Evolution

[1whirlwind]

OK, so here we are:

So which is it? Was mankind created male and female, as Jesus said, which is consistent with the evolution of male and female concurrently through evolution, OR, was man made only as a male first, by mouth to nose recusitation on a mudpie, as a literal interpretation (only) of Genesis says?

WW wrote:



Resolved. WW's two step human origin view resolves the "OR" above. Other problems with that approach (Like Paul's saying that Adam was the first man) are being hashed out in the huge thread that blew up from this. Maybe update later, but OK for now.

So you are saying that you dont understand what "theory" means, and further that you will continue to misuse a scientific term on purpose? Are those two intentions consistent with Christian attempts to be accurate and honest?
​

​

I'm saying it has no relevance. Nor does the circle of the earth, nor do geneologies, nor do, nor do, nor do. I am saying that evolution is a lie. It is a direct contradiction with the Word of the Lord on the creation.

​

So if evolution is evil because it contradicts a literal reading, then why are Heliocentric theory, germ theory, Gravitational theory not evil, even though they too contradict a literal reading? Q3

​

Please provide a verse anywhere that contradicts gravity or germs. You keep saying that yet don't offer anything.

and



The relationship of the Sun and the Earth is indeed mentioned, in Genesis 1. Cosmolgy IS mentioned and heliocentrism tells us it is a lie.

Please provide a verse. Because the sun and earth are mentioned doesn't tell us anything is a lie. The creation however...was mentioned...explicitly mentioned.

The cause of sickness is mentioned (many times) and germ theory tells us it is a lie.

Please provide a verse. Again, you keep saying that and yet....

The reason behind the motion of the planets is mentioned, (also in Genesis 1), and the theory of gravity tells us it is a lie.

Please provide a verse.

Because you are picking out one of these, and ignoring the others, it looks hypocritical, thus making it easier for many observers to say that Christians are hypocrites. I don't think we should do things to help them be able to say that.

Evolution is a direct conflict with His account of creation. As of now....I haven't seen anything about germs, sun and earth, etc. written that leads me to believe there is any contradiction.

They have to do with evolution because creationists on this thread brought them up as proof that we are to interpret genesis literally with regard to evolution. Obviously, geneologies that go back to Adam in a few thousand years are in conflict with evolution if interpreted literally, and evolution is what we are discussing here.

Then you must take it up with that creationist. I see no connection at all betwen geneaologies and evolution.

Do you agree that the idea that Heli was Joseph's father in law contradicts the clear text of Luke, which states that Heli was Joseph's father? Q4

I didn't say it was a contradiction....you did.

Resolved

. We agree that Luke says that Joseph was the son (not the son in law) of Heli.

​

I think so. The as was supposed applied to Christ.

Do you agree that there are three mutually contradictory geneologies given for Jesus in most Bibles, if interpreted literally? Q5

If it contains a lesson, then isn't it a figurative geneology, not a literal one?

Actually no. The geneology is correct as far as names and order given but in Matthew there are some generations missing. Why? I don't know except for the fourteen generation lesson.

Are you saying we can't trust what our each of our different Bibles say? Even if we go back to our oldest copies, we don't have anything near the originals of any of the books of either of our Bibles. If that's a possibility, then how do you know that genesis isn't a mistranslation or copying error?

At the beginning of the King James the translators said they did their best but errors would certainly have been made. They, after all...are men.

We know that the orginal is to be trusted for it was protected with the Massorah. Fragments of the dead sea scrolls are exact matches with the text handed down over the centuries.

Um, reminder: Creationists brought up the geneologies on this thread to give the go-ahead for creationism to trump evolution.

Again...take it up with whoever that was.

??
I help me out. I don't see anywhere that says that Joseph was the father of Mary.

Mt has:

Matthan the father of Jacob,
Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Christ.

My church venerates Saint Joachim as the father of Mary, which is attested to in the Gospel of James. May I ask where you heard that Joseph married his daughter?

He didn't marry his daughter.

Oh, "count the generations" - are you referring to the fact that matthew says there are 14 generations, but only lists 13? How does that make Joseph the father of Mary?

Thanks-

Papias.

Matthew 1:15-17 And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob; And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.

As it is pointed out three times that there were fourteen generations and yet only thirteen were shown leading to Christ then what are the possibilities?

To me it appears that the translators...knowing Mary married Joseph...mistakenly said, "Joseph the husband of Mary," instead of Jospeh the father of Mary. They didn't count the generations. Total supposition on my part. That's just the way it appears to me.



.

