Do Christians believe "They" as individuals exist because God created them, or because their parents had sex?

Question

And they happened to be the strongest, or most suitable swimmer in the crap shoot of sperm?

Because, you know, science actually has some interesting facts on these things.

Answer 1

Both, I believe is what they believe

Answer 2

You, exist, don't you? Where did you come from? Did you come from an experiment, if so, where did the elements by which you developed come from? Science tends to to do more to prove the Bible than to disprove it. While there are those who simply do not want to believe in an intelligent creator, there are others who see it as a must. Everything is so complex that it just could not have simply "happened". This is especially true when so many theories of how life came to be that each one disproves the other. I think it is better to say that there is a God who did create all that there is. It makes logical sense, and is much easier to believe. Christians believe that God created all of everything we see in our world. God created man, and a female for him, and that they would reproduce after their own kind. So, it isn't just Christians whom God created, but all of mankind, both those who believe, and those who do not.

Answer 3

The Bible says that " For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother's womb.
I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
your works are wonderful,
I know that full well.
My frame was not hidden from you
when I was made in the secret place.
When I was woven together in the depths of the earth,
your eyes saw my unformed body. . ."Psalm139

So yeah, christians believe that it was God's perfect design - that he brought two specific people together to create a new human being. And even that baby has a plan and a purpose! That's why there is such a debate about abortion and stuff like that. Hope that helped even a little!

Answer 4

It may be difficult for a non-Christian to understand things from a Christian standpoint.
I look at it this way:
God created all living things. He planned them and he planned for them to be the most suitable swimmers in the crap shoot of sperm, so to speak.
So basically, our parents had sex to bring a child into the world but God planned us all in the beginning.
Hope this answered your question clearly.

Answer 5

jane: The progeny of the human race is to have a relationship with their Creator by GRACE. From Adam and Eve the genes were disseminated down through the ages, via human sperm. Spiritually; humans are "born again" into a relationship with their Creator. One birth is of the flesh; whereas, one birth is of the spirit - understand ? Flesh is limited and spirit is UNlimited !!! Yes; I am aware of some of the interesting facts bio-science has on "these things". Thanks for the question from you !!!

P.S. I do have a pair of blue "genes" hanging in my closet !!!

P.S.S. "Naughty Jeans" ["genes"] posting above is right-on with his research into science fact verses evolutionary THEORIES. All in all; TRUE - GENUINE SCIENCE DOES SUPPORT GOD'S EXISTENCE !!! I, myself, in my research into the sciences ( bio-genesis , paleontology, and physics) PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF A CREATOR !!!

Answer 6

Well it took more than just sperm shooting from the man to get me here

It took an egg also

Answer 7

In Psalms it says that God Knit us in our mother's womb. Therefore, God's plan was for our "parents to have sex" and God Created us in my mom's womb. It doesn't have anything to do with the fact that God created us as babies and all of a sudden they were in my mom's stomach....

Answer 8

They say they do but I don't think they all believe what they profess to believe in.Basically if you begin with an empty box you can claim anything is inside as long as no one is allowed to open it . that is the monotheistic system in a nutshell !
Peace out

Answer 9

Heh. YES.
Yes.
Yes.
And Yes.

Answer 10

Astronomer Robert Jastrow says: “To their chagrin [scientists] have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature’s experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how that happened.”—The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (New York, 1981), p. 19.

Evolutionist Loren Eiseley acknowledged: “After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past.”—The Immense Journey (New York, 1957), p. 199.

According to New Scientist: “An increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists . . . argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all. . . . Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials.”—June 25, 1981, p. 828.

Physicist H. S. Lipson said: “The only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.” (Italics added.)—Physics Bulletin, 1980, Vol. 31, p. 138.

Are those who advocate evolution in agreement? How do these facts make you feel about what they teach?

The introduction to the centennial edition of Darwin’s Origin of Species (London, 1956) says: “As we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the causes of evolution but even about the actual process. This divergence exists because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution.”—By W. R. Thompson, then director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, Ottawa, Canada.

“A century after Darwin’s death, we still have not the slightest demonstrable or even plausible idea of how evolution really took place—and in recent years this has led to an extraordinary series of battles over the whole question. . . . A state of almost open war exists among the evolutionists themselves, with every kind of [evolutionary] sect urging some new modification.”—C. Booker (London Times writer), The Star, (Johannesburg), April 20, 1982, p. 19.

The scientific magazine Discover said: “Evolution . . . is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is growing dissent.”—October 1980, p. 88.

What view does the fossil record support?

Darwin acknowledged: “If numerous species . . . have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution.” (The Origin of Species, New York, 1902, Part Two, p. 83) Does the evidence indicate that “numerous species” came into existence at the same time, or does it point to gradual development, as evolution holds?

Have sufficient fossils been found to draw a sound conclusion?

Smithsonian Institution scientist Porter Kier says: “There are a hundred million fossils, all catalogued and identified, in museums around the world.” (New Scientist, January 15, 1981, p. 129) A Guide to Earth History adds: “By the aid of fossils palaeontologists can now give us an excellent picture of the life of past ages.”—(New York, 1956), Richard Carrington, Mentor edition, p. 48.

What does the fossil record actually show?

The Bulletin of Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History pointed out: “Darwin’s theory of [evolution] has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true. . . . the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution.”—January 1979, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 22, 23.

A View of Life states: “Beginning at the base of the Cambrian period and extending for about 10 million years, all the major groups of skeletonized invertebrates made their first appearance in the most spectacular rise in diversity ever recorded on our planet.”—(California, 1981), Salvador E. Luria, Stephen Jay Gould, Sam Singer, p. 649.

Paleontologist Alfred Romer wrote: “Below this [Cambrian period], there are vast thicknesses of sediments in which the progenitors of the Cambrian forms would be expected. But we do not find them; these older beds are almost barren of evidence of life, and the general picture could reasonably be said to be consistent with the idea of a special creation at the beginning of Cambrian times.”—Natural History, October 1959, p. 467.

Zoologist Harold Coffin states: “If progressive evolution from simple to complex is correct, the ancestors of these full-blown living creatures in the Cambrian should be found; but they have not been found and scientists admit there is little prospect of their ever being found. On the basis of the facts alone, on the basis of what is actually found in the earth, the theory of a sudden creative act in which the major forms of life were established fits best.”—Liberty, September/October 1975, p. 12.

Carl Sagan, in his book Cosmos, candidly acknowledged: “The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer.”—(New York, 1980), p. 29.

Might it be that the evolutionary process took place as a result of mutations, that is, sudden drastic changes in genes?

Science Digest states: “Evolutionary revisionists believe mutations in key regulatory genes may be just the genetic jackhammers their quantum-leap theory requires.” However, the magazine also quotes British zoologist Colin Patterson as stating: “Speculation is free. We know nothing about these regulatory master genes.” (February 1982, p. 92) In other words, there is no evidence to support the theory.

The Encyclopedia Americana acknowledges: “The fact that most mutations are damaging to the organism seems hard to reconcile with the view that mutation is the source of raw materials for evolution. Indeed, mutants illustrated in biology textbooks are a collection of freaks and monstrosities and mutation seems to be a destructive rather than a constructive process.”—(1977), Vol. 10, p. 742.