Christianity... and the fact of evolution

[AV1611VET]

And how do we know that Ecclesiastes 7:29 is referring specifically to "evolution" and not some other aspect of man, like moral capacity, for instance?

Why can't it refer to both?

 

[Anguspure]

Wow!!!......a long list of OOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLDDDDDD textbooks. What would really be good would be to give a list of textbooks from the last 1 to 4 years, and see the extent to which they still have the erroneous (and outdated) Haeckel material.

What is amazing is how long it took to remove the erroneous material from the text books. It isn't just Heackel either, a number of debunked claims continue to circulate in official literature well after they should have been removed.
So much for rigorous science, it all smells a little bit fishy to me.
NEWS FLASH, this just in:

Sedgwick, for instance, compiled an extensive list of objections to recapitulation as formulated by von Baer and Haeckel, and specifically rejected it as untenable - in 1894. This represents over a century of unambiguous denial of recapitulation. The date can be pushed back even further, since von Baer published his critique of recapitulatory interpretations of his observations in 1828.

It seems that the OOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLDDDDDD text books are not anywhere as OOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLDDDDDD as the news that Haeckel was wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, it does not. Evolution claims that humans and apes share a common ancestor.

Are we apes?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

"Almost" but not quite.

This is not a matter of interpretation, or at the very least, unlike Revelation, I think the bible is very clear on how he made man/the animals, and I would guess most can agree, at least on what the bible teaches/God says, whether they believe it or not.

It is ALWAYS a matter of interpretation; that is how the mind interacts with language, whether written or spoken. It isn't as if the brain has some automatic understanding of words, concepts, contexts, or meanings, especially where the Bible comes into play. The Bible's full meaning is not all just 'self-evident,' which is part of the reason we have the numerous variety of Christian denominations that we do today.

 

[pat34lee]

What "boundaries"?

The boundaries past which you get sterile or dead cells. Why do you think
the rush today to modify DNA? Because that is the only way to push past
what we see in nature, which is species boundaries. And it is dangerous
and WILL come back to haunt us, if it doesn't kill us first.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Why can't it refer to both?

Do you think the Hebrew denotation of "upright" would stretch that far in meaning in that verse? I'm doubtful that it would. In fact, if it actually means that, I'd think you'd have absolutely no problem in finding several Professional Hebrew Scholars/Commentators who support your evolutionary interpolation---and you could then present your findings ... right here.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What is amazing is how long it took to remove the erroneous material from the text books. It isn't just Heackel either, a number of debunked claims continue to circulate in official literature well after they should have been removed.
So much for rigorous science, it all smells a little bit fishy to me.
NEWS FLASH, this just in:

It seems that the OOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLDDDDDD text books are not anywhere as OOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLDDDDDD as the news that Haeckel was wrong.

Well, yeah. Recapitulation is just bad theory, however way it is presented, as far as I can tell, and I'm definitely not going to go to bat for any newer atheistic, evolutionary, Dawkins type Chutzpah either. So, sure, I agree.

Anyway, if you really want to hit a home-run, then you need to present a list showing the extent to which the science textbooks in use today--not twenty years ago--are still using erroneous or outmoded examples to bolster the ToE.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

The heart of Christianity is love. For God is love. For we are to love God with all our heart, minds, and souls and love our neighbor as our self. In fact, it is by the love of Jesus that compells us to tell others about Jesus.

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son (Jesus) whereby we can be saved.

Nature itself shares a relationship of giving (i.e. love), too. The hydrologic cycle begins with the evaporation of water from the surface of the ocean. As moist air is lifted, it cools and water vapor condenses to form clouds. Moisture is transported around the globe until it returns to the surface as precipitation. This is a circular cycle of giving (or love). It is the same with plants and animals within the carbon dioxide and oxygen cycle. It is a circle of giving (i.e. loving) and receiving and then a giving back again.

But if Macro Evolution was true, then it is survival of the fittest. It is selfishness. The strong survive and crush the weak.
But Jesus chose to heal, the weak, the lame, and the sick. Jesus chose to love.


...

 

[Kenny'sID]

It is ALWAYS a matter of interpretation; that is how the mind interacts with language, whether written or spoken. It isn't as if the brain has some automatic understanding of words, concepts, contexts, or meanings, especially where the Bible comes into play. The Bible's full meaning is not all just 'self-evident,' which is part of the reason we have the numerous variety of Christian denominations that we do today.

I think you missed my point. I understand the interpretation thing, I'm just saying, there isn't a whole lot of room for misunderstanding in the Genesis account of God creating man...It's nothing like the confusion of Revelation.

Again, I'd guess most see it as pretty straight forward, whether they believe it or not, but maybe some actually see the account pointing to evolution. If that is the case, I'd be interested in how they conclude such.

Do you conclude the Geneses account of creation suggests evolution? and if so, would you mind explaining how?

 

[Armoured]

The boundaries past which you get sterile or dead cells. Why do you think
the rush today to modify DNA? Because that is the only way to push past
what we see in nature, which is species boundaries. And it is dangerous
and WILL come back to haunt us, if it doesn't kill us first.

So no examples. Shocking.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

. . . . But examine it along side the principles of evolution (evilution, that is). Darwin said that evolution was driven by natural selection and natural selection says "survival of the fittest". Yet, conscience runs contrary to that idea...so how could conscience possibly have evolved?
Survival of the fittest means to prey on the weak. Yet humans and many animals feed and care for their young. Humans know that killing another being is wrong.

Well if taking care of one's young while they are weak allows them to survive, then isn't that a sign that the species is more fit than one that fails to take care of its young? You have the wrong idea about survival of the fittest. A community that cares for its weak . . . . could very well survive better than a community next door that fails to care for its weak.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Bad analogy. There are boundaries on DNA.
It's like being on an island bounded by active
volcanoes and acid water. You can go anywhere
on the island, but leaving it only leads to death.

Well DNA seems to support all of life and that's kind of putting this idea of "boundaries" aside.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

. . . .

But if Macro Evolution was true, then it is survival of the fittest. It is selfishness. The strong survive and crush the weak.
But Jesus chose to heal, the weak, the lame, and the sick. Jesus chose to love.
...

Love and cooperation make us MORE FIT! they HELP US SURVIVE! So it is wrong to assert that evolution requires the absence of love and cooperation.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

What's His name?

Many choices for that! "I am". "Lord of Hosts". "Jesus" "Immanuel". "Creator". The list could go on and on.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Love and cooperation make us MORE FIT! they HELP US SURVIVE! So it is wrong to assert that evolution requires the absence of love and cooperation.

Macro Evolution is rooted in selfishness and not giving or loving like the hydrological cycle, etc. It doesn't give back anything. It only seeks to become more powerful. Yet, God is our strength and power source. It is not ourselves.


...

 

[Anguspure]

:

Well, yeah. Recapitulation is just bad theory, however way it is presented, as far as I can tell, and I'm definitely not going to go to bat for any newer atheistic, evolutionary, Dawkins type Chutzpah either. So, sure, I agree.

Anyway, if you really want to hit a home-run, then you need to present a list showing the extent to which the science textbooks in use today--not twenty years ago--are still using erroneous or outmoded examples to bolster the ToE.

No home runs, but there are plenty of textbooks bolstering very silly ideas about naturalistic/Darwinist origins of life, ideas that have been discredited and find vanishingly less evidence in their favour daily.

But talking about the biological ToE; how many more years (or centuries) will it take for scientists see the place of Darwinism in science? It is certainly not where the fanatics (Darwinian pan-adaptionism) of the theory see it and the insistance in their position is damaging the credibility of science.

 

[AV1611VET]

Many choices for that! "I am". "Lord of Hosts". "Jesus" "Immanuel". "Creator". The list could go on and on.

JEHOVAH?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

JEHOVAH?

While the word Jehovah has been used extensively, it is not a good translation word to use. The Hebrew text has the consanents for "Yahweh" . . . but the jews, in time, came to never pronounce that word when they read the text. Instead, they would say "Adonai", or "Lord" in our language, and in this way they felt they were obeying the law that spoke against taking His name in vain. So when they finally invented a vowel system to put into their consonants, they used the vowels when the NAME came up, for Adonai instead of Yahweh. The translators of the King James version and others around that time read that as "Jehovah".

So when you use that word, it is actually a relatively modern, non biblical word. But I'm sure that God doesn't worry about that very much.

And as for avoiding "Yahweh" and saying "Adonai" instead, that solution to the commandment was an error. God was asking people to be sincere in speaking of Him, He was not asking people to merely avoid one word and substitute another.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

:

No home runs, but there are plenty of textbooks bolstering very silly ideas about naturalistic/Darwinist origins of life, ideas that have been discredited and find vanishingly less evidence in their favour daily.

But talking about the biological ToE; how many more years (or centuries) will it take for scientists see the place of Darwinism in science? It is certainly not where the fanatics (Darwinian pan-adaptionism) of the theory see it and the insistance in their position is damaging the credibility of science.

Sorry, your prejudice against Darwin's place in the history of science will never demote him.

 

[AV1611VET]

While the word Jehovah has been used extensively, it is not a good translation word to use.

So what is the name of the Person whom you said provided deep time?