Why do people even want to put evolution in the equation?

[lifepsyop]

Why does this impossible process, with impossible odds, seem so rational to this new breed of Christians?

Love of the world and a desire to be accepted by the world. (See the Parable of the Sower) ...

The world loves a "reasonable Christian" because they know this person has essentially given up on scripture as any kind of genuine authority and will more or less bend to the world's shifting doctrines. They will insist they are just "following the science", though this seems to be just a poor attempt at absolving themselves of their choice to believe the philosophies of men over the Word of God.

The world hates the truth of Biblical history because it reminds them how flimsy their kingdom on earth really is, how God recently destroyed it with a worldwide flood, and how Jesus the King is returning to judge the world with fire. Many professing believers today think this is basically all fantasy and the Gospel is just about being a nice person and living your best life now. It is a spirit of unbelief flooding the church.

 

[The Barbarian]

Sounds almost as crazy as us spending on a ball a thousand miles an hour going through an ever-expanding universe at 515,000 miles an hour and somehow all the stars lining up and we don't ever feel any motion or anything lol

Newton's first law. It means that your body can't detect speed; it can only detect acceleration. This is why you don't feel as though you're going hundreds of miles an hour when you ride an airliner. Only when the velocity changes, will you notice anything. (a change in velocity can be a change in speed or direction or both, and a change in velocity is acceleration)

And all the stars don't quite line up. Stars that are very near to us do change apparent position, and we can calculate their distance using the parallax at two points in the orbit of the Earth around the Sun. The rest are so far away that the parallax is very slight, given the distances involved. Would you like to see why?

 

[The Barbarian]

Many creationists are outraged that most Christians don't buy their new interpretation of scripture. It's understandable. Those of us who accept the ancient Christian understanding have no need to be defensive, but when one's new doctrines are no older than the 20th century, it's probably generates a little insecurity.

I don't worry about creationists as long as they leave others alone and don't try to use government to enforce their new doctrines. God isn't going to send them to hell for it, so I don't have to be concerned.

And yes, there are creationists who are secure in their beliefs and don't worry about what other Christians think about evolution, for the same reason I don't worry about what they think about it.

 

[GOD Shines Forth!]

Even if one can pin down what Evolution®️ "means" to different people, it’s as dead-behind-the-eyes as it ever was. There is no "there" there.

"For he spoke, and it came to be;
he commanded, and it stood firm."
—Psalm 33

Things are created, and "live and move" and have their being in Him, who holds all things together with his powerful word.

Nothing evolves.

 

[BoomsTheory]

Newton's first law. It means that your body can't detect speed; it can only detect acceleration. This is why you don't feel as though you're going hundreds of miles an hour when you ride an airliner. Only when the velocity changes, will you notice anything. (a change in velocity can be a change in speed or direction or both, and a change in velocity is acceleration)

And all the stars don't quite line up. Stars that are very near to us do change apparent position, and we can calculate their distance using the parallax at two points in the orbit of the Earth around the Sun. The rest are so far away that the parallax is very slight, given the distances involved. Would you like to see why?

Well the change in velocity is affected by the mass of the object in motion.

 

[BoomsTheory]

Which brings me back to my first point if you believe in the Bible and you're a Christian and you're trying to defend the word of God why are you only spending your energy trying to disprove the Bible and prove your theory of evolution if you're not just a troll on here trying to mislead people and spread false information that is completely unprovable. Because if you want to start going down that path there's plenty of things about our world history that we were lied to about which the theory of evolution has zero explanation for whatsoever in any sense of the meaning

 

[The Barbarian]

Well the change in velocity is affected by the mass of the object in motion.

But without a change in velocity, you'll have no perception of motion at all.

 

[The Barbarian]

Which brings me back to my first point if you believe in the Bible and you're a Christian and you're trying to defend the word of God why are you only spending your energy trying to disprove the Bible

I'm trying to show you that the Bible is true and only the doctrines added by creationists are false.

and prove your theory of evolution

No scientific theory is "proven." You have to make a distinction between the directly observed phenomenon of evolution, and the theory that explains it. Yes, the fact of evolution is proven. Again, I'm pretty sure that you don't know what biological evolution is. What do you think it is?

If you're not just a troll on here trying to mislead people and spread false information, it would be good for you to tell us what you think it is, to address any possible misconceptions. How about it?

