Christianity... and the fact of evolution

[Indent]

The problem with Evolution is if mankind was a single celled organism at one point in time, then that means murder does not exist. For it would be just one single celled organism eliminating another singled celled organism by the process of natural selection.


...

That's not a problem for evolution.

What you just said makes no make sense.

Humankind evolved from a much simpler organism (perhaps even single-celled), that does not mean "murder does not exist." We are no longer "single-celled organism", but conscious creatures, and murder is still murder.

 

[AV1611VET]

Evolution hasn't caused me to abandon MY faith . . . it has merely helped inform my faith, as does every word that proceeds from God.

Well, ain't you special!?

Evolution IS creation, and God is in charge of it.

Until when?

If evolution is creation, then is creation still in progress?

If so, why then is God going to suddenly stop creating and destroy everything with a "great noise," as Peter puts it?

Like someone typing a story on a typewriter and suddenly rips the paper out of the typewriter and trashes it.

Noah, Abraham, Moses - my guess would be they never heard of it.

Ya ... they were just ignorant desert nomads, weren't they?

Have you ever heard unbelievers here yakking about receiving knowledge by "word of mouth"?

You don't even give Noah, Abraham, Moses credit for that, do you?

Adam? He's a special case, who knows what esoteric knowledge he picked up before being expelled from the garden.

'Esoteric knowledge'?

Adam walked and talked with God in the Garden, and he was the only man on earth at the time.

Later he put down in writing what facts God had imparted to him.

And you call that, 'esoteric knowledge'?

Evolution was a scientific point of discussion before Darwin.

I know that.

Darwin gave us a theory that explains how evolution happens, based on variations and natural selection.

I know that.

The theory was also developed independently by Wallace, so even if Darwin had never lived, by now we would have the theory of evolution anyway.

But Darwin gets credit for being the Father of Evolution -- so I'll treat him as such.

 

[pat34lee]

Transitional fossils is a made-up term.

Every term is a made-up term. That is how language works.
The only question is, "do you know what it means?" If so,
your point is moot.

 

[AV1611VET]

Every term is a made-up term. That is how language works.
The only question is, "do you know what it means?" If so,
your point is moot.

So A can be an ape, B can be something just discovered, and C can be a man; and scientists can look at B and call it a "transitional" based on DNA and whatnot, and we creationists are supposed to jettison our beliefs in a literal Genesis 1 and agree with the scientists?

I don't think so.

God laid some pretty hefty bone-altering "wonderful plagues" on His people because of their sins; of which I believe King David was afflicted as well (Psalm 38).

If they dug his bones up today, I'd venture to say scientists would call him a "transitional."

 

[Armoured]

Of those that were professionals in the field, four or five.

Gosh.

 

[Armoured]

The problem with Evolution is if mankind was a single celled organism at one point in time, then that means murder does not exist. For it would be just one single celled organism eliminating another singled celled organism by the process of natural selection.


...

we're not single celled organism, so no.

 

[Armoured]

Evolution was part of the Hindu religion long before Christianity.
And it is still a religion today, not a science. It is exactly the same
as creationism, except the gods involved are chance and time.

Nonsense. Hindu fundamentalist reject human evolution more fiercly than YECers!

You can call evolution " a religion" as many times as you like, it doesn't make it so. It is the theory best supported by scientific evidence, which makes it a science. Sorry.

 

[Biblewriter]

And less anyone misunderstand me, I do not reject evolution because it is unscientific. I reject it because it is contrary to the Bible. But as a scientist, I also know, and this is not opinion, but knowledge, that evolution could not stand up to anything even resembling a real scientific debate, with no holds barred on the presentation of actual facts, but with through checking of all alleged "facts."

 

[klutedavid]

The fossil record tells a clear story.

There is lots of "solid proof."

We know that fossilization is a rare phenomenon, as it requires specific set of conditions for it to happen. There are well-document and phenomenal examples like the evolution of the whale. It hardly matters to some Christians that there are lots of fossils, it'll be the same half-baked excuse "there are gaps."

"But where are the fossils between those two???"

Secondly, this isn't a problem for "macroevolution."

