Evolution?

[gideon123]

I am not going to say much more, because this Forum is afflicted with a spirit of argument and conflict. And these things are not what Christ intends between us.

You need to understand that the Theory of Evolution is not some 'strange theory in a forgotten chapter of a biology textbook'. It is integral to the thinking of biologists. It co-exists with many other theories ... ecology, molecular biology, genetics etc. They are all TIED TOGETHER. You cannot remove one theory, without undermining all of them. And it is a great credit to the work of many generations of biologists and scientists ... that all these theories were built up, after careful examination of all the data.

Science is not in conflict with the Bible. How can it be? If God is the Creator of all things, then all these natural laws are a part of His creation. There is harmony, there is a miracle of subtlety and diversity. There is not conflict.

Yet constantly we see these arguments from a small group of Christians who want to turn Evolution into "The Good Guys vs. The Bad Guys". There are no Bad Guys. Scientists are just doing their job ... patiently searching for the truth.

What does it matter if Life was created in 7 days, 7 weeks, or 7 billion years? However it works out, that how it works out. Whatever the Truth is, that will be the answer. Why be afraid of the resuls? The constant attacks against Evolution are a manifestation of fear, a baseless fear that makes no sense.

You should be praying for Science and our scientists. They are on the edge of an abyss ... in terms of future discoveries. The discoveries in the 21'st century have the possibility to wreak havoc with our world. Pray for our scientists. Dont turn the discussion into "The Good Guys vs
The Bad Guys".

 

[Marvin Knox]

Yes, the fox experiment makes use of micro evolution, but does so in such a way that proves macro evolution.

No - it does not.

The reason a dog is not a wolf and is a separate species is because of thousands of years of micro evolution, which changed wolves that were living alongside humans in many small ways. This continued until the changes in these wolves were so different from other wolves they could no longer be recognized as the same species.

As they like to say at Geico - everyone knows that.

So macro evolution occurs when many small changes (micro evolution) occur for a long period of time in a subset of a species that are adapting to an environment that differs from the rest of the species.

That's the theory. But it simply has not been proven. Certainly it wasn't proven by the Russians in the case you cite.

The Russian foxes may have become good companions for men after some 50 years of manipulation. But they did not become cats, horses, or humans.

At the risk of being charged with something which isn't true --- it may well be a fact that black men tend to be better jumpers in the NBA than white men. If it is true, it may be the result of many years of a certain breeding and perhaps adaption. But, contrary to what David Duke or Louis Farrakhan might tell you, they are all of the genus homo and even of the same species within that genus.

Science is not in conflict with the Bible. How can it be? If God is the Creator of all things, then all these natural laws are a part of His creation. There is harmony, there is a miracle of subtlety and diversity. There is not conflict.

I totally agree.

Yet constantly we see these arguments from a small group of Christians who want to turn Evolution into "The Good Guys vs. The Bad Guys". There are no Bad Guys. Scientists are just doing their job ... patiently searching for the truth.

I, for one, don't want to turn the debate into good guys vs. bad guys.

Of course there are "good guys" and there are also "bad guys" - relatively speaking - in the scientific community and outside of it as well as in the Christian community and outside of it.

I have never portrayed scientists who believe in evolution as bad guys and I have never portrayed Christians who believe in evolution as bad guys.

I have, however, clearly portrayed such Christians as being those of a compromised faith. The reason for that is that the scriptures simply do not teach or even allow for evolution being true.

Why be afraid of the resuls? The constant attacks against Evolution are a manifestation of fear, a baseless fear that makes no sense.

No - the constant attack against evolution (at least by me) is an appeal for science to include creationism as a valid theory as well as evolution. What I have attempted to do makes perfect sense and fear has nothing to do with it.

Dont turn the discussion into "The Good Guys vs The Bad Guys".

I won't. However I will continue to turn the discussion toward an understanding that Christians who embrace evolution are compromising what is the simple teaching of the scriptures.

 

[MournfulWatcher]

.

 

[Marvin Knox]

If a Christian chooses to embrace evolution as true - it's OK by me. If he or she refrains from propagating it with internet writing, hopefully there will not be any great loss at the Judgment Seat of Christ because of that belief - whether it turns out to be false or true.

