Your Thoughts on Creation & Evolution

[Shemjaza]

first: as a general note: english isnt my native so i may not understand some words here and there in general. now, what you will say about this?:

View attachment 226691

Sorry about the language. I'll try to be clear.

Your diagram is wrong because there is no pattern to fundimental traits that are shared between different branches.

My examples of radios, chassis material and tire material are things that have changed in "separate" branches of cars. In a nested hierarchy that isn't possible. It would have to already exist in original population.

I think people have already told you this. So using the diagram as an argument isn't just wrong, it's lying.

and yet we never seen a cat becoming non cat. so we must believe its possible by millions of years.

Very dishonest. And Wrong. Once speciation has occurred, it is by definition a new species.

Evolution does not ever predict that you will get a new species in a generation. It's a gradual process where two populations change till they are no longer able to interbreed reliably.

With extinct populations and species we have to be a little bit less clear because exact borderlines don't really exist. Species is to some extent just a human classification, there aren't magical/super natural lines that need to be crossed.

 

[Speedwell]

Well as a matter of fact no genuine Christians ever questioned the creation account until the 19th century. So Christianity always held to divine creation as presented in Scripture. Matthew Henry sums it up nicely:

About what one would expect from a Protestant. After all, he had Sola Scriptura to defend. But he is correct in saying that Christians generally accepted the Genesis stories as historical. Still, the YEC version, based on the novelties of literal inerrancy, self-interpretability and plenary verbal inspiration were in his day still in the future. Further, the notion that the entire Christian faith hangs on the creation stories of Genesis being 100% accurate literal history is an outgrowth of the heresy of Dispensationalism, a 19th invention.

 

[Micah888]

Further, the notion that the entire Christian faith hangs on the creation stories of Genesis being 100% accurate literal history is an outgrowth of the heresy of Dispensationalism, a 19th invention.

Not really. Paul was insisting on the creation *stories* being accurate literal history long before Dispensationalism was introduced (and there is nothing heretical about it, but that would be the subject of a different thread).

So let's turn to Paul writing the epistle to the Romans around 60 AD (c 55-58). This is what is written in chapter 5:

12 Wherefore, as by one man [Adam] sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one [Adam] many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

16 And not as it was by one [Adam] that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgmentwas by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.

17 For if by one man's [Adam's] offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

18 Therefore as by the offence of one [Adam] judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

19 For as by one man's [Adam's] disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:

21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

So in a total of ten verses (given by Divine inspiration) the first man Adam is mentioned eight times.

Anyone who believes in evolution would have to discard that absurd notion in view of this passage (provided he would rather believe God than man).

 

[Kenny'sID]

People of the Book generally believed that the Genesis stories were in some sense historical, although figurative interpretations of the Genesis stories are almost as old as the book itself. Other cultures, of course, had their own creation stories which were also accepted as nominally historical. And why not? There was simply no other information to be had on the subject until the emergence of modern science several hundred years ago.

Then I honestly don't understand the following post, and what you were trying to point out? Its as if it just sounded good at the time of writing but held no water at all, because my interpretation was popular belief, and was probably the most important so as you seem to admit, most didn't survive without it. And I'm just going to discount the sarcasm, as we both know, generally survival was no dependent upon belief.

If your interpretation of scripture is so important, how did Christianity survive for almost 2000 years without it?

Even if the theory of evolution is correct, there is no particular reason that the Bible should say anything about it.

And no particular reason why not.

 

[Speedwell]

Not really. Paul was insisting on the creation *stories* being accurate literal history long before Dispensationalism was introduced (and there is nothing heretical about it, but that would be the subject of a different thread).

So let's turn to Paul writing the epistle to the Romans around 60 AD (c 55-58). This is what is written in chapter 5:

12 Wherefore, as by one man [Adam] sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one [Adam] many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

16 And not as it was by one [Adam] that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgmentwas by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.

17 For if by one man's [Adam's] offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

18 Therefore as by the offence of one [Adam] judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

19 For as by one man's [Adam's] disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:

21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

So in a total of ten verses (given by Divine inspiration) the first man Adam is mentioned eight times.

Anyone who believes in evolution would have to discard that absurd notion in view of this passage (provided he would rather believe God than man).

