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

Lawrence87 · Mar 21, 2021

The fundamental issue that makes evolution incompatible with Christianity is that evolution suggests that rather than being fallen, man is somehow at, or nearing the pinnacle of greatness, whereas Christianity states that we are fallen beings.

Theistic evolution is a failure because it just says the death-filled and destructive process of evolution is the means by which God created and called it 'good', any system that synthesized evolution with Christian doctrine needs to account for the fall, because if we are not fallen then we do not need saving.

disciple Clint · Mar 22, 2021

The Barbarian said:
It just takes evidence. And since it's been directly observed, that's pretty solid.

Even many creationist organizations admit that new species, genera,and sometimes higher levels of taxa evolve from other organisms. So they think there's evidence for it.

not exactly, what would be your evidence for macro evolution?

disciple Clint · Mar 22, 2021

steve78 said:
Evolution is not a belief, its a scientific fact.

no it is not, it is a theory.

loveofourlord · Mar 22, 2021

Lawrence87 said:
The fundamental issue that makes evolution incompatible with Christianity is that evolution suggests that rather than being fallen, man is somehow at, or nearing the pinnacle of greatness, whereas Christianity states that we are fallen beings.

Theistic evolution is a failure because it just says the death-filled and destructive process of evolution is the means by which God created and called it 'good', any system that synthesized evolution with Christian doctrine needs to account for the fall, because if we are not fallen then we do not need saving.

you sir have no clue about evolution if you think any of that nonsense. Evolution says were the pincale of greatness? Show where it says any of that, funny as were often caused of treating man like another animal. There is no greatest pinacle within evolution...unless maybe modern dinosaurs :> come on who wouldn't want to fly ahem. everything is equally evolved in evolution, there is no superior, or greater being in there, everything is better at something then others.

loveofourlord · Mar 22, 2021

disciple Clint said:
no it is not, it is a theory.

come on you've been here long enough not to play such a stupid comment.

MittenMaven · Mar 22, 2021

disciple Clint said:
not exactly, what would be your evidence for macro evolution?

A great example of macro evolution is the change over time of reptilian jawbones into the middle ear bones of the mammal. This is well documented in the fossil record and can be traced over time. All humans and mammals have two reptile jaw bones in their middle ears! Reptiles have only the stapes including modern birds which are descendants of the dinosaurs. Humans have the incus stapes and malleus. Pretty fascinating.

Evolution of mammalian auditory ossicles - Wikipedia

I have a small Conure Parrot and I swear he acts like a tiny little dinosaur when protecting his food!

Abide with me. · Mar 22, 2021

loveofourlord said:
Nice big strawman, I accept evolution because I marvel at what it has created, what god used to create everything on earth. The way that it is capable of creating the myriad of life on this planet, the way everything is all connected.

The evidence for evolution is too strong to ignore, and all that the creationists have is strawman, lies, misrepresentations and so on. I've said it here many times, I reject creationists arguments because I know the actual facts of evolution and they are not arguing against it.

Totally agree,
I think God is the divine orchestrator of evolution, God is God and man is man, and man wrote the Bible, I totally believe in the supernatural power of God, but I don't believe everything I'm told by man, I think it's offensive to say I'm calling God a liar, but I am saying that genesis, written 1000's of years ago along with every other creation theory of every country and culture if the world, was an attempt by man to try to answer the big questions as best they could at that time based on what they knew, which is not what we know now based on physical evidence of past civilisations, this is not an opinion, fossilized and skeletal remains are hard fact that can only be ignored by obtuseness.

coffee4u · Mar 22, 2021

genez said:
No. They are calling what they have been told, a lie.

Evolution was created by certain scientifically inclined minds that wished to try to explain what many in the pulpits failed to discover. Why we find prehistoric fossil records.

If more Christian teachers were able to rightly interpret the first chapter of Genesis from the Hebrew text, the evolutionists would not have felt free as they did to try to explain using the theory of evolution.

Its a shame how we lost so much credibility because of ignorance of the Word of God.

Genesis 1:2 (in the Hebrew) reveals a DESTROYED creation that was being replaced by a new heavens and earth.

I already showed you that the Hebrew does not use or show the word destroyed in Genesis 1:2 Look up any Lexicon you like, the words used mean formlessness, confusion, unreality and emptiness.

