A simple explanation

[robot23]

Then how can you say that Evolutionists believe in souls? Your contradictions are endless.

Again, your contempt for the gifts of man as being no better than an ape is not only a huge lack of respect for your gifts & abilities, it is also denial. And it proves my post. I am no longer going to have a conversation with someone who not only doesn't value his own soul, but cannot see the difference bewteen men & apes. You have also proven what I said about evolutionists not understanding what a soul is and therefore, you can NEVER see why we could not have come from apes. But your gross confusion about what differentiates men from apes will only create more contradictory arguments. But you can continue to claim that you belong in a zoo. By your reasoning, you you should see that as a compliment. Next time I visit a zoo, I'll look for you. Other than that, I will not waste my time conversing with someone whose every statement contradicts his last one.

how do you know non-human apes don't have a soul?

the reason why you won't waste your time arguing is that you can't back-up a single thing you say

scientists have ALREADY proven we've decended from apes
it's done already
have fun living in the past

 

[Battie]

Do you even know what a soul is??? If so, then how could we have "inherited our souls from animals who do not possess it?

Genesis 2:7 -- "...the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."

Isn't it possible that when man was ready God gave him a soul? Also note that Genesis 2 is a second account of creation that is much, much different from Genesis 1. I don't see this problem addressed very often. What are we to make of two passages that contradict? Perhaps we might consider that they are not as literal as we would like to think...

(I want to add that the last few lines are only speculation. I don't know if I believe that, so don't label me a heretic just yet, please.)

 

[Tomk80]

(I want to add that the last few lines are only speculation. I don't know if I believe that, so don't label me a heretic just yet, please.)

Burn the witch!

 

[Jimmy The Hand]

I'm trying to find the section (other than Carico's post) where someone said we descended from apes.

Confusion run amok. Standard day at the old CvE.

 

[william jay schroeder]

No, this is what you interpret God to have said - there's a difference.

Even assuming your theistic assumptions, other theists interpret Genesis in an entirely different light. Don't confuse your interpretation of scripture with God speaking, unless, of course, you are God.

this ignorance is very pervalent here. If you are not a christian you do not have the right to say we are wrong. Or you can say we are wrong just a much as we can see science and say it shows the creation of GOD. The Bible is the word of GOD it was written by men through the HOLY SPIRIT OF CHRIST. SO man penned it God inspired it. You have no more right to assume anyones salvation then a christian does. NO one knows but GOD who is truelly saved. We can be certain of our salvation but we can not prove it to anyone, We can show it by our love but The person can never know for certain, we can be fairly sure that they may be saved but thats it. They interprete it no more different then people interprete anything. we all have opinions and we are either right or wrong. If i die and nothing happens thenm you are right if i die and go to heaven you are wrong. I quess we will see, I very confident i'm right so I have no fear of death. If you dont believe and have no fear then good for you you will have all of eternity to wonder way you didnt believe. I really do wish we would get off of the Bilbe bashing and interpretations because it has nothing to do with science. Why dont you evolutionist just ignore the threads or post about the bible and move on. Creationism is more to prove the theory of evolution wrong then to prove the Bible right. As for lies in the creationist camps, I would think that when you use catch words like could, would, should, may if, and all the others and still consider it a fact that we came from a comman ancestor it is a lie as well.

 

[GoSeminoles!]

I really do wish we would get off of the Bilbe bashing and interpretations because it has nothing to do with science.

I second that. The problem is that creationists here keep quoting the Bible to support their arguments. Stop quoting the Bible or using it as the basis for criticisms of evolution and the alleged Bible-bashing should stop.

 

[Dragar]

The problem is that the literal interpretation is right at the root of this. People trust their literal interpretations more than they trust reality to speak for itself. That's the root of it.

 

[h2whoa]

It's the danger of having such an incredibly staunch literalist interpretation of the bibly. If it becomes your fall back method of refuting science then you're just inviting people to attack it. Ultimately this does more harm to the Bible than atheism ever could under it's own steam.

