Christianity... and the fact of evolution

[Paul of Eugene OR]

That is a hardly an argument!
Show me where Jesus and the apostles questioned the accuracy of the Scriptures?
Examples of figurative speech (like sunrise, sunset etc) are not errors.

What is the clue you have from scripture that "sunrise, sunset" are figurative speech not to be taken as literally excluding the rotation of the earth?
There is no biblical clue to that effect. Only the physical world gives us the information that it is figurative, by plainly showing that literally it is not true.

You have admitted the physical world shows us how to interpret scripture. This admission means you have no grounds for denying the facts of evolution and age of the earth just because the literal words of scripture, as you see them, preclude those findings.

 

[AV1611VET]

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

No.

God simply made sure Moses wrote down the terms of the bill of divorcement.

Did God inspire the words of Satan during Jesus' temptations in the wilderness?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

That is a hardly an argument!
Show me where Jesus and the apostles questioned the accuracy of the Scriptures?
Examples of figurative speech (like sunrise, sunset etc) are not errors.

You really do need to address the issue of Adam & Eve in the NT because the evolution of humans from animals depends on you discrediting all these NT references.

The insistence of fundamentalists on scripture alone as a source of data from which to argue is always an interesting thing to see. One has to ask . . . . what logic and/or evidence led them to understand they should place the bible in such a high place - one where no other evidence is allowed to tread?

Many times such a thinker will merely quote a bible verse to back this idea up, and that of course is the error of circular reasoning.

But a few will attempt to cite evidence in favor of this idea from outside of the Bible, as they should. Historical confirmation of Bible statements, God using scriptures to change lives, personal confirmation from the Holy Spirit to trust the Bible . . . I invite readers to add to this list.

This is the only logical thing one can possibly do to assign the Bible such a high place in settling arguments. But notice this - it means, inevitably, irrevocably, that evidence from other places besides the Bible also counts. Because if evidence outside the Bible does NOT matter, you cannot establish that the BIBLE matters. And that evidence includes the findings of science, they cannot be excluded when considering evidence.

 

[klutedavid]

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

Hello indent.

I asked you to support the claim, that whales have a specific evolutionary record, contained
in the fossil record.

The link you supplied, 'http://evolution.berkeley.edu', is shown below.

The evolution of whales.

Nor were the ancient relatives of whales that you see pictured on this tree, such as Pakicetus. Hippos likely
evolved from a group of anthracotheres about 15 million years ago, the first whales evolved over 50 million
years ago, and the ancestor of both these groups was terrestrial. These first whales, such as Pakicetus, were
typical land animals. They had long skulls and large carnivorous teeth. From the outside, they don't look much
like whales at all. However, their skulls — particularly in the ear region, which is surrounded by a bony wall,
strongly resemble those of living whales and are unlike those of any other mammal. Often, seemingly minor
features provide critical evidence to link animals that are highly specialized for their lifestyles (such as whales)
with their less extreme-looking relatives.

Now does this link provide the specific fossil evidence, required to support the evolution of whales?

There are a number of statements in this explanation above that should be noted.

1) The ancestor of the whale was a land animal?
2) Pakicetus a four legged land animal is believed to be the ancestor of the whale?
3) Pakicetus look nothing like whales!
4) The Pakicetus skull, the ear region, resembles the structure of a whales ear region?

This critical link between the Pakicetus and the whale, is based on the ear region structure. Whether or not
this similiarity in ear structure, can be seen to be a real link between the Pakicetus and the whale is debatable.

This association between these two species is highly speculative. I suggest you submit the numerous, and the
critical transient species between Pakicetus and the whale.

Without the transient species, we are unable to confirm or deny any evolutionary link. Evidence and hard fossil
evidence is required, not speculation. I reject that the evolutionary path of the whale has been established.
Certainly not on the basis of a similar bone formation between the two species.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Biblical Christians are able to harmonize the 4 Gospels accounts of the resurrection of Jesus. There really is no need for this sort of misunderstanding in these days of computers.

Those reconciliations are contested by some, accepted by others. You might share them so we can see for ouselves. What about those angels in the tombs . . . . and the varying counts of how many angels there were, gospel to gospel?

 

[AV1611VET]

But a few will attempt to cite evidence in favor of this idea from outside of the Bible, as they should.

Of course they should.

That way unbelievers can accuse the Bible writers of plagiarizing others' writings.

Examples: Code of Hammurabi, Epic of Gilgamesh, writings of Buddha.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Hello indent.

I asked you to support the claim, that whales have a specific evolutionary record, contained
in the fossil record.

The link you supplied, 'http://evolution.berkeley.edu', is shown below.

The evolution of whales.

Nor were the ancient relatives of whales that you see pictured on this tree, such as Pakicetus. Hippos likely
evolved from a group of anthracotheres about 15 million years ago, the first whales evolved over 50 million
years ago, and the ancestor of both these groups was terrestrial. These first whales, such as Pakicetus, were
typical land animals. They had long skulls and large carnivorous teeth. From the outside, they don't look much
like whales at all. However, their skulls — particularly in the ear region, which is surrounded by a bony wall,
strongly resemble those of living whales and are unlike those of any other mammal. Often, seemingly minor
features provide critical evidence to link animals that are highly specialized for their lifestyles (such as whales)
with their less extreme-looking relatives.

Now does this link provide the specific fossil evidence, required to support the evolution of whales?

There are a number of statements in this explanation above that should be noted.

1) The ancestor of the whale was a land animal?
2) Pakicetus a four legged land animal is believed to be the ancestor of the whale?
3) Pakicetus look nothing like whales!
4) The Pakicetus skull, the ear region, resembles the structure of a whales ear region?

This critical link between the Pakicetus and the whale, is based on the ear region structure. Whether or not
this similiarity in ear structure, can be seen to be a real link between the Pakicetus and the whale is debatable.

This association between these two species is highly speculative. I suggest you submit the numerous, and the
critical transient species between Pakicetus and the whale.

Without the transient species, we are unable to confirm or deny any evolutionary link. Evidence and hard fossil
evidence is required, not speculation. I reject that the evolutionary path of the whale has been established.
Certainly not on the basis of a similar bone formation between the two species.

Of course you can take any transitional fossil and just say "its not a transition". That's the only way you have to deal with the findings of transitional fossils.

 

[AV1611VET]

Of course you can take any transitional fossil and just say "its not a transition". That's the only way you have to deal with the findings of transitional fossils.

Works for me.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Of course they should.

That way unbelievers can accuse the Bible writers of plagiarizing others' writings.

Examples: Code of Hammurabi, Epic of Gilgamesh, writings of Buddha.

Huh? What are you talking about?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Works for me.

I've noticed that.

 

[hedrick]

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.

What I said was that I think inerrancy tends to go with conservative Christianity. That's not necessarily decisive for evolution. There are people who interpret Genesis in a way that it is consistent with evolution but still hold inerrancy.

Lamoureux, however, rejects this, instead giving up the traditional concept of inerrancy in all factual statements, but extending the concept of inerrancy so it covers only inerrancy in spiritual matters. He uses the term "conservative" to refer to a more hard-core view of inerrancy, so logically one would have to say that he's not actually conservative.

It is possible, of course, to be conservative on some issues and not on others. He still asserts inerrancy on spiritual matters. I would guess, though I haven't seen a specific statement, that this would include ethics. Hence on most of the issues separating liberals and conservatives, I'm guessing that he would hold a conservative position based on inerrancy pf the Scriptural statements relevant to those issues.

 

[klutedavid]

Google harmonizing Jesus resurrection and take your pick.

Hello Ken.

I looked up, 'harmonizing the resurrection', on the web and found this.

Professor George Eldon Ladd did not recommend a harmonization of the four different resurrection
accounts. Though Ladd did offer, 'for my own amusement', the following attempt at harmonization
of the four resurrection accounts. (Jesus.walk.com)

Here are the first three points in order.

1 The earthquake and removal of stone occurs before dawn.

2 A group of four women come early to the tomb, wondering who will move the stone.
As they approach, they are amazed to see that the stone has been rolled away.

3 Mary rushes off to tell Peter and John that the body of Jesus has been stolen (John 20:2).

We will stop at point three of this harmonization.

I will now quote from Matthew's Gospel, the resurrection account.

Matthew 28
1 Now after the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the
other Mary came to look at the grave. 2 for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and
rolled away the stone and sat upon it. 3 And his appearance was like lightning, and his clothing as white as
snow. 4 The guards shook for fear of him and became like dead men. 5 The angel said to the women, “Do
not be afraid; for I know that you are looking for Jesus who has been crucified. 6 He is not here, for He has
risen, just as He said. Come, see the place where He was lying. 7 Go quickly and tell His disciples that He has
risen from the dead.

So we note specifically the harmonization proposed by Ladd, i.e., point three above.

3 Mary rushes off to tell Peter and John that the body of Jesus has been stolen. (John 20:2)

Matthew's account clearly states that the women were told by the angel.

7 Go quickly and tell His disciples that He has risen from the dead.

Matthew's account is in conflict with Ladd's account, that Mary rushes to tell Peter that the body of Jesus
has been stolen?

Ladd's third point is in direct conflict with Matthew's account. Any further examination of this attempted
and amusing harmonization by Ladd, is a waste of time.

I need a reasonable harmonization of the resurrection accounts, Ken. Professor Ladd
made no recommendation on the harmony.

You must post the web address of the harmony.

 

[klutedavid]

Of course you can take any transitional fossil and just say "its not a transition". That's the only way you have to deal with the findings of transitional fossils.

