[_ Old Earth _] A thought on Human origins

[turnorburn]

My beliefs are based on Gods word...

Psalm 33:6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.

7 He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap: he layeth up the depth in storehouses.

8 Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him.

9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.

He commanded and it stood fast.. you see all Jesus needs to do is speak and its done.. "Lazarus come forth" and he came forth.. or don't you believe that he has the power?

 

[Jim Parker]

My beliefs are based on Gods word...

Really??
Where in God's word does it say that the KJV is the only true version of scripture?

 

[GodsGrace]

Really??
Where in God's word does it say that the KJV is the only true version of scripture?

I'm sorry Jim Parker.
I'm confused.
Turnorburn's post no. 224 seems right on to me.

He said that there are only two alterantives: Creationism or Evolutionism.
And it seems he's agreeing with Creationism.

Are you saying you believe in evolution since it seems you're disagreeing with Turnorburn??

Wondering

 

[Jim Parker]

I'm sorry Jim Parker.
I'm confused.
Turnorburn's post no. 224 seems right on to me.
He said that there are only two alterantives: Creationism or Evolutionism.
And it seems he's agreeing with Creationism.
Are you saying you believe in evolution since it seems you're disagreeing with Turnorburn??
Wondering

I don't know how you got this instead of "turn." I was responding to his KJ only stuff.

There is good evidence that some kind of evolution took place.
That does not eliminate God's hand in the process. Scripture says that God created the heavens and the earth. It doesn't go into detail.

The idea that there are only two alternatives and that evolution is a religion seem to me to be just silly. It looks very much to me like the kind of "ear-tickling" bilge that visiting, self-proclaimed "apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers" peddle to get the butts in the pews and big checks in the plate. It's the kind of trite pap that charlatans preach to ignorant rubes. It gives them a handy excuse for not knowing anything about science because "it's a false religion." It also has the psychological appeal of providing a basis for people to think that they're really smarter than all those foolish scientists.

And. to be fair, atheists, socialists, progressives, communists, etc. do the same kind of thing when they talk about people with faith in Jesus. They dismiss them as ignorant and silly. So it works both ways to keep people divided and ignorant.

iakov the fool

 

[GodsGrace]

I don't know how you got this instead of "turn." I was responding to his KJ only stuff.

There is good evidence that some kind of evolution took place.
That does not eliminate God's hand in the process. Scripture says that God created the heavens and the earth. It doesn't go into detail.

The idea that there are only two alternatives and that evolution is a religion seem to me to be just silly. It looks very much to me like the kind of "ear-tickling" bilge that visiting, self-proclaimed "apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers" peddle to get the butts in the pews and big checks in the plate. It's the kind of trite pap that charlatans preach to ignorant rubes. It gives them a handy excuse for not knowing anything about science because "it's a false religion." It also has the psychological appeal of providing a basis for people to think that they're really smarter than all those foolish scientists.

And. to be fair, atheists, socialists, progressives, communists, etc. do the same kind of thing when they talk about people with faith in Jesus. They dismiss them as ignorant and silly. So it works both ways to keep people divided and ignorant.

iakov the fool

Religion in the sense that evolutionists have made their belief system into a "god." I do agree with Turnorburn that these are the same people who adamantly refuse the existence of God and so use evolution as their explanation of all that exists.

But what could a third alternative be? You said that the idea that there are only two alternatives is silly.
Whatever happened, God did it. Any scientist will tell you that something cannot come out of nothing.
I'm still unclear as to whether or not the "missing link" has been found. I don't believe so and I also read that many scientists are abandoning the theory of evolution since it has not been proven in all this time - about 100 years.

I've put forth the idea that if a link is ever found, it could be reasoned that God created a primitive form of life and then improved upon it - but this creates problems too.

Basically, I try not to think about it too much, but every now and then it does come to mind.

Sorry about the misunderstanding - I knew there was something wrong here...

Wondering

 

[Jim Parker]

Religion in the sense that evolutionists have made their belief system into a "god."

The is simply not true. Science, including evolution, is not a "belief system." It is a method of investigation of nature based upon some foundational premises which are subject to revision as new information is gained. Individual people who do research based on evolutionary theory may or may not be Christians any more than historians, mathematicians, chemists, or poets may or may not be Christians.

I do agree with Turnorburn that these are the same people who adamantly refuse the existence of God and so use evolution as their explanation of all that exists.

