If Evolution was proved beyond doubt...

Never said it was a univeral concept. It is quite a dominant concept down through church history and even today, but there is a wide range of "churches", some with just about any belief you can imagine.Also, what's this concern about the "peanut gallery."You guys really do, at times, act like religionists. I have attended churches which were cultish, where the leaders were so concerned over people being exposed to idea they did not approve of.My experience with evolution proponents is that they have exhibited the same mentality.By the way, were you aware of the quote in Romans? It's a serious question. My experience here thus far is a lot of people ask you to back stuff up, sometimes when they know it is true, and thus waste one's time, and yet these same people will often not back up their comments.I hope that is not the case with you. I am interested in real discussion, not wasting a bunch of time with people resorting to debating tactics as if we were in a political campaign or something.This message has been edited by randman, 05-30-2005 02:30 AM

It is a huge stretch. Nothing, absolutely nothing that you have mentioned suggests that there were two different kinds of fowl created.And it's just ludicrous to suggest that the "prehistoric" fowl created on the fifth day were already extinct by the sixth day.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

You didn't think I was trying to convince you, did you? I just don't want the lurkers out there to think that every self-styled "Christian" has the same narrow views that you do. I don't mind people being exposed to your ideas. I just don't want them to think they're the only ideas. Now you lost me. Did I say I was an "evolution proponent"? And does that have something to do with this thread? The quote in Romans does not back up your comments, as anybody who reads it will know. I asked if you had anything to back up the idea that there was a change in the whole world because of the "Fall". I was pretty sure that you wouldn't come up with anything substantial, because it isn't true. Well, this is a debate forum. You can expect debating tactics. If you don't want to back up what you say, maybe you're in the wrong place.One further comment about the "peanut gallery". In a debate, political or otherwise, it is the audience that we are talking to, not each other. If I ask you to back up something you said, it is not necessarily for my benefit, but for theirs.(I'm looking forward to continuing this discussion - probably in the proper topic - if you're up to it. )This message has been edited by Ringo316, 2005-05-30 08:28 AM

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

Man was created on the 6th day in one story or much earlier in the other story. Sorry but there most certainly are contradictions unless you want to hand wave them away.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Just in case everyone has forgotten it, here is the text of the OP.

---

AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe

http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

Why is it a stretch?The text clearly indicates fowl being created from water before man was created, and fowl being created from the ground after man was created.It is either a contradiction, or I am correct on that.Moreover, the implication is indeed that the previous fowl were either extinct or not in large numbers, as why would God create new fowl for man. The text suggests that there was a need to create animals suitable for man. Perhaps the extinction bit is a stretch, but it is not a stretch at all, but a plain reading of the text, that there were 2 creations of 2 different classes of flying animals.This message has been edited by randman, 05-30-2005 01:18 PM

Jar, there are no contradictions. Show them.Genesis 1 unveils the creation story, and Genesis 2 details more on one part of that story.Are you claiming the author or folks who put Genesis together deliberately put 2 contradictory stories back to back?Really, there is nothing in the stories to show a contradiction, and heck, one of the apparent contradictions, the creation of 2 sets of flying creatures, has been cleared up by scientific investigations.It appears you just want to believe the stories contradict. There is certainly nothing in them that, in fact, does contradict.

But I have already done so. There are two entirely different tales from two entirely different eras and cultures. The order of creation, the methods of creation are entirely different. Really? Do tell. LOLIn one tale man is created as one of the last acts. In the other, man is created early, only plants being created earlier. In one all animals are created after man, in the other, man is an afterthought.You're free to make up any tales you want but the Bible says there are two, mutually exclusive Creation tales. That's not just my interpretation but rather the interpretation of every mainstream Christian faith I know of. From his Pastoral letter found here.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Appeals to authority within the faith. Well, if you are willing to start accepting what various ministers believe, we've made a good start, but somehow that is not what I think is going on.Jar, you claim they differ, but offer no specifics, or specifics that do not match the texts. Prove that because Genesis 1 says the land animals were created during the same "day" (era) as man, and Genesis 2 says the same thing, that God created the animals which were created "out of the ground" during the time of man's creation. The text totally contradicts what you claim.Furthermore, there is no indication that man was created as an afterthought. In both Genesis 1-2, man is created to be dominant over the creation.Both Genesis 1 and 2 are consistent with each other.Also, what do you constitute as mainstream faith?Are Southern Baptists mainstream faith? They are the single largest denomination in America, although they would claim they are not a denomination.Are Charistmatic/Pentacostals mainstream? They are the largest, and fastest growing segment of Christianity globally.The vast majority of both of these groups believe as I do here on Genesis.Even among denominations such as Anglicans, not all agree with your take or the take of the bishop you quoted.I would argue that most Christians globally accept the harmonious view of Genesis 1 and 2, and thus the "mainstream" agrees with me.

