Evolution

[lucaspa]

Yes I believe He is male and female. Spirits are not without form or a body.

Yes, they are. Because they are without form or body is why we are forbidden to make a statue or other likeness of God. There is no likeness to make. According to you, there is such a likeness.

I really didn't realize how far from Christianity you are.

The bible is written for all of us for all time. To relegate it to just meaning something of "that time," is wrong.

Really? Then do you practice the dietary laws? Do you condone slavery? Have you sold your daugher into slavery? If you are a farmer, do you let your field lie fallow every year? You are doing a lot of wrong things then, aren't you?

As those examples show, much of the Bible is just for the people of that time. The rules and laws for those people no longer apply to us.

To ignore the meaning of that time and make up a new meaning is what is wrong. First you figure out what God meant to tell the people at the time. Then, if those messages work for now, fine. If not, then we ignore them as being from that time. Many times there are theological messages that are, indeed, eternal. The irony here is that, in focussing on Genesis 1 as history, you are ignoring those eternal theological messages and actually missing what God was trying to tell us.

I did indeed notice that. Did you notice what He said, what this thread concerns? "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things." [Rom.1:22-23]

It doesn't concern this thread. No one here has made God into "an image made like to corruptible man, etc." Well, no one but you that is. You think God has an image like "corruptible man". See the first comment in your post! But none of the evolutionists here (all being Christians) have done this.

Even atheists like Dawkins don't make God into an image made like to corruptible man.

BUT, the people of Rome were doing this. They made images of birds, beasts, and humans and called those images "God". Jupiter is the image of a human, right? Some pagan sects had the image of a bull.

No, no....He isn't like us...we are in His image, not He in ours.

Well, if we are in His image, then He is like us. Sorry, but there is no way to get around that. In fact, that is exactly why you want us to be in His image: so we can be like God.

I assume that you consider Christ and the Father as One? Going on that assumption.....

Revelation 1:13 And in the midst of the seven candlesticks One like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.

​

There is the Son of man speaking to John from heaven. As He is being described John notes His being "girt about the paps." That is only used four times in the Bible and the other three times it can only be associated with females. He is male and female. He is One as we will be.

Again, you need to look at the time and context. In this case the context of how Jewish priests in the OT wore their robes:
Revelation 1:13 - John Gill's Exposition of the Bible, New Testament Commentary
"

and girt about the paps with a golden girdle;
as the high priest was with the girdle of the ephod, which was made of gold, of blue, purple, scarlet, and fine twined linen, ( Exodus 28:8 ) ; and with which the priests were girt about the paps, or breast, as Christ is here described: it is said of the priests in ( Ezekiel 44:18 ) , "they shall not gird themselves with anything that causeth sweat"; which some render "in sweating places": and so some Jewish writers interpret it, which will serve to illustrate the present place;

``says R. Abai F14, (upon citing ( Ezekiel 44:18 ) ) they do not gird themselves in the place in which they sweat; according to the tradition, when they gird themselves they do not gird neither below their loins, nor above their arm holes, but over against their arm holes;''
​

the gloss says, upon their ribs, against their arm pit, that is, about their breast, or paps; and which is still more plainly expressed by the Targum on the above place, which paraphrases it thus,

``they shall not gird about their loins, but they shall gird (Nwhbbl le) , "about their heart".''
​

So Josephus F15 says, the high priest's garment was girt about the breast, a little below the arm holes."

1 Timothy 1:7 "Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm. "

You keep illustrating that verse.

I hope not. I certainly try to never lose sight of His message. However, I'm not giving you any interpretation of Scripture on the subject of man being created. I am quoting His Words as given.

Yes, but you are also giving an interpretation on how humans were created. What's more, you are taking it completely out of the context Jesus was using. So yes, you lost sight of Jesus' message. Just as you lose sight of God by continuing to promote "Words" and "Scripture" to the status of God.

You need to get back to worshipping God, not your false god of "Scripture" and "His Words".

