Creation vs. Evolution (1 Viewer)

[shader]

The bible isn't a science text book.
In my opinion, your two statements are incompatible. If man evolved from apes, then you have to throw the whole bible out, because at that point, it would be practically worthless. How do I interpret a book that has it's fundamental teachings (God created man, man sinned, Jesus provided a ransom for man) all wrong? The answer would be that I wouldn't worry about interpreting the books and teachings, I'd reject the book completely.

I know the popular school of thought is to leave theology to theology and science to science, but in the case of ape-like creatures evolving into man, I don't believe that scientific theory to be compatible with the bible.

I disagree completely.

Do you believe that women shouldn't be allowed to talk in church? Do you think that a rapist should have the right to marry his victim? Do you refuse to wear any clothes that are made from more than one material? Do you believe that a disobedient son should be stoned to death? Do you believe that the handicapped should not be allowed in church? Do you agree that a woman should have her hand cut off if she hits her husband in the nuts (OK maybe this one I can get onboard with)?

Of course not. Like all Christians, you pick and choose the parts of the Bible that you like, and having something in there that you consider wrong and not worth following does not stop you from vigorously adhering to the things you like.

How is the notion that God snapped his fingers and created people any different from that? You could just as easily shrug that off as you do a thousand other things in the Bible and just as vigorously adhere to the rest of it. Heck, I would wager that most (or at least a great many) religious people already do this and believe in evolution and the like while still choosing to follow other parts of the Bible as if they are hard unquestionable fact.

Really, there is basically no one that truly believes the Bible word for word. Anyone that does, and still thinks that wrathful, tortuous, baby murdering god is a guy that deserves their praise and worship is a complete and utter psychopath.

That's not even to mention that it would be impossible to adhere to every verse of the Bible because many of them contradict each other.

Let's open up twenty more perceived issues, that'll solve things.

 

[tonydead]

Because the alternative view doesn't have any answers either?

Archaeological record.

Direct observation.

Experiments.

Genetics and genetic changes.

Behavior.

Homologies.

Distribution and geographic distribution.

Sexual selection.

Trait preference.

Speciation.

Etc., the list goes on and on.

There are plenty of answers. What you got?

 

[FreeBaGeL]

The bible isn't a science text book.
In my opinion, your two statements are incompatible. If man evolved from apes, then you have to throw the whole bible out, because at that point, it would be practically worthless. How do I interpret a book that has it's fundamental teachings (God created man, man sinned, Jesus provided a ransom for man) all wrong? The answer would be that I wouldn't worry about interpreting the books and teachings, I'd reject the book completely.

I know the popular school of thought is to leave theology to theology and science to science, but in the case of ape-like creatures evolving into man, I don't believe that scientific theory to be compatible with the bible.

I disagree completely.

Do you believe that women shouldn't be allowed to talk in church? Do you think that a rapist should have the right to marry his victim? Do you refuse to wear any clothes that are made from more than one material? Do you believe that a disobedient son should be stoned to death? Do you believe that the handicapped should not be allowed in church? Do you agree that a woman should have her hand cut off if she hits her husband in the nuts (OK maybe this one I can get onboard with)?

Of course not. Like all Christians, you pick and choose the parts of the Bible that you like, and having something in there that you consider wrong and not worth following does not stop you from vigorously adhering to the things you like.

How is the notion that God snapped his fingers and created people any different from that? You could just as easily shrug that off as you do a thousand other things in the Bible and just as vigorously adhere to the rest of it. Heck, I would wager that most (or at least a great many) religious people already do this and believe in evolution and the like while still choosing to follow other parts of the Bible as if they are hard unquestionable fact.

Really, there is basically no one that truly believes the Bible word for word. Anyone that does, and still thinks that wrathful, tortuous, baby murdering god is a guy that deserves their praise and worship is a complete and utter psychopath.

That's not even to mention that it would be impossible to adhere to every verse of the Bible because many of them contradict each other.

Let's open up twenty more perceived issues, that'll solve things.

I just can't reconcile how someone could say it would make the book worthless if it had stuff that was wrong in it, while at the same time clearly believing that a TON of the stuff in the book is wrong but just pretending it's not there. If you can pretend that all those other verses don't exist, then you can pretend the one that says "let there be light" doesn't exist too. Many people do.

 

[The Football Freak]

I always think back to an old thread when I see this topic:

https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?/topic/172056-some-evidence-for-monkey-man/

I've always believed in evolution, and enjoy reading up on it, but two posts here are where I felt I had found what I consider to be a smoking gun. Posts 28 and 31 by Maurile and Shiny closed the book for me. The thread is a good read, made by some smart and thoughtful posters.

 

[shader]

The bible isn't a science text book.
In my opinion, your two statements are incompatible. If man evolved from apes, then you have to throw the whole bible out, because at that point, it would be practically worthless. How do I interpret a book that has it's fundamental teachings (God created man, man sinned, Jesus provided a ransom for man) all wrong? The answer would be that I wouldn't worry about interpreting the books and teachings, I'd reject the book completely.

I know the popular school of thought is to leave theology to theology and science to science, but in the case of ape-like creatures evolving into man, I don't believe that scientific theory to be compatible with the bible.

I disagree completely.

Do you believe that women shouldn't be allowed to talk in church? Do you think that a rapist should have the right to marry his victim? Do you refuse to wear any clothes that are made from more than one material? Do you believe that a disobedient son should be stoned to death? Do you believe that the handicapped should not be allowed in church? Do you agree that a woman should have her hand cut off if she hits her husband in the nuts (OK maybe this one I can get onboard with)?

Of course not. Like all Christians, you pick and choose the parts of the Bible that you like, and having something in there that you consider wrong and not worth following does not stop you from vigorously adhering to the things you like.

How is the notion that God snapped his fingers and created people any different from that? You could just as easily shrug that off as you do a thousand other things in the Bible and just as vigorously adhere to the rest of it. Heck, I would wager that most (or at least a great many) religious people already do this and believe in evolution and the like while still choosing to follow other parts of the Bible as if they are hard unquestionable fact.

Really, there is basically no one that truly believes the Bible word for word. Anyone that does, and still thinks that wrathful, tortuous, baby murdering god is a guy that deserves their praise and worship is a complete and utter psychopath.

