God used Evolution to 'create' man

[one.opinion]

1 hour ago, Prodigal Son said:

If there are Christians that believe the theory of evolution

There are quite a few of us.

1 hour ago, Prodigal Son said:

I would refer you to the works of scientists Stephen Meyers and David Berleski.

To be accurate, neither Meyer nor Berlinski are scientists. They are both highly intelligent and make good arguments at the surface level, but their arguments tend to be less impressive the more you compare what they say with scientific evidence.

[The Barbarian]

4 hours ago, Prodigal Son said:

What do u guys call yourselves anyway? A quick search doesn't bring up your sect. Im curious to hear or read a cohesive story that fits both scripture and ToE. If there is anyone credible that has these beliefs please refer me to them

Roman Catholics are slightly more than half of all Christians in the world.    The Catholic Church recognizes that scripture is consistent with evolution.   The next largest group of Christians are Eastern Orthodox; they also acknowledge that evolution and scripture are compatible.   Among Protestants, Anglicans also acknowledge this, as do most Lutheran groups. 

And many evangelical groups, such as Southern Baptists, do not have doctrinal statements denying the fact of evolution.  

Since over 1500 years ago, Christians realized that the creation story is not a literal history, it's been this way for a long time.    If you don't approve of the way God created life's diversity, maybe it's time you did.

 

 

  

[The Barbarian]

2 hours ago, Prodigal Son said:

Ok so u millenials

Boy did you get a wrong number...

2 hours ago, Prodigal Son said:

Don't just throw a bunch of claims at me, lol, i know nothing about yas apart from the indoctrination by the atheists, Darwin is your prophet and his book is your new testament 

As you said, you know nothing about me.   So far, you've been 100% wrong.

2 hours ago, Prodigal Son said:

Im happy to see what u guys believe but u have to give me reference. I'd refer anyone to Stephen Meyers to explain things. Who is your best advocate? Send me to someone who can give me your account of Genesis

St. Augustine of Hippo.   Learn about the Christian understanding here:

https://books.google.com/books/about/Genesi_Ad_Litteram.html?id=_s0kIgD0nCcC

 

It's not what you've been told.   Read and learn what we believe as Christians.

[one.opinion]

10 hours ago, Prodigal Son said:

Do u believe in the bible or ToE?

There is no reason a person can't believe both. This is what Billy Graham had to say on the issue:

Quote

“I don’t think that there’s any conflict at all between science today and the Scriptures. I think we have misinterpreted the Scriptures many times and we’ve tried to make the Scriptures say things that they weren’t meant to say, and I think we have made a mistake by thinking the Bible is a scientific book. The Bible is not a book of science. The Bible is a book of Redemption, and of course, I accept the Creation story. I believe that God created man, and whether it came by an evolutionary process and at a certain point He took this person or being and made him a living soul or not, does not change the fact that God did create man … whichever way God did it makes no difference as to what man is and man’s relationship to God.”

 

10 hours ago, Prodigal Son said:

From the mental gymnastics required in that post im afraid to ask a question like were does it say humans were apes in the bible?

Do you assume the entirety of scientific knowledge should be gained from the Bible? The Bible doesn't mention bacteria or viruses, either. Does it require mental gymnastics to believe they exist?

In a biological sense, there is very little that separates humans from apes. I believe it is entirely reasonable to say that what separates us from primates (and what allows us to be the "image of God") are non-physical factors, such as a soul and spirit.

11 hours ago, Prodigal Son said:

But some kids were bought up in God and/or still feel God so the poor souls hunt for ways to justify ToE with scripture committing a multitude of heresy's. It's sad, the insidious disassembly of Christianity.

Allow me to relate my own personal story. I was raised as a young earth creationist (YEC) that was fed a large heaping of the dogma associated with that belief system. I was raised well enough to love and respect brothers and sisters in Christ, regardless of what crazy ideas (like evolution) they had, but I always felt sorry for those Christians that accepted evolution because they had obviously become brainwashed. When I went to college, I studied Biology and Chemistry and began to learn many little bits and pieces of evidence that I had never known existed. I also became exposed to rather profound errors in YEC thinking. For example, I was taught that evolution was clearly refuted by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Since entropy was always increasing, it would be impossible for life forms to become more organized and evolve. Chemistry taught me that the Second Law holds true for closed systems, which obviously living organisms are not. A constant input of energy is require to maintain living complexity. Although it should have been right in front of my face, complexity increases for any multicellular organism during early development. A single-celled zygote develops into a human with trillions of cells, clearly showing that energy input within an organism can allow increases in complexity as long as that energy input continues. I went on to earn a PhD in Biology and although I studied Virology rather than Evolutionary Biology, I learned more and more that supported the theory of evolution. I've now been a Biology professor for over 20 years and although people like Meyer and Berlinksi have very good questions about biology, I haven't yet seen anything that throws the theory into any sort of doubt.

