• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Featured Is evolution a fact or theory?

Discussion in 'Creation & Theistic Evolution' started by mathinspiration, Jan 8, 2018.

  1. The Barbarian

    The Barbarian Crabby Old White Guy

    +4,715
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    It's very hard to escape that conclusion, since God Himself expresses concern that Adam might become so:

    Genesis 3:22 And he said: Behold Adam is become as one of us, knowing good and evil: now, therefore, lest perhaps he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever.
     
  2. 2tim_215

    2tim_215 Well-Known Member Supporter

    +435
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    It's funny how YE is the evolutionists (and atheists) goto argument. Us Christians who believe in a 6 day creation of modern day man (starting with Adam) should disregard earth age. Let the atheists have that one. Without it, man evolving from chimps and evolution of man over billions of years falls flat on its face. Of course, an infinite God, who is from eternity past, has been around for billions of years (or trillions or even gillions if you wish) and He certainly hasn't been twiddling his thumbs all that time and could easily have had other creations during that time (where we get many of the fossils including some of which appears to be similar to man).

    There definitely is evidence of massive destruction on this apparently Old Earth. A God who spoke the earth into existence could most definitely have destroyed it at one time or another (just the surface with the rest of it kept in tact), and as far as those creatures who might have been here before us, there's no missing link which might prove that we evolved from them or that they evolved from chimps.

    If anything, perhaps you could say that God's thinking "evolved" in a sense regarding His creation process over time until He perfected it in our generation (to be completed) which wee have today and which has probably been in existence no more than 10,000 years on this earth.

    What existed on earth before that time period, who knows? The way I feel about it, who cares? God gives us everything we need in His word to navigate through this life. We don't need science or anything else for that. We just His word and if that's not enough, I guess that's unfortunate. Our heavenly Father gave us all the tools we need to get by in this world. Be blessed.
     
  3. The Barbarian

    The Barbarian Crabby Old White Guy

    +4,715
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    Why is it so hard to just accept that it is what they evidence shows it to be?

    And even more evidence of ages of gradual change between the occasional catastrophic change. Pretty much the way it works today.

    Or He could have done things as the evidence shows He did. One of those.

    YE Creationist (and PhD paleontologist Kurt Wise admits that there are many, many transitional forms, which he says are "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory." Would you like to see a partial list of them?

    [quote[which might prove that we evolved from them or that they evolved from chimps.[/quote]

    Humans didn't evolve from chimps. Humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor, which was neither human nor chimp.

    God is eternal, so He isn't going to evolve.
     
  4. 2tim_215

    2tim_215 Well-Known Member Supporter

    +435
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    It's what the Bible says it is, that's why.

    Sure. There are physiological changes due to many happenings throughout the earths history, but that doesn't prove that man "evolved" from chimps.

    According to who? Or He could have simply done it the way He says He did in Genesis.

    Like Noblemouse, I don't care what Kurt Wise thinks or says. Many great men of God don't get everything right and are wrong about certain things, just like many of your scientists (how many failures do they have prior to finally having successful results?). How many times do scientists get things wrong before getting them right?
    [quote[which might prove that we evolved from them or that they evolved from chimps.[/quote]

    They didn't evolve. They were created by the same designer in one fell swoop.

    Agree. I just suggested that if you want to say there was some sort of evolution (not the kind you believe in however),
     
  5. The Barbarian

    The Barbarian Crabby Old White Guy

    +4,715
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    (Barbarian asks why it's so hard to believe the evidence)

    Some people revised the Bible to fit their new creationist ideas. The Bible neither denies nor confirms evolution.

    Barbarian observes:
    And even more evidence of ages of gradual change between the occasional catastrophic change. Pretty much the way it works today.

    I was speaking of geology. However, it is clear that humans did not evolve from chimps. They both evolved from a common ancestor which was neither a chimp nor a human.

    Barbarian observes:
    Or He could have done things as the evidence shows He did. One of those.

    God. We are told, in scripture, that God is truth. If so, then He would not have planted false evidence.

    As you know, He didn't say how He did it. Creationists just inserted some ideas to make it more acceptable to them.

    The key is, Wise knows what he's talking about, and you don't. So it really doesn't matter, does it?

    Failures are the way we get to the truth. But as you see, we know what the failures are. as more evidence accumulates. Creationism, being a religious doctrine, is locked down. Hence:
    cartoon.jpg
    This is the most important difference between science and creationism.
     
