Adam was made from the dust of the ground.....

[Hoghead1]

On most subjects I stand opposed to atheists, but on the subject of evolution your argument has more merit than that of the T.E. You don't try to twist and distort the Bible to conform with evolution. Rather, you reject it outright, which is the more honest approach. The intelligent mind cannot hold two contradictory beliefs. To try and conform to evolution the T.E. has to reject so much of the Scripture there is some question as to whether he believes anything at all.

The problem you have is what you construe to be evidence. If you demand absolute proof you will not be satisfied. Though God is the one absolute in the universe, He does not prove Himself because we are to come to Him on faith. Faith is hard, but the rewards are out of this world..

So here you have evolution; a universe coming about by means unexplainable to science bringing forth a first life that is unexplainable to science that somehow finds something to eat though it is alone on the planet and then encounters something which forces it to evolve; a hard thing to happen when you are the only species on the planet. So then copy errors somehow implant characteristics that never previously existed into this solitary being and it emerges from the sludge to become the progenitor of plants and animals alike.

If I wrote a story like this and presented it to a general audience it would never sell because it's too outlandish. The competing story is a magnificent God who creates the heavens and the earth and gives man the opportunity to serve or to sin. Man, being the free thinking rebel, decides to sin and the perfect world is sullied. Man and his descendants have the curse of death upon them... but suddenly the Son of God offers them eternal life. Now we know not only how we came about, but why. Now not only does life make more sense but it has meaning. Truly, this is a superior story.

All of us who know the Lord came from the fallen part of man who previously rejected Him. The atheist is not the enlightened one. Doubting and rejection authority is our nature. True enlightenment come when you encounter the Lord and invite Him into your life.

No, again, you has seriously misidentified the issue here. The issue is how much twisting and distorting and violence to Scripture does your fundamentalaistic ideology do.

 

[Kenny'sID]

And your comment, coming from someone who has been here for two months, is hilarious.

Actually that is hilarious, and is a huge clue to your thought process and the inability to see things from even a few obvious angles. You have no idea where I was before I came here.

 

[Kenny'sID]

This is why:

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although 'they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.'"

Not buying it...the writers of the scripture will and have always been criticized. If they aren't being criticized for what I'm saying, they will be criticized for what you say, unless you think your side in this is non criticizable . All sides will be criticized. Can't please all the people all the time, especially in this area.

 

[Hoghead1]

Please, do go on. Tell us how evolution is a"lie".

If you believe in the Bible it's a lie, what more would you expect a Christian on a Christian board to say? The Bible says it and that's all some of us need. If you need more, go find it or believe what you have already.

Do you feel some need to convince us what you believe to be true is true? If so, why?

No, it isn't a question of believing the Bible. it is a question of what lens you are viewing Scripture through. Is fundamentalaistic ideology the correct version of Scripture?

 

[Kenny'sID]

No, it isn't a question of believing the Bible. it is a question of what lens you are viewing Scripture through. Is fundamentalaistic ideology the correct version of Scripture?

Then you must be saying evolution is not a lie and scripture supports it, but my lens won't let me see that. So tell me, what lens/scripture tells you the Bible agrees with evolution?

 

[juvenissun]

If it is a miracle why did God need soil at all? Why not creation ex nihilo?

To satisfy an important scientific truth: dust to dust.

 

[Hoghead1]

Then you must be saying evolution is not a lie and scripture supports it, but my lens won't let me see that. So tell me, what lens/scripture tells you the Bible agrees with evolution?

I never said that the Bible agrees with evolution. I am committed to modern biblical scholarship. I went that way because it approaches Scripture, with a far more open-minded attitude. It views Scripture through the lens crated by a healthy skepticism for traditional teachings. Maybe Scripture is inerrant, maybe not let's check it out. Now, on the basis of there being 100 well-documented biblical contradictions alone, I don't think it is inerrant. Granted, fundamentalist ideology claims that Scripture is inerrant, but that is simply man-made ideology talking, theories about Scripture which need to be checked out. Also, I certainly don't think that Scripture is an accurate geophysical witness at all. Divinely inspirited as it may be, Scripture is still the product of a prescientific culture. It would be ridiculous to expect it would agree with modern science. God works like a careful carpenter, with the grain. God can move forward only as fast as we are ready. hence, it would be ridiculous to expect God to reveal advanced scientific truths the biblical writers; they wouldn't know understood or known what to do with any of this.

