Question for christians believing in evolution?

Question

If you are a christian and believe in evolution I think you better read this and think before you answer. If you believe in evolution then I think the credibility of Genesis is at stake, and then you are taking away from Gods word, that you will be judge for that. Second of all Jesus referred back to Genesis 25 times during His ministry, so obviously He believed in Genesis, and every book in the bible refers back to Genesis. Evolution puts death before sin, while Genesis tells us that Adam brought death into this world by sinning, if you believe evolution then that is a herecy. And lastly, if there are some of you teaching your kids about evolution, go and read MATTHEW 18:6 "But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and [that] he were drowned in the depth of the sea.". Fellow christians, lets stick to what the bible teachess, "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, in 6 days"

Answer 1

One main reason evolutionists and creationists differ in opinion is because they have a different premise. Evolution scientists believe everything originates from a series of changes and can be explained by time, chance, and continuing natural processes that are inherent in the organization of matter and energy. (Creation X) Evolution is commonly applied to the historical development of life and has been expanded into virtually any subject matter all the way to the development of the universe itself. Like most ideas, the Theory of Evolution has evolved into something it was not originally believed to be.

Creationists believe in evolution, but not to the extreme that every living thing evolved from a single cell into the complex organisms of today. In essence evolution means change. Micro-evolution (small changes) within species is a scientific fact that Creationists readily acknowledge (120). However, macro-evolution (tremendous changes) is a belief that is simply not evident in nature.

There are two kinds of Creationism; scientific and Biblical. Scientific creationism bases its beliefs upon the scientific data. In fact, creation scientists believe that scientific creationism and Biblical creationism should be taught independently of each other. Some of the most brilliant scientists in the history of the world were creationists: Newton, Pascal, Pasteur, Galileo, Faraday, Kepler, and so on.

While it is often asserted that Creationism is based on religious beliefs, evolution has its beliefs based in atheism and secular humanism. The Supreme Court has classified atheism and secular humanism as religions. The evolution model is atheistic in nature while the creation model is theistic. One evolutionist wrote an article titled, "Creation 'Science' Is Dishonest." On the contrary, scientists who assert evolution as a "fact" only need to look at the history of their false findings and hoaxes of man's "missing links" to see their hypocrisy (156 and 159). It is one thing to personally believe in evolution and relate it and all evidence associated with it as circumstantial, but to assert it as a "fact" is unethical and prejudicial.

Another reason why creation scientists view things so differently from evolutionists is simply a matter of differing interpretation of the data. Even evolutionists do not agree with one another because of differing interpretations of the data, especially when it comes to biological classifications. So, why are creation scientists shunned?

Evidence for evolution can be interpreted in different ways. Comparing anatomical similarities between different organisms can provide evidence for evolution. The forelimb in vertebrate animals can be compared bone for bone. The upper arm, forearm, wrist, hand, and fingers are distinguishable (53 and Britannica 7:9). While evolutionists contend that this is evidence of, "descent from a common ancestor (evolution)" creationists believe that this is no more than proof of, "a common design (creation)."

A second piece of evidence for evolution is shown in the development of organisms. The embryonic stage of development is so similar that a frog, chicken, salamander, or human embryo are virtually indistinguishable. Evolutionists believe these amazing similarities show how organs and structures have changed their form and function with evolution. Creationists show what evolutionists call "useless evolutionary leftovers" are in reality necessary functional structures (62 and 66).

A third source of evidence that evolutionists use comes from chemical evolution or "hot soup" as Dr. Stanley Miller calls it. In 1953 he conducted an experiment using a "primordial solution" along with an electrical discharge to simulate lightning. He became successful in producing amino acids commonly found in nature. Creationists hold that it is no more than science fiction that would make a scientist conclude that life could result from a hypothetical chemical evolutionary process. There is no evidence to support this kind of speculation.

A forth source of evidence is related to genetics. This evidence relies on the process of mutation in order to validate the theory of evolution. In the documentary Genetics: Patterns of Diversity it concludes, "But still, the controversy remains. The challenge to Darwin's theory is to explain these molecular changes in terms of natural selection." There are many other challenges to Darwin's theory. Creationist Dr. Parker states:

Evolutionists assume that all life started from one or a few chemically evolved life forms with an extremely small gene pool. For evolutionists, enlargement of the gene pool by selection of random mutations is a slow, tedious process that burdens each type with a "genetic load" of harmful mutations and evolutionary leftovers.

...The creationist mechanism works and it's consistent with what we observe. The evolutionist assumption doesn't work, and it's not consistent with what we presently know of genetics and reproduction. As a scientist, I tend to prefer ideas that do work and do help to explain what we can observe. (Creation 115)

It is an established fact that mutations can not be the mechanism that explains the process of evolution because it leads to the destruction of the organism.
Now, the creation model for variety that Parker refers to is the genetic square (114). This is the mechanism which is believed to have caused differences among people at the Biblical "Tower of Babel" incident. "Variation within created types" is a scientific fact (107). This is the (creationist) mechanism by which we observe such diversity among organisms. Evolutionists try to exaggerate this scientific fact to further their claims. The fact is, as Dr. Gary Parker wrote, "Creationists don't believe that frogs turn into princes... but rather that frogs and people were separately created from the same kinds of molecular 'building blocks'". The creationist mechanism works!