It changes from what you believe, spiritually, to what you can prove empirically.

The two things are separate and should be kept so.

h2

 

[Oncedeceived]

It's the danger of having such an incredibly staunch literalist interpretation of the bibly.

It is not so much the staunch literalist interpretation but one that goes against God's creation. In my mind at least, God's creation should not in anyway conflict with "known" elements therein. Lucaspa and I agreed on one thing; that being that if there is a conflict with reality of the Creation it probably lies not with the Bible but with mankind's interpretation of it.

If it becomes your fall back method of refuting science then you're just inviting people to attack it. Ultimately this does more harm to the Bible than atheism ever could under it's own steam.

The Bible although not a Science manual should in no way have the ability to refute Science per se but only give direction to those who use it as a guiding force to understand the reality of our world.

It changes from what you believe, spiritually, to what you can prove empirically.

It can most certainly become just that and very often due to misunderstandings of Genesis and other parts of the Bible some lose faith. So it sometimes very tempting to gloss over elements or segments of the Bible so that someones sensibilities are not offended. The problem then lies in what do we choose to hold as truth and what is something we can toss away.

The two things are separate and should be kept so.

God is the God of all, how does one separate the Creation from the Creator?

P.S.

Good to see you back. I didn't "see" you here this weekend.

 

[william jay schroeder]

It's the danger of having such an incredibly staunch literalist interpretation of the bibly. If it becomes your fall back method of refuting science then you're just inviting people to attack it. Ultimately this does more harm to the Bible than atheism ever could under it's own steam.

It changes from what you believe, spiritually, to what you can prove empirically.

The two things are separate and should be kept so.

h2

not at all really. I think it shouldnt be a fallback to disprove evolution theory because it is not a scienmce book. But having a literale interpretation is not bad unless it gets to legalism of salvation. We are saved by GRACE and to go one way you get legalism go the other you get to be saying i can do anything because im saved. The harm is when we must no everthing in detail to understand GOD and this will never be possible. IT is when we try to explain every detail of how God did it that we will fall from FAITH. Because we can never know. We then start to listen to mans reasoning and wisdom when he really doesnt have either very well. They are seperete and should be keep that way, but it is to fun not to.

 

[JohnR7]

Yes, that makes perfect sense, Dragar!

With no disrespect for your explaination, rare mutations resulting in evolution does not make perfect sense to me. Millions of these "rare" mutations would be requried for evolution to take place and when you have co evoluton millions of matching mutations would be needed for the species to evolve together. The mathmatic chance of that happened is zero.

Your explaination was pretty good though.

 

[gluadys]

Again this theory that human beings are an nothing but an ACCIDENT of nature, a mutation from the genes of an ape or gorilla- like creature indicates a profound lack of respect for the gifts & abilities of which we human beings are capable!

How does it indicate a lack of respect? That’s like saying I show disrespect for my parent’s generosity to me when I mention they gave different but equally valuable gift to my brother. How does recognizing that a chimp is my distant cousin show disrespect for my own God-given humanity?

The pains to which evolutionists go to try their hardest to PROVE that we are NOT a miraculous creation but instead nothing but matter shows a complete lack of regard for not only how we are differentiated from other animals, but no understanding of the human the soul.

What is special about being a miraculous creation? Isn’t all of creation a miracle?

Why do you distort what evolution says? Show me where it says that evolution = nothing but matter.

What is special about being differentiated from other animals? A snail is also differentiated from other animals.

If you think evolution denies the existence of the soul, you have been mis-informed.

We human beings, unlike any other animal, were given the ability to honor our Creator,

Hmmm. Are you reading a different bible than me? Mine says that all of creation honours the Creator. And not just animals, either, but cedars and mountains and stars.

but instead, many people throw this away and laugh in the face of our Creator by saying that WE know how life was formed!

No, we don’t know how life was formed (yet). But we do know a lot about how it changes. That is what evolution is about.

If ANY evolutionist even UNDERSTOOD what a soul was, he would KNOW why we could NOT have come from apes!

