Evolution

[1whirlwind]

Vilifying science and evolution is EVIL.

No one is vilifying science. Evolution of man from ape is a lie so...is that evil?

It speaks to the very same mindset which spawns witch-hunts, burnings at-the-stake, crusades, book-burning, etc.

TRUTH is truth, regardless of where it is found. Science is a methodology - nothing more, nothing less. In fact, the methodology of science is applicable to religion as well. A similar concept was behind John Wesley's Methodism. From wikipedia: John Wesley - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Under Wesley's direction, Methodists became leaders in many social issues of the day, including the prison reform and abolitionismWesley's contribution as a theologian was to propose a system of opposing theological stances. His greatest theological achievement was his promotion of what he termed "Christian Perfection", or holiness of heart and life. Wesley held that, in this life, Christians could come to a state in which the love of God, or perfect love, reigned supreme in their hearts. His evangelical theology, especially his understanding of Christian perfection, was firmly grounded in his sacramental theology. He continually insisted on the general use of the means of grace (prayer, scripture, meditation, Holy Communion, etc.) as the means by which God sanctifies and transforms the believer. movements.
​

In other words: Question for understanding. Question with boldness. TRUTH will remain true under questioning. Deception, however, will fall apart under questioning. Lies will not stand. Questioning is the one tool God has given us to separate TRUTH from LIES.

Yes we are to separate truth from lies. Man evolving from apes isn't a truth. There are many things, Biblical things, that simply aren't understood. Many of the understandings meld with science and we find answers. But, not all.

What is it we are told will happen during end-times --- D E C E P T I O N ---

Those who choose not to question for understanding will be susceptible to that deception. The mere fact that there are dozens of large "Christian" churches attests to that -- each practicing its own version of the TRUTH. Even Revelation acknowledged that most churches don't get all the TRUTH. Some churches in Revelation get very little of the TRUTH. Ultimately, God is personal, and it is up to each of us, individually, to find truth. One needs to study and understand. Most here seem to realize that there is much deception in the churches. (Ever notice all the finger-pointing?)

He answered the question. It is written. Man didn't evolve from apes.

Yes, but realize that works both ways, Whirlwind. Many who truly believe themselves to be of the church are not. Revelation explicitly says so. The Bible repeats that throughout many different books and verses.

TRUTH is on God's side. Questioning is on God's side. Vilifying others is on the Devil's side. Many of those you would vilify are actually on your side.

Those I vilify? Who are they? Where did I vilify them?

Science is not anti-Bible and is not anti-God. Evolution is not anti-Bible and is not anti-God.

Evolution is anti-Bible unless God resembles an ape with an ape's disposition...does He?

Evolution is anti-Bible unless the things He created weren't created "after his kind."

Some who claim to be of God will not allow questioning. Some who claim to be of God are anti-science and anti-evolution.

Where is the greater DECEPTION, Whirlwind?

Lies are the greater deception from either Science or those who claim to be of God. A lie is a lie.


.

 

[offelias]

I'm not exact on the verse (perhaps someone else knows it) but I think Jesus says to one of his disciples that he has given them the wisdom to understand. And for those that don't he uses parables..

So in my opinion.. (also based on my own attention span)

The opening of Genesis being "God created the world in 4,550,000,000 years and 26 days" might have led to a few more books being shut after the first sentence..

Let's face it - God has the literary knowledge to have the book written so that we have a better chance of comprehending things..


offelias xxx

 

[UpperEschelon]

Yes we are to separate truth from lies. Man evolving from apes isn't a truth.

Only evolutionary theory never at any time claims men to have evolved from apes.

 

[NightHawkeye]

No one is vilifying science. Evolution of man from ape is a lie so...is that evil?

Thank you for clarifying that, Whirlwind. Now that we know you're not anti-science, let's go on to your next issue in the statement above.

Evolution from ape to man ... You speak in an absolute sense here, yet seem to be ignoring the results of science. The methods of science have revealed that men and other primates share substantially similar genetics. I seem to recall something like 98% commonality with chimpanzees (but I'm just working from memory on that so the exact number may be slightly different). At any rate, our physical bodies share a great deal in common with other primates. This genetic similarity allows certain diseases to cross between men and some primates.

We also know with absolute certainty that genetic material can be altered and that such alteration occurs naturally as part of God's natural laws. Men have also altered genetic material for specific purposes, such as herding sheep. Are you familiar with Shetland sheepdogs or Border collies? Both these dogs were bred by man specifically for working sheep.

So, in many ways the theory of evolution has been proven. Granted there are still many unknowns. Any legitimate geneticist would admit as much. That's true of all science, by the way. Every aspect of every discipline is open to question.

As with the Bible, you can expect people to argue their favorite theories, but evidence is what carries the argument. Sure, there are bad apples, as evidenced by "global warming", but ultimately the "fakers" are relegated to the trash heap, as happened with the global warming hoax.

You seem to have an issue with anyone who says man evolved from apes. I'm not sure why that should cause you, or anyone else here, consternation. I seem to recall a discussion here not very long ago where it was determined that the word "beast", as used in the Bible, was clearly referring to individuals in human bodies who were not considered to be men. The mere fact that the Bible describes beasts in human bodies might be a clue.

Yes we are to separate truth from lies. Man evolving from apes isn't a truth. There are many things, Biblical things, that simply aren't understood. Many of the understandings meld with science and we find answers. But, not all.

He answered the question. It is written. Man didn't evolve from apes.

On much we agree (but we already knew that, didn't we?) Even on this board it is a rare thread where someone doesn't claim their interpretation of some aspect of the Bible to be absolute truth, causing numerous readers to then scratch their heads and wonder, huh?

Oh well ... God has not granted any of us to know all things. (At least that's been my experience, so far.) We are each very limited in our ability and understanding. I certainly can't speak for you, but my God-given mathematical abilities, which in my youth I thought were good, are so limited that I can't compete against a $2.00 calculator either in accuracy or computational speed.

Jesus had to speak in parables because men wouldn't understand otherwise. The parables allowed them to understand bits and pieces more clearly, even though it wasn't granted them that they should understand all things.

Those I vilify? Who are they? Where did I vilify them?

LOL. My apologies if I misunderstood. I thought you were vilifying evolution.

Evolution is anti-Bible unless God resembles an ape with an ape's disposition...does He?

OK. So you are vilifying evolution? I'm confused?

The great apes, as I understand it, have a generally much more pleasant disposition than men do. :o

Evolution is anti-Bible unless the things He created weren't created "after his kind."

Nah. It's more like evolution just punched one of your buttons. Or, more likely, the buttons of somebody in your church. Evolution, per se, is no more evil than a thousand other things I could list for you which are not considered evil.

Things like leading into captivity, killing, and lieing are evil. Evolution is simply an attempt to search for truth -- possibly errant -- but not wantonly contrary to God or God's laws.

Lies are the greater deception from either Science or those who claim to be of God. A lie is a lie.

.

Well good. Again, we agree.

 

[SonOfTheWest]

1 Corinthians 15:39
All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.

Eh... oh well. You know what you know, you know?

And God did not say. Thou shalt be stupid. God gave man a brain and some of us expect to use our gifts. Skewing scripture to fuel an agenda in defiance of the evidence to the contrary is laughing in the face of God.

 

[Husky7]

I agree with you that evolution is destructive to the heritage of Adam and Eve, but Husky7 is indeed correct in what he says about that particular verse.

Yes, thank you. I guess I didn't understand what the other dude was saying, haha.

 

[Fireinfolding]

Evolution is anti-Bible unless God resembles an ape with an ape's disposition...does He?

That was good

 

[ivebeenshown]

Skewing scripture to fuel an agenda in defiance of the evidence to the contrary

I'm not going to be the one skewing the order of the days in Genesis 1 or allegorizing the earlier portion of the genealogical account of our LORD Jesus Christ.

 

[UpperEschelon]

I'm not going to be the one skewing the order of the days in Genesis 1 or allegorizing the earlier portion of the genealogical account of our LORD Jesus Christ.

Yea, something that you are forced to do if you want to hold to theistic evolution, I don't really like it at all.

 

[SonOfTheWest]

I'm not going to be the one skewing the order of the days in Genesis 1 or allegorizing the earlier portion of the genealogical account of our LORD Jesus Christ.

In light of the facts. It would seem you might just be.

 

[Assyrian]

Evolution is anti-Bible unless God resembles an ape with an ape's disposition...does He?

I keep hearing Creationists make this claim, yet they never seem to think it through. If God creating man in his image from an earlier form of ape means God resembles an ape, then God forming man from clay must mean God resembles mud.

Evolution is anti-Bible unless the things He created weren't created "after his kind."

All life on earth is 'after its kind', it exists as different species and sub species. This is true whether life evolved or was created.

 

[Assyrian]

I'm not going to be the one skewing the order of the days in Genesis 1 or

Creationists have to skew the order of either Genesis 1 or Genesis 2 because the two chapters describe creation taking place on a completely different order.

allegorizing the earlier portion of the genealogical account of our LORD Jesus Christ.

What genealogy? Matthew 1 only goes back to Abraham while Luke 3 is not even Jesus' genealogy, it is what people supposed his genealogy was. Luke 3:23 Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, 24 the son of Matthat...

 

[juvenissun]

I would merely point out that completely literal interpretation of the Bible's account of creation makes about as much sense as completely literal interpretation of Revelation ...

Some elements are literal, some are figurative.

Science does not equate with EVIL.
Evolution does not equate with EVIL.

There is plenty of room for debate with credible evidence.
There is no need for derogatory remarks or name-calling.

