Christianity... and the fact of evolution

[ken777]

Or you can call it a parable, if that word makes better sense to you.

You can call it whatever you like. The NT references by Jesus and Paul to the creation of Adam & Eve do not in the slightest indicate the account is anything but factual. The OT is understood through the lens of the NT ... and that is where your argument fails.

 

[ken777]

"Macro" and "micro" evolution are terms made up by YEC people. It's a goal post shift. There is no such distinction.

I think you'd better Google that!

 

[MrMoe]

"Macro" and "micro" evolution are terms made up by YEC people.

Can you please provide proof of this?

 

[nChrist]

The THEORY of evolution is hanging by a thread of deception. God told us how He created man in Genesis. It's beyond me why some self-proclaimed Christians believe Darwin over God. Calling the THEORY of evolution science is a bad joke - a hoax. Here's the TRUTH if you want it:

Genesis 1:26-28 KJV And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Genesis 2:7 KJV And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

 

[ken777]

Can you please provide proof of this?

Obviously the terms micro- & macro-evolution are accepted by those studying evolution. What I find interesting is that the classification of animals is entirely man made so I doubt it equates to the word "kind" (used in Genesis 1:25 & Genesis 7:14) which I believe was much broader than the species category.

 

[AV1611VET]

The picture of an embryo....can you identify the species?

Infantem inutero?

 

[Armoured]

Can you please provide proof of this?

Sure. The fact that they aren't terms that appear anywhere in scientific literature, other than when debunking YEC nonsense.

 

[Armoured]

The THEORY of evolution is hanging by a thread of deception. God told us how He created man in Genesis. It's beyond me why some self-proclaimed Christians believe Darwin over God. Calling the THEORY of evolution science is a bad joke - a hoax. Here's the TRUTH if you want it:

Genesis 1:26-28 KJV And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Genesis 2:7 KJV And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

It's called science, because it's what the scientific method tells us. That's how science works. Sorry if that's inconvenient.

 

[MrMoe]

Sure. The fact that they aren't terms that appear anywhere in scientific literature, other than when debunking YEC nonsense.

Here's some scientific literature were the terms appear and are not about debunking YEC:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evoscales_01

http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com.au/2009/02/macroevolution-examples-and-evidence.html


Here is a quote from an evolution website:

"Evolution proponents often say that creationists invented the terms. This is false. Both macroevolution and microevolution are legitimate scientific terms, which have a history of changing meanings that, in any case, fail to underpin creationism."

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

 

[Armoured]

Here's some scientific literature were the terms appear and are not about debunking YEC:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evoscales_01

http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com.au/2009/02/macroevolution-examples-and-evidence.html


Here is a quote from an evolution website:

"Evolution proponents often say that creationists invented the terms. This is false. Both macroevolution and microevolution are legitimate scientific terms, which have a history of changing meanings that, in any case, fail to underpin creationism."

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

How about that. Well, there's the answer to your previous question, then.

 

[Norbert L]

If evolution is one of the strongest explanatory theories in any academic field, I mean, the evidence is simply overwhelming, how do Christians reconcile this?

What about the Biblical scholars that generally dismiss Genesis as a "historical" representation... but rather "myth" (however you want to define that)?

I understand I'm courting "controversy" here, but I'd genuinely like to hear this, supposedly, untouchable theological answer.

The non Christian Dr. David Berlinski gives a brief explanation why evolution is not a fact. Basically you can't observe it, at best as he mentions, it's a hunch.

Then there is Dr. John Lennox who is professor at the university of Oxford, briefly explains why Genesis is a sophisticated piece of writing, it's literal meaning has far more information that comply with the observable facts than we give it credit for.

 

[ken777]

The non Christian Dr. David Berlinski gives a brief explanation why evolution is not a fact. Basically you can't observe it, at best as he mentions, it's a hunch.

Then there is Dr. John Lennox who is professor at the university of Oxford, briefly explains why Genesis is a sophisticated piece of writing, it's literal meaning has far more information that comply with the observable facts than we give it credit for.

Berlinski articulately demolishes the argument that evolution is fact! Very few intellectuals have his courage to challenge the self interest of scientists that requires their conformity.

 

[JGHorton]

Care to explain how evolution isn't true?

