Question on the bible

[Estrella]

like, Hi. I've never really studied the bible in depth, but how do you account for the differences in how the bible says thing were created, and what science has found. There is a huge difference in one week and 4 billion years. Just curious.

Gracias. ( thank you)

[Jesse]

I suggest you PM me and we can talk about this in-depth and in private. :)

[Idril]

Well, I'm a lapsed catholic, but the nuns at the convent school I attended told us the Book of Genesis wasn't actually what happen, it was just a 'story' and not to be taken literally. Thinking about it, I don't think they ever did explain 'the beginning' to us. I had an uncle with an Ma in meta-physics, who explained God away to me instead.:)

[Eriol]

This question needs either a dismissal or a thousand-word answer. I will give you a pointer to the thousand-word answer: Study Tolkien's writings about the nature of myth and its relationship with history. Genesis is a myth -- a very powerful myth, encompassing some very important truths about mankind. But we should not look for historical accuracy in it.

Tolkien is probably one of the best authors to expound in this strange and beautiful things -- myths.

[Estrella]

Lol, Idril, love the picture! i didn't know you could get an MA in Metaphysics... I really should study the bible more, but the eastern religions are soo much more interesting. And Eriol, i guess your right. My question is not exactly multiple choice. I may also study Lewis's work a bit more. Thank ya both!

[BranMuffin]

I don't mean to get into an argument but, everyone seems to have mixed views about this(even fellow Christians). According to the Bible the earth was created about 6000 years ago, since there is a chronological listing of geneaologies this can be traced back to the day Adam was born and according to the Bible the whole universe was created in the five days prior to that. If you don't believe in the Bible or who Jesus Christ is, then you probably would doubt when the earth was made and take what you were taught in school to be the truth.

The truth is, the text books are WRONG!!! The "theory" of evolution has been proven wrong many times, but so that the scientists for the past century and a half don't look stupid they still teach it in schools as fact, but it still is only a theory(proven wrong though).

I don't know all the answers and i don't claim to. If you really want to know what lies you have been told check out this website www.drdino.com

If you have any questions for me feel free to PM me, I'll be more than happy to discuss with you these topics and more to the best of my ability.

[Eriol]

Hi there BranMuffin, there is a thread of mine in the Guild of Politics discussing Darwinian Evolution. I hope to hear your arguments there.

Suffice to say, I am a Darwinist ;)

[Aerin]

As one of the leaders of this guild, I'm going to have to step in and say something official. This will apply for all discussions in the Time Lords.

Let's refrain from stating personal beliefs as "truth". One man's truth is another's myth. So, with that in mind, let's keep from getting into "my truth's more truthful than yours", ok? :)

[Estrella]

Ok... Branmuffin, (1) you have a point with the texts books, they can be misleading, and leave out key points, but they're based on many other documents, so they can stand on somewhat firm ground. and The chronoliges are just as questionable as text books. These people probably existed, but as to their nature of existence, that's up to debate. and The Evolution. Please show me your evidence, give examples. I cite the Golapagos as an example that evolution is true, seeing as a new sub-species of lizard is evolving right now. Plus the fact that the elephants of today would still be giant if your idea was correct. Eriol I might step in too. - puts on her boxing gloves and mouth piece :p ) and Aerin, that is a good idea, just sometimes people find it difficult to seperate emotions and logic, so there must be some give.

[Aerin]

I realize many people find it extremely difficult to differentiate between their emotions and logic, but I'd rather have people making an honest effort and not quite doing it than people not trying at all. :)

[Estrella]

your right. by the way, i love the picture, is it your cat?

[Dr. Ransom]

Like Eriol claims, this topic is either dismissal or 1000 word answer. Unlike Eriol, I am not a darwinist.

Three men have influenced the 20th century more than anybody: Frued, Marx, and Darwin.

The first two have met the block, and Darwin is on the way.

Genesis is accurate, but as it would be illogical to believe this and Darwinism, it is a imparative that it not be believed if Darwinists are to be taken seriously. The evidence otherwise, that Genesis is a myth is limited, subjective, and weak (the subjective part is obviously how very bright people disagree on this issue).

As more objective science (not creationism per se, but intelligent design) is brought to bare on the topic, the blind unscientific faith required to claim darwinism is "true" science is significant.

I personally don't believe that Evolutionism vs. Creationism is in the realm of defined science so I get mad when either side claims that it has been "proven", which is by nature impossible.

I personally think it is far more logical to believe in a devine creator than the 1 X 10 to the zilliths power that darwinian evolution happend. It takes faith to believe either side. And creation logically needs a creator. Since Tolkien himself was invoked, I'll do that same in one sentence: He agrees with me.
:-p

Also realize the difference in "evolution" per se. Obviously micro evolution happens. But as any good genetisist or breeder knows, it is impossible to created an entire new species. You may only modify what is already there. Natural selection prevents mutations, and this hinders almost any evolution at all. (which unlike X-Men, is a very GOOD thing for humans and animals :))

But like Eriol is accurate in saying, this topic is huge.

[Idril]

Originally posted by Estrella
Lol, Idril, love the picture! i didn't know you could get an MA in Metaphysics...

It was a BSc in Metaphysics and a MSc in GeoPhys.

[Estrella]

Ransom,
It is interesting that you bring thsi issue. Einstien himself said that the more he studied the universe, the more he beleived in a higher being controling the nobs and switches. ( not a direct quote) However,it is not neccessarily true that something must be created by a creator. A very good and abundant example is the atom itself, of which everything if created. The atom has always existed, and as far as we can tell, always will. It cannot be destroyed. So logically this leads one to conclude that if something cannot be destroyed, then it cannot have been created, as the two go hand in hand. It is an extremely hard concept to accept that something can just have always existed, and there's no beginning or no end. I still don't completely understand it myself, and wonder if i ever will.

[Dr. Ransom]

The Atom cannont be created or distroyed without external intervention. Intelligent design gives that external intervention.

I agree with you about the subject as well. It is difficult for finite beings to think of anything as eternal, be it God or matter.

[Estrella]

touche, Senor Ransom. I suppose Eroil and yourself are right, i should just let it go on here. I beleive i have found my summer project, and see mass amounts of research in my near future, but willingly taken on, of course.
Who know's ransom, you may be the next darwin with your "intelligent design theory". Then a bunch of people will be picking your work apart.......

[Dr. Ransom]

Some Great books:

Carl Sagon was famous for his support of total naturalism.

Anything at all by Philip Johnson is excellant. I especially like that his work focuses on science very little, but how culture uses and spreads theories either for good or bad.

I would stay away from a creationist named Peterson (I forget his first name.) All his stuff makes rash scientific claims that hardly anybody believes at all.... psudoscience (though I do believe he means well, as his work is on a younger age group level, but this is no excuse for bad research.)


Who know's ransom, you may be the next darwin with your "intelligent design theory". Then a bunch of people will be picking your work apart.......

:D I wish I had that honor, but keep in mind that intelligant design is far older than darwinism and (I believe) will last far longer. And we have all the greats on our side like Newton, Gallilao, Kepler, Einstien, and about a 100 more who I never remember...

BTW, unlike how my username implies. I am not a scientists...yet. Just a runny nose 18 year old punk. But I do enjoy science and seek critical thinking as a lifestyle. About another 300 years of college and I might make it :cool:

Eriol is obviously is a smart cookie himself... which is why he'll be on my side someday :D

I don't think you should close this topic, but just remember that Rome wasn't burned in a day like "Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy" reminds us. Awesome book BTW.... Where's Wonko?

[Estrella]

- does her Yaymythreadisonthesecondpage dance-

It doesn't matter who first started a theory, trend, whatever, it's just who brings it to the world's attention that becomes famous.
I've just left behind the daycare center called Highschool and feel the freedom to do real learning already.... makes you feel giddy.

Anyway, thanks for the book list, i shall ruin my eyesight even more this summer.... Maybe i might just get permanent eyestrain this time. ;)

Oh P.S. i'm gonna be queen of the world someday - goes evil movie villian mode- so Step aside! Muhahahahahahahaha!

[Eriol]

Dr. Ransom, I hope you have taken a look at the thread about Darwinian evolution... the creation of the Universe and matter itself are completely outside it. (Darwin would be rolling at his grave if he heard what his defenders claim about his theory -- even if he was an agnostic and an unbeliever, he was a very honest man about the limits and failings, yes, failings, in his theory).

Darwinism addresses the modification of living creatures through time. It has no more to do with the Universe than any other non-physics theory, like plate tectonics (in honor of Snaga ;) ). Indeed it doesn't even address the origin of life itself, taking the organisms for granted (just as plate tectonics takes the Earth for granted and does not inquire on the origin of the Solar System).

I've read two books by Philip Johnson. He is very persuasive, and I also recommend his books. However, he makes one common and persistent mistake -- he attacks the problem of proving or disproving a theory from the point of view of a lawyer, and requires "reasonable proof". Science does not work like that. It is more like Sherlock Holmes' "if you dismiss the impossible, what remains, no matter how improbable, is the truth". Science can't pass a verdict of "undecided", which is what he is arguing for, so that he can advocate IntDes.

He also lacks some knowledge about biology, or pretends he lacks it, when developing his arguments. The issue of 'intermediate forms' is a common example brought up, and it is... pitiful to see an educated man declaring that there are no intermediate forms in the fossil record. Really appalling.

Intelligent Design as applied to the origin of the Universe is, of course, Theism itself. I am a Christian, so I have no beef with Intelligent Design as such. It is only when Intelligent Designers claim that they have 'disproven' Darwinism, or that 'there is no way' that Darwinism is right, that they step over their bounds.

All of this is, of course, quite unrelated to the Book of Genesis. Dr. Ransom, I am currently reading (very slowly) the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas. I assure you that the status of the Book of Genesis as myth is quite acceptable by the Church (I mean Catholics). It was written by Moses with a specific audience, ancient hebrews. There is no falsehood in there, the truths are merely clothed in poetic language. As when the Greeks described the cycle of winter and summer with the myth of Persephone. To take it at face value is to misunderstand the consciousness of the ancient hebrews, the nature of myth, and the Bible itself.

I deeply resent (:D) comparison between Marx and Freud and Darwin. Of course, this was a comparison never made by people who understood any of their theories. They are completely unrelated, and I don't mean in their origin, I mean in their structure. Marx and Freud built on fallacies that any junior member on Aristotle's Lycaeum could have pointed out, while Darwin didn't. The philosophical premises of Darwin are not those of present-day 'extreme darwinists'. Gradualism, methodological materialism (NOTE, not ontological materialism), empiricism, are all respectable principles -- paralogism (the belief that there are two kinds of logic) is not. Paralogism is intrinsic to both Freud and Marx. Borgeoisie (I'm sure that's wrong spelling!) logic is intrinsically different from proletarian logic... give me a break!

It is quite likely that I will sometime be on your side Dr. Ransom... those books I've read on IntDes have shown some interesting 'tests' for the impossibility (scientifically speaking) of Darwinism. It can happen any day. While it doesn't, though, I will remain with "what remains, however improbable", as Sherlock Holmes would.

