Evangelicals know, as do other educated people, that there isn’t any evidence that one species can evolve into another. The PROCESS of evolution by natural selection happens every day - it’s why you can’t kill the cockroaches in New York City with Raid. Man can also force evolution to occur - it’s why we have so many different breeds of dog.
So it is incorrect to say that evolution does not occur. It is a process that God allows to occur (obviously since it happens). To say that species have evolved from other species (such as man evolving from ape) is incorrect as well - it sounds good to those who want to deny creation, but there’s no evidence of it.
ping......
If the evidence for the ToE warranted accepting the theory, I’d give it far more serious consideration.
But it doesn’t so I don’t.
The big bang theory 13.8 billion years ago is just that, a theory.
I don`t know how old the universe is and I don`t know how old the earth is but by reading the creation story I get the idea God did have a plan for evolution which Adam was not a part of.
Adam came along much later in a special creation, that is why we know about how old he would be.
bleeeech.... a non scientist blathering about things he does not understand
As scripture says - “Thinking themselves wise, they became fools”.
Next up in the headlines:
“It’s time for evangelicals to come out for Homosexuality, beastiality, transgenderism and man-child love”.
Then some insipid, insulting know-it-all essay to follow on why those who believe in scripture and God’s laws are morons who think the earth is flat and the moon is made of cheese.
The real tragedy here is the fact that a finite universe in light of the laws of physics has to have a super natural creator... Who can operate outside the laws of physics.
There is no conflict between good science and God’s existence.
Ah yes. Liberal Baptists.
Evolution? OK.
Homosexuality? No problem.
Female ministers? Wonderful.
Abortions? Terrific.
Infant baptism? That’s a sin! :?
10,000 years is just 100 hundred-year lifespans end to end. Having a decent perspective on what a century is, methinks that’s not very long. Then I take my experiences with physics/geology/biology, look at the world as it is, and it’s pretty obvious it didn’t happen in 10,000 years or less, and that the delicate nuances and grand scale weren’t the result of terraforming in a matter of days.
And I read Genesis, and see no conflict of the above therewith.
And if you still insist everything was created less than 10,000 years ago, kindly explain why it all wasn’t done in the last 20 minutes.
I suspect that many (if not most) educated evangelical biblical scholars who subscribe to some form of biblical inerrancy (and sign faith statements testifying to that fact) believe what professor Falk believes. They know there are different kinds (genres) of biblical literature which call for different approaches other than a literal interpretation of the text. They know that the creation stories are parabolic in nature and are not chronicles of history or reports conveying scientific data. They know that these stories are spiritual, metaphorical and theological stories and, while not factual, they certainly teach truth about God and God’s relationship to the world. They know Ken Ham’s claim that “no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record” is utter foolishness.
PFL
You don’t have to believe in the big bang to not believe in evolution.
In fact, since they are both about science, you only have to accept what can be proven. Evolution hasn’t got a single stitch of prove to back it up.
The issue the ‘big bang’ has is all the stuff that came from it. Matter can’t be created or destroyed, just converted, so going from nothing to all this stuff is a problem.
These aren’t religious questions at all.
“They know Ken Ham’s claim that “no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record” is utter foolishness.”
So far, the Bible’s track record on this is pretty good. It’s evolution that gets dodgier by the decade as a theory with any foundation at all.
NO
It'll never happen in this house. Christianity and evolution contradict each other.
Evolution teaches gradual development of living things until man finally arrives on the scene. So, there have been eons of suffering, bloodshed, and death preceding mankind. But the Bible says man was created at the beginning, and that there was no death until sin brought it into the world.
If you go with evolution, you have to dispense with original sin. If there was no original sin, why did Jesus have to die on the Cross?
Jesus said that God made male and female at the beginning. That single statement from the Lord puts to rest the idea that man is a relatively recent arrival.
So why do so many evangelicals deny evolution and believe in a literal interpretation of the creation stories in Genesis?
Gen 2
4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens
2 Peter 3
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
The missing evolution link? there is no link because Adam was not created at the same time God created man on the sixth day he was created thousands of years later.
The sons of god were Adams off spring, they married unto the daughters of men, for that reason the men who the evolutionists say roamed the earth many thousand of years ago were changed into what we now have.
It’s a false argument to insist that everyone who believes in God as Creator believes that man and dinosaurs co-mingled 6,000 years ago.
If God did not create the universe, was He surprised by the Big Bang? Did God(s) spring forth from the Big Bang? Or does God not exist?
Eating our own does not benefit, political or otherwise.
Surveys can be funny things. According to a poll cited by Dennis Prager, half of all “evangelicals” don’t vote because they believe it goes against their faith.
Looking for his beliefs on gay marriage, I found he wrote on Kentucky.com last year that because gay marriage in the U.S. is “inevitable,” (he even compares the “evolving” situation to “biological evolution”) he says the government should only recognize civil unions for all and leave marriage to churches. And he suggests denying civil unions or gay marriage to same-sex couples is “discrimination” and concludes by saying that eventually all 50 states “will be on the right side of history.” He sounds like he’s trying to destroy the church from within.