The Harm of Evolution

[JSynon]

Shalom,

I have a question for the Creationists here. I am not intending to argue for either side, but only to learn. Why do you beleive evolution is incompatible with Scripture?

 

[Ave Maria]

Shalom,

I have a question for the Creationists here. I am not intending to argue for either side, but only to learn. Why do you beleive evolution is incompatible with Scripture?

I used to be a Creationist so hopefully I can answer your question. I think it is mostly because they take a literal interpretation of scripture. Let me quote a Bible verse in Genesis 1 and explain what I mean.

(NIV) Genesis 1:5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day.

As you see, it says "And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day." at the end. Young Earth Creationists take this literally and believe it is referring to a 24-hour day.

I can't speak for Old Earth Creationists though. I don't know much about them. I used to be a Young Earth Creationist but I am not one any longer. I hope my answer is what you're looking for. If not, maybe someone else will come along and explain it better than I did.

 

[JSynon]

Thank you Holly.

Any other examples would be greatly appreciated.

 

[Ave Maria]

Thank you Holly.

Any other examples would be greatly appreciated.

Anytime!

 

[TwinCrier]

The quickest answer I can think of is that a literal interpretation makes the rest of scripture fall into place. If Adam was not an actual person, then the statement Jesus made about by one man sin entered the world, would not make any sense at all. The geneologies of Christ which trace His ancestry back to Adam are meaningless. It makes more sense to accept the creation story in Genesis then to try to reconcile the rest of the bible which makes mention of these events again and again.
Lastly, after studying the evidence for evolution, I see that much of it is speculation, as even most science books on the subject repeatedly mention that their conclusions are conjecture. God was there, and He says this is how it happened, so I believe Him.

 

[California Tim]

The Hebrew word used for "day", when used with the modifiers "evening and morning" is referring to a literal 24 hour day 100% of the time outside Genesis. It is therefore perfectly logical it applies in Genesis as well.

The specific command by God to each species to reproduce "after their kind" would be a useless and contradictory statement if evolution were to have been implied. Ironically this description which contradicts the idea of speciation as an evolutionary mechanism long before darwinism was a concept in opposition to creationism.

Adam, is referred to as though a literal historical figure by Christ, the apostles and the patriarchs.

Adam was created before Eve. In fact the creation account places the naming of the animals by Adam PRIOR to the creation of Eve. Apparently each species had both females and males, except the human race. So without a "mother" humans could not have evolved.

The woman is specifically described as a creation out of man - hence the name "Woman". No apparent relevence is discernable except as part of the creation chronology.

There is a very concise and historical geneaology in Genesis 4 and 5 that ultimately results in indisputable literal historical characters - and traces them back to a literal Adam and Eve who fathered Cain and Abel etc etc.

A global flood, if accepted as another historical account easily explains the rapid formation of geologic columns, strata layers, rapid fossilization and the formation of vast pockets of organic-based oil (which required rapid burial under great weight and depths of sediment - PRIOR to decomposition. Improbable if billions of years were needed to lay down the sediment)

There may be more.. but I have to run for now.

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

There are many incompatibilities with God's word and evolution. Let me just list a few.

1. Animals bring forward after their kind. Evolution says otherwise.

2. Evolution says death brings progress. That there was death before man ever sinned. This of course is wrong. There wasn't death before sin. To say God used evolution makes God out to be very sadistic.

3. Evolution has a very different order of creation. For example it says the sun came before the earth. The Bible says otherwise though.

4. God says creation took 6 days not only in Genesis but also in Exodus. Evolution says it took billions of years.

There is no scientific evidence for goo to man evolution. You have to have faith to believe in it. So why do people have more faith in what scientists, most that don't believe in God, have to say about history then they do with what God has to say? Many good biologists, geologists and others with Ph.D's believe in a young earth creation view. Please don't put your trust in fallible ideas with no evidences like people that believe in evolution do. Put your faith in God and his word which has a great deal of evidence to support it's truthfullness.