[Elendil3119]

Originally posted by Eriol
All of this is, of course, quite unrelated to the Book of Genesis. Dr. Ransom, I am currently reading (very slowly) the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas. I assure you that the status of the Book of Genesis as myth is quite acceptable by the Church (I mean Catholics). It was written by Moses with a specific audience, ancient hebrews. There is no falsehood in there, the truths are merely clothed in poetic language. As when the Greeks described the cycle of winter and summer with the myth of Persephone. To take it at face value is to misunderstand the consciousness of the ancient hebrews, the nature of myth, and the Bible itself.
If you take the book of Genesis as myth, how do you determine what in the Bible is NOT myth? You say that there is no falsehood in Gensis, but the TRUTH is clothed in poetry. What exactly do you mean? The Hebrews were not "cave-men"; they were capable of understanding such a theory as Darwinism, if it is in fact the truth (which I believe it is not;)). Why would God have had Moses make up an "easy to understand" story for Creation if it was not the truth? Genesis clearly says that the major species were created at the beginning by God. This does not deny the possibility of microevolution, but it does deny the possibility of macroevolution.

[Eriol]

"a different consciousness" does not mean cavemen. It means just that, a different consciousness. I'm sure they would have understood Darwinism, whether it is correct or not.

To say that they had a different consciousness is just to point out that many concepts that we take for granted, they didn't. One example is in Thorin's discussion about Hell, when he claims that the hebrews had a holistic concept of man. This does not mean they would not understand the concept of an immaterial soul, subsistent and immortal, only that they did not have this concept in their minds. So talking about their views on the soul as if they had reviewed the evidence for a subsistent soul and found it wanting is faulty reasoning -- they never considered the question. Thorin did, and he believes, as a result of his study, that there is no immortal soul. But the hebrews didn't do that.

The Genesis is not an 'easy to understand' story... or we wouldn't be arguing about it ;). But it was written for a people which had just recently come out of idolatry (and was about to relapse). When I say they had a different consciousness I'm just pointing out that they did not have the concepts we use when thinking about Genesis in their mind -- most especially, concepts related to the essence of God.

[Estrella]

There's a book you should read, and maybe you have. It's called How the world can be the way it is, by Steve Hagen. It's a bit of an advanced read, not exactly daily newspaper, and you may have to go over some things twice. It's not really about genesis, Darwinism, or any specific theory.
The sentence under the title says " An inquiry for th New millennium into science, Philosphy, and perception." It's very interesting, even if it never made the best seller list. ( i got it on the bargian book table, highly undervalued :( )

[Elendil3119]

Originally posted by Eriol
"a different consciousness" does not mean cavemen. It means just that, a different consciousness. I'm sure they would have understood Darwinism, whether it is correct or not.

To say that they had a different consciousness is just to point out that many concepts that we take for granted, they didn't. One example is in Thorin's discussion about Hell, when he claims that the hebrews had a holistic concept of man. This does not mean they would not understand the concept of an immaterial soul, subsistent and immortal, only that they did not have this concept in their minds. So talking about their views on the soul as if they had reviewed the evidence for a subsistent soul and found it wanting is faulty reasoning -- they never considered the question. Thorin did, and he believes, as a result of his study, that there is no immortal soul. But the hebrews didn't do that.
What concepts did the Hebrews not understand that would have made them unable to fathom the true story of creation, which you say is shrouded in myth?
]Originally posted by Eriol
The Genesis is not an 'easy to understand' story... or we wouldn't be arguing about it ;). But it was written for a people which had just recently come out of idolatry (and was about to relapse). When I say they had a different consciousness I'm just pointing out that they did not have the concepts we use when thinking about Genesis in their mind -- most especially, concepts related to the essence of God.
On the contrary, the Genesis is easy to understand if you take it at face value, the way the Bible presents it. God does't lie. You seem to be saying that God had Moses write a *false* story just so the Hebrews could "understand". Precisely what concepts related to the essence of God do you think point more to a Darwinistic view of "creation"? (Sorry if I'm misunderstanding you here...:)) By the way, you didn't answer one of my questions above, so I'll repeat it ;) : "If you take the book of Genesis as myth, how do you determine what in the Bible is NOT myth?"

[Eriol]

Your question assumes that myth is not truth, Elendil. Again it comes back to what is a myth, and again Tolkien is very enlightening. All in the Bible is true. Every miracle recorded there. And the Genesis is also true. But it is God's wording of what he did, and not a eyewitness account.

As for the 'simplicity' of the Genesis, well, I have the Summa Theologica right here with me. St. Thomas devotes nine questions (QQ. 65 to 74) to Genesis, in what he names "The Treatise on the Work of the Seven Days". This is the introduction:

From the consideration of spiritual creatures we proceed to that of corporeal creatures, in the production of which, as Holy Scripture makes mention, three works are found, namely, the work of creation, as given in the words, In the beginning God created heaven and earth; the work of distinction as given in the words, He divided the light from the darkness, and the waters that are above the firmament from the waters that are under the firmament; and the work of adornment, expressed thus, Let there be lights in the firmament.

First, then, we must consider the work of creation; secondly, the work of distinction; and thirdly, the work of adornment. Under the first head there are four points of inquiry: (1) Whether corporeal creatures are from God? (2) Whether they were created on account of God's goodness? (3) Whether they were created by God through the medium of the angels? (4) Whether the forms of bodies are from the angels or immediately from God.

Note that this is the INTRODUCTION to the Treatise on the work of the seven days. Note also that from those "simple" sentences in italics a LOT of concepts and questions may be asked. No, Genesis is not simple at all.

(Question 3 is quite interesting, isn't it? It could be rephrased "whether the Valar took any part in the creation of the world").

I am typing fast today, so I will give you the other 8 questions and their respective articles.

Question 66: On the Order of Creation Towards Distinction
(1) Whether formlessness of created matter preceded time in its formation?
(2) Whether the matter of all corporeal things is the same?
(3) Whether the empyrean heaven was created contemporaneously with formless matter?
(4) Whether time was created simultaneously with it?

Question 67: On the Work of Distinction in Itself.
(1) Whether the word "light" is used in its proper sense in speaking of spiritual things?
(2) Whether light, in corporeal things, is itself corporeal?
(3) Whether light is a quality?
(4) Whether light was fittingly made on the first day?

Question 68: On the Word of the Second Day.
(1) Whether the firmament was made on the second day?
(2) Whether there are waters above the firmament?
(3) Whether the firmament divides waters from waters?
(4) Whether there is more than one heaven?

Question 69: On the Work of the Third Day.
(1) About the gathering together of the waters.
(2) About the production of plants.

Question 70: Of the Work of Adornment, as Regards the Fourth Day.
(1) As to the production of the lights;
(2) As to the end of their production;
(3) Whether they are living beings?

Question 71: On the Work of the Fifth Day (in one article)

Question 72: On the Work of the Sixth Day (in one article)

Question 73: On the Things that Belong to the Seventh Day.
(1) About the completion of the works;
(2) About the resting of God;
(3) About the blessing and sanctifying of this day.

Question 74: On All the Seven Days in Common
(1) As to the sufficiency of these days;
(2) Whether they are all one day, or more than one?
(3) As to certain modes of speaking which Scripture uses in narrating the works of the six days.


The point of all this typing is to show that the Genesis is quite complex and liable to study from many different directions. Just because it is a short book (at least as regards creation, I'm not talking about the Flood, Abraham, etc.), doesn't mean that it is simple. When we simply attach our modern concepts to the words used (such as "light", and "heaven"), we are doing a disservice to the richness of the text... and of the Author. We should try to understand it as it was understood by the ancient hebrews, with their own concepts. To say that "Genesis does not allow Macroevolution" is very strange. God created the living beings -- what would prevent Him from doing so through macroevolution? We could get into a very complex discussion of Genesis here, the 1000 word answer to Estrella's original question.

[Estrella]

- Sees a hamster wheel being set up- This has already gotten farther and more indepth then i thought it would. and frankly right now i'm too fried Mentally, emotionally, and nervously to put together a semi-decent arguement, so i'll just let you guys duke it out. Just try not to destroy this too much while i take a little much needed stupidity break from anything requiring more than a second of thought.
Cheers
P.S. call me Starr if you want, or Estrella will work fine as well.

[Elendil3119]

Originally posted by Eriol
Your question assumes that myth is not truth, Elendil. Again it comes back to what is a myth, and again Tolkien is very enlightening. All in the Bible is true. Every miracle recorded there. And the Genesis is also true. But it is God's wording of what he did, and not a eyewitness account.
What in God's wording of His actions is ambiguous? I believe that the Genesis can only properly be interpreted in one way, that the Universe was created in seven literal days by God.

Originally posted by Eriol
As for the 'simplicity' of the Genesis, well, I have the Summa Theologica right here with me. St. Thomas devotes nine questions (QQ. 65 to 74) to Genesis, in what he names "The Treatise on the Work of the Seven Days". This is the introduction:



Note that this is the INTRODUCTION to the Treatise on the work of the seven days. Note also that from those "simple" sentences in italics a LOT of concepts and questions may be asked. No, Genesis is not simple at all.

(Question 3 is quite interesting, isn't it? It could be rephrased "whether the Valar took any part in the creation of the world").

I am typing fast today, so I will give you the other 8 questions and their respective articles.

Question 66: On the Order of Creation Towards Distinction
(1) Whether formlessness of created matter preceded time in its formation?
(2) Whether the matter of all corporeal things is the same?
(3) Whether the empyrean heaven was created contemporaneously with formless matter?
(4) Whether time was created simultaneously with it?

Question 67: On the Work of Distinction in Itself.
(1) Whether the word "light" is used in its proper sense in speaking of spiritual things?
(2) Whether light, in corporeal things, is itself corporeal?
(3) Whether light is a quality?
(4) Whether light was fittingly made on the first day?

Question 68: On the Word of the Second Day.
(1) Whether the firmament was made on the second day?
(2) Whether there are waters above the firmament?
(3) Whether the firmament divides waters from waters?
(4) Whether there is more than one heaven?

Question 69: On the Work of the Third Day.
(1) About the gathering together of the waters.
(2) About the production of plants.

Question 70: Of the Work of Adornment, as Regards the Fourth Day.
(1) As to the production of the lights;
(2) As to the end of their production;
(3) Whether they are living beings?

Question 71: On the Work of the Fifth Day (in one article)

Question 72: On the Work of the Sixth Day (in one article)

Question 73: On the Things that Belong to the Seventh Day.
(1) About the completion of the works;
(2) About the resting of God;
(3) About the blessing and sanctifying of this day.

Question 74: On All the Seven Days in Common
(1) As to the sufficiency of these days;
(2) Whether they are all one day, or more than one?
(3) As to certain modes of speaking which Scripture uses in narrating the works of the six days.

Ok, ok, I concede that point...the Genesis is not a simple matter. However, I hope you would agree that the basic concept of Creation is not so complex.

