A True Christian Can Not Believe in Evolution !

reply to post by mydarkpassenger

How do you know that evolution isn't the exact tool that God set in motion?

Apparently Yawhe / jesus is inerrant.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


I consider myself a "true christian" and I believe that the physical body which is born, grows, and dies,Does indeed evolve. The physical body evolves and goes though many changes.Male and female today look very different from humans tens of thousands of years ago. Science has confirmed this. However, we are speaking ONLY of physical appearance.This only makes up half of what humans consist of. The other half (and the most important) would be the human spirit, Which is always itself .Never evolving. We were indeed created in the image of God, and in his likeness we are spirit.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul



We have clashed minds in other forums, which is the appropriate area for those debates.
But you and others choose to ignore the clear ATS rules re-posted by another.
In this forum, as per the ATS rules I do not have to put up with that rhetoric.
Here are the ATS rules for this forum as stated, you won't miss it this time.

"ALL MEMBERS READ - Moving Past Religion 101 and Staying on Topic"

Some of the topics in this forum will most certainly deal with the existence of God. Does God really exist? While this is a worthwhile topic many members wish to move past this introductory theme, past Religion 101, and would like to dive into deeper topic of religion and faith. Are Christians required to keep all of the 10 Commandments including the Sabbath day? Are the teachings of Mohammed peaceful, a beneficial for people today? Do Mormons really believe in polygamy? Do all Buddhist monks have flashbacks before battle? We can't begin to truly discuss these topics if we're constantly arguing about if God is real or not. If you have questions that deal with the existence of God or want to ask if Mohammed actually was a real person or a myth, then please start a new discussion with a meaningful, appropriate title and you may then dominate a new discussion with this theme in mind. Please do not interject into deeper religious topics the question of the reality of a higher being. Unless stated in the topic, we are assuming that in this forum that we've moved on past that point. Imagine discussing algebra while someone keeps interjecting that they still don’t believe in addition. The very reason that classes such as these have prerequisites is so new ground can be covered in the subject.

Now as for your point about the context of the scripture, yes the context is a discussion with the pharisees on divorce, very true, but the Pharisees never believed in evolution did they? It wasn't even an issue. So why did Jesus even make that statement? The point is really for the modern day believer, and a confirmation of Jesus own personal knowledge of an event he was around to witness and participate in. Very simple really, actually the context in this scripture helps to make my point, thanks for bringing that out for everybody.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


I'm sorry, but where did I make any claims about the veracity of any deity? I simply stated the truth. Evolution is proven scientific fact, there is no injunction on 'True Christians' from accepting proven scientific fact, therefore a 'True Christian' can accept it.

There's no need for that reference, as I wasn't interjecting anything outside the context of this thread. Unless you can point to it.

Now, the point is that Jesus was making a reference to sexual compatibility, that's why he referenced the man and woman thing. And why didn't you acknowledge Jesus not getting science right? I mean, I made a point that Jesus shouldn't be accepted as a scientific authority, when that's what you're trying to say. He also says the disease and disability are caused by sin rather than microbes and ...well, disability is caused by a lot of things, but none of them are sin.

I made a three pronged attacked, you simply brought up the "Moving Past Religion 101" topic, which doesn't apply to my statements. You addressed a single prong, namely that you're quote mining. I could make Jesus sound awfully silly if I used your tactics, but that would be dishonest. What about Jesus' lack of reliability in scientific terms and the fact that evolution is observed scientific fact? A "True Christian" sure can accept heliocentrism, which contradicts statements made by Jesus.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Wow, you show plants changing into...PLANTS. And flies changing into...FLIES, et cetra, et cetra.

That's exactly what my Bible says, that kinds give birth to others in their kind. No Creationist denies this happens. All Creationists believe in this example of 'Evolution". An example of the "Evolution" we reject is the dinosaurs to birds.

My point that your argument is a fallacy of equivocation remains. You're conflating two different types of Evolution and blurring the distinction between. Not a single Creationist on the earth denies variations occur within the kinds.

When evolutionary scientists claim that evolution is a fact, they are relying upon a fallacy known as “bait and switch” (define a term one way, but use it in a completely different way later). Often the claim is that since one can observe natural selection, then descent from a common ancestor must also be true. However, this presupposes that the current processes we observe could cause the origin of completely novel structures (e.g., giving rise to lungs or complex brains). Such a claim is contrary to information theory and the laws of nature.

