Evolution is compatible with Christianity

User avatar
TK
Posts: 1475
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:42 pm
Location: North Carolina

Re: Evolution is compatible with Christianity

Post by TK » Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:56 pm

the major problem i have with the young earth view, as i have stated elsewhere, has more to do with cosomology, i.e. starlight and other astronomical peculiarities. if the universe is only thousands of year old, God really faked us out. and my question is always "would God do that?"

TK

SteveF

Re: Evolution is compatible with Christianity

Post by SteveF » Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:59 pm

Hi Aaron, I'm inclined toward the OEC view but many do hold the view you stated.

In regards to the 7th day I've heard some postulate that because there is no mention of the seventh day ending in Gen 2 that we are living in the seventh day (age). Although this would support my theory I'm not entirely convinced of that particular interpretation, although it does seem to have some merit.

I understand your skepticism about some scientific conclusions since there are a number of scientists that have a bias.

Steve

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 1:11 pm

TK wrote:the major problem i have with the young earth view, as i have stated elsewhere, has more to do with cosomology, i.e. starlight and other astronomical peculiarities. if the universe is only thousands of year old, God really faked us out. and my question is always "would God do that?"

TK
If what you mean is speed of light and the visibility of stars - I understand that. But why would we assume that God had to rely on the speed of light (which is alterable and never proven to have been a constant) to get light here?

God made Adam without Adam having to go through infancy and childhood. Jesus made wine without grapes ever being formed for that wine. Why could God not send light to the earth without the difficulty of overcoming the speed of light. Doesn't seem like much of anything else gave him any problems.

We can either squeeze theories into a Bible that seems to say something else, or try to make the Bible say what theories of man are saying, no matter how much it seems to skew plain Biblical language. I choose to simply believe the Bible.

The evolutionists need billions of years for their theories to seem even plausible, so I understand that they manipulate the evidence. For instance, earth layers are said to represent ages of the earth. Well, if there was a worldwide flood, wouldn't that cause the many different layers to settle out by density? Makes better sense from a point of view that the Bible is true, but if you don't want the Bible to look as though it's true, you would say something like Charles Lyell did and call these layers different ages.

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 1:15 pm

SteveF wrote:Hi Aaron, I'm inclined toward the OEC view but many do hold the view you stated.

In regards to the 7th day I've heard some postulate that because there is no mention of the seventh day ending in Gen 2 that we are living in the seventh day (age). Although this would support my theory I'm not entirely convinced of that particular interpretation, although it does seem to have some merit.

I understand your skepticism about some scientific conclusions since there are a number of scientists that have a bias.

Steve
I've heard something about that but never really looked into it. I don't think that the fact that the day not having an ending mentioned really means we're still in it. It seems to mean that He was finished with the work he began after six days (Ex 20:11) and he finished it and rested on the seventh day. Why would he need to mention the end of that day?

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 1:42 pm

TK wrote: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
There are Christian scientist's and organizations that continuously point out that the Biblical account is not only correct but real and tangible. Yet "academia" continuously rejects them simply because they "don't like what they sell." Oh well.
"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

SteveF

Re: Evolution is compatible with Christianity

Post by SteveF » Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:43 pm

We can either squeeze theories into a Bible that seems to say something else, or try to make the Bible say what theories of man are saying, no matter how much it seems to skew plain Biblical language. I choose to simply believe the Bible.
When the RC Church knew there was evidence that the earth went around the sun and not the sun around the earth they reserved judgment. Since the scriptures seemed to indicate otherwise they decided to go with the simple explanation in scripture until proven conclusively otherwise. If it was eventually proven that the earth went around the sun then they would re-visit their interpretation of certain verses. I think this is a reasonable approach and mirrors yours. If you are not convinced otherwise, then stay with what you understand the scripture to be saying. This should not stop us from being open to scientific discovery though. In fact, I’d like it if more Christians were leading the way in this area since it is God’s creation after all.
The evolutionists need billions of years for their theories to seem even plausible
What I’ve heard is astronomers say the earth is 4.5 billion years old and the evolutionists say that is not nearly enough time for the evolutionary process to take place. The astronomers arguments seem compelling to me though (via Hugh Ross and Jay Richards). This is the main reason I find myself in TK and Darin's camp presently. I have no agenda either way so as I learn I may change my views.
It seems to mean that He was finished with the work he began after six days (Ex 20:11) and he finished it and rested on the seventh day. Why would he need to mention the end of that day?
It’s quite reasonable what you’re saying and is the most natural way to understand it. I do think the other explanation is possible though. My 2 cents

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 1:48 pm

AaronBDisney wrote:
TK wrote:the major problem i have with the young earth view, as i have stated elsewhere, has more to do with cosomology, i.e. starlight and other astronomical peculiarities. if the universe is only thousands of year old, God really faked us out. and my question is always "would God do that?"

TK
If what you mean is speed of light and the visibility of stars - I understand that. But why would we assume that God had to rely on the speed of light (which is alterable and never proven to have been a constant) to get light here?

God made Adam without Adam having to go through infancy and childhood. Jesus made wine without grapes ever being formed for that wine. Why could God not send light to the earth without the difficulty of overcoming the speed of light. Doesn't seem like much of anything else gave him any problems.

We can either squeeze theories into a Bible that seems to say something else, or try to make the Bible say what theories of man are saying, no matter how much it seems to skew plain Biblical language. I choose to simply believe the Bible.

The evolutionists need billions of years for their theories to seem even plausible, so I understand that they manipulate the evidence. For instance, earth layers are said to represent ages of the earth. Well, if there was a worldwide flood, wouldn't that cause the many different layers to settle out by density? Makes better sense from a point of view that the Bible is true, but if you don't want the Bible to look as though it's true, you would say something like Charles Lyell did and call these layers different ages.
Nice thoughts Aaron! I think this is where the notion of the "quantum leap" comes into play. Also, the one thing that has always fascinated me is simply this: how do scientists claim to know that whatever produced the light they see is even still even there or was in fact the source of the light they see?
"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: 1919
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:28 am
Contact:

Re: Evolution is compatible with Christianity

Post by mattrose » Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:55 pm

Starlight and time was also a big wall for me in continuing belief in the young earth perspective. But there is a book by a Dr. Russell Humphreys which is written as a humble but possible explanation. To make a long story short, it has to do with the expanding universe and the idea that gravity distorts time. He makes the case that the universe is very old while the earth is very young. It just depends on what clock you are going by. Our solar system, he claims, may have been the last part of the universe to pass beyond an 'event horizon' during the creation week. So while millions of years were happening for the stars, only day were happening from earth's vantage point.

I have read his short book 3 times. I don't claim to understand it completely, but I do think he makes a reasonable case that would explain the issue.

User avatar
TK
Posts: 1475
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:42 pm
Location: North Carolina

Re: Evolution is compatible with Christianity

Post by TK » Tue Feb 24, 2009 2:10 pm

Aaron wrote:
If what you mean is speed of light and the visibility of stars - I understand that. But why would we assume that God had to rely on the speed of light (which is alterable and never proven to have been a constant) to get light here?
Greh Koukl, a christian apologist that is also an OE creationist, discusses this problem in regard to things like supernovas, e.g:

1. an observed supernova is 10 million light years away.
2. We do not see supernova as it IS, but rather as it WAS, because of the distance light has to travel.
3. Astronomer concludes (based established science) that billions of years ago a star exploded to form this supernova now being observed.
4. If earth is in fact only 1000s of years old, then obviously no star existed billions of years ago to explode and go supernova.
5. ergo, if YE creationism is true, then there never really was a star that went supernova; rather God must have created the image (illusion) that we now see as a supernova.

that simply seems deceptive to me.

TK

User avatar
TK
Posts: 1475
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:42 pm
Location: North Carolina

Re: Evolution is compatible with Christianity

Post by TK » Tue Feb 24, 2009 2:13 pm

i just saw matt's post- i have read something like this and i guess anything is possible. i know that Hugh Ross and Humphries see things quite differently-- i think they debated back and forth on this issue.

TK

Post Reply

Return to “Roman Catholicism”