Evolution is compatible with Christianity

User avatar
mattrose
Posts: 1920
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:28 am
Contact:

Re: Evolution is compatible with Christianity

Post by mattrose » Mon Feb 23, 2009 1:03 pm

Yeah, I don't think darwinism has 'won the war' on a public level, for the most part. It has 'won the war' on the intellectual elitist level. And how it has done so is, I think, pretty thoroughly documented in Ben Stein's "expelled"

User avatar
TK
Posts: 1477
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:42 pm
Location: North Carolina

Re: Evolution is compatible with Christianity

Post by TK » Mon Feb 23, 2009 8:34 pm

darin pretty much summed up my views on the matter. i believe in a (very) ancient age of the universe, and the earth, but i do not subscribe to macro-evolution- particularly of humans. i.e. i believe that Adam and Eve were a special act of creation; however i have always had trouble figuring out where to "place" non-human primates, like Lucy, or neanderthal, etc on the biblical timeline. in other words, did adam and eve come into contact with australopithecus (sp?) or the other primates that we see on the popular evolution charts?

much of my confusion stems from trying to reconcile what paleontologists tell us they have learned about ancient humans (i.e. "cavemen" for lack of a more precise term) with the biblical account. in the bible, humans seemed very advanced from the very beginning, in that they farmed, made musical instruments, worshipped God or a god, and built cities. yet there seems to be a lot of evidence for very primitive humans(who didnt do those things) who lived in the same general area.

TK

User avatar
darinhouston
Posts: 3112
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am

Re: Evolution is compatible with Christianity

Post by darinhouston » Mon Feb 23, 2009 10:24 pm

TK wrote:darin pretty much summed up my views on the matter. i believe in a (very) ancient age of the universe, and the earth, but i do not subscribe to macro-evolution- particularly of humans. i.e. i believe that Adam and Eve were a special act of creation; however i have always had trouble figuring out where to "place" non-human primates, like Lucy, or neanderthal, etc on the biblical timeline. in other words, did adam and eve come into contact with australopithecus (sp?) or the other primates that we see on the popular evolution charts?

much of my confusion stems from trying to reconcile what paleontologists tell us they have learned about ancient humans (i.e. "cavemen" for lack of a more precise term) with the biblical account. in the bible, humans seemed very advanced from the very beginning, in that they farmed, made musical instruments, worshipped God or a god, and built cities. yet there seems to be a lot of evidence for very primitive humans(who didnt do those things) who lived in the same general area.

TK
Have you considered, TK, whether Adam & Eve might have been more primitive than we are? Humans did seem very advanced "early on," but not necessarily at the "beginning." What do you think?

User avatar
RND
Posts: 651
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 12:56 pm
Location: Victorville, California, USA
Contact:

Re: Evolution is compatible with Christianity

Post by RND » Mon Feb 23, 2009 10:29 pm

TK wrote:darin pretty much summed up my views on the matter. i believe in a (very) ancient age of the universe, and the earth, but i do not subscribe to macro-evolution- particularly of humans. i.e. i believe that Adam and Eve were a special act of creation; however i have always had trouble figuring out where to "place" non-human primates, like Lucy, or neanderthal, etc on the biblical timeline. in other words, did adam and eve come into contact with Australopithecus (sp? It was wrong, my spell check in Firefox fixed it.) or the other primates that we see on the popular evolution charts?
TK, do you believe "Lucy" or Australopithecus lived before Adam and Eve? If so how do you weigh the fact that death came by sin and sin came through Adam? Romans 5:12. This is one reason I stopped believing in OEC. I could no longer reconcile the fact that if animals died before Adam then that would mean the Bible account is wrong.
much of my confusion stems from trying to reconcile what paleontologists tell us they have learned about ancient humans (i.e. "cavemen" for lack of a more precise term) with the biblical account. in the bible, humans seemed very advanced from the very beginning, in that they farmed, made musical instruments, worshipped God or a god, and built cities. yet there seems to be a lot of evidence for very primitive humans(who didnt do those things) who lived in the same general area.
Is it possible TK that the paleontologist's are wrong and that the Bible account is really true?
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident." Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860

You Are Israel
Sabbath Truth
Heavenly Sanctuary

User avatar
TK
Posts: 1477
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:42 pm
Location: North Carolina

Re: Evolution is compatible with Christianity

Post by TK » Tue Feb 24, 2009 10:19 am

RND wrote:
TK, do you believe "Lucy" or Australopithecus lived before Adam and Eve? If so how do you weigh the fact that death came by sin and sin came through Adam? Romans 5:12. This is one reason I stopped believing in OEC. I could no longer reconcile the fact that if animals died before Adam then that would mean the Bible account is wrong.
like i said, i am not sure exactly what i believe about Lucy- this species may have pre-dated adam and eve.

as to the death mentioned by Paul, might not he have been referring to spiritual death?

as to whether paleontologists might be wrong and the bible right, all i can say to that is that the bible is silent as to the issue of non-human primates or very primitive man. so it is hard to compare what the paleontologists say to what the bible says because the bible is not very specific.

darin wrote:
Have you considered, TK, whether Adam & Eve might have been more primitive than we are? Humans did seem very advanced "early on," but not necessarily at the "beginning." What do you think?
i have considered this, but i dont buy it. i think they were likely very intelligent, not grunting neanderthal type beings. they were created in God's image after all. noah was advanced enough to build a huge arc, and then the tower of bable was built; cain built cities, etc. i think they were likely more intelligent than we are; i have always thought this about the egyptians and the mayans etc. what might they have done with our technology?

TK

User avatar
RND
Posts: 651
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 12:56 pm
Location: Victorville, California, USA
Contact:

Re: Evolution is compatible with Christianity

Post by RND » Tue Feb 24, 2009 10:57 am

TK wrote:like i said, i am not sure exactly what i believe about Lucy- this species may have pre-dated adam and eve.
No sweat TK, I just brought it up as something to consider.
as to the death mentioned by Paul, might not he have been referring to spiritual death?
The wages of sin is death..... I fairly certain that means "physical" death.

Death = thanatos = from qnhskw - thnesko 2348; (properly, an adjective used as a noun) death (literally or figuratively):--X deadly, (be...) death. Same as in Romans 5:12.
as to whether paleontologists might be wrong and the bible right, all i can say to that is that the bible is silent as to the issue of non-human primates or very primitive man.
Silent? When taken as a whole TK I certainly don't think we can say the Bible is silent regarding the creation of man and the animals.
so it is hard to compare what the paleontologists say to what the bible says because the bible is not very specific.
I would disagree myself TK. Again, taken as a whole I think the Bible is spot-on. Anyway, thanks for your thoughts.
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident." Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860

You Are Israel
Sabbath Truth
Heavenly Sanctuary

User avatar
mattrose
Posts: 1920
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:28 am
Contact:

Re: Evolution is compatible with Christianity

Post by mattrose » Tue Feb 24, 2009 11:45 am

I think Adam & Eve were more advanced than us, frankly. We have the benefit of 'accumulated' knowledge. I tend to think they were much smarter, creative & intuitively brilliant than we are. In this sense, I believe something like de-evolution is a better description of reality. As mutations multiply, we are getting worse and worse off. Only the accumulation of medical knowledge is keeping life-spans longer than in the middle ages.

User avatar
RND
Posts: 651
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 12:56 pm
Location: Victorville, California, USA
Contact:

Re: Evolution is compatible with Christianity

Post by RND » Tue Feb 24, 2009 11:57 am

mattrose wrote:I think Adam & Eve were more advanced than us, frankly. We have the benefit of 'accumulated' knowledge. I tend to think they were much smarter, creative & intuitively brilliant than we are. In this sense, I believe something like de-evolution is a better description of reality. As mutations multiply, we are getting worse and worse off. Only the accumulation of medical knowledge is keeping life-spans longer than in the middle ages.
That is an excellent point mattrose and one I one concur with instantly! Sin has degraded the entire world to the point that even nature cries out because of it!

Rom 8:22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. 23 And not only [they], but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, [to wit], the redemption of our body.
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident." Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860

You Are Israel
Sabbath Truth
Heavenly Sanctuary

User avatar
TK
Posts: 1477
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:42 pm
Location: North Carolina

Re: Evolution is compatible with Christianity

Post by TK » Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:11 pm

thanks for stating that so eloquentlly, matt. i agree.

RND, when i say the bible is not specific i do not mean that the bible does not give an account- of course it does. it says that humans, as well as other land animals were created on day 6.

but it does not give any specifics about hardly any of the animals that were created. other than donkeys and birds and ovines and bovines we dont read much about animals in the bible. of course i am not faulting the bible (or God) for that- because the bible was not intended to be a compendium of animals and their behavior.

that being said, i dont think we can simply ignore what people who spend their lives studying anthropology have learned, although i certainly understand they have preconceived ideas about human origins, etc.

TK

User avatar
AaronBDisney
Posts: 98
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2009 12:13 am

Re: Evolution is compatible with Christianity

Post by AaronBDisney » Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:24 pm

Maybe I'm being overly simplistic on this but the Bible says this

Exod 20:11
11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

All that was made was made in 6 days. There's no reason that I can see to make days mean anything other than one spin of the earth. Gen 1 even goes so far as to say that the evening and the morning were the 2nd, 3rd, etc. day. I know the argument that "there was no sun or moon until day 4 so how could there be days and nights?", but a day is a day irrespective of the sun and the moon, it's one rotation of the earth.

Also - Adam lived through day 7 and a portion of day 6, so is it the thought of the 'day age' group that Adam was a million years old on day 8?

I don't know, I just see that the scientific community have put together too many fabricated evidences for me to believe in any of their billion year old earth arguments. I just believe the clear teaching of the Bible and don't try to read into it billions of years.

Post Reply

Return to “Roman Catholicism”