NationStates Jolt Archive

(started off a different thread but was a fresher topic, so I made a new thread for it)

I was reading the bible the other day and I got kinda confused, I read it pretty close but I missed the part in the bible that said things couldn't change over time. Who are we to say that G-d didn't choose his creatures to learn and adapt as we humans keep screwing things up?

Christians tend to get so wrapped up in what they personally feel G-d does and doesn't do, that they get angry, fight, and all sorts of other things, that are mentioned not to do in 'black and white'. What is so important about proving that which isn't said to the point that you break that which was important enough to be talked about in the religious texts that Christians hold themselves to.

I don't personally believe in evolution when it comes to humans, and I believe that it may not have happened with creatures, but as I am not G-d, I can't say that he didn't set it into motion, as he set the stars into motion or set every other cylce this world has.

Everything in nature follows patterns, and thus why can't evolution be used? Humans tend to be the ones that don't follow set patterns, and tend to change the outter to their specs, so I don't see it fitting.

Again, just my personal understanding of things.

I think it's because most Christians identify evolution as the possibility of life without God's intervention. They think evolution is the product of nature, without God.

Of courseits understandable why this unacceptable to them

Allow me to address your rant,

Evolution is not incompatible with the Bible. What is incompatible is the belief that life formed billions of years ago and evolved. This is incompatible with Christianity and why intelligent design is such a cowardly and dangerous compromise. You see, if you say that life began that long ago and God simply controlled evolution then you say that there was never a garden of Eden. If there wasn't a garden of Eden then there was no Fall. If there was no Fall, then what did Jesus save us from?

And about your comments about the way Christians behave, all of us fall short of God's expectations. That is why we need Jesus for salvation. Christians are not perfect, just forgiven.

I'm really starting to like your posts.

I guess it must be a cold night on this forum or I'm just that much out of date with this place. I remember when anything with the worlds evolution and christian in it would be commented on like lightening. Oh well, I guess times change and such. Still think its a good theory/statement/understanding. lol

I totally agree with you. The new idea is called artifial structure i believe and many scientist there where evolutionists are starting to head that way. The reason behind this is that the more advanced and the more we learn about the human body we are finding it is totally impossible for such a perfectly formed structure to exist without it being created some other means. Our body has something like 20,000 different cells (might be 50,000 i dont remember) and each has its own specific function. Each cell has to act exactly in a certain manner and has to comminicate with every other cell directly or indirectly. Its almost ridiculous to believe in evolution. And in fact i believe that Darwin himself would not believe in evolution today. If someone where to actually take the time to research his writing he states as much. As for me, I am a strong Christian and will always be. I think science gets in the way sometimes and that if a person would allow themselves to just open up and talk to God they would be suprised at the responce. This is what turned me back to Christianity. And once your truely feel his presence well its pretty undeniable.

Allow me to address your rant,

Evolution is not incompatible with the Bible. What is incompatible is the belief that life formed billions of years ago and evolved. This is incompatible with Christianity and why intelligent design is such a cowardly and dangerous compromise. You see, if you say that life began that long ago and God simply controlled evolution then you say that there was never a garden of Eden. If there wasn't a garden of Eden then there was no Fall. If there was no Fall, then what did Jesus save us from?

And about your comments about the way Christians behave, all of us fall short of God's expectations. That is why we need Jesus for salvation. Christians are not perfect, just forgiven.

Evolution doesn't have to start billions of years ago, thats the 'extreme' viewpoint on it, so to speak. Everything in the bible kinda shows that G-d doesn't get directly involved in things, example, angels have to send messages from the Divine to humans. Everything in the world still moves and does its things, cause its without sin, humans are the ones that sin, and yeah, they aren't perfect, thats a given. In a way of thinking, death is evolution, we die, and are changed into something better though our choices and what was given around us.

Also, where in the bible is the time frame of all this stuff. Its written by humans, who have missed the point from Adam on up, so who is to say they are the best at understanding what G-d is saying?

here is the problem:

"And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them" (Genesis 1:27, DRC)

this verse has man springing forth in his current form, which goes against the precepts of darwinist evolution.

here is another reason why darwinism and christianity are mutually exclusive belief systems:

if one believes in evolution, then one must believe that our ancestors were at one time different than what we are now (homo erectus vs. homo sapien, java man vs. new yorker). now theoretically, a true christian could argue that god created our predecessors, and that they have just evolved into us. the problem here is that -- as found in the verse above -- god is said to have created man in his own image. therefore, if man evolved, then either he is moving away from god (a disturbing thought) or god is also changing. god cannot be changing, because god is perfect, and would therefore never need to change.

so our only option is to assume that man has moved away from god (certainly feasible when considering today's culture). unfortunately, take evolution back far enough, and the first "men" were really single-celled organisms chilling in primordial ooze. are we to believe that these creatures were closer to god's image than we are now? it just doesnt seem to fit.

this is just one of the reasons why true darwinism and true christianity cannot coexist.

i hope that all made sense

here is the problem:

"And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them" (Genesis 1:27, DRC)

this verse has man springing forth in his current form, which goes against the precepts of darwinist evolution.

here is another reason why darwinism and christianity are mutually exclusive belief systems:

if one believes in evolution, then one must believe that our ancestors were at one time different than what we are now (homo erectus vs. homo sapien, java man vs. new yorker). now theoretically, a true christian could argue that god created our predecessors, and that they have just evolved into us. the problem here is that -- as found in the verse above -- god is said to have created man in his own image. therefore, if man evolved, then either he is moving away from god (a disturbing thought) or god is also changing. god cannot be changing, because god is perfect, and would therefore never need to change.

so our only option is to assume that man has moved away from god (certainly feasible when considering today's culture). unfortunately, take evolution back far enough, and the first "men" were really single-celled organisms chilling in primordial ooze. are we to believe that these creatures were closer to god's image than we are now? it just doesnt seem to fit.

this is just one of the reasons why true darwinism and true christianity cannot coexist.

i hope that all made sense

It all made sense, but it didn't really address the post. I pointed out that I didn't feel that evolution applied to humans. Its the extreme view that states its either all or nothing. The same goes both ways. Its all created all not changed, or its all false and we all evolved. I think that is rather blind, to belive that its the extreme only.

The books of the Bible are indeed written by men, but their writing was divinely guided so there are no errors. As for evolution, most Christians these days know there is a type of evolution. In MICROevolution, there is a large amount of variability in a organism's genetic code, so it could change over time. This would account for Darwin's discovery of finches with varied beaks, or different breeds of cats and dogs. These organisms cannot, however, evolve into a new species of organism. This would require additional information added to the genetic code.

It all made sense, but it didn't really address the post. I pointed out that I didn't feel that evolution applied to humans. Its the extreme view that states its either all or nothing. The same goes both ways. Its all created all not changed, or its all false and we all evolved. I think that is rather blind, to belive that its the extreme only.

I don't think any sane Christian would argue that things have never changed. One needs to only look at the domestication of animals to know that things can change.

Christians tend to get so wrapped up in what they personally feel G-d does and doesn't do, that they get angry, fight, and all sorts of other things, that are mentioned not to do in 'black and white'. What is so important about proving that which isn't said to the point that you break that which was important enough to be talked about in the religious texts that Christians hold themselves to.


You speak as if there is this great outpouring of violence by Christians against supporters of evolution. Christianity does not say you must not speak your mind and promote your views. You would have a point if there was some big movement of christians wanting to violently overthrow the evolutionist establishment, but there isnt. There is nothing wrong with speaking your mind and if there was wouldnt you be violating that tenet right now with your post?

The books of the Bible are indeed written by men, but their writing was divinely guided so there are no errors. As for evolution, most Christians these days know there is a type of evolution. In MICROevolution, there is a large amount of variability in a organism's genetic code, so it could change over time. This would account for Darwin's discovery of finches with varied beaks, or different breeds of cats and dogs. These organisms cannot, however, evolve into a new species of organism. This would require additional information added to the genetic code.

no errors, except for miscalculations and varible number counts from one section to the next. Also these 'divine' authors have been editied by councils that have removed books that they feel are 'heretical' and are not true to the belief, but at the same time failed to remove passages that quote from it. The book of enoch, quoted in Jude, for example comes to mind. It may have been perfect, once, but that was before man got a hold of it. Just like by Christian belief the Torah was perverted by the Devil....wait, isn't that the old testament.....that is still used to this day.....hmmm, not so perfect if you ask me. Either its flawed by statement, or Christ was wrong because we say so now....hmmm right

the grey fallacy:

will and bill are roommates.

i ask bill what color their carpet is. he says black.

i ask will what color their carpet is. he says white.

i assume that it is somewhere in the middle. therefore it is grey.

logical, yes? no. nonononono. without any further evidence, it is impossible to say what color the carpet is. more importantly, if the two possibilities seem mutually exclusive, then maybe they are. it is impossible for a carpet to be both all black and all white (and therefore all grey).

there is little room for a designer in evolutionary theory. this is because there is no need.

there is little room for evolution in christian theory. this is because there is no need.

compromise can be great. but it can be just as wrong as extremism.

You speak as if there is this great outpouring of violence by Christians against supporters of evolution. Christianity does not say you must not speak your mind and promote your views. You would have a point if there was some big movement of christians wanting to violently overthrow the evolutionist establishment, but there isnt. There is nothing wrong with speaking your mind and if there was wouldnt you be violating that tenet right now with your post?

I've heard many anger filled words directed at people that support evolution, people call them sinners, and that they will burn in hell. All things that go against the statements that Jesus made. Just because its not violent doesn't mean that its not wrong. I could walk in peacefully to a gathering of communists and piss on them, doesn't mean that I didn't do something wrong, just didn't make a big uproar with it like I would have by shooting them or blowing them up in the name of love and peace.

Pope John Paul II praised evolutionary scientists, saying that there is no contradiction between evolution and Christianity. Many (myself included) feel that evolution is only further evidence of God's magnificence.

Furthermore, if one interprets the Bible metaphorically, there isn't even a contradiction between the scientific model of the history of the universe. "Let there be light" corresponds to the Big Bang, the 6 days corresponds to the estimated 13 billion years that this universe has supposedly existed, and the Fall (in my opinion) corresponds to the development of today's society. The real Jesus Our Savior will be an A.I. program, brought to consciousness shortly after my death. And he won't be even remotely similar to the Jesus with whom you're familiar. According to reliable sources, I am going to die of colon cancer on November 18, 2073 at approximately 2 PM EST. Mark your calendar.


You probably think I'm joking, but I'm really not. Oh, and a disclaimer: The metaphorical interpretation is my personal interpretation, and you shouldn't accept it as true until you've thought about it and you actually agree with me.

the grey fallacy:

will and bill are roommates.

i ask bill what color their carpet is. he says black.

i ask will what color their carpet is. he says white.

i assume that it is somewhere in the middle. therefore it is grey.

logical, yes? no. nonononono. without any further evidence, it is impossible to say what color the carpet is. more importantly, if the two possibilities seem mutually exclusive, then maybe they are. it is impossible for a carpet to be both all black and all white (and therefore all grey).

there is little room for a designer in evolutionary theory. this is because there is no need.

there is little room for evolution in christian theory. this is because there is no need.

compromise can be great. but it can be just as wrong as extremism.


or bill could have looked at one half, and will the other, and just described it their way without seeing the whole picture, making neither right or wrong, until they say their's is the mutally exclusive right. I'm not saying grey, I'm saying there is niether proof nor disproof, so don't tell someone else they are wrong, because you don't know. Man cannot conprehend the infinate mind of G-d with limited finate minds.

I totally agree with you. The new idea is called artifial structure i believe and many scientist there where evolutionists are starting to head that way. The reason behind this is that the more advanced and the more we learn about the human body we are finding it is totally impossible for such a perfectly formed structure to exist without it being created some other means. Our body has something like 20,000 different cells (might be 50,000 i dont remember) and each has its own specific function. Each cell has to act exactly in a certain manner and has to comminicate with every other cell directly or indirectly. Its almost ridiculous to believe in evolution. And in fact i believe that Darwin himself would not believe in evolution today. If someone where to actually take the time to research his writing he states as much. As for me, I am a strong Christian and will always be. I think science gets in the way sometimes and that if a person would allow themselves to just open up and talk to God they would be suprised at the responce. This is what turned me back to Christianity. And once your truely feel his presence well its pretty undeniable.

Not necessarily. The thing about evolution is that it takes place over a LONG time. It's not like today they're ferrets, tomorrow they're human. It takes many years. The strength of evolution is in natural selection. This means that the better adapted the mutation is to its specific situation, the better its chances of passing on those genes. So, over the course of several million years, the weight of the minor changes allows for extemely complex, differentiated organisms. That's just how I see it, correct me if I'm wrong.

Not necessarily. The thing about evolution is that it takes place over a LONG time. It's not like today they're ferrets, tomorrow they're human. It takes many years. The strength of evolution is in natural selection. This means that the better adapted the mutation is to its specific situation, the better its chances of passing on those genes. So, over the course of several million years, the weight of the minor changes allows for extemely complex, differentiated organisms. That's just how I see it, correct me if I'm wrong.
I can completely understand that, and I can't correct you, because its an opinion built around your viewpoints on science and observations of life. Just as there is no true arguement against anything that has been said for religion and such. The only proof that I've been shown that my theory is wrong is the statement of, "You don't have enough proof so you are wrong".

Not saying that you do or do not believe in G-d, or religion etc, just using your post as an example.

