More proof Evolution is not true

[Chrystal-J]

Image does not mean identical to. That much ought to be so obvious it doesn't need pointing out.

We make mistakes - God does not
We reproduce - God does not
we evolve - God does not
We are created - God is not
We are limited - God is not
...

One might take your logic and say:
We are in God's image, God is not made from mud, therefore Genesis 2 is wrong.

We have free will and the ability to think critically--something God has but monkeys do not. (Unless you're saying monkeys were made in the image of God?)
If you can only believe in things you can scientifically prove--how do you prove God exits? Or are you an atheist that thinks the bible is a book of myths and fairy tales?

 

[Chrystal-J]

Who's to say that God did not create us in his image through the process of evolution?

Anyway, it does not matter to me, one way or the other. I do not believe that it is necessary for one's salvation whether one believes in literal Genesis or not.

Where in the bible does it say that man was not made in God's image, but then evolved into God's image? It says right from the beginning that man was made in God's image. (I understand what you're saying, but I see nothing in the bible about God making monkeys in God's image.)

 

[FullyMT]

Where in the bible does it say that man was not made in God's image, but then evolved into God's image? It says right from the beginning that man was made in God's image. (I understand what you're saying, but I see nothing in the bible about God making monkeys in God's image.)

Being made in the image of God is normally referring to the spiritual nature of humanity and our capacities to use logic, grow spiritually and intellectually, etc. It does not speak to the body.

 

[Joshua G.]

No, there actually isn't. Frankly, those of you who aren't in science often have profound misunderstandings as to how science actually works. Scientific theories are facts. Gravitation is a theory, germs causing illness is a theory. Just like evolution.

When laypeople try to dismiss Evolution as "just a theory", they usually describe it as if Evolution were a hypothesis, which it isn't, since we have observed evolution and it is backed up by mountains of observed evidence.

Germ theory of disease - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gravitation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

okay, it is an unproven theory nothing like Gravity. You may have gotten on semantics, but when you see that evolutionary theory is built in large part on politics and not sound science, it's rather disheartening. I am not saying that there is no science to it. I am also not saying that such a theory is incompatible with Christianity. I'm not threatened by the possibility of evolution being true or not and I don't care if one holds it or not. What I do care is when people desecrate science and make it less meaningful by abusing what observable fact is.

The fact is that evolution from species to species has never been observed. That is only a theory of what "must" have happened to connect this to that. But just becuase we can only imagine one way to connect fossil records does not make it fact unless we can actually observe it. It may make it plausible or the most plausible theory.

Also, it may well be the most plausible theory for an Atheist for they are self-prohibited from considering anything beyond nature. Science has come to a point that it does not allow for the theory that perhaps a supreme being was involved. One might say to that, "No, it's just that science has to limit itself that way because it is only about the observable natural universe... it doesn't deny what is beyond it's scope". But a scientist should be cogniscent that the answer to the question they pose is perhaps not answerable with natural theory. That doesn't mean they can't try to make the best natural theories possible, but what science does is completely dismisses that it is even possibility that there is someother explanation. If scientists are out to find truth then they should respect that in some instances, it is possible that a theologian may have the answer they are never able to reach and respect that as a plausible answer.

Evolutionary theory seeks to fill in the blanks... big blanks. And that's fine. That's good science. It is not good science to pretend that there are no blanks being filled in with pure theory. Just because it might be the BEST theory out there does not mean it can never be topped with something else... unless thsoe blanks are not blanks and have been objectifiably obsrerved.

Evolutionary theorists are no less dogmatic than a baptist fundamentalist is in regards to the literal creation story. The only difference is that the latter is honest about that fact.

But, evolution has become such a religion that those who sign on are generally quite fundamentalist about it and unable to hear. Again, I have no problem with evolution and it does not threaten my faith. I believed in it for about a decade. Now, I'm quite agnostic on it.

 

[Chrystal-J]

Being made in the image of God is normally referring to the spiritual nature of humanity and our capacities to use logic, grow spiritually and intellectually, etc. It does not speak to the body.

So, monkeys have the ablity to use logic, grow spiritually and intellectually? (Just trying to clarify.) Or are you saying that man is made in the image of God and not monkeys?

 

[FullyMT]

So, monkeys have the ablity to use logic, grow spiritually and intellectually? (Just trying to clarify.) Or are you saying that man is made in the image of God and not monkeys?

Humanity, not monkeys (given, we did not go from "monkey to humanity" but somebody else has already brought that up). Upon the emergence of Humanity, God endowed us with his Image.

 

[Chrystal-J]

Can you show me ONE bible passage that says that?