Because if you want to start going down that path there's plenty of things about our world history that we were lied to

Biological evolution isn't about historians or their integrity. It's just a natural phenomenon. Again, you seem unwilling to tell us what you think it is.

Darwin's theory, modified by the discovery of genetics, remains the best explanation for that phenomenon. Which of Darwin's four points do you think are faulty? Be specific.

 

[The Barbarian]

Even if one can pin down what Evolution®️ "means" to different people

Biological evolution has a very specific meaning. Many creationists have faulty ideas about what it actually is. Typically, they confuse it with agencies of evolution like natural selection, or consequences of evolution like common descent. What do you think it is?

Things are created, and "live and move" and have their being in Him, who holds all things together with his powerful word.

Yes. The problem is that most creationists don't approve of the way He does it.

Nothing evolves.

Populations of living things evolve. We see that happening in all populations. You've been misled about that.

 

[BoomsTheory]

I'm trying to show you that the Bible is true and only the doctrines added by creationists are false.



No scientific theory is "proven." You have to make a distinction between the directly observed phenomenon of evolution, and the theory that explains it. Yes, the fact of evolution is proven. Again, I'm pretty sure that you don't know what biological evolution is. What do you think it is?

If you're not just a troll on here trying to mislead people and spread false information, it would be good for you to tell us what you think it is, to address any possible misconceptions. How about it?



Biological evolution isn't about historians or their integrity. It's just a natural phenomenon. Again, you seem unwilling to tell us what you think it is.

Darwin's theory, modified by the discovery of genetics, remains the best explanation for that phenomenon. Which of Darwin's four points do you think are faulty? Be specific.

Lack of a viable mechanism for producing high levels of complex and specified information. Related to this are problems with the Darwinian mechanism producing irreducibly complex features, and the problems of non-functional or deleterious intermediate stages.

Natural selection is an extremely inefficient method of spreading traits in populations unless a trait has an extremely high selection coefficient;
The problem that convergent evolution appears rampant — at both the genetic and morphological levels, even though under Darwinian theory this is highly unlikelyThe failure of chemistry to explain the origin of the genetic code. (For details, see “The origin of life remains a mystery” or “Problems with the Natural Chemical ‘Origin of Life’“);

 

[lifepsyop]

Many creationists are outraged that most Christians don't buy their new interpretation of scripture. It's understandable. Those of us who accept the ancient Christian understanding have no need to be defensive, but when one's new doctrines are no older than the 20th century, it's probably generates a little insecurity.

The apostle Peter was pretty defensive concerning those who would deny Biblical history, which is understandable because it lays out the foundation of God's covenantal history with his children.

This is now the second letter that I am writing to you, beloved. In both of them I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, that you should remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles, knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires. They will say, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.” For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly. - 2 Peter 3:1-7


The reason this is so important is because once you begin allegorizing or mythologizing God's past worldwide judgment (the flood), it fully opens the door to allegorizing God's future judgment, and the Gospel itself. Peter understood that this is all by the same word of God. You either believe His Word or you don't.

And Jesus, the Word made Flesh, the Beginning and the End, stated plainly that His return would be like in the days of Noah. (Matthew 24:37)

We are left with the choice to either believe Jesus, the prophets, and the apostles.... or believe in the philosophies held by men.

 

[Thomas White]

God created man in his image and breathed into us the breath of life. All in 6 days. He spoke it into being . And it is complete. Evolution says we're expanding through a never ending universe at 515000 mph on a rotating ball and there's trillions of other galaxies. God created us. In 6 days not 4.5billion years

Really? And you know God's timeframe? Her perspective of time?

 

[The Barbarian]

The apostle Peter was pretty defensive concerning those who would deny Biblical history, which is understandable because it lays out the foundation of God's covenantal history with his children.

I notice that Peter never said that Genesis was a literal history. The fact that much of the Bible is literal history does not mean that all of it is.

The reason this is so important, is once you start inserting your own literalizations into Scripture, you're producing all sorts of new doctrines and ideas not found therein. Now, as you probably know, God doesn't care what you think of evolution; it's not a salvation issue. But you can do terrible damage if you suggest that one must adhere to the new doctrine of YE creationism to be saved. People have lost their faith when they learned that YE could not be true, thinking that YE is an essential Christian belief.