You would; I don't have to. I agree with Paul absolutely and don't see the passages you quoted as a problem for the theory of evolution.
But I don't care that much about evolution, anyway. It's just a scientific theory, and scientific theories are only advanced provisionally, subject to being overturned at any time by new evidence--the history of science is littered with examples of such failures. If the theory of evolution was overturned tomorrow, I still would not subscribe to what I take to be a shallow and theologically unsatisfactory interpretation of Genesis.
Certainly I am unmoved by your shopworn argument, "Paul quotes Genesis, therefore Genesis is 100% accurate literal history." Don't bother with the "Jesus quotes Genesis..." version of the argument.

 

[Speedwell]

And no particular reason why not.

Except that no one knew about the theory of evolution when that book was written and the phenomenological context of the stories would not have included it.

 

[Micah888]

You would; I don't have to. I agree with Paul absolutely and don't see the passages you quoted as a problem for the theory of evolution.

Really? Then perhaps you are not too familiar with evolution, since there is no place for Adam -- a direct creation of God -- in that absurd fantasy.

 

[Speedwell]

Really? Then perhaps you are not too familiar with evolution, since there is no place for Adam -- a direct creation of God -- in that absurd fantasy.

LOL! Why not? The only issue is whether God made Adam out of a handful of dust or out of a precursor primate of some kind, and since I don't think the Garden story was intended to be a biologically correct account of our origins as humans anyway, I don't much care.

 

[Brightmoon]

what about them? what kind of fossil will falsify evolution for instance?

Bunnies in the Precambrian

I'll ask you the same question I just asked Kenny: If your interpretation of scripture is so important, how did Christianity survive for almost 2000 years without it?

Modern YEC creationism has only been around for about 50 years . Since the 1960s .IIRC started with Henry Morris’ book the Genesis Flood.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Except that no one knew about the theory of evolution when that book was written and the phenomenological context of the stories would not have included it.

After your just answering to 1 of the two comments in that post, I'm not sure what to make of your replies, or your comments that eventually brought them on. They seem all over the place, while holding no water throughout, so I'll leave that with you.

 

[Brightmoon]

In other words you don’t understand that the ideas that Darwin thought up and that make up a lot of the modern theories of evolution weren’t available to people who lived during the Bronze Age . Common descent was an ancient idea though. What Darwin did was flesh out that skeletal thought and come up with a modern scientific theory that we work with to this day.

Life comes from life. Nobody disputes that. With evolution there is no viable explanation of "first life" regardless of it's form. Something does not come from nothing.

Evolution explains how life evolves. Life coming from nothing is actually a form of creationism . Life coming from chemicals is called Abiogenesis, by the way, not evolution. Biogenesis( life coming from life) is Pasteur’s theory that vermin like mice, roaches or bad bacteria come from other mice, roaches or bad bacteria and not from dirty rags or the air. Until he performed his experiments, people thought that these pests just sorta popped into existence.

 

[Brightmoon]

Not really. Paul was insisting on the creation *stories* being accurate literal history long before Dispensationalism was introduced (and there is nothing heretical about it, but that would be the subject of a different thread).

So let's turn to Paul writing the epistle to the Romans around 60 AD (c 55-58). This is what is written in chapter 5:

[snip]

Anyone who believes in evolution would have to discard that absurd notion in view of this passage (provided he would rather believe God than man).

God created natural phenomena and the processes that we see which includes the common descent of humans from other apes. Humans wrote the Bible. I do believe God rather than humans when I accept modern science rather than superstitious ignorance.

 

[Speedwell]

After your just answering to 1 of the two comments in that post, I'm not sure what to make of your replies, or your comments that eventually brought them on. They seem all over the place, while holding no water throughout, so I'll leave that with you.

Your other comment,

"Then I honestly don't understand the following post, and what you were trying to point out? Its as if it just sounded good at the time of writing but held no water at all, because my interpretation was popular belief, and was probably the most important so as you seem to admit, most didn't survive without it. And I'm just going to discount the sarcasm, as we both know, generally survival was no dependent upon belief."

I thought had been adequately dealt with in my previous responses to you and to Micah. In short, "your interpretation" was not popular belief. Popular belief was that the stories were historical, as the nature of historical narrative was then understood.. The modern notions of Sola Scriptura, perspicuity, self-interpretability and plenary verbal inspiration on which contemporary YECism depends were not part of "popular belief." The Dispensationalist notion of Genesis as 100% accurate literal history being essential to Christian belief was not invented until the 19th century and even John Darby, its originator, did not claim Apostolic antiquity for it. The creationist claim, that ancient popular belief in the historicity of Genesis somehow validates their interpretation of Scripture is self-serving nonsense.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Your other comment,

"Then I honestly don't understand the following post, and what you were trying to point out? Its as if it just sounded good at the time of writing but held no water at all, because my interpretation was popular belief, and was probably the most important so as you seem to admit, most didn't survive without it. And I'm just going to discount the sarcasm, as we both know, generally survival was no dependent upon belief."