I've heard many anger filled words directed at people that support evolution, people call them sinners, and that they will burn in hell. All things that go against the statements that Jesus made. Just because its not violent doesn't mean that its not wrong. I could walk in peacefully to a gathering of communists and piss on them, doesn't mean that I didn't do something wrong, just didn't make a big uproar with it like I would have by shooting them or blowing them up in the name of love and peace.

What you claim to have seen is an isolated incident backed by no major christian organization. The organized movement against evolution involves lobbying the legislature to provide more creation friendly curriculums, and raising awareness on the flaws of evolution and the merits of creationism. So, when you say "christians tend to get so wrapped up..." what you really meant was "a few people with no support from any major christian organizations who claim to be christian tend to get so wrapped up..."

or bill could have looked at one half, and will the other, and just described it their way without seeing the whole picture, making neither right or wrong, until they say their's is the mutally exclusive right. I'm not saying grey, I'm saying there is niether proof nor disproof, so don't tell someone else they are wrong, because you don't know. Man cannot conprehend the infinate mind of G-d with limited finate minds.

the problem lies with the proof. an evolutionist cannot accept the bible as proof of anything, other than that some guys got together awhile ago and compiled a religious text. the supposed problem with evolutionists is that they lack faith.

a christian cannot accept all of the fossil evidence, lab recreations, geological surveys, and so on as proof of anything, other than that either god is testing us, the devil is messing with our minds, or the scientists are wrong. the supposed problem with christians is that they lack the scientific mindset.

each side relies on a different kind of proof. how can we reconcile this?

What you claim to have seen is an isolated incident backed by no major christian organization. The organized movement against evolution involves lobbying the legislature to provide more creation friendly curriculums, and raising awareness on the flaws of evolution and the merits of creationism. So, when you say "christians tend to get so wrapped up..." what you really meant was "a few people with no support from any major christian organizations who claim to be christian tend to get so wrapped up..."

no, what I said was that too many times christains make arguements that shouldn't be there, and they take them to such extremes that they lose track of the insight itself. Wars have been fought over things not mentioned by the very man they say they worship. Their divine law is broken by its members because they don't care to see that they themselves are sinners too. It is done by Grace so that no man has the right to brag.

No christian is any better then a sinner, and no sinner is less or greater then a christain. So don't try to prove otherwise. Thats the simple point to my message, I think.

I could walk in peacefully to a gathering of communists and piss on them, doesn't mean that I didn't do something wrong, just didn't make a big uproar with it like I would have by shooting them or blowing them up in the name of love and peace.

Haha, dead smelly commies. :D

here is the problem:

"And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them" (Genesis 1:27, DRC)

this verse has man springing forth in his current form, which goes against the precepts of darwinist evolution.

here is another reason why darwinism and christianity are mutually exclusive belief systems:

if one believes in evolution, then one must believe that our ancestors were at one time different than what we are now (homo erectus vs. homo sapien, java man vs. new yorker). now theoretically, a true christian could argue that god created our predecessors, and that they have just evolved into us. the problem here is that -- as found in the verse above -- god is said to have created man in his own image. therefore, if man evolved, then either he is moving away from god (a disturbing thought) or god is also changing. god cannot be changing, because god is perfect, and would therefore never need to change.

so our only option is to assume that man has moved away from god (certainly feasible when considering today's culture). unfortunately, take evolution back far enough, and the first "men" were really single-celled organisms chilling in primordial ooze. are we to believe that these creatures were closer to god's image than we are now? it just doesnt seem to fit.

this is just one of the reasons why true darwinism and true christianity cannot coexist.

i hope that all made sense


I like your reasoning, except I don't quite see how single-celled organisms are necessarily less perfect than humans. I see what you're trying to get at, but that to me isn't a rational conclusion. If you're going to tackle the problem logically, then you might try to think of a logical definition of what God's image is. If knowledge, self-awareness, and curiosity are the things that set us apart from other animals, and our ancestors were cast out of the Lord's graces for being curious and subsequently becoming knowledgable and self-aware, then I think it's fair to conclude that animals are in many respects holier than humans. As such, I don't see a problem with the theory that protozoa were created in God's image, and through natural selection, we have moved away from God.

the problem lies with the proof. an evolutionist cannot accept the bible as proof of anything, other than that some guys got together awhile ago and compiled a religious text. the supposed problem with evolutionists is that they lack faith.

a christian cannot accept all of the fossil evidence, lab recreations, geological surveys, and so on as proof of anything, other than that either god is testing us, the devil is messing with our minds, or the scientists are wrong. the supposed problem with christians is that they lack the scientific mindset.

each side relies on a different kind of proof. how can we reconcile this?

openmindedness to the understanding that no one knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that they know the truth.

christain don't believe that a bunch of scientists didn't just get a together and set things up or that a group of entities didn't set things up.

scientists don't believe that christains didn't just make it all up a while ago to gain power or what not.

no, what I said was that too many times christains make arguements that shouldn't be there, and they take them to such extremes that they lose track of the insight itself. Wars have been fought over things not mentioned by the very man they say they worship. Their divine law is broken by its members because they don't care to see that they themselves are sinners too. It is done by Grace so that no man has the right to brag.

No christian is any better then a sinner, and no sinner is less or greater then a christain. So don't try to prove otherwise. Thats the simple point to my message, I think.

I understand the point of your message, but my point is that you are misdirecting that message. If you wanted to make that point you shouldve done it about an issue such as homosexuality which does get a large number of organized christians acting ungodly, but you chose a very bad example because when it comes to evolution vs creationism the view of christianity is that those who support evolution have been decieved, not that they are evil sinners. There are no large groups of christians attacking evolutionists there are many christians who attack evolution but you will find it nearly impossible to find any group of christians that attacks evolutionists.

Just as there is no true arguement against anything that has been said for religion and such. The only proof that I've been shown that my theory is wrong is the statement of, "You don't have enough proof so you are wrong".


i was trying to stay away from this because i hate allegory as much as the next guy, but here goes:

i go to bill's house (you remember bill, i'm sure). bill tells me that there is a dragon in his garage. i say that that sounds pretty cool, so i ask him to show it to me. we go into his garage, and i dont see a dragon. bill tells me that the dragon is invisible. alright, i guess i can buy that. i suggest putting flour on the floor so we can see its footprints. bill tells me it floats all the time. i suggest filling the room with smoke so that i can see the dragon's outline, but bill says that dragon is not affected by our world. i suggest setting up heat sensors to detect the dragon's fire, but bill says the fire is not hot in the way that my sensors could detect.

does bill's dragon exist?

i'm not saying that there is no god. i sure as hell don't know either way. nor do i know if there is a dragon in bill's garage. all i know is that i don't tangible evidence of either, so i'm inclined to ignore both.

