Why do you believe in the evolution theory? (2)

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I question that claim; I do not recall any part of the bible suggesting that living things can change across generations.

We will all acknowledge that the change of living things across generations, aka evolution, is a discovery that took place long after the Bible was written.

 

[PsychoSarah]

We will all acknowledge that the change of living things across generations, aka evolution, is a discovery that took place long after the Bible was written.

Is it fair for you to speak for everyone?

 

[Strathos]

Let's see the verse and I shall try to interpret what is going on for you.

Sure thing.

Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun, Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race. His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.

 

[dad]

Originally Posted by dad

Let's see the verse and I shall try to interpret what is going on for you.
​

Sure thing.

Originally Posted by Psalm 19:4-6

Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun, Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race. His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.

It is interesting that the verse points out that words come from heaven! From heaven is where Jesus, the Bridegroom will come to get us! I would say that this psalm is primarily about Jesus! (like almost all psalms).

Now, I notice it says God set up a tent for the sun. (tabernacle) That indicates a temporary arrangement! Now when we think of the temporary nature and place of the sun, we can also think of the temporary place Jesus went to prepare a place for us! But, He is coming back, that Bridegroom, His circuit that went up to the heaven of heavens, will be completed when He comes from the heaven of heavens back here to get us! Now the circuit of the sun ( little example or shadow or type of Christ) will also change the bible makes that clear! Circuit from the Hebrew means this

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva]'coming round, circuit of time or space, a turning, circuit [/FONT]'

So, the temporary tent for the sun will change and I assume it will go back to the way He created it, if it is to be here still!

In no way does any of this mean that the solar system is and always was and will be geocentric!! That is worse than ridiculous.


This is a good example of how the natural mind cannot understand the things of God. Evos, I would take this as a sombre warning that we really really need God's Spirit to begin to truly understand the Scripture and mysteries of the universe!


wow.




​

 

[FredVB]

Uh . . . could you please rephrase that?

Even if it were true that more people accepting evolution are theists than not, though I don't know where there will be any information supporting that conclusion, ...

It was alleged that there were more people accepting biological evolution as reality who accepted God being real, as such being theist. This was contested with a post showing results from a survey showing otherwise.

that is with assumption that such happened from promotion of it by those who assume no involvement from God who they would not acknowledge to be, ...

Those who do accept biological evolution as reality do so because of the wide acceptance of such evolution from natural processes by the scientific community, from the avoidance of so many in that of assuming involvement from God, which they perceive there is no way to study, and so they hold there is no need to acknowledge God.

with needing to see natural processes being adequate for that to explain it.

Without having God to include in what is studied, and to even acknowledge, they take what is left to include in the study of origins, which then is only natural processes, and what is defined for being adequate for explaining what they see being around now is such processes that are ongoing. This includes the natural selection that Darwin noted having an effect on populations, and the mutations from genetic alteration that was learned of later to explain how there would be change from what was defined in gene pools.

 

[Loudmouth]

It was alleged that there were more people accepting biological evolution as reality who accepted God being real, as such being theist. This was contested with a post showing results from a survey showing otherwise.

Those who do accept biological evolution as reality do so because of the wide acceptance of such evolution from natural processes by the scientific community, from the avoidance of so many in that of assuming involvement from God, which they perceive there is no way to study, and so they hold there is no need to acknowledge God.

Without having God to include in what is studied, and to even acknowledge, they take what is left to include in the study of origins, which then is only natural processes, and what is defined for being adequate for explaining what they see being around now is such processes that are ongoing. This includes the natural selection that Darwin noted having an effect on populations, and the mutations from genetic alteration that was learned of later to explain how there would be change from what was defined in gene pools.

I have always liked this quote.

"It can hardly be supposed that a false theory would explain, in so satisfactory a manner as does the theory of natural selection, the several large classes of facts above specified. It has recently been objected that this is an unsafe method of arguing; but it is a method used in judging of the common events of life, and has often been used by the greatest natural philosophers ... I see no good reason why the views given in this volume should shock the religious feelings of any one. It is satisfactory, as showing how transient such impressions are, to remember that the greatest discovery ever made by man, namely, the law of the attraction of gravity, was also attacked by Leibnitz, "as subversive of natural, and inferentially of revealed, religion." A celebrated author and divine has written to me that "he has gradually learnt to see that it is just as noble a conception of the Deity to believe that He created a few original forms capable of self-development into other and needful forms, as to believe that He required a fresh act of creation to supply the voids caused by the action of His laws."

—Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species (1859)​

 

[PsychoSarah]

It was alleged that there were more people accepting biological evolution as reality who accepted God being real, as such being theist. This was contested with a post showing results from a survey showing otherwise.