 

[Jase]

I'm going to have to disagree with you about the fact that it doesn't include the majority of the modern day Bible.

.

How can it refer to the modern day bible? There was no New Testament and the Catholic Church hadn't created the Bible yet.

How can you possibly say Timothy is talking about the KJV or the NIV? English wasn't even invented yet.

Not to mention you are then claiming Paul (assuming he wrote Timothy) was declaring that his writing was being divinely inspired as he wrote it - a rather prideful statement.

 

[Jase]

The bible was not just written for goat herders or by goat herders. Our Father wrote it for us, for all time...it does not change.


I deny evolution. I do not deny God.

Romans 1:22-23 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.


.
​

Why are you quoting Romans 1 out of context as an attack on evolution? Paul is talking about Pagans worshipping animals in temple rituals. Has absolutely nothing to do with evolution.

 

[lucaspa]

Forgive me, but you are the only guilty party here. You are evading the text clearly.

19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered. 20 The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered. 21 And all flesh died that moved on the earth: birds and cattle and beasts and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, and every man. 22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit[k] of life, all that was on the dry land, died. 23 So He destroyed all living things which were on the face of the ground: both man and cattle, creeping thing and bird of the air. They were destroyed from the earth. Only Noah and those who were with him in the ark remained alive.

Every single living thing on the ground died --> inescapably implies that the waters covered all the ground of the earth. In fact, it even goes to say that every bird of the "air" had died as well, and that every hill which could be found "under the heavens" (meaning the atmosphere/skies of earth), were covered.

It is you who are adding to the text. Everything you quoted would apply equally to the Tigris-Euphrates Valley. Everything in the Tigris-Euphrates Valley died and all the ground in the Valley was covered.

Your "inescapably implies" is not inescapable.

And, like 1whirlwind, you are ignoring God's second book. In doing that, you are setting up a conflict of God vs God. In such a conflict, God can only lose.

In Luke 2:1, the text also says "whole world". By your same logic, it "inescapably implies" that everyone in the world was enrolled in Caesar's census. That means Inuits, Zulus, Japanese, Australian aborigines, etc. Yet you allow extrabiblical evidence to tell you that only the Roman "world" was enrolled.

Here you are denying that extrabiblical evidence. Please explain the hypocrisy.

 

[Jase]

Why am I not surprised that you continue to be rather rude. Why do you feel it is necessary?

I'm not being rude. Sorry if it comes across that way, it's hard to tell in typing. But, You're the one calling evolutionists evil. Don't you think that's also rude?

Scriptures are Scriptures and have always been. Whether they are collected in a Bible, or on a roll of papyrus. They don't change...at least until man began to translate new and improved versions. The text doesn't change.


.

The history of the Bible's creation tells us otherwise.

 

[Jase]

Evolution is a direct contradiction of what is written. It isn't my opinion but rather what He tells us. Are you able to provide any verse that in any way explains how the Scriptures telling us that man was created should be understood as man evolving?







.

Do you believe God is incapable of using the knowledge that humans possess to get his point across?

No one 4000 years ago had any idea about any modern scientific concept. Considering most humans today can't even understand how evolution or physics work, do you really think an ancient tribal people could? They thought the Earth was flat and stationary with the sun revolving around it. They thought there was a solid dome covering the Earth with water on top of it and windows in the dome to release the water.

Given their understanding of the Earth, what makes more sense: 1) God goes through the painful and arduous process of explaining to them how evolution, geophysics, quantum mechanics, cosmology, string theory, atomic theory, gravity, etc. etc. work - which would make Genesis incomprehensibly long or 2) He just used the knowledge they already had to get his theological point across?

Occams Razor tells us number 2 is the correct answer. God had no reason to explain evolution or any other complicated scientific theory to those people and doing so would only detract from his theological purpose. So why bother?

 

[lucaspa]

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

I'm going to have to disagree with you about the fact that it doesn't include the majority of the modern day Bible.

