[_ Old Earth _] Is evolutionism compatible with the Bible?

[Barbarian]

Eve was made from Adams rib.....tell me how I revised that.

Changing it to a literal event rather than a parable is a major revision. And that's what you did.

 

[Barbarian]

No, of course it is a revision....someone snuck in the middle of the night and re-wrote Genesis in every bible in existence.....just to confuse us all.....

Actually, they took the easy way out. Instead of re-writing it to make it literal history, they just started claiming it was a literal history.

 

[Cygnus]

Changing it to a literal event rather than a parable is a major revision. And that's what you did.

Huh?

 

[Runner]

The Bible clearly posits the direct creation of the first man and woman. There is no room for an evolutionary process. This is really not an area like the "seven days" of creation, where there is wide room for interpretation. If you are going to be even the mildest form of Bible literalist, the evolution of humans is something you simply cannot accept. And I don't - I believe, on the basis of the evidence and my own intuition, that evolutionary theory is badly flawed.

But what if the scientific evidence for the evolution of humans were to become simply overwhelming? Would we be like the Flat Earthers, clinging to our Bible literalism past the point of rationality? I, at least, would not. I would acknowledge that, even though the biblical account might seem factually straightforward, it must have been intended as a myth expressing the spiritual truth that we are creatures of God and became estranged from him when we reached a sufficient level of sophistication to rebel against him.

Alvin Plantinga and others have pointed out that the axiom that evolution must have been unguided is not part of evolutionary theory. It is a "metaphysical add-on" that most of those who promote macroevolution accept because it is required by their materialistic/naturalistic/atheistic paradigm. God-guided evolution is just as plausible and intellectually acceptable. The only problem with God-guided evolution is that it is inconsistent with a literalistic understanding of the biblical account.

 

[Douglas Summers]

Some has posted there that...evolutionism is completely compatible with the Bible.

I ask, how so?

There is horizontal evolution, where nature adapts to its environment: man, plants and animal. (Foreordained by God). But vertical evolution is not compatible with Scripture.(monkey to man).

 

[Cygnus]

There is horizontal evolution, where nature adapts to its environment: man, plants and animal. (Foreordained by God). But vertical evolution is not compatible with Scripture.(monkey to man).

The genes already exist for horizontal......vertical evolutionism is simply impossible. Except for a coloring book version. The evo-minded can't explain how mutations can add up in a "vertical" way.

 

[Douglas Summers]

Is Eve being formed from Adams rib....bibleism?

Woman came from man. God took a part of man to create a woman. (Gen. 2:22-24) Is Scriptural. Never heard of bible-ism?

 

[Cygnus]

Woman came from man. God took a part of man to create a woman. (Gen. 2:22-24) Is Scriptural. Never heard of bible-ism?

That is what the bible say. Why would one want to change it?

...some seem to find a reason to change it....they tend to filter their bible through the religion of evolutionism.....letting go of major peices of theology along the way.

 

[Barbarian]

Even many creationists admit that new species evolve by mutation and natural selection. There's no point in denying what is directly observed.

 

[Cygnus]

Even many creationists admit that new species evolve by mutation and natural selection. There's no point in denying what is directly observed.

Perhaps you can name one.

 

[Barbarian]

D. miranda

O. lamarckana

Even professional creationists have now admitted that speciation is a fact. Would you like me to show you? There's no point in denying it.

 

[Cygnus]

D. miranda

O. lamarckana

Even professional creationists have now admitted that speciation is a fact. Would you like me to show you? There's no point in denying it.

Wow, you backed that truck up...You said many christians admitt species evolve by mutation and natural selection.

I'm glad to see you dropped mutation and went directly to speciation.
The only way a species can .speciate into a new species via mutations is through de-evolution.....which would account for a loss of genetic information rather than the needed increase of genetic information for evolutionism to work.

 

[Douglas Summers]

Even many creationists admit that new species evolve by mutation and natural selection. There's no point in denying what is directly observed.

There is nothing new (that has not already been created or foreordained) under the Sun. (Eccl. 1:4-11) (John 1:1-3)

 

[Barbarian]

There is nothing new (that has not already been created or foreordained) under the Sun. (Eccl. 1:4-11) (John 1:1-3)

So why is it so objectionable if God uses nature to carry out His will?

 

[Barbarian]

pp

Wow, you backed that truck up...You said many christians admitt species evolve by mutation and natural selection.

Yep. AIG, for example admits favorable mutations, and acknowledges the fact of speciation.
https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/mutations/mutations-yes-evolution-no/

They think it only works within certain boundaries:

The problem for them, is that this would make humans and other primates a single "kind", all of them evolving from a single ancestral species.

The only way a species can .speciate into a new species via mutations is through de-evolution.....which would account for a loss of genetic information rather than the needed increase of genetic information for evolutionism to work.[/QUOTE]

It's true that (as in the case of O. lamarckania) increased genetic information was involved. On the other hand, in many other speciations, a loss of information can make the change. Perhaps you don't know how to determine "information" in a population. Could you explain how you think that is done?

 

[Douglas Summers]

So why is it so objectionable if God uses nature to carry out His will?

It is not objectionable......as long as it is not foreign to the Scriptures quoted. or to give biblical credence to mans imagination.

 

[Barbarian]

It is not objectionable......as long as it is not foreign to the Scriptures quoted.

And it isn't. For example God says that He used nature to produce living things.

 

[Cygnus]

Yep. AIG, for example admits favorable mutations, and acknowledges the fact of speciation.
https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/mutations/mutations-yes-evolution-no/

I looked...the article didn't even use the word "speciation"
It used mutation 108 times...and in a way to refute evolutionism.
EDITED

 

[Barbarian]

The article admitted that beneficial mutations exist. As you saw, a second article admits speciation exists. In fact, as you see from the diagram, AIG admits evolution but in a limited way.

They just assume some kind of magical wall that keeps the process in a predetermined channel. There is no evidence that there's any boundary that would keep invertebrates, for example, from evolving into vertebrates. Indeed,there are numerous transitional forms both living and fossil, that show that it happened.

The Institute for Creation Research now admits the evolution of new species, genera, and families. (John Woodmorappe; Noah's Ark: a Feasibility Study). Woodmorappe confirmed to me, via email that his theory would include evolution up to new families.

EDITED

 

[Cygnus]

The article admitted that beneficial mutations exist. As you saw, a second article admits speciation exists. In fact, as you see from the diagram, AIG admits evolution but in a limited way.

They just assume some kind of magical wall that keeps the process in a predetermined channel. There is no evidence that there's any boundary that would keep invertebrates, for example, from evolving into vertebrates. Indeed,there are numerous transitional forms both living and fossil, that show that it happened.

The Institute for Creation Research now admits the evolution of new species, genera, and families. (John Woodmorappe; Noah's Ark: a Feasibility Study). Woodmorappe confirmed to me, via email that his theory would include evolution up to new families.

EDITED.

I looked again....the article said that beneficial were theoretically possible. The rest of the article showed why they don't do what the evo's claim they do.