  6. 2tim_215

    2tim_215 Well-Known Member Supporter

    +435
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Because the evidence is very limited to what you call evolution and is non-conclusive. and there's a much better alternative explanation. The idea that we evolved from monkeys and over billions of years is ridiculous.

    Gradual change. When tsunamis or earthquakes occur, is this gradual? When hurricanes and tornadoes take place do you consider these gradual? This is what changes the earths landscape and since this has perhaps occurred over billions of years this doesn't mean it's been gradual, it most likely has occurred instantly at various times in history,

    You like to say common ancestor. I prefer common creator.

    All I need is what the Bible tells me and that's good enough. You need millennia of rock studying and fossil digging to come to your conclusions. Not really that complicated if you believe what God says.

    He hasn't. You are just misinterpreting what's been found.

    No. Atheists just found a way to take God out of the picture and although you're not an atheist you purport their doctrine. And for a long time most of your scientists were atheists, believing in science over God. Now, many of them have turned to Theistic Evolution as you, which is a step in the right direction.


    I'm not too familiar with Wise (other than what I've seen posted on this forum) and he may be a brilliant theologian, but he's probably wrong about some things, this being one of them. I'm probably wrong about some things, but not being one of them.


    I like your cartoon. Does this not apply to science also? I'd consider Evolution a religious doctrine as well. The same thing holds true for any field of study (including theology). Before science matured, there were certain assumptions made regarding earth age being young (including scientist) as the study of rocks as well as archaeology and radiometry being relatively young disciplines.

    Because the Bible doesn't specifically give us earth age, it was reasonable to consider the earth to be of a young age since the time of Adam is all the Bible gives us. What do you think God was doing all those years before He created Adam since you obviously believe in an old earth? He just started the evolutionary process billions of years ago and didn't do anything in between? Doesn't that sound pretty absurd? Science has certainly evolved in its knowledge and understanding but so has theology. What we now know today is more than we've known in the past.

    Science, Origins, & Ancient Civilizations - Target Truth Ministries
    "Once, a few hundred years ago, people trusted in the clergy. The clergy insisted that the sun revolved around the earth. Galileo (a believer in Jesus), provided proof that this was not true. Note that the Bible does not say the sun revolves around the earth—this was just a tradition of the authorities at that time. Galileo took issue with the leadership—he did not have an issue with Jesus or the Bible. But, the result was that people began losing trust in the Bible (the supernatural), and began to trust science instead (the natural)."

    "Today, people are not trusting in a solid foundation of rock (actual scientific proof), but upon the sand of opinion (hypothesis, speculation, and tradition). The Bible does give us actual proof of its supernatural origins. Great prophecies such as that of Daniel 9, Ezekiel 4, and others (verified by science and history with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which date prior to Jesus and the restoral of Israel in 1948), give us conclusive proof of prophecies being fulfilled exactly—in many cases to the very day—over hundreds of years. The exact fulfillment of these prophecies proves the authenticity of God’s Word, whereas, science can only offer hypothesis and even ignores much of the scientific evidence."

    "Christians are in the place that Galileo was in, centuries ago. The authority in control (clergy then, and science today), are suppressing the truth. Fortunately, (for Galileo and for us), the Bible has always offered the truth for those interested. Galileo trusted it, and I trust it."

    According to Einstein, "Science without religion is lame, and religion without science is blind.
    I prefer to put my trust in the Bible over science although I respect science which is honestly performed.
     
  7. The Barbarian

    The Barbarian Crabby Old White Guy

    +4,715
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    Your fellow YE creationist (who actually has knowledge of the evidence, disagrees with you. He says there is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory." And as I said, he's actually familiar with the evidence.

    Without scriptural support or scientific evidence, you're really left with nothing but faith in some men's wishful thinking.

    No kidding humans didn't evolve from monkeys. They are far too evolved in a different direction to give rise to humans.

    By degrees? Yep. Pacing is another story. Most people don't realize that evolution proceeds at different speeds (although it remains gradual).

    In the sense that punctuated equilibrium is gradual. The tsunami doesn't appear a hundred miles away, and then appear on the shore without having been at every point between the two. Likewise, evolution may take a very long time, or a few decades in one notable case, but not without doing so by graduated changes, regardless of the time it took.

    When Himalyas rise up as India collides with Asis, is this gradual? Yes, it is. A few centimeters a year. If Columbus made his trip today, he'd have to go a about a meter farther than last time. Is that gradual?
    This is what changes the earths landscape.

    Yes, it does. We've been around to watch it moving. Continental plates move a few centimeters a year. If it happened in a thousand years or so, the frictional energy would have boiled the seas.

    Nope. For reasons of physics as well as observed behavior of plates. We even have magnetic evidence of very gradual movement from the Mid-Atlantic Ridge.

    However, it is clear that humans did not evolve from chimps. They both evolved from a common ancestor which was neither a chimp nor a human.

    Christians all recognize the Creator; you just don't approve of the way He did it.

    Nope. Since the Bible says nothing about how the mountains came to be, all you can do is insert your own ideas and attribute them to God.

    As you learned, the evidence is overwhelming. The only way to dismiss it is to suppose God faked evidence for great age.

    No. You purport their doctrine. They say that the Bible is incompatible with evolution. So do you.

    Darwin, for example supposed that God just created the first living things. You've been badly misled.

    Yes. Science looks at the evidence and tries to find a theory to fit it. YE creationism starts with a man-made assumption and tries to find evidence to support it.

    Evolution is an observed phenomenon. Evolutionary theory explains it. I'm always surprised that YE creationists have so little respect for religion that they want to drag it down to the level of science.

    Actually, YE scientists rejected a young Earth long before radioisotope dating, just on the evidence Komatiite mentioned.

    Being God. You think time is a constraint on Him. But it is not.

    You're thinking of deism. God is intimately involved with every particle of this world.

    It would if he was a creature, limited by time. Is that what you think?

    Tell,me about the important breakthroughs in theology lately.

    You do know that the Church never made that a doctrinal statement, right?

    Galileo was persecuted largely for political reasons. The Pope had even given him cautious approval to continue his work, until he got himself involved in politics. But even then, the Church never made geocentrism a doctrine.

    Some Catholic clergy and many Protestant clergy like Martin Luther and John Calvin insisted that a geocentic universe was part of Christian belief. But it was never Catholic doctrine, and I suspect it was never the doctrine of Lutherans or Calvinists as a group.

    Indeed, Aristarchus of Samos had, long before Christ, shown that the Earth goes around the Sun. This knowledge was lost during the Dark Ages, but shows that heliocentrism is a lot older than you were told.
     
  8. KomatiiteBIF

    KomatiiteBIF Well-Known Member

    +1,486
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    "Like Noblemouse, I don't care what Kurt Wise thinks or says. "

    Hahaha. This is great.
     
  9. myst33

    myst33 Well-Known Member

    +933
    Czech Republic
    Christian
    Single
    Which one?
     
  10. myst33

    myst33 Well-Known Member

    +933
    Czech Republic
    Christian
    Single
    I found this to be funny.
     
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2018
  11. 2tim_215

    2tim_215 Well-Known Member Supporter

    +435
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Well I'm glad you guys finally admit that we didn't evolve from chimps. Is it amoebas then?
     
  12. myst33

    myst33 Well-Known Member

    +933
    Czech Republic
    Christian
    Single
    "Finally." :clap:
     
  13. 2tim_215

    2tim_215 Well-Known Member Supporter

    +435
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    So I guess this means that because Kurt Wise agrees with you on this one point, that you agree with him on every point and because I may disagree with him on one point then I must disagree with him on all points?


    You forget that part of faith is evidence of things not seen. You really don't seem to comprehend what faith means.

    Good to finally hearing you say that. That's what I consider to be progress.

    If you say so.

    Gradual? Maybe but not over millions of years. Not even thousands. A week or a month maybe? That's not what evolution purports I'm afraid.
    You call that evolution? I'd say it's more like de-evolution or entropy.
    I don't see that as the earth evolving, just changing unless that's your definition and it certainly doesn't equate to animals evolving into humans which is what I've been arguing against.

    Do you mean entropy which is not evolution in the conventional sense of the word?

    Interesting, but not evolution.
    Agreed. From God.

    Has nothing to do with my approval. He did it the way He did and the way He said He did it. I just disagree with the way you said He did it. I trust His word more than I trust you.

    I didn't say a thing about the mountains. All I know is that He created them but I don't know the specifics but I really don't care. That's not a salvation issue.

    What evidence is overwhelming? That man evolved from other creature(s)? There's much evidence to the contrary.The only thing which may be overwhelming is earth age but that does not prove evolution. And as for God "faking" evidence that's baloney. No where in His word does He tell us 'the "earth's age". Young earth age was originally assumed by early Christians before science could prove otherwise which came much later which understandable. You can say that man's understanding and science have "evolved" a great deal over the centuries, most of which has occurred over just the last 100 years.

    So do you.

    Not true. In some areas, yes. In others no. I'm not sure of what doctrine you're referring to. The only thing I purport is the Word of God.

    Good. But nowhere in His word did He even imply that men evolved from something else.

    Forget about YE creationism (as I pointed out, the evolutionist/atheist goto). Even if the earth is billions of years old, that does not prove evolution! You seem to think that because the earth is very old, that God must have used evolution. This is just not true.

    Don't know where you got that one from.

    As I stated, all scientists did not accept this (most of them thought that the earth was young at the time, there wasn't any reason to think that it was old (stating with Adam).

    Of course not. God is infinite. Therefore time has no meaning to Him.

    Yes He is. And no, I'm thinking of the Christian God, the God of the Bible.

    He's not limited by anything including science or you for that matter. Just because you think He's done something the way you want doesn't prohibit Him from doing things the way He wants.

    We don't need any "breakthroughs". It's all there. The Bible is a sealed book. In it, God gives us everything we need to know. There's miracles happening all the time and I expect them to keep on happening.

    I don't know what the church has done. I do know that the word of God is intact.

    This was in the 16th century.
    And how many scientists believed this, back then? It was a long time later before this was accepted by most of the scientific community. This goes back to the Book of Job, which many consider that oldest book in the Bible. Perhaps Aristarchus had read the Bible and found determined that the earth was round. Incidentally, there is an Aristarchus mentioned in the Bible, who was a companion of Paul. Probably a different one?
    Aristarchus of Samos
    Aristarchus of Samos Facts
    Influence of Aristarchus
    Aristarchus is often called the "Copernicus of antiquity." In a sense this is true, though the identification need not be taken as being in praise of either man. Both realized, as did many others, that a heliocentric system is equivalent to a geocentric system as far as the observed celestial phenomena are concerned; and both were willing, as others were not, to propound this mathematical hypothesis without reference to current theories of physics, and in particular to the laws of motion. Aristarchus wrote when Aristotelian physics and Platonic cosmology were both gaining acceptance and there was no one willing, or perhaps able, to construct an adequate alternative theory embodying his cosmology.

    Copernicus was followed by many who questioned and eventually, with the help of new instruments and improved observational methods, disproved Aristotelian physics. The failure of Aristarchus and the success of Copernicus had less to do with their individual merits than with the intellectual milieu in which their views were expounded. In any case, Aristarchus's attempt to measure solar and lunar distance had a far greater influence on his successors than did his heliocentric theory.

    Apparently, was not accepted by most, although right.
     
  14. The Barbarian

    The Barbarian Crabby Old White Guy

    +4,715
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    Merely pointing out that a YE creationist who actually is familiar with the evidence, admits that it's "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."

    Barbarian observes:
    Without scriptural support or scientific evidence, you're really left with nothing but faith in some men's wishful thinking.

    If you apply that to man's addition of YE creationism to Scripture, then I think you're wrong. You really don't seem to comprehend what faith means.

    Barbarian corrects another misconception:
    No kidding. Humans didn't evolve from monkeys. They are far too evolved in a different direction to give rise to humans.

    I've had to repeatedly say it here. You creationists are always imagining that evolution means humans evolved from monkeys. You seem to now realize you had it wrong. That's what I consider to be progress.

    In the sense that punctuated equilibrium is gradual. The tsunami doesn't appear a hundred miles away, and then appear on the shore without having been at every point between the two. Likewise, evolution may take a very long time, or a few decades in one notable case, but not without doing so by graduated changes, regardless of the time it took.

    It comes down to evidence. You lose.

    Barbarian explains that humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor.

    Good...

    He's not an ancestor. He made it happen, of course, but you don't approve of the way he did it.

    As you learned, the evidence is overwhelming. The only way to dismiss it is to suppose God faked evidence for great age.

    Evidence for great age of the Earth.

    (Barbarian, regarding the notion that science is a religion)
    Evolution is an observed phenomenon. Evolutionary theory explains it. I'm always surprised that YE creationists have so little respect for religion that they want to drag it down to the level of science.

    Go back and read your posts.

    Barbarian, regarding the agreement between YE creationists and atheists:
    No. You purport their doctrine. They say that the Bible is incompatible with evolution.

    Nope. I'm pointing out that that the Bible is compatible with evolution.

    Barbarian suggests:
    Tell me about the important breakthroughs in theology lately.

    So that was all just talk, um?
     
Loading...