Why do some Christian's dismiss evolution?

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

the problem i have with that is, you act like we know what reality is. Science has to be altered constantly and continue to be altered throughout existance (and many times it is not updated, its actually something is proven wrong and a new theory is formed), which mean that what reality is will never be known tshrough man's studies alone.

There are some realities that I think the evidence is too strong to deny. The ancientness of the earth is one. Common descent with modification is another. You are not convinced, but as your ignorance of ERVs shows, that may be because you are not fully aware of the strength and significance of the evidence. Nor was I until a couple of years ago when I first got involved in debating creationism and evolution. I knew the evidence for mainstream science was strong, but I got a bit of a shock finding out just how strong it was.

However, God tells us the reality. Maybe more effort should be spent accepting what God says and proving that, rather than accepting our incomplete assumptions over what God has told us.

Or maybe more effort should be spent trying to work out what Genesis 1-3 means to us today. The world was made in six days? So what? I am estranged from God through sin - now that has some meaning.

I don't see how you can accept Jesus' forgiveness yet believe that death has always been in the world. If death did not enter the world through one man, the it was not conquored by one man. If death was already in the world then sin was always in the world and there was no fall. If there was no fall, then what is the point of Jesus' sacrifice?

Sin only came into the world with humans who were capable of spiritual and moral awareness. However, physical death has always been here. I'm going to take your next comment now, for reasons that will be obvious in a moment.

Seems as though the ones that believe in evolution neglect their biblical studies.

I'll gloss over how insulting this sort of attack on the validity of many Christians' faith this is, and look closely at the Fall story with regard to death.

What did God say to the woman? He said that if the pair ate the fruit, they would die that day. But they didn't. The Bible ascribes some 900 years to Adam! So they didn't die that day. Or did they?

God gets back to the garden, knows something is up, wrings the story out of the man, who blames the woman, who blames the snake... and after a quick visit to the original Jewish tailor's shop, sends them out of the garden with a flea in their ear. They can no longer live in the garden, and notice also that the "God walking in the cool of the evening" closeness and direct experience of God is also gone. They have spiritually died. Dead in their sins, as the NT has it.

I would hold that this is something that we all do. I am not a sinner because of a putative pair of ancestors; I am a sinner because of what I do. I daily do what Adam did. If I want to know what Adam looked like, a mirror is a good place to look. What the Fall story is saying to us today is "Look. This is what people are like. If you give them everything, make everything perfect, and just have one thing they shouldn't do, they'll do it the moment your back's turned, and they'll swear blind it was someone else's fault" And that's a profoundly true insight into human nature. Putting it right at the beginning of human existence, as the Bible does, shows it's what we've always been like. The first people were like that. Everyone since has been like that, and we're like that.

What then is Jesus about? Well, if the Adam in each of us leads us to spiritual death, Jesus leads us to spiritual life. What the first Adam - in me, in you, in the bloke next door - couldn't do, the second Adam, Christ, does - if we're willing to let the first Adam die, and the second Adam be born in us.

Now, if I don't stop, I'll start waxing lyrical about the Incarnation, so I'll stop. But I hope you're interested in what those of us who've neglected our biblical studies so badly can come up with.

 

[QuantumFlux]

Slightly, but I dont see how viral DNA says that we have common ancestors over merely being infected by the same virus. Can you elaborate?

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Slightly, but I dont see how viral DNA says that we have common ancestors over merely being infected by the same virus. Can you elaborate?

The fact that the viral insertions occur in exactly the same place in our genome as in the other apes'. This is like randomly opening the complete works of Shakespeare, and stabbing with a pen, on exactly the same word several times in succession, in the case of ERVs shared by all the apes - the virus doesn't care where it inserts its payload, and has no means of choosing a particular part of the genome anyway. Of course, if we all inherited the insertion from a common ancestor, we'd expect it to be in the same place.

 

[QuantumFlux]

What did God say to the woman? He said that if the pair ate the fruit, they would die that day. But they didn't. The Bible ascribes some 900 years to Adam! So they didn't die that day. Or did they?

Really curious as to what translation you are reading, bcause all that I have read said God said that they would "surely die" and gave no time frame. And maybe the 900 years ascribed to adam had to do with some of those pseudo-genes we have now.

