Why do some Christian's dismiss evolution?

[Smidlee]

Bad analogy. The house and the car would still be there despite the flaws in their current operation. Same with evolution.

A car without a engine is nothing but dead weight. Same with evolution.

No. I said probably not definitely. Macroevolution could be falsified although I do not see how.

I don't either since it can forever hide in some unknown laws of physics.

 

[Numenor]

Unfortunately the thread has become bogged down in PRATTs but I didn't want the points Critias made to go unaddressed as they raise a far more interesting and beneficial aspect of the debate.

Physical doesn't just mean a body. We must first realize this and understand that something physical doesn't mean the body.

Whilst that's an interesting idea I think it's more pertinent and imprtant to note that our human nature doesn't mean just our physical being.

Jesus Christ was and is God. When He was man, He was God. He wasn't just the image of God, He was God. So, since we know the form Jesus took wasn't God, but His Spirit was, then image must be something other than the spirit in these verses. It very well encompasses the spirit, but is more then that.

He took on our human nature which is indeed other than the spirt, our human nature encompasses our physical being and our soul. There are also other incommunicable attributes of God which Christ was not able to take up otherwise it would have negated his true humanity.

There are physical aspects that are also 'in the image of God'. Acts of love can be physical acts. Acts of mercy can be physical acts. These stem from the Spirit and are carried out by the physical.

So are you saying God needs a physical outlet for his acts of love since, as a reflection of that, we carry out our acts of love as physical acts? We as physical beings carry out acts of love which flow from the Spirit, but to say that because we exist in a physical reality means that God somehow also must have a physical aspect to his nature is not the case. As I pointed out to QuantumFlux, God loved the Son from all eternity without the need of any physical expression of that love.

It seems we tend to just cut off the physical completely, which can be used to justify our evil acts as something not of us, spiritually. That would be incorrect. For sin starts in the mind and is carried out in the physical. So too are acts of good.

This is very true, although I'm not sure how it relates to the discussion. God does not need a physical nature to carry out acts of love just because we do.

 

[shernren]

Third post in a row, I'm on a roll.

You keep comparing the evolutionary theory to that of gravity and meteorology. It is in no way like gravity because gravity can be measured and the theory has not been changed in who knows how long.

Meteorology however is a good analogy. Any meteorologist will tell you how unpredictable the weather is, they can only give you a rough estimate of what the weather will be like that day, much less predict the weather 5 years from now. If they could they could have warned New Orleans a year ahead of Katrina.

...

If evolution is proven like meteorology is proven, then its not proven at all because meteorology is wrong in alot of cases.

Actually ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictions_of_hurricane_risk_for_New_Orleans

Heh. Meteorology is completely theoretically sound. The problem with meteorology isn't a problem of science, it's a problem of modeling. Air systems are completely deterministic, but subject to such a huge number of influences. It's like knowing a complete equation that has 20 trillion variables. You can predict some general things about what's going to turn out, but not the exact solution.

In a way, that's something like evolution. Do we know all the details? No. Are we on the way to knowing all the details? I believe so. Evolution is like looking back on Hurricane Katrina and saying, "Well, we're not completely sure, but we think that climate warming had something to do with it." Whereas creation science is like looking back and saying "Hurricane Katrina did not form because of warm oceans and air pressure variations, it happened simply because God was angry and it could have formed anywhere in the world at any time whatsoever despite everything we know about weather."

Actually, the theory of gravity changes all the time. It's just that there are no "Christians Against Gravity" groups highlighting the changes. For example, gravity took a big leap in 1915 with Einstein's GR. It took another big leap in the 1980s with the introduction of superstring theory, and another in the 1990s with the introduction of M-theory. That's three major changes in one century. Even now scientists are still finding new solutions to Einstein's century old Einstein equations that describe the matter-spacetime curvature interaction. Whereas the major Darwinian framework of natural selection operating on population variation hasn't changed since Origin of the Species.

