[__ Science __ ] Is Historical Science Useful?

[crossnote]

For one of God's people, there is nothing to fear from death. It's something you should welcome when He decides that it's time for you to go on. Because you will go on to Him. What is terrible about that?
Living things are given life by God for a time, and then it ends. He says it's good. I can only accept that He has it right.

As you see, the death that Adam brought into the world was a spiritual death, not a physical one. If God thought that physical death was a terrible thing, He would not sentence innocent animals to die.

I don't recall saying anything about the fear of dying.
My point was at the end of creation, God said 'it is good'.
According to evolutionists, death was already occurring at the time God made evolve man.
How did death enter and why did God declare His creation good, when He knew, because of death, His Son would have to die in order to redeem creation.
Let me guess, God has a twisted definition of death.

 

[Barbarian]

I don't recall saying anything about the fear of dying.
My point was at the end of creation, God said 'it is good'.

Yes, that was part of His plan for us. Adam was never immortal, a fact that God mentions at the end of Genesis 3:

Genesis 3:22 And he said: Behold Adam is become as one of us, knowing good and evil: now, therefore, lest perhaps he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever.

If Jesus came to save us from physical death, He failed. We will all die physically someday. Rather, He saved us from the spiritual death that God told Adam about in the Garden.

 

[crossnote]

Yes, that was part of His plan for us. Adam was never immortal, a fact that God mentions at the end of Genesis 3:

Genesis 3:22 And he said: Behold Adam is become as one of us, knowing good and evil: now, therefore, lest perhaps he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever.

If Jesus came to save us from physical death, He failed. We will all die physically someday. Rather, He saved us from the spiritual death that God told Adam about in the Garden.

Jesus failed because we do not now have our new bodies?

Again:
According to evolutionists, death was already occurring at the time God made 'evolved' man.
How did 'physical' death enter and why did God declare His creation good?

You don't have to answer, it's just too apparent to me that macro evolution in not compatible with the biblical account, unless one spiritualizes/allegorizes/ or symbolize the text.

 

[Barbarian]

If Jesus came to save us from physical death, He failed. We will all die physically someday. Rather, He saved us from the spiritual death that God told Adam about in the Garden.

Jesus failed because we do not now have our new bodies?

He didn't fail at all. He didn't come here to save us from a physical death. We will all die eventually. God never intended us to be here forever.

According to evolutionists, death was already occurring at the time God made 'evolved' man.

Yes, that is why God, at the end of Genesis 3, expresses concern that Adam, being mortal, might become immortal, and takes steps to make sure it doesn't happen.

How did 'physical' death enter and why did God declare His creation good?

Part of the world He made. And because He is omniscient and good, his creation is good. Remember, physical death is nothing for His people to fear.

it's just too apparent to me that macro evolution in not compatible with the biblical account

Since speciation is a fact, it would be rather odd if reality was not compatible with the Biblical account.

 

[crossnote]

If Jesus came to save us from physical death, He failed. We will all die physically someday. Rather, He saved us from the spiritual death that God told Adam about in the Garden.

Absolutely not true, He came to save us body soul and spirit. I have no problem in awaiting the redemption of my body.

He didn't fail at all. He didn't come here to save us from a physical death. We will all die eventually. God never intended us to be here forever.

See above

Yes, that is why God, at the end of Genesis 3, expresses concern that Adam, being mortal, might become immortal, and takes steps to make sure it doesn't happen.

Then you are admitting death started at the time of Adam's sin.

Part of the world He made. And because He is omniscient and good, his creation is good. Remember, physical death is nothing for His people to fear.

That didn't answer my question..."How did 'physical' death enter and why did God declare His creation good?"

Since speciation is a fact, it would be rather odd if reality was not compatible with the Biblical account.

The truthfulness of God's Word is not dependent on the finite findings of man.

 

[Quantrill]

He says so in scripture.
Genesis 1:24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds.


Correct. Evolution is not about the origin of life. It's the way living things change over time.


It's His way of creating new taxa, just as the earth was His way of creating life, and other humans are His way of creating new humans.



Here:

The Annunciation - Luke 1:26-38

The Annunciation, This is from our Jesus section of the goodnews.ie website

goodnews.ie

And of course, the Resurrection was presented to people who wrote the books of the NT. And they experienced the fact. Doubting Thomas, for example.



The Flood, for example, might or might not be. I think there's evidence for it being an actual historical fact, but we can't be sure, because it wasn't written as a history. It rather closely follows the Sumerian/Akkadian stories of floods in the same literary form.

We'll just have to disagree again.

No. Concerning (Gen. 1:24) the earth does not bring forth life for any creature and neither does the earth have power for the creature to evolve. All creatures that God created are brought forth 'after their kind'. Yes, I see you changed it from 'after' to 'in'. Sounds more evolutionary friendly.

