Theistic Evolution

[JoeM]

His preposition indeed has merit.

Merit is not proof. Either his supposition is proved to be true or we can disregard it.

When you claim that his argument is akin to "If the beginning of a given text is not true, it is consequent that none of it is true", you forgot to note the nature of the text itself. If it were a scientific text and parts of it were found to be founded on unsound evidence, then other parts (presumably founded on evidence unaffected by the damaged parts) can still be valid. However, in the case of the Bible or any other religious text, where the only claim to truth of the text is a claim of inerrancy of the text by the text itself, then yes, one part of it being 'wrong' does challenge the inerrancy of the whole text and brings to question if other portions of the text are itself false or metaphoric.

No.

He has proposed that if one part of a text is not true, then none of it is true.

Your supposition is that if one part is not true then it may be that other parts are not true, and/or the main premise of the text maybe untrue.

These are different points of view.

 

[nihilistic]

Merit is not proof. Either his supposition is proved to be true or we can disregard it.

I will quote you on this.

No.

He has proposed that if one part of a text is not true, then none of it is true.

Your supposition is that if one part is not true then it may be that other parts are not true, and/or the main premise of the text maybe untrue.

These are different points of view.

The point is that it isn't just any text. The point is that we are considering a text whose veracity is based only on its own claim to inerrancy. So, if one part of it isn't true, then its claim to inerrancy is in doubt, thus implicating the voracity of rest of the text. While that doesn't mean that the rest of the text is neccesarily false (as you seem to think it implies), what was meant by Shadylookin as the rest of the text being "not true" is that we can no longer take the text's words as justification of the events described there as being true. Surely the accounts there can still be true, but proof of that must come from other sources (such as archealogy).

Indeed, "Either [the Bible] is true or we can disregard it."

As well, like a math book, the later books seem to have been written upon the foundation of the earlier books. The later authors are using false premises when making their writings.

Not quite like math books. Mathematicians keep extremely well records of exactly which previous result is needed to imply each new result. If something is found to be in error, only the descendants of that erroneous result will be purged. The only possible error that can kill off all of mathematics is if in some way, we find that logic and rational thought itself doesn't exist. If that ever happens, I'm sure this conversation (as well as all conversations) are pointless.

 

[Brighteye]

no i am not wrong. hebrews and christians believed in a literal 6 day creation. If they didn't then evolutionary theory wouldn't have been a controversy and we would not be having this discussion right now. On the 7th day god rested, did god rest for 900,000 years? do christians/jews celebrate the 7th day(sabath) for 900,000 years? no they do not. Even if a day =a billion years, it would still not come out to the 13 billion years old the universe is. and the events the bible lists are not in order with how science explains them.

if god had a hand in the evolution where was it?

allegories and metaphores are not something to base core beliefs upon. and you still haven't answered the question how you can just accept the divinity of jesus and not 6 day creationism?

it doesn't matter if its one book or 100 if it contains lies then it shouldn't be trusted until proven by an outside source. The bible is the only place that describes jesus's divinity.

on a side note spelling nazism is frowned upon.

Stop being so literal. A 'day' could be used simply to denote time; not one of our days. Given that the sun and moon were not made when these 6 days started then it cannot be 24 hours. Not only this, but apparently the Hebrew word doesn't even mean a day, but a period of time. So in 6 periods of time God made the Earth.

The Bible was written by people. I have not seen the Bible claim that it is entirely true. It is a story about other things, not itself. It is a collection of metaphors and allegories, as well as some historical fact. If the allegories and metaphors are good examples that help people define their morality, why should one not base core beliefs on them? Why are they intrinsically bad for core beliefs? Where did you get this belief?

Spelling is essential for words to retain their meaning and to be recognised by others. This is particularly true on an international site such as this where many readers are foreign and do not automatically recognise misspelt words. I have this problem when I visit French chatrooms.

Some of the Bible stories were made up by people wishing to explain things that were often questioned. Their good intentions are no longer needed where science has found an answer. However, science has no answer to Jesus' parables (or the stories of Jesus' good works). Morality is beyond the realms of physical science. We can still accept Jesus' teachings and his status, even if the writers who wrote about him were not entirely accurate.

