I am stuck thinking I need to prove faith to Evolutionists, when the Bible says "they're deluded"

[Gottservant]

I think what God is going to do, is quicken "Evolution".

It's utility, is that a fool's interest in life, is more protracted, if he thinks more of the same is coming.

It's God's wisdom, making the proud humble and the foolish wise - if the fool can see that more foolishness, doesn't necessarily 'evolve', perhaps the proud that say any 'evolution' is possible, will realise they could 'evolve' twice as much, if they just kept their original species.

Like what if you gave more "time", to an adaptation? That would be wise, right? If you could "dig around it, fertilize it" so to speak? (that's Jesus' idea, after all!)

I mean say you want to do a lot of poetry; the idea is to be as imaginative as possible, with your words - you may change styles as you go, but fundamentally you are interested in the "art": it doesn't make sense to say "I will challenge myself, to change styles as much as possible" because by doing so you are hurting the poetry (making it harder to be meaningfully poetic). You may say, I will add to my poetry with a changing use of a fragment of style - but you are expressly favouring poetry, over style.

I don't know if that helps - I think it does, but I don't really know what the parallel of "poetic style" is to "adaptation": that would require thinking about the phases God gives His Creation, to be inspired of flourishing by. It is "less" forgiveness of God, to allow His Creation to go through different phases of life, but fundamentally, you can almost never break the bond created by your existing kind (that's kind of where I find, Evolution needs the most work, the "existing kind").

 

[jamesbond007]

. Yes different animals do evolve in the same way . That’s why a birds wing , a whale flipper, and your arm all have the almost the same underlying bone and muscle structure and use the same genes to form this. Yes whales have more phalanges (finger bones) and birds have fewer fingers but this is due to how long the genes stay switched on or off and/or changes in the sequence of how they switch . A lot of evolutionary changes are due to just that not different genes!

>>A lot of evolutionary changes are due to just that not different genes!<<

It's natural selection that drives these changes. Many creationists think natural selection and biological evolution are separate ideas. One is God based while the other is atheist based.

That’s because our bigger brain sorta makes up for it. Homo erectus used fire and made tools . There’s a trend of ballet dancers pulling their knees the other way . I think it looks weird but they can move better than us average mortals .

This is a great example. There was no homo erectus. Humans were born erect. Whitcomb and Morris in 1961 argued against the progressive evolution from A. afarensis to Cro Magnon.

Homo erectus 'to' modern man: evolution or human variability? - creation.com

 

[loveofourlord]

>>A lot of evolutionary changes are due to just that not different genes!<<

It's natural selection that drives these changes. Many creationists think natural selection and biological evolution are separate ideas. One is God based while the other is atheist based.



This is a great example. There was no homo erectus. Humans were born erect. Whitcomb and Morris in 1961 argued against the progressive evolution from A. afarensis to Cro Magnon.

Homo erectus 'to' modern man: evolution or human variability? - creation.com

WOW I haven't seen that chart in ages brings back memories of all that nonsense :>

You do know we've found multiple neanderthal skeletons, we've sequenced some of their Genome they aren't human, and Lucy? One of multiple species, she wasn't even the first of her kind found if I remember right :>

 

[Gottservant]

Maybe there is something to the idea of "toughening up" - like, if you toughen up with your current design, you may 'adapt more' than was committed to (without toughening up)?

It's just the idea of mutating, in the Creation context?

That way you justify the concept of 'coming full circle': coming back to the variation of design that you started out with? (that way you have more adaptations that are attenuated to the one design)

 

[Gottservant]

I'm starting to get the idea, that "Evolutionists" are 'shameless'.

It makes more sense to part company, with someone shameless, than it does to compound the license they think is theirs (to make ruin of).

Maybe if they got a conscience, they could start to mark out parts of their belief that are non-essential (like ape ancestors).

 

[Cis.jd]

Hi there,

So you know that verse that says "God will give them over to a strong delusion" (paraphrase)? Well, I think I am getting to be at cross purposes with God, trying to do what He has made next to impossible.

The disciples were put out, saying "if it is that hard for the rich to be saved, how can any of us be saved?"

Jesus said "With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible"

The point for me is that if someone is partially saved, it is better (not to argue, not to contest, not to repine) to refigure - in other words, actually stop expecting people will look to Jesus.

