Jesus doesn't believe in evolution

[idav]

So the question is: did man devolve with the Fall? (Look around at all the suffering here--this certainly isn't heaven....)

There was never a point where humans and animals lived forever. The death and suffering was there before the fall just outside paradise.

 

[Noaidi]

Let's back up a bit here:


Evolution of consciousness=go to heaven (evolve)
Devolution of consciousness=go to hell (devolve)

So yes, Jesus did believe in evolution, but not in the way you are thinking.

So the question is: did man devolve with the Fall? (Look around at all the suffering here--this certainly isn't heaven....)

Ah. Because this is in the Evolution vs Creationism topic, I (and some others, I think) assumed you were talking about biological evolution, not evolution of consciousness.

 

[crossfire]

Ah. Because this is in the Evolution vs Creationism topic, I (and some others, I think) assumed you were talking about biological evolution, not evolution of consciousness.

Oops! My bad! Sorry! **runs off to PMS hut**

 

[Noaidi]

Oops! My bad! Sorry! **runs off to PMS hut**

"PMS hut"?! Dare I even ask what / where that is?

 

[crossfire]

"PMS hut"?! Dare I even ask what / where that is?

It's located in a place called "Hormonal Hell." I have a nice flame-proof meditation mat there.

 

[Noaidi]

It's located in a place called "Hormonal Hell." I have a nice flame-proof meditation mat there.

I think my wife goes there from time to time....
(anyway, I think we've gone off topic, now. Better pull back!)

 

[Super Universe]

Mark 10:5-6

5 ....... Jesus replied. 6 “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’

Evolution, in the beginning, started with a sexless cell. Not until many many years later did male and female cells comeinto being. Therefore Jesus didn't believe in evolution. BUt scientific evidence points towards evolution.

Is Jesus therefore wrong in what he says in Mark 10:5-6

Context please!

In Mark 10:5 Jesus is talking about marriage, not evolution. Jesus wanted to upgrade the Jewish beliefs but He would lose the people completely if He simply told them that Moses was wrong about God. Ancient people of many cultures respected the old beliefs, in some cultures dead ancestors are worshipped so any change had to be carefully proposed.

Jesus was using an Old Testament phrase to describe that a man should be with one woman for life.

 

[rusra02]

Mark 10:5-6

5 ....... Jesus replied. 6 “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’

Evolution, in the beginning, started with a sexless cell. Not until many many years later did male and female cells comeinto being. Therefore Jesus didn't believe in evolution. BUt scientific evidence points towards evolution.

Is Jesus therefore wrong in what he says in Mark 10:5-6

No, he was absolutely correct. And according to the Bible, Jesus was present at man's creation, so he had first hand knowledge of these events. (John 1:2,3)
Contrary to the endless propaganda by ToE proponents, there is no credible evidence for one family of animals changing into another, nor of gradual development of greater complexity. Darwin himself admitted: "If numerous species...have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution." And so it has proved to be. Do not mistake propaganda as evidence. I believe the ToE is the Big Lie, droned endlessly until it becomes a slogan, accepted without dissent or critical examination.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Jesus was quoting Jewish Scripture to make a point to the Pharisees about divorce. He was referring to the creation of humankind as male and female, not life in general.

Yes, in context, the "them" he refers to is "man and woman", But that still leaves the problematic bit about man and woman being male and female "at the beginning of creation." IOW, human beings were in their current form at the beginning of creation, which I think implies that they didn't evolve.

And this bit's central to Jesus' argument, so I don't think it can be brushes off as easily: he's saying that divorce (at least the particular system of divorce that Jesus refers to) is contrary to the model of marriage that God established right from the start, and God's intent was for married couples to stay together for life, so divorce should be avoided.

Whether he means it means divorce should be avoided altogether or whether he means that people should take marriage more seriously than those particular people were is probably a matter for discussion, but Jesus' whole argument is based on this idea that marriage for life is the "original" model, which implies that men and women were "originally" there.

There's only one possible "out" I can see: if the words here allow for some alternate phrasing like "... in the original design" instead of "... since the beginning of creation", then that could allow for evolution and be less obviously wrong. I just don't know if the original text actually supports it, though.

 

[Super Universe]

No, he was absolutely correct. And according to the Bible, Jesus was present at man's creation, so he had first hand knowledge of these events. (John 1:2,3)
Contrary to the endless propaganda by ToE proponents, there is no credible evidence for one family of animals changing into another, nor of gradual development of greater complexity. Darwin himself admitted: "If numerous species...have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution." And so it has proved to be. Do not mistake propaganda as evidence. I believe the ToE is the Big Lie, droned endlessly until it becomes a slogan, accepted without dissent or critical examination.

Why couldn't God have humanity evolve from lower life forms? Evolution is the smart way to have multiple life forms exist in the universe, otherwise God would have to monitor the population levels of every species and make constant changes. Believe it or not, God actually has more important things to do.

 

[McBell]

No, he was absolutely correct. And according to the Bible, Jesus was present at man's creation, so he had first hand knowledge of these events. (John 1:2,3)
Contrary to the endless propaganda by ToE proponents, there is no credible evidence for one family of animals changing into another, nor of gradual development of greater complexity. Darwin himself admitted: "If numerous species...have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution." And so it has proved to be. Do not mistake propaganda as evidence. I believe the ToE is the Big Lie, droned endlessly until it becomes a slogan, accepted without dissent or critical examination.

So much blatantly false information in such a small paragraph.

I am most impressed.

 

[nazz]

Yes, in context, the "them" he refers to is "man and woman", But that still leaves the problematic bit about man and woman being male and female "at the beginning of creation." IOW, human beings were in their current form at the beginning of creation, which I think implies that they didn't evolve.

And this bit's central to Jesus' argument, so I don't think it can be brushes off as easily: he's saying that divorce (at least the particular system of divorce that Jesus refers to) is contrary to the model of marriage that God established right from the start, and God's intent was for married couples to stay together for life, so divorce should be avoided.

Whether he means it means divorce should be avoided altogether or whether he means that people should take marriage more seriously than those particular people were is probably a matter for discussion, but Jesus' whole argument is based on this idea that marriage for life is the "original" model, which implies that men and women were "originally" there.

There's only one possible "out" I can see: if the words here allow for some alternate phrasing like "... in the original design" instead of "... since the beginning of creation", then that could allow for evolution and be less obviously wrong. I just don't know if the original text actually supports it, though.

First off, the gospels differ as to what Jesus actually said. Matthew has:

Mat 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made [them] at the beginning made them male and female

whereas Mark renders it as:

Mar 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

Now how should we interpret "the beginning of creation"? It certainly does not refer to the very beginning of creation because things were said to be created before man. So it can only refer to that point when humans were created. Whether one wishes to view that as special creation or simply the result of evolutionary forces it is clear that human beings have always been male and female (intersexed exceptions aside).

Jesus is not attempting to give a science lecture on how humankind came to be. He is simply using the Genesis story as a basis for his argument. It's what I call "arguing from within the system". That is, basing an argument on what others believe to be true (whether or not one believes it oneself). Atheists do this all the time with the Bible. I think it's germane to the topic to point out that in the Gospel of John Jesus disowns the Jewish Scriptures.

 

[rusra02]

Why couldn't God have humanity evolve from lower life forms? Evolution is the smart way to have multiple life forms exist in the universe, otherwise God would have to monitor the population levels of every species and make constant changes. Believe it or not, God actually has more important things to do.

Evolution is a complete repudiation of the Bible. As I mentioned, the evidence for evolution is lacking. Evidence for an intelligent Maker is everywhere, to those with eyes to see it. The God that made the world and all the things in it, is certainly in the best position to know how to do it.(Acts 17:24) And God said that he "proceeded to form the man out of dust from the ground and to blow into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man came to be a living soul." (Genesis 2:7) I believe that the first man had the prospect before him of living forever, fulfilling God's purpose for him. He was not the product of a long line of evolutionary advances from sub-human life forms. Thus God's promise of everlasting life is based on historical realities. (Revelation 21:3,4)

​

.​

 

[nazz]

Evolution is a complete repudiation of the Bible. As I mentioned, the evidence for evolution is lacking.

