IF evolution is true,

[Paul of Eugene]

Hi Shannon, thanks for joining in the fray. Now don't be shy, tell us what you really think!

The Bible is my primary source for believing in God, for helping to cast my mind towards Who God is and what He is like.

The reason I accept evolution is because it has been shown, by the evidence, to have happened. In the same way that I accept the rotation of the earth. Do you accept the rotation of the earth?

It's not a matter of deciding to just give it up. Would you ask me to give up the idea that the sky is blue? Here's the real deal. A psychological event has happened in my mind - that is, having reviewed the evidence for so many years, watching the evidence accumulate in more and more convincing ways over my life time, I have come to accept the ancient age of the earth and the common descent of all life as a fact about the world in the same way that I have come to accept the facts of the rotation of the earth as the cause of night and day and the orbiting of the earth around the sun as the cause of our years.

Scripture literally states it is the sun that moves around the earth and the earth is steadfast that it cannot be moved.

Neither one of us has a problem accepting scripture as not being necessarily literal on those subjects, though all mankind was of the opinion it was literal, at one time.

What changed our minds was our knowledge of the facts. Knowing as we do that the earth rotates and moves, we simply re-interpret those scripture passages as non-literal and go on accepting scripture as revealing God and our guide for how to get to heaven.

The same thing occurs when the intellect is irresistably illumined by the facts concerning common descent of life and the ancient age of the earth and universe. The reinterpretation of scripture is natural and automatic.

Now I greatly fear some of those who say that facts from nature must always give way to literal statements from scripture and then turn around and accept that the earth rotates and orbits the sun are guilty of fulfilling again the words of our Lord:

Luke 11:46
46 But He said, "Woe to you lawyers as well! For you weigh men down with burdens hard to bear, while you yourselves will not even touch the burdens with one of your fingers.
NASU

Anyway, bear in mind that for many of us the issue is quite simply settled for us by the evidence as factual and please have mercy on the weaker of them who might be kept from coming to the kingdom of God if you talk to them like that.
It's appropriate to use strong language in a forum like this - I'm talking about face to face in a witnessing or church gathering situation.

 

[jdcanady]

Paul of Eugene

You said:

"The reason I accept evolution is because it has been shown, by the evidence, to have happened."

I am willing to consider any evidence that evolution has occurred. Evolution has been shown, by the evidence, not to have occurred. That was why you had scientists making up their own evidence (Pelt-down man etc..) in order to show some evidence. Lately, it has been to change their definitions of what makes a species because the old definitions were too restrictive. Every hybrid plant or sterile mutant fly becomes "proof" of evolution.

Once again, point me to the "evidence", and I will consider it. If you can't find any, please ask yourself why you have blindly believed something without any proof.

When I was in college, I asked my biology prof. (who said "if you believe in God, you're wrong!") to give me the name of one person who lived 15,000 years ago. He said he couldn't because modern man had only evolved within the last 10,000 years. "You mean there is no evidence of man existing beyond 10,000 years ago", I said. "That's right", he said.
"thank you" I said.

 

[Charles Meadows]

Those who say the Bible can be interpreted consistently with evolution simply reject what the Bible says and call their rejection a different interpretation. Notice also that those who embrace theistic-evolution not only reject the Bible account of creation, but the subsequent events recorded in Genesis as well. Which proves that they will reject anything in the Bible which does not fit their ungodly theories - whether about evolution or anything else if it suits their purpose.

This is an example of the type of statement that makes all Christians look silly.

Theistic evolutionists do not reject the Bible in any way. What they reject is the smug assertions of those who insist that their interpretation is right.

I have never had a problem with the young earth position. But it's disheartening to see that most who hold it are willing to insult other believers, lie about facts, or stretch the truth as long as their argument ends up opposing evolution. How many posts here have implied that theistic evolutionists reject the Bible or that theistic evolutionists do not believe that God was powerful enough to create it all in 6 days. This willful misrepresentation of others only hurts the YEC viewpoint in the eyes of those silently watching these debates.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by shannonL:
What amazed me as I read all the posts each page is this. I think those of you who want to support T.E. don't even realize it yourself but your opinion places the the theory of evolution in a higher position than the Authority of Scripture.
To me you would seem to have a view of God that describes God as "needing help" In my opinion your view makes God look weak. Not strong like Scripture portrays when it says "God said"

The bible is God's inspired, trustworthy and authoritative scriptures to mankind.

God is all powerful and authoritative over all of his creation, not needing any help. He created just as scripture portrays it. The question is, what does scripture actually say about his divine act of creation and how did he actually create?

 

[Gold Dragon]

When we understood disease as being from bacterial/viral infections, cancer, genetic abnormalities and autoimmunity, did that mean that God was weak or that the supernatural does not exist or that this knowledge was an attack on the authority of scripture that says God sends disease? Or is understanding the natural means of disease seeing how God works through the natural?

 

[jdcanady]

Gold Dragon

You said:

"God is all powerful and authoritative over all of his creation, not needing any help. He created just as scripture portrays it. The question is, what does scripture actually say about his divine act of creation and how did he actually create?"

He created by speaking the universe into existence. Before the creation, there was only God, since God alone is self-existent. "And God said, 'Let there be....and it was so." This applied to all living creatures after their kind. He created man from the dust of the ground and breathed life into his nostrils; fully formed with a rational mind that named the animals and who was given dominion over the earth. Eve is the mother of all living (human beings), the very first woman.

