A question for Christians who accept evolution.

[Zen Badger]

The real problem for religion regarding Evolution is that a universe billions of years old implies an impersonal creator.

Afterall it's hard to have a personal relationship with an entity that can only ever perceive you as a brief flash of being, if at all.

How so?

Perhaps your understanding of God is limited.

Consider this, you live for approx 100 years(give or take)

How well would you relate to an entity that lives its live in a picosecond(0.000 000 000 001 seconds)?

You wouldn't even register its existence.

Do you seriously think that an entity that(hypothetically) has existed for the 13-15 billion years that the universe is aged and congruent with the volume of space that it occupies has any idea that an

insignificant, microscopic speck of carbon such as yourself even exists?

Don't be so bloody arrogant.

And that is why evolution and religion cannot co-exist, because religion would have us believe that on the cosmic scale of things we are important.

Evolution and the universe that it implies quite clearly demonstrate that we are not.

And creationists so deperately want to think they are important in the universe.

[The Omnissiunt One]

Christians who accept evolution as the best theory to understand how the world was created. Live on a slippery slop. What you argue here is the slippery slope fallacy, remove creation you have no sin entering the world, have no sin you have no Jesus, Have no Jesus you have no Christianity.

But what if you are looking at it wrong?

What if the battle between 'good' and 'evil' is bigger than over a piece of fruit? I mean the whole story is full of holes, theologically and morally speaking, the woman is blamed, not both them (just to name one). Anyways what if the controversy was bigger? This is what I believe happens when rejecting Genesis 1 and 2 as being literal, only makes the controversy bigger. Sure we dont know how it all started, but should we expect something so complicated written in a book written by primitive people?

What you're saying here isn't entirely clear. On the one hand, you say that the Eden story is flawed, then you say that not accepting it as literal leads to controversy. Is it the inspired word of God or not? If it is, why is it morally flawed?

Then you say 'Should we expect something so complicated written in a book written by primitive people?' If there were a detailed account of, say, quantum mechanics, in the Bible, that would be surprising. Whereas, the Eden story has all the hallmarks of a myth, and it is an extremely simple and childish view of the creation of the universe. Hardly complicated.

[Godscreated]

DeistPaladin mentioned something that I'd never really thought of before concerning Christianity and evolution.

Essentially, evolution means that there was no Adam & Eve, which means there was no fall, which means there was no need for Jesus.

I'm just wondering how Christian "evolutionists" explain their faith in light of this. What was the point of Jesus if there was no fall? Or, if there was a fall, when (and why) did it happen?

Christians who accept evolution as the best theory to understand how the world was created. Live on a slippery slop. What you argue here is the slippery slope fallacy, remove creation you have no sin entering the world, have no sin you have no Jesus, Have no Jesus you have no Christianity.

But what if you are looking at it wrong?

What if the battle between 'good' and 'evil' is bigger than over a piece of fruit? I mean the whole story is full of holes, theologically and morally speaking, the woman is blamed, not both them (just to name one). Anyways what if the controversy was bigger? This is what I believe happens when rejecting Genesis 1 and 2 as being literal, only makes the controversy bigger. Sure we dont know how it all started, but should we expect something so complicated written in a book written by primitive people?

What I've put in bold letters above is not the way Genesis reads. Adam blamed Eve and Eve blamed the serpent. God put the fault on all three He gave each a punishment that has been carried through out human history. I do agree with you on the Genesis story there is far more to it than most christians see. I am a fundie and a literalist I search for answers to questions from one end of scripture to the other I have not found the answers to all the questions asked of me but I continue to search because I know they are there.

[RAD]

DeistPaladin mentioned something that I'd never really thought of before concerning Christianity and evolution.

Essentially, evolution means that there was no Adam & Eve, which means there was no fall, which means there was no need for Jesus.

I'm just wondering how Christian "evolutionists" explain their faith in light of this. What was the point of Jesus if there was no fall? Or, if there was a fall, when (and why) did it happen?

Your premises and conclusions are frigthfully simplistic, involving huge leaps of logic, filled in with assumptions which are really just a kind of blind faith. (Nothing personal, it's rather common among young unseasoned atheists)

There are many forms of "theistic evolution" theory, and that is ALL they are, theories that explain more than classic evolution does actually. Actually Augustine himself proposed that there were just "kinds" in the beginning and suggested evolution himself. I can't prove it but recent genetic evidence shows there was an Adam and Eve, traceable genetically back to about 8-12 K years ago in Africa.

Their was already a creation in my view, which explains where Cain and/or Able got their wives. Genesis contains insightful revelation, but is inaccurate in a literal sense. I have serious doubts a flood covered the whole earth, although there was a pretty massive flood of some sort. I've always had these doubts and I always believed in evolution, as much as there is real evidence for, but both creation and evolutionary theories have serious flaws which the true believers overcome with blind faith on both sides. The theories developed to explain massive gaps are boneheaded, while God-assisted evolution explains them perfectly.

---

Do you seriously think that an entity that(hypothetically) has existed for the 13-15 billion years that the universe is aged and congruent with the volume of space that it occupies has any idea that an

insignificant, microscopic speck of carbon such as yourself even exists?

Don't be so bloody arrogant.

Actually this is the best anti-faith argument I have heard yet here. Quite seriously, it's a good question. There does seem to be a lot of narcissism in the church, not to mention your favorite local bar.

But let me ask hypothetically, if it turns out there is a God who loves such dust particles as you and me, and died so you and I could go to heaven, would you want to serve him? If not, why not?

If we believe Paul, he says God does save and uses "the base things". Take me and Paul for example.

