Do you accept evolution as a valid scientific theory?

[john crawford]

Evolution does not explain religion; it explains how species change and diverge over time.

Evolution doesn't explain how the human race has changed and diverged over time. It just says that various racial groups today were different African races and 'species' in the past.

 

[david_x]

4) Why is it that these highly respected scientists views aren't highly respected by other scientists and seem to be tightly woven with their religious views?

i've heard that a shift is being made as well. Scientists are seening the flaws of darwanism objectivly.

 

[david_x]

Evolution doesn't explain how the human race has changed and diverged over time. It just says that various racial groups today were different African races and 'species' in the past.

but we are all still part of one group, right.

 

[ebia]

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" isn't the start of a story.

Says who?

And is absolutely nothing similar to Jesus parables, which were told as stories.

You mean that you've accepted one is a story, you haven't accepted the other as a story, so you can't see the similarity.

As Jesus, when talking to the pharises says "have you not read the scriptures? They record that In the beginning God created them male and female" What does "they record" here mean

Certainly not record in a 20th century sense.

 

[ebia]

i've heard that a shift is being made as well. Scientists are seening the flaws of darwanism objectivly.

Proof by hear-say.

 

[david_x]

You mean that you've accepted one is a story, you haven't accepted the other as a story, so you can't see the similarity.

Certainly not record in a 20th century sense.

That or "knowledge has blinded you"

Says who?

Who says it's not? Certaintly you would not go agains the very word of God.

 

[invisible trousers]

Evolution doesn't explain how the human race has changed and diverged over time. It just says that various racial groups today were different African races and 'species' in the past.

It kind of does, actually.

Why do you keep lying about this? Evolution says absolutely nothing about race; I've seen you (and others) harp on it a billion times but not provide a single piece of evidence which supports your view.

Bearing false witness for Christ is cool and all, but having to apologize to others (both believers and not) for liars in your religion kind of sucks sometimes.

Who says it's not? Certaintly you would not go agains the very word of God.

As much as you might not like to hear this, young earth creationists do not hold a monopoly on the "correct" interpretation of genesis. Disagreeing with you is not "going against the word of God", but instead is "disagreeing with you". It's pretty arrogant to think that your interpretation of creation is the only correct one and everyone who disagrees with you is disagreeing with God.

 

[shernren]

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" isn't the start of a story.

How do you know that? What are your criteria?

How do you know that
"Once upon a time" starts a story, and
"A man was ... " starts a story when Jesus is saying it and doesn't start a story when the newspaper is saying it, and
"In the beginning" doesn't start a story?

And is absolutely nothing similar to Jesus parables, which were told as stories.

Again, what are your criteria in saying that?

As Jesus, when talking to the pharises says "have you not read the scriptures? They record that In the beginning God created them male and female"

What does "they record" here mean?

It means that you're reading a different version of the Bible or a different Gospel from the one I'm reading. From Matthew 19, KJV:

[BIBLE]Matthew 19:4[/BIBLE]

Where does Jesus make that statement in the wording you have provided?

 

[john crawford]

but we are all still part of one group, right.

No. According to modern Darwinist race theorists, we are a different human race and species than some of our African ancestors were. They were not as highly evolved and intelligent as we are and were much less sophisticated culturally.

 

[john crawford]

It kind of does, actually.

Your skull gallery doesn't prove anything other than Darwinists and fossils exist.

Evolution says absolutely nothing about race; I've seen you (and others) harp on it a billion times but not provide a single piece of evidence which supports your view.

Just look at the pictures you posted of skulls of various races. That's evidence of Darwinist racism right there.

Bearing false witness for Christ is cool and all, but having to apologize to others (both believers and not) for liars in your religion kind of sucks sometimes.

Bearing false witness isn't cool at all, especially when Darwinists lie about human fossils not belonging to former members of various racial groups.

As much as you might not like to hear this, young earth creationists do not hold a monopoly on the "correct" interpretation of genesis.

Who's talking about Genesis? I'm writing about so-called human 'speciation' and Racial Darwinism.

 

[ebia]

It means that you're reading a different version of the Bible or a different Gospel from the one I'm reading. From Matthew 19, KJV:

Matthew 19:4And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

Where does Jesus make that statement in the wording you have provided?

By the look of it he's quoting from the New Living Translation. Why they decided to introduce a word that's not in the Greek or in any other English translation I don't know - but one can't help but suspect that it betrays the theology of the translators.

 

[LoG]

This page has some good thoughts of why Genesis isn't a myth.
http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c024.html

 

[david_x]

young earth creationists do not hold a monopoly

Ohh, so you don't think there is a complete truth?

Bearing false witness isn't cool at all, especially when Darwinists lie about human fossils not belonging to former members of various racial groups.

Try to understand that you are the only one who thinks it's "racist." So, you would be the only racist. They are not racial groups, their individual subspecies! You are saying a cotton tail should call a jack-rabbit it's same species!

 

[gluadys]

This page has some good thoughts of why Genesis isn't a myth.
http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c024.html

Funny, they refer to "evidence" but they do not supply any. Only unsupported opinions.

For example:

"The Lord Jesus Christ referred to the Creation of Adam and Eve as a real historical event, .."

Where is the evidence to back up the statement that Jesus was referring to a real event? Indeed, how could there be any such evidence? Wouldn't it take a mind-reader to know what Jesus thought about whether or not Adam was an historical person?

"Unless the first 11 chapters of Genesis are authentic historical events, the rest of the Bible is incomplete and incomprehensible as to its full meaning."

Somebody's opinion. Where is the evidence which shows this opinion is valid? I don't even see any logic in this statement, much less evidence. I certainly don't find the rest of the bible incomprehensible given the mythological character of these chapters. In fact that is what makes them comprehensible to me.

 

[tel0004]

four really is my favorite number. But no, i dont believe in evolution

 

[calidog]

Nope.....not even a little bit.

 

[shernren]

Yup, the New Living Translation. This just goes to show that the people saying "Use only KJV!" actually have some merit to their statements and aren't just being anal.

The original of the verse in question:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1137130396-1096.html#4

The word "record" you found there in the NLT is probably there because the NLT is not practicing a word-to-word or a phrase-to-phrase translation, rather a paraphrase. Quoting the NLT below:

4"Haven't you read the Scriptures?" Jesus replied. "They record that from the beginning `God made them male and female.'

(emphases added)

In the original, the part in bold is at the beginning of the sentence and the italics aren't there at all. Why does the NLT infer the word "record", then, you may ask. Well, if you look at what happens when we reimpose the original structure,

4Jesus replied, "Haven't you read that (... NLT addition cut out ...) from the beginning `God made them male and female.'?"

the logical question a novice reader (who are helped the most by paraphrases like these) would ask is "read - from where?" Therefore the NLT adds that what they read was the "record" of Scripture. So we must ask: what kind of "record" can you read? This will settle the question of whether "record" in the NLT refers to a literal, historical record as you imply. So let's look at how the word read is used in other passages:

"Yes," Jesus replied. "Haven't you ever read the Scriptures? For they say, `You have taught children and infants to give you praise.'" (Matthew 21:16)

(emphasis added)

Again, the read here is the same one used in Matthew 19, and interestingly the italics here do not come from the original text, just like in Matthew 19. Crucially, the "say" here is not in the original (Original of 21:16 here: http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1137131426-8811.html#16)http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1137131426-8811.html#16 ). From this parallel we see that when Jesus said "Haven't you read" He didn't assume that they were reading a "record": this time, Jesus is asking if they read a psalm, which is certainly not literal!

And on an aside, the far, far more liberal Message has:

4He answered, "Haven't you read in your Bible that the Creator originally made man and woman for each other, male and female?"

So both more liberal and less liberal translations than the NLT don't tell us that the Scriptures "record". To sum all this up, in response to your question:

What does "they record" here mean?

It means that the NLT translators believed that the sections Jesus quoted there were "records". It does not mean that Jesus believed that the sections He quoted there were "records".

 

[invisible trousers]

Ohh, so you don't think there is a complete truth?

What? Truth doesn't have to be restricted to a literal genesis which makes God a complete liar who likes to fool His followers into believing in an old universe and evolution.

skulls of various races. That's evidence of Darwinist racism right there.

Those are species, not races. If you can't make this simple distinction then this probably isn't the best topic for you to tackle.

Bearing false witness isn't cool at all, especially when Darwinists lie about human fossils not belonging to former members of various racial groups.

Who's talking about Genesis? I'm writing about so-called human 'speciation' and Racial Darwinism.

Excuse me? Nobody here has said anything about racism, other than you.

You keep lying about claims made by evolution and refuse to provide a single piece of evidence which supports things you say. Why is this? Why do you keep lying about evolution? I'm pretty baffled as to why a christian would go to such lengths to lie about things.

 

[Gwenyfur]

Strictly because it is polar opposition to scripture.

Evolution has death bringing man into the world.
Genesis has man bringing death into the world.

Not to mention the only proof the evolutionists seem to present to the public and our children has been proven wrong no less than 50 years ago...

 

[LoG]

Funny, they refer to "evidence" but they do not supply any. Only unsupported opinions.

For example:

"The Lord Jesus Christ referred to the Creation of Adam and Eve as a real historical event, .."

Where is the evidence to back up the statement that Jesus was referring to a real event? Indeed, how could there be any such evidence? Wouldn't it take a mind-reader to know what Jesus thought about whether or not Adam was an historical person?

"Unless the first 11 chapters of Genesis are authentic historical events, the rest of the Bible is incomplete and incomprehensible as to its full meaning."

Somebody's opinion. Where is the evidence which shows this opinion is valid? I don't even see any logic in this statement, much less evidence. I certainly don't find the rest of the bible incomprehensible given the mythological character of these chapters. In fact that is what makes them comprehensible to me.

The proof ultimately is in the witness of the Spirit. Not a statement I would make in a secular debate on this subject, however being in a christian forum I would have thought that could be understood. There is plenty of rational evidence for the creation event but for those whose minds are closed to anything other than evolution, the truth will never be apparent because they will put their trust in the natual mind as opposed to the truth of God.

Reading these debates on Evolution vs Creation the truth of these verses really hits home:

2Ti 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
2Ti 4:4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

2Th 2:10 and every type of evil to deceive those who are dying, those who refused to love the truth that would save them.
2Th 2:11 For this reason, God will send them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie.

Mar 13:22 For false christs and false prophets will appear and produce signs and omens to deceive, if possible, the elect.

The theory of evolution fits those verses very well.