Evolution

[Cabal]

I truly don't know if it has anything to do with salvation or not but when something is clearly written (even though we don't know all the intricate details) and we choose another man's word instead....

Like a creationist's interpretation of the Bible, for example.

Oh no wait, I forgot, that doesn't count.

John 5:38-40 And ye have not His word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not. Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of Me. And ye will not come to Me, that ye might have life.

Creation mechanism has nothing to do with the validity of Christ nor do they testify of Christ. Next.

Deuteronomy 13:3 Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.

Wow, a vague exhortation to not believe something completely unspecified that you just happen to have chosen as referring to evolution even though this verse was written several thousand years before Darwin thought it up and is undoubtedly referring to something else given that the Jews at that time were wandering through the desert and not sitting in a science lecture. How utterly convincing.

Perhaps I should be concerned with what God thinks and not what some creationist thinks.

 

[1whirlwind]

Like a creationist's interpretation of the Bible, for example.

Oh no wait, I forgot, that doesn't count.



Creation mechanism has nothing to do with the validity of Christ nor do they testify of Christ. Next.



Wow, a vague exhortation to not believe something completely unspecified that you just happen to have chosen as referring to evolution even though this verse was written several thousand years before Darwin thought it up and is undoubtedly referring to something else given that the Jews at that time were wandering through the desert and not sitting in a science lecture. How utterly convincing.

Perhaps I should be concerned with what God thinks and not what some creationist thinks.

Yes, we should always be concerned with what God thinks.


.

 

[Happy Hearts Club]

Who says the finer points of the creation mechanism is what is really under discussion there?

You asked why I do not hold TE and I answered, and it is the main reason why. The inception of biological life as per Genesis refutes any notions of UCD.

No - your appeals to some other reality are just irrelevant. Seeing as science and the creation account are discussing the same reality, it is irrelevant to bring in some other reality, as it is not the one under discussion.

I am not inventing another "reality", I am referring to the reality of the Scriptures. What are you rambling on about?! Talk about double standards, you can very well believe Jesus walked on water or that God can make a metal axe head float, yet you cannot believe what He tells us took place at the inception of the universe?

Thankfully one's choice of creation mechanism has not a jot to do with salvation. In my opinion, if it did, there would not be a disparity between reality and the plain reading of the Bible.

I agree, but you evade the point I was making. God can do whatever He pleases, and in the same manner that salvation cannot be fully understood by the human mind, neither can the creation mechanisms he employed to create all things.

 

[laconicstudent]

It is a shock. To see that someone with knowledge of His Word, is a Christian and yet...because a man teaches them (and we are warned about that) to discard His Word, just toss it aside...(for that must be done in order to accept the "primate evolution theory,") to see them readily do just that....is indeed Shocking! .

.

No, actually, I accept it because I can read and understand empirical research demonstrating it to be true. But no lol I haven't tossed aside the Bible.

 

[Servant of Jesus]

Genesis 1:26-28 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. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created He them. 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.

That was the creation of mankind....all races, on the sixth day.
​

This may be your own personal interpretation, offered to promote your own point of view- but I would challenge you to provide one scholarly article or commentary from a study Bible that supports this interpretation.

Not only does Genesis 1:27 refer to only one human being (Adam) being created, but later references, such as Genesis 2:19 to 20, also support this interpretation:

19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.
But for Adam no suitable helper was found. 21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

Clearly, this passage reiterates how God created first the animals, and then Adam (notice the proper name; not the Hebrew word for mankind (adam)). He then brings the animals to Adam to be named- before Eve or any other human being is on the scene.

The account of the fall in Genesis 3 also supports the notion that only two people, Adam and Eve, originally inhabited the earth. It was Eve who first ate of the forbidden fruit, followed by Adam. There were only the two of them- not a whole bunch of other people (mankind or races) standing around helping themselves to the fruit.

------------------------

However, what is really important here is not the issue of trying to accurately interpret the Bible- but in maintaining Christian unity and respect for others, as stressed several times in the Bible, such as in Ephesians 4:

2 Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. 3 Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.

We don't follow this principle if we stubbornly cling to a certain position, no matter how overwhelming the evidence against it is, or how little support from Christian scholars or Biblical commentaries it receives. We also don't follow this principle if we aren't willing to consider someone else's opinion, and try and sincerely and humbly see where the common ground is.

.

 

[Servant of Jesus]

When I read Genesis, from my English translation to the original Hebrew, universal common descent is clearly not the reality being presented.

And I would absolutely agree with you- but that is not what evolutionary biologists are saying.

Darwin's key finding was that living entities occasionally mutate- and that those mutations are then genetically carried forward from one generation to the next. That defines what evolution really is all about.

Some mutations are beneficial- and the new organism flourishes (such as human beings); others are not so good, and the organism becomes extinct (such as the dinosaurs).

An evolutionary biologist who claims she/he can prove that all life today had a common origin- in one cell, able at reproduce itself at the instant of being made, is not, in my opinion, following scientific principles.

.

 

[Servant of Jesus]

Thankfully one's choice of creation mechanism has not a jot to do with salvation. In my opinion, if it did, there would not be a disparity between reality and the plain reading of the Bible.

This is a very important point to emphasize- whether you are a creationist, or a theistic evolutionist is definitely NOT a salvation issue.

For salvation, Jesus makes it very clear what you need to believe:

John 3:16

16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

 

[Servant of Jesus]

C'mon you creationists; try saying it: E V O L U T I O N

It's only a word. It explains why we have so many different genetically distinct races, why we have so many genetically-distinct varieties of flowers, why we keep having to invent new vaccines to try and suppress new pathogens, etc. etc.

 

[Greg1234]

C'mon you creationists; try saying it: E V O L U T I O N

It's only a word. It explains why we have so many different genetically distinct races, why we have so many genetically-distinct varieties of flowers, why we keep having to invent new vaccines to try and suppress new pathogens, etc. etc.

As much as the convertible top on your car explains where motorcycles and aircraft came from. The trunk, the origin of truck beds.

The ability to adapt is a designed feature. Attributing it to random mutations, endowing it with an unlimited ability, is only a means of quenching the thirst for a materialistic origin of life. The facts state otherwise. The implications are evident.

You will see adaptation and you will stretch it. You "have to debunk Yahweh", the creed of one "TE". A line of persistence and motivation based on faulty analysis of text and the past of God in man. Additionally, it is the only thing the material mind can wrap itself around completely and fully, with its purely materialistic basis, as the alternative, is beyond the comprehension of the man. "Beyond comprehension" is tantamount to a lesser being or a lesser mind. A humbling state. The ego has long breached these walls. And of course, it is more "exciting". The cabin in the forest is met with "thebuilderdidit" vs a 42nd edition text on the law of gravity, flora distribution, friction, inertia. Irrelevant.

Darwinism is hardly the means for explaining why there are humans, a lion and bacteria. It is the only means for a materialist though. Adaptation will remain as it is.

 

[1whirlwind]

This may be your own personal interpretation, offered to promote your own point of view- but I would challenge you to provide one scholarly article or commentary from a study Bible that supports this interpretation.

I don't search for commentary or scholarly articles...should we not get our "point of view" from what is written by Him...not man.

Matthew 24:4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.

​

Rather the object is to try to understand His Words...We ask and He teaches as we're ready.

John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in My name, He shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
​

Whatever He has "said unto you" is written. The Holy Spirit reveals the written Word.

1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of Him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in Him.


​

Not only does Genesis 1:27 refer to only one human being (Adam) being created, but later references, such as Genesis 2:19 to 20, also support this interpretation:

19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.
But for Adam no suitable helper was found. 21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

There are differences shown in the two accounts and they should be considered. They are not speaking of the same time or person(s).

Clearly, this passage reiterates how God created first the animals, and then Adam (notice the proper name; not the Hebrew word for mankind (adam)). He then brings the animals to Adam to be named- before Eve or any other human being is on the scene.

Genesis 1:28-31 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. And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.


God rested on the seventh day and...."there was NOT A MAN to till." So, the specific man Adam is formed. Notice that when the animals were brought to Adam...Eve had NOT YET been taken from him. Therefore, a question would be....who were the "them" God blessed in chapter one? All races didn't come from one man.

The account of the fall in Genesis 3 also supports the notion that only two people, Adam and Eve, originally inhabited the earth. It was Eve who first ate of the forbidden fruit, followed by Adam. There were only the two of them- not a whole bunch of other people (mankind or races) standing around helping themselves to the fruit.

They're still standing around helping themselves to the fruit...they were before Adam and continue today.

However, what is really important here is not the issue of trying to accurately interpret the Bible- but in maintaining Christian unity and respect for others, as stressed several times in the Bible, such as in Ephesians 4:

2 Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. 3 Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.

You think the importance is in unity and not understanding what is written?

We don't follow this principle if we stubbornly cling to a certain position, no matter how overwhelming the evidence against it is, or how little support from Christian scholars or Biblical commentaries it receives. We also don't follow this principle if we aren't willing to consider someone else's opinion, and try and sincerely and humbly see where the common ground is.

I agree with that. Please read it carefully.


.

 

[Greg1234]

Whenever a cause of a sickness is described, it is described as an evil spirit. It is never described as anything else, much less as due to germs.

If you don't have a problem with germs not being mentioned nor described, then why do you have a problem with evolution not being mentioned?

Papias

Track back to the origins. Not just evil spirit. Evil, or disharmony. Faulty vibration. Scientific knowledge only today is beginning to scratch the surface, with the realization that DNA is a transceiver, and healing can take place with the application of the right kind of energy, sans scalpel and drips. Texts which have long depicted that the man forms in fields beyond the basic known elements, from which DNA receives additional information, and assembles the man. This is also being recognized.

The mind in tune with the basal frequency of creation, the non material from which the material spawns, can create, can heal. As thought, in its varied forms, is energy. Man is not quite there yet, though mastery of this level has already been displayed.

 

[1whirlwind]

This is a very important point to emphasize- whether you are a creationist, or a theistic evolutionist is definitely NOT a salvation issue.

For salvation, Jesus makes it very clear what you need to believe:

John 3:16

16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

We must also consider.....

James 2:18-20 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

Perhaps the "believes in Him shall not perish," is reference to believing in His Word as...He is the Word.
​

John 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him; and without Him was not any thing made that was made. In Him was life; and the life was the light of men.



John 5:38-40 And ye have not His word abiding in you: for whom He hath sent, Him ye believe not. Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of Me. And ye will not come to Me, that ye might have life.



.

 

[1whirlwind]

As much as the convertible top on your car explains where motorcycles and aircraft came from. The trunk, the origin of truck beds.

The ability to adapt is a designed feature. Attributing it to random mutations, endowing it with an unlimited ability, is only a means of quenching the thirst for a materialistic origin of life. The facts state otherwise. The implications are evident.

You will see adaptation and you will stretch it. You "have to debunk Yahweh", the creed of one "TE". A line of persistence and motivation based on faulty analysis of text and the past of God in man. Additionally, it is the only thing the material mind can wrap itself around completely and fully, with its purely materialistic basis, as the alternative, is beyond the comprehension of the man. "Beyond comprehension" is tantamount to a lesser being or a lesser mind. A humbling state. The ego has long breached these walls. And of course, it is more "exciting". The cabin in the forest is met with "thebuilderdidit" vs a 42nd edition text on the law of gravity, flora distribution, friction, inertia. Irrelevant.

Darwinism is hardly the means for explaining why there are humans, a lion and bacteria. It is the only means for a materialist though. Adaptation will remain as it is.

This is a most remarkable post. Thank you Greg1234....beautifully stated.

 

[Greg1234]

This is a most remarkable post. Thank you Greg1234....beautifully stated.

 

[Happy Hearts Club]

As much as the convertible top on your car explains where motorcycles and aircraft came from. The trunk, the origin of truck beds.

The ability to adapt is a designed feature. Attributing it to random mutations, endowing it with an unlimited ability, is only a means of quenching the thirst for a materialistic origin of life. The facts state otherwise. The implications are evident.

You will see adaptation and you will stretch it. You "have to debunk Yahweh", the creed of one "TE". A line of persistence and motivation based on faulty analysis of text and the past of God in man. Additionally, it is the only thing the material mind can wrap itself around completely and fully, with its purely materialistic basis, as the alternative, is beyond the comprehension of the man. "Beyond comprehension" is tantamount to a lesser being or a lesser mind. A humbling state. The ego has long breached these walls. And of course, it is more "exciting". The cabin in the forest is met with "thebuilderdidit" vs a 42nd edition text on the law of gravity, flora distribution, friction, inertia. Irrelevant.

Darwinism is hardly the means for explaining why there are humans, a lion and bacteria. It is the only means for a materialist though. Adaptation will remain as it is.

You just explained my entire world view with more eloquence than I would have ever been able to, lol

 

[Servant of Jesus]

I don't search for commentary or scholarly articles...should we not get our "point of view" from what is written by Him...not man.

O.K.- so let's go back to the Bible and examine more evidence that a limited number of people evolved to produce the multitude of races that we see today. The verses are from Genesis 7, describing Noah and the flood.

Genesis 7:13:

13 On that very day Noah and his sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth, together with his wife and the wives of his three sons, entered the ark.

and then in Genesis 7:21:

21 Every living thing that moved on the earth perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind.

So clearly, there were a total of 8 people on Noah's Ark, and after the flood, it was only those people who were available to re-populate the world again.

Even if we assume that Noah and his sons were all of a different race (which would have been impossible, given Noah and his wife's genetic make-up), that still does not explain why we have such a multitude of races today.

Evolution- the generation of new species with a unique and inherited genetic makeup, able to be passed on from generation to generation- was God's way of taking the original inhabitants of the Ark and producing the multitude of races that we see today.

---------------------

You may not agree with my interpretation- but will you at least have the courtesy to acknowledge that this interpretation is entirely plausible and consistent with the Bible and with the Christian beliefs that I happen to uphold? And just so you know what it is I believe, here it is in a nutshell:

1. That the Universe was created by God.
(Genesis 1:1)

2. That the Bible is divinely inspired by God, and describes how we are to live our lives in a manner that is pleasing to God.
(Matthew 24:14)

3. That we are all sinners and as such, according to the Bible, are destined to go to hell.
(Romans 3:23)

4. That God came to earth in the person of Jesus Christ and promised that if we believe in Him, repent of our sins, and ask God through the power of the Holy Spirit to guide us through life according to His will, that we will have eternal life and a place with Him in Heaven.
(John 3:16)

 

[Servant of Jesus]

As much as the convertible top on your car explains where motorcycles and aircraft came from. The trunk, the origin of truck beds.

Well, first, we are dealing in this thread with life; living things, not trucks and other inanimate objects.

Second, I would hope that some of the biologists active here on CF will chime in and give a more succinct explanation than me, a simple lay person, can.

The ability to adapt is a designed feature. Attributing it to random mutations, endowing it with an unlimited ability, is only a means of quenching the thirst for a materialistic origin of life. The facts state otherwise. The implications are evident.

Well, first, let's agree on what you mean by adaptation. According to the Oxford dictionary and various biological textbooks, Adaptation is the evolutionary process whereby a population becomes better suited to its habitat.

So a simple example is bacteria: a genetically distinct strain that is able to resist antibiotics survives, and those that don't die out.

You will see adaptation and you will stretch it. You "have to debunk Yahweh", the creed of one "TE". A line of persistence and motivation based on faulty analysis of text and the past of God in man. Additionally, it is the only thing the material mind can wrap itself around completely and fully, with its purely materialistic basis, as the alternative, is beyond the comprehension of the man. "Beyond comprehension" is tantamount to a lesser being or a lesser mind. A humbling state. The ego has long breached these walls. And of course, it is more "exciting". The cabin in the forest is met with "thebuilderdidit" vs a 42nd edition text on the law of gravity, flora distribution, friction, inertia. Irrelevant.

This is very poetic- but sounds more like philosophy, rather than what we are discussing.

Darwinism is hardly the means for explaining why there are humans, a lion and bacteria. It is the only means for a materialist though. Adaptation will remain as it is.

Darwin did not try and explain why there are humans, lions and bacteria. He simply stated that an existing organism can genetically change through time and pass on those new traits to new generations. If those new traits make the organism more able to survive in the environment where it is living, then it flourishes; otherwise it dies out; and can eventually become extinct, like the dinosaurs.

.

 

[1whirlwind]

O.K.- so let's go back to the Bible and examine more evidence that a limited number of people evolved to produce the multitude of races that we see today. The verses are from Genesis 7, describing Noah and the flood.

Genesis 7:13:

13 On that very day Noah and his sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth, together with his wife and the wives of his three sons, entered the ark.

and then in Genesis 7:21:

21 Every living thing that moved on the earth perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind.

So clearly, there were a total of 8 people on Noah's Ark, and after the flood, it was only those people who were available to re-populate the world again.

Even if we assume that Noah and his sons were all of a different race (which would have been impossible, given Noah and his wife's genetic make-up), that still does not explain why we have such a multitude of races today.

You acknowledge that all races couldn't possibly come from Noah and his wife and yet you believe all races were from one man...Adam??? You can't even add in the mixture a wife brings to the genetic line for Eve was of Adam...same genetic material.


As for Noah...I agree. All races did not, could not, come from he and his family. And, they didn't...anymore than all races were from Adam.

Genesis 6:18-19 But with thee will I establish My covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee. And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.
​

Genesis 7:15-16 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life. And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him: and the LORD shut him in.
​

We have been programmed to see "all flesh" as elephants, giraffes, dogs, cats, lions, tigers, etc walking up the plank to enter the ark two by two. But, is that what is being said?

Genesis 2:7 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.

Genesis 6:12-13 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before Me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
​

Here we see "all flesh" as man and then suddenly all flesh becomes animals only when they enter the ark. Flesh with the breath of life, two by two, male and female...were taken aboard the ark with Noah and kept alive. God didn't destroy all the races He created.

Evolution- the generation of new species with a unique and inherited genetic makeup, able to be passed on from generation to generation- was God's way of taking the original inhabitants of the Ark and producing the multitude of races that we see today.

He created the "multitude of races that we see today." And, they were created that way in the beginning.



.

 

[Servant of Jesus]

1Whirlwind and others:

When all the evidence is in, I am 100% confident that there will be no conflict between what science tells us about the history of life, and how God made that happen.

Science will eventually get it right, and our interpretation of the Bible will accurately portray what God actually meant. But until that happens, we have to remain open minded, cautious, and humble in our analysis of these matters, and respectful of those who have a different viewpoint to our own.

That is really the most important thing I am trying to convey in the discussion here.

.

 

[Servant of Jesus]

You acknowledge that all races couldn't possibly come from Noah and his wife and yet you believe all races were from one man...Adam??? You can't even add in the mixture a wife brings to the genetic line for Eve was of Adam...same genetic material.

Small point to clarify: what I was trying to say was that there was a fairly limited genetic pool on the Arc, because three of the people on the Arc were sons of Noah and his wife.

But just as the offspring of Adam and Eve eventually produced people with an altered genetic makeup, which explains how the different races came to be, so it was also with the people on the arc- their offspring must also have eventually produced genetically-distinct entities that in turn led to the creation of the various races that we see today.

And I use the term "creation" in the last sentence deliberately since ultimately, by whatever process we envision, it is God that creates all living things.

On that point, I think we can all agree.

.