The Lie of Evolution

[NobleMouse]

It is my view that, if hard evidence contradicts an interpretation of the Bible, I need to change my interpretation.

Thank you for all the replies Audacious! In my original post in this forum I mentioned I am not looking to sway anyone's opinion and want to reiterate that here to you as well. My past experience has been that I have either inadvertently offended or frustrated others on this topic and so I want to be forthcoming in that it is not my intent to do so and if you find yourself getting frustrated with me and just want to move on, I understand.

That said, this issue really boils down to where ultimate authority resides (not evidence) - does it reside with the word of God, or with the word of man? I find it interesting that on BioLogos' website that 3 options are given relating science and Scripture:

1. Abandon our faith in order to accept the results of science
2. Deny the scientific evidence to maintain our interpretations of Scripture
3. Reconsider our interpretations of Scripture in light of the evidence from God’s creation

The intent here is to show that #3 is the right answer. My question: Where is option #4?:

4. Reconsider our interpretations of evidence and data gathered in light of God's word

In a field where hypotheses and theories are regularly disproven and/or modified, it seems incredible to not consider that option #4 is not at all listed a possibility. This proves the point I have been making that the issue resides with where the ultimate authority resides (and it is clear that BioLogos and others feel that ultimate authority resides in the interpretations and wisdom of man). I'm reminded of 1 Corinthians 3:19.

It is nearly impossible to deny evolution at this stage, as we have witnessed speciation, use evolutionary theory in developing biological processes (see: many vaccines), and other such things.

Gotta go with where the data lies.

I'm not a scientist and don't have knowledge to get into the minutia as I'll only prove myself ignorant on such topics. As I understand speciation, this sounds like a variation of an existing kind (ex. speciation of Finch is still a bird, not a dinosaur). This fits within the creation account of Genesis in that each was created according to their own kind and allows for variation within kinds... in the case of the Finch, a variation within the bird kind, not a new kind.

On going where the data lies, do you really mean "Gotta go with where man's interpretation of the data lies"? Data doesn't tell us anything. 2 + 2 means nothing until we apply an interpretation... we have 2 and 2, and an operator. Now we've been taught that the operator "+" means to add the number to the left and to the right together, so we interpret 2 + 2 and infer the answer 4 (again, also because we've been taught to sequence numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, etc... so we know to interpret the value of 2 added to itself moves us along the sequence up to the value of 4). Probably a bad example, but my ultimate goal here is to show that the data does not tell you evolution is true, it is the interpretation of data that has led to this theory.

You can find enough evidence of something happening to know that it is true even without direct observation. For example: we're pretty sure that dinosaurs existed, partly because we keep finding all these nice fossils.

Yes, the evidence shows dinosaurs existed. When they existed was not determined through evidence, but rather the interpretation of evidence.

It is the smallpox in the vaccine which evolved, actually.

Thanks, see, I can't get into the minutia too much on topics I'm not familiar, such as with the smallpox vaccine. Now the smallpox vaccine did not evolve (change into a different virus), had that been the case the vaccine would have been ineffective. Instead it remained smallpox (albeit a variation of the original strain). Again, the Bible allows for variability within kinds, but not changing from one kind into another kind.

I am confused as to your point here. YEC has arguments, yeah, they're just all disproven in some way and/or have no evidence backing them.

Deciding something is "disproven" is on the basis of where you place authority. Your authority is the interpretations of evidence in historical science made by man rather than the word of God.

Deciding that there was a Noadic flood when we know there is not one is like staring at your own child and saying you do not see them. The evidence is there, but you're pretending it isn't because it doesn't fit your worldview.

It's like all the people who denied that the Earth was a sphere because Satan was making the data look true.

There is confusion on this topic within mainstream science on the topic of Noah's flood. It did happen, it did not happen at all, it did happen but was just local, etc... The Bible is clear on Noah's flood and the scripture is given to bring clarity and even warns us against exactly what we see in science (see Ephesians 4:10-14)... when we compromise on the word of God we open ourselves to being tossed about by every wind of false doctrine that defines what is true.

Gender evolved. Is that a problem?