When Paul wrote this, only the Torah and some of the histories was considered scripture! The gospels hadn't even been written yet and Paul never considered his own letters to be scripture.

So what Paul is referring to are OT works, particulary the Torah or Pentateuch. And here Paul has a problem. As a Jew, Paul wants his Gentile converts to pay attention to Jewish scripture. BUT, the Pentateuch 1) doesn't mention Jesus and 2) Paul is telling that that the bulk of the Pentateuch -- the Laws -- no longer apply! So the Gentiles are quite rightly asking "why should we bother paying attention to Jewish scripture?" This is Paul's answer: the scripture is still useful for these theological purposes.

However, I do not see where it says all scripture is profitable for science. All scripture is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

Exactly. 1whirlwind and others are misusing the verse by having scripture be not only useful for these religious purposes, but essential and overriding for history and science. IOW, scripture is supposed to trump God's Creation.

 

[1whirlwind]

WW - No. It doesn't teach evolution but neither does it teach math or reading. However, when one thing is clearly stated and man teaches something that totally refutes what is written then...it is a lie.

Then what do you do when the Bible, clearly stated, contradicts itself? That's what you have, say, in the geneologies in Luke and Matthew.

If there is a seemingly Biblical contradiction then there is a reason. Something is being taught and we need to search for the lesson or something wasn't properly translated.

You also have that in the creation stories in Genesis. There are 3. Read literally, they contradict. For instance, Genesis 1:1 to Genesis 2:3 tells us creation took 7 days. Genesis 2:4 then tells us it took a single day. There are other contradictions between Genesis 2 and Genesis 1.

I never noticed "in the day." It doesn't say that it was a "single day," but rather.....

Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

​

The side note in my Bible explains it as..."in the day" meaning "when" as used a few verses later....

2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for IN THE DAY that thou eatest therof thou shalt surely die."
​

It appears to be a figure of speech, a Hebraism.

So which of them is a lie? According to you, since they refute what is written, one of them (or both) must be. Sorry, but you can't just set your criteria for judging between science and scripture. You must also use the criteria to judge scripture.

Neither was a lie.


.

 

[lucaspa]

Why am I not surprised that you continue to be rather rude. Why do you feel it is necessary?

He wasn't rude. He just said he was surprised at what Fundies did. That's not rude, but instead is telling his reaction.

Scriptures are Scriptures and have always been. Whether they are collected in a Bible, or on a roll of papyrus. They don't change...at least until man began to translate new and improved versions. The text doesn't change.

Yes, the text has changed. Even now we have differences in the different texts of scriptures. You can see this is the annotations in your Bible.

What is considered scripture has changed and is different among different groups. Compare the list of books as scripture in the Catholic Bible and the Protestant Bible. They are not the same.

Over the course of history, also, what was considered part of scripture changed. At one point many gospels and letters that are no longer considered scripture were considered scripture.

 

[1whirlwind]

No one said it was only written from such people. Strawman.

You wrote....

Bible=/=science handbook. But I'm sure we all knew that bronze age goat herders and the like would understand modern biology. God made reality. Reality seems to indicate that organisms evolve. Theists who deny evolution deny God.

I replied that it was neither written by them or only to them.

Denying evolution=denying a facet of reality as it applies to organisms created by God.

You can write about all the organisms you wish. I am speaking about evolution of man from apes. It didn't happen. It is a lie. It directly contradicts His Word on this subject.


.

 

[Jase]

Over the course of history, also, what was considered part of scripture changed. At one point many gospels and letters that are no longer considered scripture were considered scripture.

Not to mention, just because the Catholic Church chose something for the modern day Bible, doesn't mean it was appropriate. Just like many Catholic traditions, such as Papal infallibility and indulgences, Catholic tradition is not always correct. Humans still chose what went into the Bible. God did not stand next to them and say "Put that one in there, but not this one."

