Does Evolution Make Jesus A Liar?

[McBell]

This claim has been made and I would like to hear from those who know more about it than me.

 

[McBell]

Seems that AiG claims that this verse is the basis for the claim:

“But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.” (Mark 10:6)​

 

[whirlingmerc]

Seems that AiG claims that this verse is the basis for the claim:

“But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.” (Mark 10:6)​

Evolution means various things.

If you mean a wolf can become other types of dogs, that is true and in know way contradicts anythign Jesus said

If you mean goo to you via the zoo? no.... didn't happen.
and Jesus' words are true

Jesus does appear to be a creationist
which appears the plain interpretation of the Bible;s claims
and is true

 

[Deeje]

Seems that AiG claims that this verse is the basis for the claim:

“But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.” (Mark 10:6)​

Why do you think genuine Christians reject evolution? If God made male and female directly in each species, that would certainly make more sense than a slow and accidental drifting into gender and reproduction by a means that is not even provable, don't you think? Imagine how many accidental mutations would have to happen to produce all the lifeforms on this planet....all with the ability to replicate themselves.....?

Those who want creation and evolution to agree are somewhat stuck in the middle with no way to prove either scenario....and the ones who just believe in fortunate accidents will fudge anything to eliminate the need for an Intelligent Designer altogether.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

This claim has been made and I would like to hear from those who know more about it than me.

No. The discussion was about divorce. That we are from God and women are not the property of man that can be tossed aside like rubbish for burning the toast. It doesn't speak of how the creation took place.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Why do you think genuine Christians reject evolution? If God made male and female directly in each species, that would certainly make more sense than a slow and accidental drifting into gender and reproduction by a means that is not even provable, don't you think? Imagine how many accidental mutations would have to happen to produce all the lifeforms on this planet....all with the ability to replicate themselves.....?

Those who want creation and evolution to agree are somewhat stuck in the middle with no way to prove either scenario....and the ones who just believe in fortunate accidents will fudge anything to eliminate the need for an Intelligent Designer altogether.

There is no fudging. Provide the evidence of design and designer. You cannot, so you blame scientists for your failure.

With 7 billion of us alive today, there are 3.5E11 accidental mutations just in that one living generation.

 

[Heyo]

For accusing Jesus of lying you have to make a few unsupported assumptions. You have to assume that the accounts given in the gospels are accurate. People who have never met Jesus must have known that stories told to them where true memories. That the reporters understood what was meant and didn't cloud their account by interpretation. That Jesus, if he ever existed, must have known about evolution and intentionally mislead his audience. That he didn't speak in metaphors (as he allegedly usually did). That the translation of a copy of a copy you have survived the times unaltered and uninterpreted.

 

[Altfish]

Nothing in the Bible supports evolution. BUT evolution is true, there is too much evidence to suggest otherwise.

 

[Spirit of Light]

May it be that even if there is a God who created all, on the surface it would look like an evolution because of the laws of the physical cosmos? So in a way both creationists and evolutionists are correct?
And could it be possible that if a God is behind it, that it was only the first part He created and the rest was up to the nature itself? For example that the law of the cosmos was made to do that nature could take care of itself, and that it is not a God who do everything in every second of something that is arising?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Seems that AiG claims that this verse is the basis for the claim:

“But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.” (Mark 10:6)​

Anyone that makes the claim is working with unverified assumptions about the Bible and the material it contains. These assumptions would need to be supported in order to validate the claim. I recognize that person's making such claims believe the assumptions, but that belief does not make the assumptions true by default.

 

[exchemist]

No. The discussion was about divorce. That we are from God and women are not the property of man that can be tossed aside like rubbish for burning the toast. It doesn't speak of how the creation took place.

Quite. Many of these artificial disputes come from people taking individual passages out of context and trying to use them for another purpose: quote-mining, in fact. It seems to be a depressingly common fallacy - in fact almost a technique - of many biblical fundamentalists.

 

[exchemist]

This claim has been made and I would like to hear from those who know more about it than me.

Not at all. People in Jesus's time spoke of creation in terms of what later theologians took to be allegories, and so Jesus referred to these same allegories in his teaching.

An allegory is not just fiction: it is a picturesque way to convey an idea, a message, to the reader. In this case the clear messages of the Genesis accounts of creation (there are two different and somewhat conflicting ones) are :
- God is the Creator of the universe and everything in it,
- God created Mankind, in His own image (having an immortal soul)
- God loves His creation, cares for it and expects Mankind to do the same
- God is a personal God with whom Mankind can communicate.
- Mankind acquired moral awareness (eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil) and thereby lost the innocence of the mere animals. This is both a blessing and a curse - and made it necessary for God to be made Man in order to help Mankind out of the resulting predicament.

These fundamental messages set the scene for everything that follows in the bible.

Seen in these terms, the theories of cosmology, geology and evolution merely indicate to us the details of the mechanisms God seemingly chose to use, operating through the underlying order in the universe that we partially capture in our so-called "laws of nature".

I do not think anything Christ is reported to have said (and we do not know the exact words he used) contradicts this interpretation.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Evolution means various things.

As an english word, perhaps.
Not so much when used in "theory of evolution" in context of the biological sciences. There, it means a very specific thing.

If you mean a wolf can become other types of dogs, that is true and in know way contradicts anythign Jesus said

What about primates become other types of primates?
Or felines becoming other types of felines?
Or mammals becoming other types of mammals?

If you mean goo to you via the zoo? no.... didn't happen.

Completely depends on what you mean exactly by that.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why do you think genuine Christians reject evolution?

So, you're saying that the vast majority of christians, aren't "genuine" christians?

If God made male and female directly in each species, that would certainly make more sense than a slow and accidental drifting into gender and reproduction by a means that is not even provable, don't you think?

1. even ignoring the mountains of evidence in support of biological evolution, how would that make more sense?

2. ignoring the evidence, won't make it go away, off course.

Imagine how many accidental mutations would have to happen to produce all the lifeforms on this planet....all with the ability to replicate themselves.....?

Many mutations for sure. Which is not a problem, considering the 3.8 billion years and the billions / trillions of individual living things at any given moment.

Those who want creation and evolution to agree are somewhat stuck in the middle with no way to prove either scenario....and the ones who just believe in fortunate accidents will fudge anything to eliminate the need for an Intelligent Designer altogether.

Merely asserting that there is a need for a designer, does not make it so.
You'ld have to actually support that claim.

Biological evolution is extremely well supported. Likely among the best supported theories in all of science.
Do you wish to give it a go, to support an ID?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Nothing in the Bible supports evolution. BUT evolution is true, there is too much evidence to suggest otherwise.

The many meanings of truth

Would you please explain how methodological naturalism connects to truth.
And while you are at explain this:

"Science, since people must do it, is a socially embedded activity. It progresses by hunch, vision, and intuition. Much of its change through time does not record a closer approach to absolute truth, but the alteration of cultural contexts that influence it so strongly. Facts are not pure and unsullied bits of information; culture also influences what we see and how we see it. Theories, moreover, are not inexorable inductions from facts. The most creative theories are often imaginative visions imposed upon facts; the source of imagination is also strongly cultural. [Stephen Jay Gould, introduction to "The Mismeasure of Man," 1981]"

So what does science have to do with truth. Truth belongs apparently in math and philosophy. But you seem to know something else? So what theory of truth are you using?
Truth | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Regards
Mikkel

PS Evidence is not truth. There is no truth in methodological naturalism. There is a good reason, how come we separate truth and evidence and how science is a particular version of philosophy that has nothing to do with truth.
As always this is a conditional statement and not true nor false.

 

[Quintessence]

Why bother entertaining a claim that is clearly nonsensical? Biological evolution as we know it today wasn't known at all during the alleged time of the historical Jesus. And being ignorant of something is hardly the same thing as lying.

 

[Wandering Monk]

This claim has been made and I would like to hear from those who know more about it than me.

Only if you believe Jesus was the omniscient God in the flesh, or that God bestows supernatural knowledge to humans.

 

[tas8831]

Why do you think genuine Christians reject evolution?

Brainwashing.

 

[Katzpur]

This claim has been made and I would like to hear from those who know more about it than me.

I don't know. What did Jesus have to say about evolution?

 

[sayak83]

Seems that AiG claims that this verse is the basis for the claim:

“But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.” (Mark 10:6)​

Humans always had two sexes. How how does this verse contradict evolution?