 

[FullyMT]

Can you show me ONE bible passage that says that?

Says what?
God breathed His own spirit into us, that is one way to explain how we are "in the image of God".

 

[Chrystal-J]

Says what?
God breathed His own spirit into us, that is one way to explain how we are "in the image of God".

That God made monkeys first, then they evolved into man. Edit to add...maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying. Are you with evolution or against? (Not following you...)

 

[FullyMT]

That God made monkeys first, then they evolved into man. Edit to add...maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying. Are you with evolution or against? (Not following you...)

I don't see anything wrong with evolution taking place. I don't accept literal interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative.

 

[QuantaCura]

Evolution is not an established fact. Sure there is some evidence for it, but like all scientific theories, it is very much subject to potential revision and change (and historically these things get changed and revised a lot).

Anyway, if it were true, it would not be irreconcilable with the Creation account in Genesis. I like one of the explanations St. Augustine says is possible in his work "The Literal Meaning of Genesis." In Book 6 on the creation of man, he explains the idea that the six days represent not literal days, but a scheme or plan of creation. The actual creation during those “days” was instantaneous and of things in potency and causation, but not necessarily their final visible form which would be shaped later over time. For example, he places the actual formation of man’s body after the seventh day:

“There can be no doubt, then, that the work whereby man was formed from the slime of the earth and a wife fashioned for him from his side belongs not to that creation by which all things were made together, after completing which, God rested, but to that work of God which takes place with the unfolding of the ages as He works even now.”

In other words, God created all matter and energy at once and planned out how these things will come together and be formed, but that actual shaping of everything has taken place over the eons, etc.

I find this explanation interesting as well because it explains why there are two separate creation accounts of man (one is in potency and the other is in actuality). This explanation also jives with another popular theory of our time: the Big Bang.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Why is so hard for people, to believe The Lords words in The Holy Bible? All of them? You believe when The Lord says

John 14:6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

Yet after 12+ years of brainwashing in school everyone ignores The Lords words on creation because some extremely flawed and half thought up theory of "evolution" created by MAN says otherwise...it's really sad,that people put their faith in science, instead of The Lord. :\ if you would just read The Words in The Bible it explains everything, even things man "discovers" centuries later.

Why is it so hard for you to believe that the Bible does not contradict scientific thought (at least that scientific thought with God as its base), and that scientific thought, that with God as its base (as in "lead me to the answer, Lord?") does not contradict the Bible?

The Biblical writers inadequately describe what God revealed to them. We still cannot adequately describe God and his Creation because it is so awesome and infinite. But that does not mean that evolution didn't happen. St. Augustine, as early as the fourth century, and the Psalmist say that "To you, O Lord, a day is like 10,000 years, and 10,000 years are like a day." Which implies that one day in Genesis might have been 10,000 years to us.

The one thing we should not believe is that man evolved from apes. Although you could see a scenario where God breathed a soul into a hominoid and that's what makes man human, it's not as simple as man is a higher form of ape.

 

[Root of Jesse]

It's clear none of you are going to listen, you're set on your ways and hold tight to your brain washing, that's fine. All I can do is try and better myself, can't expect anyone else to change. I'll continue to believe in The Lords words on creation, you all continue to believe in mans...

The point is, "we" do believe the Lord's words. Evolution does not deny the Creation account in any way.

 

[Antigone]

Evolution is not an established fact. Sure there is some evidence for it, but like all scientific theories, it is very much subject to potential revision and change (and historically these things get changed and revised a lot).

Yes it is. It really is. And I have a problem with people who claim it isn't, because their either don't know what the heck they're talking about, or they don't want to know.

If you refuse to believe in evolution, that's fine, but use the Bible as your proof. Not pseudoscience.

 

[Joshua G.]

Evolution is not an established fact. Sure there is some evidence for it, but like all scientific theories, it is very much subject to potential revision and change (and historically these things get changed and revised a lot).

Anyway, if it were true, it would not be irreconcilable with the Creation account in Genesis. I like one of the explanations St. Augustine says is possible in his work "The Literal Meaning of Genesis." In Book 6 on the creation of man, he explains the idea that the six days represent not literal days, but a scheme or plan of creation. The actual creation during those “days” was instantaneous and of things in potency and causation, but not necessarily their final visible form which would be shaped later over time. For example, he places the actual formation of man’s body after the seventh day:



In other words, God created all matter and energy at once and planned out how these things will come together and be formed, but that actual shaping of everything has taken place over the eons, etc.

I find this explanation interesting as well because it explains why there are two separate creation accounts of man (one is in potency and the other is in actuality). This explanation also jives with another popular theory of our time: the Big Bang.