Evolution VS Evolution

Any real evolution (macroevolution) requires an expansion of the gene pool, the addition of new genes and new traits as life is supposed to move from simple beginnings to ever more varied and complex forms (“molecules to man” or “fish to philosopher”). Suppose there are islands where varieties of flies that used to trade genes no longer interbreed. Is this evidence of evolution? No, exactly the opposite. Each variety resulting from reproductive isolation has a smaller gene pool than the original and a restricted ability to explore new environments with new trait combinations or to meet changes in its own environment. The long-term result? Extinction would be much more likely than evolution.

Of course, if someone insists on defining evolution as “a change in gene frequency,” then the fly example “proves evolution”—but it also “proves creation,” since varying the amounts of already-existing genes is what creation is all about (Fig. 22).

"Species" and "kind"

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

Yeah and accordingly Jesus was in effect acknowledging the first marriage of the first two created people on this earth. You keep unwittingly reinforcing my points. I love it, keep it up, this is awesome.

You know Madness you really don't understand the bible at all, your posts time after time show this. You claim to have understanding of the bible, but really you don't, and why should you, it's a fairy tale to you. All your posts show me is you have basic knowledge of scripture. Here is why you can't understand the bible, scripture actually tells us both why.

John 4:24

God is a Spirit (a spiritual Being) and those who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth (reality).

A hardcore atheist will NEVER EVER get the spirit, thus the path to truth and reality is blocked, it is a hopeless exercise of futility on their behalf, to even try.

John 17:3

And this is eternal life: [it means] to know (to perceive, recognize, become acquainted with, and understand) You, the only true and real God, and [likewise] to know Him, Jesus [as the] Christ (the Anointed One, the Messiah), Whom You have sent.

However any atheist, can change(repent), and then receive the spirit, God won't hold it against you.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

Wow, you show plants changing into...PLANTS. And flies changing into...FLIES, et cetra, et cetra.

That's species wide change! You just said species wide change after demonstrating a lack of understanding in what a species is. There are 145 extant families of fly. Not species, not genus, but family.

Were we to observe plants changing into animals within a generation, it would actually disprove evolution. In fact, there's a fairly decent rule of thumb. Take an example of what creationists like Kent Hovind or Ray Comfort say about what evolution claims, then use that as something that would actually disprove evolution, rather than prove it.

That's exactly what my Bible says, that kinds give birth to others in their kind.

If I've asked this of a creationist once, I've asked it a million times: Define your terms! What is a 'kind'?

I'm only asking to prevent the sort of goalpost pushing that's going on here. Speciation is speciation. It is a prediction of evolution.

No Creationist denies this happens. All Creationists believe in this example of 'Evolution". An example of the "Evolution" we reject is the dinosaurs to birds.

Even though we have a number of transitional forms between them? Even though there is no example of a modern bird living alongside a dinosaur in the fossil record? Even though they have insanely similar morphologies?

My point that your argument is a fallacy of equivocation remains.

No, my point that you're fairly ignorant of taxonomy and what evolution means actually remains.

You're conflating two different types of Evolution and blurring the distinction between.

No, there's only one type of evolution, biological evolution. Allele frequency changes over generation caused by random mutations regulated by natural and sexual selection.

Not a single Creationist on the earth denies variations occur within the kinds.

And not a creationist on Earth seems to know what the word 'kind' actually means.

When evolutionary scientists claim that evolution is a fact, they are relying upon a fallacy known as “bait and switch” (define a term one way, but use it in a completely different way later). Often the claim is that since one can observe natural selection, then descent from a common ancestor must also be true. However, this presupposes that the current processes we observe could cause the origin of completely novel structures (e.g., giving rise to lungs or complex brains). Such a claim is contrary to information theory and the laws of nature.

Evolution VS Evolution

Straw man, we don't actually say that the proof is in modern speciation, it's in genetics and the fossil record.

Any real evolution (macroevolution) requires an expansion of the gene pool, the addition of new genes and new traits as life is supposed to move from simple beginnings to ever more varied and complex forms (“molecules to man” or “fish to philosopher”). Suppose there are islands where varieties of flies that used to trade genes no longer interbreed. Is this evidence of evolution? No, exactly the opposite. Each variety resulting from reproductive isolation has a smaller gene pool than the original and a restricted ability to explore new environments with new trait combinations or to meet changes in its own environment. The long-term result? Extinction would be much more likely than evolution.

