Can a Christian believe in evolution and do Christians believe neanderthals were human?

[jinglebelly]

Just curious

Another approach is that religion focuses on the purpose of our existence, science on the "how".

Let's face it, Genesis is not a scientific piece of writing. This is from someone who was brought up as a strict creationist but is teaching this very topic (science and religion) at the moment.

I think the order of the Genesis version of creation fits in with the fossil record found.

Yes we are being very grown up. We should get some sort of honour-y prize.

In many respects they fit hand in hand. An elderly gentleman in my church is a retired Physics lecturer, he believes God created the bing bang.

Or the big bang as it's formerly known

answers in genesis (the organisation) answers this stuff well

I found this fascinating

so you don't believe there ws 24 hours in a day....so these are special God days that equate to millions of years?

There is a word used in other places in the Old Testament (one of the prophets, sorry, can't remember what the word is) which means an era - and it's the same word used in Genesis which is sometimes translated as a 24 hour day.

So it's open to interpretation.

Ladyofthemanor, you said:

'MillyR Surely a theory will forever remain a theory/hypothesis until it is proven. As neither Evolution nor Creation can be "proven" (ie: backed with NEUTRAL evidence, that comes from something OTHER THAN another theory) they both remain up in the air.'

A theory and a hypothesis are not the same thing. Someone else explained this earlier in the thread.

A scientific theory cannot be 'proven' because 'proof' only applies in mathematics, not science.

The theory of evolution is supported by all known currently known facts. If new facts come to be known in the future that do not fit with the theory, then the theory will either be modified or replaced with a better theory that encompasses all facts known now and in the future situation. The same applies to all scientific theories. I'm not sure which theory of gravity is now correct - it is perhaps the third?

Evolution can be demonstrated in the present. Generally what creationists are objecting to is not the fact that evolution is happening now, or even the parts of evolution that they particularly dislike such as speciation are happening now. It would be pretty foolish to try and deny the existence of something that can be observed.

What creationists generally disagree with is that evolution happened in the past. They are then disputing another theory (and one that is far more central to all science, as evolution is only really central to biology) - that is uniformitarianism. That is the theory that the scientific laws that we observe now also existed in the past - gravity, thermodynamics and so. Creationists do not believe in uniformitarianism so can claim that while evolution is happening now, it did not happen in the past.

Creationists can also then deny other scientific ideas that are not connected to evolution - the geological age of the earth for example.

It might also be worth pointing out that a law is more limited in scope and has less explanatory power than a theory. A theory will never become a law; a law explains and predicts a smaller area of science. Some people are confused and seem to think laws are more widely accepted or important or 'true.'

Of course evolution has to include other theories, because the whole of scientific knowledge is made up of theories. As for neutral evidence, as the facts about all biota known to humanity validates evolutionary theory, what other neutral evidence do you require?

You still don't seem to get that for something to be called a scientific theory it has to encompass a massive range of supporting facts, have no existing facts that would disprove it and often encompass a number of accepted scientific laws. It is not the same thing as a hypothesis, which is speculative and may turn out not to fit with any facts when tested.

I have no idea custardo but the whole concept of a day or even time if you think about it is a human invention.

Morioth - no it's not. A day is based on how long the earth takes to rotate on its own axis once. And a year is how long the earth takes to rotate around the sun once.

Yes, but what is time exactly? Was/How was time measured before the planet/sun existed? Did time exist before then? Why did we decide what a day would be? Do other creatures perceive time or is it just us?

Is the 'Now' forever changing or has everything already happened and we are just existing in our bit of that reality?

Can you tell I spent yesterday afternoon trying to explain the concept of time travel to a 6 year old?

I may be wrong but I figure it's punctuated by night and day, otherwise we wouldn't really have a sense of time moving.

So before Day 1 in Genesis (day and night) - there was no concept of time.

Beaten I have also heared that explination.

So in my ignorance can I ask if the bible has been re-written, by that I obviously dont mean re-published but has it been adapted along the centuries and if so when? credible answeres only

I thing around the 12c alot of changes where made to the catholic church.

tomhardy - which explanation are you talking about?

If there was no concept of time, did time still exist?

I don't think I am smart enough though, when I start thinking about this stuff too deeply my brain kind of goes: 'Nah uh, too hard, ooh look a pretty flower...'

Humans seem to need something to fill the gaps in our understanding. So did we create a God to do that for us? Or did God leave those gaps there on purpose for him to fill?

It just goes around and around.

Nobody knows not really and I automatically distrust anyone who claims that they actually know not just believe but know the answers to this stuff, it isn't possible.

Morloth, yes time is dependent on the frame of reference of the observer.

So time would be different before the existence of the earth.

There is a word used in other places in the Old Testament (one of the prophets, sorry, can't remember what the word is) which means an era - and it's the same word used in Genesis which is sometimes translated as a 24 hour day.

So it's open to interpretation.

this is all now abit too complicated who says a day in genisis did not reprisent an "age" there fore a day may mean hundrens or thousands of years.

I was once taught at school when the first calander was introduced, I have no idea when that was but belive a few hundred yeras before christ, but then that was changed again a fter christ.

still no bung fight, can we request an mn classic???

Our calendar is Gregorian I think, so that's about, what C10th, C12th?

I think it's in Daniel or something - there is a word (yom) which means "era" or period of time. It can mean a 24 hour day or it can mean longer - depending on the context.

I think the canon of the Bible was agreed on in the 4th century. There has been debate ever since (eg the apocrypha) but not radically changed, and not at all in the mainstream Christian church.

In terms of addition/translation - there are loads of early manuscripts that all concur so although I don't actually follow it I do believe the Bible is pretty accurate. It has undergone probably more interrogation than any other text.

thanks beaten, that all rings a bell, some of my education is now coming back to me.

so I wonder who would be considered prophits in our modern age?

how's the 30 day shred going?! I've namechanged

The thing is, would it make any difference, really? If God created the world in six eras, that still leaves a few details to be filled in. And if they meant 'eras' when the Bible was written, how come a few centuries later when it was translated, it was translated as 'days'? Does that mean that no translation of the Bible has been divinely inspired and we all need to learn Biblical Hebrew (lets self down as unable to remember language of original Biblical texts)? And what about 'it was the evening and the morning of the fourth day' which is pretty specific? And would deciding that all this is true actually help you in your day job at the cloning lab?

oops sorry back on the thread.

Don't know!

beaten - no, it's early Modern.

Before the Gregorian calendar (which was adopted at different 'times' in different places), people followed a calendar that shifted more obviously in relation to the seasons.

It's pretty obvious that time in the sense of days, hours or minutes is an invention, surely? How could it not be?

No, I don't think it makes a difference. The fossil record suggests that the Genesis account is pretty accurate, especially considering how early it was written.