Popular theory of our time. What will be the popular theory of the next time?

I am curious, not as a challenge, but as a real question, what do you believe regarding death before the Fall? Many Fathers outright reject any possibility of anything ever having died before the fall, even plants! I mean, big guns like Fr. John Chrysostom, St. basil (if memory serves) and they were very very ardent about this. Were they just wrong (I'm not trying to put you in a corner... they were fallible men).

I used to think that somehow a peacefu deathl (because what I understand to be unacceptable about the death of humans in the unnaturalness of it since we were meant to be immortal since we had souls that were never menat to be ripped from our bodies... as this was perhaps never true about animals or plants) death of non-humans. Then when something happened where the evolved animal ceased to be an animal but was God Breathed (God-Spirited--- given a soul... when we recieved, among other things, Free Will) that being no longer experienced death for he was now in the image of God (as God had planned from the beginning). But, then the fall came and death entered humanity.

However, if death couldn't even exist in creation at all before the Fall in any form, how could there be evolution? If death could, then I think there are all kinds of possibilities. But if it couldn't... I can't see any way around that. But

Anyway, I fortunately never gave myself compeltely to modern science so while I subscribed to evolution, I was always willing to be convinced otherwise. My faith is in the Church, not in a 200-year-old method whose community and so-called followers don't even respect anyway. Evolution could be true, but it would be quite a coincidence since a lot of it is based off of educated conjecture that is treated as fact.

Again, I don't care where anyone stands on this as long as they don't treat it as their foundation.

 

[Joshua G.]

Humanity, not monkeys (given, we did not go from "monkey to humanity" but somebody else has already brought that up). Upon the emergence of Humanity, God endowed us with his Image.

I would have to agree that I don't think "image" is referring to what we look like but rather what makes us uniquely human (free will, etc...) beyond opposable thumbs.

 

[Joshua G.]

I don't see anything wrong with evolution taking place. I don't accept literal interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative.

I don't think it's either/or.

However, it does seem to me that either all life (and all stuff) originated and evolved from one thing (big bang/evolution) or we came from originally created proto-types similar to ourselves.

I used to find the latter kind of ridiculous scientifically speaking but now I have to say the both sound quite ridiculous and equally believable, objectively speaking.

 

[Root of Jesse]

There are no contradictions in The Bible. If you feel as though one seems like it is, Google it, and i'm sure you'll find the answer. In terms of your reference to Genesis, again there wasn't any contradiction, it like many other Chapters in The Bible, it was simply the same thing repeated and or shown only in a different way. And yes the stories were written by different people, but the source is the same, and that is The Lord. And how are you so sure as to what The Bible was meant to be? For not a science book it sure does have a lot of science, that "modern" science seems to just "discover" so many hundreds to thousands of years later...interesting. I see The Bible as a book of truth, all of it, not just the parts that seem to go against mans "modern" half baked science theories.

This is exactly what he said. "Seeming contradictions" means that it only seems that way to some people. Show us some examples of science in the Bible. Perhaps the rainbow at the end of the Noah story???
You think you're the only one who thinks the Bible is true? We do, yes, we do, too, maybe more than you do. For example, what do you think John Chapter 6 means?

 

[Root of Jesse]

How hard is it to interpret something that's word for word clear? If you saw a sign in the park that says "Beware bears live here!" what is there to interpret?

Let me show you just a few things that man's science goes against in Genesis.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth

scientists, evolution goes against this, it doesn't believe The Lord created the earth it believes in the big bang and millions of years of organisms "evolving".

That's the FIRST chapter in The Holy Bible, the very first, and what shocker, we already have man and his science that says that didn't happen... Scientists have no idea what the origin of life is, but they "know" it's not The Lord Almighty, even though He Himself says He is... Like I told you before think of me as ignorant, uninformed, below you, however you like, but know this, I believe in The Lords words, because they are the TRUTH. Real science doesn't conflict with that, and since evolution does, it's not real.

Actually, the real theory of evolution does not dispute anything in Genesis...

 

[Joshua G.]

This is exactly what he said. "Seeming contradictions" means that it only seems that way to some people. Show us some examples of science in the Bible. Perhaps the rainbow at the end of the Noah story???
You think you're the only one who thinks the Bible is true? We do, yes, we do, too, maybe more than you do. For example, what do you think John Chapter 6 means?

I always find this point interesting. All of us except for liberal denominations believe that we are interpreting the Bible correctly using our own method. We all accuse the other side of treating the Bible like a salad bar. But no one has the monopoly on claiming to take the Bible at its word.