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

[CatsRule2020]

Since both Creationism and Evolutionism are both philosophies, we are left to study of the science supporting both to see which is more probable.

I think we will see that both come into play.

Without outside assistance, evolution could not have advanced to the point that it has. (Micro to Macro), nor can we ignore the evidence of Creation pointing to a creator.

It is unfortunate that in the camps of both sides that the leaders put worldly pride ahead of seeking truth.

Because one thinks it is more righteous to hold to the primitive view of creation from the Bronze Age that today's, does not mean that God is more pleased.
Because one thinks that it is more liberating to try to prove that everything came about by chance alone, eventually finds that they are the ones in confinement.

 

[The Barbarian]

St. Augustine wasn't my teacher.

Too bad. He had a remarkably good understanding of Genesis.

And for the record, I'm a saint as well, and I say otherwise.

No one can put an obligation on God. Only He will decide that. Even "official" saints are only a matter of opinion.

 

[The Barbarian]

Since both Creationism and Evolutionism are both philosophies, we are left to study of the science supporting both to see which is more probable.

But evolution is a natural phenomenon, directly observed. "Evolutionism" and creationism are the philosophies of people who deny God's creation. Evolutionary theory is merely the way humans explain the observed phenomenon of evolution.

Science can't verify creation, because it only works with evidence of the physical universe. It can verify or deny religious doctrines, like creationism, only where they make claims about that universe. Which is why the vast majority of scientists don't believe in creationism; many forms of creationism have made claims that science has refuted.

Without outside assistance, evolution could not have advanced to the point that it has. (Micro to Macro), nor can we ignore the evidence of Creation pointing to a creator.

Nothing at all could have happened without a Creator. But He created a universe in which the earth itself would bring forth life (as He tells us in Genesis) already capable of evolving to fit different environments. IDers sometimes call this "front loading"; if that works for you, it's pretty close to the truth. My only observation is that God didn't have to "design" anything. Being omnipotent and omniscient, He had only to act without planning.

 

[AV1611VET]

Because one thinks it is more righteous to hold to the primitive view of creation from the Bronze Age that today's, does not mean that God is more pleased.

Did God make us in the image and likeness of a great ape?

Were we redeemed at the Cross by the death of a mutant copy-error?

 

[AV1611VET]

Too bad. He had a remarkably good understanding of Genesis.

So I notice.

 

[The Barbarian]

(Barbarian demonstrates that three major creationist organizations accept the fact that new species evolve from earlier ones)

Answers in Genesis can take a hike.

They are wrong about many things, but not this. They realize the direct observation of speciation makes denial impossible.

There's microevolution (species giving rise to species), and then there's macroevolution (species giving rise to genuses).

It's "genera." And that too, is openly acknowledged by major creationist groups. If there weren't new species, genera, and families evolving, a literal Noah's Ark would be impossible. Rock and a hard place.

Tabloids can say anything under the guise of yellow journalism.

And they did. You just confused them with real scientists.

Hold the fort, chief.

Which came first? that picture? or the discovery that it was a peccary tooth?

Doesn't matter. Even Cope didn't say it was a hominid. The tabloid just made up their own details, and creationists fell for it. Just like the ICR fell for that "Neandertal Tuba" story. Once you abandon facts, everything is equally plausible.

BUT, it is possible that Neanderthals did use bagpipes, tubas, and wind chimes, since I believe Neanderthals were what evolutionists call "Homo sapiens."

You just made my point for me. BTW, it's likely that you're right about them being H. sapiens. Genetically they are right on the border between "species" and "subspecies." Since they did interbreed with anatomically modern humans (and Denisovans), I conclude they are a subspecies of H. sapiens.

I don't need to go traipsing down to the Paluxy River to see man tracks alongside dinosaur tracks; since I believe both avian dinosaurs (T. Rex) and non-avian dinosaurs (dove, raven) were on the Ark with Noah.