We are left with the choice to either believe Jesus, the prophets, and the apostles.... or believe in the YE philosophies held by men. As I said, it's not a salvation issue. But don't let it become an idol for you. Remember that YE is an interpretation by fallible men.

 

[The Barbarian]

Lack of a viable mechanism for producing high levels of complex and specified information.

You've been misled about that. In fact, every new mutation in a population increases information. Perhaps you could show us your numbers on that, so we could see how you arrived at such a conclusion. Or would you prefer me to show you a simple case in which information increases by evolutionary processes?

Related to this are problems with the Darwinian mechanism producing irreducibly complex features

That's been directly observed to happen. Would you like me to show you how? Even Behe now admits that irreducible complexity can evolve; he's now admitted that common descent is a fact.

and the problems of non-functional or deleterious intermediate stages.

It's why we only see some things evolve and not others. For example, and extra pair of arms and hands would be great for humans, but the transitional stages are harmful, and so they didn't evolve. The only complex features that have evolved, had only neutral or useful transitional steps. Can you think of even one exception? I'd be interested to see one.

The problem that convergent evolution appears rampant — at both the genetic and morphological levels, even though under Darwinian theory this is highly unlikely

Not according to Darwin. For example, thylacines (marsupial "wolves") greatly resembled canids like wolves. But it's only superficial convergent evolution. The same structures and body shape are found in both, but the dental formulae are quite different, one is a placental and the other has a pouch, and there are many other differences. The similarity is due to analogous structures, which evolved from the same selective pressures.

On the other hand, the arms of humans and forelegs of horses are superficially very different, but have all the same structures, albeit modified to different functions. This is homology; the same things modified to different purposes. And so we know horses and humans are much more closely related than wolves and thylacines. And now, genetics has confirmed that fact.

this is highly unlikelyThe failure of chemistry to explain the origin of the genetic code.

That was true 50 years ago, but discoveries of self-catalyzing nucleic acids and many others have changed all that. You might want to catch up on what's happened since:
https://www.amazon.com/New-History-...s=a+new+history+of+life&qid=1621824145&sr=8-2

However, it's a moot point for evolution. Evolutionary theory assumes that life began somehow, and describes how it changes over time. Even Darwin just assumed that God just created the first living things. Even if the earth had not brought forth living things as God intended, and He just poofed the first ones into existence, evolution would still work just as it does.

 

[GOD Shines Forth!]

You've been misled about that.

If I may paraphrase you, "God isn't going to send [you] to hell for it, so I don't have to be concerned." Therefore we are free to disagree. Bless you!

 

[BoomsTheory]

The apostle Peter was pretty defensive concerning those who would deny Biblical history, which is understandable because it lays out the foundation of God's covenantal history with his children.

This is now the second letter that I am writing to you, beloved. In both of them I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, that you should remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles, knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires. They will say, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.” For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly. - 2 Peter 3:1-7


The reason this is so important is because once you begin allegorizing or mythologizing God's past worldwide judgment (the flood), it fully opens the door to allegorizing God's future judgment, and the Gospel itself. Peter understood that this is all by the same word of God. You either believe His Word or you don't.

And Jesus, the Word made Flesh, the Beginning and the End, stated plainly that His return would be like in the days of Noah. (Matthew 24:37)

We are left with the choice to either believe Jesus, the prophets, and the apostles.... or believe in the philosophies held by men.

.

Well said! Thanks for quoting the verses. It's 1000000% more reliable than those of a biologist, lawyer, philosopher, scientists, president, or the pope himself. God is more powerful than anything our mind can comprehend. It seems man is worshiping himself, and not The Heavenly Father. But they point out a couple of loosely worded or incorrect scripture. I don't get how so many that claim Christianity are accepting so many unbiblical practices and beliefs. Changing the words to mean what suits their purpose.
People blame god for pain and sorrow and war and disease and all that's negative. And for being unjust about letting eve get tricked by the serpent. But failing to realize that disobedience and sin was what got us here in the first place. That ok serpent is using the same ol trick. And the church was warned by Jesus' letters to the 7 chuin revelation, the 7 letters,

We're hardheaded and disobedient. God is justified in holding his children/creation accountable for our sins. Point Blank. And if there's one thing God hates: is sin

 

[The Barbarian]

If I may paraphrase you, "God isn't going to send [you] to hell for it, so I don't have to be concerned." Therefore we are free to disagree. Bless you!