Hello Indent.

If you make a claim, then you need to support that claim with the evidence.

There are well-document and phenomenal examples like the evolution of the whale

You need the specific fossils that directly link one fossil to the next, in the evolution
of the whale. You need to justify the claim you made, Indent.

Science is all about the direct evidence, not speculation.

 

[farout]

Care to explain how evolution isn't true?

The Bible says something different, and that's what I believe. End of story.

 

[Indent]

Hello Indent.

If you make a claim, then you need to support that claim with the evidence.

You need the specific fossils that directly link one fossil to the next, in the evolution
of the whale. You need to justify the claim you made, Indent.

Science is all about the direct evidence, not speculation.

You need only do a google search.

The evidence isn't obscured, it's available.

Here's a good starting point:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03

 

[farout]

Well I find "biblical inerrancy" to be troubling: It's a prescriptive doctrine used to tell Christians how to interpret the bible, and it insults Christians from real challenge (it stifles the tough conversations). Furthermore, when looking at the behaviour and the dynamic of the bible, inerrancy starts to seem a bit flaccid.

You're making a slippery slope argument, but the bible is a more of a library than a book. It needs to be approached according to a number of factors like genre etc.

It's not about "what's useful" in the bible, it's a matter of interpretation. If someone thinks the opening chapters of Genesis are telling a particular story, and not a journalistic account of material origins, it's a matter of interpretation. I'd argue that the meanings and purpose found in the Genesis narratives are flattened out by Christians that demand the bible "ought to be" a particular way.

That is a very liberal position, and I respect it. However you don't find me making any insults or demeaning your opinion. I wish You would do the same.

 

[Indent]

That is a very liberal position, and I respect it. However you don't find me making any insults or demeaning your opinion. I wish You would do the same.

It's not a "liberal" position at all.

I know evangelicals/fundamentalists like to throw that word around.

I don't agree with inerrancy, and some Christians are of the opinion it's a defining feature of faith.

 

[farout]

It's not a "liberal" position at all.

I know evangelicals/fundamentalists like to throw that word around.

I don't agree with inerrancy, and some Christians are of the opinion it's a defining feature of faith.

Hold the phone! If person is a fundamentalist they have as one of their core doctrines Inerrancy. Many conservative Christians would accept Inerrancy as a fundamental belief as well. I believe it as well. Just because you do not, does not make any one less intelligent or uneducated in the Scriptures. You seem to me to come across as if anyone believing in Inerrancy is some sort of primitive back woods person. A little more respect for views different than yours goes a long way in wanting to dialogue with you on any subject.

 

[Indent]

Hold the phone! If person is a fundamentalist they have as one of their core doctrines Inerrancy. Many conservative Christians would accept Inerrancy as a fundamental belief as well. I believe it as well. Just because you do not, does not make any one less intelligent or uneducated in the Scriptures. You seem to me to come across as if anyone believing in Inerrancy is some sort of primitive back woods person. A little more respect for views different than yours goes a long way in wanting to dialogue with you on any subject.

While I might agree with fundamentalists on a number things (perhaps things that fall under the umbrella of inerrancy), the problem I have with "inerrancy" is it's incapable of fully capturing the behaviour and dynamics of the bible.

Most Christians have a simplistic, and in a lot of cases, a cultural understanding of this word.

I don't think belief in inerrancy makes a person "unintelligent" or "uneducated", but I do, however, think this position has some severe limitations.

 

[hedrick]

While I might agree with fundamentalists on a number things (perhaps things that fall under the umbrella of inerrancy), the problem I have with "inerrancy" is it's incapable of fully capturing the behaviour and dynamics of the bible.

Most Christians have a simplistic, and in a lot of cases, a cultural understanding of this word.

I don't think belief in inerrancy makes a person "unintelligent" or "uneducated", but I do, however, think this position has some severe limitations.

I agree with you about inerrancy. But I think this is in fact a difference between liberal and conservative positions. There are others, but the quickest way to get an approximation as to how liberal or conservative someone is is to ask about inerrancy. At least among Protestants.