If God had a hand in evolution, maybe it was in setting the whole thing up? Would a perfect being have to create everything separately, or would he create one rule; one universe in which things naturally evolved to sentience?
One rule is simpler, more efficient, more elegant; I would say that if a God did cause the big bang he certainly would make the universe so that evolution happened. Evolution is closer to perfection than making individual items.

 

[Brighteye]

So, if one part of it isn't true, then its claim to inerrancy is in doubt, thus implicating the voracity of rest of the text.

Sorry, just had to repost this typo. The image of half the Bible eating the part that claims inerrancy, and us finding the inerrancy missing and blaming the Bible's hunger is hilarious.
Watch out for the Bible today: he's feeling hungry.

 

[JoeM]

So, if one part of it isn't true, then its claim to inerrancy is in doubt, thus implicating the voracity of rest of the text.

We are not ascertaining whether the Bible is true or not in this debate.

While that doesn't mean that the rest of the text is neccesarily false (as you seem to think it implies),

No, this is specifically and exactly what Shadylookin' has said. Your statement here is in agreement with me, that his proposition is incorrect.

what was meant by Shadylookin as the rest of the text being "not true" is that we can no longer take the text's words as justification of the events described there as being true.

This does not follow as the original premise does not state whether we believe it to be true or not, and if Shadylookin' wants to clarify his words, I'm sure he is able to.

Indeed, "Either [the Bible] is true or we can disregard it."

This is a much more interesting proposal. But again, before we can discuss this fully, you need to be specific with what you mean by true; is it literally true throughout, is it true in it's message, is it historically true, etc., etc.

 

[warpus]

The Bible was written by people. I have not seen the Bible claim that it is entirely true. It is a story about other things, not itself. It is a collection of metaphors and allegories, as well as some historical fact. If the allegories and metaphors are good examples that help people define their morality, why should one not base core beliefs on them? Why are they intrinsically bad for core beliefs?

The thing is that most (all?) of the core Christian beliefs rely that certain things in the Bible are true. For example, Christianity relies on the fact that Jesus is the son of God and that he died for our sins and came back to life 3 days later. This is taken as a fact; something that actually happened. There is no room for argument here. It must be true.

Now, how do we know that the accounts, as described in the Bible, of Jesus' life & resurrection are in fact true?

Some would say: "Well, the Bible is the word of God, therefore it must all be true".

But here we have people saying that parts of the Bible are true while certain others are not.. so how do we distinguish between the fact and the fiction?

We can't.. and that's the problem! Why? Because if one of the core beliefs of Christianity is one of the pieces of fiction, then Christianity is a false religion.

 

[nihilistic]

Sorry, just had to repost this typo. The image of half the Bible eating the part that claims inerrancy, and us finding the inerrancy missing and blaming the Bible's hunger is hilarious.
Watch out for the Bible today: he's feeling hungry.

"veracity" ok? I spelled it correctly the sentence right before it too. What's wrong with me? Anyway, onto the more serious stuff:

Stop being so literal. A 'day' could be used simply to denote time; not one of our days. Given that the sun and moon were not made when these 6 days started then it cannot be 24 hours. Not only this, but apparently the Hebrew word doesn't even mean a day, but a period of time. So in 6 periods of time God made the Earth.

The Bible was written by people. I have not seen the Bible claim that it is entirely true. It is a story about other things, not itself.

Look, if you are saying that the veracity (note the spelling) of the Bible should be considered to be similar to that of Aesop's Fables, then I do not think Shadylookin actually has a conflict with your view.

If the allegories and metaphors are good examples that help people define their morality, why should one not base core beliefs on them? Why are they intrinsically bad for core beliefs? Where did you get this belief?

I do not think Shadylookin was trying to assign a intrinsic moral value to your believes. They may not be bad believes in itself but I think his point is that you must recognize that they are believes, as opposed to, empirical fact.

 

[Brighteye]

The thing is that most (all?) of the core Christian beliefs rely that certain things in the Bible are true.

Now, how do we know that the accounts, as described in the Bible, of Jesus' life & resurrection are in fact true?

Some would say: "Well, the Bible is the word of God, therefore it must all be true".

But here we have people saying that parts of the Bible are true while certain others are not.. so how do we distinguish between the fact and the fiction?

We can't.. and that's the problem! Why? Because if one of the core beliefs of Christianity is one of the pieces of fiction, then Christianity is a false religion.

