[_ Old Earth _] Christians, why not evolution?

[ÃÂoppleganger]

:-D

 

[Heidi]

Starting from creation week, and the garden, and the created men and beasts, why not some evolution? Obviously trying to assume the adapting or evolving that goes on back past that is absurd, and unsupportable, but why not accept the bits since then?
The different past in the bible allows for it, it seems.

Because not only does the bible not say that we came from wild beasts, but that contradicts the reproductive process. Evolutionists have to say that there were millions of "accidental" changes that happened in a fictitious beast called a "common ancestor" in order to produce the human being, for which there is zero evidence, only speculation.

So the question then becomes, why claim evolution at all? :o What's the point?

 

[dad]

...
Because not only does the bible not say that we came from wild beasts, but that contradicts the reproductive process.

What am I missing here? I said the adaptations or 'evolving' stsrted at the creaion. So we have creation week, all the creatures mads already, then man, on day six. No one cam from any wild beasts anywhere I can see? Where the evolutoin comes in, is that, after the fall, perhaps some adapting was needed in some creatures as they spread out in the world, that was still not that habitable in many places, and kind of harsh. With things starting to die, perhaps God had some creatures adapt into being scavengers, etc, to help feed them, and clean up the dying mess? Then, later, after the flood, many say the ice age came. Why not have some elephants adapt to the cold weather, and become mammoths? Etc.
This means we steal evolution from the evolutionists, and put it in it's place as a process that God made. All they are left with now, would be the claim of some common ancestor (i.e no creation) which they can't begin to evidence or prove, cause it never happened, there was no first lifeform! No science tells us there was at all. They do detect some changes that go on, however, so why not face the facts?

Evolutionists have to say that there were millions of "accidental" changes that happened in a fictitious beast called a "common ancestor" in order to produce the human being, for which there is zero evidence, only speculation.

Correct, that is not science, and is sheer anudulterated nonsense. That is not the kind of evolution I mean in any way.

So the question then becomes, why claim evolution at all? :o What's the point?

The point is, to me, it shows the past was different from the present. Things apparently could adapt very quickly. If all cats, for example did come from the one original created pair, that is a lot of adapting. Or if Noah had just the pair on the ark, and later, I don't know how many different types of tigesrs there are, I believe it is 30 something species-all came from the original pair. Now, in the present that could not happen in a few thousand years as we know. Then, however, the world was quite different.

 

[dad]

Always gotta have the last word, don't you! I think you should graduate from using 6 & 7, and start thinking in PI, the golden mean, Pythagorus's theorum, Fibbonauci numbers and the like! See God Had to SPEAK THROUGH BALAM'S ASS just to get to you!

Guess this is supposed to make some sense. I do know bigger numbers than the 6 days of creation, but I also don't take a jackhammer to the bible, and try to construct it to fit my ideas, I look to see what it actually says. This gap is in their bean, nowhere else.

 

[ÃÂoppleganger]

:bday:

 

[dad]

This is absolutely my last post here!

Fine. Then consider this the last word.

 

[Heidi]

...
Because not only does the bible not say that we came from wild beasts, but that contradicts the reproductive process.

What am I missing here? I said the adaptations or 'evolving' stsrted at the creaion. So we have creation week, all the creatures mads already, then man, on day six. No one cam from any wild beasts anywhere I can see? Where the evolutoin comes in, is that, after the fall, perhaps some adapting was needed in some creatures as they spread out in the world, that was still not that habitable in many places, and kind of harsh. With things starting to die, perhaps God had some creatures adapt into being scavengers, etc, to help feed them, and clean up the dying mess? Then, later, after the flood, many say the ice age came. Why not have some elephants adapt to the cold weather, and become mammoths? Etc.
This means we steal evolution from the evolutionists, and put it in it's place as a process that God made. All they are left with now, would be the claim of some common ancestor (i.e no creation) which they can't begin to evidence or prove, cause it never happened, there was no first lifeform! No science tells us there was at all. They do detect some changes that go on, however, so why not face the facts?

Evolutionists have to say that there were millions of "accidental" changes that happened in a fictitious beast called a "common ancestor" in order to produce the human being, for which there is zero evidence, only speculation.

Correct, that is not science, and is sheer anudulterated nonsense. That is not the kind of evolution I mean in any way.

[quote:2ef98]So the question then becomes, why claim evolution at all? :o What's the point?

