[_ Old Earth _] Evolution

[ossiegoldhill]

Wow nice and detailed answer! Whilst I agree science should be neutral (even though I support evolution I despise Dawkins) I do still have a few personal issues with religion in general, but also the Abrahamic religions more specifically.

By no means am I a biblical scholar and I apologise if I mix up a few things.

At some point in the book of Matthew, it mentions that sword shall come down if you do not love God more than your father or mother. Isn't this just simply wrong? Why should I (or people for that matter) love something with no definitive yes or no proof over my parents?

It is true that there are two biblical creation stories, one where everything is made in 6 where god rests on the 7th and another where he forms mankind from clay? So which is true? If He is all knowing then cant he just make his mind up?!

The Bible allows for slavery and selling daughters into slavery. Surely if you do not do this then you are not following God's word and you are a sinner? Does that make me a bad person for not enslaving someone who has not done anything wrong to me?

Why do Christians take such great offence over homosexuality? Yes Leviticus states it is a sin, but more importantly a choice. I can 100% guarantee you that it is not, there is scientific proof for this. Why must people be attacked and abused for what they have done even if it doesn't affect you? And surely if there is a God, it is His responsibility to punish them, not other people's - does that not just make them as bad? Furthermore, homosexuality has been observed in animal heards all over the world. Are animals then sinners?

Look forward to your responses,

Ossie

 

[Grazer]

Hi Ossie.

Some great questions there and I would love to answer them. Just so you are aware, discussing homosexuality is not allowed on the forum so we may have to take it to private messages. Let me know if you're happy to do that

In the meantime I'll get some answers regarding your other questions as soon as I'm back home

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[Danus]

**** Leaving this thread open for now, but we may have to move it to another section. The staff is evaluating it. *****

 

[Danus]

**** Leaving this thread open for now, but we may have to move it to another section. The staff is evaluating it. *****

***On further thought, moving this one to Christianity and Science

 

[Free]

At some point in the book of Matthew, it mentions that sword shall come down if you do not love God more than your father or mother. Isn't this just simply wrong? Why should I (or people for that matter) love something with no definitive yes or no proof over my parents?

Your understanding of what is said is incorrect. You are probably thinking of the following passage:

Mat 10:32 So everyone who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven,
Mat 10:33 but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven.
Mat 10:34 "Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.
Mat 10:35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.
Mat 10:36 And a person's enemies will be those of his own household.
Mat 10:37 Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
Mat 10:38 And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.
Mat 10:39 Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. (ESV)

We are to love God more than family and in so doing, it will divide families and set them against each other, hence, Jesus' saying that he has "come to bring...a sword."

It is true that there are two biblical creation stories, one where everything is made in 6 where god rests on the 7th and another where he forms mankind from clay? So which is true? If He is all knowing then cant he just make his mind up?!

There is little difference between the two and rather they are two stories of the same account. The first one is a general overview of creation and the second is specifically focused on the creation of man.

The Bible allows for slavery and selling daughters into slavery. Surely if you do not do this then you are not following God's word and you are a sinner? Does that make me a bad person for not enslaving someone who has not done anything wrong to me?

The Bible does not allow for slavery or selling daughters, whether into slavery or otherwise. Such provisions in the Mosaic Law were for a specific time, for a specific group of people, for specific reasons. The full reasoning would go beyond the scope of this thread. Suffice to say, the recording of such dealings with the Israelites and the Law does not constitute commands that Christians are to follow now. The Law has been fulfilled, it's purpose accomplished in Christ and it no longer has any bearing on life.

Why do Christians take such great offence over homosexuality? Yes Leviticus states it is a sin, but more importantly a choice. I can 100% guarantee you that it is not, there is scientific proof for this. Why must people be attacked and abused for what they have done even if it doesn't affect you? And surely if there is a God, it is His responsibility to punish them, not other people's - does that not just make them as bad? Furthermore, homosexuality has been observed in animal heards all over the world. Are animals then sinners?

Look forward to your responses,

Ossie

As was stated, discussion of homosexuality is no longer allowed on these forums. And, yes, there are good reasons for that.