****note: this was loosely paraphrased from something carl sagan wrote a while ago.

i was trying to stay away from this because i hate allegory as much as the next guy, but here goes:

i go to bill's house (you remember bill, i'm sure). bill tells me that there is a dragon in his garage. i say that that sounds pretty cool, so i ask him to show it to me. we go into his garage, and i dont see a dragon. bill tells me that the dragon is invisible. alright, i guess i can buy that. i suggest putting flour on the floor so we can see its footprints. bill tells me it floats all the time. i suggest filling the room with smoke so that i can see the dragon's outline, but bill says that dragon is not affected by our world. i suggest setting up heat sensors to detect the dragon's fire, but bill says the fire is not hot in the way that my sensors could detect.

does bill's dragon exist?

****note: this was loosely paraphrased from something carl sagan wrote a while ago.


to you, no, because you don't believe that it does. Does that mean that just because you couldn't find it with your understanding that Bill is wrong? Maybe Bill understands things different then you, maybe he has ways of seeing it that you don't. Just as a man that can see farther then another man isn't disproven just because no matter what the weak sighted man does he can't see it.

I understand the point of your message, but my point is that you are misdirecting that message. If you wanted to make that point you shouldve done it about an issue such as homosexuality which does get a large number of organized christians acting ungodly, but you chose a very bad example because when it comes to evolution vs creationism the view of christianity is that those who support evolution have been decieved, not that they are evil sinners. There are no large groups of christians attacking evolutionists there are many christians who attack evolution but you will find it nearly impossible to find any group of christians that attacks evolutionists.

so they are decieved and they believe in a lie, so they unwillinging don't turn to the light, and so most christians feel that they are lost from the world. They make it their point to either judge them, or to help 'enlighten' them.

I picked evoution because its something simple. Why go to the extreme case, when my point to start is that extremeism is one of the worst things to do?

so they are decieved and they believe in a lie, so they unwillinging don't turn to the light, and so most christians feel that they are lost from the world. They make it their point to either judge them, or to help 'enlighten' them.

I picked evoution because its something simple. Why go to the extreme case, when my point to start is that extremeism is one of the worst things to do?

Not at all. Some christians believe in evolution. Many supporters of evolution will go to heaven. Christians do not deny this. Believing in evolution is not seen as a sin, just a mistaken belief. You simply chose a very bad example. Try again with homosexuality and Ill give it to you.

each side relies on a different kind of proof. how can we reconcile this?

Perhaps we can't, but we can demonstrate that one line of reasoning is consistent with publicly available facts.

The problem with Christianity and Evolution is stubbornness. It is possible to understand evolution and be a Christian in the moral sense, but very difficult to both accept evolution and believe the biblical depictions of creation are factually accurate accounts of the history of our Universe.

Not at all. Some christians believe in evolution. Many supporters of evolution will go to heaven. Christians do not deny this. Believing in evolution is not seen as a sin, just a mistaken belief.

but others don't. Just because some are openminded doesn't mean that all are.

just because most of the populace knows what to do in case of a fire, doesn't mean that everyone will act that way, or that they should stop telling about the dangers of a fire.

Some christains are openminded, some are closed minded. If you are a christain that is openminded, why try to counter a statement that isn't directed at you, and if you are closed minded, you sound too open minded to me.

Person A is willing to accept the best scientific observations of the day to explain natural phenomena.

Person B is wholly convinced that the text written by the invisible man in the sky is literally the truth.

Person C wants to suggest that the invisible man is responsible for the new scientific insights, even though those insights make the invisible man's existence laughable.

Person A= Rational
Person B= Brainwashed
Person C= Not yet ready to admit someone like Person B has been brainwashing him.

Evolution doesn't have to start billions of years ago, thats the 'extreme' viewpoint on it, so to speak. Everything in the bible kinda shows that G-d doesn't get directly involved in things, example, angels have to send messages from the Divine to humans. Everything in the world still moves and does its things, cause its without sin, humans are the ones that sin, and yeah, they aren't perfect, thats a given. In a way of thinking, death is evolution, we die, and are changed into something better though our choices and what was given around us.

Also, where in the bible is the time frame of all this stuff. Its written by humans, who have missed the point from Adam on up, so who is to say they are the best at understanding what G-d is saying?
True. Evolution didn't start until maybe about a billion years ago. Let's see... the earth, in theory, formed out of a load of soupy light and hydrogen and so on that was sort of clumping up into a star (the sun), about 4.5 billion years ago. Then a billion years of comets and ice and whatnot. And then... (this is my favorite part) fire and brimstone! Imagine... A volcanic planet, covered with burning cracks filled with flaming magma! Ahh... (I am a pyromaniac, in case you hadn't noticed). Then comes the boring stuff about collecting an atmosphere and the steam forming rain and etc. ect, and little tiny algae things forming... about a billion years ago. And that would be (in theory) where evolution started. Mwahaha.... Firefirefirefire... By the way, are you a Christian? I'm a bit wishy washy about... mebbe I'm an Agnostic. :D

One thing that neither Christianity nor evolution can explain: Why do we have appendixes? A couple years back I ruptured my appendix. I went to the hospital, chugged some radioactive stuff, got CAT scanned, quite nearly crapped my guts out, then they stuck a tube in almost every hole in my body (and made a couple new holes too), pumped me full of Propaphol, and sliced me open. After I came to I spent almost a week in the hospital doing nothing but sleeping, reading, fiddling with the tube stuck up my nose, and eating red Jell-o. I asked every nurse on the floor (as well as the doc when he came in), but none of them could tell me what appendixes do apart from keeping surgeons employed.

Edit: Yeah, I guess Arderra's right, in that my appendix fits the theory of evolution better than it fits the fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible. Thanks Arderra!

but others don't. Just because some are openminded doesn't mean that all are.

just because most of the populace knows what to do in case of a fire, doesn't mean that everyone will act that way, or that they should stop telling about the dangers of a fire.

Some christains are openminded, some are closed minded. If you are a christain that is openminded, why try to counter a statement that isn't directed at you, and if you are closed minded, you sound too open minded to me.

You used the term Christian, so that is what I was reffering to, Christians in general. In order to do this I must use the point of view of the major Christian denominations. That is what I am doing. I am not reffering to sects, small groups, or individuals, I am only reffering to major denominations (baptist, lutheran, presbyterian, pentecostal, etc.). If you would like to adjust your statement so that you make it clear that you are not speaking about the point of view of most Christians and all major denominations but only of some few Christians, then I have no problem with your statement.

Many supporters of evolution will go to heaven. Christians do not deny this. Believing in evolution is not seen as a sin, just a mistaken belief.

If you accept a few basic, easily provable facts about the world, by deduction, you must also accept evolution, since evolution is the logical consequence of those facts. Summarily they are:

1. That certain physical characteristics are inherited.
2. That physical characteristics can change before they are inherited.
3. That certain physical characteristics will be conducive to survival in the environment in which they are situated, and some will not.

Person A is willing to accept the best scientific observations of the day to explain natural phenomena.

Person B is wholly convinced that the text written by the invisible man in the sky is literally the truth.