There is absolutely no indication in scripture of any kind of "evolutionary process" taking place in the creation of any living creature. The one example of the creation where specific "how" details (other than God speaking) are given, is in the case of mankind, who was created in the image of God.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by jdcanady:
There is absolutely no indication in scripture of any kind of "evolutionary process" taking place in the creation of any living creature.

I agree. Scripture does not describe evolution. There are many things that are true that scripture does not describe.

 

[jdcanady]

I did not say scripture does not describe evolution. I said there is no indication in scripture of an "evolutionary process" taking place in the creation of any living creature. It says God spoke, and it was so.

Even if you want to argue from a negative (scripture does not say God didn't use evolution in creation) scripture does give a specific description of the "how" mankind was made in God's imagine. There is no way you can say that description is compatible with the theory of evolution.

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by jdcanady:
I did not say scripture does not describe evolution. I said there is no indication in scripture of an "evolutionary process" taking place in the creation of any living creature. It says God spoke, and it was so.

Even if you want to argue from a negative (scripture does not say God didn't use evolution in creation) scripture does give a specific description of the "how" mankind was made in God's imagine. There is no way you can say that description is compatible with the theory of evolution.

Amen! That great Faith Chapter, Hebrews 11, tells us:

3. Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

 

[Mark Osgatharp]

The Scripture does not only not describe evolution, it teaches things that are irreconcilable with the theory. All true hearted Christian reject evolution and believe in the Bible. All evolutionists - theistic or otherwise - reject what the Bible teaches about creation.

I am staggered to hear people claiming to be Christians who don't identify themselves as creationists when Paul says that it is from the creation of the world that the invisible things of God are clearly seen.

Here is a statement for the so called "theistic evolutionists" to reconcile with their theory: Jesus said that from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. Now according to the evolutionary theory life started out asexual - how then could Jesus say that they were created as male and female from the beginning of the creation?

Mark Osgatharp

 

[OldRegular]

Great point Mark!

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Evolution theory, although affirming that all life began from a single source and sexual mechanisms came along afterwards, certainly asserts that by the time humanity arrived on the scene sex in mammals was firmly established. Hence, it is only necessary to understand Christ's words as stating from the beginning of the creation of Adam and Eve.

 

[Mark Osgatharp]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
Evolution theory, although affirming that all life began from a single source and sexual mechanisms came along afterwards, certainly asserts that by the time humanity arrived on the scene sex in mammals was firmly established. Hence, it is only necessary to understand Christ's words as stating from the beginning of the creation of Adam and Eve.

Which, interpreted, means "it is necessary to wrest the words of Jesus to conform to evolutionary theory."

Jesus exact words were:

"From the beginning of the creation God made them male and female."

Note:

1. This is an obvious reference to Genesis which says "male and female created he them."

2. Which proves that Jesus viewed Genesis as history, not myth.

3. Which also proves that sexuality was the method of reproduction for man from the beginning of the creation.

4. Which blows all hopes of reconciling Jesus to the ungodly heresy of evolution to kingdom come!

Let God be true and every man a liar!

Mark Osgatharp

 

[jdcanady]

Paul

You said:

"Evolution theory, although affirming that all life began from a single source"

Let's see, I have a comman ancestor with bacteria, grass, spiders, coral reefs, gnats, bed bugs, viruses, dinosaurs, trees, algae, fungus, mold, etc. And your source of proof is....the scientists all say it is true? And I am the one who cannot think critically?

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
Evolution theory, although affirming that all life began from a single source and sexual mechanisms came along afterwards, certainly asserts that by the time humanity arrived on the scene sex in mammals was firmly established. Hence, it is only necessary to understand Christ's words as stating from the beginning of the creation of Adam and Eve.

Which is it Paul? Were Adam and Eve created or did they evolve? If they evolved did they evolve from the same parents? If they evolved from different parents don't you consider it unlikely that it would have happened at the same time and place?

 

[Paul of Eugene]

(sigh) Why the dichotomy between creation and evolution? Why not creation by means of evolution?

Anyway, I think it was Adam only whose flesh was formed from the earth by means of evolution and then was made to become a living soul; Eve taken from his side.

And yes, jd, physically you have that common ancestry. Amazing, isn't it what God can do?

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
(sigh) Why the dichotomy between creation and evolution? Why not creation by means of evolution?

Anyway, I think it was Adam only whose flesh was formed from the earth by means of evolution and then was made to become a living soul; Eve taken from his side.

And yes, jd, physically you have that common ancestry. Amazing, isn't it what God can do?

Just curious Paul, where did the dirt come from?

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Hmmm. Lemme think now. Where DID the dirt come from?

Well, ultimately, of course, God made it, He made everything. Do you want to know my understanding about the adventures that matter - made by God - went through before settling down into the dirt under our feet? Or is this post enough to settle your concerns?

 

[Paul of Eugene]

This little clip is to good to miss. I'm not sure if the author is for or against evolution.

http://visiongatefilm.com/films/view/?f=65

 

[jdcanady]

Paul

Why do you insist on adding "by means of evolution" to the Word of God in the account of the creation of man. Isn't God's Word good enough for you?