Bottom line - I was taught many things that were not true and was not taught many things that were true. I was not hunting for ways to see the Bible differently, but I sure stumbled into them. Luckily, my faith was never shaken by such discoveries, but has continued to deepen even after my acceptance of the evidence for evolution.

 

11 hours ago, Prodigal Son said:

As for Stephen Meyer he double majored in geology and physics. Ive seen him win debates against ToE advocates. Makes em look silly.

Stephen Meyer earned an advanced degree in the Philosophy of Science. He certainly knows quite a bit about science, but he is not a scientist. He is also a gifted speaker, and does debate well. When the next critical scientific discovery hinges on a good debate, I would suggest that he take the lead.

5 hours ago, Prodigal Son said:

Ok so u millenials are known as theist evolutionists I've learnt.

I'm not sure this claim is factual or relevant.

5 hours ago, Prodigal Son said:

Send me to someone who can give me your account of Genesis

NT Wright and John Walton are Biblical scholars that accept the evidence of evolution. It is against forum rules to post videos, but you can follow these links.

Wright:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZ2qrkE-t00

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BP1PpDyDCw

Walton:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKWVPVp_GZQ

Walton also has some MUCH longer videos if you are intrigued by what he says.

4 hours ago, Prodigal Son said:

Darwin is your prophet and his book is your new testament

No, and no. Both are silly, unsupported assertions.

1 hour ago, Prodigal Son said:

It is inherently anti christian as science looks to explain the supernatural by using only natural explanations.

Not really. Science is limited to natural explanations and is unsuited to address supernatural questions. There are some very vocal scientists like Richard Dawkins that misuses the limitations of science to assume that the supernatural cannot exist. However, when explored properly, science is absolutely not anti-Christian.

1 hour ago, Prodigal Son said:

bunch of hoaxes like the piltdown man

Piltdown man was indeed a hoax, but there are dozens of other fossil finds that support a transition from ancient primate to modern human. It would be just as incorrect to say Christianity is wrong because Benny Hinn and his faith healing is a hoax.

1 hour ago, Prodigal Son said:

Thats my skeptical view of the theioretical field of biology.

I'd be happy to discuss any questions you have regarding the evidence for biological evolution.

[The Barbarian]

2 hours ago, Prodigal Son said:

Thats alot of reading mate cmon now have u got something a little bit briefer. A video maybe. I found people linking ToE to the idea of God but no one actually making biblical parallels. I'll still give that book a skim over.

There's no royal road to Christian theology,either.   Sorry.

1 hour ago, Prodigal Son said:

I myself think the whole of the ToE has a small possibility of being all right. It is inherently anti christian as science looks to explain the supernatural by using only natural explanations.

You've been misled.  Science doesn't and can't explain the supernatural.   It's limited to the natural world.   You might as well accuse plumbers of being "inherently anti christian."

1 hour ago, Prodigal Son said:

Science turned on religion in the late 19th century, pulled a bunch of hoaxes like the piltdown man to get things started.

No one knows who planted the Piltdown hoax, but we do know evolutionary scientists debunked it.   You see, the hoax had evolutionary theory backwards, so Piltdown,until it was debunked, was kind of an embarrassment for scientists.   Which is why it got so much scrutiny.   Interesting story.   Would you like to learn about it?

1 hour ago, Prodigal Son said:

Took religion out of schools and replaced it with evolution propoganda.

You've been misled there, too.   My daughter, for instance, was an officer in the Fellowship of Christian Athletes.    They met and prayed, and studied scripture in school on their own time.   It's legal for kids to do that, so long as the school officials don't get into it.    Government-controlled religion is prohibited, but then as James Madison pointed out, that's bad for religion as much as it's bad for freedom.

If the social/political concerns are of interest to you, perhaps you'd like to read this:

Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments

https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-08-02-0163

 

[omega2xx]

17 hours ago, one.opinion said:

No, you are wrong again. My point is this - when the actual scholars can't agree on a particular point, it is kinda silly for any of us non-scholars to think we know the answer for certain.

One things we can certainly determine is the source for what they say.  Geislelr used a faulty translaltion.  That should rule his opinion out automatically

You will never read me write anything to the effect of "that settles it" when it comes to Biblical passages that the scholars can't agree on. Please read what I've said previously: 

You have certainly implied it in  our discussions of evolution. 

Does that sound like "that settles it" to you?

I didn't feel like going back and checking what you have said. If I said "you are wrong" I gave reasons, based on proven science.

Roughly, yes.

???

Agreed - they do not start with KJV or NASB. That's why your argument about NASB is not relevant.

They based their opinion on the KJ, look at what they said and look at what the KJ says. Then look at what the NASB says. It contradicts the KJ and it is considered one of the most accurate translations available,  That makes it relevant, and makes eh KJ irrelevant.  Do you really think you can find the truth using a faulty translation?

I never told you that you were wrong. Once again, you are missing the entire point. Read above in this post.

You are telling me I am wrong now.

Two reasons:

1. Because the NASB is a translation, not the inspired Word of God.

It is an accurate translation.  How do you know it is not  inspired by God?  God says all Scripture is inspired by Him.  All good translation are Scripture, thus they are inspired by God, and you can;'t show me one error in any good translation.  Are you suggesting God has Left man without a resource to find the truth?

2. Not even the NASB can be used to verify that the days of Genesis are 24 hour periods.

Yes it can, Gen 1:5 makes it 1 Day. 

Can it be used to support a position of 144-hour creation? Certainly. Is it proof? Certainly not.

It certainly can if you can understand how the language is used.   Day, singular that gives the length of a yom as 1 day is used approximately 1400 times.  Yom plural, is used approximately 750 times and in those times it still specifies the number of days.

Gen 5:5 - So all the yoms that Adam lived wer930 years and he died.

2 Chron 10:5 - Return to me again in 3 yoms.

Yes, but scripture does not include translations.

You don't know that , and if  the translation is accurate, it is Scripture.

Translators are qualified, but do not work by divine inspiration as the original authors did.

You don't know that either.  Since they are qualified, they can give an accurate translation and that makes it approved by God. Do you really believe has not left man without a ways to find the truth.  According to you we can't rely on God's word to know the truth. 

Yes, some agree with you and some don't. When did I ever say I was unwilling to use the most accurate translation?

When you keep trying to defend yom not referring to  a 24 hour day.  When you ignore the definite articles associated with yom in the good translations.

What qualifies you to determine what the most accurate translation is?

I didn't determine it.  I relied on experts.   When I was a new Christian, I googled "most accurate Bible translation."  The NASB was one on the list.  It was either first or second.

>\What if the most accurate translation is still using figurative language?

If you understood the Bible , you would understand figurative language teaches us spiritual truth. It also says the story of Sarah and Hagar is an allegory(Gal 4:24).   That tells us that allegories are based on literal events. Paraables are figurative and certainly you will agree that was one way Jesus taught.

Jn 16:25 - These things I have spoken to you in FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE,; an hour is coming when I will speak no more in figurative language, but will tell you plainly of the Father.

Let me give you my favorite  use of figurative language and the spiritual beauty of what it teaches,

2 Cor 8:9 - For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sake He became poor, that you through His poverty might become rich.

Do you really think that is not inspired by God?

Of course you can say I am wrong if you like, but that proves nothing. I can say you are wrong about science (and I have shown you many ways you are) - do you accept that as proof?

NO"  You have not proved even one thing you say about evolution. You have not proved mutations and time can change  species.  You have not  proved natural selection.  You certainly have not prove whale evolution and you have not proved what the first life form was and how it acquired all of the necessary genes to account for the variety of traits of millions of species we have today, and you have  not  proved common descent. All basic doctrines necessary for evolution o be true.

Love, peace, joy

 

 

 

 

Quote

 

 

Edited December 12, 2019 by omega2xx

[one.opinion]

1 minute ago, omega2xx said:

Geislelr used a faulty translaltion.

I still have a hard time understanding why you think Geisler (and other Biblical scholars) used an English translation for his work. He didn't. He used manuscripts with ancient language.

[omega2xx]

1 hour ago, one.opinion said:

I still have a hard time understanding why you think Geisler (and other Biblical scholars) used an English translation for his work. He didn't. He used manuscripts with ancient language.

I have not said he  or the others  used  an English translation for their work,.  Geisler did not translate a Bible, he interpreted it. Our discussion has been about his interpretation coming from the KJ.   He says yom in Genesis 1 does not have definite articles.  More accurate  translations say they do, and I  have give you an example.

Love, peace, joy

[one.opinion]

9 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

Our discussion has been about his interpretation coming from the KJ.

No, I am quite certain that his interpretation of Genesis 1-3 came from Ancient Hebrew sources, not KJV.

[omega2xx]

38 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

No, I am quite certain that his interpretation of Genesis 1-3 came from Ancient Hebrew sources, not KJV.

All I know is thdt his comments came from the KJ.