Should Christians Follow Evolution? Creationism vs. Evolution [Archive] - Page 8 - The Dancing Lawn

inkspot

12-26-2008, 04:04 PM

...this is also why most Genesis scholars I've heard do not read Genesis 1 as indicating seven literal 24-hour days. They see them as periods building up to the all-important seventh Covenant Day (which itself needn't have been a 24-hour period).
Could we aim this back at "creation/evolutionism" discussion? Get Doffen or Near in here. :D That's a more exciting subject... for me anyway.
PoTW is exactly on point with his post: people who insist on 6 literal 24-hour days (based on Scripture) are not reading the Scripture (nor understanding it) in the same way the ancient Jews for whom it was written understood it. They are insisting it must mean something which the Scriptures do not require us to believe it means. Since all the scientific evidence tends toward an Old Earth, and the Scriptures, as PoTW points out, leave the question open, it is facile to keep repeating that real Christians must believe in 6 literal 24 hour days.
If I believed that evolution were true and/or if at some point it were proven true I'd have to come to the inevitable conclusion that the God of the bible wasn't. I don't see how you can reconcile the two though some try.
If you read back through this thread, it is very easy to reconcile the two: if you believe God created the universe and used the system of evolution to bring about the variety of species now populating the earth, you're there. You can discover more at
www.answersincreation.org
www.reasons.org

Despite what has been said in this thread, a belief in evolution does not mean no belief in God. I gave up on this thread when others insisted that it did, but since you ask, there it is. :)
lol I'm here. I just feel I've kinda emptied myself on the subject ... so you gotta start at least ;) ... I've written a few very long posts on the subject before in this thread ... My english isn't very good at times so things might be misunderstood of course. Start and I'll write a few words too
Doffen, your English is very good! Merry Christmas, little brother! :)

Truman

12-26-2008, 04:14 PM

Since all the scientific evidence tends toward an Old Earth, and the Scriptures, as PoTW points out, leave the question open, it is facile to keep repeating that real Christians must believe in 6 literal 24 hour days.
That's funny! :rolleyes: But seriously, I still haven't gotten an answer to carbon-14 formation. If it's forming faster than it's decaying then equilibrium hasn't been reached, and the earth must be (by the scientific data) less than 30,000 years old. That's a fact. I would love for you to show me how it isn't.

Doffen

12-26-2008, 05:49 PM

That's funny! :rolleyes: But seriously, I still haven't gotten an answer to carbon-14 formation. If it's forming faster than it's decaying then equilibrium hasn't been reached, and the earth must be (by the scientific data) less than 30,000 years old. That's a fact. I would love for you to show me how it isn't.

It's a well known fact that carbon-14 cannot date fosils or organic material more then 50 000 (not 30 000) years backwards. What you fail to mention is that scientists don't use carbon-14 dating to date older fosils. They use potassium-40, which is much more stable, and has a half-life up to 1.28 billion years. Another well known dating technique is Uranium-238 though it's mostly used to date cores of silt taken from seabeds.

Now, as a counter; I'd like you to explain how scientists are able to sample fosils or stones to be much more older then 50 000 years with Uranium-238 or Potassium-40.

To argue on the point of Carbon-14 and equilibrium, I think this guy can explain why it's not a fact anymore what you've mentioned. The link is here (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/carbon-14/equilibrium.html)

PrinceOfTheWest

12-26-2008, 06:10 PM

What most people don't realize is that the seven literal day interpretation of Genesis 1 is a relatively recent historical phenomenon. It comes from a Fundamentalist view of Scripture, and Fundamentalism rises out of a modernist, mechanistic mindset. Though Fundamentalism itself was a reaction to the historical critical school of Scriptural interpretation, fundamentalist themselves don't realize how modern their thought is. Only someone living after the Enlightenment, steeped in the modern mechanistic mentality with its obsession with precise scientific measurement, would look at Genesis 1 and interpret it as seven 24 hour days. Even the cadence of the verses bespeaks a poetic narrative ("evening came, and morning followed; the fourth day..."). Only someone thoroughly modern in their thinking would contend that questioning seven literal days it tantamount do denying the truth of the narrative.

dawnpatrol

12-27-2008, 03:52 AM

Genesis makes it clear that sickness and death were not brought into this world until the specific instance of Adam disobeying God in the garden. Evolution/natural selection is kind of based on things ... dying. The bible also makes it clear that God created Adam in His own image and that animals were created after their own kind.

Take the case of Charles Templeton who at one time was a more prominent christian evangelist than Billy Graham. According to his biography Templeton began having doubts about the literal Genesis account of creation and eventually came to the conclusion that evolution was a "demonstrable fact" and that ultimately the Bible could not be trusted - if creation in Genesis was mythology what else in the Bible was? The bodily resurrection of Christ? Templeton went on to write the book Farewell to God detailing his reasons for rejecting Christianity which mainly stemmed from the issue of origin. Of course I think he was horribly mistaken but he was after all being intellectually consistent.

Once again, you can't square the two beliefs. On one hand you have a hypothesis from man who is in rebellion against God (evolution) and on the other you have an eyewitness account from the One who was actually there (Genesis). I choose to believe God's account thank you.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i3/unbelief.asp

PrinceOfTheWest

12-27-2008, 01:09 PM

The issue of accepting the creation of mankind (and all creation) by God is certainly critical to understanding our place in the universe. However, don't neglect that God did create natural processes to guide His creation, and those processes have observable effects.

Lewis made an important distinction between "evolution" (or "natural selection"), which is an observable natural process, and "evolutionism", which is a philosophical idolatry.

Evolution by Lewis' definition is simply the fact that certain creatures are better adapted to certain environments. This can be observed by noting that husky dogs would struggle to survive in the Sonoran desert, while chihuahuas could not survive in the Arctic.

But Evolutionism, which is an elaborate form of spontaneous generation, is a philosophical view, that states that mankind (and consciousness, and reason) came about by random processes. This is a false religion, and defies even scientific knowledge (the fact that it takes faith to believe it can be demonstrated by the raving of scientists who deny the observable scientific facts that deny evolutionism. For them, it is heresy.)

dawnpatrol

12-27-2008, 03:31 PM

The husky and the chihuahua have different traits to help them survive the environment they're in but they both remain dogs - each animal created after it's own kind (Gen 1:21). And breeding is an entirely different matter than one species evolving into another which has yet to be observed. Simply put, a husky would not evolve into a hippopotamus I don't care how hot it is out.

PrinceOfTheWest

12-27-2008, 07:23 PM

Right - that's the point. The most that natural selection can explain is the origin of varieties within the same species. This whole idea of species morphing into one another is a flight of fancy that's never been observed and cannot be proven.

But keep in mind that proponents of evolution will use the terms interchangeably, and presume that the observable process of natural selection among, say, finches (to use Darwin's example from the Galapagos Islands) therefore explains species turning into each other. Be sure that you know the difference.

Ephinie

12-28-2008, 01:24 AM

Another thing you might keep in mind is that when scientists are working with bone fossils, they generally don't have DNA samples that they can test. How easy would it be to tell that the husky and the chihuahua are literally the exact same species just by looking at the bones and nothing else? For that matter, your little Yorkie is technically the same species as a wolf. I read once that it is impossible to distinguish wolf from dog genetically - though it has been several years since I learned that, so it is possible that science has progressed in that area since then. But you get the idea. There are wide variations within the same species, and how hard is it to classify extinct animals when all you have to work with is bones? No DNA, no observable behaviors, no insight into diet aside from the bone structure, ect.

Shadow Hawk

12-28-2008, 02:47 PM

Saying you read somewhere that it is nearly impossible to tell the difference, is quite different than being the same. However it may have be the person, may he have needed glasses, or he did not know what he was doing.

As for evolution, there is no evidence, (Deny it if you wish, however you only make a claim by saying it does ;) ), for one species evolving to another. As for the analogy that mammals to some degree have the same genetic structure, simply means that they like I and every other human being have certain elements that are required for life.

Now, on top of that let me throw lighter fluid on the fire... Natural Selection is a delusion.

EveningStar

12-28-2008, 03:40 PM

Natural Selection is a delusionAre you saying that a cheetah with one leg bitten off is equally likely to survive as one with all four legs? Whether or not you believe in evolution, Natural Selection is common sense.

Aravis_yanes

12-28-2008, 06:09 PM

I think that a Christian shouldn't believe in Evolution because goes against what the Bible says...:)

Quentilian

12-28-2008, 09:35 PM

I think that a Christian shouldn't believe in Evolution because goes against what the Bible says...:)

:o well said :p though i must say that evolution and natural selection do appear to exist. EXCEPT they do not exist the way darwin made them out to be, but evolution is rather a decline from our former state of being. natural selection does happen but it doesnt neccessarily work in favor of the stronger or the "more evolved"

Truman

12-28-2008, 10:55 PM

I apologize a thousand times for not responding to PotW or Doffen yet... I'm sort of putting it off since I'm preoccupied with the stuff I got for Christmas. :rolleyes: I will respond soon! :)

...And yes, natural selection does exist. Look a couple pages back when I wrote about that. :)

dawnpatrol

12-29-2008, 04:43 AM

I think that a Christian shouldn't believe in Evolution because goes against what the Bible says...:)

Amen brother .. or sister. Reject the truth and all that's left to believe in is a lie.

Shadow Hawk

12-29-2008, 12:47 PM

Are you saying that a cheetah with one leg bitten off is equally likely to survive as one with all four legs? Whether or not you believe in evolution, Natural Selection is common sense.

Natural Selection as the genetic process, not the Circle of life, dear sir. Evolution is supposedly a genetic change in the gene pool over an extended period time. That is supposed Natural selection, why do you differ? I'm saying a human though deformed, or mentally impaired is able to survive, sir. If evolution was true why am I not a super-human? I will side with the actual father of biology on this on, against all odds, I believe it is a mathematical chance.

Amen brother .. or sister. Reject the truth and all that's left to believe in is a lie.

Wait, Downpatrol, are you saying the bible is a lie? If so are you not calling God himself a liar? I want you for one second consider this, what if evolution was a lie?

dawnpatrol

12-29-2008, 02:16 PM

Wait, Downpatrol, are you saying the bible is a lie? If so are you not calling God himself a liar? I want you for one second consider this, what if evolution was a lie?

Whoa, wait, no, quite the opposite. Read my previous posts in this thread. The Bible is the Word of the Living God so by definition is the absolute truth. And as Aravis_yanes wonderfully points out evolution goes against what the bible says so by definition is a lie. End of story.

I like your point about why aren't we all a race of supermen if the human race is evolving. If anything the human race has continued to devolve since the fall.

And also there is nothing "natural" about natural selection. The death of the weak from sickness or predation is not the natural order of things and was never meant to be.

For all creation is waiting eagerly for that future day when God will reveal who his children really are. Against its will, all creation was subjected to God’s curse. But with eager hope, the creation looks forward to the day when it will join God’s children in glorious freedom from death and decay. For we know that all creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time
-Romans 8:19-22

Just think, your beloved pet dog/cat is also looking forward to the day of Christ's return. :)

Truman

12-29-2008, 03:09 PM

And also there is nothing "natural" about natural selection. The death of the weak from sickness or predation is not the natural order of things and was never meant to be.
If that's your idea of natural selection, then I can see why you're against it. But that's not what it's about. It's about keeping the species strong; it's about making a species adapt correctly to a new environment if its habitat changes (like if or when it migrates). Not that this changes the animal into something entirely new, just that other capabilities originally in its gene code are brought forth, while others are lessened. It happens all the time.

This is one of the very few things that evolutionists believe that is actually true, observable science, except that they take it to the extreme and say that this process, over a long enough period, can transform the animal into a genetically different kind (not species, but kind) of creature, like a reptile to bird.

Shadow Hawk

12-29-2008, 03:16 PM

The actual "Natural Selection" is the process of selecting various traits in the human genome. This process and/or mechanism is known or called "Natural Selection" by selecting the positive, or beneficiary traits, which is impossible without an act of God. Therefore is the reason I side with the father of biology in this, it is a mathematical chance.

Like that of my mother she has blue eyes, my father brown, most would assume that I received the brown eyes/or its trait. When I have a eye that is hazel, gold, and green. Because unlike Natural selection where traits are forgotten, and never accounted for again. In Mathematics you cannot forget any. Each and every one has a chance of being present, whether its greater or lesser, no matter how small it always must be accounted for.

What most evolutionary scientists do is believe that it is a fact that the world evolved, by doing so they taint the every thing they are trying to prove, by creating biased reports, studies. Oh, where has true science gone?

Shadow Hawk

12-29-2008, 03:18 PM

Truman, I would like you to prove Natural Selection. ;):p:cool:

dawnpatrol

12-29-2008, 05:03 PM

If that's your idea of natural selection, then I can see why you're against it. But that's not what it's about. It's about keeping the species strong;

I understand now. It has more to do with reproductive success passing on beneficial traits rather than just survival of the fittest as I had thought. But predator/prey interaction is obviously a factor in that process. A gazelle born with shorter legs than normal or a degenerative heart defect and couldn't outrun even the aforementioned 3-legged cheetah likely wouldn't survive to reproduce. That would be an example of natural selection would it not? Here's a good illustration as well: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_25

Still, my point is natural selection/evolution however it's defined couldn't have been a natural process God put into place from the start of creation. How was adaptation needed as a survival mechanism when survival was never in question to begin with as there was no death in the world? When God created the animals He saw that it was good. It seems to me no further improvement was needed if He was satisfied. The nature red in tooth and claw with the ever present danger of starvation, sickness and death did not happen until after the literal Adam sinned against God Who in turn cursed all of creation. So natural selection is a direct result of the curse but didn't occur prior.

Christ's kingdom to come will be paradise restored. The wolf and the lamb will live together, the leopard will lie down with the baby goat and the calf and the yearling will be safe with the lion (Isaiah 11:6) just like it was in the beginning.

Shadow Hawk

12-31-2008, 09:38 AM

I don't even believe that Natural Selection exists, or rather it was a name given to nothing :P

FatherChristmas

12-31-2008, 02:12 PM

Still, my point is natural selection/evolution however it's defined couldn't have been a natural process God put into place from the start of creation. How was adaptation needed as a survival mechanism when survival was never in question to begin with as there was no death in the world? When God created the animals He saw that it was good. It seems to me no further improvement was needed if He was satisfied. The nature red in tooth and claw with the ever present danger of starvation, sickness and death did not happen until after the literal Adam sinned against God Who in turn cursed all of creation.

Very good point. Let me just add that the way "natural selection" is defined by mainstream scientists makes it clear that they are not talking about something created or directed by God. Look at this example, excerpted from an article (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_tautology.html) by the late Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould defending the idea of "natural selection" against a critic:
One might think that the first chapter of such a revolutionary book as Origin of Species would deal with cosmic questions and general concerns. It doesn't. It's about pigeons. Darwin devotes most of his first forty pages to " artificial selection" of favored traits by animal breeders. For here an independent criterion surely operates. The pigeon fancier knows what he wants. The fittest are not defined by their survival. They are, rather, allowed to survive because they possess desired traits.

The principle of natural selection depends upon the validity of an analogy with artificial selection. We must be able, like the pigeon fancier, to identify the fittest beforehand, not only by their subsequent survival. But nature is not an animal breeder; no preordained purpose regulates the history of life. In nature, any traits possessed by survivors must be counted as "more evolved"; in artificial selection, "superior" traits are defined before breeding even begins.

So you see, if a person has designed the selection process or is directing it actively, it is considered "artificial selection" and not "natural selection". And if that person is God, then we would consider it "divine selection". That is why I have maintained that "natural selection" is not an accurate term to use if you believe that God has designed and/or directed the process. "Divine selection" would be the more accurate term.

EveningStar

12-31-2008, 02:36 PM

So you see, if a person has designed the selection process or is directing it actively, it is considered "artificial selection" and not "natural selection". And if that person is God, then we would consider it "divine selection". That is why I have maintained that "natural selection" is not an accurate term to use if you believe that God has designed and/or directed the process. "Divine selection" would be the more accurate term.