Shalom,

I have a question for the Creationists here. I am not intending to argue for either side, but only to learn. Why do you beleive evolution is incompatible with Scripture?

 

[JSynon]

2. Evolution says death brings progress. That there was death before man ever sinned. This of course is wrong. There wasn't death before sin. To say God used evolution makes God out to be very sadistic.

Thanks, I never thought of that one. Another thing going through my mind is that Yeshua is referred to as the "last Adam." This is saying that Adam was created directly by God, as well as Yeshua, who would be the last created directly by God, no?

Please don't put your trust in fallible ideas with no evidences like people that believe in evolution do. Put your faith in God and his word which has a great deal of evidence to support it's truthfullness.

Do not worry, my faith is in the right place. I am just learning.

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

Thanks, I never thought of that one. Another thing going through my mind is that Yeshua is referred to as the "last Adam." This is saying that Adam was created directly by God, as well as Yeshua, who would be the last created directly by God, no?

Yeshua was not created though. In fact Yeshua is the creator and is fully God. John points this out.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.

John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

 

[JSynon]

Hmm, I think I used the wrong word there, but do you get what I am trying to say. Yeshua is directly of the Father (virgin birth) as was Adam. In what other way is Yeshua the "last Adam" and "second Man?"

 

[Non-ape Jase]

Shalom,

I have a question for the Creationists here. I am not intending to argue for either side, but only to learn. Why do you beleive evolution is incompatible with Scripture?

I just finished watching an Answers in Genesis DVD called Evolution: The Anti-God Religion of Death, which is a talk by Ken Ham. He does a great job of answering your question.

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

Evolution doesn't propose that an animal gives birth to something of a different species or kind or whatever you want to call it.

Yes it does and I don't know any evolution believing biologists that would disagree with me. You would NEVER get a new species if what you say is true. I don't agree with how scientists define new species most of the time but using their definition we actual see new species being born from parents. Again though that's not to say it supports goo to man evolution since what they call a new species really isn't the progression of a new kind of animal which they would like you to believe has happened time and time again in the past.

This is simply incorrect. There are mointains of evidence for evolution. See the respective forum for them.

The other forum and the countless evolutionists I have debated with in the past have failed to show me a single bit of evidence for goo to man evolution. They come up with nice stories that don't have any evidence for them.

 

[Heinrich]

If one goes and look at how DNA works one will clearly see that evolution does exist.
As life goes on over multiple generations DNA starts to specialize and infact also drop out unused information. This results in new species. Like out of one type of ape you now start to get bigger and smaller apes. This depends on habitat. And over a mere 100 or maybe a 1000 years you have 2 or more new species. This also makes it possible for nature conservatives to try and mix species to get back some that no longer exist. But there is one problem.. DNA specializes and information diminish.. no where is there much solid proof that DNA can under generate new information. So even if one applies biljeons of one cell organism in the water will not start to walk around on the land

Ok well. So everybody is not going to believe this. Well. I believe that man cannot find truth, man needs that truth finds him. John 14:6

Intresting story: We have bible school and are tauch creation in it (no need to teach evolution cause plenty of that goes around) The pastor told us this story about a guy that went throught bibleschool and he believed everything but just simply couldn't belive creationism. (the 6day thing) So after that he asked God to help him and give him/help him/understand the truth. (something like that) Then one day after he walks out a shop and give some money 2 a begger suddenly the begger looks up at him and tells him: "And God created the (heaven &) earth in 6/7 days" (The exact sentence is not that important) So well? I guess it is human nature 2 think of a 1000 reasons why this cannot be true or is fake or whateva. Aint it wonderfull how the human race has evolved to become better in the last x000 years

 

[jwu]

Evolution doesn't propose that an animal gives birth to something of a different species or kind or whatever you want to call it.

Yes it does and I don't know any evolution believing biologists that would disagree with me.

There are plenty of them in the E vs C forum, and not one who believes what you say they do here. Perhaps you should ask them about it.

You would NEVER get a new species if what you say is true.

Not true. Unfortunately the forum rules here don't allow me to start a debate about this in this particular place, but if you're interested we can discuss this elsewhere.

I don't agree with how scientists define new species most of the time but using their definition we actual see new species being born from parents.

Could you provide examples?

Unfortunately i had to edit several parts out of my post, as i am not allowed to engage in a debate here.

jwu

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

There are plenty of them in the E vs C forum, and not one who believes what you say they do here. Perhaps you should ask them about it.

They know nothing about biology then and shouldn't even try to debate the subject and should pick up a high school book on biology and read that first. It's a fact that new species arise from their parents.

Could you provide examples?

Click here for some examples of new "species" that came about quickly even though they are really the same type of animal.

This is just a silly argument though if you think about it. If you believe in goo to man evolution how could you ever get a new species if some day the evolution needed doesn't produce a new species? You seem to argue more like a creationist that doesn't believe new species coming about then an evolutionist that believes we all came from goo.

 

[jwu]

There are plenty of them in the E vs C forum, and not one who believes what you say they do here. Perhaps you should ask them about it.

They know nothing about biology then and shouldn't even try to debate the subject and should pick up a high school book on biology and read that first.

Umm, that's a bold claim. Methinks professionals such as lucaspa actually do know some biology. Keep in mind that high school books are often simplifications of the "real thing", so there might be discrepancies. High school textbooks are not the ultimate authority when it comes to science.
Besides, if a textbooks claims that speciation happens within one generation, then it's factually incorrect. Please report which textbook told you so in this thread, it's specifically about such errors:
http://www.christianforums.com/t1164006-creationists-education-needs-you.html

Could you provide examples?

Click here for some examples of new "species" that came about quickly even though they are really the same type of animal.

It talks about guppies speciating over the course of four years (definitely more than one generation), and "nine to thirteen" generations for speciation of fruit flies. There is no word about speciation happening in one generation, as you claimed.
Besides, punctuated equilibrium can account for this. Personally i also am a theistic evolutionist, so i don't have any problems with rapid change anyway - after all, the point which AiG is trying to make that these changes are unlikely to have happened without divine intervention, otherwise their argument makes no sense. However, even if they are right and God is responsible for this, then they just have established a precedent of God using the mechanisms of evolution as His tool of creation.

If you're interested in discussing this, then please make a thread about it elsewhere, as i am not allowed to take part in a lengthy discussion in this forum (as i am a theistic evolutionist). It would also prevent us from hijacking this thread

Edit: fixed a detail

jwu

 

[socalsp3]

I've been reading many creationist complaints about the Theory of Evolution. And its seems to me a lot of people don't know what theory means. It's true that's it not an absolute fact. What theories mean in a scientific sense is that it's probably true. Why scientists think it's probably true is due to many independent research supporting it. Just because it's called "theory" doesn't mean that one can dismiss it. Why not? you might ask. Because much of modern advances are based on theories.

Einstein's Theory of Relativity is one example. It may be a theory but its the basis of nuclear fission used in power plants and nuclear weapons. Being a computer engineer, I know that much of electrical "theories" are only theories but are the basis of computer technology. We don't know absolutely sure physically how electrons move about but we know enough to theorize and develop applications for them.

Then you'd might ask well what application does the Theory of Evolution have? For one in medicine, it's used to understand how microorganisms evolve. Because of their short lifespan and prolific reproducing ability, they can evolve very quickly in a matter of days. That's considered when doctors treat HIV patients because HIV and their host cells mutates in a matter of minutes as a way to evade our immune system. The same goes for the molecular biologists to make drugs to treat diseases.

Obviously I don't see the harm of evolution. Evolution has been a major advance in biology and is the foundation of modern biology. It has led to a better understanding of the natural which in turn has allowed us to advance medicine.

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

Your not allowed to debate for evolution like you just did but to make sure your post works for good here are articles that address things you bring up.

Has AIDS evolved?


Is evolution really necessary for medical advances?


Evolution a 'fact'? It's not even a theory!

