Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-23-2019 11:50 AM
32 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,115 Year: 5,152/19,786 Month: 1,274/873 Week: 170/460 Day: 15/97 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3456
...
12NextFF
Author Topic:   Why is it that God couldn't have made Creation with evolution?
Vacate
Member (Idle past 2709 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 16 of 167 (521971)
08-31-2009 3:37 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Arphy
08-30-2009 7:48 AM


Ehh...There are many evolutionary scientists today working on solving the problem of abiogenesis.

If all of them decided to find out why my car won't start it doesn't mean that the Theory of Evolution and automotive repair are one in the same. Your logic is faulty.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Arphy, posted 08-30-2009 7:48 AM Arphy has not yet responded

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 2541 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 17 of 167 (521977)
08-31-2009 6:21 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by kbertsche
08-30-2009 5:06 PM


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous to lyell and darwin YEC "interpretations" of the bible was the main view throughout Israelite and Christian history!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry, but this is false (even though it is a common YEC claim). From the mid-1800s to the mid-1900s the main view was not YEC, but an OEC view known as the Gap Theory. Scofield, Spurgeon, and most other conservative Bible scholars of the period held to this OEC view.


Hence why I said previous to lyell and darwin
(Surface fossils were seen as flood evidence much earlier, but viewing the geologic column as flood evidence was uncommon before the 20th century.)

That's because the "geologic column" did not exist before this time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by kbertsche, posted 08-30-2009 5:06 PM kbertsche has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by kbertsche, posted 08-31-2009 12:31 PM Arphy has responded

    
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 240 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 18 of 167 (522022)
08-31-2009 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Arphy
08-31-2009 6:21 AM


quote:
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous to lyell and darwin YEC "interpretations" of the bible was the main view throughout Israelite and Christian history!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, but this is false (even though it is a common YEC claim). From the mid-1800s to the mid-1900s the main view was not YEC, but an OEC view known as the Gap Theory. Scofield, Spurgeon, and most other conservative Bible scholars of the period held to this OEC view.

Hence why I said previous to lyell and darwin



Sorry, I read this a bit too quickly. I may partially agree with you. OEC views started to gain popularity with James Hutton, a century before Lyell. There were strong Christian advocates for OEC prior to and contemporary with Lyell (e.g. Thomas Chalmers, Hugh Miller). I understand that OEC views had displaced YEC by the time Darwin wrote. But you may be correct that they did not do so before Lyell?

Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Arphy, posted 08-31-2009 6:21 AM Arphy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Arphy, posted 09-01-2009 7:47 AM kbertsche has acknowledged this reply

    
Arphy
Member (Idle past 2541 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 19 of 167 (522098)
09-01-2009 7:47 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by kbertsche
08-31-2009 12:31 PM


As I understand it there were many "old age theories" popping out around Hutton's time. Lyell built on Hutton's work popularizing it and so it became the dominant theory.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by kbertsche, posted 08-31-2009 12:31 PM kbertsche has acknowledged this reply

    
Apologetics
Junior Member (Idle past 3413 days)
Posts: 19
From: Michigan
Joined: 09-08-2009


Message 20 of 167 (523191)
09-08-2009 6:57 PM


God using evolution
To believe in evolution (molecules to man) one normally believes that there was millions of years of death before mankind evolved to his present form.

In Matthew 19:4-5 it says, “And He (Jesus) answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning made them male and female.”(NKJ) Jesus says here that he made Adam and Eve in the beginning, not millions of years later. The word beginning in the Greek is arche, strong’s # G746, which speaks of origin and the extremity of a thing.

Also in Genesis, which is written in a narrative form, states six times God calling his creation Good. Death is not good to a loving and righteous God, that is why God told them not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (Gen 2:17). Plus 1 Cor 15:21-22 states, “For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.”(NKJ) So death came by Adam’s sin, not millions of years before.

Exodus 20:9-11 states, “Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work… For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.”(NKJ) So God was telling the Israelites to work six days and rest on the seventh day because that is what God did during the creation of the universe.

Also man and animals were originally vegetarians (Gen 1:29-30), if one according to their presuppositions sees the fossil record as millions of years and dinosaurs as pre-human creatures, then one would see animals eating each other before mankind, but that is not what Genesis 1:29-30 states.