The fifth and most popular source of evidence used by evolutionist stems from the fossil record. Evolutionist Jay Savage states, "We do not need a listing of evidences to demonstrate the fact of evolution..." (V). Encyclopaedia Britannica (14:376) under a section called "The speculative nature of phylogeny [via fossil record]" states, "...judgements of relationships among organisms are almost always based upon incomplete evidence..." This means assumptions are used to fill in the missing pieces of evidence. Britannica also states, "The overwhelming majority of species that have ever lived have long since been extinct and with them the connecting links necessary for the direct demonstration of the descent of modern organisms from common ancestors." This statement shows that the evidence does not exist for Savage to "demonstrate the fact of evolution." He sidesteps the scientific process and logic thereby showing his bias thereby discrediting himself, his profession and the theory.

Answer 2

You say:

"If you believe in evolution then I think the credibility of Genesis is at stake, and then you are taking away from Gods word, that you will be judge for that"

It is not Christians that "agree" with the theory of evolution that take the literal interpretation of genesis out of context. It is the real world.

Even you must believe parts of the Bible are metaphorical, why can it not also be that Genesis was metaphorical?

Answer 3

Too bad you can't figure out that the bible was written by ignorant people to try to explain and answer some of the questions they had about where man came from. The bible said the world was flat, and the sun and moon revolved around it, and that the stars were just lights in the firmament, what ever that is, and that's all been proven wrong. You can stick your head in a closet for as long as you like, cover your ears and yell "lalalalala" as loud as you want, but that doesn't change the fact that the people who wrote the book were uneducated, and didn't know what they were talking about. And willful ignorance makes you worse than any of us ever tried to be. At least we aren't refusing to open our minds and hearts to the thought that maybe God gave us brains to be used for something other than keeping our ears apart

Answer 4

Jeane- as a christian- i dont totally discount evolution and ill let God be the judge if i am commiting herecy, not you. i dont discount what the bible teaches about the 6 days either-- im quite sure it is within His power to do so..but the bible mentions that to God a day is as a 1000 years and a 1000 years is as a day..so maybe it took 6000 years... i dont claim to know.. what i do know is that if i was creating "life" from scratch.. i may sit back and see what happens..let the other laws i have designed take affect.. what is time to God? nothing..now i do draw the line that we evolved from apes..man is unique in himself ..but even man had different species..for ex: cro magnun and neanderthal.. they did exist..so maybe even man evolved .. but when God created Adam and Eve, He was not beginning the human race .. He was creating His ppl... there were already ppl on the earth in other places.. if this were not so, who was Cain afraid of when he told God others would kill him and God placed the mark on Him..i do not wish to try and change your beliefs or anything..but as a christian it is also your duty to have faith--- but not blind faith-- it is good to question, good to challenge..otherwise we are but puppets and puppets can be manipulated to do some pretty bad things...most of germany was "christian" in 1940...and to be honest i take offense at your holier than thou attitude and your quickness to believe that whoever doesnt agree with you commits herecy.... it makes me think you would have lit the match at the salem witch trials ..ppl have a right to believe as they wish and i would submit to you that i would leave the judgement to God ...

Answer 5

It never ceases to amuse me that Christians not only try to convert non-Christians, they also try to convert other Christians to believing THEIR kind of Christianity. There are thousands of denominations and interpretations out there.

Some people manage to take Genesis as a metaphor... rather like the parables of Jesus. I don't believe any of it, but you know what? At least they aren't denying something that is plain as day with mountains of evidence backing it up.

Answer 6

I AM A CHRISTIAN AND BELIEVE GOD CREATED THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH I ALSO BELIEVE THAT IN GENESIS GOD SAID LET US MAKE MAN IN OUR IMAGE NOW YOU SAY EVOLUTION PUT DEATH BEFORE SIN AND GENESIS SAY ADAM BROUGHT INTO THIS WORLD AND I SAY YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT NOW YOU SAY HOW SIMPLE BEFORE GOD MADE US IN GENESIS THE EARTH WAS ALREADY HERE NOTE(THE DINOSAURS)AND GOD BROUGHT DEATH BUT THE EARTH PAST AWAY AND IN YOUR VERY WORDS YOU SAID FROM YOUR READING ADAM BROUGHT DEATH INTO THIS WORLD I REPEAT THIS WORLD GOD HAD MADE A NEW WORLD CLEAN AND IT WAS GOOD

Answer 7

Of course it's possible. Evolution is merely the mechanism of God's creation.

Personally, I feel the inherent contradiction is in the opposite direction. Rejection of evolutionary theory reduces God to a deceiver, to a 'God of parts' filling in the gaps in our understanding of creation, rather than underpinning it in it's entirety, it also rejects one of the greatest of God's gifts, the faculty of pure reason.

People are, of course, welcome to their opinion, but I feel that the belief that God would create the universe in seven days, ten thousand years ago and then fix it in such a manner as to give all the impressions to the contrary is close to blasphemy

Answer 8

I take it you are a creationist, if you read your bible you will realise that the six creative days lasted a lot longer that 6 actual days in fact have you read 2Peter 3:8
it might open your eyes up

Answer 9

You are a fountain of ignorance.

Think of it as a metaphor for the dawning of self-awareness. They didn't bring death into the world by eating the fruit just as they didn't bring good and evil into the world. They became AWARE of it through the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Read it literally and remain misinformed and ignorant. Read it as it was intended and discover the world you truly live in.

Answer 10

I agree with you. The old testament was the covenant God made with the nation of Israel, the New testament is were gentiles are adopted into the family of Israel, by believing that Christ is the Messiah and God raised him from the dead and now Christ is Lord over all the believers as well as the non-believers. This is God's new covenant where He will put his commandments in the hearts of all who believe that Christ is King and Lord of Lords.

Answer 11

Here's an idea. How about focusing on more important things like peace, love, not breaking the law, not having sex before marriage, and not beating your kids.