A question for whoever wants to answer

[Caleb Freeman]

   I was just wondering how people can believe in evolution and the God of the Bible?  it doesn't line up.  I know many Christians who agree with me.  And I know some people say that if God chose to use evolution and it glorifies him then how awesome is that?

 

I also consider evolution unscientific.  Even skeptics question it.  And for Christians and those who are interested in the Bible, it isn't biblical either.

 

Let me know what you think.

[Bob]

Please read my answer to Sky's question. As to the Bible; why are you
so preoccupied with a collection of writings, edited and re-edited,
with all it's errors of fact and errors of copying over 2000 years?

My computer isn't biblical but it still exists and serves me fine.

[Tervicz]

Because they can set apart "science" and believes. Another way they
can look at evolution is "God created life and this is how he did it."
While those who don't believe in deities just look at it as the way
life came to take its present shape.

[Spy]

It still doesn't work if you try to use the Bible too as some do.
It doesn't say that God created life but that he created the heavens
and the earth and everything in them. I am really wanting to see how
they can fit together and I don't think it can logically be done.

Even if People don't believe in God, it doesn't make sense for life to
come from non-life.

[Vincent Kemme]

I am a catholic christian and biology teacher and I have studied a bit
in the matter. My view is, that evolution is a scientifical theory,
and nothing more than that. There is no hard proof and the theory has
many flaws. I don't have to be a christian to come to this conclusion:
during my biology sties in Utrecht, the Netherlands (www.uu.nl) my
professor in evolutionary biology admitted that the theory has more
uncertainties than certainties. We just don't know very wel what
happenend, from a scientifical point of view, and is is hard to find
evidence for a lot of evolutionary hypothesis, and most of the time
practically impossible. For instance: there is no way in proving
scientifically that men evolved from a common ancestor that we would
have with the apes. It is only supposed by many 'believers' in
evolution. And even the idea that species would have evolved from
other species is not proven. It is mere speculation. From a
scientifical point of view, I have no problem with speculation, on the
condition that speculation is not being presented aks factual
information. This happens often and it is not scientifical.

From a religious point of view, there is no doubt in my mind that God
exists. I relate to Hem every day of my life and I have had to many
experiences of his existence and his personal love for me and for all
people, as well as for the entire creation, that I don't find it
reasonable anymore to doubt his existence. And if He exists, I can't
think of Him otherwise that of the first cause of all existence as we
know it, and also of it's final goal. The history of philosophy has
often affirmed this existence of God, although it has been denied
also. But there is also the history of revelation, written down by
especially Jews and Christians throughout the ages, with compelling
testimonies of God's action in history and in the lives of nations and
individual groups of people. In the center of this written account is
the bible. So there is much evidence that God exists, although it is
nod scientifical evidence, because God is not a thing or an energy
that we can measure; He goes beyond our level of perception and
reasoning. He is the cause of things and the intelligence 'par
excellence' after which we have been created. He is God and we are
'only' humans. As intelligent, self conscientious species, we are made
after his image, in the science that we have the personal characters
of God: a free will, the ability to think about life and about
ourselves, intelligent communication and abstraction, to love and to
relate to other people, and even to God by prayer and spiritual life.

