Why is Evolution feared by many Christians?

[flashwizard]

<snip>

No no, explain what this has to do with how the divercity of life we see in the world today got to where it is today, without evolution from only a few species that were on the ark. Since you cannot define a "kind" you will find this very difficult.

Ed

I'm sorry Ed, most of my questions were probably pertaining to Dal.m's points.

The only way to Biblically explain the diversity of the earth now and the animals of the ark is to understand the actual physcial size of the ark. I don't have meters of it but it was rather large. Another point -> was the ark composed of only land animals, while the beasts of the sea were left to roam freely. The diversity of the animals of the earth would equate to the diversity of the peoples on the earth. However, through my understanding of evolution, people couldn't have evolved as diverse as they are now in such a short time but rather through genetic makeup and population growth curves. There are cases where 2 caucasions will marry the woman will give birth to an african (black) baby. The explanation is diversity in the genealogy. Since before the Flood the earth became very diverse and thus scientifically the traights were already there.

 

[flashwizard]

Again if we go back to Logic:

The claim that I am making are based on a text, Genesis, written inbetween approximately 1500BC-1200BC. This is approximately the earliest date of the written account of "Creation." In order for evolution to be able to stand up to this claim you can not base it solely on "observations" that occured in times after the claim was instantiated. Because the earth as we see it today is clearly different than the earth during the period of the written account, any observations today would be inaccurate because of the proposed changes. So you would need to take a stand by another claim during the same time period that notes observations that would suggest evolution at that time (possibly a text similar to that of the Genesis account), because the observations would be coming from the same "time period." Even though the world we understand today is more explainable than during that time, we cannot accurately decipher that this is enougth evidence to assume that we know what really happened because we were not there, but however, we have written accounts of people who were there. Therefore, the strongest claim stands upon the understanding of the time period itself and what caused the people of that time period to understand it to be that way. Because ideally, evolution would be more evident to them than to us because they are closer to the "beginning" than we are. However, we fail to find relevant text to strongly backup that idea.

 

[raphael_aa]

The only way to Biblically explain the diversity of the earth now and the animals of the ark is to understand the actual physcial size of the ark. I don't have meters of it but it was rather large. Another point -> was the ark composed of only land animals, while the beasts of the sea were left to roam freely.

How on earth could marine and fresh water organisms be left to 'roam freely' in an environment that was suitable for neither? How salty was the flood water? How did marine organisms survive the destryuction of their habitat? How could aquatic animals survive after their environmental conditions were altered so drastically ie salinity, temperature, turbidity, oxygen content etc ?

 

[flashwizard]

Neither evolution nor the Bible explains that nor can explain it because frankly you can't know because you weren't there, hence my last post. So therefore it is irrelevent to the claim that evolution has any authority over Biblical understanding.

 

[Edx]

I'm sorry Ed, most of my questions were probably pertaining to Dal.m's points.

But you were replying to me.

The only way to Biblically explain the diversity of the earth now and the animals of the ark is to understand the actual physcial size of the ark. I don't have meters of it but it was rather large. Another point -> was the ark composed of only land animals, while the beasts of the sea were left to roam freely.

Again.. I am stunned. First you severly underestimate the number of distinct and different species. Then you claim that when the Bible says nothing was left alive it excludes all water animals.

The diversity of the animals of the earth would equate to the diversity of the peoples on the earth.

Every human on earth is the same species.

However, through my understanding of evolution, people couldn't have evolved as diverse as they are now in such a short time but rather through genetic makeup and population growth curves.

Of course there could. Evolution doesnt say it all happened in few thousand years though.

There are cases where 2 caucasions will marry the woman will give birth to an african (black) baby.

No there arent.

The explanation is diversity in the genealogy. Since before the Flood the earth became very diverse and thus scientifically the traights were already there.

I cant even fathom how you think this works. Its like youve made up your own fictional theory based off fiction.

Ed

 

[flashwizard]

Evolution is "Theory" the Bible was written down, and as far as I know long after the Biblical Account. Which leads back to post #182:

Again if we go back to Logic:

The claim that I am making are based on a text, Genesis, written inbetween approximately 1500BC-1200BC. This is approximately the earliest date of the written account of "Creation." In order for evolution to be able to stand up to this claim you can not base it solely on "observations" that occured in times after the claim was instantiated. Because the earth as we see it today is clearly different than the earth during the period of the written account, any observations today would be inaccurate because of the proposed changes. So you would need to take a stand by another claim during the same time period that notes observations that would suggest evolution at that time (possibly a text similar to that of the Genesis account), because the observations would be coming from the same "time period." Even though the world we understand today is more explainable than during that time, we cannot accurately decipher that this is enougth evidence to assume that we know what really happened because we were not there, but however, we have written accounts of people who were there. Therefore, the strongest claim stands upon the understanding of the time period itself and what caused the people of that time period to understand it to be that way. Because ideally, evolution would be more evident to them than to us because they are closer to the "beginning" than we are. However, we fail to find relevant text to strongly backup that idea.