The theory of evolution is one of the best supported theories in science. There are mountains of evidence that support it.

 

[rusra02]

So much blatantly false information in such a small paragraph.

I am most impressed.

I did not write to impress you, and the information is not false. Each person should examine the evidence for themselves rather than blindly believe whatever they are told as regards whether God created us or whether we evolved. Unfortunately, the media, academia, and the scientific establishment choke off honest debate about evolution's weaknesses and proclaim the ToE as "fact", when it is nothing of the sort.

 

[nazz]

I did not write to impress you, and the information is not false. Each person should examine the evidence for themselves rather than blindly believe whatever they are told as regards whether God created us or whether we evolved. Unfortunately, the media, academia, and the scientific establishment choke off honest debate about evolution's weaknesses and proclaim the ToE as "fact", when it is nothing of the sort.

No scientifically knowledgeable person touts the ToE as fact. Theories are not facts; they explain facts. But it is accurate to say evolution of both theory and fact.

I don't see anyone stifling debate. Scientists debate creationists all the time.

 

[Super Universe]

Evolution is a complete repudiation of the Bible. As I mentioned, the evidence for evolution is lacking. Evidence for an intelligent Maker is everywhere, to those with eyes to see it. The God that made the world and all the things in it, is certainly in the best position to know how to do it.(Acts 17:24) And God said that he "proceeded to form the man out of dust from the ground and to blow into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man came to be a living soul." (Genesis 2:7) I believe that the first man had the prospect before him of living forever, fulfilling God's purpose for him. He was not the product of a long line of evolutionary advances from sub-human life forms. Thus God's promise of everlasting life is based on historical realities. (Revelation 21:3,4)

.​

Evolution is IN the bible, what do you think Genesis is describing? Go back and read it for yourself. Stop listening to the preachers who have no education. God created the universe not the bible.

The evidence for evolution is not lacking, it's substantial.

Evidence for an Intelligent Maker is everywhere? It is but once again I ask you, why couldn't God have humanity form by evolution?

You're placing the bible above God. The bible was written by ignorant men who were afraid of comets.

You believe the first man had the prospect of living forever? So man had the ability to live forever yet Jesus had to die?

Stop listening to the preachers and start thinking for yourself. Let me ask you this, have you ever taken a Physical Anthropology course or one that covers evolution?

 

[McBell]

I did not write to impress you,

I did not think for a second you did.

and the information is not false.

Yes it is.

Each person should examine the evidence for themselves rather than blindly believe whatever they are told as regards whether God created us or whether we evolved.

What, like you claim to have done?
You do know that ratification is not actually research, right?

Unfortunately, the media, academia, and the scientific establishment choke off honest debate about evolution's weaknesses and proclaim the ToE as "fact", when it is nothing of the sort.

Bold faced lie.

 

[rusra02]

No scientifically knowledgeable person touts the ToE as fact. Theories are not facts; they explain facts. But it is accurate to say evolution of both theory and fact.

I don't see anyone stifling debate. Scientists debate creationists all the time.

You sure you wanna ride that bronco?

“We are here talking about the fact of evolution itself, a fact that is proved utterly beyond reasonable doubt...It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).” - Richard Dawkins

​

Stephen Jay Gould wrote an essay on evolution 01/87 issue of the magazine Discover. in this five-page article he proclaimed evolution to be a fact 12 times.

As to stifling debate, documentaries such as "Expelled - No Intelligence Allowed" claim otherwise.​

 

[nazz]

You sure you wanna ride that bronco?

“We are here talking about the fact of evolution itself, a fact that is proved utterly beyond reasonable doubt...It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).” - Richard Dawkins

Stephen Jay Gould wrote an essay on evolution 01/87 issue of the magazine Discover. in this five-page article he proclaimed evolution to be a fact 12 times.

As to stifling debate, documentaries such as "Expelled - No Intelligence Allowed" claim otherwise.​

Evolution IS a fact. But the THEORY of evolution is a theory, not a fact.

It's just like gravity. There is the observable fact of gravity and there is the theory of gravity which explains it.