You are free to believe anything you want. If you are asking for my personal opinion on Southern Baptists and Pentacostals, I don't think you'd like the answer. That's very true. One think about the Anglican Faith is that you don't have to check your brain at the door before entering, yet still, some do. I doubt that's true if they've ever read the book. There is simply no way to reconcile the two tales. But my experience seems to indicate that most people haven't read the damn book.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Jar, I showed you where you were incorrect about man:Being an afterthought, andBeing created at different times, eras, from land animals.Both Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 indicates man and the land animals being created at the same time.Now, if you want to say these stories are allegorical, and meant to be taken as 2 different stories, fine, but they still don't contradict, and that's the point.Genesis 1, by the way, seems to lend strong evidence for evolution/multiple descent (pretty close to common descent) whereas Genesis 2 is stronger evidence (if you accept the Bible) for special creation, but both accounts are very brief and leave a lot of room for speculation.Since the topic of this thread is just as much about faith as science, I will do you a favor and tell you how I view the Bible in one respect and how many believers also view it. I view the Bible as containing clues when there are areas of vagueness. There are things that are spelled out very clearly such as love your neighbor or Jesus died, was buried, resurrected, as Paul repeatedly insists on, for example.Then, there are things that are not so clear.But rather than assume that something is a contradiction, I find that God, according to my faith, uses seeming contradictions to illustrate truth. Paradoxes are a familiar example of this, but I think when you see 2 accounts that seem to differ, side by side, that the differences are there for a reason.I don't see the differences you see, and argue that they are not there, but I do see the differences in 2 sets of flying animals being created, and had I lived 300 years ago, it might have been harder to reconcile that fact, but with the discovery of prehistoric dino-birds, it makes more sense.That's how my faith works, and in response to this thread topic, I see no reason why any scientific discovery would weaken my faith or anyone's elses.Evidently, many such as yourself it seems feel it would weaken your faith, ir should weaken it if you believed in the Bible. I think that is a mistake and mis-perception on your part.Btw, I accept the Bible as the word of God, but I do think there could be mistakes in the translations we have and probably are some small mistakes, but mostly they are neglible mistakes, and not something to worry about.This message has been edited by randman, 05-30-2005 02:24 PM

And this has what to do with the OP?Please take discussions of contradictions real or imagined to another thread.This thread is about a very specific scenario.

---

AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe

http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

Hasn't this question been done ad nauseum on EvC?A quick look gave me Genesis 1 vs. Genesis 2 but I'm sure there's been other threads and sections within threads.For the record I have no opinion on this as I've only ever read two books of the Bible and Genesis wasn't one of them.

---

Oops! Wrong Planet

You're right my Queen. I will heed and obey.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

AdminAsqara, while I agree some have diverted the thread off-topic, I have been attempting to answer the original thread topic. Well, presumably we are suppossed to be talking about how people of "faith" that accept the Bible as the word of God would accept it.It has been somewhat annoying to see some, like jar, here proclaim that somehow my faith, as someone that is suspicious of evolution and believes in the Bible, is wrong in relevant to this discussion and that the interpretation of the Bible from the believer's perspective is incorrect.I don't mind defending my views on any area of the Bible, and so I was forced to do that, but it seems odd that rather than try to understand my perspective, as someone of faith, on Genesis and these matters, that some here would merely try to argue against them, without imo, even delving into the entire substance of my posts.If one wants to know how people would react if evolution were proven true, I suggest someone talk with people that believe in Genesis as true and leave open the possibility for evolution being true.This message has been edited by randman, 05-30-2005 04:47 PM