Evolution Or God... How were we created?

[stusrud 0]

I think religion has something to do with science, but not too much, scientists are pretty smart and they try to figure things out as best as they can, even though sometimes they are completely wrong, they try there best, I believe in God, there is no other way, I hear all these very far fetched ideas about meteors or "the big bang" and I'm like, give me a break, those aren't that believable, still many peole believ in those theories, ans thats all they are, just one idea some person came up with, it's just a theory, nothing more, so the world could have been created by any number of reasons. Agree or disagree, this is just my opinion!

[chickenside 0]

Disagree.I'm not going to turn this into a religious debate, but I'm a very science oriented person, seeking explanations even if the stakes are high. I, personally, find the theory of evolution and the "big bang" seem more plausible than an almighty, all powerful being.The evidence of the "big bang" is (as I've outlined and made quite evident in my other posts) the expansion of the galaxy.

[xboxrulz1405241485 0]

Everybody can be a scientist, yet they might have different theories. I think that the Big Bang DID NOT created space and time, it only created fragments that we call stars. It created the elements, but space and time was always here. To refer to the guy who said God has been here all along, we can prove that it's not true at all, just like all beings we know, everything has a start and end except for matter. Since stars have lifespan too, then so can "God". Matter cannot have start and end because it is the creator of the objects that we have. It groups up to become what we see today. You can ask me, what created matters, why don't you just wait for a while, I'm sure that we'll find in within this century.That's IMOxboxrulz

[Mahanon 0]

A very good question to propose and no matter which way you look at it you will not get a truly difinative answer on which one is the actual truth.In my opinion I believe that we are simply evolving, and it makes sense. For instance if look back to the time when all living creatures only lived in the vast oceans, even then you tell that when they began to migrate out of the sea and eventually to what they become in modern times it is evolution.But when you get to human beings this causes a problem (not picking) some think evolution did not occur but instead they were created by a high being, and I am not knocking that it can't really be proved if it ever can. Then there are the people that look toward science for their answer and it gave them one, these people beleive evolution did in fact happen by looking at our closest mamalian relative the Gorilla, monkey, ect. this gave them an answer by showing genetic similarities between the two species. I would lean over the the side of Evolution for the most part because it can give us an answer, facts, and evidence that could prove it to be true.

[stusrud 0]

I agreee with all of you in a sense, all your theories and explantions are a "plausable" reason for why we exist today. Howerver, in my belief, something like the "big bang" could have created the stars, but definately could not have craeted space, time, and Earth. There must be another Theory out there, most peole think the idea of a "higher being" is nonsense, but I really do believe that may be the best answer, after all science can't always explain everything, even though you may think it can.Evolution, even though I find it hard to believe we came from monkeys, I would surely not want to ever come from a monkey, it's almost a laugh in our face, why would you want to go around saying you came from monkeys? In my opinion, science screwed it up big time on that one.

[OhMyBosh 0]

Evolvution, It's hard to know exactly where we came from.. but I'm an atheists.

[andrwxsCOL 0]