To say that "Genesis does not allow Macroevolution" is very strange. God created the living beings -- what would prevent Him from doing so through macroevolution? We could get into a very complex discussion of Genesis here, the 1000 word answer to Estrella's original question.
I think that it all really comes down to the interpretation of the word "day". You interpret "day" to mean a long dispensation, right? I hold to the view that "day" means a literal 24-hour day. If you interpret "day" to mean a literal 24-hour day, macroevolution is not possible.
Genesis 1:25 God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.
Here the Bible says that God created "everything that creeps on the ground...". According to Darwin's theory of macroevolution, it isn't possible for an ape to evolve into a man in a period of 7 literal 24-hour days. ;) Besides, God created all creatures; not just a few that evolved into the species we have nowadays. Again, I think the whole issue really revolves around the interpretation of the word "day".

[Eriol]

That really reminds me of that movie "Inherit the Wind". Remember that the Sun had not been created in the first three days. Talk about the duration of the days before the Sun was created is therefore "hazy". Of course it depends on what we understand by the word "day". And here we touch a sensitive point in the matter of "ancient hebrews consciousness". How would Moses describe a billion years? They didn't have this word, "billion". Remember that "seventy times seven" answer that Jesus gave to Peter? Jesus was not saying 490 times, he was saying "uncounted times". Likewise, one Moses said a day he was clearly saying a "God's day" (there are allusions, I think in Job, about how a day for God is a lot of time for us).

I'm out of my depth here... I would need a better grounding on the Bible to establish this. But my point is that it is open to question whether a day meant 24-hours in that account, merely because the Sun had not been created yet.

[Dr. Ransom]

This really isn't the point anyway. Because for theistic evolutionists, the main idea is to find a closed system where God can still exist. Unfortunenly for them, the rest of the Bible shows a God who intervences in Space and Time to acomplish his will, therefore by simple logic the literal 7 day view fits best if you believe the universe is an open system, which Elendil and I both hold too.

(I am very short on time right now... it's 3:00 am :D)

Furthermore, your comment about an "educated" man saying: pitiful to see an educated man declaring that there are no intermediate forms in the fossil record. Really appalling.

Actually... I have found that the fossil record is special creation's strongest argument, and the elite evolutionists of our day agree with me. I'll find the quotes from them if you'd like, I don't have them right now. But basically, the top evolutionairy geologist of our day said (my paraphrase) "to purely look at the fossil record... it seems much more in line with special creation." Basically, I'm not sure what to say here Eriol, because this point has been well established since about the 50's. No true "intermediate forms" have yet been found. Every single example has huge problems with it, that are well noticed by all sides: The horses skipping ribs, and the "fish who first walked out onto dry land" being found off of the coast of Austrailia today, being thought extinct for so long because they're a deep sea fish of all things... (lol, so ironic.) Plus the fact that several species have been discovered in which an "intermediate form" is impossible, such as the bat, the bombadier beatle and many more. Anyway, there are some decent arguments for macro evolution, but the fossil record is concidered to be the worst.


Dr. Ransom, I hope you have taken a look at the thread about Darwinian evolution... the creation of the Universe and matter itself are completely outside it. (Darwin would be rolling at his grave if he heard what his defenders claim about his theory -- even if he was an agnostic and an unbeliever, he was a very honest man about the limits and failings, yes, failings, in his theory).

I completely understand this fact, if I implied otherwise I was just stereotyping. But in modern science, a closed universe is concidered to go hand in hand with Darwinism. Darwin didn't go that far (as far as I know) but is successors have.

(BTW, you're posts have been of great quality. And just because I love to debate w/ you, don't think that I have anything against you or anything. Generally, the people I take the time to refute are the ones I greatly respect. Which in your case is true.)

[Eriol]

Thanks, Dr. Ransom! I guess we must be taking the expression 'intermediate forms' to mean something different. To me it is simply a fossil with features that are 'intermediate' between two known groups that can be seen today. Now don't tell me you haven't heard of fossils with those characteristics!

I suppose you are taking the expression to mean a detailed sequence of fossils showing the transition from any one species to the other. In that we are less rich... but we still have a lot.

Let me name a few just off the top of my head, with no internet research:

(a) Archaeopteryx. Surely the best known intermediate form. A reptile/bird with feathers, a beak, quite probably homeothermal (avian features), teeth on the beak, a body covered with scales (reptile features).

(b) Not as well known as (a), but more impressive to me, is the reptile/mammal transition as shown in the ear bones. Reptiles have 4 bones in their jaws, (actually 8 but we look at it from only one side), while mammals have one. We have a series (note, a series) of fossils going from the reptile condition to the mammal condition, in which the 'missing bones' are shown "travelling" to the inner ear as evolution worked. They are now the three ossicles of our ear. (This fits your definition of transitional forms as well).

(c) Why is a transitional form of the bat "impossible"? This is one of the most common examples of transitional forms -- living beings. We are drifting apart from the fossil record take here, but we have flying squirrels, and also a whole order of gliding mammals in Southeast Asia (I forgot the name of the order, something beginning with a D -- they look like flying squirrels but are better gliders).

(d) The fish/land animal transition. Well, we have fishes walking on land in South America too (as well as Africa)... what is this example supposed to show except the ignorance of earlier biologists? I also did not understand the allusion to the coelacanth as ironic... does it mean that if some later alien biologist classified mammals as land-based and suddenly found a whale he would be completely wrong? Nobody said that that particular species found in the deep sea was the ancestor of land based forms. We have fossils forms like the coelacanth (with fleshy fins) that lived off coasts and shallow seas.

(e) While we are on the subject of 'living fossils', the Monotremata (ornitorrhyncs and equidna -- those funny egg-laying mammals from Australia) are quite interesting.

(f) SPECULATION: I'm not sure about this, but I think we have a good transition of land-based mammals to Cetacea (whales and dolphins), showing how those funny leg bones that are found 'hanging in the air' in present day whales went there. (There are three bones (I think it is three) found in the rear end of whales, completely disconnected to the skeleton, that are analogues to our femur and other leg bones, I don't remember their names).

(g) Closer to home, what about the Australopithecines? Ape brains and teeth, human hip and bipedal mode of locomotion. Surely a 'transitional form'.

I think it is the creationist's burden of proof to explain the abundance of intermediate forms without invoking the "God wanted to trick us" argument.

Finding a closed system is not the goal of theistic evolutionists, it is the goal of anyone studying nature. St. Augustine said that we have to study the things of nature according to their intrinsic characteristics, and only later we should study God's intervention. This is the rule of thumb of natural philosphy, Science's ancestor. What you are calling a closed system is simply the concept of "laws of nature", what could be termed (and was termed, by Leibniz) a "habit of God". Sure God can revoke gravity tomorrow, but he doesn't. So we can assume it is part of a closed system.

I don't think "simple logic" fits in with the 7-literal days creation... what is your refutation to those comments I made above about the word "day", and the fact that the Sun was created on the fourth day?

In any way, to get back to 'intemediate forms', I don't understand when you said that transitional forms are 'impossible'. Do we know all that there is to know? Can you say that a transitional form of any given animal is 'impossible'? This is the argument from ignorance (no offense, it is just the name of this form of argument), from absence of evidence. Just because we have not found a form does not mean it doesn't exist, much less that it is impossible. I'm sure Darwin knew about both bats and the bombardier beetle, so to say 'species have been discovered' is weird.

The argument from ignorance was used against Darwin in his lifetime, focusing especially on the eye and the wings. Later discoveries found the 'impossible transitional forms' for both, in the case of the eye in living, functional beings! So much for 'impossible transitional forms'. It is the same argument that Michael Behe employs against Darwinism today, and it is weak for the same reason -- it stems from absence of evidence, and therefore it has no logical strength. To say that we "don't know" how the bacterial flagellum evolved (Behe's contention) is not the same to say that it is impossible to evolve such an structure -- this is the leap of logic done.

And, just to state it once again (I know you understood it ;) ), even if it was discovered that a seminal living being did not evolve from chemical molecules but was directly created by God, complete with bacterial flagella, cell membranes, etc. etc., it would not disprove Darwinism, only bring it back to its original field of work -- the modifications in living beings. The same thing happened with Newton's theory and we did not disregard it. If we have to limit Darwinism's application to the field of biology (as opposed to the origin of life, and much less of the Universe!), so much the better.

[Jesse]

Dear Estralla,
There is this thing called Faith. I don't believe in the book of Genesis at all. However, I believe in the rest of the Holy Bible (New Living Translation). See, the thing with Evolution is...is that there are so many facts backing the theory up, one can't help but not believe it. I believe in Micro-Evolution. That means I believe God made Evolution happen. I believe we DID evolve from Apes. Look at an Ape's behavior towards food, then look at a human's behavior toward's food. See my point? They are the SAME. Good hunting!

[Estrella]

ahh faith, another one of my favorite perplexities. Lol.. i guess all lifeforms like food. I have yet to meet one that doesn't. Thank you, but i'm not really sure what it is i'm hunting for yet...

[Dr. Ransom]

Dear Estralla,
There is this thing called Faith. I don't believe in the book of Genesis at all. However, I believe in the rest of the Holy Bible (New Living Translation). See, the thing with Evolution is...is that there are so many facts backing the theory up, one can't help but not believe it. I believe in Micro-Evolution. That means I believe God made Evolution happen. I believe we DID evolve from Apes. Look at an Ape's behavior towards food, then look at a human's behavior toward's food. See my point? They are the SAME. Good hunting!

No offence Jesse, but you don't know what you're talking about. Micro-Evolution is evolution within genetic bounderies, like finches beaks or all the amazing breeds of dogs we have. Macro-Evolution is the evolution from one species to another, like apes to humans. Theistic-Evolution is the belief in a "God-guided" evolution, which is what Eriol, Elendil and I are debating.


As to you Eriol, you'll have to wait a bit to get a reply. When I get into the biology I'm in trouble every time I debate with you, and this time I did it to myself. *lol* I would really enjoy meeting you on MSN though. I've already added you, so I'll see you on sometime.

I do think that the burden of proof lies on the evolutionists though as far as intermediate forms. Also it's impossible to prove that intermediate forms dont' exist, only that every example cited is a bad one. And I honestly believe that no true species to species forms have been found. Everything just ends up being a new species in itself with destinct features. Don't get me wrong, I think that a french poodle can become a great dain through evolution. But a great dain will never because a cat. (metophorical example obviously)

Thanks-

Ransom

[Eriol]

You are addressing the topic of speciation, Dr. Ransom. The 'genetic boundaries' of which you speak are simply interbreeding barriers, preventing the traits from being 'diluted' on a population.

It is hard to use the biological definition of species on the study of fossils, for we can't breed fossils. But remember that according to that definition, which you probably heard at college, 'two organisms belong to the same species if they can interbreed and produce fertile offspring'. There is nothing about morphology. We can't have two very similar organisms belonging to different species, or two very dissimilar organisms belonging to the same species. For instance, a later-day paleontologist would classify the Great Dane and the Beagle as two different species, since he would have no access to interbreeding data, only bones. That's the hardships of paleontology.

