Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact..?

[KeyserSoze]

Our final authority on this issue is the God who become a man, Jesus, and He holds to creationism!

Several centuries ago, the final authority about whether the earth or the sun was the center of a solar system was God too.
So people accepted what they thought God "said" and adopted geocentrism for years.
How well did that go..?

 

[KeyserSoze]

It has to be false because the person who created it says otherwise.

Thats what they said about geocentrism several centuries ago..
How well did that work out..?

 

[Yeshua1]

Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We have seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.

For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus Tragopogon) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (T. dubius), the meadow salsify (T. pratensis), and the oyster plant (T. porrifolius) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.

It doesn't take a mass of mutations accumulating over generations to create a different species - all it takes is some event that reproductively isolates one group of individuals from another. This can happen very rapidly, in cases like these of polyploidy. A single mutation can be enough. Or it can happen at a much, much slower pace. This is the speciation that evolution is known for - the gradual changes over time that separate species.


Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur, Scientific American

I am not looking for flowers staying flowers. I want to see where cats became dogs in history!

 

[Yeshua1]

So your rebuttal to the genome evidence is "it has to be false because your religious beliefs refuse to allow it to be true"..
That about sum it up..?

no. more like Jesus created all things, and he called evolution a lie, and endorsed creationism!

 

[Yeshua1]

Several centuries ago, the final authority about whether the earth or the sun was the center of a solar system was God too.
So people accepted what they thought God "said" and adopted geocentrism for years.
How well did that go..?

Was Jesus wrong when he stated that there was a real Adam and Eve, created by God? yes or no?

 

[KeyserSoze]

Does he hold to inerrancy of the scriptures, to Jesus as being God, and resurrection etc?

From my research into the man, it certainly appears that he accepts both that Jesus is God, and that the resurrection happened.
As for his beliefs about "the inerrancy of Scripture"..? That i don't know..

 

[KeyserSoze]

Was Jesus wrong when he stated that there was a real Adam and Eve, created by God? yes or no?

I'm not aware of Jesus ever making any scientific statements as to how Adam and Eve may have formed.
So i cannot say that i know what Jesus' scientific position on the matter was..
All i CAN say is that the evidence shows that if Adam and Eve were real people.?
then they evolved from a common ancestor along with the other earths primates.

 

[Reformed1689]

Thats what they said about geocentrism several centuries ago..
How well did that work out..?

So do you just deny Genesis outright?

 

[KeyserSoze]

So do you just deny Genesis outright?

I accept that the writers of Genesis used stories as teaching tools. As such, many of the things they reference are not literal.
Take Noah's ark. That tale is about how the righteous will triumph while the wicked will perish.
Its not about global floods and putting 2 of every animal on a giant boat.
People like Ken Ham at AiG try so hard to make the tales literal, that they miss the entire moral message of the stories.

 

[Yeshua1]

I'm not aware of Jesus ever making any scientific statements as to how Adam and Eve may have formed.
So i cannot say that i know what Jesus' scientific position on the matter was..
All i CAN say is that the evidence shows that if Adam and Eve were real people.?
then they evolved from a common ancestor along with the other earths primates.

Jesus affirmed that they existed, and that God created them!

 

[KeyserSoze]

Jesus affirmed that they existed, and that God created them!

But did he lay out in any scientific detail as to "how"..?

 

[Reformed1689]

I accept that the writers of Genesis used stories as teaching tools. As such, many of the things they reference are not literal.
Take Noah's ark. That tale is about how the righteous will triumph while the wicked will perish.
Its not about global floods and putting 2 of every animal on a giant boat.
People like Ken Ham at AiG try so hard to make the tales literal, that they miss the entire moral message of the stories.

There is a problem with your theory, it is written as historical narrative. Jesus took it as actual history and so did Paul. Were they wrong?

Also, do you believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God?

 

[KeyserSoze]

There is a problem with your theory, it is written as historical narrative. Jesus took it as actual history and so did Paul. Were they wrong?