 

[cupid dave]

Ok...I hope to be able to do that

Lets take the science aspect first. Science is neutral, it's data can be interpreted theistically or atheistically. To some like Richard Dawkins, he interprets it atheistically. To some like Francis Collins, they interpret theistically. To some like Stephen Jay Gould, they haven't concluded either way but that's as far as they go. For me, the science has shown that this world has all the hallmarks of design. On a separate note, it was the Christian faith that helped give rise to science. To quote C.S. Lewis "Men became scientific because they believed in a law of nature and they believed in a law of nature because they believed in a law giver" So science is not really going to help either side here but some like John Lennox and Alistair McGrath have claimed that science sits more neatly with a theistic world view. I tend to agree but that's not the point. Science can be pointer but it can't take you all the way.

So how do we get to the God of the Bible? Well we're into history now. Lets start with the bible. We currently have over 5500 complete Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. This figure alone eclipses anything we have for ancient history (I think the runner up is Homers Illiad with 600) but when you add on other languages and fragments, the total is in the region of 24,000 The time frame from the first copy to the originals is around 50 years-100 years with the documents themselves dating to within 18 years of the actual events (Pauls letters) to 50 years (Johns gospel) Again this is unprecedented with Homers Illiad being 300 years from original to copy and the information on Alexander the Great compiled from just 2 sources written nearly 600 years after he died. I'm doing this off the top of my head so I apologize if my figures aren't 100% accurate which they probably aren't so I'll post some YouTube videos with the data in so you can check them out yourself

Now, Jesus. There really is no dispute within history or scholarship about his existence. I know Richard Dawkins says a scholarly case can be made that he didn't exist but he quotes a professor of German Language. Professor Graeme Clarke, eminent classical historian at the National University of Australia, has gone on record as saying "Frankly, I know of no ancient historian or biblical historian, who would have a twinge of doubt about the existence of Jesus Christ. The documentary evidence is simply overwhelming"

The resurrection. Everything hangs on this, my conversion hung on this. If it happened, then Christianity is true. If it didn't, then Christianity is false. It's that simple. Now most atheists laugh at this and dismiss it out of hand but the evidence, which again most is simply not disputed by historians and scholars, I found very compelling. I put together a very simplistic overview of the evidence which can be found at http://evidence2hope.webs.com/apps/blog/show/14094309-the-importance-of-the-resurrection but I will quote from C.F.D Moule:

"If the coming into existence of the Nazarenes, a phenomenon undeniably attested by the New Testament, rips a great hole in history, a hole the size and shape of the Resurrection, what does the secular historian propose to stop it up with? … the birth and rapid rise of the Christian Church… remain an unsolved enigma for any historian who refuses to take seriously the only explanation offered by the Church itself"

The debate here is not "is it possible" but "did it happen?"

The birth and rapid rise of Christianity is also a factor. Historians have concluded that there was a core of Christianity being preached around the area, including the resurrection, within a year of the reported events. Coupled with the early writings detailed earlier, this is was not something that evolved slowly. There is also an argument from morality but I'm not overly familiar with the nuances of this point so I'll link to a debate which covers them.

I don't profess to be an expert but I have compiled a load of resources that I have found very helpful. I'm doing this very quickly hence why I've just put quotes and linked to the full videos/articles. The reason for this is I feel these guys do a far better job at presenting the evidence in full than I can. Plus you can see the points in their full context and, in the case of the debates, the rebuttals. There's loads more on my site and the sites I've linked to so hopefully you'll find something useful. Any questions, please ask and I'll do my best for you

