Why do people call it the "Theory of Evolution"?

[MaynardGKrebbs]

Honestly, I believe that it takes more effort in believing that we evolved from something trillions of years ago than it is to believe that a loving God sent his son to be the savior of the world.

Why? Like I said, all the evidence supports evolution and there is no evidence to support God creating. So why does it take more effort to accept evolution than to believe in something that has NO evidence? Please be specific.

Like I said.... it can be argued 2 different ways

Like I said, one way is logical, reasonable and is supported by ALL the evidence, the other has already been proven false.......

 

[The Lady Kate]

Honestly, I believe that it takes more effort in believing that we evolved from something trillions of years ago than it is to believe that a loving God sent his son to be the savior of the world. Like I said.... it can be argued 2 different ways

But it takes no effort at all to believe both at once. So what's the problem?

 

[MaynardGKrebbs]

You are deceived, there are a lot more myths in science than what your willing to admit

What myths are you talking about and how do they affect the theory of evolution? Please be specific.

Also, myths of science continue to prevail long after they have been falsified and shown not to be true.

Like a young earth and a world wide flood..........

 

[Socrastein]

Lkie a young earth and a world wide flood..........

Who said the flood was world wide?

 

[A4C]

Who said the flood was world wide?

I did. And more than once too

 

[MaynardGKrebbs]

Like a young earth and a world wide flood....

Socrastein said:

Who said the flood was world wide?

A4C said:

I did. And more than once too

I rest my case! Some science myths die hard, even after they have been falsified.

 

[Randall McNally]

I did. And more than once too

At least you finally admit that you are doing the talking here, rather than God.

 

[A4C]

At least you finally admit that you are doing the talking here, rather than God.

I never said God didn't say it too but I should let Him speak for Himself

 

[Socrastein]

A4C, if you let God, the Bible more specifically, actually do the talking you'll see that the view that the flood was world-wide is a misconception founded in bad translation and misinterpretation of the Bible.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/localflood.html

Where the Bible says "the earth" in the account of the flood, it is actually just an out of context translation from the Hebrew phrase 'kol erets' which, when read in context, refers to the local land, not the whole earth.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

I did. And more than once too

And you were proved wrong. More than once too. So let's not go down that path again.

 

[gluadys]

There is? I don't think so, it sounds like your worshiping creation over the Creator.

Just being realistic, John. We are physical beings who see material evidence easier than we see into spiritual matters. It's easy to see morphological similarities in existing species and fossils, to see geological strata and where fossils are found, and lots more evidence for evolution.

But we have no material evidence for Jesus than the New Testament, which is not an unbiased testimony. We don't have a stable or a carpenter shop or a ship associated with Jesus. We have no actual writing preserved from his hand. We do not have a cup from the Last Supper or a cross or a garden tomb. So we have to take everything we believe about Jesus on faith.

 

[A4C]

A4C, if you let God, the Bible more specifically, actually do the talking you'll see that the view that the flood was world-wide is a misconception founded in bad translation and misinterpretation of the Bible.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/localflood.html

Where the Bible says "the earth" in the account of the flood, it is actually just an out of context translation from the Hebrew phrase 'kol erets' which, when read in context, refers to the local land, not the whole earth.

Perhaps you would also like to explain how the following verses suggest other that a world wide flood

Gen 7:17 And the flood was forty days upon the earth(776); and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.

Gen 7:18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth (776); and the ark went upon the face of the waters.

Gen 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.

Gen 7:20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

Gen 7:21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:

Gen 7:22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.

Gen 7:23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground (127), both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

Gen 7:24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.

Gen 8:1 And God remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the cattle that was with him in the ark: and God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters asswaged;

Gen 8:2 The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained;

Gen 8:3 And the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated.

Gen 8:4 And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.

Gen 8:5 And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen.

Gen 8:6 And it came to pass at the end of forty days, that Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made:

Gen 8:7 And he sent forth a raven, which went forth to and fro, until the waters were dried up from off the earth.