The point is, to me, it shows the past was different from the present. Things apparently could adapt very quickly. If all cats, for example did come from the one original created pair, that is a lot of adapting. Or if Noah had just the pair on the ark, and later, I don't know how many different types of tigesrs there are, I believe it is 30 something species-all came from the original pair. Now, in the present that could not happen in a few thousand years as we know. Then, however, the world was quite different.[/quote:2ef98]

Sorry, but the bible clearly says that God created each animal to its own kind. That means that God created each animal to its own kind and that is how the world works, plain and simply. Each animal breeds its own kind. The theory of evolution is a man-made theory that has nothing to do with the bible. And because it is man-made, it is by definition, fallible. End of story.

 

[army_of_juan]

Well for me I have not seen any proof that when things "evolve" or "adapt" new DNA information is created. What I have read and studied has provided more proof that DNA information is lost and not added when things “adaptâ€Â…such as bacteria for instance.

The bottom line for me is that the Evolutionary theory does not provide any facts that DNA information is created. Also I might add that the explanation that mutation brings about change does not sit well with me considering the information I have read shows that mutation never creates an advantageâ€â€only problems.

This is meaningless, information isn't added or taken away from DNA, it's just changed.

Look at nylon eating bacteria, that would be considered additional information according to how you think DNA works (which is wrong but I'm just making a point).

 

[peace4all]

Sorry, but the bible clearly says that God created each animal to its own kind. That means that God created each animal to its own kind and that is how the world works, plain and simply. Each animal breeds its own kind. The theory of evolution is a man-made theory that has nothing to do with the bible. And because it is man-made, it is by definition, fallible. End of story.

May I remind you that the Bible is a man made book, and the only reason it is "inspired by God" is because the men that made it, said so.

 

[Khristeeanos]

Sorry, but the bible clearly says that God created each animal to its own kind. That means that God created each animal to its own kind and that is how the world works, plain and simply. Each animal breeds its own kind. The theory of evolution is a man-made theory that has nothing to do with the bible. And because it is man-made, it is by definition, fallible. End of story.

May I remind you that the Bible is a man made book, and the only reason it is "inspired by God" is because the men that made it, said so.

The Bible has hundreds of prophecies and medical and scientific facts that were given hundreds and in some cases thousands of years prior to human knowledge.

That proves it is inspired by God.

 

[peace4all]

Sorry, but the bible clearly says that God created each animal to its own kind. That means that God created each animal to its own kind and that is how the world works, plain and simply. Each animal breeds its own kind. The theory of evolution is a man-made theory that has nothing to do with the bible. And because it is man-made, it is by definition, fallible. End of story.

May I remind you that the Bible is a man made book, and the only reason it is "inspired by God" is because the men that made it, said so.

The Bible has hundreds of prophecies and medical and scientific facts that were given hundreds and in some cases thousands of years prior to human knowledge.

That proves it is inspired by God.

I feel like Jon Stewart when bush announced he was going to answer a few questions.

what?????

Care to give some evidence please? I am a bit confused. considering, it originally seemed to say that the earth was teh center of the universe, and the sun orbitted us.

 

[Nocturnal_Principal_X]

This is meaningless, information isn't added or taken away from DNA, it's just changed.

Look at nylon eating bacteria, that would be considered additional information according to how you think DNA works (which is wrong but I'm just making a point).

Interesting, based on the information I have read from Evolutionist and Creationists it would be you that is mistaken.

 

[army_of_juan]

[quote="army_of_juan":ab21e]This is meaningless, information isn't added or taken away from DNA, it's just changed.

Look at nylon eating bacteria, that would be considered additional information according to how you think DNA works (which is wrong but I'm just making a point).

Interesting, based on the information I have read from Evolutionist and Creationists it would be you that is mistaken.[/quote:ab21e]
O rly?

Explain how information is lost or gained? Define "information" for that matter.

Didn't the nylon eating bacteria "gain information"?

The fact that you don't accept evolution as a valid science shows me that you still have some learning to do.

 

[Khristeeanos]

I feel like Jon Stewart when bush announced he was going to answer a few questions.

what?????

Care to give some evidence please? I am a bit confused. considering, it originally seemed to say that the earth was teh center of the universe, and the sun orbitted us.

Sure.

In Genesis 17:11-12 we read:

11 You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. 12 For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreignerâ€â€those who are not your offspring.

