How don't theistic evolution views contradict the bible?

NobleMouse said:

One of the more well-known transitional series is the whale - you've probably seen something along these lines illustrated:


There is a psychological effect whereby our bias influences us to see the things we want to see and so I'm sure to a proponent of evolution, many connections are made from each form shown above and this seems to flow as a very natural progression.

Now, there is some artistic license here, but even so... I see 2 land animals then 2 distinctly different animals from the first 2 made for swimming, the 3 distinctly different animals from the 2 previously (#3 and 4 in the series). The first two don't really look related at all, but we'll just say they are the same "kind" anyway. The next two look like they could conceivably be variations within the same kind, and the last 3 all look potentially like they could be within the same kind (though #5 and 6 look more closely related than 6).

My point is that the degree of relatedness, whether from studying the morphology or DNA, is going to significantly be influenced by perception, and perception is going to be significantly influenced by bias, and bias significantly influenced by belief.

Click to expand...

Its not really a matter of perception, whether or not two organisms are morphologically and cladistically related. Its a matter of mathematics and functionality.

For example: Pakicetus has triangular whale like teeth, it also has an elongated conical shaped head.


This is not a matter of perception. It just is what it is, and no person could ever perceive this to be more like a dog, than a whale, as there are measurements taken and they have a defined form.

To put things more drastically, nobody could ever perceive a lion to be a tiger, unless they are simply ignorant of the morphological differences between the two.

Just the same, the morphological difference between an alligator and crocodile may seem like a matter of perception, but in fact they do hold unique morphological traits established by measurement.

And you can look at the skull and teeth of ambulocetus as well.



Same triangular teeth, same elongated conical skull



Above is a dogs skull. It has some triangular teeth, some flat mammalian like molars, it has of course its distinct large sized mammalian canines toward the front. And its skull isnt conical.



This isnt a matter of perception, its just reality. And you can take measurements of each of these features and establish a clear morphological difference between them.


And this is how we understand relatedness of life, through morphological cladistics.

These morphological cladistics also of course match genetic phylogeny. Whales for example are genetically closer to hippos than they are to dogs, and pakicetus is cladistically an even toed ungulate, called an artiodactyla.

KomatiiteBIF said:

@NobleMouse

"Here we go into the "scientific evidence" rant..... So, first, "Many" is 1) ambiguous, and 2) based on perception - it's a qualitative opinion. There are estimated to literally be billions of fossils with millions having been cataloged. By in large fossils abruptly show up in the fossil record, by in large they appear to have gone extinct; and.... by in large they remain the same from 1st appearance to the point of apparent extinction - that's what's generally seen - by all Paleontologists. Under Darwinian theory... there should literally be millions of transitionals, but there aren't (again, PE). There are a few postulated transitionals most famously around the land-animal-to-whale, fish-to-land-animal, and dinosaur-to-bird. None of these unequivocally demonstrate/prove that a gradual transition took place."

Click to expand...

This is what I wrote.

PE does not suggest that there are no transitional fossils. On the contrary, of course Eldredge and Gould both recognize transitionals for what they are.

Click to expand...

Agreed, PE does not suggest there are no transitional fossils. From a purely scientific perspective then: (1) DNA has to support many major biological changes, very rapidly, adding new body parts, removing others, and significantly changing the function and role of body parts, etc... - all by natural selection, random mutation, drift, or (2) we should see many small changes over time, allowing for the stabilization of biological systems. PE concedes #2 isn't happening, and observation of adaptation and variability within created kinds shows that changes never result in a newly created kind... so between observation and evidence, this is why ToE in the macro sense is becoming a fossil itself.

And Darwinian gradualism doesnt propose that there ought to be billions of transitionals either (at least not in any brief amount of geologic time), simply on the basis that gradualism, just as PE, have the rarity of fossilization as their limited reagent.

Click to expand...

Darwinian gradualism proposes gradual changes over long periods of time (not short, agreed). By in large, fossils abruptly appear in the fossil record, abruptly disappear (they went extent), and remain the same from the time of first appearance to the time of extinction.

It is scientifically incorrect to suggest that under darwinian theory, there should be millions of transitionals, or at least more than we are finding.

Click to expand...

Regardless of expectations as to a particular number that should be found, (1) The Bible does not support the vast amounts of time needed to support any kind of macroevolution, and (2) it just so turns out that the scientific evidence also does not support very well.