Comes down to evidence. Unless "cubit" means something a lot bigger than everyone has found so far, it wouldn't work. BTW, doves and ravens are avians, and while T-rex is close to avian dinosaurs, it's not an avian dinosaur.

ny attempt to find scientific accreditation for man and dinosaurs living together is an attempt to go walking by sight, not by faith.

As I said, the hoaxes and errors from"Nebraska Man" to the Paluxy "man tracks" are only a small number of creationist goofs regarding evolution . Would you like to see more?

 

[AV1611VET]

Science can't verify creation, because it only works with evidence of the physical universe.

No argument there at all.

 

[The Barbarian]

Did God make us in the image and likeness of a great ape?

Since God is a spirit and has no body (as Jesus says) the "image and likeness"is in our minds and souls, not our physical appearance.

Christianity 101.

 

[The Barbarian]

I'm not sure what you're saying here

I'm pointing out that many things that are true, like protons, evolution, nuclear fusion, and so on, were not known for most of Christian history. But of course, today most Christians know and acknowledge all of these.

 

[AV1611VET]

Doesn't matter. Even Cope didn't say it was a hominid. The tabloid just made up their own details, and creationists fell for it.

QV please:

In February 1922, Harold Cook wrote to Dr. Henry Osborn to inform him of a tooth that he had had in his possession for some time. The tooth had been found years prior in the Upper Snake Creek beds of Nebraska along with other fossils typical of North America. Osborn received the specimen in March 1922, and quickly set out to identify it. Osborn, along with Dr. William D. Matthew soon came to the conclusion that the tooth had belonged to an anthropoid ape. They then passed the tooth along to William K. Gregory and Dr. Milo Hellman, who agreed that the tooth belonged to an anthropoid ape more closely related to humans than to other apes.

SOURCE

I normally don't paste the links in Wikipedia articles, but I pasted the links of those two men (Matthew and Gregory), so you can see their scientific backgrounds.

Let's not blame this just on the newspapers.

 

[The Barbarian]

(Barbarian notes that the first line in all Bibles is the acknowledgement of God creating the heavens and the Earth)

Of the three, which one is the Authorized Version?

There wasn't an "authorized version" for most of biblical history. The books were accepted by general agreement and the number of such books varied depending on the people who compiled them. There have been various canons, but none ever had universal acceptance by Christians.

And when I say "authorized," I mean authorized by God himself, since He superintended the translation process.

All of them were compiled by men, using tradition, prayer, and scholarship. All the different canons were purported to be authorized by God, but at most, one of them could be.

But none of them seems to have differed in their acknowledgement in Genesis 1:1.

 

[AV1611VET]

Since God is a spirit and has no body (as Jesus says) the "image and likeness" is in our minds and souls, not our physical appearance.

Christianity 101.

So in His true essence, we don't know if God is a frog? a goat? a bull? a fish? an electromagnetic field? ectoplasm? Unobtanium?

 

[The Barbarian]

QV please:
I normally don't paste the links in Wikipedia articles, but I pasted the links of those two men (Matthew and Gregory), so you can see their scientific backgrounds.

Let's not blame this just on the newspapers.

Well, let's take a look...

An illustration of H. haroldcookii was done by artist Amédée Forestier, who modeled the drawing on the proportions of "Pithecanthropus" (now Homo erectus), the "Java ape-man," for the Illustrated London News. Osborn was not impressed with the illustration, calling it: "a figment of the imagination of no scientific value, and undoubtedly inaccurate".[2] From its initial description, Hesperopithecus was regarded as an inconclusive find by a large portion of the scientific community. Examinations of the specimen continued, and the original describers continued to draw comparisons between Hesperopithecus and apes. Further field work on the site in the summers of 1925 and 1926 uncovered other parts of the skeleton. These discoveries revealed that the tooth was incorrectly identified. According to these discovered pieces, the tooth belonged neither to a man nor an ape, but to a fossil of an extinct species of peccary called Prosthennops serus (or basically an extinct pig). The misidentification was attributed to the fact that the original specimen was severely weathered.
...
Although the identity of H. haroldcookii did not achieve general acceptance in the scientific community, and the purported species was retracted half a decade after the original article had been published by Osborn, creationists have promoted the episode as an example of the scientific errors that can undermine the credibility of paleontology and hominid evolution theories, and how such information is peer reviewed or accepted as mainstream knowledge.
Nebraska Man - Wikipedia