Here is a link to a evolutionistary view of the cambrian explostion

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/l...4/l_034_02.html

The things to notice here is that the scientists have very little speculation as to how these creatures evolved so fast. You all of a sudden have creatures with heads and bodies, arms and legs all fully functional.

...

There are several cultures with records of a world wide flood. Native american cultures, chinese cultures, african tribes and multiple other cultures all have this very similar tale of a world wide flood. If this were to be judged as any other historical evidence with so much cooberating evidence, the world wide flood is historical fact. Perhaps the evidence is there, but you choose not to look at it.

Time to break out TalkOrigins' list of creationist claims! Hmm, I just found refutations.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CG/CG201.html

 

[QuantumFlux]

At first, Brown thought H. floresiensis evolved from Homo erectus, but now he believes the hobbits were more closely linked to Australopithecus, a more apish-looking human ancestor that walked upright but had long arms.

This is causing a stir only because scientists actually search for answers and the truth. I could not say the same about YEC's.

Did you actually read about this thing? I mean seriously, they say this thing had elongated arms but they didnt even find any arms with the body! They did find an arm (one arm) but it didn't even belong to that skeleton, but they assume that it goes with another one of the same species (which they have no evidence of) and that it was the same height (which they have no evidence of). So much for searching for the truth, they are just trying to confirm their own belief with whatever evidence they can make up.

However, there are some things that have been proven completely wrong and without merit: a 6000 year old earth, unique special creation, and a literal reading of Genesis is untrue. You cannot get around it by saying some arms are not as long as other arms. The strawmen you build up can be burned down again and again yet reality will still bite you in the rear end. So you say.

Stop comparing me to YECs, I have my own beliefs and one of them is that God made the earth mature just as he made the trees mature and mankind mature when he created them during the 6 days of creation. And my friend, a literal reading of Genesis is the only way to read Genesis. You either take it in context as it was written or you throw the whole book out as myth, there is no seperation between creation, the story of noah or anything up to Moses. It is all written as one piece, it does not seperate anything as myth, so you take it all literal or you throw it all in the myth pile, context, cultural or otherwise, does not allow it to be taken any other way.

There are plenty of fossils that show change within a species. Reality is that every fossil creates a new link.

Change link to assumption and you have a correct statement. I believe we established they are all assumptions once yesterdays article on how Dinosaurs are in no way linked to birds came out. The reality is, you dont know if any of those are real links at all, you're just guessing.

Unfortunately, a literal reading of Genesis which leads you to accept a very young earth with unique special creation is totally wrong. No matter how you spin the facts it is just not true. And you know it

No, evolution is a load of misconceptions and wishful educated guesses and you know it.

Through prayer and meditation I know Jesus Christ was a historical figure and the unique savior of mankind. The entire New Testament is devoted to the life of this unique person in history and He has no equal. Noah has one chapter of one book in a collection that began as oral history over many centuries. Jesus Christ was written about within two decades of his death and resurrection.

Through prayer and meditation... I think I heard a mormon say the same exact thing about Joseph Smith. Next you will be telling me about your warm fuzzy feeling experience. You also seem to have problems with oral stories, as if they were passed on like campfire stories. Apparently you have neglected your studies on how oral stories were passed on, it is a very intricate process with allowed very little room for adlibing or adding anything to the story. Oral stories of many cultures, especially the hebrews, have stayed word for word intact for centuries.

Time to break out TalkOrigins' list of creationist claims! Hmm, I just found refutations.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CG/CG201.html

These links dont explain anything, the best they have is a worm with legs....which doesnt give any transition from a crustatia with multiple legs, head and arms. I find it funny how people swear by this site but it really just tries to beef up the evidence they have and completely ignore what evidence they lack.

 

[artybloke]

which they have no evidence of

Not true. Read a good book on forensic science.

Oral stories of many cultures, especially the hebrews, have stayed word for word intact for centuries.

a) this is certainly not true of Norse myths, or any ancient near Eastern culture that we know of either. Or African. Or Native American. Or (insert culture...) They only became relatively fixed when written down. Elaboration was/is very much a part of story-telling culture (you can see it too in folk songs - many of which exist in several variations.)

b) apart from the fact that it supports your pov, have you any actual evidence that the Hebrew culture of, sat, the 5th-10th C BC was any different in its oral story practices than the surrounding culture (the way that hebrew scholars of a later, literate age copied the scriptures word for word isn't relevant.)

 

[stumpjumper]

Stop comparing me to YECs, I have my own beliefs and one of them is that God made the earth mature just as he made the trees mature and mankind mature when he created them during the 6 days of creation. And my friend, a literal reading of Genesis is the only way to read Genesis. You either take it in context as it was written or you throw the whole book out as myth, there is no seperation between creation, the story of noah or anything up to Moses. It is all written as one piece, it does not seperate anything as myth, so you take it all literal or you throw it all in the myth pile, context, cultural or otherwise, does not allow it to be taken any other way.

Well thank you for deciding what people can and cannot believe. Where in Genesis does it say that God created recently yet made the earth look extremely old with extinct fossils and all the other data that you conveniently push aside. You are arguing the YEC position so whether or not you like the label it fits

Genesis 1-11 is written much differently than the rest of the Bible as this passage preceding Genesis in my canonized Bible will attest: "The interpreter of Genesis will recognize at once the distinct object that sets chapter's 1-11 apart: the recounting of the origin of the world and of man (primevil history). To make the truths contained in these chapters intelligible to the Israelite people destined to preserve them, they needed to be expressed through elements prevailing among the people at that time. For this reason, the truths themselves must be clearly distinguished from the literary garb."

Perhaps you should write an opinion letter to the author of that foreward and tell him he either reads Genesis literally or become a Buddhist.

 

[QuantumFlux]

a) this is certainly not true of Norse myths, or any ancient near Eastern culture that we know of either. Or African. Or Native American. Or (insert culture...) They only became relatively fixed when written down. Elaboration was/is very much a part of story-telling culture (you can see it too in folk songs - many of which exist in several variations.)

This is certainly an untrue statement when things such as lineage is involved. There are many african tribes that can oral trace back their lineage for a millenium worth of generations. And this is in fact what Genesis is, it is a lineage of the hebrew people, it was not a story telling time or campfire story, it was not meant for entertainment, it was meant for tracing the history of the hebrew people.

b) apart from the fact that it supports your pov, have you any actual evidence that the Hebrew culture of, sat, the 5th-10th C BC was any different in its oral story practices than the surrounding culture

Have you any actual evidence that it was the same? Not that it matters to those who believe the OT stories to be a myth, but the OT shows how very special and different the Hebrew culture was. You can say that God had to call them back from being like the other cultures of the time, but that was only in certain areas, their worship and belief in God was completely different than any surrounding culture. The other cultures worshiped their gods as entertainment or a source of pleasure and only made sacrifices when they needed or wanted something.

Fact is that the Hebrews were different than anything around them (well, that is if you take the OT as true). It may not be specific on how their oral stories were cared on, but I have no reason to believe that it wasn't just as strict a practice in the beginning. The only evidence that you have that it wasn't is that the other cultures didn't have those practices, but in my view that really isn't evidence at all.

 

[QuantumFlux]

Where in Genesis does it say that God created recently yet made the earth look extremely old with extinct fossils and all the other data that you conveniently push aside.

Well, it only makes sense that he made the earth look old since he made the trees to bear fruit and didnt plant the seeds, he made man mature so that he could speak and commune with God. As the the extinct fossils, the only way you know how old they are is by the layer in which they are burried or c14 carbon dating or radioisotope.

if the layers were created suddenly instead of progressively then the layer dating is negated, we still dont know all of the elements that affect both c14 and radioisotopes so those are faulty as well. In essence, fossils dont prove an old earth, there is a fossilized miners helmet found an a late 19th century mining cave, I'd be curious to see when those dating methods would place that helmet.

 

[stumpjumper]

Well, it only makes sense that he made the earth look old since he made the trees to bear fruit and didnt plant the seeds, he made man mature so that he could speak and commune with God. As the the extinct fossils, the only way you know how old they are is by the layer in which they are burried or c14 carbon dating or radioisotope.

if the layers were created suddenly instead of progressively then the layer dating is negated, we still dont know all of the elements that affect both c14 and radioisotopes so those are faulty as well. In essence, fossils dont prove an old earth, there is a fossilized miners helmet found an a late 19th century mining cave, I'd be curious to see when those dating methods would place that helmet.

Listen you could probably get around the light from stars reaching us from hundreds of thousands of light years away by saying that at the time of creation light speed was infinite, but there are lots of things you cannot get around. Supernovas that have exploded tens of thousands of light years ago are just reaching us now. It takes a long time for stars to mature and then explode and then have their light reach the earth. You also can't get around the Big Bang inflationary model. The Big Bang shows that the universe was not created within the span of one earth week and you just cannot get past that and the data that support it.

Then you go to anthropology and biology and you are sunk. I honestly do not know how people can believe in a recent, unique creation. God might be more active in evolution than myself or others think but it is clear that Genesis 1-11 is not literally true from every area inquiry.

 

[Numenor]

So much for searching for the truth, they are just trying to confirm their own belief with whatever evidence they can make up.

A bit like making up that God made the earth mature when the evidence does not suggest it and the Bible gives us no indication of this.

 

[QuantumFlux]

Listen you could probably get around the light from stars reaching us from hundreds of thousands of light years away by saying that at the time of creation light speed was infinite, but there are lots of things you cannot get around. Supernovas that have exploded tens of thousands of light years ago are just reaching us now. It takes a long time for stars to mature and then explode and then have their light reach the earth. You also can't get around the Big Bang inflationary model. The Big Bang shows that the universe was not created within the span of one earth week and you just cannot get past that and the data that support it.

You got me there, I mean, I know God is limited by our physics, so there is no way for him to do that.

Then you go to anthropology and biology and you are sunk. I honestly do not know how people can believe in a recent, unique creation.

That's okay, I'm still trying to figure out why people still believe in evolution.

God might be more active in evolution than myself or others think but it is clear that Genesis 1-11 is not literally true from every area inquiry.

You mean accept for context.... I apologize for believing in God's foolishness over man's wisdom.

 

[QuantumFlux]

A bit like making up that God made the earth mature when the evidence does not suggest it and the Bible gives us no indication of this.

Um....I just gave you the indications from the Bible that God created it mature along with everything else he created in those 6 days. If my theory doesn't align with the biblical principles and teachings I'd throw it out, can you say the same?

 

[artybloke]

There are many african tribes that can oral trace back their lineage for a millenium worth of generations.

You have evidence that they are accurate? How many of them end up with the first king being born of a god?

but the OT shows how very special and different the Hebrew culture was

By the time of the exile and post-exilic communities, certainly it was becoming so in some terms, especially theological. But as there is nothing in the OT that was written or compiled (in its current form at least) from any earlier than about 500BC at the earliest, and as the prophets were always complaining bitterly about how much the Hebrews were running after the gods and practices of the surrounding nations, any idea of "seperateness" was very much in its infancy.

In any case, the Old Testament actually contains no literary forms that are original to it. There were codes of law (eg the law of Hammurabi), prophets, poetry both epic and domestic, narratives, myths and legends about heros, chronicles etc, all of which are found in the OT - except for epic. The Hebrews had no epic poetry, for some reason, or if they did it's lost. Even the Psalms are not structurally different from the earliest known "authored" poetry: the hymns to the goddess Ishtar by the Sumerian priestess Enhedduenna.

Culturally, until the law was codified during and after the exile, the hebrews would have shown little difference but for a belief in one god rather than many from most of the people around them.

 

[QuantumFlux]

Culturally, until the law was codified during and after the exile, the hebrews would have shown little difference but for a belief in one god rather than many from most of the people around them.

You have no evidence for that anymore than I have for the contrary. In essence, you can believe that if you wish, I'll continue to believe that the Genesis book is true in its entirety.

Out of curiousity, how do you believe that genesis is figurative. Walk me through the chapters and what they mean figuratively. I've heard general statements that are like "its just saying that we were created special" however that is really vague for how many specifics are in the few chapters. So help me out, show me the symbolism.

 

[artybloke]

You have no evidence for that anymore than I have for the contrary. In essence, you can believe that if you wish, I'll continue to believe that the Genesis book is true in its entirety.

Out of curiousity, how do you believe that genesis is figurative. Walk me through the chapters and what they mean figuratively. I've heard general statements that are like "its just saying that we were created special" however that is really vague for how many specifics are in the few chapters. So help me out, show me the symbolism.

Not sure what you mean by "figurative." "Metaphorical" I might go with; I don't really think it's as instrumental as "this figure represents that quality." I can't really do as you ask as I don't have the time; but with regards to Chap 1, for instance, I would have to say that it's embedded right into the very structure: that it has a refrain, that even from the very beginning it has God "brooding" over his creation (that is, it uses poetic and metaphorical language throughout), its cadence even, and many other things lead me to say that it has all the qualities of a liturgical psalm to be used in worship, not a piece of factual reportage.

By the way, I don't have a problem with Genesis being true in its entirety. But "true" and "factual" are not the same concepts.

 

[Critias]

Unfortunately the thread has become bogged down in PRATTs but I didn't want the points Critias made to go unaddressed as they raise a far more interesting and beneficial aspect of the debate.

That's ok. We can just ignore or bypass the other post and continue.

Whilst that's an interesting idea I think it's more pertinent and imprtant to note that our human nature doesn't mean just our physical being.

I agree, but it does include our physical being.

He took on our human nature which is indeed other than the spirt, our human nature encompasses our physical being and our soul. There are also other incommunicable attributes of God which Christ was not able to take up otherwise it would have negated his true humanity.

He didn't take on our human nature, He took on human form. Our human nature is to sin, He did not sin. Our human nature is to war against God, He did not war against God.

Christ never gave up anything other than His right to be Lord over all mankind while on earth. Instead, He came born in a feeding trough, inside of a stable; a Jew considered less than a Roman; a son of a Carpenter, not a son of a teacher of the law or Pharisee. He had a lowly status, that is what He took on and gave up His right to be over all mankind.

Instead, people today want to say Jesus gave up His God-ness as in His attributes, when He didn't. He refrained from using many of them, but He wasn't void of them as many here have stated previously. He made people walk again, healed the sick and dying, raised the dead, walked on water, calmed the storm. He did these by His power where His Apostles did some of these in His Name.

It saddens me that many people want to reduce Jesus to a demigod, instead of the Almighty God. He demostrated who He was, He wasn't void of who He is, and He gave up His right to be Lord over all to save us. And now, even Christians want to subject Him to being less than who He is.

He experienced all things human, because He allowed Himself to, not because He had no choice.

So are you saying God needs a physical outlet for his acts of love since, as a reflection of that, we carry out our acts of love as physical acts? We as physical beings carry out acts of love which flow from the Spirit, but to say that because we exist in a physical reality means that God somehow also must have a physical aspect to his nature is not the case. As I pointed out to QuantumFlux, God loved the Son from all eternity without the need of any physical expression of that love.

You will be hard pressed to find that I stated God needs a physical outlet to express His love. Our acts of love are a reflection of the One who lives in us. The good that is left, whether in acts that are tangible or intangible are because God is still with us.

Don't try and make a strawman.

This is very true, although I'm not sure how it relates to the discussion. God does not need a physical nature to carry out acts of love just because we do.

And God does not need us. But, God chooses to use to us to carry out His will. And often times His will is within the physical. So you cannot negate the physical as a reality being apart of the image of God.

The image of God is actually quite a vast statement. If I see you homeless and I take you in and feed you, clothe you, and help you start anew. Am I not showing you how God loves you through my physical actions? This would be acting in the image of God. Image of God simply means in the likeness of God, which can be carried out in the physical as well as the spiritual. To simply state that the physical has nothing to do with it, is to limit how God works. God does work within the physical all the time.

We are created in the likeness of God, to honor Him, love Him and obey Him, thus loving our neighbors and honoring them, doing goodwill for them. Instead we have defiled this likeness with our sinful nature. Jesus Christ was in the image of God, just as Adam was before He sinned. We too can once again be in the image of God by believing in Jesus Christ and following Him. For God will no longer see our sins because Jesus' blood has covered them.

 

[QuantumFlux]

Not sure what you mean by "figurative." "Metaphorical" I might go with; I don't really think it's as instrumental as "this figure represents that quality." I can't really do as you ask as I don't have the time; but with regards to Chap 1, for instance, I would have to say that it's embedded right into the very structure: that it has a refrain, that even from the very beginning it has God "brooding" over his creation (that is, it uses poetic and metaphorical language throughout), its cadence even, and many other things lead me to say that it has all the qualities of a liturgical psalm to be used in worship, not a piece of factual reportage.

It does not use poetic and metaphoric language throughout. It is written the same as the rest of genesis, it most certainly is not a psalm because the format isn't right.

Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

what does that mean metaphorically?

 

[Mikecpking]

Well, it only makes sense that he made the earth look old since he made the trees to bear fruit and didnt plant the seeds, he made man mature so that he could speak and commune with God. As the the extinct fossils, the only way you know how old they are is by the layer in which they are burried or c14 carbon dating or radioisotope.

if the layers were created suddenly instead of progressively then the layer dating is negated, we still dont know all of the elements that affect both c14 and radioisotopes so those are faulty as well. In essence, fossils dont prove an old earth, there is a fossilized miners helmet found an a late 19th century mining cave, I'd be curious to see when those dating methods would place that helmet.

This is plain wrong, no one dates fossils by carbon dating, because carbon dating only works from organic matter for roughly 20,000 years, not millions of years. Fossils are the result of all orgainic material (including carbon) which has left its imprint in the rock.
There are simple common sense principles in geology; for example, you have group of fossils in a certain type of rock layer and you find the same group of fossils in another and its safe to say the rocks are of the same age. For example; you will not find trilobytes in chalk from the Cretaceous not will you find sauropods in the Cambrian. YEC geology has no explanation why there is this layering in the fossil record as a single universal flood.
Furthermore, your example of a mining helmet will be found in a calcerous (limestone) rock which has had water running over it and the limestone reforming over it, just like a stalagmite would form. No mystery there!

 

[gluadys]

No. I said probably not definitely. Macroevolution could be falsified although I do not see how.

There are many ways to falsify macroevolution. Find a fossilized rabbit in Cambrian rock formations, for starters. Doug Theobald's 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution not only provides many lines of evidence for macroevolution, but also at least one, and often more than one way to falsify macroevolution for each line of supporting evidence.

Of course, none of this potentially falsifying evidence has turned up yet. Nevertheless, we do know what it takes to falsify macroevolution.

 

[gluadys]

Is it?

Jesus Christ is in the very nature God Himself. Yet, it is stated that Jesus is the image of God. (Col 1:15) 1 Corinthians 11:7 man, normal man, is the image of God.

So, if Jesus Christ is God, how is He the image of God if it has nothing to do with the physical when He is already God?

The answer is more complex then I think many realize. The 'in His image' is more than just spirit, mind, emotion, etc. It also has to do with the physical.

But Paul is writing to the Colossians who had never seen Jesus in the flesh, and there is no drawing or picture of Jesus, not even a verbal description of him. So the Colossians had no phyiscal image to reference when contemplating Jesus as the image of God. The same goes for the recipients of the letter to the Hebrews which describes him as "the exact imprint of God's very being". (1:3)

Hence, Paul and the writer of Hebrews cannot be referencing Jesus' physical being when they commend him to the Colossians and the Jewish Diaspora as the image of God.