Do we take science as primary source of knowledge in this area, andhave the Bible fit to that, or is the Bible primary source, and Science WILL conform to that IF indeed true!
-
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!
Did manking evolve from other primates, or By Creation by God?
- Thread starter Yeshua1
- Start date
Do we take science as primary source of knowledge in this area, andhave the Bible fit to that, or is the Bible primary source, and Science WILL conform to that IF indeed true!
Not really, dust is not a complex living life system that didn't work properly which the elan vital improved upon and then threw away.
Also it was a two step process from dust to Adam being a living soul which happened in the confines of a sidereal day with no claim to a dynamic change over millions of years.
That's comparing oranges to oranges, white Americans (actually, any group of Americans) are of the same human gnome as Europeans both living on the same planet.
Last of all, creative evolution is based upon death.
Death did not enter until Adam sinned.
HankD
Last edited:
freeatlast
New Member
So how does your belief agree with the written word of God?
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
The following remarks by leading evolutionists [ref. The Modern Creation Trilogy by Henry M. and John. D. Morris] show the absurdity of theistic evolution.
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.
Still a product of evolutionary myth regardless of how it is presented. Face it: Evolution is the religion of the atheist!
Magnetic Poles
New Member
Science is a method to discover and uncover how the universe operates. It assumes no outcome, but follows the evidence wherever it leads.
Dogma starts with a conclusion, rejects evidence that is counter to that conclusion, and only looks for corroborating evidence to support its desired outcome.
The Bible is not a science text, and it is an error to treat it as one.
So when science has determined that things we already know to be true because the source (God) is reliable then we should ignore God? Somehow God is less reliable than man made science that is always changing and contradicting itself.
Magnetic Poles
New Member
The fact that science incorporates new evidence and refines previous conclusions is it's greatest strength. It is self-correcting. Nothing is sacred, no conclusion is outside the realm of new evidence, unlike dogmatic belief.
If you think God said something, and it is proven wrong, does it mean God lied? There are other possibilities, including the fact that you may have been in error in your interpretation or understanding.
The Bible reflects an ancient understanding of the cosmos, beginning with the sky being a solid dome, a firmament, which holds back the waters above and releases it as rain by opening floodgates. Science has disproven that ancient view, that would be reasonable from a bronze-age level of knowledge.
We know that mental illness is caused by any number of physiological and biological problems, and not by invisible "demons" taking possession of a person. We know that disease is caused by microbes, not by our sins or those of our ancestors. Knowledge advances. Dogma does not.
Therefore the story is not literally true. One should not idolize written words. If one truly believes that God created all, then there are clues in that creation that are as much his "words" as anything in a book.
If one rejects science, then the rational view would be to reject medical treatment for disease. To not immunize our children and grandchildren.
To adhere to ancient fables as fact makes the church irrelevant as we discover facts about our amazing universe. It dilutes any other message it may have if it clings to disproven tales as prerequisite for anything else. If people see it wrong on how things work, why should they trust anything it has to say?
So what we believe, in science today, could be worng tomorrow? So why do we find it reliable?
Yes there is other possibilities. God is right and science is wrong.
No it hasn't
Who ever said that all mental illness is always possession?
One should find the word of God reliable.
Wow nice capitulation
Not sure how you made that jump.
Ancient fables? ok now I know where you stand. And we have no common ground to converse from. I hold God and His word precious.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
Following is a letter I wrote some years back to the local School Board.
Emphasis Added
How did it all happen? How did we get here and why? These are questions that have plagued mankind, not just since Darwin, but through much of recorded history. At present there are two concepts or ‘models’, creation and evolution, used to explain the existence of the universe and man. Neither can be proven, therefore, both enter the realm of faith. Only the Creator was present at the start of creation. No one was present at the start of the evolutionary process.
The creation model begins with the eternal Creator of infinite intelligence, power, and authority who spoke the universe into existence out of nothing. Those scientists who believe in creation, and there are many, insist that the creation model best explains the scientific data accumulated about the universe and life.
