Understanding Evolution [moved from P&LS]

[Heissonear]

Apparent age is throughout the Bible.

When Lazarus was raised from the dead, had died.

When Power of Life came to Him he exhibited the life he had before death. Death materials and compounds vanished. Brought to Lazarus was living skin, hair and such Lazarus did have were created. But created exact to Lazarus with age he had.

Slight oversight on many to refute Apparent Age is how God works.

 

[sfs]

Let's make a clear distinction here. Evolution is not science.

Scientists disagree with you. So do science funding agencies. So does every major scientific journal. So does every major research university. So do philosophers of science. So does the National Academy of Science. So does the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

I think they know more about what science is than you do.

 

[miamited]

Look up Ellen White, and her connection to the young earth creationist movement.

Hi strathos,

Yes, I've read all about Ellen White. I've even read a couple of her books. I get that SDA's have been the strongest denomination existing today that push the young earth understanding of the Scriptures. Although there are other denominations that are so inclined also. I come from a baptist background and it was fairly well accepted in my particular fellowship, although I can't say that it is some generally accepted 'rule' of baptist theology overall.

My point is not to deny the SDA's are the ones who are currently teaching young earth creationism, but rather your claim that it somehow started, or became a more popular understanding when they came on the scene. It is my understanding that in Judaism, young earth creation was pretty much the norm, certainly through Jesus' visitation to us.

Now, it may not be so today. I don't really know what the current mainline thoughts are in Judaism as regards age of the earth. I do know that their calendar is supposedly based on the year that Adam was created. So, if they believe what they themselves wrote 4500 years ago in the desert, then the mainline understanding is likely to be young creation. Of course, just as in christendom, there are different beliefs regarding this subject.

However, again I will say, for me and the evidence that I've seen, early christians, meaning 2,000 years ago and early Judaism had no problems with the young creation model and, I believe, believed it to be the explanation of the creation. My understanding is that the truth is that the belief in the two concepts, young creation and old creation, have merely reversed. We have gone from people of faith believing predominantly that the creation is young, to people of faith believing predominantly that the creation is old.

So, I'm just asking for your proof and I'm afraid that just saying that Ellen White championed the idea in her denomination doesn't really address what most believers understood about the issue 2,000-5,000 years ago.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

 

[Speedwell]

Hi strathos,

Yes, I've read all about Ellen White. I've even read a couple of her books. I get that SDA's have been the strongest denomination existing today that push the young earth understanding of the Scriptures. Although there are other denominations that are so inclined also. I come from a baptist background and it was fairly well accepted in my particular fellowship, although I can't say that it is some generally accepted 'rule' of baptist theology overall.

My point is not to deny the SDA's are the ones who are currently teaching young earth creationism, but rather your claim that it somehow started, or became a more popular understanding when they came on the scene. It is my understanding that in Judaism, young earth creation was pretty much the norm, certainly through Jesus' visitation to us.

Now, it may not be so today. I don't really know what the current mainline thoughts are in Judaism as regards age of the earth. I do know that their calendar is supposedly based on the year that Adam was created. So, if they believe what they themselves wrote 4500 years ago in the desert, then the mainline understanding is likely to be young creation. Of course, just as in christendom, there are different beliefs regarding this subject.

However, again I will say, for me and the evidence that I've seen, early christians, meaning 2,000 years ago and early Judaism had no problems with the young creation model and, I believe, believed it to be the explanation of the creation. My understanding is that the truth is that the belief in the two concepts, young creation and old creation, have merely reversed. We have gone from people of faith believing predominantly that the creation is young, to people of faith believing predominantly that the creation is old.

So, I'm just asking for your proof and I'm afraid that just saying that Ellen White championed the idea in her denomination doesn't really address what most believers understood about the issue 2,000-5,000 years ago.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

There is no doubt that people of the Abrahamic faiths believed in a young Earth until the last few centuries. Before the advent of modern Earth sciences there was simply no other information on the subject available besides the Bible.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

In fact, the controversy did not begin over Darwin. Strict biblical literalism of the kind that YECs hold to was originally invented in the 19th century as a reaction to Higher Criticism rather than to the ToE.

I learn something new every day. "Higher Criticism" is the key phrase?

You think this kerfuffle about 'evolution' is an extension of that earlier fight, or is it something else anew?

