Attention Christian Evolutionists

[OldBadfish]

Where are the Monkeymen? Where are the living transitional beings that we descended from?

How can you accept Christ but deny creation as told by Genesis, at what point do you dismiss scripture in favor of mans fallable and incomplete evolution science? (The bible warns about embracing theories and philosophies that go against Gods word)

Can you explain Genesis in a coherent manner, so that evolution could be considered a possibility without calling God a liar and lowering him to our level by denying that he could have spontaneously created as recorded in Genesis?

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

I don't see where evolution requires a living transitional being.

Genesis is clearly of the myth genre. The author did not wish to record an account of Creation but rather to record truths about the relationship between God and His Creation, especially humanity.

 

[jayswife29]

Well I wonder, if we evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys? We are capable of giving birth to humans, so there isn't much use for monkeys then. Or are people going backwards and turning back into monkeys? One more thing, the monkeys had to have evolved from something, what would that be...fish?

 

[Megachihuahua]

And if A&E had eternal life before the tree, why didn't their parents have EL?
Note:Adam is a rib, Eve is dust,oops vv

 

[wblastyn]

Well I wonder, if we evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys? We are capable of giving birth to humans, so there isn't much use for monkeys then. Or are people going backwards and turning back into monkeys? One more thing, the monkeys had to have evolved from something, what would that be...fish?

We didn't evolve from monkeys, monkeys and humans share a common ancestor.

Individuals don't evolve, populations do.

 

[wblastyn]

Where are the Monkeymen? Where are the living transitional beings that we descended from?

Humans occupy the current niche, so any other hominids would be in competeition with us, so humans drive the other hominids into extinction. I think that's right. We do have their fossils though.

How can you accept Christ but deny creation as told by Genesis, at what point do you dismiss scripture in favor of mans fallable and incomplete evolution science? (The bible warns about embracing theories and philosophies that go against Gods word)

We look for the theological meaning, which makes Genesis much better than just osme literal interpretation. We don't deny creation, we deny your interpretation of it.

Can you explain Genesis in a coherent manner, so that evolution could be considered a possibility without calling God a liar and lowering him to our level by denying that he could have spontaneously created as recorded in Genesis?

Genesis is a theological document which makes God creator of everything while destroying the babylonian gods.

 

[pudmuddle]

Let's put this another way. If science "discovers" that Jesus didn't really come back to life, will you believe science or your Bible? Science says a man can't walk on water, but there it is. Do you deny the entire OT or just the first book? Eithor it's all true or it's all false. Your choice...
http://www.jackcuozzo.com/

 

[Tinker Grey]

Denying the creationist interpretation of the first book is not equivalent to denying the first book.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Well I wonder, if we evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys? We are capable of giving birth to humans, so there isn't much use for monkeys then. Or are people going backwards and turning back into monkeys? One more thing, the monkeys had to have evolved from something, what would that be...fish?

Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans, apes, monkeys and other primates share a common ancestor.

I think that it would be helpful for me to give a basic description of how evolution works. One starts with a population with a variety of traits. Only the traits of those members of the population who survive will be present in the next generation. Traits that help an organism and its offspring to survive and reproduce will be more likely to be present in the following generations while traits that hinder an organism will be less likely to survive. Over time, the relative frequencies of traits will change.

From time to time, a creature's trait will mutate. If the mutation is somehow advantageous, it will increase in frequency just like any advantageous trait.

If a population becomes seperated into different populations living in different environments, the different populations will acquire different frequencies of traits. This is what happened to the common ancestor of monkeys and humans. Monkeys lived in the trees and retained traits favorable to survival in the trees. Meanwhile, some animals from the same population began to live on the ground and traits that helped them survive and reproduce there increased in frequency.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Let's put this another way. If science "discovers" that Jesus didn't really come back to life, will you believe science or your Bible? Science says a man can't walk on water, but there it is. Do you deny the entire OT or just the first book? Eithor it's all true or it's all false. Your choice...
http://www.jackcuozzo.com/

Science cannot address whether Jesus came back to life. The only way to address it would be to have access to the body, which would be either dead or ressurected. Since we have no body, science can say nothing one way or the other.

That does not mean that faith in the Ressurection is unreasonable, merely that it is untestable by empirical methods.

 

[wblastyn]

Let's put this another way. If science "discovers" that Jesus didn't really come back to life, will you believe science or your Bible? Science says a man can't walk on water, but there it is. Do you deny the entire OT or just the first book? Eithor it's all true or it's all false. Your choice...
http://www.jackcuozzo.com/

Er well Jesus' resurrection was pretty important for Christianity, so if scientists find His body then Christianity would be falsified.

The resurrection was a miracle, and science cannot falsify miracles since they are supernatural, unless it has physical evidence, like Jesus' body.

Literal Genesis has been falsified by science, so we believe Genesis is not literal.

 

[pudmuddle]

Science cannot address whether Jesus came back to life. The only way to address it would be to have access to the body, which would be either dead or ressurected. Since we have no body, science can say nothing one way or the other.

That does not mean that faith in the Ressurection is unreasonable, merely that it is untestable by empirical methods.

I know that science cannot address it. But you didn't answer the question. Science says man can't walk on water, science says man can't heal people. Science says man can't come back to life, etc, and so on. Jesus set the natural world on it's head. He defyed all laws of nature with his miracles. Science says none of these miracles are possible, yet you believe them as a Christian. Why, then, do you not believe Jesus, who was there in the beginning with the Father, created the world in the way that the Bible says?

 

[pudmuddle]

Er well Jesus' resurrection was pretty important for Christianity, so if scientists find His body then Christianity would be falsified.

The resurrection was a miracle, and science cannot falsify miracles since they are supernatural, unless it has physical evidence, like Jesus' body.

Literal Genesis has been falsified by science, so we believe Genesis is not literal.

If scientists say they found the body of Jesus, would you believe them?
Creation was a miracle, and science cannot falsify miracles since they are supernatural. But they can try to explain it away...

"A great many of those who 'debunk' traditional...values have in the background values of their own which they believe to be immune from the debunking process."

--The Abolition of Man-C S Lewis

 

[Tinker Grey]

The whole point of miracles is that they defy the laws of science. If science knew how Jesus multiplied the loaves and the fishes and walked on water, then they wouldn't be miracles.

An honest scientist would say that we don't know nor can we know how Jesus did it. If Jesus did those things, then those things are by definition miracles.

The issue of miracles is irrelevant to this discussion since this discussion, as far as I can tell, is about observable phenomena.

As to the other issue -- what if they claimed to have found the body of Jesus? Nothing. What scientist in his right mind would claim such a thing? How would you prove that some body with evidence of crucifixion was in fact the Jesus of the Bible? Perhaps if the bones had DNA that weren't human ...

Otherwise, the answer to your hypothetical is that I would call for the men in white coats to come take him away.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

I know that science cannot address it. But you didn't answer the question. Science says man can't walk on water, science says man can't heal people. Science says man can't come back to life, etc, and so on. Jesus set the natural world on it's head. He defyed all laws of nature with his miracles. Science says none of these miracles are possible, yet you believe them as a Christian. Why, then, do you not believe Jesus, who was there in the beginning with the Father, created the world in the way that the Bible says?

Science says that, absent a yet unknown phenomenom, the dead cannot come back to life. God qualifies as an unknown phenomenom because He doesn't submit Himself to scientific inquiry. Science cannot study what is not available for them to interact with.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

If scientists say they found the body of Jesus, would you believe them?
Creation was a miracle, and science cannot falsify miracles since they are supernatural. But they can try to explain it away...

"A great many of those who 'debunk' traditional...values have in the background values of their own which they believe to be immune from the debunking process."

--The Abolition of Man-C S Lewis

It would be quite difficult to show that a body were Jesus'. If Jesus were merely a man executed by Rome and never rose from the dead, his body would probably be long decomposed by now.

 

[pudmuddle]

So, in your veiw, creation was not a miracle? And how can it be an observable phenomena, when no one, but God was there to observe it? oh, yes we have a lot of old bones, but what they tell us is highly debatable.



"Whenever you find a man who says he doesn't believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later."

--The Case for Christianity

 

[OldBadfish]

I agree with pudmuddle, creation is another miracle (the biggest) like Christs resurrection, one that cannot be falsified.

Those of you who say its false have yet to show me how to read Genesis in such a way as to derive evolution from it, or to falsify it.

I see the philosophy, but where is the proof I asked for, and the breakdown of translation that supports your position?

 

[wblastyn]

I know that science cannot address it. But you didn't answer the question. Science says man can't walk on water, science says man can't heal people. Science says man can't come back to life, etc, and so on. Jesus set the natural world on it's head. He defyed all laws of nature with his miracles. Science says none of these miracles are possible, yet you believe them as a Christian. Why, then, do you not believe Jesus, who was there in the beginning with the Father, created the world in the way that the Bible says?

Ys, it says MAN cannot do those things, but I believe God can and since Jesus was God He could walk on water, perform miralces, etc.

 

[troodon]

I agree with pudmuddle, creation is another miracle (the biggest) like Christs resurrection, one that cannot be falsified.

No, this one (the Genesis creation story) can be falsified because there are ramifications if the universe were created as literally spelled out in Genesis; namely the universe would be 6 thousand years old. So, if it can be shown that the universe is older than that (and it has) then the theory is falsified. The same cannot be done with Christ's resurrection because there are no clear, testable ramifications. Unless you can think of any.

Those of you who say its false have yet to show me how to read Genesis in such a way as to derive evolution from it

IMO, evolution is not mentioned in Genesis because it's far too advanced a concept for God to have explained to the Hebrews. Do you honestly think that God would detail the big bang, atomic theory, gravity, relativity, the nature of space/time, the concept of atomic fusion, the formation of planets, chemistry, biochemistry, abiogenesis, natural selection, genetic mutations, and then finally list every single type of animal ancestral to us? The Hebrews had a hard enough time going along with Moses with a creation story they could understand; do you honestly think explaining all of that would have made his job any easier or even served a purpose?