The presumption that evolution is fact is one of the greatest contrived myths of our time. It has been repeated so long and often, many simply assume it is true. But,, the fact is evolution has become little more than a theology without a shred of real evidence

· Every proposed “ape-man” fossil has been discredited or exposed

as a fabrication or outright hoax. Not only is all demonstrable fossil evidence missing, so is any evidence of millions of transitional species.

· The “big bang, natural selection, survival of the fittest” and other ‘bolt-on accessories designed to prop-up evolution, have all failed to explain the reality of nature, scientific evidence and the lack of explanation for where the energy, light and other resources came from in the first place.

· Hundreds of credible scientists in all fields have publicly renounced Darwinism

· No statement or part of Scripture has ever been disproved

· All actual proof overwhelming supports the Bible and God’s creation

§ “Every creature reproduces after its own kind”

§ DNA/Chromosome evidence proves man is a separate species

§

Think about it for a moment. How many people who blindly claim the “incontrovertible evidence of evolution” really understand the science? Instead, they rely on sound bytes coming out of the evolutionary community – defending an indefensible position.

The illusion of evolution is that “time magically erases the barrier between nothing and something, and between rocks and living things.” Many still cling to the illusion that “time makes impossible things possible,” because they have ruled-out God, yet still need a plausible explanation for their own existence!

If you don’t believe me, here are just a few quotes from reputable, credible scientists who are not necessarily Christians:

Evolution is one of the greatest deceits in the history of Science

· “I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science”

Soren Lovtrup --Biologist, Scientist, ‘Treatise on Theoretical Biology’

· Respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp

“A growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp ..Moreover, for the most part these ‘experts’ have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on strictly scientific grounds, and in some instances, regretfully.”

Wolfgang Smith - Scientist at Bell Laboratories; Mathematics Professor at MIT, UCLA and Oregon State

· Darwinist vigilantes disparage real science

“Darwinist vigilantes use the Internet to attack those they find guilty of promoting the heresy of intelligent design. They call themselves “howler monkeys.” Milton says, “The effects of the howler monkeys of the Internet are profoundly damaging to academic freedom of expression, whoever their current victim happens to be.”

Richard Milton --Geologist, Journalist and design engineer and a member of Mensa; (Claims to have no religious faith)

· Lack of a fossil record contradicts verifiable Darwinian evolution

“If life progressed by an accumulation of small changes, as they say it has, the fossil record should reflect its flow, the dead stacked up in barely separated strata. But for well over 150 years, the dead have been remarkably diffident about confirming Darwin’s theory. Their bones lie suspended in the sands of time-theromorphs and therapsids and things that must have gibbered and then squeaked; but there are gaps in the graveyard, places where there should be intermediate forms but where there is nothing instead.”

David Berlinski -- Mathematician; Molecular Biologist; (Secular Jew)

· “The improbability involved in generating even one bacterium is so large that it reduces all considerations of time and space to nothingness. Given such odds, the time until the black holes evaporate and the space to the ends of the universe would make no difference at all. If we were to wait, we would truly be waiting for a miracle”

Robert Shapiro—Harvard Phd; Professor Emeritus and Chemistry Research Scientist (NYU)

Even Charles Darwin pointed out the fallacy of presenting a fully developed human species with no evidence of any transitional forms.

"Why, if species have descended from other species by fine graduation, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?" Charles Darwin, “Origin Of The Species”:


· “Darwin's strongest critics were scientists. The theologians who criticized him objected mainly to his philosophical insistence on natural causes and his denial of design--which Princeton's Charles Hodge regarded as ‘tantamount to atheism.’ Even today, many critics of Darwinism are not religious fundamentalists. An ever-growing number of critics are credentialed scientists”

Jonathan wells - The Problem of Evidence' - Forbes, Feb. 5, 2009 Molecular biologist, author and advocate of intelligent design

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I can just imagine how people reacted after the discovery that the world rotated around the sun rather than he other way around.
"Thats impossible! God created the sun for the earth, not the other way around! It was created on day 4 and placed in the sky, so how could the earth be orbiting around it? This is in direct contradiction of scripture!"
It was a big deal then because it challenged everything people had always believed about how God made things. They thought it was in contradiction of scripture, but really it was just in contradiction of their interpretation of scripture. Since it wasnt in agreement with their beliefs they called it heresy.

