Evolution Theory Existed Long Before Darwin

[expos4ever]

According to statistics, biological scientists have the lowest percentage of belief in God (5.5%) and immortality (7.1%) with physicists and astronomers right behind (7.5% and 7.5% respectfully) (stats from 1998) in the scientific community.

Of what relevance is this? The evidence for evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with belief in the existence of God. You are trying to tell us that just because people do not believe in God, they are going to do "bad science" and come up with a bad theory.

I'm also not impress with brillant and highly trained people.

Apparently not. Lucky for the rest of us, we generally listen to the experts. During Covid, many ignored the experts and some paid the ultimate price. When it comes to medical advice, I go to a doctor, not the greeter at Walmart. When I want to learn about the stars and the universe, I consult an astrophysicist, not the Tarot card reader at the carnival. And when it comes to understanding evolution, I defer to people trained in biology and other relevant domains.

 

[HarleyER]

Here is a claim made by a poster:

THEY determine what is fact and redefine theory, and so it is fact/theory. (In theological circles, people use to call this Gnosticism.)

Well, of course it is biologists (and perhaps certain other specialists) who developed the theory of evolution. What did you expect - that it would be developed by bricklayers or cashiers? And the connection to Gnosticism is absurd - Gnosticism entails the idea certain people have secret knowledge inaccessible to others. So what we are essentially being told is that biologists are some sort of sinister cabal who are colluding together to foist falsehoods on a gullible public.

Where is the evidence for this?

Would it make sense to believe that experts in kidney disease are colluding to develop bad theories about kidney disease to mislead the public?

Would it make sense to believe that astrophysicists are engaged in a dark conspiracy to mislead us about the big bang?

What is more likely? That the theory of evolution involves a complex, world-wide, multi-decade conspiracy among tens of thousands of biologists?

Or that writer of Genesis was using the literary device of metaphor to communicate important truths about God and the world?

"Or that writer of Genesis was using the literary device of metaphor to communicate important truths about God and the world?"

OK, let's go with that. Could the writer of Genesis, instead of using a literary device of a metaphor, have been recording what actually took place? Do you believe it is POSSIBLE that God COULD have created everything in existence in a six day time frame and what we are seeing around us dates back to that creation?

How much power do you ascribe to God?

 

[The Barbarian]

But for those believers to get out on a Christian website and try to convince others that the Scriptures are wrong and evolution is right, then these people need to examine themselves to see if they are in the faith.

Those believers who try to convince others that there is a conflict between scripture and evolution need to examine themselves to see if they are in the faith. God's word cannot contradict observed truth. And we observe evolution acting in populations all around us.

Now, it's possible you don't know what biological evolution is. But otherwise, you're imputing falsehood to God's word.

 

[The Barbarian]

OK, let's go with that. Could the writer of Genesis, instead of using a literary device of a metaphor, have been recording what actually took place? Do you believe it is POSSIBLE that God COULD have created everything in existence in a six day time frame and what we are seeing around us dates back to that creation?

All things are possible with God. This does not mean that God is obligated to do whatever people interpret scripture to say He did.

 

[HarleyER]

Those believers who try to convince others that there is a conflict between scripture and evolution need to examine themselves to see if they are in the faith. God's word cannot contradict observed truth. And we observe evolution acting in populations all around us.

Now, it's possible you don't know what biological evolution is. But otherwise, you're imputing falsehood to God's word.

One cannot convinced others about the scripture. That is the responsibility of the Holy Spirit.

As far as "God's word cannot contradict observed truth." that's is utter nonsense. You are simply saying that God must bow to evolution along with His creation. How would you then explain the parting of the Red Sea, a man born blind for forty years being able to see, water changed to wine, Jesus walking on water, on and on and on. Not to mention the miracle of regeneration of every true believer.

I understand enough to know what biological evolution is. I would suggest you have made a idol out of biological evolution especially when you state limitation on what God can and can't do. The Pharisees thought Christ could not have been the Messiah simply because the Messiah was not to come from Galilee. They were wrong even though they thought they God's word could not contradict observed truth.