Person C wants to suggest that the invisible man is responsible for the new scientific insights, even though those insights make the invisible man's existence laughable.

Person A= Rational
Person B= Brainwashed
Person C= Not yet ready to admit someone like Person B has been brainwashing him.

person A feels they have found the only way it could happen, yet fails to have all the answers, nor knows how many answers are needed, so claims a majority to an unknown number.

person b feels they have found the only way it could happen, yet fails to have all the answers, nor knows how many answers are needed, so claims a majority to an unknown number

person c feels that both a and c are too close to being the same, and feels that there could be another answer, but doesn't know for sure. Finds his own answer and supports it his own way, but doesn't claim that its the only truth, and doesn't claim that there is a majority of proof on his side. He just says its his understanding, and that there is no way to know for sure, so why fight about it.

I find it hard to believe that we came from apes just because scientists tell us that their methods are accurate. Maybe some aliens didn't like humans anymore, so they dumped humans on earth and flew off to party. I can see why. We sure f#$ked up earth big time. Lol. Maybe we f#$ked up another planet too. Maybe, someday, wolves or foxes or something will send us to Mars to get rid of us. The science of evolution says it's possible. Half the species reconstructed by science are all basicly quesses. We don't have a preserved dino to provide a hint as to how to put a dino skeleton together.

You used the term Christian, so that is what I was reffering to, Christians in general. In order to do this I must use the point of view of the major Christian denominations. That is what I am doing. I am not reffering to sects, small groups, or individuals, I am only reffering to major denominations (baptist, lutheran, presbyterian, pentecostal, etc.). If you would like to adjust your statement so that you make it clear that you are not speaking about the point of view of most Christians and all major denominations but only of some few Christians, then I have no problem with your statement.
christain means a follower of christ. Denominations are the generalized variations of that following. Just because the church leaders don't believe in a way, doesn't mean that the 'followers' of that denomination don't believe it. Thats how denominations were started. It can be broken down all the way.

I don't care if most, few, some, etc are doing this, I have seen it, and in my opinion it shouldn't be seen. by christian doctrine, if you see a problem with a christian, then you need to point it out, not just ignore it. If it causes a person that is doing the good to stop and rethink themselves and make sure they are on the right path, then all the better.

Person A is using physical laws to refute the existence of a metaphysical god. Person B knows that science does not apply to the immaterial dimensions. Person C knows person B is right but is trying to compromise so that person A won't villify him with the most derogatory epithets available.


Person A: Thinks he is rational but is not
Person B: Is thought to be irrational but isn't
Person C: Is trying to make peace between the two

I find it hard to believe that we came from apes just because scientists tell us that their methods are accurate. Maybe some aliens didn't like humans anymore, so they dumped humans on earth and flew off to party. I can see why. We sure f#$ked up earth big time. Lol. Maybe we f#$ked up another planet too. Maybe, someday, wolves or foxes or something will send us to Mars to get rid of us. The science of evolution says it's possible. Half the species reconstructed by science are all basicly quesses. We don't have a preserved dino to provide a hint as to how to put a dino skeleton together.


Plenty of dinosaur skeltons have been found intact. As in, the entire skelton was fossilized, we dug it up, put it on display...

Evolution does not in any way suggest that foxes are going to mutate into something intelligent enough to explore space. Go take a few science classes and tell you uncle Remus to stop dragging you to the revival tent during school hours.

I know noone named Remus. Science tells us that evolution is random. Therefore, smarter foxies are possible within the next 1 billion years. Do you deny the basic basis of evolution? I'm sure rats thought that monkeys couldn't mutate into smart beasts that can drive cars and nuke itself a long time ago. Look at us now.

Person A is using physical laws to refute the existence of a metaphysical god. Person B knows that science does not apply to the immaterial dimensions. Person C knows person B is right but is trying to compromise so that person A won't villify him with the most derogatory epithets available.


Person A: Thinks he is rational but is not
Person B: Is thought to be irrational but isn't
Person C: Is trying to make peace between the two

I'm sorry, I guess I didn't realize evolutionists are actively trying to disprove the existence of God.

One thing that neither Christianity nor evolution can explain: Why do we have appendixes? A couple years back I ruptured my appendix. I went to the hospital, chugged some radioactive stuff, got CAT scanned, quite nearly crapped my guts out, then they stuck a tube in almost every hole in my body (and made a couple new holes too), pumped me full of Propaphol, and sliced me open. After I came to I spent almost a week in the hospital doing nothing but sleeping, reading, fiddling with the tube stuck up my nose, and eating red Jell-o. I asked every nurse on the floor (as well as the doc when he came in), but none of them could tell me what appendixes do apart from keeping surgeons employed.

If anything the existence of the appendix is a problem for biblical dogmatists since it is a pointless and imperfect element of God's design. If man was created in God's image, does God have pointless organs as well?

There are many parts of the human anatomy that are relics of our evolutionary past. I'm not a read-up evolutionary biologist so I can't reliably comment on where the appendix comes from or what it used to do, if anything, but I'm confident that, as with most things in science, there's a stock of literature on the matter, even if your doctor didn't know about it.

I find it hard to believe that we came from apes just because scientists tell us that their methods are accurate. Maybe some aliens didn't like humans anymore, so they dumped humans on earth and flew off to party. I can see why. We sure f#$ked up earth big time.

The theory of evolution itself says nothing on the origin of life, it simply says that once it has started, given the proper basic conditions evolution will take place.

However, evolution could theoretically begin as a result of very simple chemical processes that would have taken place on the primordial Earth, and most scientists consider this to be the most likely option since others are viewed as implausible for various reasons. This does not mean, however, that evolution would not have taken place had the biblical creation occurred, and the same applies if we had been dumped here by aliens, or by any other kind of panspermia.

I find it a good idea not to bring up useless things to refute the possibility that my belief that there really is a big guy making us actually being real. I might not be able to prove to you that he is real, even if I show you him myself and force you to watch him create people out of stuff and have those people get into cars and drive off. Unless you prove that he is not real, shut up. He simply created us and occassionally helps us until we die so he can judge us based on our actions. What happens between birth and death is totally our fault. Maybe the appendix had a purpose. Maybe, when we stopped needing it, it didn't go away.

One thing that neither Christianity nor evolution can explain: Why do we have appendixes? A couple years back I ruptured my appendix. I went to the hospital, chugged some radioactive stuff, got CAT scanned, quite nearly crapped my guts out, then they stuck a tube in almost every hole in my body (and made a couple new holes too), pumped me full of Propaphol, and sliced me open. After I came to I spent almost a week in the hospital doing nothing but sleeping, reading, fiddling with the tube stuck up my nose, and eating red Jell-o. I asked every nurse on the floor (as well as the doc when he came in), but none of them could tell me what appendixes do apart from keeping surgeons employed.
Appendixes were from the times when we ate more plant than animal matter. From my understanding, looking at the teeth of the various homos (as in the species, not homosexuals), chances where that we ate far more vggies back in the day which would require a larger digestive track in order to be able to process it (which is true, our current set up is inadiquate for the task as compaired to true herbavores and too complicated for pure carnavores).