We can choose to believe in certain parts whilst acknowledging the problems with other parts. It's no more of an odd choice than choosing to believe that the whole thing is true. There is no certain way of justifying belief, and there is no way of destroying it, which seems to be what some posters here are looking to do.
It's a simple choice; believe in things or not. Where they cannot be proven or disproven by observation or scientific testing or logical thought then it is solely a choice.
If one of the core beliefs is a fiction, then certainlt it's a false religion, but you can't show it to be.
If it's not a fiction, then Christianity is the true religion.
Sensible people accept that they need to 'interpret' the Bible because it was written by people, who are fallible. Why do you not allow me to do that? Why must Christians believe the Bible either literally and completely or not at all?

 

[classical_hero]

Stop being so literal. A 'day' could be used simply to denote time; not one of our days. Given that the sun and moon were not made when these 6 days started then it cannot be 24 hours. Not only this, but apparently the Hebrew word doesn't even mean a day, but a period of time. So in 6 periods of time God made the Earth.

Don't be kidding yourself. The word day has never, ever been used in common language as an indefinite period. It always refers to a definite time period that either has happened, or will happen. You cannot even get anything but a 24 hour period from the Bible because after each day the Bible would say "evening and morning were the (#) day." This is consistent in how a Jew would say a day. While we would say morning and evening, they consider the start of the day to be sunset, not midnight or even sunrise, as how we often.

I want you to give me an example where the word day is used for an indefinite time period.

 

[Sidhe]

40 days is often used as a way of saying many days, as they don't seem to have had a word to represent many. But their is no way day on it's own represents an indefinite amount of time. I believe 40 days was used because you can measure the year quite precisely in terms of 40 day cycles or 9.125 subsets of 40. and so it came to mean indefinate or a cyclicle measurement of time.

 

[Brighteye]

"veracity" ok? I spelled it correctly the sentence right before it too. What's wrong with me? Anyway, onto the more serious stuff:

Yep, that's why I called it a typo. If you'd written it that way all the time I'd have assumed ignorance. It's more likely.

Look, if you are saying that the veracity (note the spelling) of the Bible should be considered to be similar to that of Aesop's Fables, then I do not think Shadylookin actually has a conflict with your view.


I do not think Shadylookin was trying to assign a intrinsic moral value to your believes. They may not be bad believes in itself but I think his point is that you must recognize that they are believes, as opposed to, empirical fact.

But of course I accept that Christianity or any religion is solely about belief. That's the essence of religion. I am constantly riled by people who insist that it's fact.

God gave us free will so that we can freely choose to believe in him, for he wanted us to choose to revere him. This statement is accepted by most Christians; any Christian reading it on its own will agree.
If he gave us free will, then making it so that only those who regard Christianity as fact; to whom 'the spirit of the Lord' to has revealed the truth are accepted as true believers (as the evangelicals here in Oxford told me before I escaped) is in direct conflict with his aims. If the truth of the gospels is revealed to me such that I know it then I no longer have a choice, and my worship means nothing to God (according to the religion I now know to be true).

It's all about freedom and choice. Religion (or Christianity at least) has to be a choice to believe, not an empirical fact that cannot be denied.

 

[nihilistic]

We are not ascertaining whether the Bible is true or not in this debate.

Then what the hell were we talking about?

This is a much more interesting proposal. But again, before we can discuss this fully, you need to be specific with what you mean by true; is it literally true throughout, is it true in it's message, is it historically true, etc., etc.

Literally of course. Either the bible is an inerrant account or it isn't. The adverbs you place in front of it are merely dodges:

If you only claim it to be "metaphorically true" or "true in message", then it really is up to the interpreter to decide what is true isn't it? Can I claim that the whole book of Genesis is a metaphor for this book?

Historically true? What the hell is that? Had some similar events occurred in history as recorded in the Bible as archealogy indicated? Yes. Have the bible made erroneous claims about historical facts? That too. If you are going to latch onto the study of history, then you end up with the exact dilemma you started out with: every story is still a story until substantiated by physical evidence. Whether it is historically true is again quite irrelevant.

 

[classical_hero]

it isn't a consistent viewpoint. unless of course you can show me where exactly god interviend in the evolutionary process?

and if you don't believe in creationism how can you believe in other impossible bunk that shows up in the bible?