The earth will bring forth after it's kind. (Gen. 1:11, 12,21,24,25) The 'kind' distinction was already set by God. No evolving. The waters bring forth the kinds that God created. The land will bring forth the kinds that God created. The waters and land do nothing to evolve these kinds. They are simply the place where they multiply.

Just because God created the earth and animals and man in a 6 day order, doesn't mean creation evolved. Just because we grow from a child to an adult, is no proof of any so called evolution. Science wants so badly to prove evolution that it must call any change evolution.

No, you showed me nothing concerning the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, and how they are presented as historical facts and not figurative or symbolic.

You showed me nothing how the Flood, Joshua's long day, and Jonah and the whale, are presented as figurative and not presented as historical facts.

I already know where they are found in the Bible. You made the claim that the Virgin Birth and Resurrection are presented as facts. Show me how they are presented as facts.

You question the Flood, and deny Joshua's long day, and call the story of Jonah and the whale figurative. Show me how they are presented as figurative.

Don't inject your science to prove either is presented as fact or figurative. Show me how Scripture presents them.

Quantrill

 

[Barbarian]

nor does the earth have power for the creature to evolve.

God created them with that power. But individuals don't evolve; populations do. By definition. Remember what biological evolution is: "change in allele frequencies in a population over time."

No. Concerning (Gen. 1:24) the earth does not bring forth life for any creature

God says it does. I believe Him.
Genesis 1:24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds.

The 'kind' distinction was already set by God.

He doesn't say that. I don't think that assumption is correct.

Yes, I see you changed it from 'after' to 'in'.

Well, let's take a look...

24 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind”; and it was so.

Sounds more evolutionary friendly.

Not surprising. He created evolution, after all.

Just because God created the earth and animals and man in a 6 day order, doesn't mean creation evolved.

Populations evolve. In a very general sense, "evolution" means "change." But biological evolution has a very specific meaning.

No, you showed me nothing concerning the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, and how they are presented as historical facts and not figurative or symbolic.

Well, a lot of people disagree about that, on all sides of the question. Fortunately, God doesn't judge you on theology.

You showed me nothing how the Flood, Joshua's long day, and Jonah and the whale, are presented as figurative and not presented as historical facts.

Likewise. It's good that Christians can differ on those things and still be good Christians.

 

[Barbarian]

Absolutely not true, He came to save us body soul and spirit. I have no problem in awaiting the redemption of my body.

But you will die. God will not save you from a physical death. But he will save you from a spiritual death.

Yes, that is why God, at the end of Genesis 3, expresses concern that Adam, being mortal, might become immortal, and takes steps to make sure it doesn't happen.

Then you are admitting death started at the time of Adam's sin.

No. As you see, Adam was mortal before he disobeyed God. God merely wanted to be sure he did not become immortal. Because doing so, would have interfered with God's plan for humans. It wasn't a punishment; it was done for our sake.

That didn't answer my question..."How did 'physical' death enter and why did God declare His creation good?"

Physical death was part of God's creation from the beginning. He didn't want to lock us out of Heaven forever. He wants to have us share Heaven with Him. It was good because God made it to work as He intended. He didn't say "perfect" because this world is not perfect.

If for example, Adam had been perfect, he would have not disobeyed God.

 

[crossnote]

But you will die. God will not save you from a physical death. But he will save you from a spiritual death.

God has saved and will save some from a physical death.(Enoch, Elijah, and the future raptured saints). He has already saved me from a spiritual death. In any case, it is a package deal, spirit. soul and body.

Yes, that is why God, at the end of Genesis 3, expresses concern that Adam, being mortal, might become immortal, and takes steps to make sure it doesn't happen.

Actually it is that God did not want man to live forever in his sinful (separated) state forever. He already gave a promise of better things as hinted at in Gen 3:15.

No. As you see, Adam was mortal before he disobeyed God. God merely wanted to be sure he did not become immortal. Because doing so, would have interfered with God's plan for humans. It wasn't a punishment; it was done for our sake.

Adam was subject to mortality before He sinned, he was not mortal until he sinned, otherwise God's warning of dying would have been empty. You say he was mortal before he sinned to bolster the case for evolution, but that won't wash without scriptural evidence.

Romans 5:12 (NASB) Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned--

Physical death was part of God's creation from the beginning. He didn't want to lock us out of Heaven forever. He wants to have us share Heaven with Him. It was good because God made it to work as He intended. He didn't say "perfect" because this world is not perfect.

Physical death was part of God's creation from the beginning?
Do you have scriptural support for such a statement?
Sure, God allows evil and calamity, sin and death, but He often uses evil to turn things around for His own good purposes. He is not the author of sin, evil or death...all antithetical to His nature.

