Why I do not accept evolution part one

[Speedwell]

The problem here is the author of Genesis-probably Mosses- did not write these passages to be taken as either poetry, song or parable, he intended them to be read as literal history.

There are plenty of well thought out apologetic arguments for why Genesis is meant to be read literally due to how certain words were placed and how ancient Hebrew poetry was formulated-and Genesis was not formulated in that way.
There are cross-references across the Bible to Genesis and again there is no indication that Jesus, Paul or the other men who speak of Genesis did not believe it to be literal.

The only reason many people don't take Genesis literally is that they have been swayed by science and evolution. If evolution is 'proven' then Genesis must by extension not be literal, but an allegory or a parable teaching a spiritual but not literal truth.
Claiming that, is claiming a doctrine. A doctrine effects not only those verses in Genesis 1 and 2 but affect other verses throughout the Bible. You can't make a claim like that and leave it at that. How are you going to demonstrate that at work throughout the rest of the Bible? What is it actually teaching? What do all the other verses about this subject mean in that context? For example, the Bible says that Adam died at 930 years of age if he was not literally created back in Genesis 1-2 then you need an explanation for that. All loose ends have to be tied up with a reasonable explanation but most importantly to be a doctrine you need supporting verses that indicate how you have interpreted this is a biblical teaching.

In this sense, it is not unlike science. In science you expect a theory to have some proof and reasonable explanation and be able to show how it ties in with many other accepted facts. It can't be left with gaping holes.
I have continually asked to see scripture that backs up the non-literal view as well as reasonable teachings on all the verses that a non-literal view raises issues with, I have yet to be shown any. If you have no scripture and no explanation you do not have a doctrine, only at best an interesting view point or speculation.

God made a perfect world to show man how it could be and how he plans it to be at the end. To achieve this Jesus died for mankind.
Romans 5:8 8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
Man had to have free will to choose. The only other option is no choice at all.

Yes, that is your belief and you have an internally self-consistent apologetic to support it. We know that and we have seen the arguments. But their are other belief systems concerning the genre of the Genesis stories within Christendom which are as old as the faith itself and also with internally self-consistent justification. The interesting thing about them is that they all support the essential doctrines of the faith more or less equally well. But your notion that Christians everywhere always believed what you believe about the Bible until some of us were led astray by "evolutionism" doesn't hold water. The key Bible doctrines of creationism--literal inerrancy, perspicuity, self-interpretability and plenary verbal inspiration--are all post-Reformation and depend on the doctrine of Sola Scriptura which is distinctly a minority belief amongst Christians.

 

[coffee4u]

Modern scholars are very sure that Moses was fictitious. Have you studied the history of the Bible at all, when various parts were written?

And yes, of course people have been "swayed by science". Scientific claims are testable and confirmable. By the legal standard of "proven beyond a reasonable doubt" evolution has been proven better than any murder trial. And there is a clear explanation for the ages of people in Genesis. Tribal people exaggerate, not just in the Bible, but all tribal people all around the world. Adam is a youngling compared to the ages of people in other creation myths.

Do you even understand what I am talking about here? To say something is a Biblical doctrine it can't be based on science. It has to come from the Bible itself. It can take support from the culture and support from known 'facts' but it can't be based on them. I say facts loosely as we all know miracles are outside of science or facts.

Lastly the theory of evolution does not have "gaping holes". That is a claim that creationists make but can never support. What supposed holes do you think exist in the theory? And let's watch the false accusations. If you claim that others are making "speculations" that is not just an insult, it is also a claim that you need to be able to support. Speculations are not allowed in the sciences in the sense that you appear to be using the term. Early on one may speculate, but that is not science. One must then test and retest those ideas until they are no longer speculations.

You are not reading what I am saying. I wasn't debating creation vs evolution I was taking a neutral stance on what a scientific theory is and what a doctrine is.

If you hear a new scientific theory (I never mentioned evolution) do you expect some kind of proof? Do you expect the person making the new claim to come up with a reasonable model?

The same can be asked of the person claiming a doctrine. They have to show supporting scripture, they need a reasonable explanation and they need to show how it all ties together.
If they don't have this, they don't have a doctrine and the same goes for a scientist with a new theory.

