Is Evolution Compatible with Christianity?

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: TravisT

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: TravisT
The argument between evolution vs christianity will never end. People who support evolution claim it as fact, although it remains a theory for a reason in the fact that it can not be proven.

As a christian, I realize that I will not be able to prove my beliefs to others. It is the idea behind faith, I think the bible clearly states that until the end there will always be people who doubt the religion. We will never be able to scientifically explain the religion.

I say we just agree to disagree. While I'm much more liberal than many Christians in regards to evolution. I do not believe that evolution is what started and created what we know now as humans. I do believe that animals are capable of adapting over time.

I will likely not revisit this thread, if I do, I will not respond to any hateful or hate baits that you may leave. Feel free to PM me if you want to discuss in a calm manner as I am sure this thread will not end that way.

It has been proven and continues to be proven -- hence it being a scientific theory and not just a theory.

Exactly. It is a theory, not a scientific law. A theory, whether it has "scientific" in front of it or not is not a scientific law. If Evolution could be taken as fact, it would be a law and there would no room for argument on the two beliefs.

theory - a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption

Negative.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: TravisT

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: TravisT
The argument between evolution vs christianity will never end. People who support evolution claim it as fact, although it remains a theory for a reason in the fact that it can not be proven.

As a christian, I realize that I will not be able to prove my beliefs to others. It is the idea behind faith, I think the bible clearly states that until the end there will always be people who doubt the religion. We will never be able to scientifically explain the religion.

I say we just agree to disagree. While I'm much more liberal than many Christians in regards to evolution. I do not believe that evolution is what started and created what we know now as humans. I do believe that animals are capable of adapting over time.

I will likely not revisit this thread, if I do, I will not respond to any hateful or hate baits that you may leave. Feel free to PM me if you want to discuss in a calm manner as I am sure this thread will not end that way.

It has been proven and continues to be proven -- hence it being a scientific theory and not just a theory.

Exactly. It is a theory, not a scientific law. A theory, whether it has "scientific" in front of it or not is not a scientific law. If Evolution could be taken as fact, it would be a law and there would no room for argument on the two beliefs.

theory - a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption

Exactly what? You just disregarded what I said. A scientific theory is not the same as a theory and to say so is being dishonest -- so stop doing it.

 

[Vic]

This thread has been answered. Why does it continue?


BTW, both sides of the last few posts are inaccurate. Proof is for mathematics, not science. Very few things in science are actually proofed or proven, but that doesn't disprove those that aren't, it just means we don't yet understand them fully.

 

[Howard]

What is Christianity?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: TravisT

Exactly. It is a theory, not a scientific law. A theory, whether it has "scientific" in front of it or not is not a scientific law. If Evolution could be taken as fact, it would be a law and there would no room for argument on the two beliefs.

theory - a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption

Theories supercede laws in science. Consider Boyle's law and the ideal gas law -- both elements of the kinetic theory of gases.

 

[EGGO]

Originally posted by: dullard
Yes, they are compatible.

Genesis from the bible (in EXACT chronological order from the King James version):
1) Void
2) Energy and light.
3) Earth
4) Water
5) Plant life
6) Water life
7) Birds
8) Mammals
9) Land animals
10) Man.

Evolution theory:
1) Void
2) Light from energy
3) Earth
4) Fire
5) Wind
6) Water
7) Heart
8) Powers combine
9) Captain Planet

 

[TravisT]

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: TravisT

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: TravisT
The argument between evolution vs christianity will never end. People who support evolution claim it as fact, although it remains a theory for a reason in the fact that it can not be proven.

As a christian, I realize that I will not be able to prove my beliefs to others. It is the idea behind faith, I think the bible clearly states that until the end there will always be people who doubt the religion. We will never be able to scientifically explain the religion.

I say we just agree to disagree. While I'm much more liberal than many Christians in regards to evolution. I do not believe that evolution is what started and created what we know now as humans. I do believe that animals are capable of adapting over time.

I will likely not revisit this thread, if I do, I will not respond to any hateful or hate baits that you may leave. Feel free to PM me if you want to discuss in a calm manner as I am sure this thread will not end that way.

It has been proven and continues to be proven -- hence it being a scientific theory and not just a theory.

Exactly. It is a theory, not a scientific law. A theory, whether it has "scientific" in front of it or not is not a scientific law. If Evolution could be taken as fact, it would be a law and there would no room for argument on the two beliefs.

theory - a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption

Exactly what? You just disregarded what I said. A scientific theory is not the same as a theory and to say so is being dishonest -- so stop doing it.

Exactly in the sense that you agree that is a theory, therefore not proven. If it was proven, it would no longer be a theory, instead becoming a law. Evolution can be debated because it can not be taken as fact, again, it is a <insert the word "scientific" if you wish here> theory.

