Evolution My ToE

[Bear Wild]

My concern is not about Dan, but rather the contrast between what the Bible says and what the theory of evolution claims to be. Obviously anyone is free to believe whatever he wants to. My question is about a professed belief in Jesus, and then declaring that evolution is true This is not judging but inquiring.
Again, here's what Jesus wrote about history:
New International Version
"If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me." So you conclude.

Jesus did not write that! That was written long after Jesus was dead. We don't even know if Moses existed other than in myth. But Jesus was Jewish and therefore there is no reason to believe he did not believe in Moses whether Moses existed or not. I do not remember any statement from Jesus about the origin of life. Thus there is no reason not to accept evolution and be Christian. Personally see no reason to believe that Mary was a virgin other than symbolically. So quote all you want but it does not make it so. Give me anything written by Jesus himself.

 

[Bear Wild]

Symbolic of his Jewish faith?? You mean maybe he thought God didn't really create male and female but he was only saying what the Bible said, while really believing and thinking it was a myth or fable about God creating male and female? Or maybe you and Dan think that Jesus didn't really know but spoke about Jewish fables as true enough with regard to creation, as well as Noah. Look, if you and Dan believe that, that's what you believe. There are lots of beliefs in this world even if some don't corroborate the other.

First, I am not speaking for Dan just respecting his Christian belief and appreciating his support for evolution. Evolution is the clear explanation for life on earth and can be accepted by anyone of any faith. The truth is we don't know exactly what Jesus thought other than from what was written after his death. Jesus did not write anything down and all was written by others who were not even his disciples despite the names connected with the texts. From all I have read Jesus did not express any opinion about how live came about on earth but was more concerned about how humans treated each other. I just do not see any reason why someone who considers themselves Christian cannot accept evolution. If you believe the world was created by god then there is no reason to not to learn from gods creation. The world is telling us that live evolved no matter what your religion is.

 

[YoursTrue]

First, I am not speaking for Dan just respecting his Christian belief and appreciating his support for evolution. Evolution is the clear explanation for life on earth and can be accepted by anyone of any faith. The truth is we don't know exactly what Jesus thought other than from what was written after his death. Jesus did not write anything down and all was written by others who were not even his disciples despite the names connected with the texts. From all I have read Jesus did not express any opinion about how live came about on earth but was more concerned about how humans treated each other. I just do not see any reason why someone who considers themselves Christian cannot accept evolution. If you believe the world was created by god then there is no reason to not to learn from gods creation. The world is telling us that live evolved no matter what your religion is.

This has nothing to do with respecting his belief. I wonder yes, how a person claims to be a Christian but doesn't believe Christ. That's what I wonder about.

 

[YoursTrue]

Jesus did not write that! That was written long after Jesus was dead. We don't even know if Moses existed other than in myth. But Jesus was Jewish and therefore there is no reason to believe he did not believe in Moses whether Moses existed or not. I do not remember any statement from Jesus about the origin of life. Thus there is no reason not to accept evolution and be Christian. Personally see no reason to believe that Mary was a virgin other than symbolically. So quote all you want but it does not make it so. Give me anything written by Jesus himself.

Give me anything written by anyone about seeing anything evolve before 5000 years ago. Even though until recently it seems neanderthals etc were considered dumb. Now the scientists are saying, maybe they weren't so dumb.
If you believe that all life came about by a chance unknown occurrence and then burgeoning into bacteria which may have burgeoned into plant and animal life, be my guest. And if someone wants to claim as Dan does and others do, that they're Christian but don't believe that Jesus, Moses or Noah existed as written, again, that's their choice. But I don't have to agree with them. Of course, since many claim Jesus never existed, then of course they, like you, can't say he was put to death either. Isn't that true? So spare me the rhetoric in behalf of Dan, who should be able to say if it's all a big myth about Jesus, Noah, and Moses. Or better yet, why he's a Christian. Someone like that says he believes in evolution as the basis for life here so why not speak up as to why he claims to be a Christian. When someone votes for president, let's say, they're allowed one vote for his choice. Not two or more choices for the same office.
"New research has struck another blow to the theory that Neanderthals became extinct because they were less intelligent than our ancestors. The research team has shown that early stone tool technologies developed by our species, Homo sapiens, were no more efficient than those used by Neanderthals. Their discovery debunks a textbook belief held by archaeologists for more than 60 years."
New Evidence Debunks 'Stupid' Neanderthal Myth
P.S. We're talking about Dan's assertion that he's a Christian. So maybe he agrees with you...that maybe Jesus, Noah, or any other person in the bible never existed. If that's what he believes since he never saw it, that's how he believes. But then I have a right to ask about that in reference to the contrary belief in evolution.