...this is stupid. Evolution has nothing to do with molecules forming life, that's abiogenesis. Of course, there's also the fact that this relies on another problem, that is that new genes are added as are new traits. In fact, this article you're citing doesn't take into account that selective pressures more highly favor novel mutations due to sexual pressures and reproductive isolation. Now, this can be to the detriment of the species, limiting its field of influence.

Oh, and if you think mutation doesn't add new data, how is it that you and I both have 180ish piece of information in our DNA that weren't present in our parents?

Of course, if someone insists on defining evolution as “a change in gene frequency,” then the fly example “proves evolution”—but it also “proves creation,” since varying the amounts of already-existing genes is what creation is all about (Fig. 22).

This is yet another straw man. It's not change in gene frequency, for one thing, it's allele frequency. Secondly, there are new genes. If a bacteria develops a mutation that allows it to eat nylon, this doesn't make it a variation in already existing genes, it makes it a new gene.

If I had the time, which I don't as it is NYE and I'm only posting because I have to take a ...biological break to be polite, I could actually dig up genetic additions occurring all over the place.

"Species" and "kind"

I'm sorry, but this source keeps talking about 'kind' yet it doesn't seem to define what this term means. It merely makes a non-specific appeal to interbreeding, brings up bower birds (which are 20 species over 8 genera, the ones within the genera should be able to interbreed with restricted fertility, like horses and donkeys), but doesn't give a specific criteria. It just makes a random statement about interbreeding.

So please, creationists, define your terms.

edit on 30-12-2010 by NOTurTypical because: Sorry, my typing genes are not as evolved as other humans to date.

Actually, typing is an acquired trait, though I'm guessing digit dexterity has at least a level of genetic propensity.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

Yeah and accordingly Jesus was in effect acknowledging the first marriage of the first two created people on this earth. You keep unwittingly reinforcing my points. I love it, keep it up, this is awesome.

Or...maybe...he was speaking in allegory and metaphor, something that anyone familiar with the Gospels of the Bible would find common of Jesus. At least that's how Matthew, Mark. Luke, and John work.

You know Madness you really don't understand the bible at all, your posts time after time show this.

Not this crap again.

You claim to have understanding of the bible, but really you don't, and why should you, it's a fairy tale to you.

Well, I also claim to have a quite good understanding of fairy tales. But the word you're looking for is mythology, another thing I'm quite passionate about actually. However, you've yet to actually demonstrate that I don't understand the Bible, though you have pointed out that you disagree with me (for no apparent reason).

All your posts show me is you have basic knowledge of scripture. Here is why you can't understand the bible, scripture actually tells us both why.

I already knew which passages you were going to bring up before I scrolled down to read them.

John 4:24

God is a Spirit (a spiritual Being) and those who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth (reality).

I'm quite sure those parentheses weren't in the version of the Bible you're quoting. Jesus is at the well addressing a woman. He's talking about proper worship, not about the nature of reality. He's saying you must worship God truthfully, without deception and that it isn't required to worship him in a temple.

A hardcore atheist will NEVER EVER get the spirit, thus the path to truth and reality is blocked, it is a hopeless exercise of futility on their behalf, to even try.

Wow, this is quite possibly the most ridiculous thing I've heard about atheists. We don't understand truth and reality? I'm sorry, tell that to the majority of Nobel prize winners, scientists, and Professors. And, last time I checked, I seem to know the Bible a bit better than you. You seem to quote things out of context, changing their meaning to fit your needs. You're also not addressing that Jesus was wrong about mustard seeds, our Moon, stars, and the causes disease and disability.

John 17:3

And this is eternal life: [it means] to know (to perceive, recognize, become acquainted with, and understand) You, the only true and real God, and [likewise] to know Him, Jesus [as the] Christ (the Anointed One, the Messiah), Whom You have sent.

However any atheist, can change(repent), and then receive the spirit, God won't hold it against you.

Isn't proselytizing a bit off topic?

I mean, you just basically told me that I cannot be right because I'm not of your religion, were sort of rude about it, and then tried to convert me. Newsflash, that bit about only those initiated into your own religion properly having access to truth and reality? That's a claim of many religions.

And you didn't address my questions, you just simply said I'm wrong because I'm an atheist, which is more of an attack than anything else. Why do you not address my point that evolution is confirmed science and that Christians have no prohibition on accepting confirmed science and that Jesus is often wrong on scientific matters.

I mean, you just addressed me on topicality and then did something insanely off topic.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

I'm quite sure those parentheses weren't in the version of the Bible you're quoting.

Yes they were, I use multiple online bibles to make my points, in this instance it is the Amplified Bible
Link
www.biblegateway.com...

Anyways trying to discuss specific bible points with you is hopeless with your mindset, firstly you don't believe it, secondly every point that is made is twisted to a invalid interpretation because you don't believe it anyways.
Twisted to a position that favors an atheistic perspective.
It is the perfect way to undermine the word of God and a persons faith in it.
I will give you this, you are quite the expert at doing it.

For this reason I will continue to ignore parts of your posts, it's a waste of keystrokes for me at this point - especially within this forum as has been repeated.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

I simply stated the truth. Evolution is proven scientific fact, there is no injunction on 'True Christians' from accepting proven scientific fact, therefore a 'True Christian' can accept it.

Im gonna have to agree with you here madness, and since its now two against one, I guess that Blue Jay is not a "true Christian"

reply to post by oliveoil


Oliveoil

Since you are a christian I am curious how you interpret the words of Jesus as quoted in the OP ?

reply to post by oliveoil


Indeed. In fact, I would have made the exact same arguments against him when I was a Christian myself, as this issue had come up between myself and a friend of mine who was a creationist (and who now understands that science is science regardless of religion). [sarcasm]Unfortunately, I'm an atheist, I can't understand the Bible.[/sarcasm]

reply to post by Blue_Jay33

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

I'm quite sure those parentheses weren't in the version of the Bible you're quoting.

Yes they were, I use multiple online bibles to make my points, in this instance it is the Amplified Bible
Link
www.biblegateway.com...

My apologies. I looked at many, many English translations and couldn't find that version. I even tried Googling the passage as presented. In the future, it would be useful if you cited the version you're using. It's actually why I stick to KJV, it's distinctive from the language it uses and I'm always using the same version.

Anyway, truly sorry, I was wrong about that.

Anyways trying to discuss specific bible points with you is hopeless with your mindset, firstly you don't believe it,

I don't believe Shakespeare's stories are true either, it didn't make my essay for my "Shakespeare Into Film" exam invalid. I don't believe Star Wars either, it doesn't stop me from discussing, at unfortunate and sometimes pathetic length, the nature of "the Force". I don't believe the stories of Greek, Egyptian, Norse, and other mythologies, yet you wouldn't hold my interpretations of those stories as less valid because of that.

So if my positions on fiction and mythology are valid, why is it invalid for me to speak about your religious text because I don't believe in it?

Furthermore, this would also invalidate your claims to knowing your religion is true. How are you sure Islam is untrue if you cannot understand the Qu'ran because you don't believe it (and probably haven't read it, like most individuals in the west)?

secondly every point that is made is twisted to a invalid interpretation because you don't believe it anyways.

How is it invalid? I keep asking you this. If my interpretation is invalid, demonstrate it to me. I've repeatedly done this with Christians, specifically you. I took apart Genesis in both English and Hebrew for you to see that you were wrong in saying that Genesis didn't say that the Sun and Moon came into existence after plants, but my interpretation was rendered invalid simply because I'm an atheist. You also don't seem to realize that I stopped believing in the Bible when I started reading it as a Christian seeking to know Jesus better.

Twisted to a position that favors an atheistic perspective.

No, it favors a perspective that allows Christian theists to accept the acknowledged scientific reality of evolution, as all sciences are open to people of all faiths and to those of no faith equally. You don't have to reject a heliocentric model of the solar system because the Bible clearly says the sun goes around the Earth, do you?

I'm not even writing this from an atheist perspective, as I'd have written things more or less the exact same way back when I was a Christian myself. I wouldn't have been as good at making my point because I was about 6-7 years younger than I am now and have learned a great deal about expressing myself, but the whole point is that Christians can accept evolution.

It is the perfect way to undermine the word of God and a persons faith in it.

This isn't about believing in a deity. If you really think that your Bible must be 100% accurate from a literal standpoint for your deity to exist, than you have a far inferior deity to those Christians who accept science. Say God used evolution, say God directed it, etc. But at least acknowledged that the science happened.

I keep telling people that two of my favorite scientists are theists. One is a Pentecostal preacher and Paleontologist, Robert T Bakker. The other is a devout Roman Catholic and Biologist, Kenneth Miller.

Hell, two of my favorite people in the world are theists who accept evolution. One is a devout Calvinist, the other almost went into the Catholic priesthood.

The book you consider the 'word of God' is so much more vibrant when you look at it metaphorically. I don't even think it's the worst book ever or anything like that.

I will give you this, you are quite the expert at doing it.

