# How should a Christian scientist deal with evolutionary theory?



## appalacian_trapper (Dec 4, 2006)

I'm not looking to start a debate here, but just looking for the opinions of some like minded folks. First let me tell you a little about myself. As a grown man, I've recently returned to college to study fisheries management. I remember back in high school they didn't spend much time teaching on evolution. Probably just the bare minimum required by the board of education. In fact one of my science teachers was a minister. In college evolution is taught as the law. Pick up any zoology, ichthyology, or entomology book and you'll see what I mean. We really aren't given any choice to agree or disagree with it when our grades are on the line. So far my own personal defense has been my faith, to be content not knowing everything. I realize creation is not dated in the bible. I consider the possibility some of gods creation may have adapted (or have been changed by God), or maybe the slight differences and variations were intentional from the beginning. Just the same, studying this stuff every day does bother me at times. Have any of you been in a similar situation?


----------



## 60Grit (Dec 4, 2006)

The recordings of the Bible are not a theory, evolution is, it's as simple as that.


----------



## j_seph (Dec 4, 2006)

*Maybe this will help some*

http://www.biblechronology.com/chrono06.htm

Also I agree w/ scooter1
What the bible says is the truth.
You can only believe one or the other.
Good luck


----------



## No. GA. Mt. Man (Dec 4, 2006)

I don't believe a word of Evolution but I have never saw an Evolution thread on here that didn't have a zillion posts with both sides saying the same things over and over and no minds changed.


----------



## swashmore (Dec 4, 2006)

*check out this site*

http://www.reasons.org/


----------



## DCHunter (Dec 4, 2006)

Whether God created the world literally in 6 days or 4 billion years really doesn't have any bearing on our spiritual lives today in my opinion. Just worry about where you're going and not we're you came from.


----------



## Tn_Extreme (Dec 4, 2006)

DChunter,

Oh never mind.


----------



## FX Jenkins (Dec 5, 2006)

When you use the scientific method, it actually takes more faith to accept the big bang theory and evolution, that it does to believe in creation...

Read Case for Faith by Lee Stroble Chap. 3


----------



## DCHunter (Dec 5, 2006)

Tn_Extreme said:


> DChunter,
> 
> Oh never mind.


----------



## Phil (Dec 5, 2006)

I am a Chemist/Scientist, and Christian.

I believe the Bible's rendition of a 6 day creation is no different than any other history handed down from generation to generation....the story itself "evolves" each time it is told.

In addition, we all know that those with the "knowledge", whether it be a wise man, a Shaumin (sp?), a spiritual leaders, etc, relayed the essence of a story/history/tale/parable in terms that the uneducated could best understand the message....sometimes that meant sugar coating or "simplifying" the story so all could understand.

In my opinion, the message we are meant to learn is that God created the the Heavens and the earth,, etc....regardless of how long it took.


----------



## DCHunter (Dec 5, 2006)

Phil said:


> I am a Chemist/Scientist, and Christian.
> 
> I believe the Bible's rendition of a 6 day creation is no different than any other history handed down from generation to generation....the story itself "evolves" each time it is told.
> 
> ...



Yep, you can seperate the Bible into 2 parts. The first and last parts of the Bible are accounts of events given to a man who was not a witness to the events. Most of the middle are eyewitness accounts. Most of us accept that the last part (Revelations) is symbolism that is told in such a way to where we understand it. I don't understand why the creation story can't be the same. I'm not saying I know for sure whether or not it was symbolism. But I think the point is that GOD created the universe and that it's silly to argue over exactly how it was done.


----------



## Trooper Bob (Dec 5, 2006)

How do dead chemicals become a living cell?
Evolutionary theory suggests that first one cell animals would evolve to two, three etc.  Why are there no two cell or three cell animals.  Plenty of one cell animals.  Next in line have thousands of cells.


----------



## DCHunter (Dec 5, 2006)

Trooper Bob said:


> How do dead chemicals become a living cell?
> Evolutionary theory suggests that first one cell animals would evolve to two, three etc.  Why are there no two cell or three cell animals.  Plenty of one cell animals.  Next in line have thousands of cells.



God is smart fellow.


----------



## toddboucher (Dec 5, 2006)

I think www.answers.org has alot of information.