This is a fragment of a work that I do for my college, I hope you like it, In the first place, I would like to introduce to me with a small Biblical versicle that says:"inicuo, according to its arrogance, does not make verifications. All their ideas are; "there is no God." " (Psalms 10:4)Before this fact which we see in the people of the world, we would haveto ask the following thing to us:Exists God?I make verifications about if it really exists?If it exists; Why and why it has created to us?What intention has the life?If it exists; Why we died, we underwent and we see all the tragedies thatwe are seeing every moment of the day?If God allows all this suffering, some reason will have; Which is?If God has bothered so much in creating the Earth and each one of the existing forms of life, why allows that the man is destroying it?God has put some solution for all this catastrophe? As?What requests God of us?...The origin of the belief in God comes from the origin of the human life.It has been for relatively just a short time that the man has left of side this belief, Why?Part of the answer is seen in the cruelty that has existed because ofthe different religions, the instilled lies that these same ones have been enlarging, the had holy wars and that still continue, contradictions and fears to force to believe, etc...But... if truely a God exists, How we can answer the actions that have lived and made the man? Why it would allow that it passed everything what (still) is happening?He is antiscientist to believe in God?Nowadays, in the schools, single standard that the life, the man and the different existing animals came from a universal explosion called Big Bang.Thanks to this explosion (without direction some), were created so of formextraordinary and ordered all the galaxies, stars, planets... all of them with its mathematically exact orbits, titánicas starswith an extraordinary power, etc... (by pure chance).That after all it, in a planet that "peculiarly" was in the suitable place, with an exact orbit, the necessary and precise conditions for the life and so and as (but always by pure chance), the first unicellular alive organism was created that originated to all the different animal species that now exist by means of a evolution...They explain the profits to us about the creation of amino acids (by Stanley Miller) and the theory of Geoge Wald on "the time does everything".At first, it seems pretty, No?More than nothing because this would be the explanation of the origin of the life withoutnecessity of which it created it. Of this form, nobody has norobligation, nor to have moral to thank for the life to him to anybody. But... It is that certain one? It is as teaches to the evolution the real existence of the life?In 1953, Stanley Miller, a young student of the University of Chicago, makes an experiment that revolutionizes the scientific community, and specially satisfies those scientists who tried to look for in science an alternative explanation the origins of the existence. An explanation that it did not have to do with God.Stanley Miller gave the answer them that they looked for. It made an experiment,a experience of laboratory to demonstrate how it had appeared the life, from random circumstances. Miller took a little from distilled water, along with gases of ammoniac, methane and hydrogen and applied to flashes of electrical unloadings during two days and means, almost three. Later it analyzed the content of the water and detected amino acids. The amino acids are the fundamental elements for the proteins, that are the bricks of the life.Therefore, it had been demonstrated, scientifically, that the life can appear by chance and without direction some.A famous scientist, Nobel prize, George Wald, publish in Scientific American, 1954, all this experience, extending it much more, and he analyzes it saying that definitively science demonstrated that the life could appear by chance. George Wald writes the following thing: "the time does everything, ' given enough timé (given sufficient tiempo)lo impossible becomes possible, possible probable and probable the certain thing." The time makes the miracles. I believe that if we had to look for a poetry of the agnosticism, or the atheism put in a poem, we would not find something more beautiful andseducer who this...: "the time does todo”. Given the sufficient time, the impossible thing becomes possible, possible probable and probable the certain thing. The time is the one that makes the miracles. God is then excluído, because we with no need found the origin of the life of a Creator, by simple flashes of light that attack on fundamental gases.Was then this the answer to the creation of the Earth life?In 1959, the scientific community is shocked again. why? Because this time a called scientist Harold Morowitz discovers a small problem in the theory of Miller and Wald. It discovers what Ortega and Gasset would define as the great problem of the specializations: famous filosofo Spanish said that we are arriving at a society in where everyone knows more on less things. And here it passed something similar. Wald a fantastic biologist,apparently it was not very good in mathematics. And what is what discovers the Dr Morowitz? Morowitz discovers, and Scientific American publishes it, that the probability that a bacterium arose by chance from the anything, of the same form that had induced it in laboratory Stanley Miller in 1953, was so minimum that the time which science attributes to the universe had reached. Simply enough Time "of Wald did not exist"... It must have happened much more...Harold Morowitz, physicist of the University of Yale, published in 1968book Flowing Biology. Next to other physicists and mathematicians he had seen with preoccupation the facility whereupon some scientists gave by seated, when studying the origin of the life, who took place probable events so little. These scientists accepted such occurrence without at least trying a rigorous investigation on the probability that indeed he happened. Morowitz calculated the necessary time so that random chemical reactions (= accidental) formed a simple bacterium. Not a complete organism, we are not speaking of a human being, not even of a flower, only one simple unicellular bacterium. Basing its calculations on a quite optimistic speed of these reactions and supposing that all the chances are going away to give, it concluded that the time to form a bacterium not only exceeded in 4.500 million years the age of the Earth, but also 15,000 million years the age that science attributes to him touniverse."For decades no serious and honest