• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Is it wrong for a Christian to believe in some parts of evolution?

A

Anaconda

Banned
I believe in the gene frequencies and such but I'm still a strong believer in creationism. I believe all the way that changes through time and adaptations are real. But when I say I believe in evolution, it can mean SO much. Like Darwin's theories which some I believe in. But evolution as a whole just refutes Christianity so I only believe in SOME PARTS of it. But is it wrong for a Christian to believe in any parts of evolution? I mean the parts of evolution that I believe in are hard facts. I mean there's even a law about it now! the law about the gene frequencies. its not even a theory! well is it wrong?
 
It gets really complicated when you start talking about what kind of evolution you believe in...macroevolution or microevolution. Don't even get me started on this one 🙂
 
Oh another theist who wants to treat the bible like a chinese menu...pick one from this colum, another from that...but leave the rest at the wayside.

There is a special place in hell for the sinners that only believe part of the bible...
 
I'm not going to make any definitive statements here on the forums, since if I did, I'd get flamed into nothingness. But, among Christians, there are two popular opinions:
1...God wound it up and let evolution take care of the rest (ala Hugh Ross)
2...God created the whole thing in 7 literal days (ala Kent Hovind, etc.)
I personally believe the latter.
 


<< But evolution as a whole just refutes Christianity >>


No it doesn't.
Who in the hell do you think invented evolution and started the big bang?
>hint< It was not a man.
 


<< Is it wrong for a Christian to believe in some parts of evolution? >>

It depends on what parts of evolution that you are going to believe in and what parts you are going to accept as false.



<< I believe all the way that changes through time and adaptations are real >>

So, if a parent breaks their leg some time during their life, has kids, and the kids all break their leg some time in their life, and so on and so forth, eventually the children will be born with broken legs? 😕

There are some obviously wrong parts of it, but you have to chose what is logical and what is not.
 


<<

<< But evolution as a whole just refutes Christianity >>


No it doesn't.
Who in the hell do you think invented evolution and started the big bang?
>hint< It was not a man. >>

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


So... Darwin wasn't a man!? 😕 Evolution is a theory just like creationism. Darwin didn't know it happened, and didn't see it for himself. He had no real proof. His so-called proof can be disputed and disproven, just like some of the creationism arguements.
 


<< So, if a parent breaks their leg some time during their life, has kids, and the kids all break their leg some time in their life, and so on and so forth, eventually the children will be born with broken legs? >>



No.
That is not what evolution says.
Evolution is the disprove of this.
Where did you get this information?
 


<<

<< So, if a parent breaks their leg some time during their life, has kids, and the kids all break their leg some time in their life, and so on and so forth, eventually the children will be born with broken legs? >>



No.
That is not what evolution says.
Evolution is the disprove of this.
Where did you get this information? >>

He was talking about gene frequencies. See, he said &quot;I believe all the way that changes through time and adaptations are real.&quot;

There is a name for people who believe parts of Creationism and parts of Evolution(ism? 😛), but I can't remember the name right now. Basically, like how it was said before, most people who believe parts of both are that God started it all and sat back to see how things took shape.
 


<< So... Darwin wasn't a man!? Evolution is a theory just like creationism. Darwin didn't know it happened, and didn't see it for himself. He had no real proof. His so-called proof can be disputed and disproven, just like some of the creationism arguements. >>


The only reason it is a Theory and not a law is that for some unknown reason it causes much consternation with a few radical Christians. Were it not for this, it would be the LAW of evolution. It is preposterous for these &quot;Christians&quot; to have a God who ceases to exist as soon as he creats evolution. I urge you to find stronger arguments for God than trying to disprove evolution.
 


<<

<< So... Darwin wasn't a man!? Evolution is a theory just like creationism. Darwin didn't know it happened, and didn't see it for himself. He had no real proof. His so-called proof can be disputed and disproven, just like some of the creationism arguements. >>


The only reason it is a Theory and not a law is that for some unknown reason it causes much consternation with a few radical Christians. Were it not for this, it would be the LAW of evolution. It is preposterous for these &quot;Christians&quot; to have a God who ceases to exist as soon as he creats evolution. I urge you to find stronger arguments for God than trying to disprove evolution. >>

That's a sad arguement. Science dictates what is law and what isn't. Not Christians. You can't prove to me that evolution is true, so keep trying, bud.
 