The controvery over Revelation is a testament (no pun intended) to the issue of Biblical canon. It took the church 400 years to put Revelation in the Bible. Many council members strongly opposed it, because it conflicts with Jesus' personality in the Gospels.

 

[Jase]

You can write about all the organisms you wish. I am speaking about evolution of man from apes. It didn't happen. It is a lie. It directly contradicts His Word on this subject.


.

Why do you continue to equate the Bible with the Word? Only one thing on Heaven or Earth is called the Word, and it isn't the King James Bible.

And if human evolution is a lie, you should have no problem telling us which of these skull fossils are human and which are ape:

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1

 

[lucaspa]

If there is a seemingly Biblical contradiction then there is a reason. Something is being taught and we need to search for the lesson or something wasn't properly translated.

Excellent! The reason here is that neither creation story is meant to be read literally! They are not literal history but instead are meant to teach valuable theological lessons. Which they do.

I never noticed "in the day." It doesn't say that it was a "single day," but rather.....

Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

​

The side note in my Bible explains it as..."in the day" meaning "when" as used a few verses later....

2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for IN THE DAY that thou eatest therof thou shalt surely die."
​

It appears to be a figure of speech, a Hebraism.

It's not. The editors of your Bible have misled you. The Hebrew word is "beyom". "yom" can be used as an indefinite period, but when the prefix "be" is added it limits the action to a 24 hour day (check any Hebrew-English dictionary, I did). Beyom is used in Genesis 2:1-3 to limit the 7th day of creation to 24 hours. If "beyom" means "when", then the 7th day could be indefinite. It was to avoid the possible indefinite nature of "yom" that the authors of Genesis 2:1-3 used "beyom".

So both Genesis 2:4 and 2:17 mean "immediate" or "within a single day". For Genesis 2:4 that means we have a contradiction with the creation story in Genesis 1. For Genesis 2:17 it means that Adam died spiritually when he ate the fruit.

BTW, the time it took to create is not the only contradiction between the 2 stories.

Neither was a lie.

By your criteria, one of them must be. Hoist on your own petard. It's you who backed Genesis 1-3 into the corner of "lie".

In terms theological messages, I agree that neither is a lie. Both tell different theological messages that are as true today with what we know about how God created as they were in the Babylonian science of the day.

 

[Chesterton]

Given their understanding of the Earth, what makes more sense: 1) God goes through the painful and arduous process of explaining to them how evolution, geophysics, quantum mechanics, cosmology, string theory, atomic theory, gravity, etc. etc. work - which would make Genesis incomprehensibly long or 2) He just used the knowledge they already had to get his theological point across?

Not to mention you'd have Israelites and Philistines fighting each other with nuclear weapons. Not a nice thought.

 

[lucaspa]

You can write about all the organisms you wish. I am speaking about evolution of man from apes. It didn't happen. It is a lie. It directly contradicts His Word on this subject.

I'm with Jase. You keep using "Word" when referring to scripture when "Word" only refers to Jesus. Scripture tells us that.

The situation is even worse than the picture Jase posted. In between those skulls of species, there are transitional individuals that link species to species -- individuals that are so in-between the species that it is arbitrary which species we put them in. So we have a series of individuals linking A. afarensis to H. habilis to H. erectus/ergastor to H. sapiens -- us. Considering the relative rarity of such transitional series, it's like God shouting "I did it by evolution!"

Afarensis to habilis:
OH 24 is in between A. afarensis and habilis
B Asfaw, T White, O Lovejoy, B Latimer, S Simpson, G Suwa, Australopithecus garhi: a new species of early hominid from Ethiopia. Science 284: 622-629, 1999. All individuals are intermediate between A. afarensis and H. habilis.

Habilis to erectus:
Oldovai: Bed I has Habilis at bottom, then fossils with perfect mixture of characteristics of habilis and erectus, and erectus at top. At bottom of Bed II (top of Bed I) have fossils resemble H. erectus but brain case smaller than later H. erectus that lies immediately above them. pg 81
OH 13, 14 was classified by some anthropologists as H. habilis but others as early H. erectus. 650 cc
D2700 from Dmasi has features of both hablis and erectus. Fossil Hominids: Skull D2700
Koobi Fora: Another succession with several habilis up to 2 Mya, then transitionals, and then erectus at 1.5 Mya.

Erectus to sapiens: Omo valley. Omo-2 "remarkable mixture of Homo erectus and Homo sapiens characteristics" pg. 70.
Omo-1: another mix of erectus and sapiens
Omo Valley, Ethiopia: ~ 500,000 ya. mixture erectus and sapiens features
Sale in Morrocco: skull discovered in 1971, ~300,000 ya. also shows erectus and sapiens features.
Broken Hill skull: another skull with mixtures of erectus and sapiens features
Tautavel, 200Kya: large brow ridges and small cranium but rest of face looks like H. sapiens.
"We shall see the problem of drawing up a dividing line between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens is not easy." pg 65.
Ngaloba Beds of Laetoli, 120 Kya: ~1200 cc and suite of archaic (erectus) features.
Guamde in Turkana Basin, 180 Kya: more modern features than Ngaloba but in-between erectus and sapiens.
Skhul, Israel "posed a puzzle to paleoanthropologists, appearing to be almost but not quite modern humans"
Skhul and Jebel Qafza caves: "robust" H. sapiens at 120 Kya that have brow ridges like erectus but brain case like sapiens.
Bouri Oldest <i>Homo Sapiens</i> Fossils Found, Experts Say
Press Backgrounder: First homo sapiens
actual paper: Access : Pleistocene Homo sapiens from Middle Awash, Ethiopia : Nature
Vertesszollos, 400 Kya. Teeth like H. erectus but occipital bone like H. sapiens. brain ~ 1300 cc

 

[1whirlwind]

You made a criteria: anything in direct conflict with His Word is evil. That statement itself is evil since it contradicts scripture. You can't make a criteria for deciding something -- like what is evil -- and then restrict it just to the case you used. That's Special Pleading.

A lie is evil. If something directly conflicts with His written Word and cannot be explained/corrected in Scripture then....it condemns itself. The genealogies are Scripture and if a discrepency is found then we should find out why it's there...what is being taught, is it a mistranslation or a lesson?

Evolution is in direct conflict with YOUR interpretation of scripture. There is no "His Word" as referring to scripture. "Word" refers only to Jesus and evolution is not in conflict with God or Jesus. Instead, since evolution comes from God's Creation, it is God's method of creating.

You forget what is written is not my interpretation. For evolution to be "God's method of creating," then what is written is a lie? Did God lie? It can't be both.

When God contradicts us, then we give way, don't we? Or do you think you can contradict God and you are right?

Is your mirror cracked?

I didn't overlook the "and". You misread it. You think the "and" connects two separate things. But the verse clearly said that sickness is caused by unclean spirits. So the "and" is saying "cast out unclean spirits and, in the process, heal sickness and disease". The "and" is connecting two ways of saying the same thing, not 2 separate things.

I believe you are mistaken. If I wrote, I went to the park and to the mall then...I went to two separate places. If it is written that He will give power to cast out evil spirits and heal illness...it is two separate things.


.

 

[lucaspa]

Not to mention, just because the Catholic Church chose something for the modern day Bible, doesn't mean it was appropriate. Just like many Catholic traditions, such as Papal infallibility and indulgences, Catholic tradition is not always correct.

Let's be fair here. You and I believe those traditions are not correct. Catholics obviously disagree with us.

Humans still chose what went into the Bible. God did not stand next to them and say "Put that one in there, but not this one."

We all hope the humans sought God's guidance thru prayer and that God provided that guidance and inspiriation. But no, God did not appear in the council chambers and dictate to them. They surely would have written about that and none of the descriptions of the meetings have God appearing.

The controvery over Revelation is a testament (no pun intended) to the issue of Biblical canon. It took the church 400 years to put Revelation in the Bible. Many council members strongly opposed it, because it conflicts with Jesus' personality in the Gospels.