But speciation is the prerequisite for evolution. Without speciation the traits are diluted. Therefore, at every stage of a "species to species series", a new species emerge. There are no "interspecies", both theoretically and due to the constraints of paleontology -- we can't interbreed fossils, remember. And so your demand for 'intermediate species' is impossible. Each species ever studied, both in the fossil record and living, is a "new species in itself with different features" -- even if only the interbreeding barrier!

(Please, don't make me refer to my old notes about speciation... I'd have to find them first! :eek: But I remember among my examples some Californian wild rodents who are completely alike in appearance, but form 6 different species due to chromosomal differences).

And this is why the goal in paleontology is not to find a "species to species" series, but a "trait to trait" series. We can study a trait over many species, and see what happened to it. The jaw bones of reptiles turning into the ear ossicles of mammals is a good example. Each fossil in this series belongs to "a new species in itself with distinct features", as you put it. But the series is there nonetheless. You see one bone being dislocated from jaw to ear, and then another... it is quite impressive to look at these fossils, I suggest you search for them. They should not be so hard to find.

Archaeopteryx, of course, was "a new species in itself with distinct features". And so on.

The point is -- we have fossils with intermediate features between traits found in modern animals (each and every one of them "a new species in itself, with distinctive features"). All of them are "intermediate forms". This was known for decades before Darwin, and this is why I am appalled when people deny it. I really think we have a different definition of "intermediate forms", and you are looking for a cow with a whale tail ;). Intermediate forms are not chymaeras.

In technical terminology, you are looking for intermediate forms between derived characters, while the trick is to look for intermediate forms between a primitive character and its derived form. In English: The ancestor of a cow did not have a whale tail, so it can’t have a whale tail unless it develops it under Evolution. The ancestor is not forced to have ALL traits found in his descendants, since there is mutation to create variation.

The species do not change "laterally", so to speak -- cows and whales shared a common ancestor who was completely unlike them, and both lineages changed over million years until they reached their modern forms.

This last sentence, of course, assumes Evolution (not Darwinism -- there is a difference) is correct. But there remains the burden of proof of the creationists. We HAVE these intermediate forms, Dr. Ransom, from a small mammal to cows, and from a small mammal to whales. How do you explain them? It is either Evolution or God Tricked Us.

To examine Darwinism -- the mechanism of Evolution -- would be another question. Frankly, I think Evolution -- the change of populations over time -- is as well proved as any other scientific theory, including atoms, gravity, etc. etc. And I can't really get the resistance found among believers. I see nothing in Genesis that denies it, I see no reason why one could not believe that this was God's instrument, as are gravity and atoms.

I'm sure though that you will give me some tough challenges in your next post :D.

[Estrella]

- raises hand- ohh ohh me me! ;)
Ok, I've got a quick question. How is it then that when a virus mutates as it becomes immune to a certain medicine, it's not considered a completely different virus, but rather a subspecies of the same virus? I realize that techinically, a virus isin't exactly considered life, but the process of mutation for the virus is pretty much the same as evolution.

[Eriol]

A quick answer, then ;).

The biological definition of species applies to the vast majority of life forms, but not all. A special difficulty is presented by asexual organisms, for they do not "breed" and therefore can not "interbreed" at all. The point you raise is valid not only for viruses, but for bacteria and some protozoans as well.

This is a pitiful answer, but that's how it is :(. We don't have a "natural" definition of species encompassing, for instance, bacteria, much less viruses. Most bacterial taxonomies are based on (a) morphology and (b) biochemistry. The first criterion is laughable, the same bacteria can change shape from coccus (a small sphere) to bacillus (a small "sausage") depending on environmental conditions. The second criterion is more dependable -- it works like this: We take a strain of bacteria and test whether it can metabolize (use as food) a given compound, for instance, alcohol (ethanol). If it can, then it is genetically different from a similar strain that can't do that. This is not based on morphology, but is still weak, for bacteria trade genes without sex and so a strain can "inherit" the ethanol-metabolism trait from another strain without ever breeding with it!

Microbiology is very complicated.

The easy way out is to say that we don't have a good standard to define species in asexual microorganisms. Without this standard it becomes guesswork. Some researchers are using genomic distance to estimate that. (As in, strain A is 99,9% similar to Strain B, so they belong to the same species. However, they are both only 99,4% similar to Strain C, so Strain C is a different species).

Of course this approach is guesswork. Luckily we don't have to rely on that when discussing Evolution and speciation of higher animals, the good Lord invented sex and made our task easier.

;)

[Estrella]

lol... i'm glad i didn't take Biology past 10th grade. Yes, our task is much easier... but now we're trying to make it harder with cloning. But i could never understand why people thought it had to be one or the other, why there couldn't be any middle ground. It's really rather stupid. What's wrong with dreationism, or Earwinism?

[Thorin]

Well, Eriol seems to have me beat for scientific discussion and I applaud his and Dr. Ransom's posts. I won't even go in that realm.

However, from a biblical apologist/polemicist stance. It is extremely hard pressing to believe in Theistic or Deistic Evolution and believe in the God of the Bible. It is even harder to be both a TE and Christian.

When we are told that the Bible is the inspired word of God and that God worked through the writers (as we are told in the scriptures), we must be willing to accept what is being told to us. (Granted, there are some historical and cultural concepts that we must take into consideration as well) The whole of scripture points to God as the Creator of Heaven and Earth in 7 literal days. John 1 states that this creator was Christ. Paul makes mention of Adam in comparison to Christ as to the difference between life and death (1 Cointhians 15). Sin, salvation, redemption and eternal life are wrapped up in the concept that we were special created beings that fell from grace with God to the point that the only way we could be saved was for Christ to come down and die for sin so that we could be restored back to the image of God.

TE takes away the whole sin concept. If we evolved, then there was no sin to begin with. Sin occured because God created us as free beings who fell away from the perfect standard from which we were developed. If there is no sin, there was no need for a Savior. It seems ridiculous that Christ would come down to save us from something that does not even exist by Evolutionist standards. Jesus died for us to show us how important we were. Why? Because He intimately created us!

To believe in a higher power can jive well with TE and DE. Christianity in its biblical form cannot.

[Eriol]

Originally posted by Thorin

To believe in a higher power can jive well with TE and DE. Christianity in its biblical form cannot.

It seems I am something like an unicorn then, a mythical creature :D.

Sin is a spiritual reality. Evolution addresses the biological nature of man. Man is an animal, and is a spirit. The spiritual part was breathed into man by God. I don't see any contradiction between biological evolution and spiritual reality. How can Evolution dismiss the concept of sin more than, say, geology or astronomy?

I don't believe either in Theistic Evolution or in Deistic Evolution. I believe in Evolution, period. Just as I don't believe in theistic gravity or theistic chemistry. Sure, Jesus walked on water, and changed water to wine, but he did not abolish the laws of gravity or chemistry when he did that. Evolution is simply the laws of change in biological organisms as time passes.

Our spirit was specially created by God, and breathed in man by Him. This spirit is the image of God. I know, we could get into a long discussion of the holistic / composite nature of man here, Thorin, but my point is that you can be a Christian and believe in Evolution, just as you can be a Christian and believe in a fiery Hell. Or would you reserve the title of Christian to only those people who agreed with you?

You have to show me how the basic tenets of Christianism are contradictory with Evolution to sell me that idea.

[Estrella]

Originally posted by Thorin
The whole of scripture points to God as the Creator of Heaven and Earth in 7 literal days. John 1 states that this creator was Christ.

Ok, now i'm confused. This also happened on the Hell Thread. In the Christian bible, i was aware it very is clearly taught that Christ was the son of god, not god himself. The above quote contradicts this teaching, making god and Christ seem one in the same.

[Eriol]

Since Thorin just left I'll field this question, Estrella. This is a very complicated issue for non-Christians and Christians alike. I will post a quote from the Athanasian Creed (a profession of faith, i.e., a list of things in which Christians believe):

Now this is the catholic faith: We worship one God in trinity and the Trinity in unity, neither confusing the persons nor dividing the divine being.

For the Father is one person, the Son is another, and the Spirit is still another.

But the deity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one, equal in glory, coeternal in majesty.

What the Father is, the Son is, and so is the Holy Spirit.

Uncreated is the Father; uncreated is the Son; uncreated is the Spirit.

The Father is infinite; the Son is infinite; the Holy Spirit is infinite.

Eternal is the Father; eternal is the Son; eternal is the Spirit:

And yet there are not three eternal beings, but one who is eternal;

as there are not three uncreated and unlimited beings, but one who is uncreated and unlimited.

Almighty is the Father; almighty is the Son; almighty is the Spirit:

And yet there are not three almighty beings, but one who is almighty.

Thus the Father is God; the Son is God; the Holy Spirit is God:

And yet there are not three gods, but one God.

Thus the Father is Lord; the Son is Lord; the Holy Spirit is Lord:

And yet there are not three lords, but one Lord.

As Christian truth compels us to acknowledge each distinct person as God and Lord, so catholic religion forbids us to say that there are three gods or lords.

The Father was neither made nor created nor begotten;

the Son was neither made nor created, but was alone begotten of the Father;

the Spirit was neither made nor created, but is proceeding from the Father and the Son.

Thus there is one Father, not three fathers; one Son, not three sons; one Holy Spirit, not three spirits.

And in this Trinity, no one is before or after, greater or less than the other;

but all three persons are in themselves, coeternal and coequal; and so we must worship the Trinity in unity and the one God in three persons.

As you see, Christ is the Son of God, and is God; God is the creator, but so is Jesus Christ; and so on.

Now this is a very important truth, but also a very difficult-to-understand truth. I can discuss this with you on PM's for it may become very complicated, and would drift us apart from the main subject of the thread -- Evolution.

Or was it a question on the Bible? hehe...

[Elendil3119]

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.
The Bible teaches that there are three Persons in the Godhead: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The best definition I can give you is the one found in the Westminster Confession of Faith:
III. In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost: the Father is of none, neither begotten, nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.
Scriputure references are as follows:
Matthew 3:16-17 16 After being baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove and lighting on Him, 17 and behold, a voice out of the heavens said, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased."
Matthew 28:19 19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit
2 Corinthians 13:14 14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all.
John 1:14-18 14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. 15 John testified about Him and cried out, saying, "This was He of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.'" 16 For of His fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace. 17 For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
John 15:26 26 "When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me
Galatians 4:6 6 Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, "Abba! Father!"

EDIT: Eriol and I posted at the same time...I like his definition better than mine. However, the scripture references are handy. :)

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Eriol
Sin is a spiritual reality. Evolution addresses the biological nature of man. Man is an animal, and is a spirit. The spiritual part was breathed into man by God.....Our spirit was specially created by God, and breathed in man by Him. This spirit is the image of God. I know, we could get into a long discussion of the holistic / composite nature of man here, Thorin, but my point is that you can be a Christian and believe in Evolution, just as you can be a Christian and believe in a fiery Hell. Or would you reserve the title of Christian to only those people who agreed with you?

You have to show me how the basic tenets of Christianism are contradictory with Evolution to sell me that idea.