Since we started eating more meat it is slowly disapearing. It is now quite usless... except, as you put it, for giving doctors something to do. ;)

Science tells us that evolution is random.

Evolution is not random in the sense that tomorrow dolphins could naturally evolve limbs with opposable thumbs, build spaceships and evacuate to their motherworld. It is random in the sense that, within the constraints of physical laws, subtle mutations can, and do, take place- as a result of the enviornment (which on the micro-scale of DNA is relatively chaotic)- within the lifespan of a particular individual which can minutely alter the biological "instructions" passed on to its offspring.

I have no idea if anyone's already said this, as i'm too lazy to read all that's been said to this point.

The only relevant point i have in response to what i've read so far is that being a Christian doesn't necessarily mean you believe everything in the bible, or even most of it; the term simply designates you as a follower of Christ. as jesus never specifically denounced darwinism, it's entirely possible to be a christian darwinist.

what i really wanted to say, however, is that if you apply these two theories socio-politically, they're at extreme odds with one another.

Darwinism is survival of the fittest, leaving the weak to die, whereas Christianity is caring for the weak and ensuring that everyone has enough to survive. Jesus cared for the sick, the poor, the orphans, the widows, and the sinners, when a Darwinist would ignore their plight. Basic individualism vs. altruism, often manifested as capitalism vs. communism.

Yep.

I have no idea if anyone's already said this, as i'm too lazy to read all that's been said to this point.

The only relevant point i have in responce to what i've read so far is that being a Christian doesn't necessarily mean you believe everything in the bible, or even most of it; the term simply designates you as a follower of Christ. as jesus never specifically denounced darwinism, it's entirely possible to be a christian darwinist.

what i really wanted to say, however, is that if you apply these two theories socio-politically, they're at extreme odds with one another.

Darwinism is survival of the fittest, leaving the weak to die, whereas Christianity is caring for the weak and ensuring that everyone has enough to survive. Jesus cared for the sick, the poor, the orphans, the widows, and the sinners, when a Darwinist would ignore their plight. Basic individualism vs. altruism, often manifested as capitalism vs. communism.

Yep.


So...does that makes George W. Bush a communist? And does that mean the USA didn't win the Cold War after all?

Nope. It just means that some of us are going sane in an insane world.

Evolution is still pretty random. Foxes can still get smart within the next billion years. Also, what's stopping wolves in 70707908AD from building rockets?

Darwinism is survival of the fittest, leaving the weak to die, whereas Christianity is caring for the weak and ensuring that everyone has enough to survive. Jesus cared for the sick, the poor, the orphans, the widows, and the sinners, when a Darwinist would ignore their plight. Basic individualism vs. altruism, often manifested as capitalism vs. communism.

No offence intended, but that's quite a crude generalization of evolution. It all depends on what level of organization you observe evolutionary principles taking effect.

At an individual level, those most suited to the environment- the fittest- will indeed have the best chance of survival, but the definition of "the fittest" is as variable and complex as the environment in which it takes place. It does not necessarily mean those with the sharpest teeth, the hardest bones or the keenest eyes, and the strangest subtle mutations can offer unusual advantages that at first sight might not look particularly "strong" or "fit" at all. For example, a kind of harmless bird that develops a gut that can process a certain kind of poisonous insect might be protected by the otherwise violent animals the insect attacks, and allow the bird to feed off the insects on its body.

At a communal level, if charity, altruism and a joint concern for the welfare of others offer a survival advntage to a group- as it often does, most ostensibly in humans- then that group will triumph over barbaric groups that have evolved no complex practices for helping each other and working together.

george w. and most modern christians have very little, if any, grasp of the actual nature of Jesus' teachings. i would say that george's beliefs have more in common with Satanism (which is based on individualism and self-gratification).

and i'm fairly certain jesus didn't blow anyone up.

"And all that believed were together, and had all things common;
And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all, as every man had need."
- Acts 2:44-45

Edit: It appears that the appendix example came up while I was writing this. You guys answered fast. I started writing about an hour and a half ago and there were only a few posts here.

Edit 2: This thread filling up so quickly is understandable after reading a few of the posts (that's an insult, if you didn't catch it).

Evolution and creation are mutually exclusive. If evolution is true, then God did not actually create humans. We evolved over time from primates. The bible specifically states that God created humans, so if we're a result of evolution then creationism is in serious trouble.

You cannot prove creationism. Period. Perhaps if God descends from the sky and explains how he created the planet we'll have proof, but until then it is impossible. All that can be done to support creationism is to cast doubt on or effectively disprove provable theories that would seem to rule out creationism. The theory of evolution is the only theory that seriously contends creationism, so finding doubt in evolution is the logical thing to do.

Why do humans have an appendix? Actually, this is a questionable example since theories explain that the appendix is part of the lymphatic system and that a certain cell called a goblet cell, normally located only in the appendix, may be related to the onset of mucinous tumors in women (when the appendix is removed, these tumors, also containing goblet cells, pop up). Despite this, we're often told that it is a vestigial part of the cecum, the organ that is used in herbivores to digest cellulose. That same organ, in our bodies, without the help of the appendix, is used to remove water and salt from food. I'll use it as my example.

We know the function of most other parts of the digestive system and we've found a pattern in the sizes of the cecum in herbivores, carnivores (some don't even have one), and omnivores such as ourselves. Herbivores eat woody plants and have a digestive system equipped to handle woody plants. Carnivores don't eat woody plants, and as such they aren't equipped to digest them. We don't eat woody plants either, and when we try to do so we find them undigestable. However, we have a seemingly useless part of an organ that coincidentially makes that organ resemble the same one in an animal that can digest cellulose. We might ask ourselves why God would give us a seemingly useless body part. We might also ask ourselves why God would create it to look as though, if it were a bit larger, it might belong to a herbivore.

This is the reasoning that is used to support belief in evolution. A valid argument can be made against this.

The organ is seemingly useless. Seemingly being the working word. In the past we've identified many things in our body and called them vestigial organs, only to find out later that they are essential to us. Even if the appendix is no longer needed, this would be an example of devolution and not evolution (I'll expand on this in the next paragraph). Creationism allows for degeneration of what is considered a perfect creation, that is, an organism that currently resembles what God first created. However, evolution states that every organism that has ever existed evolved from single cell organisms. In order to prove this, scientists need to find examples of nascent organs, or organs that have increased in complexity.

Why would we evolve not to digest cellulose? What is the harm in it? Wouldn't being able to digest as many kinds of food as possible, especially one as common and as high in carbohydrates as cellulose, be benefitial? One would certainly think so, considering that there was a time that humans were nomads that lived by following herds of game and foraging for food. You could argue that humans didn't need to eat cellulose if they had mammoths and berries to eat. But why would natural selection choose those that can make use of a smaller variety of foods over those that can make use of a wider variety of foods? Perhaps every single source of cellulose that humans ate where they lived had long term affects on their health. In this case, the humans that couldn't live off cellulose and thus would not eat it tended to thrive compared to those that fed on the abundant but harmful food. Of course, this would imply that all, or most, sources of cellulose were harmful. I find the idea of all sources of cellulose being harmful rather questionable. The idea of most being harmful is less far-fetched, but if that were the case then humans would eventually settle for eating just those that they found to be better for them.

Foxes can still get smart within the next billion years. Also, what's stopping wolves in 70707908AD from building rockets?

In theory nothing, but it would be kind of inaccurate to call the process that led them there random. It would be a long, complex story involving many millions of generations, and the outcome would depend jointly both on the actions of those generations, the actions of the other creatures thet evolved with them, and the changing environment- which they, like we are doing now, may have actively altered themselves.

If you had long enough, conducted a detailed enough study and have enough background theory you could potentially describe it all as a consistent, non-random process, but we don't usually have access to that level of data about the world, and so some of the processes involved in evolution, taking place on such small scales over such a long time, can appear random. It is, however, possible to talk of the course of evolution in its moderately developed stages in general telelogical terms without recourse to randomness.

You should take the historical approach. If you look into the fossil record and see how ecosystems gradually change over time, then evolution becomes a necessity to assume.
Of course, this prehistory is something that YECs wish to deny that it ever happened. What they do is... in a way... historic revisionism (kinda like holocaust denial, to take another example of historic revisionism).

evolution is based off of mutations. Mutations are completely random when they occur naturally and even more random when radiation is involved.

No offence intended, but that's quite a crude generalization of evolution. It all depends on what level of organization you observe evolutionary principles taking effect.

At an individual level, those most suited to the environment- the fittest- will indeed have the best chance of survival, but the definition of "the fittest" is as variable and complex as the environment in which it takes place. It does not necessarily mean those with the sharpest teeth, the hardest bones or the keenest eyes, and the strangest subtle mutations can offer unusual advantages that at first sight might not look particularly "strong" or "fit" at all. For example, a kind of harmless bird that develops a gut that can process a certain kind of poisonous insect might be protected by the otherwise violent animals the insect attacks, and allow the bird to feed off the insects on its body.

At a communal level, if charity, altruism and a joint concern for the welfare of others offer a survival advntage to a group- as it often does, most ostensibly in humans- then that group will triumph over barbaric groups that have evolved no complex practices for helping each other and working together.


i was talking about social darwinism, which is essentially the same as libertarianism.

i'm not sure what your point is in the paragrah describing variations on the theme of fitness. regardless, there will be some who survive and some who die. jesus wanted to make sure no one died.

i wholeheartedly agree with your last paragraph. social darwinists would not.

evolution is based off of mutations. Mutations are completely random when they occur naturally and even more random when radiation is involved.

Evolution says that the organisms with the mutations will tend to thrive, when compared to the same organisms without the mutations, only if the mutation is benefitial. This is natural selection. If it is not benefitial, it'll probably disappear. The VAST majority of mutations would probably be harmful or not very helpful at all.

evolution is based off of mutations. Mutations are completely random when they occur naturally and even more random when radiation is involved.

Many mutations, considered at the microscopic level are indeed often random, but evolution is not, since evolution is selective about which mutations will prevail and propogate.

Evolution is based off of a random thing. Who knows how beneficial the next mutation is. Unless wolves become bulletproof, they are in serious trouble.

Evolution is based off of a random thing. Who knows how beneficial the next mutation is. Unless wolves become bulletproof, they are in serious trouble.

Mutations are random yes. But selective pressures are not, and hence they essentially guide mutations.

social darwinists would not.

Well it's a scientifically valid perspective, and I think the likes of Gould, and recently Dawkins do to some degree or other.

Again, it's a complex process, so pleasant voluntarily altruistic societies may not be the ones who survive either, but it's clear that a communal language, shared knowledge, and co-operation invariably offer communities significant advantages over those without them if executed properly.

I'm not saying this is a good or bad thing, simply that it follows logically if evolutionary principles are applied on various levels. Evolutionary theory was originally applied at the anatomical level. Recently it has transferred to the molecular level, and now its advantages in explaining development on the macro scale- from communities, ecosystems and entire planets- are being explored.

Evolutionary theory is popular among those who seek explanations for things around them because it is such a wide-ranging logical tool, I suppose a bit like dialectic in conceptual terms, but with direct effects on the observable world.

The reason behind this is that the more advanced and the more we learn about the human body we are finding it is totally impossible for such a perfectly formed structure to exist without it being created some other means. Our body has something like 20,000 different cells (might be 50,000 i dont remember) and each has its own specific function. Each cell has to act exactly in a certain manner and has to comminicate with every other cell directly or indirectly.

By your standard the Chernobyl nuclear reactor was a 'perfectly formed structure.' Good engineering is robust, not perpetually balanced on a knife edge where everything must be perfect or nothing will work at all.

By your standard the Chernobyl nuclear reactor was a 'perfectly formed structure.' Good engineering is robust, not perpetually balanced on a knife edge where everything must be perfect or nothing will work at all.

Indeed, and structures such as crystals (which are arguably more perfect, if not functionally so), are apprently created regularly and spontaneously as a result of interactions governed by simple physical laws, without any observable intervention from God.

Of course it could be argued that since God created the universe He initiated the physical processes and determined the physical laws that have resulted in these phenomenon- as He envisaged- but that's an entirely different metaphysical argument, and still at odds with both the biblical account of creation and the idea that physical processes can give rise to complex beings with the appearance of artificial design- irrelevant of how the matter and laws that govern them came about.

I made this thread because I felt there was no evidance that evolution debunks the bible, which it doesn't, unless you consider only the english version of it and not the hebrew versions of it, statements like, "and became that father of" is better translated, "and became the ancestor of" showing that they may have been listing only the major patriarchs rather then every single first born.

Also Evolution doesn't prove the bible wrong. If G-d made it work that way, then it works that way. Simplistic statement, not the most scientific, but it fits.

Humans, in my opinion, are not the same as animals. In biblical understanding, humans are not animals, so why should G-d's laws for animals and the animal kingdom need apply for them? They might, I won't rule out the possiblity because I'm not going to try and put human ristrictions on a Divine Entity that we can't fully comprehend. I can only give my understanding.

Humans don't evolve, they change the world around them. G-d, not wanting to punish the animals for man's sins, so he gives them a failsafe. If humans change the world, you can change with it. Sometimes it doesn't keep up, but thats just because we are operating at higher levels of serperation from the Divine law, so we go against the Divine Law. Not that G-d didn't plan it etc, just that he gave us free will, and for him to intervene all the time kinda goes against that.

Nothing in the bible says counter to what I say. Nothing in evolution is counter to what I say, except for the human part. I happen not to believe it has to be "all or nothing" Its not either science or G-d. I say its science and G-d. If G-d made science, then he made science. If he made watermelon he made watermelon.

I understand science, I see where they are coming from. I know where I am coming from and they may or may not. It seems Science and Religion both try to solve the same answers and seem to think there is only one answer to each question. Maybe its just that we are looking at the problem wrong. How many ways can you come up with a math problem that equals 10? examples: 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1 or 7+1+1+1. I think there are many more, doesn't change the end result, does change the number of steps though. Does one proove the other wrong, don't think so, but both contain elements of the same thing.

I made this thread because I felt there was no evidance that evolution debunks the bible, which it doesn't,

Well, if the bible holds that the biology of human beings is not open to gradual change over time, evolutionary discoveries do indeed provide facts contrary to biblical assertions.

I agree with what you say about translating the bible, which is notoriously difficult, especially between languages as you point out- and perhaps a good reason not to take it at all at face value.

If G-d made it work that way, then it works that way. Simplistic statement, not the most scientific, but it fits.

Indeed, however if God created evolution and the chemistry to which it applies, there was no need for him to create man in the way described in the bible, since man would have emerged naturally without the need for divine intervention at a particular point. The creation of man is described in the bible as a direct act of God that contributed something entirely new to the world at a specific point in time. If God created the Universe and it evolved in the way science understands it, then the existence of man would essentially be deterministically pre-ordained from the beginning of time along with all the other phenomena in the Universe, and no further intervention from God would have been required.

Humans, in my opinion, are not the same as animals.

Well scientifically speaking, although we have extraordinarily advanced social traits, we are biologically very similar to many other animals, and at a deep level are derived from the same basic architecture of all living things- DNA.

In biblical understanding, humans are not animals, so why should G-d's laws for animals and the animal kingdom need apply for them?

I don't know about God's laws, but if God's laws are anything like the laws discovered by science, pretty much the same rules apply to everyone.

Humans don't evolve, they change the world around them.

Actually humans do both, as do all animals to some degree or other.

Not that G-d didn't plan it etc, just that he gave us free will, and for him to intervene all the time kinda goes against that.

If God gave us free will, is he not all-knowing? That is, if we can act as we want, does he not know how we will act in the future, and therefore does he not know everything? I thought omniscience was an essential feature of most supreme deities, particularly those of the Western tradition.

Nothing in the bible says counter to what I say.

And not much supports it. In fact the bible doesn't really have anything to say on the matter either way since the topic we're discussing- evolution- was discovered long after the bible was first written. Perhaps if the authors and editors of the bible were alive today they'd have an opinion on it, and if God wrote the bible then he should have already known all about evolution and said something about it at the time along with everything else.

I understand science, I see where they are coming from.

With all due respect, if you choose to exempt humans from the evolutionary process on religious grounds I don't personally think you do see where science is coming from, at least in this regard.

It seems Science and Religion both try to solve the same answers and seem to think there is only one answer to each question.

Science will look at all the proposed answers to the question, conduct studies, and decide on the answer which best fits the observable evidence, reviewing it regularly in light of any new relevant discoveries. Religion will stick to whatever answers it has always stuck to, and the people who first decided those answers are long dead, so it's difficult to make any substantial enquiries into their reasoning.

Maybe its just that we are looking at the problem wrong. How many ways can you come up with a math problem that equals 10? examples: 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1 or 7+1+1+1. I think there are many more, doesn't change the end result, does change the number of steps though. Does one proove the other wrong, don't think so, but both contain elements of the same thing.

The problem is that scientists see flaws in theological reasoning and think religion arrives at the wrong conclusions, whilst religion thinks that scientists ask the wrong questions and come to the wrong answers, but without ever really looking at how they reach them. Religion simply has preconceptions as to what the correct answers should be and pillories the results that contradict their doctrines without ever challenging them on their own terms- possibly because they know they'd fail.

Humans, in my opinion, are not the same as animals. In biblical understanding, humans are not animals, so why should G-d's laws for animals and the animal kingdom need apply for them? They might, I won't rule out the possiblity because I'm not going to try and put human ristrictions on a Divine Entity that we can't fully comprehend. I can only give my understanding.
Humans don't evolve, they change the world around them.

So, what makes humans so vastly different from animals? Our bodies are based on the exact same principle as those of other mamals, we have close and remoter relatives among them, our metabolism work the way theirs do... the only difference is that we lost a lot of hair long ago. And that we came up with a complex system of communication around that same time.
Humans don't evolve? What makes you say that? Of course they do, they always did and they do so today.
You see, evolution is more evident in smaller and less complicated organisms as their generations are shorter.

Take a fruitfly with a generaltion of 2 days, evolution is obvious among them, new races form on a regular basis. Humans have a generation of approximately 25-30 years, changes take place at a much slower pace. But we evolve nonetheless. We are growing taller, for example. The average Roman male was hardly ever taller than 1.35-1.45 meters. Our neural system and our senses are changing as well, at least in the western world. We become less and less sensitive to sounds and lights as alarming signals.

These details aside, you just need to look at skin pigmentation in colder places and in hot places to realise that for humanity, too, it's survival of the fittest.


G-d, not wanting to punish the animals for man's sins, so he gives them a failsafe. If humans change the world, you can change with it. Sometimes it doesn't keep up, but thats just because we are operating at higher levels of serperation from the Divine law, so we go against the Divine Law. Not that G-d didn't plan it etc, just that he gave us free will, and for him to intervene all the time kinda goes against that.

Nothing in the bible says counter to what I say. Nothing in evolution is counter to what I say, except for the human part. I happen not to believe it has to be "all or nothing" Its not either science or G-d. I say its science and G-d. If G-d made science, then he made science. If he made watermelon he made watermelon.

I understand science, I see where they are coming from. I know where I am coming from and they may or may not. It seems Science and Religion both try to solve the same answers and seem to think there is only one answer to each question. Maybe its just that we are looking at the problem wrong. How many ways can you come up with a math problem that equals 10? examples: 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1 or 7+1+1+1. I think there are many more, doesn't change the end result, does change the number of steps though. Does one proove the other wrong, don't think so, but both contain elements of the same thing.

The "all or nothing" part is what makes many Christians condemn the evolution theory. If you take the bible literally, then multi-celled organisms didn't evolve out of protozoa, multi-celled organisms didn't evolve into invertebrates, invertebrates didn't evolve into vertebrates, birds didn't evolve from dinosaurs, humans didn't evolve as subspecies of mamals. According to Genesis, birds were created on another day than mamals and reptilians. I've always wondered though on what day god created amphibians?

It's not either science or god, no serious scientist will tell you that it is impossible for god to have a hand in science (any science, for that matter) What I see most of the time is Chritians who condemn science because it would force them to adjust their ideas to reality.