Those who do accept biological evolution as reality do so because of the wide acceptance of such evolution from natural processes by the scientific community, from the avoidance of so many in that of assuming involvement from God, which they perceive there is no way to study, and so they hold there is no need to acknowledge God.

Without having God to include in what is studied, and to even acknowledge, they take what is left to include in the study of origins, which then is only natural processes, and what is defined for being adequate for explaining what they see being around now is such processes that are ongoing. This includes the natural selection that Darwin noted having an effect on populations, and the mutations from genetic alteration that was learned of later to explain how there would be change from what was defined in gene pools.

That singular survey might have a questionable source, unless it comes from Sweden, which is one of the few countries with an atheist majority, or so I hear.

In countries such as the U.S., where less than 5% of the population is atheist, and yet more than 20% support evolution in most age groups on some level, it is pretty obvious that majority of those people have to be theists.

 

[FredVB]

It was alleged that there were more people accepting biological evolution as reality who accepted God being real, as such being theist. This was contested with a post showing results from a survey showing otherwise.

Those who do accept biological evolution as reality do so because of the wide acceptance of such evolution from natural processes by the scientific community, from the avoidance of so many in that of assuming involvement from God, which they perceive there is no way to study, and so they hold there is no need to acknowledge God.
Without having God to include in what is studied, and to even acknowledge, they take what is left to include in the study of origins, which then is only natural processes, and what is defined for being adequate for explaining what they see being around now is such processes that are ongoing. This includes the natural selection that Darwin noted having an effect on populations, and the mutations from genetic alteration that was learned of later to explain how there would be change from what was defined in gene pools.

I have always liked this quote.

"It can hardly be supposed that a false theory would explain, in so satisfactory a manner as does the theory of natural selection, the several large classes of facts above specified."

—Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species (1859)​

Darwin's theory as he stated it though was not satisfactory as an explanation, and it was going to be shown wrong, though he did not see how that was coming, and this is never stated overtly. Natural selection itself was certainly not sufficient to drive the alleged evolution that Darwin advocated. The genetic transmission that was already being studied was being neglected. The theory only continued with an extreme revision with mutation of genes being considered the vital process for evolution from one gene pool to another. This too has problems to consider.

That singular survey might have a questionable source, unless it comes from Sweden, which is one of the few countries with an atheist majority, or so I hear.
In countries such as the U.S., where less than 5% of the population is atheist, and yet more than 20% support evolution in most age groups on some level, it is pretty obvious that majority of those people have to be theists.

I didn't find that survey result to show here, I saw it with noting the conclusion saying more people accepting biological evolution as reality are theists is not consistent with it. I still don't know that there is any information, as I was saying before seeing that posted survey result, showing support for that conclusion. Saying there isn't the atheist majority is not with considering the many people who are agnostic, who aren't really atheist but would not be saying they believe there is God, and there is activity of God that had anything to do with evolution, which they accept, for reasons that are inclusive of what I was saying above.

 

[bhsmte]

I didn't find that survey result to show here, I saw it with noting the conclusion saying more people accepting biological evolution as reality are theists is not consistent with it. I still don't know that there is any information, as I was saying before seeing that posted survey result, showing support for that conclusion. Saying there isn't the atheist majority is not with considering the many people who are agnostic, who aren't really atheist but would not be saying they believe there is God, and there is activity of God that had anything to do with evolution, which they accept, for reasons that are inclusive of what I was saying above.

This information from Pew, discussing how people of certain religious beliefs, agree or disagree with evolution.

As expected, only evangelicals don't have a majority who agree with evolution. All the other groups have a majority agreeing with evolution.

Public?s Views on Human Evolution | Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project

 

[Loudmouth]

Guess how it will work in the new heavens and earth? The Cardinal may have been right. It also may have been different than today in Adam's day for all I know.

What would be foolish is to claim that today the sun revolves around earth.

Hey at least the Cardinal probably didn't think we were from the same kinfolk relatives as flatworms like you do. Right? Or do you?

What would be foolish is to write that post.

 

[Loudmouth]

Darwin's theory as he stated it though was not satisfactory as an explanation, and it was going to be shown wrong, though he did not see how that was coming, and this is never stated overtly. Natural selection itself was certainly not sufficient to drive the alleged evolution that Darwin advocated. The genetic transmission that was already being studied was being neglected. The theory only continued with an extreme revision with mutation of genes being considered the vital process for evolution from one gene pool to another. This too has problems to consider.

It was satisfactory for the "several large classes of facts above specified".

Your veiled allusions to HGT in prokaryotes simply don't apply since Darwin never spoke of prokaryotes. In eukaryotes, the type of life that Darwin did talk about, HGT happens so infrequently that it can be ignored. Adaptation and directional morphological change in eukaryotes occurs very much like Darwin hypothesized.