Evolution (molecules to man) needs time and without time evolution cannot happen. So why do we believe that Jesus took on human flesh, was sinless, died on the cross to condemn sin in the flesh, took our punishment, then rose on the third day, and now sits at the right hand of the father only to return for His bride? Because of the written words of scripture. Why should we believe in a literal six day creation and plants and animals reproducing according to their “kinds” (Gen 1:11,12,21,24,25) not evolving, because of the written words of Scripture. “For all scripture is written by the inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” (2 Timothy 3:16)

Is God's Word authority, or is man's words and minds authority? A belief in evolution comes to the conclusion that our brains are random chemical reactions (this would make knowledge debatable), but God made man in his own image (Gen 1:26) giving us knowledge and rational thought.

Edited by Apologetics, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by hooah212002, posted 09-08-2009 8:35 PM Apologetics has responded
 Message 23 by hooah212002, posted 09-08-2009 10:51 PM Apologetics has responded
 Message 28 by kbertsche, posted 09-09-2009 1:20 PM Apologetics has responded
 Message 29 by kbertsche, posted 09-09-2009 1:29 PM Apologetics has responded
 Message 30 by Coyote, posted 09-09-2009 7:24 PM Apologetics has responded

    
hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 21 of 167 (523204)
09-08-2009 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Apologetics
09-08-2009 6:57 PM


Re: God using evolution
They are called paragraphs and sentences. Not jumbled messes of words and letters. I got a headache after the first sentence.

You won't be back though, so this is a waste of a post.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Apologetics, posted 09-08-2009 6:57 PM Apologetics has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Apologetics, posted 09-08-2009 10:29 PM hooah212002 has acknowledged this reply

    
Apologetics
Junior Member (Idle past 3413 days)
Posts: 19
From: Michigan
Joined: 09-08-2009


Message 22 of 167 (523218)
09-08-2009 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by hooah212002
09-08-2009 8:35 PM


Sorry about the sentence structure. I’ll work on it.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by hooah212002, posted 09-08-2009 8:35 PM hooah212002 has acknowledged this reply

    
hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 23 of 167 (523222)
09-08-2009 10:51 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Apologetics
09-08-2009 6:57 PM


Re: God using evolution
Is God's Word authority, or is man's words and minds authority?

1: Who wrote the words down that we now call the bible?

2: Who interprets them?

If your answer is man, you just answered your own question.

If your answer is god, then you must read a different bible then the rest of us, and different than the one you quoted.

Your whole post is a case for a literal interpretation, which, from my interpretation of his post, is not what the OP was after.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Apologetics, posted 09-08-2009 6:57 PM Apologetics has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Apologetics, posted 09-08-2009 11:27 PM hooah212002 has responded

    
Apologetics
Junior Member (Idle past 3413 days)
Posts: 19
From: Michigan
Joined: 09-08-2009


Message 24 of 167 (523226)
09-08-2009 11:27 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by hooah212002
09-08-2009 10:51 PM


Re: God using evolution
1. The Bible states that all scripture is inspired by God (2 Tim 3:16) so it is not man’s authority, but Gods. Also that no prophecy came by the will of man, but men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. (2 Peter 1:21)

The prominent historical people in the Bible have many of their flaws listed and exposed. If you were to write a book yourself you most likely would not record your flaws. This also shows that the Bible is inspired by God and men of God lead by the Holy Spirit wrote the scripture. The Computer did not write these words, but was the instrument that I used to convey this message to you.

2. It not a hard interpretation when one reads the bible as literal history where the context allows, just as it is easy in American language to tell the difference between poetry and a narrative. The authority of a message does not change based on who hears it, but who gives the information.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by hooah212002, posted 09-08-2009 10:51 PM hooah212002 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by hooah212002, posted 09-09-2009 1:43 AM Apologetics has responded
 Message 26 by anglagard, posted 09-09-2009 2:13 AM Apologetics has responded
 Message 27 by Otto Tellick, posted 09-09-2009 3:45 AM Apologetics has responded

    
hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 25 of 167 (523234)
09-09-2009 1:43 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Apologetics
09-08-2009 11:27 PM


Re: God using evolution
'tis a mighty fine use of circular reasoning you have right there.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Apologetics, posted 09-08-2009 11:27 PM Apologetics has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Apologetics, posted 09-10-2009 9:00 PM hooah212002 has acknowledged this reply

    
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2185
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 26 of 167 (523236)
09-09-2009 2:13 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Apologetics
09-08-2009 11:27 PM


A Few Simple Questions
Apologetics writes:

1. The Bible states that all scripture is inspired by God (2 Tim 3:16) so it is not man’s authority, but Gods. Also that no prophecy came by the will of man, but men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. (2 Peter 1:21)

Which of the over 3000 versions of the Bible is the official word of God? Last time I asked this question (Message 1), IIRC only two fundamentalists had the guts to answer. Do you?