Because I seem to know the Bible better than you do. I mean, I clearly demonstrate a better understanding of context and general Biblical facts.

For this reason I will continue to ignore parts of your posts, it's a waste of keystrokes for me at this point - especially within this forum as has been repeated.

Because you don't have counter-points. If my points were so clearly invalid, you could demonstrate them to be so! The truth is, and anyone who really looks at the Bible and has a proper highschool understanding of science will tell you this, that Jesus is not a source of information on scientific issues. In general, the Bible is not. It may get arbitrary things correct, but there are many places in which the Bible contradicts many, many things the scientific community at large has discovered.

But again, I'll rephrase and repeat this:

If I'm so wrong, show me. If not for the sake of a discussion with me, for the sake of all those who might be led astray by the passages which I have "twisted to a[sic] invalid interpretation".

reply to post by Blue_Jay33

Since you are a christian I am curious how you interpret the words of Jesus as quoted in the OP ?

well lets see, you said, or the Bible says,

Matthew 19:4

"Haven't you read the Scriptures?" Jesus replied. "They record that from the beginning 'God made them male and female.'


Mark 10:6

But ‘God made them male and female’ from the beginning of creation

I dont remember Jesus saying anything on how a "Male and Female" were supposed to look or looked from the beginning.

Maybe I missed something.

Originally posted by oliveoil
reply to post by Blue_Jay33

 

Since you are a christian I am curious how you interpret the words of Jesus as quoted in the OP ?

well lets see, you said, or the Bible says,

Matthew 19:4

"Haven't you read the Scriptures?" Jesus replied. "They record that from the beginning 'God made them male and female.'


Mark 10:6

But ‘God made them male and female’ from the beginning of creation

I dont remember Jesus saying anything on how a "Male and Female" were supposed to look or looked from the beginning.

Maybe I missed something.

Yes you did, because the part of the OT that Jesus is quoting from is the book of Genesis, which refers to the first male and female as Adam & Eve. Not two blobs of cells in the ocean, that would take millions of years to change into a pair of humans.

My personal opinion...there's no reason God doesn't work through science. He probably controls everything down to the atomic level and beyond if he so wishes.

Originally posted by dialecticchaos77
My personal opinion...there's no reason God doesn't work through science. He probably controls everything down to the atomic level and beyond if he so wishes.

Hebrews 1:1-3


“God who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person,
and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high.”

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Thank you for that scripture, another version of the bible says this of Hebrews 1:2

In these last days he has spoken to us through his Son. God made his Son responsible for everything. His Son is the one through whom God made the universe.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


At least demonstrate some knowledge of the Bible before you reference it!

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
Yes you did, because the part of the OT that Jesus is quoting from is the book of Genesis, which refers to the first male and female as Adam & Eve.

Actually, he's referring to Genesis 1, in which male and female humans are created simultaneously and the first individual humans remain unnamed.

Genesis:

1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

This, and the following speech towards humans, is the last act of creation in the Genesis 1 account. In Genesis 2, where we find the names Adam and Eve, there's an entirely different order of events and it seems to ignore the previous story entirely. Hell, men and women aren't created at the same time, the man is created prior to the woman.

There is, in fact, no evidence that any of this is true outside the word of mouth account found in Genesis.

Not two blobs of cells in the ocean, that would take millions of years to change into a pair of humans.

Billions, not millions. And not blobs of cells, single celled organisms. At least get the point you're attacking sorted out properly.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

This, and the following speech towards humans, is the last act of creation in the Genesis 1 account. In Genesis 2, where we find the names Adam and Eve, there's an entirely different order of events and it seems to ignore the previous story entirely. Hell, men and women aren't created at the same time, the man is created prior to the woman.

There is, in fact, no evidence that any of this is true outside the word of mouth account found in Genesis.

ABSURD! Genesis 1 speaks about the creation week in general, Genesis 2 gives the specifics of day six. Newspapers do this style on a daily basis. The headline will give a brief, and the remainder of the article gives all the nuts and bolts details. You realize the chapter and verse numbers were added centuries ago right?

Billions, not millions. And not blobs of cells, single celled organisms. At least get the point you're attacking sorted out properly.

I hope you realize how ridiculously complex even a single cell is. It's exponentially more complex than the world's largest integrated factory. the statistical probability for hemoglobin ALONE to happen by chance is 10 the the 650th power. Anything above 10 to the 50th power is considered "impossible".

Speaking of which, what evolved first, the DNA or the protein for the cell?