Neither the theory of evolution nor any other scientific theory is contradictory to belief in the Christian God or any other creator. The only contradiction I've seen is created by people who say they believe in and worship an all-powerful Creator God, but presume to bind Him by and to strict adherence to their particular interpretation of a few paragraphs that were written to relatively ignorant nomads, several thousand years ago.
You're equating science with wizards and sorcerers?
Contrary to your opinion, science is not a fixed set of beliefs, but is updated when new facts come to light.
Assuming that the bible is true (which I don't) one should always hold out the possibility that one's understanding of the bible is incomplete before trashing science. If the bible is the Word of God, wouldn't it necessarily agree with true science?
I guess it's more comfortable to unthinkingly and uncritically adhere to one's beliefs despite any evidence that they might be wrong, rather than actually THINK
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is
For anyone who is interested in this topic, I heartily recommend that you look over WWW.DRDINO.COM
We have some of their videos, wow. We really like them. This guy will travel to colleges and he does public debates. He seems to be very well informed and he spent a carrer as a public high school geology teacher, before he recieved his calling.
His videos cover many issues surrounding our changing earth, vanishing species, evolution, the seperation of church and state within the public schools.
Bless you, May our Heavenly Father bless you in everyway, in the wonderful name of His son and our brother Jesus.
Galen
ET1 SS - USN Retired,
Pilgrim of the Ancient Arabic Order Nobles of the mystic shrine.
and
'University of Life' Alumni
"I live in the spirit of prayer. I pray as I walk, when I lie down, and when I rise. And the answers are always coming. Tens of thousands of times have my prayers been answered. When once I am persuaded that a thing is right, I go on praying for it. the great point is never to give up till the answer comes. The great fault of the children of God is, they do not continue in prayer, they do not persevere. If they desire anything for God's glory, they should pray until they get it." - George Mueller
I hesitate to post here because I'm not into starting a war and these kinds of discussions frequently end up that way. However, I can't let this stuff go by because there's too much fallacy in a lot of it.
Many of you know of my love for science, particularly biology, and my strong science background. I have never spent any energy studying any "natural system" and not seen the Hand of God in it!
(1)Science never lies. Scientists have been known to manipulate stuff, but science always answers truthfully. And it doesn't matter if one explores living things, or non-living things. Whatever bad rap it has, is because of some trying to use "science" to prove their own ideas, or some scientists who have deliberately hidden "stuff" for fame or money.
(2)Charles Darwin was not wrong about what he wrote and the way he wrote it. His book The Origin of Species is a well thought out, logical and flawless explanation of exactly that, no more, no less.
Those who say he said "from ameoba to man" are wrong, he never said that...and he didn't believe it. That statement implies a linear progression from one to another and so on. There is nobody on the face of the earth who can prove or even demonstrate that there is truth in this statement.
(3) Charles Darwin was a brave man. What he did when publishing the Origin of Species took amazing bravery, and he was not well when it was published. What he proposed flew in the face of church at the time and we all know that "The Church" has always tried to retain control over men's thinking as a means of controlling them. "The Church" excommunicated and then executed one of the greatest astronomers of all time because he taught that the earth was not the center of the Universe by showing that the planets revolved around the sun, not the other way around.
(4)The Descent of Man was a totally separate book and a totally separate thesis which, he wrote under pressure of some of his peers. That book attempts to use the "Law" of Natural Selection to demonstrate the relationship between "the apes" and man. Darwin did not believe than man descended directly from the apes, but he did attempt to apply this theory anyway. He even explained in the preface (or maybe the foreward, I've forgotten what it was) that this was the case, and he even stated in there: "God forgive me if I am wrong"!
(5) "The Orogin of Species" and "The Descent of Man" are two separate books which he never intended to be put together. That was done by the book publishers "for the convenience of the reader" because the publishers thought they belonged together.
(6) The only reason any of Darwin's critics in his own time and shortly afterward gained any sympathy for their own cause was that Darwin could not explain how it might have happened. The answer was known, but not to him. The answer was in the work of Gregor Mendel who is the "Father of Genetics". Darwin never knew about cells and chromosomes...never looked in a microscope and did not know of the "Chromosome Theory of Heredity"[That idea was also one that "The Church" tried to squelch but they could never make anything against Gregor Mendel stick. He was a monk, no less...but they did have the last word when he died...as a monk. They took all his belongings and burned them in the courtyard of his monistary.]