 

[Edx]

Neither evolution nor the Bible explains that nor can explain it because frankly you can't know because you weren't there, hence my last post. So therefore it is irrelevent to the claim that evolution has any authority over Biblical understanding.

Evolution fits the evidence, the Bible doesnt.

And how do you think they work out what happened at a crime scene if there were no witness'? EVIDENCE

Ed

 

[flashwizard]

You are assuming that there is in fact no witness of the origin of man and that there is "evidence" of evolution based on the world that you live in today. When infact there is a witness. And the earliest of it was written down inbetween 1500-1200BC, the Bible. Why is there not the same witness for evolution during the same time period of the witness of the Bible's context. There are plenty of witnesses. What is more important in court, evidence or an eye-witness. Why not ask the people of that time what they think? They wrote it in the Bible. Why didn't those in opposition inform the evidence to be of evolution during the same time period? You can't continue to try to interpret times in the past and measure them on a scale from our time. You have to find proof in the past to give way for evidence you may see that fits for our time in the future. Because they would have written it down back then if it was relevant to them that evolution was a valid explanation of the origin of life. However, they wrote down the Bible.

 

[flashwizard]

If you study Philosophy of Logic, which explains the difference between what is true and what is not true according to human reasoning you find that there is a boundary between the falseness and the truth of the matter. This boundary exists only in the truth. Because only something which is true can reason something that is false. If someone of that time reasons something to be true, and nobody reasons back claiming that it is false AND provides the reasoning of "evolution" then what you are believing is no different than a "new" religion based completely on observations of today and completely disregards the explanations of the past.

 

[Edx]

Evolution is "Theory"

You have no idea what a scientific theory is. Gravity is a theory and a fact. the theory contains the facts. A theory is a model not an imperfect fact.

the Bible was written down, and as far as I know long after the Biblical Account

Yes it was written down long after the events they talk of especially Genesis. We only have copies of copies we dont know when Genesis was written, but we know it is a variation of a known Mesopotamian myth around that time.

Again if we go back to Logic:

Oh man, dont try and invoke logic.

The claim that I am making are based on a text, Genesis, written inbetween approximately 1500BC-1200BC. This is approximately the earliest date of the written account of "Creation."

Youare making things up. You do not know any of that

In order for evolution to be able to stand up to this claim you can not base it solely on "observations" that occured in times after the claim was instantiated.

You do not understand what "observations" means.

And I dont actually know what you are talking about. "after the claim was instantiated"? Why dont you explain what you think evolution is...

Because the earth as we see it today is clearly different than the earth during the period of the written account,

Yes and? Myths tend to have events and characters that dont relate to reality.

any observations today would be inaccurate because of the proposed changes.

What does this even mean?

So you would need to take a stand by another claim during the same time period that notes observations that would suggest evolution at that time (possibly a text similar to that of the Genesis account),

There are many. The most relevant one being the one contained within the Epic of Gilgamesh. When the Israelites left Mesopotamia they combined many cultures and religions which is why they called their head God Yahweh which was part of the great pantheon in Canaanite mythology, and why they have Lucifer (Helel Ben Shahar) which is a commen story not about Satan but about a Babylonian prince, but actually stems from Venus' place in the sky. Helel ben Shahar means "bright and morning star".

because the observations would be coming from the same "time period."

For some reason you think the writers observed their own creation, then wrote it down.

Even though the world we understand today is more explainable than during that time, we cannot accurately decipher that this is enougth evidence to assume that we know what really happened because we were not there, but however, we have written accounts of people who were there.

We have written accounts in many religions of Gods and demi-gods but that doesnt mean they are correct.

Therefore, the strongest claim stands upon the understanding of the time period itself and what caused the people of that time period to understand it to be that way.

Because ideally, evolution would be more evident to them than to us because they are closer to the "beginning" than we are. However, we fail to find relevant text to strongly backup that idea.

If wonder if you make this little sence in real life.

Ed

 

[flashwizard]

However, despite any indifferences that we may have, I have enjoyed your responses. They help me grow to understand your concerns and your views, which is important to you and to me. Hopefully, the outcome of such debates will end in understanding rather than hatred which unfortunately is the outcome of so many differences. But, it is good for man to understand each other and learn to respect because it builds character.

