can believers accept evolution?

[Guest shiloh357]

 

The Bible agrees with Shiloh here, you cannot be a Christian and say God used or did evolution. The two are 100% incompatible, because God already said in Genesis 1 and 2 that He didn't use any evolution at all, but rather that everything was good (and death and sickness and disease are not good, and you need these 3 to have evolution before Adam).

 

Where in the Bible does it mention evolution? And in anticipation of your next question, where does the Bible say that being in 100% agreement with the Bible (ignoring that there are multiple readings because that is a different topic altogether) is a requirement of being a Christian?

 

 

The BIble doesn't mention Evolution, obviously.   However, most atheists agree that a plain reading of the Bible precludes any unity or peaceful co-existence between Evolution and Genesis 1

 

As for your next question,  the issue is the BIble's authority.  If the Bible got it wrong in Genesis 1, where else did it get things wrong?   A lot of "Christians" have a selective approach to the Bible where they subjectively choose which parts they accept and which parts they reject.   The Bible becomes servant to reader and to what the reader is inclined to accept.

 

The Bible is not a smorgasboard from which you can pick and choose according to your taste.  If the Bible can't be trusted in Genesis 1, what makes anyone think it can be trusted in John 3:16?   If the Bible got it wrong about the origin of man, what's to stop us from questioning how the Bible defines sin or issues concerning salvation?

 

Genesis 1 is not one of those peripheral issues in Christian theology.  Genesis is the seed bed for everything else the Bible has to say and if we can't trust the Bible in its most fundamental claim about man and God, then there is no reason to trust it when it comes to anything related to salvation.

[alphaparticle]

 

 

The Bible agrees with Shiloh here, you cannot be a Christian and say God used or did evolution. The two are 100% incompatible, because God already said in Genesis 1 and 2 that He didn't use any evolution at all, but rather that everything was good (and death and sickness and disease are not good, and you need these 3 to have evolution before Adam).

 

Where in the Bible does it mention evolution? And in anticipation of your next question, where does the Bible say that being in 100% agreement with the Bible (ignoring that there are multiple readings because that is a different topic altogether) is a requirement of being a Christian?

 

 

The BIble doesn't mention Evolution, obviously.   However, most atheists agree that a plain reading of the Bible precludes any unity or peaceful co-existence between Evolution and Genesis 1

 

As for your next question,  the issue is the BIble's authority.  If the Bible got it wrong in Genesis 1, where else did it get things wrong?   A lot of "Christians" have a selective approach to the Bible where they subjectively choose which parts they accept and which parts they reject.   The Bible becomes servant to reader and to what the reader is inclined to accept.

 

The Bible is not a smorgasboard from which you can pick and choose according to your taste.  If the Bible can't be trusted in Genesis 1, what makes anyone think it can be trusted in John 3:16?   If the Bible got it wrong about the origin of man, what's to stop us from questioning how the Bible defines sin or issues concerning salvation?

 

Genesis 1 is not one of those peripheral issues in Christian theology.  Genesis is the seed bed for everything else the Bible has to say and if we can't trust the Bible in its most fundamental claim about man and God, then there is no reason to trust it when it comes to anything related to salvation.

 

The question is what specifically is tied to salvation. When I first came to believe in Jesus as Lord I was skeptical of much of the Bible as a whole, no notion about how to take much of it. While since then my views have changed to taking the entire Bible authoritatively, at the time I believe I was saved. The point is, I could believe the Bible was mistaken about any number of things, yet still sincerely believe Jesus is Lord of everything.

 

I am not sure where this notion comes about that wondering about the factual historicity of one part of the Bible leads to an inevitable domino effect. That doesn't follow either.

[HumbleThinker]

 

 

 

 

 

I would further like to know what is the proposed model to explain what we see in nature, all the fossils of now extinct life forms, the results of the human genome?

Extinction is is best explained by a global flood as is the rapid deposits of sediment in the rock stratas. 

 

Well, for this to be true, the global flood would have to ignore all known effects and behaviors of floods, and not simply be being more extreme than any other flood. In fact, for the global flood to have happened, it would require that it be the calmest flood in recorded history, just to name one point.

 

Given the rapid deposition of sediment, it would call for a rather violent flood actually.

 

But the "rapid deposition of sediment" is not what is observed. Large slabs of limestone, for example, could not have formed in flood conditions or any time after the proposed timeframe of the flood, or before if you are a Young Earth Creationist.  Please point to what you are talking about when you speak of "rapid deposition." Also,, dead organisms and their remains would be disintegrated in such a violent flood, not preserved. If rapid deposition is supposed to be the explanation for why so many fossils were not disintegrated, then this would be presuming your conclusion instead of letting the evidence lead you to that conclusion.

 

Actually it what is observed and another atheist/evolutionist here on the boards has explained that the rapid deposition of sediment has been observed and happens all of the time.  Of course, he states that such is not evidence of a global flood.

 

We saw the rapid deposition of sediment and rapid fossilation that occurred after the eruption of Mt. St. Helens in the 80s  and it was yet another example of how the claims that fossilization occurs over a span of millions of years simply isn't true espeically with the fossilization of delicate parts of plants and trees in the lake at the base of the volcano.  

 

I would like a link to what you are talking about when you say "rapid deposition," because what I am understanding you as meaning by this is simply not what we observe in flood conditions. The Mt. St. Helen's argument is extrapolating a uniformity from a catastrophe, and thus is not proper scientific reasoning. It would be confirmation bias to take Mt. St. Helens on the one hand as evidence that rapid deposition happens all the time but to ignore fossils found in limestone that could not have possibly been made by rapid deposition. Additionally, rapid deposition in the manner of Mt. St. Helens is in no way analogous to what would be expected from what would have been the most violent flood in history.

[Guest shiloh357]

The question is what specifically is tied to salvation. When I first came to believe in Jesus as Lord I was skeptical of much of the Bible as a whole, no notion about how to take much of it. While since then my views have changed to taking the entire Bible authoritatively, at the time I believe I was saved. The point is, I could believe the Bible was mistaken about any number of things, yet still sincerely believe Jesus is Lord of everything.

 

I am not sure where this notion comes about that wondering about the factual historicity of one part of the Bible leads to an inevitable domino effect. That doesn't follow either.

 

Yes it does follow.   If the Bible doesn't get it right in Genesis, everything else is suspect.  The Bible define's sins' origin, but you have already stated that you don't have to accept the Bible's authority in that matter to believe in  sin.  

 

Genesis establishes Jesus as our Creator, Redeemer and Judge.   Yet you claim that Genesis is not linked at all with salvation.   The Bible make the link in Romans 5:12-21, but as far as you are concerned, it is expendable and you are unwilling to recognize the Bible's authority to define sin's origins and how it relates directly to Christ's act of redemption on the cross.

 

You have to sever one part of the Bible from the other part in order to hold on to the godless theory of Evolution. 

[HumbleThinker]

 

 

 

 

 

The notion that there isn't much evidence for evolution and that people just believe in it to avoid God or to defend their personal theories is an ill founded one. Yes, people are fallible with biases, no question. However, there really is quite a bit of disparate lines of reasoning and evidence that lead to the evolutionary conclusion.

 

 

But the Evolution camp doesn't claim that there is evidence for Evolution.  They claim that Evolution is proven fact and indisputable.  They claim that to not accept Evolution is to not accept reality. They teach Evolution as proven, indisputable fact, not as simply have evidence.

 

The fact is that the evidence for Evolution is highly questionable and frankly,  the theory came about at a time when science was still pretty primitive.  The evolutionists have had to keep adding years to the age of the earth and universe in order to make room for evolution because of the growing understanding of the complexity of the cell.  The more we learn how complex living things are, the more time is needed  to make evolution more viable.  Had the theory been introduced today instead of the 19th century, it would not have gotten off the ground.   Evolution has been a theory long assumed true and evidence is being filtered through the assumption of evolution being true.  It is the assumption that is driving how people interpret the evidence.  Which has the cart before the horse.

 

The evidence for evolution is sparse. They need to produce far, far more evidence than they have produced so far.  Besides whales with four legs transisitioning into sea creatures isn't the right direction if one is trying to make a case for evolution.   Whales evolving into creatures that can walk on two legs would be correct direction.

 

Evolution is actually the most well supported theory in the history of science, not to mention the last 150 years that it has evolved, pun intended, since Darwin published Origin of Species.

It is not well supported at all.  It is neither intuitively observed nor is it empirically proven.  

 

So is that an invitation to discuss the evidence? Whether you accept it or not or believe that it is convincing, it is dishonest to say that there is no evidence or that it is not observed. Or perhaps it would be more appropriate at this phase to say that it would be dishonest to say that scientists do not provide myriad amounts of evidence that evolution occurs via the mechanisms proposed. "Proven" is a meaningless word here as science does not deal in proof because science doesn't deal in 100% certainty. 

 

Evolution is taught as proven fact in schools all over America.    The only "Evolution" that is observed is mirco-evolution and that is not sufficient enough to make a case for millions or billions of years of macro-evolution.  To say that Evolution on a macro level is not taught as proven fact is to either be completely out of touch with reality, or to be dishonest about reality.

 

Nothing is observed in the present, so this is not a meaningful argument against evolution. Also, direct observation is not necessary in science, so this again is not a meaningful argument against evolution. We have never directly observed the core of the earth, but we can safely claim what it is composed of. The sun's light takes ~5 minutes to get here, but we presume that it is from this star at the center of our solar system 1AU away from us. Police rarely witness murders, but evidence can be gathered at the scene to assist in determining aspects of the murder. We don't witness star formation, but have snap shots of various data from stars billions of light years away from their starlight.

 

It is good that you accept that microevolution occurs, but given that all macroevolution is is evolution at or above the species level, the onus is on those who claim that there is a genetic barrier between micro and macro evolution, despite the fact that we have directly observed speciation events. 

[HumbleThinker]

 

 

The Bible agrees with Shiloh here, you cannot be a Christian and say God used or did evolution. The two are 100% incompatible, because God already said in Genesis 1 and 2 that He didn't use any evolution at all, but rather that everything was good (and death and sickness and disease are not good, and you need these 3 to have evolution before Adam).

 

Where in the Bible does it mention evolution? And in anticipation of your next question, where does the Bible say that being in 100% agreement with the Bible (ignoring that there are multiple readings because that is a different topic altogether) is a requirement of being a Christian?

 

 

The BIble doesn't mention Evolution, obviously.   However, most atheists agree that a plain reading of the Bible precludes any unity or peaceful co-existence between Evolution and Genesis 1

 

As for your next question,  the issue is the BIble's authority.  If the Bible got it wrong in Genesis 1, where else did it get things wrong?   A lot of "Christians" have a selective approach to the Bible where they subjectively choose which parts they accept and which parts they reject.   The Bible becomes servant to reader and to what the reader is inclined to accept.

 

The Bible is not a smorgasboard from which you can pick and choose according to your taste.  If the Bible can't be trusted in Genesis 1, what makes anyone think it can be trusted in John 3:16?   If the Bible got it wrong about the origin of man, what's to stop us from questioning how the Bible defines sin or issues concerning salvation?

 

Genesis 1 is not one of those peripheral issues in Christian theology.  Genesis is the seed bed for everything else the Bible has to say and if we can't trust the Bible in its most fundamental claim about man and God, then there is no reason to trust it when it comes to anything related to salvation.

 

So you agree with me that nowhere in the Bible does it state that one has to be in 100% agreement with the Bible to be a Christian? Because that is the only source for what it means to be and not be a Christian. All else is the musings of man. My faith is not an intellectual exercise, so I can tell you from first-hand experience that accepting evolution has not gotten in the way of my relationship with God. That matters to me infinitely more than dogma and is much more telling of what is and isn't possible in such a personal matter as faith.

Edited December 6, 2013 by HumbleThinker

[alphaparticle]

 

The question is what specifically is tied to salvation. When I first came to believe in Jesus as Lord I was skeptical of much of the Bible as a whole, no notion about how to take much of it. While since then my views have changed to taking the entire Bible authoritatively, at the time I believe I was saved. The point is, I could believe the Bible was mistaken about any number of things, yet still sincerely believe Jesus is Lord of everything.

 

I am not sure where this notion comes about that wondering about the factual historicity of one part of the Bible leads to an inevitable domino effect. That doesn't follow either.

 

Yes it does follow.   If the Bible doesn't get it right in Genesis, everything else is suspect.  The Bible define's sins' origin, but you have already stated that you don't have to accept the Bible's authority in that matter to believe in  sin.  

 

Genesis establishes Jesus as our Creator, Redeemer and Judge.   Yet you claim that Genesis is not linked at all with salvation.   The Bible make the link in Romans 5:12-21, but as far as you are concerned, it is expendable and you are unwilling to recognize the Bible's authority to define sin's origins and how it relates directly to Christ's act of redemption on the cross.

 

You have to sever one part of the Bible from the other part in order to hold on to the godless theory of Evolution. 

 

My claim is that the overt belief in the historical factualness of all the happenings in Genesis is not a *necessary condition* of salvation. You don't seem to even disagree with this necessarily but I am trying to get a clear claim from you on this matter.

[gray wolf]

 

The problem with teaching creation alongside evolution is that creationism doesn't really qualify as science. It is a theological exercise and there's nothing wrong with that. We can infer design in one sense, but we don't really have scientific evidence for creation, nor a workable hypothesis. As I've pointed out before, it is fine to believe in God, but when unexplained phenomena is discovered, we cannot say that God did it (God of the Gaps approach).

That presumes that all creationists have to put on the table is, "God did it." There is such oversimplification of the creationist view that views it as nothing but a religious view.

Creation scientists hold Ph.D.s in physcics, molecular biology, chemistry, geology, marine biology, astronomy, astro-physics, etc. Creationists deal with actual science and they view science through prism of an intelligent Creator.

And there's nothing wrong with that when they are engaged in science. I refer back to my mention of nonoverlapping magisteria.

You can believe in the truth taught be Genesis and still embrace modern science.  Genesis teaches us wonderful stories with profound meanings.  Just because a believer has questions about ancient Hebrew cosmology does not mean she rejects entirely the whole narrative.

Edited December 6, 2013 by gray wolf

[Guest shiloh357]

So you agree with me that nowhere in the Bible does it state that one has to be in 100% agreement with the Bible to be a Christian? Because that is the only source for what it means to be and not be a Christian.

No, you don't have to be in 100% agreement with the Bible to be a religionist.  There is a difference between a religionist who assents to selective parts of the Bible and a Christian who believes God and has put his entire faith in the integrity and authority of God's word. 

 

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

2Ti 3:16-17

 

That is nonnegotiable.   All Scripture, even Genesis 1 is inspired by God.  You don't get the option to be in disagreement with any part of it.  All of it is for doctrine and insruction and that includes Genesis 1.   The Bible is the source document for the Christian faith and none of it is expendable and all of it is authoritative and the fact that you can live in rebellion and disregard certain parts, casts a dark shadow over your profession of faith.

 

All else is the musings of man. My faith is not an intellectual exercise, so I can tell you from first-hand experience that accepting evolution has not gotten in the way of my relationship with God.

 

Probably because you don't have one.   You might have religion, but there is nothing in what you have said that reflects a living dynamic faith or relationship with God.  When someone who claims to be a Christian can embrace a theory that atheists like Richard Dawkins espouses as the number one enabler for atheism and which makes for a more fulfilled atheist, there is a problem.   

 

Evolution is a modern form of idolatry and has no place in the life of a genuine follower of Christ.

[alphaparticle]

 

So you agree with me that nowhere in the Bible does it state that one has to be in 100% agreement with the Bible to be a Christian? Because that is the only source for what it means to be and not be a Christian.

No, you don't have to be in 100% agreement with the Bible to be a religionist.  There is a difference between a religionist who assents to selective parts of the Bible and a Christian who believes God and has put his entire faith in the integrity and authority of God's word. 

 

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

2Ti 3:16-17

 

That is nonnegotiable.   All Scripture, even Genesis 1 is inspired by God.  You don't get the option to be in disagreement with any part of it.  All of it is for doctrine and insruction and that includes Genesis 1.   The Bible is the source document for the Christian faith and none of it is expendable and all of it is authoritative and the fact that you can live in rebellion and disregard certain parts, casts a dark shadow over your profession of faith.

 

All else is the musings of man. My faith is not an intellectual exercise, so I can tell you from first-hand experience that accepting evolution has not gotten in the way of my relationship with God.

 

Probably because you don't have one.   You might have religion, but there is nothing in what you have said that reflects a living dynamic faith or relationship with God.  When someone who claims to be a Christian can embrace a theory that atheists like Richard Dawkins espouses as the number one enabler for atheism and which makes for a more fulfilled atheist, there is a problem.   

 

Evolution is a modern form of idolatry and has no place in the life of a genuine follower of Christ.

 

 

Let's grant that you are correct about this. The only true and serious way to look at all of this is the way that you claim, that is, to take the Genesis creation account as a historical, factual, sort of account of creation.

 

Still, what do you do with this original verse?

 

rom 10:9-11 if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.”

 

There seems to be several steps between what Paul is talking about here, and deciding that the Genesis creation account can *only* be taken seriously if you take it as a historical, factual account of events. If you are right, then when do you expect that someone who fulfills the requirements of the above verse comes to see that? Immediately? Within 2 months? Within 2 years? Varies? What I am trying to draw from you is what you think is a *necessary condition* of salvation, vs what will result from that in the process of sanctification.