God said (and Jesus repeated) in the beginning they were created, male and female. Gender is a not ideal within the concept of evolution for asexual reproduction is far more efficient and effective in producing many offspring. If evolution has a 'goal' it is to ensure the survival of a species and the evolution of gender would be a step in the wrong direction. Gender is ideal; however, in what we read in Genesis as it supports that what God says is true.

This is not a point in your favor; you can say that about literally anything. The Bible/God, or your crazy neighbor who hands out pamphlets that say you can cure diabetes with tumeric consumption.

Following the Bible as the ultimate source of authority and truth is not a point against anyone. I realize that from an evolutionist's point of view adhering to a YEC worldview may seem foolish; however, I am reminded of 1 Corinthians 1:27, "But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong;" There is no evidence ("hard data") for our hope of salvation aside from simply believing what we read in the Bible, yet you and I trust that to be true, right? Seems we have 3 options when considering the authority of the word of God:

1. We can reject the word altogether as a nonsensical myth
2. We can cherry-pick what we decide we'll put our faith in and accept as true
3. We can put our full faith and trust in the word of God (I stand here)

 

[One Of The Elect]

So there is no evolution, only DNA changing by adaptation, “Tapping” existing DNA.

Why not just say God makes small divine changes to every creature as needed.

Theology is sound and science behind it as valid as with that adapting, tapping and dancing.

You can believe you evolved from primates all you want. I believe in Creationism not Evolution. If you do not get what I am saying or just do not accept it , you have that right. I will not elaborate on what I presented. I spoke upon evolution 101. My rebuttal of it is simple and straight forward.

 

[One Of The Elect]

It is my view that, if hard evidence contradicts an interpretation of the Bible, I need to change my interpretation.


It is nearly impossible to deny evolution at this stage, as we have witnessed speciation, use evolutionary theory in developing biological processes (see: many vaccines), and other such things.

Gotta go with where the data lies.


You can find enough evidence of something happening to know that it is true even without direct observation. For example: we're pretty sure that dinosaurs existed, partly because we keep finding all these nice fossils.


It is the smallpox in the vaccine which evolved, actually.


I am confused as to your point here. YEC has arguments, yeah, they're just all disproven in some way and/or have no evidence backing them.


Deciding that there was a Noadic flood when we know there is not one is like staring at your own child and saying you do not see them. The evidence is there, but you're pretending it isn't because it doesn't fit your worldview.

It's like all the people who denied that the Earth was a sphere because Satan was making the data look true.


Gender evolved. Is that a problem?


This is not a point in your favor; you can say that about literally anything. The Bible/God, or your crazy neighbor who hands out pamphlets that say you can cure diabetes with tumeric consumption.


I'm sure the vast majority of Christians, myself included, feel this way.

The theory of evolution is just that"a theory" it presents no proof to support its claims, just more theory on top of what has not been proven. If you want to defend a theory as though it is fact that is your choice. But do not rope scripture into a theory when scripture is fact.

 

[Audacious]

The theory of evolution is just that"a theory" it presents no proof to support its claims, just more theory on top of what has not been proven. If you want to defend a theory as though it is fact that is your choice. But do not rope scripture into a theory when scripture is fact.

Introduction to evolution - Wikipedia You might want to read it. There's plenty of evidence for evolution.

Here is the definition of a scientific theory:
"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world." -The American Association for the Advancement of Science

Edit: Gravity is also a theory, by the way. Except evolution is just as -- if not more -- proven.

 

[One Of The Elect]

Yes. Evolution is true, that's why.

The Theory of evolution is just that a theory, no one has proved it is true. If you can , when no one in science has , be my guest. That is part of my point, "It is a theory". People are brain washed to the point that they do not challenge the theory. You are standing by it as fact. Where is the undeniable truth that you are defending- in it . Half a truth is the greatest lie of all

 

[One Of The Elect]

Introduction to evolution - Wikipedia You might want to read it. There's plenty of evidence for evolution.

Here is the definition of a scientific theory:
"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world." -The American Association for the Advancement of Science

Edit: Gravity is also a theory, by the way. Except evolution is just as -- if not more -- proven.

H

Has the theory been proven? Are you going to tell me that DNA has been self induced in species and science has proved it? A theory is still not proven to be fact. I know about science and much of it is an attempt at disproving Creationism.

Also, Are you floating away? Is there gravity? I am not speaking about gravity. Let's not get off topic. I am well aware of what Wikipedia says too. Those who support evolution interpreted data to suit their needs. Do they have proof that species add DNA to themselves? ABSOLUTELY NOT!

 

[Audacious]

Has the theory been proven? Are you going to tell me that DNA has been self induced in species and science has proved it?

This is not necessary to prove evolution, as it has nothing to do with the origin of life. You seem to be confusing it with abiogenesis, the most solid hypothesis for said origin.

A theory is still not proven to be fact.

This is because science doesn't have a category labeled Fact. The closest thing is a theory. Evolution is one of the most backed up theories in science, at this very moment.

I know about science and much of it is an attempt at disproving Creationism.

It's more like that science's investigations happened to have also disproven creationism's claims. I doubt it was all on purpose.

Scientists are too busy being excited to discover new things to think about what a discovery will do to creationism.

Also, Are you floating away? Is there gravity? I am not speaking about gravity. Let's not get off topic.

I was merely pointing out that gravity and evolution are both scientific theories.

I am well aware of what Wikipedia says too. Those who support evolution interpreted data to suit their needs. Do they have proof that species add DNA to themselves? ABSOLUTELY NOT!

You don't seem to know what evolution is, but you're so certain you can disprove it. It's pretty odd.

Edit: Here are some more nice things for you to read.

Khan Academy

Lines of evidence: The science of evolution

 

[One Of The Elect]

You need not convince me of anything, nor I you. You have answered nothing, just posing more theories and hypotheses . If you believe you evolved from primates , that is your choice. I have no more to say on the matter. I have said all that needs to be said. I am created in the image of GOD.

 

[Dawnhammer]

I am created in the image of GOD.

And we others were just born to humans.......I congratulate you on your special status.

 

[Circumcised_Heart]

That doesn’t even work with computer programs nowadays

Metamorphic code - Wikipedia

It does. No new information is created. Either the program is just duplicating its own existing code (and becoming less efficient in terms of program size to purpose), or its just generating random, meaningless code, or scrambling what has been programmed in the beginning.

Biological equivalents are extra limbs or body parts, mutation, and misplaced organs. These are not evolution, and never can be. No more information is created than when a mother gives birth to children (no new information is created).

 

[Hieronymus]

I would like to mention: if something is true, you don't need biblical doctrine to prove it. Evolution was an idea conceived based off of hard data which Darwin literally observed; it was unnecessary to consult the Bible.

He observed variation within a kind, which is something nobody disputes.

Similarly, when studying virology and developing vaccines, doctors and other scientists do not think to themselves "Is this Biblical?".

It's biology.

Without evolution, many of the vaccines we have today wouldn't be able to exist, including the smallpox vaccine.

Nonsense.
Without biology we wouldn't have that.
But in fact vaccination was discovered by accident and has nothing to do with evolution.

I am confused. How is "secular science" a belief system? It's simply a method of data-gathering and analysis.

You keep saying this everywhere, every time, but you ought to know that their consensus is naturalistic and so are their models regarding the origins of things.
Models, i might add, with many holes and problems of their own.

That would be like a car mechanic who didn't believe that gasoline powered cars. "I believe in an alternative method of engine power!"

Ridiculous analogy.

You can't really study biology and not believe in evolution,

That's total nonsense.
Biology is studying and discovering how living nature works.

as it is arguably the most proven theory within science,

Total nonsense.
There are many many more theories that can actually be tested, unlike evolution.

and so many different things we do today are based upon it. (Such as, like I mentioned before, vaccine development.).

Again, that's just nonsense.
Maybe you mean genetics, which is the actual real science regarding how things work.

Where do you get your beliefs anyway?
Who told you this bunk?

 

[Hieronymus]

Introduction to evolution - Wikipedia You might want to read it. There's plenty of evidence for evolution.

Here is the definition of a scientific theory:
"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world." -The American Association for the Advancement of Science

This does not apply to evolution.

Edit: Gravity is also a theory, by the way. Except evolution is just as -- if not more -- proven.

Ridiculous statement.
Gravity can be tested here and now, things can be calculated.
Stating that evolution is possibly more proven is total idiocy.

 

[Circumcised_Heart]

Where do you get your beliefs anyway?
Who told you this bunk?

Probably from the TV. I turned mine on once and it started telling me rubbish which sounded like that. So I turned it off again.

 

[Job 33:6]

The first modern humans appeared 200,000 years ago in Ethiopia, and they migrated to all continents by 60,000 to 30,000 years ago.

ok?

 

[Circumcised_Heart]

The first modern humans appeared 200,000 years ago in Ethiopia, and they migrated to all continents by 60,000 to 30,000 years ago.

Their names were Jack, Bobbie-May and Wilma, and they lived in a little cave by the ocean. Jack was a hunter, Wilma was his wife and Bobbie-May was their pet monkey, which is how we know they were modern, because primitive humans didn't keep pets. One day, between 30,000 and 60,000 years ago, Jack forged a club out of trees Wilma had been collecting to decorate the cave, and that's how the first weapon was developed. We know it was the first weapon, because Jack inscribed his and Wilma's initials and year of manufacture into the club on the day it was made "J&W*0,000BC". Unfortunately, we can't make out whether the * is a 3 or a 6, which is why we know these Ethiopians lived 30,000 to 60,000 years ago.

 

[Hieronymus]

The first modern humans appeared 200,000 years ago in Ethiopia, and they migrated to all continents by 60,000 to 30,000 years ago.

That's the 'out of africa' idea, which is not a proven fact, the ages are also assumptions.
The 'out of ararat' (or babel) idea i personally like better, because it also fits with the table of nations, which is considered authoritative in ethnology.

 

[Ice Catholic]

Evolution is not a Lie. It exists and has been proven multiple times.
Does it deny my faith in the Lord? no.
The Book of Genesis imo speaks in a simplified way the creation of the Universe and the chronology of evolution: Plants -> Water creatures (a bacteria is a creature, since it was created by God) -> land creatures -> Humans.

Plus, the book of Job has 2 references to animals that lived in the past before Man which, by their description, look a lot like Dinossaurs to me.

The basis of evolution is NAtural Selection and mutation, both of them were completely tested and verified in Lab.

God created the Universe, every single Atom that exists, then he continued to create Earth, then he created Life , and guided its Evolution until He made Humans, then he gave US domain over every single living creature.

And Remember, the Book of Genesis is not as important as gospels and letters to churches, What Jesus wanted us to do, was to Love each other, and seek forgiveness from our sins. God Exists, we all have proof of it in a way ot another (AT least every christian i know had a peronal experience with God, me included), so, debating how we should interpet the Genesis can be left out to a more personal subjective interpetion, imho.
God Bless .

 

[Hieronymus]

Evolution is not a Lie. It exists and has been proven multiple times.

Nope, it hasn't.
Who teaches you this??

 

[Dawnhammer]

Biological equivalents are extra limbs or body parts, mutation, and misplaced organs. These are not evolution, and never can be. No more information is created than when a mother gives birth to children (no new information is created).

It takes skill to contradict yourself in two sentences. Mutations and “extra limbs” are new information - the mother didn’t have extra limbs or mutations so we are looking at something new.

If they are beneficial mutations they increase chances for organisms having them surviving and procreating thus transferring their DNA to future generations.

Which is evolution in nutshell.

 

[Circumcised_Heart]

It takes skill to contradict yourself in two sentences. Mutations and “extra limbs” are new information - the mother didn’t have extra limbs or mutations so we are looking at something new.

If they are beneficial mutations they increase chances for organisms having them surviving and procreating thus transferring their DNA to future generations.

Which is evolution in nutshell.

You should do some research on information theory. Copying a file creates no new information. Just a copy. But you'll learn that when you study.