As for this:

And there is a clear explanation for the ages of people in Genesis. Tribal people exaggerate, not just in the Bible, but all tribal people all around the world.

That would not be accepted as biblical teaching by any church.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you even understand what I am talking about here? To say something is a Biblical doctrine it can't be based on science. It has to come from the Bible itself. It can take support from the culture and support from known 'facts' but it can't be based on them. I say facts loosely as we all know miracles are outside of science or facts.

Oh I understand quite well. When you claim "doctrine" that is actually your doctrine. Also not all Christians base their doctrine solely on the Bible. In fact you are likely to be in a minority. The Catholics for example think that sola scriptura is blasphemous. And though doctrine should not be based upon science, it can be tested by using science. For example Flat Earthers very often base their beliefs upon the Bible as well. They merely have a different interpretation than you do and therefore a different doctrine. There are many ways to test and refute a Flat Earth. Don't you think that might not be The problem with getting too involved in one's own personal interpretation of the Bible is that one runs the risk of unconsciously calling God a liar. If God cannot lie then certain interpretations of the Bible and their related doctrines are false.

You are not reading what I am saying. I wasn't debating creation vs evolution I was taking a neutral stance on what a scientific theory is and what a doctrine is.

If you hear a new scientific theory (I never mentioned evolution) do you expect some kind of proof? Do you expect the person making the new claim to come up with a reasonable model?

It did not sound very neutral. I am not conflating doctrine and science. And technically theories are not proven, they are supported by evidence. But if one goes by the legal standard of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" then evolution is "proven". One might as well deny gravity. Yes, any new idea has to be supported by evidence. The idea must be testable. Which means that it can be shown to be wrong if it is wrong. So yes, support must be given for a concept to be accepted. In fact an idea is not a "theory" until it has a substantial body of evidence.

The same can be asked of the person claiming a doctrine. They have to show supporting scripture, they need a reasonable explanation and they need to show how it all ties together.
If they don't have this, they don't have a doctrine and the same goes for a scientist with a new theory.

Scripture is nice for a belief, but once again not all Christians make that error. One problem is that due to the vague wording of the Bible there are countless different sects of Christianity. That indicates that something more is needed.

As for this:

That would not be accepted as biblical teaching by any church.

It is not "biblical teaching" it is merely reality. Reality should help people when they try to interpret the Bible.

 

[pitabread]

The only reason many people don't take Genesis literally is that they have been swayed by science and evolution.

Non literalist views of Genesis predate science as a formal discipline and evolution by millenia. It's not a new phenomenon.

How was the Genesis account of creation interpreted before Darwin? - Common-questions

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

My interpretation of this is - we cannot beat knowledgeable people when they are not constrained by believing ONLY the rantings of ancient middle eastern simpletons like we real Christians are. I'm outta here...

Not simpletons; the difference was culture and education (knowledge & understanding of the world).

 

[SLP]

Not simpletons; the difference was culture and education (knowledge & understanding of the world).

OK, but they had to be a bit gullible to believe those tall tales...

 

[Speedwell]

OK, but they had to be a bit gullible to believe those tall tales...

Be fair: before there was systematic science (a relatively recent development in human history) the biblical accounts of our origins were all there was, and this in an era when historical narrative was expected to have more of the character of a 'tall tale' than we would allow today. Even so, figurative interpretations of Genesis were not uncommon, and it was generally understood that the strict acceptance of them as 100% accurate literal history was not essential to the theological message. This contrasts markedly with the beliefs of the modern creationist movement, for whom the stories of Genesis can have no theological meaning unless they are also accurate literal history.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

OK, but they had to be a bit gullible to believe those tall tales...

It was a mainly oral culture - the exchange of cultural knowledge would have been via stories that varied according to the audience and would be embellished to keep their interest and attention and to make them memorable. Superstitious and magical thinking is common even today; how much more so then?

Also, and this is only my relatively uninformed opinion, I doubt that they made the clear distinction between literal and figurative in their understanding that we value in our culture.

 

[driewerf]

We have discovered why there are species. Or at least we have some ideas on that. And we've discovered sex....and why we have it. And we've discovered eating, and why animals might do it. And the size of animals, and why some are larger and smaller. And why the males dance around. But not why dirt would want to live. Or why it would change.

