EVOLUTIONARY THEORY REFUTED?

I actually haven't read it, but I'm pretty sure it's the same book that a friend of mine has told me to pick up.

Certainly sounds interesting though. Love reading other opinions and theories on the rise of Christianity, but I've never really found too much importance in the fact that Paul's writings come first historically. One thing that's always caught my attention in the Bible is how there's a couple of subtle verses that (to me) Paul and Peter didn't have the best of relationships. But I've never made too much of it, what with the Council of Jerusalem.

But, for example, take John's epistles that were written way after (if i'm not mistaken) Paul's epistles. I'd imagine Tabor's theory would have John on one side of the argument, and Paul on the other. But even though John writes so much about guarding yourselves against false teachers, he doesn't mention Paul as a false teacher. And that would have been the perfect opportunity to specifically point him out, if he were preaching another gospel. Especially because Paul, by then, had already influenced so much of the Roman world with his writings.

That, and I honestly don't see the concept of two versions of Christianity with Paul and the apostles. I mean, there's definitely things that Paul emphasizes (works of the law in relation to gentiles) that the apostles don't, but it doesn't mean its a different gospel.

Of course, I could also just be completely missing the mark with the theory. :grin:

 

Yes, the "they are just metaphors argument". Is there an * or a footnote in each page which specifies which ones are suppose to be taken as metaphors or literally?

Evolution which is the topic in hand, is in conflict with the claim that god created man in his own image. The study of evolution concludes that our ancestors were not anywhere close to what we are now - physically and mentally.

According to bible scholars, the place where Adam and Eve originated is located somewhere in Iraq. Majority of the scientific committee agrees that we came from Africa - specifically Congo.

The bible got one thing right, the first animals on this planet were sea creatures but it also claims the birds were created the same day. That is not what the fossil records show.

 

I'm not struggling to refute its two basic propositions.

1. Organisms gain and lose genetic material ALL THE TIME. Any basic biology course goes over mutations: insertions, deletions, additions. These happen randomly. That doesn't even include the more "complex" methods such as introducing viral DNA that is talked about in higher education courses.

Scientists have been manipulating DNA of organisms for decades now. They've seen it in nature and know how to recreate it in labs. The first proposition is easily debunked.

2. I admit that yes, this one is more of a question mark. It hasn't really been recreated in labs with much success. BUT, what a lot of anti-evolutionists ignorantly believe, evolution and abiogenesis are two different studies. So, the second point does NOT refute evolution.

Boom. That sure was a struggle.

 

I believe your problem is that you believe that there is a legitimate "debate" going on by relevant parties about the validity of evolution over creationism. Be not mistaken. This "debate" is nothing more than a push back by laymen religous fundamentalists grasping at straws.

 

I don't think you're missing the mark at all, my friend.

Bolded two of your points, to emphasize something, because I tracked along those lines myself for a long time...

Tabor's theory of there being two different "versions" of Christ's message (not simply doctrinal differences) does rest on that very fact (very slightly referenced in the New Testament, but could not be totally ignored): there were two schools of thought on delivering Jesus' message beyond the Jewish world.

Paul is considered to be the primary "author" of what we now know of as Christianity. The book of Romans is, in many ways a type of treatise, to parallel the Jewish Torah in a sense, and it is generally agreed to be wholly written by Paul (an educated Roman citizen with knowledge of both Greek and Aramaic). It could be offered that, as witnessed in the Gospels themselves, there were often perspectives that Jesus espoused that were virtually unrecognizable to his countrymen, even his disciples who spent three years travelling around ancient Galilee with him.

Tabor does not downplay the hypothesis, however, of the Jerusalem Christian movement (with James, the brother of Jesus at its head) having serious issues with the doctrinal hypotheses offered by Paul. The New Testament accounts in the book of Acts suggests that Paul had to get permission to deliver his message from the Jerusalem Christian sect (or at least, prove he WASN'T a heretic, after a fashion), because he had spent so much time in Asia Minor and the Roman world, separating centuries-old Jewish religious dogma from the "faith", that was in constant competition at the time with dozens of other religious observations.

It could be that, simply, as "historical" presentation has offered, everybody else eventually came around to Paul's way of thinking. Paul's way of thinking...however Jewish he remained...was very much influenced by his Hellenized upbringing and education.

Nowhere, historically or theologically, did Judaism ever make a claim for bodily resurrection, for instance. Judaism considered death a type of "sleep" until the soul was called up from Sheol to be judged in the last days. Even the disciples believed this, up until and possibly even beyond the death of Jesus. Paul himself believed in a living Jesus, but one in a new body...not a resuscitated corpse, as tradition offers...a sentiment that has its roots in the Greco-Roman belief in an afterlife...hierarchies of spiritual beings and such...

The problem anybody would have (understandably) with Tabor's theories is that, again, we would have to unmoor ourselves (much as the disciples had to with Jesus, oddly enough), from the tradition of the Gospels occurring "historically" before, say, the book of Romans.

You'd have to understand and accept that all of the Gospel narratives were written and circulated at least 20 to 30 years after Paul's letters and mission. All of the Gospel narratives are not first-hand accounts (not written by the people for whom they have been titled), and are therefore most likely written by people who had come to accept the "version" of Christianity that was winning popularly, especially in the Greco-Roman world.

And I say this with a Bible in front of me every day, which makes references to the authenticity of the authorship of the Gospels being for the people for whom they are named. And those references are made by Bible scholars, as well.

The book itself explains this better than I can (with a great deal of reference reading material, from varied sources), and I certainly am not looking to shred anyone's faith in Christianity. I've done enough damage to myself.

I have personally found this account very credible. The process, not necessarily the result, often holds the most fascination for me, personally.

...and this IS a thread about evolution, right?:grin:

 

Of course a layman would believe that science requires faith. The "missing link" argument put forth by laymen has been **** on and debunked several thousands of tines. I hope you are being sarcastic in that last statement .

 

If you give random chance enough opportunity, don't you think it could eventually happen? Our Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Our universe is estimated at 14 billion years. It is entirely possible that organic life exists somewhere out there because the universe is so vast. To be honest, I'm not sure what your first point is or how that even relates to evolution.

To your second point, the answer is yes.

 

It is not our fault that you ignore the 1500+ transitional fossils that have been found so far.

You may claim not to be a creationist, but you are posting creationism drivel.

 

By laws of probability, randomness could take a long time. But it could also happen pretty quickly. That's why it's random. What point are you trying to make regarding randomness and evolution?

The ascent of humans has to do with many factors, mostly our intelligence compared to other species. Again, what point are you trying to connect this to evolution?

 

I wonder. . . was INTELLIGENT the last thing about humans that can be attributed to Evolution?

Rocket River

 

It begs the question. Is giddy human? Is he the missing link? Hmm... this could explain a lot.

 

Did you read what I posted earlier when I replied to you?

People have too many misconceptions about evolution and think it is something magical.