There are a whole lot of evolutionists who know what a soul is. They are Christians who accept the science of evolution and the teachings of the bible. Nothing about evolution changes the biblical teaching about the soul, and nothing about the soul means we don’t share a common ancestor with other apes.

Do you even know what a soul is???

Yes.

If so, then how could we have "inherited our souls from animals who do not possess it?

We didn’t inherit it. Not even from our human parents. Our soul comes from God.

So why in the world are you even TRYING to prove that we came from apes????What is your purpose????

My purpose is to understand God’s creation---to listen to creation’s own testimony about its origin.

Then how can you say that Evolutionists believe in souls? Your contradictions are endless.

No contradiction. There are millions of Christian evolutionists who believe in souls.

 

[Dragar]

With no disrespect for your explaination, rare mutations resulting in evolution does not make perfect sense to me. Millions of these "rare" mutations would be requried for evolution to take place and when you have co evoluton millions of matching mutations would be needed for the species to evolve together. The mathmatic chance of that happened is zero.

Let's say you need...oooh...a million beneficial mutations for population to change into something completely different. Let's say, those dinosaurs at the end of their time (65 million years ago) to modern day birds. I don't know that, I'm guessing, but a million sounds big.

Now, let's say that the odds of a single new offspring having a beneficial mutation (since neutral ones and harmful ones are automatically weeded out) and passing those on so that it becomes embedded in the population is...hmm...ten thousand to one? A hundred thousand to one?

Let's go with one hundred thousand to one odds.

And let's have a population of a hundred thousand. Quite small, really.

How many offspring are produced every year? Let's say one percent of that figure - a thousand.

So, we have a thousand offspring a year. The odds of a beneficial mutation per offspring are are a hundred thousand to one, so the odds of a beneficial mutation per year is just a thousand multiplied by one over a hundred thousand. This is 100 to 1 odds.

So, on average, every 100 years we get a mutation that is benefical added to the population. We said a million mutations are needed, so that means we need 100 multiplied by a million. This gives us a hundred million years.

Sounds pretty much bang on time, to me. And these are with numbers all moved heavily in your favour. There are much bigger populations about (thus more offspring per year), and beneficial mutations are more common.

And if any biologists want to put forward some numbers to crunch, let's see if it really is 'mathematically impossible'.

 

[gluadys]

I really do wish we would get off of the Bilbe bashing and interpretations because it has nothing to do with science.

I am with you there Jay. But don’t you think that as a Christian I have a right and a duty to show Carico that what she is saying about the bible is wrong?

Why dont you evolutionist just ignore the threads or post about the bible and move on.

Because Carico and other creationists keep telling the world that a Christian cannot accept evolution and that is a lie. Evolution is not atheism. When people like Carico say that evolution means you can’t believe in God and creation and the bible, they not only lying, they are showing they don’t believe the testimony of Christians who accept evolution as the best scientific explanation of biological diversity. They are saying we are atheists when we are not.

They are also saying to atheists that they have to believe a lie in order to come to God. Not a good strategy for evangelism.

Creationism is more to prove the theory of evolution wrong then to prove the Bible right.

Well it fails at both.

As for lies in the creationist camps, I would think that when you use catch words like could, would, should, may if, and all the others and still consider it a fact that we came from a comman ancestor it is a lie as well.

In principle, all scientific knowledge is provisional. That is why the could, would, should, may, if etc. language is used. But some things are more iffy than others. That we come from a common ancestor is one of the least iffy things in science.

 

[h2whoa]

It is not so much the staunch literalist interpretation but one that goes against God's creation. In my mind at least, God's creation should not in anyway conflict with "known" elements therein. Lucaspa and I agreed on one thing; that being that if there is a conflict with reality of the Creation it probably lies not with the Bible but with mankind's interpretation of it.

Yep, I can certainly agree with that.

The Bible although not a Science manual should in no way have the ability to refute Science per se but only give direction to those who use it as a guiding force to understand the reality of our world.

Absolutely. Totally agree here.

It can most certainly become just that and very often due to misunderstandings of Genesis and other parts of the Bible some lose faith. So it sometimes very tempting to gloss over elements or segments of the Bible so that someones sensibilities are not offended. The problem then lies in what do we choose to hold as truth and what is something we can toss away.

I largely agree here although I don't like the phrase "toss away". I think the sway between literalism of certain parts of the Bible vs allowing for metaphor is not a case of chucking anything away.

God is the God of all, how does one separate the Creation from the Creator?

The same way one can separate the chef from the meal. I used to work in a restaraunt. People ate the food and rarely met the chef. They enjoyed the food but didn't know who made it (I never liked that chef there but that's beside the point...).

Good to see you back. I didn't "see" you here this weekend.

Good to be back. Wasn't too well this weekend and had to prepare for a big meeting with my professors today.

h2

 

[william jay schroeder]

I am with you there Jay. But don’t you think that as a Christian I have a right and a duty to show Carico that what she is saying about the bible is wrong?

No, you could be wrong as well, your is not the only one right, and maybe hers isnt either. we have the right to decide our way of reading it, and discussing it but not saying they are wrong, but i quess i say your wrong so maybe i'm wrong.

Because Carico and other creationists keep telling the world that a Christian cannot accept evolution and that is a lie. Evolution is not atheism. When people like Carico say that evolution means you can’t believe in God and creation and the bible, they not only lying, they are showing they don’t believe the testimony of Christians who accept evolution as the best scientific explanation of biological diversity. They are saying we are atheists when we are not.

They are also saying to atheists that they have to believe a lie in order to come to God. Not a good strategy for evangelism.




Well it fails at both.



In principle, all scientific knowledge is provisional. That is why the could, would, should, may, if etc. language is used. But some things are more iffy than others. That we come from a common ancestor is one of the least iffy things in science.

the theory of it i think is but thats my right to believe, that is why we are here.

 

[Randall McNally]

With no disrespect for your explaination, rare mutations resulting in evolution does not make perfect sense to me. Millions of these "rare" mutations would be requried for evolution to take place and when you have co evoluton millions of matching mutations would be needed for the species to evolve together. The mathmatic chance of that happened is zero.

Wrong. Millions of mutations do occur. The ones that are lethal usually manifest as a spontaneously aborted embryo. Even conservative estimates say spontaneous abortions occur in at least 40% of all fertilization events.

John, can you make a note of this so I don't have to repeat it another seven times?

 

[Chrysalis Kat]

I'm trying to explain evolution to people who do not understand what the theory is even about. What I'd have liked as a response would have been, "Oh, so that's what evolution is! Yes, that makes perfect sense, Dragar! Thank you so much, you've saved my mind from creationist propoganda! How can I ever repay you?"

For an example of the type of response I expected, read Carico's.

OK Dragar, for what it's worth, I liked your OP so much that I copied it and saved it. I always enjoy your posts and I think you have a real talent for explaining complex topics in a user friendly format. You're so young and smart and even though I'm three times older than you I learn a lot from your posts in many of the forums here.

 

[Sphere]

If you want to know what's true and what's not, Carico, ignoring things which go against your beliefs is a fairly poor way of finding out.

What you're asking would require carico to actually read, comprehend and answer to posts here in an intelligent thought-out manner. Wont. Happen.

Carico has never done this when it comes to evolution. Logical posts, evidence ect are only met with a stubborn attitude that consists of nothing more than nonsensical rambling.

 

[Dragar]

OK Dragar, for what it's worth, I liked your OP so much that I copied it and saved it. I always enjoy your posts and I think you have a real talent for explaining complex topics in a user friendly format. You're so young and smart and even though I'm three times older than you I learn a lot from your posts in many of the forums here.

What you're asking would require carico to actually read, comprehend and answer to posts here in an intelligent thought-out manner. Wont. Happen.

Carico has never done this when it comes to evolution. Logical posts, evidence ect are only met with a stubborn attitude that consists of nothing more than nonsensical rambling.

You should listen to her rants in GA some time!