Thank you for all your replies and web suggestions I will check them all out.
It's a sticky subject because I don't want to contradict the Bible. But at the same time I think that believing that this entire planet has only existed for 6,000years is to be in denial. That point made by Roy is exactly what I'm talking about; simple and basic science has , at the very least, proven that this earth is a heck of alot older than 6,000 years.
To be fair , Roy mad a good point about evolution. On day five God created the cells that eventually became animals. That makes more sense than thinking that on day 6 God created all animals, instantly and as we know them today. Believing it all happened in one day denies the ice age and dinosaurs.
I seem to remember TWI teaching that "something happened between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2."
1. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2. And the earth was without form and void.
Well how can the earth be without form AND void if it was created in verse 1? How can something that is created be without form and void.
Does anyone remember this? VPW added a word (isn't that a technique used by the serpent?) to make verse 2 :
2. THEN the earth was without for and void.
This implies that something happened between verse 1 and 2. VP clamed that this is when the war with Lucifer and his angels took place and God's creation was altered during this "war". The ice age and dinosaurs are what happened between verse 1 and 2.
Anyone buy this theory? I think it makes some sense, but also seems like a stretch. Seems like a way to defend the 7 day/6,000 year theory. Seems like a pseudo-theory "created" to justify Genesis, not an honest theory based on the scientific method, hypothesis and conjecture.
Becasue I am suspicious of all things Wierwille, his changes and theories start with me thinking they're probably wrong. I spent way to much of my life thinking everything he said was right. Now I'm just trying to make sense of it all.
A problem with every "creationist" site I've seen is that they misrepresent science, sometimes knowingly so. A problem with some "evolutionist" sites I've seen is that they come across as denigrating all religious faith.
I suggest you take a look at this site, Origins - Theistic Evolution. It seems to balance Christian faith with an honest look at science. A Google search would turn up similar sites, but I mention this one because it includes many links to material that may interest you.
Roy, I'm not totally new to this, haha. I understand that Lucifer's fall is accounted in Genesis 3 but does that mean that the chronology of the old testament is exact? Could Lucifer's fall not have taken place between verses 1 and 2 and then be accounted later?
Think about it. If the earth was without form and void after it was created it stands to reason that SOMETHING happened. The fact that that certain something isn't described before verse 2 doesn't mean it can't be tlked about later on in the Bible.
You're not gonna like this but the Bible has been translated, re written and hacked countless times.So the English version I own is probably not exactly and perfectly God breathed, if it ever even was. Don't you think that certain accounts, especially in the old testament, are (gasp) JUST stories meant to teach us life lessons. (for our learning, not to sound like VPW). I have a real hard time swallowing stories of people being eaten by giant fish, parting seas, creating life 6,000 years ago in 7 days and such. I have a hard time taking that stuff literally.
I think I wasn't clear in what I info I was looking for because we are way off the point here. People are suggesting google searches and telling me that God created Adam. haha. I am not searching for ultimate truths and am quite aware of the internet!
What I was looking for was J. Shoenheit's teachings. That's all I was really looking for. Not that I don't appreciate the replies. I was just looking for J.S.'s ideas. It's been a long while since he taught this stuff to me and I was 13. All I remember is he was an "expert" and had allegedly infallible arguments. he was supposed to be THE MAN when it came to this subject.
But while we're off point: Roy are you saying that God gave you this information directly?
GJ,"Does anyone remember this? VPW added a word (isn't that a technique used by the serpent?) to make verse 2 "
It was supposed to be that the word "to be" doesn't exist in - Hebrew, I think. So, the word "was" should have been translated "became" which does exist in the Hebrew. There is some reasoning behind the word being "became," but I forget it.
It was supposed to be the absence of light that made the whole thing without form and void. I can't even imagine what all this stuff would be like without light. Without form and void is the supposed answer whatever that is.
I ordinarily don't defend Wierwille, but you are mistaken about him guessing or him using "became" because it "fix best".
