Evolution My ToE

[Bear Wild]

I'm beginning to think you really don't understand what I am saying. I am saying what evolutionists believe (not what I believe any longer). You don't claim to be a Christian, do you? Someone here does and also claims to believe in evolution. THAT is what I am discussing. It's almost like an election, who you gonna vote for? I haven't heard so far that in a election here in the U.S., one can vote for two or more candidates running for the same office. It's one or the other, no combination of candidates for the same position.
Jesus did not combine evolution with creation. If some want to think or believe he spoke of myths and believed and taught them, that's up to them. But it doesn't jibe with evolution.
"“But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’" That's what Jesus said. (Mark chapter 10.)

I understand you quite well. When I was Christian I believed in evolution and had no problem with that because there is not problem with that. What I did have a problem was with individuals that took every word of the bible as literal with a closed mind to anything but their viewpoint. Voting in elections has nothing to do with accepting the truth about our world and still keeping ones religious beliefs.

Can you name the person who actually wrote Mark? With certainty?

 

[YoursTrue]

I was raised Christian but yes I no longer consider myself Christian. That is another topic if you like but unless you have a bible growing in pages with new information then yes the bible is stagnant. Those Christians willing to learn beyond the words in the bible understand that there is no conflict between evolution and Christian faith.

I appreciate your consideration, but no, the Bible is not stagnant for me. Anyway, have a nice night, thanks for your input.

 

[YoursTrue]

I understand you quite well. When I was Christian I believed in evolution and had no problem with that because there is not problem with that. What I did have a problem was with individuals that took every word of the bible as literal with a closed mind to anything but their viewpoint. Voting in elections has nothing to do with accepting the truth about our world and still keeping ones religious beliefs.

Can you name the person who actually wrote Mark? With certainty?

I can go over that perhaps in another thread. On the other hand, while I believe (and I am careful to say that) that the Bible is God's word and true, it cannot all be taken literally. So -- at this point, I am going to leave it there. Someone quoted Aquinas on another thread and caused me to wonder what Aquinas really thought. Because it doesn't make sense to me -- but I can't discuss everything. Again, nice talking with you. Take care and have a good night.

 

[McBell]

My position is that there is a Creator with intelligence that caused life to be as we know it. Jesus believed in the Creator. I believe Jesus. If I believed in the ToE I'd literally be saying that Jesus was misled. If I went further than that to say I am a Christian but believed he was misled and mistaken, then it would be as you say, propounding bad fruit.

What specifically about the ToE leads you to believe its being true means Jesus was misled?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

To learn from God's creation means that God is the creator. The world tells me that God is the Creator, that He caused life to appear on the earth, that He is the originator of human life, and animal and p

I am not hijacking the thread. You and Dan are. I was asking Dan a question as to the validity of his belief in one thing and then in direct contradiction, another. You're the one stoking up a word storm. Jesus spoke of creation, not evolution, as to how life came about, I am not going to discuss much more about that point here. But yes, I did and do wonder how a person claims to be a Christian and then says he believes in evolution. Christ spoke of creation.
To Dan...Jesus spoke of a Creator. The Bible says he came from Adam. Jesus spoke of Noah. Do you believe Jesus or do you believe he just didn't know the truth and so followed and taught myths? Answer that and could be the discussion is over.

I have not hijacked the thread. I have answered your questions frankly and openly. You have not connected what my religion has to do with the validity of science. It has nothing to do with the validity.

Evolution is not a theory about the origin of life. Evolution is not in contradiction with creation in general.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

My position is that there is a Creator with intelligence that caused life to be as we know it. Jesus believed in the Creator. I believe Jesus. If I believed in the ToE I'd literally be saying that Jesus was misled. If I went further than that to say I am a Christian but believed he was misled and mistaken, then it would be as you say, propounding bad fruit.

Not really, since you clearly do not understand the theory or science, and all the effort here to help you has been ignored.

It would not be against God or Christ to question the Bible. After all, the Bible was written by man and man makes mistakes. If you want to believe it is infallible and ignore reality based on that, it is your prerogative, but I was given a keen mind, reason and the ability to observe and analyze. Should I lie to myself? Do you think God wants us to lie to ourselves?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm beginning to think you really don't understand what I am saying. I am saying what evolutionists believe (not what I believe any longer). You don't claim to be a Christian, do you? Someone here does and also claims to believe in evolution. THAT is what I am discussing. It's almost like an election, who you gonna vote for? I haven't heard so far that in a election here in the U.S., one can vote for two or more candidates running for the same office. It's one or the other, no combination of candidates for the same position.
Jesus did not combine evolution with creation. If some want to think or believe he spoke of myths and believed and taught them, that's up to them. But it doesn't jibe with evolution.
"“But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’" That's what Jesus said. (Mark chapter 10.)

