I am stuck thinking I need to prove faith to Evolutionists, when the Bible says "they're deluded"

[The Barbarian]

What gets me, is that I will compromise, but Jesus won't (compromise).

Hold on to that idea. It's important.

Somehow what I believe is getting in the way of Jesus and I seeing eye to eye - with each other?

Men invent lots of ways to disparage the faith of others who don't agree with them in every respect. That's not Jesus' way. He tells you in considerable detail what it is that determines your eternal home. Mathew 25 has a nice summary. How you feel about evolution doesn't matter to Him at all.

Creationism vs. science is one of those false dichotomies that men invent to avoid dealing with God's expectations of us.

If anyone supposes that issue has anything whatever to do with one's salvation, he's missing the point.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

There are lots of highly-educated people who reject evolution. Not a large percentage, but still a lot of them. No reason for anyone not to tolerate them. From a Christian standpoint, they aren't any less likely to be saved than someone who does accept evolution.

They are more likely to be saved, since they believe Jesus on the matter and likely other matters as well.

No. For two reasons.
1. God doesn't care what you think of evolution.
2. Creationists' faith in creationism far more accurately depicts the word of Kent Hovind than the Word of God.

I bet a lot of Christians have no idea who Kent Hovind is and therefore do not have an understanding that reflect his. Who is he?

God very much cares where one believes that He speaks the truth in His word to men. There is a film going around "Origins" I think it is called and in the evolutionists who insist they are christians say that God told untruths to those he loved and called in the Old Testament. I am absolultly convinced that God cares very much whether those who want to consider themselves HIs children preach that he lies to men from time to time.

And from a scientific viewpoint, it doesn't harm the truth in the slightest, no matter how many people object to it.

Those who believe lies and teach lies to others to believe are deeply harmed. I have yet to met on line or elsewhere believers of deep understanding and more than a blind faith who believed God made the first cell that became with time a living apelike creature who eventually became a man and Jesus was either ignorant of this or, as did God to Moses, lied to people about it all. Since they embrace that people do not lie and God does, this seriously hinders their ability to go very deep in matters of the kingdom of God.

Which is like saying He created gorillas as gorillas, not an ape form. We are apes. In fact, we and chimpanzees are more closely related to each other than either is to other apes. Phenotypically, genetically, and in term of transitional fossils, so it's not just a few sources of evidence.

Actually the genetic difference is quite large. And only man has DECIDED to call us apes. God does not do so. I am going with God on this one.

 

[The Barbarian]

No. For two reasons.
1. God doesn't care what you think of evolution.
2. Creationists' faith in creationism far more accurately depicts the word of Kent Hovind than the Word of God.

I bet a lot of Christians have no idea who Kent Hovind is and therefore do not have an understanding that reflect his. Who is he?

YE creationist. He sticks pretty close to the standard YE doctrines found in Seventh-Day Adventist beliefs, which as you probably know, were transplanted to some (not all) evangelicals. Creationism is a man-made doctrine, which has no relevance whatever to salvation; you can believe it and still be a good Christian.

God very much cares where one believes that He speaks the truth in His word to men.

Jesus made it very clear what would determine your eternal home. Your opinion on creationism, isn't one of them. I believe Him. You should, too.

There is a film going around "Origins" I think it is called and in the evolutionists who insist they are christians say that God told untruths to those he loved and called in the Old Testament.

Sounds unlikely. Got some checkable links? If I go looking and it turns out these people didn't say that God lied, would you apologize?

I am absolultly convinced that God cares very much whether those who want to consider themselves HIs children preach that he lies to men from time to time.

I don't think creationists mean to call Him a liar. They just don't want to accept it the way He said it. Go to Matthew 25:31-46 to learn what matters to your salvation. He's very explicit.

Creationism does no great harm, unless you make an idol of it, and insist that God requires you to believe it to be saved.

 

[The Barbarian]

Which is like saying He created gorillas as gorillas, not an ape form. We are apes. In fact, we and chimpanzees are more closely related to each other than either is to other apes. Phenotypically, genetically, and in term of transitional fossils, so it's not just a few sources of evidence.