 

[The Barbarian]

As far as "God's word cannot contradict observed truth." that's is utter nonsense.

God is truth. You just don't like what that means. You are simply saying that God must bow to man's revision of His word along with His creation.

How would you then explain the parting of the Red Sea, a man born blind for forty years being able to see, water changed to wine, Jesus walking on water, on and on and on.

Nothing in science denies miracles. Your error is in thinking that God does miracles because He has to do it to make things work. In fact, miracles are done to teach us something. And if you can call in a non-scriptural miracle to fix errors in your thinking, all beliefs are equally plausible.

I understand enough to know what evolution is.

But you can't tell us what it is? Why is that?

I would suggest you have made a idol out of biological evolution especially when you state limitation on what God can and can't do.

Your idol, creationism, depends on that assumption. Evolution is merely an observed phenomenon. We see it happening everywhere in populations. Most Christians think God is great and wise enough to make nature in such a way as to bring forth life according to His will. Creationists are uncomfortable with a God that great, so they try to put limitations on Him.

The Pharisees thought Christ could not have been the Messiah simply because the Messiah was not to come from Galilee. They were wrong even though they thought they God's word could not contradict observed truth.

Your two sentences seem to be completely unrelated. Of course, the Pharisees were Biblical literalists, so they denied anything that didn't fit their interpretations. Today, we call them "creationists."

 

[HarleyER]

God is truth. You just don't like what that means. You are simply saying that God must bow to man's revision of His word along with His creation.


Nothing in science denies miracles. Your error is in thinking that God does miracles because He has to do it to make things work. In fact, miracles are done to teach us something. And if you can call in a non-scriptural miracle to fix errors in your thinking, all beliefs are equally plausible.


But you can't tell us what it is? Why is that?


Your idol, creationism, depends on that assumption. Evolution is merely an observed phenomenon. We see it happening everywhere in populations. Most Christians think God is great and wise enough to make nature in such a way as to bring forth life according to His will. Creationists are uncomfortable with a God that great, so they try to put limitations on Him.


Your two sentences seem to be completely unrelated. Of course, the Pharisees were Biblical literalists, so they denied anything that didn't fit their interpretations. Today, we call them "creationists."

It occurred to me that there are at least three observable truths from scriputre that exists today:

1) Communion-this is a practice that dates back to the command of our Lord Jesus to remember His death and resurrection.​

​

2) Passover-this is a practice that dates back to God calling Israel out of Egypt and the slaying of the first borns.​

​

3) Clothing-this is a practice that dates back to Adam and Eve when God clothed them right before kicking them out of the Garden.​

So if you want an observable truth, think of that every time you put on your pants.

As far as "God does miracles because He has to..make things work", this is nonsense. The purpose of miracles were given to us as signs pointing to Jesus Christ as the Messiah. Not because God said, "Oops...".

Most of God's action is a direct result of His great providence. God tells Joseph to go back to Irsael, and Joseph settles in Nazareth to fulfill scripture. God directs the godless Chaldeans to destroy the northern kingdom and it happens. God forecast 500 years before that a king name Cyrus will issue a decree to allow the remnant to return and that's what happens, a king name Cyrus comes along and issues a decree that does just that.

God directs the affairs of men.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well, according to Wikipedia (see Evolution), it apparently NOT settled even among die hard evolutionist depending on various points of views

Evolution as fact​

Evolution as fact and theory​

Evolution as fact and not theory​

Evolution as a collection of theories, not fact​

It is interesting, that the writers of these various points of view whom I'm familiar with (Huxley, Einstein, Dawkins, etc.) were/are hard core atheists.

So, while I understand your position, I don't agree with your conclusion nor would I agree with these atheists biologists. You're coming at it from a strictly bias and narrow viewpoint, one that is trying to fit a idea to the exclusion of any other explanations or other fields of study. It is reinforced by the majority of other atheists in your field. Undoubtedly, there is laughter with creationists and probably a bit of smugness in thinking they are right. In your world, there is no creation, no angels, no resurrection, no paranormal activities, no soul. What is left out is life after death. Laws and moral values are meaningless. People are free to do whatever they want since they are nothing more than evolving animals. After all, we exist only to create the next evolutionary chain. Very sad perspective.

