Evolutionary debate

[Hespera]

Evolution vs. the Bible

The implications for the trustworthiness of the Bible are enormous with the theory of evolution. Is it the inspired and infallible Word of God, or are parts of it merely well-intentioned myths? Are sections of it simply inaccurate and unreliable? Were Jesus Christ and the apostles wrong when they affirmed that Adam and Eve were the first man and woman, created directly by God (Matthew 19:4; 1 Corinthians 15:45)?

Is 2 Timothy 3:16 true in stating that "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine [teaching] . . ."? Clearly, the implications for Christian faith and teaching are profound.

Perhaps the effects of this theory on Darwin's own faith can illustrate the damage it can do to religious convictions. Darwin started as a theology student and a staunch respecter of the Bible. But as he formulated his theories, he lost faith in the Old Testament. Later he could no longer believe in the miracles of the New Testament.

There is great danger in following in Darwin's footsteps.

Without the belief in a just God who will judge the actions of men, isn't it easier for people to do as they please? Aldous Huxley, a fervent advocate of evolution, admitted why many quickly embraced evolution with such fervor:

"I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning . . . The liberation we desired was . . . from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom" (Ends and Means, 1946, p. 70).

Could this kind of thinking have something to do with the immorality rampant in so many schools and universities where God is banned from the classroom and evolutionary theory is taught as fact?

Ah my, making things up again. Theory is not taught as fact.
You just made that up.*

The accuracy of the bible just crumbles with things like the "flood".
Its so plain and obvious that its amazing that anyone can pretzel their brain to believe it is true.

We find btw, that the more people go on about sin and immorality and so forth, the more we know they are talking about themselves.

Could the kind of thinking that puts the conclusion before the evidence, that insists on believing nonsense no matter what, that values magical thinking over rationality, and that is reflected in the utter hypocrisy of condemning other peoples "immorality" .... all the times breaking the commandment not to bear false witness*.....could this relate to anything?

Cast that there beam outta your own eye. partner.

 

[AV1611VET]

When you get new data, you change your decision. You have a problem with that?

Sure do.

Do you consider this as 'new data'?

 

[Cassiterides]

Sure do.

Do you consider this as 'new data'?

(refering to picture)

Are you trying to ask how evolution would account for this deformity? You would think if evolution were true and was ongoing for millions of years there wouldn't be stuff like this about - just another hole in their theory. Man clearly has not evolved, if he had there wouldn't be things like homosexuals, deformities etc. Homosexuals can't breed, so that's 'natural selection' already debunked as well.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

(refering to picture)

Are you trying to ask how evolution would account for this deformity? You would think if evolution were true and was ongoing for millions of years there wouldn't be stuff like this about - just another hole in their theory. Man clearly has not evolved, if he had there wouldn't be things like homosexuals, deformities etc. Homosexuals can't breed, so that's 'natural selection' already debunked as well.

This deformity was caused by thalidomide. A drug that was mistakenly used in pregnant women 50 years ago and is now used by AV as a favorite way of attaching science and rerailing threads. AV, if it troubles you so much I assume you don't take any drugs produced by the pharmaceutical industry and never have and never will, right?

 

[lucaspa]

Evolution vs. the Bible

The implications for the trustworthiness of the Bible are enormous with the theory of evolution. Is it the inspired and infallible Word of God, or are parts of it merely well-intentioned myths? Are sections of it simply inaccurate and unreliable? Were Jesus Christ and the apostles wrong when they affirmed that Adam and Eve were the first man and woman, created directly by God (Matthew 19:4; 1 Corinthians 15:45)?

Is 2 Timothy 3:16 true in stating that "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine [teaching] . . ."? Clearly, the implications for Christian faith and teaching are profound.

Let's look at all 2 Tim 3:16: "All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: "

All those are theological uses. All we require is that the Bible is theologically accurate. It does not have to be "inerrant". The verse only says "profitable" or "useful", not inerrant.

When you say "infallible Word of God" you are not talking about what the Bible says. As noted, 2 Tim 3:16 says nothing about "infallible". Nor does the Bible anywhere say "Word of God" to refer to scripture. Whenever the Bible says "Word", it is referring to Jesus. So your take on the Bible is unBiblical and contradicted by Christian doctrine.