Actually the genetic difference is quite large.

You've been misled about that. Humans and chimps are more alike genetically than either is like any other ape.

And only man has DECIDED to call us apes.

And only God decided to give our particular species his breath of life to make each of us a living soul. Would you be less insulted if He chose a species of kangaroo? He didn't call us prokaryotes, metazoans, deuterostomes, chordates, vertebrates, amniotes, mammals, or primates, either. But we are all of those, too.

God doesn't really care if we approve or not. I am going with God on this one.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

No. For two reasons.
1. God doesn't care what you think of evolution.
2. Creationists' faith in creationism far more accurately depicts the word of Kent Hovind than the Word of God.

YE creationist. He sticks pretty close to the standard YE doctrines found in Seventh-Day Adventist beliefs, which as you probably know, were transplanted to some (not all) evangelicals. Creationism is a man-made doctrine, which has no relevance whatever to salvation; you can believe it and still be a good Christian.

I am not an Adventist. And I repeat, you can believe fully in evolution and still by a good Christian, but you will not go as deep with God as those who believe the teachings of Jesus, all of them, without picking and choosing.

Jesus made it very clear what would determine your eternal home. Your opinion on creationism, isn't one of them. I believe Him. You should, too.

As I said, if the only goal is the right eternal home, then I guess believing all that Jesus taught might not be necessary. But if that is all one wants, that is very likely all one gets, if one gets that at all in the end. If one wants to know Him and the fellowship of his sufferings, then it is of prime important to believe all He taught. God created man and woman fully formed as humans is just one.

Sounds unlikely. Got some checkable links? If I go looking and it turns out these people didn't say that God lied, would you apologize?

THeir exact words are "He adjusted the truth because they wouldn't have understood." That is what they said which is saying God lied. Even the Devil doesn't come out and out and say "God lied" but cloaks the accusation in more palatable words. Do you really want to watch the serious? It is some hours long.

I don't think creationists mean to call Him a liar. They just don't want to accept it the way He said it. Go to Matthew 25:31-46 to learn what matters to your salvation. He's very explicit.

This is not good that you turn matters around like this. Will likely be a short interaction. Evolutionists call him a liar.

Creationism does no great harm, unless you make an idol of it, and insist that God requires you to believe it to be saved.

Evolutionist has cost many a saved believer Heaven. It has prevented many a seeker from finding salvation.

But you twist things around and that bespeaks something I do not want to engage in.

Adieu

 

[The Barbarian]

I am not an Adventist. And I repeat, you can believe fully in evolution and still by a good Christian, but you will not go as deep with God as those who believe the teachings of Jesus, all of them, without picking and choosing.

Jesus never said anything about evolution. You've been misled about that, too. I you'd just accept it the way He actually said it, I would think that would be as "deep" as you could go with God.

Instead of believing what man has added to God's word, why not just accept it as it is? Worth a try.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Jesus never said anything about evolution. You've been misled about that, too. I you'd just accept it the way He actually said it, I would think that would be as "deep" as you could go with God.

Instead of believing what man has added to God's word, why not just accept it as it is? Worth a try.

You are wrong. Jesus spoke of the son of Adam and Eve. Jesus said in the beginning He made them, male and female, not single celled life form or apes. Jesus knew that the creation account of the making of human beings was true and taught it. You might try reading the actual words of JEsus instead of just taking what evolutionists taught you. Why not just accept the words of Jesus? Worth a try.

(It is really even worse as the Bible says all things were made through Jesus. So He was not only there. He did the creating. Pretty knowledgable I would say.)

 

[Job 33:6]

You are wrong. Jesus spoke of the son of Adam and Eve. Jesus said in the beginning He made them, male and female, not single celled life form or apes. Jesus knew that the creation account of the making of human beings was true and taught it. You might try reading the actual words of JEsus instead of just taking what evolutionists taught you. Why not just accept the words of Jesus? Worth a try.

(It is really even worse as the Bible says all things were made through Jesus. So He was not only there. He did the creating. Pretty knowledgable I would say.)

