a verse off the top of my head) that time in Heaven is not the same as our perception of time here on Earth. So what God saw as a day could in reality be billions of years, or whatever the time period was.
However, I don't believe that it was spontaneous. I believe that God was the one who created the first animals, and the one who initiated any evolving.
Evolution follows basically the same pattern as is laid out in Genesis 1.
It says somewhere in the Bible (couldn't give you a verse off the top of my head) that time in Heaven is not the same as our perception of time here on Earth. So what God saw as a day could in reality be billions of years, or whatever the time period was.
However, I don't believe that it was spontaneous. I believe that God was the one who created the first animals, and the one who initiated any evolving.
#11
Guest_Windmill_*
Guest_Windmill_*
-
- Guests
Posted 27 November 2004 - 04:36 PM
Now, there is actually evidence though AGAINST billions of years though!
And that doesn't make sense, because Galaxies wind themselves up too fast.
And that doesn't make sense, because Galaxies wind themselves up too fast.
#12
Alakhriveion
-
- Members
-
- 4,718 posts
Anyone who tells you chemistry is an exact science is overthinki
- Location:Connecticut
Posted 27 November 2004 - 04:38 PM
Care to support any of that, Windmill?
#13
Jasi
-
- Members
-
- 2,348 posts
Hooray for Zoidberg!
- Location:NYC
- Gender:Female
-
Posted 27 November 2004 - 04:39 PM
I'm sorry, I don't really understand anything you're saying.
Explain?
Explain?
#14
Guest_Windmill_*
Guest_Windmill_*
-
- Guests
Posted 27 November 2004 - 04:48 PM
Huh? Oh, okay, let me explain that.
(This is copied and pasted)
The stars of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, rotate about the galactic center with different speeds, the inner ones rotating faster than the outer ones. The observed rotation speeds are so fast that if our galaxy were more than a few hundred million years old, it would be a featureless disc of stars instead of its present spiral shape.1
Yet our galaxy is supposed to be at least 10 billion years old. Evolutionists call this ‘the winding-up dilemma’, which they have known about for fifty years. They have devised many theories to try to explain it, each one failing after a brief period of popularity. The same ‘winding-up’ dilemma also applies to other galaxies.
For the last few decades the favored attempt to resolve the dilemma has been a complex theory called ‘density waves’.1 The theory has conceptual problems, has to be arbitrarily and very finely tuned, and lately has been called into serious question by the Hubble Space Telescope’s discovery of very detailed spiral structure in the central hub of the ‘Whirlpool’ galaxy, M51
But you see, thats scientifical.
If you believe in evolution, what about how it says God created man in his own image?
(This is copied and pasted)
The stars of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, rotate about the galactic center with different speeds, the inner ones rotating faster than the outer ones. The observed rotation speeds are so fast that if our galaxy were more than a few hundred million years old, it would be a featureless disc of stars instead of its present spiral shape.1
Yet our galaxy is supposed to be at least 10 billion years old. Evolutionists call this ‘the winding-up dilemma’, which they have known about for fifty years. They have devised many theories to try to explain it, each one failing after a brief period of popularity. The same ‘winding-up’ dilemma also applies to other galaxies.
For the last few decades the favored attempt to resolve the dilemma has been a complex theory called ‘density waves’.1 The theory has conceptual problems, has to be arbitrarily and very finely tuned, and lately has been called into serious question by the Hubble Space Telescope’s discovery of very detailed spiral structure in the central hub of the ‘Whirlpool’ galaxy, M51
But you see, thats scientifical.
If you believe in evolution, what about how it says God created man in his own image?
#15
Alakhriveion
-
- Members
-
- 4,718 posts
Anyone who tells you chemistry is an exact science is overthinki
- Location:Connecticut
Posted 27 November 2004 - 05:14 PM
TO's response:
Spiral arms are density waves which, like sound in air, travel through the galaxy's disk causing a piling-up of stars and gas at the crests of the waves. In some galaxies, the central bulge reflects the wave, giving rise to a giant standing spiral wave with a uniform rotation rate and a lifetime of about one or two billion years. ...
The spiral pattern is energetically favorable. Spiral configurations develop spontaneously in computer simulations based on gravitational dynamics. [Carlberg et al. 1999]
#16
Guest_Windmill_*
Guest_Windmill_*
-
- Guests
Posted 27 November 2004 - 05:17 PM
*doesn't get it* whatever, move it over to the science one okay... I shouldn't have posted it probably, but I was just trying to show, 6 day creation fitted in with both science and the bible.
Listen, if you don't take 6-day creation literatley, do you take the flood literaley?
Listen, if you don't take 6-day creation literatley, do you take the flood literaley?
#17
Guest_Double_O_Zero_Ben_Bond_*
Guest_Double_O_Zero_Ben_Bond_*
-
- Guests
Posted 27 November 2004 - 08:57 PM
Bottom line is, you can't believe the bible and evolution, without disbelieving some bits of both, which really does neither of them ANY justice and makes them look well....... made up really.
#18
Doopliss
-
- Members
-
- 1,532 posts
Famicom
- Location:UK
- Gender:Male
-
Posted 27 November 2004 - 11:59 PM
Of course, as I'm sure you know, the evolution is caused by natural selection and variability, so I don't know how the Bible could be against it.
#19
arunma
-
- Members
-
- 3,615 posts
Physics and math maniac
- Location:University of Minnesota
- Gender:Male
Posted 28 November 2004 - 12:08 AM
Alak, I think there's a problem with the Talk Origins response. Now to be perfectly clear, I do not believe in young earth creationism (because I think the universe is over 10 billion years old). However, I recently learned in my classical mechanics class that the lowest energy configuration for any galaxy is an elliptical disk (my professor is a space physicist by the way, so he knows what he's talking about). That is to say, we can't explain why galaxies exist in spirals. If you picked up a galaxy and started shaking it, it would turn into an elliptical galaxy. Just goes to show you that someone must have created the universe, otherwise wcan't explain spiral galaxies.
But I'm pretty sure that spiral galaxies can be stable for quite awhile; I'm pretty sure there's another explanation for why they've lasted so long.
But I'm pretty sure that spiral galaxies can be stable for quite awhile; I'm pretty sure there's another explanation for why they've lasted so long.
#20
Guest_Windmill_*
Guest_Windmill_*
-
- Guests
Posted 28 November 2004 - 12:11 AM
Well, whatever, Bens right, if you believe in evolution, then you must also take out some bits in the bible.
It says that god rested on the 7th day... if thats true.... did he just randomly rest for like, millions and millions of years? How do you explain that?
It says that god rested on the 7th day... if thats true.... did he just randomly rest for like, millions and millions of years? How do you explain that?
#21
Doopliss
-
- Members
-
- 1,532 posts
Famicom
- Location:UK
- Gender:Male
-
Posted 28 November 2004 - 12:28 AM
Well, whatever, Bens right, if you believe in evolution, then you must also take out some bits in the bible.
It says that god rested on the 7th day... if thats true.... did he just randomly rest for like, millions and millions of years? How do you explain that?
Windmill, please pardon me, but it's ridiculous to interpret the Bible completely literally.
#23
arunma
-
- Members
-
- 3,615 posts
Physics and math maniac
- Location:University of Minnesota
- Gender:Male
Posted 28 November 2004 - 12:34 AM
Windmill, please pardon me, but it's ridiculous to interpret the Bible completely literally.
Define literally. If you mean "literal" in the same way that you literally read the post that I'm writing at this moment, then it's not so bad to interpret the Bible literally. Especially the New Testament.
Better yet, define Bible.
It says that god rested on the 7th day... if thats true.... did he just randomly rest for like, millions and millions of years? How do you explain that?
In Hebrew, to rest means to cease, as in a lawyer saying "I rest my case."
#24
Guest_Windmill_*
Guest_Windmill_*
-
- Guests
Posted 28 November 2004 - 12:40 AM
Edit: Okay, I actually re-answered to you Arunma down below in another post.
#25
Doopliss
-
- Members
-
- 1,532 posts
Famicom
- Location:UK
- Gender:Male
-
Posted 28 November 2004 - 12:43 AM
>_< why?
Then, should YOU throw rocks to the people who work in Savath Day?
Yes, I'm back, hahahahahaha! (Oops, sorry
.)
#26
Guest_Windmill_*
Guest_Windmill_*
-
- Guests
Posted 28 November 2004 - 12:48 AM
Okay, I have to point out, now, that doesn't answer my question at all. It only helps for my view to be correct.In Hebrew, to rest means to cease, as in a lawyer saying "I rest my case."
In other words, God did nothing on the seventh day. Thats what I said before-he rested-meaning he did nothing on the 7th day. You're just repeating what I said.
Now, what I'm saying is, did God do nothing for millions of years?
How do you explain adam and eve?
And, to answer your post above me, that law was done away with at the cross.... remember?
#27
Guest_Double_O_Zero_Ben_Bond_*
Guest_Double_O_Zero_Ben_Bond_*
-
- Guests
Posted 28 November 2004 - 01:58 AM
Windmill, please pardon me, but it's ridiculous to interpret the Bible completely literally.
Ha, you sound like somebody I know.... And taking the bible completely literally is what it was written for, simple enough..
#28
Guest_Windmill_*
Guest_Windmill_*
-
- Guests
Posted 28 November 2004 - 04:15 AM
yeah 
thats what I thought.... o_O ah well... the only parts that shouldn't be taken literally are the ones that make it clear (like revelation)
thats what I thought.... o_O ah well... the only parts that shouldn't be taken literally are the ones that make it clear (like revelation)
#29
Alakhriveion
-
- Members
-
- 4,718 posts
Anyone who tells you chemistry is an exact science is overthinki
- Location:Connecticut
Posted 28 November 2004 - 12:01 PM
OK, but mine was quite a few sentances shorter.Alak, I think there's a problem with the Talk Origins response. Now to be perfectly clear, I do not believe in young earth creationism (because I think the universe is over 10 billion years old). However, I recently learned in my classical mechanics class that the lowest energy configuration for any galaxy is an elliptical disk (my professor is a space physicist by the way, so he knows what he's talking about). That is to say, we can't explain why galaxies exist in spirals. If you picked up a galaxy and started shaking it, it would turn into an elliptical galaxy. Just goes to show you that someone must have created the universe, otherwise wcan't explain spiral galaxies.
But I'm pretty sure that spiral galaxies can be stable for quite awhile; I'm pretty sure there's another explanation for why they've lasted so long.
"Literal" as in, god made the world in a week, Moses raised his hands and smote the Amalawhatsits, and so on.Define literally. If you mean "literal" in the same way that you literally read the post that I'm writing at this moment, then it's not so bad to interpret the Bible literally. Especially the New Testament.
As a metaphor?How do you explain adam and eve?
#30
SteveT
-
- Members
-
- 5,060 posts
100% a Dick
- Gender:Male
Posted 28 November 2004 - 12:04 PM
The New Testament is also written as pure historical narrative or essay (depending on the book). It lacks the allegory and other literary devices of the Old Testament.Define literally. If you mean "literal" in the same way that you literally read the post that I'm writing at this moment, then it's not so bad to interpret the Bible literally. Especially the New Testament.
As a metaphor?
Allegory. Metaphors only really last for a sentence or two.
