can believers accept evolution?

[alphaparticle]

 

 

So you are saying that we can trace human beings back to one creature, and somehow this one creature split into all the creatures we have today?  This one common ancestor became everything from fish to cats, dogs, elephants, giraffs, and of course, human beings?  What makes that more believable to you than God creating everything as it is today? 

 

Yes, that is what i mean.The reason I think that is the case has to do with the fact that I think the physical evidence suggests this sort of process.

 

 

 

Actually it doesn't.

 

Evolution is a slow gradual process. There is no physical evidence of this slow gradual physical change. All the evolutionist has is what it was and what it evolved into. There is no fossil evidence of that slow gradual transition.  

 

There actually is quite a bit of overwhelming evidence. Delving into specifics of this however takes us far afield of the theological question I posed in the OP. I think it's enough to point out that for many it seems as though there is *a lot* of evidence for evolution and that is why that position is compelling.

[alphaparticle]

If creation is true,then their is a Creator to whom we are accountable.Evolution is an enabler for atheism.Evolution gives athiests a basis for explaining how life exists apart from a Creator God.Evolution denies the need for a God to be involved in the universe.

Not at all. Evolution, like the theory of gravity, is silent on the issue about  how the rules and stuff which allow it to work come about. It merely gives us a model by which we can make predictions and explain some things in physical terms. Evolution in the sense that I've been discussing in this thread gives a framework by which we can understand how life, when left 'alone' (as alone as stuff is left in the world), tends to change. It is silent about where the fundamental physical rules actually come from which underlie it, where the chemicals come from, and so on.

[alphaparticle]

In this world, everything decays and returns to dust. It does not evolve, but devolves. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Not ashes to plankton-to-fish-to-reptile-to-mammal-to-ape-to-neandthal-to-homosapien-to-.......gods? That would have to be the likely progression, wouldn't it? Immortality. Where have we heard that before and who has convinced the world that it is possible?

No, evolution has no such direction. That is an incorrect understanding of the concepts which underlie the theory. Which, by the way Parker, before I started this thread I had just done a careful re-read of Genesis. The "Read your Bible" command is both insulting and not relevant here.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

I realize this topic has been done before, but as it is appearing on the forum again there seems to be reason to bring it up. So what do you guys think, yes or no? Why or why not?

 

For myself, I came in as an evolutionist and I have seen no reason to change that position. I believe that God created everything, is omnipotent and omniscient, and in my mind this entire thing is about method or mechanism of creating. God could have done it in any way, the evidence suggests this particular way.

 

The reason I am saved is because of the following:

 

rom 10:9-11 if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.”

 

I believe that Jesus is Lord and that He was resurrected from the dead on the third day.

If Evolution is true, then there was no fall in the Garden, man is not a sinner and there would be no need for a Savior because what we call "sin" is  not an issue of morality, but it part of the natural human make up.

 

The classic error that people like you make is that you try to divorce Jesus' death, burial and resurrection from the rest of the Bible, and Genesis 1-11 in particular.  If Jesus is truly raised, His resurrection stands the vindication of what Genesis 1 actually says, and shows Evolution is a lie.

 

It was divorced, in my mind, when I first believed. I didn't really have to 'try' at that at all. Wrongness is wrongness, and that we are in fallen state, and in need of a savior, can be established evolution or no evolution. You are forcing a false dilemma.

 

No, it is not a false dilemma.  In fact, your position undermines the authority of the Word of God, which even the most ardent skeptic admits, presents us with a young earth and a created order that first appears in Genesis 1 and 2 as functionally mature and perfect.

 

Even Jesus, in Mark 10:6, presents Adam and Eve as existing at the beginning of creation, not hundreds of millions of years after the beginning of creation.  To hold to your view, you must come against Jesus' direct statement about Adam and Eve.  In Luke 17:26, 27 Jesus confirms the historicity of Noah and by exstension the world-wide flood that evolutionists reject as having actually happened.

 

Romans 5:12, and I Cor. 15:22 also make a case for the sin of man coming through Adam and that Jesus reversed the curse that Adam brought into the world.  There is no biblical case to be made for sin apart from the fall of Adam in the Garden.   The notion that man's need of a Savior can be established with or without evolution is not onl false, but demonstrates that you evidently don't have a very good theological base.  

 

You might be able to dream up some way to explain sin apart from Genesis 1, but it would be an explanation that exists in the realm of your imagination and not on the solid foundation of truth.

[alphaparticle]

 

 

 

I realize this topic has been done before, but as it is appearing on the forum again there seems to be reason to bring it up. So what do you guys think, yes or no? Why or why not?

 

For myself, I came in as an evolutionist and I have seen no reason to change that position. I believe that God created everything, is omnipotent and omniscient, and in my mind this entire thing is about method or mechanism of creating. God could have done it in any way, the evidence suggests this particular way.

 

The reason I am saved is because of the following:

 

rom 10:9-11 if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.”

 

I believe that Jesus is Lord and that He was resurrected from the dead on the third day.

If Evolution is true, then there was no fall in the Garden, man is not a sinner and there would be no need for a Savior because what we call "sin" is  not an issue of morality, but it part of the natural human make up.

 

The classic error that people like you make is that you try to divorce Jesus' death, burial and resurrection from the rest of the Bible, and Genesis 1-11 in particular.  If Jesus is truly raised, His resurrection stands the vindication of what Genesis 1 actually says, and shows Evolution is a lie.

 

It was divorced, in my mind, when I first believed. I didn't really have to 'try' at that at all. Wrongness is wrongness, and that we are in fallen state, and in need of a savior, can be established evolution or no evolution. You are forcing a false dilemma.

