I am a Christian but I do believe man has evolved. I believe the first man, Adam looked quite different from our current form. I still believe we were created by God, I just think that over the thousands of years we have been here our form has changed gradually from generation to generation. I see this as a resonable explaination. Just because God never mentioned the physical changes to us doesn't mean that it didn't happen.
What are your thoughts? I would especilly like to hear from Christians.
2006-09-19 10:05:56 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I'm studying this right now in my global class and i agree with you in some way. it's completely possible that we did simply look different. The only thing that gets me is the brain. It is significantly smaller than our brain today. So that to me doesn't make sense. Adam and Eve had brains, they could comprehend, couldnt they?
another thing about science is it's theory of how the world came to be. the Big Bang. It's perfectly explainable in my eyes, by God's' book. Maybe that is how God chose to create Earth, through a big bang. Except Scientists don't' think that. they just think it's a complete accident, and that it wasn't done on purpose.
2006-09-19 10:21:16 · answer #1 · answered by Karlene 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
(1) God is Truth
God is not a deceiver. God is not deceptive for the same reasons and conclusions that Descartes came to after he dismissed his evil genius hypothesis in Meditations on First Philosophy. I cannot conceive of any reason why God would lie or deceive.
God does not lie or deceive. God is Truth: this is another attribute of God.
(2) Occam’s Razor
By Occam’s razor, deceit adds complexity, so a simpler answer must be true. Science does not support a 6,000-year-old earth. Therefore, the earth is 3.6 Billion years old as science verifies. God did not create our capacity for reason, and the rationality of science to lead to deceptive answers. In other words, if the earth is 6,000 years old, it would look that way, and the scientific record would support it. It does not.
The “politically correct thinking” of some “young earth” creationists that we cannot put a limit on what God can do misses the point. (1) God is an omnipotent Creator. (2) God is Truth. (3) Therefore, as a Creator, God would not manipulate the geological record. Is this a fact? Yes, for it is a logical conclusion, based on the 1st two premises.
“I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect had intended us to forgo their use.” -- Galileo Galilei
(2) Semantic Arguments
“Do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years, as one day.” – 2 Peter 3:8
Biblical scholars have determined, that these words cannot be applied to Genesis. When you read their opinions, they are interpretations and not facts. Thus, we need to decide what these words mean, not others. I firmly do not agree with them.
“Even when all the experts agree, they may well be mistaken.” --Bertrand Russell
When one reads Genesis, there are 2 statements that suggest that days indicate stages, and are not literally days.
“So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then He blessed them… So the evening and morning were the 6th day.” – Genesis 1:27
When biblical scholars do analysis of the words in Genesis, there seems to be no doubt that the word day, as used, means a standard 24-hour day. Therefore, a female was created on the 6th day. Yet, later in Genesis are these verses.
“Then the Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to tend and keep it…
And then the Lord God said, ‘It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him’…
Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them…
[God spent a lot of time with Adam. There are about 10 Million species. This level of communications would have taken years. Then comes the verse…]
“And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man” – Genesis 2:15-22 excerpts
I am not a biblical scholar, but facts are facts. Regardless of what is called a day, the sequence of activities and events suggests a great passage of time for the 6th day.
It appears one of the premises is wrong since these accounts appear to be contradictory, and only one can be correct in terms of timing.
(3) Another Story of Creation
Maybe the story of creation, right or wrong is a factual though possibly poetic account of creation. In that case, maybe poetic license was taken in using the word “day”. If you read Proverbs, also in the Bible by the way, the account is more scientific and appears more realistic.
“The Lord possessed me at the beginning of His way, before His works of old. I have been established from everlasting, from the beginning, before there was even an earth. When there were no depths I was brought forth, when there were no fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills, I was brought forth; while as yet He had not made the earth or the fields, or the primal dust of the world.
When He prepared the heavens, I was there, when He drew a circle on the face of the deep, when He established the clouds above, when He strengthened the fountains of the deep, when he assigned the sea its limit, so that the waters would not transgress His command, when He marked out the foundations of the earth, then I was beside Him as a Master Craftsman.” -- Proverbs 8:22-30
How would anyone back then know that the Earth had a beginning? Until the “Big Bang” was accepted, most people believed in an eternal universe.
