Christianity... and the fact of evolution

[AV1611VET]

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

Oh, I know that.

Darwin now has a city named for him in Australia, his face on the £10 note, and his own slot on the calendar.

But if I wanted to demote him, I could get you guys to do it for me.

All I have to do is mention that, according to the Lady Hope story, Mr. Darwin got saved and is now in Heaven -- and voila -- you guys will argue him into Hell in no time with your own prejudice.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Oh, I know that.

Darwin now has a city named for him in Australia, his face on the £10 note, and his own slot on the calendar.

But if I wanted to demote him, I could get you guys to do it for me.

All I have to do is mention that, according to the Lady Hope story, Mr. Darwin got saved and is now in Heaven -- and voila -- you guys will argue him into Hell in no time with your own prejudice.

Well, I'm not going to consign Darwin to hell, nor do I believe the Lady Hope story.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, I'm not going to consign Darwin to hell, nor do I believe the Lady Hope story.

So you've made up your own story then?

 

[Archivist]

Are we apes?

No, and the theory of evolution does not claim that we are apes. Apes and humans share a common ancestor.

 

[throughfiierytrial]

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.

You skipped the other evidence I presented and pounced on this love of the young but, where did it come from? Had to be innate according to your discourse b/c somehow we and/or they (the animals that care for their young...though there are some species that do not care for their young...explain that too) knew that caring for the young would make them survive. What is the origin of this trait? and how does that evolve? You fail to explain...just as Darwin never explained origins nor does his theory. You are using his failed methods too...make an observation, hypothesize and sum up. Now, this is just reckless and bold and brazen.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, and the theory of evolution does not claim that we are apes. Apes and humans share a common ancestor.

Any evolutionist around here want to correct this guy?

 

[JacksBratt]

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.

Did you read my post? It said "modern" text books. Compared to the 1800's. This hoax should never even have been an option.....Yet, it is right there. Kids that are now in society saw this false depiction. These books were published after the turn of the century or just before..... it's a sure indication of hanging on to untruth.

 

[smithed64]

Evolution does not claim that humans descended from apes.

I know they say that it was "Apelike" or classified as "primates". Even the Smithsonian has this to say:

Human evolution
Human evolution is the lengthy process of change by which people originated from apelike ancestors. Scientific evidence shows that the physical and behavioral traits shared by all people originated from apelike ancestors and evolved over a period of approximately six million years.

One of the earliest defining human traits, bipedalism -- the ability to walk on two legs -- evolved over 4 million years ago. Other important human characteristics -- such as a large and complex brain, the ability to make and use tools, and the capacity for language -- developed more recently. Many advanced traits -- including complex symbolic expression, art, and elaborate cultural diversity -- emerged mainly during the past 100,000 years.

Humans are primates. Physical and genetic similarities show that the modern human species, Homo sapiens, has a very close relationship to another group of primate species, the apes. Humans and the great apes (large apes) of Africa -- chimpanzees (including bonobos, or so-called “pygmy chimpanzees”) and gorillas -- share a common ancestor that lived between 8 and 6 million years ago. Humans first evolved in Africa, and much of human evolution occurred on that continent. The fossils of early humans who lived between 6 and 2 million years ago come entirely from Africa.

Most scientists currently recognize some 15 to 20 different species of early humans. Scientists do not all agree, however, about how these species are related or which ones simply died out. Many early human species -- certainly the majority of them – left no living descendants. Scientists also debate over how to identify and classify particular species of early humans, and about what factors influenced the evolution and extinction of each species.http://humanorigins.si.edu/education/introduction-human-evolution

And this is the site that many teacher tell our children to research when speaking of this in class.

So when you read what is above did you notice they say "Scientific evidence shows that the physical and behavioral traits shared by all people originated from apelike ancestors"?

What scientific evidence?

Again...this supposedly happened over 4 million years ago...this Is a very long time ago..
why haven't we seen more of this happening today? Again where is the scientific evidence of this?

Why did it take so long for humans to get smarter, if only in the last 100,000 years we just decided it was time to use symbolic expression, be artistic and have elaborate cultural adversity? You figure in 4 million years this would have been much earlier.

What or who sparked this sudden influx of Intelligence in man?
Why don't apes show this type of intelligence now? No Rembrandts, Mozart's, or Hawkins coming from out of Ape country in Africa lately. Beings it's been over 4 million years, it should have happened again.

I know this sounds harsh, forgive it does. I'm just showing just how insulting to Man's intelligence this thing called Evolution can be taken seriously. For the better part even a Science. Due to it's lack of observable and factual scientific evidence...which they have none.

And I'm just scratching the surface of what evolutionist are teaching our children and expect us to believe. We as parents must correctly teach our children that science works in facts or starts with a theory to prove that it has facts, with experimentation and observation. That science is God's creation. Not to disprove He exist, but to see how He did it and when we do. We thank Him and give Him the Glory for what He can do and will do for us.

The one sentence that does make a little sense is this one:

"Humans are primates. Physical and genetic similarities show that the modern human species, Homo sapiens, has a very close relationship to another group of primate species, the apes."

Only for one thing. It shows that Man and apes have the same Creator.....God.

 

[Archivist]

I know they say that it was "Apelike" or classified as "primates". And this is the site that many teacher tell our children to research when speaking of this in class.

So when you read what is above did you notice they say "Scientific evidence shows that the physical and behavioral traits shared by all people originated from apelike ancestors"?

What scientific evidence?

Again...this supposedly happened over 4 million years ago...this Is a very long time ago..
why haven't we seen more of this happening today? Again where is the scientific evidence of this?

Why did it take so long for humans to get smarter, if only in the last 100,000 years we just decided it was time to use symbolic expression, be artistic and have elaborate cultural adversity? You figure in 4 million years this would have been much earlier.

What or who sparked this sudden influx of Intelligence in man?
Why don't apes show this type of intelligence now? No Rembrandts, Mozart's, or Hawkins coming from out of Ape country in Africa lately. Beings it's been over 4 million years, it should have happened again.

I know this sounds harsh, forgive it does. I'm just showing just how insulting to Man's intelligence this thing called Evolution can be taken seriously. For the better part even a Science. Due to it's lack of observable and factual scientific evidence...which they have none.

And I'm just scratching the surface of what evolutionist are teaching our children and expect us to believe. We as parents must correctly teach our children that science works in facts or starts with a theory to prove that it has facts, with experimentation and observation. That science is God's creation. Not to disprove He exist, but to see how He did it and when we do. We thank Him and give Him the Glory for what He can do and will do for us.

The one sentence that does make a little sense is this one:

"Humans are primates. Physical and genetic similarities show that the modern human species, Homo sapiens, has a very close relationship to another group of primate species, the apes."

Only for one thing. It shows that Man and apes have the same Creator.....God.

"Apelike." I will agree with that. Our last common ancestor was probably something like a modern lemur. However AV1611VET claimed that humans are descended from apes. That is incorrect.

 

[Archivist]

Any evolutionist around here want to correct this guy?

No one will be correcting me because what I said is correct. Humans and apes share a common ancestor. Humans are not descended from modern apes.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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?

The Genesis 1 account is, in my view, saying basically what most of us think it is saying, IF we take it as a poetic, Hebrew polemic that affirms a specific monotheism while countering the paganism of the surrounding cultures of the time in which it was written. It's a sacred cosmogeny, not a scientific treatise.

So, no, I don't think it is talking about, or can be construed to support, the idea of evolution. But, it's also not dealing in any kind of ancient science, yet Creationists often try to make it form-fit that role in an anachronistic fashion.

2PhiloVoid

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Did you read my post? It said "modern" text books. Compared to the 1800's. This hoax should never even have been an option.....Yet, it is right there. Kids that are now in society saw this false depiction. These books were published after the turn of the century or just before..... it's a sure indication of hanging on to untruth.

Well. Science makes mistakes. That's part of the process of science. The problem is that there are sloppy, dishonest, or biased advocates of various ideologies who have their hands in the various projects of science; and this can be seen on all sides. Moreover, science isn't something that by it's nature will or should elicit automatic agreement among all its participants. There's room for different questions, angles and investigations. It's just that many times secular evolutionists affirm more than the evidence really gives us, and that's where we Christians get irritated. At the same time, we Christians have among us those who also try to form-fit the Bible according to our preconceived notions and agendas (some of which are political).

 

[Archivist]

In another thread I was told by a poster that as a Christian I had to believe the Genesis creation account because the Bible said it so it had to be true. When this poster was asked if he believed communion bread to be the actual body of Jesus he said no because it didn't taste like flesh (despite the plain meaning of the words of our Lord and Savior). I guess we all pick and choose our own interpretation of scripture.

 

[AV1611VET]

However AV1611VET claimed that humans are descended from apes. That is incorrect.

Humans are not descended from modern apes.

You looked it up, didn't you?

Now you're going to add to what I said to get the egg off your face?

You're a scientist, aren't you?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

:

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.