NobleMouse said:

This is what I wrote.


Agreed, PE does not suggest there are no transitional fossils. From a purely scientific perspective then: (1) DNA has to support many major biological changes, very rapidly, adding new body parts, removing others, and significantly changing the function and role of body parts, etc... - all by natural selection, random mutation, drift, or (2) we should see many small changes over time, allowing for the stabilization of biological systems. PE concedes #2 isn't happening, and observation of adaptation and variability within created kinds shows that changes never result in a newly created kind... so between observation and evidence, this is why ToE in the macro sense is becoming a fossil itself.


Darwinian gradualism proposes gradual changes over long periods of time (not short, agreed). By in large, fossils abruptly appear in the fossil record, abruptly disappear (they went extent), and remain the same from the time of first appearance to the time of extinction.


Regardless of expectations as to a particular number that should be found, (1) The Bible does not support the vast amounts of time needed to support any kind of macroevolution, and (2) it just so turns out that the scientific evidence also does not support very well.

Click to expand...

Let me get you a quote from Stephen J Gould.

"The model of punctuated equilibria does not maintain that nothing occurs gradually at any level of evolution. It is a theory about speciation and its deployment in the fossil record. It claims that an important pattern, continuous at higher levels—the 'classic' macroevolutionary trend—is a consequence of punctuation in the evolution of species. It does not deny that allopatric speciation occurs gradually in ecological time (though it might not—see Carson, 1975), but only asserts that this scale is a geological microsecond."

Do you know what this means? @NobleMouse

@NobleMouse
Evaluation of the Rate of Evolution in Natural Populations of Guppies (Poecilia reticulata) - PubMed - NCBI

Natural populations of guppies were subjected to an episode of directional selection that mimicked natural processes. The resulting rate of evolution of age and size at maturity was similar to rates typically obtained for traits subjected to artificial selection in laboratory settings and up to seven orders of magnitude greater than rates inferred from the paleontological record. Male traits evolved more rapidly than female traits largely because males had more genetic variation upon which natural selection could act. These results are considered in light of the ongoing debate about the importance of natural selection versus other processes in the paleontological record of evolution.

Rates of evolution derived from observation of gradual change in the present, are not contradictory with rates of morphological change identified in the fossil succession. In fact, rates of evolution in the present, have been observed at rates faster than some might expect based on the fossil succession.

you said, and I quote "(2) we should see many small changes over time, allowing for the stabilization of biological systems. PE concedes #2 isn't happening"

But PE does not concede that this isnt happening. In fact, as quoted above, the publishers of PE recognize allopatric speciation as a plausible mechanism for the rates of change observed in the fossil succession. This is why Gould said "The model of punctuated equilibria does not maintain that nothing occurs gradually at any level of evolution...but only asserts that this scale is a geological microsecond"

While those who have observed modern day speciation, in some cases have suggested that gradual step-by-step evolution, actually out paces rates of change in the fossil succession.

So, you are incorrect.


-------------------------------------------
The main point above is that gradualistic evolution is something that can fluctuate in rate. Which is something we are already aware of. PE is basically a geologists form of observation of the rate of evolution. A geologist could never see gradualism, by the nature of geology. And Gould discusses this reality and is well aware of it.



To better explain, imagine if geologists have photo albums and biologists have tape recorders. A biologist can record gradual motion. And so, biologists describe gradual motion. Sometimes they describe faster gradual motion, sometimes slower gradual motion, but gradual step-by-step motion is what they see.

geologists with their photo album, cannot, by the nature of a photo album, see gradual movement. Like stop animation, we can only derive broad scale rates of change.

The broad scale rates of change are in line with gradual rates of change, but a geologist is unable to use a photo album as justification for gradual change. A geologist can only use the album to justify sporadic change.

So what Gould has done is, he has justified sporadic change with geology, while simultaneously recognizing that gradualism is an encompassed plausible mechanism from an alternative source of evidence (biology).

To provide another example, lets say biologists have a tape recording of your entire life from ages 1 through 10.

A biologist can fast forward and rewind to any instantaneous moment in your growth. They can display step by step growth of ever millimeter. And they call this step by step observation, gradualism. Some years you grow faster or slower than others, regardless, the step by step growth is still there and is considered gradualism.


