Why do people even want to put evolution in the equation?

[atpollard]

Why does this impossible process, with impossible odds, seem so rational to this new breed of Christians? It's growing, and it might be blasphemy. Aren't they calling God a liar?

Whose remains are “Lucy”?

 

[atpollard]

Probably because it's directly observed to happen. Reality is a pretty solid argument.

That’s right. Just the other day I was staring at a turtle crawling across my yard and by the time it reached the fence, it had evolved wings and flew away!

 

[coffee4u]

That’s right. Just the other day I was staring at a turtle crawling across my yard and by the time it reached the fence, it had evolved wings and flew away!

Did it change into a turtledove?

 

[GenemZ]

They are mentioned in the Bible.

Job 40:15-24
“Behold, Behemoth, which I made as I made you; he eats grass like an ox. Behold, his strength in his loins, and his power in the muscles of his belly. He makes his tail stiff like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are knit together. His bones are tubes of bronze, his limbs like bars of iron. “He is the first of the works of God; let him who made him bring near his sword! ...

Isaiah 27:1
In that day the Lord with his hard and great and strong sword will punish Leviathan the fleeing serpent, Leviathan the twisting serpent, and he will slay the dragon that is in the sea.

Job 41:1-34
“Can you draw out Leviathan with a fishhook or press down his tongue with a cord? Can you put a rope in his nose or pierce his jaw with a hook? Will he make many pleas to you? Will he speak to you soft words? Will he make a covenant with you to take him for your servant forever? Will you play with him as with a bird, or will you put him on a leash for your girls? ...

Psalm 74:13
You divided the sea by your might; you broke the heads of the sea monsters on the waters.

Dinosaurs were called dragons for thousands of years before the name was changed to dinosaur in 1841. There are dragon stories all over the world because they have always intrigued and brought fear to man. Yet they are simply an animal, and like all animals no matter how fierce they are still no match for mankind.

Keep in mind the context.. The suffering of Job originated as a wager between Satan and the Lord. All angels were interested to watch the proceedings,.

Job 40, and 41? That was God speaking, not Job. Also keep in mind, that all the angels were watching Job. The Lord was speaking (not, Job) of some creatures Job knew nothing of. But, angels understood what the Lord spoke of. For they used to see them in the prehistoric world.

Isaiah 27? That was the Lord speaking metaphorically, about the Lord nullifying Satan, and the restoration of the Jewish people to Israel. You should try reading the context.

 

[GenemZ]

The first food eating animal could not have lived long enough to evolve to the point of being able to have its first bowel movement...

Its also amazingly impossible to have the opposite sexes co-evolving fast enough to have their first offspring...
Imagine a sperm evolving in a male, and an ovum independently evolving in a female... and lucking out 2000-5000 years later? Some marriages may seem like that, but in the real world no life could have lived long enough to evolve into what had survive-ability.

 

[Religiot]

You do realize that the Bible was compiled by men,depending on faith, tradition, and scholarship, right? Fallible men decided which books were the word of God. There wasn't any canon at at all until the high middle ages, and even today, Christians can't entirely agree on what comprises the word of God.

The word of God is not preserved on pages, nor tables of stone, but in the hearts of His disciples alone.

God's word is a person, His Son, He is God's word.

The inscripturated word of God is the work of the Holy Spirit, through men, but the sons of God are the work of the Holy Spirit by Christ: this is where the word of God may be found, living, in His children, known simply by the love they have for one another, the love of Christ. (They are the only one's who keep the true faith alive, yet their number now diminishes, as promised.)

Those who are born again of the Spirit of God, are indeed the sons of God, and His word abides in them as in Christ.

It is only by obedience to Christ that anyone can know how to interpret the several bibles, and how to adjudge what men call apocryphal.

 

[Religiot]

OK, so how does that apply to Christians who believe in evolution? That has nothing to do with faith in Christ.

It appears to me that you are without the realization that Genesis is about Christ, and authored by Him, through the pen of Moses.

To disbelieve God's testimony about His own creation, is to disbelieve Christ Himself, for He is both the Creator of it and the attestor to the account of it.

To believe man's conjectures about God's creation, is to believe man himself, for he is both the conjector to it and the denier of it's reckoning.

If we start by redefining the reckoning in Genesis, then we are not constrained to redefine the reckoning in any of it.

Consider the first step, above all others, for the direction of it determines the rest of the way.

Man is liar, even if he thinks he's telling the truth, he is not; for that would mean that God is liar: man may only tell the truth in so far as he does not contradict what God has already said.

 

[Religiot]

I find the evidence for evolution to be convincing. I find the insistent comparison between evolution and the first couple Genesis chapters to be a category mistake.

One is a religious document making claims about God, the world, and humanity (and the relation between the three). The main thrust of these claims is outside the purview of scientific investigation, i.e. metaphysics. The other is a theory based on data, i.e. physical phenomena. It's a category mistake and a sign of intellectual laziness and arrogance to not acknowledge and allow for the differences between the two.

LOL!

 

[Religiot]

Maybe I should have put that in a more gentle way. Something like, "It's just not helpful."

No, I'm so glad you wrote it the way you did--let's me know what I'm dealing with immediately--saves a lot of time.

 

[Religiot]

I certainly meant my initial response, and I don't so much regret it as think it could bar acceptance by instigating a reaction instead of encouraging consideration, if that makes sense. The "yikes" alerted me to the possibility. Then I thought, "Maybe there was a better way to put that."

As far as Jesus goes, he was not always gentle, lol. Clearly, I fall short of his standard. But, he had no qualms about calling a group of people a "brood of vipers."

Yes, indeed, I fully agree!

 

[Religiot]

I think it is young earthers that are the ones calling God a liar.

Really? how so?

 

[Religiot]

Probably because it's directly observed to happen. Reality is a pretty solid argument.

Wow. I must've been out of the loop for too long my last hiatus...
I thought the reality was the absence of observation--truly, I didn't know there was any observable data on this: would you be so kind as to provide at least one reference, I'd truly appreciate it, thanks.

Accepting God's creation doesn't seem blasphemous to me. On the other hand, denying it, as creationists do, might be. Personally, I don't think so, but you could make the argument that creationists are calling God a liar. I don't think they intend to do that, though.

Man, two for two--please provide a singular reference to substantiate that allegation, I would also appreciate that too, thanks.

It just takes evidence. And since it's been directly observed, that's pretty solid.

--providing some evidence for that claim is what would be solid, thanks again.

Even many creationist organizations admit that new species, genera,and sometimes higher levels of taxa evolve from other organisms. So they think there's evidence for it.

Again, a singular citation would be great, thanks in advance.

 

[Religiot]

Understanding that our world evolved through long periods of deep time is not blasphemy, and I take umbrage with any fellow Christian who insists that it is.

I'm fully convinced in my heart that it is: please tell me why you think that it isn't. --I would truly appreciate a thoughtful explanation.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Religiot]

We are not calling God a liar. Creationists have misunderstood Genesis. Evolution fits the creation account once you take out the 7 24 hour day nonsense.

Wow: what you're calling nonsense is the actual word of God--He is the one that tells us the evening and the morning were the first day, etc.

"Nonsense", huh: you've got a lot to learn about what you're saying--best to err on the side of caution, especially when talking about God.

 

[Religiot]

The fact that you don’t understand a concept doesn’t make it impossible. There is fare more hard evidence for evolution than a young earth.

One citation to prove your claim, would be nice--and should also be easy, according to your claim anyway. Thanks in advance.

 

[Religiot]

God most certainly can use natural processes to bring about creation.

He could just bring it about by just saying it, right?

--You know, He says that He did bring it about by saying it: that's found in Genesis chapter one: do you believe that?

 

[chad kincham]

I find the evidence for evolution to be convincing. I find the insistent comparison between evolution and the first couple Genesis chapters to be a category mistake.

One is a religious document making claims about God, the world, and humanity (and the relation between the three). The main thrust of these claims is outside the purview of scientific investigation, i.e. metaphysics. The other is a theory based on data, i.e. physical phenomena. It's a category mistake and a sign of intellectual laziness and arrogance to not acknowledge and allow for the differences between the two.

Nonsense
.
The Bible isn’t a collection of made up stories, and it covers the origin of all humanity and life as being a sudden creation by God.