Give it some time. It seems like a crazy idea to you now because your deepest longheld beliefs about how the world came to be are being challenged. But in time you will get used to the idea and it wont seem so radical or impossible.

Not the same thing. For one, there is no proof that all OT saints or early NT saints believed that the sun rotated around the Earth. Not sure why they would even think of that seeing that stargazing with telescopes (or astronomy) was not a common thing. Second there is no observable proof or evidence for Macro Evolution. There is proof for Micro-Evolution (i.e. changes or adaptations within an animals own kinds) but there is no scientific proof of Macro Evolution.

For what evidence can disapprove evolution?

1. No real Transitional Fossils found. Only loose connections made.
2. No new genetic information forming or being added to the species.
3. Evolutionary Scientists repeatedly written that they have no real evidence.
4. Insects lose genetic code when adapting to pesticides (They don't gain any DNA).
5. We don't see observable proof of one species turning into another species.
6. Fossil records have been misrepresented in museums just to support Evolution.
7. Life has never been observed to come from non-life.
8. Examine a bird's feather and a reptile scale under a microscope. They are nothing like each other at all. Yet the Reptile was supposed to have formed into a bird at some point. Where are the transitional feather like scales? There isn't even one of these babies preserved in mud somewhere? I mean, a feather and a scale is about as similar to a chocolate bar would be to a silver bullet.


...

 

[throughfiierytrial]

Our strength is totally inadequate. His strength gives us eternal life.

Oooh yes, but you must put your trust in Him or you'll stray...you are doubting for when one doubts the scriptures one doubts God...John 17:17 says Sanctify them by Thy Truth; Thy Word is Truth.
And remember the parable of the seeds...many have and will not make it even though they trusted or had faith for a time.

 

[guitar papa]

There seem to be three types of answer:
* Evolution (and the big bang, and various other things that contradict a literal reading of Scripture) are false, no matter wha the evidence may seem to show.
* The Bible can be understood as compatible with the scientific evidence. In this category are various approaches that take a "day" in Genesis as representing a much longer period. This doesn't deal with the archaeological debates about the Exodus, however. Thus this position ends up rejecting some mainstream history, though not the Big Bang and evolution.
* The Bible, while including many historical events, includes traditional stories for periods before there were records. These stories are important because they show how Israel conceived the relationship between God and creation, and for later stories, the nature of Israel as a covenant people.

The first two positions can be reconciled with Biblical inerrancy. The third cannot.

You can find books and web sites promoting all three of these positions. I accept the third.

For something to be Created, there has to be a Creator. (GOD)The universe didn't just show up or a BIG bang made it all happen..

 

[D2wing]

If evolution is one of the strongest explanatory theories in any academic field, I mean, the evidence is simply overwhelming, how do Christians reconcile this?


What about the Biblical scholars that generally dismiss Genesis as a "historical" representation... but rather "myth" (however you want to define that)?

I understand I'm courting "controversy" here, but I'd genuinely like to hear this, supposedly, untouchable theological answer.

First of all, there is no proof whatsoever of evolution. No species has ever become another species. there is no proof that life occurs spontaneously. No experiment or recorded fossil exists that proves evolution. to say so is an outright lie.

Second, there is no proof that the Bible is false. If Einstein is correct then the first day of the universe has not occurred yet beyond the distance light has travelled so far from the point of origin according to the big bang theory, about 13 billion light years away. Who is to say what day it is when and how things were created. We simply do not know, and science cannot prove anything.
It is pretty stupid to assume evolution is true.it is actually contrary to know evidence and proven scientific theory such as genetics and the theory of thermodynamics. On the other hand, if it should be true, it doesn't matter. if it so then that is the method God used, no problem. I really don't care because I trust God and am not concerned about when and how he did something that doesn't concern me.
You can believe what you want on blind faith. I believe God because my faith is not blind.
I recognize that George Soros and other people like him own the book publishers and provide grants to colleges that demand they push evolution and manufacture the explanations as needed. The op may well be on the Soros payroll as many troublemakers everywhere are.

 

[Jamie Lee]

Not the same thing. For one, there is no proof that all OT saints or early NT saints believed that the sun rotated around the Earth. Not sure why they would even think of that seeing that stargazing with telescopes (or astronomy) was not a common thing. Second there is no observable proof or evidence for Macro Evolution. There is proof for Micro-Evolution (i.e. changes or adaptations within an animals own kinds) but there is no scientific proof of Macro Evolution.