The prominent historical people in the Bible have many of their flaws listed and exposed. If you were to write a book yourself you most likely would not record your flaws. This also shows that the Bible is inspired by God and men of God lead by the Holy Spirit wrote the scripture. The Computer did not write these words, but was the instrument that I used to convey this message to you.

It is a falsehood to state that Juvenal, Suetonius or Tacitus never said anything bad about the Romans, or Froissart about the French or English, and that is just a start right off the top of my head. You must be totally unfamiliar with all historic writing.

2. It not a hard interpretation when one reads the bible as literal history where the context allows, just as it is easy in American language to tell the difference between poetry and a narrative. The authority of a message does not change based on who hears it, but who gives the information.

Please feel free to tell us which of the over 30,000 sects of Christianity has the perfect interpretation of the officially correct version of the Bible.

Oh and BTW, welcome to EvC.

{ABE} You may want to answer these questions in a new PNT (or in the case of the first, in the linked thread) as the response may veer the rather broad OP topic(s) off course. If you are unfamiliar with how to do a PNT, and are still up for honest debate, please let me know in the next post and I can do it for you. {/ABE}

Edited by anglagard, : No reason given.

Edited by anglagard, : add link, change one to two after quick review of thread

Edited by anglagard, : add parentheses around link

Edited by anglagard, : add to ABE concerning preexisting thread


The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
— Salman Rushdie

This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Apologetics, posted 09-08-2009 11:27 PM Apologetics has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Apologetics, posted 09-09-2009 9:56 PM anglagard has not yet responded
 Message 33 by Apologetics, posted 09-10-2009 8:47 PM anglagard has not yet responded

    
Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 439 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 27 of 167 (523239)
09-09-2009 3:45 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Apologetics
09-08-2009 11:27 PM


"The authority of a message"?
Apologetics writes:

The authority of a message does not change based on who hears it, but who gives the information.

Think that through a little more carefully. Are you familiar with the game called "telephone" (or "gossip")? After a message has been whispered across a chain of, say, 20 people, the last person in the chain says it out loud to the group. Then the first person says what the original message was, and everyone laughs about the nature and extent of change in the message.

Now imagine that game being played in such a way that many thousands of people are involved in the chain of transmission, which takes place over thousands of years, and these people happen to be native speakers of dozens of different languages -- none of which happens to be the language of the original statement. A lot of these people did spend a lot of time in the careful study of other languages, but the original language and the languages of the intervening "messengers" were all inescapably foreign.

Your statement about "the authority a message" is maybe not entirely wrong -- it's just limited to the direct communication between the authoritative speaker and his/her immediate audience. Once members of the audience start speaking on behalf of the original authority and are delivering the message to others who aren't in direct communication with the source, things start to break down.

(Actually, there's a strong case for arguing that your statement is at least partly wrong, because it leaves out one essential factor: the authority of a message depends not only on who gives the information, but also on how well it is understood by recipient. The breakdown can begin with the first stage of transmission. Given the same message by the same source, different listeners are in fact prone to "hear" different things, and form different interpretations and reactions. This has in fact been amply demonstrated by translations from one language to another: the same news story in, say, Chinese, given to 10 different people or teams for translation into English, will yield 10 distinct results; most of the "factual" information will be recognizable, but the phrasing and nuance will always vary. So the authority does depend on who hears it, unless and until listeners are able to verify the information independently and in an objective manner.)

In the absence of objective verification, what happens to "the authority of the message"? If it were really true that God has been guiding the entire path of transmission for Biblical content, then it must be the case that He really intended to foster hundreds (well, thousands) of different sects, many of which stand in profound contradiction to each other, and some of which have in fact been violently opposed to each other.

If you assert that some (most?) of those lines of transmission are faulty, and yet there must be a few (only one?) that can be deemed accurate ("faithful to the source"), well, I'm sorry, but now it's just a case of your word against someone else's (or lots of other people's). Where is the authority, really, in that situation?

