Science has changed their views on human evolution

[98cwitr]

Ardi, a relatively new discovery has changed the way science has theorized our so called "evolution" from other primates (specifically chimpanzees). Scientists now are say that we did not evolve from apes at all, but only have a common linage with them. Take a look at this article:

Oldest human skeleton offers new clues to evolution - CNN.com

Kent State Researcher: Humans did not evolve from chimps - :: Cincinnati news story :: LOCAL 12 WKRC-TV in Cincinnati

Then, I pose the question...how do Christians refute carbon dating if we are to believe in a true 7 day creation?

Radiocarbon Dating and American Evangelical Christians

I have always taken the timeline of Bible as metaphoric more than anything else, because I believe that time is truly a man-made concept and not a divine idea. What are your thoughts? This even convinces me moreso that God did not cause a "macroevolution" of the human race from apes, but created us in similarity to them. This reaffirms, for me at least, the idea of microevolution as opposed to a macro stance of our own development.

 

[the particular baptist]

Ardi is the same nonsense, the usual from the God hating idolaters/scientists. So now we didnt evolve from monkeys but from a common lineage ? Nothing more than the new thing on the block by the same depraved minds.

We came from a common lineage alright, God, our Creator. God created Adam and Eve whole, adult, humans... not beasts, and created the earth wholly grown and aged (millions of years old ?), less than 7000 years ago.

 

[Lazerboy]

Science discovers many wonderful new things.

However, any time that science is in conflict with scripture, we must uphold the God-Word.

Then, I pose the question...how do Christians refute carbon dating if we are to believe in a true 7 day creation?

The creation actually took but 6 days. On the 7th day God rested from all the work God had done.

 

[oneofchrists]

the usual from the God hating idolaters/scientists. TheFivesolas Do You Sir, really believe that all scientists Have depraved minds and are idolaters? surely there are a Few that believe that Christ is their Savior and Have received Him as such, You should after all give them some credit for the work that they do. They are not totally with out heart and I don't beleive that they are without God because of their curiosity and drive to find out answers to the many questions that man naturaly have. It is Human to discover,it is Human to increase knowledge, what humans do with this knowledge determins whether or not it is good or evil.
You Sir would probably be etching on cave walls and cooking over open fires ,( that is if You knew how to make fire ) that goes for all of Us as well. If it were not for mans inate driven ability to solve problems...which separates Us from the animals.this ability by the way is a gift from God......Be thankful in every thing, Give thanks for these people and the good that they, for WE have benefited greatly by their discoveries. And realize there are a few things that You or I or anyone else just don't have a pat scriptural answer for.....God Bless You In your work and in Your post on Christian Forum ....Dave

 

[Robissaved]

It amazes me how scientist's look so hard at the beauty of Gods creation and fail to see him, even the most simple of single cell organisms are highly complex, some of which resemble that of a rotary type aircraft engine, the posibility of life "Evolving" from space debris and forming purpose built organisms with the complexity of the human body or all the layers of the earth's atmosphere that completely shield it from the destructive forces of space, solar bursts, radiation, cosmic rays, etc, is equivelent to reaching down into a pond and extracting the Hubble space telescope, mearly by chance. I heard a phrase that made me laugh the other night on the Discovery Channel, "It happened just about the time our ancestors were climbing down from the trees" I laughed for 30 minutes at that statement!

If the devil can keep the masses convinced that he doesn't exist, he can gain access to all avenues of ones life, Harry Potter, for the kids, Rock and Rap music, for the teens, Horoscopes and Hollywood lifestyles for maturing adults, even the most descreat of venues, and most convincing, Science. It's time to stop buying the lie, it has come at great cost, most have or will pay with there soul.

 

[Hentenza]

Scientists now are say that we did not evolve from apes at all, but only have a common linage with them.

Atheist scientists have contended that we share common ancestry for quite some time. They are yet to prove it, of course.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

Absolutely many scientists believe in the Lord Jesus Christ! I don't have a doctor that I know of that doesn't believe in Jesus Christ, and I have some very intelligent doctors. While not a Scientist I am an Electronics Engineer and I can tell you here in Alabama most Engineers are Christians (though not all).