According to Bullinger, who is probably where Wierwille got his information, the verb "to be" does not exist in Hebrew, "was" is the past tense of the verb "to be". The Hebrew word hayah, translated "was", actually means "became" (I looked it up...just now)
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is
This, my friends, is a topic that I've studied for 20 years (hence the handle), and I must attest that both the creationists and evolutionists are right, and both are wrong. Evolution did occur, up to 11,000 BC, when the rules were rewritten by God. Creation is occur, not 6000 years ago as 2027 contends, but approximately 11,000 BC, which conforms exactly to the rise of homo sapiens sapiens in the world, and the die off of the large mammels (i.e. saber tooth tiger, giant sloth, etc.). Man is not descended from ape, but was created just as the Bible says, but before that, an anthromorph had evolved from ape to Neantherthal. Science, correctly evaluated, validates the Bible with tremendous accuracy. The problem of OT chronology is resolved and pushed back in time when you come to realize that the patriarchs were not for the most part father-to-son, but father-to-ancestor of next person in the royal lineage. When recalculated, Adam was made, formed and created in the year 10,856 B.C., exactly where science put it!!!
To the best of my recollection when I studied it...Digger has it correctly. However, I see no reason why the process of evolution via natural selection must be defunct. I believe it probably does happen, but at a rate of change that is too slow for us to detect over our lifetimes.
Plots - how refreshing to read what you wrote! I also think God is the "big banger", and believe he directed evolution until it was under control, and now, simply lurks. He gave man the ability to reason and expects us to use it without his interference. But that's another subject that, along with this one, belongs on the Doctrinal forum!
Hope R. color>size>face>
What a long, strange trip it's been!size>face>color>
Recommended Posts
LG
Neither the theory of evolution nor any other scientific theory is contradictory to belief in the Christian God or any other creator. The only contradiction I've seen is created by people who say they believe in and worship an all-powerful Creator God, but presume to bind Him by and to strict adherence to their particular interpretation of a few paragraphs that were written to relatively ignorant nomads, several thousand years ago.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Roy:
You're equating science with wizards and sorcerers?
Contrary to your opinion, science is not a fixed set of beliefs, but is updated when new facts come to light.
Assuming that the bible is true (which I don't) one should always hold out the possibility that one's understanding of the bible is incomplete before trashing science. If the bible is the Word of God, wouldn't it necessarily agree with true science?
I guess it's more comfortable to unthinkingly and uncritically adhere to one's beliefs despite any evidence that they might be wrong, rather than actually THINK
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."
(Aldous Huxley)
For more pithy witticisms and arguments somewhat contrary to Roy's, check out this site:
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/default.htm
geo.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Another great quote from that site:
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge..."
(Charles Darwin)
geo.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
For anyone who is interested in this topic, I heartily recommend that you look over WWW.DRDINO.COM
We have some of their videos, wow. We really like them. This guy will travel to colleges and he does public debates. He seems to be very well informed and he spent a carrer as a public high school geology teacher, before he recieved his calling.
His videos cover many issues surrounding our changing earth, vanishing species, evolution, the seperation of church and state within the public schools.
Bless you, May our Heavenly Father bless you in everyway, in the wonderful name of His son and our brother Jesus.
Galen
ET1 SS - USN Retired,
Pilgrim of the Ancient Arabic Order Nobles of the mystic shrine.
and
'University of Life' Alumni
"I live in the spirit of prayer. I pray as I walk, when I lie down, and when I rise. And the answers are always coming. Tens of thousands of times have my prayers been answered. When once I am persuaded that a thing is right, I go on praying for it. the great point is never to give up till the answer comes. The great fault of the children of God is, they do not continue in prayer, they do not persevere. If they desire anything for God's glory, they should pray until they get it." - George Mueller
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Outin88!
Hi Georgio,
I agree with most everything you wrote.
Schoenhiet did a very good 6 hour taped teaching on the subject of Creation vs Evolution, which can be ordered through CES.
But there are some other very good web sites which have a lot of scientific info on the subject. Here are a few I've visited;
Institute for Creation Research
http://www.icr.org/
Former Evolutionists who became Creation Scientists
http://www.creationists.org/switch.html
Center for Scientific Creation
http://www.creationscience.com/
Link to comment
Share on other sites
krys
I hesitate to post here because I'm not into starting a war and these kinds of discussions frequently end up that way. However, I can't let this stuff go by because there's too much fallacy in a lot of it.
Many of you know of my love for science, particularly biology, and my strong science background. I have never spent any energy studying any "natural system" and not seen the Hand of God in it!
(1)Science never lies. Scientists have been known to manipulate stuff, but science always answers truthfully. And it doesn't matter if one explores living things, or non-living things. Whatever bad rap it has, is because of some trying to use "science" to prove their own ideas, or some scientists who have deliberately hidden "stuff" for fame or money.
