Here's my problem, I believe in evolution, and it brings up doubts especially in the OT...

[Justatruthseeker]

the bible says to beware of "science falsely so called"

In case you didn't know this, but evolution is only believed by faith.
You cannot observe the process of a single celled organism becoming a multi celled organism through evolution.

The only thing we can observe is limited genetic changes within species, we cannot observe anything beyond that.
Who are you gonna believe, God? or Man?

"Let God be true and every man a liar"

There are some serious problems with Evolution, Darwin's Black Box Written by Michael Behe is a great book showing the scientific challenges to evolution.

I would like to make one correction. The only changes we observe are limited changes within each infraspecific taxa. Asian supposedly undergo 50 mutations per birth - but those mutations are limited to the Asian infraspecific taxa. As any that occur in the African population are limited to the African population. And are so minor (if that tiny change is actually due to mutation and not simply dominant and recessive genes), that the changes are basically unnoticeable. Only when Asian mate with African for example - have we ever observe variation within the "species."

Never have we observed changes in the "species" because of any supposed mutations. Only when two or more infraspecific taxa within the species mate - are changes observed in the "species" itself. Yet this variation in the species is ignored as having any consequence in the ToE, because all observations of how species propagate and variation in the species occurs is ignored.

Those single celled organisms never change no matter how many mutations they undergo - because they receive no genomes from another infraspecific taxa in the species to which they belong. Hence E coli after billions of generations and billions of mutations remained E coli, because they never receive genomes from another infraspecific taxa in the bacterial "species" to which they belong.

The problem is that in the fossil record they label everything slightly different as a separate "species", instead of correctly labeling them as separate infraspecific taxa within the "species."

 

[Justatruthseeker]

This displays an amazing lack of knowledge about how evolution works.

No, it displays an amazing refusal to accept observational evidence on your part and to pretend your theory has ever been observed in real life.

We could also say that horses and donkeys are just variations within a kind, except they can't produce fertile offspring, and so aren't the same species.

And yet you also insist that Darwin's Finches which are interbreeding and producing fertile offspring before your very eyes are separate species. So you'll have to excuse me if I doubt any evolutionist has a clue as to what species actually are. So according to evolutionist's birds that interbreed and produce fertile offspring are separate species and birds that interbreed and don't are separate species. You claim Tigers and Lions are separate species - yet they produce fertile offspring. If you were at least consistent in your claims - you might have ground to stand upon instead of quicksand sinking beneath your feet.

Meanwhile, sharks and tuna are variations within the fish kind, and yet they can't interbreed in the way a dalmatian and a mastiff can.

Yet only you claim sharks and tuna are of the same kind. Again - if you were to claim all sharks were of one Kind, just separate infraspecific taxa within that Kind - and all fish that are similar to tunas are all of one Kind, just separate infraspecific taxa within that Kind - you might have solid ground beneath your feet. Just because you lump all fish as one Kind as you try to lump all mammals as one kind - doesn't make it so.

There is a huge amount of evidence for evolution. When you claim it has no basis in science, you are only demonstrating that you don't know what you are talking about.

What evidence - classifying birds that interbreed and produce fertile offspring right in front of your eyes as separate species???? The claim that started the entire thing rolling??????? So the entire theory was started based upon an incorrect classification????

 

[lesliedellow]

the bible says to beware of "science falsely so called"

No, that is what the translators of the KJV said, and in 1611 the word "science" meant something different to what it meant today. In 1611 it meant any systematic pursuit of knowledge. What the original author probably had in mind was gnosticism.

 

[RickG]

What do you mean by "fundamentalist interpretation"?

With respect to "Creationism" (creation science) have you noticed that they go to great lengths of explaining biblical events in a non literal way in order to support their literal interpretation?

 

[lesliedellow]

My point is, if evolutionism is true..then there is no reality of Genesis 3.
Secondly, I don't think one can accept the reality of Gen 3 unless God grants it.

Genesis 3 is not history, but it doesn't have to be before it can be the case that we have a fallen nature,

 

[-57]

Genesis 3 is not history, but it doesn't have to be before it can be the case that we have a fallen nature,

Genesis 3 is presented in the bible in many places as history. What allows you to claim it isn't? Your belief in evolutionism?

 

[bhsmte]

What do you mean by "fundamentalist interpretation"?

Taking it literally.

 

[-57]

What is your evidence this flood happened?

Water gaps.
Fossils
Polystrate trees
Recumbent folds
....the list goes on and on.

 

[bhsmte]

Water gaps.
Fossils
Polystrate trees
Recumbent folds
....the list goes on and on.

If you could, please be more specific and explain the objective evidence that supports Noah's flood.

You see, Phd geologists disagree with you and I would imagine, they know a little about this topic. In fact, the first geologists to debunk the flood over 100 years ago, were Christian geologists.

 

[-57]

If you could, please be more specific and explain the objective evidence that supports Noah's flood.

There is so much evidence volumns of book have been written about it. I'm not going to go through the list item by item. If your interested start a new thread.

 

[bhsmte]

There is so much evidence volumns of book have been written about it. I'm not going to go through the list item by item. If your interested start a new thread.

Never mind, I have what I need.

 

[-57]

Never mind, I have what I need.

Watergaps.
http://www.pastoren.no/wp-content/uploads/WIND-WATER-GAP.jpg

 

[bhsmte]

Watergaps.
http://www.pastoren.no/wp-content/uploads/WIND-WATER-GAP.jpg

Cool drawings, what does it prove and how?

 

[essentialsaltes]

What if the flood meant that the linage of Jesus Christ would not be tainted?