 

[KWCrazy]

This is a strawman.

Sez you!
Fact is we both believe in the impossible. The difference is I acknowledge it and God can do the impossible. Natural law cannot.

1. Do you accept that organisms reproduce with variation?

You mean as in "Go forth and multiply? Of course. A certain level of speciation is to be expected and is, in fact, required. From the beginning to the flood, and then again from the flood to modern times, plant and animal species had to expand from what was to what is. Each reproduced after its kind. Look at all the canines we have. Look at all the felines. Each reproduced after its kind.

2. Do you accept organisms inherit traits from their parents?

Absolutely. They do not magically acquire new traits and encode them into the reproductive system, as evolution would require. Any trait found in the offspring would have come from one or both parents.

3. Do you accept that organisms with traits more suited to survive in their environment tend to reproduce more?

Absolutely. Adaptation is a conservative process where benevolent traits are accented and deleterious traits are lost. It is, in fact, consistent subtraction, not addition. Reality works to the opposite of what evolution claims.

4. Do you accept organisms with detrimental traits are less likely to reproduce?

Usually, although a lot of liberals have children. Liberalism could be considered a detrimental trait. The desire to live off the labor of others is deleterious to the continued existence of society. Fortunately, liberalism can be cured with a PROPER education.
Now my question to you. If benevolent mutations can advance a species, why are fruit flies radiated over 50,000 generations still fruit flies? Why didn't evolution produce a single new characteristic; only deformities?

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Fact is we both believe in the impossible.

Evolution is observable and testable. It is supported by an abundance of facts. I've seen your posts several times on here and your only argument is basically "It's not true!" Well saying it doesn't make it so.

You mean as in "Go forth and multiply? Of course. A certain level of speciation is to be expected and is, in fact, required.

What is the mechanism that stops a population from changing past the barrier that you seem to have put up? Could you point me towards the scientific research of this claim? Thank you.

Each reproduced after its kind.

The term "Kind" is not used by any evolutionary biologists. Could you define in your own words the definition of "kind"?

Absolutely. They do not magically acquire new traits and encode them into the reproductive system, as evolution would require. Any trait found in the offspring would have come from one or both parents.

New traits don't come about by magic. They are random mutations. Every new born has about 60-100 genetic mutations, most of them neutral. If one of these mutations is beneficial to the context of the environment, do you agree that this trait will be passed on to its offspring? I must ask you again, at what point do these positive mutations stop adding up over generations within populations? You agreed above that changes are to be expected....now you must answer what mechanism stops these changes from happening.

Absolutely. Adaptation is a conservative process where benevolent traits are accented and deleterious traits are lost.

So are you in agreement with the fact that evolution takes place in populations and not individuals?

It is, in fact, consistent subtraction, not addition. Reality works to the opposite of what evolution claims.

This is nonsense. Favorable traits in a population of organisms are selected for and the negative traits are selected against. Exactly what we'd expect for evolution to be true. You have basically agreed to all the questions I posed but you're still trying to deny evolution. The cognitive dissonance must be overwhelming.

Usually, although a lot of liberals have children. Liberalism could be considered a detrimental trait. The desire to live off the labor of others is deleterious to the continued existence of society. Fortunately, liberalism can be cured with a PROPER education.

This is a red herring, complete, utter nonsense that demonstrates you have no idea what you are talking about. Just by saying "A lot of liberals have children" by definition would not be a detrimental trait because they are PASSING THEIR GENES ONTO THEIR OFFSPRING. This is nothing but a dishonest way to try to flip the subject to politics. If you want that discussion, there is a separate section on here for that. Please correct your mistake.

Now my question to you. If benevolent mutations can advance a species, why are fruit flies radiated over 50,000 generations still fruit flies? Why didn't evolution produce a single new characteristic; only deformities?

There are over 1500 different species of fruit flies. Only deformities? Can you provide scientific literature to back that up? Evolution takes place in populations, not individuals. Do you know what a nested hierarchy is? It's one of the predictions evolution makes and it has been confirmed in the fossil record and again in DNA.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Now my question to you. If benevolent mutations can advance a species, why are fruit flies radiated over 50,000 generations still fruit flies? Why didn't evolution produce a single new characteristic; only deformities?

You seem to be a bit confused. The experiments done on fruit flies were not done to make them evolve. They were done to see how mutations affect an organism, and also to see if they could tell what gene does what in the genome.

And you seem to be confused about evolution too. There is no "change of kind" in evolution. So you don't have to worry, though your distant relatives may evolve they will always be people. Let me try to explain, you share a common ancestor with the other great apes. You too are a great ape, scientifically you are a Hominoidea. But then so am I and so is every other person on this planet:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape

So you and the other apes are the "same kind". There was no change of kind in the speciation event that led to people being people.

And you are also a simian since you share a common ancestor with all of the other simians. Again, no change of kind.

You are also a mammal, you share a common ancestor with all other mammals. This goes all the way back to the first eukaryote at least. That could be said to be a different "kind" because it seems to be a case where a bacteria ate an archaea, but did not digest it. Instead the two managed to live together as symbiotes.

 

[chandraclaws]

"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground"

If God needed carbon, it was a bit inefficient of him to pick something almost wholly made up of silicon compounds as his raw material, wasn't it?

So you are saying God is not efficient?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you are saying God is not efficient?

The OP was only trying to make the mythical nature of the Adam and Eve story apparent. He should have known better. Creationists are experts at ducking reality.

 

[chandraclaws]

The OP was only trying to make the mythical nature of the Adam and Eve story apparent. He should have known better. Creationists are experts at ducking reality.

Whose reality?

 

[Kenny'sID]

I never said that the Bible agrees with evolution.

Sorry, my mistake.

The post you were replying to led me to believe that for some reason, but I was probably in error in doing so.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Whose reality?

There is only one reality. We can test certain ideas to see if they are right or wrong. Adam and Eve are just like the Easter Bunny and Secret Squirrel. They were made up.

 

[Kenny'sID]

The OP was only trying to make the mythical nature of the Adam and Eve story apparent. He should have known better. Creationists are experts at ducking reality.

You picked up on that, eh.

Of course he should know better than to come to a Christian board and try to disprove the Bible. And what in the world are Atheist thinking when they do similar things? Even if you could persuade us all, God still isn't going away, and he'll be coming after you in the end, so what's the point...take as many with you as you can?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Evolution is observable and testable. It is supported by an abundance of facts. I've seen your posts several times on here and your only argument is basically "It's not true!"

Well saying it doesn't make it so.

Then stop talking and show us your proof.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You picked up on that, eh.

Of course he should know better than to come to a Christian board and try to disprove the Bible. And what in the world are Atheist thinking when they do similar things? Even if you could persuade us all, God still isn't going away, and he'll be coming after you in the end, so what's the point...take as many with you as you can?

The fact that evolution is correct does not "disprove the Bible". Most Christians probably accept reality. Creationism is mostly a disease of the U.S. and a couple of backward countries. And vague threats about your make believe friend are not going to convince anyone. Tell me how seriously do you take Muslims when they threaten you?

The simple fact of the matter is that life evolved. There never was an Adam and Eve, but that does not refute the important message of the Bible. You can accept reality and still be a Christian. But if you have an all or nothing attitude about the Bible since it is so full of flaws you will tend either to sooner or later end up with no beliefs at all or have to be a bit on the crazy side when it comes to reality.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then stop talking and show us your proof.

You would probably have to educate yourself a bit in the sciences before you could understand the evidence. By the way, you showed that you are fairly naive about science. Properly speaking science does not "prove" anything. It is much like a court of law where one "proves" something beyond a reasonable doubt. And no murder case had a tenth of the evidence that the theory of evolution has. So if you are comfortable with courts finding people guilty of various crimes that they committed then you should be comfortable with the fact of evolution.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Where did the earth come from? It didn't even exist a week before.

According to Genesis ch. 1 it already existed, "and the earth was a formless waste". The earth is already present before the act of creation, God takes the formless earth and then shapes it, molds it.

Where did you get that the earth didn't exist a week before? Genesis doesn't tell us about how the earth came to be, but tells us how God took the formless earth and fashioned it for His purposes. The Hebrew word בָּרָא means to form, to shape; literally to cut, to carve, or even to "make fat". What it doesn't say, in Genesis, is that God created the earth ex nihilo; that's not what Genesis says, the doctrine of creation ex nihilo isn't based on Genesis. That doesn't mean that the doctrine of creation ex nihilo is wrong (I believe in it) but it's not a doctrine based on Genesis which doesn't say such a thing.

-CryptoLutheran