The Bible specifically says to circumcise infants on day 8. Not days 1-7 or any day after day 8.

According to S. I. McMillen in "None of These Diseases" (referenced in Ralph O. Muncaster's booklet "Science - Was The Bible Ahead Of Its Time?" on pages 28-29:

Research shows that newborn infants are particularly susceptible to hemorrhaging from the second day after birth to the fifth. A small cut can be deadly. Vitamin K, necessary for the production of prothrombin (the body's blood-clotting substance) is not present sufficiently until days five through seven. The prothrombin level is only 30 percent of normal on day three but skyrockets to 110 percent of normal on the eighth day before it levels off. God's command to circumcise on day eight turns out to be the safest practice.

The Bible records that God commanded something around 3,500 years ago that science just figured out in 1947.


That is just one of many that I could quote.

Humans had absolutely no knowledge that this was the case and yet it is obvious to me that God knew and told mankind.

But with the hard hearts towards God by many people, so many approach things like these with a preconceived bias against the Bible thinking that whatever it says must not be true and try very hard to come up with any argument that goes against this.

But the Bible speaks for itself. It is reliable in science matters, even though it isn't primarly a science book.

 

[Nocturnal_Principal_X]

O rly?

Explain how information is lost or gained? Define "information" for that matter.

Didn't the nylon eating bacteria "gain information"?

The fact that you don't accept evolution as a valid science shows me that you still have some learning to do.

I imagine there is quite a lot I don't know, I am not a biologist or even that interested in it, however; based on what I have learned and read I have come to a conclusion that is against evolution. Now perhaps I could do some more research and provide a good response but I really don't care that much about biology or even where 'we' humans came from. I believe what that Bible says and the information I have gathered, in what little research I have done, about evolution has satisfied me.

Now at some point I will do some research and either verify the statements I have posted or totally reject themâ€â€at this point I don’t care to. In any event I made that last post because I tend to agree with people with PhDs, not random people who post on message board. So in the end perhaps you are correct and I am wrong if that is the case then I will gladly admit it.

The bottom line is I want to put my comments in this forum and leave it at thatâ€â€not debate it.

 

[jwu]

Humans had absolutely no knowledge that this was the case and yet it is obvious to me that God knew and told mankind.

You're jumping to conclusions there. We only found out the cause for it being the best to wait until day eight to circumcise in 1947 - but the consequences of not doing it on that day are quite visible to anyone.

Don't you think people 3500 years ago were quite capable of noticing that circumcision on day eight caused the least problems? In order to realize that one does not need to understand the reasons behind it.

But the Bible speaks for itself. It is reliable in science matters, even though it isn't primarly a science book.

Such as the pillars of the earth, the earth being a circle, cud chewing rabbits and so on?

 

[army_of_juan]

[quote="army_of_juan":c7e73]O rly?

Explain how information is lost or gained? Define "information" for that matter.

Didn't the nylon eating bacteria "gain information"?

The fact that you don't accept evolution as a valid science shows me that you still have some learning to do.

I imagine there is quite a lot I don't know, I am not a biologist or even that interested in it, however; based on what I have learned and read I have come to a conclusion that is against evolution. Now perhaps I could do some more research and provide a good response but I really don't care that much about biology or even where 'we' humans came from. I believe what that Bible says and the information I have gathered, in what little research I have done, about evolution has satisfied me.

[/quote:c7e73]
You mean support your predisposition. Had you really learned what evolution was you'd come to a different conclusion like the rest of the world. There is no scientific evidence that goes against evolution, only religious convictions.
I don't know everything there is to know about the subject either, but I understand it enough to know that it is a fact of life.

Now at some point I will do some research and either verify the statements I have posted or totally reject themâ€â€at this point I don’t care to. In any event I made that last post because I tend to agree with people with PhDs, not random people who post on message board. So in the end perhaps you are correct and I am wrong if that is the case then I will gladly admit it.

The bottom line is I want to put my comments in this forum and leave it at thatâ€â€not debate it.

I agree, but having a PhD doesn't make people all knowing, especially when dealing with subjects outside their field. I agree with the scientific community's findings (not just one person's) and the fact that over 99% of all biologist (most are Christian in the US) and 95% of all natural scientist world wide support evolution tells me there just might be something to it. So either YECs are wrong or the 400,000 scientist that understand it better than anyone are wrong.

