I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution

[Stripe]

... something else that is stated EXPLICITLY in the passage.

What, you mean the very next sentence? Doesn't bolding erase everything else?

 

[Gary K]

And Did got bring Jesus into the world instantly after the promise in Genesis? Did God bring Abraham's offspring into existence instantly when they were promised? Did God bring the nation of Israel to the promised land instantly when it was promised? Did Jesus return instantly (or even within 30 years) when He was promised to return "soon"? No. Because to God a thousand years is as a day and vice versa. You claim to "take Him at His word" yet I'm sure you don't believe in interpreting other parts of the Bible that are symbolic and poetic as literal. I'm sure you don't believe stars can literally fall to earth either.

People reading the Bible a thousand years ago thought it taught the earth was the center of the universe. They were taking the Bible "as it is" far more than you are. The problem is "as it is" when translated into a scientific culture, creates far more confusion than existed in the past.

See these posts for those that have said my view is fine. Interesting how many of you seem to agree. You create a stumbling block for would be Christians where none needs to exist.

What do you think it means then?

First: I don't understand your first sentence. Your typos are so bad it's unintelligible. It looks like some of my changes of thought midstream and then forgetting to go back and change all of my wording.

Second: All your assertions fit one agenda. The agenda of throwing doubt upon God's word. You think your assertions are very sly and astute. They aren't. They are very transparent and have been repeated for many centuries. Your entire agenda is very transparent. I've been watching people with your agenda of creating doubt about God's word do so for decades, and it was going on long, long before I, or my direct ancestors, were born.

You people all do exactly the same things. You all attack the same things. Nowadays you all use evolution as your entry level tool for creating doubt with your claims of "science" being so much greater and wiser than God. It's not. No finite being can ever out do God. His word stands forever. That you somehow think you guys are going to be the ones to finally put an end to the influence and power of God's word is at once both very sad, and pretty ironic. It's sad because you work so hard against God that you're digging your own eternal grave, so to speak. It's ironic because people have been doing this for thousands of years, and yet God's word is still the best selling book of all time. You'll never overcome that because God built a need for Him right into us when He created humanity. It's a hole in our lives that only He can fill. He created it and so only He can fill that need. Only submission to God and His word can fill that empty feeling in your life that you are so desperately trying to fill with other things. Stop fighting God and allow Him to fill that void. It's by far your best move, and is the only truly successful move you can make.

Do something positive instead of all the self-destructive things you're currently doing. Stop digging the hole you are in deeper every day and climb out into the sunshine of God's love and approbation. It will change your life greatly, and fill it with the meaning you're so desperately seeking.

 

[Alate_One]

First: I don't understand your first sentence. Your typos are so bad it's unintelligible. It looks like some of my changes of thought midstream and then forgetting to go back and change all of my wording.

Just Substitute the word God, for got and it works. I think I may have typed that one on a phone.

Second: All your assertions fit one agenda. The agenda of throwing doubt upon God's word. You think your assertions are very sly and astute. They aren't. They are very transparent and have been repeated for many centuries. Your entire agenda is very transparent. I've been watching people with your agenda of creating doubt about God's word do so for decades, and it was going on long, long before I, or my direct ancestors, were born.

Sigh . . . you really don't get it at all. These aren't assertions designed to damage or discredit scripture. It's a way of looking at all of scripture to discern what patterns there are in God's interactions with His people. God uses long drawn out processes the majority of the time when doing big things. For whatever reason God chooses to do things through a process rather than just jump to the end.

Do something positive instead of all the self-destructive things you're currently doing. Stop digging the hole you are in deeper every day and climb out into the sunshine of God's love and approbation. It will change your life greatly, and fill it with the meaning you're so desperately seeking.

I'm a Christian already. You apparently believe that unless someone accepts scripture in EXACTLY the same way you do, they're not saved. Throughout Christian history there has been more than one view on a variety of subjects. Some of these were indeed dangerous errors, but plenty of these are not. You're simply proving my point of the necessity of a thread like this, to say that one can accept evolution (as well as other science) and be a Christian.