 

[YoursTrue]

Give me anything written by anyone about seeing anything evolve before 5000 years ago. Even though until recently it seems neanderthals etc were considered dumb. Now the scientists are saying, maybe they weren't so dumb.
If you believe that all life came about by a chance unknown occurrence and then burgeoning into bacteria which may have burgeoned into plant and animal life, be my guest. And if someone wants to claim as Dan does and others do, that they're Christian but don't believe that Jesus, Moses or Noah existed as written, again, that's their choice. But I don't have to agree with them. Of course, since many claim Jesus never existed, then of course they, like you, can't say he was put to death either. Isn't that true? So spare me the rhetoric in behalf of Dan, who should be able to say if it's all a big myth about Jesus, Noah, and Moses. Or better yet, why he's a Christian. Someone like that says he believes in evolution as the basis for life here so why not speak up as to why he claims to be a Christian. When someone votes for president, let's say, they're allowed one vote for his choice. Not two or more choices for the same office.
"New research has struck another blow to the theory that Neanderthals became extinct because they were less intelligent than our ancestors. The research team has shown that early stone tool technologies developed by our species, Homo sapiens, were no more efficient than those used by Neanderthals. Their discovery debunks a textbook belief held by archaeologists for more than 60 years."
New Evidence Debunks 'Stupid' Neanderthal Myth
P.S. We're talking about Dan's assertion that he's a Christian. So maybe he agrees with you...that maybe Jesus, Noah, or any other person in the bible never existed. If that's what he believes since he never saw it, that's how he believes. But then I have a right to ask about that in reference to the contrary belief in evolution.

P.S. Jesus said (I wasn't there but I believe he said it), that he IS the truth. By the way. Oh, and there is no proof other than conjecture (again, no recorded eyewitness claimed documents) that say bacteria evolved to plants and animals. Fossils without having been filmed while the organisms were alive and socalled evolving. Have a good night, thanks for your input.

 

[Bear Wild]

This has nothing to do with respecting his belief. I wonder yes, how a person claims to be a Christian but doesn't believe Christ. That's what I wonder about.

When you say they someone does not believe Christ in reference to the theory of evolution (the topic of this thread), tell me exactly where Christ in his own words made any reference that would directly exclude anyone accepting the theory of evolution?

 

[Bear Wild]

Give me anything written by anyone about seeing anything evolve before 5000 years ago. Even though until recently it seems neanderthals etc were considered dumb. Now the scientists are saying, maybe they weren't so dumb.
If you believe that all life came about by a chance unknown occurrence and then burgeoning into bacteria which may have burgeoned into plant and animal life, be my guest. And if someone wants to claim as Dan does and others do, that they're Christian but don't believe that Jesus, Moses or Noah existed as written, again, that's their choice. But I don't have to agree with them. Of course, since many claim Jesus never existed, then of course they, like you, can't say he was put to death either. Isn't that true? So spare me the rhetoric in behalf of Dan, who should be able to say if it's all a big myth about Jesus, Noah, and Moses. Or better yet, why he's a Christian. Someone like that says he believes in evolution as the basis for life here so why not speak up as to why he claims to be a Christian. When someone votes for president, let's say, they're allowed one vote for his choice. Not two or more choices for the same office.
"New research has struck another blow to the theory that Neanderthals became extinct because they were less intelligent than our ancestors. The research team has shown that early stone tool technologies developed by our species, Homo sapiens, were no more efficient than those used by Neanderthals. Their discovery debunks a textbook belief held by archaeologists for more than 60 years."
New Evidence Debunks 'Stupid' Neanderthal Myth
P.S. We're talking about Dan's assertion that he's a Christian. So maybe he agrees with you...that maybe Jesus, Noah, or any other person in the bible never existed. If that's what he believes since he never saw it, that's how he believes. But then I have a right to ask about that in reference to the contrary belief in evolution.

