What's wrong with evolution?

[cerad]

To me at least the biggest problems TE Christians face is the concept of original sin. The Adam and Eve story makes it simple. A couple of people get tested, they fail, and the rest of us pay the price.

But with evolution where exactly does the need for salvation come from? Did sin somehow evolve into the world?

 

[AV1611VET]

This is only a problem if you read the bible literally. Of course, reading the bible literally causes a mutitute of OTHER problems as well, including the one where it contradicts itself.

I take the Bible literally, unless the context dictates otherwise. Jesus, and all the writers took took the Scriptures literally, and there's no reason we shouldn't.

As I have stated before, taking Genesis 1 allegorically is very dangerous, as it allows the mind of the reader to be the validating factor of how this universe came into existence, and thus there's no way an independent third party can verify its claims. This leads to junk theories about Creation at best, and cultism at worst.

Firstly, like someone already pointed out to you, these two are the same thing.

Okay --- they're the same --- so Evolution sends out one hit man, instead of two. I submit that still disqualifies it to be included in God's plan of creating a universe with love and harmony.

The two characters are in fact the same character. The fact that you don't know this sais that you don't know much about evolution. Perhaps it MIGHT be a good idea to learn what evolution actually sais before argueing against it? In much the same way that you might think twice about arguing with Tiger Woods about golf before you actually know anything about golf?

No, thanks. There are a lot of things I have concluded to be wrong, without studying them in-depth. Evolution is one of them. The fact that I don't know that much about it does not bother me in the least.

Another thing. You claim that natural selection violates God's principles of love and harmony. Are you claiming that God created something that violates his own principles?

No --- not at all. In fact, I'm claiming that's one of the reasons natural selection doesn't exist --- it violates God's principles.

Since natural selection happens, and since it is part of nature, and since God created nature, it follows that God created natural selection. Who are you to tell God what he may and may not create, and what his principles are?

God did not create natural selection to operate before the Fall; and as I have stated before, it operates on a microevolutionary (adaptation) level, not a macroevolutionary level.

I do believe God created natural selection, but He did it knowing what was going to happen, and it sat dormant until after the Fall.

Once again, natural selection operates against God's principles on a microevolutionary level, but God draws the line at macroevolution.

Heres a question for you. Is this world heaven? I am pretty sure the answer you will give is 'NO', we are not currently in heaven.

I don't want to get into technicalities with you, so I'll agree with you, because I see the point you're making; but for the technically-inclined Bible scholars out there: yes, this world is within the scope of the Kingdom of Heaven, but it is not Heaven (the Kingdom of God), per se.

Now, considering the fact that this is NOT heaven, is it surprising at all that not everything is in accordance with God's principles of love?

No, it's not --- I agree.

Neither did Jesus even mention you AV. Does this mean that you do not exist?

No --- but Jesus specifically mentions God making Adam and Eve.

[bible]Mark 10:6[/bible]

Are you saying that everything God created should suddenly fall apart, rot, and collapse after the sixth day? Why would this happen? I am pretty sure that God knew what he was doing, why would everything suddenly stop working after he is done creating them?

It's called the Fall --- Sin entering the universe and setting off the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics --- entropy.

Gravity still works. Chemistry still works. All the internal machinery that keeps reality intact seems to still be working. Why would anything that emerges from these processes (like evolution for instance) stop working?

Entropy will eventually claim the Universe; but God is going to intervene before that happens.

You have claimed before the the world was created with history 'built in'. If this is so, what prevents evolution to be built in along with all the other history?

Time --- for one thing. Evolution does not allow for Adam and Eve. Let's compare what evolution says, to what God did, and see if God created it, okay?

• God created the earth before the sun.
• Evolution has the sun before the earth.
• God created the birds before the land animals.
• Evolution has the land animals before the birds.
• God created plant life before the sun.
• Evolution has the sun before the plants.

Do you see, BVZ, how evolution is so opposed to Creation?

I suggest you learn a bit about evolution. I have seen other make this suggestion too.

Not a chance.

Here is a question which I expect you to answer: Why have you not learned anything in yout time here on this forum?