I'm not trying to say that evolution is not real or does not exist. I'm merely saying that it is not proven, therefore people should not act as though it has been. People believe in it as fact as do Christians believe in very different view of the existence of humans. I really do dislike these threads, told myself after my initial post I would not come back in here. But it bothers me when both Christians and Evolutionists come into these discussions unwilling to take a look at the other side and stating their beliefs as facts.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: TravisT
Exactly. It is a theory, not a scientific law. A theory, whether it has "scientific" in front of it or not is not a scientific law. If Evolution could be taken as fact, it would be a law and there would no room for argument on the two beliefs.

TravisT, that isn't how it works. If you prove something, it doesn't instantly become a law. It needs a hundred years or more after the proof to become a law.

Your only argument therefore becomes: because not enough time has passed, I win.

And that avoids the whole issue that few things if ever can be proven. It may be possible to eventually prove all aspects of evolution, but we cannot go back and time and say EXACTLY what happened. History cannot be proven.

 

[CellarDoor]

Originally posted by: TravisT
The argument between evolution vs christianity will never end. People who support evolution claim it as fact, although it remains a theory for a reason in the fact that it can not be proven.

This is a huge misconception within this debate. Evolution is a scientific fact. The theory of evolution is not. The theory of evolution is what people debate about, not evolution. That is to say, evolution exists, but we are unsure of the mechanism that causes it.

 

[Strk]

Except we don't agree that it is a theory. I believe it is a scientific theory, which is vastly different than a theory. You, however, seem to believe there is no difference.

 

[CellarDoor]

Originally posted by: Strk
Except we don't agree that it is a theory. I believe it is a scientific theory, which is vastly different than a theory. You, however, seem to believe there is no difference.

The theory of evolution as present by Darwin is a scientific theory. Evolution itself is considered scientific fact.

 

[TravisT]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: TravisT

Exactly. It is a theory, not a scientific law. A theory, whether it has "scientific" in front of it or not is not a scientific law. If Evolution could be taken as fact, it would be a law and there would no room for argument on the two beliefs.

theory - a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption

Theories supercede laws in science. Consider Boyle's law and the ideal gas law -- both elements of the kinetic theory of gases.

Sorry, but because a theory utilizes laws (which are fact and undisputable) does not make that theory a law in itself. Theories are merely attempts at explaining something.

 

[z42]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: TravisT
The argument between evolution vs christianity will never end. People who support evolution claim it as fact, although it remains a theory for a reason in the fact that it can not be proven.

What about fossils showing the intermediate stages between early apelike creatures and humans? If you subscribe to the 'devil put them in the earth to fool us' view that's fine, but you must accept that is truly unprovable - it does not just lack evidence as you believe evolution does, it is impossible to ever prove.

Can you link to some information on this Atheus? I have heard a lot of conflicting arguments about transitional forms and would love to read up on them if you have a good source.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: TravisT

Exactly in the sense that you agree that is a theory, therefore not proven. If it was proven, it would no longer be a theory, instead becoming a law. Evolution can be debated because it can not be taken as fact, again, it is a <insert the word "scientific" if you wish here> theory.

I explained to you already that nothing in science is ever "proven." Proof, as they say, is for mathematics and alcohol. Science deals with models -- and that applies to the whole of science. It is disingenuous for you to cast evolution in a suspicious light because "it is not proven." Gravity isn't proven. Quantum mechanics is not proven. Evolution is no different, and is in fact more complete.

I'm not trying to say that evolution is not real or does not exist. I'm merely saying that it is not proven, therefore people should not act as though it has been. People believe in it as fact as do Christians believe in very different view of the existence of humans. I really do dislike these threads, told myself after my initial post I would not come back in here. But it bothers me when both Christians and Evolutionists come into these discussions unwilling to take a look at the other side and stating their beliefs as facts.

Evolution is a fact, and a theory.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

 

[z42]

Originally posted by: CellarDoor

Originally posted by: Strk
Except we don't agree that it is a theory. I believe it is a scientific theory, which is vastly different than a theory. You, however, seem to believe there is no difference.

The theory of evolution as present by Darwin is a scientific theory. Natural Selection itself is considered scientific fact.

fixed for you.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: TravisT

Sorry, but because a theory utilizes laws (which are fact and undisputable) does not make that theory a law in itself. Theories are merely attempts at explaining something.

*sigh*

Theories do not somehow "graduate" into laws once they become sufficiently established. Quantum theory will never become "quantum law" nor with Relativity theory ever become "relativity law." Laws are not as special as you seem to think they are. Scientific laws are merely equations that define relationships between quantifiable observables. They are as "unproven" as anything else in a theory because they are models.

Quite frankly, you simply do not know what you're talking about.

 

[CollectiveUnconscious]

Originally posted by: z42
Can you link to some information on this Atheus? I have heard a lot of conflicting arguments about transitional forms and would love to read up on them if you have a good source.