ReesePiece23 · Mar 22, 2021

Friedrich Rubinstein said:
When you don't have enough trust in God you start trusting humans.

God commanded humans to write the bible. So it's not that much of a leap really to see that He commanded humans to study the world around them and come to a determination.

But BECAUSE of that human element, scientific interpretations can be just as skewed as biblical ones.

That's why Jesus is the way He is, and why we continue to be egotistical and just downright stupid where it counts.

*Not a creationist, and not necessarily an evolutionist either.

public hermit · Mar 22, 2021

coffee4u said:
I already showed you that the Hebrew does not use or show the word destroyed in Genesis 1:2 Look up any Lexicon you like, the words used mean formlessness, confusion, unreality and emptiness.

Right, tohu vavohu (which rolls off the tongue nicely) does not mean destruction, but as you indicated.

disciple Clint · Mar 22, 2021

loveofourlord said:
come on you've been here long enough not to play such a stupid comment.

You sir may rightly claim to be related to a monkey, I however am not.

disciple Clint · Mar 22, 2021

MittenMaven said:
A great example of macro evolution is the change over time of reptilian jawbones into the middle ear bones of the mammal. This is well documented in the fossil record and can be traced over time. All humans and mammals have two reptile jaw bones in their middle ears! Reptiles have only the stapes including modern birds which are descendants of the dinosaurs. Humans have the incus stapes and malleus. Pretty fascinating.

Evolution of mammalian auditory ossicles - Wikipedia

I have a small Conure Parrot and I swear he acts like a tiny little dinosaur when protecting his food!

1) No empirical proof exists that macro-evolution (that is, evolution from one distinct kind of organism into another) is occurring at present, or has ever happened in the past. No one, throughout recorded history, has ever seen it.

Evolutionist anthropologist Jeffrey H. Schwartz stated in his 1999 book Sudden Origins . . . that with the exception of Dobzhan sky's claim about a new species of fruit fly (micro-evolution, not macro-evolution), the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.

2) No transitional fossils. If evolution had taken place there should have been a great many transitional structures preserved in fossilised form recording the stages of development from one type of organism to another type.

For instance, invertebrates are supposed to have transformed into vertebrates, having passed through many intermediate stages. The fossil record does not document such transitions. Evidence does not support the theory of evolution

Job 33:6 · Mar 22, 2021

Lawrence87 said:
The fundamental issue that makes evolution incompatible with Christianity is that evolution suggests that rather than being fallen, man is somehow at, or nearing the pinnacle of greatness, whereas Christianity states that we are fallen beings.

Theistic evolution is a failure because it just says the death-filled and destructive process of evolution is the means by which God created and called it 'good', any system that synthesized evolution with Christian doctrine needs to account for the fall, because if we are not fallen then we do not need saving.

As a Theistic evolutionist, I appreciate this post. I think it make it makes a lot of sense and is a perfectly rational position from a Christian perspective (I'd say more of a non-scientist lay-Christian perspective and I do not mean this in any negative way). Though scientifically (and as a scientist), I do not agree.

I think that part of the difficulty with accepting this line of thought, for me, is that evolution is not really something that I theologically have derived. I didn't use theology and scripture to guide me to Theistic evolution. Rather I simply used observation of what I consider creation.

Being a Theistic evolution is not really a choice for Theistic evolutionists, no more is it a choice to believe in things like the theory of plate tectonics or to believe in the theory of gravity. These ideas are not derived theologically, but rather they're derived through observation and experience.

And once observed and experienced, everything wraps around that physical experience, rather than everything being wrapped around a theological thought.

ReesePiece23 · Mar 22, 2021

disciple Clint said:
You sir may rightly claim to be related to a monkey, I however am not.

Everybody's got something to hide; except ME and my monkey!!

Sorry, I always look for an excuse to reference Beatles songs.

Job 33:6 · Mar 22, 2021

disciple Clint said:
1) No empirical proof exists that macro-evolution (that is, evolution from one distinct kind of organism into another) is occurring at present, or has ever happened in the past. No one, throughout recorded history, has ever seen it.

Evolutionist anthropologist Jeffrey H. Schwartz stated in his 1999 book Sudden Origins . . . that with the exception of Dobzhan sky's claim about a new species of fruit fly (micro-evolution, not macro-evolution), the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.