When you have to confront this belief, which is rather a certainty
then a speculatiuon, with evolutionary biology, their are a few things
that come to my mind:
- it is not certain that we should interpret the first chapters of the
bible in a very literal way, as if it is a factual historical account
of the things that happened at the beginning of time, in six days as
we know our days by now. It is also not certain that these creation
accounts have no historical value at all and are mere poems or song
texts for liturgical use by the jewish people. The latter is more or
less certain: these are texts that were used in a liturgical
context,so for worship; and not in a sort of scientific context. But I
don't agree in evacuating any historical, factual, meaning of the
texts. But biological science dates from about the end of the middle
ages, and these texts may be a thousand years older that biological
science. So it is not evident that we would have to interpret them
literally, as if the bible is a biology handbook.
- when we consider God as a creator, it comes to my mind that God is
beyond time and space, and not made up of matter or energy. Theology
and philosophy make a clear distinction between the transcendental
reality (the reality of God and 'the things of God like heaven,
angles, etc). and the immanent reality (the cosmos, time, space,
matter, energy, biological life, human life). And is is clear from
scriptural thought thought that God gives to his creation a certain
independence in development. Normally, God does not intervene in
creation, because creation is good enough to go its way according to
natural laws that guide it. This is the wisdom by which creation is
made, according to the psalm, number 104. This relative independence
leads in the end to the human race, that is free to choose, in every
day life, but also in its relationship with its creator. We are, for
instance, free to believe or not. And to act morally good or bad. God
has great confidence in his creation, and also a lot of patience with
us: He does not fall from heaven in anger when I forget about Him for
a while. He respects our freedom. On the other hand, creation depends
on God in its existence. If God would only for one second not love us
and all universe, it would sort of collapse into non-existence. So
from a theological point of view, as well as from certain
philosophical stand points, it is evident that God is the creator, and
THAT the world in which we live is created by one transcendent,
personal and loving God.
- A whole other question is HOW EXACTLY God did it. One thin is
certain: he did it 'ex nihilo', 'from out of nothing'. This is
confirmed by revelation (the bible), philosophical thought and by the
big bang theory, or at least not with spoken by science. What happened
afterwards is object of further studies. Exegetical studies: how do we
have to interpret the biblical accounts for creation, what historical
value to attribute to them; and from a scientific point of view:
cosmology, geological history, posihle explanations for bioldiversity
and it's coming into being on earth.
- From a philosophical point of view, it is impossible to think of
reality, both divine and earthly as having more then one truth. If
truth is trugh, then, eventially, there can only be one, that includes
many truths that only apparently may contradict, beca-sue of wrong
assumptions of conclusions by men. So if there seams to be
contradiction between evolutionary theory and creational beliefs,
their must be something wrong in one of them or in both. Maybe we
think of God as a sort of technical engineer that made up molecules.
This is not the case, because God is not a natural cause, but a
supernatural cause of existence. Maybe we think of evolution as a
automatic process where their is no God needed. Then we are in the
field of atheistic evolutionary thought, which is not any longer
biological thought, but a philosophical or even theological
assumption. And it is even more difficult to proof the non-existence
of God then to prove evolution.
- So the best thing in my mind is to met theological thought and
biological evolutionary thought develop and let them try to relate to
each other, without confusion between transcendental an natural causes
for life. The intermediate level of thought between biology and
theology ios philosophy, and it is important to be very careful in not
mixing things up. The philosophical enterprise in these questions must
be of a very high quality.

Conlusion
- their is not real contradiction between Christian, biblical thought
on creation, their are only paradoxes; things that seem to be in
contradiction: they need further thought and examination.
- evolution is only a theory, very popular for the moment, and maybe
true, but we don't know; and it denies in no way the idea of a
personal loving God, creator of heaven and earth, supernatural cause
of our existence.
- so believing is God is reasonable, because their is a lot of
historical, facti-ual evidence for his existence and is love;
believing in evolution is acceptable as far as we realize ourselves
that many question remain unanswered. So I personally would advise
people to simply say: I don(t know whether evolution took place.
Maybe.

Vincent Kemme

On 28 mrt, 18:21, "Caleb Freeman" <chesspeace...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Tervicz]

That's just a matter of chemistry, an interaction of atoms. And unlike
some claim chemistry is anything but inanimate. Sodium or potassium
touching water or the interaction of sulphur, nitrogen and carbon
(=gunpowder) show fireworks are possible. And nature does have its own
chemical labs such as underwater volcanoes where gasses from deep
within the Earth find interaction with the salty seawater. The core of
life is self-replication, molecules making copies of themselves. Well
actually it's two molecules and one is replicating the other. You
might only need one set of these molecules to get life started.

[Caleb Freeman]

   I agree with much of what you said.  I wonder though what freedom of development means though unless you are just talking about microevolution.  It is clear that things breed and result in mixed breeding, but a dog will always be a dog.  we do have free will given to us by God, but that has nothing to do with physical development.  I do think that Darwinian evolution clearly contradicts the Bible though.  That would mean death before sin which goes against Romans 5:12.  That means God didn't create everything.  That means that there is no need for a personal loving God.  I take the six day creation literally but do believe that some things that are important to evolutionary theory do occur like plate techtonics and climate change.  SO there is a balance. 

[Caleb Freeman]

   You can't assume that life started that way.  It has been attempted to prove in a lab that life can come from non-life, but they have not succeeded.  It is assumed that this happens by some, but I don't believe it.  Scientifically, things go from order to chaos.  It doesn't make sense that life would come from non-life because there is order and greater complexity in life.  And if life did come from non-life then it would start smalll and get more complex.  This further contradicts the fact that things go from order to chaos.  Instead, you would be going from simple and what may seem primative, to something that many say appears to be designed even if they won't admit it.  There are other scientific reasons that I believe in design, but I'll leave it at that for now.

[godsadoptedson]

Please read my answer to Sky's question. As to the Bible; why are you
so preoccupied with a collection of writings, edited and re-edited,
with all it's errors of fact and errors of copying over 2000 years?

