Why I don't believe in evolution...

[Humble_Disciple]

The two main reasons why I don't believe in evolution, other than the lack of evidence, are that the Bible says we were created from the dust of the ground, not from an ape-like ancestor, and because there's no way to draw the line of when humans became fully evolved, morally conscious, and spiritual beings.

This doesn't mean, however, that I believe earth is less than 10,000 years old, which isn't taught anywhere in the Bible. Christian geologists discovered the earth's antiquity before Darwin was even born.

 

[HTacianas]

The two main reasons why I don't believe in evolution, other than the lack of evidence, are that the Bible says we were created from the dust of the ground, not from an ape-like ancestor, and because there's no way to draw the line of when humans became fully evolved, morally conscious, and spiritual beings.

This doesn't mean, however, that I believe earth is less than 10,000 years old, which isn't taught anywhere in the Bible. Christian geologists discovered the earth's antiquity before Darwin was even born.

I look at the "dust" version of creation in two different ways. One is that all living beings are in fact composed of "dust", meaning small particles. In most cases carbon. But also it wouldn't have been uncommon for some ancient writer to have witnessed a dead body -either man or animal- desiccate and crumble into dust. Such as "for dust you are, and to dust shall you return". The writer may have witnessed someone returning to dust and reached the conclusion that they in fact came from dust.

 

[Humble_Disciple]

I look at the "dust" version of creation in two different ways. One is that all living beings are in fact composed of "dust", meaning small particles. In most cases carbon. But also it wouldn't have been uncommon for some ancient writer to have witnessed a dead body -either man or animal- desiccate and crumble into dust. Such as "for dust you are, and to dust shall you return". The writer may have witnessed someone returning to dust and reached the conclusion that they in fact came from dust.

Where do we draw the line of when humans became fully evolved, morally conscious, and spiritual beings?

 

[HTacianas]

Where do we draw the line of when humans became fully evolved, morally conscious, and spiritual beings?

That is what we call theosis. It is the objective of the Christian life. To reach a God-like state.

2Pe 1:4 ...that through these you may be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

 

[Humble_Disciple]

That is what we call theosis. It is the objective of the Christian life. To reach a God-like state.

2Pe 1:4 ...that through these you may be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

I'm talking about our current species. Could homo erectus attain theosis too? Where do you draw the line between human and non-human?

 

[The Barbarian]

The two main reasons why I don't believe in evolution, other than the lack of evidence,

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution.
...
Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason.
YE creationist, Dr. Todd Wood, The Truth About Evolution
The truth about evolution

 

[The Barbarian]

I'm talking about our current species. Could homo erectus attain theosis too?

What if they did? Would that be offensive to you? What if all species of the genus Homo were descended from Adam and Eve?

Why would it matter?

Where do you draw the line between human and non-human?

It's a difficult issue. Late Australopithecines are very, very much like early human species. Why does it matter?

 

[Job 33:6]

The two main reasons why I don't believe in evolution, other than the lack of evidence, are that the Bible says we were created from the dust of the ground, not from an ape-like ancestor, and because there's no way to draw the line of when humans became fully evolved, morally conscious, and spiritual beings.

This doesn't mean, however, that I believe earth is less than 10,000 years old, which isn't taught anywhere in the Bible. Christian geologists discovered the earth's antiquity before Darwin was even born.

Oh I see you're here too

And, I disagree with the first paragraph here, but personally don't feel the need to beat the dead horse so I'll move on to the second paragraph.

As most people well know, the problem with accepting an old earth while rejecting the evolution is that it's logically irrational to accept that earth is old based on things like geologic superposition, but then to turn and reject the existence of the fossil succession, because the two, the geologic column and the fossil succession, directly correlate to one another.

Alternatively, if the fossil succession is accepted, then we have the 1:1 correlation between the fossil succession and things like DNA phylogenetics, cladistics of comparative anatomy, cladistics of ERVs, cladistics of paleogeography, cladistics of protein structures, cladistics of morphology etc.

If you accept that the fossil succession exists, the only rational conclusion that follows is evolution. And if you reject the fossil succession, then it would beg the question of why you think the earth is old to begin with.

And maybe you don't see the topic this way, but if you continue to investigate, it will become clear with time.

And this is why so many Christians scientists accept evolution in our current age.

 

[BeyondET]

I'm talking about our current species. Could homo erectus attain theosis too? Where do you draw the line between human and non-human?

the soul of man breathed into him thus became a living spirit. today its the zinc spark

 

[coffee4u]

The two main reasons why I don't believe in evolution, other than the lack of evidence, are that the Bible says we were created from the dust of the ground, not from an ape-like ancestor, and because there's no way to draw the line of when humans became fully evolved, morally conscious, and spiritual beings.

This doesn't mean, however, that I believe earth is less than 10,000 years old, which isn't taught anywhere in the Bible. Christian geologists discovered the earth's antiquity before Darwin was even born.