If for example, Adam had been perfect, he would have not disobeyed God.

Where does it say 'Adam was made perfect'?
Instead, I read...

Genesis 1:31 (NASB) God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

 

[Barbarian]

Adam was subject to mortality before He sinned, he was not mortal until he sinned, otherwise God's warning of dying would have been empty.

As you see, the "death" was a spiritual one. God told Adam that he would die the day he ate from the tree. Adam eats from the tree, and lives on physically for many years thereafter. If God told the truth, it was not a physical death.

Sure, God allows evil and calamity, sin and death, but He often uses evil to turn things around for His own good purposes. He is not the author of sin, evil or death...all antithetical to His nature.

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness, I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord that do all these things.

 

[crossnote]

As you see, the "death" was a spiritual one. God told Adam that he would die the day he ate from the tree. Adam eats from the tree, and lives on physically for many years thereafter. If God told the truth, it was not a physical death.

If not a physical death, why the need for the redemption of our bodies? If you say our bodies were only corrupted, then how in the world does that fit into adaptive evolution, where life is 'evolving'?
Rather...
Romans 8:23 (KJV) And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness, I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord that do all these things.

The actual word is calamity not moral evil. If evil were the case, God would be a God that acted capriciously at will apart from man's moral agency. Judgment would be nonsensical ...but perhaps explain why you are hardened on the evolutionary theory and I on Young earth. I'm done.

 

[Quantrill]

God created them with that power. But individuals don't evolve; populations do. By definition. Remember what biological evolution is: "change in allele frequencies in a population over time."

God says it does. I believe Him.
Genesis 1:24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds.

He doesn't say that. I don't think that assumption is correct.


Well, let's take a look...

24 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind”; and it was so.

Not surprising. He created evolution, after all.

Populations evolve. In a very general sense, "evolution" means "change." But biological evolution has a very specific meaning.

Well, a lot of people disagree about that, on all sides of the question. Fortunately, God doesn't judge you on theology.

Likewise. It's good that Christians can differ on those things and still be good Christians.

No, God did not create them with the power of evolution. Everything was created by God. They multiplied after their kind. Everything was after it's kind. And again, change is not evolution. You and science just want so much to believe evolution that you must label any change as evolution. And make no mistake, your evolution is a belief.

No, you don't believe Him. God is clear, all are after their kind. You have to change the Scripture to form it to your scientific belief.

No, God did not create evolution. I know you want to water down evolution to any change so as to make evolution more palatable to Christians. But evolution speaks to the origin of life and the origin of other species from another. And you have presented evolution in that way. See post #(12,34,41) And concerning this origin of life, this evolution, you have said that one can either accept this evolution or one can accept special creation as described in (Genesis). See post #(23). But in this you are wrong as God did not create evolution. Science did. And now you and your science are trying to create it in the Scripture. But it isn't there. Life doesn't come from the earth or the waters.

I am not talking about disagreeing or differing. I said you use science to interpret the Bible. See post #(15,32) You have made the claim that you do not use science to interpret the Bible. See post #(17,23). But, you then show that you do. Post #(23,54). You contradict yourself.

You have accepted the Virgin Birth and Resurrection of Christ, by saying they are presented as facts in the Scripture and not figurative. But you do not accept the Flood, Joshua's long day, or Jonah and the whale as presented as facts in the Scripture. Post #(54)

My question to you, which you continue to ignore, is how is Christ's Virgin Birth and Resurrection presented as fact, and the Flood, Joshua's long day, and Jonah and the whale presented as figurative? What makes one a fact and the other figurative?

And, are the first three chapters of Genesis to be taken literally or figuratively?

You have this constant theme you want to present. You say we can disagree in these things as all God is concerned with is our salvation. You act as if God isn't concerned with our theology or whether we believe His Word in (Genesis). That is only because you want to inject your science and evolution into (Genesis) and the Bible. But don't deceive yourself. (Jer. 23:36) (2 Peter 3:16)

Quantrill

 

[Barbarian]

No, God did not create them with the power of evolution.

They observably have it. Who do you think gave it to them?

And again, change is not evolution.

It is. In fact, the generic meaning of "evolution" is "change", literally "to unroll."

evolution (n.)1620s, "an opening of what was rolled up," from Latin evolutionem (nominative evolutio) "unrolling (of a book)," noun of action from past participle stem of evolvere "to unroll" (see evolve).

Used in medicine, mathematics, and general writing in various senses including "growth to maturity and development of an individual living thing" (1660s). Modern use in biology, of species, first attested 1832 in works of Scottish geologist Charles Lyell. Charles Darwin used the word in print once only, in the closing paragraph of "The Origin of Species" (1859), and preferred descent with modification, in part because evolution already had been used in the discarded 18c. homunculus theory of embryological development (first proposed under this name by Bonnet, 1762) and in part because it carried a sense of "progress" not present in Darwin's idea. But Victorian belief in progress prevailed (and the advantages of brevity), and Herbert Spencer and other biologists after Darwin popularized evolution.

In biology, a change in allele frequencies in a population over time. Or more simply, "descent with modification."

But evolution speaks to the origin of life and the origin of other species from another.

It's not about the origin of life. Even Darwin just assumed that God created the first living things. Evolution is only about the way existing living populations change over time.

However, evolution is about the way new species arise from older ones:

Before the time of Charles Darwin, a false idea had crept into the church—the belief in the “fixity” or “immutability” of species. According to this view, each species was created in precisely the same form that we find it today. The Bible nowhere teaches that species are fixed and unchanging.

Speciation

Speciation, the formation of new species, is not evolution in action. Rather, it demonstrates the incredible variety God put within each created kind.

answersingenesis.org

Notice that AIG has a fundamental misunderstanding of what biological evolution is. They accept macroevolutionary change (speciation), but don't want to accept the scientific definition of evolution.

I know you want to water down evolution to any change so as to make evolution more palatable to Christians.

I'm just showing you what it is. What seems to be the problem for you is not evolution, but a consequence of evolution, i.e. common descent. AiG considers common descent to be true, to a certain level, but not beyond new families of organisms. The evidence shows that is incorrect, but they do recognize that old taxa give rise to new ones.

And concerning this origin of life, this evolution, you have said that one can either accept this evolution or one can accept special creation as described in (Genesis). See post #(23). But in this you are wrong as God did not create evolution. Science did.

Since we observe it happening, I have to conclude that God made it so. It's His creation, after all. On the other hand, science didn't make evolution; it merely observes and learns about it.

We just aren't going to agree on the difference between things presented in the Bible as allegorical or figurative things, and those presented as historical events. No point in hashing over that. Suffice to say that there are large numbers of Christians on all sides of that issue. And none of that means any of them are not good Christians.

And, are the first three chapters of Genesis to be taken literally or figuratively?

The text itself tells us that some of it is figurative.

You have this constant theme you want to present. You say we can disagree in these things as all God is concerned with is our salvation. You act as if God isn't concerned with our theology or whether we believe His Word in (Genesis).

Yes. Theology will not save you. A heart open to God and your fellow man will save you. That's what He says. Notice that in Matthew 25, Jesus says that among the sheep He will save, will be those who ask "when did we do anything for you?" They clearly are not Christians, who would know the answer. But they did His will and as St. Paul remarks are justified by natural law God has given them.

Romans 2:14 For when the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature those things that are of the law; these having not the law are a law to themselves:

So if you believe in Genesis your way and someone else believes in other ways, it's not an issue for God. Since both of you believe God as best you can, both of you are putting faith in God.

It's really a mistake to try to take Genesis as a science text. It won't help you understand nature, and it won't help you understand God.

 

[Barbarian]

If not a physical death, why the need for the redemption of our bodies?

Because Jesus didn't save us from physical death. We have to be resurrected. Do you see why God's vicarious sacrifice of his Son to atone for our sins, involved death and resurrection?

If you say our bodies were only corrupted, then how in the world does that fit into adaptive evolution, where life is 'evolving'?

No one says our bodies were corrupted. They are pretty impressive things, if not perfect. But then God never said they were created perfect. Yes, there have been some recent evolutionary changes in humans that make them more adaptable to different environments. But that's not surprising.

The actual word is calamity not moral evil.

Right. So death, some consider to be a calamity. But for a Christian, it's not. Nevertheless, God does create calamities and often, it seems unfair as the good often suffer and the wicked often prosper. God is not fair as we count fairness.

I'm done.

It's not a problem. Since God doesn't judge us on our interpretations of Genesis, I don't have to be concerned that you don't agree with me.

 

[Quantrill]

They observably have it. Who do you think gave it to them?


It is. In fact, the generic meaning of "evolution" is "change", literally "to unroll."

evolution (n.)1620s, "an opening of what was rolled up," from Latin evolutionem (nominative evolutio) "unrolling (of a book)," noun of action from past participle stem of evolvere "to unroll" (see evolve).

Used in medicine, mathematics, and general writing in various senses including "growth to maturity and development of an individual living thing" (1660s). Modern use in biology, of species, first attested 1832 in works of Scottish geologist Charles Lyell. Charles Darwin used the word in print once only, in the closing paragraph of "The Origin of Species" (1859), and preferred descent with modification, in part because evolution already had been used in the discarded 18c. homunculus theory of embryological development (first proposed under this name by Bonnet, 1762) and in part because it carried a sense of "progress" not present in Darwin's idea. But Victorian belief in progress prevailed (and the advantages of brevity), and Herbert Spencer and other biologists after Darwin popularized evolution.