 

[Alate_One]

Alate… It seems you keep jump from one argument to the next trying to justify your beliefs, rather than accept the plain words of Scripture. Genesis 2 tells us "Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. The LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food."

I'm jumping around because you and others are refusing to actually engage in discussion on science, so I tried scripture. But apparently your response is "Turn your brain off and just believe the words in black and white English."

The problem is, they weren't written in English and they're not simple black and white. They require interpretation.

Your statement is a rejection of scripture, and seemingly a misunderstanding of why we need a Savior. Romans 5 tells us "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned".

Again, the ultimate problem is separation from God because of sin. We don't need a savior simply because we physically die. Salvation means restoration of the relationship with God, and ultimately eternal life with him. It also says death came to all people, not that death came to all life forms.

 

[6days]

I'm jumping around because you and others are refusing to actually engage in discussion on science, so I tried scripture.

I appreciate that you tried scripture. But the reason I suggested you are jumping from one argument to the next, is that instead of admitting you are wrong on any point at all, you jump to a new argument. For example... We were talking how the Bible says death entered our world when Adam sinned. Your counter argument was that plants would have died before sin. But the Bible does not define life and death as you do. Plants are not living creatures, and do not have 'life' as defined by the Bible.

But apparently your response is "Turn your brain off and just believe the words in black and white English."

Hmmmm...... But, I was the one who was trying to show you from the Hebrew.

The problem is, they weren't written in English and they're not simple black and white. They require interpretation.

Scripture is fairly simple. Any of the 20 or so major modern translations are a pretty good reflection of the Hebrew. It's sometimes is a good idea to compare a few translations, or even use a Hebrew English concordance. We should also use an exegetical approach in studying scripture to see how language is used.

Again, the ultimate problem is separation from God because of sin. We don't need a savior simply because we physically die.

And that is how common ancestry beliefs compromise the gospel...the physical death and resurrection of Jesus becomes unnecessary. In that compromised gospel, Jesus would have only had to defeat the spiritual death. And... It would seem that in that compromised gospel, pain suffering and death are "very good", and part of the creation process. It would seem in that compromised gospel that " all creation groans" has nothing to do with the curse upon creation after sin.

 

[Yorzhik]

I'm jumping around because you and others are refusing to actually engage in discussion on science, so I tried scripture.

You've got to be kidding me. I have been civil and engaging you with relevant science and you flit and skip to another topic or poster instead of engaging.

And so you know, I find scientific arguments to be lesser in strength to the philosophical arguments. But for your sake, and for simplicity, I will stick with science because that is the level you are at.

To that end, you still haven't answered the challenge of David Gelernter. You've said he denies science (with no qualifier) because he has given up on Darwin's common descent. But he's a reasonable guy. Thoughtful. And dare I say, he's quite a bit smarter than you in his field. The thing is, his field is more relevant to the question of DNA information than your's is. So I think you are being a bit strong to call him a science (with no qualifier) denier. At least admit you should tone it down a bit and say he's a Evolutionary Biology denier so we could be on some common ground to continue a reasonable discussion.

 

[Alate_One]

I appreciate that you tried scripture. But the reason I suggested you are jumping from one argument to the next, is that instead of admitting you are wrong on any point at all, you jump to a new argument. For example... We were talking how the Bible says death entered our world when Adam sinned. Your counter argument was that plants would have died before sin. But the Bible does not define life and death as you do. Plants are not living creatures, and do not have 'life' as defined by the Bible.

There's still no direct scriptural evidence that animal death entered the world through human sin, or plant death etc. You're taking a passage that's fairly clearly talking about people and applying it to everything.

Hmmmm...... But, I was the one who was trying to show you from the Hebrew.

Arguing that day is always translated as day doesn't mean that the entire passage is meant as a literal record of history. Many aspects of it appear poetic. There is the pattern of separating creation and then filling it. Hence light and dark existing earlier than sun and moon. This pattern makes no logical sense if it's interpreted in a historical way. If it's a framework for ordering creation, then it makes sense.

Scripture is fairly simple.