What you are ascribing to sounds very much like the gnostic belief, that everything is figurative however Paul gave stern warnings against such teachings. And also according to evolution, the first man wouldn't have had the comprehension to understand what God was saying being little more than a caveman. Also what you are saying is that God created the earth billions of years before sat by idoly watching it evolve out of what? sheer boredom? then after being bored with these animals decides that monkeys will now give birth to the image of God, and whatever to this nonsense about creating them from dirt, and that whole rib story is pretty wierd to so lets through that out.

Now we have these monkey kids who are now people and God decides to impose a rule that says they cant eat this fruit. Some how these monkey kids understand that God doesnt want them to eat it or they will die (not that they wouldnt die anyway, but these monkey kids should know what a spiritual death is and God isnt being deceptive in saying they will die) and do so anyway.

You're reallying going out on a limb with this theory.

Just out of curiousity. Was the resurrection a figurative saying?

 

[Critias]

Really curious as to what translation you are reading, bcause all that I have read said God said that they would "surely die" and gave no time frame. And maybe the 900 years ascribed to adam had to do with some of those pseudo-genes we have now.

The best English translation, beside the transliteration of the passage, states that in the day you shall surely die. Notice that phrase "in the day". This is a common Hebrew phrase that doesn't mean on the day but rather means a time after the the day you commit the act; in the day of sin.

This is a common assertion here among TEs. I just write it off as they have not studied the Scriptures to understand what this phrase means. And if they don't take the time to understand something this simple, that is used over 100 times in the Old Testament and never refers to a single day, then they are not taking the time with the rest of the passages as well.

It is nothing but to support their assertion even though it is blantanly wrong and they have been told so countless times here. Do you see how badly they want to believe against this?

 

[QuantumFlux]

The best English translation, beside the transliteration of the passage, states that in the day you shall surely die. Notice that phrase "in the day". This is a common Hebrew phrase that doesn't mean on the day but rather means a time after the the day you commit the act; in the day of sin.

Odd, I've taken college classes on genesis and each time we studied it that, all of my professors thought it was obsord for anyone to translate it relative to time. I'm curious to where you got this information because all of my professors spoke hebrew. It has to do with the phrasing and context surrounding it. I cant remember the details because I never took an hebrew classes but it had to do with the way the 6 days were phrased and the way that statement was phrased.

I find it interesting how literal you take such an off handed phrase as "in this day" yet the solid wording of 6 days is figurative. Seems like you have to chose, either "in this day" means in the next 24 hours and created the world in 6 days as in 6 days, or "in this day" is more figurative as the phrasing of "in 6 days" of creation.

I believe it is you who is wanting to believe this.

The fact that the viral insertions occur in exactly the same place in our genome as in the other apes'. This is like randomly opening the complete works of Shakespeare, and stabbing with a pen, on exactly the same word several times in succession, in the case of ERVs shared by all the apes - the virus doesn't care where it inserts its payload, and has no means of choosing a particular part of the genome anyway. Of course, if we all inherited the insertion from a common ancestor, we'd expect it to be in the same place.

All I see is another assumption based on believing evolution to be true. Considering how old these ERVs are we dont know that instead of it being random chance, that these viruses did not target certain DNA strands. Frankly, it would be hard to prove otherwise considering that we dont know exactly how this virus came about.

Here is some food for thought. Genetics has shown that genes that have been observed have only been observed to lose genetic information. Not one case has been observed where genetic information has been gained where there was none. Also in the case of mutation, all mutations that have occured have all shown to have a negative affect. Evolution would have us believe the exact opposite for both cases. Do a thousand loses of genetic material equal one positive? You may say yes, but observations have not shown this.

I'm sorry but anyone who reads the creation story and studies it finds quickly that the 6 days are quite literal. Anyone who takes them otherwise and says they are figurative but true runs into loads of trouble. Especialy if we look at what was created when. God says that he created the oceans and the earth before he created the sun. If you study it close enough you find that the order is very important in this chapter and that stating the days and affirming that the chronological events in this chapter are very specific.

So you have a choice, something is wrong here. It's either evolution or it's genesis, one of them is wrong. No figurative statement can make genesis right and evolution right.

