For me, it's either theistic evolution or nothing.

[rjs330]

So if it's very important to you that Paul never have made a mistake, choose a solution that includes a historical Adam. That's why I gave multiple options. (As for Paul never being wrong... He was wrong when he wrote that he hadn't baptized anyone in Corinth besides Crispus and Gaius. We know he was wrong because he corrected himself in the next sentence. Did his inspiration switch off for a minute there?)

There is much difference between him correcting a EXTREMELY MINOR error immediately and perpetuating a MONSTER error such as Adam which is central in doctrine of faith. The same goes for Christ. The same goes for Peter.

If Adam is historical, which is what is presented, it's impossible scripturally to claim he became Adam by evolution. For Adam is presented as the first human.

So it is also written, The first human, Adam, became a living person, and the last Adam became a spirit that gives life. - 1 Corinthians 15:45 Bible Gateway passage: 1 Corinthians 15:45 - Common English Bible

Nowhere in scripture is there ANY evidence that Adam came from an evolutionary process from an animal of some sort. He was created in the beginning as man. He was not made from an animal, but uniquely formed by God. Evolution from common ancestry is a biblical impossibility.

So if Paul is wrong and Peter and Christ are wrong about that, then they could be mistakenmistak a great many things. Hmmm.... Sounds like I've heard that before from an evil emperor. Either we trust what is taught or we don't. If we don't then we have become the final arbitor if truth. And we all know just how good human beings are at deciding what is truth. I think a Roman governor asked that question.

 

[lismore]

Well, you've got a lot gumption, I'll give you that, telling God that his world is horrid and nauseating. Others disagree, however.

What God created was good. The fallen world is horrid.

As a Theistic evolutionist you are in the quandry of believing in death before the fall, the absolute opposite of what the bible teaches.

 

[rjs330]

What God created was good. The fallen world is horrid.

As a Theistic evolutionist you are in the quandry of believing in death before the fall, the absolute opposite of what the bible teaches.

Absolutely! The thing is though they don't trust what the bible says is true. So, they can easily dismiss this by simply referring to the biblical account as fiction or allegory or whatever. As long as they can dismiss it then they have no real problem explaining it away.

The real matter here is they hold science as gospel and the bible as not.

 

[Job 33:6]

Accepting death before the existence of mankind is equivelant to accepting basic physics and geologic superposition. God created the world which is observed through science. God also gave us His word in the form of scripture. The difference between the two is that the earth is as hard as rock and no person can interpret it to be soft, while scripture will forever be plagued by the flawed interpretations of the imperfect human mind.

 

[lismore]

Absolutely! The thing is though they don't trust what the bible says is true. So, they can easily dismiss this by simply referring to the biblical account as fiction or allegory or whatever. As long as they can dismiss it then they have no real problem explaining it away.

The real matter here is they hold science as gospel and the bible as not.

Hello There. I agree absolutely. Evolution is the allegory for how deluded people can be, they'd believe any old nonsense over God's word. God Bless You

 

[Vitality]

Absolutely! The thing is though they don't trust what the bible says is true. So, they can easily dismiss this by simply referring to the biblical account as fiction or allegory or whatever. As long as they can dismiss it then they have no real problem explaining it away.

The real matter here is they hold science as gospel and the bible as not.

Hello There. I agree absolutely. Evolution is the allegory for how deluded people can be, they'd believe any old nonsense over God's word. God Bless You

I know Ill probably get banned for this but whatever, Evolution is as proven as gravity. To deny evolution is on par with completely distancing yourself with all science and logical observation. Fossil records, Homogeneous structures, gallopean Finches, DNA structures, Vestigial Traits, early embryonic features and peppered moths all prove evolution without a doubt (peppered moths evolved as a response to the industrial revolution). Science is not some Orwellian big brother scheme, it is literally just observing the world around us and testing theories to find the truths of the universe. The only way to hold our faith and agree with known facts of history is to believe in theistic evolution, which in turn implies the bible either oversimplified creation in genesis (for the population of that time) or the actual writers were interpreting Gods words in ways they could understand.

 

[sfs]

I know Ill probably get banned for this but whatever, Evolution is as proven as gravity.

Why on earth would you get banned for that? This entire subforum is here for Christians who accept evolution.

 

[Vitality]

I

Why on earth would you get banned for that? This entire subforum is here for Christians who accept evolution.

Ive been banned off of forms before for mentioning things like the bible possibly being false etc. and questioning parts of faith.

 

[Resha Caner]

Evolution is as proven as gravity.

Sigh.

 

[lismore]

I

Ive been banned off of forms before for mentioning things like the bible possibly being false etc. and questioning parts of faith.

Hello Vitality. I would not want to see you banned from anywhere because of your views. It's good to discuss. However you would perhaps have to admit that saying 'the bible possibly being false' on a Christian Forum is a controversial viewpoint.