First I have never said that Jesus did not exist! From what I remember there may be least one objective documentation although I cannot find it again that mentioned his existence during the time of his life. Everything else is others written about Jesus with different objectives and messages. The writings are not backed up with objective evidence. From my Christian upbringing they were to carry a message not to be literal as many of his parabolas were. The virgin birth - symbolic. His genealogy - symbolic. There is no reason why someone who considers themselves Christians cannot learn from the symbolic meanings whether real or not and still consider themselves Christian!

Again if you would give the actual evidence that Jesus said anything that would exclude a Christian from believing in evolutions then I want to hear it.

As for the "Stupid" Neanderthal - There never was any scientific evidence that Neanderthal man was stupid only and arrogant concept that Homo sapiens had to be only intelligent species because we have always seen ourselves as superior and attribute this to our intelligence. The evidence presented only shows that tool use was prevalent in other humanoid species. No surprise in that.

Answer this. Which is more likely to be tell the reality of our world. The creation itself or human ideas bound by language which is always imperfect?

 

[YoursTrue]

When you say they someone does not believe Christ in reference to the theory of evolution (the topic of this thread), tell me exactly where Christ in his own words made any reference that would directly exclude anyone accepting the theory of evolution?

First I have never said that Jesus did not exist! From what I remember there may be least one objective documentation although I cannot find it again that mentioned his existence during the time of his life. Everything else is others written about Jesus with different objectives and messages. The writings are not backed up with objective evidence. From my Christian upbringing they were to carry a message not to be literal as many of his parabolas were. The virgin birth - symbolic. His genealogy - symbolic. There is no reason why someone who considers themselves Christians cannot learn from the symbolic meanings whether real or not and still consider themselves Christian!

Again if you would give the actual evidence that Jesus said anything that would exclude a Christian from believing in evolutions then I want to hear it.

As for the "Stupid" Neanderthal - There never was any scientific evidence that Neanderthal man was stupid only and arrogant concept that Homo sapiens had to be only intelligent species because we have always seen ourselves as superior and attribute this to our intelligence. The evidence presented only shows that tool use was prevalent in other humanoid species. No surprise in that.

Answer this. Which is more likely to be tell the reality of our world. The creation itself or human ideas bound by language which is always imperfect?

Right now I'm not going to get into a discussion of who wrote what and when the words of Jesus were penned in the Bible, if that's what you mean. Regardless of dating, the entire speculation of the LCA is just that -- speculation. As I said, there were no movies showing the changing forms and dna structures changing. Such as bacteria morphing into plants and animals, dinosaurs becoming fish and so forth.
The Bible writes out Jesus' genealogy straight from Adam, in direct contradiction to what evolutionists are saying about the history of mankind. Why bother saying you're a Christian if you don't believe that, which is in direct contradiction to what evolution teaches? Why does a person say he's a Christian if he doesn't believe what Jesus is said to have said? Because he wants to say that? I suppose so. Because so far I haven't seen a cogent answer to that question, which is, why would a person claim to be a Christian if he doesn't believe what Christ said, or is said to have said? Obviously you cannot answer for Dan, but you can offer your opinion as to why a person who doesn't believe what Jesus is said to have said claims to be a Christian? As I said, I can venture a guess, and so can you, but putting the cards of the table, really Dan needs to answer that.
Perhaps you might read the Bible, the gospel accounts namely, to see what Jesus is reported to have said about creation, including Noah and the flood, to begin with. Matthew chapters 24 and 25 is a good start. This is, of course, the subject -- evolution vs. If a person doesn't believe Jesus as saying that Noah existed, why would someone bother to say he's a "Christian"? Because he likes to say that?
Creation itself testifies that there is a Creator, surpassing human intelligence.