You say that the Bible has been rewritten over and over again and
there are errors in the text..What are some of your favorites? Please
I would like to know.

My computer isn't biblical but it still exists and serves me fine.

Interesting statement.

[godsadoptedson]

On Apr 29, 1:26 am, "Caleb Freeman" <chesspeace...@gmail.com> wrote:
>    You can't assume that life started that way.  It has been attempted to
> prove in a lab that life can come from non-life, but they have not
> succeeded.  

Science will never succeed in creating life. Science will only ever
succeed in moving life from one point to another.

It is assumed that this happens by some, but I don't believe
> it.  Scientifically, things go from order to chaos.  It doesn't make sense
> that life would come from non-life because there is order and greater
> complexity in life.  And if life did come from non-life then it would start
> smalll and get more complex.  This further contradicts the fact that things
> go from order to chaos.  Instead, you would be going from simple and what
> may seem primative, to something that many say appears to be designed even
> if they won't admit it.  There are other scientific reasons that I believe
> in design, but I'll leave it at that for now.

In order for life or anything for that matter to come from nothing it
has to be acted on by some type of outside force. For example. If we
were to clean out a garage and shut the door after creating a vacume
and come back in a millon years we would for the most part have an
empty room except for the dust. If we came back in 20 millon years we
would still have dust just more of it.

[Tervicz]

Why would complexity suggest order? If you look at the great diversity
of lifeforms on this planet, from the tiniest little virus up to
humpback whales. That is a form of chaos. It's not a total chaos, but
a synchronised chaos governed by laws of nature. If you would try to
make a map of what eats what covering all species on earth for
instance, then you'll get chaos. Complexity and chaos are very near to
each other if they're not the same thing. If you take a notion of all
the chemical processes in every single cell of your body at one
particular second of your lifetime, will you see complexity or chaos?
If you'd look at the room of a teenager after a week home alone, is
the room complex or chaotic? A desk with all sorts of paperwork on top
may seem chaotic to you, but the user may say its complex and find
whatever you need on it. Which shows more order: the moon with its
spherical shape or an asteroid with a complex shape? Order means
uniformity, simplicity, not complexity.

[Spy]

I kind of see what you're getting at. If things just randomlly
came together then there would be no systems. Cells work like little
machines with many parts and could not have just evolved into what
they are. Without all of their parts they would not be able to
function. They are so designed that it is impossible for me to deny
and it has convinced some people. That's really all I mean by it. If
things happened randomly then there should not be systems and there
are systems all over in nature.

[Tervicz]

Things do not happen randomly in evolution. However there are a
multitude of factors that come into play as life develops on this
world, such as the composition of our atmosphere, climate,
temperature, sources of energy, predation... And all these factors are
dealt with or otherwise the life form goes extinct. And these
multitude of solutions to these factors result in complex life forms.
Life forms are all about chemistry. Chemicals are reproduced and react
to other chemicals they come into contact with. And the lifeforms we
see are simply the result of this process, filtered by a process of
natural selection which properties which allow survival survive and
are passed on to evolve further. And the complex systems of our cells
allow us to survive and are passed on accordingly.
I'll put in another perspective. The Jumbo jet, impossible to put
together randomly you might say. But how did this complex machine come
to be? First they had to comprehend the laws of aerodynamics, folding
up a piece of paper to make it glide. Then they made a wing which
allowed pioneers to glide in the air for a few seconds to a minute.
Then someone came up with he engine and it was put into the glider to
make the first aircraft. The engines improved, the jet engine was
invented. Aircraft were differentiated for civilian and military
purposes. Treats and inventions that worked were picked up and
developed and in the end the jumbo jet was developed as part of this
process of development. Evolution does the same thing, treats are
picked up and developed but it's not a man-made process and a lot more
factors are influencing it than for instance human aviation industry.

[Caleb Freeman]

   There may be factors eventually, but at the very beginning, where do you supose everythig came from?  If there was nothing to start then there were no factors.  Whatever came first evolved without all of the factors.  And since something can't come from nothing, It had to be God anyway and while he was at it he might as well have just created everything like the Bible says.  Here is another problem with evolution.  As complex as systems are, they need all of their parts.  For example, if the Giraffe evolved it would have died out a long time ago.  Our embreos have gills which we don't need as grown humans.  Things don't evolve for later use, they evolve when they are needed.  the Giraffe has a long neck so when it bends down to drink the blood should rush to the brain and it should explode.  It was designed with a special system that prevents this of course but this is one animal that could not have evolved.  Here is another example.  There is a kind of fish that travels in schools with one female and the rest male.  What happens when the female dies?  A male fish becomes female.  The first time there was no female I wonder how long it would have taken to figure out how to solve the problem.  Probably too long and another species would have died out.  Many things and in my opinion nothing could have evolved to what it currently is.

