evolution and creation as one

[auuniversity]

To help christians and evolutionists understand the bible, I will try to explain it in a simple way. Let's assume you have a computer in front of you. Before working on your computer, have a good look at your screen saver what ever it is. This picture on your screen is made up of many pixels of different colors. To illustrate my point, assume you can remove all these colored light pixels three feet from your screen.

 

Now your screen is blank and all these colored light pixels mingle among themselves within the same dimension of your computer screen and, every ten minutes, 100 pixels of light will hit your blank computer screen in a strait line.

 

If these pixels of color happen to touch their original location, they will stay there. If not, they will return to group. After thousand and thousand of years trying to return to your screen saver in their original spot, the picture on your your screen is almost complete, except for one last light pixel.

 

Let us assume it would take this last pixel seven hundred years to return to its original location on your screen saver. In this case, we can say it would have taken seven hundred years to create the picture on your screen saver.

 

And, the period of time it took for all the other thousands of pixels to end up in their right location, the thousand and thousand of years, it took to rebuilt the picture, pixel by pixel, that is the period that we call evolotion.

 

So, evolution takes place on a very long period of time and creation takes place on a shorter period of time.

　

　

　

[Phi for All]

To help christians and evolutionists understand the bible, I will try to explain it in a simple way.

 

Are Christians and "evolutionists" mutually exclusive, in your opinion?

 

And are you saying both evolution and religious "creation" happened?

 

I'm afraid your attempt to make things simple hasn't worked, at least for me.

[Ten oz]

I am not sure I understand what insight is being past here?

[Ophiolite]

It is an apparently honest attempt to make the oft made statement that evolution and Christianity can be reconciled if we accept the creation accounts in Genesis as metaphor. It does not deserve the three negative reps awarded by some members who, frankly, should be ashamed of themselves. Great way to encourage a new member guys. I have removed one of those negatives. It would be nice if a couple of you removed the others.

[Ten oz]

Evolution and Chistianity do not need to be reconciled. They are not competing ideas. Evolutionary science seeks to under processes while religion seeks to award credit and appreciation. For example; The Wright Brothers are generally credited with inventing flight. No amount of appreciation or praise of the Wright Brothers will provide insight as to how flight is accomplished. A person can learn how to fly without knowing anything about The Wright Brothers just as a historian could know all there is to know about The Wright Brothers yet not know how to fly.

 

@ Ophiolite, I agree regarding the negatives.

Edited September 22, 2014 by Ten oz

[Strange]

I appreciate the effort, as Ophiolite says. However, the analogy is flawed in a couple of ways.

 

Firstly, it isn't clear (to me, at least) what part of the description is supposed to represent creation and what is supposed to represent evolution.

 

Secondly, it assumes that there is a final goal (the image on the screen) that is to be achieved. That is not how evolution works.

[Delta1212]

I appreciate the effort, as Ophiolite says. However, the analogy is flawed in a couple of ways.

 

Firstly, it isn't clear (to me, at least) what part of the description is supposed to represent creation and what is supposed to represent evolution.

 

Secondly, it assumes that there is a final goal (the image on the screen) that is to be achieved. That is not how evolution works.

And lastly, I wouldn't say the length of time it takes for the last pixel to show up is how long it took to create the picture.

 

An artist doesn't spend years on a work, add the final brush stroke seconds after the penultimate stroke and then say "This painting took but a few moments to create."

[Phi for All]

It does not deserve the three negative reps awarded by some members who, frankly, should be ashamed of themselves. Great way to encourage a new member guys. I have removed one of those negatives. It would be nice if a couple of you removed the others.

 

There's really no way to enforce this with the software, but I'd like to adopt the convention that we don't give negative rep to an OP. This would encourage the concept that there are no stupid questions, and perhaps we won't chase away as many potential learners.

[Ophiolite]

Excellent proposal.

[pippo]

Evolution and Chistianity do not need to be reconciled. They are not competing ideas.

 

Hmmmmm, they are not competing (conflicting/contradictory) ideas? They compete/conflict to me. I also believe they did to Darwin too. (How he ever got along well with his religious wife is unbelieveable- the man was so understanding. )

[Strange]

 

Hmmmmm, they are not competing (conflicting/contradictory) ideas? They compete/conflict to me.

 

Then, presumably, you don't understand one or other of them.

http://biologos.org/

[Ten oz]

Hmmmmm, they are not competing (conflicting/contradictory) ideas? They compete/conflict to me. I also believe they did to Darwin too. (How he ever got along well with his religious wife is unbelieveable- the man was so understanding. )

I suppose they are competing ideas much as cars and horses are competing forms of transportation. People in the market for a car won't consider a horse instead.

[Ophiolite]

Many horse owners also drive cars.

[Ten oz]

Many horse owners also drive cars.

While few car owners own horses,

[Mad For Science]

Let's assume you have a computer in front of you.

　

　

Since you are posting this over the internet its a good bet we do.

[evobulgarevo]

I don't think that evolution and creation are separate. I think they go hand in hand, just like science and religion. I think there are points of convergence where the seemingly opposing areas of study complement one another quite nicely.. but for some reason, many of us choose to focus on the conflicting points.

 

Even our brain is separated into two halves, one responsible for logical type thought and the other for creativity. But they are both part of the large whole, which is one and the same.

 

I think that it's fine for those who believe in God to not delve into science, because logical knowledge does not seem to be a requirement. All that is needed is belief, that's it.

 

Science, on the other hand, requires logical proof. And so I think that any respectable scientist would need to be well versed in theology.

 

It seems that these days we seem to forget that some of the biggest names in sciences, some of the 'founding fathers' of science if you will, were devout believers in God. In fact, it was their belief in God that drove them into science; seeking to better understand their creator.

[michel123456]

 

One of my preferred from Philippe Geluck

Edited November 14, 2015 by michel123456

[evobulgarevo]

 

One of my preferred from Philippe Geluck

 

Hehe I gotta admit, this made me laugh. But as far as I understand, the common Christian belief is that we looked as we look now when we were created.

[John Cuthber]

 

Hehe I gotta admit, this made me laugh. But as far as I understand, the common Christian belief is that we looked as we look now when we were created.

Really?

Black, white, brown or yellow?

In the real world it doesn't matter, but as far as religion is concerned that question has been responsible for a lot of misery.

[evobulgarevo]

 

Really?

Black, white, brown or yellow?

All of the above.

 

In the real world it doesn't matter, but as far as religion is concerned that question has been responsible for a lot of misery.

Questions are not responsible for misery. People are responsible for everything. People make choices, other people make other choices, and then you've got the aftermath.

[Strange]

Even our brain is separated into two halves, one responsible for logical type thought and the other for creativity. But they are both part of the large whole, which is one and the same.

 

This is a surprisingly popular myth.

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/left-brain-right-brain-myth/

 

 

Science, on the other hand, requires logical proof. And so I think that any respectable scientist would need to be well versed in theology.

 

That doesn't make any sense. Why would a scientists need to be well versed in theology? There is no logic or proof involved in that.

[Phi for All]

That doesn't make any sense. Why would a scientists need to be well versed in theology? There is no logic or proof involved in that.

I think it's because of this bit of misunderstanding:

 

I don't think that evolution and creation are separate. I think they go hand in hand, just like science and religion.

 

Using the popular definition of creation here, I disagree completely with the first sentence. I could agree with the second, if by "hand in hand" you mean they cover completely difference aspects using almost exact opposite methodology, and only complement each other if one has a need for both perspectives, the rational and the faith-based.

[evobulgarevo]

 

 

This is a surprisingly popular myth.

https://www.scienceb...ght-brain-myth/

Are you a real engineer, or do you just have difficulty reading posts in context?

 

That doesn't make any sense. Why would a scientists need to be well versed in theology? There is no logic or proof involved in that.

Science needs to be well versed in everything it addresses, otherwise it's not science.

[Strange]

Are you a real engineer, or do you just have difficulty reading posts in context?

 

The only context I see is you propagating a common myth. (And, yes, I am a real engineer.)

 

Science needs to be well versed in everything it addresses, otherwise it's not science.

Does science study theology?

[evobulgarevo]

 

 

Using the popular definition of creation here, I disagree completely with the first sentence.

 

Well, what is evolution? Are you a supporter of the Darwinian concept of it?

 

 

I could agree with the second, if by "hand in hand" you mean they cover completely difference aspects using almost exact opposite methodology, and only complement each other if one has a need for both perspectives, the rational and the faith-based.

 

Science and religion. Different sides of the same coin.

 

 

Does science study theology?

Do scientists progress science by closing doors? Is science not about questioning everything? Are yesterday's scientists crackpots because today's bright minds have proven them wrong?