Dirt doesn't "want" to live.
Why do you ascribe any will to dirt?

 

[driewerf]

The theory of evolution does not satisfactorily explain how a microbe becomes a human being - except in the imagination of evolutionists.

The "microbe to man" phrase is a strawman.
1) Evolution is undirected, it has no goal in mind. It didn't aim to form humans (or any other species)
2) Evolution hasn't stopped. Humans are not the endpoint of evolution. If you think about, since we have seen speciation events, these events came after that humans evolved.

 

[driewerf]

History is entirely faith based.
You can't reproduce history in a lab.

Historians disagree. You don't need a lab to support or reject some claims. Historians work with written documents, other artifacts, archaeological findings etc.

 

[driewerf]

Speciation is a construct of evolutionists. If speciation did take place, why has it stopped? And why can it not be demonstrated in the lab?

Speciation hasn't stopped. It has been observed both in the lab and in the wild.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Speciation hasn't stopped. It has been observed both in the lab and in the wild.

Evolutionists just make up definitions to suit themselves. No real speciation has occurred in the wild. The fruit experiments produced 3,000 kinds of fruit flies. The experiments did not result in a new species. Genetic engineering is an entirely different matter. Humans can create new species. Emphasis on
'create".

 

[Speedwell]

Evolutionists just make up definitions to suit themselves. No real speciation has occurred in the wild. The fruit experiments produced 3,000 kinds of fruit flies. The experiments did not result in a new species. Genetic engineering is an entirely different matter. Humans can create new species. Emphasis on
'create".

Evidently you have a difference definition of "species" than the one biologists have use for centuries. What is it?

 

[Aussie Pete]

The "microbe to man" phrase is a strawman.
1) Evolution is undirected, it has no goal in mind. It didn't aim to form humans (or any other species)
2) Evolution hasn't stopped. Humans are not the endpoint of evolution. If you think about, since we have seen speciation events, these events came after that humans evolved.

Since evolution is not and has not happened, your statement is meaningless.

 

[Speedwell]

Since evolution is not and has not happened, your statement is meaningless.

So you must have another explanation of how life has changed and diversified since it began. What is it?

 

[pitabread]

Since evolution is not and has not happened, your statement is meaningless.

Evolution is an observable process. It's simply the changes in biological populations over time.

Claiming evolution doesn't happen is like claiming that tides don't happen. It's just a bizarre denial of reality.

 

[pitabread]

Evolutionists just make up definitions to suit themselves. No real speciation has occurred in the wild. The fruit experiments produced 3,000 kinds of fruit flies. The experiments did not result in a new species. Genetic engineering is an entirely different matter. Humans can create new species. Emphasis on
'create".

The funny thing is that most modern day creationists (especially young Earth creationists) are highly dependent on rapid speciation to explain modern species diversity. Creationists are probably the biggest evolutionists around, even if they deny it.

 

[driewerf]

Evolutionists just make up definitions to suit themselves. No real speciation has occurred in the wild. The fruit experiments produced 3,000 kinds of fruit flies. The experiments did not result in a new species. Genetic engineering is an entirely different matter. Humans can create new species. Emphasis on
'create".

1) you are accusing a whole scientific discipline of fraud. Is it just the "evolutionists" who are fraudulent or do we have to extend it to the whole discipline of biology? Other sciences? Astronomy? Geology, Physics?

2a) "No real speciations"? Are there "unreal" speciations? And did these happen? What differentiates a real from an unreal speciation?
2b) How do you know that no "real" speciation happened? Have you been through all the papers reporting observed instances and found fundamental flaws in these reports?

3a) "The" fruit fly experiment: what fruit fly experiment? Drosophila is literally the favourite animal for scientific resaerch, especially genetics (but certainly limited to genetics). There are literally thousands and thousands of experiments with fruit flies. So specify.
3b) "3000 kinds": speaking of made up definitions, kinds is always kept vague on purpose.
3c) So 1 experiment with fruit flies gave us no new species, ergo speciation doesn't happen. Of course there are thousands and thousands of experiments with fruit flies, there are thousands and thousands of experiments with other species, there are expeditions in the wild, but that 1 experiment trumps all

 

[driewerf]

Since evolution is not and has not happened, your statement is meaningless.

How many species were there on the Ark?