Sorry, I don't buy into that line of thought, I don't buy into their "evolutionary evidence", and I'd disagree with the conclusions many of these atheists believe. I know better.

1 Corinthians 2:14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

Do you even bother to look at the info provided by each poster offered just below his/her avatar?

 

[HarleyER]

Do you even bother to look at the info provided by each poster offered just below his/her avatar?

Yes. But my questions still go unanswered.

 

[The Barbarian]

It occurred to me that there are at least three observable truths from scriputre that exists today:

1) Communion-this is a practice that dates back to the command of our Lord Jesus to remember His death and resurrection.2) Passover-this is a practice that dates back to God calling Israel out of Egypt and the slaying of the first borns.3) Clothing-this is a practice that dates back to Adam and Eve when God clothed them right before kicking them out of the Garden.
So if you want an observable truth, think of that every time you put on your pants.

As far as "God does miracles because He has to..make things work", this is nonsense.

As I said. I don't why creationists even try that one. As you probably know, God uses nature for almost everything in this world, only using miracles to teach us things.

The purpose of miracles were given to us as signs pointing to Jesus Christ as the Messiah. Not because God said, "Oops...".

Yep.

Most of God's action is a direct result of His great providence.

Do you think God is capable of using contingency as well as necessity to effect divine providence?

 

[HarleyER]

As I said. I don't why creationists even try that one. As you probably know, God uses nature for almost everything in this world, only using miracles to teach us things.



Yep.


Do you think God is capable of using contingency as well as necessity to effect divine providence?

"Do you think God is capable of using contingency as well as necessity to effect divine providence?"

No. God doesn't make mistakes. Everything was foreknown before the world began, predestined to His will and is order to His divine sovereign plan. There are no "contingencies" because God's plan is perfect.

Do you believe God makes contingencies based on our actions?

 

[The Barbarian]

Do you think God is capable of using contingency as well as necessity to effect divine providence?

No.

So you don't think God is omnipotent?
So

God doesn't make mistakes.

Why would it be a "mistake" to use an aspect of His creation?

Everything was foreknown before the world began, predestined to His will and is order to His divine sovereign plan.

So there is no free will?

God wills whatever is required for a thing that He wills, as has been said.But it befits certain things, according to the mode of their nature, that they be contingent and not necessary. Therefore, God wills that some things be contingent. Now, the efficacy of the divine will requires not only that something be that God wills to be, but also that it be as He wills it to be. For, among natural agents as well, when the acting power is strong it assimilates its effect to itself not only as to species but also as to the accidents, which are certain modes of that thing. Therefore, the efficacy of the divine will does not remove contingency.
Thomas Aquinas Summa Contra Gentiles, Book I, c. 85

 

[HarleyER]

Do you think God is capable of using contingency as well as necessity to effect divine providence?


So you don't think God is omnipotent?
So

Why would it be a "mistake" to use an aspect of His creation?


So there is no free will?

God wills whatever is required for a thing that He wills, as has been said.But it befits certain things, according to the mode of their nature, that they be contingent and not necessary. Therefore, God wills that some things be contingent. Now, the efficacy of the divine will requires not only that something be that God wills to be, but also that it be as He wills it to be. For, among natural agents as well, when the acting power is strong it assimilates its effect to itself not only as to species but also as to the accidents, which are certain modes of that thing. Therefore, the efficacy of the divine will does not remove contingency.
Thomas Aquinas Summa Contra Gentiles, Book I, c. 85

No, there is no free will. There is God's will and there is man's will. And man's will is always opposed to God's will unless He changes our hearts.

Thomas Aquinas

Do you think God is capable of using contingency as well as necessity to effect divine providence?


So you don't think God is omnipotent?
So

Why would it be a "mistake" to use an aspect of His creation?