The evolutionary model begins with - well that depends [page 206ff, Vol. 2 and page 16, Vol. 3 of The Modern Creation Trilogy by Henry M. and John D. Morris]. Currently the most popular ‘guess’ is the ‘Big Bang Theory’ in which a tiny speck with infinite mass explodes: the universe, you, and I are the subsequent result. A second ‘guess’, which is gaining some adherents, seems to suggest the spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing but the influence of the mathematics of quantum physics and relativity theory! Those scientists who exercise faith in evolution insist that the scientific data accumulated about the universe and life supports the evolutionary model. Unfortunately it is common for those who accept the evolutionary model to suggest, subtly or otherwise, that creationists are either simple-minded or unlearned.
A common misconception and misrepresentation is that evolution is the fruit of modern scientific research, beginning in the 19th century with the publication of Charles Darwin’s Origin of the Species. Actually belief in evolution and spontaneous generation of life is almost as old as recorded history and was included in the belief systems of ancient Babylon, Egypt, Persia, Rome, Greece, and the pantheistic religions of the Far East, in fact most of the ancient civilizations. The Hebrews were apparently unique in their teaching of divine creation.
Evolution is always presented as fact with the impression that there is universal agreement among evolutionists in interpretation of scientific data. Nothing could be further from the truth; the harmony within the evolution camp is more like that of tomcats on the prowl. For example:
Professor Pierre Grasse of the Sorbonne University in Paris writes:
Mark Ridley of Oxford University in England writes to the contrary:
Two matters on which evolutionists are in general agreement are the denial of a Creator and the characterization of creation as a ‘religious myth’. There is, however, a ‘thorn in the flesh’ of evolutionists they are unable to remove, the Second Law of Thermodynamics which Albert Einstein called the “premier law of science”. This law states that there is an inexorable tendency of all processes toward decay and disorder; evolution requires the reverse. Englisn mathematician and physicist Sir Arthur Eddington has written decisively on this issue: “If your theory is found to be against the Second Law of Thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.”
Evolutionists argue that most reputable scientists reject creation. This is patently false. Most of the great advances in science during the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries were made by scientists who believed in creation. Today a substantial number of prominent scientists also reject the bases for the evolutionary model.
Sir Ernest Chain, co-holder of the 1945 Nobel Prize for developing penicillin has stated:
The 1971 winner of the Nobel Peace Prize in science Dennis Gabor, has stated:
Dr. Etheridge, world-famous paleontologist of the British Museum, has remarked:
Albert Fleischmann, of the University of Erlangen, has written:
The claim has frequently been made by those who believe in creation that since neither creation nor evolution can be proven both should be taught. Dr. Wernher von Braun, the father of the space program, made such a suggestion to the California State Board of Education in 1972. Excerpts from that letter are as follows:
Notwithstanding Dr. von Braun’s recommendation perhaps the question of greatest moment is - why teach either? In particular why is it necessary to teach the concept of evolution to elementary and secondary students? At a time when a substantial number of students are graduating with only a marginal ability to read it seems that time spent on study of evolution is superfluous. Is it necessary for a child to be indoctrinated in the vagaries of evolution in order for them to understand reading, literature, history, geography, mathematics, physics, chemistry, or even high school biology? Why this incessant drumbeat that evolution be taught in our public schools? Certainly, the social impact of evolutionary thought with its ‘survival of the fittest’ is not trivial: it gave us Hitler, his master race, and the Holocaust; Marxist-Communism, Stalin, Mao, and their slaughter of millions; and Margaret Sanger, Eugenics, Planned Parenthood, and abortion - the American Holocaust. Who is to say that it did not give us Columbine and similar recent tragedies? Could it be that the education establishment and certain in the scientific community wish to eliminate from the conscious thought of young people any belief in the accountability of man before his Creator?
Emphasis Added
How did it all happen? How did we get here and why? These are questions that have plagued mankind, not just since Darwin, but through much of recorded history. At present there are two concepts or ‘models’, creation and evolution, used to explain the existence of the universe and man. Neither can be proven, therefore, both enter the realm of faith. Only the Creator was present at the start of creation. No one was present at the start of the evolutionary process.
The creation model begins with the eternal Creator of infinite intelligence, power, and authority who spoke the universe into existence out of nothing. Those scientists who believe in creation, and there are many, insist that the creation model best explains the scientific data accumulated about the universe and life.