A geologist with a photo album, might only have birthday pictures from each year. So, growth from year 1-2, might look instantaneous as you flip from one picture to the next. From age 1 to 2, a child might grow a foot. And so, a geologist is incapable of suggesting that the photo album directly concludes a millimeter by millimeter growth.

Gould suggests through PE, that factors, such as those of the environment, pushes evolution to faster rates, in between periods of stasis. That is to say, Gould believes that a child at age 1 might eat a lot of carrots, which pushes the child to grow exceptionally fast in between photographs, after perhaps several months of only slow growth. However, Gould recognizes millimeter by millimeter growth, as a plausible means by which growth has occurred between photographs. Its just a question of rate.

Its really just a matter of interpretation of the data. But ultimately, both paleontologists and biologists have cross over, as far as their independently predicted rates of evolution. In which case, some biologists recognize faster growth using videocameras and gradualism, than geologists might expect based on photographs and PE.

Its just a matter of, what the timing of those fast and slow rates of change, occur.

And geologists, nor proponents of PE, suggest that anyone should ever see millimeter by millimeter changes in the fossil succession, as that would be impossible, given that the geologic record does not contain layers for every single year throughout all 4.56 billion years of earth history.

NobleMouse said:

Darwinian gradualism proposes gradual changes over long periods of time (not short, agreed). By in large, fossils abruptly appear in the fossil record, abruptly disappear (they went extent), and remain the same from the time of first appearance to the time of extinction.

Click to expand...

Regardless of what you believe Darwinian Gradualism should display, everyone is well aware that the fine changes below a species level, would occur, as Gould says it "within a geological microsecond", and would not be visible in the succession.

It is by this reason that nobody necessarily expects to observe sub species level evolution in the fossil succession.

NobleMouse said:

The thing is...I would not look to a fossil at all, as evidence for a transitional form, nor would I try comparing similarities in DNA as evidence for ancestry. The reason for this is that from what the Bible tells us where God created life on days 3, 5, and 6 and each was to multiply according to their kind, this does not negate similar features across different kinds (morphology), nor what is known within science with the existence of DNA as a building block of life negate the idea of similar building blocks to make similar features... if I have legs and cats have legs, our similarities in DNA fit with God having created both just as well as assuming there is a common ancestor waaaay back. Put another way, it would be obtuse to think God would use either completely different building blocks in different created kinds or that the DNA 'programming' should be drastically different yet yield similar body parts for lack of a better way of putting it. So, since similarities in morphology and DNA is not mutually exclusive to the evolutionary paradigm, I would not use any of those criteria effective for proving evolution.

One of the more well-known transitional series is the whale - you've probably seen something along these lines illustrated:


There is a psychological effect whereby our bias influences us to see the things we want to see and so I'm sure to a proponent of evolution, many connections are made from each form shown above and this seems to flow as a very natural progression.

Now, there is some artistic license here, but even so... I see 2 land animals then 2 distinctly different animals from the first 2 made for swimming, the 3 distinctly different animals from the 2 previously (#3 and 4 in the series). The first two don't really look related at all, but we'll just say they are the same "kind" anyway. The next two look like they could conceivably be variations within the same kind, and the last 3 all look potentially like they could be within the same kind (though #5 and 6 look more closely related than 6).

My point is that the degree of relatedness, whether from studying the morphology or DNA, is going to significantly be influenced by perception, and perception is going to be significantly influenced by bias, and bias significantly influenced by belief.

Click to expand...

if you think that no transitionals are possible then why can't you give a usable definition of "kind"? Where do you draw the distinction between kinds? Are dogs and wolves the same kinds? What is the dividing line between house cats, lynxes, and lions? Or is there one?

This is mental splitting (all or none, black and white... thinking in absolutes) and is again a psychological phenomenon, often used as a defense mechanism.

Click to expand...

No, it isn't splitting. I'm not expecting you to treat the entire Bible as literal. However, if you're going to treat one part of the Bible that is written as history (creation and the Flood) as literal then you should treat ALL parts that are written as history as literal. The fact that you have to mental contortions to come up with a reason why the third temptation is not literal (an interpretation that is not supported by scripture) demonstrates the fallacy of your argument.

First clue to pick up on here is this is a 'supernatural' meeting as this is between Satan and Jesus (Satan is a supernatural being). Jesus was taken up to a high place and shown the kingdoms of the earth... we're not left with the impression they spent days hiking up a mountain together sharing in fellowship and reminiscing about the good ol' days when they were once in heaven together.

Click to expand...

No, but we are certainly not left with the impression that this mountain did not actually exist either.

If you read many of the commentaries on this verse, most make the effort to point out this and the fact that Satan was trying to tempt Jesus. How can Satan offer all the kingdoms of the world - is he in the position to do so?

Click to expand...

Irrelevant to the question at hand.

Many have indicated that Satan would have used a display of power to demonstrate that he had authority to do so - so he (Satan) takes Jesus up to a an exceedingly high place and shows Him (Jesus) all the kingdoms of the world. In having already set the stage of supernatural acts, Satan simply could have shown Jesus the kingdoms in a supernatural way (say a vision) without needing a direct line of sight to literally every kingdom across the globe.

Click to expand...

This interpretation directly contradicts the text. There is absolutely no indication that the third temptation is a vision of any kind.

This is left to be inferred, but the facts given suggest supernatural events are at play so deducing this is physically impossible is just a misapplication of naturalistic assumptions being applied when the text has not warranted doing so.

Click to expand...

No, you're applying supernatural assumptions when the text does not warrant doing so.

Biblical creationism isn't the same as an over-literalization of the Bible... I, for example, don't believe God is literally a "strong tower" made of stone - poetic imagery like in the Psalms is recognized for what it is, parables and allegories are identifiable, etc... Most of the major Hebraists and lexicographers recognize that the syntactical markers for poetry/allegory are not present in Genesis and many scholars recognize it as narrative. Further, references from both Jesus and Peter are in context as if Adam and Eve were real people, and the flood of Noah's time really did happen, with judgment being poured out on all that was living on the land.

So these were good questions and now we've approached the position of biblical creation with the presentation of scientific evidence... which I've already given my perspective on that, and now challenging biblical interpretations, which I've touched on above. I think in prior conversations long ago you and I have agreed that salvation is not in jeopardy regarding creation vs evolution. Where next?

Click to expand...

If salvation is not in jeopardy regarding creation vs. evolution, why do you insist on a literal interpretation of Genesis?

Queller said:

if you think that no transitionals are possible then why can't you give a usable definition of "kind"? Where do you draw the distinction between kinds? Are dogs and wolves the same kinds? What is the dividing line between house cats, lynxes, and lions? Or is there one?

Click to expand...

Baramin ("bara" = created, "min" = kind) as in baraminology, is not so very different from conventional systematics, but instead of using many of the same tools, methods, and terminology to try to make linkages between life forms, they are used to identify gaps... the 'boundaries' that do not seem to ever be crossed when looking at what is presently alive today as well as the fossil record. There are not hundreds or thousands of scientists in this field of study, so work is still being done to identify all of the created kinds today, thus I cannot give a brief/succinct definition of what is a created kind and what is not. That said; however, I found the following two articles by both a creationist and non-creationist website that may help give a little more context:

Bara-What?
Baraminology

No, it isn't splitting. I'm not expecting you to treat the entire Bible as literal. However, if you're going to treat one part of the Bible that is written as history (creation and the Flood) as literal then you should treat ALL parts that are written as history as literal. The fact that you have to mental contortions to come up with a reason why the third temptation is not literal (an interpretation that is not supported by scripture) demonstrates the fallacy of your argument.

Click to expand...

Ok, good, we've established that the entire Bible is not treated as a blind, over-literal reading of text without synthesizing/globalizing ideas from scripture. Jesus, Paul, and Peter, et al. have also referenced these events as historic and real. This is an example of synthesizing two separate texts into a single idea... What parts of the Bible are you saying are presented as history, but not taken literally? If this is back to your example of Satan taking Jesus and showing Him all of the kingdoms of the earth, I do believe Satan really was with Jesus, Jesus really was tempted by Satan, and I do believe Satan really showed Jesus all the kingdoms of that time.

BTW, if you believe Jesus performed supernatural miracles, but then switch mental gears when reading John 1:1-3 - that all things were made through Him and by Him and assert that creation could only have occurred through natural means then you are in violation of your own reasoning. Just as an FYI, God is spirit (John 4:24), so God is not a physical being. Anytime a non-physical being makes that which is physical, it is a supernatural event - it is "beyond scientific understanding and the known laws of nature":

What does it mean that God is spirit?

No, but we are certainly not left with the impression that this mountain did not actually exist either.

Click to expand...

I believe there was a mountain. Following article may help provide additional context:
Does Matthew 4:8 teach a flat earth?

Irrelevant to the question at hand.

Click to expand...

I think the views of those who actually have advanced degrees in theology and have commented are relevant, just as you believe those who have advanced degrees in biology and paleontology and genetics is relevant to ToE. Moving on...

This interpretation directly contradicts the text. There is absolutely no indication that the third temptation is a vision of any kind.

Click to expand...

I gave "vision" as one possibility, all we know is that it was a supernatural encounter. You got scientific evidence that Caesar did or didn't cross the Rubicon or that Washington did or didn't cross the Delaware? No? Oh okay, well it's history and it happened. God said He made everything in 6 days and blotted out all life that was on the face of the earth. It's history and it happened, moving on...

No, you're applying supernatural assumptions when the text does not warrant doing so.

Click to expand...

Is Satan not a supernatural being?





I won't belabor with pasting in commentary after commentary from various biblical scholars and sources that support this view. This shouldn't come as a surprise to you. Are you spending as much time studying the Bible as you are reading articles about secular scientific assertions?

If salvation is not in jeopardy regarding creation vs. evolution, why do you insist on a literal interpretation of Genesis?

Click to expand...

Because many are rejecting the message of the gospel because they believe the assertions of science negate the possibility of a creator God. Those who have a bent towards intellectualism and science often, in error, throw out their belief because they believe things like big bangs, abiogenesis, and evolution have replaced the "myth" of God with the "truth" now discerned through scientific discovery.

Why America’s ‘nones’ left religion behind

Direct quote out of the article:
"About half of current religious “nones” who were raised in a religion (49%) indicate that a lack of belief led them to move away from religion. This includes many respondents who mention “science” as the reason they do not believe in religious teachings, including one who said “I’m a scientist now, and I don’t believe in miracles.”

I think I could pretty easily be sold on the idea that Old Earth Creationism and Theistic Evolution are simply mechanisms invented to reach out with the gospel message to those whose allegiance is to scientific intellectualism and would otherwise reject the gospel. These mechanisms present the idea that the things in the bible are vaguely true, but that the "[real] hidden meaning" behind what is [plainly] written is the same as has been purported by the scientific agenda over the past few centuries. By doing so, souls are being won to Christ and the idea that these people with a scientific aficionado feel they have "discovered" this truth through their own efforts and the scientific method satisfies their egos while the fact they feel that have successfully "read between the lines" of the bible passages also satisfies their bent towards intellectualism. As far as winning souls to Christ, it is a very well-thought and successful strategy - albeit not doctrinally sound.

As a heads up, and possibly good news for you, I will be posting less frequently in these threads as I have slowly come to understand that science is an inadequate tool in supporting either the Bible or evolution. After 420+ posts I have come to realize the time spent trying to support what the Bible says with things like facts, evidence, and research bears little to no fruit and is a rather inane endeavor. That said, I may occasionally post from time to time if I see something interesting, but if I don't reply back to a follow-up response from you, please do not take offense. I hope you can see that I have not changed your opinion of God's word or views on science anymore than you have changed mine. Time is wasted, intellectual egos are flexed, and while the back-and-forth has sharpened my acuity of what I believe and why, it is mostly a waste of your time and mine. I sense many have come to realize this here in CF and is why there's only a handful here that continue to banter in these threads.

God bless, brother -

NobleMouse said:

Baramin ("bara" = created, "min" = kind) as in baraminology, is not so very different from conventional systematics, but instead of using many of the same tools, methods, and terminology to try to make linkages between life forms, they are used to identify gaps... the 'boundaries' that do not seem to ever be crossed when looking at what is presently alive today as well as the fossil record. There are not hundreds or thousands of scientists in this field of study, so work is still being done to identify all of the created kinds today, thus I cannot give a brief/succinct definition of what is a created kind and what is not. That said; however, I found the following two articles by both a creationist and non-creationist website that may help give a little more context:

Bara-What?
Baraminology

Click to expand...

So I guess you just know it when you see it?

Ok, good, we've established that the entire Bible is not treated as a blind, over-literal reading of text without synthesizing/globalizing ideas from scripture. Jesus, Paul, and Peter, et al. have also referenced these events as historic and real. This is an example of synthesizing two separate texts into a single idea... What parts of the Bible are you saying are presented as history, but not taken literally? If this is back to your example of Satan taking Jesus and showing Him all of the kingdoms of the earth, I do believe Satan really was with Jesus, Jesus really was tempted by Satan, and I do believe Satan really showed Jesus all the kingdoms of that time.

Click to expand...

You left out the part about whether you believe Satan took Jesus to a high mountain to show him those kingdoms.

BTW, if you believe Jesus performed supernatural miracles, but then switch mental gears when reading John 1:1-3 - that all things were made through Him and by Him and assert that creation could only have occurred through natural means then you are in violation of your own reasoning. Just as an FYI, God is spirit (John 4:24), so God is not a physical being. Anytime a non-physical being makes that which is physical, it is a supernatural event - it is "beyond scientific understanding and the known laws of nature":

What does it mean that God is spirit?
View attachment 232086

I believe there was a mountain. Following article may help provide additional context:
Does Matthew 4:8 teach a flat earth?

Click to expand...

So where is it?

BTW, that article does nothing to address the concerns I've presented.

I think the views of those who actually have advanced degrees in theology and have commented are relevant, just as you believe those who have advanced degrees in biology and paleontology and genetics is relevant to ToE. Moving on...

Click to expand...

Why Satan thinks he has the power to offer Jesus what he does is irrelevant to the question of whether there is a mountain high enough to see all the kingdoms of the world.

I gave "vision" as one possibility, all we know is that it was a supernatural encounter.

Click to expand...

And yet the text is not written as if it was a vision. The Bible is very clear on these things. See David and Ezekiel for examples.

You got scientific evidence that Caesar did or didn't cross the Rubicon or that Washington did or didn't cross the Delaware? No? Oh okay, well it's history and it happened. God said He made everything in 6 days and blotted out all life that was on the face of the earth. It's history and it happened, moving on...

Click to expand...

Umm, what? There's lots of independent accounts in the historical record of Washington crossing the Delaware and Caesar crossing the Rubicon.

Is Satan not a supernatural being?

View attachment 232089

View attachment 232090

I won't belabor with pasting in commentary after commentary from various biblical scholars and sources that support this view. This shouldn't come as a surprise to you. Are you spending as much time studying the Bible as you are reading articles about secular scientific assertions?

Click to expand...

Why do you think there are so many attempts to ascribe supernatural elements to a text that is clearly not written as if it were so?

I'll tell you. Because there is no mountain high enough to see even all the kingdoms of the ANE, much less the entire world. So the plainly written scripture narrative of it being an actual event with an actual mountain was reinterpreted as a supernatural event to bring it into line with the real world.

Just like the literal interpretation of the Genesis creation and Flood accounts do not line up with the evidence God left behind in the real world and therefore must be reinterpreted.

Because many are rejecting the message of the gospel because they believe the assertions of science negate the possibility of a creator God. Those who have a bent towards intellectualism and science often, in error, throw out their belief because they believe things like big bangs, abiogenesis, and evolution have replaced the "myth" of God with the "truth" now discerned through scientific discovery.

Why America’s ‘nones’ left religion behind

Direct quote out of the article:
"About half of current religious “nones” who were raised in a religion (49%) indicate that a lack of belief led them to move away from religion. This includes many respondents who mention “science” as the reason they do not believe in religious teachings, including one who said “I’m a scientist now, and I don’t believe in miracles.”

I think I could pretty easily be sold on the idea that Old Earth Creationism and Theistic Evolution are simply mechanisms invented to reach out with the gospel message to those whose allegiance is to scientific intellectualism and would otherwise reject the gospel. These mechanisms present the idea that the things in the bible are vaguely true, but that the "[real] hidden meaning" behind what is [plainly] written is the same as has been purported by the scientific agenda over the past few centuries. By doing so, souls are being won to Christ and the idea that these people with a scientific aficionado feel they have "discovered" this truth through their own efforts and the scientific method satisfies their egos while the fact they feel that have successfully "read between the lines" of the bible passages also satisfies their bent towards intellectualism. As far as winning souls to Christ, it is a very well-thought and successful strategy - albeit not doctrinally sound.

As a heads up, and possibly good news for you, I will be posting less frequently in these threads as I have slowly come to understand that science is an inadequate tool in supporting either the Bible or evolution.

Click to expand...

Science is an outstanding tool in support of evolution and in supporting mundane aspects of the Bible (locations of cities and the like).

Science is wholly inadequate in supporting the spiritual aspects of the Bible and is not intended to be used that way.

After 420+ posts I have come to realize the time spent trying to support what the Bible says with things like facts, evidence, and research bears little to no fruit and is a rather inane endeavor. That said, I may occasionally post from time to time if I see something interesting, but if I don't reply back to a follow-up response from you, please do not take offense. I hope you can see that I have not changed your opinion of God's word or views on science anymore than you have changed mine. Time is wasted, intellectual egos are flexed, and while the back-and-forth has sharpened my acuity of what I believe and why, it is mostly a waste of your time and mine. I sense many have come to realize this here in CF and is why there's only a handful here that continue to banter in these threads.

God bless, brother -

Click to expand...

I don't consider it a waste of time to discus and debate things on the internet that are of interest to me and may help others (lurkers) understand that the conflict between religious beliefs and science is not insurmountable.

Numbers6:24-26

Queller said:

So I guess you just know it when you see it?

Click to expand...

Thank you for sharing your thoughts

NobleMouse said:

Thank you for sharing your thoughts

Click to expand...

How sad.

Vitality said:

Evolution is a proven fact if you believe otherwise please don't reply. (Not being rude just not worth the argument if we disagree on the basics)
Since the bible mentions nothing of this process it is logical to conclude that either the bible is false (obviously we dont pick this one) or the bible was written with by people thousands of years ago and hence is written to match the understanding of the day - God left out the complicated methods such as evolution. What I just explained is my understanding of theistic evolution, however my major issue is that the bible specifically calls adam the first human, and says he was made after the animals. Which is obviously disproved by evolution (humans and apes evolved from shared ancestors at the same time and the first humans were in middle Africa- mitochondrial eve). Now the bible is outright incorrect, which cannot be the case. So as a scientific christian how can you believe the Bible is true and still believe in evolution? Also if evolution was God's method to create the world why did he allow 7 near planetary extinctions where 99% of life on earth died? Also if you believe He created the world via evolution and personally designed us later then what are all the transitional fossils?

Click to expand...

The very first word in the Bible is the word: "Beginning". When you understand he meaning of this word then the rest of the Bible will make sense. For example we know that Jesus is the word of God and He was there in the Beginning with God. He is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. God knows the end from the beginning and He writes the book of our life before we are even born.

There are 32 verses in Genesis that talk about beginnings. There are hundreds of thousands of book in libraries like Yale, Harvard and MIT that go to a lot of detail with what we read in those 32 verses. A lot of science is based on the natural record that God gives us like fossils and geology.

however my major issue is that the bible specifically calls adam the first human, and says he was made after the animals. Which is obviously disproved by evolution

Click to expand...

You are lost because you do not know what began with Adam and Eve. You do not know your science, you do not understand evolution and you do not know what the Bible says. We are still talking about beginnings and Adam and Eve received the Breath of life. Animals have a body and a soul. Adam had a body, soul and a spirit or the breath of life. With science 6,000 years ago we have the beginning of what they call consciousness. We have higher levels of understanding that has to do with decisions. Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of good and evil. It is this tree that science uses to explain the difference between man and the animals. Mans higher level of understanding and His ability to make decisions. There are many branches of science that deals with the tree of life. Psychology, philosophy, biology, neurology and so on. We have quite a bit of understanding but to take something complicated and make it simple for people to understand is not always easy to do.

My brother has a PhD in Psychology. When I ask him to explain consciousness to me, he will recommend books for me to read, but he will not attempt to try to explain it to me himself. Even though I have been after him about this for over 50 years now. Jung started to write on this subject based on what the Greeks discovered on personality types and archetypes. There are modern understandings but no one is trying to make it all easy for everyone to understand and there are people that like to throw a monkey wrench in the works like Dawkins (& Hawkins) that try to lead people astray from things like symmetry we find in evolution.

There is nothing incorrect in the bible. The only thing incorrect is your understanding of Science. Because all of Science proves that the Bible is 100% accurate and true.

Acts2:38 said:

It's not even a fact really, it's a theory.

Click to expand...

Have you ever bought paint from the store? When you work with color you are dealing with a theory called the additive and substantive color theories. We still use these theories every day even if science can not prove that they are true. God has given us a lot of evidence to work with in the natural record and we do what we can to understand. God gives us wisdom, knowledge and understanding because HE wants us to be a part of what He is doing. We are to be Joint Heirs with Christ. Romans 8:17 "Now if we are children, then we are heirs--heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory."