The Demise of Evolution

[Kylie]

You may dismiss the Bible as a folklore but have you considered that it has withstand the strict scrutiny of many historians, archaeologist and literacy scholars? And although it is not a science book, it contains 'science verses' that turned out to be true, such as saying the earth is round in 600 BC before science say it. In line with secular historical records, the Bible background consists of Roman empire, Babylonia, Assyrian and ancient Egypt. It contains family trees dating Jesus back to David and further back to Abraham, and if you say records can be falsified, however, the Scripture pass the credibilty standard set by scholars and historians. The following are some strong evidence to show that the Bible is not just a cleverly fabricated book.

Oh, this again? Do you think that no one has ever produced these as arguments? Do you think there aren't perfectly good rebuttals to these arguments?

Accurate scientific statements

The Bible is not a book of science but when it made scientific statements on several occasions, it is surprisingly accurate. For instance, the Scriptures predicted that the earth was round even before science confirmed it. “He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers... [Isaiah 40:22]; the word “circle” implies that the earth is round. The prophet Isaiah said this about 700 BC , which is more than 2600 years ago. At that time, people believed that the earth was flat, or they would fall off the surface into space if it was round; back then, no one understood gravity, and sailors were afraid to reach the edge of the sea. In 340 BC, the famous Greek thinker Aristotle wrote a book, On the Heavens, where he gave reasons to support the theory that the earth was shaped like a sphere. Later, more evidence would confirm it. In the twentieth century, aerial photographs showed the earth to be round, but the Bible had said it well ahead of time.

The word "Circle" implies the Bible is claiming the Earth is a disk, not a sphere.

The Bible also says the earth is suspended upon nothing. “He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing” [Job 26:7]. In those days, people had little or no clues about the universe. The Greeks believed that the earth was held in space by one of their gods, Atlas. Gradually, thinkers like Ptolemy, Copernicus and Galileo asserted that the earth, like the other planets, might be suspended upon nothing. Science would confirm this later, but not before the Bible had said it much earlier.

And what is the Earth suspended from? The passage requires a fair amount of poetic interpretation to fit what you are trying to say.

The Scriptures have been consistently correct on numerous occasions, and not just a couple of times. The Lord told Abraham that his descendants would be as many as the number of stars in the sky, if indeed he can count them [Genesis 15:5]. Early astronomers used to believe that they can count the stars in the sky but later, they realized that there are billions of them in the galaxies – beyond our ability to even give a close estimate.

Actually, many trillions upon trillions.

Please show that Abraham's descendants are that numerous.

When God created the earth, He said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear” [Genesis 1:9]. It means that at the beginning, the land mass was together. Today, there are geological evidences to substantiate this theory, as rocks and fossils of animals and plants on different continents show that they used to exist on the same land. Geologists or scientists believe that one supercontinent used to exist, which later broke up or became separated into the land masses that we see today.

And they also believe that prior to that it was in several masses. And there's nothing in that passage to say that land only appeared in one place.

“Do you send the lightning bolts on their way? Do they report to you, ‘Here we are’?” [Job 38:35]. When the Bible was written, the word “electricity” did not exist, obviously, and “lightning” referred to raw electric power from nature. Several millenniums later, scientists would be able to harness electricity for use in lighting, telephones and many other ways that we see today. Now, we are indeed using electric power to speak and send messages over telephones, radios, computers, satellites and communication equipment. In Job’s time, when lighting was provided by fire, no one would dream of using electricity, let alone run away from streaks of lightning. And the telephone was invented more than two millenniums later in 1876. Yet the Bible alluded to it well ahead of time.

That's a huge stretch of the imagination.

Biblical Prophecies Fulfilled

The Scriptures contain prophesies about the future that have come true. Some prophecies are in Revelation. 2000 years ago when apostle John had a vision of war and battle scenes, he saw the kinds of weapons and technologies that would be used in the future. In his time, when soldiers fought with spears and swords, and cavalries rode horses and chariots, the apostle did not have the vocabularies to describe modern day arsenals that he never saw before. He could only compare them to locusts with wings, moving with noises like the thundering of horses and chariots rushing into battle. He also wrote that the heads of the horses resembled the heads of lions, and out of their mouths came fire, smoke and sulfur [Revelation 9: 7-19]. Today, we can see that the apostle was trying to describe modern war machines. The locusts with wings were helicopters and fighter jets. The horses with lion heads that threw fire and smoke were armored vehicles and tanks. John’s vision did materialize during the twentieth century – the Bible was 2000 years ahead of time.

Again, this is a stretch. The words were vague to begin with, so they could be fitted to lots of things.

Bible is supported by History

When historians, archaeologists and scientists conduct extensive research, they use cross references to determine the authenticity of the writings. Many biblical accounts have been found to be agreeable with history, such as the existence of ancient Israel, Assyria, Babylon, Persia and Roman Empire. The existence of Nebuchadnezzar, Darius, Artaxerxes, Herod and Pilate can be independently confirmed from other historical annals. Other archaeological discoveries substantiate accounts which are mentioned in the Bible, such as the invasion of ancient Israel by Babylonians and Persians. When Judea was under the control of the Roman Empire, the authorities regarded it as a difficult place to govern because the Jews resented foreign rule. In 66 AD, there was a revolt against the Roman authorities, who were forced to withdraw from Jerusalem because the fighting was fierce. The skirmishes continued until 70 AD when the Romans took back the city and crushed the resistance. Such events were found in historical records.

Some people assert that if the Bible is God’s Word, then there should be no mistakes at all. Should we apply such a standard towards the Scriptures? When scientists, mathematicians, scholars and historians conduct experiments for verification, they do not insist that the results must be totally free from mistakes. Some kinds of technical variations are accepted within certain margin of error. It does not mean that should absolutely be no glitches in God’s Word. Somewhere in the Old Testament, for example, a few numbers may not be absolutely accurate. When the manuscripts were copied by hand, a few variations could happen, such as the use of different words which have the same meaning or connotation. However, when experts scrutinized the Bible, such occurrences were acceptable. If there were too many flaws or mismatch with other historical findings, then it would have been exposed as a falsified piece of work. Instead, until today, it continues to endure the test of time.

And Star Trek fits with the real world too, it mentions San Francisco, the moon, Paris, Wolf 359, etc. The fact the Bible mentions lots of real places does not mean that the other claims are true as well.

Dead Sea Scrolls

In 1947, in the Mediterranean area, an Arab youth, Muhammad, accidentally stumbled upon the Dead Sea Scrolls, which were hidden in jars in a cave. The parchments, which were written mainly in Hebrew (with some parts in Aramaic), might have belonged to one of the Jewish religious sects or a community of people who lived during biblical times. It is possible that they could have hidden the scrolls from the Romans who came to crush the Jewish revolt circa 70 AD.

It was a phenomenal discovery, not only for Christians but also for historians, archaeologists, and scholars. The Dead Sea Scrolls were the manuscripts of the Hebrew Scriptures, without the Book of Esther. They were believed to have been written by the Jews who, after returning to Judah from exile (circa 400 BC), continued to keep records of their history, beliefs and traditions. This was an era commonly referred to as the Second Temple Period.

The greatest significance is that the Scrolls represent a close resemblance to the “original” Hebrew Old Testament (the Tanakh), which consists of the Pentateuch, History, Prophets and Poetry. At this point, it is appropriate to mention the existence of Jewish scribes, known as the Masoretes, from about 500 AD to 900 AD. They were entrusted with copying, editing and distribution of the Old Testament – a sacred and serious vocation that was held in high regards, which entailed the washing of hands before they started to write, for instance. They developed a system of counting the number of words in each book in order to ensure that every word was copied. Even if one error was spotted, the entire manuscript would be discarded by burying, in accordance with Jewish customs. They also introduced vowels into the Hebrew words, which only contained consonants originally.

When Masoretes Texts were compared to Dead Sea Scrolls, the very minute variations being found were confined to change of spellings over time or use of different synonyms in various manuscripts. This means that they were copied very meticulously and accurately, which was important, in view of the fact that they had been used as a basis for translations. The Dead Sea Scrolls helped to confirm that the Hebrew Scripture translations, which had been transmitted to us, had real roots in ancient historical sources that could be traced back to the Jews and ancient Israel. They also allowed academic scholars to compare various translations of the Bible, and gain understanding of certain ambiguous words, such as those with dual meanings. Other parchments discovered in the cave provided an insider’s view of the ancient Jewish society, their culture and beliefs, including the existence of religious sects and rabbi that were first formed during the Second Temple Period.

The Dead Sea Scrolls were believed to have been written 1000 years before the Ben Asher Codex, a Masoretic Text, which was the oldest known copy of the Old Testament before 1947. For the New Testament, manuscripts that were found included Codex Alexandrinus (dating back to 400 AD), Codex Sinaiticus (350 AD), and Codex Vaticanus. In the 1900s, more than a hundred manuscripts were found in Egypt.

