The elephant in the room is why man "evolved" to where we are today.

[Suggestion Box]

How do you know that immunity isn't a reason that some people survived God's wrath?

Immunity sometimes is passed onto children, other times it is not depending on how immunity is acquired.

Your point is just not making any sense here.

Can you point out a place in scripture where it says that immunity is the reason some survive God's wrath?

The race is not always to the swift nor the battle to the strong -- but most of the time it is.

Most of the time it is, yes. But the question is not what happens most of the time, but what drives the supposed evolution of mankind? In scripture I find God's intentional selection driving change, but I don't see any descriptions of natural selection doing the job. Can you find examples in scripture to support your claim?

 

[sfs]

Most of the time it is, yes. But the question is not what happens most of the time, but what drives the supposed evolution of mankind?

My point is that what happens most of the time is what drives evolution, both of humans and of all other species. That's why most non-Africans have lighter skin, why some peoples around the world can digest lactose as adults, and why several genetic diseases involving blood are common in areas where malaria is common.

In scripture I find God's intentional selection driving change, but I don't see any descriptions of natural selection doing the job. Can you find examples in scripture to support your claim?

ETA: No, no more than I can find examples in scripture to support our modern understanding of the germ theory of disease or the atomic theory of matter. The Bible doesn't explain evolution any more than it explains physics or chemistry -- that's not what it's about.

 

[Job 33:6]

Can you point out a place in scripture where it says that immunity is the reason some survive God's wrath?

Is there any physical trait that has saved anyone from God's wrath?

By this logic, maybe no one has any physical traits that help them survive in life because none have helped them survive God's wrath?

I have no idea what your argument even is or how it makes any sense.

 

[Suggestion Box]

God's character is to exalt the weak and humble the strong. This aspect of God's character is clearly found throughout scripture. If this is God's character, then God's character is not to exalt the strong and humble the weak, because that is the opposite of what we find in scripture. So I'm not asking you to find evidence for generic evolution in scripture, I'm asking you to find evidence of theistic evolution in scripture. If there is such thing as theistic evolution, you should be able to point to examples of God's own word saying that He does this, and maybe even an explanation as to why. He gives us ample explanations of why he acts the way he does towards his people, and towards the nations at large. His mercy and grace (James 5:13-16) are as evident as his justice and wrath (James 5:1-6). It is clear that God favors those whose weakness make His own power manifest to everyone. It is clear that this drives change. It is not clear how one reconciles theistic survival of the fittest with justification by grace.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

God's character is to exalt the weak and humble the strong. This aspect of God's character is clearly found throughout scripture. If this is God's character, then God's character is not to exalt the strong and humble the weak, because that is the opposite of what we find in scripture. So I'm not asking you to find evidence for generic evolution in scripture, I'm asking you to find evidence of theistic evolution in scripture. If there is such thing as theistic evolution, you should be able to point to examples of God's own word saying that He does this, and maybe even an explanation as to why. He gives us ample explanations of why he acts the way he does towards his people, and towards the nations at large. His mercy and grace (James 5:13-16) are as evident as his justice and wrath (James 5:1-6). It is clear that God favors those whose weakness make His own power manifest to everyone. It is clear that this drives change. It is not clear how one reconciles theistic survival of the fittest with justification by grace.

Why would we expect to see generic evidence of the idea of evolution in Scripture? I think that to do so is a bit much.

The term 'Theistic Evolution' isn't necessarily implying that Evolution constitutes some part of one's Theism. It's merely a blanket term indicating that a person who thinks Evolution is true also, at the same time, thinks that his/her theism is behind our existence---but without direct demonstration because the science is a separate thing, a model by which to qualify what is found as scientifice evidence. It's not expected to explain the Bible.

And sometimes, Scripturally speaking, God can use what is strong to subject the weak as well as use the weak to subject the strong. In can go either way, theologically speaking.

 

[Job 33:6]

God's character is to exalt the weak and humble the strong. This aspect of God's character is clearly found throughout scripture. If this is God's character, then God's character is not to exalt the strong and humble the weak, because that is the opposite of what we find in scripture. So I'm not asking you to find evidence for generic evolution in scripture, I'm asking you to find evidence of theistic evolution in scripture. If there is such thing as theistic evolution, you should be able to point to examples of God's own word saying that He does this, and maybe even an explanation as to why. He gives us ample explanations of why he acts the way he does towards his people, and towards the nations at large. His mercy and grace (James 5:13-16) are as evident as his justice and wrath (James 5:1-6). It is clear that God favors those whose weakness make His own power manifest to everyone. It is clear that this drives change. It is not clear how one reconciles theistic survival of the fittest with justification by grace.

This just sounds like you're asking me to produce evidence that people with weakened immune systems are more vulnerable to death than people with strong immune systems.

This is the opposite of what we find in scripture (God exalts the weak), and yet it's a known fact that occurs in the real world.

So there's something clearly broken with your argument.

 

[Buzzard3]

Where on earth did you get that idea?

Oh, come on ... are you telling us you haven't noticed the link between evolution and atheism? You must have come down in the last shower!

Evolution ... is accepted by scientists throughout the world, of whatever faith, because it explains and predicts a vast range of observations about the physical world. Th

Evolution also does its fair share of failing to explain a range of observations about the physical world.

ToE fails to explain the Cambrian explosion.

ToE fails to explain how novel body plans and organs appeared.


ToE fails to explain how certain creatures could have evolved by a step-by-step process - venomous snakes, for example.

I accept that the fossil record reveals a pattern of evolution, but it's impossible for anyone to ever know what process was responsible for that evolution.

It's obvious inadequacies notwithstanding, ToE provides the best scientific explanation for the history of life on earth - but that doesn't mean it's the truth (or even close to the truth) or even a good theory.

It should be noted that atheists in general harbour exceedingly biased opinions of ToE - they defend it with religious zeal, seriously overrate its explanatory power, while turning a blind eye to its weaknesses and contradictions ... which is why so many delusonists, bs-artists, liars and con-men stroll the halls of Darwinism. Buyer beware!

Atheism's blind and total devotion to ToE is understandable, since an atheist's psychological well-being is heavily invested in it. As Richard Dawkins famously said, "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.

 

[sfs]

Oh, come on ... are you telling us you haven't noticed the link between evolution and atheism? You must have come down in the last shower!

Yeah, I've noticed a correlation between acceptance of evolution and atheism. What does that have to do with the claim I was responding to? Lots of things are correlated with atheism -- are you arguing that all of them represent a yearning to get rid of God?

Evolution also does its fair share of failing to explain a range of observations about the physical world.

Evolution does a far (far, far, far) better job of explaining such observations than anything else on offer.

ToE fails to explain the Cambrian explosion.

Where did you get that idea? And what other theory does explain the Cambrian explosion? Are you suggesting that creationism does? How?

ToE fails to explain how novel body plans and organs appeared.

Incorrect. There's an entire field of study dedicated to doing exactly what you say evolution doesn't do.

ToE fails to explain how certain creatures could have evolved by a step-by-step process - venomous snakes, for example.

There's lots not known about lots of specific evolutionary events, but you're suggesting here that evolution cannot explain the evolution of venomous snakes. What's the basis for that claim?

I accept that the fossil record reveals a pattern of evolution, but it's impossible for anyone to ever know what process was responsible for that evolution.

It's impossible (sorry, impossible) to know anything for certain. But we do know that evolution is happening constantly, that it happens much faster than is needed to explain the changes to life over time, that an immense range of data (including especially genetic data) provides evidence for common descent, and that no evidence has yet emerged that contradicts it. If you have an alternative that can do the same, please present it.

It should be noted that atheists in general harbour exceedingly biased opinions of ToE - they defend it with religious zeal, seriously overrate its explanatory power, while turning a blind eye to its weaknesses and contradictions ... which is why so many delusonists, bs-artists, liars and con-men stroll the halls of Darwinism. Buyer beware!

It should be noted that you have offered a string of insults rather than evidence. If evolution were really so weak, why do creationists so often find it necessary to lie about it?

It should also be noted that you have yet to deal with the fact that the overwhelming majority of Christian biologists also accept evolution.

 

[drich0150]

Reproduction: Nothing beats bacteria. We wouldn't have progressed beyond that because we didn't need to if we can reproduce in abundance. Same with insects. They lay thousands of eggs and people have one child at a time (most of the time). Makes no sense to survive we would drastically reduce our reproductive abilities.

