|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,773 Year: 4,030/9,624 Month: 901/974 Week: 228/286 Day: 35/109 Hour: 1/4 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Why is it that God couldn't have made Creation with evolution? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2157 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:BTW, it was not "Apologetics" but "Blissful" in the OP who specifically directed this thread toward this "one particular religious belief": Blissful writes:
Church teachings have changed over time as the Magesterium have reinterpreted the Bible and as such I feel it would be possible that the Bible is the Truth written in a manner suited for the people it was intended to be read by: not the scientific Man of today but the spiritual Man of the past. It seems a stretch to take the Bibles word as complete scientific fact if you then reject other scientific fact and evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Apologetics Junior Member (Idle past 5330 days) Posts: 19 From: Michigan Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Apologetics Junior Member (Idle past 5330 days) Posts: 19 From: Michigan Joined: |
anglagard writes: "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 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.
anglagard:=anglagard writes: "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." 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Apologetics Junior Member (Idle past 5330 days) Posts: 19 From: Michigan Joined: |
Hooah212002 writes: "tis a mighty fine use of circular reasoning you have right there." 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Apologetics Junior Member (Idle past 5330 days) Posts: 19 From: Michigan Joined: |
Otto Tellick writes: "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." 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Apologetics Junior Member (Idle past 5330 days) Posts: 19 From: Michigan Joined: |
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. --------------------------------------------------------------------- kbertsche writes: The question is, "What did Jesus mean by the beginning? Beginning of what?" This is answered by the context... 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Apologetics Junior Member (Idle past 5330 days) Posts: 19 From: Michigan Joined: |
kbertsche writes: Note that the text uses the word "good," not "perfect." Hebrew has a word for "perfect" and this was pointedly not used. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Apologetics Junior Member (Idle past 5330 days) Posts: 19 From: Michigan Joined: |
Coyote writes: "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?" 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2132 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
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?
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Otto Tellick Member (Idle past 2356 days) Posts: 288 From: PA, USA Joined: |
Apologetics writes: 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. 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.
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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Otto Tellick Member (Idle past 2356 days) Posts: 288 From: PA, USA Joined: |
Apologetics writes: The Hebrew language is much larger than ours. "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.)
One word in the Hebrew has more than one English meaning. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2157 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote: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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Apologetics Junior Member (Idle past 5330 days) Posts: 19 From: Michigan Joined: |
Coyote writes: 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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2290 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
What experiments have people with your presuppositions done that has observed monkeys reproducing humans.
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Apologetics Junior Member (Idle past 5330 days) Posts: 19 From: Michigan Joined: |
kbertsche writes: This is a parallel passage to Mt 19:4-5. My comments of Re: God using evolution (Message 28) apply just as well to this passage. In context, then, Mk 10:6 means "the beginning of the creation of mankind." 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024