Sorry but this is not accurate. In that sense the Seven "Natural" Wonders of the World would be totally outside of God's realm, and when a tree falls on your car killing your child it literally is a deliberate, premeditated "Act of God". Let's not hyperdefine words. "Man vs. Nature" is a Victorian way of looking at nature as the adversary or simply the backdrop of man. That's why a paved parking lot was "civilization", but a complex ecosystem of interdependent lifestyles was "undeveloped land".

As for there being no death in nature whatsoever before man sinned, that is a doctrine of man. It may or may not be true, but like the insistance of some that you should not use musical instruments in church, it is not spelled out in scripture but is one of many possible interpretations of Bible passages. Please do not state it as a generally accepted canon of the Christian faith. I'm Christian but I don't accept it. Adam and Eve ate fruit. Fruit is alive and I PROMISE YOU when they ate it, it died, and when they stepped on spiders, they died too.

Truman

12-31-2008, 02:47 PM

As for there being no death in nature whatsoever before man sinned, that is a doctrine of man. It is not specifically spelled out in the Bible but is only one of many possible interpretations of the Book of Genesis. Please do not state it as a generally accepted canon of the Christian faith.

Umm...
For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

-- 1 Cor. 15:21-22
:rolleyes:

How do you get past that, exactly? Please share, and please don't give another faulty example of how this is figurative, when it clearly is not.

EveningStar

12-31-2008, 03:08 PM

For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

Proof that animals have immortal souls and go to Heaven because Christ died on the cross, right? I believe higher animals have immortal souls, but that is neither here nor there. I can't use that arguement to prove they do any more than you can use it to prove no animal ever died before Adam brought death into the world.

Sorry if I sound hot under the collar, but I don't like being addressed as if I were choosing to ignore scripture. I just interpret it differently. We all need to respect the right and duty of each man, woman and child to come to grips with the great mystery.

Truman

12-31-2008, 03:46 PM

Why does the Bible say the end will be restored, where the lion will lie down with the lamb and a little child shall lead them, etc., etc.? Restored to what, exactly? You're telling me that when God created the earth He looked down and saw a panther tearing a deer's guts out and He said it's very good? I don't think so. :rolleyes:

EveningStar

12-31-2008, 03:50 PM

Despite your appeal to the emotions, nature only seems harsh and ugly to someone who does not understand its mysterious beauty. Remember that before God looks down on you and your family eating a cow that was shot in the head and carved up in a shed. Ahem....

Truman

12-31-2008, 04:16 PM

I'm not appealing to any emotion I might have. I really don't mind stuff like that. I beg your pardon, but I contend that ripping out the guts of another animal is not beautiful. :rolleyes: Come on. Do you think it was originally planned where that would happen? I don't believe animals go to heaven or hell either, but animals nevertheless have a consciousness. They can feel happiness, anger, sadness, and pain just like us.

They aren't like plants, that you can't really define under "living," since they don't have what animals have. They may have defense systems build into them, but they only set off because they were designed to. A dog, if deeply attached to its master, will not run away even if the master intends to kill it. Plants don't have emotion; they don't really have the "breath of life" in them; they aren't in that realm.

FatherChristmas

12-31-2008, 04:47 PM

Sorry but this is not accurate. In that sense the Seven "Natural" Wonders of the World would be totally outside of God's realm, and when a tree falls on your car killing your child it literally is a deliberate, premeditated "Act of God". Let's not hyperdefine words. "Man vs. Nature" is a Victorian way of looking at nature as the adversary or simply the backdrop of man. That's why a paved parking lot was "civilization", but a complex ecosystem of interdependent lifestyles was "undeveloped land".

How you use the word "natural" in dealing with unrelated matters is up to you. I have no bone to pick there. What I am saying is that the term "natural selection" as defined by scientists leaves out the possibility of a planned process or one directed by an intelligent agent. They have stated it plainly and repeatedly. I provided one example (actually two, since Gould quoted Darwin on the same subject); I could have given many more. People on this thread have used the work of these men as support for their contention that "evolution" and "natural selection" are legitimate. Since that is the case, it seems appropriate to understand what these men meant when they used (and continue to use) those terms.

As for there being no death in nature whatsoever before man sinned, that is a doctrine of man. It may or may not be true, but like the insistance of some that you should not use musical instruments in church, it is not spelled out in scripture but is one of many possible interpretations of Bible passages. Please do not state it as a generally accepted canon of the Christian faith. I'm Christian but I don't accept it. Adam and Eve ate fruit. Fruit is alive and I PROMISE YOU when they ate it, it died, and when they stepped on spiders, they died too.
As Truman has pointed out, scripture is explicit on the point that death is a consequence of sin, and that sin came into the world through Adam. And this point has nothing to do with the separate issue of whether or not to use music in church or the hypothetical question of what happened when (or if) Adam stepped on a spider.

EveningStar

12-31-2008, 06:37 PM

Natural Selection is not a force like gravity or a law like Newton's laws of motion. It is a term used to describe the TENDENCY of animals with weaknesses being less likely to carry on their lines than those with strengths.

There is an old joke about two hikers running away from a lion. The first hiker says, "Do you really think you can outrun that lion?" The second hiker said, "I'm just trying to outrun YOU."

This thread is about whether evolution exists or not. Say I'm a mountain climber. I want directions to Mount Kilauea. You keep insisting to me that there is no Mount Kilauea because the locals say there is a god in the form of a mountain they call Mount Kiluea. You don't believe in that god, therefore you don't believe in that mountain. You question whether or not I'm a true Christian because I try to find someone that will give me directions. That gets tiresome. That's basically what's being done in this thread with Natural Selection. Sure it's not a god, but I believe it exists.

This thread isn't about HOW people believe in evolution, it's about whether or not evolution HAPPENED. Regardless of how people in this debate choose to define their terms or the significance of those terms. This is not a thread about people, it's not a thread about scientists. It's not a thread about language. It's a thread about whether evolution exists.

Sorry to be adamant about that, but that's why I came to this thread in the first place. To see what others thought about evolution, not science, language or culture.

Shadow Hawk

12-31-2008, 06:47 PM

Ok, then, It does not exist. Happy? :p

EveningStar

12-31-2008, 06:50 PM

As Shakespeare once said, "PTTTTHHH!!!" :p

Truman

12-31-2008, 06:54 PM

I agree natural selection exists, but it's a selective process, not a creative force by any means. That's what we observe: selection and nothing more.

But I do agree with you, ES. Natural selection will still happen, even if there were no God. It may have been created by God, but its occurrence does not require a god. It's just not a creative process, that's all.

Shadow Hawk

12-31-2008, 07:38 PM

Nah, it doesn't Know why?

because you cannot predict the actions of the animals, or people :p

The three legged tiger will watch the cubs of another tiger, as she/he hunts for all of them. Just like those who lose their legs in combat. :p

FatherChristmas

01-01-2009, 09:26 AM

Natural Selection is not a force like gravity or a law like Newton's laws of motion. It is a term used to describe the TENDENCY of animals with weaknesses being less likely to carry on their lines than those with strengths.

Yes, and the term breaks down very quickly when the scientists who use it are pressed to define precisely what they mean by "weaknesses" and "strengths". Words have meanings, and meanings really do matter.

This thread is about whether evolution exists or not. Say I'm a mountain climber. I want directions to Mount Kilauea. You keep insisting to me that there is no Mount Kilauea because the locals say there is a god in the form of a mountain they call Mount Kiluea. You don't believe in that god, therefore you don't believe in that mountain. You question whether or not I'm a true Christian because I try to find someone that will give me directions. That gets tiresome.

I've not questioned anyone's Christianity on this thread even once. Constantly being accused of that gets tiresome too.

That's basically what's being done in this thread with Natural Selection. Sure it's not a god, but I believe it exists.

This thread isn't about HOW people believe in evolution, it's about whether or not evolution HAPPENED. Regardless of how people in this debate choose to define their terms or the significance of those terms.

Regardless of definitions? Ok, great. I define "evolution" as a theory that attempts to explain the origin of all life (not to mention all other things in the universe) by natural causes, entirely excluding the possibility of the supernatural. I reject this idea because I believe in God and the Bible says that God is the one who created everything. Since evolution is in conflict with my faith, I reject it. Fair enough?

Now let's see how long it takes for someone else on this thread to come and tell ME that I'm not defining "evolution" correctly. The definition matters to me, and I'll bet it matters to others as well. I guess we'll find out.

EveningStar

01-01-2009, 10:22 AM

Shadow Hawk

01-01-2009, 01:33 PM

dawnpatrol

01-01-2009, 07:24 PM

There are many different "types" of evolution, just as there are definitions. However there is No accumulation of genetic changes, rather mistakes, extra, lacking, or even double what we are supposed to have. A normal human has genetic defects, just like the man who was born deaf, crippled, blind, or mute(And perhaps a mix of all). These defects are more obvious, with some than others. In the 6,000 plus years of recorded history, the human race has not had a changed.

From what I understand a mutation will always lead to a loss of genetic information or remain neutral but it can never add information so obviously this can only result in a continued net loss over time. Genetic diseases are more prevalent than ever. So the human race is actually devolving hence The Jerry Springer Show.

EveningStar

01-01-2009, 07:51 PM

Changes to the genetic structure are highly unlikely to be good. It's like trying to take one credit card number and change two of the digits hoping to guess another number of a guy with a huge bank account.

If you were trying to do this over the course of an evening, tough luck. If you had tens of thousands of years and lots of people helping you, chances are you could discover every possible 16 digit sequence and try it at least once.

Imagine if you had millions of years. That's what Old Earth is all about.

Truman

01-02-2009, 12:14 AM

Well at least you're defining such as hypothesis, not science or logic. Because claiming that something like "change in gene frequency" (which is how most evolutionists define evolution) can happen long ago and far away, though we cannot see it happening today, is utterly departing from science. Once you say "Well, if we give it enough time..." right there you are leaving science and entering your own imaginary realm. You are relying on the unseen.

FatherChristmas

01-02-2009, 09:22 AM

Evolution: "The accumulation of changes over generations in a self-replicating system."

While I do value your friendship, I chafe to see you unfairly leveraging your arguement by wrapping a POSSIBLE EXPLANATION into your DEFINITION, willfully poisoning the concept of species change by DEFINING IT as that which does not require a God. Let's just not. I don't define young earth creationism as superstition, ignorance or narrow-mindedness, so don't define evolution as godlessness.

Ok, so now it DOES matter how "evolution" is defined. That didn't take long. Very well, I will not define it in an arbitrary manner. You are correct, that's unfair. I'll just use the well-established definition used by mainstream science. Oh wait, they define it as the origin of life by random mutations preserved by natural selection, and completely exclude the possibility of any supernatural agent or intelligent design. I have demonstrated as much with examples. I could provide more if needed. So defining it this way chafes you? Well, it chafes me too! That's why I reject evolution, because that is how it is defined in mainstream science. But it's unfair for you to say that it's MY definition that chafes you. I'm just accurately reporting how it is defined in mainstream science. Don't shoot me!

On the other hand, if I'm wrong about this, it should be a simple matter to demonstrate it. Just go out to any mainstream science publication and pull some of their articles about evolution and show me the parts where they give glory to God for His creation. Or maybe just a few sentences about how evolution is a tool that God uses to accomplish His purposes. Show me the type of stuff that the sincere Christians on this thread who argue against me are saying. I would actually love to be proved wrong about this. It would give me great hope to see scientists giving credit where it is due. However, I'm not optimistic about that. Back in 1998, historian Edward J. Larson did a study on the religious views of scientists. The results of the study were printed in Nature and in Scientific American. I happened to catch the article in SA back when it was printed, and I thought it was very disturbing. You can find a summary of the article at this link (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html). Here is part of the article:
The question of religious belief among US scientists has been debated since early in the century. Our latest survey finds that, among the top natural scientists, disbelief is greater than ever — almost total.

Research on this topic began with the eminent US psychologist James H. Leuba and his landmark survey of 1914. He found that 58% of 1,000 randomly selected US scientists expressed disbelief or doubt in the existence of God, and that this figure rose to near 70% among the 400 "greater" scientists within his sample [1]. Leuba repeated his survey in somewhat different form 20 years later, and found that these percentages had increased to 67 and 85, respectively [2].

In 1996, we repeated Leuba's 1914 survey and reported our results in Nature [3]. We found little change from 1914 for American scientists generally, with 60.7% expressing disbelief or doubt. This year, we closely imitated the second phase of Leuba's 1914 survey to gauge belief among "greater" scientists, and find the rate of belief lower than ever — a mere 7% of respondents.

To summarize what he found:
1. Most scientists do not believe in God.
2. The "greater" scientists are even more prone to disbelief.
3. The problem has gotten worse over time.

Not a pretty picture, to be sure. And that was back in 1998. I wonder how bad it is now?

To DEFINE evolution as a godless system is akin to including the likely reason an employee wants to work on their ID Badge. "Thomas Jenkins, Chemical Engineer, liked to play with chemistry sets since he was a boy and this is his dream job. Serial Number 40338-A" ID Badges where I work only say WHO you are and WHAT you are, not WHY you are. They identify me without speculating on what right I have to be there or why I applied for a job.

Nothing that I have said should be construed to be a commentary on anyone on this thread. I have questioned no one's Christianity and in fact I have gone to great pains to make sure everyone understands that. My regard for you (or for Inkspot or anyone else who has commented here) is still very high and has not diminished in the least.

I am resisting my urge to start a thread on "Did GOD incorporate evolution into the order of creation?" to wrest discussion away from "what scientists mean". But I am tempted. Am I the only one here that understands my frustration??

Let me make one thing very plain. If evolution existed, it existed during the Middle Ages when knights went off to joust for their fair ladies. If it existed, it existed when cave men dragged their women folk by the hair and hunted mammoths.

It is not an invention. It is a discovery. Albert Michelson did not invent the speed of light, he measured it. Einstein did not invent relativity, he discovered it. Galileo did not put craters on the moon, either. My question is not how good a job science is doing explaining the world but whether evolution is part of God's repetorie of creative skills. And from this point on I am restricting my remarks to people who want to discuss what's out there, not its moral or cultural implications.
You're the boss. I'll respect whatever you choose to do.

EveningStar

01-02-2009, 09:42 AM

Shadow Hawk

01-02-2009, 10:37 AM

The speed of light is only constant under certain conditions, as scientist have speed the speed of light up well over 300 million mph and almost completely stopped it.

EveningStar

01-02-2009, 10:46 AM

They think they MIGHT have stopped it, actually, but it was too dark to tell! :D

Shadow Hawk

01-02-2009, 10:50 AM

No, they brought the speed of light down to the point where "light was barely moving. ;)

FatherChristmas

01-02-2009, 02:34 PM

There were a number of ideas which in their time were regarded as dangerous and anti-God because they appeared to be contrary to the Scriptures. They eventually became part of conservative Christian belief, but not without a lot of debate reminiscent of what I see in this thread.

While none of this is particularly relevant to the discussion, a couple of your points are nonetheless interesting and worthy of comment. They are interesting mostly because of how they have been misconstrued and misrepresented so consistently over the years.

1) That the Earth goes about the Sun along with the other planets and is not the centre of creation. An idea that seems contrary to the straightforward language in Genesis, and the reason why one great astronomer was burned alive at the stake and another put under lifelong house arrest.

Regarding the astronomer who was burned at the stake, I assume you're talking about Giordano Bruno. But your statement isn't exactly accurate, as the Catholic web site New Advent points out in their biography of Bruno (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03016a.htm):

Bruno was not condemned for his defence of the Copernican system of astronomy, nor for his doctrine of the plurality of inhabited worlds, but for his theological errors, among which were the following: that Christ was not God but merely an unusually skilful magician, that the Holy Ghost is the soul of the world, that the Devil will be saved, etc.

There can be no question that Bruno was a heretic, quite apart from his views on astronomy. I'm not saying that it was right to execute him, but it's not accurate to say he was executed for advocating heliocentrism.

