Why I don't believe in evolution...

[Job 33:6]

Such an interaction is completely at odds with the idea God set things in motion and then sat back with his arms folded

I view evolution as a very personal experience with God.

Just like with the birth of a child, there are natural processes that we can use to explain the event, but I wouldn't view the birth of a child as something where God is absent or sitting in the background inactive. I view child birth as something that God is intimately involved in, despite us being able to talk about cell division and various trimesters etc.

The same goes for evolution. Just because we can explain scientifically how things happen, doesn't mean that God is absent.

If Christians have a philosophy where God is only present in events that we can't scientifically explain, I would think that this philosophical view would be in deep trouble. God holds the universe together, but if we discover gravity, that doesn't mean that God's active participation just goes away.

 

[The Barbarian]

How is it an assertion?

You've told us that the KJV is not the word of God.

What textual evidence supports your view

I've shown you the contradiction (if you assume the creation story is a literal history) between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. Your response was that "the KJV is not very accurate."

Which is perhaps an important issue for you to consider. It seems rather pointless for a Christian to be locked into the issue of whether birds came from soil or from water. But if you demand that the Bible be not only about God and man and our relationship, but also must be an authority on biology, history, and so on, even in parts that are figurative, it will ultimately push you into declaring that there's something wrong with the Bible.

The "contradiction" I showed you is far from the only one for people who want the Bible to be inerrant. Let it be God's word on our way to salvation. That's good enough for God.

It should be good enough for us.

 

[The Barbarian]

He just kept parroting James 2:24 again and again as if it were some kind of "I win" card.

You deny it, because it doesn't fit your new doctrine of "faith alone." As you know, Luther wanted to remove the Book of James, because he correctly claimed it contradicted sola fide. He was at least honest about it.

So you've tossed out all this convoluted reasoning as to why it doesn't mean what it says. It's the kind of response that's typical of a man so set in his thinking that no amount of reason or scripture in the world can do a thing to change it. Such a man is not here to learn or swap ideas, but to prejudicially impose onto others his own view of reality.

 

[The Barbarian]

Are you saying that Adam couldn't have named all the animals because dinosaurs were extinct before Adam lived?

Good point. In fact, we didn't have names for dinosaurs until we started finding their fossils.

 

[Job 33:6]

Good point. In fact, we didn't have names for dinosaurs until we started finding their fossils.

Yea for sure. Just as we haven't had names for any other prehistoric animal we've discovered.

Well maybe Edgar can explain what his concerns are.

 

[Job 33:6]

You've told us that the KJV is not the word of God.


I've shown you the contradiction (if you assume the creation story is a literal history) between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. Your response was that "the KJV is not very accurate."

Which is perhaps an important issue for you to consider. It seems rather pointless for a Christian to be locked into the issue of whether birds came from soil or from water. But if you demand that the Bible be not only about God and man and our relationship, but also must be an authority on biology, history, and so on, even in parts that are figurative, it will ultimately push you into declaring that there's something wrong with the Bible.

The "contradiction" I showed you is far from the only one for people who want the Bible to be inerrant. Let it be God's word on our way to salvation. That's good enough for God.

It should be good enough for us.

Biblical literalists always take scripture literally, until they don't. Then the bible is "not very accurate" LOL.

 

[The Barbarian]

Biblical literalists always take scripture literally, until they don't. Then the bible is "not very accurate" LOL.

It's a hard thing, trying to put everything into the Bible. My thought is that God produced it to give us the truth about salvation. If you reject that, you end up with Mark Twain's idea of "faith."

"Stormfield is a man with faith. Means he's willing to believe in what he knows ain't so."

Galileo oversimplified, but he had the right approach in saying that the Bible tells you how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.

​

 

[The Barbarian]

Yea for sure. Just as we haven't had names for any other prehistoric animal we've discovered.

The only exception I know of is the "frogamander", (transitional between salamanders and frogs) which had long been predicted to exist, but until recently, wasn't found.