 

[YoursTrue]

First I have never said that Jesus did not exist! From what I remember there may be least one objective documentation although I cannot find it again that mentioned his existence during the time of his life. Everything else is others written about Jesus with different objectives and messages. The writings are not backed up with objective evidence. From my Christian upbringing they were to carry a message not to be literal as many of his parabolas were. The virgin birth - symbolic. His genealogy - symbolic. There is no reason why someone who considers themselves Christians cannot learn from the symbolic meanings whether real or not and still consider themselves Christian!

Again if you would give the actual evidence that Jesus said anything that would exclude a Christian from believing in evolutions then I want to hear it.

As for the "Stupid" Neanderthal - There never was any scientific evidence that Neanderthal man was stupid only and arrogant concept that Homo sapiens had to be only intelligent species because we have always seen ourselves as superior and attribute this to our intelligence. The evidence presented only shows that tool use was prevalent in other humanoid species. No surprise in that.

Answer this. Which is more likely to be tell the reality of our world. The creation itself or human ideas bound by language which is always imperfect?

So you are saying that it was not taught in textbooks that Neanderthals were inferior in intelligence to ?? What do you think this means?
"Villa and Roebroeks scrutinized nearly a dozen common explanations for Neanderthal extinction that rely largely on the notion that the Neanderthals were inferior to anatomically modern humans. These include the hypotheses that Neanderthals did not use complex, symbolic communication; that they were less efficient hunters who had inferior weapons;"Neanderthals were not inferior to modern humans, study finds
Do you think it meant that scientists generally thought the Neanderthals were equal in intelligence to "anatomically modern humans"?
Just in case, let's look again at another source: (presumably not a "creationist" site):
"No one knows exactly why Neanderthals went extinct and why Homo sapiens survived. Some scholars theorize that gradual or dramatic climate change led them to their demise, while others blame dietary deficiencies. Some theorize that humans killed the Neanderthals. Until recently the hypothesis that Neanderthals didn't go extinct but simply interbred with humans until they were absorbed into our species was popular." Neanderthals: Facts About Our Extinct Human Relatives | Live Science
(Continual speculation.)
Maybe the following isn't true? What do you think?
"Many scientists had postulated that Neanderthals were too stupid, clumsy and incompetent to survive a competition with the smart and inventive modern humans who invaded their territory."
The question: do you believe that MANY SCIENTISTS POSTULATED THAT NEANDERTHALS WERE TOO STUPID, CLUMSY, etc. to survive?? I didn't ask you if you believe that Neanderthals were too stupid, but if you believe that many scientists postulated this description of Neanderthals, but now may postulate something else?

 

[YoursTrue]

As for the "Stupid" Neanderthal - There never was any scientific evidence that Neanderthal man was stupid only and arrogant concept that Homo sapiens had to be only intelligent species because we have always seen ourselves as superior and attribute this to our intelligence. The evidence presented only shows that tool use was prevalent in other humanoid species. No surprise in that.

See, according to the new idea vs the old idea from scientists about Neanderthals, "Many scientists had postulated that Neanderthals were too stupid, clumsy and incompetent to survive a competition with the smart and inventive modern humans who invaded their territory."
Now, apparently, they don't "postulate" this. Now it seems the Neanderthals are thought to have been pretty smart. After all, it is also postulated that homo sapiens have "neanderthal" genes in their bodies, isn't it? My next thought, not really a question, is I guess there are no bonobos, or chimpanzees with "neanderthal genes" in them, is there?
Scientists Argue That Neanderthals Weren't Incompetent Dimwits

 

[Dan From Smithville]

My concern is not about Dan, but rather the contrast between what the Bible says and what the theory of evolution claims to be. Obviously anyone is free to believe whatever he wants to. My question is about a professed belief in Jesus, and then declaring that evolution is true This is not judging but inquiring.
Again, here's what Jesus wrote about history:
New International Version
"If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me." So you conclude.

Interesting how you have completely hijacked this thread and turned into you interrogation and condemnation of a Christian.

Do you not think it is disingenuous to stop responding to my posts simply because I asked you which church you followed, while I have been responding to you candidly? Because I missed a question and did not respond to it, you filled in my answer for me and have been calling me out on that. Look at the fruit that you are showing here.

This is another reveal for your understanding of science. Theories are not sets of beliefs without logical and evidential support that can either be believed on faith or rejected on faith. Accepting a theory is not based on faith. They require intellectual effort and honesty to understand them.

What you are doing is turning the discussion into a judgement of me. It assumes that you have perfect understanding and are following the perfect path. It assumes that the Bible is infallible. So how do you reconcile the Bible with the facts that have been observed that are contradictory to that. Your answer seems to be to alter the explanations arbitrarily and invalidly so they fit with the Bible. Ignore the facts and explanations, continuing on as if they do not exist. Or twist the science into a religion that it is not so that it can be rejected without any intellectual effort. And lastly, condemn and judge Christians that do understand and accept science with a wave of your hand by elevating the Bible to an idol.

How is any of that good fruit?

The bottom line here is that you have chosen a doctrine that is in conflict with the evidence of nature and understanding based on that. Your efforts here look less like an attempt to understand science, but to find ways to dismiss it. But that dismissal is going to be based on your doctrinal choices and not on any scientific basis. You are free to do that, but taking that way is not a valid argument against science and is no challenge to science.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So you are saying that it was not taught in textbooks that Neanderthals were inferior in intelligence to ?? What do you think this means?
"Villa and Roebroeks scrutinized nearly a dozen common explanations for Neanderthal extinction that rely largely on the notion that the Neanderthals were inferior to anatomically modern humans. These include the hypotheses that Neanderthals did not use complex, symbolic communication; that they were less efficient hunters who had inferior weapons;"Neanderthals were not inferior to modern humans, study finds
Do you think it meant that scientists generally thought the Neanderthals were equal in intelligence to "anatomically modern humans"?
Just in case, let's look again at another source: (presumably not a "creationist" site):
"No one knows exactly why Neanderthals went extinct and why Homo sapiens survived. Some scholars theorize that gradual or dramatic climate change led them to their demise, while others blame dietary deficiencies. Some theorize that humans killed the Neanderthals. Until recently the hypothesis that Neanderthals didn't go extinct but simply interbred with humans until they were absorbed into our species was popular." Neanderthals: Facts About Our Extinct Human Relatives | Live Science
(Continual speculation.)
Maybe the following isn't true? What do you think?
"Many scientists had postulated that Neanderthals were too stupid, clumsy and incompetent to survive a competition with the smart and inventive modern humans who invaded their territory."
The question: do you believe that MANY SCIENTISTS POSTULATED THAT NEANDERTHALS WERE TOO STUPID, CLUMSY, etc. to survive?? I didn't ask you if you believe that Neanderthals were too stupid, but if you believe that many scientists postulated this description of Neanderthals, but now may postulate something else?

This is what is known as a gap argument. Since science does not know they answer or there is controversy in science over multiple hypotheses, whatever personal opinion others have is correct by default and can exist in that gap.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You talk about the message of Christ. Do you believe he told the truth as to his beliefs? Part of his message was that God created the man and woman. Another part of his message was about Noah.

What religious group do you represent? How will it harm you for everyone to know that? How about all the other unanswered questions that have been asked of you regarding the science?

 

[SkepticThinker]

P.S. Jesus said (I wasn't there but I believe he said it), that he IS the truth. By the way. Oh, and there is no proof other than conjecture (again, no recorded eyewitness claimed documents) that say bacteria evolved to plants and animals. Fossils without having been filmed while the organisms were alive and socalled evolving. Have a good night, thanks for your input.

Why do you believe Jesus said that?
Why don't you hold your own standards for believing to the same standards you expect from scientific explanations? Why is the bar so much lower for your God beliefs?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

My concern is not about Dan, but rather the contrast between what the Bible says and what the theory of evolution claims to be. Obviously anyone is free to believe whatever he wants to. My question is about a professed belief in Jesus, and then declaring that evolution is true This is not judging but inquiring.
Again, here's what Jesus wrote about history:
New International Version
"If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me." So you conclude.

What do you think you will achieve with this line of questioning? Do you want to drive me from my belief and win by default? Show me wrong and win by default?

You do know that the theory of evolution is not founded on the personal opinion, religious views, and the positions taken by either of us.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Burden of proof is a concept that completely eludes you.
Carry on with your fantasies. You're "argumentation" is on the same level as Kent Hovind, which is to say, pretty, pretty low.

I'm out.

I gave up trying a while back. No amount of reason and evidence can penetrate.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Why do you believe Jesus said that?
Why don't you hold your own standards for believing to the same standards you expect from scientific explanations? Why is the bar so much lower for your God beliefs?

It is a paradox worth exploring. Another is, how can a person claim to understand the Bible fully, yet fail to explain observations that contradict it when interpreting the Bible literally? At some point, the fallacy of "you can't see it because you refuse to see it" no longer has much impact. It certainly does not answer valid questions.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well this is the problem. I believe many of these "professed Christians" run with athiest groups that do not believe the scriptures and attack the scriptures and when asked if they believe the scriptures you will never get a direct answer. Yet we know that for a "christian" we are saved by faith in God's Word. The same people seek to teach against this very same word when it is only through the Word of God that we have salvation. I believe the scriptures teach without faith it is impossible to please God and whatsoever is not of faith is sin. Now if faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. How can you have faith when there is no Word. I believe this is the fruit of "unbelievers" not "christians" according to the scriptures. Do away with the scriptures they say and profess "christianity". Yet it is by their fruits we are told you will know them. That is those who are "chrisitian" and those who are not.

Thanks for trying to help.

I have not attacked the scriptures. My questions and comments have been about the interpretations of them by a person.

Guilt by association. Is that the good fruit you are sharing? Of course, Christ only associated with those already saved.

I marvel at the contrast between the actual quality of fruit being made available and the unsubstantiated claims about the quality of that same fruit.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It is a paradox worth exploring. Another is, how can a person claim to understand the Bible fully, yet fail to explain observations that contradict it when interpreting the Bible literally? At some point, the fallacy of "you can't see it because you refuse to see it" no longer has much impact. It certainly does not answer valid questions.

Yes! That was going to be my next question.

 

[Bear Wild]

Right now I'm not going to get into a discussion of who wrote what and when the words of Jesus were penned in the Bible, if that's what you mean. Regardless of dating, the entire speculation of the LCA is just that -- speculation. As I said, there were no movies showing the changing forms and dna structures changing. Such as bacteria morphing into plants and animals, dinosaurs becoming fish and so forth.
The Bible writes out Jesus' genealogy straight from Adam, in direct contradiction to what evolutionists are saying about the history of mankind. Why bother saying you're a Christian if you don't believe that, which is in direct contradiction to what evolution teaches? Why does a person say he's a Christian if he doesn't believe what Jesus is said to have said? Because he wants to say that? I suppose so. Because so far I haven't seen a cogent answer to that question, which is, why would a person claim to be a Christian if he doesn't believe what Christ said, or is said to have said? Obviously you cannot answer for Dan, but you can offer your opinion as to why a person who doesn't believe what Jesus is said to have said claims to be a Christian? As I said, I can venture a guess, and so can you, but putting the cards of the table, really Dan needs to answer that.
Perhaps you might read the Bible, the gospel accounts namely, to see what Jesus is reported to have said about creation, including Noah and the flood, to begin with. Matthew chapters 24 and 25 is a good start. This is, of course, the subject -- evolution vs. If a person doesn't believe Jesus as saying that Noah existed, why would someone bother to say he's a "Christian"? Because he likes to say that?
Creation itself testifies that there is a Creator, surpassing human intelligence.

First Jesus did not write Mathew 24 and 25. Noah is a part of the Jewish mythology. There is nothing there that would stop a Christian from accepting the evolution theory. Maybe Jesus did believe in Noah or Jesus saw Noah as an important part of his mythology, we do not know. Nothing presented of this is against the theory of evolution. Human words open to interpretation written by people who were not their when Jesus lived and written for a specific purpose to preach the authors belief. Everything was written with an intent in mind to describe the authors view of what to believe and not to be objective at all. Compare that to the actual world (creation) which is objectively studied. One is based on observed reproducible evidence the other is completely fallible for so many reasons.