How in the world can the spirit be breathed into man when he has evolved from one-celled organisms. The whole concept of God breathing His spirit into man comes from Genesis in God giving the spark of life to an empty shell that He formed. It is an intimate encounter that makes us one with God and God formed us from the ground in His image.

How can sin possibly apply to an evolved being? At what point in time did God hold man responsible for sin, and is it really fair? Where is the concept of a decaying world from sin come into play? Hell? When did God create such a place in the process of evolution and how fair is it to condemn people to such a place when we are nothing more than the product of evolved species? The whole concept of sin and why we need to be saved from it has its place in rebellion in heaven and in disobedience in the Garden of Eden. There is no such thing as sin as we know it if Adam and Eve had not sinned, for it is in there act that we are told in the scriptures that we have fallen. The Bible makes it pretty clear that we also have a fallen nature. How did this happen with evolution?

Paul, Christ, Peter and all the other writers of the scripture tie in the concepts of salvation, sin, and redemption in the whole concept of a personal Creator and personally created beings. I don't know how you can get around that. Is the Bible nothing more than a smorgasbord of what fits the current trend in society? Pitch out this, take out that, but keep this part of it and ignore the rest?

[Eriol]

Thorin, take it easy. Listen to your own words and tell me the contradiction between Evolution and sin, for I have not heard it yet. What does it matter the origin of man's biological nature? Do you think that the descendants of bacteria can not hold a spirit? Well, tell me why. I am listening but you haven't shown this at all.

All of your questions are completely disconnected with man's biological nature. Or do you think we sin because it's in our biological nature?? Is sin related to chromosomes?

No, we sinned because we had free will, and that implies, by itself, freedom from biological nature.

I don't need to get around any of Paul, Peter, or John's writings. They are absolutely correct, as they never address man's biological nature! I really can't see the contradiction, and believe me, a contradiction is something that can't be easily hidden. So please, show me that.

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Eriol
What does it matter the origin of man's biological nature? Do you think that the descendants of bacteria can not hold a spirit? Well, tell me why. I am listening but you haven't shown this at all.Your problem is that the Bible does NOT support any sort of theistic evolution. When the Bible says, "God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life (spirit) and man became a living soul", the use of spirit (which is nothing more than the spark of life) is used in conjunction of special creation, not evolution. Hence, to take the Bible's use of the word "spirit" and apply it to evolution is faulty. Originally posted by Eriol
All of your questions are completely disconnected with man's biological nature. Or do you think we sin because it's in our biological nature?? Is sin related to chromosomes? No, we sinned because we had free will, and that implies, by itself, freedom from biological nature. And I ask you again. At what point does an evolved being choose to sin? When is he held accountable? The Bible's definition of sin is not just about "making a choice". It is a concept directly tied to the idea that God's personal creation at one point went astray (Paul makes it pretty plain in 1st Timothy 2:13,14 and 1 Corinthians 15:21, 22 that it was because of Adam that we are in the sinful mess we are in today. Is he a liar?) and needed a Savior to come and RESTORE him to the image in which He was once created.

If we all evolved, why did God come to save the "human" evolvement? Why not all of creation? Why is man and not the beasts or the bacteria mentioned in the scriptures of being directly saved? Because God PERSONALLY formed man and put in him his image, whereas the rest of creation was spoken into existence.You cannot get away from the fact that the seams of the Bible are woven around these concepts.

And another problem is that we disagree in the relation between spiritual and biological nature. There is no dichotomy between the two in the scriptures.

[Eriol]

er... and the contradiction? Thorin, the Bible does not support airplanes, hydroponics, space travel... you have to show where it says that evolution can't happen. Saying that it is not in the Bible does not mean it is false. Or is the Bible the whole truth in the Universe? I am here, typing this -- is it in the Bible? Is it false if it can't be found in the Bible?

The Bible is specifically written with the goal of man's salvation. This is the reason behind God's revelation. No wonder He did not explain the mating habits of marsupials in the Bible.

I did not, and never will, say that the spirit evolved. I do not think that. I think the spirit of man was breathed by God, just as is described in the Bible. Once again, evolution addresses the biological side of man, not the spiritual. If the Bible is written to save man, and if it is the spirit of man who sinned, then it is to be expected that man's biology is hardly touched upon. Even very important things for humans such as the time of pregnancy, the maturing age, etc., are hardly mentioned in the Bible. Should we ignore them as well?

The biological nature of man is only accountable to sin in as much as the spirit sins. Sinning does not come from the biological nature, but from the spirit's rebellion. No, Paul is not a liar, and it is because of Adam -- the first sinner -- that we are in this mess. Isn't it obvious that it is the spirit that sins? Should we pronounce sharks and lions murderers because they take a human life? Are ravens thieves when they take a shining object? They break the law of God -- why is it that they are not sinners?

Do you really think that God will not save the rest of creation? Are you positive about that? Man is the image of God, and so his Fall was especially grievous -- but Man brought Nature down with him, and I would only expect that after God redeems Man he will also redeem Nature, who fell only as a side effect.

Isn't there a quote in Paul's epistles describing how the entire creation groans under sin?

Thorin, I don't think I will convince you of all that, because of our disagreement between the holistic / composite nature of man. What I want to show is that one can be a Christian and believe in Evolution as well. You have to admit that most Christians throughout history, and today, believe that Man is both a spiritual and biological animal, and that the spirit is immaterial and immortal, etc. etc. So if you are going to claim that Evolution is incompatible with Christianity on that account, you are ruling out of Christianity the vast majority of Christians that ever lived.

We could explore this avenue, if you like, in another thread. The nature of man. I think you are a Christian even though mistaken on the subject of man's nature. Can't we agree on this, that Christians can disagree on Evolution without being pronounced anathema?

[Jesse]

Originally posted by Dr. Ransom
No offence Jesse, but you don't know what you're talking about. Micro-Evolution is evolution within genetic bounderies, like finches beaks or all the amazing breeds of dogs we have. Macro-Evolution is the evolution from one species to another, like apes to humans. Theistic-Evolution is the belief in a "God-guided" evolution, which is what Eriol, Elendil and I are debating.

Ransom



Thanks for making me realize that Dr. Ransom! I guess I was clueless there! *laughs at his stupidity*
:p

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Eriol
er... and the contradiction? Thorin, the Bible does not support airplanes, hydroponics, space travel... you have to show where it says that evolution can't happen. Saying that it is not in the Bible does not mean it is false. Or is the Bible the whole truth in the Universe? I am here, typing this -- is it in the Bible? Is it false if it can't be found in the Bible?
Airplanes and hydroponics have nothing to do with the nature of man that is weaved throughout scripture. Evolution does.
Originally posted by Eriol The Bible is specifically written with the goal of man's salvation. This is the reason behind God's revelation. No wonder He did not explain the mating habits of marsupials in the Bible. And I'm saying that the goal of man's salvation is wrapped up in his very being. The mating habits of marsupials has nothing to do with salvation. Whether man was a created being and fell from God's grace or whether he evolved from a single celled being is.Originally posted by Eriol I did not, and never will, say that the spirit evolved. I do not think that. I think the spirit of man was breathed by God, just as is described in the Bible. Once again, evolution addresses the biological side of man, not the spiritual. And how exactly is this possible if you do not believe the Genesis account? The Bible's biological side is directly tied in with its spiritual side. Were we not specially created in the image of God and given direct life, we are not truly made in His image, for the Bible says "God said, 'Let us make man in our image' and God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living soul". If this were not true, the fall of man never occured, there is no sin problem and thus no need to be saved.Originally posted by Eriol [B]The biological nature of man is only accountable to sin in as much as the spirit sins. Sinning does not come from the biological nature, but from the spirit's rebellion. No, Paul is not a liar, and it is because of Adam -- the first sinner -- that we are in this mess. Isn't it obvious that it is the spirit that sins?.....Man is the image of God, and so his Fall was especially grievous -- but Man brought Nature down with him, and I would only expect that after God redeems Man he will also redeem Nature, who fell only as a side effect.:confused: *scratches his head in perplexity*
RemovedHow in the world could Adam sin if we evolved? You can't have it both ways. Either man evolved, or you believe the Genesis account that God created mankind personally and gave him spirit, and that that it puts Adam as the father of mankind, and the cause of sin being in existence. Originally posted by Eriol
Isn't it obvious that it is the spirit that sins? Should we pronounce sharks and lions murderers because they take a human life? Are ravens thieves when they take a shining object? They break the law of God -- why is it that they are not sinners?And I think you just proved my point as to the faultiness of TE logic. Why aren't these animals held accountable and man is? To say that man evolved with the animals and his "spirit" sins, implies that all the rest of creation must be held accountable as well, or that every other living thing has this same spirit. This is not true as we all know because we believe the Bible account that man was made special and not spoken into existence and not evolved. Originally posted by Eriol Thorin, I don't think I will convince you of all that, because of our disagreement between the holistic / composite nature of man. What I want to show is that one can be a Christian and believe in Evolution as well. You have to admit that most Christians throughout history, and today, believe that Man is both a spiritual and biological animal, and that the spirit is immaterial and immortal, etc. etc. So if you are going to claim that Evolution is incompatible with Christianity on that account, you are ruling out of Christianity the vast majority of Christians that ever lived.What I'm saying is that to take the Hebrew scriptures and the Hebrew mindset of the creation of man, and try to present those same concepts in the mindset of evolution is a total misuse of how the Bible explains life. You are trying to take the Genesis account of how man was created, and trying to apply the concepts of the spirit presented there with evolution. The concepts presented in the Bible are not in agreement with the concepts of TE.

When you start to pick it apart, you remove the sanctity of the scriptures and put the idea that "all scripture is inspired by God" in doubt. Again, the Bible is not a smorgasbord or buffet where you can take what you want and make it fit when it doesn't. To say that micro-evolution and adaptation do not exist is faulty. To say that the Christian God worked through evolution when the scriptures say otherwise is very shaky to the faith of Christ.

And Eriol, I'm sorry but the nature of man with the whole immortal soul is not only not biblical, but also even more removed from Theistic Evolution then what I believe (man is wholistic and does not have an immortal soul). Again, the concepts of soul, and spirit cannot be explained in evolution, nor do they make any sense. They can only be explained by the context they were written in: that of special creation.

[Elendil3119]

Originally posted by Eriol
I don't believe either in Theistic Evolution or in Deistic Evolution. I believe in Evolution, period.
If you are a Christian, you must believe in either Creationism, Theistic Evolution, or Deistic Evolution. The atheistic forumula for evolution is "Evolution = matter + evolutionary forces (chance and necessity + mutation + selection + isolation + death) + very long time periods." This denies the presence of God. The Theistic formula for evolution is "Theistic evolution = matter + evolutionary factors (chance and necessity + mutation + selection + isolation + death) + very long time periods + God."

The essential part to this argument is "very long times". The Hebrew word "yom" is translated "day" in Genesis. I did a word study on "yom" and found that in all of its occurances in the OT, it is used to mean a literal 24-hour day. If God had wanted to tell us that the creation events took place a long time in the past, He could have said it several different ways:

yamim (pl. of yom) alone of with "evening and morning" would have meant 'and it was days of evening and morning'. This would have been the simplest way, and could have signified a period of many days and therefore the possibility of a vast age.
qedem by itself or with 'days' would have meant 'and it was from days of old'.
olam with 'days' would also have meant 'and it was from days of old'.