The DSS were still written long after the events they are describing. They are not contemporary sources.

The Roman Calendar

Could Abraham Lincoln or Napoleon be cleverly fabricated myths that somehow became accepted as the truths? Could historical records attribute the Great Wall of China to the work of a fictitious emperor? Surely these people were not just stories or folklores. Likewise, our calendar today, dated according to the birth of Jesus, indicates that He once lived on earth.

The Roman Empire persecuted Christians for about three hundred years. In 312 AD, however, the emperor Constantine converted to Christianity. Just before a decisive battle with his arch enemy, Maxentius (who was a co-ruler of the empire), Constantine had a dream, where God told him that under the cross, he would have victory, upon which he ordered that the sign of the cross be painted on his soldiers’ shields. His army prevailed, he believed, and passed a decree to stop all persecutions against the church, and also declared Christianity to be the official religion of the empire.

Later, the existing Roman calendar at that time was modified to be marked according to the year that Jesus was born, which became 1 A.D. Anno Domino means “the year of the Lord”. The years before His birth were marked BC (Before Christ).

There are more than these, but the abovementioned are some pointers.

This is another stretch. There are lots of calendars in use. Does that mean that all those calendars are based on real things?

 

[roman2819]

Oh, this again? Do you think that no one has ever produced these as arguments? Do you think there aren't perfectly good rebuttals to these arguments?

The word "Circle" implies the Bible is claiming the Earth is a disk, not a sphere.

And what is the Earth suspended from? The passage requires a fair amount of poetic interpretation to fit what you are trying to say.

Actually, many trillions upon trillions.

Please show that Abraham's descendants are that numerous.

And they also believe that prior to that it was in several masses. And there's nothing in that passage to say that land only appeared in one place.

That's a huge stretch of the imagination.


Again, this is a stretch. The words were vague to begin with, so they could be fitted to lots of things.



And Star Trek fits with the real world too, it mentions San Francisco, the moon, Paris, Wolf 359, etc. The fact the Bible mentions lots of real places does not mean that the other claims are true as well.



The DSS were still written long after the events they are describing. They are not contemporary sources.



This is another stretch. There are lots of calendars in use. Does that mean that all those calendars are based on real things?

Even if the bible is more technically accurate, doubters will still “find faults” or be critical – of this I am sure. Just as you insist on numerical standard when God said Abraham's descendants would be as many as the stars. Contextually, the spirit of the words mean that Abraham's descendants would be so many -- and indeed they have been over the passage of time, one generation after another --. but you insist that it should technically be trillions if God was to be right.

History wise, for example, the existence of Herod, Pontius Pilate, Caesar, King Nebuchadnezzar etc is true. And since you are being complicated about how the earth could be suspended , then let me demonstrate a different perspective: Another religion said that the earth was held by 4 elephants. Romans believe that Hercules was holding up the earth. By contrast, the Bible demonstrates specfic accuracies -- but critics are still not satisfied. Maybe you hardly read manuscripts of other religions so you have no idea how vague and generalizing they are -- I read them and can see thaf the Bible has surpass them, there is no comparison.

If we consider the historical background, scientific statements etc, there are plenty of evidence to show that the Bible is no ordinary book. The truth and facts it contain is overwhelming, not only couple of vague ideas here and there.

Many people may have no idea that the Bible provide sufficient specific points , and my purpose is to show that it is not a story of God, angels, demons and sinners. It is not asking people to believe in blind faith. Instead, it has a lot of substance and credibility.

 

[VirOptimus]

Even if the bible is more technically accurate, doubters will still “find faults” or be critical – of this I am sure. Just as you insist on being skeptical when God said Abraham's descendants will be as many as the stars. Contextually, the spirit of the word mean that Abraham's descendants will be so many -- and indeed they have been over passage of time and many generations. but you insist that it should technically be trillions if God is right.

History wise, for example, the existence of Herod, Pontius Pilate, Caesar, King Nebuchadnezzar etc is true. Since you are splitting hair about the earth being suspend above nothing , then look at it from another perspective: Another religion said that the earth was held by 4 elephants. Romans believe that Hercules was holding up the earth. The Bible has demonstrated a higher standard -- but critics are still not satisfied. Maybe you hardly read manuscripts of other religions so you have no idea how vague and generalizing they are. The Bible has a much much higher standard.

If we consider the historical background, scientific statements etc, there are plenty of evidence to show that the Bible is no ordinary book. The truth and facts it contain is overwhelming, not couple of things here and there.