But the absolute fact of the matter is that you did not arrive at this belief from what the scriptures told you. Instead you brought the belief to the scriptures and made a concerted effort to make it at least seem a somewhat viable belief in light of what the scriptures teach about beginnings.

It takes some effort to do this because the scriptures obviously seem to teach (when taken at face value) something quite different from evolution. If you won't at least admit that fact - you are being disingenuous to say the least.

 

[NBB]

If a Christian chooses to embrace evolution as true - it's OK by me. If he or she refrains from propagating it with internet writing, hopefully there will not be any great loss at the Judgment Seat of Christ because of that belief - whether it turns out to be false or true.

But the absolute fact of the matter is that you did not arrive at this belief from what the scriptures told you. Instead you brought the belief to the scriptures and made a concerted effort to make it at least seem a somewhat viable belief in light of what the scriptures teach about beginnings.

It takes some effort to do this because the scriptures obviously seem to teach (when taken at face value) something quite different from evolution. If you won't at least admit that fact - you are being disingenuous to say the least.

And if evolution was the way God did it, which i don't believe, then key parts of evolution are wrong and scientists are wrong. Like random mutation becomes guidance, and natural selection is useless, i don't see why he would need to do from an ancestor all life tiny step by tiny step limiting himself. Anyways theistic evolution seems to give more credit to evolution than to God.

If God did things trough evolution then evolution is just an anecdote, the creator needs to be given all the credit for what he did, not some of it to evolution.

 

[Job 33:6]

If a Christian chooses to embrace evolution as true - it's OK by me. If he or she refrains from propagating it with internet writing, hopefully there will not be any great loss at the Judgment Seat of Christ because of that belief - whether it turns out to be false or true.

But the absolute fact of the matter is that you did not arrive at this belief from what the scriptures told you. Instead you brought the belief to the scriptures and made a concerted effort to make it at least seem a somewhat viable belief in light of what the scriptures teach about beginnings.

It takes some effort to do this because the scriptures obviously seem to teach (when taken at face value) something quite different from evolution. If you won't at least admit that fact - you are being disingenuous to say the least.

I agree with this. As a Christian evolutionists. I don't think people could come to the conclusion that evolution occured strictly based on scripture because scripture alone doesn't appear to say anything about evolution itself. It's not like Genesis discusses the fossil succession or plate tectonics or anything either, so people might also come to the conclusion that the planet is 6000 years old as well, if it were not for scientific discovery.

 

[Marvin Knox]

............scripture alone doesn't appear to say anything about evolution itself................

I appreciate your comments and the spirit in which they were offered.

Scripture doesn't appear to say anything about evolution itself simply because evolution isn't a viable idea in light of the Genesis account of the creation of man.

Man is said to be a separate creation "apart from" the other animals and not a joint creation coming "from within" the other animals.

Instead - man is said to be a direct creation by God and he is clearly said to be alone in that and with no suitable mate.

No mate, mind you, of his same kind or of any transitional kind - i.e. with one gene or more less than the man in the image of God.

He did not evolve according to the scriptures nor did his offspring evolve after him. Nor could they.

Indeed, there was no mechanism for him to even have offspring to evolve further until God directly created Eve his mate.

The idea of man evolving is a biblical impossibility simply because the scriptures tell us that he was alone and had no one to participate in evolution with him.

Eve did not eventually evolve from Adam simply because there was not a suitable mate for him to carry on.

Whatever was there on the earth with him was not a "suitable" mate for him.

The idea that he went ahead and mated with something less than suitable - which eventually produce something suitable - is not only not biblical it is sinful. According to God, cross-species sexual activity between human and non-human is bestiality plain and simple.

I suppose that one could say that the one man evolved into the image of God first and alone. Then perhaps God could have directly created a mate for him out of a rib since none of his relatives were suitable.

But the entire point I wish to make is that believing in evolution is a biblical stretch to say the very least.

As I see it - one must have already abandoned faith in the biblical account and super imposed his new faith (evolution) on what the scriptures tell us.

