Evolution?

[expos4ever]

There was an ancestor or many i don't know, and converted into this because x, and then in this and then in this other, bla bla bla, several minutes later of documentary then you get humans thanks to evolution ???

Yes, except that “x” and “bla bla ba” are actually the product of the disciplined, careful work of tens of thousands of highy trained experts over many decades, all working within the robust, self-correcting framework of the scientific method.

Your cartoon-y characterization omits this inconvenient truth.

Contrast this approach to knowledge from that of the prototypical young earth creationist: lie, embrace ignorance with a strange kind of carefree glee, and heed the “expertise” of various and sundry con men and others who would not know the difference between a strand of DNA and the rope over the swimming hole.

 

[NBB]

Yes, except that “x” and “bla bla ba” are actually the product of the disciplined, careful work of tens of thousands of highy trained experts over many decades, all working within the robust, self-correcting framework of the scientific method.

Your cartoon-y characterization omits this inconvenient truth.

Contrast this approach to knowledge from that of the prototypical young earth creationist: lie, embrace ignorance with a strange kind of carefree glee, and heed the “expertise” of various and sundry con men and others who would not know the difference between a strand of DNA and the rope over the swimming hole.

Experts but they are wrong if God did things...

 

[NBB]

Do you believe that sexual reproduction is a natural process? That is, how are babies made?

Science says that when a male and female copulate, a sperm cell and an egg cell fuse to produce a zygote; each of the gametes (sperm and egg) bring with it a half-set of chromosomes; so when they fuse (fertilization) a full set of chromosomes are established. This zygote is a cell that then proceeds to divide, and divide, and divide--as cell division continues some cells specialize--into different kinds of tissue, what will eventually become skin, a heart, brain, eyes, a mouth, teeth, bones, etc. As this process continues, the development results in an embryo, and then into a fetus at which point we have a pretty recognizable baby. After all of this, about nine months of gestation, if there aren't any serious complications, the mother will go into labor and a baby gets born.

Do you disagree with how babies are made? Notice that at no point in describing this process did I invoke God to say "God did this" or "God did that"--I described a completely natural process. Is this wrong?

Further, just because I never had to say "God did this" or "God did that" does that mean God wasn't involved? Of course not:

"For You formed my inward parts; You knitted me together in my mother’s womb." - Psalm 139:13

So was it a natural process, or was God involved?

The Christian response ought to be yes, because it is both.

-CryptoLutheran

But many here are missing my point, every evolutionist think that there is no need from God to evolution make things happen, this is basic to evolution, except christians who believe in the theistic one. You can't deny this.

 

[Archivist]

But many here are missing my point, every evolutionist think that there is no need from God to evolution make things happen, this is basic to evolution, except christians who believe in the theistic one. You can't deny this.

Wrong. I have a Jewish friend who has no doubt that evolution occurred, but she still believes in the tenets of the Jewish faith.

 

[NBB]

Wrong. I have a Jewish friend who has no doubt that evolution occurred, but she still believes in the tenets of the Jewish faith.

Well religious people in general too and maybe some rare other non religious people too i mean, you understand.

 

[expos4ever]

Experts but they are wrong if God did things...

Indeed "if".

Look: when Christians flagrantly distort well-established fact in service of a literal interpretation of the first few chapters of Genesis, we bear false witness.

 

[MournfulWatcher]

But many here are missing my point, every evolutionist think that there is no need from God to evolution make things happen, this is basic to evolution, except christians who believe in the theistic one. You can't deny this.

We're running in circles. Not every evolutionist believes there is no need for a God. All the Christian evolutionists in this thread believe there has to be a God.

An atheist is going to say there is no need for a god no matter what. An atheist will say there is no need for a god to create the universe, but that does not mean that the universe didn't come into existence (obviously). It's the same with evolution. Just because atheists say you you don't need God for it to happen doesn't mean evolution isn't an actual thing that happens. That's just their interpretation of the world being projected onto a natural phenomena.

 

[NBB]

Indeed "if".

