Can You Believe in God and Evolution?

TIME ^ | Sunday, Aug. 07, 2005 | DAVID VAN BIEMA

[AlGone2001]

"hhmm, actually, the first thing God "said" was Let there be Light- creating evening and morning and the "day""

But He created time only on that day. It was certainly a true light, but the essence of that light was that is was not constant, as there was still darkness to begin the second day. That sure doesn't sound like chaotic evolution to me. It sounds like a God with an organized plan.

He is know as the ancient of days, meaning He is older than time.

We know that the light on the third day included the greater light which ruled the day, and the lesser light which ruled the day. These are the sun and the moon.

[csense]

...who maintained that the universe and humankind are evolving toward a perfect state.

...or evolving (small e) away from one.

Curiously, science, in principle, is incapable of making such distinctions, since, among other things, it is silent on morals and ethics.

Curious still, is that philosophy and theology is not.

[AlGone2001]

Honestly, the question isn't my understanding of science.

The question is whether the Bible supports anything other than a literal six day of creation. As much as one may try, He cannot separate God from His word.

[WildTurkey]

It sounds like a God with an organized plan.

Then why was God so puzzled that Adam was lonely, created the animals for Adam to try out as his "partner" and only after Adam tried each one out, did God finally think of creating a woman!

Didn't God create male and female animals? Or were all the animals that Adam tried out only male?

[WildTurkey]

As much as one may try, He cannot separate God from His word.

hmmm. I think that several times in the past, PEOPLE have discarded parts of the bible. Isn't that separating God from his word?

[csense]

Well, then give me an example of photosysnthesis occuring in inorganic matter.

[WildTurkey]

But He created time only on that day. It was certainly a true light, but the essence of that light was that is was not constant, as there was still darkness to begin the second day. That sure doesn't sound like chaotic evolution to me. It sounds like a God with an organized plan.

No. He created the light and then created day and night. The night was without light. Only later did he create the sun. Are you saying that even without the sun the day would still be light?

[WildTurkey]

Well, then give me an example of photosysnthesis occuring in inorganic matter.

Hmmm. So you have no idea of the basis of your statement. Got ya!

[Gumlegs]

Didn't God create male and female animals? Or were all the animals that Adam tried out only male?

Now that you mention it, it is a plausible explanation. That and the sheep's well-known inability to cook ...

[csense]

Hmmm. So you have no idea of the basis of your statement. Got ya!

I have no idea what you're talking about. If you're going to respond to me, at least try to follow along since you seem terribly lost.

[AlGone2001]

"Seriously, why bother? If you're going to throw science out the window, you might as well throw it all out. I see no reason to discard every single piece of scientific evidence except photosynthesis."

I didn't throw science out of the window.

The issue here is whether or not the Bible gives room for evolution.

If we are going to talk about God, we must not render His method out of His word.

He purposefully created the vegetation on the third day, and the sun and moon on the fourth.

He did this so that people have no reason to believe in Him and evolution at the same time.

I thinks it's practical to believe that all the days were equal in lenght, with each day having an equal time of day and night. There is no reason to believe anything else.

The bible tells us that all things were to reproduce after there own kind.

This means that the vegetation needed light. It also means that it could not have lasted long without the light.

The Bible tells us that when we profess ourselves to be wise, we become fools.

There is a lot in the Bible I don't understand, but I do know this: Jesus is the lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Too many people use their "knowledge" of science as an excuse to evade a meeting with Christ.

There may be many things in the Bible that are difficult to understand, but what scientist was ever able to predict his own place of birth, sacrificial death and now lives next to God?

Don't miss the entire message because of your own pride.

[WildTurkey]

Well, then give me an example of photosysnthesis occuring in inorganic matter.

Chromatiaceae

[WildTurkey]

He purposefully created the vegetation on the third day, and the sun and moon on the fourth.

An example of chaotic creationism. Everyone knows that vegetation grows from the energy of the sun!

[Gumlegs]

Is it your position that Pope John Paul II didn't believe in God or the Bible?

[WildTurkey]

I thinks it's practical to believe that all the days were equal in lenght, with each day having an equal time of day and night. There is no reason to believe anything else.

But it is a FACT that the earth is slowing down ...

[WildTurkey]

The Bible tells us that when we profess ourselves to be wise, we become fools.

You seem to profess to be a "wise" man. Hmmmm.

[Publius6961]

Can I believe both in God and evolution?

Sure. I see no reason to make them mutually exclusive.

I would simply refer everyone to the definition of "faith".

Makes any further discussion a waste of time. I have neither the time nor the inclination to "convert" anyone; nor to be "converted".

End of story.

[WildTurkey]

I have no idea what you're talking about. If you're going to respond to me, at least try to follow along since you seem terribly lost.

You make a statement and I ask you how. You duck and you wonder why I think you have no idea what you are talking about. hmmm. Maybe if you had answered the question ...

[WildTurkey]

I have no idea what you're talking about. If you're going to respond to me, at least try to follow along since you seem terribly lost.

You make a statement and I ask you how. You duck and you wonder why I think you have no idea what you are talking about. hmmm. Maybe if you had answered the question ...

[js1138]

Well, then give me an example of photosysnthesis occuring in inorganic matter.

The word organic refers to compounds containing carbon. It really has nothing to do with whether something is alive or not. If you wish to see sunlight converted to useful electric energy, check out a solar cell. They're inorganic. They could power any kind of chemical synthesis your heart desires.

I think your assertion boils down to a statement that we cannot make a living plant from scratch, whatever that might mean.