 

[flashwizard]

There is proof in history for the approximate dates of every written book of the Bible. It is no different historically than any other historical context. Therefore, I have the authority backed by history to estimate the dates in which various books of the Bible were written. Just like you have the authority to state the times in which the books of evolution were written (you haven't yet).

 

[Edx]

If you study Philosophy of Logic,

Dont bring up logic, everything you have said is an illogical mess.

which explains the difference between what is true and what is not true according to human reasoning you find that there is a boundary between the falseness and the truth of the matter.

Instead of me trying to decode your vague ramblings, please TRY and make sence. I cant understand you.

This boundary exists only in the truth. Because only something which is true can reason something that is false. If someone of that time reasons something to be true, and nobody reasons back claiming that it is false AND provides the reasoning of "evolution" then what you are believing is no different than a "new" religion based completely on observations of today and completely disregards the explanations of the past.

Evolution isnt a religion. And I do find it very hard to understand what it is you are saying. Is English your first language?

Ed

 

[Edx]

There is proof in history for the approximate dates of every written book of the Bible. It is no different historically than any other historical context. Therefore, I have the authority backed by history to estimate the dates in which various books of the Bible were written. Just like you have the authority to state the times in which the books of evolution were written (you haven't yet).

I havent stated them because WE DONT KNOW. We only have guesses, and for most of the books vaugue guesses. We certianly dont know who wrote them.

Ed

 

[flashwizard]

Well, then it's really your piece of mind vs. my peace of mind then. You see I have a faith that I share with many that is also written down for edification and learning about God our creator. I like to know that.

I'm in college at a University so I'm sorry if my logic bugs you, but that is the proper way you rationalize truth vs false outside of religious explanation. The way I see evolution is that it seems so random as far as humans being evolved and not loved by a creator that we would be able to serve and have a relationship with that designed and created us for his glory. I just don't see evolution to be rooted in anything. Which makes it a Theory. That's why in middle school they teach you "The Theory of Evolution" and not the Fact of Evolution. But, if you feel you have evidence enough to believe in your heart that you had evolved from whatever then that is completely your choice. I however, choose to listen to what the Bible says because it speaks not just in it's words but shows the power by which the people are changed because of it.

 

[raphael_aa]

Well, then it's really your piece of mind vs. my peace of mind then. You see I have a faith that I share with many that is also written down for edification and learning about God our creator. I like to know that.

I'm in college at a University so I'm sorry if my logic bugs you, but that is the proper way you rationalize truth vs false outside of religious explanation. The way I see evolution is that it seems so random as far as humans being evolved and not loved by a creator that we would be able to serve and have a relationship with that designed and created us for his glory. I just don't see evolution to be rooted in anything. Which makes it a Theory. That's why in middle school they teach you "The Theory of Evolution" and not the Fact of Evolution. But, if you feel you have evidence enough to believe in your heart that you had evolved from whatever then that is completely your choice. I however, choose to listen to what the Bible says because it speaks not just in it's words but shows the power by which the people are changed because of it.

If you're studying logic you mustn't be getting good grades! All science works by observation and formulates theories. Gravity is both a fact and a theory. The theory attempts to explain the observations. Evolution is one of the best attested theories of modern science with evidence across many disciplines. Your main argument against it seems to be you don't like it because of how it may force you to think of yourself.

 

[Edx]

You are assuming that there is in fact no witness of the origin of man and that there is "evidence" of evolution based on the world that you live in today.

Dont be ridiculous. You cant witness your own creation.

When infact there is a witness. And the earliest of it was written down inbetween 1500-1200BC, the Bible.

Thats not a witness, and it doesnt even claim to be a witness. Are you saying Adam and Eve wrote Genesis? If so, how did they manage to see what happened before God created them?

Why is there not the same witness for evolution during the same time period of the witness of the Bible's context.

Because we arent STUPID to suggest such monumental nonsence. What do you think evolution is anyway? That a Dove hatchs out of lizards egg or something?

There are plenty of witnesses. What is more important in court, evidence or an eye-witness. Why not ask the people of that time what they think? They wrote it in the Bible.[/

Jeez, according to your own Bible no one witnessed it. Unless Adam or Eve wrote it and managed to witness themselves being created.

Why didn't those in opposition inform the evidence to be of evolution during the same time period?

Becuase sir, if you actually new anything about Evolution and not this fantasy you have created of it, you would know that that question doesnt even make any sence.

You can't continue to try to interpret times in the past and measure them on a scale from our time. You have to find proof in the past to give way for evidence you may see that fits for our time in the future.