In biology, a change in allele frequencies in a population over time. Or more simply, "descent with modification."


It's not about the origin of life. Even Darwin just assumed that God created the first living things. Evolution is only about the way existing living populations change over time.

However, evolution is about the way new species arise from older ones:

Before the time of Charles Darwin, a false idea had crept into the church—the belief in the “fixity” or “immutability” of species. According to this view, each species was created in precisely the same form that we find it today. The Bible nowhere teaches that species are fixed and unchanging.

Speciation

Speciation, the formation of new species, is not evolution in action. Rather, it demonstrates the incredible variety God put within each created kind.

answersingenesis.org

Notice that AIG has a fundamental misunderstanding of what biological evolution is. They accept macroevolutionary change (speciation), but don't want to accept the scientific definition of evolution.


I'm just showing you what it is. What seems to be the problem for you is not evolution, but a consequence of evolution, i.e. common descent. AiG considers common descent to be true, to a certain level, but not beyond new families of organisms. The evidence shows that is incorrect, but they do recognize that old taxa give rise to new ones.


Since we observe it happening, I have to conclude that God made it so. It's His creation, after all. On the other hand, science didn't make evolution; it merely observes and learns about it.

We just aren't going to agree on the difference between things presented in the Bible as allegorical or figurative things, and those presented as historical events. No point in hashing over that. Suffice to say that there are large numbers of Christians on all sides of that issue. And none of that means any of them are not good Christians.


The text itself tells us that some of it is figurative.


Yes. Theology will not save you. A heart open to God and your fellow man will save you. That's what He says. Notice that in Matthew 25, Jesus says that among the sheep He will save, will be those who ask "when did we do anything for you?" They clearly are not Christians, who would know the answer. But they did His will and as St. Paul remarks are justified by natural law God has given them.

Romans 2:14 For when the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature those things that are of the law; these having not the law are a law to themselves:

So if you believe in Genesis your way and someone else believes in other ways, it's not an issue for God. Since both of you believe God as best you can, both of you are putting faith in God.

It's really a mistake to try to take Genesis as a science text. It won't help you understand nature, and it won't help you understand God.

No, they don't observably have it. Science sees what it wants to. It wants to see evolution so as to believe it's theory of evolution. It cannot prove it's evolution theory. So it must call any change as evolution. Evolution is nothing but the faith of science. You and they believe it, so you must find support for it.

No, it is about the origin of life. You have said so in posts #(12,34, 41). Do you now contradict yourself here also?

What texts tell us in (Genesis) that some is to be taken figuratively?

No, again. We are not talking about disagreeing. You made the statement that the Virgin Birth of Christ and the Resurrection of Christ is presented in Scripture as fact. You made the statements that the Flood, the long day of Joshua, and Jonah and the whale are not. I am asking you, again, show how one is presented as fact and the other in Scripture is presented as figurative? Please answer.

You have showed that you use science to interpret the Bible. You have contradicted yourself in saying you do not but I have showed that you do. Your belief in the Virgin Birth of Christ and His Resurrection is inconsistent with your unbelief concerning the Flood, and Joshua's long day, and Jonah and the whale. The only reason you want to say you believe in the Virgin Birth of Christ and Resurrection is because you know you cannot say otherwise on a Christian forum. You are a walking contradiction.

What you and I call 'God' are not the same. Your God is defined by science, not the Bible. A Muslim can make the same statement as you just did. "both of you believe God as best you can". As well as a Buddhist, or Hindu, etc. etc. etc. That doesn't mean God accepts their belief.

You say you believe in Christ, yet have not said why the truths surrounding Christ are factual, yet other truths in the Bible are figurative. So, again, please answer.

And don't give your continual spill that we just will have to disagree. Of course we disagree. But you have proved yourself contradictory. You have proved yourself unwilling to answer.

Quantrill

 

[Barbarian]

No, they don't observably have it.

Scientists have repeatedly documented changes in genes of living populations. God made them that way. AIG even admits a limited amount of common descent, which would not be possible if there was no descent with modification.

So it must call any change as evolution.

Biological evolution has a very specific definition. There are many changes that are not evolutionary. Only those changes that result in a change in the allele frequencies of a population are evolutionary. For example, there are plants that take different forms, depending on the environment in which they happen to be. These are not evolutionary, since they are part of the innate variability of the plants.

On the other hand, the evolution of a new digestive structure in those Italian lizards is evolutionary, since it led to a change in the genes of that population.

Evolution is nothing but the faith of science.

Faith is not part of science. Science requires evidence.

No, it is about the origin of life. You have said so in posts

No. Evolution is not about the origin of life. And I did not say so.