http://evidence2hope.webs.com/apps/videos/videos/show/17362890-the-veracity-of-the-new-testament - Gary Habermas on the New Testament documents
http://evidence2hope.webs.com/apps/videos/videos/show/16433254-did-jesus-rise-from-the-dead- - Gary Habermas and Antony Flew debate the resurrection (I believe this is a fantastic example of how debates can be done without the need to belittle or insult the opposition or their points)
http://evidence2hope.webs.com/apps/...rgument-that-changed-a-generation-of-scholars - The resurrection evidence that changed a generation of scholars
http://publicchristianity.org/library/can-we-trust-the-bible - Craig Blomberg on Jesus and the accuracy of the Bible (I recommend starting with this one as its the shortest and covers a variety of points)
http://evidence2hope.webs.com/apps/videos/videos/show/17163660-the-historicity-of-the-bible - Interview with Craig Blomberg
http://evidence2hope.webs.com/apps/videos/videos/show/17224428-craig-blomberg-on-the-new-testament - Another interview with Craig Blomberg
http://evidence2hope.webs.com/apps/videos/videos/show/17224425-is-there-a-god- - Ethicist Peter Singer and Professor John Lennox debate Is there a God (another great example of how debates can be done civilly)
http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/cis/mcgrath/lecture.html - Alistair McGrath lecture in response to Richard Dawkins
http://rachelheldevans.com/ask-an-evolutionary-creationist-response - Biologist Dennis Venema answers questions on how he believes the theory of evolution and yet is a Christian

I like your ideas and congratulate your scholarly attention to the scriptures and tese ideas you raise.

You main point sums to "
The debate here is not "is (resurrection) it possible" but "did it happen?""

The two thoughts seem irrevocably linked by the fact that, if it were impossible, then a whole school of thinkers will say it did not happen.

The Church people believe it did happen.
They therefore concludedl logically, that it is possible.

They say it did happen because people testified o having witnessed it from the very day and generation on to this moment, when others carry forth their testimony as evidence.

The bottom line though is Science which now agree that Life After Death Experiences do happen.





<li class="g">




Near-Death Experiences and the Afterlife

near-death.com/Cached
You +1'd this publicly. Undo
This website profiles the most profound near-death experiences ever documented along with supporting scientific, metaphysical, and religious material.



<li class="g">

 

[Barbarian]

Some of the properties, and some of the ideas of evolution make sense. However; Like Grazer stated above me, people try to use it to disprove the creator (or the car maker to use his analogy). This is where I believe the ignorance resides within the theory itself.

Evolutionary theory makes no claims about God or the creation. Maybe you'd profit by learning what it really says?

Creature A is found. Scientists study creature A, and designate it based upon its attributes and appearance. They then find ANOTHER fossil of creature A, only this one is 10 thousand years younger than its elder. Again, they study the creature, and designate it based upon its attributes and appearance. Low and behold, they find that this creature has "upgraded." In a sense. Not only can they confirm it has longer legs for quicker mobility, but it has a much more powerful jaw for hunting. Not really impressive when you think about it.

All evolution is like that. It's mostly a bit here and a bit there. Over time, it adds up.

Humans have remained relatively the same for thousands of years. If I saw antarctic indians growing fur, then I would question things.

Life at high altitudes forced ancient Tibetans to undergo the fastest evolution ever seen in humans, according to a new study.

The most rapid genetic change showed up in the EPAS1 gene, which helps regulate the body's response to a low-oxygen environment. One version, called an allele, of the EPAS1 gene changed in frequency from showing up in 9 percent of the Han Chinese to 87 percent of Tibetans.
http://www.livescience.com/6663-tibetans-underwent-fastest-evolution-humans.html

About 2700 years. A tiny sliver of time humans have been here. And yet a huge change.

Everything logical so far, right? This is where Scientists jump off of the cliff. Instead of assuming that the creature is simply "adapting", the scientists take things a large step further. They theorize that if you go even farther into the future(hundreds of thousands of years, if not millions), you would find this creature completely changed into something else. COMPLETELY.

No. Even bacteria are genetically more like us than they are different.

While it sounds like just reasoning to explain the existence of our wild life, it has inherent holes that will never be explained, and I will tell you why.

This is where we are so far. Creature A was found, and linked to creature B. The scientists have now theoretically aligned and linked creature A&B to creature C millions of years later. However, they have never found a single fossil linking creature A&B to creature C.

That's wrong. But let's put it to a test. Name me any two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and we'll see if there's a transitional form. You're up.

