But that's the whole point. If evolution were true, then there's no god. What would we need to be saved from? The same goes for the new age and the humanist movements that says that we must save ourselves.... from what (but I digress). There would be no such thing as a sinful nature because the definition of what is and is not sin comes from God. Jesus clearly slammed the door on evolution, theistic evolution included, when He said, Have you not read that *in the beginning* He created them male and female.
-
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!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
"If evolution is (true)/(not true)....
- Thread starter Alcott
- Start date
Since I know there is a God, then if evolution were true, there is a God. If evolution were not true, then there would still be a God. If the earth is really a flat disc resting on the back of an elephant being supported by a turtle, then there would still be a God.
I know ther is a God, because He is real to me. To quantify my God to my limited understanding of the universe is disrespectful of Him.
I know ther is a God, because He is real to me. To quantify my God to my limited understanding of the universe is disrespectful of Him.
Depends on the context.Originally posted by JamesJ:
Can we all then agree that this material (evolution) should not be presented at any time, to anyone, anywhere as a settled fact?
If the topic is a Darwinian model of origin of species, it should be presented as the generally accepted theory/theories of the scientific community.
If the topic is evolution evolution as currently occurring, it can be presented as factual in the case of microevolution, and theoretical in the case of macroevolution.
How then to we address the message that "evolution is fact" and "evolution is science"? Can we, or is this behemoth grown too big? Can we agree to stop using the term evolution altogether when we speak of variation within a kind (what is commonly called "microevolution")? Can we at least start there?
Originally posted by JamesJ:
How then to we address the message that "evolution is fact" and "evolution is science"?
Aspects of evolution are indeed factual. Aspects of evolution are accepted theory, supported by fact. This is science.
What unfortunately happens is that YEC's put word in the mouths of non-YECers to assert their point, which does little or nothing for their position. If YEC supporters want to simply stick to providing support for YEC theories, then this would probably not be the big issue it is today. I think most folks, regardless of position, are completely able to discuss theories and observations in a healthy and respectful manner.
Of course, the fact that some of the biggest YEC'ers are charlatains like Carl Baugh and Kent Hovind doesn't exactly help.
No need. This is a form of evolution, and there's nothing wrong with referring to it as such. The problem is that we as Christians (regardless of position) have been brainwashed to think that the "E" word is a dirty word. A person can't even refer to the evolution of the automobile without getting a dirty look from another Christian.Can we agree to stop using the term evolution altogether when we speak of variation within a kind (what is commonly called "microevolution")? Can we at least start there?
What is science? We haven't even established that there is such a thing as evolution. You know what I mean... Macro-evolution. How then can it be said that there are any aspects of it? First you say "if evolution", your words, then you treat the subject as established fact.
Why the change to YEC? What do you mean about, "YEC's put word in the mouths of non-YECers". Is that directed to me? Are we not having a conversation in a healthy and respectful manner?
The word evolution in and of itself is not a dirty word. I use it when describing the evolution of our product line, etc. But you know what I'm talking about. The changing of one kind into another kind (non-canine to canine for example).
Why the change to YEC? What do you mean about, "YEC's put word in the mouths of non-YECers". Is that directed to me? Are we not having a conversation in a healthy and respectful manner?
The word evolution in and of itself is not a dirty word. I use it when describing the evolution of our product line, etc. But you know what I'm talking about. The changing of one kind into another kind (non-canine to canine for example).
Oh, THAT beginning. You didn't specify which particular point in time described as "the beginning."Originally posted by JamesJ:
Man (the human being) was created on the sixth day as recorded in Genesis 1:26-27.
So, True or False: There is a time in scripture referred to as "the beginning" in which man did not exist.
The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and/or theoretical explanation of phenomena, especially as derived and tested through the scientific method and concerned with the physical world and its occurrences.Originally posted by JamesJ:
What is science?
We haven't even established that there is such a thing as evolution.
It has been established as fact that things evolve. To date, that extent that we know this is within the confines of microevolution.
As far as macroevolution, we have not yet oberved this on a grand scale. We have, however, observed speciation not within the bounds of microevolution (that is, speciation outside hybridization). Not sufficient to call it macroevolution, but significant enough to theorize that that evolution is not limited to microevolution.
First you say "if evolution", your words, then you treat the subject as established fact
Where did I treat it as established fact? Microevolution is established fact, and accepted by the scientific world as such. Macroevolution is theory supported by fact, and has surived the scientific method. Darwinian evolution is theory supported by observation of the fossil record, and has survived the scientific method.
Why the change to YEC? What do you mean about, "YEC's put word in the mouths of non-YECers". Is that directed to me? Are we not having a conversation in a healthy and respectful manner?
No, it wasn't directed at you, and, yes, we're having a healthy and respectful dialogue. I'm sure you know what I mean, however. The constant posts which accuse people of rejecting scripture, or not believing in God whenever the "e" word is used.
You are one of the few and far between. It's been my observation that some cringe at the very use of the word.The word evolution in and of itself is not a dirty word. I use it when describing the evolution of our product line, etc. But you know what I'm talking about. The changing of one kind into another kind (non-canine to canine for example).
See, that's how the game is played isn't it? This discussion is about macro-evolution, right Alcott? So when we use the word "evolution", there's this tendency to switch from the discussion of macro to micro to macro, etc.
Alcott, what "kind" of evolution are you asking about?
Alcott, what "kind" of evolution are you asking about?
True.So, True or False: There is a time in scripture referred to as "the beginning" in which man did not exist.
In that case, how was human migration ever successful? Spending a lifetime being sick from new water sources, which if not fatal itself would make them vulnerable to other more serious diseases, or slower reacting to predators or angry large herbivores protecing their turf, or incapable or less capable of reproduction.Originally posted by Johnv:
That's not the case at all. If we humans slowly adapt ourselves to, say, pond water, we'd build up some immunity to the naturally occurring critters. But few of us have speant a lifetime exposed to consumption of pond water. It's one of the reasons when you travel to, say Mexico or India, you're told to avoid the water there. The locals can consume it just fine, but foreigners might have a problem with it.
The Galatian
Active Member
Natural selection. Not everyone gets sick when they travel to another country. And most of those who do, eventually become immune to the bacteria in the water there.In that case, how was human migration ever successful?
Then roughtly what percentage of a tribe would be lost in migration when they came to a new water source, having used all water from their previous source, and how many different new water sources resulting in such losses would of necessity be used in temporary settlements in migration from Africa to northern Europe?
Paul of Eugene
New Member
Bear in mind, Alcott, it isn't necessary to make the journey from Africa to Europe in a single generation. It could be done by stages over many generations and still be but a moment in the vast time of prehistory. And lots of times, travelors don't die from the local water, they just get sick and recover and after that they can handle the local water. And sometims its good water that doesn't make you sick.
Paul of Eugene
New Member
If God is not the author of nature as well as the Bible, then perhaps those of us who study Nature are indeed, double minded. But God, in my theology, is author of both Nature and the Bible so I don't worry about the accusation of being double minded.
We have been through this same kind of faith based science opposition before, when Martin Luther and his counterparts in the Catholic church and other protestant demominations declared science was wrong to say that scripture proved the earth's rotation could not be the cause of day and night.
Strangely, science ignored everything but the evidence. And today, almost all christians have come around, and EVIDENCE won out over OVERLY LITERAL INTEPRETATION. It has happened again. The evidence has come in, those who are capable of understanding the evidence have agreed on what it says, and there is no more scientific argument about evolution.
As a result, all the opposition to evolution can do is a) simply ask that the evidence be ignored by fatih or b) prove how they don't understand the evidence by what they say as they talk about the evidence.
We have been through this same kind of faith based science opposition before, when Martin Luther and his counterparts in the Catholic church and other protestant demominations declared science was wrong to say that scripture proved the earth's rotation could not be the cause of day and night.
Strangely, science ignored everything but the evidence. And today, almost all christians have come around, and EVIDENCE won out over OVERLY LITERAL INTEPRETATION. It has happened again. The evidence has come in, those who are capable of understanding the evidence have agreed on what it says, and there is no more scientific argument about evolution.
As a result, all the opposition to evolution can do is a) simply ask that the evidence be ignored by fatih or b) prove how they don't understand the evidence by what they say as they talk about the evidence.
Actually, it is those like you, who have been deceived. You can poke fun at us all you want, we know that we will bear reproach from worldly people, but we will never deny God. Evolution, macro-evolution, never occured. You may have FAITH that it did, but that's all you have. Your "proof"... is not. You said that "almost all christians have come around". God said that in the last days there shall come scoffers (you), and many shall fall away(almost all christians have come around). I choose to believe God, not some mis-interpreted "evidence".
Magnetic Poles
New Member
The question re: "micro evolution" vis-a-vis "macro evolution" is a false dichotomy. There is not such differentiation. What is being termed macro is just the accumulation of many micro steps. It is amazing that some deem not believing their interpretation of scripture means disbelieving God. Who appointed such people as a "Baptist Pope", speaking for the almighty?
Paul of Eugene
New Member
Ok then why deny what God has done? Why deny the evidence God has placed in the universe?Originally posted by JamesJ:
Actually, it is those like you, who have been deceived. You can poke fun at us all you want, we know that we will bear reproach from worldly people, but we will never deny God.
And can you show us anywhere in all this board in all these posts where somebody has actually said to you "deny God?" It is not there.