I find the OP's notion of religion as a "tool" to be refreshing. As a tool, it has its uses, but is not well suited to all some portion of the things we get involved with. We need to be able to tweak it now and then it so it works better, and we need to put it aside when it isn't going to help.

I'll grant that there may be some value in the "numinous" experience of feeling (or at least imagining) that there is some greater power that has some awareness and care for our personal condition, and perhaps even some inclination to intervene for our personal benefit. But this only seems of value with respect to an individual. Pushing such notions as doctrine or dogma for a community, society, nation or culture is at best ill-advised, and turns the concept of "authority" into a hollow and shameful ruse.

And if, someday, we finally take the view that our "numinous" experience was really just so much misapprehension or delusion or wishful thinking, we shouldn't hesitate to stuff that "tool" into the attic or basement so it doesn't get in our way. This doesn't mean abandoning all the useful tasks that the tool was once good for -- it just means getting to work on those tasks with better tools. I'm talking here about living a life in accordance with a decent system of ethics and responsibility ({AbE} and a sense of sincere affection); these things exist independently of religion, and we can readily establish an objective basis for them, amenable to independent verification.

Edited by Otto Tellick, : minor edits, as noted in text


autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Apologetics, posted 09-08-2009 11:27 PM Apologetics has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Apologetics, posted 09-10-2009 9:06 PM Otto Tellick has responded

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 240 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 28 of 167 (523317)
09-09-2009 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Apologetics
09-08-2009 6:57 PM


Re: God using evolution
quote:
In Matthew 19:4-5 it says, “And He (Jesus) answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning made them male and female.”(NKJ) Jesus says here that he made Adam and Eve in the beginning, not millions of years later. The word beginning in the Greek is arche, strong’s # G746, which speaks of origin and the extremity of a thing.

Your argument repeats a fairly recent but common YEC misinterpretation.

The question is, "What did Jesus mean by the beginning? Beginning of what?" This is answered by the context.

The context is a discussion of marriage and divorce. Jesus is explaining that God's original plan was for marriage, not divorce. In this context, "made them at the beginning" is referring to the beginning of mankind, and looks back to Adam and Eve. From the very first man and woman, marriage was God's intention.

Jesus is saying nothing here about when man was created in respect to everything else. That is not in view in the context, and to introduce this concept is an exegetically unsound addition to the Word of God.

Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Apologetics, posted 09-08-2009 6:57 PM Apologetics has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Apologetics, posted 09-10-2009 9:13 PM kbertsche has responded

    
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 240 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 29 of 167 (523318)
09-09-2009 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Apologetics
09-08-2009 6:57 PM


Re: God using evolution
quote:
Also in Genesis, which is written in a narrative form, states six times God calling his creation Good. Death is not good to a loving and righteous God, that is why God told them not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (Gen 2:17).

Note that the text uses the word "good," not "perfect." Hebrew has a word for "perfect" and this was pointedly not used.

quote:
Plus 1 Cor 15:21-22 states, “For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.”(NKJ) So death came by Adam’s sin, not millions of years before.

Another misinterpretation that is easily answered by context. In context, what does the "all" refer to, the "all" who die and are made alive? It clearly refers to mankind, not animals. Animals are not in view in the context at all. Paul is saying only that Adam's sin brought death to man; he is making no comment on animals. If you wanted to interpret this as Adam bringing death to animals, then you'd be forced to claim that Jesus' sacrifice also brings eternal life to animals.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Apologetics, posted 09-08-2009 6:57 PM Apologetics has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Apologetics, posted 09-10-2009 9:19 PM kbertsche has acknowledged this reply

    
Coyote
Member (Idle past 215 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 30 of 167 (523371)
09-09-2009 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Apologetics
09-08-2009 6:57 PM


Re: God using evolution
You are applying one particular religious belief (out of tens of thousands of differing religious beliefs) to a scientific question.

The problem seems to be a lack of empirical evidence to evaluate one belief over another. (I'm partial to Old Man Coyote stories, for which the evidence is every bit as good as for any other creation stories--i.e., there is none.)

If believers can't agree among themselves, and can't produce empirical evidence in support of their beliefs, why should their beliefs be considered in any manner in scientific discussions?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Apologetics, posted 09-08-2009 6:57 PM Apologetics has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by kbertsche, posted 09-09-2009 9:38 PM Coyote has not yet responded
 Message 38 by Apologetics, posted 09-10-2009 9:28 PM Coyote has responded

  
Prev1
2
3456
...
12NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019