12:
That would be odd, since we see evolution happening everywhere around us. Evolution is not what you seem to think it is. The scientific definition for biological evolution is "change in allele frequency in a population over time. Or more simply, as Darwin wrote, "descent with modification."

This is just a fact; we see it happening in all populations. Many creationist organizations now accept the fact of new species, genera, and families of organisms, evolving. They limit common descent to the first three levels of taxa.

34:
Yes. That was the miracle. He spoke into existence a universe that works as He intended it to do from the start. That was instantaneous and not in any way natural. The origin of life and of new forms of life, as God says in Genesis, was done by that created universe, according to His will.

41:
Scripture says that life was brought forth by the earth, among other things. And of course, as you know, evolution is constantly oberved. Remember what biological evolution is.

It can be tested in many ways. For example, Darwin, based on his theory, predicted that early forms of humans would first be found in Africa. This has been repeatedly verified.

Evolutionary theory predicted that African apes would be genetically closer to humans than any other animals. This has since been verified.

Evolutionary theory predicted the existence of transitional forms between other apes and humans. This has since been verified.

Most Christians accept that evolution is consistent with scripture. We just don't accept your compromise with scripture.

He doesn't care at all if you don't accept the way He created living things. He makes it very clear what will determine your eternal home, and approving of the way He created life isn't one of them. So I don't have to be concerned about your salvation; do what He says is necessary, and that's all you need.

And no, science doesn't rule out miracles. So the virgin birth, the Resurrection, and the miraculous healing of people is not a problem for science.

Just don't make an idol of your personal doctrines, and you'll be fine.

Nowhere have I said that evolution is about the origin of life. I would like to make a comment about something I wrote therein. I suggested that you had compromised scripture. That was not kind and I'm sure you believe wholeheartedly with you understanding of scripture. I'll try to do better.

What you and I call 'God' are not the same.

Mine is the God Who spoke to Abraham. The God who sent His Son to die for us and our sins, who rose again from the dead and walked among his apostles before leaving them, promising to return.

I'm pretty sure that's your God, too.

You say you believe in Christ, yet have not said why the truths surrounding Christ are factual, yet other truths in the Bible are figurative. So, again, please answer.

As I pointed out, there are two contradictory genealogies for Jesus in the Bible. At most one of them can be literally true. They resemble the Akkadian king lists in their literary style. So that indicates figurative. The Annunciation, the Crucifixion, and Resurrection are presented as historical facts by people who witnessed them.

I'm pretty sure we'll continue to disagree, but as I said, that's not the way God will judge you. If you err in your understanding of these things, it makes no difference at all to your salvation. As Jesus says, He will judge you on other things.

Muslim can make the same statement as you just did. "both of you believe God as best you can". As well as a Buddhist, or Hindu, etc. etc. etc. That doesn't mean God accepts their belief.

I notice that in Matthew 25, some of the people Jesus takes with Him to eternal life, ask "when did we do anything for you?" They are obviously not Christians, since a Christian would know the answer to that. So He will save whoever He will, based on the things He says in Matthew.

 

[Quantrill]

Scientists have repeatedly documented changes in genes of living populations. God made them that way. AIG even admits a limited amount of common descent, which would not be possible if there was no descent with modification.

Biological evolution has a very specific definition. There are many changes that are not evolutionary. Only those changes that result in a change in the allele frequencies of a population are evolutionary. For example, there are plants that take different forms, depending on the environment in which they happen to be. These are not evolutionary, since they are part of the innate variability of the plants.

On the other hand, the evolution of a new digestive structure in those Italian lizards is evolutionary, since it led to a change in the genes of that population.

Faith is not part of science. Science requires evidence.

No. Evolution is not about the origin of life. And I did not say so.

12:
That would be odd, since we see evolution happening everywhere around us. Evolution is not what you seem to think it is. The scientific definition for biological evolution is "change in allele frequency in a population over time. Or more simply, as Darwin wrote, "descent with modification."

This is just a fact; we see it happening in all populations. Many creationist organizations now accept the fact of new species, genera, and families of organisms, evolving. They limit common descent to the first three levels of taxa.

34:
Yes. That was the miracle. He spoke into existence a universe that works as He intended it to do from the start. That was instantaneous and not in any way natural. The origin of life and of new forms of life, as God says in Genesis, was done by that created universe, according to His will.

41:
Scripture says that life was brought forth by the earth, among other things. And of course, as you know, evolution is constantly oberved. Remember what biological evolution is.

It can be tested in many ways. For example, Darwin, based on his theory, predicted that early forms of humans would first be found in Africa. This has been repeatedly verified.

Evolutionary theory predicted that African apes would be genetically closer to humans than any other animals. This has since been verified.