I have learned a few things. One that stands out is the difference between Evolution and Abiogenesis (which I used to think were one and the same).

I learned the difference between an Apologist and a Defender of the Faith.

I never heard the terms Young Earth Creation and Old Earth Creation before I came here (I'm neither, BTW.)

I never heard of Omphalos, Last Thursdayism, alleles, or Theistic Evolution until I came here. I was very surprised to see that there are Christians that embrace evolution.

But one thing that really stands out to me, is how much Darwin and Evolution are seriously taken.

On the flip side, I'm glad (albeit in a sad way) to see that people like Kent Hovind, Lee Strobel, and Ken Ham are put down, as I would expect this. (I imagine Dave Hunt is hated, too; but I'm not asking.)

 

[AV1611VET]

What on Earth does that verse have to do with electromagnetism? Do you even know how we get our electromagnetic field?

As I understand it, an em field arises when iron passes through an electric field.

I was referring to the Electromagnetic Spectrum.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

But with evolution where exactly does the need for salvation come from? Did sin somehow evolve into the world?

With evolution, the Adam and Eve story is an analogy about the rise of inteligence, that humans life in cities and therefore have to till the earth to support them, have big brains, yet suffer the childbirth to create them... without eating from the "tree of knowledge" we'd all be chimps playing in the trees. The downside is we'd have no space program.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Doesn't exactly equate with Maxwells equations though, does it? or that electromagnetism and light are the same thing?

 

[Chalnoth]

As I understand it, an em field arises when iron passes through an electric field.

I was referring to the Electromagnetic Spectrum.

That is so wrong it's not even funny. The electromagnetic field has nothing whatsoever to do with iron.

 

[Opcode42]

Light is only a small portion of the EM spectrum. And you certainly do not need to understand the relation between electricity and magnestism to experience and accept that light exists.This is all hindsight AV.

You are taking scientific discoveries from the last 2 thousand years, and re-interpreting the Bible to make them fit. The Bible never says elecrtomagnetic field, or spectrum. It says light. Thats it. We know what light is, but those who wrote the bible did not.. Any other interpretation is just wishfull thinking on your part.

 

[AV1611VET]

That is so wrong it's not even funny. The electromagnetic field has nothing whatsoever to do with iron.

Fine with me --- then "no" to your question.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

The electromagnetic field has nothing whatsoever to do with iron.

Of Earth? Yes it does... the iron core revolving within the molten outer core is assumed responsible for earths EM field

 

[Chalnoth]

Of Earth? Yes it does... the iron core revolving within the molten outer core is assumed responsible for earths EM field

That's getting a wee bit far afield. What I meant was that iron, the element, has nothing to do with the general construct of an electromagnetic field.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

That's getting a wee bit far afield. What I meant was that iron, the element, has nothing to do with the general construct of an electromagnetic field.

Oh. Well, in that case, no. Iron is not necessary for A magnetic field. But when discussing THE magnetic field... seems specific to Earth, which does involve iron. Just trying to be clear

 

[Oliver]

No --- not at all. In fact, I'm claiming that's one of the reasons natural selection doesn't exist --- it violates God's principles.

(...)

God did not create natural selection to operate before the Fall; and as I have stated before, it operates on a microevolutionary (adaptation) level, not a macroevolutionary level.

I do believe God created natural selection, but He did it knowing what was going to happen, and it sat dormant until after the Fall.

Once again, natural selection operates against God's principles on a microevolutionary level, but God draws the line at macroevolution.

Emphasis mine...

So which is it? Does natural selection exist, or not? Was it created by God, or does it operate against God's principle?

 

[AV1611VET]

This point is fair enough. Not that there are not other explanations for the genealogies...

Please! I hope not! A genealogy is a genealogy.

... but I'll concede that they are probably concocted after the fact.

So would I, in view of the fact that most of the names of the people in them were dead.

This is the crux of the problem- how the Bible should be considered in Christian belief.

Just like it should be taken in any belief - seriously.

Unless you believe that the fetishism of a book is more important than it's content, then the specifics of history are not wholly relevant to the theological validity of a given lifeway.

That "fetishism of a book" as you call it is actually what others call "studying to shew thyself approved..."