Maybe Christians are indeed "base" as you guys claim, and what are you going to do if you find out he loves them all? Honestly, will you repent of your sins and serve Jesus? No? Why not?

BTW how is it so many atheists claim Christians are stupid, base, arrogant, etc and then complain their God is intolerant? You can't have it both ways of course. Maybe you guys should call an ecumenical council of you rown and discuss such contradictions before the faithful notice and get confused.

[KichigaiNeko]

Do you seriously think that an entity that(hypothetically) has existed for the 13-15 billion years that the universe is aged and congruent with the volume of space that it occupies has any idea that an

insignificant, microscopic speck of carbon such as yourself even exists?

Don't be so bloody arrogant.

Actually this is the best anti-faith argument I have heard yet here. Quite seriously, it's a good question. There does seem to be a lot of narcissism in the church, not to mention your favorite local bar.

Yes....people just being people

But let me ask hypothetically, if it turns out there is a God who loves such dust particles as you and me, and died so you and I could go to heaven, would you want to serve him? If not, why not?

Because I am not a slave and neither are you?? And hypothetically if this god is so great he can make his own requests and not use inferior tools to do his dirty work ??

If we believe Paul, he says God does save and uses "the base things". Take me and Paul for example.

Maybe Christians are indeed "base" as you guys claim, and what are you going to do if you find out he loves them all? Honestly, will you repent of your sins and serve Jesus? No? Why not?

Sorry?? what "crime" have I committed to have to "repent" and seek forgiveness for?? And again you talk of servetued...I reiterate; "I am not a slave"

BTW how is it so many atheists claim Christians are stupid, base, arrogant, etc and then complain their God is intolerant?

"their god" meaning the Abrahamic one?? Or all the others that are worshipped on this planet at this point in time??

The "complaints" are valid arguments against the use of religion and the abrahamic god being seen as benevolent.

You can't have it both ways of course. Maybe you guys should call an ecumenical council of you rown and discuss such contradictions before the faithful notice and get confused.

Already been done sweet cheeks....Nicene comes to mind ...and look where that got us!!


Interesting concept....couple of quick questions

a) ever herded cats??

b) have you considered the well being of the Escherichia coli in your anus today?? Taken an intense interest in whether or not the are serving you well?? Whether they are happy??

c) If not why not??? Or do you need an ecumenical council for that??

[theophilus]

Consider this, you live for approx 100 years(give or take)
How well would you relate to an entity that lives its live in a picosecond(0.000 000 000 001 seconds)?
You wouldn't even register its existence.
Do you seriously think that an entity that(hypothetically) has existed for the 13-15 billion years that the universe is aged and congruent with the volume of space that it occupies has any idea that an insignificant, microscopic speck of carbon such as yourself even exists?
Don't be so bloody arrogant.
And that is why evolution and religion cannot co-exist, because religion would have us believe that on the cosmic scale of things we are important.

We wouldn't be aware of such a creature because our knowledge is limited. But God is omniscient and omnipotent so he is aware not only of us but of the creature who lives only a picosecond. The belief that God is interested in us doesn't mean that we are important but that God is aware of everything, even those things which aren't important.

There are many forms of "theistic evolution" theory, and that is ALL they are, theories that explain more than classic evolution does actually. Actually Augustine himself proposed that there were just "kinds" in the beginning and suggested evolution himself. I can't prove it but recent genetic evidence shows there was an Adam and Eve, traceable genetically back to about 8-12 K years ago in Africa.

There are two kinds of evolution, microevolution and macroevolution. When God created life he created beings with the genetic ability to produce variations among their descendants. One example of that is the different races of humans. This is called microevolution and we know it is true because we can actually see it happening. Macroevolution is the belief that organisms can develop completely new characteristics that are not found in their ancestors. We don't have proof that this actually happened. This article explains the difference between them:

http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v1i4f.htm

Their was already a creation in my view, which explains where Cain and/or Able got their wives.

Genesis 5:4 says that Adam and Eve had many sons and daughters, so Cain married one of his sisters.

[tavarish]

There are two kinds of evolution, microevolution and macroevolution. When God created life he created beings with the genetic ability to produce variations among their descendants. One example of that is the different races of humans. This is called microevolution and we know it is true because we can actually see it happening. Macroevolution is the belief that organisms can develop completely new characteristics that are not found in their ancestors. We don't have proof that this actually happened. This article explains the difference between them:

http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v1i4f.htm

The only difference between microevolution and macroevolution is timescale.

Macroevolution = microevolution over a long period of time.

We actually have quite a few evidences for macroevolution, some of them occurring in real time, observable and demonstrable.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

I strongly suggest you learn about the theory of evolution, it seems like you're trying to tear down a fallacious straw man.

Genesis 5:4 says that Adam and Eve had many sons and daughters, so Cain married one of his sisters.

Yay for incest! With an immutable God, that means it's OK now, right?

Right?

[downbeatplumb]

[quote='Tiberius' pid='85174' dateline='1281179533']

I can't prove it but recent genetic evidence shows there was an Adam and Eve, traceable genetically back to about 8-12 K years ago in Africa.

You are out by at least 52000 years on your out of africa theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent_Afri...ern_humans

[Tiberius]

Macroevolution is the belief that organisms can develop completely new characteristics that are not found in their ancestors. We don't have proof that this actually happened.

How do you explain Richard Lenski's long term (20 year+) E.coli experiment, which saw the development of a completely new characteristic in the E.coli bacterium? Bacteria in one petri-dish evolved the ability to grow on citric acid, which was part of the growth medium but not something that E.coli can do naturally.

Source: E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

[Minimalist]

I can't prove it

Big surprise!