Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8950 total)
36 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, Hyroglyphx, PaulK (4 members, 32 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 867,004 Year: 22,040/19,786 Month: 603/1,834 Week: 103/500 Day: 0/61 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why is it that God couldn't have made Creation with evolution?
Arphy
Member (Idle past 2772 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 14 of 167 (521883)
08-30-2009 7:48 AM


themasterdebator writes:

I think it comes down to the concept of biblical infallibility and I can understand why someone would take such a view. If the Bible is not an accurate guide to verifiable events(things that happened in reality), than how can one say it is an accurate guide to anything? The only thing left for the Bible to guide would be subjective events that are simply in the mind of the believer.


Exactly. As Jesus said in John 3:12: ‘I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?’ (NIV). also John 5:46–47:
46 If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me.
47 But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?

greyseal writes:

Creationists say "we have the conclusion, now how can we fit the facts around it" (as they say, "god did it, I believe it, that settles it").

Hmm...I'd say we think more like "The bible claims to be the word of God and inerrant (john 10:35, 2 timothy 3:16,). Therefore we will take this assumption and see if it is true. This has been shown to be supported by the facts on many occasions of a christian's everyday life and therefore we choose to also trust the bible when it talks in historical terms. And again we find that the evidence supports our assumption"
greyseal writes:

Creationists knew that Darwin was wrong when he posited the idea of natural selection - how could such information be passed on to offspring? Of course, Crick and Watson discovered DNA some time later and explained it. Now they can't get around it, they talk about interpreting facts differently, but it's still a lie they tell.


Well, guess why Gregor Mendel's ideas weren't recognised until after his death. His work was published at the time that Darwin's theory of evolution was becoming popular and conflicted with Darwinist science at the time. This can also be seen in that Mendel's work when recognised had the effect of lessening the popularity of darwin's theory, until Darwinists were able to fit it into their theory.
greyseal writes:

The scientific study of evolution doesn't document abiogenesis, it just documents how life is known to change, and it explains the facts.

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

Scientists will often say "I don't know" - YEC's say they always know, like they know that Genesis was written by Moses (it must have been) - even the part that reads "and so he died"...


This is not true. YEC's do not always have a complete answer. e.g. Starlight and a young earth, where some good theories have already been proposed although as with most scientific theories there is more work to be done. We do have an accepted framework yet there are things that are not directly mentioned for which YEC's have come up with theories that still fit in this framework and are supported by evidence e.g. The Ice age. As for Moses, again John 5:46–47:
46 If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me.
47 But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?
thematerdebator writes:

Also, to add. If Adam and Eve did not exist(and according to evolution, they would not. Individuals don't evolve, populations do so there would have have been allot more humans than 2), then the entire idea of Jesus dying for original sin would fall also(As adam and eve would have never ate the apple to be punished for in the first place)

Exactly!
modulous writes:

If YHWH passed on Genesis to people in vague metaphorical terms because they would not understand complex ideas of inflationary cosmology and evolutionary biology - wouldn't it be nice for him to give us an update now we are in a better position when it comes to understanding the universe?


Well said
kbertsche writes:

I (and most Christians) would agree with you that the Bible was primarily intended for the immediate audience, and was not intended to teach science. Most (even YECs) would agree that the Bible is not a science textbook (but then the YECs inconsistently try to find modern science in it).


Please read the quotes from themasterdebator and modulous in this post. The bible is not a science textbook it is a historically accurate eyewitness account. Again John 3:12: ‘I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?’
kbertsche writes:

We should not assume that YECs interpret the Bible correctly; their view has been dominant only since the mid-1900s.
I find it strange that you are trying to squelch ICANT's views on this. To do so is a de facto surrender of biblical interpretation to the YECs. This would be a grave error and would further polarize the issues.


Previous to lyell and darwin YEC "interpretations" of the bible was the main view throughout Israelite and Christian history! Yes it does polarize the issue because as themasterdebator and modulous have already pointed out your view is inconsistent with the bible as well as evolutionary theory. (to themasterdebator and modulous, hope i'm not misquoting you guys, just post if you think I am putting words in your mouth, so to speak).
greyseal writes:

That's part of the problem with the Bible - it talks in simile and metaphor, flowery descriptive language and also straight facts. It's also not clear where facts are meant and where simile, metaphor or descriptive language is meant.

Where there is a similie a similie is meant, where there is a metaphor a metaphor is meant, where there is flowery descriptive language, flowery descriptive language is meant, where there are straight facts, straight facts are meant. Hebrew is a language and just as we are able to work out these language details in English, ot can also be done in hebrew. Yes, there have been many attempts to torture the language as people either disagree with the implications or a new fashion comes along, but I agree this should not be done.
greyseal writes:

This dogmatic idea that everything in the Bible is literal is a rather new invention

As above, no, it is not a new invention.

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by kbertsche, posted 08-30-2009 5:06 PM Arphy has responded
 Message 16 by Vacate, posted 08-31-2009 3:37 AM Arphy has not yet responded

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 2772 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

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 2772 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

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 2772 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 105 of 167 (524025)
09-14-2009 7:36 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by bluescat48
09-13-2009 9:48 AM


Re: God using evolution
bluescat writes:

If would not be anything of major consequence if a new theory of evolution was to be brought out tomorrow which overturned the current theory. The point is that there has to be evidence not mere ancient writings. The point of no dogma is just that, science modifies itself through constant research. How can this be dogma, when it in itself is changed through research, and modified as the evidence shows?


Sure if a new completely materialistic theory came out tommorrow that excludes God and the Bible, you might believe it. However all this does is show that you do have a dogma that only completly naturalistic explanations are allowed, instead of searching for the truth where ever it leads.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by bluescat48, posted 09-13-2009 9:48 AM bluescat48 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by bluescat48, posted 09-14-2009 9:43 AM Arphy has not yet responded
 Message 107 by Huntard, posted 09-14-2009 10:08 AM Arphy has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019