 

[DingDing]

If evolution is one of the strongest explanatory theories in any academic field, I mean, the evidence is simply overwhelming, how do Christians reconcile this?
...

Um... by pointing out that evolution has no scientific basis. Those who claim to believe in evolution do so by faith - contrary to much scientific evidence.

 

[Indent]

I agree with you about inerrancy. But I think this is in fact a difference between liberal and conservative positions. There are others, but the quickest way to get an approximation as to how liberal or conservative someone is is to ask about inerrancy. At least among Protestants.

There are people like Denis Lamoureux that claim to be an unapologetic evangelical Christian and an unapologetic evolutionist. I come from an evangelical background, but I believe in evolution.

I'm not sure how useful approximations are.

 

[Jamie Lee]

Consider this. Adam was perfect, both physically and mentally.
Noah lived 600 years and mankind has been going downhill
ever since. Moses lived 120 years, had the best education that
could be bought, and most likely had an IQ that our best and
brightest could only dream of.

Im not trying to insult Moses intelligence. Im just saying that we, as human beings, cannot possibly understand Gods way. If He tried to explain it all to us, wed all be like "what?" Too.
Job 38
"Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?

Tell me, if you understand.

5Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!

Who stretched a measuring line across it?

6On what were its footings set,

or who laid its cornerstone—

7while the morning stars sang together

and all the angelsa shouted for joy?

8“Who shut up the sea behind doors

when it burst forth from the womb,

9when I made the clouds its garment

and wrapped it in thick darkness,

10when I fixed limits for it

and set its doors and bars in place,

11when I said, ‘This far you may come and no farther;

here is where your proud waves halt’?

12“Have you ever given orders to the morning,

or shown the dawn its place,

13that it might take the earth by the edges

and shake the wicked out of it?

14The earth takes shape like clay under a seal;

its features stand out like those of a garment.

15The wicked are denied their light,

and their upraised arm is broken.

16“Have you journeyed to the springs of the sea

or walked in the recesses of the deep?

17Have the gates of death been shown to you?

Have you seen the gates of the deepest darkness?

18Have you comprehended the vast expanses of the earth?

Tell me, if you know all this.

19“What is the way to the abode of light?

And where does darkness reside?

20Can you take them to their places?

Do you know the paths to their dwellings?

21Surely you know, for you were already born!

You have lived so many years!

22“Have you entered the storehouses of the snow

or seen the storehouses of the hail,

23which I reserve for times of trouble,

for days of war and battle?

24What is the way to the place where the lightning is dispersed,

or the place where the east winds are scattered over the earth?

25Who cuts a channel for the torrents of rain,

and a path for the thunderstorm,

26to water a land where no one lives,

an uninhabited desert,

27to satisfy a desolate wasteland

and make it sprout with grass?

28Does the rain have a father?

Who fathers the drops of dew?

29From whose womb comes the ice?

Who gives birth to the frost from the heavens

30when the waters become hard as stone,

when the surface of the deep is frozen?

31“Can you bind the chainsb of the Pleiades?

Can you loosen Orion’s belt?

32Can you bring forth the constellations in their seasonsc

or lead out the Beard with its cubs?

33Do you know the laws of the heavens?

Can you set up God’sedominion over the earth?

34“Can you raise your voice to the clouds

and cover yourself with a flood of water?

35Do you send the lightning bolts on their way?

Do they report to you, ‘Here we are’?

36Who gives the ibis wisdomf

or gives the rooster understanding?g

37Who has the wisdom to count the clouds?

Who can tip over the water jars of the heavens

38when the dust becomes hard

and the clods of earth stick together?

 

[Hallstone]

Jesus, being the creator of the universe, refers to Noah, Moses, and many others, and quotes many scriptures never once hinting at anything close to non inerrancy, in fact He shows that all of the scriptures are solid and completely trustworthy, I would also remind you that Him being the creator of the universe, used to speak with Moses in the tent of meeting 'as one would speak with His friend', and He recounted the creation facts, which those discussions with God is what became the first book of the Bible which Jesus Christ refers to in the NT, so what it boils down to is if you believe it or not, If Jesus Christ is the Creator then Evolution is false.