scientist it has been accepting that the life has been originated by chance. This theory is considered mathematically impossible. The sufficient time did not exist so that those chances occurred. Scientist called George Ferrows, that calculated the mathematical probability that the Big Bang has been accidental, also made the following analysis about the possibilities so that a physical law, a single physical law of which they govern our Universe, has been able to arise by chance. He is a secular scientist so it is not necessary to suspect anytendenciosidad... It said that the probability that it appeared byexample the entropy or the law of gravity by themselves is 1 on 10 to the 123. What means 1 on 10 with 123 zeros above to the right... And therefore this secular scientist, Dr Ferrows, conclude that necessarily an intelligent Creator must them have created, since is virtually impossible that it by chance happens something whose probability is 1 on 10 to the 123. He does not mention God, but he speaks of a Creator, speaks of a superior intelligence that he had to have taken part. By chance he could not have happened.Something more interesting still. Stephen Hawking wanted to demonstrate the opposite thing, that the possibility exists of conceiving a Universe that has arisen without intelligent intervention. Stephen Hawking is perhaps the most famous astrophisicist of the world. No physicist never sold so many books to the open public. Few scientists have been as popular as he. Of course that not only by its ideas, but by their personal drama, its untiring fight, its biography etc. Hawking, a genius of the Astrophysics, wrote in its book "The Brief History of Time" "the brief history of the time" the following thing:"In truth the universe could have conceived to the life, could by chance have conceived." Know You it metaphor the monkeys on a typewriter? They say that supposition that the world had been able to arise by chance would be as if we said that 10 monkeys on 10 typewriters could write - giving them to sufficient time a soneto of Shakespeare. Then Hawking says thus "Is something similar to the good well-known example of the horde of monkeys hammering on typewriters. greater part of which they write will be waste, but very occasionally, by pure chance, they will imprimirán one of the sonetos of Shakespeare ". It sounds well?If Stephen Hawking says to it... But they do not let notice that there is onedifference between Ferrows and Hawking. Ferrows gives a number me. Stephen Hawking makes a calculation rather qualitative. It does not give a number me... What must make a good scientist from which Stephen Hawking says? To verify it. To quantify the probability. We are going to make the duties that Professor Hawking gave us! We are going to calculate with what probability could appear a soneto by chance of Shakespeare...... The sonetos of Shakespeare have 14 verses. Let us take one from them, the one that takes like example Gerald Schroeder, has in its 14 verses, 488 letters. Howwe let the calculation to know the probability? There are 26 letters in the English alphabet (without elle and the Che). In order to define which is the probability that by chance this happens we are going to begin to calculate 26 to the 488, or expressed in decimal, that would be 10 to the 690. It is to say 1 possibility in 10 to the 690.And here the manipulation that I am denouncing...Somebody realizes of which this number means?What meant Hawking? Apparently which the universe could be created by chance "most will be sweepings, but with time, some soneto will arise...". When somebody distraídamente reads that says, good, if Stephen Hawking says it already... will have made the account... I do not believe that he has ignored that the probability that it was giving him was even inferior to the one of the own Ferrows. So that you they have notion of which it means is exorbitant number 10 to the 690 I am going to give some examples to them: The universe has, according to the theory of the Big Bang, an age 15 billion years clock-man. Somebody knows how many seconds has in 15.000 million years? In 15.000 million years there are 10 to the 18 seconds.Nothing else that that. So that these chances occur all, this 1 on 10 to the 690, one per second, would not reach nor dreaming the 10 to the 18. They would never reach... They know which is the TOTAL mass of the universe? Not even we can conceive it... Good they know how much is in grams? 10 to the 56 grams. That is all the mass of the universe. Therefore, if we go again to the statistics, the Dr Schroeder says who "to write by chance one of the sonetos of Shakespeare would be necessary that all the monkeys of the world, in addition to all the other existing animals, pounded machines ofto write made the existing iron of the universe yet, duringperiod superior to all passed from the Big the Bang, to a rate of one proves random by second and even so the probability that it appeared a soneto would be infinitely small ". In order to form a single phrase of 16 letters, with all the possible combinations it would take 2,000 trillions of years.The universe has been existing, according to its calculations, only for closeof 15,000 million years. What is selling us Hawking, then?More details exist very many than they demonstrate the existence of God,between that they are the origin of the thought, the capacity to love, justice, the necessity to look for the happiness...According to the greatest scientists:Single we used a maximum of 3% of our mental capacity, andimpressive 0.0001% of our capacity of storage in our brain, during all our life.The question that we must do to us is: Porqué the evolution (forevolucionist) have flattered to us of so generous form with a brain so immensely powerful, if single we lived between 80 and 90 and few years?According to the evolutionary theories, the nature offers to its creatures according toit is needing, no? When the man dies, he has more of 99% of space in the brain that never used, and more of 97% of mental capacity that according to is never watched somebody existed that never needed her in human history!why, if never we have needed it living less than 100 years, the nature was so generous with us?To case it knew that in a distant future we would get to live more, and byas much us it granted it in advance "so that we did not complain" andwe were "superior" or "dominant"?It would not be more logical that the human brain has all this capacity, because of being "designed" to much more live that so single 100 years?I belive in God, but also in the Science. is just complement of each one.

[ASR1405241491 0]

Easy put... Evolution makes more sense.... Religion is created for hope in life... Religion: People are asked to have faith and believe in their religion without any facts or evidences..Evolution: facts and evidences are apparent... it doesnt require faith or anything....Chin chin...

[xboxrulz1405241485 0]

andrwxsCOL, that's the longest post I've ever seen, I just scanned it and didn't read it in details since it's too long. ASR's idea of summarizing, IMO, is correct.

[stusrud 0]

This is a fragment of a work that I do for my college, I hope you like it,

In the first place, I would like to introduce to me with a small Biblical versicle that says:

"inicuo, according to its arrogance, does not make verifications. All their ideas are; "there is no God." " (Psalms 10:4)

 

Before this fact which we see in the people of the world, we would have

to ask the following thing to us:

Exists God?

I make verifications about if it really exists?

If it exists; Why and why it has created to us?

What intention has the life?

If it exists; Why we died, we underwent and we see all the tragedies that

we are seeing every moment of the day?

If God allows all this suffering, some reason will have; Which is?

If God has bothered so much in creating the Earth and each one of the existing forms of life, why allows that the man is destroying it?

God has put some solution for all this catastrophe? As?

What requests God of us?

...

 

The origin of the belief in God comes from the origin of the human life.

It has been for relatively just a short time that the man has left of side this belief, Why?

 

Part of the answer is seen in the cruelty that has existed because of

the different religions, the instilled lies that these same ones have been enlarging, the had holy wars and that still continue, contradictions and fears to force to believe, etc...

 

But... if truely a God exists, How we can answer the actions that have lived and made the man? Why it would allow that it passed everything what (still) is happening?

 

He is antiscientist to believe in God?

 

Nowadays, in the schools, single standard that the life, the man and the different existing animals came from a universal explosion called Big Bang.

 

Thanks to this explosion (without direction some), were created so of form

extraordinary and ordered all the galaxies, stars, planets...

all of them with its mathematically exact orbits, titĂĄnicas stars

with an extraordinary power, etc... (by pure chance).

 

That after all it, in a planet that "peculiarly" was in the suitable place, with an exact orbit, the necessary and precise conditions for the life and so and as (but always by pure chance), the first unicellular alive organism was created that originated to all the different animal species that now exist by means of a evolution...

They explain the profits to us about the creation of amino acids (by Stanley Miller) and the theory of Geoge Wald on "the time does everything".

 

At first, it seems pretty, No?

More than nothing because this would be the explanation of the origin of the life without

necessity of which it created it. Of this form, nobody has nor

obligation, nor to have moral to thank for the life to him to anybody. But... It is that certain one? It is as teaches to the evolution the real existence of the life?

 

In 1953, Stanley Miller, a young student of the University of Chicago, makes an experiment that revolutionizes the scientific community, and specially satisfies those scientists who tried to look for in science an alternative explanation the origins of the existence. An explanation that it did not have to do with God.

 

Stanley Miller gave the answer them that they looked for. It made an experiment,

a experience of laboratory to demonstrate how it had appeared the life, from random circumstances. Miller took a little from distilled water, along with gases of ammoniac, methane and hydrogen and applied to flashes of electrical unloadings during two days and means, almost three. Later it analyzed the content of the water and detected amino acids. The amino acids are the fundamental elements for the proteins, that are the bricks of the life.

 

Therefore, it had been demonstrated, scientifically, that the life can appear by chance and without direction some.

 

A famous scientist, Nobel prize, George Wald, publish in Scientific American, 1954, all this experience, extending it much more, and he analyzes it saying that definitively science demonstrated that the life could appear by chance. George Wald writes the following thing: "the time does everything, ' given enough timĂŠ (given sufficient tiempo)lo impossible becomes possible, possible probable and probable the certain thing." The time makes the miracles. I believe that if we had to look for a poetry of the agnosticism, or the atheism put in a poem, we would not find something more beautiful and

seducer who this...: "the time does todoâ. Given the sufficient time, the impossible thing becomes possible, possible probable and probable the certain thing. The time is the one that makes the miracles. God is then excluĂ­do, because we with no need found the origin of the life of a Creator, by simple flashes of light that attack on fundamental gases.