That is also not true. Evolution is a branch of scientific investigation of nature. God is not subject to scientific investigation because He is not part of nature.

But what could a third alternative be? You said that the idea that there are only two alternatives is silly.
Whatever happened, God did it. Any scientist will tell you that something cannot come out of nothing.

You are conflating science, which is the study of creation, and theology which is the study of the creator.
There is no conflict in seeing God's hand in evolution any more than there is in seeing God's hand in any part of creation.

it could be reasoned that God created a primitive form of life and then improved upon it - but this creates problems too.

Yes it does. It mixes science with theology. They don't mix. God cannot be measured, weighed, or directly observed and, therefore, is not subject to scientific investigation.

It is impossible to prove God's hand in evolution using the scientific method.
Theistic Evolution is inserting religion into science. That's a bit like mixing milk and vinegar; they don't go together and you won't want to drink it.

So I can believe that God could use evolution but it is impossible to prove that belief since, again, God is not available for scientific analysis.

I can look at scientific evidence and draw conclusions about creation from the evidence and I can look at scripture and draw conclusion about God from what is written.

But, I cannot look at scientific evidence and draw conclusions about God that can be tested and proven correct or incorrect.
And I cannot look at scripture and draw conclusions about science that will be anything more than my personal opinion.
The Bible is not science and evolution theory is not theology.

But calling evolution a "religion" preaches well, puts butts in the pews and fills the offering basket. (Hallelujah {that's Hebrew for "whoopee!"} )

Anyway, that's how I see it.

iakov the fool

 

[Barbarian]

eligion in the sense that evolutionists have made their belief system into a "god."

There's a way to test that. Ask a scientist why he accepts evolution. If he says "because Darwin said so", it's at least faith-based, if not a religion. If he starts citing evidence, it's science.

I do agree with Turnorburn that these are the same people who adamantly refuse the existence of God and so use evolution as their explanation of all that exists.

That would be silly, since evolutionary theory is only about the way populations change over time.

But what could a third alternative be?

Accept God without reservations, and let Him be concerned about how He managed creation.

I'm still unclear as to whether or not the "missing link" has been found. I don't believe so and I also read that many scientists are abandoning the theory of evolution since it has not been proven in all this time - about 100 years.

Ironically, scientists are more firmly convinced of evolution today, than they were even in my childhood. The last world-class biologist who didn't accept evolution died around the end of the 19th century. And since evolution of new species have been directly observed, it's pretty hard to deny.

 

[turnorburn]

Really??
Where in God's word does it say that the KJV is the only true version of scripture?

What is it with you did i say the king James? a big burr in that saddle..

 

[turnorburn]

There's a way to test that. Ask a scientist why he accepts evolution. If he says "because Darwin said so", it's at least faith-based, if not a religion. If he starts citing evidence, it's science.



That would be silly, since evolutionary theory is only about the way populations change over time.



Accept God without reservations, and let Him be concerned about how He managed creation.



Ironically, scientists are more firmly convinced of evolution today, than they were even in my childhood. The last world-class biologist who didn't accept evolution died around the end of the 19th century. And since evolution of new species have been directly observed, it's pretty hard to deny.

Its diametrically opposed to Gods word.. its the doctrine of atheists humanists and communists..

Psalm 33:6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.

7 He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap: he layeth up the depth in storehouses.

8 Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him.

9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.

 

[JohnDB]

I'm going to remind everyone of the special agreements that they agreed to in order to join this forum...

Play nice!

 

[Barbarian]

Its diametrically opposed to Gods word.. its the doctrine of atheists humanists and communists..

It's diametrically opposed to some people's new intepretation of God's word. And Darwin's theory was officially outlawed in Soviet Russia. Was that because Darwin suggested that God created the first living things? We can't be sure, but in the officially atheistic Soviet Union it sure didn't help that Darwin was advocating that God created life.

Psalm 33

:6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.

Perfectly consistent with evolutionary theory, which doesn't say how Heaven was created.

7

He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap: he layeth up the depth in storehouses.

Perfectly consistent with evolutionary theory, which doesn't say how the seas were made.

8

Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him.

Perfectly consistent with evolutionary theory which does not deny that one should fear God or be in awe of Him.

9

For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.

Perfectly consistent with evolutionary theory which does not say that the Earth moves. However, numerous other sciences have documented that it does move, so any new doctrine that would make such a figurative verse into a literal one would conflict with many other sciences.

 

[Jim Parker]

And since evolution of new species have been directly observed, it's pretty hard to deny.

They have?
Can you tell me more. (I've seen examples of species adapting but not new species evolving.)

 

[Jim Parker]

What is it with you did i say the king James? a big burr in that saddle..

You made a very large statement that the other versions made Jesus out to be a liar.
Are you now trying to weasel out of it?

 

[Barbarian]

They have?
Can you tell me more. (I've seen examples of species adapting but not new species evolving.)

Genetics. 1935 Jul; 20(4): 377–391.
Drosophila miranda, a New Species
Theo Dobzhanski
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1208619/pdf/377.pdf

Mutation-Driven Evolution
Selectionism and Mutaton, p. 5
Masatoshi Nei
Commenting on the observed evolution of a new species, O. gigas, from O. lamarckiana, from a polyploidy event. The two species are reproductively isolated, and O. lamarckaiana breeds true.

For this and other reasons, most professional creationists admit that speciation is a fact, but insist that it isn't "real evolution."

 

[GodsGrace]

The is simply not true. Science, including evolution, is not a "belief system." It is a method of investigation of nature based upon some foundational premises which are subject to revision as new information is gained. Individual people who do research based on evolutionary theory may or may not be Christians any more than historians, mathematicians, chemists, or poets may or may not be Christians.

I'm apparently having some difficulty expressing myself lately since I agree with 99% of everything you say.
Science can certainly be a belief system that is used to deny the existence of God. There exists theistic evolutionists - but the majority of evolutionists are very happy to use their science to deny God as the first cause and will find any other theory on which to place their belief system.

Maybe the problem is how I understand "religion.":

1. religion(Noun)
   
   The belief in and worship of a supernatural controlling power, especially a personal god or gods.
   
   My brother tends to value religion, but my sister not as much.
   
   
2. religion(Noun)
   
   A particular system of faith and worship.
   
   Islam is a major religion in parts of Asia and Africa.
   
   
3. religion(Noun)
   
   The way of life committed to by monks and nuns.
   
   The monk entered religion when he was 20 years of age.
   
   
4. religion(Noun)
   
   Any practice that someone or some group is seriously devoted to.
   
   At this point, Star Trek has really become a religion.
5. religion(Noun)
   
   Faithfulness to a given principle; conscientiousness.

I'm using numbers 4 and 5 for my saying that belief in evolution, and all that come with it, could be a religion.

That is also not true. Evolution is a branch of scientific investigation of nature. God is not subject to scientific investigation because He is not part of nature.

You've totally misunderstood what I said. I take full responsibility. Do you think I don't know the above??
Not only is God not part of nature: HE CREATED NATURE. HE created all Laws that govern nature.

You are conflating science, which is the study of creation, and theology which is the study of the creator. There is no conflict in seeing God's hand in evolution any more than there is in seeing God's hand in any part of creation.

I'm not conflating anything. I said that HOWEVER everything came into being, God caused it. God is the first cause.

As far as conflict - There seems to be a problem in protestantism with evolution. In Catholicism there is no conflict, for example. And none is taught. God is seen as the Creator and He is able to create however He wills to.

The following is from Wikipedia.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Roman Catholicism[edit]
See also: Catholic Church and evolution and Catholic Church and science
While refined and clarified over the centuries, the Roman Catholic position on the relationship between science and religion is one of harmony, and has maintained the teaching of natural law as set forth by Thomas Aquinas. For example, regarding scientific study such as that of evolution, the church's unofficial position is an example of theistic evolution, stating that faith and scientific findings regarding human evolution are not in conflict, though humans are regarded as a special creation, and that the existence of God is required to explain both monogenism and the spiritual component of human origins. Catholic schools have included all manners of scientific study in their curriculum for many centuries.[107]

Galileo once stated "The intention of the Holy Spirit is to teach us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go."[108] In 1981 John Paul II, then pope of the Roman Catholic Church, spoke of the relationship this way: "The Bible itself speaks to us of the origin of the universe and its make-up, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise, but in order to state the correct relationships of man with God and with the universe. Sacred Scripture wishes simply to declare that the world was created by God, and in order to teach this truth it expresses itself in the terms of the cosmology in use at the time of the writer".[109]
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
There is also much on creation in the CCC starting with no. 293 and on.

Yes it does. It mixes science with theology. They don't mix. God cannot be measured, weighed, or directly observed and, therefore, is not subject to scientific investigation.

I said it creates problems. I agree.

It is impossible to prove God's hand in evolution using the scientific method.
Theistic Evolution is inserting religion into science. That's a bit like mixing milk and vinegar; they don't go together and you won't want to drink it.

So I can believe that God could use evolution but it is impossible to prove that belief since, again, God is not available for scientific analysis.

I can look at scientific evidence and draw conclusions about creation from the evidence and I can look at scripture and draw conclusion about God from what is written.

But, I cannot look at scientific evidence and draw conclusions about God that can be tested and proven correct or incorrect.
And I cannot look at scripture and draw conclusions about science that will be anything more than my personal opinion.
The Bible is not science and evolution theory is not theology.

But calling evolution a "religion" preaches well, puts butts in the pews and fills the offering basket. (Hallelujah {that's Hebrew for "whoopee!"} )

Anyway, that's how I see it.

iakov the fool

I agree with everything you've said. I do maintain that evolution theory is seen by some to be a religion. Those that would use it to vehemently deny the existence of God, and not only for scientific purposes.
Let me ask you, is atheism a religion?

W

 

[Jim Parker]

Genetics. 1935 Jul; 20(4): 377–391.
Drosophila miranda, a New Species
Theo Dobzhanski
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1208619/pdf/377.pdf

Mutation-Driven Evolution
Selectionism and Mutaton, p. 5
Masatoshi Nei
Commenting on the observed evolution of a new species, O. gigas, from O. lamarckiana, from a polyploidy event. The two species are reproductively isolated, and O. lamarckaiana breeds true.

For this and other reasons, most professional creationists admit that speciation is a fact, but insist that it isn't "real evolution."

From the document: "Is, then, the elevation of Droso-phila miranda to specific rank justified? In the opinion of the writer this
question should be answered in the affirmative."
Ok. So we've got one person's opinion.
As an untrained, unqualified to comment, layman, I'm skeptical.

 

[turnorburn]

You made a very large statement that the other versions made Jesus out to be a liar.
Are you now trying to weasel out of it?

Same burr same saddle..

 

[Jim Parker]

Same burr same saddle..

Same avoidance of answering a direct question.

 

[turnorburn]

It's diametrically opposed to some people's new intepretation of God's word. And Darwin's theory was officially outlawed in Soviet Russia. Was that because Darwin suggested that God created the first living things? We can't be sure, but in the officially atheistic Soviet Union it sure didn't help that Darwin was advocating that God created life.


Perfectly consistent with evolutionary theory, which doesn't say how Heaven was created.



Perfectly consistent with evolutionary theory, which doesn't say how the seas were made.



Perfectly consistent with evolutionary theory which does not deny that one should fear God or be in awe of Him.



Perfectly consistent with evolutionary theory which does not say that the Earth moves. However, numerous other sciences have documented that it does move, so any new doctrine that would make such a figurative verse into a literal one would conflict with many other sciences.

A doctrine of devils has nothing in common with Gods word it denies Gods power at every turn..

 

[Jim Parker]

It's diametrically opposed to some people's new intepretation of God's word. And Darwin's theory was officially outlawed in Soviet Russia. Was that because Darwin suggested that God created the first living things?

Darwin actually was a creationist.
From: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2011/09/what_darwin_said_about_god.html

"One of best-known criticisms of natural selection was that nothing as complicated as an eye could have evolved purely by chance. Darwin's response was that we can observe many examples of the evolution of light-sensitive cells in nature. The most intriguing thought Darwin had on this subject was that just because we don't understand how something can evolve does not mean that the Creator wasn't behind it. His exact words in the sixth edition of Origin were "Have we any right to assume that the Creator works by intellectual powers like those of man?". Using the telescope as an example of a man-made optical instrument, he added: "May we not believe that a living optical instrument might thus be formed as superior to one of glass, as the works of the Creator are to man?".

Two more quotes by Darwin in the sixth edition mention the Creator, and these give the Creator credit for starting the "laws" of evolution. The first passage reads:

To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual."

(My emphasis)
As Gomer Pyle used to say: sur-PRIZE! SUR-prize!

iakov the fool