As for Galileo (who I assume you are speaking of when you mention the one who was put under "lifelong house arrest"), again New Advent comments (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm):

After his return to Florence, Galileo set himself to compose the work which revived and aggravated all former animosities, namely a dialogue in which a Ptolemist is utterly routed and confounded by two Copernicans. This was published in 1632, and, being plainly inconsistent with his former promise, was taken by the Roman authorities as a direct challenge. He was therefore again cited before the Inquisition, and again failed to display the courage of his opinions, declaring that since his former trial in 1616 he had never held the Copernican theory. Such a declaration, naturally was not taken very seriously, and in spite of it he was condemned as "vehemently suspected of heresy" to incarceration at the pleasure of the tribunal and to recite the Seven Penitential Psalms once a week for three years.

Under the sentence of imprisonment Galileo remained till his death in 1642. It is, however, untrue to speak of him as in any proper sense a "prisoner". As his Protestant biographer, von Gebler, tells us, "One glance at the truest historical source for the famous trial, would convince any one that Galileo spent altogether twenty-two days in the buildings of the Holy Office (i.e. the Inquisition), and even then not in a prison cell with barred windows, but in the handsome and commodious apartment of an official of the Inquisition." For the rest, he was allowed to use as his places of confinement the houses of friends, always comfortable and usually luxurious. It is wholly untrue that he was -- as is constantly stated -- either tortured or blinded by his persecutors -- though in 1637, five years before his death, he became totally blind -- or that he was refused burial in consecrated ground. On the contrary, although the pope (Urban VIII) did not allow a monument to be erected over his tomb, he sent his special blessing to the dying man, who was interred not only in consecrated ground, but within the church of Santa Croce at Florence.

Again, I don't believe his conviction was just. But his house arrest was not exactly a hardship, and it was hardly "lifelong" for him to be kept in such a manner for the last 10 years of a 78-year life.

...
3) That the Earth is flat, not round. An ultraconservative group in South Africa donated over one million dollars to a university in Johannesburg to finally and completely prove the earth is flat, not round.

I searched diligently but couldn't find any information about the million dollars in South Africa (which is unfortunate because I hate losing that much money :D ). If you can direct me to a source for that, I would appreciate it.

As for the idea in general, well, it's a myth. I won't bore you with all the details, but here is an excerpt from an article (http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/russell/FlatEarth.html) (which I think is part of a speech he gave) by Jeffrey Burton Russell:

A curious example of this mistreatment of the past for the purpose of slandering Christians is a widespread historical error, an error that the Historical Society of Britain some years back listed as number one in its short compendium of the ten most common historical illusions. It is the notion that people used to believe that the earth was flat--especially medieval Christians.

It must first be reiterated that with extraordinary few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the earth was flat.

A round earth appears at least as early as the sixth century BC with Pythagoras, who was followed by Aristotle, Euclid, and Aristarchus, among others in observing that the earth was a sphere. Although there were a few dissenters--Leukippos and Demokritos for example--by the time of Eratosthenes (3 c. BC), followed by Crates(2 c. BC), Strabo (3 c. BC), and Ptolemy (first c. AD), the sphericity of the earth was accepted by all educated Greeks and Romans.

Nor did this situation change with the advent of Christianity. A few--at least two and at most five--early Christian fathers denied the sphericity of earth by mistakenly taking passages such as Ps. 104:2-3 as geographical rather than metaphorical statements. On the other side tens of thousands of Christian theologians, poets, artists, and scientists took the spherical view throughout the early, medieval, and modern church. The point is that no educated person believed otherwise.

Historians of science have been proving this point for at least 70 years (most recently Edward Grant, David Lindberg, Daniel Woodward, and Robert S. Westman), without making notable headway against the error. Schoolchildren in the US, Europe, and Japan are for the most part being taught the same old nonsense. How and why did this nonsense emerge?

In my research, I looked to see how old the idea was that medieval Christians believed the earth was flat. I obviously did not find it among medieval Christians. Nor among anti-Catholic Protestant reformers. Nor in Copernicus or Galileo or their followers, who had to demonstrate the superiority of a heliocentric system, but not of a spherical earth. I was sure I would find it among the eighteenth-century philosophes, among all their vitriolic sneers at Christianity, but not a word. I am still amazed at where it first appears.

No one before the 1830s believed that medieval people thought that the earth was flat.

Hopefully someday these myths and distortions can be put to rest for good.

Truman

01-02-2009, 07:37 PM

The Bible clearly teaches the earth is round, especially in Isaiah 40:22 with "the circle of the earth," in which the Hebrew word used there (according to Strong's concordance) is "chûgh," which means "circuit" or "sphere." Christians have always known the earth was round. Maybe not the Catholic church, but Christians have always supported that the earth was indeed spherical. Even Homer acknowledged this, and it makes my blood boil whenever I hear an atheist or Bible skeptic bring this up. No educated person has ever regarded the earth as "flat."

dawnpatrol

01-02-2009, 08:26 PM

Shadow Hawk

01-04-2009, 11:44 AM

Science has rejected the Bible, Yet the Bible does not reject science, is it really they disagree or we just don't want to face judgment?

dawnpatrol

01-04-2009, 07:42 PM

Science is supposed to be the search for truth. The Bible is the truth. One day science will converge.

Protons are positively charged and should repel each other so what keeps the nucleus of an atom together? Science calls it "the strong force". The bible is more specific:

For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

-Colossians 1:16,17

The hand of the Lord Jesus keeps the cosmos from chaos.

Lioness_of_God

01-04-2009, 07:58 PM

dawnpatrol

01-04-2009, 08:24 PM

Has anyone seen Expelled?

that has a lot of really interesting stuff on Evolution and once I watched it, I had much clearer view of their side of the argument.

its interesting to see that all these different evolutionist scientists that 'know it all' really are just developing theories, not proof.

I like at the end of the movie when a stammering Richard Dawkins supposed that life on earth was started by aliens. <cue the X-files theme song>

It would take more faith for me to be an atheist.

Lioness_of_God

01-04-2009, 09:28 PM

It would take more faith for me to be an atheist.

which is ironic... but when we look at the grand scale of things, it takes faith to believe in either Creation OR Evolution.

I read a quote once and I don't know who said it, but it pretty much summed everything up: "Creation happened once in the past, and evolution is too slow to observe"

...which is true, so that means that Creation and Evolution are acts of faith. when they are both acts of faith, the only important question is the question we ask ourselves: what do I personally believe?

Pianoplayer888

01-04-2009, 10:05 PM

But believing that the world progressed without God is an act of faith against God, for atheism(if you can commit acts of faith towards atheism). Believing that God created the world, whether by evolution or not, is an act of faith towards God.

As I see it, this thread is debating whether or not God used evolution to create the world. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Lioness_of_God

01-04-2009, 10:11 PM

As I see it, this thread is debating whether or not God used evolution to create the world. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

my apologies for going off on a tangent. I believe that God did not use evolution to create the world, because God is in control of EVERYTHING. why would he use randomness to create his perfect creation? A God control of everything cannot use randomness, because that would mean God is not in control of the random outcome.

EveningStar

01-04-2009, 11:02 PM

That post raises disturbing questions. God is all powerful, all knowing, and omnipresent, yes. That being said, however, to phrase it as "God is in control of everything" gives the impression of absolute determinism. In other words, the man raped and murdered your five year old daughter because God thought there needed to be a rape and murder in your neighbourhood on a Thursday.

I realize that horrifies you, and that is not what you meant. But it falls within the sphere of saying that absolutely nothing happens by chance or without God's blessing.

Yes, I agree that God has the power and knowledge to run everything in the universe down to choosing heads or tails every time you flip a coin. For his own reasons, he has chosen to give us some soverignity over our own actions. For his own reasons, he has given us free will. Whilst respecting this, we also realize that it leaves room for imperfect beings to make imperfect decisions.

I do not agree that every single thing that happens on the genetic level is God's direct decision. For to believe such a thing means colour blindness, dwarfism and muscular dystrophy were part of God's soverign plan to leave the world a better place.

We must leave room for the freedom--to our joy and sorrow--that God put into the order of nature and the will of man. Not because he was forced to (which indicates a lack of control) but because he chose to (which is God's only requirement of being "totally in control").

Amygc

01-04-2009, 11:43 PM

Wow, i haven't been here in a while! Anyway, i believe in the literal 6 day creation. That's the way it is said in the Bible.

Lioness_of_God

01-04-2009, 11:47 PM

When I said God was in control over everything, I meant concerning creation. I believe that God created the universe without waiting for evolution to do its part. When God flung the universe into motion, He knew exactly what He was doing the split second He spoke.

when sin entered our world, the malfunctions of God's plan began. God created the universe to be perfect, but as humans with free choices, we picked to allow sin to enter us. Once sin came, we had the choice to choose good OR evil, and most often, we picked evil, and that led to experimenting with sin. Therefore, our free will has led us to become a sinful population, with God seemingly in the background. I don't have all the answers, and I do not know why God would allow such horrible things happen everyday, but God IS in control, and I know that from experience. God allowed me to go through extremely trying times and I have strengthened my relationship with God through that. Looking back, I benefited from those hard times even though at the time, things seemed hopeless. (If you have more questions on this topic, read The Shack by William P. Young)

I agree that concerning genetics, things can be changed. Jacob in the Bible used genetics to his advantage.

EveningStar

01-05-2009, 06:53 AM

There are some problems I have with the "all at once" approach some folk use with Genesis, and I'll bottom line them.

First, some young Earthers act as if it would be a sign of weakness, incompetence or indecisiveness on God's part for him to take longer than necessary to make the world. And yet he did...even in the most literal Biblical account. Instead of saying "Let there be light!" why didn't he say "Let there be universe!"? Why six days instead of six minutes, or for that matter six SECONDS? Not because he couldn't, but because he didn't. We can safely dispense with the arguement that God made the universe as quickly as possible.

Second, it does not say how God made the animals and plants. The only details given whatsoever concern the creation of man.

Third, everyone expects God to do things in the "only logical manner" as if God always followed conventional wisdom. The Bible is full of God doing things in ways that baffle ordinary humans. Such as sending his only son into some second-hand stable and manger to end up being nailed to a cross by the Jews he came to liberate. Such as God picking David rather than his strong and photogenic brothers. Such as God using a spoilt brat like Joseph to save Egypt and secure the line of Abraham. God has no regard and little patience with human conventional wisdom.

Believe what you want to believe. I shan't think less of you for doing so. And yet whatever your opinion, one cannot Should/Must/Ought God into having to create the universe in one particular way.

It's easy for you to say that God could create a sheep by saying "Let there be sheep." But sheep didn't exist. They never existed. So it's not a foregone conclusion that God would have made them one particular way, nor is it a foregone conclusion that the way they turned out is the one true best way, and that any other way would have been inferiour somehow.

That becomes painfully obvious when you see wild cats or beetles in different places that do the same exact job but are unrelated. Why bother to put tigers in Asia and lions in Africa instead of one generic big cat in both? Or before you argue that they are optimized, why was it necessary to have thousands of species of birds, many of which live in the same conditions and eat the same food?

The diversity of life on Earth pretty much disregards a strictly practical, utilitarian distribution of species. Otherwise the same exact climates in the East and West hemispheres would have identical fauna. Rain forests in Africa and South America would have the same creatures, the same trees. And yes, either side's vegetation and animals would do nicely on the other side...it's been tried.

The point of this long rambling post is that God does NOT always do what is expected of him by Man. Perfect, you bet. All powerful, sure. Predictable? Well...not by human standards. Faithful, but certainly not predictable. And when we put too much emphasis on could/should/ought in interpreting Genesis in what we call a "straightforward" manner, we fill it with our human prejudices and assumptions.

Just so you know, I wasn't raised an old Earther. I came to that conclusion by examining the evidence.

Pianoplayer888

01-05-2009, 06:51 PM

I feel that God is in control of everything(not that he wants someone to get raped, and makes it happen, but allows the devil to do it), and that everything God does has a purpose. All of the bad things that happen in the world only happen because we sinned, but from those, God makes good things happen, like the way he turned the one blind and deaf girl's(they made a movie off of her, but I can't think of her name) story of success into hope for blind and deaf people. I feel that He didn't want the bad things to happen, but since He didn't want us to be robots, and let us choose what we wanted, and we chose sin, He allows them to happen, but from each and every one of those He knows that there is a way to find goodness, and only the ones that good can come from are allowed, we just have to find the good in the bad, which isn't easy all of the time.

As to the way God created the world, I don't think it matters how He did it, but rather that He did it, and it didn't randomly happen without any influence from Him, whether by starting it or any other influence.

EveningStar

01-05-2009, 07:05 PM

Pianoplayer, I can honestly say I appreciated the way you set forth your opinion. We both share the all important belief that without God there would be no life, and that God is intimately involved in the order and pattern of nature.

There are a lot of arguements for old earth and for young earth, for creative evolution and ex nihlo creation. All that really bothers me deep down is that most people in this thread personally don't believe that heaven or hell depends on exactly how you believe God created the Yellow Bellied Sapsucker as long as you believe he did it. Yet many of the pro-evolution or pro-ex-nihlo sources and arguements quoted here are from people who believe they are trying to snatch people from either the depths of hell or the depths of superstition. I sometimes feel like one of those bewildered young soldiers that doesn't start a war but is expected to fight and perhaps die in it. We are the enlightened ones. We understand that we are trying to discern how God did what he did the same way we might do a scholarly study of how and why Charles Dickens wrote Great Expectations. There are people out there however who don't see it that way and that's sad.

And no, I'm not referring to other people besides PP888 and I who post in this thread....

Lioness_of_God

01-05-2009, 07:11 PM

I agree that all that matters is the fact that God created everything. as stated in the Bible, we can only look through a glass darkly, for the future AND the past. I think that if we all agree on the same principle that God, our absolute creator, sent his son to die for our salvation, then there really is nothing to argue about, because we are speculating theories. Even though I am young, I have witnessed the action of Christians rejecting other Christians because they didn't agree on a certain theology. It is very sad how churches are separated today in America like they are, and I could go on, but that would be off topic. sorry. :o

as for giving hope to the blind and deaf, Helen Keller made a major breakthrough and God certainly did use her even through her handicaps were often times frustrating, God still gave her and others like her hope, just like God still gives us hope. We just have to look for it.

Pianoplayer888

01-05-2009, 07:15 PM

Yeah.

The way I was taught at school(I went to a perochial (sp?) school) was that there are some things that are conflicted between people, but those won't determine whether or not you go to heaven or hell, such as in communion, how my church believes that the body and blood of Christ is present in and with the bread and wine, and the bread and wine are also a symbol. Another church around me says that the bread and wine only symbolize the body and blood, and that they are not actually in the bread and wine. Here our beliefs confilct, but it doesn't necessarily mean that one or the other is going to hell.

The same is with this thread. Some believe that God made the world without evolution, while others believe He did it with. The beliefs conflict, but as long as you believe God made it, I don't see it as you are going to hell. I believe that if it did matter, that God would've put it in the Ten Commandments, although it would be interesting to debate and try to find out how God did create the world.

While God did say that He created the world in six days in the Bible, He uses many parables in the Bible. Whether or not this is a parable or a metaphor to the actual amount of time it took, I know not.

Lioness_of_God

01-05-2009, 07:28 PM

Yeah.

While God did say that He created the world in six days in the Bible, He uses many parables in the Bible. Whether or not this is a parable or a metaphor to the actual amount of time it took, I know not.

There are so many theories out there that could be linked to scripture to prove they're right.

I go to a Christian private high school, and it seems that a lot of the people there prefer to argue with fellow Christians about different theories rather than reaching out to people in need of Christ. I love a good debate and I do not mind talking about these things, because in truth, this has helped me to stretch my thinking quite a bit, and that's pretty cool. but the only thing I beg of everyone, including myself, do not get so caught up on debating Christian theories that you neglect to show Christ to the world.

Pianoplayer888

01-06-2009, 09:50 AM

There are so many theories out there that could be linked to scripture to prove they're right.

I go to a Christian private high school, and it seems that a lot of the people there prefer to argue with fellow Christians about different theories rather than reaching out to people in need of Christ. I love a good debate and I do not mind talking about these things, because in truth, this has helped me to stretch my thinking quite a bit, and that's pretty cool. but the only thing I beg of everyone, including myself, do not get so caught up on debating Christian theories that you neglect to show Christ to the world.

