Creationists acknowledge evolution makes sense

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ Fair enough.

​

I agree theistic evoltuion is a possoble scenario. But that viewpoint of scipture suffers from the problem of not knowing where to stop allegorizing. It trivialises Solomon's writings where Father and Son are described as craftsmen together (Prov 8), some of Jesus' references to Genesis and certainly the writer of Hebrew's references to Noah's role in 'condeming the earth'.

​

It's a liberal possibility but I find it implausible that God either directed or watched evolution and still got man in his image. I put it in the same boat as macroevolution and am aware that mny Christians subscibe to this point of view. You still haven't provided any mechanistially different alternatives.

---

JM: Sure I have. You say that God created each organism in a special way. I am sure you would argue that evolution says it happened by the mechanisms cited above. Theistic evolution says God created those mechanisms and allowed them to act. Look, we can go back and forth on the semantics, but your either/or assertion is false. As for your biblical arguments, they are just that. You are trying to turn the bible into a scientific treatise. In doing so, you necessarily limit God to your interpretation of the bible. I've said this often in the past that you worship the bible as God rather than the God of the bible when you limit his power through your interpretation of the Bible.CheersJoe Meert

​

[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 05-15-2002]

Isn't a matter of extents? If the Bible talks about a global flood is it silly to go look for that evidence if that same book tells us about salvation?------------------
You are go for TLI

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Isn't a matter of extents? If the Bible talks about a global flood is it silly to go look for that evidence if that same book tells us about salvation?

---

JM: Well, let's use your logic. What does the book tell us about Virgins in Numbers?CheersJoe Meert

You tell me. (I feel an OT/NT law/grace discussion coming on).------------------
You are go for TLI

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
You tell me. (I feel an OT/NT law/grace discussion coming on).

​

---

JM: You'll get no further discussion. My point has been made. You will no doubt interpret those verses as the commands of a loving god, but that's the key point!CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ Fair enough.

​

I agree theistic evoltuion is a possoble scenario. But that viewpoint of scipture suffers from the problem of not knowing where to stop allegorizing. It trivialises Solomon's writings where Father and Son are described as craftsmen together (Prov 8), some of Jesus' references to Genesis and certainly the writer of Hebrew's references to Noah's role in 'condeming the earth'.

​

It's a liberal possibility but I find it implausible that God either directed or watched evolution and still got man in his image. I put it in the same boat as macroevolution and am aware that mny Christians subscibe to this point of view. You still haven't provided any mechanistially different alternatives.

---

You know, there are other religions out there other than Fundamentalist Protestant Christianity, and these other religions have stories about the natural world too which have just as much evidence to support them as Christian stories.You need lots and lots of positive evidence, entirely independent of Biology, to support Christian Creation Science if you think that it should be considered a legitimate science.If the ToE was shown to be false in all ways, it still wouldn't make your particular interpretation of the Bible correct.Wow, are you sure you are a scientist. You certainly make a lot of logic errors.

I never said I could prove anything schrafinator. I believe the Bible for non-scientific reasons that made me then go and see how good the Bible was scientifically. The global flood distinguishes the Judea-Christian faith from some others (although not all).------------------
You are go for TLI

I'll give credit where it is due...your view of DNA/RNA/protein synthesis in comparison to the trinity is interesting and unusual. Also thanks for refering me to Proverbs 8, it is useful for my studies.

^I'm glad you found it helpful/interesting in some sort of way.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I never said I could prove anything schrafinator. I believe the Bible for non-scientific reasons that made me then go and see how good the Bible was scientifically. The global flood distinguishes the Judea-Christian faith from some others (although not all).

---

So, how good is the Bible scientifically?Also, flood mythology is extremely common in many world religions and is not unique to the Judeo-Christian tradition in the least. See: http://ancienthistory.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dreamscape.com%2Fmorgana%2Fpuck.htmhttp://ancienthistory.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cybercomm.net%2F%257egrandpa%2Fcretion3.html%23yoruba------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

I agree about the flood myths schrafinator. We believe they all originated from the same historical event (which for us was a global flood). I agree the flood does not distinguish all faiths although the Bible's description is amongst the less fanciful and is certainly the most detailed.The Bible is good scientifically and historically if one can accept the global flood. On the supposed bloopers it often comes out that a little more study shows that the Bible as right. People tried to show me that the Bible had the wrong value for pi but it turned out the Bible paassage gave the inner diameter and the outer circumference of a fairly thick vessel!------------------
You are go for TLI

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[b]I agree about the flood myths schrafinator. We believe they all originated from the same historical event (which for us was a global flood). I agree the flood does not distinguish all faiths although the Bible's description is amongst the less fanciful and is certainly the most detailed.[/QUOTE]

​

Well, I am glad you have (sort of) retracted your statement that the Flood myth is rather unique to Christianity.

​

What you still haven't done is produce evidence that it did, indeed, occur.

​

quote:

---

The Bible is good scientifically and historically if one can accept the global flood.

---

​

Historically? Care to provide some independant historical evidence for every event described in the Bible??

​

Why should one accept the global Flood when no evidence suggests that there was one?

​

For example, why do flowering plants appear only in the later geologic layers? There are no known examples of flowering plants in the lower layers. If there was a global flood, and all fossils were laid down in this one catastrophic event, shouldn't all kinds of plants be mixed up throughout the layers? Wouldn't the sorting be by density, not by the means of reproduction?

​

Why is this the case?

​

quote:

---

On the supposed bloopers it often comes out that a little more study shows that the Bible as right.

---

​

Oh, I get it. You just take certain parts as literally true, but other parts which, if taken as literal, are flat out wrong, you just "study" them (i.e. freely interpret) until they come out right.

​

Gee, I wish real science was that easy.

​

So, how do you know when to interpret and when to take literally?

​

[QUOTE]People tried to show me that the Bible had the wrong value for pi but it turned out the Bible paassage gave the inner diameter and the outer circumference of a fairly thick vessel!
[/b]

---

The Bible also lists bats as "fowl" and asserts that rabbits chew the cud.The Bible also refers to a "firmament" into which the stars are set, and the existence of waters above this firmament.

^ I never said that study solved things by allegorizing did I? In the example I gave it was pretty clear that an apparent contradicition was easily solved by assuming that the circumference given was external (a more natual measurment to give) and the diameter was internal (more relevant to the volume it could contain). Nothing allegorical there.To discuss the rabbits we need to find out all about the translation issues of 'chewing cud' and the bats as fowl is fine if fowl are defined as 'flying animals'. Not everyone is only interested in classifications that distinguish whether the animal has a placenta or not!

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 05-21-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I never said that study solved things by allegorizing did I? In the example I gave it was pretty clear that an apparent contradicition was easily solved by assuming that the circumference given was external (a more natual measurment to give) and the diameter was internal (more relevant to the volume it could contain). Nothing allegorical there.

​

To discuss the rabbits we need to find out all about the translation issues of 'chewing cud' and the bats as fowl is fine if fowl are defined as 'flying animals'. Not everyone is only interested in classifications that distinguish whether the animal has a placenta or not!

---

JM: What translation 'issues'? You mean that the English bible may misrepresent the actual text? GASP!CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ I never said that study solved things by allegorizing did I? In the example I gave it was pretty clear that an apparent contradicition was easily solved by assuming that the circumference given was external (a more natual measurment to give) and the diameter was internal (more relevant to the volume it could contain). Nothing allegorical there.

---

You mean they didn't understand or were not interested in the relationship between circumference and volume when constructing a container for liquid? Did these people learn nothing from the Egyptians? [b] [QUOTE]To discuss the rabbits we need to find out all about the translation issues of 'chewing cud'[/b][/QUOTE]Oh ok then.
The word used for chewing in the context of Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14 is alah. This word has a range of meanings around a root sense of raising up or bringing up and its use in this context shows that the ancient Hebrew's understood pretty well what was involved in chewing the cud. The word for cud is gerah and is cognate with the modern Arabic jirrah, used in exactly the same sense.I have seen it argued that alah could be translated as "bringing forth" in this case, but the root sense is certainly one of bringing up. I fact, rather than translating this as chewing the cud, a better translation is that the animals in question "bring up the cud."It is certainly clear from the context of the passages that the writer regards hares and coneys as digesting their cud in the same manner as ruminants - there is no distinction made in the passages which indicates any knowledge of any difference. Any interpretation that the writer did not intend it to be understood so requires a a considerable amount of information external to the text: there is no 'self-sufficient' interpretation that fits our knowledge of the biology of these animals, or of the hyrax or some of the other animals which have been identified as potential candidates.Of course, the passages have absolutely no significance for the redemption of man from sin or the acceptance of Jesus, and him crucified. It's difficult to believe anyone would find this error a a barrier or challenge to their faith, compared to say, the problem of evil, unless that faith happened to be in a linguistically unsustainable literalism.