 

[Heissonear]

Scientists disagree with you. So do science funding agencies. So does every major scientific journal. So does every major research university. So do philosophers of science. So does the National Academy of Science. So does the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

I think they know more about what science is than you do.

False. Scientism disagrees. And those who are void of the Holy Spirit diaggrees. If Science becomes their idol and who they follow time will show their grand error.

Scientism is not Lord. Those who make it Lord serve an idol. They are idolaters.

This is simple, and you are hearing it from a form a educated geologist and former evolutionist. I changed because of Him who works by His Spirit to turn from their error.

Many have made this void by being ruled by their five senses. And guess who they did not obey! The Day is approaching that will bring these thing to Light, and shouted on roof tops for all to bear witness to the pervesion by fleshly led men. Even if they are called the NAS.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hi SD,

Well, I'll let God be the judge of my understanding of His words. I'm not about to let someone who avows that there is no God, to determine whether I have or haven't correctly discerned of God.

Who here has avowed that there is no god? And most atheists understand Christianity better than most Christians. You made a false statement based upon a misunderstanding of yours.

Good try though, but it speaks volumes to me as to what you will accept as evidence for the truth. You are also free, if you're willing, to read Genesis chapter 1 and Revelation chapter 21 to begin a life altering journey to know your Creator.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

I have read them. They are terribly flawed, especially if one reads them literally.

 

[sfs]

False.

Nothing I said was false.

And those who are void of the Holy Spirit diaggrees.

You don't get to decide who has the Holy Spirit and who doesn't.

 

[Strathos]

I was specifically referring to Christianity and not Judaism.

 

[Speedwell]

I learn something new every day. "Higher Criticism" is the key phrase?

You think this kerfuffle about 'evolution' is an extension of that earlier fight, or is it something else anew?

There have always been objections to evolution on various metaphysical grounds but the idea of a young Earth was pretty much moribund in the Evangelical denominations until Whitcomb and Morris published The Genesis Flood in the early sixties, based on an idea they got from SDA amateur geologist George McCready Price.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

There have always been objections to evolution on various metaphysical grounds but the idea of a young Earth was pretty much moribund in the Evangelical denominations until Whitcomb and Morris published The Genesis Flood in the early sixties, based on an idea they got from SDA amateur geologist George McCready Price.

I was thinking specifically of the alleged contradiction between Christianity and "Science" (all of it, one gathers). No doubt I should be more specific.

 

[miamited]

Hi SD,

The more you write, the more you show. You responded:

Who here has avowed that there is no god? And most atheists understand Christianity better than most Christians. You made a false statement based upon a misunderstanding of yours.

Your 'faith status' says atheist. Now, I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that you picked that as your 'faith status'. The definition of an atheist is: a person who believes that God does not exist. Now, I know that many atheists deny this to be the more modern definition, but then, you're arguing with people who don't know the truth about what is the truth. It has always, for several decades at least and likely for at least a couple of centuries referred to those among us who do not believe that a god exists. So, do you or do you not believe that God exists? Most atheists think they understand christianity better than most christians. Friend if you don't understand about God and His salvation, then you don't know diddly about 'christianity'. You've just read the bible. No, I did not make any false statement based on my misunderstanding, but you may have given a false impression of your understanding about God. Let's get that settled right now. Do you believe that God exists?

As to your assertion that the Scriptures are terribly flawed, especially if taken literally, again, and I know you're not going to agree with this and that's ok with me, those without the Spirit of God have no understanding of the things of God. So, what's the answer? Does God exist?

ess you,
In Christ, ted

 

[KWCrazy]

We also see mutation generating new beneficial information.

In bacteria, yes. In higher life forms, no.
What beneficial information? Diet? For life forms which were designed to eat the garbage of the planet? Plllllease.

 

[KWCrazy]

Scientists disagree with you.

Really? Name one scientist stupid enough to not know the difference between a field of study and a theory. I didn't say it wasn't scientific. I said that evolution was not science. They are not synonyms. One can engage in scientific research without bowing at the altar of Darwinism.

Anyone incapable of distinguishing the two should never be trusted with sharp objects.

 

[Chriliman]

This topic is intended to do two things:
1) Figure out what people do and don't understand about the Theory of Evolution (what they accept as true vs what they don't accept)

&

2) Figure out what information people commonly use as source material for their views on evolution



So, for people who do not accept evolution (or who posit some additional supernatural element to it, like adding a creator/designer that "guides" or "directs" evolution), what is it about the Theory of Evolution you do not accept and why? In addition to this, what resources do you (or have you) explored with respect to the science? (books, journals, classes, degrees, blogs, news sites, etc).