That's not even to mention that it would be impossible to adhere to every verse of the Bible because many of them contradict each other.

Let's open up twenty more perceived issues, that'll solve things.

I just can't reconcile how someone could say it would make the book worthless if it had stuff that was wrong in it, while at the same time clearly believing that a TON of the stuff in the book is wrong but just pretending it's not there. If you can pretend that all those other verses don't exist, then you can pretend the one that says "let there be light" doesn't exist too. Many people do.

If you were being honest in your argument, you wouldn't include in there things that you know Christians don't believe, and things that the bible itself clearly shows are no longer valid laws. ISo I take your post as an inflammatory post designed to throw up as much negative stuff as possible.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

The bible isn't a science text book.
In my opinion, your two statements are incompatible. If man evolved from apes, then you have to throw the whole bible out, because at that point, it would be practically worthless. How do I interpret a book that has it's fundamental teachings (God created man, man sinned, Jesus provided a ransom for man) all wrong? The answer would be that I wouldn't worry about interpreting the books and teachings, I'd reject the book completely.

I know the popular school of thought is to leave theology to theology and science to science, but in the case of ape-like creatures evolving into man, I don't believe that scientific theory to be compatible with the bible.

I disagree completely.

Do you believe that women shouldn't be allowed to talk in church? Do you think that a rapist should have the right to marry his victim? Do you refuse to wear any clothes that are made from more than one material? Do you believe that a disobedient son should be stoned to death? Do you believe that the handicapped should not be allowed in church? Do you agree that a woman should have her hand cut off if she hits her husband in the nuts (OK maybe this one I can get onboard with)?

Of course not. Like all Christians, you pick and choose the parts of the Bible that you like, and having something in there that you consider wrong and not worth following does not stop you from vigorously adhering to the things you like.

How is the notion that God snapped his fingers and created people any different from that? You could just as easily shrug that off as you do a thousand other things in the Bible and just as vigorously adhere to the rest of it. Heck, I would wager that most (or at least a great many) religious people already do this and believe in evolution and the like while still choosing to follow other parts of the Bible as if they are hard unquestionable fact.

Really, there is basically no one that truly believes the Bible word for word. Anyone that does, and still thinks that wrathful, tortuous, baby murdering god is a guy that deserves their praise and worship is a complete and utter psychopath.

That's not even to mention that it would be impossible to adhere to every verse of the Bible because many of them contradict each other.

Let's open up twenty more perceived issues, that'll solve things.

I just can't reconcile how someone could say it would make the book worthless if it had stuff that was wrong in it, while at the same time clearly believing that a TON of the stuff in the book is wrong but just pretending it's not there. If you can pretend that all those other verses don't exist, then you can pretend the one that says "let there be light" doesn't exist too. Many people do.

If you were being honest in your argument, you wouldn't include in there things that you know Christians don't believe, and things that the bible itself clearly shows are no longer valid laws. ISo I take your post as an inflammatory post designed to throw up as much negative stuff as possible.

What "Christians believe" is irrelevant if we're talking about the legitimacy of the Bible based on whether we know it to be wrong about anything. "Yeah we'll just ignore that part" is exactly what I'm talking about.

As to things that the bible shows are no longer valid laws, I am no theologist so I'll defer to you on that.

Pick and choose your passages, but the point is that you just said that if things are definitely wrong in the Bible then that would lead you to question the validity of the rest of it. Meanwhile there already ARE tons of things in the Bible that you think are wrong. So where is the disconnect here part B where it leads you to question the validity of the rest of it? Why can't you just ignore "let there be light" like you do with so many other parts of the Bible and still believe in the rest of it like so many other Christians already do?

 

[The Commish]

I agree it's great to challenge dogma. I personally think that mainstream christianity is full of dogma.

But if the theory of evolution had never arisen, there would be no reason to challenge the historicity of Adam, to wonder if he was real, etc. For thousands of years, Jews and Christians believed Adam was a real person, and was directly created by God. Even scientific giants (Isaac Newton among many others) believed this. It wasn't until evolutionary theory made this view seem antiquated and outdated that religion found the need to challenge this particular dogma. Otherwise, why would any bible-believing Christian decide to challenge this?

Have you ever considered the theory that science is here because God wants it to be here and it's a mechanism through which he challenges us to be in his word? When I read stuff like this I am reminded of that story where the guy is floating in the ocean and passes up several opportunities to be rescued because if he's meant to be rescued, God will rescue him. When he dies and goes before God and asks him why God didn't save him God is befuddled and responds "I sent three different boats to rescue you but you didn't take any of those opportunities".

Trying to understand God's word, and diving into it is a great thing to do. But at some point, you have to make a decision on what you believe, not just keep looking for answers.

Imagine I said "well there is no archaeological evidence for Noah, so I'm going to assume he never existed". Then I scour the bible, looking for a way to reconcile Noah being a fictional character with the fact that the bible appears to present him as a historical figure. Then imagine in 50 years, someone finds a stone with the name Noah on it. All of a sudden, do I abandon all those hoops I created to make myself feel better? I would think God would say "I had the answers right there in the bible the whole time".

A belief is something that is held above and beyond what "evidence" requires. There was a point where people believed the earth was flat. It's not. We know it's not. Those who hold that position now have an antiquated opinion. Nothing more. It's no longer a belief. I don't think there was ever a point we should stop trying to seek answers. We're never going to know everything. We find strength in challenging ourselves not by being complacent.

I have no problem with your scenario either. But again, I don't have a problem being wrong about beliefs should they turn out to be wrong. This notion that we have to come to some sort of conclusion and stick with it just doesn't work for me and I don't think it's what God intended for us to do.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

I always think back to an old thread when I see this topic:

https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?/topic/172056-some-evidence-for-monkey-man/

I've always believed in evolution, and enjoy reading up on it, but two posts here are where I felt I had found what I consider to be a smoking gun. Posts 28 and 31 by Maurile and Shiny closed the book for me. The thread is a good read, made by some smart and thoughtful posters.

I miss Larry Boy :(

 

[joffer]

I always think back to an old thread when I see this topic:https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?/topic/172056-some-evidence-for-monkey-man/

I've always believed in evolution, and enjoy reading up on it, but two posts here are where I felt I had found what I consider to be a smoking gun. Posts 28 and 31 by Maurile and Shiny closed the book for me. The thread is a good read, made by some smart and thoughtful posters.

I miss Larry Boy :(

shader's doing his best

 

[Steve Tasker]

Trying to understand God's word, and diving into it is a great thing to do. But at some point, you have to make a decision on what you believe, not just keep looking for answers.

I'm curious on why you think that this "decision" is required. To me, a major part of life and, frankly, the human experience itself is questioning what you've learned and growing your understanding of the world around you - which I suppose could include your spiritual world, if you're so inclined. I hope that the day I stop "looking for answers" is the day I die. Maybe I'm just a dreamer, but I find learning new things, whatever the subject, to be fascinating. And that includes my religion/faith or lack thereof.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I personally think that mainstream christianity is full of dogma.

I personally think the ocean is full of water.

 

[timschochet]

Just curious Shader, because if memory serves you are a Jehovah's Witness. Do most Jehovah's Witnesses reject the theory of evolution? And are you a Young Earth Creationist as well?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

But if the theory of evolution had never arisen, there would be no reason to challenge the historicity of Adam, to wonder if he was real, etc.

Sure there would be. The historicity of Adam is inconsistent with the Babylonian creation myth, the Sumerian creation myth, the Cherokee creation myth, various Ancient Egyptian creation myths, the Mongolian creation myth ... I could go on.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

... God made man perfect and without flaw, and their death was a result of their turning away from God, which resulted in death, which is the entire reason Jesus needed to die. ...

Jesus had to die because perfect man without flaws had no choice but to make the perfect without flawed decision to turn away from God?

 

[Mister CIA]

Just curious Shader, because if memory serves you are a Jehovah's Witness. Do most Jehovah's Witnesses reject the theory of evolution? And are you a Young Earth Creationist as well?

Come on Tim. At least try to be a little less inflammatory.

 

[shader]

Just curious Shader, because if memory serves you are a Jehovah's Witness. Do most Jehovah's Witnesses reject the theory of evolution? And are you a Young Earth Creationist as well?

Rejecting the theory of evolution is a loaded phrase, but yes I reject it in terms of believing man was created by God and didn't evolve from ape like creatures

As for YEC, definitely not. I see nothing in the bible that speaks to the age of the earth.

 

[trogg78]

Just curious Shader, because if memory serves you are a Jehovah's Witness. Do most Jehovah's Witnesses reject the theory of evolution? And are you a Young Earth Creationist as well?

Rejecting the theory of evolution is a loaded phrase, but yes I reject it in terms of believing man was created by God and didn't evolve from ape like creaturesAs for YEC, definitely not. I see nothing in the bible that speaks to the age of the earth.

nothing, really?

 

[Mister CIA]

Just curious Shader, because if memory serves you are a Jehovah's Witness. Do most Jehovah's Witnesses reject the theory of evolution? And are you a Young Earth Creationist as well?

Rejecting the theory of evolution is a loaded phrase, but yes I reject it in terms of believing man was created by God and didn't evolve from ape like creaturesAs for YEC, definitely not. I see nothing in the bible that speaks to the age of the earth.

nothing, really?

I see nothing in the bible either.

Full disclosure, I don't read the bible.

 

[trogg78]

Just curious Shader, because if memory serves you are a Jehovah's Witness. Do most Jehovah's Witnesses reject the theory of evolution? And are you a Young Earth Creationist as well?

Rejecting the theory of evolution is a loaded phrase, but yes I reject it in terms of believing man was created by God and didn't evolve from ape like creaturesAs for YEC, definitely not. I see nothing in the bible that speaks to the age of the earth.

nothing, really?

I see nothing in the bible either.Full disclosure, I don't read the bible.

The bible tells you how long every one lived. Some people lived like 200 years. And then it tells you how long their children lived...and so on. He probably hasn't read the bible either.

 

[The Commish]

Just curious Shader, because if memory serves you are a Jehovah's Witness. Do most Jehovah's Witnesses reject the theory of evolution? And are you a Young Earth Creationist as well?

Rejecting the theory of evolution is a loaded phrase, but yes I reject it in terms of believing man was created by God and didn't evolve from ape like creaturesAs for YEC, definitely not. I see nothing in the bible that speaks to the age of the earth.

nothing, really?

I see nothing in the bible either.Full disclosure, I don't read the bible.

The bible tells you how long every one lived. Some people lived like 200 years. And then it tells you how long their children lived...and so on. He probably hasn't read the bible either.

No it doesn't.

 

[Jayrok]

I always think back to an old thread when I see this topic:

https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?/topic/172056-some-evidence-for-monkey-man/

I've always believed in evolution, and enjoy reading up on it, but two posts here are where I felt I had found what I consider to be a smoking gun. Posts 28 and 31 by Maurile and Shiny closed the book for me. The thread is a good read, made by some smart and thoughtful posters.

But didn't Larry Boy 44 successfully refute both of those guys in that thread?

 

[Jayrok]

I agree it's great to challenge dogma. I personally think that mainstream christianity is full of dogma.

But if the theory of evolution had never arisen, there would be no reason to challenge the historicity of Adam, to wonder if he was real, etc. For thousands of years, Jews and Christians believed Adam was a real person, and was directly created by God. Even scientific giants (Isaac Newton among many others) believed this. It wasn't until evolutionary theory made this view seem antiquated and outdated that religion found the need to challenge this particular dogma. Otherwise, why would any bible-believing Christian decide to challenge this?

Have you ever considered the theory that science is here because God wants it to be here and it's a mechanism through which he challenges us to be in his word? When I read stuff like this I am reminded of that story where the guy is floating in the ocean and passes up several opportunities to be rescued because if he's meant to be rescued, God will rescue him. When he dies and goes before God and asks him why God didn't save him God is befuddled and responds "I sent three different boats to rescue you but you didn't take any of those opportunities".

Trying to understand God's word, and diving into it is a great thing to do. But at some point, you have to make a decision on what you believe, not just keep looking for answers.

Imagine I said "well there is no archaeological evidence for Noah, so I'm going to assume he never existed". Then I scour the bible, looking for a way to reconcile Noah being a fictional character with the fact that the bible appears to present him as a historical figure. Then imagine in 50 years, someone finds a stone with the name Noah on it. All of a sudden, do I abandon all those hoops I created to make myself feel better? I would think God would say "I had the answers right there in the bible the whole time".

A belief is something that is held above and beyond what "evidence" requires. There was a point where people believed the earth was flat. It's not. We know it's not. Those who hold that position now have an antiquated opinion. Nothing more. It's no longer a belief. I don't think there was ever a point we should stop trying to seek answers. We're never going to know everything. We find strength in challenging ourselves not by being complacent.

I have no problem with your scenario either. But again, I don't have a problem being wrong about beliefs should they turn out to be wrong. This notion that we have to come to some sort of conclusion and stick with it just doesn't work for me and I don't think it's what God intended for us to do.

That the earth is flat is no longer a belief since it was discovered that the earth was not actually flat. Antiquated opinions are updated when acceptable evidence is presented and accepted. The shape of the earth has no bearing on Christian doctrine so it is easy to discard antiquated opinions related to it.

Likewise with the notion of women talking in church or people praying with their heads covered or silly dietary restrictions once imposed on the Jews. Antiquated! update opinions to what is acceptable and move on.

Does evolution also fit into this category? Suppose for a moment the evidence becomes sufficient for even the most fundamentalist Christians to accept, resulting in creation being one of those antiquated opinions. Would this have any bearing on Christian doctrine? Would it be as easily dismissed as some of the above mentioned outdated ideas?

 

[CowboysFromHell]

I agree it's great to challenge dogma. I personally think that mainstream christianity is full of dogma.

But if the theory of evolution had never arisen, there would be no reason to challenge the historicity of Adam, to wonder if he was real, etc. For thousands of years, Jews and Christians believed Adam was a real person, and was directly created by God. Even scientific giants (Isaac Newton among many others) believed this. It wasn't until evolutionary theory made this view seem antiquated and outdated that religion found the need to challenge this particular dogma. Otherwise, why would any bible-believing Christian decide to challenge this?

Have you ever considered the theory that science is here because God wants it to be here and it's a mechanism through which he challenges us to be in his word? When I read stuff like this I am reminded of that story where the guy is floating in the ocean and passes up several opportunities to be rescued because if he's meant to be rescued, God will rescue him. When he dies and goes before God and asks him why God didn't save him God is befuddled and responds "I sent three different boats to rescue you but you didn't take any of those opportunities".

Trying to understand God's word, and diving into it is a great thing to do. But at some point, you have to make a decision on what you believe, not just keep looking for answers.

Imagine I said "well there is no archaeological evidence for Noah, so I'm going to assume he never existed". Then I scour the bible, looking for a way to reconcile Noah being a fictional character with the fact that the bible appears to present him as a historical figure. Then imagine in 50 years, someone finds a stone with the name Noah on it. All of a sudden, do I abandon all those hoops I created to make myself feel better? I would think God would say "I had the answers right there in the bible the whole time".

A belief is something that is held above and beyond what "evidence" requires. There was a point where people believed the earth was flat. It's not. We know it's not. Those who hold that position now have an antiquated opinion. Nothing more. It's no longer a belief. I don't think there was ever a point we should stop trying to seek answers. We're never going to know everything. We find strength in challenging ourselves not by being complacent.

I have no problem with your scenario either. But again, I don't have a problem being wrong about beliefs should they turn out to be wrong. This notion that we have to come to some sort of conclusion and stick with it just doesn't work for me and I don't think it's what God intended for us to do.

That the earth is flat is no longer a belief since it was discovered that the earth was not actually flat. Antiquated opinions are updated when acceptable evidence is presented and accepted. The shape of the earth has no bearing on Christian doctrine so it is easy to discard antiquated opinions related to it.

Likewise with the notion of women talking in church or people praying with their heads covered or silly dietary restrictions once imposed on the Jews. Antiquated! update opinions to what is acceptable and move on.

Does evolution also fit into this category? Suppose for a moment the evidence becomes sufficient for even the most fundamentalist Christians to accept, resulting in creation being one of those antiquated opinions. Would this have any bearing on Christian doctrine? Would it be as easily dismissed as some of the above mentioned outdated ideas?

Yes.

 

[The Commish]

I agree it's great to challenge dogma. I personally think that mainstream christianity is full of dogma.

But if the theory of evolution had never arisen, there would be no reason to challenge the historicity of Adam, to wonder if he was real, etc. For thousands of years, Jews and Christians believed Adam was a real person, and was directly created by God. Even scientific giants (Isaac Newton among many others) believed this. It wasn't until evolutionary theory made this view seem antiquated and outdated that religion found the need to challenge this particular dogma. Otherwise, why would any bible-believing Christian decide to challenge this?

Have you ever considered the theory that science is here because God wants it to be here and it's a mechanism through which he challenges us to be in his word? When I read stuff like this I am reminded of that story where the guy is floating in the ocean and passes up several opportunities to be rescued because if he's meant to be rescued, God will rescue him. When he dies and goes before God and asks him why God didn't save him God is befuddled and responds "I sent three different boats to rescue you but you didn't take any of those opportunities".

Trying to understand God's word, and diving into it is a great thing to do. But at some point, you have to make a decision on what you believe, not just keep looking for answers.

Imagine I said "well there is no archaeological evidence for Noah, so I'm going to assume he never existed". Then I scour the bible, looking for a way to reconcile Noah being a fictional character with the fact that the bible appears to present him as a historical figure. Then imagine in 50 years, someone finds a stone with the name Noah on it. All of a sudden, do I abandon all those hoops I created to make myself feel better? I would think God would say "I had the answers right there in the bible the whole time".

A belief is something that is held above and beyond what "evidence" requires. There was a point where people believed the earth was flat. It's not. We know it's not. Those who hold that position now have an antiquated opinion. Nothing more. It's no longer a belief. I don't think there was ever a point we should stop trying to seek answers. We're never going to know everything. We find strength in challenging ourselves not by being complacent.

I have no problem with your scenario either. But again, I don't have a problem being wrong about beliefs should they turn out to be wrong. This notion that we have to come to some sort of conclusion and stick with it just doesn't work for me and I don't think it's what God intended for us to do.

That the earth is flat is no longer a belief since it was discovered that the earth was not actually flat. Antiquated opinions are updated when acceptable evidence is presented and accepted. The shape of the earth has no bearing on Christian doctrine so it is easy to discard antiquated opinions related to it.

Likewise with the notion of women talking in church or people praying with their heads covered or silly dietary restrictions once imposed on the Jews. Antiquated! update opinions to what is acceptable and move on.

Does evolution also fit into this category? Suppose for a moment the evidence becomes sufficient for even the most fundamentalist Christians to accept, resulting in creation being one of those antiquated opinions. Would this have any bearing on Christian doctrine? Would it be as easily dismissed as some of the above mentioned outdated ideas?

I guess it would depend on what was presented as evidence. This is tough to answer because I'm not sure what scope you are talking about here when you refer to "creation". Personally, I think there's plenty of scientific evidence to suggest that "days" as referred to in Genesis aren't of the 24 hour variety. In that same vein, I don't think any of the verses of the creation story suggest "let there be light" is analogous to "snapping the fingers and it all of a sudden existed". Same with the creation of man. So for me, I'm not hung up on any of that. I simply don't know.

All that to say, I don't see any reason why evolution wouldn't fit that category.

 

[Jayrok]

I agree it's great to challenge dogma. I personally think that mainstream christianity is full of dogma.

But if the theory of evolution had never arisen, there would be no reason to challenge the historicity of Adam, to wonder if he was real, etc. For thousands of years, Jews and Christians believed Adam was a real person, and was directly created by God. Even scientific giants (Isaac Newton among many others) believed this. It wasn't until evolutionary theory made this view seem antiquated and outdated that religion found the need to challenge this particular dogma. Otherwise, why would any bible-believing Christian decide to challenge this?

Have you ever considered the theory that science is here because God wants it to be here and it's a mechanism through which he challenges us to be in his word? When I read stuff like this I am reminded of that story where the guy is floating in the ocean and passes up several opportunities to be rescued because if he's meant to be rescued, God will rescue him. When he dies and goes before God and asks him why God didn't save him God is befuddled and responds "I sent three different boats to rescue you but you didn't take any of those opportunities".

Trying to understand God's word, and diving into it is a great thing to do. But at some point, you have to make a decision on what you believe, not just keep looking for answers.

Imagine I said "well there is no archaeological evidence for Noah, so I'm going to assume he never existed". Then I scour the bible, looking for a way to reconcile Noah being a fictional character with the fact that the bible appears to present him as a historical figure. Then imagine in 50 years, someone finds a stone with the name Noah on it. All of a sudden, do I abandon all those hoops I created to make myself feel better? I would think God would say "I had the answers right there in the bible the whole time".

A belief is something that is held above and beyond what "evidence" requires. There was a point where people believed the earth was flat. It's not. We know it's not. Those who hold that position now have an antiquated opinion. Nothing more. It's no longer a belief. I don't think there was ever a point we should stop trying to seek answers. We're never going to know everything. We find strength in challenging ourselves not by being complacent.

I have no problem with your scenario either. But again, I don't have a problem being wrong about beliefs should they turn out to be wrong. This notion that we have to come to some sort of conclusion and stick with it just doesn't work for me and I don't think it's what God intended for us to do.

That the earth is flat is no longer a belief since it was discovered that the earth was not actually flat. Antiquated opinions are updated when acceptable evidence is presented and accepted. The shape of the earth has no bearing on Christian doctrine so it is easy to discard antiquated opinions related to it.

Likewise with the notion of women talking in church or people praying with their heads covered or silly dietary restrictions once imposed on the Jews. Antiquated! update opinions to what is acceptable and move on.

Does evolution also fit into this category? Suppose for a moment the evidence becomes sufficient for even the most fundamentalist Christians to accept, resulting in creation being one of those antiquated opinions. Would this have any bearing on Christian doctrine? Would it be as easily dismissed as some of the above mentioned outdated ideas?

I guess it would depend on what was presented as evidence. This is tough to answer because I'm not sure what scope you are talking about here when you refer to "creation". Personally, I think there's plenty of scientific evidence to suggest that "days" as referred to in Genesis aren't of the 24 hour variety. In that same vein, I don't think any of the verses of the creation story suggest "let there be light" is analogous to "snapping the fingers and it all of a sudden existed". Same with the creation of man. So for me, I'm not hung up on any of that. I simply don't know.

All that to say, I don't see any reason why evolution wouldn't fit that category.

I don't see how evolution can be reconciled with the need for salvation. If God used a long process for man to evolve from lower life forms, was man ever perfect... in God's image? When did he fall, resulting in the need for salvation? I'd be curious to see how Christian doctrine would change to reflect such a large development.

 

[cstu]

IMO evolution and Christianity are completely compatible...if you can accept certain things in the Bible aren't literal or are not applicable to today then accept that Genesis/Adam stories are not literal.

If the Bible is God's way to help people understand Him then it would not have done any good for him to attempt to explain evolutionary theory to them 2000 years ago. We're smarter today and if God was making a new Bible He would give a different explanation.

 

[cstu]

I don't see how evolution can be reconciled with the need for salvation. If God used a long process for man to evolve from lower life forms, was man ever perfect... in God's image? When did he fall, resulting in the need for salvation? I'd be curious to see how Christian doctrine would change to reflect such a large development.

Where is this need for salvation in the Bible? That was not Jesus' message from my recollection.

If God planned evolution then man is exactly how he want us to be.

 

[cstu]

I don't see how evolution can be reconciled with the need for salvation. If God used a long process for man to evolve from lower life forms, was man ever perfect... in God's image? When did he fall, resulting in the need for salvation? I'd be curious to see how Christian doctrine would change to reflect such a large development.

Where is this need for salvation in the Bible? That was not Jesus' message from my recollection.

If God planned evolution then man is exactly how he want us to be.

 

[Jayrok]

IMO evolution and Christianity are completely compatible...if you can accept certain things in the Bible aren't literal or are not applicable to today then accept that Genesis/Adam stories are not literal.

If the Bible is God's way to help people understand Him then it would not have done any good for him to attempt to explain evolutionary theory to them 2000 years ago. We're smarter today and if God was making a new Bible He would give a different explanation.

Evolution and Genesis compatible? Yes. Genesis/creation story have to be literal? No.

Evolution and the NT compatible? No, in my opinion.

 

[The Commish]

I agree it's great to challenge dogma. I personally think that mainstream christianity is full of dogma.

But if the theory of evolution had never arisen, there would be no reason to challenge the historicity of Adam, to wonder if he was real, etc. For thousands of years, Jews and Christians believed Adam was a real person, and was directly created by God. Even scientific giants (Isaac Newton among many others) believed this. It wasn't until evolutionary theory made this view seem antiquated and outdated that religion found the need to challenge this particular dogma. Otherwise, why would any bible-believing Christian decide to challenge this?

Have you ever considered the theory that science is here because God wants it to be here and it's a mechanism through which he challenges us to be in his word? When I read stuff like this I am reminded of that story where the guy is floating in the ocean and passes up several opportunities to be rescued because if he's meant to be rescued, God will rescue him. When he dies and goes before God and asks him why God didn't save him God is befuddled and responds "I sent three different boats to rescue you but you didn't take any of those opportunities".

Trying to understand God's word, and diving into it is a great thing to do. But at some point, you have to make a decision on what you believe, not just keep looking for answers.

Imagine I said "well there is no archaeological evidence for Noah, so I'm going to assume he never existed". Then I scour the bible, looking for a way to reconcile Noah being a fictional character with the fact that the bible appears to present him as a historical figure. Then imagine in 50 years, someone finds a stone with the name Noah on it. All of a sudden, do I abandon all those hoops I created to make myself feel better? I would think God would say "I had the answers right there in the bible the whole time".

A belief is something that is held above and beyond what "evidence" requires. There was a point where people believed the earth was flat. It's not. We know it's not. Those who hold that position now have an antiquated opinion. Nothing more. It's no longer a belief. I don't think there was ever a point we should stop trying to seek answers. We're never going to know everything. We find strength in challenging ourselves not by being complacent.

I have no problem with your scenario either. But again, I don't have a problem being wrong about beliefs should they turn out to be wrong. This notion that we have to come to some sort of conclusion and stick with it just doesn't work for me and I don't think it's what God intended for us to do.

That the earth is flat is no longer a belief since it was discovered that the earth was not actually flat. Antiquated opinions are updated when acceptable evidence is presented and accepted. The shape of the earth has no bearing on Christian doctrine so it is easy to discard antiquated opinions related to it.

Likewise with the notion of women talking in church or people praying with their heads covered or silly dietary restrictions once imposed on the Jews. Antiquated! update opinions to what is acceptable and move on.

Does evolution also fit into this category? Suppose for a moment the evidence becomes sufficient for even the most fundamentalist Christians to accept, resulting in creation being one of those antiquated opinions. Would this have any bearing on Christian doctrine? Would it be as easily dismissed as some of the above mentioned outdated ideas?

I guess it would depend on what was presented as evidence. This is tough to answer because I'm not sure what scope you are talking about here when you refer to "creation". Personally, I think there's plenty of scientific evidence to suggest that "days" as referred to in Genesis aren't of the 24 hour variety. In that same vein, I don't think any of the verses of the creation story suggest "let there be light" is analogous to "snapping the fingers and it all of a sudden existed". Same with the creation of man. So for me, I'm not hung up on any of that. I simply don't know.

All that to say, I don't see any reason why evolution wouldn't fit that category.

I don't see how evolution can be reconciled with the need for salvation. If God used a long process for man to evolve from lower life forms, was man ever perfect... in God's image? When did he fall, resulting in the need for salvation? I'd be curious to see how Christian doctrine would change to reflect such a large development.

I don't like answering questions with other questions but I'm not sure where you're going. If there were iterations of "man X" that went from 1-100 why couldn't iteration 100 be "perfect"? But again....I'm not necessarily on the same page with you in that I don't see where evolution would come into play with spiritual salvation. Evolution is dealing with the physical being while salvation is dealing with the spiritual being.

 

[cstu]

IMO evolution and Christianity are completely compatible...if you can accept certain things in the Bible aren't literal or are not applicable to today then accept that Genesis/Adam stories are not literal.

If the Bible is God's way to help people understand Him then it would not have done any good for him to attempt to explain evolutionary theory to them 2000 years ago. We're smarter today and if God was making a new Bible He would give a different explanation.

Evolution and Genesis compatible? Yes. Genesis/creation story have to be literal? No.

Evolution and the NT compatible? No, in my opinion.

Please explain. What did Jesus say that invalidates evolution? Him repeating Bible stories that people could understand doesn't do that IMO.

 

[Jayrok]

I don't see how evolution can be reconciled with the need for salvation. If God used a long process for man to evolve from lower life forms, was man ever perfect... in God's image? When did he fall, resulting in the need for salvation? I'd be curious to see how Christian doctrine would change to reflect such a large development.

Where is this need for salvation in the Bible? That was not Jesus' message from my recollection.

If God planned evolution then man is exactly how he want us to be.

The doctrine associated with the need for redemption was not created by Jesus.

 

[cstu]

I don't see how evolution can be reconciled with the need for salvation. If God used a long process for man to evolve from lower life forms, was man ever perfect... in God's image? When did he fall, resulting in the need for salvation? I'd be curious to see how Christian doctrine would change to reflect such a large development.

Where is this need for salvation in the Bible? That was not Jesus' message from my recollection.

If God planned evolution then man is exactly how he want us to be.

The doctrine associated with the need for redemption was not created by Jesus.

Do the Jews have it? Who created it?

 

[Jayrok]

I agree it's great to challenge dogma. I personally think that mainstream christianity is full of dogma.