I agree with the getting caught up with ourselves and not sharing Christ. But I suppose that's one of the devil's ways of trying to stop God's Word from being spread, by causing us to get too caught up in our debates, and at the same time he tries to spread doubt among us.

Personally, I believe in the literal six day creation, but I see why some people don't. Unless they aren't believing in God, I don't see any reason to burden myself with trying to get them to believe the literal six days, unless there is a way that they would go to hell because of it, which, as of now, I can't see, and if there is, I pray that I will see it soon.

EveningStar

01-06-2009, 10:13 AM

I recall one newspaper comic where a philosopher spouted, "Simple, folks! Creationists were created whilst evolutionists evolved!"

Whether or not there was evolution in God's scheme of things, one thing is clear. Since the way he did it does not teach respect for God or establish his authority, it WOULD NOT appear in the Bible even if he did it.

Everything in the Bible is meant to do one of four things:

1) Chronicle the rise of the Jewish Nation
2) Establish the authority of God the Father and Christ
3) Set forth the case that all men have sinned and are in need of grace
4) Proclaim the coming of end times

Whether or not God used evolution does not fall under these four mandates. Matter of factly exactly how Cain found a wife, or if Abel was ever married, is not written down. We don't know of one single thing Jesus ever made for Joseph in the carpentry shop, though I'm sure he was no slacker. The names of almost all the women are left out of the "begatting" in the Old Testament are left off even though the men worked at it for 9 minutes while the women took 9 months.

Frankly, God isn't worried whether we're curious or not. He gave us curiosity to go out and find answers ourselves. Some of us have a theory that seems to explain the order and types of fossils and until God starts teaching High School Biology we'll have to listen to coaches trying to pronounce "Deoxyribonucleic Acid".

dawnpatrol

01-06-2009, 01:24 PM

While God did say that He created the world in six days in the Bible, He uses many parables in the Bible. Whether or not this is a parable or a metaphor to the actual amount of time it took, I know not.

But where does it end?

Was creation's downfall at the very moment Adam bit into the forbidden fruit a metaphor as well?

Was the worldwide flood just a parable to remind us that God sometimes gets angry and then gives us rainbows?

God did allow the hebrews to cross the Red Sea but it was at the shallowest end and God used a combination of a low tide and high wind to make it passable.

David actually used a catapult to slay the giant Goliath (who was actually only 6' 4") but a catapult is a type of sling yes?

Jesus didn't actually walk on the Sea of Galilee - it was a combination of stormy seas and the disciples' sleep deprivation. He actually rowed up standing on a raft.

The resurrection of Christ could be just a metaphor for Jesus continuing to live in the hearts of those who knew HIm.

I agree with you that the issue of evolution, intelligent design, creation, old earth/new earth won't determine where you spend eternity. Trust in Christ's finished work determines that but it can be a slippery slope. There have been quite a few Christians who after coming to the conclusion that evolution is true could not intellectually square it with the rest of the bible. And since the heart cannot rejoice in what the mind rejects as false they end up rejecting the Lord Himself.

EveningStar

01-06-2009, 02:31 PM

Where does it end? Where do we draw the line?

I for one do not believe we have to have a definitive answer before we can frame a definitive question.

He asks "Will you marry me?" She must answer yes or no. The thought is "maybe" and depending on how strong the maybe is, either yes or no slips out. The "no" seeks to cut losses and go on. The "yes" seeks to embrace good fortune and throw caution to the wind. Life is full of judgment calls. Our relationship with God is our strongest judgment call. Within that relationship are many small decisions that are not clear cut.

For some people the idea that God didn't dictate to nature like a boss dictating a letter to his secretary somehow denigrates, dishonours and minimizes God.

For some people, like me, the idea that God spent all of six days on nature, and that all the creatures in the fossil records are pitiable "has beens" somehow lessens his status as an infinitely patient and eternal prime mover who thinks nothing of gardening and weeding and shaping and directing for millions of years.

You see, my belief in creative evolution is neither a step back nor is it a consolation prize. It is wrapped up in its OWN sort of mystery and awe, its own sort of idealism.

I have not done to God what I did to Santa Claus, falling back from a childhood image of him as a being of power and benevolence to merely honouring a long ago bishop named Nicholas. No, my God is not a stub, a shadow, an adult disillusionment of a grand childhood dream. To me He's just as wise and powerful and wonderful as he ever was. Even more so, because I believe he took more time and did more work than I used to suppose. No, this is no fall-back position, no retreat to the inner wall.

I had to make that quite clear because some folk think creative evolutionists are saying things like "The Bible has the word of God in there somewhere, I feel sure" or "Yes, there was or still is a God, however.." Neither of those characterizes my faith, practice, or witnessing. At all.

inkspot

01-06-2009, 04:15 PM

Thanks, John. That was a lovely way to frame the idea of Creative Evolution.

The flaw in the idea that believing in evolution is the beginning of the descent down the "slippery slope" is that it implies that those who believe Evolution is a possibility don't believe the Genesis account. But indeed, we do! We believe in Genesis with all our hearts -- we just don't believe Genesis insists that the six days be interpreted as literal 24-hour days. This idea of creation completed in 144 hours is simply not to be found in Genesis. It is the creation of people who came thousands of years after the early Hebrews. It would be as if I insisted the Rapture is found definitively in Scripture when it is not, and was never taught by the early church, and then told everyone, "If you don't believe in it, then you are on the slippery slope to not believing in the bodily Resurrection of Jesus."

Believers who believe God may have used Evolution as His tool in creating the variety of species earth has had and has now do not reject Genesis at all. What we reject is that inherent in the Genesis account of creation is 144 literal hours of creation. It's simply not there.

Pianoplayer888

01-06-2009, 08:32 PM

Truman

01-06-2009, 11:18 PM

What we reject is that inherent in the Genesis account of creation is 144 literal hours of creation. It's simply not there.
However, I, as well as many others, believe that the context does imply so. Even James Barr, a professor who worked at Oxford and Vanderbilt for decades as a professor of the Hebrew language said himself that of all the professors he ever knew, they all agreed that the 6 six days used in Genesis were intended to mean 6 24-hour periods, and they all discarded the view that these days meant something other than 24-hour periods, saying these ideas are "not taken seriously by such professors..."

Shadow Hawk

01-07-2009, 12:32 AM

Let me, if you will, ask you a question.

What is time?

FatherChristmas

01-07-2009, 10:13 AM

Thanks, John. That was a lovely way to frame the idea of Creative Evolution.

The flaw in the idea that believing in evolution is the beginning of the descent down the "slippery slope" is that it implies that those who believe Evolution is a possibility don't believe the Genesis account. But indeed, we do! We believe in Genesis with all our hearts -- we just don't believe Genesis insists that the six days be interpreted as literal 24-hour days. This idea of creation completed in 144 hours is simply not to be found in Genesis.
This is merely a technical point. The Genesis account of creation of course does not mention hours, because hours had not been invented yet. However, it does tell us how many days the Lord used to create everything, and the term "day" is even defined for us. You assume that this was meant to be taken figuratively, but suppose for a moment that it was not. Suppose the Lord intended us to understand the days as literal. How could He have made it any clearer?

It is the creation of people who came thousands of years after the early Hebrews. It would be as if I insisted the Rapture is found definitively in Scripture when it is not,

This is also a mere technicality. Of course the word "rapture" does not appear in the Bible, because it was not written in English. When someone uses this objection with me, I usually just tell them: "you can use 'harpazo' if you like." You may not agree about the nature of the harpazo or the timing of it, but you cannot deny that it is in the Bible (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/frequency.cgi?number=726&book=1th&translation=nsn).

Shadow Hawk

01-07-2009, 11:04 AM

Everything in the Bible is meant to do one of four things:

1) Chronicle the rise of the Jewish Nation
2) Establish the authority of God the Father and Christ
3) Set forth the case that all men have sinned and are in need of grace
4) Proclaim the coming of end times

One thing? No the bible is like a riddle set forth. It has many meanings you just must uncover them.

inkspot

01-07-2009, 12:02 PM

What do you mean by the creation of people thousands of years after the early Hebrews?
I meant a literal 6-day creation was the invention/interpretation of people thousands of years removed from the early Hebrews. Sorry, I was unclear there.
However, I, as well as many others, believe that the context does imply so. Even James Barr, a professor who worked at Oxford and Vanderbilt for decades as a professor of the Hebrew language said himself that of all the professors he ever knew, they all agreed that the 6 six days used in Genesis were intended to mean 6 24-hour periods, and they all discarded the view that these days meant something other than 24-hour periods, saying these ideas are "not taken seriously by such professors..."
If you wander back through this thread, you find an explanation of the Hebrew word for day as it is used in Genesis' creation story, "Yom." It's used elsewhere to mean varying amounts of time, not always, and not even usually, a 24-hour day. You can also find an account of many Bible experts who don't believe in the 6 literal days, just as you have found one who does.

All my previous post was meant to explain is that rejecting a literal 144-hour creation does not set you on the "slippery slope" to believing the Bible is all lies. If that were the only objection to it, that would be a poor objection, but in fact, it doesn't work that way. Billy Graham, CS Lewis, EveningStar and I are all examples of people who truly believe in the truth of the Bible and at the same time are able to believe in Old Earth and the possibility of Creative Evolution. We have not slidden down any slippery slope! :) That's all I was saying.

Shadow Hawk

01-07-2009, 12:16 PM

Again no one has answered the question. So I'll reiterate it. What is time?

EveningStar

01-07-2009, 12:30 PM

Time is an order of events, a framework establishing the relationships "before", "during", "after", "always" and "never".

Whilst we have certain "physical constants" to act as metrics for discrete time, we have no way of knowing that all cesium atoms in all atomic clocks don't emenate microwaves at a pace IN UNISON BUT NOT CONSTANT.

To clarify my point, imagine Beethoven's 5th Symphony. The full orchestral score shows that several instruments play in unison and the relationships amongst them are carefully spelled out. Now make a recording of it on vinyl, give it to a scratch artist DJ and have the record speeded up, slowed down, even run repeatedly forward and backwards to "scrub" the sound. The instruments all keep to their predetermined relationships, yet the forward progression is anything but uniform.

The only thing that can be definitely said about time is not that it is discrete (made up of uniform units) but that the relationships "before", "during", "after", "always" and "never" can be defined clearly and unambiguously using such terms as "precursor", "union", "mutually exclusive", "co-dependent", "permitted" and "forbidden". For instance, you have a battery, wire, a switch and a lightbulb. The switch is open and the light is unlit. "Before" is the state whilst the circuit is open and before is defined as the system state where the light is unlit. When the circuit is closed, "after" occurs and that is the system state where the light is lit. The state of glowing light and open switch violates the rule of "mutually exlcusive" even as fire without simultaneous fuel, heat and oxygen is "forbidden" because those conditions are "co-dependent".

There, aren't you sorry you asked?

Shadow Hawk

01-07-2009, 12:37 PM

Yes, atomic clocks must be stopped to maintain they're accuracy. There is three "times" that exist in the dimensions. One is orbital time, that was put in place to keep the rail trains on time. The other is continuous and is based upon the condition that one lives in.(how fast something ages). For someone who believes in God, the third time is that of God.

dawnpatrol

01-07-2009, 12:53 PM

This is also a mere technicality. Of course the word "rapture" does not appear in the Bible, because it was not written in English. When someone uses this objection with me, I usually just tell them: "you can use 'harpazo' if you like." You may not agree about the nature of the harpazo or the timing of it, but you cannot deny that it is in the Bible (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/frequency.cgi?number=726&book=1th&translation=nsn).

Exactly. The word "Trinity" doesn't appear in the bible either but it still makes clear we have a triune God.

For those who say if God wanted us to know how long creation took he would've made it more clear. What part of 6 days is ambiguous? When Jonah was in the belly of the whale for 3 days did the bible mean 3 literal days or could that have meant eons?

On the day the LORD gave the Amorites over to Israel, Joshua said to the LORD in the presence of Israel:
"O sun, stand still over Gibeon,
O moon, over the Valley of Aijalon."

So the sun stood still,
and the moon stopped,
till the nation avenged itself on its enemies,
as it is written in the Book of Jashar.
The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day.

-Joshua 10:12-13

So did the above literally happen? Did the earth stop rotating on it's axis for approx. 24 hours?

FatherChristmas

01-07-2009, 02:10 PM

So did the above literally happen? Did the earth stop rotating on it's axis for approx. 24 hours?
Joshua is a history book, and from the context a literal interpretation seems most appropriate. As for the physics of it, that is not given. As we now know, all objects in the universe are in motion, even the sun. God could have stopped all motion in the universe if He had wanted to. Remember, He is God. As Jesus said "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." (Matt 19:26)

EveningStar

01-07-2009, 02:29 PM

When Jonah was in the belly of the whale for 3 days did the bible mean 3 literal days or could that have meant eons?I bet it FELT like eons! :D

dawnpatrol

01-07-2009, 04:11 PM

Joshua is a history book, and from the context a literal interpretation seems most appropriate. As for the physics of it, that is not given. As we now know, all objects in the universe are in motion, even the sun. God could have stopped all motion in the universe if He had wanted to. Remember, He is God. As Jesus said "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." (Matt 19:26)

Agreed 100%.

dawnpatrol

01-07-2009, 04:21 PM

I bet it FELT like eons! :D

I bet. But on the plus side Jonah will go down in history as the world's first submariner.

Pianoplayer888

01-07-2009, 09:38 PM

The one thing that I don't feel has been clarified about Creative Evolution is how you explain "And there was day, and there was night, on (for example) the fifth day" (I'm not sure this was exactly the way my Bible said it, but I know it said there was day and night on each day after they were created). This shows that God had day and night, just like our day, each day. Whether or not they were 24 hour days, I'm not sure, but it does say that there was day and night each day.

EveningStar

01-08-2009, 07:22 AM

The point of Genesis is that there was chaos...night and day, land and water, earth and sky were mixed and disordered. God set boundaries and established orders.

Things were done sequentially, units were established, mixtures were refined and separated. In other words, God is the order that is the opposite of chaos, the coherency that is the opposite of entropy.

I don't think the day and night business was intended to convey 24 hour days. In particular, it would have been commonplace even then to say "the next day" rather than making a point of the sun going down and whatnot. It was meant, I think, to emphasize order and pattern, daily rhythm and the separation of light and darkness by the master of order and pattern.

inkspot

01-08-2009, 10:46 AM

The Hebrew language just has a lot less words in it than English, and the same words serve double duty a lot of the time. So you find that word "yom" serving as several different lengths of time.

"It can denote: 1. the period of light (as contrasted with the period of darkness), 2. the period of twenty-four hours, 3. a general vague "time," 4. a point of time, 5. a year (in the plural; I Sam 27:7; Ex 13:10, etc.)."

We know on days 1-3 there could be no literal "evening and morning," so we can know right from the start that the word "yom" in conjunction with evening and morning doesn't mean a literal day with an evening and morning on days 1-3. Far more likely is ES' conclusion that the evening and morning are symbols of the end and beginning of a certain creative period or era.

Quentilian

01-08-2009, 07:49 PM

The point of Genesis is that there was chaos...night and day, land and water, earth and sky were mixed and disordered. God set boundries and established orders.

i dont agree with that statement. i mean the Bible says God created the whole thing so i dont believe that he did just "set boundries".

Lioness_of_God

01-08-2009, 08:14 PM

i dont agree with that statement. i mean the Bible says God created the whole thing so i dont believe that he did just "set boundries".

I agree that God created everything, but the Bible is often interpreted that there was chaos, so where does that chaos come from? if 'darkness hoovered over the face of the deep'? where did the darkness come from since it could be referred to evil? since Satan was already on the earth in the garden of Eden, what happened between the verses 1 and 2?

Truman

01-09-2009, 01:19 AM

We're goin' gap-theory here. :rolleyes: From progressive to gap; ES is moving away from the Bible's teachings with the idea of "chaos" beforehand (as I also have a feeling Ink believes the same).

Where exactly does the Bible indicate that there was destruction before Adam? And if you're going to bring up the word "replenish" having been used, please. I'm not in the mood right now to explain the proper meaning as indicated in the lexicon.

EveningStar

01-09-2009, 06:32 AM

Nobody is moving away from the Bible here, Truman. And it wasn't just a couple of liberal long-hairs from Union Theological Seminary that put that interpretation forth, just so we understand.

It clearly states in Genesis that things had to be separated that weren't originally. Most people hear about separation of the waters above from the waters below, the dry land and the water, etc etc, without giving much thought to what's involved. The world was "without form and void". Clearly the passage makes a strong theological point that God is a designer, organizer, and implementer.

Most things in the Bible are said for a reason. Our desire to know is not, and never has been, enough. Genesis was not written because people were curious, it's like a court case to establish the legitimacy of God's claim to tell us how to live and where to go and what to do. "Look, he made you and everything around you, and it was good till you loused it up. You made sin, not him. So you are fallen and you can't earn your way out of punishment by good behaviour."

That is the only reason why God ever bothered to tell us more than "Yep, I'm your Heavenly Father all right..." He didn't even bother to tell us that half of the dry land in the world lay across the Atlantic. If he left out something that important to man's desire to know, it must say something about what DID get in.

Look at all the generations leading up to Jesus Christ. A complex list of who begat whom. And for the same reason, to set the court case in the evidence that Jesus was of the Davidic line even as the prophets had foretold.

None of it is to satisfy curiousity. So the only real way to gain something from the scriptures is not just to hear WHAT is said but WHY.

Shadow Hawk

01-09-2009, 10:24 AM

EveningStar, not all of the land was covered in water before.

EveningStar

01-09-2009, 11:32 AM

You might want to cite the verse number on that.

FatherChristmas

01-09-2009, 01:22 PM

We know on days 1-3 there could be no literal "evening and morning," so we can know right from the start that the word "yom" in conjunction with evening and morning doesn't mean a literal day with an evening and morning on days 1-3.

Why do you say there could be no literal evening and morning? Because there is no sun? The text makes clear that God created the light before any possible natural source of light. And so the light is coming from God Himself. Here is Genesis 1:3-5.

And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

What is required for a literal "evening and morning"? Nothing more than light and darkness, which have now been separated by God so that we have literal days and nights right from the beginning of creation. And as for the objection that there can't be light before the sun and the stars, remember that God can provide His own light, as is described in Revelation chapter 22, verse 5:

There will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light.

Pianoplayer888

01-09-2009, 07:17 PM

Doffen

01-09-2009, 08:03 PM

Does anyone know anywhere online where I can see a free Bible? My sister is using mine for school, so its at school, and the only other one I have is from the Gideons, and it's only the New Testament.

I've been using this (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/) site. Easy to understand and easy to look up.

Pianoplayer888

01-09-2009, 09:00 PM

It clearly states in Genesis that things had to be separated that weren't originally. Most people hear about separation of the waters above from the waters below, the dry land and the water, etc etc, without giving much thought to what's involved. The world was "without form and void". Clearly the passage makes a strong theological point that God is a designer, organizer, and implementer.

Sorry, I'm confused. Are you saying that God didn't create the original earth? Or that God created everything, then organized it?

I've been using this (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/) site. Easy to understand and easy to look up.

Thanks. It helped a lot. :)

Truman

01-09-2009, 09:33 PM

Most things in the Bible are said for a reason.
Wow, I can just see God talking to someone in heaven now...

Person: Say Lord, why did you put in that particular verse in the Bible?
God: Ah, no reason. Thought it'd look good.

Most things are there for a reason? I beg to differ; all things in the Bible are there for a reason. God's not flipping around idle phrases just to make His book fatter, He's a little more careful. :rolleyes:

Lioness_of_God

01-09-2009, 09:35 PM

Wow, I can just see God talking to someone in heaven now...

Person: Say Lord, why did you put in that particular verse in the Bible?
God: Ah, no reason. Thought it'd look good.

Most things are there for a reason? I beg to differ; all things in the Bible are there for a reason. God's not flipping around idle phrases just to make His book fatter, He's a little more careful. :rolleyes:

haha that's funny but it makes sense.I agree with you :)

FatherChristmas

01-09-2009, 10:04 PM

I've been using this (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/) site. Easy to understand and easy to look up.
Doffen, nicely done. :)

Pianoplayer, you might also find this site (http://www.studylight.org/) to be useful. It allows you to look up a passage and then see the verses in the original languages. It has a built-in online lexicon to help you understand the Greek and Hebrew words, plus links to all kinds of commentaries and other resources.

Pianoplayer888

01-09-2009, 11:22 PM

Doffen, nicely done. :)

Pianoplayer, you might also find this site (http://www.studylight.org/) to be useful. It allows you to look up a passage and then see the verses in the original languages. It has a built-in online lexicon to help you understand the Greek and Hebrew words, plus links to all kinds of commentaries and other resources.

Thanks. :)

kilendil

01-11-2009, 02:39 AM

Okay, so there's no way I'm reading this entire thread. I read the first few pages and the last one and called it good.:o

In any case, I guess I go with what you'd call intelligent design. I believe that the earth's been around for longer than six thousand years and that it took longer than six days to make earth--not that God couldn't have done it that way, just that's what I believe. I heard once that the original Hebrew for the word "day" used in Genesis was actually more of an unset period of time, though I don't read Hebrew and don't know where I'd find out if that's really true. And I don't think the people who originally translated the Bible were morons or weren't inspired--I pray for inspiration every day, but I still do things that I think are right which God could definitely have done better. Also, I think it's entirely possible that things were around before earth was created. After all, God is eternal, so he must have been doing something before six thousand years ago, or four billion years ago, whichever you believe.

I took astronomy in college, and I think it's just beautiful how the formation of a planetary system fits in with the creation story in Genesis. "And God said, Let there be light, and there was light." (sorry I don't have a Bible with me so I can't quote it exactly. Plus, I'm used to the King James version and don't know how that compares with others) When I read that, ever since I took astronomy, I think of the sun igniting in the center of our solar system. There are still lots of clouds of dust, and earth is not formed yet, so there is light everywhere. Then the earth forms, and light is separated from the darkness. Anyway, I could post more description if anybody is interested, but my post is kind of long anyway.

As for evolution, I'd like to think more along the lines of adaptation. And no, I don't think men evolved from monkeys. All we have to do is look at Shift from LB to see that:rolleyes:

FatherChristmas

01-11-2009, 07:11 AM

I heard once that the original Hebrew for the word "day" used in Genesis was actually more of an unset period of time, though I don't read Hebrew and don't know where I'd find out if that's really true.

There's been a lot of discussion on that point in this thread. There are multiple possible meanings for the word "yom", which is normally translated "day". No one particular meaning is required by the syntax, and so what it means depends on the context. So, whether you think it means a literal day or a longer period will depend on how you interpret the context. Go back and read the last 3-4 pages and you'll see how we have debated this. No need to read the whole thread. It's way too long. :)

Truman

01-11-2009, 07:53 PM

Also, I think it's entirely possible that things were around before earth was created. After all, God is eternal, so he must have been doing something before six thousand years ago, or four billion years ago, whichever you believe.
I've been getting this over and over, because everyone seems to forget that God created time. We've got "In the beginning..." (creation of time) "...God created the heavens..." (creation of space) "...and the earth." (creation of matter). "Doing something before the world" is irrelevant, since God is not only eternal, but outside of His creation. God isn't affected by time. He can just as easily go down to earth, walk on water, and raise the dead just as He could say,
"The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass..."

--Rev. 1:1
Now, why on earth would God say the prophesy given in Revelation, written 2,000 years before the actual occurrences, would take place "shortly," as if they'd happen the day after they were written by John?

If God considers 2,000 years to be "short," then we have iron-clad proof right there that time means absolutely nothing to Him. He created it. What He did before the creation is non-existent; there is no "pre-creation" period. God created time. :)

EveningStar

01-11-2009, 08:02 PM

Your logic needs a little work, Truman. I compliment you on obviously giving a great deal of thought to your answer. However it gives one a misleading impression.

As an order of events, logistical time existed before God created the world, and it will exist after the "end of time". Otherwise you could never tell a joke because the punch line, the lead up, and the laughter...not to mention the urge to tell the joke...would all be happening simultaneously. Imagine an eternity of moment in which you could never tell a knock knock joke or describe what happened to you the day you died. A heaven without logistical time could never be like a movie, only a photo. Things wouldn't happen, they would simply exist in an eternal frozen now. And as much as I like stills, I love to see the whole movie. Consider how the Bible describes Heaven. The angels could never sing. In fact no one could ever speak. No one could bow, cast crowns before the throne. God would never do things, he would simply be. Remarkably unexciting, that.

What is running out is not the concept that things happen in a certain order, but rather that time is a limited resource and you can be late or, particularly, too late. You won't age. The world will be out of time. It's time will be over. The age will end. Hey, the 1960s ended. Gilligan's Island ended. And our world will end too. Even so, when I scramble eggs, I crack them first, put them in the skillet next, and stir them last. As it shall always be.

Pianoplayer888

01-11-2009, 08:20 PM

But do we know that logistic time existed before God? He is God, after all, and he can do anything, often times things that are way beyond our imagination.

I suppose it all just comes down to what you believe. As we have said before, as long as you believe God created it, you will go to heaven.

kilendil

01-12-2009, 02:00 AM

I never said God didn't create time. In fact, I firmly believe that time as we see it is not time as God sees it.

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Yes. That is as clear as clear can be. It does not, however, say how much time, as we see it, God took to create the heaven, or how soon after he created heaven that he created the earth. I do not think that heaven is just space. Space is pretty empty. But look at all the stuff IN space. Stars, quasars, galaxies, black holes, etc.

The way I look at Genesis, the first "day," or period of time that pertains to earth, was when God said "Let there be light." What happened before that time and what had been created at that point I have no idea. I'm not given enough information in Genesis to come to a conclusion. I however, believe that there was something before earth, that God created it, and that Genesis proves that God created it by the sentence "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

Anyway, sorry this didn't pertain to evolution, but I think all the sciences are interconnected, just as all parts of my religion are interconnected. In fact, I think that science isn't an explanation of how things are, just how we see them. God has the answers that science can't explain right now. And science can't explain a lot.:)

EveningStar

01-12-2009, 06:38 AM

Since God has ALWAYS been here, I doubt we can wonder about time BEFORE God, hmm? :rolleyes:

"The Beginning" in Genesis refers to the beginning of the world. For all we know, our world might be the 453,098th world God ever made. And please, don't anyone try to say there is a verse in the Bible that rules out God ever having made anything before he made our world. We know there were angels in Heaven who were made, not begotten. As much as we'd like to think we were the oldest child, we're clearly not. And we probably won't be the last. As far as I know, God isn't looking to retire.

Pianoplayer888

01-12-2009, 08:46 PM

That thought has crossed me a number of times. Assuming he did create other worlds, and other beings, whether or not they are human, then that opens up many interesting possibilities.

It also brings about the thought, 'If God did make other worlds, then are any of the other worlds perfect, or have all sinned? Or is there such a sin in those worlds? I would think there is, but sin not existing there is a possibility.

dawnpatrol

01-12-2009, 09:07 PM

I don't believe there is life on other planets. I think the sheer number of stars was just God showing off quite frankly. Though the bible doesn't say definitively that there are no other inhabited worlds it does say that Jerusalem is the center of the universe because it will be from that city that Christ will rule and all nations will be judged.

EveningStar

01-12-2009, 09:40 PM

Other worlds didn't have to exist all at once. In fact, I feel rather certain that at least some of the angels came from worlds that God made millenia before he created our world in Genesis. Matter of factly, the reason why some angels are way up there as Seraphim, Cherubim and Archangels may be that they are the oldest of the old and have been learning and living in the presence of God longest.

Chances are that somewhere here is a Tax Preparer, Executive Secretary or Marine that will end up proclaiming in the uncounted future the arrival of the Messiah if Jesus ever has to rescue another world.

"Fear not, for I bring you good tidings of great joy which shall be to all peoples. For unto you is born this day in the city of Zor-Jabrel, a saviour who is Sarbeth the Lord...and this shall be a sign unto you..."

kilendil

01-13-2009, 12:36 AM

^Except...I have a hard time with that. It feels a lot like reincarnation to me. I've thought about this a long time, and I used to think that Jesus would be born on other planets. I talked to a lot of other people about this, and I came to the conclusion that Jesus wouldn't need to be born on other planets, that when He suffered and died on the cross he died for all the universe. Kind of like what C.S. Lewis said in his Space Trilogy, if I remember right.

I understand what you're saying, though. Except I would have said something like "Maybe one day one of us will be able to spread the glad tidings that the Savior would be visiting that planet soon." Except when I read what I just wrote I'm not sure it makes sense to me:o

Truman

01-13-2009, 01:35 AM

I've also heard that idea before, God creating and destroying other worlds and universes, etc., etc. The Bible never mentions anything like this, and I'm sure God would have talked of "ages before our creation" or something to that effect. The fact is that there is no reason God wouldn't mention the past before our past. Are you saying God created another system of time for some other dimension He created? Does God really have a whole bunch of Sons of God who died for the sins of those worlds? Are there other heavens and hells that God created for the existence of these creatures? Mark Twain tried to mix His ideas of "the sciences" with the Bible and ended up with quite a silly story.

As I said, there is no reason for God not to mention such things to us. Not that it's our business, but just that there's no logical reason behind that idea. God would be lying to us in many respects if other worlds existed. The Bible is written; it's done; over. God never once talked of "other creations" existing before our time.

As far as "logistical time" goes (where exactly did you get that phrase??), I'm surprised you're actually attempting to bring God down to the level of our finite mindsets. Logistical time? Are you saying there was some sort of time-scape or dimension that He didn't create? That's going over the ledge a little too far. :rolleyes: Not to sound offensive or anything, but claiming God is somewhere else doing His own thing with other people He created is, by definition, heresy. Wondering about such things is one thing, but openly stating that it might be true is quite another.

dawnpatrol

01-13-2009, 02:23 AM

Ephinie

01-13-2009, 02:32 AM

I've also heard that idea before, God creating and destroying other worlds and universes, etc., etc. The Bible never mentions anything like this, and I'm sure God would have talked of "ages before our creation" or something to that effect.That's a fairly presumptuous statement. Why would God have any reason to mention some other world that he created somewhere at some other time that likely has nothing to do with us when the Bible is clearly about OUR world and how WE were redeemed?

The fact is that there is no reason God wouldn't mention the past before our past.
So? There is no reason TO mention it either if it hasn't anything to do with us. There's no reason to shout down the idea that some other world at some obscure time might have existed outside of our existence just because you feel it threatens your interpretation of a literal six-day creation. The idea is way off in the realm of "what-if" and ultimately has absolutely no bearing on whether the earth was created in six 24 hour days or over a gradual process of millions of years. None at all. It also has no bearing on whether or not the Bible is true. Instead of trying to disprove it by making a statement that is impossible to back up (since none of us can actually say whether or not God had a reason for doing any particular thing that isn't specifically mentioned in the Bible), it would be more productive to try to establish that the first verse of Genesis has to mean the start of time and not just the start of the creation process.

Are you saying God created another system of time for some other dimension He created? Does God really have a whole bunch of Sons of God who died for the sins of those worlds? Are there other heavens and hells that God created for the existence of these creatures? Mark Twain tried to mix His ideas of "the sciences" with the Bible and ended up with quite a silly story. Okay, obviously we believe that God is God of EVERYTHING. So why would Him creating some other world at some other time that has nothing to do with us automatically mean he would have to have other sons and other heavens and other hells, ect. ect. ect.? It wouldn't, and there's nothing useful about that sort of speculation. I have no idea what you are talking about in regard to Mark Twain, but he was an author. Authors use whatever material they can to spin a yarn.

As I said, there is no reason for God not to mention such things to us. Not that it's our business, but just that there's no logical reason behind that idea. God would be lying to us in many respects if other worlds existed. The Bible is written; it's done; over. God never once talked of "other creations" existing before our time.If there were some other world either now or at some other time, God would in no way have lied to us about anything. There is absolutely nothing in the Bible that would indicate that God has to tell us every detail of everything. You don't see China mentioned in the Bible either, so does that mean God has lied to us because we know now that China existed all along even during the events that transpired in the Scriptures? What logical reason could God have had for not mentioning that there were whole other continents out there that we didn't even know existed, and that these other continents were already populated?

As far as "logistical time" goes (where exactly did you get that phrase??), I'm surprised you're actually attempting to bring God down to the level of our finite mindsets. Logistical time? Are you saying there was some sort of time-scape or dimension that He didn't create? That's going over the ledge a little too far. :rolleyes: Not to sound offensive or anything, but claiming God is somewhere else doing His own thing with other people He created is, by definition, heresy. Wondering about such things is one thing, but openly stating that it might be true is quite another.Isn't that exactly what you are doing (trying to bring God down to our finite understanding) by making blatant statements about whether or not God would or would not have a reason and in fact an obligation to tell us about another world that may or may not have existed yet clearly does not impact our existence in any way? And it is not heresy to speculate about what God might be doing with someone else that may not even exist. Heresy is when you contradict established beliefs about God's relationship to US.

EveningStar

01-13-2009, 06:48 AM

Truman, no offense intended, but it is a form of human arrogance to think God would have to tell you something just because it's true. Other worlds? God told us to spread the gospel to the four corners of the world, and only saw fit to tell us about TWO of them. Does this mean people with brown skin don't have souls, or that they are unimportant? If he didn't even tell you about the New World, just because it existed and had milllions of human souls, what makes you think he'll tell you about the Neeble Herders of Zargon VII?

In fact I see a lot of human self-importance being exhibited here. That we were the only, all-sufficient thing God ever created. Not even time existed before we were here, and when we're gone there won't be any use for it ever again. That our world is the only thing in the universe with life, and God created billions of galaxies with billions of stars just to impress us. Angels were created to inform us, serve us, protect us. Jesus never has before and never will again ever come to save any but the genuine (officially licensed) human race of this Earth particularly.

Come now, isn't this all just a WEEEE bit prejudiced? For creatures that sinned and deserve the full wages of sin, we sure boast about much. Didn't Paul only boast about Christ's forgiveness? Aren't we all getting a little self important?

kilendil

01-14-2009, 12:58 AM

^ x2

I think we're it - God's most cherished creation in all the universe.
And I like C.S. Lewis' quote at least I'm pretty sure it was him that basically says it's a good thing human beings haven't taken to space travel so as to not spread our iniquity to other planets. I'm paraphrasing of course.

Oh yeah, I read this and realized my whole Space Trilogy analogy was a bit off.... It's been a few years since I read the Space Trilogy.

I wouldn't be surprised if there are other people on other worlds, other humans. And if so, then Jesus died for all of them. Why He chose our world, I don't know. Perhaps we're lucky. Or perhaps we're incredibly wicked. In any case, I think it would be much harder to have faith in somebody that was born and died on another planet than someone that was born and died on mine. If there are people out there, and if I am correct in that Jesus will only die once but for all the universe, then they must have much greater faith than I ever could.

inkspot

01-14-2009, 11:49 AM

You don't see China mentioned in the Bible either, so does that mean God has lied to us because we know now that China existed all along even during the events that transpired in the Scriptures?
LOL! I love this ... Maybe God just forgot that China was over there, with people in it ...:p
That our world is the only thing in the universe with life, and God created billions of galaxies with billions of stars just to impress us. Angels were created to inform us, serve us, protect us. Jesus never has before and never will again ever come to save any but the genuine (officially licensed) human race of this Earth particularly.
officially licensed!!!!!
That just slays me!

OK, not to sound like I haven't kept up, but I haven't kept up. Why are we discussing whether there could be other worlds? Of course there could be other worlds. What has this to do with the creation of and evolution of our world?

kilendil

01-14-2009, 08:29 PM

inkspot

01-14-2009, 09:14 PM

Sorry. I think that's my fault. I mentioned astronomy and timelines and time before earth. Then we got into this big discussion about whether or not time existed, space existed, worlds existed, life existed on other planets, etc. before the earth was created, as well as the religious implications connected to that.
Oh, thank you for that explanation. It stands to reason God was doing something before He created the heavens and the earth ... maybe there was another heavens and earth somewhere on the other side of our universe ... but meanwhile, back in this universe, I am still under the impression that the earth is 4 billion years old ... as linear time goes.

Truman

01-14-2009, 10:50 PM

I'm so sorry I've been putting off the response to Doffen this long. :o I promise I'll get to it this weekend. :)

Doffen

01-15-2009, 09:27 AM

I'm so sorry I've been putting off the response to Doffen this long. :o I promise I'll get to it this weekend. :)

That's not a problem. Take all the time you need ;)

EveningStar

01-15-2009, 09:37 AM

You mean we'll have to wait till Saturday to find out if we were created or evolved?? I personally see a lot of evidence for an Old Earth. It took a lot longer than 5000 years to get the world in THIS mess! :D

Shadow Hawk

01-15-2009, 12:17 PM

No, I find evidence for both sides, or at least what seems to be. One side is lying, no matter what they will say or do I will never side against the one I swore my life to.

Lioness_of_God

01-15-2009, 12:21 PM

No, I find evidence for both sides, or at least what seems to be. One side is lying, no matter what they will say or do I will never side against the one I swore my life to.

..But will believing in one side or another change your salvation? I mean, Old-Earth vs. New-Earth doesn't really determine your eternal destination, does it?

Shadow Hawk

01-15-2009, 12:50 PM

..But will believing in one side or another change your salvation? I mean, Old-Earth vs. New-Earth doesn't really determine your eternal destination, does it?

Perhaps, perhaps not, it is one thing to deny the bible/reject it. It is quite another to call God a liar.

EveningStar

01-15-2009, 02:27 PM

Nobody here is calling God a liar. Saying that someone is because they don't see things your way is a very serious charge that can't be taken with lightly. Let's just not, and I am speaking officially.

inkspot

01-15-2009, 04:20 PM

And seriously, on this site, in this thread, there are mostly only Christ-followers. Doffen is the only pagan who checks in on a regular basis, so almost none of the people who post in this thread deny Christ or reject God or the Bible. Most of us are very pro-Bible, love God, serve Jesus, etc. None of us is saying God lied about anything, no matter which stance we take on New vs. Old Earth.

Seriously. Cuz you know, CS Lewis believed in evolution, and Billy Graham has said Old Earth v New Earth makes no difference as the point of the Bible is redemption, etc. These are not guys in the habit of caling God a liar!

dawnpatrol

01-15-2009, 06:27 PM

It took a lot longer than 5000 years to get the world in THIS mess! :D

Actually it only took a single moment to fall for the lie. And in just the 2nd generation the first murder was committed. And not long after that the earth was in such a mess that God decided to flood it.

Doffen

01-15-2009, 06:32 PM

I see some people saying "Well, I believe God created everything, so therefor, I don't believe he created Evolution to "help" him", but I don't understand that. If a God created the world, then evolution would be one of HIS creations, would it be impossible that God actually controlled evolution into his absolute favor? He would be, afterall, an all controlling God.

Evolution may not be something that God NEEDED to make his creations possible. It might well be that evolution was something he put in place because evolution would be something for human to explore. I wonder why God made a book with ALL the facts in, and at the same time, he made man the most curious and exploring being in all of his creation.

I have barely read genesis, I don't know the rules and facts and stuff, but since the discussion has gone over into a discussion whether God installed evolution.exe on the Tellus server or not, I'll just join in.

inkspot

01-15-2009, 07:06 PM

LOL! I am in complete agreement wth Doffen. The program God used to bring about the variety of species that have inhabited and do inhabit the earth could very well have been Evolution. But I prefer to think it was the Mac version (that Apple in Genesis gave Macs a bad name!)

Doffen

01-15-2009, 07:22 PM

But I prefer to think it was the Mac version (that Apple in Genesis gave Macs a bad name!)

But of course, the apple used in genesis was only but a beta version (!!)

kilendil

01-15-2009, 09:11 PM

I read back several pages and realized that several people posting think that Evolution is a theory that denies God's hand in creating the earth. That's why I prefer the term adaptation. Call it my way of getting around the word "evolution," if you want. You're exactly right. But I'll make this point: when introduced to a new environment, all life-forms must adapt to their environment, or they die. That's why we shiver when we're cold and sweat when hot. This is adaptation on a small scale.

Now, how much God had a hand in the adaptation of life, I'm not sure. I don't believe God is a "Clockmaker God," in that he set up the system and then let things run their course. I believe he had some hand in guiding the species to their current states. Whether he said, "You bird, pick that bird for your mate" for every single pair of birds that have ever existed, I don't think so. God gave birds instincts and the mental capacity to think and decide for themselves what would be best. Believe me, I've seen a flock of quail have their courting dances in my backyard. It's every bird for themselves.

Lioness_of_God

01-15-2009, 09:39 PM

dawnpatrol

01-15-2009, 09:43 PM

The question isn't whether God could have used evolution (He can do as He chooses) the question is did He? The Bible says:

1. He created the world in 6 days.
2. He created the animals each after their own kind.
3. Adam was created on the 6th day.
4. Death is a result of Adam's sin.
5. Adam's lineage is traced all the way to Jesus which even using generous estimates does not equal 4.5 billion years.

FatherChristmas

01-15-2009, 10:21 PM

now THAT is Natural Selection, and I believe that concerning genetics, that is true, I mean, there is a form of natural selection in the Bible, where Jacob tricks his uncle by mating all the strong speckled animals and getting more strong speckled animals than Laban.
No, that was not "natural selection". It was clearly the hand of God causing Jacob to prosper. And no, I'm not preaching a "prosperity gospel". :D

It is true that Jacob was selectively breeding them, but there's nothing "natural" about an intelligent man choosing strong animals to mate with each other. And it was God who caused the increase, as Jacob admits in Genesis 31:4-9.
So Jacob sent word to Rachel and Leah to come out to the fields where his flocks were. He said to them, "I see that your father's attitude toward me is not what it was before, but the God of my father has been with me. You know that I've worked for your father with all my strength, yet your father has cheated me by changing my wages ten times. However, God has not allowed him to harm me. If he said, 'The speckled ones will be your wages,' then all the flocks gave birth to speckled young; and if he said, 'The streaked ones will be your wages,' then all the flocks bore streaked young. So God has taken away your father's livestock and has given them to me.

Lioness_of_God

01-15-2009, 10:49 PM

No, that was not "natural selection". It was clearly the hand of God causing Jacob to prosper. And no, I'm not preaching a "prosperity gospel". :D

eh i was talking about genetics there. sorry for the confusion:o because I think that genetics and natural selection are quite similar, right?

Shadow Hawk

01-16-2009, 12:00 AM

kilendil

01-16-2009, 12:55 AM

I must admit, my favorite dinosaur is the Archaeopteryx, though I believe it was a bird and not a dinosaur (I wrote a paper on this for evolution--one species changing to another--versus adaptation. Of course, I wrote this paper in middle school. Still, my one good point in my paper was that the Archaeopteryx had a bird's hip bone, not the same type of hip bone as all the other raptor dinosaurs. I still think that's good evidence).

I hope I am not slammed now for "obviously" siding with evolution. I believe scientists are partially right, but not completely right, in their theory of evolution. And I believe in Old World, Intelligent Design, as stated earlier. And yes, while Adam did not live 4.5 billion years ago, I've already discussed my opinion of time and such and the interpretation of the word "day".

Now, where dinosaurs fit in with Adam, and whether there was death in any form before Adam, I have no idea. Some days I think one way (yes there was death, the Fall affected man's death) and some days I think another (but is that really right? Maybe that whole no-death thing was for all the earth). Someday, I'm sure we'll have all the answers.

EveningStar

01-16-2009, 06:56 AM

This debate is not about the existance of evolution as a phenomenon. I found that out some time ago but I was loathe to admit it. This debate is about God, particularly a way of viewing Him.

There are some people that are highly motivated to take everything in the Bible as literal, scientific truth expressed in objective terms. The motivation is the comfort they derive from never having to second guess or interpret. They know what they're getting. Setting aside whether it is truly literal for a moment, my point is that's why they care so STRONGLY about it.

It is natural for people to want the familiar, to know what they are getting. The great explorer Marco Polo caught up with Kubla Khan after a great battle. There were two lines of prisoners...a long line for a skilled headsman that could lop off a head without causing undue pain, and a very short line for a tent where men could face "the unknown". Khan explained to Marco that the unknown was a fresh horse and three day's supply of food. "Those few who have the courage to face the unknown deserve a second chance." Rather than being a character weakness, the willingness to ask great questions about great things is a strength. Look at the child who is always asking Mommy "why?" He thinks she can do anything, that she knows everything. Asking why is not an indictment, a rebuttal, a rebellion.

Everyone has a mental image of God. For some the closer God comes to a combination of Einstein, Mr. Rogers, Daddy, and the Justice of the peace with a long grey beard and a flowing white robe, the better they feel. They can relate to this. God is a bigger, better man with powers. They could imagine being this bigger, better man with a memory like the Encyclopedia Britannica. They take comfort in this because they know what to expect and how to handle it.

To such people, the idea of a God that never gets impatient watching grass grow, and who made the world but not all at once, allowing species to rise and fall along the way, and taking four billion years from start to finish...well that's emotionally distant, cold and frightening. This God does not think like them so they can't relate to him. What they can't imagine doing and thinking themselves, they don't want to imagine God doing and thinking. Their desire to keep that notion of God at arms length drives the debate. It doesn't supply the evidence or change the truth out there, but it drives the debate by making it personal.

I have my feelings all sorted out. I'm fine with whatever God ends up having been all along when I meet him. You will be too when it actually happens, but I'm at peace with it here and now. Whatever comes of this thread, my curiousity about evolution is driven by the DESIRE TO KNOW THE TRUTH not the NEED TO HOLD ON TO A VIEWPOINT. It does not frighten me that God is not like Uncle Albert. All I need to know is that he knows I exist and that he loves me. That he is fair and merciful. That he has the power to do whatever he promises he will do. And that he's real. I accept all that am at peace with it. He doesn't have to be my Uncle Albert too. Chances are such a God wouldn't find my stories clever, my jokes funny, my paintings nifty or my faith flawless. That's ok. Like Uncle Albert (and in some ways he IS) he recognizes that they are better than they were yesterday and he gives me a pat on the head and says "Keep plugging away at it, young man." This does not bother me in the least.

I don't care to debate the emotional angle. Perhaps I won't find what I'm looking for in this thread. More's the pity. I'm not here for spiritual comfort or to evangelize. I'm here to wonder, to ask, to learn.

FatherChristmas

01-16-2009, 08:17 AM

The best way to keep this discussion civil is to deal with the arguments directly, and not assign motives to people. Otherwise, it becomes a battle of accusations like "the only reason you believe that is because you're afraid of XYZ", etc. I'd rather not go there.

I believe that the text of Genesis reads like a straightforward historical account, and so I feel confident in interpreting it that way. If someone else wants to look at it as figurative language, that is fine. I don't agree with that interpretation, I don't feel there is any compelling reason to view the text that way, but that person is free to look at it in his/her own way. I'm not going to say "you only take that view because you're this or that". That's not constructive and it doesn't lend itself to a civil debate.

EveningStar

01-16-2009, 08:45 AM

A more civil beastie you'll never find. But if you think everyone in this thread is merely curious, examining only the evidence and bringing no pre-conceived notions to the table, I have some Enron stock to sell you.

Everyone on a debate should be on the same side...the side of truth. The truth itself should win the debate and it is the duty of BOTH camps to try and find the same truth, that being the truth that IS.

I have put forth many posts about how I fit evolutionary biology into my life of Christian faith. I don't see that I've left any glaring omissions. I've also tried to answer any serious questions about my reasoning.

The defence rests.

Doffen

01-16-2009, 09:14 AM

Mockery, long ago you would be burned for this.

I haven't mocked anything.

Shadow Hawk

01-16-2009, 10:16 AM

I haven't mocked anything.

Perhaps from your point of view, watch what you say. For the tongue is sharper than any sword. There are not many ways of of God, Just as there is only one way to him. This is not about God, but rather about doubts, and or belief.

Doffen

01-16-2009, 10:34 AM

Perhaps from your point of view, watch what you say. For the tongue is sharper than any sword. There are not many ways of of God, Just as there is only one way to him. This is not about God, but rather about doubts, and or belief.

I repeat: I haven't mocked anything.

inkspot

01-16-2009, 10:40 AM

But of course, the apple used in genesis was only but a beta version (!!)
:p
The question isn't whether God could have used evolution (He can do as He chooses) the question is did He? The Bible says:

1. He created the world in 6 days.
If you read back through the thread, you'll see there's an explanation of how that word day (yom in Hebrew) was used to mean a lot of various lengths of time -- and so the Genesis 1 evenings and mornings could very well mean a certain creative period beginning and ending, as the geological record shows.

2. He created the animals each after their own kind.
Yes, and evolution would do the same thing -- a uni-cell wouldn't turn into a dolphin overnight ... rather the succeeding generations would bring about more and more dolphin-like creatures (after their own kind?) The Christians in this Thread are not arguing for Darwinism and random chance in evolution -- we're arguing for a God-guided process, which would fit your #2 here.
3. Adam was created on the 6th day. If we understand a day as a creative period, this makes perfect sense as man was last to appear on the earth. However if you read Genesis 1-2 as literal day by day history in 144 hours, then you run into a problem on Day 6 because it would seem to say God created Adam, then called all the animals to Adam so he could name them, then created Eve -- in that order. Yikes! Long day! Unless Day Six was much longer than literal 24 hours, Adam had his work cut out for him. :)
4. Death is a result of Adam's sin.
Many believers see this as spiritual death. After all, God clearly tells Adam the "day" he eats of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil he shall "surely" die ... but he didn't die that day. He lived a long time after that ... what he lost that day was his innocence and close walk with God.
5. Adam's lineage is traced all the way to Jesus which even using generous estimates does not equal 4.5 billion years.
Many Hebrew scholars say the lineage only hits the "high points" of ancestry, so its possible many, many generations were left out of Jesus' lineage or there were humans/proto-humans (Lucy) here long before God breathed life into Adam, but they weren't the "Adam" God was perfecting as His first man in His likeness.

BTW, welcome to the discussion dawnpatrol. :) I didn't notice you posting before, but I've not had time to keep up with this thread lately.
Mockery, long ago you would be burned for this.
Perhaps from your point of view, watch what you say.
Doffen is a fine young fellow who I know would not mock my faith to my face (or here on TDL) because he has better manners than that. I think you misunderstood him altogether. We were just playing because I'm a Mac and he's a PC. And it certainly doesn't insult God to suppose He might have used a tremendous process like evolution to give us the amazing world we have today.
I have my feelings all sorted out. I'm fine with whatever God ends up having been all along when I meet him. You will be too when it actually happens, but I'm at peace with it here and now. Whatever comes of this thread, my curiousity about evolution is driven by the DESIRE TO KNOW THE TRUTH not the NEED TO HOLD ON TO A VIEWPOINT.
Exactly so. And when you start from this angle, that you're looking for truth and not trying to justify a viewpoint, it quickly becomes clear that Old Earth has all the evidence on its side ... and the Scriptures are more than open to such an interpretation (as has been shown often in the thread). With both science and the Bible amenable, I don't see the problem, so long as we acknowledge God as Creator and allow Him to use whatever means He likes to create.

Shadow Hawk

01-16-2009, 11:23 AM

I repeat: I haven't mocked anything.

Really? Care to back that up? Words speak, but actions speak louder. You have lied. One of many reasons I will not debate with people that mock the beliefs of others.

EveningStar

01-16-2009, 11:26 AM

Really? Care to back that up? Words speak, but actions speak louder. You have lied.I may not be posting in this thread anymore but I AM moderating it. My actions speak loudly too, and that includes warnings against Ad Hominem attacks and abusive behaviour. And I care to back that up. Settle down and shake hands. Now.

Shadow Hawk

01-16-2009, 11:36 AM

I Did not say I would not, Eveningstar. I am stating what I am seeing from the point of view of the observer.

Doffen

01-16-2009, 11:45 AM

Really? Care to back that up? Words speak, but actions speak louder. You have lied. One of many reasons I will not debate with people that mock the beliefs of others.

No, I don't care if you want me to back that up or not. I didn't mock anything. I haven't lied about anything. I would hope that's the last time you ever call me a liar without any reason to.

Shadow Hawk

01-16-2009, 12:19 PM

Doffen

01-16-2009, 12:29 PM

But of course, the apple used in genesis was only but a beta version (!!)

Really? Are you so sure? If you don't mind I ask you to drop the mockery.

Indeed, I'm a 100% sure.

That was a joke that was meant as a response to Inkspots reply to one of my earlier messages. Still, if this message wasn't meant as a inside joke between Inkspot and me, I still cannot understand how this can be seen as anything else then a good-natured joke. I'm pretty sure the irony in this comment is clear to most people who read it. I don't mean what I say. That's a form of humour (For the record; I don't think Apple produced the world).

Even if I'm a atheist, I should be allowed to make humour out of stuff without that being taken as mockery. 'nuff said from my part. I've defended myself, which I do all the time, in PM's or in threads.

I have barely read genesis, I don't know the rules and facts and stuff, but since the discussion has gone over into a discussion whether God installed evolution.exe on the Tellus server or not, I'll just join in.

LOL! I am in complete agreement wth Doffen. The program God used to bring about the variety of species that have inhabited and do inhabit the earth could very well have been Evolution. But I prefer to think it was the Mac version (that Apple in Genesis gave Macs a bad name!)

But of course, the apple used in genesis was only but a beta version (!!)

There you have it. Now get of my back. I'm tired of fighting.

EveningStar

01-16-2009, 12:41 PM

Shadow_Hawk, Doffen...stop it now. Now, as in "NOW" now. If you want to talk about it to one another about making up or not, do it in PMs. This is the first and only official warning.

Shadow Hawk

01-16-2009, 12:58 PM

Shadow_Hawk, Doffen...stop it now. Now, as in "NOW" now. If you want to talk about it to one another about making up or not, do it in PMs. This is the first and only official warning.

Ah, what does the bible say about the appearance of evil? That it may be, EveningStar, which is better...

To expose the conflicts or ignore them until they become problems?

The one who acts is not going to be the one who judges his actions, it will be the people that watch you, the ones who are observing it. You were making fun of the bible and or a belief system like yours. How would like it if someone poke fun at you, over and over?

If you wish to discuss it, so be it. But, lets not make jokes out of beliefs, and or people that believe it.

Side-note: EveningStar I honestly do not care, If you wish you can ban me, heck I'll even give you my Ip Address. I'm sick and tired of the religious discrimination, I've be turned down from articles, essays all because of religious bias. All that you are trying to do is cover it up, however though it is honorable, it will only allow the wound to fester.

EveningStar

01-16-2009, 01:28 PM

His admittedly flippant remark was not meant to insult God. He respected my authority by PMing me about it. You posted about it in the thread. Seems like you're playing a high stakes game of win, lose or draw.

So happens I feel really nasty today because of my bronchitis and I'm not going to gracefully tolerate this flouting a direct order from your friendly moderator. Take a day off to think about it. I'm not giving you a one week ban because I think you're smart enough to learn in 24 hours.

inkspot

01-16-2009, 03:06 PM

And seriously, don't anyone call Doffen (or anyone else) a liar. It's mean, and although D may not believe the same way we do, he's not a liar. He's saying what he believes, and he has a right.

And to argue religious prejudice (against Christianity!) on this site is a bit ridiculous! Honestly.

Thank you for handling this, John.

Pianoplayer888

01-16-2009, 08:58 PM

Anyways...back to the discussion. I kind of see what is being said about the days being longer than our 24 hour day. I think the best way to truly determine this would be to go back and read it in the actual Hebrew/Greek(I can't remember which one it is) context, to see how it is used without the translation, and then compare it to other places in the Bible that have the same word being used, and see how it is meant there.

This may not get us anywhere, but it's something, and I agree with EveningStar's post that we should all try and look for the truth. Praying also wouldn't be a bad idea.

kilendil

01-16-2009, 09:06 PM

I have my feelings all sorted out. I'm fine with whatever God ends up having been all along when I meet him. You will be too when it actually happens, but I'm at peace with it here and now. Whatever comes of this thread, my curiousity about evolution is driven by the DESIRE TO KNOW THE TRUTH not the NEED TO HOLD ON TO A VIEWPOINT.

Thanks, EveningStar. I don't know if you were responding to me or not, but it was just what I needed to read. I guess I've just been getting frustrated with the fact that in some people's minds it's "all or nothing" when it comes to Evolution versus Creation. In my attempt to show my frustration, I basically begged to be thrown in the line of fire.

I search for truth everywhere I look. I find it in both the Bible and in the sciences. And I find that very comforting. If I could not find truth in both places, I would be thrown in a world of doubt.

Oh, and Doffen and Inkspot, I found your jokes very funny, considering the age of technology we live in.

dawnpatrol

01-16-2009, 09:56 PM

:p
Many believers see this as spiritual death. After all, God clearly tells Adam the "day" he eats of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil he shall "surely" die ... but he didn't die that day. He lived a long time after that ... what he lost that day was his innocence and close walk with God.

This is both a spiritual and physical death - the one resulting in the other.

But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 1 Cor 15:20-23

That is speaking of a physical resurrection from a physical death.

For all creation is waiting eagerly for that future day when God will reveal who his children really are. Against its will, all creation was subjected to God’s curse. But with eager hope, the creation looks forward to the day when it will join God’s children in glorious freedom from death and decay. Romans 8:19-21

There wasn't struggle, bloodshed, disease, death and decay until after God cursed creation as a result of Adam's sin.

http://i40.tinypic.com/ercuav.jpg

Why a literal 6 day creation is important:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i1/sixdays.asp

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c011.html

inkspot

01-17-2009, 03:53 PM

This is both a spiritual and physical death - the one resulting in the other.
How do you know this?
Genesis 2:17 is God's direct instructions to Adam. God told Adam... "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

Using a common, literal interpretation, when Adam ate the fruit, he should have died physically that day. Did Adam die the same day he ate the fruit? No, he did not. There are three possibilities. First, God lied to Adam. We know that God cannot lie, so this cannot be the case.

There are two other possible alternatives from which you must choose. The first is that God did not mean physical death at all, but spiritual. When Adam ate the fruit, he sinned, which caused separation between him and God, or spiritual death.

The other alternative is that although the sin did not bring about instant death, it did bring about gradual death, making man susceptible to death. Adam and Eve, by their expulsion from the Garden of Eden, became vulnerable to death. Another viable alternative is that Adam did die that day. A day to God is different than a day for us. The six creation days were millions of years long. After the creation, God entered His rest...the seventh day, and we are still in that day. Thus, Adam and Eve died on the seventh day.

This seems to pretty much cover things ...

TimmyofOz

01-17-2009, 06:44 PM

What good would it be for me to go into unbelief. In my almost 30 years of being a Christian I have found it better to believe what the Bible says than to not. To reject God's Word in favor of man's word would leave me with nothing to live for. It is too sad a world to face it without Jesus and the Bible.

EveningStar

01-17-2009, 06:50 PM

We all share a belief in a personal saviour, the Son of God, the Messiah, the Lion of Judah.

We all accept that the message of God's authority and God's salvation are listed in the Old and New Testaments.

I don't see any of us choosing man's doctrines IN PLACE OF Jesus Christ. Certainly if you can't believe in evolution AND Jesus, choose Jesus only over evolution only.

TimmyofOz

01-17-2009, 07:16 PM

Doffen

01-17-2009, 07:47 PM

If their is a God then He knows how the world was created. If evolution is true why would God discribes something that is in no way resembles evolution in the Bible. If the Bible is false then there is no way of knowing the true God or knowing Jesus. Evolution does not need God or Jesus. Trying to make a religion out of evolution leaves not room for a need for Jesus or the God of the Bible. Oh dispair, dispair.

I thought Inkspot and Eveningstar, and all those other old-earth creationists has described how God had made this a part of his plan. Atleast it comes clear to me that God didn't describe the creation of the world so extensively. Atleast through the reading I've done on this thread, I think they've described pretty well how God could've meant something completely different then what young-earth believers believe.

even if the english (and Norwegian btw) bible sayes something, it's still not the language it was written in originaly. As I've understood, the bible has been made in several editions, like the King James bible and so on. Try reading the Harry Potter book in English, then read it in a different language, yeah, you can see the plot going "dang".

I'm not a bible expert. I could be saying utter nonsence.. Just trying to deliever some thoughts out there ^^

FatherChristmas

01-17-2009, 07:59 PM

This seems to pretty much cover things ...
It is rather telling that the article that you posted says "using a common literal interpretation" rather than delving deeply into the Hebrew and finding out what it really means. In fact, you and I have had this discussion before. I posted a link to an explanation of the Hebraism known as the "infinitive absolute", of which the phrase in question is an excellent example. The English translation "you will surely die" does not do the Hebrew justice. The best translation is "dying you shall die".

Explanation of the intensifying infinitive absolute in Hebrew (http://www.textexcavation.com/infinitiveabsolute.html)

This same phrase is used in Numbers 26:65 when God told the Israelites that, because they did not trust God and go take possession of the promised land, the adult population would all die in the desert (everyone 20 years old or older). Well, they didn't die that day, did they? Was this a "spiritual death" once again? Hardly, since the "spiritual death" you are speaking of occurred one time in the garden of Eden. No, God was telling them that they would all literally die in the desert during the 40 years of wandering. So you see that the infinitive absolute phrase "dying you shall die" does not necessarily mean that day. Thus, your "proof" that the death God spoke of in the garden of Eden was spiritual only is no proof at all. On the contrary, the way I understand the phrase in Genesis is exactly the way it is used in Numbers.

Alden Bass of Apologetics Press addressed the immediacy issue (http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/43) as well, and it is worth quoting at length:
But was it to be an immediate death, or the beginning of a long process of death? The phrases “surely” and “in that day” are matters of interest. The footnote accompanying Genesis 2:17 in the King James Version gives this alternate reading to “thou shalt surely die”: dying thou shalt die. The double emphasis in the Hebrew of the word “die” (mot), makes the marginal translation the more literal, and, together with the context, indicates the beginning of a process that eventually would terminate in Adam’s death (the immediate result of separation from the tree of life). “In that day” (the phrase that has caused so much confusion over the centuries) does not, of necessity, mean the very day that it happens; rather, it is an indication of the certainty of the command. Notice the comments of the following scholars regarding this difficult phrase:

It is just as naïve to insist that the phrase “in the day” means that on that very day death would occur. A little knowledge of the Hebrew idiom will relieve the tension here as well. For example, in 1 Kings 2:37 King Solomon warned a seditious Shimei, “The day you leave [Jerusalem] and cross the Kidron Valley [which is immediately outside the city walls on the east side of the city], you can be sure you will die.” Neither the 1 Kings nor the Genesis text implies immediacy of action on that very same day; instead they point to the certainty of the predicated consequence that would be set in motion by the act initiated on that day. Alternate wordings include at the time when, at that time, now when and the day [when] (see Gen. 5:1; Ex. 6:28; 10:28; 32:34) [Kaiser, et al., 1996, p. 92, emp. in orig.].

Hamilton, too, in commenting on Genesis 2:17, concluded by stating: “The verse is underscoring the certainty of death, not its chronology” (1990, 1:172).

Scholarly commentary aside, the true meaning of Jehovah’s intended punishment can be discovered in the conclusion of the story itself. Man, shameful of his nakedness and sin, hid himself in the garden. God called out to Adam, who timidly answered. Jehovah questioned Adam and Eve as a loving Father questions his children, trying to elicit a confession of guilt. “What is this thou hast done?” Though both attempted to pass the blame to another, they eventually confessed their sin. Then the sentencing began.

Unto the woman he said, “I will greatly multiply thy pain and thy conception; in pain thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” And unto Adam he said, “Because thou hast harkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in toil shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; in the sweat of they face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return....” Therefore, Jehovah God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from when he was taken. So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden the Cherubim, and the flame of a sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life (Genesis 3:16-19, 23-24, emp. added).

The consequences of the first sin were many, and its results were far-reaching. Notice this observation by Albert Barnes in his commentary on Romans (5:12, which refers back to the sin and death of Adam, and, antithetically to life in Christ): “The evident meaning is, that the word ‘death,’ as here used by the apostle, refers to the train of evils which have been introduced by sin. It does not mean simply temporal death, condemnation, and exposure to eternal death, which is the consequence of transgression” (1949, 5:127, emp. in orig.). The dust in which Adam toiled (and in which we today still toil), he would become. From that point on, humanity would return to the dust whence it came. And that, in fact, has been our fate ever since. On the day of Adam’s sin, he began to die.

Exile from paradise, separation from the tree of life, the initiation of aging, and a severance from the very presence of God Almighty, were all consequences of our parents’ sin. That sin would have resulted in an eternal death, had it not been for the tender mercies of God. At some point, we all stand in the place of Adam and Eve—guilty of doing the exact opposite of what God has commanded. The inevitable result of our sin is likewise death—spiritual and eternal. Thanks be to God that, although we were dead in our trespasses, we have the opportunity to be made alive through His beloved Son (Ephesians 2:1ff.).

EveningStar

01-17-2009, 09:00 PM

Father Christmas, whether or not we see eye to eye I compliment you on the way you approach the topic. Stating an opinion, citing evidence, keeping civil. Thank you for restoring sanity.

TimmyofOz

01-17-2009, 09:42 PM

ES, I hope you aren't calling me one of the uncivil one. I am not here to prove or disprove evolution. I wasn't at the creation of the universe. It has been said that the only reason evolution is accepted is because the church accepts it not science. You know if your goal is to create a gospel that is more acceptable to man by throughing in popular science and humanism then you can be sure that it isn't from God. The gospel we should preach must only be one that is acceptable to God.

EveningStar

01-17-2009, 09:43 PM

I wasn't thinking about you. I was thinking about someone who gave me nasty (and threatening) PMs. Someone who is no longer here to debate.

PrinceOfTheWest

01-17-2009, 09:56 PM

I haven't been much of a participant in this thread, but I'm putting on my moderator hat to weigh in with my opinion. Though we encourage robust discussion on topics from several viewpoints, particularly in the Stone Table forum, I'm concerned that this particular topic is generating a lot more heat than light. The nature of this topic tends to generate strong opinions for which there is no resolution, even among people who share a common faith.

Free discussion is not an absolute right, especially here on the forum. There are greater goods, such as charity, courtesy (which is how charity is expressed), and mutual respect. In honor of C.S. Lewis, discussion here on the forum is intended to search out and exhibit truth. It is not the goal to provide an arena for verbal fencing, or sharpening our debating skills on our fellow members.

Where these principles have not been respected, threads have been shut down (e.g. the Abortion thread, in which I was an enthusiastic participant.) This is not an attempt to shut down discussion arbitrarily, or slam the door on a point of view that we disagree with. It is an attempt to honor the greater goods for which this forum stands, and not sacrifice them to lesser goods such as scoring debating points.

I am going to be watching this thread carefully. The posts of late have been straying far too close to the edge of civility, and at times have gone over it. If in my judgment things are straying that way again, I will close it without warning or asking anyone's permission. I ask participants to keep that in mind, and also keep in mind that there are non-believers watching who can observe how you treat each other.

EveningStar

01-17-2009, 10:38 PM

What he said.

dayhawk68

01-18-2009, 12:44 AM

Ephinie

01-18-2009, 01:57 AM

why is it when I unsubscribe the thread just gets better??? lol oy...

well I believe in the literal 6 day creation. And I think true christians, if they do follow evolution, need to consider the source. Darwin was a humanist and wanted a way to get God completly out of the picture, thats how he came up with his theory.

I think it has been so widely accepted because Man wants to be God, but since he isn't I finde Evolution to be a big slap in the face to God.

As a Christian, you have to ask yourself who Darwin was and if you feel anything when come to an opinion on the matter.If evolution of any kind whatsoever happens, then it happens absolutely independently of Darwin or of any other person who has observed, theorized, or promoted. That is, it would still have happened and been happening even if such a person as Darwin never existed in the first place. Thus, asking people to consider where Darwin was in his personal life has no bearing on the argument of whether or not evolution happens. Even scientists who have no belief in God today view Darwin's work as inaccurate.

True Christians will seek truth no matter where it is found, because all truth that is True comes from God. Period. Just because a thing is presented by someone who is not a Christian does not mean it cannot be true. And just because a thing superficially appears to go against what you believe the Bible says doesn't mean that it actually does go against what the Bible teaches. Sometimes Christians have to strive with and against new ideas to test them and see how they fit... but rest assured that anything proven to be true does not contradict the Bible. It may be that an individual view of what the Bible is saying is the thing that is in error.

dayhawk68

01-18-2009, 02:13 AM

If evolution of any kind whatsoever happens, then it happens absolutely independently of Darwin or of any other person who has observed, theorized, or promoted. That is, it would still have happened and been happening even if such a person as Darwin never existed in the first place. Thus, asking people to consider where Darwin was in his personal life has no bearing on the argument of whether or not evolution happens. Even scientists who have no belief in God today view Darwin's work as inaccurate.

True Christians will seek truth no matter where it is found, because all truth that is True comes from God. Period. Just because a thing is presented by someone who is not a Christian does not mean it cannot be true. And just because a thing superficially appears to go against what you believe the Bible says doesn't mean that it actually does go against what the Bible teaches. Sometimes Christians have to strive with and against new ideas to test them and see how they fit... but rest assured that anything proven to be true does not contradict the Bible. It may be that an individual view of what the Bible is saying is the thing that is in error.

Oh grant evolution has been around before Darwin, great scotts the Greeks invented the theory in the first place. Evolution and Creationism is HOW you see the world. It has everything to do with your personal life. Evolution is a theory designed to be seperate from God. Its "science" is based off of we are alone in the universe from a all powerful being. Nature created us, not God. And if God did create us, he didn't want anything to do with us. Also if you were God would you draw out the creation of life over millions of years? No? Why would you? You have the power to do it in a second, but since people need a calender or something to go by, why not do it in six days? Then on the seventh day, rest. Millions of years goes against the Bible. Its very clear. The Hebrew word for day in the original text of genisis means "24 hour day" not an age, not a million years. I cant see how you can mix evolution and creationism. It may seem like a parodox ( a contradiction that if read deeper, there is actual sense) but the truth of the matter is that it is black and white.

That's how God sees black and white, for him there is no grey area. Whether you know it or not, Evolution was a point of view for seeing HOW something was created/made ect, so that Man didn't have to answer to God. (oh darn it where's CF with scriptures to back that statement up...I know its there!)

plus there have been SOOOOOOOOOOOO many proofs of evolution's faults. Take, again I've said this like 3 times in this thread, the tripod in the human foot print. Evolution said Tripods were extinct something millions of years before man came around. mmmmhhhmmmmm nope. Its a faulty science really (lets not even start with carbon dating:p lol thats a joke)

Doffen

01-18-2009, 07:39 AM

(lets not even start with carbon dating:p lol thats a joke)

We have, already ;)

EveningStar

01-18-2009, 08:29 AM

Do you want to be better debaters? When you are debating, please don't insinuate or bluff.

Statements like "There are so many things wrong with Carbon Dating it would be a sick joke if people weren't falling for it" are bluffs. Links to a site with criticisms of Carbon Dating are not bluffs.

Let's avoid emotionally loaded phrases like "It's blindingly obvious" or "God wouldn't do that" or "it makes no sense." Also to be shunned are "I refuse to throw the Bible out the window" or "I don't know what sort of God you believe in."

The facts, and viewpoints based on those facts, are supposed to be supplied with the dignity due the truth. The ideas should do the persuading, not appeals to conscience. After all, we're not trying to find out what SHOULD be true but what IS true. The existance of truth is not a value judgment, it's an observation.

Perhaps it would do you well to watch a formal debate. Each side speaks, rebuttal is allowed, closing arguements are given, people vote. It's formal and there are rules, and what you say had better be supported by evidence or be expressed as "my opinion". You call the other side "my distinguished opponent" and things start and end with a handshake.

It's harder that way, but it serves the public best.

Truman

01-18-2009, 11:42 AM

And I'll be replying soon today about the C-14. ;)

And yes ES, giving links to websites rebutting something isn't bluffing, true. But it's elephant hurling, which I'm sure you, from experience, have come to hate (as I have from experience). Nevertheless I'm answering the website because of a certain relationship I had with it in the past, and more; I already wrote the beginning of the reply long ago, but I just quit for a bit. I'll finish it today. :)

Pianoplayer888

01-18-2009, 01:16 PM

I don't know if this has already been posted, but it came to me while I was reading the first link in dawnpatrol's post 2 pages ago. The Bible says that God created the earth in six days. It also said that Christ rose in three. I personally think that the Bible would try and use the word 'day' to mean one length of time. I wouldn't think that it would have day mean thousands or millions of years in one passage, and then have it mean 24 hours later on.

Does anyone have an opinion on this?

EveningStar

01-18-2009, 02:48 PM

Old testament written in Hebrew. New testament in Greek.

Just so you realize.

Pardine

01-18-2009, 04:01 PM

Something else to consider, besides the Hebrew and Greek differences, is that Genesis was written between the sixth and tenth century BC, and most of the gospels were written around 60 to 100 AD.

That's between 660 and 1100 years between the two books. People now don't talk like people did a generation ago. Now imagine people in two different cultures, separated by more than 500 years... and then having it all translated into a third language.

TimmyofOz

01-18-2009, 10:26 PM

Jewish scholars from hudreds of years before the birth of Christ knew that Genesis was written by Moses. Why do you believe it was written at about 700 B.C. If you are accepting modern scholars date, they are just speculating 3300 years after the fact. They have no historical or archaeological evidence. If you are just starting from the assumption that Moses didn't write it, you show your bias. Why not go all the way and say Jesus never existed and he story is based on myths of pagan gods (we all know where Christmas came from). C. S. Lewis would have never have started from the assumption that Moses didn't write Genesis.

TimmyofOz

01-18-2009, 10:57 PM

Greek and Hebrew like Latin are languages from antiquity that scholars have from many different nationalities have been translating for thousands of years. Until recently most high school students could read one of these languages. Scholars have no problem translating Greek and Hebrew. The nation of Israel even decided to bring back Hebrew after it was dead for some 1500 years. Now most Israelis speak it as their first language. The only people that have problems translating Greek amd Hebrew are Mormans and Jehovah's Witnesses.

FatherChristmas

01-18-2009, 11:34 PM

Perhaps it would do you well to watch a formal debate. Each side speaks, rebuttal is allowed, closing arguements are given, people vote. It's formal and there are rules, and what you say had better be supported by evidence or be expressed as "my opinion". You call the other side "my distinguished opponent" and things start and end with a handshake.

It's harder that way, but it serves the public best.

That's a great idea. It might wear out our keyboards to be typing "distinguished" all the time, but it's probably worth the effort.

Not sure how we'll handle the handshake part though. :)

Truman

01-19-2009, 01:19 AM

I'm so sorry I haven't replied yet; I was the process of writing it but now it's late, and I'm busy this week. Next weekend I'll definately get to finishing it. SO sorry! :(

dayhawk68

01-19-2009, 01:28 AM

TimmyofOz

01-19-2009, 03:38 AM

ahh, thanks also:o. Are you a Latin student dayhawk68?

Pianoplayer888

01-19-2009, 11:00 AM

Old testament written in Hebrew. New testament in Greek.

Just so you realize.

Something else to consider, besides the Hebrew and Greek differences, is that Genesis was written between the sixth and tenth century BC, and most of the gospels were written around 60 to 100 AD.

That's between 660 and 1100 years between the two books. People now don't talk like people did a generation ago. Now imagine people in two different cultures, separated by more than 500 years... and then having it all translated into a third language.

Oooh, ok. That slipped my mind when I was writing the post.

inkspot

01-19-2009, 12:20 PM

Hey, I locked this thread ... We had a couple people banned cuz they couldn't play nice in this thread, just in the past month ... and being that the thread has over 1,000 posts it's getting too big anyway. A lot of what is being said has already been said. I suggest we let it lie and some day on down the road if someone come to the question new, we can all jump in again then. Whattya think?

EveningStar

01-19-2009, 12:29 PM

If I may add one thought to this:

I would like to thank everyone who brought real thought and genuine feeling into this thread, regardless of whether or not they saw eye to eye with me on the issue.

That being said, perhaps some people saw a side of fellow members they once liked and now don't like them as well. It's also possible that some people found others to be friends they hadn't yet met. I pray that the good results will outweigh the bad and that we all remember to love one another as Christ loves us.

The tally is in. As it has been proven in newspaper editorials, television documentaries, public debates, and private polls, there will never be one way of looking at things. Nobody is going to say the magic thing that makes everyone else flip-flop. Don't be disappointed. In your neighbourhood every sunday the Baptists go to the Baptist Church, the Catholics go to Mass and the Agnostics scratch their head. The Democrats shout at the Republicans and vice versa. The Conservatives and Liberals threaten to paint a white dashed line down the middle of England like two feuding friends on a sitcom. So who did Christ die for? All of us.

Let peace prevail. Take off the frock, loosen the tie, kick back with the lads and raise a toast to the love that IS and PROCEEDS FROM almighty God.

Truman

09-19-2009, 12:14 AM

I hestiantly suggest, as my wife does often like to remind me that this is a forum for all ages, that such graphic descriptions perhaps arn't nessicary? I think to most of us just settling with '10's of thousands of people killed' would be quite sufficent, if it really was nessicary to throw figures of the number of people murdered at each other, which personally I think somewhat lessens the value of life by reducing it to a number.
The descriptions give a face to the people murdered... Plus, I can hardly imagine too many young people (besides maybe Doffen and I) coming to "The Socratic Club" portion of the forum. ;) Graphic descriptions are what we all need to understand what's really going on; if that offends you then I'm sorry.
Slightly off topic, but for the record, I object to Truman's blaming Darwin here...

I can appreciate that you are being a bit tongue and cheek with this comment, but to blame this on Darwin is extremely unhistorical and incorrect. "Social Darwinism" was already in the intellectual and cultural climate, long before Darwin's insights on biological evolution. Perhaps the biggest reason Darwin got so much attention at all was because similar ideas were already long being pondered in the social context, and when his scientific insights on biology came along, people misapplied them to the social realm, claiming "See, it's science, after all!" You can't blame Darwin if people use his ideas out of context to justify their own inhumane intentions.
Charn, have you ever read On the Origin of Species? Or rather, do you realize the entire title of the book suggests racial preference?

On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection ~or~ The Preservation of Favoured Races In the Struggle For Life

First of all, I know this kind of social injustice existed before Darwin. Charles plagiarized most of his grandfather's work when he wrote Origin of Species. These ideas were around before him; I understand that. Darwin just made them popular with his book. And if you want to talk about "out of context" ideas, let's take a look at his words in context:
"Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."

--On the Origin of Species, 1st Edition [Emphasis added]
If you can deny that as a paramount salute to death for the advancement of man, then you're beyond me.

More smoking-gun evidence of his racial prejudices against the blacks was made apparent in his The Descent of Man,
"At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes...will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla."

--The Descent of Man, 1874; p. 178
A couple of pages later he practically laid down the justification for killing aboriginees:
"Their mental characteristics are likewise very distinct; chiefly as it would appear in their emotional, but partly in their intellectual faculties. Everyone who has had the opportunity of comparison must have been struck with the contrast between the taciturn, even morose, aborigines of S. America and the light-hearted, talkative negroes."
Thomas Huxley, who greatly followed Darwin, showed no mercy in his words:
"No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average Negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man. And if this be true, it is simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed, and our prognathus relative has a fair field and no favour, as well as no oppressor, he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried out on by thoughts and not by bites."

--Lay Sermons, Addresses and Reviews, 1871; p. 20
Of course, Huxley never expected there to ever be a "level playing field." This was simply an imaginary hypothetical situation. He knew full well of the cultures outside the "civilized world," and thus left it at "words" rather than actions or "bites." So when you tell me that "their words were used out of context," that they "didn't really intend for any of these things to happen", think again.