Evolution believing Christians only please?

Question

We as christians believe the bible that it is Gods true inspired word, right. So if you believe the bible, you should believe that there was a great flood that, like the bible clearly teachess, covered the whole world, all the mountains, right. So ask any evolutionist and they will tell you that there was no flood, the reason, if there was a flood, then evolution couldnt have taken place. How then can you explain evolution if the flood destroyed everything, because evolution took place over millions of years.

Answer 1

Well, if there was a large flood which covered the entire planet (and not the biblical "whole earth" which could be interpreted to mean "everyplace the writer has ever seen") then not only would it cause problems for evolution, but it would also have created obvious geologic and other effects which we don't see--what do you think being submerged in liquid water would do to million year old ice sheets at the poles?. So the choices are (1) the flood, if it happened, was a more local event than alot of people think, or (2) the flood happened and God covered up the evidence and created false evidence to make it look like it never happened. I don't like the idea of a dishonest god, so I reject choice #2.

Answer 2

There was no flood, end of story. There is only anecdotal evidence to support a world wide flood. All of the geological evidence points to no world wide flood. It's impossible, there simply isn't enough water on the planet to flood it to the tallest mountain peak. There are no strata that suggest this event ever happened either.

The truth of the flood story is a larger than normal local flood that was passed down through word of mouth over generations and obviously distorted in the process. There are several similar stories from other cultures, however there is no way to tell if they all happened at the same time which is key to supporting a world wide event. Floods happen all over the world locally, any culture that is near a body of water is bound to have a story about a great flood. You must remember also, to people of that time, the entire world was only what they were able to explore... this could make a large local flood seem like a world wide flood.

Answer 3

The Catholic Church and the Jewish religion has no problem with Darwin or his evolution theories. Nothing there conflicts with the Bible.

There is pleanty of geological evidence to show that waters were all over the place at one time or another.

Look at Mars, as they are trying to anaylse the rocks. Some say water could have cause those fomations, others say not necessarily.

The fact of the matter is the science is too new to have enough proofs for anything.

But at the same time the facts supporting the Old and New Tesiment also have to great proofs.

The original 10 commandments don't exist at this point in time.

Noah's ark has never been found nor has one splinter of wood been found to even hint it existed.

Evolution and science faces the same flaws as religion, taking God out of the equation, that is.

You can't explain the races without being a racist.

If you take religion as a pure, literal form that we are all related. We are all the product of Adam and Eve. Hence whites, blacks, semites and Chinese are all distant cousins.

Science has to routes to explain that. Blacks came from different species than whites. That's racist. That does impy we are "different monkeys" -- it makes Hitler's views justified and also justifies the Biblcal LIKE should be with LIKE.

Another route is to say we just evolved differently.

Religion, in the abscense of God, can also say that.

We can also say God willed the difference races. There is little evidence, however to justify that. That is largely speculation.

No where in the KJV that I am aware of, does it say God intenfully changed the decendents of Adam and Eve to blacks and Asians, giving them differen facial features. No where does it say God created other humans.

The Bible says there was Adam and Eve, and Sons of God and Giants living IN the Earth. From all of this came all of us.

We ALL have a common ancestry. Under the rule of GOD was are all brothers or cousins.

Science on the other hand has to explain why only blacks get syckel cell animia, why only Jews get Ty Shacks disease.

Science has to explain why eyes are oval in Asians and why skin color varies from flesh to reddish, to yellowish, to brownish and how blue eyes and blonde hair came about.

They tend to skirt that issue or call it genetic and social evolution.

Religious people can also rally behind that concept.

After 6,000+ years of living in different climates and areas man's traits can change.

Hence evolution is real.

What science has a hard time explaining is the vast differences of Black, Asians and Whites all coming from the same Homo Erectus.

Now we go down to the nitty gritty which science can NEVER explain, which is what color was homo erectus! What was the skin color of primitive man? Of Cro magnon?

If it was white it's had to envision how it make black skin color. If it was black it's hard to envision how it made white skin color. If it's a brownish it could be possible for the genes to move across the spectrum and make a variety of skin tones.

Evolution as a development of small changess in humans and other species can be justified.

Estalbihsing that all of us came from an amoeba is a lot harder to do.

Establishing that chemicals came together and made that amoba is even harder to do.

Are blacks from the great apes? Are chinese or whites from the chimps?

Science has to handle that hot potato!

It tries very hard not to.

It must either prove races can be produced by social-genetic evolution, which they also can't do, or that at least 5 or 6 species of distantly similar Homo Erectus maanged to form concurrently, which is also difficult to establish.

Answer 4

I don't know the answers, but I know the answers exist. I truly believe Science and Scripture are both true and come together at a level beyond human comprehension. I don't get involved in the creation/evolution debate at all. I don't believe it is relevant to my salvation. I also know there is nothing beyond or before God. So, as I said, I really believe the two theories come together at some point, but we do not know what that point is.

Answer 5

There is evidence for the flood story-
1) The same story turns up in many cultures
2) There's geological evidence of different parts of what is now land having been underwater in the past & vice versa

However, you have to understand the "world view" of the writer, which was an incomplete world. In this context, "everything" being destroyed could refer only to everything known to the writer.

Given that understanding, you need next to ask what was the purpose of the story? The context is God's grief about the wickedness of mankind, that he rescued some but destroyed "everything" else known to the writer.

So was it a scientifically accurate description? Not in our understanding. But that wasn't the purpose of the story anyway.

You need to ask the same questions about the creation story. What truth was it designed to convey? Certainly not the scientific answer to how the earth was created. But it does answer a different question - the philosophical question "Why?" and it gives a good deal of basic information in story form about mankind's relationship to God. So don't throw out ancient accounts just because they aren't scientifically accurate. They were never meant to be but they exist for a different purpose. So you need to find out why they exist.

As for evolution, unfortunately it is not a genuinely scientific explanation either. Apart from its history - Charles Darwin's grandfather taught it to him but lacked any evidence, so Charles siezed upon what he saw in Galapagos as evidence provided you supposed certain things. However, evolution upwards from lower to higher life forms lacks empirical evidence. Rather than increasing bio-diversity, all the evidence points towards decreasing bio-diversity. So perhaps we should be talking abut extinction rather than evolution. But were past processes always similar to todays? We assume so but the evidence doesn't back this up so it's very difficult to be objective. So we have to make this big assumption of past timeframes & processes being similar to today's. That's hardly a good scientific basis to start from is it?

Charles Darwin's work heralded the start of an age of reason and genuine attempts to objectively study the earth. However, material science canot answer all questions. In my own discipline (psychology) almost nothing is empirically proveable, but the overall Biblical view of mankind always seems to hold, i.e. that what was good & pure in mankind gets corrupted & this corruption creates all sorts of problems in people's lives. Also forgiveness remains one of the most powerful tools of liberation, including from physical illnesses. Doctors estimate that between 30% & 90% of illnesses & pain may be psychologically linked.

So don't throw out the Biblical accounts just because they aren't materially scientific. Try to find out what is the truth you're meant to get from the accounts in the Bible & don't worry about the fact that it's not designed to answer the "how" questions.

Answer 6

I believe there was a big flood, but that it was not so great that it destroyed everything. If ten different people witness a certain incident, in a few days there might be10 different versions of what happened.

Answer 7

Therefore the ANSWER has to be A

PINEAPPLE ....