Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
29 online now:
AZPaul3, GDR, Tanypteryx (3 members, 26 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Happy Birthday: Anish
Post Volume: Total: 863,466 Year: 18,502/19,786 Month: 922/1,705 Week: 174/518 Day: 48/52 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why is it that God couldn't have made Creation with evolution?
Blissful
Junior Member (Idle past 3586 days)
Posts: 1
Joined: 08-19-2009


Message 1 of 167 (520182)
08-19-2009 6:17 PM


I was curious and starting reading here and I see no one thinking about how God could have made an ever changing universe; that would seem far more impressive and interesting in my view.

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.

From the point of view of early man, created by God in His image if you will, the world began around 6000 years ago, a time they could understand, and creatures were described as they were at his time. God created plenty of mysteries for people to explore, His very nature being the greatest example, and it seems a bit much to assume that He decided to reveal Creation in complete crystal detail.

I'll end by saying I have no agenda in asking this, I'm simply curious of others thoughts and this is a line of thinking which I feel could yield some interesting ideas, though I doubt they'll be conclusive.

I have no need for an organised religion and enjoy the simplicity of the occasional numinous experience or a small prayer which allows me to leave a worry at the door but religion is a tool in my opinion, much like video games, work or even sex for getting through life as pleasantly as possible and feeling fulfilled on the other end.

I also apologise for the fractured nature of my initial thoughts - it's because they are just initial thoughts.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add most of the blank lines.


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by themasterdebator, posted 08-20-2009 1:17 AM Blissful has not yet responded
 Message 4 by ICANT, posted 08-20-2009 1:21 AM Blissful has not yet responded
 Message 6 by mike the wiz, posted 08-20-2009 7:20 AM Blissful has not yet responded
 Message 10 by Modulous, posted 08-20-2009 12:18 PM Blissful has not yet responded
 Message 11 by kbertsche, posted 08-20-2009 12:36 PM Blissful has not yet responded
 Message 66 by cavediver, posted 09-12-2009 4:52 PM Blissful has not yet responded
 Message 93 by RAZD, posted 09-13-2009 11:15 AM Blissful has not yet responded
 Message 155 by Archangel, posted 09-25-2010 9:37 AM Blissful has not yet responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3896
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 2 of 167 (520224)
08-20-2009 12:05 AM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum

    
themasterdebator
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 167 (520228)
08-20-2009 1:17 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Blissful
08-19-2009 6:17 PM


Basically, because a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible contradicts evolution. You have a very different view of religion than a fundamentalist. To a fundamentalist, the Bible is THE truth. Anything that could possibly contradict it is wrong. 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. Those outside events provide validation for their belief.

The problem is that they then take the opposite approach of rationality. Instead of checking other evidence to see if Biblical events are true, they are checking the Bible before seeing if the other evidence can be true.

That and I think they want to believe humans are somehow super special creations of God fundamentally superior to all other species. It makes them feel special thinking that God created all these other species for the purpose of serving humans.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Blissful, posted 08-19-2009 6:17 PM Blissful has not yet responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6248
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 4 of 167 (520229)
08-20-2009 1:21 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Blissful
08-19-2009 6:17 PM


Re-Creation
Hi Blissful,

Blissful writes:

I was curious and starting reading here and I see no one thinking about how God could have made an ever changing universe; that would seem far more impressive and interesting in my view.

I thought He did.

You find all kinds of different creatures that existed at different times since the beginning.

Stars are exploding, much is happening in our universe as it streaches out.

As far as the planet earth He put us here and we have cause it to continually change.

Blissful writes:

It seems a stretch to take the Bibles word as complete scientific fact if you then reject other scientific fact and evidence.

People reject things because they don't conform to their worldview.

Blissful writes:

From the point of view of early man, created by God in His image if you will, the world began around 6000 years ago,

The world did not begin some 6000 years ago as you state as well as YEC'S.

The Bible teaches no such thing.

It does teach modern man was created in the image of God some 6000 years ago.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Blissful, posted 08-19-2009 6:17 PM Blissful has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Adminnemooseus, posted 08-20-2009 2:43 AM ICANT has not yet responded

    
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3896
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 5 of 167 (520239)
08-20-2009 2:43 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by ICANT
08-20-2009 1:21 AM


Strong suggestion to ICANT
The world did not begin some 6000 years ago as you state as well as YEC'S.

The Bible teaches no such thing.

I think your opinion is very much in the minority, and it is threatening to really muck up this topic (and others?).

Please abstain from doing further messages in this topic. Perhaps you can resume doing such later.