Gen 8:8 Also he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters were abated from off the face of the ground;

Gen 8:9 But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned unto him into the ark, for the waters were on the face of the whole (3605) earth(776): then he put forth his hand, and took her, and pulled her in unto him into the ark.

Gen 8:10 And he stayed yet other seven days; and again he sent forth the dove out of the ark;

Gen 8:11 And the dove came in to him in the evening; and, lo, in her mouth was an olive leaf pluckt off: so Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the earth.

Gen 8:12 And he stayed yet other seven days; and sent forth the dove; which returned not again unto him any more.

Gen 8:13 And it came to pass in the six hundredth and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from off the earth: and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and, behold, the face of the ground was dry.

Gen 8:14 And in the second month, on the seven and twentieth day of the month, was the earth dried.

H776 ארץ 'erets eh'-rets

From an unused root probably meaning to be firm; the earth (at large, or partitively a land): - X common, country, earth, field, ground, land, X nations, way, + wilderness, world.

H127 אדמה 'ădâmâh ad-aw-maw'

From H119; soil (from its general redness): - country, earth, ground, husband [-man] (-ry), land.

H3605 כּול כּלo kôl kôlkole, kole

From H3634; properly the whole; hence all, any or every (in the singular only, but often in a plural sense): - (in) all (manner, [ye]), altogether, any (manner), enough, every (one, place, thing), howsoever, as many as, [no-] thing, ought, whatsoever, (the) whole, whoso (-ever).

 

[Dirtydeak]

Why? Like I said, all the evidence supports evolution and there is no evidence to support God creating. So why does it take more effort to accept evolution than to believe in something that has NO evidence? Please be specific.



Like I said, one way is logical, reasonable and is supported by ALL the evidence, the other has already been proven false.......

Here's your evedence:

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-index.html

http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/default.htm


I have seen your evidence on these to forums and 5 others like them. If you seen one you have seen them all. I would like you to that ALL scientific boards show ToE as a preposed theroy as to what should happen in the face of astronomical odds. It seem that ToE must be true simply because we can make no other explaiation.


http://www.christianforums.com/show...88&postcount=64


To me even with the closness of our genetical make up, it sounds to ify to me. Almost as if their "predictions" should be seen as fact. As far as being astronomicaly improbable, how probable is it to be hit by a train at 40 mph on a scooter and live? I saw that one on Real TV. Or maybe falling from a 5 story building and living? What about sky diving? I know you heard of people plumeting from the sky, only to bounce and live. Or how about being shot in the head, or chest with a large cal. bullet, or high power rifle. Improbable? You bet.... but still possable. However improbable it may be to have both human, and chimp dna so closely resemble each other, it is possable they are not related.

 

[JohnR7]

Perhaps you would also like to explain how the following verses suggest other that a world wide flood

You and I are reading the same thing and from what I see it could have been a local flood. Science has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that it was a local flood. At least from our perspective, I am sure that Noah had a little bit different of a perspective regarding the flood, then we do.

 

[A4C]

You and I are reading the same thing and from what I see it could have been a local flood. Science has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that it was a local flood. At least from our perspective, I am sure that Noah had a little bit different of a perspective regarding the flood, then we do.

It wasn't what Noah did or didn't know that determined what was written in Genesis. Perhaps you could explain why each of the verses mentioning "earth" (erets) could possibly be construed as not the whole earth -why even the extra word "whole" (kole) is added at times. How could every animal that walked on the face of earth drown in a local flood
Could you possibly give your interpretation of this verse then

Gen 7:21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:

 

[Ledifni]

Your kidding me right? Or are you suggesting that we are long overdue for a thread on all of the myths that continue to prevail in the scientific community? It is difficult to handle a subject like that, without people accusing you of attaching science, even though it would be a well deserved "attack".