You also left of the rest of the quote:

"It has recently been objected that this is an unsafe method of arguing; but it is a method used in judging of the common events of life, and has often been used by the greatest natural philosophers ... I see no good reason why the views given in this volume should shock the religious feelings of any one. It is satisfactory, as showing how transient such impressions are, to remember that the greatest discovery ever made by man, namely, the law of the attraction of gravity, was also attacked by Leibnitz, "as subversive of natural, and inferentially of revealed, religion." A celebrated author and divine has written to me that "he has gradually learnt to see that it is just as noble a conception of the Deity to believe that He created a few original forms capable of self-development into other and needful forms, as to believe that He required a fresh act of creation to supply the voids caused by the action of His laws."

—Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species (1859)

Perhaps you could address it? Do you think God is incapable of creating natural processes that could produce the biodiversity we see today?

 

[PsychoSarah]

I didn't find that survey result to show here, I saw it with noting the conclusion saying more people accepting biological evolution as reality are theists is not consistent with it. I still don't know that there is any information, as I was saying before seeing that posted survey result, showing support for that conclusion. Saying there isn't the atheist majority is not with considering the many people who are agnostic, who aren't really atheist but would not be saying they believe there is God, and there is activity of God that had anything to do with evolution, which they accept, for reasons that are inclusive of what I was saying above.

You do realize that agnostic is a knowledge statement, not a belief statement, right? I am an agnostic atheist, but even if you count people who just say agnostic and nothing else as atheists, that group will be a small minority in just about every country except a small handful such as Sweden. Perhaps you live in a highly religious area where a lot of creationists happen to be, thus giving you the impression that the majority of Christians are creationists, when it actually is just the case in certain regions of the country.

 

[dad]

Perhaps you live in a highly religious area where a lot of creationists happen to be, thus giving you the impression that the majority of Christians are creationists, when it actually is just the case in certain regions of the country.

The WORLD is a highly religious area where a lot of creationists happen to be! Since Jesus and the apostles and prophets and angels are all creation believers or creationists as you call us, those with another opinion basically do not matter. Even if there are as many of them as flies on a pod.

 

[dad]

What would be foolish is to write that post.

Looking at this post I see wisdom. Point out what you thought was foolish.


Guess how it will work in the new heavens and earth? The Cardinal may have been right. It also may have been different than today in Adam's day for all I know.

What would be foolish is to claim that today the sun revolves around earth.

Hey at least the Cardinal probably didn't think we were from the same kinfolk relatives as flatworms like you do. Right? Or do you?

 

[Loudmouth]

Looking at this post I see wisdom. Point out what you thought was foolish.


Guess how it will work in the new heavens and earth? The Cardinal may have been right. It also may have been different than today in Adam's day for all I know.

What would be foolish is to claim that today the sun revolves around earth.

Hey at least the Cardinal probably didn't think we were from the same kinfolk relatives as flatworms like you do. Right? Or do you?

You are as foolish as Cardinal Bellarmine. You speak nonsense.

 

[dad]

You are as foolish as Cardinal Bellarmine. You speak nonsense.

That poor guy was a religious pretender as far as Scripture goes. To find what God says look in Scripture.

 

[Loudmouth]

That poor guy was a religious pretender as far as Scripture goes. To find what God says look in Scripture.

That's the exact mistake that both you and Cardinal Bellarmine are making. You think your myopic and twisted interpretations of scripture allow you to ignore the evidence found in the creation itself.

 

[dad]

That's the exact mistake that both you and Cardinal Bellarmine are making. You think your myopic and twisted interpretations of scripture allow you to ignore the evidence found in the creation itself.

That is your mistake pretending there is some evidence in nature that does something against Scripture. There isn't. Busted ye be.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

That is your mistake pretending there is some evidence in nature that does something against Scripture. There isn't. Busted ye be.

Of course, the scripture must be properly interpreted.

That coccyx you sit on . . . is a vestige from a previous species that actually had a tail, and you having it means your species evolved from a tailed species.

Now interpret scripture to be consistent with that truth and you'll be fine.

 

[dad]

Of course, the scripture must be properly interpreted.

I am not worried that the apostles and prophests and Jesus who talked of creation and the beginning and the flood etc knew what they were talking about.


Only a matter of belief not interpretation.

That coccyx you sit on . . . is a vestige from a previous species that actually had a tail, and you having it means your species evolved from a tailed species.

Puffed up nonsense that you can't begin to prove. It could have been that post flood man grew tails fast for some reason, or that pre flood man had them. In NO way does it mean that we came from 'creatures' that had tails! Gross. That gives new meaning to the term gross darkness.