Was then this the answer to the creation of the Earth life?

 

In 1959, the scientific community is shocked again. why? Because this time a called scientist Harold Morowitz discovers a small problem in the theory of Miller and Wald. It discovers what Ortega and Gasset would define as the great problem of the specializations: famous filosofo Spanish said that we are arriving at a society in where everyone knows more on less things. And here it passed something similar. Wald a fantastic biologist,

apparently it was not very good in mathematics. And what is what discovers the Dr Morowitz? Morowitz discovers, and Scientific American publishes it, that the probability that a bacterium arose by chance from the anything, of the same form that had induced it in laboratory Stanley Miller in 1953, was so minimum that the time which science attributes to the universe had reached. Simply enough Time "of Wald did not exist"... It must have happened much more...

 

Harold Morowitz, physicist of the University of Yale, published in 1968

book Flowing Biology. Next to other physicists and mathematicians he had seen with preoccupation the facility whereupon some scientists gave by seated, when studying the origin of the life, who took place probable events so little. These scientists accepted such occurrence without at least trying a rigorous investigation on the probability that indeed he happened. Morowitz calculated the necessary time so that random chemical reactions (= accidental) formed a simple bacterium. Not a complete organism, we are not speaking of a human being, not even of a flower, only one simple unicellular bacterium. Basing its calculations on a quite optimistic speed of these reactions and supposing that all the chances are going away to give, it concluded that the time to form a bacterium not only exceeded in 4.500 million years the age of the Earth, but also 15,000 million years the age that science attributes to him to

universe."

 

For decades no serious and honest scientist it has been accepting that the life has been originated by chance. This theory is considered mathematically impossible. The sufficient time did not exist so that those chances occurred. Scientist called George Ferrows, that calculated the mathematical probability that the Big Bang has been accidental, also made the following analysis about the possibilities so that a physical law, a single physical law of which they govern our Universe, has been able to arise by chance.

 

He is a secular scientist so it is not necessary to suspect any

tendenciosidad... It said that the probability that it appeared by

example the entropy or the law of gravity by themselves is 1 on 10 to the 123. What means 1 on 10 with 123 zeros above to the right... And therefore this secular scientist, Dr Ferrows, conclude that necessarily an intelligent Creator must them have created, since is virtually impossible that it by chance happens something whose probability is 1 on 10 to the 123. He does not mention God, but he speaks of a Creator, speaks of a superior intelligence that he had to have taken part. By chance he could not have happened.

 

Something more interesting still. Stephen Hawking wanted to demonstrate the opposite thing, that the possibility exists of conceiving a Universe that has arisen without intelligent intervention. Stephen Hawking is perhaps the most famous astrophisicist of the world. No physicist never sold so many books to the open public. Few scientists have been as popular as he. Of course that not only by its ideas, but by their personal drama, its untiring fight, its biography etc. Hawking, a genius of the Astrophysics, wrote in its book "The Brief History of Time" "the brief history of the time" the following thing:

"In truth the universe could have conceived to the life, could by chance have conceived." Know You it metaphor the monkeys on a typewriter? They say that supposition that the world had been able to arise by chance would be as if we said that 10 monkeys on 10 typewriters could write - giving them to sufficient time a soneto of Shakespeare. Then Hawking says thus "Is something similar to the good well-known example of the horde of monkeys hammering on typewriters.

greater part of which they write will be waste, but very occasionally, by pure chance, they will imprimirĂĄn one of the sonetos of Shakespeare ". It sounds well?

 

If Stephen Hawking says to it... But they do not let notice that there is one

difference between Ferrows and Hawking. Ferrows gives a number me. Stephen Hawking makes a calculation rather qualitative. It does not give a number me... What must make a good scientist from which Stephen Hawking says? To verify it. To quantify the probability. We are going to make the duties that Professor Hawking gave us! We are going to calculate with what probability could appear a soneto by chance of Shakespeare...... The sonetos of Shakespeare have 14 verses. Let us take one from them, the one that takes like example Gerald Schroeder, has in its 14 verses, 488 letters. How

we let the calculation to know the probability? There are 26 letters in the English alphabet (without elle and the Che). In order to define which is the probability that by chance this happens we are going to begin to calculate 26 to the 488, or expressed in decimal, that would be 10 to the 690.

 

It is to say 1 possibility in 10 to the 690.

And here the manipulation that I am denouncing...

Somebody realizes of which this number means?

What meant Hawking? Apparently which the universe could be created by chance "most will be sweepings, but with time, some soneto will arise...". When somebody distraĂ­damente reads that says, good, if Stephen Hawking says it already... will have made the account... I do not believe that he has ignored that the probability that it was giving him was even inferior to the one of the own Ferrows. So that you they have notion of which it means is exorbitant number 10 to the 690 I am going to give some examples to them: The universe has, according to the theory of the Big Bang, an age 15 billion years clock-man. Somebody knows how many seconds has in 15.000 million years? In 15.000 million years there are 10 to the 18 seconds.

 

Nothing else that that. So that these chances occur all, this 1 on 10 to the 690, one per second, would not reach nor dreaming the 10 to the 18. They would never reach... They know which is the TOTAL mass of the universe? Not even we can conceive it... Good they know how much is in grams? 10 to the 56 grams. That is all the mass of the universe. Therefore, if we go again to the statistics, the Dr Schroeder says who "to write by chance one of the sonetos of Shakespeare would be necessary that all the monkeys of the world, in addition to all the other existing animals, pounded machines of

to write made the existing iron of the universe yet, during

period superior to all passed from the Big the Bang, to a rate of one proves random by second and even so the probability that it appeared a soneto would be infinitely small ". In order to form a single phrase of 16 letters, with all the possible combinations it would take 2,000 trillions of years.

 

The universe has been existing, according to its calculations, only for close

of 15,000 million years. What is selling us Hawking, then?

 

More details exist very many than they demonstrate the existence of God,

between that they are the origin of the thought, the capacity to love, justice, the necessity to look for the happiness...

 

According to the greatest scientists:

Single we used a maximum of 3% of our mental capacity, and

impressive 0.0001% of our capacity of storage in our brain, during all our life.

 

The question that we must do to us is: PorquĂŠ the evolution (for

evolucionist) have flattered to us of so generous form with a brain so immensely powerful, if single we lived between 80 and 90 and few years?

 

According to the evolutionary theories, the nature offers to its creatures according to

it is needing, no? When the man dies, he has more of 99% of space in the brain that never used, and more of 97% of mental capacity that according to is never watched somebody existed that never needed her in human history!

 

why, if never we have needed it living less than 100 years, the nature was so generous with us?

 

To case it knew that in a distant future we would get to live more, and by

as much us it granted it in advance "so that we did not complain" and

we were "superior" or "dominant"?

 

It would not be more logical that the human brain has all this capacity, because of being "designed" to much more live that so single 100 years?

 

I belive in God, but also in the Science. is just complement of each one.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

One word, wow, very well said, I agree, there are alot of differnt reasons and explantions out there, it is very hard to pick which one is right oe true, I also agree very strongly with your last sentence, I too believ in God, but also in science, so it is hard to figure out which one is right, I guess a bit of both of them!

[Nemisis 0]

Another thing to bring up, and I apologize if this has already been brought up: If God had created earth, did he create the other planets in our solar system? Did he create ALL the planets, systems, stars, etc in the whole Universe? I have not heard of such a thing.

 

Even with all this evidence in Science, Evolution and what not, I can't help but think that there is a God. So, I am still torn on this.

[calixt 0]

I believe that one reason why I have mixed feelings is because the fact that I am...scared, if you will. Do you understand what I am saying. I am scared not to believe in God. I am not sure if scared is the right word though.

 

But, you bring up some good points. I mean do you really believe genetics have anything to do with the formation of your soul? That for example. That is a good argument for both sides. Some Evolutionists may say that there is no such thing as a "Soul" while Religious people may say exactly what you said. This leans me more towards us being Gods creation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nemisis,

you need not be scared. Evolution does not contradict the bible. Many creationists insist that the universe has been created in 7 days - and they mean: 7 x 24 hours. But they forget that "days" and "hours" only make sense when there is a sun (which has been created much later, if I read my bible correctly....)

Thus, a "day" in the first chapter of the bible can not be the same as the "day" we are used to. If you are still in doubt, consider the light of the remotest stars: How long has it been travelling to reach our eyes?

 

There is another point you are worried about: Does man have an immortal soul?

If you study the bible, you will not find much support for this concept.