<< You can't prove to me that evolution is true, so keep trying, bud. >>


Exactly right.
Nothing is proven true.
If something works and has predictive value and is not proven false..then it is a theory, law etc..

Why do you care?
Your God will colapse if evolution is true?
Mine won't.
 


<<

<< You can't prove to me that evolution is true, so keep trying, bud. >>


Exactly right.
Nothing is proven true.
If something works and has predictive value and is not proven false..then it is a theory, law etc..

Why do you care?
Your God will colapse if evolution is true?
Mine won't. >>

Your god will colapse if creationism is true? Mine won't.

ZZZZZzzzzzzzz......

Are you going to say anything to strengthen the evolution arguement?
 


<< Are you going to say anything to strengthen the evolution arguement? >>


Every advancement in medicine since 1953 has been more or less based upon the assumption that evolution, and specifically DNA to RNA protein or proteins is true.
 
Please expand your imagination and thoughts to understand the complexity of biological processes. If you don't know exactly how things work, it doesn't mean it's a mystery but just that you haven't found it yet. It applies to a lot of &quot;stuff&quot; out there. As you know too many people look into origin of things; they do it for a living. For us, a humble acknowledgement is enough to carry on everyday endeavors. But for the religious congregations, to take their &quot;info&quot; outside of what they're intended to do(appeasing the church-goers) is simply, to use the internet jargon, trollish. Whatever claims WILL be under attack and consequently the mass screams foul, labeling the thinkers to not have spirituality. Who's the unsecure one?

Here's the deal: what is really foul is when one member LordSegan posted a thread on his not-so-pleasing experience with the religious, the thread is quickly locked and his second thread asking for explanation locked too. Personally, I did not find the post a hint of offense. The reason why it was locked was the offensive language the flammatory replies of certain members here. You out there watch your mouth. The least one can do is to persuade or advise. That I see is character, not slamming just because you can do it fingertips away.
 
Originally the Catholic church kept very close control of the bible. Commen men did not have acces to it at all. All Catholics relied upon the clergy to interpet the bible and relay the teaching to them. It was not until after the Luthren Refromations that the bible became a part of the common mans house. I have ofter wondered if the original Catholic church did not have some concept of the dangers of free interpetations of the bible. Just perhaps it was part of the education of the priests that enabled them to interpet the bible as was intended by the men how created it. This via direct transfer of information from the originators.

Just perhaps the many interpetations we now have are due to a break down in the training of the protestants. Is the literal protestant interpatation valid? What would the originators have to say about this type of interpetation? I am beginging to feel that the multible interpetations we now have to deal with are one of the reasons that the old Catholic chuch kept such a tight reign on the bible. For this reason I cannot give any credence to personal interpetations of the bible.

I find it incrediable that anyone can claim to understand HOW &quot;god&quot; did anything. To deny evolution because you know that god did it is equivelent to saying you know how it was done. This is not the case, you can only know the current state you have no knowledge, from the bible, about intermediate states. Who is to say that &quot;god&quot; is not the driveing force of evolution.

Why cannot we observe and analyse the world we live in, and if you need a god, attempt to learn its methods from the &quot;tracks&quot; left due to the work done. The world if full of evience on changes that have occured in the distant past. I amazes me that people will actually deny that the distant past existed due to the words in a book, created by man for man. If you deny that the bible was created by man then you have some serious work to do. You need to learn the history of the book, where did it come from?
 
<<Oh another theist who wants to treat the bible like a chinese menu...pick one from this colum, another from that...but leave the rest at the wayside.>>

I never said that, i said i believe in some of the things evolution talks about. geez
 
whoa, yata and ross have some deep thoughts on the matter, but is it still wrong for me to believe in the part of evolution where it says, if there is a change in the gene frequencies of a population then evolution is occuring, and by evolution i mean they are literally changing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top