Sin caused death.
Romans 5:12
Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned—

Where there is no sin there is no death. Death only came to be because Adam sinned.
Evolution would mean life and death for million of years before mankind emerged.

So which is it?
Millions of years of evolution with death.
or no death until sin?

 

[The Barbarian]

Where there is no sin there is no death. Death only came to be because Adam sinned.

Spiritual death came into the world as a result of Adam's sin. God told Adam that he would die the day he ate from the tree. And yet he lived on for many years thereafter. If God tells the truth, then the death Adam incurred was not a physical one.

Evolution would mean life and death for million of years before mankind emerged.

Which is consistent with God's word.

Your dilemma exists only if you don't take God's word seriously.

 

[Sam Saved by Grace]

This doesn't mean, however, that I believe earth is less than 10,000 years old, which isn't taught anywhere in the Bible. Christian geologists discovered the earth's antiquity before Darwin was even born.

Meh. Adam and Eve would've appeared 30 years of age only a day after their creation. Doesn't make it so.

Same principle with the world and the universe. The world is old because God created an older world. Apparently that thought never occurred to a lot of people.

 

[The Barbarian]

Meh. Adam and Eve would've appeared 30 years of age only a day after their creation. Doesn't make it so.

Same principle with the world and the universe. The world is old because God created an older world. Apparently that thought never occurred to a lot of people.

The "appearance of age" idea is based on the notion that God is deceptive, and would fake great age. This is incompatible with the God of the Bible Who is truth.

An ingenious (but IMO flawed) work-around is Gerald Aardsma's "virtual history" concept. But given that the Bible does not teach a young Earth, why not just accept the evidence for what it is?

 

[Sam Saved by Grace]

The "appearance of age" idea is based on the notion that God is deceptive, and would fake great age. This is incompatible with the God of the Bible Who is truth.

An ingenious (but IMO flawed) work-around is Gerald Aardsma's "virtual history" concept. But given that the Bible does not teach a young Earth, why not just accept the evidence for what it is?

Fallacy. The creation of an old earth does not imply an intent to deceive necessarily, unless one presumes to judge the mind of God.

One could say, by that same rationale, Adam and Eve's advanced age at creation was deceptive on the part of God. It's not God's fault that people poke their noses into His business. He can create whatever and however He pleases.

 

[loveofourlord]

Fallacy. The creation of an old earth does not imply an intent to deceive necessarily, unless one presumes to judge the mind of God.

One could say, by that same rationale, Adam and Eve's advanced age at creation was deceptive on the part of God. It's not God's fault that people poke their noses into His business. He can create whatever and however He pleases.

it is deception since god would know in time we discover how his falsly aged earth was and people would believe it.

 

[The Barbarian]

Fallacy. The creation of an old earth does not imply an intent to deceive necessarily, unless one presumes to judge the mind of God.

God, being omnipotent, would realize such a thing would be deceptive. No way to get around that. Sorry, "appearance of age" depends on a deceptive God. Which is inconsistent with the God of the Bible.

One could say, by that same rationale, Adam and Eve's advanced age at creation was deceptive on the part of God.

Would have been if it happened. But of course the text itself says it's not a literal account but a figurative one.

It's not God's fault that people poke their noses into His business.

Sorry, that story won't work, either...

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.

God says otherwise.

 

[Sam Saved by Grace]

God, being omnipotent, would realize such a thing would be deceptive. No way to get around that. Sorry, "appearance of age" depends on a deceptive God. Which is inconsistent with the God of the Bible.



Would have been if it happened. But of course the text itself says it's not a literal account but a figurative one.



Sorry, that story won't work, either...

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.

God says otherwise.

You are not being at all consistent. You are saying that it would be deceptive on the part of God to create a fully aged Adam and Eve, seeing as how the perception would be that they were older, yet, you hold to the idea that everything in the creation account is figurative. That would make God even more deceptive, by your fallacious standard, seeing as how throughout the entire Bible, the creation account is referenced as being true in a very literal sense, leading people to believe for thousands of years something that, according to you, isn't so.

The Word of God makes it very clear how the world was created. It tells us how sin entered into the world - by one man. The Bible is clear on this repeatedly. To such a great extent, in fact, that I would consider it extremely deceptive on the part of God if the creation account was not a literal account.

Not that I intend to banter about with anyone denying the literal existence of Adam and Eve. You have already demonstrated in plenty of other places that your agenda is not to glorify God and His Word. You have your own modernized form of liberal Christianity that is utterly alien to me. Simply put, debating you would be a complete waste of time.

And by the way, I couldn't care less about your race. People these days are way too wrapped up in their own identity.

I hope you repent and find the Truth.

 

[Job 33:6]

Fallacy. The creation of an old earth does not imply an intent to deceive necessarily, unless one presumes to judge the mind of God.

One could say, by that same rationale, Adam and Eve's advanced age at creation was deceptive on the part of God. It's not God's fault that people poke their noses into His business. He can create whatever and however He pleases.

I like considering the case of petrified forests, where in some instances we have petrified trees with termite burrows within them and animal trackways in the paleosols (ancient soils that are now rock) around the base of their trunk.

We could track this further down the rabbit hole and could talk about how we are 110% certain these forests are not deposited by some giant flood but were actual original prehistoric forests of original native soils, If needed. The dilemma of young earth views runs much deeper as we reach a realization that such environments exist mid-way up the stratigraphic column in Paleozoic rock. Quite a troubling circumstance for young earthers, if they were to ever become aware of such things. But people don't know what they don't know. Such words are probably meaningless to many.

If this environment were created simply to look old, but in actuality were made instantaneously with an appearance of age, what would that say about God's character? Did the termites ever actually exist? Did the animal that made the tracks ever really exist? The leaching of nutrients separating the A and B horizons, did such a process ever actually happen? Did the changing seasons that form rings in modern day trees ever actually have any role in the formation of tree rings of these petrified forests?

It truly could only mean that God were deceptive. Or that people are mistaken in young earth views.

 

[Job 33:6]

You are not being at all consistent. You are saying that it would be deceptive on the part of God to create a fully aged Adam and Eve, seeing as how the perception would be that they were older, yet, you hold to the idea that everything in the creation account is figurative. That would make God even more deceptive, by your fallacious standard, seeing as how throughout the entire Bible, the creation account is referenced as being true in a very literal sense, leading people to believe for thousands of years something that, according to you, isn't so.

The Word of God makes it very clear how the world was created. It tells us how sin entered into the world - by one man. The Bible is clear on this repeatedly. To such a great extent, in fact, that I would consider it extremely deceptive on the part of God if the creation account was not a literal account.

Not that I intend to banter about with anyone denying the literal existence of Adam and Eve. You have already demonstrated in plenty of other places that your agenda is not to glorify God and His Word. You have your own modernized form of liberal Christianity that is utterly alien to me. Simply put, debating you would be a complete waste of time.

And by the way, I couldn't care less about your race. People these days are way too wrapped up in their own identity.

I hope you repent and find the Truth.

Even though I don't agree with the young earth position, I like this response, because it really highlights the dilemma that Christians are largely in today.

In one hand, physical reality seems quite clear that the earth is ancient. But in the other hand, if scripture isn't taken literally, then what does that mean about key aspects of the Christian walk? If sin didn't enter through one man as described in Romans 5:15, then what does it mean for the second part of the verse that refers to the gift that came by the grace of one man, Jesus Christ?

In instances where Paul, or even Jesus himself spoke of Adam and Eve, could Jesus Himself have believed that Adam was a literal man? And if so, was Jesus mistaken? Or did Jesus simply tell the apostles what they needed hear in light of a complex world that they couldn't possibly have fathomed at the time?

If Jesus' true being were revealed to mankind, I'm not sure that mankind could have fathomed Him. Maybe mankind was not yet ready to handle the full truth when the living Word was originally revealed.

 

[The Barbarian]

You are not being at all consistent. You are saying that it would be deceptive on the part of God to create a fully aged Adam and Eve, seeing as how the perception would be that they were older, yet, you hold to the idea that everything in the creation account is figurative.

No, I don't. But even if it was, it would be perfectly true as a parable. I have no doubt that the Hebrews realized this, given that they were familiar with the Sumerian stories.

That would make God even more deceptive, by your fallacious standard

No, that wrong. You're saying that Jesus was deceptive by using parables? Seriously?

seeing as how throughout the entire Bible, the creation account is referenced as being true in a very literal sense,

No, I know of no case where it's presented as a literal history. If you're claiming that mentioning a figurative account converts it to a literal history, I'd like to see the evidence for that.

In instances where Paul, or even Jesus himself spoke of Adam and Eve, could Jesus Himself have believed that Adam was a literal man?

So the confusion is, you assumed there couldn't be an allegory about real people and real events? There can be, so that's not an issue, either. I happen to believe that Adam and Eve were real people and that there was a real fall, in which they disobeyed God. And there's nothing in biology or any other science that rules it out.

Not that I intend to banter about with anyone denying the literal existence of Adam and Eve. You have already demonstrated in plenty of other places that your agenda is not to glorify God and His Word.

You're upset because I don't accept your new interpretation of the creation story. But you should be a little more careful about tossing off false accusations. I won't report you, but others might.

You have your own modernized form of liberal Christianity that is utterly alien to me.

In fact, St. Augustine over a millennium ago, recognized that the creation story in Genesis was not a literal one. On the other hand, YE creationism was invented in the early 20th century. Before the Seventh-Day Adventists invented it, most creationists were old Earth creationists.

Simply put, debating you would be a complete waste of time.

Possibly so.

And by the way, I couldn't care less about your race.

Why is it always about race for you guys? I didn't say anything about race.

People these days are way too wrapped up in their own identity.

Maybe so. I hope you can find your way to deal with these things and find some peace about them.