Hello Paul.

Science is about hard evidence, not imagined associations between groups in the
evolutionary tree. Science is empiricism, observable evidence.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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.

I really like Lamoureux's approach to the background of Genesis.

 

[hedrick]

...Insignificant differences in the Gospel
accounts, do not undermine the Majesty and Glory of Jesus Christ.

I am discussing small and insignificant aspects of the Gospels. This has no
bearing on the reconciliation that Jesus granted to humanity, none whatsoever.

Don't get me wrong, I am a fundamentalist, Bible bashing, fanatic. I just
do not accept, that every single line in the scripture is handwritten by God.
These small differences have no impact on any Christian doctrine.

I agree. However if there are any differences at all, it indicates that inerrancy of the Chicago variety is not possible. Accepting that various Gospel writers differed in some respects is much closer to a mainline view, which is that God acted in history, and Scripture was written by humans in response to that, and thus is limited by the accuracy of witnesses and errors in transmission of information.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Hello Paul.

Science is about hard evidence, not imagined associations between groups in the
evolutionary tree. Science is empiricism, observable evidence.

Science typically involves empiricism, but the Nature of Science (NoS) is anything but "just" empirical, klute.

See comments by the American Association for the Advancement of Science

 

[hedrick]

It's worth noting that there are a number of issues that are distinct but tend to go together.
* inerrancy in the sense of complete accuracy
* a belief that practical statements, e.g. ethical judgements and things like whether women are ordained, can be applied directly to the 21st Cent church.
* interpreting Biblical statements about God, Christ and the Holy Spirit as establishing traditional doctrinal formulations such as the Trinity and Incarnation.

While the conservative Protestant tradition tends to include all of these, and often includes the first two in inerrancy, they can be separated. I think people such as Lamoureux reject the first but may well still hold the other two. Even the other two come in varying degrees. E.g. people commonly contextualize some ethical judgements but not others. The most common is slavery, where Paul's acceptance is not applied to today's church. But depending upon the group, other things are contextualized, e.g. Jesus' strict prohibition of divorce, or Jesus' statements about the dangers of wealth.

 

[Jamie Lee]

Hello Ken.

I looked up, 'harmonizing the resurrection', on the web and found this.

Professor George Eldon Ladd did not recommend a harmonization of the four different resurrection
accounts. Though Ladd did offer, 'for my own amusement', the following attempt at harmonization
of the four resurrection accounts. (Jesus.walk.com)

Here are the first three points in order.

1 The earthquake and removal of stone occurs before dawn.

2 A group of four women come early to the tomb, wondering who will move the stone.
As they approach, they are amazed to see that the stone has been rolled away.

3 Mary rushes off to tell Peter and John that the body of Jesus has been stolen (John 20:2).

We will stop at point three of this harmonization.

I will now quote from Matthew's Gospel, the resurrection account.

Matthew 28
1 Now after the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the
other Mary came to look at the grave. 2 for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and
rolled away the stone and sat upon it. 3 And his appearance was like lightning, and his clothing as white as
snow. 4 The guards shook for fear of him and became like dead men. 5 The angel said to the women, “Do
not be afraid; for I know that you are looking for Jesus who has been crucified. 6 He is not here, for He has
risen, just as He said. Come, see the place where He was lying. 7 Go quickly and tell His disciples that He has
risen from the dead.

So we note specifically the harmonization proposed by Ladd, i.e., point three above.

3 Mary rushes off to tell Peter and John that the body of Jesus has been stolen. (John 20:2)

Matthew's account clearly states that the women were told by the angel.

7 Go quickly and tell His disciples that He has risen from the dead.

Matthew's account is in conflict with Ladd's account, that Mary rushes to tell Peter that the body of Jesus
has been stolen?

Ladd's third point is in direct conflict with Matthew's account. Any further examination of this attempted
and amusing harmonization by Ladd, is a waste of time.

I need a reasonable harmonization of the resurrection accounts, Ken. Professor Ladd
made no recommendation on the harmony.

You must post the web address of the harmony.

Lol im arguing both sides now, just playing devils advocate here.
But isnt it possible, since other gospel accounts say there were more women than mary and mary magdalene (which, by the way, isnt a contradiction, matthew is just leaving the other women out because he felt no need to give an exhaustive list, and likewise the number of angels), that Mary ran and told the disciples the body was stolen before seeing the angel, and then the angels appeared to the other women and said that to them?
I dont really have an opinion either way, just keeping an open mind.
When I read the four accounts, I found them confusing in places but not incompatible or contradictory.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

we're not single celled organism, so no.

But do you believe that mankind was once single celled organisms? Or do you think God made Adam from the dust of the ground and breathed in him the breath of life?


...

 

[Jamie Lee]

With that I think Im going to unwatch this thread now. Was very interesting talking to all and I hope Ive given some food for thought.