Evolution, Science, Creation

[TK2005]

One final thought before I must leave......

I can obviously prove my point scripturaly. This is what the Bible says plain and simple. So any Christian with an alternative viewpoint please prove to me through scripture that your view is correct.

 

[Chan1976]

'You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to gluadys again.'

Just want to say I really learnt a lot from your posts!

 

[random_guy]

Ok well maybe we think of evolution as two different things. You have more of an opinion of what evolution really is, as other people think it explains everything their is to explain.

There's no opinion on what the definition of evolution is any more than there's an opinion on what the scientific definition of gravity is. In this thread, there's two sides, the side that makes up what evolution is (Creationist's version) and the scientific side (change of allele frequencies over time).

Also, I would aruge about the fossils more but if you are indeed a christian, then my arugements would become void.

btw, I stand with pjalford when i say "My ancestors were not apes!"
-John

Technically, your parents are apes. It's a classification system.

If you have a spine, four limbs, an ear with three bones and a jaw with one, fur, your females lactate and give birth to live young, warm blood, flexible fingers, forward facing eyes, general body plan, general dentition, trichromatic vision, fingernails, opposable thumb, no tail, larger than average brain cavity, then you are an ape. If you have a chin, your foramen magnum enters towards the front of the skull, a large Broca's Region, and are suited to bipedality, then you are also a Human.

So if your parents are not apes, what part of the question is no? Do you subscribe to modern classification system, or do you still accept bats are birds?

Also, you never answered my question. In neither of the definitions I gave or you gave did it mention the origins of life. Why is this a problem for evolution?

 

[Metaphor]

There's no opinion on what the definition of evolution is any more than there's an opinion on what the scientific definition of gravity is. In this thread, there's two sides, the side that makes up what evolution is (Creationist's version) and the scientific side (change of allele frequencies over time).



Technically, your parents are apes. It's a classification system.


So if your parents are not apes, what part of the question is no? Do you subscribe to modern classification system, or do you still accept bats are birds?

Also, you never answered my question. In neither of the definitions I gave or you gave did it mention the origins of life. Why is this a problem for evolution?

Ok. Look. I said this once I'll say it a million times. My opinion comes from the Bible. God created every creature individually with love and care. Humans can then classify them with the various methods. That does not change the fact that God created each and every one as he said in the Bible. He created man separately from ape; and bat separately from sparrow.

Science cannot disprove my opinion because my opinion is faith based. "[font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]But the righteous one will live by his faith" (hab. 2:4).


Oh, and the origin of life thing..I'm sorry I had an incorrect view of evolution.
[/font]​

 

[random_guy]

Ok. Look. I said this once I'll say it a million times. My opinion comes from the Bible. God created every creature individually with love and care. Humans can then classify them with the various methods. That does not change the fact that God created each and every one as he said in the Bible. He created man separately from ape; and bat separately from sparrow.

Science cannot disprove my opinion because my opinion is faith based. "[font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]But the righteous one will live by his faith" (hab. 2:4).


Oh, and the origin of life thing..I'm sorry I had an incorrect view of evolution.
[/font]​

Of course science can't disprove your views, since it's based on faith. I'm just trying to point out that evolution is science, and this is what it says.

I might not have been very clear, but I just wanted to point out to other people that evolution is scientific and this is what it says. However, it does not make it the Truth (science doesn't deal with Truths). I'll admit, I have more respect for people like you that admit that their position is faith base, than people trying to force supernatural beliefs into a scientific position.

 

[Metaphor]

Of course science can't disprove your views, since it's based on faith. I'm just trying to point out that evolution is science, and this is what it says.

I might not have been very clear, but I just wanted to point out to other people that evolution is scientific and this is what it says. However, it does not make it the Truth (science doesn't deal with Truths). I'll admit, I have more respect for people like you that admit that their position is faith base, than people trying to force supernatural beliefs into a scientific position.

Ok, now we're getting some understanding here. I will admit that evolution is very scientific. But since I get my opinion from the Bible and you do not, it may make this kind of hard to further debate.

Anyhow, I had a great time debating with you guys :-D. I think we understand and respect our different beliefs better. So unless there is anything else anyone wants to debate or talk about; I think I can excuse myself from this thread .

In His Love,
John

 

[shernren]

God created every creature individually with love and care.

Does the Bible really say that?

And God saith, `Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after its kind:' and it is so. And God maketh the beast of the earth after its kind, and the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing of the ground after its kind, and God seeth that [it is] good.
(Genesis 1:24-25 YLT)

And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds." And it was so. And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the cattle according to their kinds, and everything that creeps upon the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
(Genesis 1:24-25 RSV)

And God said, "Let the earth bring forth every kind of animal--livestock, small animals, and wildlife." And so it was. God made all sorts of wild animals, livestock, and small animals, each able to reproduce more of its own kind. And God saw that it was good.
(Genesis 1:24-25 NLT)

Now here we have two apparently opposite statements:

1. God commands the earth to bring forth life.
2. God makes life.

The way to reconcile this is to say that God made life through the agency of the earth. In other words, the earth, obedient to God's command, brought forth life,
and because this life was brought forth by the earth as a result of God's command, it was indirectly made by God.

The Message has an interesting translation for this:

God spoke: "Earth, generate life! Every sort and kind:
cattle and reptiles and wild animals--all kinds."
And there it was: wild animals of every kind,
Cattle of all kinds, every sort of reptile and bug.
God saw that it was good.
(Genesis 1:24-25 TMSG)

In other words, we do not read that God actually did "create every creature individually with love and care". God did produce biodiversity with love and care - through the agency of the environment and natural selection.

(Having said that, I still do struggle with the evolution of humans because the Bible seems to be clear about God having some sort of direct, creative role in his origins.)