If God had wanted to tell us that Creation started in the past but continued into the future, in other words, some sort of theistic evolution, there are several ways He could have said it to avoid misinterpretation:

olam with the preposition le, plus 'days' or 'evening and morning', could have signified 'perpetual'; another construction le olam va-ed menas 'to the age and onward' and is translated 'for ever and ever' in Exo. 15-18.
tamid with 'days', 'days' and 'nights', or 'evening and morning', could have signified 'and it was the continuation of days'.
ad used either alone or with olam could have signified 'and it was forever'.
shanah (year) could have been used figuratively for 'a long time', esp. in the plural.
yom rab literally means 'a long day'. This construction could well have been used by God if He had meant us to understand that the 'days' were long periods of time.

The point of all this, Eriol, is that if God had wanted us to believe that He used a long, drawn-out creation process, He would have used one of these words/phrases. However, God did not use any of these.

The meaning of any part of the Bible must be determined in light of the intention of the author. In Genesis, the intention of the author was clearly to write a historical account. Christ and the apostle Paul both quote Genesis as being truth, not myth or parable. Genesis is not allegorical poetry, nor is it fantasy or myth. The Genesis is what God spoke through Moses, and it should not be interpreted in terms of poetry, fantasy, myth, or allegory.

I have a question for you, Eriol. Why did God not use any of the above words or phrases in reference to the creation days? Clearly it was His intention that the "days" should be regarded as being normal 24-hour earth-rotation days. The only reason that other ideas are entertained is when people apply concepts outside of the Bible to interpret it, such as science.

"The Bible is God's message to mankind and as such it makes authoritative statements about reality. If one removes any portion of the Bible from the realm of reality, God may still be communicating truth to us, but the reader can never be sure that he understands it as the author intended. Furthermore, if God's communication to us is outside our realm of reality, then we cannot know whether any account in the Bible means what the words actually say or whether it means something entirely different, beyond our understanding. For example, if we apply this criterion to the accounts of the resurrection of Jesus, perhaps the words could mean that Jesus did not rise from the dead physically, but in a way beyond our comprehension. When these sorts of word–games are played with the Bible, the Bible loses its authority, we lose the divine perspective on reality, and Christianity loses its life–changing power." (Grigg)

[Thorin]

Good job Elendil,

I had studied on the day thing as well, but concerning the validity of the Seventh day, but you are right on the money. When the word day (yom) is preceded by a number, it refers to a literal 24 hour day, as opposed to the concept, "the day of the Lord".

The only argument TE and DEs have is that the Genesis account as recorded by Moses is a myth. I love that quote from Grigg you presented. Too many people try to de-inspirationalize the Bible by trying to make it fit so many trends. All things should be proven by the word of God and not the other way around. I don't believe that science and the Bible are separate, but neither do I pooh-pooh the validity of the scriptures when there are disagreements with science or any other philosophy.

[Eriol]

Originally posted by Elendil3119
"The Bible is God's message to mankind and as such it makes authoritative statements about reality. If one removes any portion of the Bible from the realm of reality, God may still be communicating truth to us, but the reader can never be sure that he understands it as the author intended. Furthermore, if God's communication to us is outside our realm of reality, then we cannot know whether any account in the Bible means what the words actually say or whether it means something entirely different, beyond our understanding. For example, if we apply this criterion to the accounts of the resurrection of Jesus, perhaps the words could mean that Jesus did not rise from the dead physically, but in a way beyond our comprehension. When these sorts of word–games are played with the Bible, the Bible loses its authority, we lose the divine perspective on reality, and Christianity loses its life–changing power." (Grigg)

Very nice quote. Let me see if I can make a little experiment with it:

"Nature is God's message to mankind and as such it makes authoritative statements about reality. If one removes any portion of Nature from the realm of reality, God may still be comunicating truth to us, but the reader can never be sure that he understands it as the author intended. Furthermore, if God's communication to us is outside our realm of reality, then we cannot know whether any observation of Nature means what our senses really detect or whether it means something entirely different, beyond our understanding. For example, if we apply this criterion to the accounts of the resurrection of Jesus, perhaps the observation could mean that Jesus did not rise from the dead physically, but in a way beyond our comprehension. When these sorts of mind-games are played with Nature, Nature loses its authority, we lose the the divine perspective on reality, and Christianity loses its life–changing power."

The point of my experiment is, of course, that you are dismissing Nature's evidence when upholding Scripture. It is not one or the other, folks, both were authored by God. You are really subscribing to the "God Tricked Us" theory.

Nature is also God's message to us. And this is why, when we have tons of evidence in favor of evolution, we must deny it for Scriptural reasons only if Scripture denies it quite clearly. And it doesn't! I'm also thinking about LotRfan2, but in the other direction. Guys, you have to prove that the Bible contradicts the biological evidence. It's as simple as that. To say that evolution is not spelled out in the Bible is not enough; to say that God could have told us about it is not enough. What you need to do is find a quote from God saying "I didn't do it", or something like it. Because I have -- several -- quotes from God saying He did it. It's right there in the book of Nature.

"All things should be proven by the Word of God", Thorin? I marvel at how you use electricity, gasoline, computers... I never saw a quote from God proving these things. No, this way lies insanity. The process of finding truth is simple, for a Christian:

1) Observation
2) Inference
3) Hypothesis
4) Checking God's Revelation.

In that order. Christians must think as any other men and then check their conclusions against the standard of Revelation. By the way you guys are looking at it, Revelation comes before observation! I could be really mean here and ask how you become aware of Revelation without observation, if only of some printed words in a page or some preaching by a man.

Revelation is not data -- it is the standard. We have to check our hypotheses against it. And if Revelation is against it we have to try to understand what is going on -- not simply give up and say a few prayers.

Following this process, we see that interpreting Genesis as a myth does not deny any of its truths (unlike Grigg's examples -- the resurrection is nothing if it is false, and so Christianity is fake if the resurrection did not happen physically, and if the miracles did not take place physically. As Tolkien so aptly stated it, Christianity is the myth that entered history -- or something like that ;) ). And it allows us to preserve both Scripture and Nature as agreeing with each other. The opposite road -- your road! -- is to deny Nature and her evidence. I don't want to sound menacing, but this is the first step in your vaunted dualism, Thorin, which ultimately leads to Gnosticism and Manichaenism. It is not so large a leap from this belief to the Demiurge.

So, I am still waiting for Scriptural evidence of contradiction between Christianity and evolution. You can say I am wrong in taking Genesis as a myth, but you can't really say it is un-Christian to do that. Likewise, I can say you are wrong to take Genesis literally, but I can't say you are un-Christian for doing that. After all, Genesis does not come with a handbook for interpretation -- we all interpret it in different ways. As long as we do it in good faith, we may be wrong, but never un-Christian. Error does not exclude anyone from Christianity (thank God).

As for TE, DE, etc., Elendil, I hope you remember the context of that quote of mine. Tell me, do you believe in Theistic gravity? Theistic chemistry? Theistic geology?... As you outlined it, I believe in Theistic Evolution, since there is God in that equation. But the word is as superfluous as it would be in any of these other expressions. If you believe in God, of course anything in which you believe is "Theistic". That is the sense of this quote of mine.

You keep on assuming that myth is opposite to truth. It is interesting that you placed 'parable' along with myth in the opposite side from truth... did you notice that? Do you really believe that the parables are "not true"?

I would like a quote from the Bible by either Christ or Paul saying "Genesis, which we all know is historically accurate..." It is funny how you project your own assumptions into Paul and even Christ. Of course, I do the same. But if you want to say that Paul quoted Genesis as historical truth opposed to mythical truth, show me. Is that so much to ask??

I'll place a few smilies here to show that this discussion is interesting and important. Also, what I will say after it may sound harsh, so I ask your forgiveness in advance. I say it only because I like you both.

:) ;)

Take a look at my Deep Thoughts, both of you, please. I love that quote. Think about it. And try to apply it to this subject. It is you who must do it, and not the other way around, because it is you who are not understanding the meaning behind my words. You have to construct it yourselves. I know quite well what you mean... but I fear there is a barrier between my words and your mind. :eek: Sorry about that, and I don't want to offend anyone by saying this. Evidently, it is mainly my fault -- it is always the fault of the speaker, never of the listener. But on this subject, especially, we need to take a step back and examine our deep-seated convictions.

I usually say that a contradiction is good for "waking" people from their mistakes. The contradiction in your ideas, and it is a HUGE contradiction, is being absolutely literalist and logical in the study of Scripture and at the same time denying the evidence found in Nature. Guys, you have to think about how the words from Scripture enter your mind, how you formed the concepts you took from the Bible, and realize it is the same process you use to understand Nature. So if you deny your observations of Nature, you automatically deny your observations of Scripture... the same process can't be valid in one place and not valid in another. If you deny, say, the fossil record, and the inferences taken from it, without pointing to a fallacy, just based on Scripture, you are putting yourselves into a vicious circle. You can use the same process to undermine your belief in the Scripture! And you have no assurance that it will never happen, once you turn off reason at a given point, this denial can always spread. Our God-given reason has one major function -- to detect error. (Finding truth is not really in the domain of reason, reason acts more as a checking process). If you refuse to use it for the evidence of Nature, you risk more than you know.

You can even be right, my friends, but without showing it to me with reason you'll never convince me. Since we are focusing at Scripture, please, pretty please, show me some contradictions between Evolution and Christianity. Thorin has attempted to do that, and frankly it was Greek to me. ;) I ask once again: why would an evolved beast be impervious to the entrance of God-given spirit? You point at men's moral difference from animals as a sign of special creation. But I never denied special creation! -- of the spirit. As I see it, before men appeared on the scene, the beasts, without spirit, clearly could not sin, and so Nature had not fallen yet. (a long period) As God breathed the spirit into Man, Man became lord of the creation and everything was fine as long as he obeyed God. (a short period) And then he disobeyed God, and was afflicted with death, pain, etc. etc. Why would this account be unscriptural? (Note, I am not acquainted with Genesis, so I reserve the right to rewrite this script if needs be :D)

Show me a part of Scripture that proves that God could not have created animals -- including man's animal nature -- by Evolution, and I'll have to change my views.

[Eriol]

This is a good article about the recent news that, possibly, men and chimps are about to be grouped in the same genus. (This kind of news is never reliable, and to make a change in taxonomy, even one not as filled with symbolism as this, is a long process, so you can relax :D). I can discuss the rules of taxonomy with you if you wish... But rest assured that the taxonomists who think that higher taxons should be grouped according to genetic similarity alone are not prevalent. (Luckily).

The only negative comment I would make about this is the use of the word "evolutionists" to mean "materialistic atheists". Of course most evolutionists are materialistic atheists, but even so it is sloppy thinking. I'm used to being considered a materialistic atheist on account of evolution, so no harm done ;).

Enjoy.

Men and chimps (http://www.lewrockwell.com/kirkwood/kirkwood11.html)

[Thorin]

To be honest, Eriol, I don't feel it is our necessity to prove by divine mandate from the scriptures that God created the earth from evolution. Rather, when a vivid account is given (whether interpreted as myth or not) and supported throughout the same scriptures, I believe it is YOUR position to prove that scripture, without a doubt supports TE not the other way around.

When the Bible says, "And on the 5th day God said let there be every crawling beast on the land and bird in the air, it is was so, and the evening and the morning were the fifth day", and "So God formed man of the dust of the earth and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living soul" and David says, "We are wonderfully and fearfully made", and Paul says, "By Adam all men died and by Christ all were made alive", and "Adam was made first and then Eve", what more can I say that will convince you?

Call it myth if you so choose, but the scriptures BELIEVE and support that myth, that is not the issue. The issue is whether you can accept the Bible for what it says. At the least, you can call the people of the Bible superstitious and primitive. However, to say that they would even understand TE, nevermind support such a notion is stretching the limits of credibility and shows a complete lack of understanding of ancient Hebrew and Judaic beliefs, especially concerning the wholistic nature of man (which if properly understood negates any sort of concept of TE).

[Eriol]

Originally posted by Thorin
To be honest, Eriol, I don't feel it is our necessity to prove by divine mandate from the scriptures that God created the earth from evolution. Rather, when a vivid account is given (whether interpreted as myth or not) and supported throughout the same scriptures, I believe it is YOUR position to prove that scripture, without a doubt supports TE not the other way around.

When the Bible says, "And on the 5th day God said let there be every crawling beast on the land and bird in the air, it is was so, and the evening and the morning were the fifth day", and "So God formed man of the dust of the earth and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living soul" and David says, "We are wonderfully and fearfully made", and Paul says, "By Adam all men died and by Christ all were made alive", and "Adam was made first and then Eve", what more can I say that will convince you?

Call it myth if you so choose, but the scriptures BELIEVE and support that myth, that is not the issue. The issue is whether you can accept the Bible for what it says. At the least, you can call the people of the Bible superstitious and primitive. However, to say that they would even understand TE, nevermind support such a notion is stretching the limits of credibility and shows a complete lack of understanding of ancient Hebrew and Judaic beliefs, especially concerning the wholistic nature of man (which if properly understood negates any sort of concept of TE).

I find it fascinating that you cling to an interpretation of Scripture which is not majoritarian (the holistic nature of man) and then compare me to good LotRfan2. Who is using the Word of God as his only -- only argument in this discussion, Thorin?

And, of course, I don't deny the Word of God.

I never said that you must prove that the Bible support evolution. I said that you must prove that the Bible denies evolution. There is a difference, right?

The problem is this, Thorin: I have two Scriptures, the Bible and Nature. I have to reconcile them both, for they were both written by the same God. And my interpretation of the Bible achieves that. You, on the other hand, rejects one of the books. But when you reject Nature, you are rejecting the very processes that allow you to receive and understand Revelation, for you are a part of Nature and your senses take information from Nature. Unless you discover an error in the natural argumentation, rejecting it simply because it does not resonate with your personal (for every interpretation is personal) interpretation, is... irrational.

By that standard you would reject the theory that says that the Earth goes around the Sun. After all is it not clearly stated in the Bible, much more clearly than any rebuttal of evolution that you've shown, that God "made the Sun stop" to foil Senacherib? And so the Sun is moving, and so he goes around the Earth, and vice-versa. And this is a historical account, witnessed by men, as opposed to Genesis.

I know you don't believe that. But think well about it and you will see that your principle demands it.

All of your quotes can be interpreted as addressing the spirit.

I could do the same trick I did with Elendil's quote in your last paragraph, substituting "Bible" for "Nature". Do it and check it out.

Finally, I'm not sure I understood your allusion to the ancient hebrews. Do you think they could not understand evolution, or TE as you call it (though the "T" is superfluous, and I think I've shown that)? I'm not asking whether they would support it. I'm asking whether they would understand it. You said they would not - is this a typo? I want to make sure before going on.

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Eriol
I find it fascinating that you cling to an interpretation of Scripture which is not majoritarian (the holistic nature of man) and then compare me to good LotRfan2. Who is using the Word of God as his only -- only argument in this discussion, Thorin?

I believe I am. However, as far as the wholistic nature of man is concerned, I find that TE to be even FURTHER away from the traditional view of man (i.e, that man has an immortal soul). To believe that man has one cohesive nature and loses consciousness at death could fall under the interpretation of TE more than the traditional view that you seem to hold. And as far as majoritarian views are concerned, most biblical scholars worth their weight would, or are, holding the view that man's nature is wholistic, not dualistic. Whether you still believe that God has empowered immortality through Christ is another area. But as far as the Bible is concerned, man's nature is wholistic.

Originally posted by Eriol
I never said that you must prove that the Bible support evolution. I said that you must prove that the Bible denies evolution. There is a difference, right?

And again, I challenge you. With all the support for special creation in the scriptures (and just the Psalms alone reiterate the Genesis account), show us where the Bible affirms evolution. You seem to be taking the stance that just because the Bible is silent on some issues, that doesn't negate them. That doesn't affirm them either. If I have ample evidence from the book of nature that the sky is blue, why should I try and prove the sky is green using that same manual?

Originally posted by Eriol
The problem is this, Thorin: I have two Scriptures, the Bible and Nature. I have to reconcile them both, for they were both written by the same God. And my interpretation of the Bible achieves that. You, on the other hand, rejects one of the books.
That I do not. Many creation scientists have put forth numerous theories to reconcile the "long earth" idea with the creation story. One doesn't have to automatically jump on the TE bandwagon to reconcile things. Whether you find those reasonings valid is another story. But either creation or evolution, we are dealing with theories.

Originally posted by Eriol
By that standard you would reject the theory that says that the Earth goes around the Sun. After all is it not clearly stated in the Bible, much more clearly than any rebuttal of evolution that you've shown, that God "made the Sun stop" to foil Senacherib? And so the Sun is moving, and so he goes around the Earth, and vice-versa. And this is a historical account, witnessed by men, as opposed to Genesis......Finally, I'm not sure I understood your allusion to the ancient hebrews. Do you think they could not understand evolution, or TE as you call it (though the "T" is superfluous, and I think I've shown that)? I'm not asking whether they would support it. I'm asking whether they would understand it. You said they would not - is this a typo? I want to make sure before going on.
Actually, this proves my point even more. The Hebrew cosmology was very primitive and the scriptures show that throughout. They thought that there was a great expanse covering the earth. All the stars and clouds were within that expanse and outside was only water. That's why the flood story states "And the windows of heaven were opened". To such a primitive mindset, the idea that nothing BUT a creator could have created such a thing was foreign to them. Especially when throughout scripture God is praised for creating the earth. I really don't know how one can impose a TE idea of thought on an ancient primitive race with so much to the contrary.

[Elendil3119]

Eriol, my biggest problem with your arguments is that you are using your observations of Nature to interpret the Bible. Your interpretation of Genesis depends on the "obvious" evidence and proof of evolution in Nature. Hopefully you won't mind if I quote something from an MSN conversation:
I think evolution must be studied from Nature, to see if it is possible, and if we conclude it is, then we check it on the Bible. If we are positive that the evidence shows Evolution, we try to find a matching interpretation.
Even IF evolution is true, where is your matching interpretation? I showed you in my last post that evolution cannot be reconciled with the word "yom", yet you still refer to this mythical and so far nonexistant "matching interpretation".

Another flaw that I find with evolution is that it reduces the role of God to that of a 'God of gaps'. The only workspace alotted to Him is that part of nature which evolution cannot 'explain' with the means presently at its desposal. God is reduced to just being the one who fills in the gaps for those phenomena about which there are doubts. In the words of Werner Gitt, 'This leads to the view that God is not absolute, but He Himself has evolved - He is Evolution.'

[Estrella]

Ok, i'm not sure how many of you are aware of this, and i know some of you already are. There have been debates on rather or not to have a religious section/ guild set up. This would allow for one area to post all religious threads, hence easy access. It would also all a place for ALL religions to be represented EQUALLY in discussion, not shoved down people's throats. There is currently a poll set up to decide this, and it is neck and neck. So If you haven't voted, get out there and vote!

I Know this is off topic,but seeing as everyone seems to enjoy this debate, i thought you'd be interested. ;)

Oh! I forgot. It's located under the suggestion box, and it's one of the top threads, can't miss it! I'm too computerly challenged to attach it. :confused:

Estrella

[Elendil3119]

Originally posted by Eriol
Nature is also God's message to us. And this is why, when we have tons of evidence in favor of evolution, we must deny it for Scriptural reasons only if Scripture denies it quite clearly. And it doesn't! I'm also thinking about LotRfan2, but in the other direction. Guys, you have to prove that the Bible contradicts the biological evidence. It's as simple as that. To say that evolution is not spelled out in the Bible is not enough; to say that God could have told us about it is not enough. What you need to do is find a quote from God saying "I didn't do it", or something like it. Because I have -- several -- quotes from God saying He did it. It's right there in the book of Nature..........Following this process, we see that interpreting Genesis as a myth does not deny any of its truths............
So, I am still waiting for Scriptural evidence of contradiction between Christianity and evolution.

It is not good enough to say that evolution is not contradicted by the Bible, Eriol. You have to give us evidence that it is supported by the Bible. Literal 7-day Creationism IS stated and supported by the Bible, while evolution is (to my knowledge) nowhere supported or even mentioned. I am with Thorin: the burden of proof lies upon you, my friend.

You also seem to think that the biological evidence in Nature denies literal creation. While there may be some things that point to evolution, there is nothing that contradicts a literal 7-day creation. Nature and the Bible are easily reconciled by interpreting Genesis literally, instead of using unproven theories to interpret the Bible.
Originally posted by Estrella
Ok, i'm not sure how many of you are aware of this, and i know some of you already are. There have been debates on rather or not to have a religious section/ guild set up. This would allow for one area to post all religious threads, hence easy access. It would also all a place for ALL religions to be represented EQUALLY in discussion, not shoved down people's throats. There is currently a poll set up to decide this, and it is neck and neck. So If you haven't voted, get out there and vote!

I Know this is off topic,but seeing as everyone seems to enjoy this debate, i thought you'd be interested.

Already cast my vote to the "Yes" side. :)

[Estrella]

I just had a random thought. Where do Viruses and bacteria fit into the Creationism theory? I mean i doubt the bible said ( joke quote ;) ) " And thus god spakelet there be single celled organisms " And the fact that Viruses aren't exactly considered life forms only complicates the issue. If god created all life, and Viruses aren't really life, then who created viruses?
I beleive there is a reason that Evolution and creationism have been debated so long. There is really no clear cut evidence, as the evidence can be intrepted to support both sides of the issue. So The burden of proof lies on both sides, but at the same time there is on clear, concise proof ither way. Otherwise they both wouldn't be considered Theories, only one would ,and the other would be a law.