Many people may have no idea that the Bible provide sufficient specific points , and my purpose of stating the historical and science stuff to show that it is not a vague story of gods, demons and sinners. There is a lot of substance in it.

Using the bible as a science book is bad science and even worse theology.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Even if the bible is more technically accurate, doubters will still “find faults” or be critical – of this I am sure. Just as you insist on numerical standard when God said Abraham's descendants would be as many as the stars. Contextually, the spirit of the words mean that Abraham's descendants would be many -- and indeed they have been over the passage of time, one generation after another --. but you insist that it should technically be trillions if God was to be right.

History wise, for example, the existence of Herod, Pontius Pilate, Caesar, King Nebuchadnezzar etc is true. And since you are being complicated about how the earth could be suspended , then let me demonstrate a different perspective: Another religion said that the earth was held by 4 elephants. Romans believe that Hercules was holding up the earth. By contrast, the Bible demonstrates specfic accuracies -- but critics are still not satisfied. Maybe you hardly read manuscripts of other religions so you have no idea how vague and generalizing they are -- I read them and can see thaf the Bible has surpass them, there is no comparison.

If we consider the historical background, scientific statements etc, there are plenty of evidence to show that the Bible is no ordinary book. The truth and facts it contain is overwhelming, not only couple of vague ideas here and there.

Many people may have no idea that the Bible provide sufficient specific points , and my purpose is to show that it is not a story of God, angels, demons and sinners. It is not asking people to believe in blind faith. Instead, it has a lot of substance and credibility.

That the Bible is sometimes right or more correctly sometimes somewhat right is not evidence that it is always right. By your standards Spiderman is real since it gets so many details about New York somewhat correct.

The problem is that much of the Bible is demonstrably wrong. No one is advocating completely throwing it out, but when it comes to the sciences it is perhaps the last resource one should ever refer to.

 

[Speedwell]

Even if the bible is more technically accurate, doubters will still “find faults” or be critical – of this I am sure. Just as you insist on numerical standard when God said Abraham's descendants would be as many as the stars. Contextually, the spirit of the words mean that Abraham's descendants would be so many -- and indeed they have been over the passage of time, one generation after another --. but you insist that it should technically be trillions if God was to be right.

History wise, for example, the existence of Herod, Pontius Pilate, Caesar, King Nebuchadnezzar etc is true. And since you are being complicated about how the earth could be suspended , then let me demonstrate a different perspective: Another religion said that the earth was held by 4 elephants. Romans believe that Hercules was holding up the earth. By contrast, the Bible demonstrates specfic accuracies -- but critics are still not satisfied. Maybe you hardly read manuscripts of other religions so you have no idea how vague and generalizing they are -- I read them and can see thaf the Bible has surpass them, there is no comparison.

If we consider the historical background, scientific statements etc, there are plenty of evidence to show that the Bible is no ordinary book. The truth and facts it contain is overwhelming, not only couple of vague ideas here and there.

Many people may have no idea that the Bible provide sufficient specific points , and my purpose is to show that it is not a story of God, angels, demons and sinners.

Then what is it about? When I read the OT it seems to be about the Jewish people and their perceived relationship with God. Are we supposed to ignore that part and use the phenomenological language to deduce our understanding of the natural world?

Or are you trying to prove that the phenomenological language of scripture shows it to be objectively accurate and factual so that we can believe in our salvation without actually having faith in Christ?

I understand that some Protestants put a lot of importance on prescience and fulfilled prophecies in scripture, but as a Traditional Christian I could never quite see the point of it.

What s your point, exactly?

 

[roman2819]

Then what is it about? When I read the OT it seems to be about the Jewish people and their perceived relationship with God. Are we supposed to ignore that part and use the phenomenological language to deduce our understanding of the natural world?

Or are you trying to prove that the phenomenological language of scripture shows it to be objectively accurate and factual so that we can believe in our salvation without actually having faith in Christ?

I understand that some Protestants put a lot of importance on prescience and fulfilled prophecies in scripture, but as a Traditional Christian I could never quite see the point of it.

What s your point, exactly?

My point : There are reasons to believe that the Bible is the Word of God, if we add up its historical background (the empires, kingdoms, and people), occasional science statements, prophecies, what it says about sins, etc. Even the existence of Jesus was mentioned by a secular roman historian Joseph's. The credibility and strength of the Bible can give people some reasons to believe in Jesus and God, instead of dismissing Christ as a myth. The Scripture is one of the factors that can help Christians to keep faith in the Lord during our earthly journey,.

