Evolution disproved

I agree. I was not disagreeing with you, at all. Rather, I was simply stating that when we embrace the person of the Truth (Jesus our redeemer) it is tempting to extend the possession of that Truth to our own theology. So, as you say, many do not think to change their theology, but I think it is because they mistakenly believe that the Truth automatically extends to their opinions, which it does not. As you rightly state, there are checks and balances between God’s books of revelation and they must be reconciled. In a sense, they have stopped at step one and never gone any further.

1 Like

I really like how you stated that, Michael. …and welcome to the forum!

3 Likes

I was just listening to a Tim Hawkins skit, singing atheist campfire songs, and he had one line about evolution and Darwin, essentially equating accepting Darwin with atheism. Now, I don’t know if that reflected his personable belief, but it did reflect what he thought his audience would find funny. Point being, evolution has been presented to a sizable Christian subculture in such a way that they see it as equivalent to atheism. So, while many of us believe evolution is part of God’s truth revealed in creation, some stIll have an ingrained negative connotation that is hard to discard.

4 Likes

Quite a few of those with the negative connotation seem to come by here. And all seem very resistant to changing that incorrect belief.

Well I think that fits well with the problem @jpm just described. Consider being taught something your entire life, reinforced in every occasion and then coming here to find out that it was all one big lie. That’s not an easy thing to transition out of! In light of that, I think we can all aim to be more understanding in light of this mess that comes our way from a sort of American cultural Christianity, or from evangelical churches, pastors and apologists.

5 Likes

I do not think that there is a simple explanation why the Bible just does not tell us there were billions of years in a simple process of creation. Nor does God’s image have much say in the matter. The warning though had always been not to put faith and trust in the physical. The process of cloning was mentioned before any biological evolution. I doubt that is taken into consideration much, because the whole account is taken as a metaphorical philosophy. Other ANE text tell the account through an evolutionary viewpoint, but that is also lost on those who attempt to justify they were not actual accounts in the Bible. The Scriptures or Covenants with God did not include the view of society outside of this Covenant. Is that God rejecting the inclinations of the world even though such a physical view of creation cannot be refuted?

I am curious as to what you are referring to here. I can’t think off any biblical biological cloning. I suggested tongue in cheek once that when Christ was said to the second Adam by Paul that perhaps that literally meant they had the same genome, both being de novo genetically, but do not know of anyone who takes that seriously.

The creation of Eve probably doesn’t qualify as cloning, as long as we assume she wasn’t Adam’s genetic twin, but in the kooky world of Genesis 1-3, we do have one body (Eve’s) created from another (Adam’s) and that actually sounds like cloning to people who’ve had too much wine or who think that one ought to read Genesis “literally.”

My thoughts also regarding Eve. Even if you somehow duplicated Adam’s X chromosome and removed the Y, she still would not be a clone. A product of artificial parthenogenesis, perhaps. Speaking of, here is most interesting case report I stumbled upon:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg14819982-300-the-boy-whose-blood-has-no-father/

1 Like

She wouldn’t be a clone by the book, but she’d be close, and the process of taking a piece of one organism to generate another is a form of cloning. Again, the more obvious problem is that the conversation we are having is flat-out bonkers.

3 Likes

If there is no plan of biological reproduction and a being contains both sexes would that be replication and not cloning? Who said it was something currently done? We have no clue what God meant when it was said “giving birth” would be more painful. It could have been a totally different process, before the fall and the fall was a change in human reproduction. If Eve was the mother of all living, that could be that she was just that. There were no seperate sex beings until her and Adam. As I said, if you want the modern human science version, don’t use the Bible or try to fit the modern understanding into Genesis. Use other ANE text. If you want God’s version that does not fit modern science, then read Genesis.

Deleted by author for more consideration.

Here goes my first post.
Looking for some feedback regarding how some people embrace the idea of evolution along with biblical teaching.

  1. The biblical creation account puts Earth first before the stars, and yet evolution teaches stars before the earth.
  2. Biblical teaching puts Birds before land creatures and vice versa with evolutionary teaching.
  3. Genesis chapter 5 and 11 as well as Luke chapter 3 genealogies give The creation date of approximately 4000 years before Christ, whereas the evolutionary idea is that humans existed long before that.
  4. Genesis 1:29 reveals the creation was originally vegetarian, genesis 9:3 reveals when flesh eating began, Isaiah 11:9-11 Confirms that God’s standard of good in Genesis was that lions got along with lambs and children could have played near cobras holes.
  5. Genesis 3:18 puts thorns after sin, (The importance of the crown of thorns Christ Took upon himself) and yet allegedly according to the idea of evolution thorns existed for up to 55 million years.
  6. The idea of earthquakes, tsunami‘s and other natural disasters before Sin and a cursed earth doesn’t quite square up either.
  7. Lastly, (for now)the idea of death and decay before sin.

These two teachings seem to be just as compatible as ice cream and a hot day.

Where does the idea of millions and billions of years stem from anyway? From dating techniques which yield ‘old age’ results only if relying on certain assumptions…for example assuming tree rings being annual rings makes a tree older than A tree producing multiple rings per year, which is an observable, demonstratable fact.
Or how about dating techniques like measuring radioactive decay which can yield old old age results of billions of years but only when Assuming Slow decay Rates, yet it has been demonstrated in labs that such rates can be accelerated (fast-forwarded) over a billion-fold.
Trees, rocks, ice layers etc etc are not clocks, and are terribly unreliable and make for terrible ‘ideas’ like millions of years.

Thoughts?

I love ice cream on a hot day. Here where I live we have insulated containers and air conditioning. Weird, huh?

3 Likes

Welcome to the website. You certainly came to the right place to ask that question. I am so impressed with both the understanding of science and of theology so many display here, as well as a good deal of compassion and kindness. (I’ll pass myself however as I’m no expert in either field.) I take it your own interests are more centered on theology. I hope you’ll stick around longer than your username leads one to expect.

3 Likes

Welcome to the forum. :slight_smile:

First of all, evolutionary creationists have a different take than you on what constitutes the “biblical teaching” of Genesis and don’t believe it was ever intended to give a blow by blow account of the material creation of the universe. There is plenty of info about that on the BioLogos website. Here’s one article:

I’m afraid you are misinformed about radioactive dating. Have you ever read up on these subjects from anything other than creationist sources? You might be surprised at what they aren’t telling you.

Here is an article by two Christian geologists:

Here is an article on how the age of the universe is calculated:

Here is an example of how scientists use reliable, cross-checked dating methods to propose the age of the Hawaiian islands:

2 Likes

Welcome to the forum. While my interpretation of Genesis differs from yours, I am interested if you could provide support for your position with a specific example to discuss outside of your biblical interpretation?

2 Likes

Hello @helloandgoodbye,

The lab results you are referring to were only able to accelerate the radioactive decay rate when they raised the temperature to higher than 100,000 degrees Kelvin.

To give you a point of reference, the temperature on the surface of the sun is 10,000 degrees Kelvin. A full order of magnitude lower.

The temperature outside where I live today is a balmy 280 degrees Kelvin.

Anyone who claims that lab results of accelerated decay show radiometric dating is wrong needs to first show how the earth and life upon it could survive being heated to 10 times the temperature of the surface of the sun. Can you do that?

Now think about the source that gave you the impression that radiometric dating can be explained away by lab results. Do you think that source, whoever it was, gave you all the relevant information necessary to make a well-reasoned judgment about radiometric dating?

Best,
Chris

4 Likes

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Radioactivity.html

Regarding your first article about martial/function. It was a long article, but jumping down to the concluding statements (like problems of 24 hr days and solid skies) I thought this may be a good source for you.
Free online 600+ page book.

The main thing I find wrong mentioned several times in that article is the solid sky. The Raqia or expanse created to separate the waters from the waters in genesis 1is best interpreted as Earth Crust =heaven in genesis 1:6-8. The online book will expand on that for you👍Enjoy

I was brought up on creation science. Been there, done that, not going back.

2 Likes