Questions from Christians Regarding Evolution

[CrowCross]

@John Bauer @CrowCross

The fallacy claim is never going to be resolved so it is time to move on. Otherwise, the thread will stagnate in repetitive claims of "yes I did", "No you didn't" and either be reported for staff to deal with or ignored.

The truth of the matter is no one here was witness to any of the theories put forth by differing opinion within the scientific community. Everyone is reading second and third hand material and deciding which one they think is more reliable. None of it can be proven, not even dating.

Some what true.
For example...dating...using the linages presented in the bible one can extrapolate backwards like Bishop Ussher did and conclude the earth and Adam were made about 4,000 years ago. Even if some of Jesus descendants were left out, lets say 1/2 of them...the earth would then only be about 8,000 years old which is still "young" compared to several billions of years the Theistic evolutionist claim it to be.

None of it can be connected to Scripture or the creation account as no one was there either.

I disagree. Yes, we were not there but we have the witness of the bible.

To believe the creation account given in Gen requires faith---not science. And faith is actually believing what God says and trusting in it. Science has been unable in all their probing to find the source of life in a test tube. and I heard, from a well-known scientist that they have looked. Is that true? I have no idea.

Science can often be used to support the "models" of the Young Earth Creationist. Examples have been provided on different threads in this forum.

As a conversation young earth vs old earth is very interesting to some. Different forms of evolution vs no evolution is interesting to some. But the term evolution needs to be clearly defined so one person isn't talking about one form and someone else another when they are talking to each other. Let's keep the conversation where it belongs.

When I look over the list of conversations on this forum as well as other forums I find some interesting while others conversations I don't find interesting. The ones I don't find interesting I skip over and don't reply to. If any follower of this form and particularly this thread don't find it interesting or have nothing to add....they can simply skip it.

 

[Arial]

Some what true.
For example...dating...using the linages presented in the bible one can extrapolate backwards like Bishop Ussher did and conclude the earth and Adam were made about 4,000 years ago. Even if some of Jesus descendants were left out, lets say 1/2 of them...the earth would then only be about 8,000 years old which is still "young" compared to several billions of years the Theistic evolutionist claim it to be.

I disagree. Yes, we were not there but we have the witness of the bible.

Science can often be used to support the "models" of the Young Earth Creationist. Examples have been provided on different threads in this forum.

When I look over the list of conversations on this forum as well as other forums I find some interesting while others conversations I don't find interesting. The ones I don't find interesting I skip over and don't reply to. If any follower of this form and particularly this thread don't find it interesting or have nothing to add....they can simply skip it.

If it is by a mod in red, it is to arbitrate a dispute. It is not given for discussion of its content. Any disagreement with the arbitration itself, should be done in a DM.

 

[CrowCross]

Note: There were no bees or spiders in the Cambrian period. Those appeared much later (from Devonian–Carboniferous onward)

Would you expect to find bees or spiders in Cambrian fossils? From what I understand the bees and spiders didn't hang out with trilobites. Perhaps I'm mstaken.

 

[John Bauer]

As it turns out, the fallacy allegation was resolved:

You have made claims that assume the truth of young-earth creation flood geology (which also implicitly assumes that evolution is false), which is the question-begging fallacy I had identified.

Considering YEC is the truth....evolutionism must be false. That's pretty much a no brainer.

CrowCross conceded that he committed the question-begging fallacy.

 

[CrowCross]

As it turns out, the fallacy allegation was resolved:



CrowCross conceded that he committed the question-begging fallacy.

NWRT

 

[Josheb]

NWRT

???

 

[EarlyActs]

@John Bauer @CrowCross

The fallacy claim is never going to be resolved so it is time to move on. Otherwise, the thread will stagnate in repetitive claims of "yes I did", "No you didn't" and either be reported for staff to deal with or ignored. The truth of the matter is no one here was witness to any of the theories put forth by differing opinion within the scientific community. Everyone is reading second and third hand material and deciding which one they think is more reliable. None of it can be proven, not even dating. None of it can be connected to Scripture or the creation account as no one was there either. To believe the creation account given in Gen requires faith---not science. And faith is actually believing what God says and trusting in it. Science has been unable in all their probing to find the source of life in a test tube. and I heard, from a well-known scientist that they have looked. Is that true? I have no idea.
As a conversation young earth vs old earth is very interesting to some. Different forms of evolution vs no evolution is interesting to some. But the term evolution needs to be clearly defined so one person isn't talking about one form and someone else another when they are talking to each other. Let's keep the conversation where it belongs.

If you are familiar with the 'rules' of textual custody, you know that early Genesis is verbal, but the custody is still very tight. That's because of the meeting of Adam and Noah, then Noah and Abraham so that there are very few separate people with the verbal custody of Genesis to the time of Joseph when written form was created. For details, see Cassuto's FROM ADAM TO NOAH, the textual rabbi who pretty much destroyed German critical theory about Genesis.

The opening narrative, with God speaking in 1st person, can only be recorded that way, and was, because God explained it to Adam on Day 6, as found in the text. We meet Adam fully formed and able to absorb the narrative given him and having enough sophistication to lie about Eve, so I don't see where he would not be curious enough to asked what happened the day before he was conscious.

In months of exchange with John Bauer, I have not found where he has followed this chain of custody, nor the sensibility of the initial 'spreading out' doctrine of Job-Psalms-Isaiah prior to and relative to Gen 1, nor countered concise critical treatments of mutation, which have drastically different biological evolutionary theory from himself. This leaves a person with the impression that he believes exactly what Dr. Schaeffer defined as neo-orthodox theology: the passage is historically false but 'theologically true.'

 

[John Bauer]

???

It is internet shorthand: Not Worth Responding To.

 

[EarlyActs]

Please post a summary of Lewis "Two Lectures" in a line or two. I don't mean your thoughts about it, I mean what in summary does it say.

 

[QVQ]

Truth has a corresponding objective reality
Truth must be reproducible under the same initial conditions and by the process proposed

Einstein predicted certain results stating initial conditions and describing the process
The results were observable and reproducible.
Einstein Theory of Relativity is True.

So far, as regards Mutation and Time the Theory of Evolution has not been shown to correspond to objective reality.
Evolution, under initial condition and process proposed by the theory, has not been shown to yield results consistent with the predicted result.
Evolution is therefore, False.

 

[John Bauer]

Please post a summary of Lewis "Two Lectures" in a line or two. I don't mean your thoughts about it, I mean what in summary does it say.

This is the third time you have requested this in as many threads (the second one was here), despite the fact that your original request was already answered. This is a violation of rule 4.7. Given the series of rules violations you have committed over the past two days, you are temporarily banned effectively immediately.

MOD HAT: Rule 1.1 clearly states, “All members are required to read, ensure they understand, and comply with the Rules & Guidelines at all times ("Rules"). The Rules apply to all communications made on this web site. Any failure to comply with the Rules may result in a post being edited or deleted and possibly the offending account receiving a warning, temporary suspension, or permanent ban.”
​

 

[seer]

How does the theory of evolution support Christianity. It claims that Homo sapiens are at least 200,000 years old. Where is a literal Adam in this? Where is the fall

 

[Arial]

How does the theory of evolution support Christianity. It claims that Homo sapiens are at least 200,000 years old. Where is a literal Adam in this? Where is the fall

Welcome to the forum Seer.

 

[seer]

Welcome to the forum Seer.

Thank you.

 

[John Bauer]

How does the theory of evolution support Christianity?

It doesn’t. In fact, the question may even be absurd. It is rather like asking, “How does the theory of gravity support Christianity?”

The reality is that Christianity does not stand in need of support, especially from any scientific theory. Christianity stands on the self-attesting authority of God’s self-revelation in Scripture, not in whether a given scientific model happens to align with it. The very intelligibility, regularity, and law-governed character of nature presupposed by evolutionary theory already rests on theological commitments that Christianity alone can justify—namely, a sovereign, rational Creator who upholds all things providentially.

[Evolution] claims that Homo sapiens are at least 200,000 years old. Where is a literal Adam in this? Where is the fall?

Adam (and the Fall) is far more recent, approximately 6,000 years ago.

 

[seer]

It doesn’t. In fact, the question may even be absurd. It is rather like asking, “How does the theory of gravity support Christianity?”

The reality is that Christianity does not stand in need of support, especially from any scientific theory. Christianity stands on the self-attesting authority of God’s self-revelation in Scripture, not in whether a given scientific model happens to align with it. The very intelligibility, regularity, and law-governed character of nature presupposed by evolutionary theory already rests on theological commitments that Christianity alone can justify—namely, a sovereign, rational Creator who upholds all things providentially.



Adam (and the Fall) is far more recent, approximately 6,000 years ago.

Do you believe that Homo sapiens are at least 200,000 years old?

 

[John Bauer]

Do you believe that Homo sapiens are at least 200,000 years old?

Yes, I do.

 

[Carbon]

How does the theory of evolution support Christianity. It claims that Homo sapiens are at least 200,000 years old. Where is a literal Adam in this? Where is the fall

Obviously, Evolution is incorrect.

 

[Carbon]

Where is a literal Adam in this? Where is the fall

Yes, this does present some serious problems.
I would like to hear this explanation from a theistic evolutionist. Or any Christian who claims to be an evolutionist also.

 

[seer]

Yes, I do.

So where does a literal Adam come in, or the fall of man?