It is also contradicted by Jesus. When you say "Were Jesus Christ and the apostles wrong when they affirmed that Adam and Eve were the first man and woman, created directly by God (Matthew 19:4)", Jesus isn't referring to Adam and Eve. He is referring to Genesis 1:25 where God creates men and women, both plural in the Hebrew. You also need to look at verses 7 and 8. The Pharisees are referring to Deut 24:1. Jesus clearly says the Bible is not the "Word of God", but instead the word of Moses. Not only that, but at this point it is "inaccurate and unreliable". Moses got it wrong.

So yes, evolution has profound implications for the unBiblical and unChristain view that scripture is the "infallible Word of God". It challenges that view. But that view should be challenged and refuted. Evolution helps do that. For those of us who hold to 2 Timothy 3:16, evolution is simply how God created.

Perhaps the effects of this theory on Darwin's own faith can illustrate the damage it can do to religious convictions. Darwin started as a theology student and a staunch respecter of the Bible. But as he formulated his theories, he lost faith in the Old Testament. Later he could no longer believe in the miracles of the New Testament.

Didn't you ever hear of the 9th Commandment? Darwin did not move toward agnosticism because of evolution. He was very careful to always reassure everyone that evolution was compatible with Christianity.

Darwin loss of faith was due to 3 causes:
1. The painful death of his favorite daughter Annie at age 8. Like many people, Darwin could not understand how a loving God could allow such a young, delighful child to go thru such pain and die at such a young age.
2. Darwin had problems with the genocides sanctioned and committed by God in the OT.
3. Doctrine at the time was that anyone who did not believe in Christianity automatically went to Hell, no matter how good they were. This would have included Darwin's father and grandfather, both very good men whom Darwin admired. Darwin could not see how a loving God would do this to good people.

Without the belief in a just God who will judge the actions of men, isn't it easier for people to do as they please?

Evolution is not atheism. Evolution is not rejection of God. Huxley may have disliked the sexual morality of his time, but evolution is not a "system of morality". Evolution is not going to give Huxley " The liberation we desired was . . . from a certain system of morality."

Could this kind of thinking have something to do with the immorality rampant in so many schools and universities where God is banned from the classroom and evolutionary theory is taught as fact?

No. IF such "immorality" is worse than in previous times, it is because parents are not doing their job and raising moral children. IOW, why are the Sunday schools failing? You can mention God there. Why aren't you teaching morality there and at home so that the kids can behave morally in school?

 

[lucaspa]

Man clearly has not evolved, if he had there wouldn't be things like homosexuals, deformities etc. Homosexuals can't breed, so that's 'natural selection' already debunked as well.

Actually, homosexuals can breed. In fact, many male homosexuals do have wives and children. The former governor of New Jersey -- Jim McGreavey -- had 2 children.

But there are evolutionary reasons that 10% of the population is homosexual:

8: Arch Sex Behav 2000 Feb;29(1):1-34 Homosexuality, birth order, and evolution: toward an equilibrium reproductive economics of homosexuality.Miller EM.Department of Economics and Finance, University of New Orleans, Louisiana 70148,USA. emmef@uno.edu

"The survival of a human predisposition for homosexuality can be explained by sexual orientation being a polygenetic trait that is influenced by a number of genes. During development these shift male brain development in the female direction. Inheritance of several such alleles produces homosexuality. Single alleles make for greater sensitivity, empathy, tender mindedness, and kindness.These traits make heterosexual carriers of the genes better fathers and more attractive mates. There is a balanced polymorphism in which the feminizing effect of these alleles in heterosexuals offsets the adverse effects (onreproductive success) of these alleles' contribution to homosexuality. A similar effect probably occurs for genes that can produce lesbianism in females. The whole system survives because it serves to provide a high degree of variabilityamong the personalities of offspring, providing the genotype with diversification and reducing competition among offspring for the same niches. An allele with a large effect can survive in these circumstances in males, but it is less likely to survive in females. The birth order effect on homosexuality is probably a by-product of a biological mechanism that shifts personalities more in the feminine direction in the later born sons, reducing the probability of these sons engaging in unproductive competition with each other."

If you don't understand the Abstract, let me know and I will explain it to you in simpler terms.

 

[lucaspa]

Sure do.

Do you consider this as 'new data'?

​

Absolutely. What do you consider it? That data changed the decision to prescribe Thalidomide to pregnant women. Do you have a problem with changing that decision?

Is it tragic? Absolutely.

What would you have done when that data became available? You already told us you would have allowed the use of Thalidomide before the data was seen. So would you have continued prescribing Thalidomide to pregnant women?

 

[AV1611VET]

(refering to picture)

Are you trying to ask how evolution would account for this deformity? You would think if evolution were true and was ongoing for millions of years there wouldn't be stuff like this about - just another hole in their theory. Man clearly has not evolved, if he had there wouldn't be things like homosexuals, deformities etc. Homosexuals can't breed, so that's 'natural selection' already debunked as well.

What I'm showing is the myopic nature of science in general.

 

[Hespera]

(refering to picture)

Are you trying to ask how evolution would account for this deformity? You would think if evolution were true and was ongoing for millions of years there wouldn't be stuff like this about - just another hole in their theory. Man clearly has not evolved, if he had there wouldn't be things like homosexuals, deformities etc. Homosexuals can't breed, so that's 'natural selection' already debunked as well.

how many times are people gonna fall for the thalidomide derail?

 

[Cassiterides]

Let's look at all 2 Tim 3:16: "All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: "

All those are theological uses. All we require is that the Bible is theologically accurate. It does not have to be "inerrant". The verse only says "profitable" or "useful", not inerrant.

When you say "infallible Word of God" you are not talking about what the Bible says. As noted, 2 Tim 3:16 says nothing about "infallible". Nor does the Bible anywhere say "Word of God" to refer to scripture.

Read onto Tim 3: 17: ''...that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work''

''every good work'' does not only mean theology.

Whenever the Bible says "Word", it is referring to Jesus. So your take on the Bible is unBiblical and contradicted by Christian doctrine.

The Greek for word is ''logos''. Nowhere does the Bible directly say the logos was Jesus.

It is also contradicted by Jesus. When you say "Were Jesus Christ and the apostles wrong when they affirmed that Adam and Eve were the first man and woman, created directly by God (Matthew 19:4)", Jesus isn't referring to Adam and Eve. He is referring to Genesis 1:25 where God creates men and women, both plural in the Hebrew.

This is the same creation account as adam and eve. There were different authors to Genesis, but they all follow each other in succession. There were not two different creations.

Evolution is not atheism. Evolution is not rejection of God. Huxley may have disliked the sexual morality of his time, but evolution is not a "system of morality". Evolution is not going to give Huxley " The liberation we desired was . . . from a certain system of morality."

Evolution is unbiblical and that leads to atheism...so i don't think i was far off.

Adam was a man not a monkey, fish, or a bacteria cell. The theory of evolution is not found in the Bible.

Trying to mix evolution with the Bible, is like trying to mix Christianity into the Quaran...it's a terrible mix.

 

[lucaspa]

Ah my, making things up again. Theory is not taught as fact.

Yes. Sometimes it is and sometimes it should be. The theory "the earth is round" is taught as fact. So is Cell Theory. So is Atomic Theory, etc. Do you think they should not be taught as "fact"?

BTW, if evolution is not "fact", then that means it can't be used as a counter to the Argument from Design, and atheism is back to being an irrational faith.

The accuracy of the bible just crumbles with things like the "flood".
Its so plain and obvious that its amazing that anyone can pretzel their brain to believe it is true.

Are you back to your non-sequitor again? There was not a world-wide flood, and Flood Geology is falsified, but does that crumble the accuracy of the Bible when it speaks about the existence of God?

 

[lucaspa]

What I'm showing is the myopic nature of science in general.

No you are not. What you are showing is that life has risks. You are also showing the falsification of a theory. The theory was: thalidomide does not cause birth defects. The picture is data that refutes the theory.