Look, your god is supposed to be omnipotent. Whatever the difference between 'sinful' and 'tainted' is, I'm sure he could manage that without killing almost everybody on the planet. I mean... it's not like Jesus' lineage was sinless.

 

[-57]

Cool drawings, what does it prove and how?

...a river would go around the mountain rather than cut through it. The drawing shows how a world wide flood would form the gap.

You asked for evidence..you got it.

 

[bhsmte]

...a river would go around the mountain rather than cut through it. The drawing shows how a world wide flood would form the gap.

You asked for evidence..you got it.

You could be in line for a Nobel prize, for proving Noah's flood.

No other geologist has been able to do so, congrats!

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

So, this omniscient, omnipotent being, supposed creator of all the universe, earth, mankind and animals, chooses a favorite people and then allows these people to suffer the depredations of their neighbors, and then retaliate by destroy their neighbors in what we would call a genocide today. Curiously though, we don't have the story from the other side...

This being later decides to punish this same people for their "sins" and ignoring prophets by captivity. Curiously though, there is no record of this captivity, in contemporary history or through archaeology.

Then, fed up with the whole lot of them, it sends a prophet down to wander a very small part of the Levant, to warn everyone that if they don't change their ways that the entire world will be destroyed. Curiously though, no group outside this very small amount of chosen people has any record of this prophet, even those cultures that have contiguous societies that span this supposed extinction level event.

Then, punishing everyone for their failure to listen to this prophet, whose fastest mode of transport was probably the horse drawn chariot, this being decides that drowning the entire world - all of the Middle East, Africa, the Asia Pacific, North and South America, Europe and the rest - is the best solution. With all its power and knowledge, sticking the hose down the ant-hill is the best answer. Curiously, this global drowning leaves no physical evidence of any sort.

Sounds like a case of allegory gone wrong to me.

No record of the Captivity? Do some research into the origins of the Synagogue, the Synagogue itself is a result of the Diaspora.

Lol, the whole we have no evidence for these events argument, funny except that it's happened so many times where somebody disputed the historical and archaeological facts recorded in the bible, only to be refuted by a later discovery.

No evidence for the global flood huh?

How about the fact that basically all of the ancient peoples have some sort of flood myth, one example that's is eearily similiar to the bible record, is the red record, a record of the flood by ancient American Indians.

Not to mention that the large fossil beds ll over the world are evidence of a global flood.

Take a look at the Grand Canyon, that's evidence of a global flood.

There is evidence for a global flood all over the place if you would just open your eyes.

 

[smaneck]

Here's my problem, I believe in evolution, and it brings up doubts especially in the OT... were the OT writers simply writing what they "thought" and the way they "felt" about God, and not in an actual words God actually said.

The parts of the Bible that record what God is supposed to have actually said begin with the words, "Thus Speaketh the LORD." Genesis doesn't start that way.

Well, my problem is I believe the scientific evidence which casts doubt on some of the Bible writers, BUT, I have too much personal experiencial evidence of a God and other spirits existing on another side beside this one...

Science tell us the 'what' of creation. Revelation tell us the 'why.' It is when one tries to do the other's job that we have problems.

some OT acts and verses by God cast a shadow of a doubt on him being a or the God of Love...

Now that's another problem. I think the only answer to that is that our understanding of God has evolved over time.

 

[smaneck]

Accept the observational evidence and your problems will resolve themselves.

Asian mates with Asian and produces ONLY Asian. African mates with African and produces ONLY African. Only when Asian and African mate is variation seen within the species or Kind. The Asian does not evolve into the Afro-Asian nor does the African evolve into the Afro-Asian.

Yet 8000 years ago there was no such thing as blue-eyes. And somewhere along the line aborigines from New Guinea developed blond hair.

Husky mates with Husky and produces ONLY Husky. Mastiff mates with Mastiff and produces ONLY Mastiff. Only when Husky and Mastiff mate is variation seen within the species or Kind. The Husky does not evolve into the Chinook nor does the Mastiff evolve into the Chinook.

Not a very good example given that all dogs evolved from the grey wolf. Mastiffs evolved from the Greek Molossus. Chnook was cross-bred from several breeds. Of course in the case of dogs humans played a large role in their evolution.

Merely different infraspecific taxa in the species or Kind to which they belong - not separate species.

You do know what constitutes a 'species' in biology. It is the ability to interbreed and produce fertile offspring with no decay.

They have simply ignored the observational evidence when it came time to classify the fossil record and have incorrectly classified 90% of the creatures that existed as separate species.

Evidence? You do know that we no longer even have to rely on the fossil record? We have DNA evidence today which either backs up or modifies what we know from the fossil record. For instance, the knowledge that homo sapiens evolved in Africa and only in Africa is based on DNA evidence, not fossils.

 

[smaneck]

History is past events taken on "faith in the reliability" of the writer.

Wrong. Historians look at the evidence not simply the reliability of the writer.
(I'm a historian by profession.)

Science is based on the same thing, except that ones faith can be
enhanced by repeating the events the first researcher experienced.

More than that. It is based on the examination of the empirical evidence. The more evidence found, the more solid a scientific theory becomes so long as no contrary evidence is located.

Anything that cannot be repeated is not in the realm of science.

We can put every one of the mechanisms vital for evolution to take place to the test in an objective, repeatable form, starting with mutations and ending with natural selection and speciation. If we couldn't how did we come up genetically modified tomatoes? As for natural selection, we've done that with fruit flies. As for speciation, to a certain extent we've done that with the dog. Without human intervention a Chihuahua and a St. Bernard cannot interbreed. And God help the poor dog if the mother is the Chihuahua!