(2)Charles Darwin was not wrong about what he wrote and the way he wrote it. His book The Origin of Species is a well thought out, logical and flawless explanation of exactly that, no more, no less.
Those who say he said "from ameoba to man" are wrong, he never said that...and he didn't believe it. That statement implies a linear progression from one to another and so on. There is nobody on the face of the earth who can prove or even demonstrate that there is truth in this statement.
(3) Charles Darwin was a brave man. What he did when publishing the Origin of Species took amazing bravery, and he was not well when it was published. What he proposed flew in the face of church at the time and we all know that "The Church" has always tried to retain control over men's thinking as a means of controlling them. "The Church" excommunicated and then executed one of the greatest astronomers of all time because he taught that the earth was not the center of the Universe by showing that the planets revolved around the sun, not the other way around.
(4)The Descent of Man was a totally separate book and a totally separate thesis which, he wrote under pressure of some of his peers. That book attempts to use the "Law" of Natural Selection to demonstrate the relationship between "the apes" and man. Darwin did not believe than man descended directly from the apes, but he did attempt to apply this theory anyway. He even explained in the preface (or maybe the foreward, I've forgotten what it was) that this was the case, and he even stated in there: "God forgive me if I am wrong"!
(5) "The Orogin of Species" and "The Descent of Man" are two separate books which he never intended to be put together. That was done by the book publishers "for the convenience of the reader" because the publishers thought they belonged together.
(6) The only reason any of Darwin's critics in his own time and shortly afterward gained any sympathy for their own cause was that Darwin could not explain how it might have happened. The answer was known, but not to him. The answer was in the work of Gregor Mendel who is the "Father of Genetics". Darwin never knew about cells and chromosomes...never looked in a microscope and did not know of the "Chromosome Theory of Heredity"[That idea was also one that "The Church" tried to squelch but they could never make anything against Gregor Mendel stick. He was a monk, no less...but they did have the last word when he died...as a monk. They took all his belongings and burned them in the courtyard of his monistary.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
My favorite critique of evolution involves the evolution of evolution.
One can read it at:
http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/PA012.htm#n11
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Georgio Jessio
Thank you for all your replies and web suggestions I will check them all out.
It's a sticky subject because I don't want to contradict the Bible. But at the same time I think that believing that this entire planet has only existed for 6,000years is to be in denial. That point made by Roy is exactly what I'm talking about; simple and basic science has , at the very least, proven that this earth is a heck of alot older than 6,000 years.
To be fair , Roy mad a good point about evolution. On day five God created the cells that eventually became animals. That makes more sense than thinking that on day 6 God created all animals, instantly and as we know them today. Believing it all happened in one day denies the ice age and dinosaurs.
I seem to remember TWI teaching that "something happened between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2."
1. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2. And the earth was without form and void.
Well how can the earth be without form AND void if it was created in verse 1? How can something that is created be without form and void.
Does anyone remember this? VPW added a word (isn't that a technique used by the serpent?) to make verse 2 :
2. THEN the earth was without for and void.
This implies that something happened between verse 1 and 2. VP clamed that this is when the war with Lucifer and his angels took place and God's creation was altered during this "war". The ice age and dinosaurs are what happened between verse 1 and 2.
Anyone buy this theory? I think it makes some sense, but also seems like a stretch. Seems like a way to defend the 7 day/6,000 year theory. Seems like a pseudo-theory "created" to justify Genesis, not an honest theory based on the scientific method, hypothesis and conjecture.
Becasue I am suspicious of all things Wierwille, his changes and theories start with me thinking they're probably wrong. I spent way to much of my life thinking everything he said was right. Now I'm just trying to make sense of it all.
Glow-ry!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Georgio,
A problem with every "creationist" site I've seen is that they misrepresent science, sometimes knowingly so. A problem with some "evolutionist" sites I've seen is that they come across as denigrating all religious faith.
I suggest you take a look at this site, Origins - Theistic Evolution. It seems to balance Christian faith with an honest look at science. A Google search would turn up similar sites, but I mention this one because it includes many links to material that may interest you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Georgio Jessio
Roy, I'm not totally new to this, haha. I understand that Lucifer's fall is accounted in Genesis 3 but does that mean that the chronology of the old testament is exact? Could Lucifer's fall not have taken place between verses 1 and 2 and then be accounted later?
Think about it. If the earth was without form and void after it was created it stands to reason that SOMETHING happened. The fact that that certain something isn't described before verse 2 doesn't mean it can't be tlked about later on in the Bible.
You're not gonna like this but the Bible has been translated, re written and hacked countless times.So the English version I own is probably not exactly and perfectly God breathed, if it ever even was. Don't you think that certain accounts, especially in the old testament, are (gasp) JUST stories meant to teach us life lessons. (for our learning, not to sound like VPW). I have a real hard time swallowing stories of people being eaten by giant fish, parting seas, creating life 6,000 years ago in 7 days and such. I have a hard time taking that stuff literally.
uh oh, blasphemy!
Glow-ry!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chwester
There is much more scientific evidence "against" evolution than there is evidence "for" it.
The major propounders of this theory even admit that they accept it by "faith".
Evolutionists hate the idea of God so much that they made the decision to believe that monkeys turn into humans.
Proud to be an American
www.northpoint.org
www.anncoulter.org
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Georgio Jessio
I think I wasn't clear in what I info I was looking for because we are way off the point here. People are suggesting google searches and telling me that God created Adam. haha. I am not searching for ultimate truths and am quite aware of the internet!
What I was looking for was J. Shoenheit's teachings. That's all I was really looking for. Not that I don't appreciate the replies. I was just looking for J.S.'s ideas. It's been a long while since he taught this stuff to me and I was 13. All I remember is he was an "expert" and had allegedly infallible arguments. he was supposed to be THE MAN when it came to this subject.
But while we're off point: Roy are you saying that God gave you this information directly?
Glow-ry!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Georgio,
If you are looking for Schoenheit's teachings on this you can maybe get them from CES. Why not send him and email and ask him?
Jschoen777@aol.com
In looking at their web site, I found that they do have a Creation Vs Evoloution Seminar. Here is a link to the Syllabus.
Creation Evolution Seminar
Here is link to one of my favorite sites on this stuff.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/creation.html
Goey
"Most of my fondest memories in TWI never really happened"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Georgio Jessio
Great thank you Goey.
Roy: Alrighty then. Be careful who you tell that to. Like don't mention it at a job interview.
Thanks all!
Glow-ry!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
GJ,"Does anyone remember this? VPW added a word (isn't that a technique used by the serpent?) to make verse 2 "
It was supposed to be that the word "to be" doesn't exist in - Hebrew, I think. So, the word "was" should have been translated "became" which does exist in the Hebrew. There is some reasoning behind the word being "became," but I forget it.
It was supposed to be the absence of light that made the whole thing without form and void. I can't even imagine what all this stuff would be like without light. Without form and void is the supposed answer whatever that is.
Tom
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Roy:
I ordinarily don't defend Wierwille, but you are mistaken about him guessing or him using "became" because it "fix best".
According to Bullinger, who is probably where Wierwille got his information, the verb "to be" does not exist in Hebrew, "was" is the past tense of the verb "to be". The Hebrew word hayah, translated "was", actually means "became" (I looked it up...just now)
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Digger
This, my friends, is a topic that I've studied for 20 years (hence the handle), and I must attest that both the creationists and evolutionists are right, and both are wrong. Evolution did occur, up to 11,000 BC, when the rules were rewritten by God. Creation is occur, not 6000 years ago as 2027 contends, but approximately 11,000 BC, which conforms exactly to the rise of homo sapiens sapiens in the world, and the die off of the large mammels (i.e. saber tooth tiger, giant sloth, etc.). Man is not descended from ape, but was created just as the Bible says, but before that, an anthromorph had evolved from ape to Neantherthal. Science, correctly evaluated, validates the Bible with tremendous accuracy. The problem of OT chronology is resolved and pushed back in time when you come to realize that the patriarchs were not for the most part father-to-son, but father-to-ancestor of next person in the royal lineage. When recalculated, Adam was made, formed and created in the year 10,856 B.C., exactly where science put it!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Oakspear,
Any NIV Study Bible will confirm what you just wrote.
Raf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
krys
To the best of my recollection when I studied it...Digger has it correctly. However, I see no reason why the process of evolution via natural selection must be defunct. I believe it probably does happen, but at a rate of change that is too slow for us to detect over our lifetimes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hope R.
Plots - how refreshing to read what you wrote! I also think God is the "big banger", and believe he directed evolution until it was under control, and now, simply lurks. He gave man the ability to reason and expects us to use it without his interference. But that's another subject that, along with this one, belongs on the Doctrinal forum!
Hope R. color>size>face>
What a long, strange trip it's been!size>face>color>
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.