 

[roman2819]

That the Bible is sometimes right or more correctly sometimes somewhat right is not evidence that it is always right. By your standards Spiderman is real since it gets so many details about New York somewhat correct.

The problem is that much of the Bible is demonstrably wrong. No one is advocating completely throwing it out, but when it comes to the sciences it is perhaps the last resource one should ever refer to.

It is the sum of the reliable historical background, plus occasional accurate science statements plus prophecies etc that add weight to the Bible.

You claim that much of the Bible has abeen demonstrated to be wrong. Would you give examples?

 

[roman2819]

You are probably reading the works of Christian apologists and not the works of scholars. Apologists are not biblical scholars. They are only interested in defending their own beliefs and do not want to learn what actually happened.

There are Liberal and fundamental apologists. Likewise there are liiberal and fundamental scholars in different parts of the world.

 

[Jimmy D]

There are Liberal and fundamental apologists. Likewise there are liiberal and fundamental scholars in different parts of the world.

Yes, and I should imagine that they're discussing apologetics somewhere more appropriate, like an apologetics forum.

I don't mean to single you out, I know that you are only responding to other posters (who should know better).

 

[Speedwell]

My point : There are reasons to believe that the Bible is the Word of God, if we add up its historical background (the empires, kingdoms, and people), occasional science statements, prophecies, what it says about sins, etc. Even the existence of Jesus was mentioned by a secular roman historian Joseph's. The credibility and strength of the Bible can give people some reasons to believe in Jesus and God, instead of dismissing Christ as a myth. The Scripture is one of the factors that can help Christians to keep faith in the Lord during our earthly journey,.

Yet trying to prove the prescience of the OT seems strained and unconvincing, liable to put people off who are otherwise willing to accept the texts as theologically authoritative because of their divine inspiration. The example of Isaiah 40:22 is particularly egregious. Trying to make that passage into a divine teaching that the Earth is a sphere destroys the meaning of the passage, does violence to ancient Hebrew lexography and makes Christianity seem a religion of ignorance. If you need that kind of thing to comfort your own faith then you are welcome to it, but it is a failure as an evangelical strategy.

And it has nothing to do with the theory of evolution nor any other scientific theory anyway.

 

[Kylie]

Even if the bible is more technically accurate, doubters will still “find faults” or be critical – of this I am sure. Just as you insist on numerical standard when God said Abraham's descendants would be as many as the stars. Contextually, the spirit of the words mean that Abraham's descendants would be so many -- and indeed they have been over the passage of time, one generation after another --. but you insist that it should technically be trillions if God was to be right.

History wise, for example, the existence of Herod, Pontius Pilate, Caesar, King Nebuchadnezzar etc is true. And since you are being complicated about how the earth could be suspended , then let me demonstrate a different perspective: Another religion said that the earth was held by 4 elephants. Romans believe that Hercules was holding up the earth. By contrast, the Bible demonstrates specfic accuracies -- but critics are still not satisfied. Maybe you hardly read manuscripts of other religions so you have no idea how vague and generalizing they are -- I read them and can see thaf the Bible has surpass them, there is no comparison.

If we consider the historical background, scientific statements etc, there are plenty of evidence to show that the Bible is no ordinary book. The truth and facts it contain is overwhelming, not only couple of vague ideas here and there.

Many people may have no idea that the Bible provide sufficient specific points , and my purpose is to show that it is not a story of God, angels, demons and sinners. It is not asking people to believe in blind faith. Instead, it has a lot of substance and credibility.

The Bible does not provide specific points, it provides vague descriptions that you interpret as matching with science so you can claim that the Bible was right all along.

 

[Kylie]

My point : There are reasons to believe that the Bible is the Word of God, if we add up its historical background (the empires, kingdoms, and people), occasional science statements, prophecies, what it says about sins, etc. Even the existence of Jesus was mentioned by a secular roman historian Joseph's. The credibility and strength of the Bible can give people some reasons to believe in Jesus and God, instead of dismissing Christ as a myth. The Scripture is one of the factors that can help Christians to keep faith in the Lord during our earthly journey,.

I can say very similar things about Star Trek.

Star Trek confirms the historical background (it references many real world places and people), it has information about science, it has correctly predicted many things (including correctly predicting that Apollo 11 would be launched on a Wednesday!). It even references itself, since the Enterprise in Star Trek's "history" was named after the space shuttle, which was named after the spaceship in Star Trek!

And yet we don't consider that Star Trek is divinely inspired.