 

[The Barbarian]

So in His true essence, we don't know if God is a frog? a goat? a bull? a fish? an electromagnetic field? ectoplasm? Unobtanium?

Why not just accept what Jesus says? He is a spirit, and therefor not physical at all. If He chose to elevate something other than a primate to a living soul, would that have been somehow wrong? Set pride aside and accept what He has done.

 

[AV1611VET]

All of them were compiled by men, using tradition, prayer, and scholarship. All the different canons were purported to be authorized by God, but at most, one of them could be.

Yup. And It was the KJB and its Predecessors.

Translation Sequence:

1. AV330 Gothic Version
2. AV700 Anglo-Saxon Version
3. AV1389 Wycliffe
4. AV1525 Tyndale
5. AV1560 Geneva Bible
6. AV1568 Bishop's Bible
7. AV1611 King James Bible

 

[Derek1234]

Are you assuming that science does not contradict the Scriptures; or are you assuming that science should not contradict the Scriptures?No, it doesn't say that.

On your first question, the answer is both. That's because I believe in the infallibility of Scripture. I also believe in the historicity of Scripture. Our faith rests in the existence of God incarnate on earth, not on dogma. If it were ever proven that Jesus did not exist as such, my faith would be lost. 1 Cor 15v19, whichever translation you want. On science, science cannot prove or disprove God, since there is no meaningful falsifiable hypothesis about God that science can explore, so I'm relaxed about that. I do believe science can perhaps shed more light on the glory of His creation and perhaps even the mechanics of how He did some of it. Are you relaxed about that?

On your second point, I see. You want the translation that says "the heaven". That's OK with me. It still says He created the earth, and it seems to date this before the rest of creation. Help me understand where I am going wrong, if you think I am. Either way, the Hebrew word is hashamayim, which is normally translated as heavens (plural). When God communicated the manner of His creation to the author of Genesis, He obviously did so in a language that they were familiar with. So, although I don't want to get drawn on a "which translation is the most/only inspired?" debate, it seems unlikely that a translation that had been though translations of the original languages into Greek, then to Latin, then to Old English, then to more modern English, will be the one that God finally decided was The One.

 

[AV1611VET]

I do believe science can perhaps shed more light on the glory of His creation and perhaps even the mechanics of how He did some of it. Are you relaxed about that?

Here's my standard of judgement:

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.

 

[d taylor]

. I do believe science can perhaps shed more light on the glory of His creation and perhaps even the mechanics of how He did some of it. Are you relaxed about that?

I would say they could, but they do not. They (scientist) would have, first back in sciences inception, been a believer in The God of Israel instead of the pagan belief system that people of science were believers in and came out of.

They did not have a God informed basis to build upon (which would have been received from people of God), so they formulated ideas about God's creation, that had no grounding in guidance from the Creator. So this left them open to deception, from their own sinful nature and satan.

 

[The Barbarian]

Yup. And It was the KJB and its Predecessors

That is a relatively new, abridged revision of the God's word. There were canons for scripture long before that.

 

[The Barbarian]

I would say they could, but they do not. They (scientist) would have, first back in sciences inception, been a believer in The God of Israel instead of the pagan belief system that people of science were believers in and came out of.

The important thing about science is that it works without any religious or philosophical assumptions. This is why Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, and people of all faiths or no faith at all, can do science.

And it works because God created a knowable and orderly universe in which we can learn about it from examining the evidence it leaves.

If your "science"requires faith, it's not science at all.

You might as well insist that plumbers include the supernatural in their work.