John, does your wife allow you to answer the door on Sundays
John, does your wife allow you to answer the door on Sundays
I have been to many churches in my time and none of them have accepted biological evolution. If you believe in God, why would you believe that He would waste his time starting us out as monkeys? When people say this, I wonder how they could insult God like that. He has endless power. There is no reason He couldn't of created everything as it was in 6 days. Saying otherwise seems insulting.
I was part of a very popular church a few years back and I'll never forget what the pastor told me when I questioned the words of the bible. He said, "Not everything will make sense to you but what you must do is take the information in, see how it feels in your gut and if it doens't resonate then toss it away. Only keep that which works for you". He was sooo right!
Not that it really matters but i agree its definitely possible
I dont know any christian that believes we evolved from animals either. We were made in his image
Sent from my GT-I9100T using BubHub
This is probably my favourite example of observed evolution:
I'm not Christian myself. I have more than one Christian friend though. All of them believe in evolution and science as well as god, and each has said they believe the story of creation to be metaphorical, not literal. One of them told me that he believes evolution is a shining example of gods ingenuity. Just another perspective. It's totally cool with me for anyone to have their own beliefs but some things are just fact, and evolution as a general term is a fact. Human evolution is supported by loads of data and is widely accepted as fact, it's even part of the school curriculum.
Anyway OP, sorry to butt in, just wanted to add that all the Christian people I know recognise the bible as a book, written by men, inspired by god, but mainly as a metaphor for the way god would want them to live, but based in a very different time. I hope you can find what you are looking for
Last edited by Atropos; 11-12-2012 at 14:54.
i actually think that with everything we know about the complexity, creativity and ingenuity of evolution, that it is an insult to any omniscient being (ie god) to think taht the universe would be created in 6 days, like children playing with playdough.
The idea of setting the universe in motion by a perfectly planned big bang, for example, is 10000000 x more sophisticated and powerful.
Evolution is not just an idea, it's observable and replicatable.
Trotting out creationist cliches is not a compelling argument.
God is not even allowed into the equation so its terribly biased. Because of their philosophical beliefs, many scientists outright reject the Bible’s declaration that God created all things. To deny the design we see in nature to me is incredible.
So, Mutations provide the raw materials needed to create new species, myth or fact?
Characteristics of plant and animal life are determined by its genetic code. We know that. Reserachers have discovered that mutations can produce 'alterations' but not entirely new species. A century of research in this field has not shown that Mutations can transform an original species (of plant or animal) into an entirely new one, which is needed for macro evolution to indeed be a fact.
Darwins finches are still finches, the peppered moth is still a moth.
Look at what the bible says, it clearly states that God created all the basic “kinds” of plant and animal life. (Genesis 1:11, 12, 20-25) Were these original “kinds” of plants and animals programmed with the ability to adapt to changing environmental conditions? What defines the boundary of a “kind”? The Bible does not say. However, it does state that living creatures “swarmed forth according to their kinds.” (Genesis 1:21) This statement implies that there is a limit to the amount of variation that can occur within a “kind.” Both the fossil record and modern research support the idea that the fundamental categories of plants and animals have changed little over vast periods of time.
If highly trained scientists are unable to produce new species by artificially inducing and selecting favorable mutations, is it likely that an unintelligent process would do a better job by mere chance?
In regards to Darwins finches for example, The researchers found that as the climatic conditions on the island changed, finches with longer beaks were dominant one year, but later those with smaller beaks were dominant. They also noticed that some of the different “species” of finches were interbreeding and producing offspring that survived better than the parents. They concluded that if the interbreeding continued, it could result in the fusion of two “species” into just one.
Darwin’s finches are not becoming “anything new.” They are still finches. And the fact that they are interbreeding casts doubt on the methods some evolutionists use to define a species. In addition, information about these birds exposes the fact that even prestigious scientific academies are not above reporting evidence in a biased manner.
Also common descent is used to fit into the evolutionary theory, but if all life had the same maker or designer then similar handiwork will be seen in all his creations
the emergence of a new species is not some sort of giant step - it's a gradual process of alterations.
Years of gradual changes lead to a different species emerging. "Species" is a human term for classification purposes.
If you concede that evolution produces alterations, it's nonsensical to claim that this process somehow stops short of producing significant change.
It's also illogical and meaningless to claim that if scientists cant mutate new species, then an 'unintelligent' process like evolution can't.
Scientists can't create super nova, black holes, and all sorts of natural phenomena.
And yet, lo -
Pregnant for the first-time?
Not sure where to start? We can help!
Our Insider Programs for pregnancy first-timers will lead you step-by-step through the 14 Pregnancy Must Dos!