This may come as a shock, but science doesnt take as fact something written down in religious tomb. It has to fit the evidence. And Genesis doesnt fit the evidnece, nor does the flood. It didnt happen because the evidence shows it didnt. These are myths, and not unique ones. The flood is also based off a story in the Epic of Gilgamesh. The Bible is not unique

Because they would have written it down back then if it was relevant to them that evolution was a valid explanation of the origin of life. However, they wrote down the Bible.

Well sorry matey but they also thought the earth was a flat circle, fixed and unmovable with a firmament above it with windows which held water above it, and stars could fall and be stampted on. It was beliefs at the time, so its hardly their fault.

Ed

 

[flashwizard]

I am impressed by your responses, but you fail to list any authority to back them up other than your own 2 cents. At least I provide you with information that you can take and research. And what better information than the Bible.

I think what you fail to realize is the extreme historical accuracy in the Bible. In fact, many people use it as a source of history! Whether or not you believe it's Message is one thing, but you cannot deny is orgin nor it's historical context. Just keep in mind the Bible has been around and will continue to be around longer than evolution, because as far as I know there is no such belief in evolution before _____ <- the date I am waiting for you to tell me and the rest of the readers of the forum. You can continue to disagree with any thing that I say, but as long as you dodge My questions then it only makes your answers look more foolish and less authentic because again your not backing anything up with EVIDENCE that you so strongly hold on to.

 

[Edx]

Well, then it's really your piece of mind vs. my peace of mind then. You see I have a faith that I share with many that is also written down for edification and learning about God our creator. I like to know that.

Please, for the sake of your fellow Christians reconsider your evangelical crusade. You are currently making a mockery of them by representing them this way.

I'm in college at a University so I'm sorry if my logic bugs you, but that is the proper way you rationalize truth vs false outside of religious explanation.

Even this doesnt make much sence. Your tutors must love you.

The way I see evolution is that it seems so random as far as humans being evolved and not loved by a creator that we would be able to serve and have a relationship with that designed and created us for his glory.

The grammar... oh the grammar... Please, please try and reconstruct this sentence so that it makes sence. PLEASE. Im sure it does make sence, but currently its a jumbled mess.

I just don't see evolution to be rooted in anything. Which makes it a Theory.

So I suppose you ignored my post which told you what a scientific theory meant before.

A theory isnt an imperfect fact, or a guess. A scientific theory is a model which holds and explains facts. If its explanation is wrong is must be changed so that it explaines all the evidence or discarded and replaced with something that explains the evidence better.

That's why in middle school they teach you "The Theory of Evolution" and not the Fact of Evolution.

As all theories like gravity and aerodynamics, evolution is a fact and a theory. See above.

I will only explain this once. If you keep saying the same thing, I wont be so nice. If you need it further explained thats fine, but dont ignore it.

But, if you feel you have evidence enough to believe in your heart that you had evolved from whatever then that is completely your choice.

You dont believe evolution 'in your heart" like some kind of religious deity, you accept it based on how good a scientific theory it is. And biological evolution is one of the most well supported and respected theories in science. You dont have faith in science, and if you do you are not being scientific.

I however, choose to listen to what the Bible says because it speaks not just in it's words but shows the power by which the people are changed because of it.

Im also going to say the following, only once.

Evolution is not atheism. Most scientists are theists, as are most evolutionists. There are very many Christian evolutionary biologists or those working in the appropriate fields of contention for Creationists. One of the most respected paleontologists is a firey bible believing Pentacostal preacher. Creationism is something only so widespread in America, and perplexing to the rest of the world especially europe.

Ed

Now Im going to go do real life now, so I'll post again later today.

 

[raphael_aa]

I am impressed by your responses, but you fail to list any authority to back them up other than your own 2 cents. At least I provide you with information that you can take and research. And what better information than the Bible.

I think what you fail to realize is the extreme historical accuracy in the Bible. In fact, many people use it as a source of history! Whether or not you believe it's Message is one thing, but you cannot deny is orgin nor it's historical context. Just keep in mind the Bible has been around and will continue to be around longer than evolution, because as far as I know there is no such belief in evolution before _____ <- the date I am waiting for you to tell me and the rest of the readers of the forum. You can continue to disagree with any thing that I say, but as long as you dodge My questions then it only makes your answers look more foolish and less authentic because again your not backing anything up with EVIDENCE that you so strongly hold on to.

Nobody knew or believed the photo-electric effect, or germ theory, or wave theory of light either. Simnply because an idea is new does not make it false.

As I have said there is plenty of evidence across multiple disciplines. A good place to start is the TalkOrigins site. I suggest you look there.