Theory of Evolution

Ok, I'll stop screwing around and explain how I think evolution can very, VERY easily become a salvation issue. Evolution, whether it is theistic or secular requires chance mutation, natural selection, death, and very long time periods. Nevermind the fact that this undermines the gospel at a fundamental level as it claims that there was death before sin entered the world. There is another crucial issue that is mostly overlooked. To start with, Evolution reduces God to that of the gaps, where his involvement in the existence of life is only allowed when it cannot be explained by purely naturalistic means. Its akin to mixing the right ingredients in the right formula and expecting it to evolve into a cake, the only difference is that God is the mixer. He took the right chemicals into the right sequence and formed a single celled organism.

This organism evolves into a multi-celled organism which evolves into marine life. After millions of years of mutation, death, selection, etc, we finally get to the apeman, which God gives a living soul. Now, how many people realize that this makes evolution a works based belief even with God in the picture? This is theistic evolution in a nutshell. What evolution does is it takes the glory away from the creator and places it on the creation. This is a big no no in scripture for a reason. You see, according to evolution the creator didn't do all the work. He didn't do much at all in fact. The creator is not the prime mover, the prime cause of all life, the creation itself is. So since God cannot really claim to be the creator as the creation did half or most of the work, then he can't really claim to reconcile to himself that which he did not create, which henceforth means no redemption. With evolution, it is up to the creature to "evolve" and redeem itself, to make itself a "new creature". I believe this will be a crucial foundation of that "other gospel" that will be preached by "the beast" of Revelation. The idea is that man will conquer nature, will conquer death, and will themselves become gods. This will take us full circle back to the same lie that started it all in Eden and we already see this garbage, this steaming pile of kangaroo feces being promoted by transhumanists the world over.

pia said:

Who can prove that ? No one....And those 'tails' we see on a very low number of people, they are not tails, they are simply a gathering a fatty tissue and they don't always appear at the rear end of us lol

Click to expand...

well, as the video shows, others have already had the same objections, and so the matter was studied further, they put cameras in wombs until they could watch the tail develop, vertebra and all.

pia said:

but evolutionists must have had a field day, when they chose to call them tails

Click to expand...

well it is acknowledged that vestigial tails are not tails, and fwiw there is surely a body of scientists who contest the position also, if you do then someone else is, right, so rather than take a stand on any theory, i would say just keep an open mind there. This is not some thing that i even have to have an opinion on, imo

pia said:

Fur, well people who live up near the pole and Alaska and such Siberia is another....Why on earth would they have ever lost fur, if they had ever had it ?

Click to expand...

well, you could ask Google and get quite a bit of info--i just did--and the argument goes into the timeline, a rather solid theory being that humans lost their fur during a warm period, and ppl living further from the equator lost their fur more slowly, or strangely, seem to have extincted in those areas; or moved or something. An Ice Age would naturally cause ppl to move toward the equator i guess. i had a friend with a patch of fur

pia said:

So I'm sorry I just cannot believe this ape to human stuff.

Click to expand...

ah well, no one says that anymore except religious ppl wadr.
We did not evolve "from" apes, that is pretty certain.
But also, we are evolving right now, and this also seems pretty certain, and imo even Scriptural.

pia said:

Sorry, I know I'm somewhat dense, can you explain please...Dunno what that means ..thanks

Click to expand...

hmm. Well, the meaning and etymology of "Adam" is not certain at all, and digging into it is easily a day's reading. I agree with Aspen here, these are not essential knowledge, but i will say that reflecting on the etymology of the word "Adam" has made some other things clearer; and as Christ is deemed the "last Adam" it maybe should even be required reading.

You won't find any proof of anything, all you will get is perspectives, but hey that has gotten you this far, right?
for now i would say that "we noticed that we were naked, so we hid" and "here, have a skin, then" suggest that reality was at least incorporated into the Creation story, maybe. Which came from mythology, essential truth reduced to stories that could be repeated around campfires; which imo is a perfectly acceptable analogy for "God gave it."

not to overstate "hair," but hair is a uniquely human phenom; we have "hair" all over, but it is only the hair on our skull that (usually) grows unimpeded throughout our lives. "Hair" is actually one of the only differentiations between us and "animals" that still stands; forebrains have been found in other animals, emotions have been demonstrated, tool use has fallen, etc.

another way to put that is "our heads have changed," which you might interpret Scripturally also

aspen said:

Pia,

Believing in evolution or denying it has no bearing on salvation - thankfully.