2) No transitional fossils. If evolution had taken place there should have been a great many transitional structures preserved in fossilised form recording the stages of development from one type of organism to another type.

For instance, invertebrates are supposed to have transformed into vertebrates, having passed through many intermediate stages. The fossil record does not document such transitions. Evidence does not support the theory of evolution

I think this video describes the most fundamental proof of evolution. It's the summation of phylogenetic trees derived from dozens of independent fields of science.

And I'd be happy to explain if anyone doesn't understand this the video.

Lawrence87 · Mar 22, 2021

KomatiiteBIF said:
As a Theistic evolutionist, I appreciate this post. I think it make it makes a lot of sense and is a perfectly rational position from a Christian perspective (I'd say more of a non-scientist lay-Christian perspective and I do not mean this in any negative way). Though scientifically (and as a scientist), I do not agree.

I think that part of the difficulty with accepting this line of thought, for me, is that evolution is not really something that I theologically have derived. I didn't use theology and scripture to guide me to Theistic evolution. Rather I simply used observation of what I consider creation.

Being a Theistic evolution is not really a choice for Theistic evolutionists, no more is it a choice to believe in things like the theory of plate tectonics or to believe in the theory of gravity. These ideas are not derived theologically, but rather they're derived through observation and experience.

And once observed and experienced, everything wraps around that physical experience, rather than everything being wrapped around a theological thought.

I think there is a model that works better than theistic evolution that goes in accord with the theology, and that would be what I have heard referred to as an alterist model.

Basically the idea is that the process of being given garments of flesh after the fall is evolution. The point at which we took on a more animalistic mode of being and nature that reflected our distance from God. The creation deemed good and paradise are now utterly inaccessible to us, and everything that we see using science is post fall.

This model overcomes the issues of theistic evolution and young earth creationism. Because it maintains the fall and doesn't have the obvious issues that creationism has

The Barbarian · Mar 22, 2021

disciple Clint said:
not exactly, what would be your evidence for macro evolution?

The definition is pretty clear. Microevolution is a change in allele frequencies within a population that does not result in a new species. Macroevolution is a change in allele frequencies in a population that produces a new species.
http://www.esp.org/foundations/genetics/classical/holdings/Genetics/Genetics-1935-20-4-377.pdf

As I said, even many creationist organizations admit the evolution of new species. They just avoid the "E-word."

Most of them redefined "macroevolution" to be "some kind of evolution that takes too long for any person to actually observe in a lifetime."

The Barbarian · Mar 22, 2021

PaulCyp1 said:
Biological evolution is not in any "equation". It is simply one of the most thoroughly understood natural processes in God's creation. We understand it far better than we understand gravity.

Yep. We know why evolution works, but we still aren't sure why gravity works.

disciple Clint · Mar 22, 2021

The Barbarian said:
The definition is pretty clear. Microevolution is a change in allele frequencies within a population that does not result in a new species. Macroevolution is a change in allele frequencies in a population that produces a new species.
http://www.esp.org/foundations/genetics/classical/holdings/Genetics/Genetics-1935-20-4-377.pdf

As I said, even many creationist organizations admit the evolution of new species. They just avoid the "E-word."

Most of them redefined "macroevolution" to be "some kind of evolution that takes too long for any person to actually observe in a lifetime."

see post 52

The Barbarian · Mar 22, 2021

MittenMaven said:
A nice example is the Palmaris longus muscle and tendon. It is useless in humans and is absent in about 15 percent of people. Why would God create humans with a useless muscle and cause it to be absent in 15 percent of his creation? The answer is that God didn’t create it that way. The palmaris longus is very useful in apes to facilitate grip strength for living in trees. Humans no longer swing from trees but we evolved from apes. Volumes of other evidence exists. Much of the latest is genetic such as the fusion of chromosomes that is strong evidence of a common great ape-human ancestor millions of years ago.

Good point.

But in our wrists we have the pollicis longus muscle that allows us to have full motion of the thumb. Other great apes don't have it. We can't hang from branches as well, now, but we do have a more agile hand. Which makes evolutionary sense.

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

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Newbie

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

The Peanut Buttery Member.

social troglodyte

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

The Peanut Buttery Member.

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Crabby Old White Guy

Crabby Old White Guy

Well-Known Member

Crabby Old White Guy

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency