Do you accept evolution as a valid scientific theory?

[gluadys]

Many Asians and Caucasians have migrated to Africa and taken up residence there during the past 4-500 years. Abraham visited North Africa but prior to the the Babylonian diaspora, I can't think of any Asians who visited or migrated to Africa.

And when Abraham visited North Africa, he found people already there. Were they not African Caucasians?

And was not Abraham himself an Asian Caucasian?

 

[john crawford]

What's your hypothesis based on?

Written history. Many Indians and Europeans migrated to Africa during the past 4-500 years, and according to the Bible, the descendents of Ham only migrated to North Africa after the fall of Babylon and before Abraham's visit to Egypt. The Hebrew descendents of Abraham sojourned 400 years in Egyptian captivity so many of their descendents may be said to have had African ancestors also but there is no historical evidence that Noah or the Asian and Caucasian descendents of his son Japheth, ever visited Africa or had ancestors in Africa before the Greek and Roman territorial conquests in Egypt and Carthage.

 

[john crawford]

I accept evolution as both scientific theory (it has a working theory model that meets all requirements of being a scientific theory that has not been falsified) and proven fact (change in the frequency of alleles within a population from one generation to the next has been observed countless times in controlled conditions). There is currently no reason to reject evolution on a scientific basis, as no evidence to the contrary has yet arisen.

A good scientific reason to reject theories of human evolution is that there is no observable, testable or demonstrable scientific evidence to support it. Rather is there much observable evidence of historic fraud in neo-Darwinist racial attempts to associate human fossils and origins with common ancestors of non-human African apes.

One can reject evolution on a theological basis, but to do so simply because it does not agree with one's preconceptions strikes me as premature.

Of course, but one may also reject evolutionary theory on the basis of the intrinsic racial bigotry and prejudice inherent in all theories, scenarios and models describing the progressive speciation and "evolution" of non-human apes into several different human 'species' in or out of Africa.

 

[john crawford]

And when Abraham visited North Africa, he found people already there. Were they not African Caucasians?

Now that you mention and suggest it, some of the Egyptians whom Abraham met certainly could be considered Africans of Caucasian descent and Asian origin.

And was not Abraham himself an Asian Caucasian?

Yes, he was a Semitic descendent of Caucasian Asians who originally migrated to and settled in Ur of the Chaldees where the present Euphrates and Tigris rivers are now located in Iraq.

 

[gluadys]

Now that you mention and suggest it, some of the Egyptians whom Abraham met certainly could be considered Africans of Caucasian descent and Asian origin.

Yes, he was a Semitic descendent of Caucasian Asians who originally migrated to and settled in Ur of the Chaldees where the present Euphrates and Tigris rivers are now located in Iraq.

So you are now agreeing that the term "Caucasian" overlaps with the term "Asian". These are not two distinct groups.

And that at least some ancient Egyptians were Caucasian as well as African.

What about other peoples of North Africa and what is now the Sahara. The Romans did not find an empty land either. Nor a desert, for this area was once fruitful, productive and supported a thriving human population. Was not the original population of North Africa not also Caucasian, when the Romans, Greeks and Phoenicians first began to migrate into the area?

 

[david_x]

So if evolution is accepted as a scientific theory, were does God fit into it?
Or, do you believe God in the beginning then evolution, or somthin else?

 

[notto]

So if evolution is accepted as a scientific theory, were does God fit into it?
Or, do you believe God in the beginning then evolution, or somthin else?

Where does God fit into meteorology or astrophysics?

God is the creator. Understanding how nature (the creation) works doesn't remove God from the picture at a theological level. God created and the theory of evolution shows us how that creation played out and continues to play out.

Just like astrophysics, meteorology, or particle physics. No scientific theory makes any claims as to where God fits into it. All it does is gives us a realistic picture of how Creation works and that often times, ideas of how that creation works that were understood in the past are wrong.

 

[david_x]

God is the creator.

Yeah, so what kinda ideals do you have on that, like God just started the process or he made things just as they are?

 

[notto]

Yeah, so what kinda ideals do you have on that, like God just started the process or he made things just as they are?

We know that things have not been just as they are so I guess you could say that I think God started the process but that doesn't quite put it into words.

We know that the universe, this planet, and life itself were much different in the past then they are today. The processes that lead to that change were started by God. Science observes these processes in creation. If one thinks that God exists and created all that we see, then science is the study of God's work and creation.

 

[david_x]

We know that things have not been just as they are so I guess you could say that I think God started the process but that doesn't quite put it into words.

I personally find it near impossible to believe an undirected process like evolution could be responsible for such an amazing eco-system.

 

[notto]

I personally find it near impossible to believe an undirected process like evolution could be responsible for such an amazing eco-system.

What do you mean by 'undirected'? The physical mechanisms that cause evolution will inevitably create an environment with lots of diversity and interdependence. It is almost certain. What would you expect to be different? What occurance do you find impossible to accept? What amazing phenomena do you think is ruled out if the mechanisms used to explain evolution are what is at work?

Why do you think that the majority of scientists worldwide regardless of their faith, background, sex, age, or nationality diagree with you and accept the theory of evolution as the best explanation for the diversity we see?

 

[gluadys]

So if evolution is accepted as a scientific theory, were does God fit into it?

God doesn't "fit into" any scientific theory. God is too big for that. Science can only study the work of God, not God. Trying to fit God into a theory is like trying to stick God under a microscope. Can't be done.

Better to fit the theory into your theology.

Or, do you believe God in the beginning then evolution, or somthin else?


Yeah, so what kinda ideals do you have on that, like God just started the process or he made things just as they are?

I believe that God created the basic framework of nature in the beginning, giving the physical universe its properties and its processes. (sub-atomic particles and fundamental forces) And I believe that God at all times, every moment, is sustaining those processes. Possibly, directing those processes.

So God is active in the beginning and also in every moment of history. But most of the time God does not make things just as they are, but through the processes he developed and sustains. And possibly directs.

I personally find it near impossible to believe an undirected process like evolution could be responsible for such an amazing eco-system.

That is a bit like saying that it is near impossible to believe an undirected force like gravity could be responsible for making water run downhill or keeping the planets in their orbits.

Why wouldn't a process designed by God for a purpose not do the work God made it to do?

 

[ILoveYeshua]

what do you mean by valid? what do you mean by theory? what do you mean by scientific? just being a pain, never mind.

honestly, what does it really matter if i have a monkey for an uncle or not? a monkey in a suit is a monkey in a suit is a monkey in a suit, and a rose by any other name is still a rose.

the entire evolution creation debate is mental masturbation.

 

[pastorkevin73]

To believe in evolution is to reject Genesis 1, thus calling God a liar.

 

[The Lady Kate]

To believe in evolution is to reject Genesis 1, thus calling God a liar.

1. There's no way to accept both?
2. Genesis 1 is "rejected" if it's not read as literal history?
3. God wrote Genesis 1 personally?

 

[S Walch]

1. There's no way to accept both?

Nope, not in the slightest

2. Genesis 1 is "rejected" if it's not read as literal history?

If you reject it as literal history, does this mean you just decide to pick and choose which parts of the bible (that were written in a historical style) are meant to be read literally and what aren't?

3. God wrote Genesis 1 personally?

God inspired Moses to write it. If it's not true, then god is really very much the deceiver.

 

[ILoveYeshua]

the scriptures cannot be broken. that's what Christ said, do you believe him?

 

[S Walch]

the scriptures cannot be broken. that's what Christ said, do you believe him?

As long as you're refering to John 10:35:

"And you know that the Scriptures cannot be altered"

Then yes, I completely agree

 

[gluadys]

If you reject it as literal history, does this mean you just decide to pick and choose which parts of the bible (that were written in a historical style) are meant to be read literally and what aren't?

No, it is not a matter of personal preference. You need to study the varieties of ancient near east literature that are found in the bible and make an assessment of the text.

You need to develop criteria of what a "historical style" is as well as criteria of "legal style" "oratorical style" "legendary style" and "mythical style" and whatever other type of style is used and then apply the criteria to the text.

Very little of the bible is simply history as history per se was not a significant interest of the biblical writers.

God inspired Moses to write it. If it's not true, then god is really very much the deceiver.

No one is saying it is not true. Just that it is not literal. It is pretty short sighted to suppose something must be literal to be true. On that basis very little of the bible would be true.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Nope, not in the slightest

Why not? Because Christianity is literalism?

If you reject it as literal history, does this mean you just decide to pick and choose which parts of the bible (that were written in a historical style) are meant to be read literally and what aren't?

Of course not. Knowing that God's words cannot contradict His actions, one must view Scripture in light of what God has revealed to us through His creation, and with that in mind, determine what cannot be literal, and what can.

God inspired Moses to write it. If it's not true, then god is really very much the deceiver.

"God inspired Moses to write it," or "God leaned in behind Moses and whispered in his ear exactly which words to use"?

One possibility makes God very much the deceiver...the other allows the authors of Genesis (as well as the rest of the Bible) the freedom to be poetic.

How does one define "inspired"?