[bible]2 Timothy 2:15[/bible]

We would have to establish that the Bible contradicts the theory in ways other than chronology.

Yes --- I documented three other ways.

This argument does not hold water. Love: In the Bible, the love of God is rarely expressed through being "nice." The repeating pattern of the Pre-Christian faith is that of God leading his people through various trials, killing or dislocating most of them, and keeping the remnant who remain faithful to him.

Not in Genesis 1, it doesn't. The times when God "wasn't nice" came after the Fall, which is Genesis 3. Once again, God, in Genesis 1 (one), did not create the universe to self-improve itself via death and disharmony.

... Not only are these the actions of a God who considers our lives less important than our spiritual wellbeing, they also represent a societal version of natural selection: the environment changes, and the people who were most equipped to deal with it survive and carry on the church.

That's real cute --- let's compare natural selection to God's church:

• NS = only the strong survive
• GC = when I am weak, then am I strong
• NS = if you make it to the top, you make it
• GC = they that are first, shall be last, and the last shall be first

I don't see a harmonious comparison here.

As for harmony, evolution has the effect of working toward equilibrium...

That's the whole point. There is no work involved with Creation. It doesn't have to struggle to achieve and/or maintain equilibrium.

Always? A few times. And since Jesus regularly spoke in parables and hyperbole, I can't see why it would be hard to believe that he would use the origin myth as it was intended to be used, for it's spiritual rather than scientific value.

Origin myth???

 

[EnemyPartyII]

micro evolution and macro evolution... do evolutionary biologists use these terms? cos after all my reading, what creationists say is macro evolution looks like a bunch of steps of micro evolution... I don't see the difference.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

*lol* just saw "If it disagrees with the King James Bible - it's wrong."

Wonder what the original Hebrew authors would make of that.

 

[AV1611VET]

Light is only a small portion of the EM spectrum.

The specific question was --- What about electromagnetism and the nuclear forces?

My answer is that em was created in Genesis 1:3---

[bible]Genesis 1:3[/bible]

And God plans to use the nuclear forces in the end to dismantle and reassemble the universe---

[bible]2 Peter 3:10-12[/bible]

Do you disagree?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Do you disagree?

yes.
you are searching an ancient document written to a specific people, culture and time and reading modern science back into it. No one reading or hearing these verses for the first time thought, imagined, dreamed anything like your interpretation. In fact, no one reading them for 2 millennium thought this is what they meant.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

micro evolution and macro evolution... do evolutionary biologists use these terms? cos after all my reading, what creationists say is macro evolution looks like a bunch of steps of micro evolution... I don't see the difference.

the distinction was originally coined in 1927 by the Russian entomologist Iurii Filipchenko
see:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

they have however primarily been hijacked by the YECists for this distinction between adaption which can happen and evolution which can not. You can see the distinction used in scientific papers however most people are aware of the AiG and greater YECist usage of it and therefore don't use it in their scientific papers but rather in popular works addressed to laypeople.

 

[AV1611VET]

Emphasis mine...

So which is it? Does natural selection exist, or not? Was it created by God, or does it operate against God's principle?

Sorry for the confusion.

Natural selection, as it applies to macroevolution, does not exist.

HOWEVER, as it applies to microevolution, it does.

[bible]Isaiah 45:7[/bible]

This verse, although applying to war, per se, can also be used to say that God embedded the process of natural selection (adaptation) into His creation (albeit reluctantly).

It's what we today call a "necessary evil".

 

[AV1611VET]

micro evolution and macro evolution... do evolutionary biologists use these terms? cos after all my reading, what creationists say is macro evolution looks like a bunch of steps of micro evolution... I don't see the difference.

In the old days of debating evolution --- Christians used to say that evolution does not exist.

Scientists would counter that with examples like the Gypsy Moth changing colors on tree trunks.

To which the Christians would point out that that is not "evolution" per se --- that is "adaption".

So scientists 'broke' the term "evolution" into two separate terms: micro- and macro-.

This satisfied the Christians --- to a point.

Microevolution is adaption.
Macroevolution is evolution.

Microevolution, I believe, is also used to show one specific species within a genera giving rise to another species; but don't quote me on that.