The evolutionary model begins with - well that depends [page 206ff, Vol. 2 and page 16, Vol. 3 of The Modern Creation Trilogy by Henry M. and John D. Morris]. Currently the most popular ‘guess’ is the ‘Big Bang Theory’ in which a tiny speck with infinite mass explodes: the universe, you, and I are the subsequent result. A second ‘guess’, which is gaining some adherents, seems to suggest the spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing but the influence of the mathematics of quantum physics and relativity theory! Those scientists who exercise faith in evolution insist that the scientific data accumulated about the universe and life supports the evolutionary model. Unfortunately it is common for those who accept the evolutionary model to suggest, subtly or otherwise, that creationists are either simple-minded or unlearned.
A common misconception and misrepresentation is that evolution is the fruit of modern scientific research, beginning in the 19th century with the publication of Charles Darwin’s Origin of the Species. Actually belief in evolution and spontaneous generation of life is almost as old as recorded history and was included in the belief systems of ancient Babylon, Egypt, Persia, Rome, Greece, and the pantheistic religions of the Far East, in fact most of the ancient civilizations. The Hebrews were apparently unique in their teaching of divine creation.
Evolution is always presented as fact with the impression that there is universal agreement among evolutionists in interpretation of scientific data. Nothing could be further from the truth; the harmony within the evolution camp is more like that of tomcats on the prowl. For example:
Professor Pierre Grasse of the Sorbonne University in Paris writes:
Naturalists must remember that the process of evolution is revealed only through fossil forms .... only paleontology can provide them with the evidence of evolution and reveal its course or mechanisms.”
Mark Ridley of Oxford University in England writes to the contrary:
In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation.
Two matters on which evolutionists are in general agreement are the denial of a Creator and the characterization of creation as a ‘religious myth’. There is, however, a ‘thorn in the flesh’ of evolutionists they are unable to remove, the Second Law of Thermodynamics which Albert Einstein called the “premier law of science”. This law states that there is an inexorable tendency of all processes toward decay and disorder; evolution requires the reverse. Englisn mathematician and physicist Sir Arthur Eddington has written decisively on this issue: “If your theory is found to be against the Second Law of Thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.”
Evolutionists argue that most reputable scientists reject creation. This is patently false. Most of the great advances in science during the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries were made by scientists who believed in creation. Today a substantial number of prominent scientists also reject the bases for the evolutionary model.
Sir Ernest Chain, co-holder of the 1945 Nobel Prize for developing penicillin has stated:
To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts. These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest.
The 1971 winner of the Nobel Peace Prize in science Dennis Gabor, has stated:
I just cannot believe that everything developed by random mutations ...
Dr. Etheridge, world-famous paleontologist of the British Museum, has remarked:
Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species.
Albert Fleischmann, of the University of Erlangen, has written:
I reject evolution because I deem it obsolete; because the knowledge, hard won since 1830, of anatomy, histology, cytology, and embryology, cannot be made to accord with its basic idea. The foundationless, fantastic edifice of the evolution doctrine would long ago have met with its long-deserved fate were it not that the love of fairy tales is so deep-rooted in the hearts of man.
The claim has frequently been made by those who believe in creation that since neither creation nor evolution can be proven both should be taught. Dr. Wernher von Braun, the father of the space program, made such a suggestion to the California State Board of Education in 1972. Excerpts from that letter are as follows:
While the admission of a design of the universe ultimately raises the question of a designer [a subject outside of science], the scientific method does not allow us to exclude data which lead to the conclusion that the universe, life and man are based on design. To be forced to believe only one conclusion - that everything in the universe happened by chance - would violate the very objectivity of science itself. Certainly there are those who argue that the universe evolved out of a random process, but what random process could produce the brain of a man or the system of the human eye. ....
..... We in NASA were often asked what the real reason was for the amazing string of successes we had with our Apollo flights to the Moon. I think the only honest answer we could give was that we tried to never overlook anything. It is in that same sense of scientific honesty that I endorse the presentation of alternative theories for the origin of the universe, life and man in the science classroom. It would be an error to overlook the possibility that the universe was planned rather than happened by chance.
With kindest regards
Sincerely,
Wernher von Braun
..... We in NASA were often asked what the real reason was for the amazing string of successes we had with our Apollo flights to the Moon. I think the only honest answer we could give was that we tried to never overlook anything. It is in that same sense of scientific honesty that I endorse the presentation of alternative theories for the origin of the universe, life and man in the science classroom. It would be an error to overlook the possibility that the universe was planned rather than happened by chance.
With kindest regards
Sincerely,
Wernher von Braun
Notwithstanding Dr. von Braun’s recommendation perhaps the question of greatest moment is - why teach either? In particular why is it necessary to teach the concept of evolution to elementary and secondary students? At a time when a substantial number of students are graduating with only a marginal ability to read it seems that time spent on study of evolution is superfluous. Is it necessary for a child to be indoctrinated in the vagaries of evolution in order for them to understand reading, literature, history, geography, mathematics, physics, chemistry, or even high school biology? Why this incessant drumbeat that evolution be taught in our public schools? Certainly, the social impact of evolutionary thought with its ‘survival of the fittest’ is not trivial: it gave us Hitler, his master race, and the Holocaust; Marxist-Communism, Stalin, Mao, and their slaughter of millions; and Margaret Sanger, Eugenics, Planned Parenthood, and abortion - the American Holocaust. Who is to say that it did not give us Columbine and similar recent tragedies? Could it be that the education establishment and certain in the scientific community wish to eliminate from the conscious thought of young people any belief in the accountability of man before his Creator?
freeatlast
New Member
The problem is that what you are calling science is nothing but speculation. There is no science in the idea that all this evolved. There is not a single shred of science to prove evolution. For something to be proven by science it has to be able to be seen and duplicated. You are talking about theory, not science.
As for the bible it is a book of faith for those who have come to know the Lord. Nothing in the bible has ever been proven incorrect by science so there is no reason to hold any part of it in error even by the lost.
Magnetic Poles
New Member
Certainly you prove your lack of knowledge here. It is not speculation. It is supported not only by deductive science, but by observable phenomena. To say there is no evidence for evolution removes you from the realm of serious debate. Putting your fingers in your ears and closing your eyes does not make the evidence go away. This is willful ignorance.
BTW, a theory is NOT a guess. That is more akin to an hypothesis. A theory, in the scientific sense, is well documented and the best way we have to understand a set of data. Gravity is a theory. Microbes causing disease is a theory. Those are facts, not wild guesses.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
Evolution will become science when it is demonstrated.
Has God been proven wrong?
Could you quote book, chapter, and verse to prove your nonsensical statement?
We do not know that demons cannot take control of a person. I do not believe it happens now but Jesus Christ has limited the power of Satan.
A question: Is AIDS frequently the result of sinful behavior?
That is exactly what most people who believe in evolution do. They haven't the foggiest idea about the concept of evolution but accept it as truth because it is rammed down their throat. And there is no accountability!
That remark is utterly stupid! As I recall Luke was a physician!
That is a blasphemous lie and you should be banned.
Magnetic Poles
New Member
I also understand it is uncomfortable for some to have their sacred cows slaughtered. But I would rather understand how things really work rather than cling to some dogmatic view written down in a time when people would think you were a witch for being able to strike a match and create fire.
Theory is not fact. theory means it is not absolute and can be wring in some way. Theory is far different from fact and less reliable.
Magnetic Poles
New Member
Here is a better explanation, from rationalwiki.org:
"Theory" is a Jekyll-and-Hyde term that means different things depending on the context and who is using it. While in common parlance anything that attempts to provide an explanation for a cause can be dubbed a "theory", a scientific theory has a much more specific meaning. Scientific theory is far more than just a casual conjecture or some Joe's guesswork. A theory in this context is a well-substantiated explanation for a series of facts and observations that is testable and can be used to predict future observations.
Magnetic Poles
New Member
I hope gravitational theory is not wrong. We might go flying off into space.
a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate. Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.
Theistic evolution is as much of a lie of the devil as evolution. With theistic evolution, you have God creating the world and then leaving it alone to evolve on its own.
The Bible plainly tells us that God SPOKE everything into existence, and then He made man of the dust of the earth, breathed life into him and used one of Adam's ribs to make woman.
Anyone who believes in theistic evolution apparently believes in a God who is weak and not omnipotent and not able to create everything Himself and needed evolution to do what He couldn't. That belief is heresy.
The Bible plainly tells us that God SPOKE everything into existence, and then He made man of the dust of the earth, breathed life into him and used one of Adam's ribs to make woman.
Anyone who believes in theistic evolution apparently believes in a God who is weak and not omnipotent and not able to create everything Himself and needed evolution to do what He couldn't. That belief is heresy.
Magnetic Poles
New Member
Who are you to limit God to how he does anything?