|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Why is it that God couldn't have made Creation with evolution? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Vacate Member (Idle past 4601 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Arphy Member (Idle past 4433 days) Posts: 185 From: New Zealand Joined: |
quote:
Hence why I said previous to lyell and darwin
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.(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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2132 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote: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?quote: Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Arphy Member (Idle past 4433 days) Posts: 185 From: New Zealand Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Apologetics Junior Member (Idle past 5305 days) Posts: 19 From: Michigan Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 802 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Apologetics Junior Member (Idle past 5305 days) Posts: 19 From: Michigan Joined: |
Sorry about the sentence structure. I’ll work on it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 802 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Apologetics Junior Member (Idle past 5305 days) Posts: 19 From: Michigan Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 802 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
'tis a mighty fine use of circular reasoning you have right there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 837 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Otto Tellick Member (Idle past 2331 days) Posts: 288 From: PA, USA Joined: |
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 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2132 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote: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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2132 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:Note that the text uses the word "good," not "perfect." Hebrew has a word for "perfect" and this was pointedly not used. quote: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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024