And that 400 year gap explains the main problem with Revelation: it was written in code and after 400 years the code was lost. I oppose it on the grounds that, since we have lost the code, we no longer know what John intended.

 

[1whirlwind]

It was bolding the part that said "no guarantee that it will keep its truth" that concerned me...why you would bold that part specifically, when taken without the following words takes on a completely different meaning, is beyond me.

Those words were what I was replying to.

The bible uses many different genres, styles and methods to deliver its message. Not all of those styles are historical. For me, deeper study has made it obvious that Genesis 1-11 are not strictly historical, and in fact are greatly poetic and symbolic.

That is your right of course. However, I would ask...even if it is to be seen poetically...would He lie?


.

 

[crawfish]

That is your right of course. However, I would ask...even if it is to be seen poetically...would He lie?
.

If I heard Jesus tell me the story of the Good Samaritan, and then challenged him to let me meet this "Good Samaritan", because I did not believe such a man could exist and therefore could not accept his story, would Jesus be lying because he had made up this story in order to make a point?

God doesn't lie...we misunderstand or misuse. Tell me, if God did not mean for us to take Genesis 1 as a literal account of how He created all things then is He at fault for lying or are we at fault for making a bad assumption?

 

[lucaspa]

A lie is evil. If something directly conflicts with His written Word and cannot be explained/corrected in Scripture then....it condemns itself.

And your statement just condemned itself as evil. It's a lie. "Word" never refers to "written Word" in scripture. Nor is scripture itself ever capitalized in scripture. So your view of scripture is a lie and evil. By your own criteria.

You forget what is written is not my interpretation. For evolution to be "God's method of creating," then what is written is a lie? Did God lie? It can't be both.

Sure it's your interpretation. You are interpreting what is written as accurate history. But the contradictions in the 2 creation stories tell you that you should not be reading them as history. Not to mention the contradiction with God's other book. Just how plain can God be that you are putting your interpretation above God?

1whirlwind, there are different types of truth. Let's take this out of Christianity so we can, hopefully, avoid your emotional response. Let's look at Shakespeare's Macbeth. I hope you have read it. Macbethis set in a fictional Scottish history. Never happened. Yet the play remains popular because it talks about truth -- human truths. Lust for power, corruption that power brings, greed, justice, etc. Those truths are just as true when set in a fictional history as they are in the historical setting of the Watergate scandal.

What is written in the Bible are theological truths. It is your interpretation that Genesis 1 represents accurate history. Just as it is your interpretation that Jesus is referring to literal history and not theology in Mark 10.

God tells you in scripture and in His Creation that your interpretation is wrong. Yet you stick to it. "Scripture" and "His Word" mean more to you than God. Please drop that and come back to God.

Is your mirror cracked?

Now who is being rude? You didn't answer the question, but instead went for the ad hominem fallacy.

I believe you are mistaken. If I wrote, I went to the park and to the mall then...I went to two separate places. If it is written that He will give power to cast out evil spirits and heal illness...it is two separate things.

Apples and oranges. That's not what is being written here. The passage says that all diseases are caused by unclean spirits. You keep ignoring that (what a surprise!). Thus faith allows them to cast out unclean spirits and heal diseases. They heal the diseases because they cast out unclean spirits.

So scripture contradicts Germ theory. Yet you don't consider Germ theory "evil". You start that Germ theory is not "evil" and then you twist scripture to back you. You start with the idea that evolution is "evil" and twist scripture to back you.

So the question is: why do you really consider evolution to be "evil"? Is it only because you think evolution contradicts scripture? If so, what's the problem? Scripture isn't God. Does evolution contradict God? Does it negate the resurrection? Does it negate salvation? What danger do you think evolution poses to God?

If evolution only contradicts non-essential parts of scripture, then what do you care? Unless you care more about "Scripture" than you do God.

It all comes back to what you view as your god.