But if the theory of evolution had never arisen, there would be no reason to challenge the historicity of Adam, to wonder if he was real, etc. For thousands of years, Jews and Christians believed Adam was a real person, and was directly created by God. Even scientific giants (Isaac Newton among many others) believed this. It wasn't until evolutionary theory made this view seem antiquated and outdated that religion found the need to challenge this particular dogma. Otherwise, why would any bible-believing Christian decide to challenge this?

Have you ever considered the theory that science is here because God wants it to be here and it's a mechanism through which he challenges us to be in his word? When I read stuff like this I am reminded of that story where the guy is floating in the ocean and passes up several opportunities to be rescued because if he's meant to be rescued, God will rescue him. When he dies and goes before God and asks him why God didn't save him God is befuddled and responds "I sent three different boats to rescue you but you didn't take any of those opportunities".

Trying to understand God's word, and diving into it is a great thing to do. But at some point, you have to make a decision on what you believe, not just keep looking for answers.

Imagine I said "well there is no archaeological evidence for Noah, so I'm going to assume he never existed". Then I scour the bible, looking for a way to reconcile Noah being a fictional character with the fact that the bible appears to present him as a historical figure. Then imagine in 50 years, someone finds a stone with the name Noah on it. All of a sudden, do I abandon all those hoops I created to make myself feel better? I would think God would say "I had the answers right there in the bible the whole time".

A belief is something that is held above and beyond what "evidence" requires. There was a point where people believed the earth was flat. It's not. We know it's not. Those who hold that position now have an antiquated opinion. Nothing more. It's no longer a belief. I don't think there was ever a point we should stop trying to seek answers. We're never going to know everything. We find strength in challenging ourselves not by being complacent.

I have no problem with your scenario either. But again, I don't have a problem being wrong about beliefs should they turn out to be wrong. This notion that we have to come to some sort of conclusion and stick with it just doesn't work for me and I don't think it's what God intended for us to do.

That the earth is flat is no longer a belief since it was discovered that the earth was not actually flat. Antiquated opinions are updated when acceptable evidence is presented and accepted. The shape of the earth has no bearing on Christian doctrine so it is easy to discard antiquated opinions related to it.

Likewise with the notion of women talking in church or people praying with their heads covered or silly dietary restrictions once imposed on the Jews. Antiquated! update opinions to what is acceptable and move on.

Does evolution also fit into this category? Suppose for a moment the evidence becomes sufficient for even the most fundamentalist Christians to accept, resulting in creation being one of those antiquated opinions. Would this have any bearing on Christian doctrine? Would it be as easily dismissed as some of the above mentioned outdated ideas?

I guess it would depend on what was presented as evidence. This is tough to answer because I'm not sure what scope you are talking about here when you refer to "creation". Personally, I think there's plenty of scientific evidence to suggest that "days" as referred to in Genesis aren't of the 24 hour variety. In that same vein, I don't think any of the verses of the creation story suggest "let there be light" is analogous to "snapping the fingers and it all of a sudden existed". Same with the creation of man. So for me, I'm not hung up on any of that. I simply don't know.

All that to say, I don't see any reason why evolution wouldn't fit that category.

I don't see how evolution can be reconciled with the need for salvation. If God used a long process for man to evolve from lower life forms, was man ever perfect... in God's image? When did he fall, resulting in the need for salvation? I'd be curious to see how Christian doctrine would change to reflect such a large development.

I don't like answering questions with other questions but I'm not sure where you're going. If there were iterations of "man X" that went from 1-100 why couldn't iteration 100 be "perfect"? But again....I'm not necessarily on the same page with you in that I don't see where evolution would come into play with spiritual salvation. Evolution is dealing with the physical being while salvation is dealing with the spiritual being.

 

[The Commish]

sorry....i don't know/understand what your point is

 

[cstu]

I don't like answering questions with other questions but I'm not sure where you're going. If there were iterations of "man X" that went from 1-100 why couldn't iteration 100 be "perfect"? But again....I'm not necessarily on the same page with you in that I don't see where evolution would come into play with spiritual salvation. Evolution is dealing with the physical being while salvation is dealing with the spiritual being.

I don't understand what it wrong with what he said.

 

[The Football Freak]

I always think back to an old thread when I see this topic:

https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?/topic/172056-some-evidence-for-monkey-man/

I've always believed in evolution, and enjoy reading up on it, but two posts here are where I felt I had found what I consider to be a smoking gun. Posts 28 and 31 by Maurile and Shiny closed the book for me. The thread is a good read, made by some smart and thoughtful posters.

But didn't Larry Boy 44 successfully refute both of those guys in that thread?

You're asking me if Larry Boy 44 successfully refuted Maurile and Shiny? You're a funny dude. ?

 

[Jayrok]

I don't see how evolution can be reconciled with the need for salvation. If God used a long process for man to evolve from lower life forms, was man ever perfect... in God's image? When did he fall, resulting in the need for salvation? I'd be curious to see how Christian doctrine would change to reflect such a large development.

Where is this need for salvation in the Bible? That was not Jesus' message from my recollection.

If God planned evolution then man is exactly how he want us to be.

The doctrine associated with the need for redemption was not created by Jesus.

Do the Jews have it?

Have what, the need for salvation? Yes. Everyone has it per the New Testament Epistles. Many of the Jews didn't, and do not, accept the Christian NT. Thus, they aren't Christians.

 

[Jayrok]

I always think back to an old thread when I see this topic:

https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?/topic/172056-some-evidence-for-monkey-man/

I've always believed in evolution, and enjoy reading up on it, but two posts here are where I felt I had found what I consider to be a smoking gun. Posts 28 and 31 by Maurile and Shiny closed the book for me. The thread is a good read, made by some smart and thoughtful posters.

But didn't Larry Boy 44 successfully refute both of those guys in that thread?

You're asking me if Larry Boy 44 successfully refuted Maurile and Shiny? You're a funny dude.

I was being sarcastic.

 

[The Football Freak]

I always think back to an old thread when I see this topic:

https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?/topic/172056-some-evidence-for-monkey-man/

I've always believed in evolution, and enjoy reading up on it, but two posts here are where I felt I had found what I consider to be a smoking gun. Posts 28 and 31 by Maurile and Shiny closed the book for me. The thread is a good read, made by some smart and thoughtful posters.

But didn't Larry Boy 44 successfully refute both of those guys in that thread?