I thought had been adequately dealt with in my previous responses to you and to Micah. In short, "your interpretation" was not popular belief. Popular belief was that the stories were historical, as the nature of historical narrative was then understood.. The modern notions of Sola Scriptura, perspicuity, self-interpretability and plenary verbal inspiration on which contemporary YECism depends were not part of "popular belief." The Dispensationalist notion of Genesis as 100% accurate literal history being essential to Christian belief was not invented until the 19th century and even John Darby, its originator, did not claim Apostolic antiquity for it. The creationist claim, that ancient popular belief in the historicity of Genesis somehow validates their interpretation of Scripture is self-serving nonsense.

What exactly was popular belief 2000yrs ago? If you mentioned it there, I didn't see it.

Just be clear on that one question please.

 

[Kenny'sID]

In other words you don’t understand that the ideas that Darwin thought up and that make up a lot of the modern theories of evolution weren’t available to people who lived during the Bronze Age . Common descent was an ancient idea though. What Darwin did was flesh out that skeletal thought and come up with a modern scientific theory that we work with to this day.


Evolution explains how life evolves. Life coming from nothing is actually a form of creationism . Life coming from chemicals is called Abiogenesis, by the way, not evolution. Biogenesis( life coming from life) is Pasteur’s theory that vermin like mice, roaches or bad bacteria come from other mice, roaches or bad bacteria and not from dirty rags or the air. Until he performed his experiments, people thought that these pests just sorta popped into existence.

Do you understand Darwin's ideas? And do they explain where life started? If so, can you please enlighten us.

 

[Speedwell]

What exactly was popular belief 2000yrs ago? If you mentioned it there, I didn't see it.

Just be clear on that one question please.

That the stories were historical, as historical narrative was understood at the time. The idea that they must be 100% accurate literal history (a modern literary genre) would have been foreign to them. As a point of interest, the study of the different ways historical narrative is--and was in the past--written and understood is called historiography, and is essential to understanding all ancient texts.

 

[Micah888]

...I accept modern science rather than superstitious ignorance.

What exactly is "superstitious ignorance"? Believing that Adam and Eve were the first humans, that they were direct creations of God, and that the entire human race has descended from them?

If that is "superstitious ignorance" then you don't really believe the one true God. The Lord Jesus Christ treated the creation account as factual and historical, so you don't really believe Him either.

As to "modern science", genuine science does not pretend to explain what it cannot possibly explain. Only the pseudo-science called "evolutionary theory" tries to present pure conjectures as facts.

 

[Kenny'sID]

That the stories were historical, as historical narrative was understood at the time. The idea that they must be 100% accurate literal history (a modern literary genre) would have been foreign to them. As a point of interest, the study of the different ways historical narrative is--and was in the past--written and understood is called historiography, and is essential to understanding all ancient texts.

That doesn't tell me what they believed, but it's clear to me by now, I'm not going to get an explanation.

Also, I was under the impression, at least from reading the bible, that many understood it just as we/I do today. I mean that's where I got my beliefs from...from what they believed when the bible was written...about 2000 yrs ago. Yet you tell me they believed something different than I, but give no details at all.

Something isn't adding up here. Can you please connect me with the source for your info?

 

[Micah888]

The Dispensationalist notion of Genesis as 100% accurate literal history being essential to Christian belief was not invented until the 19th century...

I have already refuted this from Scripture, but you continue to present this fallacy. Genesis was LITERAL HISTORY to Christ and His apostles in the first century.

Obviously you have an anti-Dispensationalist bias, but let's stick with the Word of God. The Gospel hinges on the FACT that because of Adam's disobedience the human race is subject to sin and death. So do your have another gospel?

 

[Speedwell]

If that is "superstitious ignorance" then you don't really believe the one true God. The Lord Jesus Christ treated the creation account as factual and historical, so you don't really believe Him either.

No, as I said, the "Jesus quoted Genesis..." argument doesn't hold any more water than the "Paul quoted Genesis..." argument. Nothing but apologetics, which I have a hard time crediting that creationists even believe themselves. Jesus treated the accounts as authoritative and used them in His preaching in exactly the same way as any liberal preacher would today, who also believed them to be authoritative but not necessarily accurate literal history. So we really can't tell what Jesus thought about it, but if He thought they were historical, it is highly unlikely that He thought them to be cast as a modern form of historical narrative unknown at the time, which is what you are claiming..