Also, do you believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God?

The Bible was never written to be a science book.
For example, There are simple passages about "God creating the sun", but no mention of all the scientific processes needed to actually do so... God would need a knowledge of gravitation, nuclear fusion, the existence of elements on the periodic table that lay out the atomic structure of hydrogen necessary to create a sun, etc.. None of which is mentioned in the Bible.
You wont find any of that in Genesis.. You WILL however find all that in science books.
If you are using the Bible as a science book, then you're not using it for its assembled purpose.

 

[xlsdraw]

I'm not sure why this forum allows people to repackage the agenda that they seek to promote, in thread after thread after thread.......... I'm quite sure there are numerous forums specific to their nauseating agenda

 

[Yeshua1]

But did he lay out in any scientific detail as to "how"..?

Yes, Genesis described the process God used!

 

[Yeshua1]

There is a problem with your theory, it is written as historical narrative. Jesus took it as actual history and so did Paul. Were they wrong?

Also, do you believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God?

I do no even know if he believes God exists!

 

[KeyserSoze]

Also, do you believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God?

This above is what gets fundamentalist Christians in trouble. This idea of "inerrant".
The problem here arises in the fact that Bible texts (like all texts) need to be interpreted by those who are reading the passages.
Now, Centuries ago, the "inerrant" word of God was that "the earth is fixed, it does NOT move"
So, for years, people adhered to a geocentric model of the solar system.
Then, once the evidence showed that such a position was untenable, the "inerrant" word of God was changed.
Those "interpreting" the passages changed their original "inerrant" position.
There are millions of Christians out there who do NOT interpret Genesis to be literal history.
So someones interpretation of all those passages is certainly "errant"..

 

[Yeshua1]

The Bible was never written to be a science book.
For example, There are simple passages about "God creating the sun", but no mention of all the scientific processes needed to actually do so... God would need a knowledge of gravitation, nuclear fusion, the existence of elements on the periodic table that lay out the atomic structure of hydrogen necessary to create a sun, etc.. None of which is mentioned in the Bible.
You wont find any of that in Genesis.. You WILL however find all that in science books.
If you are using the Bible as a science book, then you're not using it for its assembled purpose.

Do you believe God exists, and Jesus is God, and died for your sins and rose again in a physical resurrection?

 

[Yeshua1]

This above is what gets fundamentalist Christians in trouble. This idea of "inerrant".
The problem here arises in the fact that Bible texts (like all texts) need to be interpreted by those who are reading the passages.
Now, Centuries ago, the "inerrant" word of God was that "the earth is fixed, it does NOT move"
So, for years, people adhered to a geocentric model of the solar system.
Then, once the evidence showed that such a position was untenable, the "inerrant" word of God was changed.
Those "interpreting" the passages changed their original "inerrant" position.
There are millions of Christians out there who do NOT interpret Genesis to be literal history.
So someones interpretation of all those passages is certainly "errant"..

was the Bible inspired by the Holy Spirit, or just another religious book mixing myth, fables, and some facts?

 

[Reformed1689]

The Bible was never written to be a science book.

We agree. And science cannot actually tell you the origins of the universe. You realize that right?

For example, There are simple passages about "God creating the sun", but no mention of all the scientific processes needed to actually do so... God would need a knowledge of gravitation, nuclear fusion, the existence of elements on the periodic table that lay out the atomic structure of hydrogen necessary to create a sun, etc.. None of which is mentioned in the Bible.

First, you assume God doesn't know all of that. He does because He created it in that moment. It doesn't need to be mentioned in the Bible.

If you are using the Bible as a science book, then you're not using it for its assembled purpose.

The Bible does tell the origins of the universe, something science is actually not capable of.

Then, once the evidence showed that such a position was untenable, the "inerrant" word of God was changed.
Those "interpreting" the passages changed their original "inerrant" position.

This is false as well. The bible did not change. It was inerrant then, it is inerrant now.