Bible vs. human evolution

[Angelsword777]

Sorry, you can have fun believing the nonsense you see on Youtube. I'll stick with actual facts backed with empirical research.

Empirical research with the judge of this research being who? Man?

Macro evolution is said to take millions of years to WITNESS a clear change when regarding humans, because it makes it harder to prove it's nonsense. I wish I could live for this long and see how fail it is, but unfortunetely they knew what they were doing when they created this idea. Macro evolution regarding humans is not observable, therefore it relies on speculation. Speculation created from a man made materialistic pseudo science.

Evolution is without logic and evidence based on observable testable phenemenon, and just based on presumption of metaphysical notions.

Evolution has become a philosophical materialism.

 

[laconicstudent]

Empirical research with the judge of this research being who? Man?

Yes, educated ones, which is a step above those who defend Creationism professionally.

Macro evolution is said to take millions of years to WITNESS a clear change when regarding humans, because it makes it harder to prove it's nonsense. I wish I could live for this long and see how fail it is, but unfortunetely they knew what they were doing when they created this idea. Macro evolution regarding humans is not observable, therefore it relies on speculation. Speculation created from a man made materialistic pseudo science.

Evolution has been observed.

Evolution is without logic and evidence based on observable testable phenemenon, and just based on presumption of metaphysical notions.

Evolution has become a philosophical materialism.

You are demonstrably incorrect.

Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli — PNAS

 

[laconicstudent]

Oh no tax evasion, thats some serious business right there man....

Yes, it is.

 

[Monarchist]

*sighs wearily*

List of human evolution fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rolls eyes and shakes head and tries to imagine how the other person on the other end of the key board can be so arrogant, so self righteous, so pious

 

[Assyrian]

The bible is full of references to God being the potter and us the clay, that we are all made of dust.
Gen 18:27 Abraham answered and said, "Behold, I have undertaken to speak to the Lord, I who am but dust and ashes.
Psalm 103:14 For he knows our frame; he remembers that we are dust.
Psalm 139:15 My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth.
Eccles 3:20 All go to one place. All are from the dust, and to dust all return.
1Cor 15:48 As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust,
Job 10:9 Remember that you have made me like clay; and will you return me to the dust?
Job 33:6 Behold, I am toward God as you are; I too was pinched off from a piece of clay.
Isaiah 29:16 You turn things upside down! Shall the potter be regarded as the clay, that the thing made should say of its maker, "He did not make me"; or the thing formed say of him who formed it, "He has no understanding"?
Isaiah 45:9 "Woe to him who strives with him who formed him, a pot among earthen pots! Does the clay say to him who forms it, 'What are you making?' or 'Your work has no handles'?
Isaiah 64:8 But now, O LORD, you are our Father; we are the clay, and you are our potter; we are all the work of your hand.
Jer 18:6 "O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter has done? declares the LORD. Behold, like the clay in the potter's hand, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel.
Rom 9:21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honoured use and another for dishonourable use?
Is Genesis the only one you take literally, is Adam the only one made of clay who cannot have had any ancestors?

I see you have not addressed my question. Why is Genesis the only one in the long list of biblical descriptions of God making people from clay and dust you take literally?

So now you are trying to put in extra information in between the lines?

How is interpreting a passage figuratively putting in extra information? The bible is full of passages we interpret figuratively.

We are told of when and how God created humans specifically, we are told of how the first human Adam shared a relationship with God. Genesis entails this.

Or we are told how God created the human race in a parable of the creation and fall. It is you interpretation that says this is a literal description of when and how God created Adam. None of the other description of God making people from clay describe when and how they were literally created.

Now, all off a sudden, we are to assume Adam wasn't the first human,

The only passage in scripture that calls Adam the first man also calls Jesus the second man. It is hardly speaking literally.

that the Bible was dishonest in informing us how humans came about,

Only if the bible is dishonest in telling us God is the potter and we are the clay.

that humans began as primitive humanoids without reason or intellect.

Though more intelligent than a lump of clay.

You cannot compliment the genesis narrative with evolutionary theory, you can only replace it (as far as humans are concerned to say the least).

Science certainly replaces your literal interpretation of Genesis, just as it did the literal interpretation of the geocentric passages when Copernicus came along. But it doesn't mean science replaces scripture. If science has shown us a literal interpretation is wrong then the problem is with our literal interpretation, not scripture - if we love truth and we love the Lord and his word. Figuring out where our interpretations are wrong can only bring us to a clearer understanding of scripture, while finding out about God's creation through science complements our understanding through scripture of God who created it all.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Um, it's a felony, so yes it's serious business. Do you just ignore crimes if they are committed by an anti-evolutionist?

I think we should focus on Hovind's problems as a "scientific" debater and not his personal shortcomings. Everyone has made mistakes. And if we don't believe that it's possible to overcome those past mistakes, then we are refuting the whole concept of redemption, aren't we?

The beef with Hovind isn't his past. It's his present presentation.

 

[Dark_Lite]

I love what Kent Hovind called it; voodoo science.

Hovind's arguments are on AiG's "do not use these arguments" page. It's a pretty impressive accomplishments when other pseudoscience organizations refute your own pseudoscience.

 

[UpperEschelon]

Evolution has been observed.

Ever heard of the fallacy of equivocation? It's running rampant in evolutionary theory and it is what you do right here. Macro-evolution has not and cannot be observed.

 

[UpperEschelon]

I see you have not addressed my question. Why is Genesis the only one in the long list of biblical descriptions of God making people from clay and dust you take literally?

I don't isolate Adam and take him only as literal, there isn't a need to. You give a long list of passages refering to the inception of mankind and they all identify us as being "made from dust". In order to accomodate evolutionary theory, you're essentially forced to remove the literal interpretation and beg "symbolism" despite the fact that there is no symbolism there to begin with. It is a distinct, creation event spoken of in Gen2:7.

How is interpreting a passage figuratively putting in extra information? The bible is full of passages we interpret figuratively.

The bible is expicit in mentioning how and when man was created, and who the first created man was (based on the relationship he shared with God). In order to accomodate evolutionary theory, you need to rationialize away the entire biblical account and are literally forced to take it wholly as symbolism. Hence, Adam was not the first human, God didn't just "breath into the dust", and that somehow an evolutionary gradient is at play despite the fact no amount of symbolism will reconcile this whatsoever. This is clearly attempting to add in information where it won't fit.

Only if the bible is dishonest in telling us God is the potter and we are the clay.

A creation event elaborating on manking being made from dust and a metaphor of the potter and clay are two different things, you equate the two to try and add weight to mankinds creation being symbolic. Can you not see the contradiction? It really is astounding. The creation of mankind is explicit, Genesis 2:7. God breathing his breath of life into the dust. Plain and simple. No symbolism, we clearly read an event entailing the inception of mankind. Nowhere does any evolutionary gradient fit, but due to evolutionary theory we are forced to shout symbolism so we can comfortably fit it in.

The only passage in scripture that calls Adam the first man also calls Jesus the second man. It is hardly speaking literally.

So when God breathed dust into the first man, he was a primitive, debased humanoid void of intellect and reason and eventually evolved until God was satisfied and started a relationship with him. Or you can altogether trash this creation event, pretend it doesn't exist, and just go with the evolutionary gradient which gave us modern humans and say "God did it".

Science certainly replaces your literal interpretation of Genesis, just as it did the literal interpretation of the geocentric passages when Copernicus came along.

Proving the error in geocentrism can be accomplished through basic observation, evolution does not work this way when we consider universal common descent. There is no parallel.

 

[dies-l]

I don't isolate Adam and take him only as literal, there isn't a need to. You give a long list of passages refering to the inception of mankind and they all identify us as being "made from dust".

Actually, several of the passages mentioned talk of individual human beings made "from the dust." Should these cause us to question all that we have been taught about human reproduction.

In order to accomodate evolutionary theory, you're essentially forced to remove the literal interpretation and beg "symbolism" despite the fact that there is no symbolism there to begin with. It is a distinct, creation event spoken of in Gen2:7.

The text itself gives several clues that it is intended to be read symbolically, not least is the fact that the, if read literally, its own chronology is internally inconsistent.

The bible is expicit in mentioning how and when man was created, and who the first created man was (based on the relationship he shared with God). In order to accomodate evolutionary theory, you need to rationialize away the entire biblical account and are literally forced to take it wholly as symbolism. Hence, Adam was not the first human, God didn't just "breath into the dust", and that somehow an evolutionary gradient is at play despite the fact no amount of symbolism will reconcile this whatsoever. This is clearly attempting to add in information where it won't fit.

In order to read the passage literally and historically, you are forced to decide which parts of the story are true and which are erroneous. A symbolic interpretation does not force one to concede error on the part of the biblical authors.

For example, were animals created before Adam, as in Genesis 1:20-27?

Or, was Adam created before the animals as in Genesis 2:18?

 

[coolguybrad]

What I don't get is why some people say Cain married his sister, although the bible doesn't actually say that. You have to use conjecture, NO WAY AROUND IT. So why would it not also be a possibility that God created others besides Adam and Eve, also using conjecture?

 

[coolguybrad]

I'm more concerned with how all those kangaroos got to Australia.

 

[Notamonkey]

Micro-evolution is also called lateral adeptation which is a shift in existing genetic information in that kind.
Macro- evolution is an increase in genetic information and it has never been observed.
Many evolutionists use examples of lateral adeptation as "proof" of macro-evolution. Yet, a dog stays a dog and a pig stays a pig with no new genetic information.

 

[UpperEschelon]

Ok, let me rephrase that as to eliminate the equivocation for you:

The theory of common descent has such overwhelming evidentiary support that the possibility of it being proven wrong is practically nil. Due to this overwhelming support biologists are as comfortable calling common descent a 'fact' as astrophysicists are calling heliocentrism a 'fact' (heliocentrism hasn't been directly observed either - we've extrapolated it from observing the movement of the planets and doing the math).

Get over it and move on.

There is nothing to get over, I know full well about the consensus in the scientific community, doesn't make it reality. If you want to believe nature intends micro-scopic entities to become complex beings such as humans over billions of years of evolution, by all means. Don't fool yourself into believing that just because of a consensus that you have truth. Whatever contradicts evolutionary theory gets implemented into it nonetheless, all evidence is arbitrarily taken as evidence for evolution, and everything is the product of evolution. Natural selection and random mutation yielded all bio-diversity from a single, micro-scopic common ancestor. I am sorry, but that is a joke. You can bury the issue under mounds of comparative studies and genetic research, but you won't ever be able to reconcile how all that massive amount of genetic information "appeared" in order to give us the bio-diversity existing today.

And this is what I meant by equivocation: I observe differing beaks sizes in finches. This is fact. Over large periods of times, small changes such as these accumulate and eventually yield entirely new species. This is fact.

 

[dies-l]

Micro-evolution is also called lateral adeptation which is a shift in existing genetic information in that kind.
Macro- evolution is an increase in genetic information and it has never been observed.
Many evolutionists use examples of lateral adeptation as "proof" of macro-evolution. Yet, a dog stays a dog and a pig stays a pig with no new genetic information.

Please define "kind".

 

[dies-l]

We seem to have drifted rather quickly from the point of the OP. The OP argued that evolution is clearly contradicted by Scripture. Yet, the discussion here seems to be focused on the perceived strengths/weaknesses of evolutionary science. Yet, the threshold question has remained unanswered and barely addressed: Is belief in evolution, regardless of its relative strength or weakness as a scientific theory, consistent with Scripture?

 

[coolguybrad]

We seem to have drifted rather quickly from the point of the OP. The OP argued that evolution is clearly contradicted by Scripture. Yet, the discussion here seems to be focused on the perceived strengths/weaknesses of evolutionary science. Yet, the threshold question has remained unanswered and barely addressed: Is belief in evolution, regardless of its relative strength or weakness as a scientific theory, consistent with Scripture?

Personally, when you realize that stories can be inspired by God, just as much as history can, the whole debate becomes pointless.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Thread closed for cleanup. Please remember non-Christians are not allowed to post in Christian Apologetics.

 

[dies-l]

Personally, when you realize that stories can be inspired by God, just as much as history can, the whole debate becomes pointless.

I agree with you, but there are many Christians who believe either (a) that stories must be historically accurate to be of value or, perhaps more common, (b) that the Genesis account reads as an historical narrative, and therefore must be historical to be true. My point is that both arguments are inconsistent with an honest reading of Scripture.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Thread re-opened after cleanup.