Human evolution: taxonomy and paleobiology -
B WOOD, BG RICHMOND - Journal of Anatomy, 2000

A reappraisal of early hominid phylogeny. -
DS Strait, FE Grine, MA Moniz - J Hum Evol, 1997

Early hominid evolution and ecological change through the African Plio-Pleistocene -
KE Reed - Journal of Human Evolution, 1997

Australopithecus Africanus: The Man-ape of South Africa.
RA Dart - 1925 - R. and R. Clark, Ltd (Old, but the basis for a lot of modern research)

 

[TravisT]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: TravisT

Exactly in the sense that you agree that is a theory, therefore not proven. If it was proven, it would no longer be a theory, instead becoming a law. Evolution can be debated because it can not be taken as fact, again, it is a <insert the word "scientific" if you wish here> theory.

I explained to you already that nothing in science is ever "proven." Proof, as they say, is for mathematics and alcohol. Science deals with models -- and that applies to the whole of science. It is disingenuous for you to cast evolution in a suspicious light because "it is not proven." Gravity isn't proven. Quantum mechanics is not proven. Evolution is no different, and is in fact more complete.

I'm not trying to say that evolution is not real or does not exist. I'm merely saying that it is not proven, therefore people should not act as though it has been. People believe in it as fact as do Christians believe in very different view of the existence of humans. I really do dislike these threads, told myself after my initial post I would not come back in here. But it bothers me when both Christians and Evolutionists come into these discussions unwilling to take a look at the other side and stating their beliefs as facts.

Evolution is a fact, and a theory.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

Out of curiousity if you state that evolution (or science) can not be "proven", then why do you claim that evolution is fact? Isn't this contradictory? Let me go ahead and use this time, as I forsee this going into a very heated debate, that i'm approaching this with an open mind. While I already have my mind made up, i'm not oppossed to seeing your view on the issue.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: TravisT

Out of curiousity if you state that evolution (or science) can not be "proven", then why do you claim that evolution is fact? Isn't this contradictory?

No, it isn't. When dealing with empirical reality, proof is impossible. Facts are not "proven," despite what American vernacular would lead you to believe. Facts are propositions for which their truth is sufficiently well-established that to deny them would be unreasonable. The most that could be said is that they are proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Nothing about empirical reality is ever proven beyond any doubt.

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: TravisT

Sorry, but because a theory utilizes laws (which are fact and undisputable) does not make that theory a law in itself. Theories are merely attempts at explaining something.

*sigh*

Theories do not somehow "graduate" into laws once they become sufficiently established. Quantum theory will never become "quantum law" nor with Relativity theory ever become "relativity law." Laws are not as special as you seem to think they are. Scientific laws are merely equations that define relationships between quantifiable observables. They are as "unproven" as anything else in a theory because they are models.

Quite frankly, you simply do not know what you're talking about.

^^ What Garth said.

The laws of thermodynamics are actually theories. Incredibly strong ones, but still theories.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Theb
Topic Title: Is Evolution Compatible with Christianity?

Do you believe Adam and Eve walked the Earth the same time as the Dinosaurs?

Answer that and you have your answer.

 

[Todd33]

Evolution and science explains what is, reality. Religion is just myth, meaningless fables and stories once used to fill the void of the unknown. It's is obsolete, used now to only propagate ignorance and scare people into doing illogical things.

The question isn't whether science and religion can co-exists, it why do will still have religion at all?

 

[Xyo II]

I see evolution as being completely compatible with Christianity: the whole "God made the Universe in 7 days" is not meant to be taken literally, and I don't see why God couldn't have used evolution to create mankind.

 

[slsmnaz]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Theb
Topic Title: Is Evolution Compatible with Christianity?

Do you believe Adam and Eve walked the Earth the same time as the Dinosaurs?

Answer that and you have your answer.

Thats dumber than the tin foil hat crap you spout in P&N. Go back.

 

[mercanucaribe]

Originally posted by: TravisT

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: TravisT

Exactly in the sense that you agree that is a theory, therefore not proven. If it was proven, it would no longer be a theory, instead becoming a law. Evolution can be debated because it can not be taken as fact, again, it is a <insert the word "scientific" if you wish here> theory.

I explained to you already that nothing in science is ever "proven." Proof, as they say, is for mathematics and alcohol. Science deals with models -- and that applies to the whole of science. It is disingenuous for you to cast evolution in a suspicious light because "it is not proven." Gravity isn't proven. Quantum mechanics is not proven. Evolution is no different, and is in fact more complete.

I'm not trying to say that evolution is not real or does not exist. I'm merely saying that it is not proven, therefore people should not act as though it has been. People believe in it as fact as do Christians believe in very different view of the existence of humans. I really do dislike these threads, told myself after my initial post I would not come back in here. But it bothers me when both Christians and Evolutionists come into these discussions unwilling to take a look at the other side and stating their beliefs as facts.

Evolution is a fact, and a theory.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

Out of curiousity if you state that evolution (or science) can not be "proven", then why do you claim that evolution is fact? Isn't this contradictory? Let me go ahead and use this time, as I forsee this going into a very heated debate, that i'm approaching this with an open mind. While I already have my mind made up, i'm not oppossed to seeing your view on the issue.

Evolution can be proven, and has been proven. You can observe it happening, you can look at fossils that show it... Good grief!