You're asking me if Larry Boy 44 successfully refuted Maurile and Shiny? You're a funny dude.

I was being sarcastic.

Ah. Sorry. I think the power of the words overloaded my sarcasm detector. Must've caused some sort of feedback.

 

[Jayrok]

IMO evolution and Christianity are completely compatible...if you can accept certain things in the Bible aren't literal or are not applicable to today then accept that Genesis/Adam stories are not literal.

If the Bible is God's way to help people understand Him then it would not have done any good for him to attempt to explain evolutionary theory to them 2000 years ago. We're smarter today and if God was making a new Bible He would give a different explanation.

Evolution and Genesis compatible? Yes. Genesis/creation story have to be literal? No.

Evolution and the NT compatible? No, in my opinion.

Please explain. What did Jesus say that invalidates evolution? Him repeating Bible stories that people could understand doesn't do that IMO.

Jesus said nothing on the topic of evolution. The doctrines that came into place as the result of Paul's teachings about Christ and the message of the cross invalidates evolution, imo.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

If God planned evolution then man is exactly how he want us to be.

Then why do men have nipples?

 

[matttyl]

So I've spent the last few days reading this thread. Lots of it are painful (dragons?!), but some parts are very interesting and lead to very provocative questions.

 

[msommer]

If God planned evolution then man is exactly how he want us to be.

Then why do men have nipples?

And why are there nerves in teeth?

 

[Jayrok]

I don't like answering questions with other questions but I'm not sure where you're going. If there were iterations of "man X" that went from 1-100 why couldn't iteration 100 be "perfect"?

Let's say iteration 100 resulted in the perfect man. Being perfect in the image of God, this iteration of man was without sin, yes? This could be the first man, Adam, mentioned by Paul in Romans, where sin entered the world. This "Adam" disobeyed God at some point which caused future iterations of man to be sinful. Because man is sinful, he is in need of the redemptive power of Jesus' sacrifice in order to be saved from spiritual death... foundational Christian doctrine.

Does this mean sin was not part of this world prior to iteration 100 of man? In all the chaotic, violent years of evolution? Or was man's spirit always destined for death, from the start? If this is the case then how could any iteration of man be perfect? If he was born with a spirit ineligible for heaven, how can Paul say sin entered the world through him? It would have been here from the start which would render Paul's idea of the first "Adam" useless.

Anyway, I have a hard time seeing how evolution would fit in with these NT ideas. Hell, maybe those ideas are all figurative anyway and nothing really matters.

 

[matttyl]

Just curious Shader, because if memory serves you are a Jehovah's Witness. Do most Jehovah's Witnesses reject the theory of evolution? And are you a Young Earth Creationist as well?

Rejecting the theory of evolution is a loaded phrase, but yes I reject it in terms of believing man was created by God and didn't evolve from ape like creatures

As for YEC, definitely not. I see nothing in the bible that speaks to the age of the earth.

Others do, and most of them come to the same conclusion....

http://www.creationtips.com/earthsage.html

Irish Archbishop James Ussher (1581-1656), pictured at right, calculated a similar date.

In his famous work The Annals of the World, Ussher used the Masoretic text of the Bible to come up with fairly precise dates for people and events mentioned in the Bible. His calculations led him to determine that God created the universe on 23 October, 4004 BC.

Other Bible historians and scholars always come up with a date not far from Ussher's, because even if you use slightly different methods for determining Bible chronology, you can't get away from the fact that the Bible will point you to a date of creation about 6000 years ago.

 

[msommer]

Just curious Shader, because if memory serves you are a Jehovah's Witness. Do most Jehovah's Witnesses reject the theory of evolution? And are you a Young Earth Creationist as well?

Rejecting the theory of evolution is a loaded phrase, but yes I reject it in terms of believing man was created by God and didn't evolve from ape like creatures

As for YEC, definitely not. I see nothing in the bible that speaks to the age of the earth.

Others do, and most of them come to the same conclusion....

http://www.creationtips.com/earthsage.html

Irish Archbishop James Ussher (1581-1656), pictured at right, calculated a similar date.

In his famous work The Annals of the World, Ussher used the Masoretic text of the Bible to come up with fairly precise dates for people and events mentioned in the Bible. His calculations led him to determine that God created the universe on 23 October, 4004 BC.

Other Bible historians and scholars always come up with a date not far from Ussher's, because even if you use slightly different methods for determining Bible chronology, you can't get away from the fact that the Bible will point you to a date of creation about 6000 years ago.

You'd think God would start the calendar at January 1st...

 

[matttyl]

Just curious Shader, because if memory serves you are a Jehovah's Witness. Do most Jehovah's Witnesses reject the theory of evolution? And are you a Young Earth Creationist as well?

Rejecting the theory of evolution is a loaded phrase, but yes I reject it in terms of believing man was created by God and didn't evolve from ape like creatures

As for YEC, definitely not. I see nothing in the bible that speaks to the age of the earth.

Others do, and most of them come to the same conclusion....

http://www.creationtips.com/earthsage.html

Irish Archbishop James Ussher (1581-1656), pictured at right, calculated a similar date.

In his famous work The Annals of the World, Ussher used the Masoretic text of the Bible to come up with fairly precise dates for people and events mentioned in the Bible. His calculations led him to determine that God created the universe on 23 October, 4004 BC.

Other Bible historians and scholars always come up with a date not far from Ussher's, because even if you use slightly different methods for determining Bible chronology, you can't get away from the fact that the Bible will point you to a date of creation about 6000 years ago.

You'd think God would start the calendar at January 1st...

Jesus did.

 

[joffer]

If God planned evolution then man is exactly how he want us to be.

Then why do men have nipples?

lactating is a learned skill

 

[Jayrok]

sorry....i don't know/understand what your point is I don't see where evolution would come into play with spiritual salvation. Evolution is dealing with the physical being while salvation is dealing with the spiritual being.

Why does man need salvation from a spiritual death? Isn't it because of sin? You seem to be saying man's physical death is unrelated to sin. So physical death is as natural as anything else in nature. So the question is why is man's spirit destined for hell and not heaven to be with God? How did the spirit get so corrupt?