And you want a half-fish/half land animal. Tell us what your requirements are for such a thing, and I'll see what I can find. Now you have two things to show us.

[/QUOTE] It would be a much more believable theory. Scientists say that evolution occurs over thousands and millions of years. A very very slow process indeed! If it is a slow process, then why don't we see the "steps" in evolution? [/quote]

We do. If I could show you a series of fossils, each one in it's time, no different from the next one than we see differences among a species living today, would that work for you? If not, tell us why not.

Why don't we see that half fish/half land creature?

Tell us what it would have to be, to be half fish/half land creature, and we'll take a look. And that sequence of "ape to man"that you're talking about is not what scientists think happened.

[/QUOTE] Did you know that I could take the bones of an ape right now, and align them to stand upright?[/quote]

Apes can stand upright. But it doesn't mean that an ape skeleton would fool a biologist. There are a very large number of features like the shape of the spine, the angle of the hip, the structure of knees, and so on, that tell a scientist whether or not the primate was bibedal or not.

Does that do anything for the theory? No, it is where the ignorance lies (like I stated above). You can't expect me to accept a theory, where they are unable to provide any real, unaltered evidence for.

People are often down on things they aren't up on. You have a lot of major misconceptions about science and the way it works. Want to learn more about it?

Point number 2. There are some creatures that defy the theory of evolution. The fact that they are alive, is proof that they absolutely could not have evolved.

Termites are a great example. Termites eat wood, yet they cannot digest wood. Then why in the heck would they eat it? Because they are actually born with a tiny creature in their stomach. That creature eats the wood, and the bi product is protein and nutrients. The Termite absorbs it, and is able to live. How can such a relationship between creatures form through Evolution? How could a wood eating creature evolve if it can't digest wood? The Termite is not equipped to eat anything else, so it surely cannot wait around for MILLIONS of years for this creature to arrive in its stomach.

The termite story has been presented here before, and fell apart when we looked at it. Check here:
http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=44962

Regardless, the theory lives on in the biased minds of those who think they can disprove the creator of all things. It is in fact used as an alternative to God.

Seems unlikely. Even Darwin attributed the origin of life to God.

Take away the God factor in life, and the theory of Evolution wouldn't even be a theory.

"Theory" is as good as it gets in science. Stronger than laws, which don't actually explain things. And of course, no scientific theory can include or exclude God from anything.

It cannot stand the test of true criticism, and it is held together by ignorant, biased minds.

Notice that your misconceptions about the theory are driving your criticisms. Isn't that a revelation for you?

Is it really that unreasonable to believe all things were created by a designer?

Created by a creator. Design is the mark of an imperfect being, not an omnipotent God.

That each creature was created for a specific purpose?

Why would it bother you if He chose to use evolution to create them? Let God be God, and accept it His way.

 

[cupid dave]

Evolutionary theory makes no claims about God or the creation.

Life at high altitudes forced ancient Tibetans to undergo the fastest evolution ever seen in humans, according to a new study.

The most rapid genetic change showed up in the EPAS1 gene, which helps regulate the body's response to a low-oxygen environment. One version, called an allele, of the EPAS1 gene changed in frequency from showing up in 9 percent of the Han Chinese to 87 percent of Tibetans.
http://www.livescience.com/6663-tibetans-underwent-fastest-evolution-humans.html.

This research is very interesting in regard to the Theistic Evolution interpretatioin of the Bible.
The Theistic rationale is that modern man is coming to that Omega Point wherein he will experience the next step forward himself.

This will be an evolutionary "rapture" such that we who do not become extinct, will become those new creatures who advance onto in the future Reality I see panentheistically expressed by the euphemism of "God."

That such changes can take place in the 2700 years found in this case compare well withthe 2000 year old promises of the New Testament and the suspicion that we are in the End Times now.

The researchers in Tibet focused on evolutionary changes that physically changed the ability to hold onto oxygen at high altitudes.
They ignored the other abilities where monks can, at will, mentally lower body temperature and such things as to make themselves immune to the pain and threats of naked survival in sub-zero weather.

This ability of those monks supports the TE rationale that man will become capable of entering into his now Unconscious mind.
He will, and in fact, is evolving the capability to use the ancient of ancient experietial knowledge collected phylogenetically over the millennia of the life experiences of the whole species, and even before.


The point being:

At birth, we suddenly become aware of an almighty force that is in constant contact with us through our seven major senses.
This Force responds to things we do, and it makes us respond back, too.

Arrogantly, in a short time, we become confident that we understand and can interact with this Reality we face every second of our life.

We find this less than difficult at first, because we have been programmed in our Unconscious memories, those built from experiences back through all the 22 links to the very first Adam to appear on Earth..

Our Unconscious mind already knows things about the environment we will be discovering consciously, and already knows how that environment, both natural and social, will meet us after the first smack on our bottom.

This Unconscious mind inside us will lead us to complement and participate with Almighty Reality, as long as we adapt, accept, and conform to his ways and Natural Laws.
What we call "instinct" is one of the ways this Uncoscious mind leads and guides us.

This basic spirit-like Truth, this Unconscious mind that is within us, has evolved through genetic encoding of these instinctual and learned phylogenetic experiences.

Our genes have stored away knowledge and memories from previous life experiences that took place many times, over thousands of years.

This Ancient of ancients inside us is a third eye watching and whispering to us from birth more loudly, but still in whispers, always with us.

We are in a personal relationship with the storehouse of Truth, for life and, really, after death, until we are born again.

Knowledge of the world and the reality we will encounter has been contained in the memory of this Unconscious partner inside our head, experiential, through the school of hard knocks.
That is why I call it The Truth.

The TRUTH has been stored genetically inside our individual Unconscious mind which is born again with every birth.

The clean slate of our Conscious mind is chalk and blackboard for our generation, and a record keeper of what experiences and behaviors our generation will have had.

The good that men do will be so remembered.

It will be added to these Unconscious memories, while the evil that men will have done will be interred with their bones towards the Hell of Extinction of their kind.

The failures and the successes will collect as a Directied Evolution will emerge for our whole species, one that holds the Truth as the light into the Way for our species to find LIFE eternal with this God of the Living, i.e.; the Father of all Nature, the ever unfolding Force behind the changing Reality of the next generations of our kind will encounter.

 

[Barbarian]

P

lease allow me to give an example of evolution in action.

Usually, this has an unintentionally humorous outcome. Maybe not this time...

Could you be right? Playing in a basketball league I found my jumps becoming higher, my speed increased, and my agility improved; needless to brag of my three point shot. I never had a bone density test to see if my bones were taking on the characteristics of fowls as I was more concerned with fouls.

Actually, your bones were becoming less like those of birds. Exercise in most vertebrates leads to greater bone density.

The need was apparent, the desire intense; if I could have flown, dunking the ball would be a cinch.

Dribbling would have been fairly problematical. And a couple of guys shared the Nobel, a long time ago, for showing that useful adaptations don't arise in response to need. Mendel died before the Nobels, but deserved one for showing that evolution was a change in allele frequency in a population, so not part of individual change at all.

I never checked, feathers would have been a plus, like water off a duck's back, my defense would have no lack.

Well, things have gone as usual. Unless you were trying to be funny, it might be good to learn about the theory and what it says. If it was intended to be funny, well done.

Instead of running up and down the court, would have flapping my arms been better?

Doesn't seem to do Lamar Odom much good.

Would be to the surprise of the crowd, a lift off become unfettered?

Spud Webb made a career of that.

Before you die, learn about Darwin and what he said. Or start writing for Robin Williams.

 

[Barbarian]

I've left this open to interpretation, but so long as you have made a point backed with evidence and then explained that evidence well, then I shan't take quarrel with it (that's not to say I might not counter it though). Let me give a bad example as to help with this.

There is a God. The Old and New Testament state this (with a quote). Everything in the Bible is true, therefore there must be a God.

But why does it bother you that He used evolution?

 

[cupid dave]

I dont understand, have I broken a ToS? I have stated that I am not promoting atheism, in fact I am asking others to disprove it. Have I broken a rule or are you just reminding me of a ToS?

He must mean don't be so convincing that others will be offended because it competes with their private interpretion of scripture.


In other words, when you have a really strong point that might shake the doctrines other people have, use IMO.

IMO means that you know your position threatens their self confidence but that it is just an opinion and can be dismissed.

 

[cupid dave]

Hello



I'm not a scientist so I leave the scientific arguments to the scientists but I have no issues with the theory of evolution.

It's not a perfect theory, it has gaps but as an overall whole its sound and many Christian scientists hold to it. But like mechanisms and a designer provides a full explanation for everything that had a beginning on this earth, I see the same with life; God used evolution to bring about life.

Hope that makes sense

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

Do you have any issues with Genesis, then, like you agree the Universe had a beginning, just like a big bang sorta?

And the rest of the story describes a gradual day by day unfolding of events that pretty much tells us that plants appeared, then animals, then man, right?

 

[Adam]

Plants before animals, as you already know, is not a position held in modern scientific disciplines.

 

[Grazer]

Do you have any issues with Genesis, then, like you agree the Universe had a beginning, just like a big bang sorta?

And the rest of the story describes a gradual day by day unfolding of events that pretty much tells us that plants appeared, then animals, then man, right?

I accept there was a beginning to the universe and the big bang is the best explanation on offer at the moment. I don't regard genesis as a scientific account, there's much more to it I think

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[cupid dave]

I accept there was a beginning to the universe and the big bang is the best explanation on offer at the moment. I don't regard genesis as a scientific account, there's much more to it I think

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

Oh,... of course.

The point is not that Genesis is scientifically explaining the Cosmic unfolding, but that nothing in Genesis actually contradicts what Science has discovered and asserts to be the Truth.


The point that Theistic Evolution makes is merely that there is a clear correspondence between Bible statements and the facts when read from a different perspective than the traditional, medieval, ancient understanding of the story.

For instance, when one reads that "all the waters under heaven were gathered together into one place" as part of the description of events, this one taking place before Life appears, it corresponds with our discovery of Rodinia/Pangea.

Of course it does NOT describe details and pretend to teach us the concept.
It merely is factually corresponding to actual events in the correct time and order of events.
It is unassailable as a statement, but not particularly useful in proving details or evidence of such a thing.




On the other hand, however, I must add that on the other side of issues, the atheist/scientific community has a vested interest in NOT reading Genesis in any other way than the evermore archaic, obsolete, ancient, medieval way it was explained and taught for centuries and centuries.

That traditional interpretation allows them to bash the Bible, rather than the Bible reader.
Their motivation is to destroy the church which has through its cultural impact become a political force against their homosexual and straight sexual promiscuity.

They and the Social Darwinism of the do-good Progressive, Democratic political agenda must eliminate sexual morality in order to maintain the constituency that keeps these leader in power.

 

[Adam]

Of course, genesis does not correspond with the science. There is no agenda necessary to be able to recognize that the bible does not agree with science when it says that plants came before animals or that the earth was created before the sun.

 

[cupid dave]

Of course, genesis does not correspond with the science. There is no agenda necessary to be able to recognize that the bible does not agree with science when it says that plants came before animals or that the earth was created before the sun.

You add the word "created" to Gen 1:14-19, which is NEVER used in any translation of the Bible.

Your error stems from the tradition of erroneously adding that idea to the text.

 

[Adam]

Excuse me.


Let me correct my statement.


Of course, genesis does not correspond with the science. There is no agenda necessary to be able to recognize that the bible does not agree with science when it says that plants came before animals or that the earth was made before the sun.


Is that better for you?


The point still remains.

 

[cupid dave]

You add the word "created" to Gen 1:14-19, which is NEVER used in any translation of the Bible.

Your error stems from the tradition of erroneously adding that idea to the text.

"You add the word "created" to Gen 1:14-19"...

 

[Adam]

Do you have a point?

The context is that the sun came into existence after the earth, which is incorrect, no matter what kind of semantic game you want to play.