I've been reading many creationist complaints about the Theory of Evolution. And its seems to me a lot of people don't know what theory means. It's true that's it not an absolute fact. What theories mean in a scientific sense is that it's probably true. Why scientists think it's probably true is due to many independent research supporting it. Just because it's called "theory" doesn't mean that one can dismiss it. Why not? you might ask. Because much of modern advances are based on theories.

Einstein's Theory of Relativity is one example. It may be a theory but its the basis of nuclear fission used in power plants and nuclear weapons. Being a computer engineer, I know that much of electrical "theories" are only theories but are the basis of computer technology. We don't know absolutely sure physically how electrons move about but we know enough to theorize and develop applications for them.

Then you'd might ask well what application does the Theory of Evolution have? For one in medicine, it's used to understand how microorganisms evolve. Because of their short lifespan and prolific reproducing ability, they can evolve very quickly in a matter of days. That's considered when doctors treat HIV patients because HIV and their host cells mutates in a matter of minutes as a way to evade our immune system. The same goes for the molecular biologists to make drugs to treat diseases.

Obviously I don't see the harm of evolution. Evolution has been a major advance in biology and is the foundation of modern biology. It has led to a better understanding of the natural which in turn has allowed us to advance medicine.

 

[Liberty Wing]

JSynon,

Hmm, I think I used the wrong word there, but do you get what I am trying to say. Yeshua is directly of the Father (virgin birth) as was Adam. In what other way is Yeshua the "last Adam" and "second Man?"


Since no one else has answered your question, I might as well give it a go! What I believe is the doctrine of Trinity, i.e. there are three parts to that make up the God head. These are God the Father, God the Son (Jesus Christ) and God the Spirit (Holy Spirit, also called the Holy Ghost). Adam was created from dust - not a virgin birth. Jesus is sometimes referred to the last Adam, I believe, because it was the first man (Adam) who brought sin and death into the world, and it was the second Adam or the Last Adam (Jesus) who defeated death and paid the price for our sins as He died on the cross and rose again three days later (defeating the devil's power of death in the process) so that if we trust in Him, we can go to God with our debt repaid (i.e. sins forgiven) and spend eternity with Him. Jesus will come again to create a new heaven and new Earth "where the wolf shall dwell with the lamb", i.e. a place of perfection where there will be no more death and suffering. Sounds great! I honestly can't wait to go, but, I want to start working, then spend a few years in retirement first! I'll be going to college this year to start a bachelor of science/bachelor of teaching (secondary school) degree - which should hopefully be cool.

- Liberty Wing (WL).

 

[Liberty Wing]

jwu,

Evolution doesn't propose that an animal gives birth to something of a different species or kind or whatever you want to call it. It just says that the child will be slightly different - but not enough to be a different species.
However, "to bring forward after one's kind" is a recursive definition. It just says that children will be of the same species as their parents. But it does not say that great great great ................. great grandchildren will be of the same species as their distant ancestors, as it always only deals with one step of generations, and with the parent generation being the currently used frame of reference.

This is simply incorrect. There are mointains of evidence for evolution. See the respective forum for them.

I think you misunderstood what Project 86 was talking about. Evolution says that one kind of animal changed into another kind of animal (e.g. fish into reptile, reptile into bird, etc.). The Bible, however, says that living things always reproduce after their own kind. A dog will always produce a dog - no matter how many times this happens over however many millions of years. The dog right down the end of the line might be filled with that many mutations, but it is still a dog.

You are correct that there is evidence for evolution - it's the same evidence for creation. This is because both creationists and evolutionists have the same scientific evidence, e.g. fossils, mutations and so on. As has been explained before, we both also use the same science, e.g. genetics, biology and so on. The only difference, therefore, is the interpretation of the evidence which is heavily affected by people's underlying belief systems or philosophies, e.g. Christian, atheist, agnostic and so on. Perhaps instead of saying that there is no evidence for evolution, it might be better to say that much of the evidence makes more sense when it is interpreted through the creationary world view as opposed to the evolutionary world view.