Science discovers facts, which could be evil or not evil.
Evolution is a theory. It could be (i.e. is) 100% evil.

 

[juvenissun]

Creationists have to skew the order of either Genesis 1 or Genesis 2 because the two chapters describe creation taking place on a completely different order.

I read chapter 2 carefully once more. Strangely that I do not see any problem on the order of creation this time. Could you remind me what is the problem?

Are you talking about the creation of man before the creation of veggies? Do you see the word: "grew" in 2:5? What is a plant before it started to grow? Why does this contradict to the creation sequence in Gen 1 ?

In fact, Gen 2:5 echoes perfectly on the creation of plants in Day 3. Perfect !!

Thanks, Assyrian. You made my day.

 

[Jazer]

Evolution is a theory.

Evolution is actually a collection of many different theorys. Some of them good, some of them total nonsense. Evolutionists do not even agree among themselves.

 

[1whirlwind]

Only evolutionary theory never at any time claims men to have evolved from apes.

Then you need to explain all those posters hanging in classrooms depicting the evolutionary ladder beginning with little creatures walking along as they change/evolve into chimps, apes and then....MAN.

While at it you should also explain the many television shows displaying skulls of apes evolving and then....MAN.

And, while at that, explain Lucy (the male, knuckle dragging, chimp) they tried to pass off as a female...from which mankind derived.


"Never at any time???"


.

 

[1whirlwind]

And God did not say. Thou shalt be stupid. God gave man a brain and some of us expect to use our gifts. Skewing scripture to fuel an agenda in defiance of the evidence to the contrary is laughing in the face of God.

The evidence? Where? What scripture is skewed?

Please provide scripture with any hint of an evolutionary process of man.


.

 

[1whirlwind]

I keep hearing Creationists make this claim, yet they never seem to think it through. If God creating man in his image from an earlier form of ape means God resembles an ape, then God forming man from clay must mean God resembles mud.

No, God doesn't resemble mud nor does He have the appearance of an ape. To construct something you must use materials in order to build the image you strive to achieve....do you consider the image to be the lumber, nails and dry wall or....the finished home?

All life on earth is 'after its kind', it exists as different species and sub species. This is true whether life evolved or was created.

Yes it does and how did that happen? Because it was "created" that way from the beginning....it did not evolve.


.

 

[Assyrian]

I read chapter 2 carefully once more. Strangely that I do not see any problem on the order of creation this time. Could you remind me what is the problem?

Are you talking about the creation of man before the creation of veggies? Do you see the word: "grew" in 2:5? What is a plant before it started to grow? Why does this contradict to the creation sequence in Gen 1 ?

In fact, Gen 2:5 echoes perfectly on the creation of plants in Day 3. Perfect !!

Thanks, Assyrian. You made my day.

Gen 2:5 When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up--for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground.
Look at the reason no plant had grown, the ground was dry and there wasn't a man to work the ground. How does this fit the creation of plants on day three which grew without a man being created for another three days? In Genesis 1, it wasn't that plants hadn't grown because there was no rain, the ground had been deep underwater that very morning and the reason plants did not grow between God creating the land in Gen 1:9 and plants in Gen 1:11 is that there weren't any seeds and there wasn't enough time anyway. Not as we read in Genesis 2, that there hadn't been rain and there was no gardener.

But an even bigger problem is when God created beasts and birds. In Genesis 1 the birds are created on day 5 and the beasts on day 6 before God created man and woman. In Genesis 2, God created man first, then the beasts and the birds, and then God makes the woman.

Genesis 1: plants, birds, beasts, then man and woman
Genesis 2: man, plants, beasts and birds, then woman

 

[Dark_Lite]

You're taking one definition of creationism and applying it across the board.

There is only one definition of creationism in common parlance. It has variations (YEC, OEC), but all of them have a common belief in special creation and a denial of evolutionary theory.

How do I view creationism? God created all things, as the scriptures assure us. He could have used whatever processes He desired. If you desire to restrict God's creative power to the use of evolutionary processes, fine.

Creationism has a very specific meaning. I am not taking "one definition of creationism and applying it across the board." You are redefining the word to suit your own needs. Technically, yes, anything involving God as a creative agent can be described as God creating something. However, as I said above, the word "creationism" has a very specific meaning that has been widely accepted for decades.

I think you should be understanding if others do not wish to do the same.

Should I be understanding if others do not wish to accept that the earth is a sphere, or if they don't wish to accept that the earth moves around the sun and not the other way around? Creationism is in the same boat.

Not everyone might have the capacity or intellectual prowess to do so, and there are plenty of those who do and still do not accept TE (Cornelius G. Hunter, I believe is an example).

Cornelius G. Hunter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Discovery Institute huh? All credibility out the window immediately.

Theologies are deemed to be tenable according to scripture, not according to the findings of science...that's why it is called theology.

Theology must, to some extent, agree with science. If your theology clearly contradicts reality, then you have a problem.