I think it would be useful and interesting if you started a position topic. Something like "ICANT's position in the creation/evolution debate". Please do such, and feel free to cite this message in your message 1.

Please start any such topic via the Proposed New Topics forum.

Adminnemooseus


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by ICANT, posted 08-20-2009 1:21 AM ICANT has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by kbertsche, posted 08-20-2009 12:55 PM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

    
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4660
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 6 of 167 (520252)
08-20-2009 7:20 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Blissful
08-19-2009 6:17 PM


I think it's an admirable viewpoint, usually from neutral people such as yourself. However, in the real world arguments from religion are utterly crushed if you give any of your position away.

Look at Dawkins. He only debates "theistic evolutionists" because it is much much harder to debate a person that will not compromise his bible.

I am creationist, and my arguments do not contradict any facts.

It's all about how you see the facts, blissful. If we take the same record of animals and say that they all started with different gene pools, and now we get variation to an extent, then that fits perfectly.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Blissful, posted 08-19-2009 6:17 PM Blissful has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Theodoric, posted 08-20-2009 10:09 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 8 by greyseal, posted 08-20-2009 10:11 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6658
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 7 of 167 (520277)
08-20-2009 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by mike the wiz
08-20-2009 7:20 AM


It's all about how you see the facts, blissful.

Are there is the rub. Creationists think that facts can be changed and tortured like they torture the bible.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by mike the wiz, posted 08-20-2009 7:20 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

    
greyseal
Member (Idle past 2146 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 8 of 167 (520278)
08-20-2009 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by mike the wiz
08-20-2009 7:20 AM


mike the wiz writes:

Look at Dawkins. He only debates "theistic evolutionists" because it is much much harder to debate a person that will not compromise his bible.

Dawkins doesn't have a bible, and you can't debate with those who say "godidit", as that is the sum of their argument

mike the wiz writes:

I am creationist, and my arguments do not contradict any facts.

no, creationism (YEC in particular) doesn't contradict radio carbon dating, argon potassium dating, geology, paleontology, physics, DNA...wherever we turn, we've never seen any transitional fossils like archaeopteryx or tiktaalik, never seen evidence of humans evolving from earlier forms of life like homo erectus, homo habilis and so on, oh no. we can't measure how far stars and other galaxies are away by triangulation, oh no...

mike the wiz writes:

It's all about how you see the facts, blissful. If we take the same record of animals and say that they all started with different gene pools, and now we get variation to an extent, then that fits perfectly.

I'd say don't listen to him, sorry - he's a creationist, and a YEC at that. 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"). 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.

If you want the wishier-washier version of deism over specific theism, then there's no real reason that some supreme being couldn't have caused the big bang and then sat back for several trillion years to watch it's handiwork unfold. There's no real reason that a superbeing couldn't have caused abiogenesis way back when some 3 billion years ago.

The scientific study of evolution doesn't document abiogenesis, it just documents how life is known to change, and it explains the facts. There is no "interpretation" needed, not to the extent YEC's would have you believe.

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 message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by mike the wiz, posted 08-20-2009 7:20 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by themasterdebator, posted 08-20-2009 11:24 AM greyseal has not yet responded

    
themasterdebator
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 167 (520286)
08-20-2009 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by greyseal
08-20-2009 10:11 AM


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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by greyseal, posted 08-20-2009 10:11 AM greyseal has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 388 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 10 of 167 (520287)
08-20-2009 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Blissful
08-19-2009 6:17 PM


I was curious and starting reading here and I see no one thinking about how God could have made an ever changing universe; that would seem far more impressive and interesting in my view.

There are plenty of people that feel that way around here, and even more 'out there'.

I'll end by saying I have no agenda in asking this, I'm simply curious of others thoughts and this is a line of thinking which I feel could yield some interesting ideas, though I doubt they'll be conclusive.

Since "God" ends up being a fuzzily defined entity with untestable powers approaching omnipotence it could have created everything with evolution, so that it was clear no evolution ever happened, or that it simply looks very much like evolution happened, but didn't. This is one of the problems with vaguely defined all powerful unfalsifiable entities - they could have done anything anyway. Maybe it created nothing but my mind and subjected it to a string of beliefs about what was happening to it? Anything is possible when you insert the G word, neh?

One thing is for sure, if we are talking about "YHWH" - evolution doesn't seem entirely his style (except for the large number of deaths involved of course). For some reason, YHWH is a god that wanted to make himself known to a select group of people a long time ago, and has been increasingly vague and unobvious since we started to develop science.

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?

religion is a tool in my opinion, much like video games, work or even sex for getting through life as pleasantly as possible and feeling fulfilled on the other end.

An interesting view. Unlike with other recreations though, religions tend to demand a certain degree of fidelity. 'Shopping around' is less common with religions than it is for other passtimes. Am I a YHWH person or is Zeus the way to go? Do I like FPSs or RTSs?


Welcome to EvC - we are always keen to hear new voices. I hope you stick around and contribute to the conversation!

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Blissful, posted 08-19-2009 6:17 PM Blissful has not yet responded

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 11 of 167 (520288)
08-20-2009 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Blissful
08-19-2009 6:17 PM


quote:
I was curious and starting reading here and I see no one thinking about how God could have made an ever changing universe; that would seem far more impressive and interesting in my view.

Many Christians do believe this. they are typically called "theistic evolutionists." For example, see the writings of our new NIH director, Francis Collins, or of Simon Conway Morris.

quote:
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.

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).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Blissful, posted 08-19-2009 6:17 PM Blissful has not yet responded

    
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 12 of 167 (520289)
08-20-2009 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Adminnemooseus
08-20-2009 2:43 AM


Re: Strong suggestion to ICANT
quote:
I think your opinion is very much in the minority, and it is threatening to really muck up this topic (and others?).

Please abstain from doing further messages in this topic. Perhaps you can resume doing such later.



You may be correct that ICANT's view on this is a minority position, but if so it is a very strong minority. His view that the Bible does not teach a 6000 year old creation is shared by essentially all "old earth creationists" (OECs) and some "theistic evolutionists" (TEs). His particular views are similar to the "Gap Theory" which was the majority position in American fundamentalism from the mid-1800s to the mid-1900s. 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.

On the other hand, the "6000 year" comment in the OP was not his main point, and I agree with you that such a discussion here would probably derail the thread.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Adminnemooseus, posted 08-20-2009 2:43 AM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by greyseal, posted 08-20-2009 1:24 PM kbertsche has acknowledged this reply

    
greyseal
Member (Idle past 2146 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 13 of 167 (520294)
08-20-2009 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by kbertsche
08-20-2009 12:55 PM


Re: Strong suggestion to ICANT
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.

This dogmatic idea that everything in the Bible is literal is a rather new invention and surprisingly pig-headed, as our science grew powerful enough to encompass enough of the universe that it was obvious it wasn't 6000 years old unless god had specifically decided to lie to us - and it could do that almost 500 years ago. Since the greeks had the idea the Earth was a sphere 2000 years ago, you could say it was out-dated when it was written.

If you abandon the idea that everything is literal, it's very easy to understand natural selection and evolution. The bible itself doesn't really talk about evolution as far as I know (animal husbandry, yes) - but it also doesn't say evolution doesn't or can't happen (afaik) - it doesn't mention it at all.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by kbertsche, posted 08-20-2009 12:55 PM kbertsche has acknowledged this reply

    
Arphy
Member (Idle past 2717 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

    
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 15 of 167 (521942)
08-30-2009 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Arphy
08-30-2009 7:48 AM


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.

From the early church to the mid-1800s a form of YEC was popular, but it was certainly not the only popular view (an eternal universe was also popular due to the influence of Greek philosophy), and this older YEC was not the modern form of YEC. (When I wrote that "their view has been dominant only since the mid-1900s" I was referring to the modern YEC view, which was hopefully clear from the context.)

The modern YEC view has a number of aspects:
1) the days of Genesis 1 are literal 24-hour periods in a literal week
2) the days are days of creation, not of re-creation as the Gap Theory claims or of revelation as some other views claim
3) Genesis 1:1 is either a heading or occurs as part of Day 1; there is no appreciable time gap between v.1 and v.3 as the Gap Theory claims
4) geologic evidence for an old earth (the geologic column) is largely the result of a world-wide flood

it is true that aspect 1 has been a common view since the early church, but the other aspects have been less common. In particular, the flood geology of aspect 4 did not exist in its present form until the 20th century. (Surface fossils were seen as flood evidence much earlier, but viewing the geologic column as flood evidence was uncommon before the 20th century.) Hence my claim that the modern YEC view has been dominant only since the mid-1900s (mid-20th century).

quote:
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).

You may not be putting words in their mouths, but you seem to be making unjustified assumptions about my views. I strongly disagree that my views are inconsistent with the Bible itself, though they are indeed inconsistent with some interpretations of the Bible.

Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Arphy, posted 08-30-2009 7:48 AM Arphy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Arphy, posted 08-31-2009 6:21 AM kbertsche has 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