[Eriol]

Wow... now I'm even more confused by you, Thorin. We seem to be talking through each other. You addressed several issues that I never touched upon! What is going on?

Let me summarize my argument on this topic:

1) Nature's evidence points forcefully towards evolution;
2) Bible evidence does not deny evolution;
3) Therefore evolution is consistent with Christianism.

This is my main argument since your first post in this thread. There are other, side arguments, like this:

1) We build our concepts through observation from Nature, be it direct observation or indirect observation, i.e., words written by other men.
2) We use reason to cross-examine this observation and make sure that our concepts are internally coherent;
3) Therefore, refusing to use reason to demand internal coherence between our concepts, at any point, subjects the whole structure to collapse.

But look at the argument you outlined in your last post:

1) TE is more coherent with a holistic theory of man than with a dualistic theory of man.
2) The Bible does not affirm evolution
3) The evidence for evolution is not as strong as I think, creationism has some backing
4) Ancient hebrews could not have believed in TE.

Now what is the relation between your argument and mine???

:confused:

The closest thing I see is (2) -- but I never said that the Bible supports evolution, only that it doesn't deny it. (1) and (4) are contradicting something I never defended in the first place, and (3) is a technical question. On that subject you are simply repeating what you hear, my friend... creationism is the last thing an alien race would assume in explaining the history of life without the Bible to spell it out. No, Nature's evidence, without any Bible to guide us, points -- strongly -- to Evolution.

Now, Elendil. The interpretation of Genesis as myth goes back to the earliest Fathers of the Church. Check on St. Augustine, for instance. It is not a personal quirk of mine. Of course Thorin would say these guys are nuts, since they believed in a dualistic nature of man, but I still take my chances with St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, and the like.

I don't see why the God of the Gaps argument is not applied to gravity, or chemistry. Don't you think the law of gravity is rather restrictive on God? Or the laws of chemistry? Why, oh why is it only evolution that is singled out for an attack? Remember guys, I am not defending atheistic materialism like most evolutionists you heard about. It is no use telling me that evolution builds on a flawed philosophical premise, because I am well aware that it doesn't. Atheistic materialism, yes, but evolution, strictly speaking, no. It is just another scientific theory. (I am not even defending Darwinism here, just evolution as a historical fact). Try to distinguish betwen evolution as materialism in your comments.

And as an answer to your final point, Elendil: sure, creation is not denied by Nature. Creation is an all-explaining hypothesis. It can't be falsified, as Karl Popper would have put it, and therefore it is not scientific. (As opposed to Intelligent Design Theory, for instance, which is scientific, though unproven). It will always remain with us... we can never disprove it.

But then you have to explain why the telltale signs of evolution were scattered around the fossil record. In the 18th century, way before Darwin was born, the fossil record was beginning to be studied. People at first assumed that all fossils were the result of the Flood, but it began to dawn on them that there is a much greater variation and depth -- geologically speaking, depth as in how deep you dig -- in the fossil record than would have been caused by the Flood, even the greatest Flood imaginable. Everybody at that time assumed a young earth, remember.

The solution they found was to assume that God created the world with an appearance of a long age. He put the fossils in the stones, but the fossils never were living animals. In other words, God Tricked Us. Of course this position is intrinsically untenable, God becomes a prankster. And it became more and more untenable as the fossil record uncovered the relationships between different groups -- God not only planted fake evidence on the stones, but He also planted fake evidence pointing to evolution! This, of course, is what your stance amounts to.

To summarize -- it is enough, Elendil, to show that evolution is not contradicted by the Bible. Because I have the other book of God (Nature) on my side, speaking very clearly. Demanding support for evolution from the Bible is, again, special treatment of a scientific theory. Why would you not look towards support for, say, tectonic plates? There are a number of quotes in the Bible saying that the earth is immovable, should we not believe in tectonic plates then? You will have to explain why you picked on evolution.

The major, huge, shocking fallacy is that you two seem to accept logic and reason in all fields of human endeavour, in every science -- except evolution. Note, you do not reject evolution itself, you reject reason. It is as if you are saying "Ok, the signs are there, it all points to evolution -- but it didn't happen. God tricked you into believing that. Since I have Scripture to clarify the point for me, I don't need reason right now". And your grounds for rejecting reason on that moment is a personal interpretation of the Bible, one which is not shared by many Christians (though even one Christian disagreeing with you would be enough to give you pause for thought).

Now, when you reject reason on one point, there can be no certainty about any interpretation that you make of anything whatsoever. Why should I trust your reason when interpreting the Bible? As I said, you will have to explain why you picked on evolution. I am looking forward to hear from you how electricity, airplanes, gravity, etc. etc. have biblical grounding. You surely can show me that, right? After all, what is not explicitly supported by the Bible must be false in your view.

Once again, show me the evidence. You can't simply assume that the mythical interpretation is wrong because you don't agree with it. As I don't assume the literal interpretation is wrong because I don't agree with it! No, I assume the literal interpretation is wrong because it is at odds with Nature's evidence, your -- or any other's -- interpretation is beside the point.

Another thing that I find curious is how you avoid discussing Nature's evidence on grounds of ignorance, and then promptly disregard it. If you don't feel comfortable in discussing Nature's evidence, you have to avenues open: (a) study it; (b) accept my views on it. If you do neither you are being dishonest, or assuming I am being dishonest.

I am -- very much -- more ignorant than you on Biblical subjects. But I do not refrain from discussing it because "I did not study the Bible". How can I do it? I ask for the evidence. Evidence can be understood by a reasonably educated and well-meaning man, as I like to think I am ;).

I am still waiting.

EDIT: I posted simultaneously with Estrella. Please read the Darwinism thread on the GoP for more information on the sociological side of the fight between creationists and evolutionists. Simply put, evolution was hijacked by atheistic materialism, and so the religious people felt they had to reject evolution or lose their faith. A clear case of throwing the baby out with the water.

If you accept evolution while rejecting atheistic materialism, something which is not intrinsic to evolution and was added for propagandistic reasons, everything becomes reasonable. On the strength of evidence alone, evolution is as established as tectonic plates, planetary formation, etc.; in other words, as any other theory that can't rely on laboratory experiments -- but it is still rejected on the (mistaken) grounds that it would take God away.

And yes, viruses are a thorny problem for the creationist argument... but since they are rejecting Nature's evidence I have not yet touched upon that. ;)

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Eriol
Let me summarize my argument on this topic:

1) Nature's evidence points forcefully towards evolution;
2) Bible evidence does not deny evolution;
3) Therefore evolution is consistent with Christianism.

The fault here lies in number 2. To say that the Bible does not deny evolution, therefore evolution could exist and use the argument "the Bible doesn't speak about a lot of things, does that mean that they don't exist?" is incredibly stretching and borders on the absurd. You're right, the Bible does not deny evolution. It also doesn't deny jet engines, nuclear physics or sliced bread. Why? They never existed in reality or even in the concept of a theocratic race. Why should a race which believed in a supreme creator and wrote about that very concept throughout all its Holy Book believe in a 19th century theory?

Forget what we DON'T know. Let's look at what we DO know.
1) The Bible states that man created the world in six days, including man and all that is in it. The Hebrew language used PROVES that the Hebrews and the Bible people believed it. Hence, to use that source to support evolution is extremely faulty reasoning with no basis of support.

Originally posted by Eriol
creationism is the last thing an alien race would assume in explaining the history of life without the Bible to spell it out. No, Nature's evidence, without any Bible to guide us, points -- strongly -- to Evolution.

How you choose to interpret God within the science society now knows is one thing. However, to try and show from a false negative (i.e. the Bible doesn't deny evolution) using the Bible to prove that evolution exists is stretching the limits of logic. Especially when the Bible makes it quite clear (at least from the Bible society's point of view) that all things were created within a 7 day period. No matter how much you want to dance around that, Eriol, you CANNOT use the scriptures at all to support TE. It doesn't exist in the scriptures, nor did it exist in the mindset of the people who recorded it.
Originally posted by Eriol
The solution they found was to assume that God created the world with an appearance of a long age. He put the fossils in the stones, but the fossils never were living animals. In other words, God Tricked Us. Of course this position is intrinsically untenable, God becomes a prankster. And it became more and more untenable as the fossil record uncovered the relationships between different groups -- God not only planted fake evidence on the stones, but He also planted fake evidence pointing to evolution! This, of course, is what your stance amounts to.....No, I assume the literal interpretation is wrong because it is at odds with Nature's evidence, your -- or any other's -- interpretation is beside the point.
Did it ever occur to you that science might actually be wrong in its interpretation of the fossil record, carbon dating and other things? You're assuming that when a scientist says, "Yup, this is a million years old" that the process has NO faults and that things decayed at the same rate? Creationist science has many rebuttals to such a statement. Why are they wrong in their theories, and yet the 40 year old scientist knows how old things are up to a billion years??

[Eriol]

Well, at least we are back at the same page. Whew!

Originally posted by Thorin
The fault here lies in number 2. To say that the Bible does not deny evolution, therefore evolution could exist and use the argument "the Bible doesn't speak about a lot of things, does that mean that they don't exist?" is incredibly stretching and borders on the absurd. You're right, the Bible does not deny evolution. It also doesn't deny jet engines, nuclear physics or sliced bread. Why? They never existed in reality or even in the concept of a theocratic race. Why should a race which believed in a supreme creator and wrote about that very concept throughout all its Holy Book believe in a 19th century theory?

I agree on how absurd it is. And I wonder why you do not realize that it is you who are using the Bible like that. Again (again!) I do not want a quote from the Bible that says that evolution exists, I want a quote refuting that. Don't you see that it is you who are demanding that the Bible contain everything in the world?

Forget what we DON'T know. Let's look at what we DO know.
1) The Bible states that man created the world in six days, including man and all that is in it. The Hebrew language used PROVES that the Hebrews and the Bible people believed it. Hence, to use that source to support evolution is extremely faulty reasoning with no basis of support.

I never said that the Bible people believed otherwise... I am not using the source to support evolution. The support comes from Nature. I'm using the resource to check on Nature's information.



How you choose to interpret God within the science society now knows is one thing. However, to try and show from a false negative (i.e. the Bible doesn't deny evolution) using the Bible to prove that evolution exists is stretching the limits of logic. Especially when the Bible makes it quite clear (at least from the Bible society's point of view) that all things were created within a 7 day period. No matter how much you want to dance around that, Eriol, you CANNOT use the scriptures at all to support TE. It doesn't exist in the scriptures, nor did it exist in the mindset of the people who recorded it.

Again, I never intended to show that the Scriptures support evolution, only that they do not deny it (as they don't deny sliced bread, and even so you believe in them).

Did it ever occur to you that science might actually be wrong in its interpretation of the fossil record, carbon dating and other things? You're assuming that when a scientist says, "Yup, this is a million years old" that the process has NO faults and that things decayed at the same rate? Creationist science has many rebuttals to such a statement. Why are they wrong in their theories, and yet the 40 year old scientist knows how old things are up to a billion years?? [/B]

Obviously it occurred