For what evidence can disapprove evolution?

1. No real Transitional Fossils found. Only loose connections made.
2. No new genetic information forming or being added to the species.
3. Evolutionary Scientists repeatedly written that they have no real evidence.
4. Insects lose genetic code when adapting to pesticides (They don't gain any DNA).
5. We don't see observable proof of one species turning into another species.
6. Fossil records have been misrepresented in museums just to support Evolution.
7. Life has never been observed to come from non-life.
8. Examine a bird's feather and a reptile scale under a microscope. They are nothing like each other at all. Yet the Reptile was supposed to have formed into a bird at some point. Where are the transitional feather like scales? There isn't even one of these babies preserved in mud somewhere? I mean, a feather and a scale is about as similar to a chocolate bar would be to a silver bullet.


...

I feel that people here have jumped to conclusions and mischaracterized me completely.

Im not some Darwin fanatic. I couldnt care less whether evolution is true or not, and neither should you.

I simply have an open mind. My faith is based on trusting in God alone, not on arrogant insistence that I know everything. So whether Im right or wrong, Im still going to believe in God. Can you say the same for yourself?

Did I ever say that the saints believed the sun rotated around the earth? No. When the discovery was made, it was a common belief and people who did not believe in the sun rotating around the earth were condemned as heretics. Not unlike the accustions being made here against people who disagree with you.

Now, when I was younger I wanted to be a paleontologist, and I stayed up to date on the debate about Evolution, so I know a thing or two about it. I have argued for both sides and frankly both sides have issues.

The gaps in the fossil record are, indeed, one of the most damning problems with the theory. I have a fossil collection and while fossils are abundant and I myself own hundreds, not a single one is in the process of transition. Why?

But thats not to say that transitional fossils dont exist, there are a few examples. Just not as many as we would expect to see.

Of course, if you believe in evolution being a tool used by God, its easy to reconcile the difference. We dont need to guess where the big bang came from, because we can say it happened at Gods command. Evolution, likewise, was caused by Gods command and so did not need to be caused by time and chance. God already knew the designs he had in mind and guided the process. They would have evolved much more quickly.

But the science is never final. When people say you need to accept the scientific consensus as fact, im immediately suspicious of their knowledge of the history of science. For as long as weve had the scientific process, scientists have been getting things wrong. Read the history of science and youll cringe. For instance, less than a century ago Darwin was mocked by everybody else in the scientific field as being unscientific for sticking to his theory, because the scientific consensus at the time was that the earth was 400,000 years old. And scientists in every field had corroborating evidence, from astronomy, the salt in the oceans, the thermal heat of the earth, etc. They thought it was a fact. But when radiation was discovered, it completely shattered their theory.
A recent study in a peer reviewed journal said that 90% of peer reviewed studies turn out to be false.

So, no, just because a scientist says it doesnt mean its undeniable fact. We have been wrong in the past, why would we be suddenly perfectly right about everything now? Most likely we arent and will look back and cringe in the future at how ignorant we were. But thats the nature of science, theories are constantly being disproved and replaced, and we move forward. And thats how we advance as a society. One cannot be too stuck in their own ways. No matter which side you are on.

Here is one of those babies stuck in the mud you asked for.

"Among extinct dinosaurs, feathers or feather-like integument have been discovered on dozens of genera via both direct and indirect fossil evidence. The vast majority of feather discoveries have been for coelurosaurian theropods. However, integument has also been discovered on at least threeornithischians, raising the likelihood that proto-feathers were also present in earlier dinosaurs, and perhaps even a more ancestral animal, in light of the pycnofibers ofpterosaurs. Crocodilians also possess beta keratin very similar to those of birds, which suggests that they evolved from a common ancestral gene.[3]"
"A number of non-avian[14] dinosaurs are now known to have been feathered. Direct evidence of feathers exists for the following species, listed in the order currently accepted evidence was first published. In all examples, the evidence described consists of feather impressions, except those genera inferred to have had feathers based on skeletal or chemical evidence, such as the presence of quill knobs (the anchor points for wing feathers on the forelimb) or a pygostyle (the fused vertebrae at the tail tip which often supports large feathers).

Avimimus portentosus (inferred 1987: ulnar ridge)[15][16]Sinosauropteryx prima (1996)[17]Protarchaeopteryx robusta (1997)[18]GMV 2124 (1997)[19]Caudipteryx zoui (1998)[20]Rahonavis ostromi (inferred 1998: quill knobs; possibly avialan[21])[22]Shuvuuia deserti (1999)[23]Beipiaosaurus inexpectus (1999)[24]Sinornithosaurus millenii (1999)[25]Caudipteryx dongi (2000)[26]Caudipteryx sp. (2000)[27]Microraptor zhaoianus (2000)[28]Nomingia gobiensis (inferred 2000: pygostyle)[29]Psittacosaurus sp.? (2002)[30]Scansoriopteryx heilmanni (2002; possibly avialan)[31]Yixianosaurus longimanus (2003)[32]Dilong paradoxus (2004)[33]Pedopenna daohugouensis (2005; possibly avialan[34])[35]Jinfengopteryx elegans (2005)[36][37]Juravenator starki (2006)[38][39]Sinocalliopteryx gigas (2007)[40]Velociraptor mongoliensis (inferred 2007: quill knobs)[7]Epidexipteryx hui (2008; possibly avialan)[41]Similicaudipteryx yixianensis (inferred 2008: pygostyle; confirmed 2010)[42][43]Anchiornis huxleyi (2009; possibly avialan)[44]Tianyulong confuciusi? (2009)[45]Xiaotingia zhengi (2011; possibly avialan)[46]Yutyrannus huali (2012)[47]Sciurumimus albersdoerferi (2012)[48]Ornithomimus edmontonicus (2012)[49]Ningyuansaurus wangi (2012)[50]Eosinopteryx brevipenna (2013; possibly avialan)[51]Jianchangosaurus yixianensis (2013)[52]Aurornis xui (2013; possibly avialan)[53]Changyuraptor yangi (2014)[54]Kulindadromeus zabaikalicus? (2014)[55]Citipati osmolskae (inferred 2014: pygostyle)[56]Conchoraptor gracilis (inferred 2014: pygostyle)[56]Deinocheirus mirificus (inferred 2014: pygostyle)[57]Yi qi (2015)[58]Zhenyuanlong suni (2015)[59]Dakotaraptor steini (inferred 2015: quill knobs)[60]Apatoraptor pennatus (inferred 2016: quill knobs)[61]"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathered_dinosaur

 

[food4thought]

I try to keep an open mind on these things, but when someone claims that atheistic evolution is a verified fact it reveals their ignorance of the many evidences that defy evolution, and, quite honestly, makes me mad.

1) Absolute lack of credible evidence for abiogenesis (biological evolution is dependent on chemical evolution philosophically)
2) The cambrian explosion
3) The theory's failure to adequately explain the development of complex interdependant systems like the nervous system, circulatory system, digestive system, etc.
4) The lack of numerous transitional forms in the fossil record
5) The numerous evidences that strongly suggest that the solar system is not billions of years old, eliminating the necessary time for evolution to occur

 

[JacksBratt]

I wonder if God tried to explain it all and Moses was just like, "What?" That would make a great comic strip.

Your "comic strip" would be humorous, only, to people who forget that Moses was raised as an Egyptian, well educated by Egyptian scholars, intelligent enough to run the kingdom for the Pharaoh.

Not to mention that he saw a bush totally on fire right in front of him, with out burning and it spoke to him, the Red Sea part before him while he lead the Israelite's through on dry land, water come out of a rock, food fall from the sky every day, God write the 10 commandments, with His finger, in stone..... twice, a pillar of fire to lead them at night and of smoke during the day, and tons of other stuff I haven't mentioned.

You still believe that Moses would not have understood anything that you do? I beg to differ.

Moses saw and recorded things that you won't even believe. He was no slouch when it came to knowledge and wisdom. The world has seen few men of his standards.

So, you can cease with the "they were real dumb back then and could not comprehend the reality of evolution, so God made up a fairy tale" mantra.

Moses, today, would look down and say "they have so little faith. They don't even believe what I wrote, plain as day and are so consumed with pompous self proclaimed knowledge that they are deceived by Satan's tales...........what fools"..