----------



## addictedtodeer (Dec 5, 2006)

The biggest problem with evolution and the Bible is the issue of death.For Evolution to occur death is a must. 
This totally contradicts the doctrine of the Bible, specifically Romans 5:12.
This verse clearly links death as a result of sin.
If evolution as a whole or theistically is believed then death cannot be linked to sin.Then we have a huge problem because Christ only died for sin and not death; therefore, death is not conquered.
For Christ to accomplish his mission sin and death must be linked and death must come after sin (man talk about overpopulation of the species if evolution was involved!).  If death is not linked to sin then the Bible lies and if it lies it can not be beleived(MAY IT NEVER BE!). As a Christian that settles it for me, my faith comes first science which is merely man's (and we are a fallen fallible creation)observation of the known comes second. 

The other problem I have is evolution is a theory created by a fallible creation.  We have to say that this theory trumps everything.  I don't know about you all but just how many perfect things has this human race created?  Everything has a flaw in it that we touch, because we are not perfect. We are always correcting our mistakes.

I'm teaching evolution right now in a Christian school and man, the holes in this theory are HUGE.
Check out darwinrefuted.com (as far as I can tell it is not a Christian site, but man it blows up the current theories on evolution)

Just my opinion (worth about oh not much)


----------



## SouthOfTheMasonDixon (Dec 5, 2006)

addictedtodeer said:


> The biggest problem with evolution and the Bible is the issue of death.For Evolution to occur death is a must.
> This totally contradicts the doctrine of the Bible, specifically Romans 5:12.
> This verse clearly links death as a result of sin.


Everything dies.  It must then follow from your argument that plants, non-human animals and even single-cell organisms are also sinners, punished for their sins by death.



addictedtodeer said:


> Check out darwinrefuted.com (as far as I can tell it is not a Christian site, but man it blows up the current theories on evolution)


The front page quotes The Bible and the author is listed as an "Evangelist" _before_ "Author & Speaker."  In addition, according to the text at the top of the front page, the author is "Available for seminars, debates, youth groups, church meetings on topics of Creation vs. Evolution and general Christian Apologetics."  I don't see how this could be seen as anything other than a Christian site.


----------



## SouthOfTheMasonDixon (Dec 5, 2006)

OK, I just listened to the entire 14 minute interview on www.DarwinRefuted.com and the author says _nothing_ to explain why evolution is not true other than it's not true because, well . . . uh . . . _it's not true!_  Tautology is a pretty pathetic way to attempt to make an argument.  I'd read what he has to say but his site offers that interview clip and _nothing else_.  That's just sad.


----------



## DCHunter (Dec 6, 2006)

addictedtodeer said:


> The biggest problem with evolution and the Bible is the issue of death.For Evolution to occur death is a must.
> This totally contradicts the doctrine of the Bible, specifically Romans 5:12.
> This verse clearly links death as a result of sin.
> If evolution as a whole or theistically is believed then death cannot be linked to sin.Then we have a huge problem because Christ only died for sin and not death; therefore, death is not conquered.
> ...



I assumed "death" to mean spiritual death. As in going to wordydirtywordydirtywordydirtywordydirty. We try to understand everything in the physical sense although God is a spiritual being. We're created in God's image, not in a physical sense, but in the sense that he gave us a soul.

On the other point, I think it actually just shows how perfect Gods creation is that he makes it in such a way that it takes care of itself like a wind-up toy, always adapting to whatever changes may come about.


----------



## addictedtodeer (Dec 6, 2006)

Sorry it wasn't Darwinrefuted.com it is Darwinismrefuted.com.  It is a religious site, just not Christian its muslim.


----------



## 60Grit (Dec 7, 2006)

SouthOfTheMasonDixon said:


> OK, I just listened to the entire 14 minute interview on www.DarwinRefuted.com and the author says _nothing_ to explain why evolution is not true other than it's not true because, well . . . uh . . . _it's not true!_ Tautology is a pretty pathetic way to attempt to make an argument. I'd read what he has to say but his site offers that interview clip and _nothing else_. That's just sad.


 

UHHH, I'm really not trying to be rude here dude, but if everyone were to adopt your lifestyle, I think the theory of evolution would be disproven pretty quick.

In a generation or so, we would all be gone. God gave the command to go forth, be fruitful and multiply, not Darwin. Without complimentary reproductive companions, multiplication just doesn't work. Or at least it hasn't over the last couple of thousand years.