No, John, please, make this thread for us. We'd love to see it. If it's a "well deserved 'attack'" then it is something we all need to hear. Don't you want to advance the cause of human knowledge? So please, inform us about these "myths" you speak of.

 

[Dale Martin]

Just being realistic, John. We are physical beings who see material evidence easier than we see into spiritual matters. It's easy to see morphological similarities in existing species and fossils, to see geological strata and where fossils are found, and lots more evidence for evolution.

But we have no material evidence for Jesus than the New Testament, which is not an unbiased testimony. We don't have a stable or a carpenter shop or a ship associated with Jesus. We have no actual writing preserved from his hand. We do not have a cup from the Last Supper or a cross or a garden tomb. So we have to take everything we believe about Jesus on faith.

you say "We are physical beings who see material evidence easier than we see into spiritual matters"



But you ignore the evidence of scripture that accurately portrays histories of civilizations, people and events, and prophecies.



"It's easy to see morphological similarities in existing species and fossils, to see geological strata and where fossils are found, and lots more evidence for evolution"



Only if you ignore any complications with the evolution theories such as fossils extending through millions of years of deposits, or petrified trees extending through hundreds of millions of years of sedimentary layers.

"But we have no material evidence for Jesus than the New Testament, which is not an unbiased testimony. We don't have a stable or a carpenter shop or a ship associated with Jesus. We have no actual writing preserved from his hand. We do not have a cup from the Last Supper or a cross or a garden tomb. So we have to take everything we believe about Jesus on faith"



We have the scriptures from Genesis on to and through the new testament that speaks of Jesus. We have eyewitness accounts and writings from both secular and non secular writers of the first century, BTW I do not accept what I know about God by faith but by "knowledge". I have "faith" that God will use whatever comes my way for good.

 

[corvus_corax]

you say "We are physical beings who see material evidence easier than we see into spiritual matters"
But you ignore the evidence of scripture that accurately portrays histories of civilizations, people and events, and prophecies.

Ive got a book.
Its about a soldier in WW II. The soldier is a werewolf and uses his lycanthropy to fight the Nazi's.
Its not a very compelling book, I had to fight my way to the end chapter. However, it does accurately portray civilization, people and events.
So, according to your argument, we should take this book seriously, as evidence for lycanthropy?
And regarding prophecies, Cassandra made prophecies. She was ignored, but her prophecies came true. According to the story, she lived in Troy. At one time Troy was thought to be a mythological place. We now know better, we know that it not only existed, but it was in the spot described by Homer. So according to your argument, we should take the Illiad seriously, and agree that everything that happened (including the fulfilled prophecies) happened?

There are several other books I could mention, but I think those two will do for now.

We have the scriptures from Genesis on to and through the new testament that speaks of Jesus.

There are several Jews on this board who will disagree with you regarding any mention of Jesus in the OT.
But perhaps you should take up that argument with them.

We have eyewitness accounts and writings from both secular and non secular writers of the first century, BTW I do not accept what I know about God by faith but by "knowledge". I have "faith" that God will use whatever comes my way for good.

Sources please? Specifically sources attesting to the supernatural feats of Jesus (other than the Bible). Thanks

 

[Physics_guy]

We have eyewitness accounts and writings from both secular and non secular writers of the first century, BTW I do not accept what I know about God by faith but by "knowledge". I have "faith" that God will use whatever comes my way for good.

I'd love to see one "eye-witness" account. Even the gospels were written 70 years (for the earliest) after the death of Jesus, and they have been modified a huge amount since then.

 

[raphael_aa]

I'd love to see one "eye-witness" account. Even the gospels were written 70 years (for the earliest) after the death of Jesus, and they have been modified a huge amount since then.

As far as I am aware, there are exactly zero eyewitness accounts of Jesus written during His lifetime. There are zero known references to Jesus written by non-christian sources that were contemporary with Him. As a christian, this does not trouble me for a number of reasons, but I do think we ought to at least be honest.