Evolutionary theory predicted the existence of transitional forms between other apes and humans. This has since been verified.

Most Christians accept that evolution is consistent with scripture. We just don't accept your compromise with scripture.

He doesn't care at all if you don't accept the way He created living things. He makes it very clear what will determine your eternal home, and approving of the way He created life isn't one of them. So I don't have to be concerned about your salvation; do what He says is necessary, and that's all you need.

And no, science doesn't rule out miracles. So the virgin birth, the Resurrection, and the miraculous healing of people is not a problem for science.

Just don't make an idol of your personal doctrines, and you'll be fine.

Nowhere have I said that evolution is about the origin of life. I would like to make a comment about something I wrote therein. I suggested that you had compromised scripture. That was not kind and I'm sure you believe wholeheartedly with you understanding of scripture. I'll try to do better.

Mine is the God Who spoke to Abraham. The God who sent His Son to die for us and our sins, who rose again from the dead and walked among his apostles before leaving them, promising to return.

I'm pretty sure that's your God, too.

As I pointed out, there are two contradictory genealogies for Jesus in the Bible. At most one of them can be literally true. They resemble the Akkadian king lists in their literary style. So that indicates figurative. The Annunciation, the Crucifixion, and Resurrection are presented as historical facts by people who witnessed them.

I'm pretty sure we'll continue to disagree, but as I said, that's not the way God will judge you. If you err in your understanding of these things, it makes no difference at all to your salvation. As Jesus says, He will judge you on other things.

I notice that in Matthew 25, some of the people Jesus takes with Him to eternal life, ask "when did we do anything for you?" They are obviously not Christians, since a Christian would know the answer to that. So He will save whoever He will, based on the things He says in Matthew.

You did say so.

Post #(34). "The origin of life and of new forms of life, as God says in Genesis, was done by that created universe, according to his will."

Post #(41) "Scripture says that life was brought forth by the earth."

Post #(12) "Many...now accept the fact of new species...evolving"

Scripture does not say the earth produces life. God created life. The continual multiplication in numbers of the life God created after their kind is not evolution. Just because a couple has a child, does not mean they created life. Just because a child grows and matures is not evolution.

Again, what text in (Genesis) tells us that some of the first 3 chapters are to be taken figuratively, as you claimed.

Again, you said the Virgin Birth of Christ and the Resurrection are presented as fact in Scripture. You said the Flood, Joshua's long day, and Jonah and the whale are presented as figurative. How? What made one fact and the other figurative?

Your presenting the genealogies in the Gospels does not address my questions. My questions are very clear.

In other words your contradiction remains. You have said you don't interpret the Bible by science as I said you do. Post #(15,32). You denied it. Post #(17,23). But you then show that you do. Post #(23,54) This contradiction and your refusal to answer my questions is proof that you use science to interpret the Bible.

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

This post is to any Christian interested in the subject of 'evolution' We all should be as it is constantly reported as true when it is nothing but theory, assumption, and faith.

I'm sure there are many good books on the subject. I want to list three and some quotes from each. I encourage all to get them. They are all still available.

1.) Icons Of Evolution by Jonathan Wells, Regnery Publishing Inc., 2002---Wells has a Ph.D. in both religious studies and in molecular and cell biology. Here are some quotes.

"...as a physical science undergraduate and biology graduate student....I believed almost everything I read in my textbooks" p. (xi)

"As I was finishing my Ph.D. in cell and developmental biology, however, I noticed that all my textbooks dealing with evolutionary biology contained a blatant misrepresentation...." p. (xi)

"Since then, I have discovered that many other textbook illustrations distort the evidence for evolution, too." p. (xii)

"The pattern is consistent, and suggests more than simple error. At the very least, it suggests that Darwinism encourages distortions of the truth." p. (xii)

2.) The Evolution Of A Creationist by Jobe Martin, Biblical Discipleship Publishers, 1999---Martin was at one time a biology major and later got a D.M.D. in Dentistry. He later got a ThM. a masters in theology. Here is a quote from him.

"This book is a condensation and simplification of more than twenty years of studies that moved me from unquestioning belief in Darwinian evolution to undoubting trust in the special six-day creation by God as presented in the Biblical account." (Preface)

3.) Science And The Bible, by Henry M. Morris, Moody Press, 1986---He got a B.S., a M.S., and a Ph.D. in the areas of hydraulics and engineering. He was a professor of applied science at Southern Illinois Univ. He helped found the Creation Research Society. Here are a couple of quotes.

"There are, of course, two significant points of serious conflict between the biblical record and the standard position of the scientific establishment. These are the accounts in Genesis of the six-day period of special creation and the Noahic world-wide Flood...." p. (33)

"Although our nation was founded on creationist principles and all the early schools in our country taught creation, evolution has now become the dominant philosophy and for several generations has been taught as fact in practically all our schools...." p. (35)

Quantrill

 

[Barbarian]

You did say so.