I don't believe humans evolved I believe we were created. How would you feel about that viewpoint?

or would you believe that God used evolution as the means of creation? I don't believe that but we can discuss if you wish. Stay a while, let's talk.

God Bless

 

[Buzzard3]

Scientists are basically unanimous these days. The only ones who won't give in, after 150 years, are the fundamentalists.

... or those who think evolution is a very poor scientific explanation for the history of life on earth .. like me.

Btw, there are greater minds than mine that think the Modern Synthesis is inadequate .... some evolutionary theorists, for example, like Gerd Muller.

I believe in evolution, and in my view, if God was involved, it is an absolutely beautiful phenomenon. It is the work of a master artist, a supremely brilliant engineer.

A God-directed evolution is feasible, but I wouldn't expect science to ever understand how it happened.

 

[sfs]

... or those who think evolution is a very poor scientific explanation for the history of life on earth .. like me.

But such people tend not to be very solid on the science.

Btw, there are greater minds than mine that think the Modern Synthesis is inadequate .... some evolutionary theorists, for example, like Gerd Muller.

Since the Modern Synthesis has been augmented and superseded in many ways, it's not exactly a stretch to think that it was an inadequate description of real evolution; I very much doubt that you could find an evolutionary biologist who disagrees. That has nothing to do with doubting evolution, however.

 

[Buzzard3]

... or those who think evolution is a very poor scientific explanation for the history of life on earth .. like me.

But such people tend not to be very solid on the science.

I very much doubt if mutations, natural selection, etc (the Modern Synthesis) can account for the evolution of sight, for example.
And when Darwinists do offer "explanations" of such, they are invariably based on a bunch of untestable hypotheses, which means their "explanations" don't even qualify as science, but are just pseudo-scientific stories.

 

[sfs]

I very much doubt if mutations, natural selection, etc (the Modern Synthesis) can account for the evolution of sight, for example.

Which in no way negates my point, which is that people who think evolution is a poor scientific explanation tend not to be very solid on the science.

And when Darwinists do offer "explanations" of such, they are invariably based on a bunch of untestable hypotheses, which means their "explanations" don't even qualify as science, but are just pseudo-scientific stories.

What specifically are you talking about? And -- since you feel confident in dismissing a major branch of science as not being scientific -- just what is your background in science?

 

[Buzzard3]

Which in no way negates my point, which is that people who think evolution is a poor scientific explanation tend not to be very solid on the science.

The theory of evolution cannot explain the Cambrian explosion.

What specifically are you talking about? And -- since you feel confident in dismissing a major branch of science as not being scientific -- just what is your background in science?

How did the lense in the eye, for example, evolve in terms of mutations and natural selection?
How do you test your hypothesis?

How you explain the evolution of the dam-building by beavers in terms of mutations and natural selection?
How do you test your hypothesis?

How do you explain the evolution of a spider's silk-making apparartus evolve in terms of mutations and natural selection?
How do you test your hypothesis?

"It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way to put them to the test." (Dr. Colin Patterson, paleontologist)

 

[stevevw]

How you explain the evolution of the dam-building by beavers in terms of mutations and natural selection?

The dam building ability of beavers is not evolved. It is a product of the agency of living things who can control their own destiny and evolution. Living things are not passive subjects waiting to be adapted to environments. They are active players changing environments to suit they needs.

 

[Buzzard3]

The theory of evolution cannot explain the Cambrian explosion.

How did the lense in the eye, for example, evolve in terms of mutations and natural selection?
How do you test your hypothesis?

How you explain the evolution of the dam-building by beavers in terms of mutations and natural selection?
How do you test your hypothesis?

 

[Buzzard3]

The dam building ability of beavers is not evolved.

How do you test this hypothesis?

 

[Buzzard3]

The dam building ability of beavers is not evolved. It is a product of the agency of living things who can control their own destiny and evolution. Living things are not passive subjects waiting to be adapted to environments. They are active players changing environments to suit they needs.

How did the lense in the eye, for example, evolve in terms of mutations and natural selection?
How do you test your hypothesis?

 

[Buzzard3]

The dam building ability of beavers is not evolved. It is a product of the agency of living things who can control their own destiny and evolution. Living things are not passive subjects waiting to be adapted to environments. They are active players changing environments to suit they needs.

What about spiders spinnng a web? Is that another example of a living thing taking control of its own destiny?
How did their silk-making apparartus evolve in terms of mutations and natural selection?
How do you test your hypothesis?

They are active players changing environments to suit they needs.

Is this how it went? ...
Once upon a time a beaver had a great idea - "If I cut down some trees with my teeth (which just so happen to be capable of doing that) I can build a dam, within which I can build a nest and the resultant pond will enhance my chances of survival."