So there is no free will?

God wills whatever is required for a thing that He wills, as has been said.But it befits certain things, according to the mode of their nature, that they be contingent and not necessary. Therefore, God wills that some things be contingent. Now, the efficacy of the divine will requires not only that something be that God wills to be, but also that it be as He wills it to be. For, among natural agents as well, when the acting power is strong it assimilates its effect to itself not only as to species but also as to the accidents, which are certain modes of that thing. Therefore, the efficacy of the divine will does not remove contingency.
Thomas Aquinas Summa Contra Gentiles, Book I, c. 85

Thomas Aquinas was a fair philospher but a poor theologian. One check of the scriptures and one will find there is no such thing as a "free will". We are either slaves to sin or slaves to righteousness (Romans 6:20). There is only God's will (good) and man's will (rebellious, evil). There is no in-between.

There are no "accidents" in nature. The stars move in their orbit, the earth sits precisely where God wants it, the oceans come no farther to the shore than what is prescribed by God. This is the whole point of the Book of Job. Everything is planned. There are no "contingencies".

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yes. But my questions still go unanswered.

You're missing my point. My point is that you go too far in equating evolutionary thinking, of whatever forms, with atheism. They're not the same and one does not by any necessity follow the other.

Also, I'm not an atheist, and neither are many of the posters here. I would suggest you stop talking at us as if we're atheists. It's getting tiresome. Very tiresome. Notice, too, I don't condescend upon you if you want to tow the Literalist View. If you want to take the Genesis Creation account literally, go ahead. I'm fine with that, but stop the derogation.

 

[expos4ever]

"Or that writer of Genesis was using the literary device of metaphor to communicate important truths about God and the world?"

OK, let's go with that. Could the writer of Genesis, instead of using a literary device of a metaphor, have been recording what actually took place? Do you believe it is POSSIBLE that God COULD have created everything in existence in a six day time frame and what we are seeing around us dates back to that creation?

How much power do you ascribe to God?

Of course, God could have created the world in 6 days 10,000 years ago. But so what? God could have done many things. What matters is what the evidence suggests did actually happen.

 

[expos4ever]

I would suggest you have made a idol out of biological evolution especially when you state limitation on what God can and can't do.

Strawman - no one has said anything like this.

 

[The Barbarian]

No, there is no free will.

And yet you just claimed that there is:

There is God's will and there is man's will. And man's will is always opposed to God's will unless He changes our hearts.

Thomas Aquinas was a fair philospher but a poor theologian. One check of the scriptures and one will find there is no such thing as a "free will". We are either slaves to sin or slaves to righteousness (Romans 6:20).

But God gives us the freedom to chose. If we did not have that freedom, God would be a monster, creating beings for the purpose of torturing them eternally for things that are not their fault.

 

[Diamond72]

You are trying to tell us that just because people do not believe in God, they are going to do "bad science" and come up with a bad theory.

We need both science and the Bible. They verify each other. God uses both to show us what HE wants us to know.

 

[The Barbarian]

We need both science and the Bible.

For different things. One does not inform the other.

 

[Diamond72]

For different things. One does not inform the other.

1 Thessalonians 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

This is what science does. Something has to be testable to be science. WE establish a hypotheses and then we look for evidence to support that. In this case my hypothesis is that day one is 8 billion years. So I do a google search on what happened 8 billion years ago. Does that match what we read in our Bible and I believe it does. We are told: "

• Great Oxygenation Event: Oxygenic photosynthetic cyanobacteria evolved, leading to the Great Oxidation Event. Oxygen levels in the atmosphere and shallow oceans rose significantly2.

Then there are people who have the hypothesis that day one in genesis one is 24 hours. The evidence does not support their claim. The universe has been expanding from the beginning. They say that God created a universe that looks like it has been expanding for 13 billion years. Does that mean God is playing tricks on us. With Science you accept evidence that supports the claim. You do not accept evidence that contradicts your claim.

There is no evidence to support a day in Genesis being 24 hours.