Did you ever really accept science? I wonder how you could when it is clear you do not understand it. That is not a slight, but an observation. Many people do not understand it.

I have not claimed to believe in evolution. I accept it as the best explanation for the evidence. I do not believe it by faith. I am not claiming some divine coaching caused me to believe in it.

You have established a false dichotomy. You do not have to believe either or. You can accept one and believe in the other.

 

[YoursTrue]

Did you ever really accept science? I wonder how you could when it is clear you do not understand it. That is not a slight, but an observation. Many people do not understand it.

I have not claimed to believe in evolution. I accept it as the best explanation for the evidence. I do not believe it by faith. I am not claiming some divine coaching caused me to believe in it.

You have established a false dichotomy. You do not have to believe either or. You can accept one and believe in the other.

While not an expert, I understand the basic concept of the theory, although some here might say I don't. I do not accept or believe that the evidence demonstrates that life evolved. What fossils demonstrate is that those forms of life existed. I don't have faith in the concept of evolution by natural selection, and I do not believe it.

 

[YoursTrue]

Did you ever really accept science? I wonder how you could when it is clear you do not understand it. That is not a slight, but an observation. Many people do not understand it.

I have not claimed to believe in evolution. I accept it as the best explanation for the evidence. I do not believe it by faith. I am not claiming some divine coaching caused me to believe in it.

You have established a false dichotomy. You do not have to believe either or. You can accept one and believe in the other.

Speaking of accepting science, I'm not sure what you mean. I go to doctors, take vaccinations when I deem it proper to do so, I drive a car. Etc. I am still trying to understand Einstein's theories and how he figured them.

 

[exchemist]

I'm beginning to think you really don't understand what I am saying. I am saying what evolutionists believe (not what I believe any longer). You don't claim to be a Christian, do you? Someone here does and also claims to believe in evolution. THAT is what I am discussing. It's almost like an election, who you gonna vote for? I haven't heard so far that in a election here in the U.S., one can vote for two or more candidates running for the same office. It's one or the other, no combination of candidates for the same position.
Jesus did not combine evolution with creation. If some want to think or believe he spoke of myths and believed and taught them, that's up to them. But it doesn't jibe with evolution.
"“But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’" That's what Jesus said. (Mark chapter 10.)

Actually, most Christian denominations see no conflict between science and Christianity. But that is because the idea of taking everything in the Old Testament literally is a recent - and retrograde - idea, only adopted by certain fundamentalist sects. You are wrong to believe all Christians think like you: they don't at all.

 

[exchemist]

Speaking of accepting science, I'm not sure what you mean. I go to doctors, take vaccinations when I deem it proper to do so, I drive a car. Etc. I am still trying to understand Einstein's theories and how he figured them.

Do you accept the scientific view of:
- the age of the universe?
- the age of the Earth?
- the stratigraphic record of the rocks?
- the evidence for continental drift?
- fossils being the chemically altered remains of long-dead organisms
- the shape of the Earth?
- experiments that show evolution taking place in the laboratory?
- the development of drug resistance in bacteria and in cancers?

Or do you close your eyes and ears to these findings of science?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

How can we reflect on your supporting your belief in a same nature in the past when you have not done so?
How can anyone expect you to accept history and Scripture records as evidence when you wave them away and are in denial for no reason?
How could you expect anyone to support any nature in the past with science when they cannot deny or confirm or support either a same or different nature?
Focus.

Asking dishonestly unjustified loaded questions, is not going to accomplish anything either.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

My concern is not about Dan, but rather the contrast between what the Bible says and what the theory of evolution claims to be.

When a story contradicts science, it usually isn't the science that is incorrect. In fact, I know of no instance where that turned out to be the case.

My question is about a professed belief in Jesus, and then declaring that evolution is true This is not judging but inquiring.
Again, here's what Jesus wrote about history:
New International Version
"If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me." So you conclude.

Are you aware that the vast majority of christians have no problems with the science of evolution?

 

[SkepticThinker]

To learn from God's creation means that God is the creator. The world tells me that God is the Creator, that He caused life to appear on the earth, that He is the originator of human life, and animal and p

I am not hijacking the thread. You and Dan are. I was asking Dan a question as to the validity of his belief in one thing and then in direct contradiction, another. You're the one stoking up a word storm. Jesus spoke of creation, not evolution, as to how life came about, I am not going to discuss much more about that point here. But yes, I did and do wonder how a person claims to be a Christian and then says he believes in evolution. Christ spoke of creation.
To Dan...Jesus spoke of a Creator. The Bible says he came from Adam. Jesus spoke of Noah. Do you believe Jesus or do you believe he just didn't know the truth and so followed and taught myths? Answer that and could be the discussion is over.

Many, many people who are Christians accept evolution. It's mostly young earth creationists or Biblical literalists that don't accept evolution, and from my experience, that appears to be mainly because they do not understand evolution.

Every Christian person I know in my life (save for one) all accept evolution as a fact of life. The one exception is an uncle who is a young earth creationist.

 

[SkepticThinker]

There's no real evidence to support fish emerging into landcrawlers. Or bacteria growing into forms that become trees. No recordings, no written documents, no visual aids insofar as the burgeoning changes. In fact, the idea that writing began after how many years of those smart neanderthals interbred is absurd. How many years were the now- considered smart neanderthals said to be on the earth before the homo sapiens emerged? Only surmises about it all coming about by evolution.

Of course there is evidence supporting "fish emerging into landcrawlers." Have you not bothered to Google the mudskipper yet?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Views certainly do change, don't they? And now here's another one:
"According to a study by the University of Tübingen and New York University (NYU), Neanderthals may not have been as clever as previously supposed. The experimental archaeology project found that a wood tar used by the cousins of Homo sapiens as a glue to construct tools didn't require as complex a process as once thought, suggesting that Neanderthal tool making isn't necessarily evidence of a high level of cognitive and cultural development."
So now they're "not as clever as previously supposed." Can't scientists make up their minds about the poor guys? (Guess not.) Tool-making experiments suggest Neanderthals may not have been as clever as thought

And ... ?

What bearing do you think this has on the veracity of evolution?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I don't think so. So let me get this straight from you -- Are you saying that man (in the form of "homo sapiens") came about without an Intelligent Designer who made man by choice with His direction (not from morphing from some unknown common ancestor also linked with Neanderthals and possible ancestors of bonobos, etc. without having designed the "first man" and woman in the form of -- what is called "homo sapien")? If you have trouble understanding the question, let me know please.)
Let's do it again. Jesus spoke of Noah as a real person, not a mythological account. Granted that many religious people claim to worship God by Jesus Christ, and claim to be Christian while at the same time saying the Bible account is based on myths. That 'appears' to be rather hypocritical, saying one thing and out of the other side of his mouth or head, saying something in direct contradiction to that.
I have not seen an evolutionist conceive of the reality of that Biblical account, or support it. Jesus surely did. Jesus did not indicate he thought it was a myth. I am only quoting what I know to be the words of Jesus as recorded in the Scriptures. If you don't believe he said that, that's another discussion. The discussion at hand is when someone claims to be a believer in Christ and then doesn't step up to the plate to say he believes what Jesus taught. Smacks of hypocrisy to me. Maybe not to you.
So let's go again with Christianity, myths, and evolution. Here is what Jesus said: (or for you, is said to have said):
"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. 37As it was in the days of Noah, so will it be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark." (Matthew 24.) Jesus spoke certainly as if he firmly believed that the flood in the days of Noah happened -- he didn't say it was a myth.

Why do you start with the assumption that everything stated in the Bible is true and then go from there???

 

[SkepticThinker]

Nothing to prove that non-walking fish evolved into landcrawlers. Nothing. There are fish that don't walk on land, they stay fish. There are fish that have the ability to crawl on land. Nothing to show these evolved from some common ancestor.

Then you haven't been paying attention.
You are simply being wilfully ignorant at this point. That's not a good look for you.

 

[Audie]

I have not hijacked the thread. I have answered your questions frankly and openly. You have not connected what my religion has to do with the validity of science. It has nothing to do with the validity.

Evolution is not a theory about the origin of life. Evolution is not in contradiction with creation in general.

We may want to nominate you for the Nobel Patience Prize

 

[Audie]

While not an expert, I understand the basic concept of the theory, although some here might say I don't. I do not accept or believe that the evidence demonstrates that life evolved. What fossils demonstrate is that those forms of life existed. I don't have faith in the concept of evolution by natural selection, and I do not believe it.

You make it so profoundly obvious that you do not.