I agree with you, but to a limited extent. I think the sloppiness of some secular evolutionists, and their textbook writers, is damaging the credibility of science, but only among those who have a "stiff" expectation as to what and how science is supposed to work, or with how basic epistemological considerations enable one to demonstrate or "prove" various findings and conclusions. So, I don't think science is discredited by evolutionists as much as it is shown that they've got some deep house-cleaning to do. Besides, it a known fact that many working scientists ignore the underlying philosophical principles of their profession because, well, they think only in practical, pragmatic terms, assuming that because something "seems" to work, it must be "on the right track." And this is similar to the way that some Christians assume they're on the right track with the Bible because, ...well...their denomination's understanding of the Bible couldn't possibly be wrong, so there's absolutely no need to check out any ideas from the other denominations.

2PhiloVoid

 

[AV1611VET]

No one will be correcting me because what I said is correct.

Any evolutionists around here want to correct this?

 

[smithed64]

Smithed64,

Ok. But "I" think evolution happened, and that it reflects the contours of God's work through prehistoric, paleolithic, neolithic, and then ancient times. I don't think God received "assistance" from evolution; no, I think God worked through evolution and that not everything God does has to be something we perceive to have transpired in the blink of an eye, or in the space of a single day (or seven).

Why? Why wouldn't or couldn't he do just as He said he did, in one day increments He created.

Gen 1:31

God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning--the sixth day.

The Hebrew word יוֹם (yom) is used with a numerical adjective, it refers to a literal day. Furthermore, the commandment to keep the sabbath clearly favors this interpretation. One is to work for six days and then rest on the seventh, just as God did when he worked at creation.

I also think that the Bible is true and that humanity is separated from God by its sin(s) and is in need of the mercy and grace that is available through Jesus Christ. But I don't think that humanity is separated from God by a scientific theory.

I agree. I also don't think we are separated by God thru science. Matter of fact I think Science shows the greatness of God and His Creation.

I also don't think that Genesis Chapter One is a treatise on 'how' God made heaven and earth, or a literal reflection of how long it took or by what processes He used to bring to pass.

Why? If God is almighty, hears all, knows all, creator of all things. Who wonderfully and fearfully created us. Why wouldn't it be as you say "the treatise on 'how' God made heaven and earth"?

So, with that said, am I not still a Christian? (And be careful how you answer that, because CF doesn't allow anyone to poke a finger at others and assert that they aren't "true Christians" if they at least hold to the Nicene Creed, which I do.)

Holding to a Creed doesn't make you a Christian and the CF's I believe know this.
Only you can say whether your Born again or not. We at times have our doubts, even I do about myself then I'm reminded that I'm to trust in Jesus and that straightens me out for awhile.

Is knowing the exact details on How God created, a heaven or hell question? Yes it is. Because we are to look to those things above. We are to place our trust, surrender ourselves to God and become more like Christ. And I believe that if you let the beliefs of the world into your life to question God's truthfulness and attributes and that contradicts His word. Then you are walking a dangerous line. Were you might be Saved. But then speaking to someone who is lost and knows evolution to be against God. He or she would be confused with this.

Many "Christians" today who mixing evolution and God...only say this because they don't want to hurt peoples feelings. They feel that if we can mix evolution and the true creation together, then maybe...just maybe we can get people to church because we are a relative church...we'll compromise the teachings if necessary so that you will feel comfortable.
Satisfying those itching ears.

2 Tim 4:3

For there will be a time when people will not tolerate sound teaching. Instead, following their own desires, they will accumulate teachers for themselves, because they have an insatiable curiosity to hear new things.

That's not how God works.

So are you a "Christian"? That's for you to say, not me.

I'm going to have to disagree with you and assert that biblical spiritual war has mostly to do with affirming that Jesus came in the flesh as the Son of God, and with contended and praying for those who deny this central point. This is the 'war.'

It's okay to disagree. Just I disagree with you.

Mixing God and evolution is like oil and water, it doesn't mix very well.
And with this false teaching can lead others away from God's message. That God is not only the creator, but sent His son to Save us from The fathers judgment.
It also, contradicts God's Word. It makes God out to be a liar (to those who don't know his true attributes). That's dangerous ground.

Peace in Christ
2PhiloVoid[/QUOTE]

 

[Archivist]

You looked it up, didn't you?

Now you're going to add to what I said to get the egg off your face?

You're a scientist, aren't you?

I stand by what I said. Humans and apes are descended from a common ancestor. Yes, that common ancestor was an ape-like creature, but it was not an ape. Prove otherwise. You made the initial claim, burden of proof rests with the affirmative.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I disagree with much of what you've said. You've asked me questions about why I see things the way I do. Are you really interested in understanding how I arrive at my conclusions, smithed64?

 

[AV1611VET]

I stand by what I said. Humans and apes are descended from a common ancestor. Yes, that common ancestor was an ape-like creature, but it was not an ape. Prove otherwise. You made the initial claim, burden of proof rests with the affirmative.

QV please: 25