Again - no one's salvation depends of having faith in the biblical account. But it has been my experience and the experience of may observers of theological development that one compromise or variance belief usually in time begets another.

Often those eventual variances in good theology do relate directly to what one believes concerning salvation.

So long as no one deceives himself about what he is doing - he can believe in evolution if he wants to. I suppose that it's eventually between him and God.

But then - I didn't start the conversation about the the compromise belief in evolution. I just chimed in with what I and (IMO according to what I see in the scriptures) with what God thinks of the idea.

 

[Job 33:6]

I appreciate your comments and the spirit in which they were offered.

Scripture doesn't appear to say anything about evolution itself simply because evolution isn't a viable idea in light of the Genesis account of the creation of man.

Man is said to be a separate creation "apart from" the other animals and not a joint creation coming "from within" the other animals.

Instead - man is said to be a direct creation by God and he is clearly said to be alone in that and with no suitable mate.

No mate, mind you, of his same kind or of any transitional kind - i.e. with one gene or more less than the man in the image of God.

He did not evolve according to the scriptures nor did his offspring evolve after him. Nor could they.

Indeed, there was no mechanism for him to even have offspring to evolve further until God directly created Eve his mate.

The idea of man evolving is a biblical impossibility simply because the scriptures tell us that he was alone and had no one to participate in evolution with him.

Eve did not eventually evolve from Adam simply because there was not a suitable mate for him to carry on.

Whatever was there on the earth with him was not a "suitable" mate for him.

The idea that he went ahead and mated with something less than suitable - which eventually produce something suitable - is not only not biblical it is sinful. According to God, cross-species sexual activity between human and non-human is bestiality plain and simple.

I suppose that one could say that the one man evolved into the image of God first and alone. Then perhaps God could have directly created a mate for him out of a rib since none of his relatives were suitable.

But the entire point I wish to make is that believing in evolution is a biblical stretch to say the very least.

As I see it - one must have already abandoned faith in the biblical account and super imposed his new faith (evolution) on what the scriptures tell us.

Again - no one's salvation depends of having faith in the biblical account. But it has been my experience and the experience of may observers of theological development that one compromise or variance belief usually in time begets another.

Often those eventual variances in good theology do relate directly to what one believes concerning salvation.

So long as no one deceives himself about what he is doing - he can believe in evolution if he wants to. I suppose that it's eventually between him and God.

But then - I didn't start the conversation about the the compromise belief in evolution. I just chimed in with what I and (IMO according to what I see in the scriptures) with what God thinks of the idea.

If this is what you believe, and you are unable to find a median between the two, then you will forever be stuck between reality and your perception of scripture.

 

[Marvin Knox]

So even if some may claim that God predestined Adam's fall, or that God willed Adam's disobedience, or that God will's every sinful thought and action of man or constrains the abilities and choices of man so that there is only one true option for every choice - that doesn't make such claims true nor make them harmonize with scripture.

You constantly conflate predestination or (if you will, the decree of God that certain thing happen or, again if you, will be "allowed" to happen) with scripting or forcing the actions of men. That is not what I or anyone I know of believes or teaches.

But that situation in the Garden is the result of the free will of creatures. Wasn't that just how reality unfolded? Surely God didn't predestine His rejection. How can it be true God wants all to be saved if He caused the circumstances that require salvation?

Of course it is the result of the free will of Adam and Eve. I have never said otherwise.

It unfolded exactly as God always knew it would unfold - if and when He did certain things Himself.

But God was not constrained to do things exactly as He did them. Had He chosen to create or allow other parameters, things would have unfolded differently.

The scriptures give abundant examples to show that God has always known "possibilities" as well as "realities". He is also the One who chooses the parameters that will produce certain realities. He is not constrained by the creation to act in certain ways. He works all things according to His perfect will.

God knew before the foundation of the world exactly what would occur if He acted in certain ways. There was absolutely no chance at all that what He knew would occur would not indeed occur if He Himself acted in the innumerable certain ways He has acted.

By choosing how He would act and by choosing the parameters in which His creation would make choices - God "predestined" or "decreed" everything which has happened in the history of His creation.

And, again, "ALL THINGS" unfold according to His "good and perfect will".

They also unfold according to what is His "permissive will".

As I and most "reformed" believe - God orders that what He has decreed to fall out fall out according to second causes. Some of those second causes are the sinful choices made by His creation.

The sacrifice of Christ is a prime example of this.

The predestination or the decree that men make certain choices in no way eliminates or negates the free will of men. Rather those free choices establish or bring to past exactly what God has determines will happen according to His good and perfect will.

If this is what you believe, and you are unable to find a median between the two, then you will forever be stuck between reality and your perception of scripture.

Evolution is not reality. Evolution is simply a theory.

 

[Job 33:6]

.

Evolution is not reality. Evolution is simply a theory.

In your opinion.

 

[NBB]

Why God would take the 'hard way' and make countless in between animals to reach the 'final animal' ??

 

[Marvin Knox]

In your opinion.

Most scientists still call it theory and for good reason.

 

[Job 33:6]

Most scientists still call it theory and for good reason.

Yes. We also call the theory of relativity a theory as well. And the theory of plate tectonics and there is
..germ theory and of course heliocentric theory as well.

You're free to deny all of these if you would like, on the basis that these are...theories.

Do you deny heliocentric theory...on the basis that it is a theory?

https://study.com/academy/lesson/heliocentric-theory-definition-model-quiz.html
http://muse.tau.ac.il/museum/galileo/heliocentric.html


You know, we still call this a theory with good reason. Do you know why we still call heliocentric theory....a theory?

Maybe we are uncertain if the sun orbits the earth or if the earth orbits the sun?

How about plate tectonics, do you know why we still call plate tectonics a thoery? Are we uncertain of whether or not continents drift?

http://csmgeo.csm.jmu.edu/geollab/vageol/vahist/plates.html

 

[sfs]

Most scientists still call it theory and for good reason.

Actually, we mostly just call it "evolution". To the extent that we have any standard terminology, "evolutionary theory" is the description of the set of processes by which evolution occurs and has occurred. "Common descent" is the fact that all species on Earth share common ancestors -- a contingent fact about life on this planet, and a product of evolution.

 

[NBB]

Actually, we mostly just call it "evolution". To the extent that we have any standard terminology, "evolutionary theory" is the description of the set of processes by which evolution occurs and has occurred. "Common descent" is the fact that all species on Earth share common ancestors -- a contingent fact about life on this planet, and a product of evolution.

A product of God say better, no evolution.

 

[sfs]

A product of God say better, no evolution.

Thanks, but I'd rather tell the truth.

 

[Marvin Knox]

.

 

[Marvin Knox]

Do you deny heliocentric theory...on the basis that it is a theory?

No. Do you think you heard me say that somewhere?

By the way - thank you for making my point for me.

I said that they call evolution a theory for good reason.

With these other theories - you have admitted that there are good reasons why they are called theories.

What's the beef with your calling evolution a theory as most other scientists do?

If you'd like to call creationism a theory, I'll gladly join you - at least while we are looking through the glass darkly.

I am confident that when we see clearly as we are seen we will both call direct creation fact and will not even call upward evolution theory. Rather we will call it what it is - rubbish.

 

[Marvin Knox]

Actually, we mostly just call it "evolution".

Yes some of "you" do refuse to call it theory. You dishonestly present it as fact when it is not.

It is merely a theory and not a very good one at that.

 

[sfs]

Yes some of "you" do refuse to call it theory.

I don't "refuse" to call it a theory; I just rarely do. The word "theory" is not actually a technical term in science and has no single or agreed-upon definition, so using it or not about evolution matters very little. As has already been pointed out to you, plenty of things in science are called theories while also being accepted as factual by the consensus of scientists. Common descent is one of those things.

You dishonestly present it as fact when it is not.

There are two possibilities here. Either you know more about evolutionary biology than I do, and are also more aware of my own beliefs and motivations than I am, or else you're wildly accusing someone you don't know of dishonesty. Which is it?

It is merely a theory and not a very good one at that.

How much time have you spent studying genetic data?