That being said, there are clearly many scientists who are athiests, and Stephen Hawking is one of them. But don't generalize that all Scientists are athiests. Even Einstein believed in God - he actually based that belief on compelling scientific data. Here are a few who did believe in God, but not necessarily Jesus Christ: Famous Scientists Who Believed in God

Hopefully someone else can find a link to Scientists that specifically believe in Jesus Christ.

 

[LiveInSpirit]

I surely do hope that the Scriptures are "wrong" about the earth being flat because I wouldn’t want to fall off of it next time I take a long trip.

I do hope this was a joke. If so, put an emoticon or something so I can laugh with you. If it is not a joke, we will need to discuss Revelation 7:1.

Even Einstein believed in God - he actually based that belief on compelling scientific data. Here are a few who did believe in God, but not necessarily Jesus Christ: Famous Scientists Who Believed in God

98% of Americans believe in God. Very few believe in Jesus Christ and even fewer believe in the accurate biblical deity of Jesus Christ.

If you don't know the true biblical form of Jesus Christ then you don't know God. What you have is an idol. Therefore, saying someone believes in God and thinking of that person as being somewhat righteous or having a good heart is naive and damning. The majority of people in hell will have believed in God. Just not the right God.

I agree there are scientists who have made great advancements by their diligent work and a thirst for knowledge. But scientist who believe in some vague God and not the innerrency of scripture are not doing the work of God but undermining it.

Shoving evolution into the Bible accomplishes nothing.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

I do hope this was a joke. If so, put an emoticon or something so I can laugh with you. If it is not a joke, we will need to discuss Revelation 7:1.



98% of Americans believe in God. Very few believe in Jesus Christ and even fewer believe in the accurate biblical deity of Jesus Christ.

If you don't know the true biblical form of Jesus Christ then you don't know God. What you have is an idol. Therefore, saying someone believes in God and thinking of that person as being somewhat righteous or having a good heart is naive and damning. The majority of people in hell will have believed in God. Just not the right God.

I agree there are scientists who have made great advancements by their diligent work and a thirst for knowledge. But scientist who believe in some vague God and not the innerrency of scripture are not doing the work of God but undermining it.

Shoving evolution into the Bible accomplishes nothing.

Why don't you do some research and list for us some of the famous Scientists that believe in Jesus Christ?

 

[LiveInSpirit]

Why don't you do some research and list for us some of the famous Scientists that believe in Jesus Christ?

I'm confused as to how this applies to my post.

I have to politely decline though, I have other interests and a 17 hour course load.

 

[the particular baptist]

Absolutely many scientists believe in the Lord Jesus Christ!

While i acknowledge that there exist scientists that are Christ followers, my point was that those scientists peddling the new Ardi nonsense ( evolutionists ) are not. They ( evolutionists ), are peddling nonsense because they are God haters.

A solid group of Christ followers that are scientists/archeologists contribute to Answers In Genesis, as well as the Creation Museum. When my children are a little older, Lord willing, we will begin taking field trips there.

 

[98cwitr]

so what is Ardi to you?

 

[PrincetonGuy]

It amazes me how scientist's look so hard at the beauty of Gods creation and fail to see him, even the most simple of single cell organisms are highly complex, some of which resemble that of a rotary type aircraft engine, the posibility of life "Evolving" from space debris and forming purpose built organisms with the complexity of the human body or all the layers of the earth's atmosphere that completely shield it from the destructive forces of space, solar bursts, radiation, cosmic rays, etc, is equivelent to reaching down into a pond and extracting the Hubble space telescope, mearly by chance. I heard a phrase that made me laugh the other night on the Discovery Channel, "It happened just about the time our ancestors were climbing down from the trees" I laughed for 30 minutes at that statement!

If the devil can keep the masses convinced that he doesn't exist, he can gain access to all avenues of ones life, Harry Potter, for the kids, Rock and Rap music, for the teens, Horoscopes and Hollywood lifestyles for maturing adults, even the most descreat of venues, and most convincing, Science. It's time to stop buying the lie, it has come at great cost, most have or will pay with there soul.