St.Paul has a different attitude towards the eternal life (read 1 Corinthians 15, 35-58): Our resurrection will be a new creation by the Lord himself.

"Soul" is a concept of ancient greek philosophers, not of the bible, but it had found its was into catholic theology.

 

If you don't accept what I wrote above:

Belief in evolution theory should not hinder you to believe in a human soul. Man* becomes truely man* by having a relationship with God, and this relationship is a gift by God himself which we cannot "earn" by ourselves. The awareness of this relationship may of course be called the "soul" of man.

 

Anyway, you need not be scared not to believe in God. God will not permit that you will fall out of his hands (read Romans 8,38-39 or psalm 139).

 

Calixt

 

*means men & women

[Sarah81 0]

Yep - I'm up for friendly discussion/debate. I'm a Christian too. However: that doesn't mean that I rule out science. In fact, I believe that God gave us science. He made us curious, so He gave us stuff to explore and a means of checking it out. It's cool like that.I'm not a scientist and I'm certainly no expert on evolution. I'm no expert on creation either, seeing as I wasn't there when it happened. Yes. I believe in creation. I believe that God created us.But did He create us *exactly* as we are today?I doubt that. It seems to me that early, primitive man was, if nothing else, a lot hairier. (He'd have to be - they didn't have central heating and all the other protections against the elements that we have today.) That, in my opinion, is just one small evolution. Actually, wouldn't that be more of an adaptation than an evolution? I don't know what the proper term is for it, but it's what I believe. For whatever it's worth. (TOLD y'all I don't know a whole lot about this stuff - hehe.)

[mitchellmckain 0]

There is another point you are worried about: Does man have an immortal soul? If you study the bible, you will not find much support for this concept.
St.Paul has a different attitude towards the eternal life (read 1 Corinthians 15, 35-58): Our resurrection will be a new creation by the Lord himself.
"Soul" is a concept of ancient greek philosophers, not of the bible, but it had found its was into catholic theology.

If you don't accept what I wrote above:
Belief in evolution theory should not hinder you to believe in a human soul. Man* becomes truely man* by having a relationship with God, and this relationship is a gift by God himself which we cannot "earn" by ourselves. The awareness of this relationship may of course be called the "soul" of man.

Hmmm.... This is sure getting way off topic. But this topic of the imortality of the soul is sure interesting to me. I thought I had found a big flaw in fundamentalist thinking about there being no immortal soul, when I realized that those who are not saved would have to be resurrected in order to be sent to hell. So I asked my pastor (Calvary Chapel) about this and he gave me the chapter and verse which confirms that yes people will indeed be resurrected in order to be sent to hell.

Golly, I guess I will never be a fundamentalist no matter how hard I try. The complete lack of logic in this position baffles me. I can understand the extreme caution that lies behind this attitude that, if it isn't in the bible then it isn't true, and I can certainly appreciate the fear of following the doctrines of men. But I could never believe that the Bible hold all the truth there is. I certainly do not think that it gives a detailed description of the creation of the world or even comes close to explaining how God created the world. I tend toward thinking that this issue of the immortal soul is another area where the Bible is incomplete.

2nd Corintians 15 describes the the Spiritual body which certainly sounds like an immortal soul to me, although I suppose fundamentalists would say that this is the resurrected body. But I think their conclusion is driven by an exessive obsession with making everything in the Bible perfectly consistent. The perfect simplicity of the idea of the immortal soul or Spiritual body which is subject to certain natural laws that govern its existence, nature and fate, adds a tremendous amount of rationality to the Christian world view. I don't think it an issue worth doctrinal conflict and division but in the privacy of my own mind, I at least require this idea to keep hold of my own reason.

If you will allow me to plunge into the world of my own opinion, I think that all living things have an immortal spiritual aspect that derives from the process of life itself, and is built stone by stone from the choices each living thing makes as a part of this process. But the question of whether this immortal spirit or soul exists and whether it is alive are two different things. Life for the soul must assuredly come from God alone, and thus a separation from God is spiritual death which is another name for hell. I find this much more rational than the idea of resurrecting people for the sole purpose of eternal suffering. I also fail to see any reasonable objection to my point of view other that the fact that it cannot be found in the Bible. Do you?

[xboxrulz1405241485 0]

<comment>Currently, I don't really have any comments, but this topic has gone from evolution, to creationism then back to evolution and God.I wonder where else this topic is gonna take us.</comment>xboxrulz