You seem to be a bit more rational than some on here, so I'll trust when you do find the info you'll also check to see if it has been refuted (I think I have seen the "loss of info in DNA" argument before).

 

[Nocturnal_Principal_X]

You mean support your predisposition. Had you really learned what evolution was you'd come to a different conclusion like the rest of the world. There is no scientific evidence that goes against evolution, only religious convictions.
I don't know everything there is to know about the subject either, but I understand it enough to know that it is a fact of life.

I’m not interested in an endless debate about evolutionary theory, however; the theory is based of presumptions as well. As a matter of fact when going through High School and College I bought into the Evolutionary propaganda like many others. Of course some time after I began to be exposed to the truth I changed. The fact that “the rest of the world†believes in evolution means nothing to meâ€â€that does not make it fact.

I agree, but having a PhD doesn't make people all knowing, especially when dealing with subjects outside their field. I agree with the scientific community's findings (not just one person's) and the fact that over 99% of all biologist (most are Christian in the US) and 95% of all natural scientist world wide support evolution tells me there just might be something to it. So either YECs are wrong or the 400,000 scientist that understand it better than anyone are wrong.

Well it does not matter to me that some of those claim to be Christian or are in fact Christian…also I question how those statistics were gatheredâ€â€for instance what was the sample size…who did they ask, etc. Bottom line even if the entire scientific community believed something that does not mean those beliefs are correct.

You seem to be a bit more rational than some on here, so I'll trust when you do find the info you'll also check to see if it has been refuted (I think I have seen the "loss of info in DNA" argument before).

I promise if I ever get around to looking into it I will admit my mistake but don’t expect it anytime soon. Frankly I don’t care much about origin science and where humans came from. I am at a point in my life where Christ and leading others to Christ is the most important thing to me. Oh and the career I am pursuing and studying forâ€â€Counseling in a Church (the degree for it I am studying is a Masters in Divinity with Biblical Counseling).

 

[army_of_juan]

That's fine and I'll just leave it at that but something you said stood out that I wanted to comment about.

Well it does not matter to me that some of those claim to be Christian or are in fact Christian…also I question how those statistics were gatheredâ€â€for instance what was the sample size…who did they ask, etc. Bottom line even if the entire scientific community believed something that does not mean those beliefs are correct.

Well to disqualify someone from being Christian because they don't take a literally interpretation of the Bible would bump out the majority of Christians.

The scientific community would know more about science than us laymen, correct? The probability of someone being correct that works in the relevant field is much more likely than someone who doesn't. This "debate" over evolution is really laymen who are against evolution for religious reasons and scientist who work with the principles of evolution everyday. If you get 100 auto mechanics together to look at a car and 99 of them tell you it has a diesel engine then chances are they're right.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

The bottom line is if someone could truely show that evolution is false then they would win the Noble Prize and probably have a new Theory named after them. if I thought I could debunk Evo I'd do it myself!

 

[Nocturnal_Principal_X]

Well to disqualify someone from being Christian because they don't take a literally interpretation of the Bible would bump out the majority of Christians.

Then so be it. I do not accept and will not accept Liberal Theology. Many may claim to be Christian but if they do not believe in the essentials then they are not Christian, as far as I believe. That being the case I question the faith of the person who does not believe in the inerrancy of scripture and literal interpretation of scriptureâ€â€where the context conveys that the passages are to be taken literalâ€â€is even capable of believing in the essentials. Why you may askâ€â€well I look at the way Jesus looks at scripture.

What are the essential doctrines? (Click link for Carm’s definition)
Essential doctrine

The scientific community would know more about science than us laymen, correct?

Of course, however; there are those in the scientific community who do not accept evolutionâ€â€creation scientists for one.

The probability of someone being correct that works in the relevant field is much more likely than someone who doesn't. This "debate" over evolution is really laymen who are against evolution for religious reasons and scientist who work with the principles of evolution everyday. If you get 100 auto mechanics together to look at a car and 99 of them tell you it has a diesel engine then chances are they're right.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

Well that is yours and religioustolerances’ opinion. I happen to disagree with it but that is a different discussion.

The bottom line is if someone could truely show that evolution is false then they would win the Noble Prize and probably have a new Theory named after them. if I thought I could debunk Evo I'd do it myself!

That is admirable, however; perhaps the information you have looked over only involves the evolutionary slant. In any event you have challenged me and I thank you for that. I will pray over this and seek the Lord’s wisdom. God Bless you.