Christianity... and the fact of evolution

[Jamie Lee]

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.

Deuteronomy 24:1
1 And if any one should take a wife, and should dwell with her, then it shall come to pass if she should not have found favour before him, because he has found some unbecoming thing in her, that he shall write for her a bill of divorcement, and give it into her hands, and he shall send her away out of his house.

Mark 10
Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?”

3“What did Moses command you?” he replied.

4 They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.”

5 “It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,” Jesus replied.

6“But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.'

7“FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER, 8AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH; so they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9“What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”

10In the house the disciples beganquestioning Him about this again.11And He said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her;12and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery.”

Is it just me, or did Jesus just call Deuteronomy 24:1 errant?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

"Macro" and "micro" evolution are terms made up by YEC people. It's a goal post shift. There is no such distinction.

Maybe it is, but this secular website from Berkeley.edu seems to use it to some small extent.

[By the way, I'm not putting this out there to argue. Just looking some things up ... ]

2PhiloVoid

 

[pat34lee]

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.

Nope. Look up sciences. You won't find one that fits evolution.
Philosophy, on the other hand, does. Darwin was a philosopher,
not a scientist. He was also a prophet of the new religion.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You know Darwin isn't the end all of be all of evolution?

I don't understand why Christians are fixated on Darwin. I rarely, if ever, even mention Darwin.

There's been a lot of developments since Darwin's time, and secondly, the concept of "survival of the fittest" should not be conflated with evolution. You realize that cooperation and kindness can be fitted into the evolution narrative?

What I wonder is why everyone is fixated on an old, generic view of Darwinism when that ship has sailed. Science has already progressed through and past the New Synthesis (or Neo-Darwinian Synthesis). No one talks about that, I see. Neither do they talk about epi-genetic theory.

 

[Indent]

Maybe it is, but this secular website from Berkeley.edu seems to use it to some small extent.

[By the way, I'm not putting this out there to argue. Just looking some things up ... ]

2PhiloVoid

The use of "microevolution" and "macroevolution" is used for descriptive purposes in the science community.

These are fundamentally the same thing: evolution. There is no process or logical barrier that stops microevolution from becoming macroevolution.

 

[AV1611VET]

There is no process or logical barrier that stops microevolution from becoming macroevolution.

Yes there is:

The lack of time.

 

[pat34lee]

What I wonder is why everyone is fixated on an old, generic view of Darwinism when that ship has sailed. Science has already progressed through and past the New Synthesis (or Neo-Darwinian Synthesis). No one talks about that, I see.

How many ways does it have to be proven impossible? As I said,
evolution is a religion, and it's hard to sway religious dogmatists.

 

[Indent]

Yes there is:

The lack of time.

not in my worldview bud. I'm not even going to get into how ridiculous YEC is.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The use of "microevolution" and "macroevolution" is used for descriptive purposes in the science community.

These are fundamentally the same thing: evolution. There is no process or logical barrier that stops microevolution from becoming macroevolution.

I know. But, some secularists do make at least a distinction for the sake of praxis when talking about evolution, even if the identification of evolutionary processes aren't really divisible in reality.

Peace
2PhiloVoid

 

[2PhiloVoid]

How many ways does it have to be proven impossible? As I said,
evolution is a religion, and it's hard to sway religious dogmatists.

Forgive me, but I haven't read every post in this thread, so I missed your previous comments. As for myself, I have little problem with the theory of evolution being true and still upholding that God 'created' the world, as well as raised Jesus from the dead.

If we want to say that evolution is a religion (or philosophy), then we should be consistent and affirm that Intelligent Design is a philosophy as well (and a wedge for religious teaching).

2PhiloVoid

 

[Jamie Lee]

How do you reconcile Mark 10:2-10 and Deuteronomy 24:1 with inerrancy?

Is it just me, or did Jesus just call Deuteronomy 24:1 errant?

 

[pat34lee]

The use of "microevolution" and "macroevolution" is used for descriptive purposes in the science community.

These are fundamentally the same thing: evolution. There is no process or logical barrier that stops microevolution from becoming macroevolution.

There are limits on what DNA can do, just as with any operating system.
You can upgrade windows, but that doesn't give you a new computer,
or even new hardware. That must be planned and built separately, but
must also be compatible with the OS.

 

[Jamie Lee]

There are limits on what DNA can do, just as with any operating system.
You can upgrade windows, but that doesn't give you a new computer,
or even new hardware. That must be planned and built separately, but
must also be compatible with the OS.

I have dabbled in a little programming, and did you know a lot of games have coded their video game characters to evolve? See Creatures 1, 2, 3, Docking Station, Spore, Catz, Dogz, and others. Makes for a really interesting game and if computer programmers can do that, why cant God?

 

[AV1611VET]

not in my worldview bud. I'm not even going to get into how ridiculous YEC is.

Suit yourself.

 

[farout]

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.

It accepts the Bible in the original manuscripts as they were written as without errors. I don't see how taking that position limits me personally. I take the Bible from Genesis to Revelation as originally penned as without any errors. I do understand there are scribe errors, and translation errors from the original languages. But those very small errors are not significant , and make absolutely no difference at all in the message.

 

[pat34lee]

Forgive me, but I haven't read every post in this thread, so I missed your previous comments. As for myself, I have little problem with the theory of evolution being true and still upholding that God 'created' the world, as well as raised Jesus from the dead.

If we want to say that evolution is a religion (or philosophy), then we should be consistent and affirm that Intelligent Design is a philosophy as well (and a wedge for religious teaching).

2PhiloVoid

Since they're already teaching religion (humanism, naturalism, statism,
basically anything anti-God) I see no problem with going back to teaching
out of the bible. Believe it or not, that was how things were done for a
long time here, even in colleges. The best universities mandated learning
Latin, Hebrew and Greek, in order to learn the scriptures in their original
languages. Not only has the first amendment been turned on its head to
deny our Christian heritage, but the states were never prohibited from
having a state sponsored religion.

 

[AV1611VET]

How do you reconcile Mark 10:2-10 and Deuteronomy 24:1 with inerrancy?

Psalm 106:15 And he gave them their request; but sent leanness into their soul.

 

[pat34lee]

I have dabbled in a little programming, and did you know a lot of games have coded their video game characters to evolve? See Creatures 1, 2, 3, Docking Station, Spore, Catz, Dogz, and others. Makes for a really interesting game and if computer programmers can do that, why cant God?

That depends on what you consider 'evolving'. Do they get higher resolution,
faster speed through the hardware, new abilities that the game was never
programmed to provide?

 

[Jamie Lee]

Psalm 106:15 And he gave them their request; but sent leanness into their soul.

Jesus said Moses gave them this law. Is He saying Moses added something to Scripture that was not divinely inspired by God?

That depends on what you consider 'evolving'. Do they get higher resolution,
faster speed through the hardware, new abilities that the game was never
programmed to provide?

Yes, its getting there. Have you ever learned anything about artifical intelligence? The technology is getting so advanced now that it is able to teach itself and program itself.
Plus, God programmed what He had in mind for the world since the beginning of Creation. It was preprogrammed to happen, otherwise man wouldnt have been made in Gods image.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Since they're already teaching religion (humanism, naturalism, statism,
basically anything anti-God) I see no problem with going back to teaching
out of the bible. Believe it or not, that was how things were done for a
long time here, even in colleges. The best universities mandated learning
Latin, Hebrew and Greek, in order to learn the scriptures in their original
languages. Not only has the first amendment been turned on its head to
deny our Christian heritage, but the states were never prohibited from
having a state sponsored religion.

Yes, I am aware of these things, pat. (Just so you know, I've had a small stint in the realm of education, so I'm somewhat familiar with the things of which you speak.)