In addition to the latter question, what do you think the reliability is of the sources people choose? Are all sources equal? Are only sources that agree with your opinion reliable? What makes one source better than another source?

I understand the theory of evolution well enough to know that if it's true then it's an effect of biological life not an original cause. The question: 'Who or what caused biological life?' is still a valid question and God is still a valid assumption, which many reasonable people continue to make, despite those who are against that assumption.

 

[sfs]

In bacteria, yes. In higher life forms, no.

In higher forms, yes. Sorry, but studying exactly that is one of the things I do for a living.

 

[sfs]

Really? Name one scientist stupid enough to not know the difference between a field of study and a theory

I'm sure you're trying to convey something here, but I have no idea what. Evolution is a set of scientific theories that are the result of a scientific field of study. The theories are part of science and so is the field of study. So yeah, evolution is science.

 

[Chriliman]

Hi SD,

The more you write, the more you show. You responded:


Your 'faith status' says atheist. Now, I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that you picked that as your 'faith status'. The definition of an atheist is: a person who believes that God does not exist. Now, I know that many atheists deny this to be the more modern definition, but then, you're arguing with people who don't know the truth about what is the truth. It has always, for several decades at least and likely for at least a couple of centuries referred to those among us who do not believe that a god exists. So, do you or do you not believe that God exists? Most atheists think they understand christianity better than most christians. Friend if you don't understand about God and His salvation, then you don't know diddly about 'christianity'. You've just read the bible. No, I did not make any false statement based on my misunderstanding, but you may have given a false impression of your understanding about God. Let's get that settled right now. Do you believe that God exists?

As to your assertion that the Scriptures are terribly flawed, especially if taken literally, again, and I know you're not going to agree with this and that's ok with me, those without the Spirit of God have no understanding of the things of God. So, what's the answer? Does God exist?

ess you,
In Christ, ted

One way to define an atheist is to say they are someone who doesn't assume God anymore. The reasoning for this is because we all assume God at some point in our lives for countless different reasons, but an atheist is someone who stops assuming God for some reason or another. I believe God still cares about them and desires to give them a reason to assume His existence again. That's my hope anyway

 

[Speedwell]

For all the talk about atheism, this discussion is really not about the existence of God--it's about the Bible.

 

[miamited]

One way to define an atheist is to say they are someone who doesn't assume God anymore.

Well, I suppose one way to define an atheist is that they all believe that white horses are really blue, but because of the refraction of light, they appear white to us. However, most of us use dictionaries to find what are commonly accepted definitions of words. It makes it easier for us to communicate with one another when we can depend on a 'rule' or 'measure' of defining words. If we all just make up our own definitions of words, why, there's no telling what we'll come up with:

Dictionary.com defines 'atheist' thusly:
An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings.

Urban dictionary provides two definitions. Both of which pretty much say the same thing: A person who lacks belief in a god or gods. A person who believes that no god or gods exist.

Merriam-Webster. : a person who believes that God does not exist.

So, you don't want to use these definitions, then I'd suggest you publish your own dictionary so we will all know how criliman defines a word. Otherwise, I'm going with the generally accepted definitions provided through what I believe to be reasonably accurate dictionaries.

The reasoning for this is because we all assume God at some point in our lives for countless different reasons, but an atheist is someone who stops assuming God for some reason or another. I believe God still cares about them and desires to give them a reason to assume His existence again. That's my hope anyway

I believe that God cares about everybody. However, I believe that God's salvation is not for all those that God cares about, but rather for those that care about God. God sends His rain upon the wicked and the righteous. Jesus said that there were two laws to follow to keep all the law of God. The first and most important was to love the Lord your God with all that you are. The second, was to love your neighbor as yourself. Get the picture. Jesus isn't telling us that the most important issue to salvation is that God cares about us God has already shown that He cares about us in His selfless act of sending His one and only Son to die in our place for our sin. But the fact that the event occurred doesn't save anyone, according to the Scriptures. It is our individual acceptance of God's terms that determines our eternal destiny. Jesus' death only made it possible.

As to this idea that we all assume God at some point in our lives, I'm going to let you believe that without argument. Just know that I don't agree. Maybe you could ask those who are participating in this thread if they have assumed God at some point in their lives? As you say, that's your hope, anyway.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted