[_ Old Earth _] World-Views: Evolutionism and Biblical

[Sparkey]

Seriously close to closing this...

 

[Sparkey]

To everyone:

Please keep this thread on topic and address the arguments, not the person. I would sure not like to have to close the thread and/or revoke science forum privileges.

 

[felix]

I'm with Jesus, not Paul.

So let me know how Paul is contradicting Jesus. You portray as if Jesus is supporting evolution.

Here is what Jesus told.
(Matthew 19:4) And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made[them] at the beginning [ 'made them male and female,']

Does evolution teaches that the first human evolved as had his mate already evolved and ready?

 

[Grazer]

So let me know how Paul is contradicting Jesus. You portray as if Jesus is supporting evolution.

Here is what Jesus told.
(Matthew 19:4) And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made[them] at the beginning [ 'made them male and female,']

Does evolution teaches that the first human evolved as had his mate already evolved and ready?

I was more referring to that I was a follower of Jesus, my faith is in response to him not Paul.

As I've said in the past, simply because someone quotes something doesn't mean they take it literally. They may do but the fact they quote it doesn't mean they do. If I quote Romeo and Juliet, do you automatically assume I think its literal/historical?

 

[felix]

You wanna know who I'm with?

I'm with the people who study Evolution and create vaccines that can help people.

I am with Mr. Paul. I too believe that women oughtta sit down and shut up while in church. 1 Timothy 2:11-14

Interesting you related evolution with vaccine creation. How is that?

 

[felix]

Here’s my original post that sparked this: “The theory of evolution is a religion in every sense of the word, it is humanism. It seeks to answer the four great questions of life by EXCLUDING God, period, end of story.Christianity is creation. Evolution and Christianity are bi-polar opposites they have nothing in common.†This is a foundational issue that tears at thevery heart of Christianity, evolutionists and humanists know this. There is only one place that you can try to ADD millions of years to the bible and thats at the beginning. How come Christians don’t believe that the days between Jesus’death and resurrection were millions of years? Or what about the 40 years in the desert? Why can’t that be 40 million years? What if I told you I believed this and came on this forum trying to sell you on this belief? You’d think I was insane wouldn’t you?

This is not a direct attack toward any individual in this forum, rather, awake-up call. Ask yourself this: do I really believe that God meant what he said and did what he did? If my answer is yes, then I cannot reinterpret or add to what He did in the beginning. This really comes down to compromise, not whether God did it or not. So, where does the compromising end...did Jesus really die for my sins or will I just view that as symbolic as well? What about the 10 commandments? Were those really meant for us to follow or shall we insert something there as well? Why don’t we just change it to 8 commandments, or say 6, or maybe just 1 commandment. Do you see where I'm going? Psalm 11:3 “If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?†Genesis is our absolute foundation. No Genesis, No Jesus. Trying to fit evolution into the bible is detrimental to someone trying to witness to an unbeliever. Their statement is, "Why should I believe that book that you don't truly accept as truth?" Believe it or not, I have heard people say that to Christians who try to combine evolution and the bible. Taking this route is destroying the faith of many and how do you think God views that? This is a spiritual battle that has Satan pitting one Christian against another, don’t you see this?

Well said

 

[Arch Angle]

Not totally wrong, people want power for sure.

evolution started because the people listed the observationsaround them. Then they thought aboutwhat they saw And came up with a theorythat linked the observations together as best they could (and can).

The story of evolution is based on observations. Just like the story of creation. I don't know what the big deal isreally. Creation was pretty close. They just didn't have the information we havetoday. They would have used evolution ifthey had it back then.

Why do bible thumper holds onto literal creation story? Is it power?

 

[VirginShallConceive]

I've never tried shellfish.

I actually believe you.

There are a lot of foods my wife hasn't tried. It's just weird to me that she doesn't want to try them just one time.

 

[felix]

The story of evolution is based on observations.

When no observation has been made for any species evolving into another, how can the story of evolution is based on observations? Actually, evolution is based on speculations.