This is hard. I factor Jesus into everything I do, by faith; to just refigure - for example to take the Holy Spirit as my example - means forcing my faith to take a back seat. I'm not convinced this is going to save anyone, but I suppose in principle it is what Jesus found Himself having to do, when He was too weak to carry His Cross, for example. What is hard for me, is that I am not yet at the point where I can't carry my cross: I can talk, I can reason, I can justify - none of these things are not common to Man (but I suppose that is the point, they are common, not holy).

The thing is I just can't bring myself to believe, I will get to Heaven and God will say "Evolution was only partially relevant over time, the rest was Jesus" - I mean that is just not how God works. We've been through a world war over this, right? The idea that man completes himself, is a disaster - it makes you a friend of the Devil, without the meaning to uphold the eventuation of the Spirit. I think that is really the point: I am expecting to be equal with God as regards "Evolution", but I need first to yield to the Holy Spirit.

This is what Jesus did in His time, that is how He came to realize He had a cross, He yielded to the Holy Spirit. I think the thing is that if you successively submit to the Holy Spirit, the way an Evolutionist would begin to, you actually get much more than a cross: you get the entire faith of the entire Church, as regards the rapture. Maybe that is too hard to take on at once, I don't know, but it feels like the only thing that makes sense at this point. If we all consistently take on the Holy Spirit as a body, Evolution ceases to entangle even a little.

The Devil then, needs to take a lead from us, we need to be using our faith in order to make the way ahead for him - not that we give place to the Devil, but that we make a way of escape for him, that he not turn on us and bite us. If we did that collectively, people would cease to need a defence in Evolution, at the expectation that denial by it would provide them with a way of escape. Of course, then refiguring Jesus would be easy and light, but with a tinge of sadness, that men in the end could not find peace with Jesus without killing His Spirit in the process. I think that is a crisis that is still coming - despite all I have said.

But God has hope and we should rest in Him.

It's not about your faith but more on you being uncultivated. Whenever a christian resorts to defending his views with the "God speaks to me" lines, that means he has nothing to show his theological/bible views are correct.

every christian who is vocal against evolution is 100% of the time are oblivious to it, and uninterested in learning more about it.

 

[Gottservant]

I kind of had this revelation, that a lamb as though was slain, needs only 'evolve' once.

Jesus therefore, represents the simplest 'evolution'?

He was after all, the seed of God.

 

[Gottservant]

Hello brothers!

Things have reached a critical point in the "Creation vs Evolution" forum - one member has gone so far to say:

[...]
Evolution is not a mandate for anything.
Evolution is not a moral code.
[...]

I think this is deplorable.

For one thing, morality applies to almost everything; but more importantly, to say you 'believe' "in science" is to say that you know something that applies to others who believe in the same thing - if that isn't reason for a certain kind of behaviour, then saying you believe it, is a lie!

I feel insulted and hurt, as I have done everything to understand where "Evolutionists" are coming from and all I am treated like, is that I am a "fool". Well who is more foolish? The one that says what you believe needs to make a difference... or the one that says I can believe something as many ways as I like and still not help anyone?

Jesus never told a soul, to believe anything for no reason at all and here they are saying that "you are at fault, for not believing what we do" - it is the height of insult! What would Jesus say? That they are entitled to come to the Heaven I have and say what they like to me? Of course, if I lay down my defences, they would give me nothing - much worse: they would tear me in pieces and trample me underfoot! I remember what Jesus said about them!

You don't have to lick my wounds, I just want sense? God saves the remnant, perhaps there is hope there? I will take a fall to death, for your sake, brothers! Helping me, is something the Lord will highly approve of - I tell you honestly, I have made no promise of anything, but that the answer can be found in Jesus.

If He can't answer, I shall be bitter, but I will take it to the grave, not to my enemies!

 

[The Barbarian]

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
[...]
Evolution is not a mandate for anything.
Evolution is not a moral code.
[...]

I think this is deplorable.

It is a fact. You might as well want a hurricane or a spring rain to be a mandate or a moral code. Physical phenomena are neither. If you look to nature for moral codes, you will be, at best, disappointed.

For one thing, morality applies to almost everything; but more importantly, to say you 'believe' "in science" is to say that you know something that applies to others who believe in the same thing - if that isn't reason for a certain kind of behaviour, then saying you believe it, is a lie!

Everything in human behavior has a moral aspect. But nature has no moral aspect. It just is.

Jesus showed the way, and it's not via nature. It's by renouncing your nature and following Him. That's good enough. Rejoice in it.

 

[loveofourlord]

Hello brothers!

Things have reached a critical point in the "Creation vs Evolution" forum - one member has gone so far to say:


I think this is deplorable.

For one thing, morality applies to almost everything; but more importantly, to say you 'believe' "in science" is to say that you know something that applies to others who believe in the same thing - if that isn't reason for a certain kind of behaviour, then saying you believe it, is a lie!

I feel insulted and hurt, as I have done everything to understand where "Evolutionists" are coming from and all I am treated like, is that I am a "fool". Well who is more foolish? The one that says what you believe needs to make a difference... or the one that says I can believe something as many ways as I like and still not help anyone?

Jesus never told a soul, to believe anything for no reason at all and here they are saying that "you are at fault, for not believing what we do" - it is the height of insult! What would Jesus say? That they are entitled to come to the Heaven I have and say what they like to me? Of course, if I lay down my defences, they would give me nothing - much worse: they would tear me in pieces and trample me underfoot! I remember what Jesus said about them!

You don't have to lick my wounds, I just want sense? God saves the remnant, perhaps there is hope there? I will take a fall to death, for your sake, brothers! Helping me, is something the Lord will highly approve of - I tell you honestly, I have made no promise of anything, but that the answer can be found in Jesus.

If He can't answer, I shall be bitter, but I will take it to the grave, not to my enemies!

Evolution has no morality no more then gravity does, or germ theory, or archeology. Evolution is just a scientific fact. Nothing more, nothing less. I'm sorry reality insults you, maybe that's a problem on your end not evolution. Evolution is just how things is, not how they ought to be.

I feel insulted that people would rather complain about things they think evolution ought or ought not to do rather then actually learning what it is. How would evolution, or gravity or anything else in science have morality?

 

[Gottservant]

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
[...]
Evolution is not a mandate for anything.
Evolution is not a moral code.
[...]


It is a fact. You might as well want a hurricane or a spring rain to be a mandate or a moral code. Physical phenomena are neither. If you look to nature for moral codes, you will be, at best, disappointed.

Yes but you are refusing a moral interpretation. If I say lift creates flight, that doesn't mean there is no moral interpretation of "flight", you still have the question: is it safe to fly? Well, is it safe to 'evolve'?

All you are doing is imbuing the concept of "Evolution", with a special case that permits you to research the change, but not believe in it?

Everything in human behavior has a moral aspect. But nature has no moral aspect. It just is.

Jesus showed the way, and it's not via nature. It's by renouncing your nature and following Him. That's good enough. Rejoice in it.

Not renouncing all nature, that doesn't make sense - renouncing the initial nature in which you fell from grace, that makes sense.

 

[The Barbarian]

Yes but you are refusing a moral interpretation. If I say lift creates flight, that doesn't mean there is no moral interpretation of "flight", you still have the question: is it safe to fly? Well, is it safe to 'evolve'?

There is no moral interpretation of flight. First, only humans among living things are moral agents, having gained the knowledge of good and evil. Flight itself has no moral aspect, any more than a hammer has a moral aspect. It only matters what you do with it. But there are no virtuous or evil hammers.

All you are doing is imbuing the concept of "Evolution", with a special case that permits you to research the change, but not believe in it?

And flight. And hammers. Don't forget hammers. Actually, most everything technical. The only moral aspect is what you do with it.

Everything in human behavior has a moral aspect. But nature has no moral aspect. It just is.

Jesus showed the way, and it's not via nature. It's by renouncing your nature and following Him. That's good enough. Rejoice in it.

Not renouncing all nature, that doesn't make sense

My body is natural. I am supposed to treat it with care and respect, as God gave it to me, and said it was good. Renouncing the gifts He gave me is disrespectful at the very least.

- renouncing the initial nature in which you fell from grace, that makes sense.

That's what I just told you.

 

[Gottservant]

There is no moral interpretation of flight.

If you are refusing a moral interpretation of anything, its not wrong, unless you then go on to believe the same thing without further morality.

What specifically do you want to be moral about, if not Evolution or flight or gravity?

 

[The Barbarian]

If you are refusing a moral interpretation of anything, its not wrong, unless you then go on to believe the same thing without further morality.

What specifically do you want to be moral about, if not Evolution or flight or gravity?

Human behavior. Nature is entirely amoral. It has no moral lessons for us. If you look to nature for morality, you will be misled and disappointed.

 

[Gottservant]

Human behavior. Nature is entirely amoral. It has no moral lessons for us. If you look to nature for morality, you will be misled and disappointed.

Yes but what about human behaviour do you want to be moral about?

What specifically is the foundation?

 

[Gottservant]

I think what is confusing me, may be that the Bible says "they're deluded" when what they actually are is "perpetually deluded" - its not wrong, but its more extreme!

 

[The Barbarian]

Human behavior. Nature is entirely amoral. It has no moral lessons for us. If you look to nature for morality, you will be misled and disappointed.

Yes but what about human behaviour do you want to be moral about?

Is English your second language? You seem to have trouble expressing yourself clearly. Your reply seems to have nothing to do with what I wrote.

What specifically is the foundation?

Our understanding of good and evil.

 

[Gottservant]

I don't know. There isn't a clear distinction between Creation and Evolution: if I say 'design' has advantages, you say 'adaptation' has exceptions.

What happens if a generation of the human species, refuses to choose either: like they literally are ambivalent, to Creation or Evolution (and they all die ambivalent)?

 

[Yoko.52]

Hi there,

So you know that verse that says "God will give them over to a strong delusion" (paraphrase)? Well, I think I am getting to be at cross purposes with God, trying to do what He has made next to impossible.

The disciples were put out, saying "if it is that hard for the rich to be saved, how can any of us be saved?"

Jesus said "With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible"

The point for me is that if someone is partially saved, it is better (not to argue, not to contest, not to repine) to refigure - in other words, actually stop expecting people will look to Jesus.

This is hard. I factor Jesus into everything I do, by faith; to just refigure - for example to take the Holy Spirit as my example - means forcing my faith to take a back seat. I'm not convinced this is going to save anyone, but I suppose in principle it is what Jesus found Himself having to do, when He was too weak to carry His Cross, for example. What is hard for me, is that I am not yet at the point where I can't carry my cross: I can talk, I can reason, I can justify - none of these things are not common to Man (but I suppose that is the point, they are common, not holy).

The thing is I just can't bring myself to believe, I will get to Heaven and God will say "Evolution was only partially relevant over time, the rest was Jesus" - I mean that is just not how God works. We've been through a world war over this, right? The idea that man completes himself, is a disaster - it makes you a friend of the Devil, without the meaning to uphold the eventuation of the Spirit. I think that is really the point: I am expecting to be equal with God as regards "Evolution", but I need first to yield to the Holy Spirit.

This is what Jesus did in His time, that is how He came to realize He had a cross, He yielded to the Holy Spirit. I think the thing is that if you successively submit to the Holy Spirit, the way an Evolutionist would begin to, you actually get much more than a cross: you get the entire faith of the entire Church, as regards the rapture. Maybe that is too hard to take on at once, I don't know, but it feels like the only thing that makes sense at this point. If we all consistently take on the Holy Spirit as a body, Evolution ceases to entangle even a little.

The Devil then, needs to take a lead from us, we need to be using our faith in order to make the way ahead for him - not that we give place to the Devil, but that we make a way of escape for him, that he not turn on us and bite us. If we did that collectively, people would cease to need a defence in Evolution, at the expectation that denial by it would provide them with a way of escape. Of course, then refiguring Jesus would be easy and light, but with a tinge of sadness, that men in the end could not find peace with Jesus without killing His Spirit in the process. I think that is a crisis that is still coming - despite all I have said.

But God has hope and we should rest in Him.

I believe in evolution...it can be proven. Animals evolve according there environment. thousands of years ago wolves were much bigger than they are now. Mammoths are elephants they had hair to protect them from cold...now they do not...the hair is gone...there a little bit smaller cause the world they lived in changed. My problem is Christians denying something that is in there face because the feel it brings doubt to the bible. I believe in god...that is a mater of personal faith. But now we diseases are caused by germs...not evil spirts. Natural Disasters are just that not an act of gods anger. The world the prophets lived in believed the earth was the center of the universe...the church when it was shown that much of there beliefs were in fact false buy two men named Copernicus and Galileo several hundred years ago they imprisoned them did everything possible to discredit them...that in fact the universe is much larger and older than the writers of the bible realized. I believe in god not because of the bible but because the universe is to complex for there not to be a creator. The world and universe is much bigger than the bible and the church ever realized and Christianity has been fighting about it for hundreds of years.
I

 

[Gottservant]

This is a "disconnected universe".

There are no answers to why everything is where it is: apart from God.

One day there will be a reckoning, between those that serve God in the universe, and those that think that the universe's brokenness means that it is there for the taking.