To be fair, this is just further continuation of literalist beliefs. Both that Jesus was all knowing (which I would disagree with given that he was also fully human), and further that Jesus wasn't simply speaking to His audience in a manner which they'd understand.

Jesus wasn't a biology professor. He wasn't out there giving complex lectures on physics. There are many concepts that he never spoke of but rather simply used parables and short stories to teach his audience. Which suggests that he was either limited in knowledge, or intended to speak to people in a common language so that they could understand, or both.

Using scripture to prove scripture to prove scripture is circular at the end of the day and really just does a disservice to the Lord.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

To be fair, this is just further continuation of literalist beliefs. Both that Jesus was all knowing (which I would disagree with given that he was also fully human), and further that Jesus wasn't simply speaking to His audience in a manner which they'd understand.

Incorrect. Jesus was not alknowing. But that does not mean he knew nothing. Jesus spoke the truth always and sometimes in a manner his audience would understand and sometimes not. But he never "adjusted the truth" away from the truth. He never changed the story away from the truth because the truth was difficult to understand. In fact, a lot of what he taught people did not understand. He did not "adjust it" to fit their preconceived ideas.

Jesus wasn't a biology professor. He wasn't out there giving complex lectures on physics. There are many concepts that he never spoke of but rather simply used parables and short stories to teach his audience. Which suggests that he was either limited in knowledge, or intended to speak to people in a common language so that they could understand, or both.

Well, if you are comfortable with Jesus, who created the physical world knowing less than a biology professor, what can I say? He did speak to people in a common language but everyone who teaches does this. What biology professory teaches his students in language they do not understand?

Using scripture to prove scripture to prove scripture is circular at the end of the day and really just does a disservice to the Lord.

Actually what else is there beside uninformed personal opinion if one does not compare scripture with scripture? That is like saying that using experiments to ascertain how things work is circulat at the end of the day and does a disservice to scientific inquiry.

 

[Gottservant]

I think I need to stop letting my thoughts wrap around 'Evolution' - the sower sows the word, not the iteration of the word.

That said, I have an honest question - that I don't have the faith to commit to "Evolutionists" (because of their behaviour) -: what happens when a species get's caught between 'two selection pressures'? As in, if something adapts and then devolves and then readapts and devolves, what happens to that species?

It's curious, right? Like there should be an answer?

 

[The Barbarian]

Jesus never said anything about evolution. You've been misled about that, too. I you'd just accept it the way He actually said it, I would think that would be as "deep" as you could go with God.

Instead of believing what man has added to God's word, why not just accept it as it is? Worth a try.

You are wrong. J

I'm quite right. Notice that you couldn't come up with even one counter-example:

Jesus spoke of the son of Adam and Eve. Jesus said in the beginning He made them, male and female, not single celled life form or apes.

You've been misled about that, too. God tells us what was there in the beginning, and there was neither male nor female:

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created heaven, and earth. [2] And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters.

Jesus was speaking of the beginning of our race, humans who were made living souls by God. Jesus knew that the creation account of the making of human beings was true and taught it. But He did not teach creationism, which is a purely man-made doctrine.

 

[The Barbarian]

I think I need to stop letting my thoughts wrap around 'Evolution' - the sower sows the word, not the iteration of the word.

Yes, maybe so. You're letting your obsession with the details of creation draw you away from His message to us.

That said, I have an honest question - that I don't have the faith to commit to "Evolutionists" (because of their behaviour) -:

Honesty and scholarship are virtues worth emulating. You shouldn't fear them.

what happens when a species get's caught between 'two selection pressures'?

Read "The Beak of the Finch." Populations normally undergo stasis, which is usually an active equilibrium between two different phenotypes. The finches of Daphne Major, changing back and forth between conditions of wet and drought years, are a good example.

As in, if something adapts and then devolves and then readapts and devolves,

There is no "devolution." All change in allele frequences is "evolution."

[quote[what happens to that species?[/quote]

It fluctuates around a mean, as the selective pressures change back and forth.

It's curious, right? Like there should be an answer?

It's the most common state for populations. Normally, you see a rapid evolution, followed by a long period of stasis (which is, as I said, mostly a dynamic equilibrium).

 

[Gottservant]

YRead "The Beak of the Finch." Populations normally undergo stasis, which is usually an active equilibrium between two different phenotypes. The finches of Daphne Major, changing back and forth between conditions of wet and drought years, are a good example.

And that's it? They just change back and forth, like a machine?

There is no "devolution." All change in allele frequences is "evolution."

Evolution has no opposite? The original change from dormancy, was unmotivated?

 

[Psalm 27]

R

Hi there,

So you know that verse that says "God will give them over to a strong delusion" (paraphrase)? Well, I think I am getting to be at cross purposes with God, trying to do what He has made next to impossible.

The disciples were put out, saying "if it is that hard for the rich to be saved, how can any of us be saved?"

Jesus said "With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible"

The point for me is that if someone is partially saved, it is better (not to argue, not to contest, not to repine) to refigure - in other words, actually stop expecting people will look to Jesus.

This is hard. I factor Jesus into everything I do, by faith; to just refigure - for example to take the Holy Spirit as my example - means forcing my faith to take a back seat. I'm not convinced this is going to save anyone, but I suppose in principle it is what Jesus found Himself having to do, when He was too weak to carry His Cross, for example. What is hard for me, is that I am not yet at the point where I can't carry my cross: I can talk, I can reason, I can justify - none of these things are not common to Man (but I suppose that is the point, they are common, not holy).

The thing is I just can't bring myself to believe, I will get to Heaven and God will say "Evolution was only partially relevant over time, the rest was Jesus" - I mean that is just not how God works. We've been through a world war over this, right? The idea that man completes himself, is a disaster - it makes you a friend of the Devil, without the meaning to uphold the eventuation of the Spirit. I think that is really the point: I am expecting to be equal with God as regards "Evolution", but I need first to yield to the Holy Spirit.

This is what Jesus did in His time, that is how He came to realize He had a cross, He yielded to the Holy Spirit. I think the thing is that if you successively submit to the Holy Spirit, the way an Evolutionist would begin to, you actually get much more than a cross: you get the entire faith of the entire Church, as regards the rapture. Maybe that is too hard to take on at once, I don't know, but it feels like the only thing that makes sense at this point. If we all consistently take on the Holy Spirit as a body, Evolution ceases to entangle even a little.

The Devil then, needs to take a lead from us, we need to be using our faith in order to make the way ahead for him - not that we give place to the Devil, but that we make a way of escape for him, that he not turn on us and bite us. If we did that collectively, people would cease to need a defence in Evolution, at the expectation that denial by it would provide them with a way of escape. Of course, then refiguring Jesus would be easy and light, but with a tinge of sadness, that men in the end could not find peace with Jesus without killing His Spirit in the process. I think that is a crisis that is still coming - despite all I have said.

But God has hope and we should rest in Him.

People have been deceived throughout history. Taught evolution from a fairly early age. The Education system has a lot to answer for ‘better a millstone were tied around their necks...’

The Word of God is available to virtually every human being on the planet, via the net.

Romans 1:20 ‘they are without excuse’

 

[Job 33:6]

Well, if you are comfortable with Jesus, who created the physical world knowing less than a biology professor, what can I say?

Actually what else is there beside uninformed personal opinion if one does not compare scripture with scripture? That is like saying that using experiments to ascertain how things work is circulat at the end of the day and does a disservice to scientific inquiry.

What? So your response basically is:

"What can I say?" Which isn't a response at all.

Then it sounds like you're saying that experiments are circular? I interpret your response as
following:

"yes I know it's circular reasoning to use the bible to prove the bible to prove the bible to prove the bible, but isn't using experiments to establish truth circular as well?".

I don't think this response makes any sense at all. If I make a claim that say, a rock is harder than a pillow, and I rub the rock and pillow together and the pillow shreds and the rock stays as it is, then I have conducted an experiment that demonstrates that the rock is harder.

Are you saying that there is something circular about this experiment?

The point is that in the experiment, we have tangible objects to confirm our experiment. It's based on what physically exists in front of us and before our eyes, as opposed to purely being determined by what we imagine in our mind after reading scripture. When we look at the historicity of scripture we can observe and visit the historic city of Jerusalem. This adds credibility to scripture because we have physical reality to cross examine scripture which helps us confirm the truth and accuracy of these particular concepts. But purely relying on scripture over and over and over again with nothing tangible is just circular. Ie Adam was literally real because scripture said so and we know that this scripture is literally true because scripture says that Jesus said it was true, which we also know because scripture says that Jesus is eternal. Even though scripture offers very few details to actually clarify on any of the above.

This is all just circular and never goes beyond personal imagined ideas upon reading scripture. Even the belief that Jesus, fully man, had knowledge of molecular biology and astronomy or calculus, is all just assumption. There's just nothing to suggest that Jesus had knowledge equivelant to modern scientific knowledge with respect to understanding creation.

And if Jesus was not all-knowing, then let it be what it is. Jesus, the Son, who was fully man, had not been born before the time of creation. Jesus, while holy and divine, is distinct from the father and so it's an unreasonable assumption to think that he was wholly familiar with the creation process of Genesis, given that he was not born until after creation occurred. Did Jesus know that God created the heavens and the Earth? Through His divine connection with the Father, we could believe that He did. But did Jesus know fine details of how? Scripture doesn't indicate that He did.

Scripture of course doesn't indicate that Jesus ever said anything about say molecular biology or particle physics or astrophysics etc. He was (and still is) a divine teacher, but it's perfectly fair to say that a molecular biology teacher could share information today that Jesus historically would not have known during His time sharing the gospel because Jesus was not all-knowing (as you know). He didn't come out of the womb writing calculus equations, His knowledge, while divinely influenced with respect to His relation to the father, was still of a human in nature and reflective of the time (before mankind had awareness of particular details of creation, hence why scripture doesn't really discuss creation beyond a relatively brief and short portion of genesis, and hence why Jesus never discusses details of such things in scripture).

 

[Dorothy Mae]

What? So your response basically is:

"What can I say?" Which isn't a response at all.

You cut out the bit that amplified this? Jesus was there and conducted the experiment and you don't think he understands it. That renders anyone unable to answer.

Then it sounds like you're saying that experiments are circular? I interpret your response as
following:

"yes I know it's circular reasoning to use the bible to prove the bible to prove the bible to prove the bible, but isn't using experiments to establish truth circular as well?".

I don't think this response makes any sense at all. If I make a claim that say, a rock is harder than a pillow, and I rub the rock and pillow together and the pillow shreds and the rock stays as it is, then I have conducted an experiment that demonstrates that the rock is harder.

Are you saying that there is something circular about this experiment?

Not at all.

 

[Job 33:6]

You cut out the bit that amplified this? Jesus was there and conducted the experiment and you don't think he understands it. That renders anyone unable to answer.
Not at all.

This response doesn't address anything.

Jesus was born after creation had already occurred. We can't confused the omnipotence of the Father, with the divinely inspired, yet also limited, knowledge of Jesus, the Son, who walked among us. Jesus wouldn't have known fine details of the past with respect to creation, no more than Jesus would have known things of the future, such as that one day we would have jets and cars. Nothing in scripture implies that He did either, as would be expected if Christ wasn't all-knowing or aware of specifics of the past or future.

And you still haven't responded to my comment on experiments. I can imagine in my mind that a rock is harder than a pillow, then I can observe physical reality, can rub a rock and a pillow together, and can then confirm that such a thought is true when the rock shreds the pillow.

Saying that scripture proves scripture, proves scripture, proves scripture, doesn't address the issue of circular reasoning. Saying that scripture says Adam is literally real, and that we know this is true because scripture says that Jesus referred to Adam, and that this is further true because scripture says that Jesus is eternal, really is just a consistent reliance on circular reasoning.

The difference ultimately being that scientific experiments can fall back on observation of physical reality, whereas interpretations of scripture with respect to Adam and Eve, are limited to our imaginations as we ponder the meaning of scripture without external corroboration.

Some concepts in scripture can be externally corroborated, such as the existence of historical cities and locations. But concepts related to the idea of a literal Adam and Eve, cannot.

So in the end, belief in a literal Adam and Eve falls back on non-scriptural or extra-scriptural beliefs related to Jesus having detailed knowledge of creation which predated His birth, and circular reasoning that lacks external corroboration.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

This response doesn't address anything.

Jesus was born after creation had already occurred. We can't confused the omnipotence of the Father, with the divinely inspired, yet also limited, knowledge of Jesus, the Son, who walked among us. Jesus wouldn't have known fine details of the past with respect to creation, no more than Jesus would have known things of the future, such as that one day we would have jets and cars. Nothing in scripture implies that He did either, as would be expected if Christ wasn't all-knowing or aware of specifics of the past or future.

Not my usual customary response but the BIble says the answer to this better. "In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was with God and the Word was God. All things were made through him and without him, nothing was made." He was there. Now you can decide to reject all that he said, but this is the position of those who heard him. He was there and knows physics, chemisty, biology and so on better than the most learned professor who ever lived.

And you still haven't responded to my comment on experiments. I can imagine in my mind that a rock is harder than a pillow, then I can observe physical reality, can rub a rock and a pillow together, and can then confirm that such a thought is true when the rock shreds the pillow.

What is your point?

Saying that scripture proves scripture, proves scripture, proves scripture, doesn't address the issue of circular reasoning. Saying that scripture says Adam is literally real, and that we know this is true because scripture says that Jesus referred to Adam, and that this is further true because scripture says that Jesus is eternal, really is just a consistent reliance on circular reasoning.

Who is saying scripture PROVES scripture? I said we compare scripture with scripture. Comparing is not proving. And you do not understand the reasoning line.

Jesus taught that Adam was a real man. John wrote that Jesus created all things. Ergo, Jesus KNEW that Adam was a real man. This is reported in a book as much of science and history and so on are written in books so this is no exception. We read a book on the life of Winston Churchill and we believe its contents. Of course this calls for no changes in how we conduct our lives and so believing what is written is pretty easy as long as it fits in with our lives are in general. If the author wrote he flew from place to place without the aid of any technology, we would cease to believe it.

Now if a person rejects the book the Bible (which means "the book") then of course, nothing Jesus teaches bears any weight in our thinking and the discussion is over. If one believes Jesus is who he and others said he was and what that BOOK teaches matches real life, iow, is true, then his statments on Adam bear a great deal of weight. That is the line of reasoning. And yes, it stands or falls with us believing the claims of Christ. But so do a lot of other things.

The difference ultimately being that scientific experiments can fall back on observation of physical reality, whereas interpretations of scripture with respect to Adam and Eve, are limited to our imaginations as we ponder the meaning of scripture without external corroboration.

Some concepts in scripture can be externally corroborated, such as the existence of historical cities and locations. But concepts related to the idea of a literal Adam and Eve, cannot.

So in the end, belief in a literal Adam and Eve falls back on non-scriptural or extra-scriptural beliefs related to Jesus having detailed knowledge of creation which predated His birth, and circular reasoning that lacks external corroboration.

The problem with this view is you have forgotten the teaching of Jesus on our origins. If a man believes Jesus was the son of God who actually created everything, then it follows that what he had to say on those origins is rock solid truth. If one does not believe that, then the origins, along with everything else, is of no validity. In fact, everything Jesus said is bunk and he cannot even be regards as a morally good man or one of understanding and knowledge.

Once believing that Jesus is good and knowledgable, one finds that the evidence for his teaching being true is equally rock solid including origins. But that is a different discussion.

 

[Job 33:6]

. He was there and knows physics, chemisty, biology and so on better than the most learned professor who ever lived.

This is all completely made up in your imagination. You've gone beyond scripture and have made these ideas up with 0 evidence.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

This is all completely made up in your imagination. You've gone beyond scripture and have made these ideas up with 0 evidence.

Not at all. Read John 1. He made everything. No making everything without a thorough understanding of biology, chemistry, physics, you name it.