Why is it that God couldn't have made Creation with evolution?

quote:

---

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

---

BTW, it was not "Apologetics" but "Blissful" in the OP who specifically directed this thread toward this "one particular religious belief":

If you would please do the PNT for me, since I do not know how to do one. Then we all can resume the debate there.

The 3,000 versions you are referring to are translations. This means they carry the same message, just worded different. There are 24,000 Greek New Testament manuscripts that have been found. There is only a 2% variation in them. This variation is changing the name Jesus, to the Anointed One, or Messiah, etc. Same thing different words. I have heard of Juvenal, Suetonius, and Tacitus but I have not read their work. But by the description that you have given they spoke bad about their culture or nation, not about themselves. My point was speaking of ones own flaws.Edited by Apologetics, : No reason given.

Your right. We will have to finish the debate on the inerrancy of scripture before I could prove my point that God inspired scripture. But you can see how with my presuppositions that I see the Bible as inspired by God.

There is a problem with your telephone analogy. First it is a closed system. One person is whispering to another then to another and so on. In real life there is a form of checks and balance. Those who know the truth are there to hear the mixed messaged and correct that message.
Second the Hebrew scribes were very particular in their translations. Every letter in the Hebrew alphabet has a numerical value. When a manuscript was copied they would add up the numerical value of the original to that of the copy. If the two did not match, the copy was burned.Edited by Apologetics, : No reason given.

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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- Consider Mark 10:6 as a cross reference, But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. Here it states beginning of the creation.

The Hebrew language is much larger than ours. One word in the Hebrew has more than one English meaning. The word that is translated as good in the English, speaks of best and excellence in the Hebrew. Strong’s # H2896

One of many empirical evidences for a Biblical world view is this: There are billions of people on this earth at this moment, not to mention how many people there would be counting the past. Yet humans have only reproduced humans. Same with livestock. That is repeatable and experimental evidence. Do you have empirical, evidence for your worldview?Edited by Apologetics, : No reason given.

Yes, unfortunately for those who hold your worldview.All of it.There is as of yet no empirical evidence for the existence of deities.And the "humans have only reproduced humans" works only as far as Homo erectus or Homo habilis, prior to which there are non-human ancestors. And if you go back far enough there are ape-like ancestors, then monkey-like ancestors (more accurately, ape-toothed monkeys). That's what the fossil record and genetic studies have shown, supported by a myriad of other sciences."Same with livestock" runs into the same problem. You go back a ways and you find different species, then different genera. This too is supported by the fossil record and genetic studies.Unfortunately your worldview, essentially a religious belief, is not supported by empirical evidence.In fact, it is contradicted by many other religious beliefs, of which there are perhaps some 4,000 (with up to 40,000 subdivisions).If you are unable to agree among yourselves on the specific tenets of religious belief--and have no empirical evidence with which to iron out your differences, why should scientists--or anyone else--accept your beliefs as accurate?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

And yet there is still a problem with your response. It doesn't really answer the core point of my post. "Those who know the truth" (regarding scripture) have not been agreeing with each other very well over the centuries, and have been "correcting the message" in contradictory, mutually exclusive ways. You could certainly say that people doing science have been disagreeing a lot with each other too, but there's a crucial difference between these two groups of disagreeing parties:When the scientists disagree with each other, they have a very clear and decisive method for resolving the issue: form a question (or set of questions) that will draw explicit attention to the differences between the opposing views (theories or hypotheses), and determine the means necessary for collecting evidence and observations that will serve to answer those questions. Assuming that the questions have been well thought out, and the observations have been made with adequate diligence, the evidence comes in and the disagreements are settled (at least in part -- some details may remain in dispute, but each new set of observations leads to some new amount of consensus).When people are disagreeing about their faiths, their interpretations of scripture, their notions of God, God's will, God's judgment, etc, etc, what is the basis or process for resolving their disputes? Based on observed evidence (history), there's some variety of approaches, mostly involving various forms of schism, concomitant with either physical separation, social isolation, or sustained (sometimes violent) conflict. And yet this meticulous attention to orthographic detail has nothing to do with (and has done nothing to limit) the rampant divergence of interpretations of the text. This is due in part to changing conditions and changed awareness, as demonstrated by the divisions among Jewish communities (orthodox vs. reformed vs. ...).But it also due in large part to the fact that the text itself is intrinsically far too vague in too many ways, and this vagueness is amplified by the extent of linguistic difference (to say nothing of social, cultural and intellectual differences) between the original writers and anyone alive today.I find it striking that the YEC's consistently try to make their views seem credible by saying "We are looking at the same evidence as the scientists are -- we just interpret it differently." Well, why not? That's how they handle scripture, too! So it must seem natural to treat objective evidence with the same "flexibility" that they apply when deciphering bible passages, in order to extract their various and incompatible notions of "fact".Edited by Otto Tellick, : No reason given.

---

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

"Larger"?? In what dimensions? Measured in what units? Did you actually intend some other term? ("Smaller" is the first thing that would have come to my mind, if we're talking about vocabulary size.) Well, duh. That's true in the other direction as well (leaving aside the English words that really have no equivalent in ancient Hebrew, and have been adopted wholesale as direct borrowings from English into modern Hebrew). In fact, it applies in both directions when comparing any two languages. Anyway, how does this relate to any notion of relative "largeness"?And how does any of that relate to a willingness (vs. a reticence) to admit an interpretation of scripture that does not explicitly contradict (is not directly falsified by) objective evidence in geology, astronomy, physics, chemistry and biology? In other words, do your particular views about the linguistics of the Bible allow you any means for accepting (as opposed to denying) plain truths about the physical reality we occupy?

---

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

quote:

---

Consider Mark 10:6 as a cross reference, But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. Here it states beginning of the creation.

---

This is a parallel passage to Mt 19:4-5. My comments of Message 28 apply just as well to this passage. In context, then, Mk 10:6 means "the beginning of the creation of mankind."

Empirical: Based on or characterized by observation and experiment instead of theory.Please give a better example of your worldviews experimental evidence. What experiments have people with your presuppositions done that has observed monkeys reproducing humans. You must have some since you say you have "empirical" evidence.

Where in the post does he claim that monkies reproduced humans.

---

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

You cannot change the scripture to meet your worldview. If Mark wanted to speak of the creation of mankind he would have said that. Instead he said "But from the beginning of creation...". The first step in Hermeneutics (study of scripture) is to allow scripture to interpret scripture.As a literal interpretation this passage fits with the rest of scripture, but with your interpretation you must reinterpret other verses like the first chapter of Genesis.