[/QUOTE]
Just playing devil's advocate, as I've heard and seen this argument against real live atheist before.

The thought they would use against this idea is that the resources available/needed would not sustain more than one child at a time. which is why we've adapted to having only one baby in general at a time. plus one must also consider the rate in which humans CAN reproduce and for how long the female stays fertile. Not to mention the creatures you listed mate once have 1,000 eggs of offspring and die. Human female can have children about once a year for potentially well over 20 years.
Just 100 years ago it was not uncommon for a family to have more than 10 kids.

Resilience to the elements: Man is pathetic when it comes to the elements. Unclothed people die exposed very long much lower than room temperature. Or much above it. Look at your dog. Its fine in hot weather and walks with you in frigid temperatures. Doesn't need additional clothing. We are the most sensitive and fragile life on this planet. That makes no sense to lose our resilience to the elements. It would mean people would needlessly die. This contradicts every aspect of evolution which is to change to survive. Not change and get more suscpeptible to everything around you.

[/QUOTE]
the counter argument there is the fact that we use supplementary garments to leave our preferred climate zone before we evolved to live in other climates. This move to other climates before we completely evolved forced us to develop over time more and more complex outer garments which increased the dependency of them forcing more need for those outer garments.

Speed: Man is very slow compared to most animals. You can't even keep up with your dog unless its some tiny thing. Even your cat can blast the most trained sprinter in the world. This again contradicts the whole premise of evolution.

[/QUOTE]
Again forcing man to develop cognitively and develop tools. Our ability to make and use complex tools is what allowed us to 'tame' the elements and not be forced to live in or with them.

Strength: This is huge. Look at a chimp. Half the size of a human and can lift 700 lbs. They can hang by one arm for half an hour. We'd be lucky to do that for a few seconds. Now look at an ape the same size as a human. They could crush us in an instant. We are (again) pathetic compared to the rest of life around us. Strength would hugely help us survive in any situation and there's no way we would lose it in our evolutionary journey.

[/QUOTE]
The 'smarter' a creature is, the less dependent he is on his physical abilities. we developed a larger brain which again with the use of tools made us less and less dependent on our ability to physically force or manipulate something.

I could go on and on but its always the same. In every aspect of our supposed evolution we got worse, except for our minds. This is utterly inexplicable from the evolutionary standpoint.

Evolution can't explain the most basic of human characteristics. In fact everything about humans refute the whole concept of evolution, except for our minds. We would never want less speed, strength, reproductive abilities or resilience to the elements if we want to survive. Ever. It - makes - no - sense.

actually it can, as we are not like everything you have compared us to. meaning if we are not the same IE Humans are by far the most advanced and cognitively dominate species then your argument is not a true apples to apples comparison. IE it become a Non sequitur fallacy.

 

[Diamond72]

Same with insects. They lay thousands of eggs

A man produces enough sperm in two weeks to populate the whole earth. Maple trees produce enough seed to produce a whole forest. Fish hatcheries actually get 97% of the eggs to produce fish. In the wild, only 3% survive. Under ideal perfect conditions, the earth can reproduce itself very fast. We see this after a fire. The roots are still there and things can grow back a lot more than what was there before.

 

[Phoneman-777]

I love how you refute yourself in every part.

Resilience to elements, when man is unclothed we are weak. Ok and when we build a house we are then strong.

Speed, man is slow compared to many animals....but when we invented cars, that weakness went out the window.

Strength, mankind is weak compared to chimps. But when we invented guns that went out the window too.

You say that every aspect got worse except our minds. Well, in the end, our minds have trumped all other variables. Guns make us the strongest species. Fighter jets make us the fastest. Natural gas furnaces make us the warmest, houses make us the best sheltered from weather. We have daycares and in vitro fertilization, baby clinics and more to help with birthing.

All the weaknesses you've described are certainly weaknesses. But in every single case, our brain has prevailed. And the evolution of the brain is just as much a valuable organ to us than any other part of the body.

Evolution comes down to survival of the fittest and there is absolutely no question that we are the fittest of all species of the animal kingdom.

At what point did death cease to be a consequence of finding ourselves ranked among the "not so fit" and commence to be a consequence of sin?