There is zero wiggle room in the scriptures that allows for gradualism, and vertical evolution of lower life forms into higher life forms, eventually resulting in Adam and Eve,

Eve was cloned from Adams rib cells, and Adams lineage is a pile of dirt that God made into the first man.

Scripture also says there was no such thing as physical death until sin entered the world and a curse was put on creation, which blatantly precludes millions of years of animals living and dying and slowly morphing into Adam and Eve.

You can spin it all day long - evolution and the Bible are mutually exclusive and completely incompatible.

The science philosopher Carl Popper once got into trouble for being honest and admitting evolution is not science but is metaphysics, because it’s not falsifiable - one hypothesis fails and they jump to another one, over and over again.

It is in truth the metaphysical philosophy of naturalistic materialism and atheism masquerading as science.

 

[Job 33:6]

He could just bring it about by just saying it, right?

--You know, He says that He did bring it about by saying it: that's found in Genesis chapter one: do you believe that?

No, I don't believe in a literal interpretation of genesis. At least not in the sense that all life was instantly created in 6 days.

 

[Religiot]

We aren't talking about initial creation. We are talking about events beyond then.

Wow. --in your discussion about Genesis (Origin), you are not talking about "initial-creation"...

I must be dumber than I thought, cause by the life of me, I thought that the discussion was always about what God made, in the beginning, yet here you are, telling me that you're all talking about some other creation, not the first, but some other--wow... ...so how many other creations are there? and please, bother to provide at least one citation of evidence for each, thanks.

 

[MittenMaven]

Theologians have been mistaken and have lied for thousands of years about the nature of God and the nature of his Special revelation.

Anti-evolution Christians are famous for circular reasoning. “Why do I believe the earth is 6000 years old? Because the Bible says so? Why do I believe the Bible? Because the Bible says that is the word of God” I can write my own book and claim in it that this book is true and is from God and could use the very same circular reasoning. Most other religions do the same thing.

One cannot believe something because that something or someone claims it to be true. That is illogical. One has to come by belief by either a preponderance of the evidence or in the case of Religion because of the evidence AND one has a experience and believes it in their heart and has experienced or seen change or believe God speaks to them individually or collectively.

So to believe in the 6000 year special creation Genesis account a Christian has to either have a preponderance of the evidence for such a belief or The Christian has to have belief in his heart that it is true from experience or because they believe God told them so either individually or by blind faith through the Bible. But they must start a belief in the Bible or God or the resurrection either by presented evidence or by individual experience not because “God said in the Bible”.

I believe in the Bible and the resurrection of Jesus not because the Bible says so but because of the great weight of the evidence points toward a biocentric universe and the proofs that manifest in the Bible as well experiential evidence in my own life. It’s true because it can partially be proven and partially be experienced.

Anti-evolution Christians have no extra biblical proof of their belief that the world is 6000 years old. Nor do they have any proof of all kinds being instantaneously created at once. So they must take this by faith not by scientific evidence.

So yes men lie. Men of science lie and so do men of faith. Men are mistaken. Men of science are mistaken men of God are mistaken. Christians who believe in evolution know that men are mistaken in their interpretation of the Bible because the preponderance of General revelation points strongly to biological evolution. God doesn’t lie. God is not mistaken. But men have lied and been mistaken for thousands or years about what God is saying and what God means through his word.

One cannot use General Revelation and come to the conclusion that there is no evidence of evolution. It is not possible. One can deny the evidence and try to explain it away or say that men lie but it cannot be ignored.

MY CREED FOR THIS TOPIC: I AM A BORN AGAIN CHRISTIAN. I LOVE JESUS. I BELIEVE THE BIBLE IS INFALLIBLE TO GUIDE MY LIFE. I BELIEVE IN SPECIAL AND GENERAL REVELATION. I BELIEVE THAT GENERAL REVELATION CLEARLY SHOWS THAT GOD CREATED A BIOCENTRIC UNIVERSE TO ALLOW ABIOGENESIS TO OCCUR AND FOR EVOLUTION TO OCCUR TO CREATE ALL THE LIFE WE HAVE TODAY. MY GENERAL REVELATION AGREES AND FITS WITH MY UNDERSTANDING OF SPECIAL REVELATION AS REVEALED IN THE BIBLE.
HERE I STAND.