 

No, it is not a false dilemma.  In fact, your position undermines the authority of the Word of God, which even the most ardent skeptic admits, presents us with a young earth and a created order that first appears in Genesis 1 and 2 as functionally mature and perfect.

 

Even Jesus, in Mark 10:6, presents Adam and Eve as existing at the beginning of creation, not hundreds of millions of years after the beginning of creation.  To hold to your view, you must come against Jesus' direct statement about Adam and Eve.  In Luke 17:26, 27 Jesus confirms the historicity of Noah and by exstension the world-wide flood that evolutionists reject as having actually happened.

 

Romans 5:12, and I Cor. 15:22 also make a case for the sin of man coming through Adam and that Jesus reversed the curse that Adam brought into the world.  There is no biblical case to be made for sin apart from the fall of Adam in the Garden.   The notion that man's need of a Savior can be established with or without evolution is not onl false, but demonstrates that you evidently don't have a very good theological base.  

 

You might be able to dream up some way to explain sin apart from Genesis 1, but it would be an explanation that exists in the realm of your imagination and not on the solid foundation of truth.

 

1. Evolution could be true and Adam and Eve be historical persons.

 

2. Evolution could be true, Adam and Eve not be historical persons, but still referred to point to certain theological truths, such as the fallen state of humanity and our need for a Savior.

[Guest shiloh357]

Evolution could be true and Adam and Eve be historical persons.

 

Wrong.  The Bible doesn't present them as merely historical person.  It was through Adam that sin finds its orgin in our world.  The Bible offers NO explanation for the origin and existence of sin apart from the fall of Adam.  In fact, the Bible in more than one place links the origin of sin with Adam's disobedience.  It links the sin of the entire human race and the need for mankind's recemption to the fall of Adam because the Bible teaches that it was Adam's sin that made Jesus' death on the cross necessary to satisfy God's justice against Adam's disobedience and mankinds resultant fallen state.

 

So the issue here is not merely their historicity, but the clear link that the Bible makes bewteen their historicity and the redemptive  work on the cross.   The link the Bible makes is unavoidable and you simply cannot brush  it aside because it doesn't agree with the notions that you are putting forth, here.   The fact that you insist on trying to blend a godless theory with the pure Word of God is problematic for someone like yourself who claims to be a believer.  You need to decide where you stand instead of trying to live with one foot in the Kingdom and one foot in the atheistic world of Evolution.  Whom do you serve?   You need to make decision.

[alphaparticle]

 

Evolution could be true and Adam and Eve be historical persons.

 

Wrong.  The Bible doesn't present them as merely historical person.  It was through Adam that sin finds its orgin in our world.  The Bible offers NO explanation for the origin and existence of sin apart from the fall of Adam.  In fact, the Bible in more than one place links the origin of sin with Adam's disobedience.  It links the sin of the entire human race and the need for mankind's recemption to the fall of Adam because the Bible teaches that it was Adam's sin that made Jesus' death on the cross necessary to satisfy God's justice against Adam's disobedience and mankinds resultant fallen state.

 

So the issue here is not merely their historicity, but the clear link that the Bible makes bewteen their historicity and the redemptive  work on the cross.   The link the Bible makes is unavoidable and you simply cannot brush  it aside because it doesn't agree with the notions that you are putting forth, here.   The fact that you insist on trying to blend a godless theory with the pure Word of God is problematic for someone like yourself who claims to be a believer.  You need to decide where you stand instead of trying to live with one foot in the Kingdom and one foot in the atheistic world of Evolution.  Whom do you serve?   You need to make decision.

 

I serve the resurrected Lord of the universe. I already made that decision and I have no ambivalence there.

 

Once again you insist on a dilemma that does not exist. Adam and Eve could have been historical, evolution be true, and Adam and Eve's downfall be the source of particular sin for our  human existence. In all of our exchanges you haven't offered any truly compelling reasons I can't coherently think this is the case.

[Boash]

No

[alphaparticle]

No

why do you think that?

[HumbleThinker]

I realize this topic has been done before, but as it is appearing on the forum again there seems to be reason to bring it up. So what do you guys think, yes or no? Why or why not?

 

For myself, I came in as an evolutionist and I have seen no reason to change that position. I believe that God created everything, is omnipotent and omniscient, and in my mind this entire thing is about method or mechanism of creating. God could have done it in any way, the evidence suggests this particular way.

 

The reason I am saved is because of the following:

 

rom 10:9-11 if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.”

 

I believe that Jesus is Lord and that He was resurrected from the dead on the third day.

 

This is a perfectly good question, but from a pragmatic standpoint, I've really found it to be a dead end. One of two things quickly happen. First, it boils down to the pro side claiming that the nay side is committing No True Scotsman fallacies and the nay side claiming that accepting creationism/not accepting evolution is a genuine article of either salvation or being a good Christian, usually involving evolution being incompatible with the Bible. Or it goes the other direction and quickly spirals into a tangent discussion about various interpretation methods for understanding the Bible or the scientific merits or lackthereof of evolution. So it's a good question worth thinking about, but it sort of burns itself out really quickly. 

 

But to answer your question, the Bible says the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation, identifies the Gospel as Christ and Him crucified, and identifies a Christian as one who testifies that Christ is Lord from His mouth and believes this in their heart that God raised Him from the dead. Maybe there is room to speak about whether accepting evolution makes you a good/bad Christian, but I don't see room to say it is a salvation issue. It's not an article of faith. Being a good Christian is not a salvation issue. Neither evolution nor creationism are mentioned in the Bible, much less as salvation issue. We can speak about whether Genesis 1 agrees with or corresponds to creationism, but creationism itself is certainly not mentioned in the Scripture.