 

[stevevw]

Reproduction: Nothing beats bacteria. We wouldn't have progressed beyond that because we didn't need to if we can reproduce in abundance. Same with insects. They lay thousands of eggs and people have one child at a time (most of the time). Makes no sense to survive we would drastically reduce our reproductive abilities.

Resilience to the elements: Man is pathetic when it comes to the elements. Unclothed people die exposed very long much lower than room temperature. Or much above it. Look at your dog. Its fine in hot weather and walks with you in frigid temperatures. Doesn't need additional clothing. We are the most sensitive and fragile life on this planet. That makes no sense to lose our resilience to the elements. It would mean people would needlessly die. This contradicts every aspect of evolution which is to change to survive. Not change and get more suscpeptible to everything around you.

Speed: Man is very slow compared to most animals. You can't even keep up with your dog unless its some tiny thing. Even your cat can blast the most trained sprinter in the world. This again contradicts the whole premise of evolution.

Strength: This is huge. Look at a chimp. Half the size of a human and can lift 700 lbs. They can hang by one arm for half an hour. We'd be lucky to do that for a few seconds. Now look at an ape the same size as a human. They could crush us in an instant. We are (again) pathetic compared to the rest of life around us. Strength would hugely help us survive in any situation and there's no way we would lose it in our evolutionary journey.

I could go on and on but its always the same. In every aspect of our supposed evolution we got worse, except for our minds. This is utterly inexplicable from the evolutionary standpoint.

Evolution can't explain the most basic of human characteristics. In fact everything about humans refute the whole concept of evolution, except for our minds. We would never want less speed, strength, reproductive abilities or resilience to the elements if we want to survive. Ever. It - makes - no - sense.

I think Mind transcends material conceptions like evolution. In some ways that makes Mind before evolution as for evolution to have produced Mind and for Mind to have these ideas knowledge must be before ontology.

We may have become less intelligent or become weaker but I think we have surpassed natural selection and are now agents controlling evolution. We can create any environment to mitigate any environmental threats. We may inhabit another planet if need be when the earth is no more. That seems a paradox to a deterministic and material view of evolution where we are part of the process and the creators of what happens.

 

[Job 33:6]

At what point did death cease to be a consequence of finding ourselves ranked among the "not so fit" and commence to be a consequence of sin?

I don't know what you mean by this question.

 

[Phoneman-777]

I don't know what you mean by this question.

The Bible says death came as a consequence of sin, and evolution says death is a consequence of "survival of the fittest to the dertriment of the not so fit" - so how does theistic evolution harmonize the two? At what point did death cease to be due to "not so fit" and begin to be due to sin?

 

[Job 33:6]

The Bible says death came as a consequence of sin, and evolution says death is a consequence of "survival of the fittest to the dertriment of the not so fit" - so how does theistic evolution harmonize the two? At what point did death cease to be due to "not so fit" and begin to be due to sin?

Because of this, just as sin entered into the world through one man, and death through sin, so also death spread to all people because all sinned.
Romans 5:12

Paul notes that death came to all man, but this verse doesn't apply to the animal kingdom. It suggests that the death Paul referred to was specific to the sins of man and wasn't related to what animals do.

Evolution does involve death of animals before humanity. I would agree with this understanding.

 

[Phoneman-777]

Because of this, just as sin entered into the world through one man, and death through sin, so also death spread to all people because all sinned.
Romans 5:12

Paul notes that death came to all man, but this verse doesn't apply to the animal kingdom. It suggests that the death Paul referred to was specific to the sins of man and wasn't related to what animals do.

Evolution does involve death of animals before humanity. I would agree with this understanding.

Doesn't it say all was "good good, very good" up to the point that man was created? How can death in the animal kingdom be "good"?

 

[Phoneman-777]

Here's an actual zoologist, scientist's take on things:

 

[Job 33:6]

Doesn't it say all was "good good, very good" up to the point that man was created? How can death in the animal kingdom be "good"?

When Jesus fed fish to the poor and hungry, was that a sin?

If you have an argument with scripture, I'll be here. But I'm not here to debate opinions over what God means by "good".

Last I checked, one thing that wasn't good was when Adam was alone in the garden. But what does that have to do with immortality?

Absolutely nothing.