How would anyone back then know that the mountains arose and were not created when the Earth was created? I do not think this took one day. The primal dust sounds like atomic particles. Who else in 4,000 BC spoke of this? How long did it take to prepare the heavens? Again, it does not sound like one day.
Figuring out how to set limits on the waters and the foundations of earth sounds like a powerful science, and maybe even some trial and error. Science is finding our universe is highly designed.
I'd say the following to close: God is truth, science pursues the truth. The fossil record is the truth, thus creation seems to have evolved over time, whatever that means. It is clear that natural creation is impossible, thus a creator exists. How the universe and life came to be is still very unanswered.
Take care.
2006-09-19 10:33:54 · answer #2 · answered by Cogito Sum 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
You either believe in creation or evolution but I cannot see how you can believe in both. God stated that Adam was formed in His image and either that is true or not. Jesus was in the image of God and looked like a modern man in appearance. I am sorry to see you let these end times take hold of your faith and bring you down, if you are not careful your faith will diminish more until you have none at all. Be careful of the beliefs you entertain and pray for guidance in all that you do remembering that Satan in working overtime to capture all the souls he can while he still time.
2006-09-19 10:26:07 · answer #3 · answered by # one 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
one million) in accordance to evolutionists, human beings developed from apes? human beings are apes with the aid of definition. Linnaeus labeled us as such and he grew to become right into a creationist. 2) there are a number of shown information in technological awareness, yet evolution is in user-friendly terms a thought. fake because of a pretend effect of the be conscious thought. A fact, in technological awareness, is a discrete factor of training. Theories connect information and clarify them. there is not any larger type than thought. 3) A transitional variety is a fossil of an animal that's a factor one species and area yet another. fake. All organisms are transitional. 4) The age of the earth is desperate with the aid of scientists totally interior the path of the radioactive relationship of fossils ? The age of the Earth grew to become into desperate with the aid of relationship a meteor on the perception that the image voltaic device grew to become into all the comparable age. All different calculations greater healthful the age stumbled on. 5) The scientific approach starts with a prediction and then seems for information to help that prediction? It starts with assertion. Then a hypothesis is shaped from that assertion. After the hypothesis is shaped, scientists seem for information to help or falsify the hypothesis. 6) the belief of evolution includes the vast Bang? fake. 7) To have self belief in evolution is to have self belief that existence and count got here from no longer something? fake.
2016-10-15 04:32:15 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Want verbal fight? go ahead. Just dont ask any practical questions to the clueless.
As for the fact that evolution is possible. Well, weve seen darwin and read his books. Very convincing. The Miller-Urey experiment on the evolution of life on earth is pretty good. Read more if you really want to know that evolution is possible and happening. From Darwin's finches in the galapagos Is. to increase in height in modern man according to environment, nutrition, etc. Urey-miller is a good start to the beggining of biosphere.
2006-09-19 10:18:38 · answer #5 · answered by criptic 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
That is not quite what the evolutionists mean by evolving. I agree that as a species we have evolved and will continue to evolve based on diet and environment. The evolutionists believe we evolved from another species entirely, apes. It is simply not true and there has never been any scientific proof even though they base their assumptions on science. We were created in the image and likeness of God.
2006-09-19 10:15:23 · answer #6 · answered by Robert L 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Evolution is an undeniable fact. The story of Adam is a fairie tale. The two can not be mixed just to suit your fench walking beliefs.....
2006-09-19 10:24:28 · answer #7 · answered by ndmagicman 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Im a pretty Orthodox Evolutionist, ie Precursor Organisms, Single-cell life, Multi-celled plants and the like...
I just dont think i can every accept something of pure Faith alone, it goes against everything i stand for
2006-09-19 10:08:16 · answer #8 · answered by thomas p 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Nope. Adam looked like an ordinary Homo sapiens sapiens. Shave him and put him in modern clothes, and you'd think he was just an ordinary man.
2006-09-19 10:12:36 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I'm glad you are the variety of christian that considers the facts along with his beliefs.
A literal genesis is for the room-temperature-IQ folks.
2006-09-19 10:09:49 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