Evolution & Christiany as one??

Hey I am new here to ATS but had a question that many people have apparently figured out, but I am still clueless to:

How can evolution and Christianity co-exist?

For the record I strongly believe in science and the theory of evolution and don't know how "a savior", Jesus, who had indirectly evolved from primates, could be "God in the flesh". (And I don't think I need to mention how impossible the "Adam and Eve" story is) Yet some of my friends believe in evolution AND Christianity when all i see are contradictions.

Can someone please explain how they can be mixed? (if its even possible)

Thanks.

And if this is not in the correct spot, feel free to move. Thanks

well in the theory of evolution life started in the primordial (spelling?) soup in genesis life started in the ocean then the next day land creatures where created, how long is a day. I also believe man to be molded into his present form, divine intervention possibly.

I am a christian and believe in micro-evolution but not so much macro

try explaining this and more to a creationist

i also believe in micro evolution

when i grew up i was taught creation not evolution (i went to a private-christian school although i'm not a christian)
but the theory of macro evolution never really was believable to me

idk, it could just be me

reply to post by BabyChrissy898


you arn't the only one my science teacher even implies that he doesnt take all the evolution stuff but micro-evolution he accepts. and he is catholic.

To begin with, if you believe in the Christian God then you believe he is all-powerful and has no limits. Looking at it from that perspective, it's not that hard to understand. If God can do anything, helping evolution along, or miraculously developing a savior inside of Mary, or whatever, isn't that big of a stretch.

To get more into the substance of the creation, 2 Peter 3:8-10 & Psalm 90:1-4 equates 1 day to God as a 1000 years to us. I don't think that 1 day to God is a 1000 years to us, I think those verses just show the grandness of the whole thing. Anyway, so if you assume 1 day to God could be an extremely long amount of time to us, that would give new meaning to Genesis where it speaks about God creating everything in 6 days.

Also, if you believe in micro evolution, you must believe in macro. If you say you only believe in micro evolution, you're faced with and must answer the question of how many micro evolutions does it take to make a macro. Having a good grasp of how DNA works, you can see that its all really the same thing. There's no difference between micro and macro evolution.

My 1 cent.


edit: grammar

[edit on 24-7-2008 by alkali]

reply to post by alkali


good point on the micro macro didnt just think of how many situation. and on the timescale God doesnt even creat time untill the "third day" if im not mistaken, and 1000 years means a long time so 14 billion years or so is good enough for me

I agree with you on the timescale and interpretation vaguness. One day could be a longer time since time is of course not relative. But when the Bible was first made, it was understood to be meant literally for quite some time. When science started to find evidence elsewhere, the interpretation of the Bible transformed to a metaphorical interpretation. I just don't understand how it could change like that. What happens when science gets even more advanced? (Not concluding that science will determine atheism, but just predicting)

Originally posted by overit88
Can someone please explain how they can be mixed? (if its even possible)

Thanks.

Quite easily. You can be a Christian and believe in evolution. A Christian is simply one that follows the Teachings of Jesus Christ. Christ never said that believing in evolution was bad. He also never said you weren't allowed to dress up like a clown. You're allowed to do both.

reply to post by Reneau

Trust me; you'll have just as much trouble explaining this to some evolutionists. It appears that some do not fully understand their own terms. At least you can attempt teach a creationist if they are open minded. Not all creationists mind if they are wrong. (as long as their G*d isn't) Modern day scientists however, never seem to want to admit they are wrong.

But when the time comes when you must discuss this subject with an illogical evolutionist, keep in mind.

Phenomenon = Scientific Theory = Scientific Law = macro-evolution = micro-evolution = Fact = Truth

Hopefully the evolutionists you will encounter will know their terms and you will be able to avoid this mess.

The same sort of problem arises with some Christian creationists too though. Some say

Holy Spirit = G*d = Jesus = Bread & Wine

That doesn't make much sense either.

[edit on 7/24/2008 by JPhish]

reply to post by overit88


I think viewing the entire Bible as a literal interpretation of past events is a bit silly. For example, I don't think the Sampson actually took out an army with the jawbone of a donkey. I think that story was included to reinforce the idea that with God, anything is possible.

There are many other examples like that. I think they are more about the "moral of the story", if that makes sense. So many people take the Bible and rip it apart and say that none of it is possible and they miss the big picture. The goodness of the 10 commandments cannot be denied, or the golden rule, or the hope that the story of Sampson gives regardless if it is actually true or not.

That last paragraph was a little off topic. Anyway, I personally am a Christian and believe in evolution. With all of the evidence it's hard to deny it. But I don't think science and religion will ever get along because if science can explain it, it doesn't need a creator. Even if a creator does exist, he is not needed if science can explain the subject and therefore gives people reason not to believe in a God.

Personally, I believe it's just faith. Everyone wants to believe there is something bigger than us, be it aliens or the big bang or whatever. What I'm getting at is simply because science can explain it doesn't necessarily mean that there is no God helping it along.

reply to post by alkali


That last post was a bit incoherent. It's late here. I hope you can make it through all right
This is not a one line post.

[edit on 24-7-2008 by alkali]

reply to post by overit88


May I suggest you a book - The Future of Man- from a Catholic cleric. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, which deal with the subject of your question at the heart of it.
This person achieved what many didn’t, and that is been recognized by the religious and the scientist community all together.
Teilhard was a Jesuit priest and a scientist that had concentrated his life to reconcile the theory of evolution and the basic principles of Christianity.
His main viewpoint is that human are evolving from a simple faith to a higher form of consciousness including a deep perception of God which ultimately brings humanity to a better understanding of himself and his place in the universe.
He new already back then (1881 – 1955) that religious and scientific dogma need to be restricted as to make place for ultra-humanity.
Kacou.

I don't see any reason why not...

Nobody, not even born-again nutters, can argue against the adaptation component of the theory of evolution.

What most Christians object to is the theory or abiogenesis, or life springing forth from nothing. It doesn't make sense to them, and frankly, it doesn't make sense to me either.

I won't even start to pick apart intelligent design or the nonsense about the bible being the literal word of God, but I do agree with them in terms of the improbability (maybe impossibility) of life just appearing from nothing.

My personal beliefs aside (Agnostic, thanks), I think that most Christians object to the theory of evolution without understanding it. That said, at least one of their objections has merit, and I think it warrants discussion. They have to do their part, and be a little more flexible, and the defenders of science have to do their part, and stop treating their theories like the Catholics treat their pope - as infallible.

The really great thing about scientific method is exploration and constant re-evaluation, but when it comes to the evolution debate, too may science-minded people abandon the scientific method and really start to resemble the pig-headed true believers they so vociferously condemn.

Originally posted by alkali
Also, if you believe in micro evolution, you must believe in macro.

Completely false! Micro-evolution happens, it is a scientific fact. Macro-Evolution has never been recorded; Ever.
Macro evolution is dependent on the existence of micro-evolution.
Micro-evolution is not dependent on the existence of macro-evolution.
Correction
"if you believe in macro evolution, you must believe in micro."

If you say you only believe in micro evolution, you're faced with and must answer the question of how many micro evolutions does it take to make a macro.

Must I? Because i'm fairly certain that if you propose a question, you're implying that you have the correct answer. If you do not have an answer; any response I give is presently incontrovertible by default.

The question itself is disputable without even entertaining the notion of a prospective answer; the answer is there is no answer; so there is no point to even consider it.

Having a good grasp of how DNA works, you can see that its all really the same thing. There's no difference between micro and macro evolution.

You’re inadvertently claiming that a human and an orangutan can produce offspring. This is universally accepted as false; unless there is a recent tabloid I’ve missed.

I was actually able to make the last person, who thought he had "good grasp' of how DNA works, bite off his own tongue and choke on it; True story.~

reply to post by WyrdeOne


yes most are ignorant, when they hear evolution they think evil-ution and that science is out to kill God and such. One day I remember it was sugested that there be a discussion about evolution in church but i dont think it ever happend (most there dont know much about it and it wouldn't be an interesting coversation). I tried to have a disscusion on this topic and earth origins with a couple cousins while they were listening to creationist propaganda (bad situation) I made my points that life could have evolved and was helped along; but no literal interpetation, which if you havent read genesis it is contradiction apon contradiction if taken literally, was thier basis for thier belief. I said as long as the message is understood it is alright for you to believe that man and dinosaurs played football together and the like.

I won't even start to pick apart intelligent design or the nonsense about the bible being the literal word of God, but I do agree with them in terms of the improbability (maybe impossibility) of life just appearing from nothing.

Its not true that we believe life came from nothing. Let's look at earth:

Evidence suggests that life on Earth has existed for about 3.7 billion years. The most currently accepted scientific models build in one way or another on the following discoveries, which are listed roughly in order of postulated emergence:


1)
Plausible pre-biotic conditions result in the creation of the basic small molecules of life. This was demonstrated in the Miller-Urey experiment, and in the work of Sidney Fox.

The Miller-Urey experiment experiment used water (H2O), methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3) and hydrogen (H2).

The chemicals were all sealed inside a sterile array of glass tubes and flasks connected together in a loop, with one flask half-full of liquid water and another flask containing a pair of electrodes. The liquid water was heated to induce evaporation, sparks were fired between the electrodes to simulate lightning through the atmosphere and water vapor, and then the atmosphere was cooled again so that the water could condense and trickle back into the first flask in a continuous cycle.

At the end of one week of continuous operation Miller and Urey observed that as much as 10-15% of the carbon within the system was now in the form of organic compounds.




2)
Phospholipids spontaneously form lipid bilayers, the basic structure of a cell membrane.

3)
Procedures for producing random RNA molecules can produce ribozymes, which are able to produce more of themselves under very specific conditions.

4)
The Panspermia hypothesis proposes that life originated elsewhere in the universe and was subsequently transferred to Earth perhaps via meteorites, comets or cosmic dust.

As to life elsewhere... we'll have to research more to find out.

I wasn't trying to be rude in my earlier post. Don't get fussy for no reason.

Originally posted by JPhish

Originally posted by alkali
Also, if you believe in micro evolution, you must believe in macro.

Completely false! Micro-evolution happens, it is a scientific fact. Macro-Evolution has never been recorded; Ever.
Macro evolution is dependent on the existence of micro-evolution.
Micro-evolution is not dependent on the existence of macro-evolution.
Correction
"if you believe in macro evolution, you must believe in micro."

There's no way you're serious. If you take two populations of squirrels, separate them with a river and let them breed for 1 million years, do you seriously think they will be able to inter-breed once you put them back together? If you think they will be capable of inter-breeding you have never taken a genetics class or even slightly studied evolution.

If you say you only believe in micro evolution, you're faced with and must answer the question of how many micro evolutions does it take to make a macro.

Must I? Because i'm fairly certain that if you propose a question, you're implying that you have the correct answer. If you do not have an answer; any response I give is presently incontrovertible by default.

The question itself is disputable without even entertaining the notion of a prospective answer; the answer is there is no answer; so there is no point to even consider it.

You know, along with anyone else who reads this, that I was not looking for a specific number. To assume such is stupid. Yet again I can use squirrels as an example. You separate the squirrels and let them go through trillions of "micro evolutions", there is absolutely no chance after millions of years that you have the same animal. Common sense and an intro statistics class tells you that without much trouble.

Having a good grasp of how DNA works, you can see that its all really the same thing. There's no difference between micro and macro evolution.

You’re inadvertently claiming that a human and an orangutan can produce offspring. This is universally accepted as false; unless there is a recent tabloid I’ve missed.

I was actually able to make the last person, who thought he had "good grasp' of how DNA works, bite off his own tongue and choke on it; True story.~

Can you explain how I was claiming that? As I said, a grasp of how DNA functions and replicates and screws up will show that I was not claiming that at all. Eventually, along the evolutionary line, a species that separates into two groups will not be able to produce viable offspring anymore due to genetic differences. This is common sense as well.


[edit on 24-7-2008 by alkali]

reply to post by Daniem


The Miller-Urey experiment assumes the Earth had a reducing atmosphere but most geologists think that the atmosphere was oxidizing. The experiment doesn't work in an oxidizing atmosphere. This is a really nifty experiment though. Really interesting.

I think 2 and 3 are extremely unlikely to produce any kind of life. I personally believe 4 would be the best bet.

Originally posted by Reneau
reply to post by WyrdeOne

 

I said as long as the message is understood it is alright for you to believe that man and dinosaurs played football together and the like.

This is exactly what I was trying to say in my earlier post. You did it a lot better than I did.

I saw that experiment on the history channle. It is very interesting how electricity can change chemical compounds and such, amino acids wasn't it they found.