Well, thank you for your kind wishes, and for your contribution to peace within the Christian community.

 

[Job 33:6]

. (For details, see ““Problems with the Natural Chemical ‘Origin of Life’”

Casey Luskin isn't particularly well versed on the topic. I recall him being ignorant of paleontology. He's not trustworthy.

 

[The Barbarian]

.

Well said! Thanks for quoting the verses. It's 1000000% more reliable than those of a biologist, lawyer, philosopher, scientists, president, or the pope himself.

The Bible is absolutely true. But of course people's interpretations of it are less reliable. The Bible has been cited to support racism, YE creationism, flat earth, and similarly obviously incorrect ideas.

When a man interprets scripture to support things that are obviously wrong, he is worshiping himself, and not The Heavenly Father.

But they point out a couple of loosely worded or incorrect scripture.

There is no "incorrect scripture", only incorrect interpretations. The oft-quoted verses about pi being equal to three is merely an historical artifact of a mathematics system unable to use decimals, and therefore using approximations. No one has ever correctly written the exact value of pi in numbers. A little humility would go a long way here; no one should assume absolute understanding of His word in all respects.

I don't get how so many that claim Christianity are accepting so many unbiblical practices and beliefs. Changing the words to mean what suits their purpose.

In the 1950s, most evangelicals thought that blacks and whites must be kept separate and that whites were innately superior. To give credit where it's due, I should point out that the Southern Baptist Convention formally apologized for those beliefs, a courageous and Christian action. But it should be pointed out that their earlier stance wasn't intentionally evil; they honestly thought that those beliefs were plainly written in scripture.

People blame god for pain and sorrow and war and disease and all that's negative.

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness, I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord that do all these things.

Here, "evil" means misfortune, not wickedness, but you see that God is not fair as humans consider fairness. We should remember that God could have created a perfectly just and fair universe without suffering. I believe He is doing what is necessary to make us being worthy of fellowship with Him.

 

[lifepsyop]

I notice that Peter never said that Genesis was a literal history. The fact that much of the Bible is literal history does not mean that all of it is.

But we don't need to go all the way back to the original Creation to see that Theistic Evolution denies God's judgment upon mankind by a worldwide flood in Noah's day. (Because theistic-evolutionists necessarily adopt the belief that sedimentary layers accumulated gradually along with evolving populations over deep-time, and that present-day biogeography is a result of millions of years of evolution and migration, and not migratory event from a single region where the Ark landed.)

Theistic Evolution denies much more than the Six-Day Creation, and yes if one adopts this belief system, they are knowingly or unknowingly becoming the subject of Peter's 2nd epistle, those scoffers and mockers that would show up denying the world had ever been judged by a flood. He wrote it, not me.

The reason this is so important, is once you start inserting your own literalizations into Scripture, you're producing all sorts of new doctrines and ideas not found therein.

Well you'd have to level the same accusation towards Peter then.

I have to admit, it's somewhat amusing to keep being told that I'm producing a new doctrine by just believing the plainly stated accounts in the Bible, and agreeing with Jesus and the apostles.

Yet throwing half of the Bible in the garbage in favor of 17th century neo-Epicurean natural philosophy is somehow faithful to doctrine. Professing ourselves to be wise, we become fools indeed.

Now, as you probably know, God doesn't care what you think of evolution; it's not a salvation issue. But you can do terrible damage if you suggest that one must adhere to the new doctrine of YE creationism to be saved. People have lost their faith when they learned that YE could not be true, thinking that YE is an essential Christian belief.

I have absolutely zero concern that I am causing people to lose their faith by sharing the faith. If someone does not believe scripture, that choice is on them.

It is the theistic-evolution camp that are inserting the dangerous idea that we can allegorize, mythologize, or otherwise de-actualize anything we want in scripture if it offends us.

Again, why do you think Peter was so concerned about denial of the flood if it was insignificant to the faith in Jesus Christ? The answer is because as soon as you begin doubting one of God's judgments (the flood), you will begin to doubt God's coming future judgment (the Day of the Lord). These judgments are what ground scripture in reality, and what grounds believers in the faith. The Faith. Why do you think Jesus spent so much time warning about the signs of his return upon the earth if it's not important to believe in such things?