 

[Kylie]

You claim that much of the Bible has abeen demonstrated to be wrong. Would you give examples?

The description of creation.

It's so wrong it even disagrees with itself.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is the sum of the reliable historical background, plus occasional accurate science statements plus prophecies etc that add weight to the Bible.

You claim that much of the Bible has abeen demonstrated to be wrong. Would you give examples?

The Bible prophecies tend to fail when one use the same standards a Christian uses on other prophecies. You are very biased in your evaluation. Relying on prophecy and history harms the Bible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There are Liberal and fundamental apologists. Likewise there are liiberal and fundamental scholars in different parts of the world.

Those are bad terms to use. I would say that there are honest and fundamental scholars. Luckily there are not too many of the latter. Taking an honest approach to biblical interpretation does not make one "liberal". Very few fundamentalists can be honest. Their beliefs get in the way.

 

[loveofourlord]

I have said this before, i will say it again, and with a few related questions about evolution.

Cellular changes that clearly demonstrate that a species evolved into another. Now, if some is going to say that the presence of item A (eg a certain tissue) found in 10 species is proof of evolution, my question would be: Could it also mean that the Creator designed item A to be part of these species?

My question regarding evolution : What are the main features or beliefs of Evolution? For so many years, evolution has been presented as the alternative theory to creation, that it means no creator, and everything happen on its own. But Some people in this discussion say this isn't true -- and if so, why didn't evolutionists come out to correct this belief which is held by majority of people in different parts of the world? I cannot it help but ask: Is this an evolutionist strawman? (the counter claim of creationist strawman, a term coined by some people here) .

So would you explain the main features of evolution? It cannot be unexplainable and complex. If i am told to go read myself, then I can only say perhaps no one knows enough to even explain the main features. I also hope to see clear opinions on does evolution believe that one specie can evolve into another, and what are examples? Do evolution include changes in kinds? Does evolution believe in no god and if not, what is evolution trying to say?

Except it's not just simularities, it's errors, mistakes, and things that are random showing up in the same places, like broken genes, ERV's and such, stuff that makes no sense unless common descent, why do supposedly unrelated animals have genes for things they don't use. Common example dolphins have scent genes they don't use, but their ancestors would have.

same designer same design would be more akin to basing a car on a truck, and then putting ALL the parts of the truck in the car, even if they have to be welded to the frame and are useless.

 

[roman2819]

Except it's not just simularities, it's errors, mistakes, and things that are random showing up in the same places, like broken genes, ERV's and such, stuff that makes no sense unless common descent, why do supposedly unrelated animals have genes for things they don't use. Common example dolphins have scent genes they don't use, but their ancestors would have.

same designer same design would be more akin to basing a car on a truck, and then putting ALL the parts of the truck in the car, even if they have to be welded to the frame and are useless.

In this thread, people who claim to be familiar with evolution say it does not say how life begin, evolution only describes how species evolve. Assuming evolution is silent about the creator, do you think there is a god the way bible says?

If you claim there is no creator, then you are implying that lifeforms started by themselves and evolved into the million kinds we see today.

 

[Kylie]

In this thread, people who claim to be familiar with evolution say it does not say how life begin, evolution only describes how species evolve. Assuming evolution is silent about the creator, do you think there is a god the way bible says?

If you claim there is no creator, then you are implying that lifeforms started by themselves and evolved into the million kinds we see today.

I fail to see what this has to do with the topic being discussed.

You might as well say that the physics of my car's internal combustion engine says nothing about the existence of God, so I should start a debate about it with my mechanic.

 

[loveofourlord]

In this thread, people who claim to be familiar with evolution say it does not say how life begin, evolution only describes how species evolve. Assuming evolution is silent about the creator, do you think there is a god the way bible says?

If you claim there is no creator, then you are implying that lifeforms started by themselves and evolved into the million kinds we see today.

I'm a christian, but I accept the theory of evolution because I understand how it works, and god could have started the first cells, we know for a fact evolution happens,I know too much about it to deny. I'm not eactly sure what the creationists hope to achieve on these forums, none of them show even a first grader level of knowledge about evolution.

 

[SelfSim]

In this thread, people who claim to be familiar with evolution say it does not say how life begin, evolution only describes how species evolve.

It goes deeper than that .. towards a principle: Anywhere where there's an error-prone self-replication mechanism, in a resource constrained environment, Evolution's processes are predicted to emerge.

There's a lot yet to explore there .. which could go way beyond our own particular case history, and our immediate understanding.

A creator seems to be not so much of a priority from that perspective.