There was a time when virtually every scientist believed in God, and in the Western World most of them were Christians. This all changed, however, as the “evangelical” Christians became more and more critical of the scientists and eventually drove the vast majority of them out of their churches through their name-calling, rejection, and open hostility. When I visited one of my former professors at the university where I did my graduate work in evolutionary biology and told him that God had called me into the Christian ministry, I was very surprised when his face lit up with surprise and delight and he told me that he was also a Christian. Fortunately, he belonged to a church that understands that there is no conflict between the theory of evolution and what the Bible teaches, but only between the theory of evolution and a poor understanding of the Scriptures.

If Christians would appreciate the dedication and extremely hard work of our scientists and express to them that appreciation instead of accusing them of being servants of the devil, many more of them would become believers.

Footnote: The theory of evolution does not teach, and has never taught, that man evolved from space debris or anything else by mere chance, but rather that evolution has a driving force commonly known as natural selection, and that the energy for that force comes primarily from our sun.

 

[DeaconDean]

Footnote: The theory of evolution does not teach, and has never taught, that man evolved from space debris or anything else by mere chance, but rather that evolution has a driving force commonly known as natural selection, and that the energy for that force comes primarily from our sun.

Brother, please understand that I do not want to get into an argument with you, rather, I'd like to know how can science reconcile the fact that scriptures do not address man "evolving" through a process "known as natural selection,".

I take the scriptures quite literally and:

"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." -Gen. 2:7 (KJV)

That is not "natural selection," brother.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[98cwitr]

natural selection comes through generational processing...not singular creation.

Thus, natural selection exists because those who are able to persevere survive and are able to produce offspring. Those who do not die and cannot pass along genetic traits. This is quite simple and is not refuted by biblical scripture. It's simple, logical fact.

 

[DeaconDean]

natural selection comes through generational processing...not singular creation.

Thus, natural selection exists because those who are able to persevere survive and are able to produce offspring. Those who do not die and cannot pass along genetic traits. This is quite simple and is not refuted by biblical scripture. It's simple, logical fact.

So, you would say that when the scriptures say:

"So God created man in his own image," -Gen. 1:27 (KJV)

That God did not literally "create" man.

God did not literally take the dust of the earth, form it into the shape of a man, and breathed life into it so that it became a living soul.

Rather, man sprang up though a process God allowed to happen in which homosapians multiplied by perseverance.

Is that what your advocating?

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[98cwitr]

Not at all, Deacon. I am advocating that God placed man on earth and man subsequently made decisions based on his genetics, environment, and his perceptions of the world and God.

I believe that God literally created man by taking matter from the earth and gave us a soul. I always liked the scriptures that referred to us as pottery, because it's the best metaphor I can think of. Realistically, we are more than just dust, but all things are possible with God, such as chromosome and DNA composition, thus matter that existed. Is DNA found in dirt without organic matter? Of course not, but could God make us what he wanted? Yes....because all things are possible with God. Care to translate the greek word for dust for us, Deacon? I think we are bit lost in translation...literally. Perseverance is not of ourselves, but God's Will...that is all I am advocating.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

While i acknowledge that there exist scientists that are Christ followers, my point was that those scientists peddling the new Ardi nonsense ( evolutionists ) are not. They ( evolutionists ), are peddling nonsense because they are God haters.

A solid group of Christ followers that are scientists/archeologists contribute to Answers In Genesis, as well as the Creation Museum. When my children are a little older, Lord willing, we will begin taking field trips there.

The “scientists/archeologists” that contributed answers for Answers In Genesis about Noah, the ark, and the flood write that there were aboard the ark representatives of only the few thousand “kinds” of animals alive in Noah’s day and that the millions of species that we have today evolved through micro-evolution. However, anyone who has completed even an introductory course in evolutionary biology knows that such evolution would not be micro-evolutions, but macro-evolution, and that the mechanics for such a rapid rate of evolution do not exist and therefore such a thing would be absolutely impossible.

And they do not provide scientific explanations for the other problems with their particular interpretation of Genesis 6-8.

• The ark as literally described in Genesis was much too small because the amount of water that it would be capable of displacing would weigh less than the animals on board, thus making it impossible for the ark to float.

• The floor space on the ark was too small to hold any more than a tiny fraction of the cages that would be necessary to keep the animals in place (and from eating each other).

• The amount of food required for the animals would weigh at least nearly as much as the animals and would require a vast amount of storage space.

• Many of the animals aboard the ark would have required specific FRESH fruits, vegetables, leaves, grass, bark, roots, etc.

• Many of the herbivores would have had very specific dietary needs, including fresh fruits and berries that are produced only on MATURE plants. Therefore these mature plants would necessarily have been kept and maintained on the ark and subsequently planted in the ground after the flood.

• Most of the genetically discrete populations of fish (including many VERY large fish) would have to be taken aboard the ark and kept in tanks of water that met their very specific water chemistry needs in order to survive.

• The weight of the water on the earth would have crushed to death any of the land plants that did not drown in the water.

• After 150 days when the water abated, there would be no vegetation on the earth for the herbivores to eat, and no meat for the carnivores to eat, therefore a vast amount of food would necessarily have been kept on the ark to sustain the animals AFTER the flood.

• The Animals could not all be released all at once or in the same place because many of them would eat each other.

• The coming of the animals to Noah from all over the earth would have been a physical impossibility no less impossible than Santa Clause delivering presents to every boy and girl on the night before Christmas. The polar bears and penguins, not to mention all of the unique kinds of animals in Australia, would have posed a few special difficulties.

• After the flood, the animals could not be returned to their original habitat because all habitats would have been destroyed by the flood.

• Many of the necessary habitats would take 50 years or more to be reestablished and their reestablishment would have required the effort of many thousands of persons.

• Until all the necessary habitats could be reestablished, the animals requiring these habitats would have to be kept and cared for by Noah and his family.

• There was not enough water to cover the entire earth, and even if there was, where did it go after the flood?

• If the reported sightings of the Ark are factual, the Ark came to rest on a VERY high mountain on VERY rugged terrain from which the vast majority of the animals would not have been able to descend.

The story of Noah’s Ark can NOT be a literal account of an historic event. Indescribably huge miracles would have been necessary, and a literal interpretation of Genesis does not allow for these miracles because the whole point of the narrative is that through the natural means of an ark built by Noah and his family, mankind and all the kinds of animals were saved from the flood waters.

 

[DeaconDean]

Not at all, Deacon. I am advocating that God placed man on earth and man subsequently made decisions based on his genetics, environment, and his perceptions of the world and God.

I believe that God literally created man by taking matter from the earth and gave us a soul. I always liked the scriptures that referred to us as pottery, because it's the best metaphor I can think of. Realistically, we are more than just dust, but all things are possible with God, such as chromosome and DNA composition, thus matter that existed. Is DNA found in dirt without organic matter? Of course not, but could God make us what he wanted? Yes....because all things are possible with God. Care to translate the greek word for dust for us, Deacon? I think we are bit lost in translation...literally. Perseverance is not of ourselves, but God's Will...that is all I am advocating.

Your theology is very...confusing.

In one post you advocate a position that God did not "create" man:

natural selection comes through generational processing...not singular creation.

Thus, natural selection exists because those who are able to persevere survive and are able to produce offspring. Those who do not die and cannot pass along genetic traits. This is quite simple and is not refuted by biblical scripture.

And in another post, you contridict yourself:

I believe that God literally created man by taking matter from the earth and gave us a soul.

Which is it?

It cannot be both.

Care to translate the greek word for dust for us, Deacon? I think we are bit lost in translation...literally.

Don't you mean "Hebrew"?

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[98cwitr]

Your theology is very...confusing.

In one post you advocate a position that God did not "create" man:



And in another post, you contridict yourself:



Which is it?

It cannot be both.

you're twisting my words...I never said, advocated...or even implied that logic...

Don't you mean "Hebrew"?

yes, my apologies

God Bless

Till all are one.

commented...



@princetonguy...neither could Jesus feeding 5000 people with five loaves of bread and two fish...explain that one, hot shot