 

[TK2005]

In other words, we do not read that God actually did "create every creature individually with love and care". God did produce biodiversity with love and care - through the agency of the environment and natural selection.

Evolution requires a vast period of time to occur. That is in contradiction with God's word. Why is it so difficult for people to believe, especially Christians, that God spoke and it was? The Bible said He created the creatures, and if He created them in biodiversity, why must it be through evolution that even the creatures came to be as they are now? It isn't difficult for me to believe that God said let it be and it was. One word from Him and we're blinked out of existance if He so chooses.

 

[gluadys]

Evolution requires a vast period of time to occur. That is in contradiction with God's word.

No, it is only in contradiction to Bishop Ussher's calculations. Nothing in inspired scripture requires a young earth. In fact, from the early 19th century up to c. 1950 the vast majority of creationists were old-earth creationists. Young-earth creationism is a 20th century invention.

The Bible said He created the creatures, and if He created them in biodiversity, why must it be through evolution that even the creatures came to be as they are now?

Well, why not? As shown by shernren, the bible does not say that each creature was produced by a special act of creation. And the scientific evidence supports evolution.

It isn't difficult for me to believe that God said let it be and it was. One word from Him and we're blinked out of existance if He so chooses.

Key phrase: if He so chooses.

We have no evidence that God chose to blink things into existence in an instant. He could, if he chose to do so, but apparently, He did not so choose. I don't understand why this should be a stumbling block to believing in creation via evolution.

 

[TK2005]

Because evolution brings death and suffering into the world before the fall. Which is a direct contradiction of scripture.

I will ask again, can you show me through scripture that God used evolutionary processes to create life?

 

[gluadys]

Because evolution brings death and suffering into the world before the fall. Which is a direct contradiction of scripture.

Since this is an interpretation of scripture, it is not a direct contradiction of scripture. It is only a contradiction of that interpretation.

I will ask again, can you show me through scripture that God used evolutionary processes to create life?

No. The biblical authors were not conversant with evolution and so did not speak of it. Just as they were not conversant with atoms and so did not speak of them. Do you reject the atomic theory of matter because the bible does not allude to it? Do you think that the atomic theory of matter rules out God creating matter?

Why do you make a special case of evolution--asking from it what you ask of no other modern scientific theory?

 

[TK2005]

Interpretation of scripture is sent from God. If you lay the "different interpretations" theory out then you are in essence saying you do not trust the Bible. If you do not trust the Bible then you do not trust God.

 

[TK2005]

And the atomic theory argument is a weak one. We can presently study atoms and how they react, so it is irrelavant to bring it in the same arena as evolution.

 

[gluadys]

Interpretation of scripture is sent from God.

To whom? And where is the official divinely-sanctioned interpretation of scripture available?

Now I know what the answer of a Roman Catholic or an Eastern Orthodox would be: in the magisterium or traditional teachings of the church. But I think you are not of either of those faiths. So what is your answer?

If you lay the "different interpretations" theory out then you are in essence saying you do not trust the Bible. If you do not trust the Bible then you do not trust God.

What bl**dy nonsense. It is human interpretations I do not trust. If I am to trust what you claim the bible says, I need to be able to verify that it is indeed what the bible says.

 

[gluadys]

And the atomic theory argument is a weak one. We can presently study atoms and how they react, so it is irrelavant to bring it in the same arena as evolution.

We can also presently study the process of evolution and describe how it takes place. Not irrelevant at all.

 

[artybloke]

My opinion comes from the Bible.

No it doesn't. It comes from your literalistic modernistic interpretation of the Bible, the kind of thick-skulled literalism I'd expect from some 19th century positivist who thinks truth has to equal fact. The first chapter of Genesis is not a scientific paper, nor was it ever intended to be. It's supposed to be a poetic argument against the polytheistic creation myths of the surrounding culture.

 

[TK2005]

The Bible itself is where the divine interpretation resides. If you do not believe that, then you do not trust the Bible.


If you look at it as fallible man's interpretation, then how do you know the gospels are true? Either you believe and trust the whole bible or none of it. It can't be both ways.

 

[Metaphor]

No it doesn't. It comes from your literalistic modernistic interpretation of the Bible, the kind of thick-skulled literalism I'd expect from some 19th century positivist who thinks truth has to equal fact. The first chapter of Genesis is not a scientific paper, nor was it ever intended to be. It's supposed to be a poetic argument against the polytheistic creation myths of the surrounding culture.

Well evolution doesn't come from scripture either then. Your as thick-skulled as me. You look to science to answer all your questions. Science is not the answer to all. It doesn't actually PROOVE anything.

And it is by far not a "argument against the polytheistic creation myths of the surrounding culture.". It is what happened. If you do not belive God then why are you in the "christians only" secion?


Genesis was inspired by God Himself. The all the author did was put pen to paper. I stand with TK2005 when I say that there is absolutely NO scriptural evidence for evolution what-so-ever.


-John

 

[Metaphor]

Also your evolutionary opinions agree that humans were once apes; over time evolving into humans. But Genesis IS clear then humans were made separately with love and care. God formed man in HIS image, [not ape], them formed woman from man.

That part is biblically incorrect if not the rest.

-John

 

[The Lady Kate]

Also your evolutionary opinions agree that humans were once apes; over time evolving into humans. But Genesis IS clear then humans were made separately with love and care. God formed man in HIS image, [not ape], them formed woman from man.

That part is biblically incorrect if not the rest.

-John

Genesis IS ALSO clear that the Fall, sin, suffering, death, and all of the world's woes can be traced back to Eve taking bad advice from a talking snake.

Surely we can allow the authors of Genesis a bit of poetic license.