 

[Arch Angle]

felix,
you are missing the point.
We list what we have and do the best we can with that information. I do not claim to have theanswer. I only claim that:

"with this list of observations, it "seems" to be how god did it."

What is your list?

PS, please quote the whole post. When you pluck a line out of the post it changes the meaning. I am sorry, but I am not a good writer, so lines out of contextc an change the meaning of what I said.

Thanks man.

 

[Stone-yarder]

Mt 5:22

I wasnt calling anyone a fool, I was addressing the folly.

[Not Edited (Yet)] Marking my place for future "reply to my reply that addressed the subject, not the man" - Sparrowhawke Pardon me, please.

 

[Stone-yarder]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzcgGYTldDQ

 

[Sparkey]

General remarks: Thanks for your work here. I've noted the various portions of threads that need improvement but don't feel like deleting them. Let me instead ask that we each reflect as is helpful and continue the discussion here with my advanced thanks.

At some point, I will like to contribute, but I simply may not do that yet, as I am wearing my "Moderator Hat" at the moment and don't want to appear as if I have a stake in the discussion. It's a strange thing, but I don't want the "appearance of evil" to taint my decisions. A "do not be a respecter of persons" thing requires a very even handed approach, correcting Members of different group affiliations, Moderators (self included) alike, with an even and balanced scale in my hand. It requires an almost scientific detachment. I hope to serve you guys well, and am thankful to do so.

 

[Claudya]

Neanderthals are not apes but (could be Nephilims - interbreeding between sons of God and daughters of men) - which is equally worse like bestiality. The point being, evolution requires bestiality for the human evolution which is not compatible with Bible.

Neanderthal humans were a different kind of humans. They evolved in Europe, at about the same time the ancestors of our species evolved in Africa/ Asia. Neanderthals and humans had common ancestors and probably weren't evolved very far from each other, they weren't genetically isolated from another yet. Thus interbreding was still possible.
Anyway in terms of your world view: the Nephilim are described to be giants. Neanderthal skeletons indicate that those people were about the same size as us.
Also, the flood eradicated all traces of the Nephilim, and the only surviving humans of the flood hadn't interbred with them, so how would scientists nowadays be able to find genetical traces of that kind of "bestiality"?

Whether or not procreation with different species is necessary for evolution I don't know. Those early humans that did mate with Neanderthals probably didn't even realise that they are of a different kind. They probably viewed them as interesting looking fellows. So it wasn't besatiality for them.

If Humans evolved from Monkeys based on evolutionay theory, doesn't it deny the below verse?
Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

Basically we are formed of the dust of the ground. The organic material our bodies are made of were created from anorganic material, for example stuff that the plants we eat extracted and resorbed from the ground.

If evolution took millions of years for getting evolved, doesn't it deny the below verse?
Exod 20:11 For [in] six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that [is] in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

2. Peter 3:8
But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.
Maybe the time dimension in the Genesis isn't to be taken literally.

If Y-Chromosome Adam evolved 50000 years before mtDNA Eve, doesn't it deny the below verse?
Gen 2:22 Then the rib which the LORD God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man.

Scientifically it seems like the default gender in mammals is female. If I stand before our creator some day and I still care enough for that question I will ask Him how Bible and empiry can be brought together here.

 

[Stone-yarder]

@Claudya ... " Maybe the time dimension in the Genesis isn't to be taken literally." Well with that logic one could argue that the gospels shouldnt be taken literally. Or the resurection is merely symbolic because science has proven that people cannot rise from the dead. In fact The man Jesus is just a story and a metaphor of the fact we should just live good lives.

 

[Claudya]

There's no word in the Bible that says the Gospels are metaphorical. But there is that verse I quoted saying God's time frame is incomprehensible for us. So what He calls a "day" may not be what we call a day. His 6 + 1 days of creation may have been six steps of creation that lasted billions of years, or 10^-34 seconds.

 

[Stone-yarder]

There's no word in the Bible that says the Gospels are metaphorical. But there is that verse I quoted saying God's time frame is incomprehensible for us. So what He calls a "day" may not be what we call a day. His 6 + 1 days of creation may have been six steps of creation that lasted billions of years, or 10^-34 seconds.

Then show me where in the bible it says billions or millions of years?

 

[Arch Angle]

He may have rested the 7th day. but Monday he awoke and thought to himself

"OH my me, they have to breed!!!".
That afternoon the marsupials were created.

 

[felix]

Neanderthal humans were a different kind of humans. They evolved in Europe, at about the same time the ancestors of our species evolved in Africa/ Asia. Neanderthals and humans had common ancestors and probably weren't evolved very far from each other, they weren't genetically isolated from another yet. Thus interbreding was still possible.
Anyway in terms of your world view: the Nephilim are described to be giants. Neanderthal skeletons indicate that those people were about the same size as us.
Also, the flood eradicated all traces of the Nephilim, and the only surviving humans of the flood hadn't interbred with them, so how would scientists nowadays be able to find genetical traces of that kind of "bestiality"?

Actually, the true meaning of Nephilim is long lost. Most of the Hapax legomenon have meanings based on guess work. Even Jews don't have any idea of some words used in the law. Nephilim does not mean giants. The word giant is assumed based on the use in other reference (which cannot be trusted because they came out of spies said in exaggeration in which God is not pleased and even stopped them from entering the promised land). The qualities used to refer Nephilim does not indicate they are giants.

Gen 6:4 There were giants (Nephilim) on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore [children] to them. Those [were] the mighty men who [were] of old, men of renown.

They are stronger famous/honor and (old?). The actual word used to refer old is [H5769 עוֹלָם עוֹלָם `owlam] which means, always, forever, everlasting.

So, basically, Nephilims are stronger, famous (they had a name) and (never died out but kept living? - not sure).

It is also true that the only surviving humans of the flood hadn't interbred with them, which is why we have only 4% of Neanderthal DNA in our blood. However, Bible does say Nephilims existed after the flood too, which is either because of the inherited Nephilim's characteristics through Noah's wife or his son's wives (or) because of sons of God sinning with daughters of me again (I think the former is more possible).

Whether or not procreation with different species is necessary for evolution I don't know. Those early humans that did mate with Neanderthals probably didn't even realise that they are of a different kind. They probably viewed them as interesting looking fellows. So it wasn't besatiality for them.

But it was a serious sin in the sight of God.

Jude 1:6 And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day;

Basically we are formed of the dust of the ground. The organic material our bodies are made of were created from anorganic material, for example stuff that the plants we eat extracted and resorbed from the ground.

But dust cannot become a living being unless God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. Neither animals were an intermediate step in the process because animals were created the same way an mentioned in another verse.

2. Peter 3:8
But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.
Maybe the time dimension in the Genesis isn't to be taken literally.

However, Bible explicitly mentioned one evening and one morning and thus the nth day. It is so explicit that it literal in every sense. How can there be one evening and one morning in 1000 years?

Scientifically it seems like the default gender in mammals is female. If I stand before our creator some day and I still care enough for that question I will ask Him how Bible and empiry can be brought together here.

I am not sure what God took from Adam and made women but rib is not convincing because, out of 41 translations for Hebrew [H6763 צֵּלָע צַּלעָה tsela`], only twice it is translated as ribs and most of the time it is translated as 'side'.

Gen 2:18 And the LORD God said, "[It is] not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him."

I think God created Adam (before Eve) with the ability to procreate and after the surgery, He moved this role to women. (Just a thought)

 

[felix]

There's no word in the Bible that says the Gospels are metaphorical. But there is that verse I quoted saying God's time frame is incomprehensible for us. So what He calls a "day" may not be what we call a day. His 6 + 1 days of creation may have been six steps of creation that lasted billions of years, or 10^-34 seconds.

Neither there is any word in the Bible that says Genesis is metaphorical. While God's time frame is incomprehensible for us, Adam's timeframe is not. As mentioned in the other post, each day in Genesis is explicitly mentioned as one evening and one morning. Millions or Billions of years will not have one evening and one morning.