Click to expand...

seems true enough on the surface, but then how are we defining "salvation?" Iow at what point do we start channelling the Roman Catholic church, burning Copernicus at the stake or whatever? After all, none of us has the means--practically speaking--of refuting Flat Earth either, right.

so imo it depends upon how one defines "salvation" (and also "thief in the night" i guess), and i can't in good conscience accept the one that insists you have to literally die to get it any longer.

If the Instituted church preaches it, i know it is deficient in some essential regard, even if it is 90% correct.
Scripture even says so i guess

It just became too opposed to my understanding of "Life, more abundantly."

Dcopymope said:

I am 100% certain that it will to some though. Its just a matter of how the Devil will spin it to make it a salvation issue. Its quite easy to do actually, to take it from faith based to one of works. You just have to think like the enemy to see it.

Click to expand...

God pays a man according to his works, too many refs to list even. If you seek enemies, you will certainly find them, but i suggest a better path, that will not have one "fighting the devil" wadr. You end up becoming what you fight, as our sages have assured us.

See, none of this that is not the truth will stand in the fire; the fruit is all that matters right

at the same time i agree that the first Adam is a fig tree, and the Last Adam is a Tree of Life, ok, to maybe restate your premise there.

“every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food.”

bbyrd009 said:

God pays a man according to his works, too many refs to list even. If you seek enemies, you will certainly find them, but i suggest a better path, that will not have one "fighting the devil" wadr. You end up becoming what you fight, as our sages have assured us.

See, none of this that is not the truth will stand in the fire; the fruit is all that matters right

at the same time i agree that the first Adam is a fig tree, and the Last Adam is a Tree of Life, ok, to maybe restate your premise there.

“every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food.”

Click to expand...

What does any of this have to do with turning the gospel of salvation in the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross into one about salvation by our own works? My point is that this can be easily done by evolution because it is based on the works of the creation at its core and not on the creator. Satan is very clever and I would not be surprised at all if he had everything to do with the whole world embracing evolution.

bbyrd009 said:

seems true enough on the surface, but then how are we defining "salvation?" Iow at what point do we start channelling the Roman Catholic church, burning Copernicus at the stake or whatever? After all, none of us has the means--practically speaking--of refuting Flat Earth either, right.

so imo it depends upon how one defines "salvation" (and also "thief in the night" i guess), and i can't in good conscience accept the one that insists you have to literally die to get it any longer.

If the Instituted church preaches it, i know it is deficient in some essential regard, even if it is 90% correct.
Scripture even says so i guess

It just became too opposed to my understanding of "Life, more abundantly."

Click to expand...

I think you might enjoy reading some Richard Rohr - check out ‘Everything Belongs’. Your understanding of Catholicism is jaded, incomplete and outdated - seriously! If I had your understanding/experience with Catholicism, I would leave it immediately.

My view of salvation is a perfected character quality, which allows us to give and receive love perfectly.
Loving perfectly is why we were created and is the definition of a complete human being. When we love perfectly, we cannot sin because we are no longer broken; we are citizens of heaven and our passport is the Kingdom of God within us.

Dcopymope said:

What does any of this have to do with turning the gospel of salvation in the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross into one about salvation by our own works? My point is that this can be easily done by evolution because it is based on the works of the creation at its core and not on the creator. Satan is very clever and I would not be surprised at all if he had everything to do with the whole world embracing evolution.

Click to expand...

well fwiw i pretty much got dragged to where i am on all that now myself lol, i didn't really go willingly, i was led here.
but i read a good answer down in here
"

• The masculine noun דומם (dumam), meaning the silence of inertia or inactivity (Habakkuk 2:19, Isaiah 47:5, Lamentations 3:26)

דמה
Scholars generally break the hugely important form דמה (dmh) into two separate roots, but that's uncalled for. The one and only verb דמה (dama) essentially describes the untimely cessation of a natural evolution (or growth) and that can happen because (1) whatever was growing gets killed, or (2) an observer turns the naturally changing thing into an artificial fixed representation of it. The latter obviously describes an important aspect of an intelligent mind, but it also warns that if a mind itself doesn't change but dwells on fixed ideas, it becomes as dead as the effigies it contains. When a living thing dies, it obviously stops growing, and when a living thing stops growing (in one's mind) it's as good as dead.

Enthusiasts often explain Jesus' insistence to be like children (MATTHEW 18:3) to mean that we should whine and blubber all the time, but here at Abarim Publications we're guessing that He also meant that our minds should never stop changing by absorbing and growing. The Rock of our faith should not be our conviction, but the ability and willingness to learn (also see our article on the Greek word πιστις, pistis, meaning "faith").