No, I did not.

Post #(34). "The origin of life and of new forms of life, as God says in Genesis, was done by that created universe, according to his will."

Nothing about evolution being about the origin of life. I'm merely pointing out that both the origin of life and of evolution are natural processes that He created for that purpose.

Post #(41) "Scripture says that life was brought forth by the earth."

Nothing about evolution.

Post #(12) "Many...now accept the fact of new species...evolving"

This time, nothing about the origin of life.

Scripture does not say the earth produces life.

God says it did.
Gen. 1:24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds.

God created life. The continual multiplication in numbers of the life God created after their kind is not evolution.

A change in allele frequency in a population over time (descent with modification) is evolution. This is what produced those new taxa. Even Answers in Genesis is willing to admit that this produces new species, genera, and sometimes families of organisms.

Just because a couple has a child, does not mean they created life.

Right. God created them. He uses created things to make new creation, most of the time. Just as He tells you that the Earth brought forth living things, so do a man and a woman bring forth a new life according to His will.

Just because a child grows and matures is not evolution.

Correct. Individuals do not evolve. Populations evolve. Unless you're the subject of gene therapy, you're stuck with the alleles you are born with.

Again, what text in (Genesis) tells us that some of the first 3 chapters are to be taken figuratively, as you claimed.

For example, mornings and evenings without a sun to have them makes this clear.

Again, you said the Virgin Birth of Christ and the Resurrection are presented as fact in Scripture. You said the Flood, Joshua's long day, and Jonah and the whale are presented as figurative. How? What made one fact and the other figurative?

The first two are mentioned as historical facts by those who were there. The flood may or may not be an allegory, since we do have evidence for a great flood in the Middle East about the right time. The "long day" would have causes catastrophic damage to the Earth, even if God gradually slowed the Earth's rotation.

Your presenting the genealogies in the Gospels does not address my questions. My questions are very clear.

I'm merely noting that the conflicting genealogies for Jesus in the Bible indicates that much of it is figurative.

In other words your contradiction remains. You have said you don't interpret the Bible by science as I said you do. Post #(15,32).

[/QUOTE]
No, that's wrong. As you probably know, I don't consider the Bible to be a science text. So that would make no sense at all.

 

[Barbarian]

This post is to any Christian interested in the subject of 'evolution' We all should be as it is constantly reported as true when it is nothing but theory, assumption, and faith.

I'm sure there are many good books on the subject. I want to list three and some quotes from each. I encourage all to get them. They are all still available.

1.) Icons Of Evolution by Jonathan Wells, Regnery Publishing Inc., 2002---Wells has a Ph.D. in both religious studies and in molecular and cell biology. Here are some quotes.

[/QUOTE]
You might know that Wells got his PhD under orders from Myung Son Moon, (who considered himself an improvement on Jesus) to "destroy evolution." So probably not the best authority.

"...as a physical science undergraduate and biology graduate student....I believed almost everything I read in my textbooks" p. (xi)

"As I was finishing my Ph.D. in cell and developmental biology, however, I noticed that all my textbooks dealing with evolutionary biology contained a blatant misrepresentation...." p. (xi)

See above. He's lying to you there.
John Corrigan "Jonathan" Wells (born 1942) is an American author, theologian, and advocate of the pseudoscientific argument of intelligent design.[1] Wells joined the Unification Church in 1974, and subsequently wrote that the teachings of church founder Sun Myung Moon, his own studies at the Unification Theological Seminary and his prayers convinced him to devote his life to "destroying Darwinism." The term Darwinism is often used by intelligent design proponents and other creationists to refer to the scientific consensus on evolution.[2][3][4][5] He gained a PhD in religious studies at Yale University in 1986, then became Director of the Unification Church's inter-religious outreach organization in New York City. In 1989, he studied at the University of California, Berkeley, where he earned a PhD in molecular and cellular biology in 1994. He became a member of several scientific associations and has published in academic journals.

Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In spite of what he wrote, Wells had already locked in his opinions before going to graduate school. I have been told that the followers of the "Unification Church" are taught that deception is not a sin, if it's to further the faith. It seems, at any rate, that Wells believes so.

Let's see what Christian YE creationists, familiar with the evidence say:

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it. Maybe that's not enough for your scoffing professor or your non-Christian friends, but it should be enough for you.
YE Creationist Dr. Todd Wood

The truth about evolution

A blog about the creation/evolution debate from the president of Core Academy of Science.

toddcwood.blogspot.com

Evidences for Darwin’s second
expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species — include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between
rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expectedby macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists thereore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
YE creationist Kurt Wise Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms