• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

IF evolution is true,

Plain Old Bill

New Member
there would be no Adam & Eve. There then would be no sin.Since there would be no sin, there would be no need for a redeemer.I don't beleive there is any reconciling between the Bible(Gods'Holy Word)and evolution.
 

TCassidy

Late-Administator Emeritus
Administrator
We know that evolution is true - micro evolution. The jump in logic is when we try to claim the evidence supporting micro evolution also proves macro evolution to be true.
 

TCassidy

Late-Administator Emeritus
Administrator
"Evolve" simply means "to change." We see such change in almost all life-forms. The point is, of course, that such micro-evolution (change) does not extrapolate to macro-evolution.
 

Gold Dragon

Well-Known Member
Originally posted by Plain Old Bill:
there would be no Adam & Eve. There then would be no sin.Since there would be no sin, there would be no need for a redeemer.I don't beleive there is any reconciling between the Bible(Gods'Holy Word)and evolution.
Evolution (micro, macro, whatever) doesn't say anything about Adam & Eve.
 

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
Originally posted by Gold Dragon:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Plain Old Bill:
there would be no Adam & Eve. There then would be no sin.Since there would be no sin, there would be no need for a redeemer.I don't beleive there is any reconciling between the Bible(Gods'Holy Word)and evolution.
Evolution (micro, macro, whatever) doesn't say anything about Adam & Eve. </font>[/QUOTE]You are incorrect. Evolution [macro] is an atheistic philosophy, denies the Biblical revelation, and, therefore, denies the existence of Adam and Eve.
 

jdcanady

Member
To TCassidy

You said, "Evolve" simply means "to change."

Is that how Darwin and current scientists view "evolve"? I always thought "evolve" meant to "change into something different (i.e. a new species)". My hair is getting quite gray. I am changing, therefore am I evolving? I just thought I was getting old. Maybe I am changing from a human being into an old geezer.
 

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
Originally posted by jdcanady:
To TCassidy

You said, "Evolve" simply means "to change."

Is that how Darwin and current scientists view "evolve"? I always thought "evolve" meant to "change into something different (i.e. a new species)". My hair is getting quite gray. I am changing, therefore am I evolving? I just thought I was getting old. Maybe I am changing from a human being into an old geezer.
"change into something different (i.e. a new species)" is specifically macro-evolution, though the term "evolution" is commonly used to indicate such a change.
 

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
Originally posted by Magnetic Poles:
Denying something and being silent on something are two very different things.
You are incorrect. Evolution [macro] is an atheistic philosophy, denies the Biblical revelation, and, therefore, denies the existence of Adam and Eve.
 

Gold Dragon

Well-Known Member
Originally posted by OldRegular:
You are incorrect. Evolution [macro] is an atheistic philosophy, denies the Biblical revelation, and, therefore, denies the existence of Adam and Eve.
Evolution has nothing to say about God or the Bible either.
 

Deacon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
First of all I am persuming you mean macro-evolution; evolution between the species to include man.

IF evolution is true:

...the interpretations regarding a young-earth would be false.

IF evolution is true:

the Scriptures would still be true, our way of interpreting it would change.

Rob
 

Alcott

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
If evolution is true, then since we are mammals we should be like other mammals... the largest male gets the females of his choice until a younger and/or bigger male physically defeats him and asssumes that position for himself. But come to think of it, our evolution (supposing it happened) led to greater cooperation and sharing of different skills, by which we survived and advanced, and our fighting then is done on a much larger scale with armies and weapons and the goal of capturing territory and subjugating people. So maybe David was an outgrowth of the big male of evolution by showing his prowess (by defeating another 'big male' who always got his way), getting fighters behind him, capturing a city, and assuming exclusive rights to the females of his choice.
 

Gold Dragon

Well-Known Member
Originally posted by OldRegular:
You are incorrect. Evolution [macro] is an atheistic philosophy, denies the Biblical revelation, and, therefore, denies the existence of Adam and Eve.
Gravity could also be considered an atheistic philosophy since it is independent of the existence or non-existence of God and the truth or non-truth of the Bible.

So because we can explain why we are attracted to other masses without invoking God or the Bible, does that mean it denies the existence of God or the revelation of the Bible?
 

Gold Dragon

Well-Known Member
Originally posted by Alcott:
If evolution is true, then since we are mammals we should be like other mammals... the largest male gets the females of his choice until a younger and/or bigger males physically defeats him and asssumes that position for himself. But come to think of it, our evolution (supposing it happened) led to greater cooperation and sharing of different skills, by which we survived and advanced, and our fighting then is done on a much larger scale with armies and weapons and the goal of capturing territory and subjugating people. So maybe David was an outgrowth of the big male of evolution by showing his prowess (by defeating another 'big male' who always got his way), getting fighters behind him, capturing a city, and assuming exclusive rights to the females of his choice.
PBS: Evolution FAQ

8. Are evolution and "survival of the fittest" the same thing?

Evolution and "survival of the fittest" are not the same thing. Evolution refers to the cumulative changes in a population or species through time. "Survival of the fittest" is a popular term that refers to the process of natural selection, a mechanism that drives evolutionary change. Natural selection works by giving individuals who are better adapted to a given set of environmental conditions an advantage over those that are not as well adapted. Survival of the fittest usually makes one think of the biggest, strongest, or smartest individuals being the winners, but in a biological sense, evolutionary fitness refers to the ability to survive and reproduce in a particular environment. Popular interpretations of "survival of the fittest" typically ignore the importance of both reproduction and cooperation. To survive but not pass on one's genes to the next generation is to be biologically unfit. And many organisms are the "fittest" because they cooperate with other organisms, rather than competing with them.
 

jdcanady

Member
Gravity is not the same as evolution because gravity is a law of science. It can be measured and observed and predicted outcomes occur. Evolution is a theory to which the scientific method cannot be applied because it takes millions of years to "occur". It cannot be observed or measured and have predictable outcomes.

So now we say "micro" evolution is the proof of "macro" evolution. That is, small changes in a species are proof that species is undergoing "macro" evolution. The problem is that all small changes in "micro" evolution are really differences within the genetic code found within that particular species. The genetic code (DNA) does not change, therefore, there is no evolution (either micro or macro). It is the genetic code found in DNA which ultimately proves Darwin's theory of evolution cannot stand the test of science. By the way, Darwin himself said in his "Origin of Species" that if cellular structure was more complex than what was believed at the time (1850's or so) then his theory of evolution could not stand. Darwin was right.
 

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
Originally posted by Gold Dragon:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by OldRegular:
You are incorrect. Evolution [macro] is an atheistic philosophy, denies the Biblical revelation, and, therefore, denies the existence of Adam and Eve.
Gravity could also be considered an atheistic philosophy since it is independent of the existence or non-existence of God and the truth or non-truth of the Bible.

So because we can explain why we are attracted to other masses without invoking God or the Bible, does that mean it denies the existence of God or the revelation of the Bible?
</font>[/QUOTE]You are making my point. If God had not created there would be no gravity. Therefore, gravity is not independent of the existence of God.

So go ahead and admit that the concept of evolution denies the existence of God.
 

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
Some thoughts by leading evolutionists on evolution and Christianity.

Nobel prize winning biologist Jacques Monod writes:

“Natural selection is the blindest most cruel way of evolving new species. .... I am surprised that a Christian would defend the idea that this is the process which God more or less set up in order to have evolution.”

Evolutionist A. J. Mattell is even more perceptive:

“Those liberal and neo-orthodox Christians who regard the creation stories as myths or allegories are undermining the rest of Scripture, for if there was no Adam there was no fall; and if there was no fall, there was no hell; and if there was no hell, there was no need of Jesus as Second Adam and Incarnate Savior, crucified and risen. As a result the whole biblical system of salvation collapses. .... Evolution thus becomes the most potent weapon for destroying the Christian faith.”
 

TCassidy

Late-Administator Emeritus
Administrator
Originally posted by jdcanady:
I always thought "evolve" meant to "change into something different (i.e. a new species)". My hair is getting quite gray.
That would be macro-evolution. We all evolve as we get older. We evolve from being young to being old. Been there (am there!) done that. Old age is not for wimps!
 
Top