Totally disagree here. Now the surface meaning is simple enough, but the full picture of what is going on isn't gained just by reading translations. A good understanding of the culture is very helpful.

In that compromised gospel, Jesus would have only had to defeat the spiritual death. And... It would seem that in that compromised gospel, pain suffering and death are "very good", and part of the creation process.

Pain is a necessary part of being a physical organism of a certain complexity. Pain keeps you from injuring yourself. Suffering is something that results from more complex life living in a complicated world. Death gives different creatures a chance on earth. None of those things in my view, when applied to non-humans are evil. (C.S. Lewis makes this argument btw) This is different when it comes to humans, since humans have a special relationship with God and special value. I also view the garden as paradise and the outside world as different and more as we see it today. You might dislike this position, but is it any worse than believing that God cursed literally all of creation because one human being sinned?

It would seem in that compromised gospel that " all creation groans" has nothing to do with the curse upon creation after sin.

Creation does groan under human sin, currently.

 

[Alate_One]

You've got to be kidding me. I have been civil and engaging you with relevant science and you flit and skip to another topic or poster instead of engaging.

In my defense there are a lot of posters, and I have a day job.

To that end, you still haven't answered the challenge of David Gelernter. You've said he denies science (with no qualifier) because he has given up on Darwin's common descent. But he's a reasonable guy. Thoughtful.

You can be smart, very smart and be completely wrong and in denial of reality. Besides, one person's opinion does not destroy or support any scientific theory of any kind.

And dare I say, he's quite a bit smarter than you in his field.

Hah!

The thing is, his field is more relevant to the question of DNA information than your's is. So I think you are being a bit strong to call him a science (with no qualifier) denier. At least admit you should tone it down a bit and say he's a Evolutionary Biology denier so we could be on some common ground to continue a reasonable discussion.

Um, he's a computer scientist, no biological background at all. I realize some people think DNA is just like "code" but it really isn't. Today's computer code is digital, it's all either 0 or 1. But biology is analog, there are various gradations of on grading into sort of on, and all the way to off.

In computer code, (I do have some minor coding experience), you miss a bracket or a colon and the whole thing breaks. Biology is not like that at all. A single change can break a single gene, but most of the time that affects one trait, and since there are normally two copies it doesn't make a big problem.

 

[Stripe]

Arguing that day is always translated as day doesn't mean that the entire passage is meant as a literal record of history.

Can you name someone who argues that "day is always translated as day" (assuming you mean someone who would say that yom always means a 24-hour period)?

Many aspects of it appear poetic.

Ah, the poetry gambit. When will a Darwinist be brave enough to finish this argument? Genesis has poetic form, therefore ________________.

 

[Lon]

Arguing that day is always translated as day doesn't mean that the entire passage is meant as a literal record of history. Many aspects of it appear poetic. There is the pattern of separating creation and then filling it. Hence light and dark existing earlier than sun and moon. This pattern makes no logical sense if it's interpreted in a historical way. If it's a framework for ordering creation, then it makes sense.

I've said this before: You are the kind of guy that allows your 'education of men' to trump or reinterpret scriptural revelation. Problem: One comes from God and verily demands respect. You? You treat science as the higher communication. That is never ever, ever, not going to be a serious spiritual problem.

This thread is not about paying 'homage' with a nod to the Savior, but genuinely having Him on the throne and us bowing. Try to remember this. It IS what is on the table. You simply are going to have to pay up or... You simply must do better than word-service.

Let's spend as much or more time with the Savior we love, than dwelling upon the ideas and theories of men?

Second: Look here: Genesis 1:1 Were there other stars before the sun? As soon as you say 'makes no sense' you've undermined the authority of scripture and by such, undermined the words of the One who said it.

Again, this is a serious problem with 'how much' you love the Savior. It becomes not a question of loving the Savior as your OP states, but rather 'how do you love Him?' Even an atheist may love something about the Savior.

 

[Stripe]

I do have some minor coding experience.

Do you know what a compiler is?

 

[Alate_One]

Do you know what a compiler is?

Yes, I'm happy to use one with good error handling.

 

[Alate_One]

I've said this before: You are the kind of guy that allows your 'education of men' to trump or reinterpret scriptural revelation. Problem: One comes from God and verily demands respect. You? You treat science as the higher communication. That is never ever, ever, not going to be a serious spiritual problem.

Here's the thing. It's not me that sees science as so essential. People like you believe science is so important that if Genesis is NOT giving us scientific truth, then we need to throw it away and the whole rest scripture with it. That idea is itself far more dangerous than anything I have said in this thread.

Again, this is a serious problem with 'how much' you love the Savior. It becomes not a question of loving the Savior as your OP states, but rather 'how do you love Him?' Even an atheist may love something about the Savior.

Well there's the option of turn your brain off and accept whatever interpretation *insert TOL poster* believes. I believe God has given us a mind for a reason and the ability to do science, which is His creation. I think our interpretation of scripture can be flawed and even can change due to scientific and historical evidence clarifying what may be cultural context, vs. the actual point of a passage. Genesis was never intended to answer how God made the earth, it was answering the purpose and function of creation. My current church is working through Genesis and they don't even agree with 6 days is it, just shut up and accept it.

 

[Stripe]

Yes, I'm happy to use one with good error handling.

Your description of a difference between computer code and DNA shows that you understand compilers only to about the level of being able to joke about them.

There is a fundamental difference between DNA as a code and computer programs, but it's not found in that DNA is more complex. Programming languages themselves have levels of complexity, which are all reduced to 1's and 0's by a compiler. Is it your assertion that the code of DNA could never be represented in binary?

 

[Alate_One]

Is it your assertion that the code of DNA could never be represented in binary?

DNA does have codelike aspects, such as the encoding of proteins, but that is only a tiny portion of DNA function. Much of it is determined by the chemical and physical structure of DNA (especially in a multi cellular organism). DNA not just abstract biological code. To represent it's function in binary you would have to model the underlying chemistry of life including proteins which chemically interact with DNA plus the physical shape and location of molecules. Something like the software, Fold-It but far more complicated. It would be incredibly complex and you'd really just be modeling how life works rather than doing the sort of conversion I think you're asking for.

 

[Stripe]

Was that a "no"?

Try not to switch to teacher mode when a mistake you've made has been exposed. Just adjust your presentation and move on. :up:

 

[6days]

There's still no direct scriptural evidence that animal death entered the world through human sin

Alate… there is scriptural evidence that God did not use animal suffering and death as His design method and then call it "very good". (Examples.. vegetarian diet given to animals before sin.... paradise seen as wolf and lamb together, and more)

Dr Peter Barnes, lecturer in church history at the Presbyterian Theological Centre in Sydney. He wrote: “…if God wanted us to understand the creation week as a literal week, He could hardly have made the point any clearer…. The theological argument is also compelling. According to the Bible, there was no death until there was sin. The creation is cursed only after Adam sinned (cf. Genesis 3; Romans 5:12–21; 8:19–25). This implies that all the fossils of dead animals must date from after Adam’s fall. If there was blood and violence in the creation before Adam sinned, the theological structure of the biblical message would appear to suffer considerable dislocation"

Arguing that day is always translated as day...

Nobody makes that argument. The word day (YOM) is always understood by context in Hebrew and English For example... the word 'day' has two different meanings in Genesis2:3,4 (KJV and others) It isn't hard to understand.

The grammar of Genesis 1 demands an ordinary day. If you are interested, I can show exgetically from other scripture how we know the creation happened in one literal week. I can also explain if you wish, how we are further confirmed of the length of creation days by the use of ordinal numbers.

Exodus 20:11 God explains that the creation week was a pattern for us. Also... If God had wanted Moses to convey that He had created over a long time period, there are perfectly good words and context in the Hebrew He could have used, but instead... God could not have made it any more clear... He created in 6 days...each day with a morning and evening.

James Barr, Professor of Hebrew Bible at Vanderbilt University, former Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford. "Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; .. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know."

John Wesley wrote "We are not to think but that God could have made the world in an instant: but he did it in six days, that he might shew himself a free agent, doing his own work, both in his own way, and in his own time; that his wisdom, power and goodness, might appear to us, and be meditated upon by us, the more distinctly; and that he might set us an example of working six days, and resting the seventh."

 

[Yorzhik]

You can be smart, very smart and be completely wrong and in denial of reality. Besides, one person's opinion does not destroy or support any scientific theory of any kind.

Of course. And the way to tell if that's true is by examining his claims. And certainly, you can't look at everyone's claims. But you should look at notable claims like Yale's Dr. Gelernter. Turns out, his claims are very rational.

I have to call you out on something. Your point that "one person's opinion does not destroy or support any scientific theory of any kind" is you knocking down a challenge that wasn't made. I suppose this is related to Common Descentists thinking that the popularity of an idea proves it. But, no, I didn't bring up one person's opinion as a destroyer of a scientific theory. What you're doing is projecting because you are afraid the idea of common descent, despite it's popularity, is very fragile. Stop over-blowing what is simply evidence.

Um, he's a computer scientist, no biological background at all. I realize some people think DNA is just like "code" but it really isn't. Today's computer code is digital, it's all either 0 or 1. But biology is analog, there are various gradations of on grading into sort of on, and all the way to off.

In computer code, (I do have some minor coding experience), you miss a bracket or a colon and the whole thing breaks. Biology is not like that at all. A single change can break a single gene, but most of the time that affects one trait, and since there are normally two copies it doesn't make a big problem.

Then admit that Dr. Gelernter isn't a science (with no qualifier) denier, but an "evolutionary biology" denier. Outside of that discipline, he is 100% consistent with good science in general.

Secondly, since you think that code must be digital, you don't know enough about the subject to comment on it. Perhaps you were simply overstating your objection and you can fix your error, or perhaps you can point out where I've misread you.

Thirdly, saying biology is analog doesn't remove the symbol-to-physical state of biology. By saying the code is analog you are inferring that the code is magic. But just because the code is more sophisticated then anything we've been able to create so far doesn't make it magic.

There are a lot of distinguished historians that reject the holocaust. Do you really want this as your argument?

A lot of *distinguished historians*? Besides Harry Elmer Barnes? Name them.

 

[mtwilcox]

Evolution is a well supported scientific idea

A Gray whale skeleton. For those that reject evolution, why do whales have fingers in their flippers?

Dorudon skeleton. Why do fossil whales have hind legs?





Note that the title of this post is also the title of a book I have enjoyed:

I Love Jesus & I Accept Evolution: Paperback – March 4, 2009
by Denis O. Lamoureux

Also of interest: Nothing in Biology makes sense except in the Light of Evolution.

The bone structures found in the back end of whales have to do with whale reproduction.

All Marine animals that don’t have paper thin fins, have either cartilage or bone structures within for supporting the appendage; even the ones with paper thin fins have small bones or cartilage that support the appendage.

If you think the theory of whale evolution is a sound concept without any questionable beliefs surrounding it,
Watch this:

=M=

=============================

 

[mtwilcox]

From:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/promiscuous-whales-make-good-use-pelvises-180952620/

“For a long time scientists figured that the bones are so small because they are vestigial, a shrunken evolutionary remnant from an ancestor that once walked on land.

But now scientists have discovered that the tiny bones may actually play a huge role in whale reproduction. Whales belong to a group of sea-dwelling mammals called cetaceans“

Wow,
SMITHSONIAN.COM
SEPTEMBER 8, 2014; can you believe Dr. Kent Hovind was right about this being a lie in the textbooks, back in the early 90s!!!
I guess it took that long for the smithsonian to catch up with this fact...! Hmm... or they chose to remain willingly ignorant about it, to help them teach obvious lies to the masses...?
Guess the textbooks that still contain this obvious lie, which Mislead evolution believing people like a late one and user name; are going to take a while longer to change.

=M=

===========================

Not to just keep posting videos all over the site... but...

What?!?
Darwin said it was the Bear that returned to the water to become a whale!!!!! LoL!!!




What up 6days!!!



And with that wonderful article I’m out for the day!!! Have fun debating the Smithsonian Institute Evols!!!! Hahaha!!!!