 

[1whirlwind]

Well, first- evolution isn't about "some microbe splitting into another"- it is about the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations.

But I presume that when you say you're "not going to quibble" you mean you don't have a problem accepting that an existing strain of pathogenic microbes may, through a mutation, produce a new, genetically distinct family of microbes that are resistance to existing antibiotics.

Trouble is, that is exactly what evolution is- so what you're really arguing about is how much an existing organism can evolve, and not about the fact of evolution itself.

Am I correct? Please be honest here.

.

I have been nothing but honest from the first. I don't care about petrie dishes and minute particles of matter doing whatever they do. I am speaking of the lie of apes becoming man. That is evolution as the world is being taught of evolution.


.

 

[laconicstudent]

I have been nothing but honest from the first. I don't care about petrie dishes and minute particles of matter doing whatever they do. I am speaking of the lie of apes becoming man. That is evolution as the world is being taught of evolution.


.

What a shock. Someone without any knowledge or interest in science doesn't understand primate evolution.

 

[SonOfTheWest]

I also know C) scientist are human and can be wrong just like everyone else.

Meaningless throwaway statement. This amounts to.."Honey I think I left the coffee pot on." "No dear you shut it off."

D) the reason they have contention over details is because most of the so called evidence is based on human opinions and human ideas and not on solid facts.

You've provided nothing to prove this assertion.

 

[Servant of Jesus]

I have been nothing but honest from the first. I don't care about petrie dishes and minute particles of matter doing whatever they do. I am speaking of the lie of apes becoming man. That is evolution as the world is being taught of evolution.


.

Well, first- this is not true. As Mallon has correctly pointed out, all that evolutionary theory states is that man and apes appear to have a common ancestry.

But it is also important to realize that a Christian would be correct in suggesting that God may have independently created man and an ape with the same basic design. And why not- I happen to believe that we have a practical God- what he found worked for one life form was worth repeating for another.

The latter is a perfectly valid thing for a Christian to believe- that God instantly created a number of life forms- man, apes, dinosaurs, etc. and that some of them then evolved to produce the multitude of life forms that we see today. So, for example, the original man, of whatever race he was, evolved to produce the multitude of races that we see today.

But this is no longer science- it is faith; it can't be proven using the methods of science. Just like science can't theorize on how the first living cell, able to reproduce itself, came to be; or even, I would argue, how that first viable cell could possibly have produced the multitude of life forms that we see today- there is simply not the evidence available to support such a theory.

 

[1whirlwind]

What a shock. Someone without any knowledge or interest in science doesn't understand primate evolution.

It is a shock. To see that someone with knowledge of His Word, is a Christian and yet...because a man teaches them (and we are warned about that) to discard His Word, just toss it aside...(for that must be done in order to accept the "primate evolution theory,") to see them readily do just that....is indeed Shocking! .

.

 

[1whirlwind]

Well, first- this is not true. As Mallon has correctly pointed out, all that evolutionary theory states is that man and apes appear to have a common ancestry.

You would think that if someone was going to champion evolution...they wouldn't parse it. It seems to me that you are hiding evolution behind words...theory, appear. It is true or it isn't. It is ape to man or it isn't. There are many choices in life. To me, this is one.

But it is also important to realize that a Christian would be correct in suggesting that God may have independently created man and an ape with the same basic design. And why not- I happen to believe that we have a practical God- what he found worked for one life form was worth repeating for another.

We are not speaking of apes having the appearance of man. We are speaking of man EVOLVING FROM APES. We are speaking of man EVOLVING over many billions of years from APE TO MAN. That is what a Christian must accept when stepping into this theory. A clear choice. Man's concept OR the truth as written.

The latter is a perfectly valid thing for a Christian to believe- that God instantly created a number of life forms- man, apes, dinosaurs, etc. and that some of them then evolved to produce the multitude of life forms that we see today. So, for example, the original man, of whatever race he was, evolved to produce the multitude of races that we see today.

He tells us a different story. He created man(kind), the various races and they multiplied. Races don't evolve from one man.

But this is no longer science- it is faith; it can't be proven using the methods of science. Just like science can't theorize on how the first living cell, able to reproduce itself, came to be; or even, I would argue, how that first viable cell could possibly have produced the multitude of life forms that we see today- there is simply not the evidence available to support such a theory.

There is no need to find evidence for man's theory. The truth is written, at least what He wants us to know....

Deuteronomy 29:29 The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.


.
​

 

[Servant of Jesus]

Well, to be clear- I firmly believe in the Genesis account of creation- that God created man in His own image.

27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.


But our Bible makes it crystal-clear that God originally created ONLY Adam and Eve, one man and one woman; there is no mention in the beginning of mankind, other races, etc.

So I believe that Adam and Eve were one race- and that as they had children, and their children had children, and the earth came to be populated, there came a point when a beneficial mutation occurred and a second race of people, with distinct, inherited genetic traits came to be. Then came another mutation, and another race was formed, and so on.

Evolution was God's way of producing, from one original man (Adam) and one original woman (Eve), mankind; the multitude of races that now populate the earth.

.

 

[Jase]

It is a shock. To see that someone with knowledge of His Word, is a Christian and yet...because a man teaches them (and we are warned about that) to discard His Word, just toss it aside...(for that must be done in order to accept the "primate evolution theory,") to see them readily do just that....is indeed Shocking! .

.

Even Augustine supported science over a literal Genesis. You've presented no logical case for why anyone should consider your beliefs to be valid.

 

[1whirlwind]

Well, to be clear- I firmly believe in the Genesis account of creation- that God created man in His own image.

27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

But our Bible makes it crystal-clear that God originally created ONLY Adam and Eve, one man and one woman; there is no mention in the beginning of mankind, other races, etc.
So I believe that Adam and Eve were one race- and that as they had children, and their children had children, and the earth came to be populated, there came a point when a beneficial mutation occurred and a second race of people, with distinct, inherited genetic traits came to be. Then came another mutation, and another race was formed, and so on.

Evolution was God's way of producing, from one original man (Adam) and one original woman (Eve), mankind; the multitude of races that now populate the earth.

.

Genesis 1:26-28 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created He them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

That was the creation of mankind....all races, on the sixth day.
​

Genesis 2:1-2 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had made; and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had made.

2:5-8 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom He had formed.

That was the formation of Adam, the man Adam...the specific man formed to "till the ground." The specific man from whom our Saviour would come. All races didn't evolve from him. God created all races as they were.
​

.

 

[1whirlwind]

Even Augustine supported science over a literal Genesis. You've presented no logical case for why anyone should consider your beliefs to be valid.

I need not present anything other than His Words. I did.

It is not my beliefs I ask you to consider but what is written.



.

 

[Happy Hearts Club]

Even Augustine supported science over a literal Genesis. You've presented no logical case for why anyone should consider your beliefs to be valid.

Are we to claim that God was being dishonest when He reveals in His word the chronology and order of events in which He created the universe? Are we to compeltely skew the Genesis narrative and rearrange it so as to let it sit "comfortably'" in our minds? I think not. Regardless if you want to take Genesis at face value or not, you need to understand the Bible was perfectly engineered by God and it presents exactly everything that God wants us to know, yet there are those such as yourself who throw up their hands in protest and exclaim "That isn't good enough!".

Do you not think God understood that His power and His plans would not make sense to the world? That it would contradict and nulify what we deem to be "logical" and "scientific"? Do you not think He has done all this on purpose? God is not negligent, and knew exactly what He was doing when He brought forth His Word!

 

[Cabal]

Do you not think God understood that His power and His plans would not make sense to the world? That it would contradict and nulify what we deem to be "logical" and "scientific"?

The same logic and science that the bulk of Christians happily accept when their personal interpretations of Genesis 1 aren't being trod on - all we're saying is a little consistency one way or the other would be nice.

Do you not think He has done all this on purpose? God is not negligent, and knew exactly what He was doing when He brought forth His Word!

He is also not a liar, which he would have to be to have reality disagree with his word if Genesis 1 is literally true the way YECs claim it is.

 

[Happy Hearts Club]

The same logic and science that the bulk of Christians happily accept when their personal interpretations of Genesis 1 aren't being trod on - all we're saying is a little consistency one way or the other would be nice.

It really has nothing to do with a personal interpretation of mine being "trod on". How many Biblical topics can you veer into that doesn't have a satisfactorily amount of consistency? The synoptic "problem" is seemingly enough for many to justify their unbelief in Christ. It really has nothing to do with personal perceptions of "consistency" either, the goal is to be as consistent as possible while staying true to His Word, not rearranging/redefining in order to feign a comfortable level of "consistency".

He is also not a liar, which he would have to be to have reality disagree with his word if Genesis 1 is literally true the way YECs claim it is.

That's if you operate on the premise that God's reality is the same as human reality, which it clearly isn't. We have the Sovereign of the Universe telling us in His Word that He created light before the existence of any stars or planets/planetoids. So we scratch our heads and conclude "it didn't really happen like that". Human reality tells us it is impossible, yet God's reality completely transcends all realities altogether. You really make no point here.

 

[Cabal]

It really has nothing to do with a personal interpretation of mine being "trod on". How many Biblical topics can you veer into that doesn't have a satisfactorily amount of consistency? The synoptic "problem" is seemingly enough for many to justify their unbelief in Christ. It really has nothing to do with personal perceptions of "consistency" either, the goal is to be as consistent as possible while staying true to His Word, not rearranging/redefining in order to feign a comfortable level of "consistency".

Then why are you so against TE? Metaphor =/= falsehood, and you can have both a consistent view of the Bible and reality.

That's if you operate on the premise that God's reality is the same as human reality, which it clearly isn't. We have the Sovereign of the Universe telling us in His Word that He created light before the existence of any stars or planets/planetoids. So we scratch our heads and conclude "it didn't really happen like that". Human reality tells us it is impossible, yet God's reality completely transcends all realities altogether. You really make no point here.

The obvious objection here being that we are observing things that ARE in our reality - starlight is in our reality. Goodness, the creation account is ABOUT our reality. So it is quite a legitimate point, seeing as an account about reality and the reality itself disagree - ad hoc appeals to some other poorly-defined reality are the really pointless thing here.

 

[Happy Hearts Club]

Then why are you so against TE? Metaphor =/= falsehood, and you can have both a consistent view of the Bible and reality.

When I read Genesis, from my English translation to the original Hewbrew, universal common descent is clearly not the reality being presented.

The obvious objection here being that we are observing things that ARE in our reality - starlight is in our reality. Goodness, the creation account is ABOUT our reality. So it is quite a legitimate point, seeing as an account about reality and the reality itself disagree - ad hoc appeals to some other poorly-defined reality are the really pointless thing here.

So now we define God's realities as pointless? Salvation was not an advent of the human mind, nor can its components ever be broken down into a science. This is just one example of God's reality becoming the reality of man.

 

[Happy Hearts Club]

Happy wrote:


Giant bacteria? Sounds like a B Horror film!

Papias

If satirizing science amuses you, by all means...I'll have to say some elements do amuse me as well.

 

[Cabal]

When I read Genesis, from my English translation to the original Hewbrew, universal common descent is clearly not the reality being presented.

Who says the finer points of the creation mechanism is what is really under discussion there?

So now we define God's realities as pointless?

No - your appeals to some other reality are just irrelevant. Seeing as science and the creation account are discussing the same reality, it is irrelevant to bring in some other reality, as it is not the one under discussion.

Salvation was not an advent of the human mind, nor can its components ever be broken down into a science. This is just one example of God's reality becoming the reality of man.

Thankfully one's choice of creation mechanism has not a jot to do with salvation. In my opinion, if it did, there would not be a disparity between reality and the plain reading of the Bible.

 

[1whirlwind]

It really has nothing to do with a personal interpretation of mine being "trod on". How many Biblical topics can you veer into that doesn't have a satisfactorily amount of consistency? The synoptic "problem" is seemingly enough for many to justify their unbelief in Christ. It really has nothing to do with personal perceptions of "consistency" either, the goal is to be as consistent as possible while staying true to His Word, not rearranging/redefining in order to feign a comfortable level of "consistency".



That's if you operate on the premise that God's reality is the same as human reality, which it clearly isn't. We have the Sovereign of the Universe telling us in His Word that He created light before the existence of any stars or planets/planetoids. So we scratch our heads and conclude "it didn't really happen like that". Human reality tells us it is impossible, yet God's reality completely transcends all realities altogether. You really make no point here.

He answers that for us....

Genesis 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.


John 1:1-5 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him; and without Him was not any thing made that was made. In Him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

John 8:12 Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth Me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.

John 12:46 I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on Me should not abide in darkness.
​

He was "in the beginning" and He is the Light.


.

 

[1whirlwind]

Who says the finer points of the creation mechanism is what is really under discussion there?





No - your appeals to some other reality is just irrelevant. Seeing as science and the creation account are discussing the same reality, it is irrelevant to bring in some other reality, as it is not the one under discussion.



Thankfully one's choice of creation mechanism has not a jot to do with salvation. In my opinion, if it did, there would not be a disparity between reality and the plain reading of the Bible.

I truly don't know if it has anything to do with salvation or not but when something is clearly written (even though we don't know all the intricate details) and we choose another man's word instead....



John 5:38-40 And ye have not His word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not. Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of Me. And ye will not come to Me, that ye might have life.


Deuteronomy 13:3 Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.


.