But we don't want to be too radical too much too often, so we'll follow the established outline of two separate roots (but now you know better):

דמה I
The verb דמה (dama I) describes the forming of a frozen snap-shot of someone or something; the making of a mental graven image, usually translatable with to resemble, to be like, or to devise. Its usages generally split into two categories..." The amazing name Adam: meaning and etymology

aspen said:

If I had your understanding/experience with Catholicism, I would leave it immediately.

Click to expand...

ah, my apologies, still got steps there to take i guess, ya.

"
דמה I
The verb דמה (dama I) describes the forming of a frozen snap-shot of someone or something; the making of a mental graven image, usually translatable with to resemble, to be like, or to devise. Its usages generally split into two categories. It's used to describe a likening or comparing: of appearance (Isaiah 40:18), of qualities or conditions (Song of Solomon 1:9, Isaiah 46:5, Lamentations 2:13), or of metaphorical similarity (Hosea 12:11). And secondly, it's used to describe the forming of a fixed idea or plan of action (2 Samuel 21:5, Numbers 33:56, Isaiah 10:7, Psalm 50:21).

In Isaiah 14:14, Lamentations 2:13 and Hosea 12:10 our verb declines into the rare form אדמה, which is spelled identically to the noun אדמה ('adamah), denoting red, arable soil (see below).

Our verb's derivatives are:

• The feminine noun דמות (demut), meaning likeness. It's this word that is used in Genesis 1:26, where God famously makes man in His image (repeated in Genesis 5:1). It's also used in Genesis 5:3, where Seth is Adam's image (a quality not ascribed to either Cain or Abel)..." ibid

bbyrd009 said:

well fwiw i pretty much got dragged to where i am on all that now myself lol, i didn't really go willingly, i was led here.
but i read a good answer down in here
"

• The masculine noun דומם (dumam), meaning the silence of inertia or inactivity (Habakkuk 2:19, Isaiah 47:5, Lamentations 3:26)

דמה
Scholars generally break the hugely important form דמה (dmh) into two separate roots, but that's uncalled for. The one and only verb דמה (dama) essentially describes the untimely cessation of a natural evolution (or growth) and that can happen because (1) whatever was growing gets killed, or (2) an observer turns the naturally changing thing into an artificial fixed representation of it. The latter obviously describes an important aspect of an intelligent mind, but it also warns that if a mind itself doesn't change but dwells on fixed ideas, it becomes as dead as the effigies it contains. When a living thing dies, it obviously stops growing, and when a living thing stops growing (in one's mind) it's as good as dead.

Enthusiasts often explain Jesus' insistence to be like children (MATTHEW 18:3) to mean that we should whine and blubber all the time, but here at Abarim Publications we're guessing that He also meant that our minds should never stop changing by absorbing and growing. The Rock of our faith should not be our conviction, but the ability and willingness to learn (also see our article on the Greek word πιστις, pistis, meaning "faith").

But we don't want to be too radical too much too often, so we'll follow the established outline of two separate roots (but now you know better):

דמה I
The verb דמה (dama I) describes the forming of a frozen snap-shot of someone or something; the making of a mental graven image, usually translatable with to resemble, to be like, or to devise. Its usages generally split into two categories..." The amazing name Adam: meaning and etymology

Click to expand...

(Habakkuk 2:18-20) "¶ What profiteth the graven image that the maker thereof hath graven it; the molten image, and a teacher of lies, that the maker of his work trusteth therein, to make dumb idols? {19} Woe unto him that saith to the wood, Awake; to the dumb stone, Arise, it shall teach! Behold, it is laid over with gold and silver, and there is no breath at all in the midst of it. {20} But the LORD is in his holy temple: let all the earth keep silence before him."

Click to expand...

Wow, this scripture can in itself be considered as very indicting against evolution that claims life comes from non-life, that something with no breath in it can breathe the breath of life into the creature. I haven't read Habakkuk in quite a while, I guess I should get back to it.

Dcopymope said:

What does any of this have to do with turning the gospel of salvation in the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross into one about salvation by our own works? My point is that this can be easily done by evolution because it is based on the works of the creation at its core and not on the creator.

Click to expand...

i've slept on this now, and fwiw i define "it is finished" differently maybe, and i don't have the resistance to "salvation through service" that you might, so i don't see the problem there anyway, on top of the fact that i don't see how evolution could persuade me to fall into some work of the law anyway? "based on the works of the creation at its core" is to me exactly what a child follows their father around for? so to speak? "how do You do that?"

Dcopymope said:

Wow, this scripture can in itself be considered as very indicting against evolution that claims life comes from non-life

Click to expand...

ya, i never considered abiogenesis to even be relevant myself

even life physically arriving from outside earth would violate "dust of the earth" imo

aspen said:

Richard Rohr - check out ‘Everything Belongs’.

Click to expand...

the title resonates, i'll see if the library has a copy, ty

"
Blood is the seat of the soul but the Hebrew idea of soul — נפש (nepesh) — is not at all the same as what people today commonly think it is (and the translation of the word nepesh as "soul" is really quite unfortunate). In Hebrew, one's nepesh equals not some vague ethereal substance but simply one's condition of being alive; it is closely associated with the acts of breathing (the Hebrews clearly understood the respiratory system and knew that blood transports one's breath) and secondarily with desiring or wanting. The Hebrew word commonly translated with "spirit" is also not as esoteric as our word "spirit" is today. It is the word רוח (ruah), which also means wind. Like so:

blood "soul" one's condition of being alive associated with one's personal breath and desire.
wine "spirit" one's interaction with one's culture associated with the universal wind, and thus storm, rain, agriculture, war, etcetera.

Discussions on blood in the Bible go three ways: ..." ibid

bbyrd009 said:

i've slept on this now, and fwiw i define "it is finished" differently maybe, and i don't have the resistance to "salvation through service" that you might, so i don't see the problem there anyway, on top of the fact that i don't see how evolution could persuade me to fall into some work of the law anyway? "based on the works of the creation at its core" is to me exactly what a child follows their father around for? so to speak? "how do You do that?"

Click to expand...

There are some theistic evolutionists who more or less denies the deity of Jesus as God in the flesh. I know, I had a few run ins with them in live YouTube hangouts in recent years. I would say evolution is doing a damn good job at persuading them into a salvation by their own works. They will be easy prey for Satan and his buddy from the bottomless pit when the time comes. By "it is finished", Jesus meant the atonement which leads to salvation. You aren't following the Father around to redeem yourself, the Father does that for you. Its not by your own works, or "service", unless you want to boast. I think I have thoroughly demonstrated just how incompatible evolution really is to Christianity in any way. Evolution claims the creature did the work of the creator, while the Bible states God is the creator and he did the work. If God didn't perform the work of the creator 100%, then that means the creation had a hand in it. He therefore cannot claim to have performed the work of reconciliation on the cross alone, which means that Jesus Christ was a liar because there is more work to be done on our part.

bbyrd009 said:

ya, i never considered abiogenesis to even be relevant myself

even life physically arriving from outside earth would violate "dust of the earth" imo

Click to expand...

And yet we have NASA and the other alphabet agencies trying there utmost to provide "evidence" of abiogenesis on other planets. The logic is that if it occurred elsewhere, then it occurred here. Whatever removes God out of the picture is fair game for the Devils cronies.

Dcopymope said:

And yet we have NASA and the other alphabet agencies trying there utmost to provide "evidence" of abiogenesis on other planets.

Click to expand...

for sure not on my dime lol, i'd rather go to prison than pay taxes for that myself

bbyrd009 said:

for sure not on my dime lol, i'd rather go to prison than pay taxes for that myself

Click to expand...

I personally believe the entire space program is absolute balderdash. I seriously doubt they ever went anywhere beyond earths orbit, but that's just me.

bbyrd009 said:

We did not evolve "from" apes, that is pretty certain.
But also, we are evolving right now

Click to expand...

I am a full believer that all of this earth has the ability to adapt because God Blessed it all.....To Bless, means 'To empower to prosper, grow, make more'.....everywhere on this earth we look, we see this clearly...But I do not believe that one kind of animal suddenly decided to become another, with a ready made female and food supply already ready for their new form...does that make sense ?

bbyrd009 said:

another way to put that is "our heads have changed,

Click to expand...

If this wasn't a Christian forum, I'd have a beauty for this lol.......Yeah I do know there are times when a single word can make all the difference in a perception of a thing....many times the Lord has helped me with this....
The way I have been able to comprehend it, Adam was kinda a generic term for a human being....I noticed that the female wasn't given a name until after the fall, and the name Adam became his.
Jesus being the Last Adam, the last human bound by the original sin, and the first human having God Spirit within, therefore the first of Gods New Creation.....Anyway, so far, that's where I am...