Look: when Christians flagrantly distort well-established fact in service of a literal interpretation of the first few chapters of Genesis, we bear false witness.

They are wrong too if God did things trough evolution, that is design.

 

[NBB]

We're running in circles. Not every evolutionist believes there is no need for a God. All the Christian evolutionists in this thread believe there has to be a God.

An atheist is going to say there is no need for a god no matter what. An atheist will say there is no need for a god to create the universe, but that does not mean that the universe didn't come into existence (obviously). It's the same with evolution. Just because atheists say you you don't need God for it to happen doesn't mean evolution isn't an actual thing that happens. That's just their interpretation of the world being projected onto a natural phenomena.

But evoution enables their atheism.

I wrote too much post about this i'm going to better stop.

I just think the main theory of evolution is evil. I heard the testimony of many converting to atheism when there where young because of learning about this. Like Richard Dawkins after reading the Charles Darwin book.

 

[Marvin Knox]

Christians who believe in evolution are simply Christians who lack faith in the Word of God.

This is a plain demonstrable fact IMO.

I'm not saying they can't or aren't saved. One isn't saved by believing every Word which proceeds out of the mouth of God. But we do or should live by that Word.

Not having faith in the Word of God (and having faith in the word of this world instead) will definitely reflect in your life in negative ways.

After all - lack of faith in the Word of God was the cause of this predicament we find ourselves in here on earth.

But, in this case, that lack of faith does not include anything related to your basic salvation.

I just think it's a crying shame when Christians compromise in this or any other way and a another crying shame when they compound those compromises by publishing them on the internet for all the world to see.

Better to just keep quiet about his subject, if you have come to believe what the world teaches you, than to open your mouth and incur future judgement for teaching it to others.

"Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly." James 3:1

 

[Archivist]

Christians who believe in evolution are simply Christians who lack faith in the Word of God.

This is a plain demonstrable fact IMO.

I'm not saying they can't or aren't saved. One isn't saved by believing every Word which proceeds out of the mouth of God. But we do or should live by that Word.

Not having faith in the Word of God (and having faith in the word of this world instead) will definitely reflect in your life in negative ways.

After all - lack of faith in the Word of God was the cause of this predicament we find ourselves in here on earth.

But, in this case, that lack of faith does not include anything related to your basic salvation.

I just think it's a crying shame when Christians compromise in this or any other way and a another crying shame when they compound those compromises by publishing them on the internet for all the world to see.

Better to just keep quiet about his subject, if you have come to believe what the world teaches you, than to open your mouth and incur future judgement for teaching it to others.

"Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly." James 3:1

I'm glad you added IMO, because this is nothing but opinion. And you are, of course, entitled to your opinion.

 

[Marvin Knox]

I'm glad you added IMO, because this is nothing but opinion. And you are, of course, entitled to your opinion.

Thank you - and you and others are also entitled to believe and teach things contrary to what the Word of God teaches.

It's one thing to believe that evolution is scientific fact rather than mere theory. Then you have a dilemma on your hands and must make a choice - I suppose.

But it's quite another thing to teach that evolution is taught in the Bible or even allowed as a valid theological conclusion.

It simply is not what the scriptures teach and it is not what a person of faith would come up with when approaching the scriptures as God's Word without bringing prior bias along with you.

 

[Archivist]

Thank you - and you and others are also entitled to believe and teach things contrary to what the Word of God teaches.

It is only contrary to the Word of God according to your opinion.

 

[Marvin Knox]

It is only contrary to the Word of God according to your opinion.

No - It's contrary to the Word of God as a clear and adequate revelation concerning God and His providential involvement in the history of the earth and mankind.

My "opinion" has nothing to do with the fact that evolution is not the plain teaching of the scriptures and is not even allowed in any known systematic theological discipline.

If you feel that so called "science" demands that you trade faith in the Word of God for what the God and the people of this world have taught you - by all means shipwreck your faith.

 

[Archivist]

No - It's contrary to the Word of God as a clear and adequate revelation concerning God and His providential involvement in the history of the earth and mankind.

My "opinion" has nothing to do with the fact that evolution is not the plain teaching of the scriptures and is not even allowed in any known systematic theological discipline.

If you feel that so called "science" demands that you trade faith in the Word of God for what the God and the people of this world have taught you - by all means shipwreck your faith.

My faith has not been shipwrecked and you have stated. I believe the God created life on this planet. I believe the He used evolution to accomplish that task.

You are, of course, entitled to your beliefs and to your opinions.

 

[MournfulWatcher]

To all that are saying that being a Christian and an evolutionist is suspect, this video offers much insight into how one can be a Christian and believe in evolution.

 

[Marvin Knox]

To all that are saying that being a Christian and an evolutionist is suspect, this video offers much insight into how one can be a Christian and believe in evolution.

The fall of mankind was brought about through the temptation by the enemy for us to believe that God really didn’t mean to say or even really say what man originally heard Him say.

As theologians or serious students of the scriptures – we should endeavor to resist at all costs the temptation to fall into the same errors made by our forefathers.

We should align our beliefs with what the scriptures teach (whether those beliefs are fueled by emotion or by human reasoning). What we must not do is fall into the error of twisting the scriptures to align with our beliefs (whether those beliefs are fueled by emotion or by human reasoning).

We see this error very prominently displayed in the area of soteriology as it relates to the sovereignty of God in the salvation of individuals vis a vis the free will of men.

I maintain that we are seeing it here in the study of beginnings of mankind as well.

The video I just finished watching makes the exact mistake I have been correcting people here on.

I know it's posting was done in a good spirit.

It may satisfy some. But it will not satisfy a serious theologian and it should not satisfy any really serious student of the scriptures.

 

[MournfulWatcher]

The fall of mankind was brought about through the temptation by the enemy for us to believe that God really didn’t mean to say or even really say what man originally heard Him say.

As theologians or serious students of the scriptures – we should endeavor to resist at all costs the temptation to fall into the same errors made by our forefathers.

We should align our beliefs with what the scriptures teach (whether those beliefs are fueled by emotion or by human reasoning). What we must not do is fall into the error of twisting the scriptures to align with our beliefs (whether those beliefs are fueled by emotion or by human reasoning).

We see this error very prominently displayed in the area of soteriology as it relates to the sovereignty of God in the salvation of individuals vis a vis the free will of men.

I maintain that we are seeing it here in the study of beginnings of mankind as well.

The video I just finished watching makes the exact mistake I have been correcting people here on.

I know it's posting was done in a good spirit.

It may satisfy some. But it will not satisfy a serious theologian and it should not satisfy any really serious student of the scriptures.

"The fall of mankind was brought about through the temptation by the enemy for us to believe that God really didn’t mean to say or even really say what man originally heard Him say."

So do you, as a protestant, accept what Jesus said at communion, "This is my body" and "This is my blood"? Do you believe that when you take communion that you are literally taking Christ's physical body and blood? Do you believe that when Jesus said "If your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out", that you should literally gouge out your eye when you lust? No? Then clearly not everything in the Bible is intended to be taken entirely literally, but that doesn't make those ideas untrue.

"We should align our beliefs with what the scriptures teach (whether those beliefs are fueled by emotion or by human reasoning). What we must not do is fall into the error of twisting the scriptures to align with our beliefs (whether those beliefs are fueled by emotion or by human reasoning)."

We cannot deny evidence when we see it. There is too much evidence for evolution to deny it. To do so is ridiculous and unnecessary.

"It may satisfy some. But it will not satisfy a serious theologian and it should not satisfy any really serious student of the scriptures."

And there are many serious theologians that believe in evolution.

Evolution is not in conflict with the Bible. If evolution is fact, and the inspiration of the Bible is fact, the two cannot be conflicting.

If you have ever seen a dog, you are looking at a living testament to the theory of evolution. There was an experiment done in the 1950s in Russia on wild foxes in an attempt to utilize natural selection (aka artificial selection) to breed the foxes into domestication, the same as early humans did with wolves. They took the least aggressive foxes and bred them with other non-aggressive foxes and did this for over 50 years. The result has been highly friendly foxes, changes in fur color and pattern, changes in tails (from straight, to curly, to short), floppier ears, and even barking. This means that evolution does occur. The people conducting this experiment were merely purposefully utilizing it, which sped the process up greatly.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...tten-russian-experiment-in-fox-domestication/

 

[Marvin Knox]

clearly not everything in the Bible is intended to be taken entirely literally, but that doesn't make those ideas untrue.

Agreed. Nor did I say otherwise.

That the illustration of the elements in communion should be taken figuratively is indicated by the fact that the incarnate Jesus was handing the elements to the disciples with His real hands fueled by His real blood and was not doing the "hocus pocus" claimed by certain segments within the religion which followed His death.

There is no such indicator that the statements made in Genesis should be taken in an evolutionary way. The Word of God (including the Lord Himself) takes them just as we have them stated in our bibles.

There is too much evidence for evolution to deny it.

I disagree, as do many scientists.

If evolution is fact, and the inspiration of the Bible is fact, the two cannot be conflicting.

Agreed.

But evolution is not fact. That's the reason it's called a "theory".

Ultimately it must be taken by faith that evolution is fact, even though there are some indicators that it may be true (such as the example of adaptation within species you cite).

It must also ultimately be taken by faith that the scriptures are the Word of God even though there are many indicators that it may be true.

...........This means that evolution does occur. The people conducting this experiment were merely purposefully utilizing it, which sped the process up greatly.

I hardly know where to start with your example.

50 years of wasted time to show what any breeder of animals or plants understands already.

No one who objects to macro evolution denies that there is change and or adaptation within various species including humans.

One could as easily have pointed to the races of mankind to show what that silly Russian experiment showed - and that's even if you are a creationist and accept the idea of a literal beginning for mankind from one directly created man and one directly created woman.

 

[MournfulWatcher]

Agreed. Nor did I say otherwise.

That the illustration of the elements in communion should be taken figuratively is indicated by the fact that the incarnate Jesus was handing the elements to the disciples with His real hands fueled by His real blood and was not doing the "hocus pocus" claimed by certain segments within the religion which followed His death.

There is no such indicator that the statements made in Genesis should be taken in an evolutionary way. The Word of God (including the Lord Himself) takes them just as we have them stated in our bibles.
I disagree, as do many scientists.

Agreed.

But evolution is not fact. That's the reason it's called a "theory".

Ultimately it must be taken by faith that evolution is fact, even though there are some indicators that it may be true (such as the example of adaptation within species you cite).

It must also ultimately be taken by faith that the scriptures are the Word of God even though there are many indicators that it may be true.

I hardly know where to start with your example.

50 years of wasted time to show what any breeder of animals or plants understands already.

No one who objects to macro evolution denies that there is change and or adaptation within various species including humans.

One could as easily have pointed to the races of mankind to show what that silly Russian experiment showed - and that's even if you are a creationist and accept the idea of a literal beginning for mankind from one directly created man and one directly created woman.

Yes, the fox experiment makes use of micro evolution, but does so in such a way that proves macro evolution. The two cannot be separated. The reason a dog is not a wolf and is a separate species is because of thousands of years of micro evolution, which changed wolves that were living alongside humans in many small ways. This continued until the changes in these wolves were so different from other wolves they could no longer be recognized as the same species. So macro evolution occurs when many small changes (micro evolution) occur for a long period of time in a subset of a species that are adapting to an environment that differs from the rest of the species. That's how you get different species that are in the same genus, such as lion and tigers.

A scientific theory is much more significant than you are making it to be. Theories can only be proposed, and must be disproved in order for them to become obsolete. Many theories in the past that were considered legitimate are now known to be false because they were disproved. A theory is considered legitimate when science cannot disprove it and the majority of scientists agree upon its accuracy. The idea that every living organism has cells, for example, is "merely" a theory, called Cell Theory.