The fossil Gerobatrachus hottoni or elderly frog, described in the journal Nature, may help set the record straight. "It's a missing link that falls right between where the fossil record of the extinct form and the fossil record for the modern form begins," said Jason Anderson of the University of Calgary, who led the study.


"It's a perfect little frogamander," he said.
Fossil of a `frogamander` found

 

[The Barbarian]

My assumption is a theistic evolutionist presupposes that evolution is absolute truth.

It's just an observed fact. You might as well call gravity "absolute truth." What does that even mean?

 

[Sam Saved by Grace]

Biblical literalists always take scripture literally, until they don't. Then the bible is "not very accurate" LOL.

Laugh it up - but your buddy is of a deceptive spirit, and you are not far behind.

It is well understood that the KJV of the Bible is antiquated and inaccurate. Not only has the meaning of many of the words changed in the 400+ years since it was commissioned, but the understanding of proper syntax. Perhaps more importantly, it isn't based on the superior Alexandrian text-type, but on the inferior Byzantine text - which consists of far fewer samples from which to work.

 

[Sam Saved by Grace]

It's just an observed fact. You might as well call gravity "absolute truth." What does that even mean?

I can drop a cup right now and watch it plummet to the floor. I have never seen a fish turn into a man. If you want to promote a belief in evolution as a theory sufficient to explain the origin of all complex life, then unfortunately, that is your prerogative as a biologist. But to say that evolution is observable reality on the same level with gravity is totally asinine. You don't have to be a biologist or a physicist to know that the two theories aren't even in the same ballpark when it comes to observability.

 

[The Barbarian]

It's just an observed fact. You might as well call gravity "absolute truth." What does that even mean?

I can drop a cup right now and watch it plummet to the floor.

And scientists can look at almost any population over time, and observe evolution happening.

I have never seen a fish turn into a man.

If anyone did, Darwin's theory would be in big trouble. Think back when you found out what evolution actually means. Do your remember?

If you want to promote a belief in evolution as a theory sufficient to explain the origin of all complex life,

If I wanted that, I would be exhibiting ignorance of what evolutionary theory is. If you remember, it's not about the origin of life. Even Darwin just assumed that God created the first living things, which then evolved from there.

But to say that evolution is observable reality on the same level with gravity is totally asinine.

It's just a fact. You've forgotten what "evolution"means in biology, again. It's a change in allele frequency in a population over time. Creationists often confuse evolution with agencies of evolution like natural selection, or confuse it with consequences of evolution, like common descent. As we discussed earlier, even many creationists organizations now admit a limited amount of common descent and speciation.

You don't have to be a biologist or a physicist to know that the two theories aren't even in the same ballpark when it comes to observability.

Actually, evolution is better-documented. We know why evolution works, but we still aren't exactly sure why gravity works.

 

[The Barbarian]

Laugh it up - but your buddy is of a deceptive spirit, and you are not far behind.

I don't think you mean to be deceptive, but you would certainly be more effective at promoting your beliefs, if you had enough confidence to let them stand on their own merits, instead of making false accusations when people don't agree with you. Everyone notices things like that.

Not only has the meaning of many of the words changed in the 400+ years since it was commissioned, but the understanding of proper syntax.

If one is able to define "proper syntax", anything can mean anything. But I don't believe that the meaning "water" or "ground" has changed much in that period. Both are Germanic in origin, and neither seem to have cognates in any other language group.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

You've told us that the KJV is not the word of God.

I've shown you the contradiction (if you assume the creation story is a literal history) between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. Your response was that "the KJV is not very accurate."

Which is perhaps an important issue for you to consider. It seems rather pointless for a Christian to be locked into the issue of whether birds came from soil or from water. But if you demand that the Bible be not only about God and man and our relationship, but also must be an authority on biology, history, and so on, even in parts that are figurative, it will ultimately push you into declaring that there's something wrong with the Bible.

The "contradiction" I showed you is far from the only one for people who want the Bible to be inerrant. Let it be God's word on our way to salvation. That's good enough for God.

It should be good enough for us.

Barbarian,
1. I am not the one who raised the contradiction...you did!
2. I did not say the KJV is not very accurate...what i was saying is that one should not use a single reference for doctrine! One must use a variety of sources in order to ensure consistency across said number of references (in this case it simply means a variety of translations)
3. You claim bible has errors whereas evolution apparently does not because evolution is simply observations. This is a very problematic approach considering the many issues in theistic evolution clearly has (the very first of which starts out with the origin of the universe...ie the big bang)

The big bang cannot fulfill the law of the conservation of energy and matter set forth by Albert Einstein in his relativity theory. Where did the energy come from to start the big bang?
If you say God, then we have a problem...(see below)


Wikipedia defines theistic evolution as follows...

a general term comprising views that regard religious teachings about God as compatible with modern scientific understanding about biological evolution.
​

ok so here is a simple question that perhaps a theistic evolutionist could answer for me using both the bible and/or evolution science.

In Genesis 1:1 it says...

"1In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."​

A pretty straightforward statement.

May i ask, if theistic evolution is true, would not it be fair to say that a credible scholarly vetted translation should exist somewhere which reads...

"in the beginning, God evolved (התפתח in Hebrew) the heavens and the earth"

In light of this, could someone find an Aramaic, Hebrew or whatever script from say the Septuagint, papyri etc that supports what common sense tells me is the correct translation of what Moses wrote (or meant to write)

I am sorry to say this, but in reading many of the answers put forth by theistic evolutionists so far in this topic, i find it an extremely poorly supported view. Almost all of the answers from theistic evolutionists here to very simple creationist questions and concerns do not meet any kind of consistent standard that any reasonably well educated person would consider appropriate. They ignore bible contexts, ignore biblical themes (which is an enormous problem actually), do not directly address sticky issues raised, and in fact blindly carry on irrespective of overwhelming evidence that raises significant fundamental problems.

I can categorically state, at present what i am reading is anything but a genuine compromise between creation and evolution...and the problem actually starts right at Genesis 1:1 and the word "created"

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian,
1. I am not the one who raised the contradiction...you did!

Actually, I'm just observing what's in the Bible.

2. I did not say the KJV is not very accurate...what i was saying is that one should not use a single reference for doctrine!

Actually, you're right. Sam Saved by Grace said that the KJV Bible was not very accurate. Sorry.

You claim bible has errors

No, that was Sam. I merely noted that if you try to make figurative passages into literal ones, that will produce errors.

 

[The Barbarian]

May i ask, if theistic evolution is true, would not it be fair to say that a credible scholarly vetted translation should exist somewhere which reads...

"in the beginning, God evolved (התפתח in Hebrew) the heavens and the earth"

Actually, populations of living things evolve, in the sense it's used in biology. In the general sense, it means "change over time." And the Earth does change over time. Whether or not you want to say that God makes that happen, I couldn't say.

But conflating mere change with a change in allele frequencies over time would be a mistake, don't you think?

I can categorically state, at present what i am reading is anything but a genuine compromise between creation and evolution...and the problem actually starts right at Genesis 1:1 and the word "created"

If so, I don't think you get what it's about. Darwin, for example, thought God created the first living things. He created the variety of life, as well, and we agree on that. The problem is that creationists don't approve of the way He does it.

 

[The Barbarian]

He has done this time and time again. I gave a very good exegetical breakdown of the second chapter of James and the relationship between faith and works, and he responded by plugging his ears and posting the same thing repeatedly. I laid it out point by point, providing context, giving examples, and letting scripture interpret scripture.

We've seen your attempts to explain away all the verses in the Bible that say what you do is what saves you. But none of them are very convincing, because God's word cannot be reworked to say what you want it to say. This is why most Christians don't accept your arguments.

We understand your view is that when James 2 says we are justified by works, it doesn't mean we are justified by works. We think that God meant what He said.

We believe Jesus in Matthew 25 when He says that He will decide whether or not we spend eternity in Heaven, by the way we treated the unfortunate.

We believe God in Revelation when He says we are judged according to our works.

We believe Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Not every Christian does. But most of us do.

 

[Job 33:6]

Barbarian,
1. I am not the one who raised the contradiction...you did!
2. I did not say the KJV is not very accurate...what i was saying is that one should not use a single reference for doctrine! One must use a variety of sources in order to ensure consistency across said number of references (in this case it simply means a variety of translations)
3. You claim bible has errors whereas evolution apparently does not because evolution is simply observations. This is a very problematic approach considering the many issues in theistic evolution clearly has (the very first of which starts out with the origin of the universe...ie the big bang)

The big bang cannot fulfill the law of the conservation of energy and matter set forth by Albert Einstein in his relativity theory. Where did the energy come from to start the big bang?
If you say God, then we have a problem...(see below)


Wikipedia defines theistic evolution as follows...

a general term comprising views that regard religious teachings about God as compatible with modern scientific understanding about biological evolution.
​

ok so here is a simple question that perhaps a theistic evolutionist could answer for me using both the bible and/or evolution science.

In Genesis 1:1 it says...

"1In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."​

A pretty straightforward statement.

May i ask, if theistic evolution is true, would not it be fair to say that a credible scholarly vetted translation should exist somewhere which reads...

"in the beginning, God evolved (התפתח in Hebrew) the heavens and the earth"

In light of this, could someone find an Aramaic, Hebrew or whatever script from say the Septuagint, papyri etc that supports what common sense tells me is the correct translation of what Moses wrote (or meant to write)

I am sorry to say this, but in reading many of the answers put forth by theistic evolutionists so far in this topic, i find it an extremely poorly supported view. Almost all of the answers from theistic evolutionists here to very simple creationist questions and concerns do not meet any kind of consistent standard that any reasonably well educated person would consider appropriate. They ignore bible contexts, ignore biblical themes (which is an enormous problem actually), do not directly address sticky issues raised, and in fact blindly carry on irrespective of overwhelming evidence that raises significant fundamental problems.

I can categorically state, at present what i am reading is anything but a genuine compromise between creation and evolution...and the problem actually starts right at Genesis 1:1 and the word "created"

Creation can be conducted with use of evolution. The words aren't mutually exclusive. So there's no reason to expect any changes to how Genesis is written.

 

[Sam Saved by Grace]

I don't think you mean to be deceptive, but you would certainly be more effective at promoting your beliefs, if you had enough confidence to let them stand on their own merits, instead of making false accusations when people don't agree with you. Everyone notices things like that.



If one is able to define "proper syntax", anything can mean anything. But I don't believe that the meaning "water" or "ground" has changed much in that period. Both are Germanic in origin, and neither seem to have cognates in any other language group.

I am not making false accusations against anyone. On the contrary, I have tried to be respectful of you seeing as how you are my elder. But it's hard for me to ignore the very dishonest and manipulative manner of debating that I see on display here. For one thing, you commonly misrepresent opposing arguments - very often it's done to deride your opponents viewpoint, or to provide for a better rebuttal. You have repeatedly appealed to outside sources without providing citation. And you dress up your own arguments beyond their actual strength. It really is obnoxious.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

Actually, populations of living things evolve, in the sense it's used in biology. In the general sense, it means "change over time." And the Earth does change over time. Whether or not you want to say that God makes that happen, I couldn't say.

But conflating mere change with a change in allele frequencies over time would be a mistake, don't you think?



If so, I don't think you get what it's about. Darwin, for example, thought God created the first living things. He created the variety of life, as well, and we agree on that. The problem is that creationists don't approve of the way He does it.

Now we are getting somewhere. This is the kind of answer I am looking for...even though it's not referenced, I have read the profile of Charles Darwin and as such I am familiar with that view.

I won't answer further right now...it's early morning and I am in bed doing this from phone...but will come back when it's daytime and I'm on a PC (personal computer).