So much for genetic adaptation in that department.


----------



## SouthOfTheMasonDixon (Dec 7, 2006)

scooter1 said:


> UHHH, I'm really not trying to be rude here dude, but if everyone were to adopt your lifestyle, I think the theory of evolution would be disproven pretty quick.
> 
> In a generation or so, we would all be gone. God gave the command to go forth, be fruitful and multiply, not Darwin. Without complimentary reproductive companions, multiplication just doesn't work. Or at least it hasn't over the last couple of thousand years.
> 
> So much for genetic adaptation in that department.


If you're not trying to be rude, what _are_ you trying to be?

I am well aware that it takes both a male and a female to reproduce.  When have you _ever_ read anywhere I have been critical of heterosexuals for not being gay or asserted that the whole population should be gay?

God makes people straight, gay or somewhere between; Darwin and evolution has nothing to do with it.


----------



## addictedtodeer (Dec 7, 2006)

DCHunter said:


> I assumed "death" to mean spiritual death.



I've been looking over commentaries and historical Christian creeds + confessions about this.  Everyone I've found so far states that the death in Genesis refers to three deaths.
First spiritual death= separation from God due to sin, sinners have no relationship with him due to sin. Sin must be paid for in order for the sinner to have access to God.

Second physical death= we were meant to be eternal creations of God but the consequence for sin is we are now mortal creatures (dust to dust)

Finally Eternal death= eternal punishment for our treason (sin)

Christ has to die for all three with His resurrection proof that He conquered all three.  If he only died for spiritual death then the physical death still needs to be conquered and salvation would only be good up until our death, then that would be it.

Like I said at the beginning so far. I have found that 20th century commentators are moving in a very different directions than those before them.  Makes me personally worried and sad.


----------



## FX Jenkins (Dec 7, 2006)

SouthOfTheMasonDixon said:


> God makes people straight, gay or somewhere between; Darwin and evolution has nothing to do with it.



My belief is that it is the persuit of sinful pleasure that makes someone  in between or Gay, or heterosexually promiscuous for that matter...Not God.....


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Dec 7, 2006)

addictedtodeer said:


> I'm teaching evolution right now in a Christian school and man, the holes in this theory are HUGE.




  Why are you _teaching_ something that you don't understand or agree with or believe in???


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Dec 7, 2006)

SouthOfTheMasonDixon said:


> Everything dies.  It must then follow from your argument that plants, non-human animals and even single-cell organisms are also sinners, punished for their sins by death.




Good point... I noticed no one has had a comment or explanation on this


----------



## FX Jenkins (Dec 7, 2006)

Dixie Dawg said:


> Why are you _teaching_ something that you don't understand or agree with or believe in???



Prob because the state requires it for them to be certified..and for college accredidation...


----------



## DCHunter (Dec 7, 2006)

addictedtodeer said:


> Christ has to die for all three with His resurrection proof that He conquered all three.  If he only died for spiritual death then the physical death still needs to be conquered and salvation would only be good up until our death, then that would be it.



Maybe I misunderstand you, but last time I checked we as humans all still experience a physical death at least once in our lifetimes.


----------



## FX Jenkins (Dec 7, 2006)

SouthOfTheMasonDixon said:


> Everything dies.  It must then follow from your argument that plants, non-human animals and even single-cell organisms are also sinners, punished for their sins by death.



Not because of their sins...but because of Mans sin...It wasn't until the fall of mankind that death entered into the Garden...and world as we know it...such that, the consequences of sin extend beyond the sinner, to effect the innocent, just like a cancer...


----------



## SouthOfTheMasonDixon (Dec 7, 2006)

FX Jenkins said:


> Not because of their sins...but because of Mans sin...It wasn't until the fall of mankind that death entered into the Garden...and world as we know it...such that, the consequences of sin extend beyond the sinner, to effect the innocent, just like a cancer...


Please point out the specific scriptures that indicate plants and non-human animals all die to pay for the sins of man.


----------



## SouthOfTheMasonDixon (Dec 7, 2006)

FX Jenkins said:


> My belief is that it is the persuit of sinful pleasure that makes someone  in between or Gay, or heterosexually promiscuous for that matter...Not God.....


Yes, I was very into sinful pleasure when I was _eight-years-old_ and first felt stirrings of same-gender attraction.


----------



## Randy (Dec 7, 2006)

SouthOfTheMasonDixon said:


> Yes, I was very into sinful pleasure when I was _eight-years-old_ and first felt stirrings of same-gender attraction.



TMI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Randy (Dec 7, 2006)

I wish I had started this thread too!


----------



## FX Jenkins (Dec 7, 2006)

SouthOfTheMasonDixon said:


> Please point out the specific scriptures that indicate plants and non-human animals all die to pay for the sins of man.



Gen 3: cite the results of the first sin and describe why death, even unto plants and animals, first came in to the world...

17 To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,'
       "Cursed is the ground because of you;
       through painful toil you will eat of it
       all the days of your life.

18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
       and you will eat the plants of the field.

9 By the sweat of your brow
       you will eat your food
       until you return to the ground,
       since from it you were taken;
       for dust you are
       and to dust you will return."

  21 The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them.

Animal scrifice, as an atonement for mans sin, can be found throughout the Old testement..to many to list

Romans 6:23 qualifies the conditions

Romans 5
12  Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

14  Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

15  But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.


----------



## FX Jenkins (Dec 7, 2006)

SouthOfTheMasonDixon said:


> Yes, I was very into sinful pleasure when I was _eight-years-old_ and first felt stirrings of same-gender attraction.



I was sinful as a child...in my own way, rebellious, lying, selfish, anger, etc...and please understand that Im not on here to judge or condemn you SOTM, or anybody else (outside of the political forum) but we've all sinned, and my transgressions are just as bad as anyone else's...

and a verse that kinda ties these two ideas together (evil in all of our hearts and death as a result of sin) can be found following the flood in 

Genesis 8

21 The LORD smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: "Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though  every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Dec 7, 2006)

FX Jenkins said:


> Prob because the state requires it for them to be certified..and for college accredidation...



I don't doubt that it is a required class, I was just asking why he was teaching it if he doesn't understand or agree with it.  I'm sure the state doesn't require that he personally teaches the class.

I sure wouldn't want a teacher teaching my child a subject that they didn't understand themselves...   
And that's no offense to him at all... I have nothing against him, just saying in general, teachers should teach what they have specialized in and what they know and understand... just my opinion, of course.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Dec 7, 2006)

FX Jenkins said:
			
		

> 17 To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,'
> "Cursed is the ground because of you;
> through painful toil you will eat of it
> all the days of your life.
> ...






FX Jenkins said:


> Genesis 8
> 
> 21 The LORD smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: "Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though  every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.




So is the ground cursed or not?  There's some pretty thorny bushes around these parts.....!


----------



## FX Jenkins (Dec 7, 2006)

Dixie Dawg said:


> I don't doubt that it is a required class, I was just asking why he was teaching it if he doesn't understand or agree with it.
> And that's no offense to him at all... I have nothing against him, just saying in general, teachers should teach what they have specialized in and what they know and understand... just my opinion, of course.



 

I hear ya DD...I prob should let him answer his own questions, and sometimes I don't understand why I do some of the things I do....  but my wife used to struggle with this too, as a Christian teacher in the public school system...Her Job required her to teach what was in the books, and thats what she did...doesn't mean she had to agree with it all or believe it...


----------



## outdoorgirlsmom (Dec 7, 2006)

well just so everyone knows god is my #1 and there is'nt anyone in this world or any other that will every change it i'll fight to the death if i have too to defend god!!


----------



## FX Jenkins (Dec 7, 2006)

Dixie Dawg said:


> So is the ground cursed or not?  There's some pretty thorny bushes around these parts.....!



 

Yeah the grounds still cursed from the first time....least my little acre is, as was mom and dad's garden growing up...plenty of sweat from my brow....


----------



## addictedtodeer (Dec 7, 2006)

Dixie Dawg said:


> Why are you _teaching_ something that you don't understand or agree with or believe in???



Cause its a chapter in the textbook.  Just because you disagree with it doesn't mean you should overlook it.


----------



## SouthOfTheMasonDixon (Dec 7, 2006)

FX Jenkins said:


> Gen 3: cite the results of the first sin and describe why death, even unto plants and animals, first came in to the world...
> 
> 17 To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,'
> "Cursed is the ground because of you;
> ...