 

[stumpjumper]

So you have a choice, something is wrong here. It's either evolution or it's genesis, one of them is wrong. No figurative statement can make genesis right and evolution right.

You are looking at Genesis much differently than it was likely intended to be interpreted. Even a YEC must interpret much of the Creation story as figurative. How can "God spoke" be interpreted literally? Does God have vocal cords? You also have plants coming before the sun and the the earth being formed from water before the sun existed to have the gravitational pull to bring earth into orbit. There are many others obviously.

Has it ever occurred to you that Genesis was written by a pre-scientific people to relay some real facts about God? Facts that are more important than the method of our biological origin. Facts such as God is the Creator of the physical universe and that physical existence came from the will of a non-physical being. Humans have free will and are interconnected (this is what the missing rib from Adam was meant to indicate). If you compare the Jewish creation story to others you find some other important information. Genesis is the one of the only ones that has matter coming from non-matter.

The fact is that Genesis is not a literal history but it can certainly tell us some great truths about our existence and about God. Reading into it a literal record of the past and our biological origin is missing the bigger picture.

By the way you are most definitely wrong on the no-information gaining mutations. Here is a good evolution page that has some good articles about religion and evolution[URL=http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/index.html]KenMiller[/URL]

 

[shernren]

Here is some food for thought. Genetics has shown that genes that have been observed have only been observed to lose genetic information. Not one case has been observed where genetic information has been gained where there was none. Also in the case of mutation, all mutations that have occured have all shown to have a negative affect. Evolution would have us believe the exact opposite for both cases. Do a thousand loses of genetic material equal one positive? You may say yes, but observations have not shown this.

I've been waiting a looooooong time for someone to refute the nylon bug properly here. Care to try?

The best English translation, beside the transliteration of the passage, states that in the day you shall surely die. Notice that phrase "in the day". This is a common Hebrew phrase that doesn't mean on the day but rather means a time after the the day you commit the act; in the day of sin.

I would agree with this. -gotta run for lecture: check blueletterbible yourselves.

 

[Critias]

Odd, I've taken college classes on genesis and each time we studied it that, all of my professors thought it was obsord for anyone to translate it relative to time. I'm curious to where you got this information because all of my professors spoke hebrew. It has to do with the phrasing and context surrounding it. I cant remember the details because I never took an hebrew classes but it had to do with the way the 6 days were phrased and the way that statement was phrased.

If you look to the Bible, over 100 times in the OT this phrase, 'in the day' and none of them mean a specific day. It is a common Hebrew phrase of speech to mean in the time of. It is not a specific day.

Also, in Hebrew if yom is followed by a number then it always means a literal 24 hour day. It is basic Hebrew linguistics.

I find it interesting how literal you take such an off handed phrase as "in this day" yet the solid wording of 6 days is figurative. Seems like you have to chose, either "in this day" means in the next 24 hours and created the world in 6 days as in 6 days, or "in this day" is more figurative as the phrasing of "in 6 days" of creation.

I believe it is you who is wanting to believe this.

I do not support six days being figurative. They were literal days.

There is a big difference between 'in this day' and 'in six days'. One is figurative the other is exact.

 

[shernren]

-back. Was looking at the BlueLetterBible entry for this particular verse Genesis 2:17, and the relevant part of it ("In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die") is originally: 'akal yowm 'akal muwth muwth which BLB transliterates as "eat day eat die die". (Thank God for translators! ) I'm no Hebrew expert but imagine if God had said / was saying "The moment you eat of it - you're dead meat!" the impact was not that you would die on the day you ate, but that you were as good as dead on the day you ate.

And death is far more holistic than just a body biting the dust.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

All I see is another assumption based on believing evolution to be true. Considering how old these ERVs are we dont know that instead of it being random chance, that these viruses did not target certain DNA strands. Frankly, it would be hard to prove otherwise considering that we dont know exactly how this virus came about.

Erm - retroviruses still exist. We know how they work. It's not just a case of targetting certain DNA strands - it is a case of inserting in exactly the same place in the strand. They do not do this - we can watch them at work today, and they are very similar to the ancient ones we find in the genome. And you still have to contend with the fact that the pattern of insertions exactly follows the predictions of evolutionary theory. We share so many insertions with the chimpanzee, and fewer with the gorilla. But what's really fascinating is that not only are the ones we share with the gorilla a subset of those we share with the chimpanzee, they are the same ones that the chimpanzee shares with the gorilla. If it was down to random infections, why on earth would we see this pattern? Evolution explains it perfectly; that is the sign of a good strong theory - it makes predictions that are borne out.

Here is some food for thought. Genetics has shown that genes that have been observed have only been observed to lose genetic information. Not one case has been observed where genetic information has been gained where there was none. Also in the case of mutation, all mutations that have occured have all shown to have a negative affect. Evolution would have us believe the exact opposite for both cases. Do a thousand loses of genetic material equal one positive? You may say yes, but observations have not shown this.

Not so. The vast majority of mutations are actually neutral in effect. Some are deleterious, and a very small number are beneficial. The beneficial ones don't have to outweight the negative ones because of natural selection, which removes the deleterious mutations from the gene pool whilst keeping the beneficial ones. So if over a hundred generations there are say five beneficial mutations and a thousand deleterious ones in a given population, at the end of the hundred generations perhaps one deleterious mutation makes it through, whilst four of the five beneficial ones are kept. Computer models using the Harvey-Weinberg equation including a selection factor bear this out.

I'm sorry but anyone who reads the creation story and studies it finds quickly that the 6 days are quite literal. Anyone who takes them otherwise and says they are figurative but true runs into loads of trouble. Especialy if we look at what was created when. God says that he created the oceans and the earth before he created the sun. If you study it close enough you find that the order is very important in this chapter and that stating the days and affirming that the chronological events in this chapter are very specific.

I agree the order is important. However, it's not important as a chronology. It's important as two sets of three, three being one of the holy numbers - three days of preperation, three days of filling (in the same order). The rest day is then addended to the six to make seven - another holy number. This isn't gnosticism; it is stuff that any Jewish reader would pick up on.

IVP* Bible Commentary 1953:

[font=Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif]its language is that of simple observation and a poetic quality, reflected in the strophic structure, permeates its style. Exegesis indicates that the scheme of the creation week itself is a poetic figure and that the several pictures of creation history are set within the six work-day frames not chronologically but topically.

[/font][font=Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/font]
*Inter Varsity Press - that well known hotbed of liberality and unbelief

So you have a choice, something is wrong here. It's either evolution or it's genesis, one of them is wrong. No figurative statement can make genesis right and evolution right.

I disagree. I've given a partial exegesis of Genesis that does not contradict mainstream science above - you may not agree with it, but you cannot say it can't be done. A fully consideration by me (a few years old - I need to update it) can be found at http://freespace.virgin.net/karl_and.gnome/genesis.htm

 

[QuantumFlux]

Not so. The vast majority of mutations are actually neutral in effect. Some are deleterious, and a very small number are beneficial.

oh yeah, your gonna have to prove that.

I agree the order is important. However, it's not important as a chronology. It's important as two sets of three, three being one of the holy numbers - three days of preperation, three days of filling (in the same order). The rest day is then addended to the six to make seven - another holy number. This isn't gnosticism; it is stuff that any Jewish reader would pick up on.

How very odd considering two of my professors spoke fluent Hebrew and aramaic and one was actually Jewish.

Even I can show the flaws in your train of thought. Yes the seven days has symbolism in that it shows God's involvement. Each time 7 is mentioned in the old testament it shows God's involvement, however the symbolism has never been determined to be complete symbolism and that the number should not be taken literal.

I'm gonna take a wild stab in the dark and say that you havent taken any courses on biblical study. If you had, you would find out how context makes a big difference on how you read something. In Genesis, Moses was writing the history of his people. Its very much a historical document, even to the point that secular historical scholars consider most of it as historically accurate. What you are saying is that the first few chapters are poetic and symbolic but the rest of the book (minus the flood) is historical fact.

Context begs to differ, the rest of the document is written as history, there fore the first should be considered the same. Moses didnt start out writing poetry then get distracted on this historical kick.

Hebrew poetry is very specific. It works in a point-counter point system. If you read psalms and proverbs you see what I'm talking about. Each line gives a point, the next like gives the counter-point such as "Do this, do not do this kind of thing". Or it works on a point-same point system, such as "Do this, this is what you are to do". Genesis 1 doesnt follow this formula at all.

Yes, the word yom means day and can also mean time period. In every case of yom meaning time period, there are no numbers associated with it, saying things like "the other day" or the like. However, in ever single case where a number is associated with yom, it is always considered 24 hour periods (I went back and read notes from class). To do otherwise is taking it out of context and adding a totally new element to the context..... As you would say, any jewish reader would pick up on this.

Not only that but Genesis 1 is very clear saying Day 1- this was created, Day 2- this was created. Chronology is obviously a high priority in the point of this chapter, that is undisputable. Now if you look at Genesis chapter 2 you can see an example of when chronology is not a high priority. notice that numbers are no longer associated with the days and that the order is slightly different. chapter 2 has a different point than chapter 1, where chapter 1's purpose is clearly stating the order of creating and how long it took.

You seem to have moved out of your area of expertise when you start talking about biblical context and symbolism.

On ERVs, I think you said it best when you said that you can see today that ERVs are not targeting specific genes. You've only proven my point. You assume that the ERVs of today are exactly the same as ERVs of 6,000 years ago or more.... That is an assumption and one that will never be proven.

so your poetic version of genesis 1 is not even close to well understood by the jewish readers, in fact, all that I have spoken to say the exact opposite, that there is no way for it to be poetic.

 

[Critias]

oh yeah, your gonna have to prove that.

Actually, about 90% or so of mutations are neutral. The remaining 10% are about half and half of negative and beneficial.

 

[QuantumFlux]

Actually, about 90% or so of mutations are neutral. The remaining 10% are about half and half of negative and beneficial.

Its one thing to say that its another to prove it.

Lets not totally forget the point about genesis being in contridiction to evolution.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Critias is on your side, QF.

Look, if this is just going to come down to "You're so ignorant of the Bible and I'm so clever with it so I'm right and you're wrong" then I've got better things to do.

Good evening.

 

[Critias]

Its one thing to say that its another to prove it.

Lets not totally forget the point about genesis being in contridiction to evolution.

I don't know what source you will trust so here is a google link.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=mutations+are+mostly+neutral&spell=1

I am also a creationists, but mutations only have around <5% chance of being beneficial. 90% are nuetral and around <5% or so are negative.

What we often see with the ToE is this: 'Chance events can cause the frequencies of alleles in a small population to drift randomly from generation to generation.'

Then the assertion is made that evolution is not a random chance. The above quote is from TalkOrigins discussing the Random Genetic Drift that they claim is a large piece of evolution. They discuss natural selection + random genetic drift as the two most important mechanism in evolution.

Actually, quite interesting.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genetic-drift.html

 

[QuantumFlux]

I'm truly lost as to how you can be a creationist that believes in evolution, or perhaps i'm misreading something.. microevolution maybe, but macroevolution is far from what God said happened.

 

[QuantumFlux]

Look, if this is just going to come down to "You're so ignorant of the Bible and I'm so clever with it so I'm right and you're wrong" then I've got better things to do

??? I believe it was you who claimed the superior knowledge of the bible first. as for Critias being on my side, just because he is a creationist doesnt mean i'll believe everything he says.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

??? I believe it was you who claimed the superior knowledge of the bible first.[/qb]

I claimed no such thing. I have no idea how good your knowledge of the Bible is, nor how it compares to mine. But it was you who said " I'm gonna take a wild stab in the dark and say that you havent taken any courses on biblical study. If you had..." - i.e. "I know more than you and if you knew as much as me you'd agree that..." I don't play that game.

as for Critias being on my side, just because he is a creationist doesnt mean i'll believe everything he says.

Well, as long as you know.

 

[Critias]

I'm truly lost as to how you can be a creationist that believes in evolution, or perhaps i'm misreading something.. microevolution maybe, but macroevolution is far from what God said happened.

I apologize. I don't believe in common descent. I believe all Genesis is a historical account, including 1-11.

I accept micro-evolution, just not macro.