Now, who was it that noticed those deformed babies and made the connection to Thalidomide? Scientists. If scientists were myopic as you claim, then they would not have seen that. Instead, they quickly admitted the theory was falsified and then went looking for more data to falsify the theory.

Just like creationists in the period 1800-1832 falsified the Flood, flood geology, and were collecting data to falsify special creation.

 

[AV1611VET]

No you are not.

Yes, I am.

If science wasn't so myopic, then science would have caught this ahead of time.

In strictly mundane matters, you might have a point; but we're dealing with God here, and God performs miracles that science cannot even begin to know where to look.

 

[lucaspa]

Read onto Tim 3: 17: ''...that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work''

''every good work'' does not only mean theology.

Sure it does. That's what Paul is talking about. Go back to verse 15:
"And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus." That salvation through Jesus Christ is "every good work". And that is theology. Now go on to chapter 4 verses 1 and 2 and see what Paul calls Timothy to do as "good work".

The Greek for word is ''logos''. Nowhere does the Bible directly say the logos was Jesus.

Really? You are going to deny that the Logos was Jesus? Wow. You may be further lost to bibliolatry than I first thought.

John 1:14: "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. "

That isn't "direct"? Who else could John be referring to?

This is the same creation account as adam and eve. There were different authors to Genesis, but they all follow each other in succession. There were not two different creations.

They different authors do not follow in succession. For instance, in Genesis 6-8 the stories of the different authors are intertwined: http://www.religioustolerance.org/jepd_gen.htm#flood

Genesis 1 (A) cannot be the same creation account as Genesis 2:4-3 (B).
1. The name of God is different between A and B. "Elohim" for A and "Yahweh" for B.
2. In A creation takes 6 days, in B (Genesis 2:4b) it happens in a single day (beyom).
3. In A the order of creation is: plants, water creatures and birds, land creatures, and then plural humans both male and female. In B the order of creation is: no plants but apparently seeds and no rain, a human male, plants, animals and birds (no water creatures), woman. In C males and females plural together are created together.
4. The mechanism of creation is different. In A all entities including creatures are spoken into existence -- "let there be" -- but in B all the animals and birds and the human male are formed from dust or soil. The human female is formed from the rib of the male.
5. Entrance of death for humans. A doesn't mention it. B is internally contradictory. Genesis 2:17 implies that eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil will cause death (within the day) but Genesis 3:22 says Adam and Eve are kicked out of the Garden so that they will not eat the fruit of the Tree of Eternal Life and "live forever", saying that they would have died anyway without eating the fruit.

Evolution is unbiblical and that leads to atheism...so i don't think i was far off.

If you look at what Hespera writes, you will see that it is creationism that leads to atheism. In fact, creationism and atheism share the same statements of faith.

Being "unbiblical" does not lead to atheism. Cell theory is not found in the Bible. Gravity is not found in the Bible. Neither is Relativity, the atomic theory of gasses, heliocentrism, round earth, etc. All are "unbiblical" and yet you don't have a worry that they lead to atheism.

There were atheists long before evolution was discovered.

Adam was a man not a monkey, fish, or a bacteria cell. The theory of evolution is not found in the Bible.

Yes, in the story of Genesis 2 Adam was a human. So what? The story is not literal anyway. Adam = Dirt and Eve = Hearth. It is a story of Dirt and Hearth. It's an allegory. You see, by putting blinders on and trying to read the story as literal history, you miss the real messages God was trying to tell you!

As I noted, lots of theories not found in the Bible. Some of the theories -- such as flat earth and geocentrism -- which are found in the Bible are wrong.

Do you know that God has two books? Why are you looking only at one and insisting God has to put everything in that book?

Trying to mix evolution with the Bible, is like trying to mix Christianity into the Quaran...it's a terrible mix.

I'm not doing that. You are the one that insists that evolution has to be in the Bible. I'm saying that Genesis 1-3 are theological stories. They tell theological messages. They are set in fictional histories, but the theological messages are just as valid under evolution (the real way God created) as they are in the fictional methods of how God created in the Bible.

Again, you keep talking about the Bible. The Bible. The Bible. Christianity isn't about the Bible. It's about God and Jesus. Please stop putting the Bible ahead of God and Jesus.

 

[AV1611VET]

Again, you keep talking about the Bible. The Bible. The Bible. Christianity isn't about the Bible. It's about God and Jesus. Please stop putting the Bible ahead of God and Jesus.

Oh, I don't think you'll object to we doing the noble thing and comparing your myopic science with the Scriptures -- do you?

Just call us 'Bereans', if you have to.

Ac 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

 

[Greatcloud]

AV1611VET.....Are you familar with the Berean Call ? You believe in the miraculous in answers to prayer. Well also every book of the Bible has the miraculous in it except two Esther and the Song of Songs. Thats every book of the new testament too. Also our church speakes in tounges a lot and so do I in my prayer closet and in public. We also practice the laying on of hands to heal the sick. We also get slain in the Spirit, as do millions of other Charismatics and Penecostals and Assembly of God as well as many others. I am only asking you to speak to this personally, thank you.

As far as evolution it is just a lot of whooy like AGW is.

 

[AV1611VET]

AV1611VET.....Are you familar with the Berean Call ? You believe in the miraculas in answers to prayer. Well also every book of the Bible has the miraculas in it except two Esther and the Song of Songs. Thats every book of the new testament too. Also our church speakes in tounges a lot and so do I in my prayer closet and in public. We also practice the laying on of hands to heal the sick. We also get slain in the Spirit, as do millions of other Charismatics and Penecostals and Assembly of God as well as many others. I am only asking you to speak to this personally.

Okay, my friend, thank you!

 

[Greatcloud]

Okay, my friend, thank you!

I am your friend but can you take some time out to speak to this ? Also we were fooled and lulled into sleep concerning evolution. Lets not let that happen to AGW.

 

[Hespera]

Yes. Sometimes it is and sometimes it should be. The theory "the earth is round" is taught as fact. So is Cell Theory. So is Atomic Theory, etc. Do you think they should not be taught as "fact"?

BTW, if evolution is not "fact", then that means it can't be used as a counter to the Argument from Design, and atheism is back to being an irrational faith.



Are you back to your non-sequitor again? There was not a world-wide flood, and Flood Geology is falsified, but does that crumble the accuracy of the Bible when it speaks about the existence of God?

Im sure that some people are incompetent enough to teach ToE or other theories as fact.

American sci ed puts us in 27th place, not by being done well.

"Earth is round" is not theory, its an approximation.

Theory should not ever be taught as fact. Somethings called 'theory" are not really theory. Like "music theory". But then, serious students will overcome bad teaching and others will just be part of the great unwashed regardless of who tries to teach them what.

If you have any sort of science background there should be no occasion for us to be discussing what is fact, what is theory.

Your statement about evoluitonn and turning atheism into an irrational faith seems nonsensical to me. There is no logical sequence to that at all.

What I said about the flood and reliability of the bible is about IF the bible is to be taken literally, then the many places it can be falsified eliminates it from serious consideration as a divinely inspired work that is trie and accurate.

I think there are here and there some things that could be called spiritual truths, or what I would consider folk wisdom. Folk wisdom is valid enough a lot of the time, and it doesnt matter if irs presented as Aesops fables or bible fables. There is no non sequitur in my saying that.

 

[Hespera]

AV1611VET.....Are you familar with the Berean Call ? You believe in the miraculas in answers to prayer. Well also every book of the Bible has the miraculas in it except two Esther and the Song of Songs. Thats every book of the new testament too. Also our church speakes in tounges a lot and so do I in my prayer closet and in public. We also practice the laying on of hands to heal the sick. We also get slain in the Spirit, as do millions of other Charismatics and Penecostals and Assembly of God as well as many others. I am only asking you to speak to this personally, thank you.

As far as evolution it is just a lot of whooy like AGW is.

I wonder if a person who cannot even spell common words or write a grammatical sentence is really likely to be educated enough to be able to say truthfully that the hundreds of thousands of scientists who do understand the data that goes into ToE are full of beans.