None of those verses states that plants and animals must die for the sins of man.



FX Jenkins said:


> 21 The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them.
> 
> Animal scrifice, as an atonement for mans sin, can be found throughout the Old testement..to many to list


The majority of animals die without being sacrificed by man, so the connection you are making is tenuous, at best.



FX Jenkins said:


> Romans 6:23 qualifies the conditions
> 
> Romans 5
> 12  Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
> ...


Again, these verses are talking about _man_.


----------



## FX Jenkins (Dec 7, 2006)

FX Jenkins said:


> Genesis 8
> 
> 21 The LORD smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: "Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though  every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.



Ok...take your chances...I guess for me the correlation is obvious...


----------



## addictedtodeer (Dec 7, 2006)

Sorry just read some more. Guess I have to defend myself.

The Bible states that all of the earth has been affected by man's sin and groans under it. Creation is said to be waiting for Christ to free it from the consequences of man's sin (Romans 8:19-21). Interesting to note "decay" is mentioned as bondage that creation is suffering. It is a Greek word that can stand for corruption, decay, ruin, destroy, perish. Therefore, according to scripture decay, corruption, perishing is not normal.
Man's sin has affected all of creation and has twisted it/warped it/perverted it ... however you want to say it.

Human physical death must come from sin in order for Christ to conquer it. Hosea 13:14 is a prophecy about Christ and what he will do.  The terms it uses point towards a physical death as well as spiritual death.

Dealing with man and sin you may want to read about the federal headship of Adam (Adam representing all of us, therefore we all sin through Adam's fall.  We are born guilty. Just a nutshell)

Next it's not that I don't know evolution (I'll admit I'm no expert), I just don't have any faith in it.  It is a system of faith not science.  It makes assumptions that must be believed yet the assumptions are  only based upon some observable facts in nature.  
Evolution also must rely on things science has disproved ages ago (check out spontaneous generation, and then read how life is supposed to be started according to evolution). It also relies on circular reasoning (check out dating fossils and dating rocks). Yes, I'm teaching evolution because it is a chapter in our Biology book. Yes, I'm a Christian teacher in a Christian school. Yes, I am very biased towards the Bible (guilty)!

Feel free to disagree with me. Don't want to sour anybody. Thanks FX Jenkins for those passages and the defense.


----------



## whitworth (Dec 7, 2006)

*Simple answer*

God had to explain creation to a simple and uneducated folk. 

Can you imagine if He had to explain to them how he really created the world?


----------



## Oldstick (Dec 7, 2006)

DCHunter said:


> God is smart fellow.



And not only is He very smart, but the evolutionary theory begins with that very first single cell being CREATED somehow from a soup of chemicals plus a burst of energy.

So if one allows the possibility that the "days" referred to in Genesis may be symbolic references to time periods unknown to man, then proving evolution also proves God's existence and that He created the heavens and earth...


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Dec 8, 2006)

addictedtodeer said:


> Sorry just read some more. Guess I have to defend myself.
> 
> 
> Next it's not that I don't know evolution (I'll admit I'm no expert), I just don't have any faith in it.  It is a system of faith not science.
> ...



Hey ADD 
You didn't need to defend yourself... no attack was initiated or intended, at least not on my part   I don't think I read what you typed the way you meant it. To me, there is a difference between 'teaching a class on evolution' or teaching your class a chapter on evolution from your textbook.  I read it as you were teaching an entire class on the subject of evolution (and that being the only subject that was taught). Sorry for the misunderstanding! 

Last I knew, evolution was still a _theory_, just as the 'big bang' was a _theory_.  Evolution is based upon what I guess one could call 'faith', but so is the belief in God.  There is no proof of either one, you have to take the evidence as presented, weigh it out and come to your own conclusion.

I don't believe in the theory of evolution, but I can't prove God exists either.  I can give all the reasons why I believe in Him, and the things that are 'proof' to me, but scientifically God cannot be proven to exist.  Everything is based on faith, even the thought of our next breath.

Things also change your perception as you get older and more 'mature'... and as you learn new things.  I have a totally new outlook on some things since I learned about quantum physics... now THERE is an interesting subject!!  

Again I'm sorry for the misunderstanding and hope you didn't take anything I posted as offensive, because it wasn't intended that way at all!


----------



## addictedtodeer (Dec 8, 2006)

No apology needed.  I used defend solely as in a debate term.  I'm enjoying these discussion!


----------



## 60Grit (Dec 13, 2006)

Dixie Dawg said:


> I don't believe in the theory of evolution, but I can't prove God exists either. I can give all the reasons why I believe in Him, and the things that are 'proof' to me, but scientifically God cannot be proven to exist. Everything is based on faith, even the thought of our next breath.
> 
> Things also change your perception as you get older and more 'mature'... and as you learn new things. I have a totally new outlook on some things since I learned about quantum physics... now THERE is an interesting subject!!


 

DD,

More accurately, nothing changes, only your perception. To politely twist your arguement neither for nor against or the other, when the subject is the "theory" of evolution vs. God perhaps proving either isn't the way to go about it.

You will find much more evidence in favor of God if you go down the path of trying to disprove His existance vs. the existance of the "theory" of evolution.

As much as science has been able to accomplish since the dawn of man, I can't remember once a scientist building a tree from pure molecules. Since we know so much about the molecular make-up of everything in our world, wouldn't you think that we would have a better grasp on that sort of thing by now.

On the flip side, how many times have things happened that there is no scientific explanation for? How has time evolved?? Can you see time, can you prove it's existance?? Where did it start, and if you can give it a starting point then you must accept it as finite, vs. the infinite label that some want to give it in relation to theories, such as evolution.

Yet you know it is there and you have only a set amount of it in your life to use!! Since you are studying Quantum Physics this should be easy for you.

One thing all theories, whether they be grounded in science or math, have in common is an indefinite solution surrounded by an infinite boundary, thus being unprovable as 100% accurate. PI for example, is a good theory that gets as close as possible, yet is useless in the engineering of structures requiring complete accuracy. 

Thus in architecture, Buckminster Fuller found a different way to approach the sphere, without using PI, and with the encouragement found in God's creation of a sphere by studying the structure of bubbles formed in Ocean foam.

Just as an experiment, go ahead, disprove God's existance. There really is nothing that exist, except to non-believers, called the "theory" of God.

Just some points to ponder.

sc1


----------



## gordon 2 (Dec 16, 2006)

It is not a question for science!!! A "scientist should not have this question."Remember Biology 101...DNA...." go back to these fundamentals and as a "scientist" you will see the errors of "christianists".

Also alot of  university science students should have had an, obligatory one or two, subject(s) out of the sicence faculty. Philosophy 101 and World Litterature 101 come to mind. Education faculties should spin some of their students to vocational training...where they will not have canundrum reasoning about 101 fundamentals both of faith and science.


----------



## 60Grit (Dec 16, 2006)

gordon 2 said:


> It is not a question for science!!! A "scientist should not have this question."Remember Biology 101...DNA...." go back to these fundamentals and as a "scientist" you will see the errors of "christianists".
> 
> Also alot of university science students should have had an, obligatory one or two, subject(s) out of the sicence faculty. Philosophy 101 and World Litterature 101 come to mind. Education faculties should spin some of their students to vocational training...where they will not have canundrum reasoning about 101 fundamentals both of faith and science.


 
Whoa, my eyes have been opened. This means that those that are Christians flunked, didn't take or just ignored Biology????

Here's a question, where did dna come from??


----------



## junky2 (Dec 17, 2006)

I can't believe that this thread has been allowed because
this forum has so many "Holy Rollers" on it now you get
spanked for just speaking your mind!

My opinion is that evolution is real and that it will never be
trully proven because if it were, then all these churches
would no longer make money and there's to many fat
pockets in them that would keep the truth hidden.


----------



## 60Grit (Dec 17, 2006)

junky2 said:


> I can't believe that this thread has been allowed because
> this forum has so many "Holy Rollers" on it now you get
> spanked for just speaking your mind!
> 
> ...


 
OK, no spanking intended. We will speak purely to cognitive reading skills.

The question on the original post was regarding Evolutionary Theory,

Not Evolutionary Fact. Or did you miss that little fact??

Thus you opened yourself up for a spanking.


----------



## junky2 (Dec 17, 2006)

Well I'd have to say that spank was needed because I
didn't address the true question.

If a Christian Scientist has to teach or discuss the evolutionary theory, then he/she should not let their
christian belief's have an impact on what could really
be fact. Just because one has been taught one belief and
only one belief doesn't mean that everything else is fiction.


----------



## junky2 (Dec 17, 2006)

Forgot to mention that my brother is a preacher and we
use to discuss the evolution / god theory, but we have
since stopped discussing the matter due to neither one
given into the other's thoughts.


----------



## dixie (Dec 17, 2006)

scooter1 said:


> The recordings of the Bible are not a theory, evolution is, it's as simple as that.



this is the approach we took with my 13 y/o stepdaughter, it got a little tricky when her reply was, then why do they teach it like its the truth? We sat down with her and  the Bible and had her read some of Genesis, that seemed to answer her questions.


----------



## j_seph (Dec 18, 2006)

*WELL*



junky2 said:


> Forgot to mention that my brother is a preacher and we
> use to discuss the evolution / god theory, but we have
> since stopped discussing the matter due to neither one
> given into the other's thoughts.



Didn't know your brother was a preacher!
So tell me something...............................
What happened to you............................
was there a monkey somewhere in family
tree
Was it possible that he or she was a baboon 

All these years and I did not know this about you, I knew you were always into the monkey business.


----------



## junky2 (Dec 18, 2006)

My grandfather was a preacher also. No monkey in the
family, I guess you could say that I'm the one that rocked
the boat with my thoughts and opinions.


----------



## RThomas (Dec 21, 2006)

Trapper, 
You may want to pick up a book by Ken Miller titled "Finding Darwin's God".  Miller is a Biology Professor, Christian and ardent defender of evolution.
You can find info on the book, and Ken Miller here:
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/fdg/index.html


----------



## Wild Turkey (Dec 21, 2006)

Has anyone here actually read the writings of Charles Darwin and his scientific data.
The word evolution is misrepresented way too much in general expecially here.
His scientific data was based on the way creatures change "evolve" to better adapt to their habitiat. That is evolution by Darwin.
Can you honestly not admit that animals inlcuding humans change to better adapt to their environment.
It's not fair as a christian or other to deem something false without actually reading or studying the data.
You can believe in evolution and be a christian. One is faith and the other is science.


----------



## RThomas (Dec 21, 2006)

Wild Turkey,
Most fundamentalist Christians will accept what they call "micro-evolution", or small changes within a species, but reject what they term "macro-evolution". Further research on the subject would show why this is flawed reasoning.


----------



## wellham (Dec 25, 2006)

was just discussing this the other day. Here's proof to me (which many of you should appreciate since you are outdoor fans)....only GOD could make the things in nature that we see how they are, period.
How in one 20 foot stretch of river can there be 8 inch tadpoles, who take a year to become a frog, right next to 150 fingernail size frogs, fully grown?
How does the owl drop from the trees to chase and eat in the pitch of night?
How can a spider stretch a web 12 feet straight across a trail that will nearly put your eye out? 
How is it that one tree in the middle of a thousand is burnt black from lightning, and no more are touched?
Job Chapters 36-39


----------



## 60Grit (Dec 25, 2006)

wellham said:


> was just discussing this the other day. Here's proof to me (which many of you should appreciate since you are outdoor fans)....only GOD could make the things in nature that we see how they are, period.
> How in one 20 foot stretch of river can there be 8 inch tadpoles, who take a year to become a frog, right next to 150 fingernail size frogs, fully grown?
> How does the owl drop from the trees to chase and eat in the pitch of night?
> How can a spider stretch a web 12 feet straight across a trail that will nearly put your eye out?
> ...


 

Definitely leaves some good questions to ask when we get to heaven.. 

Such as, if we evolved from apes..........why are there still apes???

If genetic adaptation is a fact, then why did we adapt and evolve and others didn't???

Or if genetic adaptation serves the purpose of self preservation, then why have the need for species mimicry in order to preserve oneself from predators. Did these species evolve in order to adapt the mimicry......Or perhaps, did God create them this way??


----------



## RThomas (Dec 26, 2006)

Wellham and Scooter,
Everyone of your questions can be answered through scientific study.  Just because you don't know the answer to a question, doesn't mean "god did it".  That isn't to say god didn't have a hand in it, but that would be based on one's personal belief.


----------