   And the question you can never logically with science answer is where did life come from?  Life can't come from non-life so evolution alone doesn't work.

[Tervicz]

On 26 mei, 17:10, "Caleb Freeman" <chesspeace...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There may be factors eventually, but at the very beginning, where do you
> supose everythig came from? If there was nothing to start then there were
> no factors. Whatever came first evolved without all of the factors.

Life on this planet always had factors. Gravity, chemical composition
of both oceans and atmosphere, what our sun does... And the first
factor was life's own chemical composition. Life always had factors,
more factors came into play as life developed leading to more complex
life, which again allow more factors come into play to be dealt with.

> And since something can't come from nothing, It had to be God anyway and while
> he was at it he might as well have just created everything like the Bible
> says.

That's your assumption. The simple matter is we don't know what came
before everything, this universe, started. There may very well have
been something before everything started, but was it a big magician or
simply another universe preceding this one? We don't know. As long as
we have no way of looking beyond the big bang it's pretty the theory
of the universe being the result of the actions of a mythological
creature is just one of many possibilities.

>Here is another problem with evolution. As complex as systems are,
> they need all of their parts. For example, if the Giraffe evolved it would
> have died out a long time ago. Our embreos have gills which we don't need
> as grown humans. Things don't evolve for later use, they evolve when they
> are needed. the Giraffe has a long neck so when it bends down to drink the
> blood should rush to the brain and it should explode. It was designed with
> a special system that prevents this of course but this is one animal that
> could not have evolved.

If you'd loose your appendix, you would still be able to live on and
survive. Donate a kidney, lose a finger, an eye, a toe... A lion loses
a part of its tale, it may still live. This is just an assumption that
lifeforms need all their parts, there is a lot of junk they don't
really need, but as they don't hinder their survival they stay. They
may be of use even as organisms can convert these spare parts into new
parts to deal with new factors along their evolution. Gills for
instance were needed for extracting oxygen from the water. As our
ancestors moved onto land these gills were no longer needed, but found
a new use in detecting air vibrations and were converted in the ears
we have today. The giraffe? It just evolved like all the others. The
systems it has to deal with its length were simply passed on from its
ancestors, converted, amplified, refined... There are many ways of
surviving and the giraffe simply exploits one of them.

> Here is another example. There is a kind of fish that travels in schools with one female and the rest male. What happens
> when the female dies? A male fish becomes female. The first time there was
> no female I wonder how long it would have taken to figure out how to solve
> the problem. Probably too long and another species would have died out.

The ancestor species was able to alter its gender, a property which
helped it survive. Then as evolution formed the new species, it
adapted this particular behaviour, which again allowed it to survive.

> Many things and in my opinion nothing could have evolved to what it
> currently is.
> And the question you can never logically with science answer is where did
> life come from? Life can't come from non-life so evolution alone doesn't
> work.

Life is about chemistry. Atoms combine into molecules and these
molecules have properties. Some molecules have the property of
reproducing other molecules. That's what's happening to all life. It's
being reproduced. An imperfect reproduction, which allows for
diversification and flexibility to cope with new factors.

[Stonethatbleeds]

It is like speaking to brick wall. They do not learn or even make
effort to learn and just repeat the lies set into them by false
leaders that also did not learn and did not read the teaching in any
other light than the light of GREED AND VANITY!
Does God make any such claims? No!
God makes no such claims as to...
Been older than the Universe
Made the Universe
God never claims the creation story of the Bible as from himself!

GOD DOES TEACH...
the form and ways of the garden of Eden
The logic of thre ark
the shape of the land of the ark as land of JOB
The ways of SOLOMON and his people that had no money but got all they
needed for each and all.
The teachings of Jesus himself as example
The shape of the Church/city of Simon Peter

now they think they can pass Simon Peter in the Bible yet by the book
of ACTS such people are to drop dead and be vomited out by god for not
following him and clinging to lies about him as well as refusing to
enter the true city church and leave at the feet of God 100%.... they
think God is the puppet slave that will give them flesh after flesh
and life after life as it is the only thing they think it is about....
they know not repent or even how to repent but they do know how to lie
for God that needs no liars to protect him or silly man made stories
about him exagerated to the extreme as only foolish low in wisdom men
can do.

God is real but the levels of God they want is not real and the
rewards they want for not being or doing the right thing shall not
come as they record not the life they live as it is to prove the waste
in the time ofd plenty.
God is sad to see them like that in the pit of fools.