I'm merely saying that if you don't take the begining of the bible at face value then none of the bible should be taken at face value. then since none of it can be taken at face value you should stop being a christian. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too.

Excellent point.
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1303/
This is an actual quote from an evolutionist.

‘Christianity has fought, still fights, and will continue to fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the Son of God. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing.’

Compare this to what the Bible says. John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Clearly the Bible and Evolutions does not match and from know on I will mark those who believe in Theistic Evolution and still quote from the Bible, because you are hypocrits. James 1:8 A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

The debate here is not the inerrancy of the Bible, but whether it is consistent to believe in both evolution and Christianity. Now, I have said before and will repeat again, that my belief in God, and Christianity specifically, is not based on the fact that the Bible says so, but on other factors.

And I come to interpret the Bible based on a lot of other factors as well, including science and history, but also what I feel is inspiration from God, other scripture (I am Mormon, after all), and ultimately my own opinion. And as I said before, there is no dichotomy here: the Bible need not be completely inerrant or completely false. The book of Genesis was not used as a foundation for the rest, it was merely placed first before the Law and the Prophets when the Israelites assembled the Torah. Clearly, some parts can be true and others false (or again, true on another level - allegories are not lies). It is just harder to figure out which is which.

 

[classical_hero]

40 days is often used as a way of saying many days, as they don't seem to have had a word to represent many. But their is no way day on it's own represents an indefinite amount of time. I believe 40 days was used because you can measure the year quite precisely in terms of 40 day cycles or 9.125 subsets of 40. and so it came to mean indefinate or a cyclicle measurement of time.

The forty days mentioned in the Bible cannot be an indefinite period because they are part of 150 day period. This went from the 17th day of the 2nd month to 17th day of the 7th month. 5 x 30 = 150. Genesis7:11,12 7:24-8: 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
12 And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.
7:24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.
8:1 And God remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the cattle that was with him in the ark: and God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters assuaged;
2 The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained;
3 And the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated.
4 And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.

So unless you can say that 150 days means an indefinite period, then you are wrong. Also the passage says day and night about that forty day period, so again it is talking about 24 hour periods. Clearly the Bible when it says day it means a 24hr period, not some indefinite period, as some woul like to say.

 

[classical_hero]

The debate here is not the inerrancy of the Bible, but whether it is consistent to believe in both evolution and Christianity. Now, I have said before and will repeat again, that my belief in God, and Christianity specifically, is not based on the fact that the Bible says so, but on other factors.

And I come to interpret the Bible based on a lot of other factors as well, including science and history, but also what I feel is inspiration from God, other scripture (I am Mormon, after all), and ultimately my own opinion. And as I said before, there is no dichotomy here: the Bible need not be completely inerrant or completely false. The book of Genesis was not used as a foundation for the rest, it was merely placed first before the Law and the Prophets when the Israelites assembled the Torah. Clearly, some parts can be true and others false (or again, true on another level - allegories are not lies). It is just harder to figure out which is which.

Show me how the Creation account is an allegory.
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c020.html
For refence, which parts of language does the Bible use for Genesis from the rest of the Bible.
Is it a) Poetry
b) a Parable
c) Prohpecy
d) a Letter
e) Biographical
f) Autobiography/Testimony
or g) Historical?

These are the literary manners of writings that the Bible uses, so which one it is?

 

[Brighteye]

Excellent point.
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1303/
This is an actual quote from an evolutionist.

Clearly the Bible and Evolutions does not match and from know on I will mark those who believe in Theistic Evolution and still quote from the Bible, because you are hypocrits. James 1:8 A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.

I'm taking your bait with both hands.
Why do they not match? Why must I take Genesis literally? What is the problem with believing in Jesus without accepting what is clearly a load of nonsense written by a well-meaning person who was doing the best he could in explaining the causes of our existence?

Why are so many Christians obsessed with original sin? The original sin of Adam and Eve is not a central feature of all Christianity. It is doctrine of the Romish church that we all inherit their sin, and therefore need saving from it, but not a necessity for all Christianity.

As the great visionary Pelagius tried to suggest, we are independent individuals. We are responsible for our own actions, and our own actions alone. If I could lead a blameless life, I would have no need to be saved from original sin. However, despite my usual good intentions I still make mistakes, and Christianity is about believing that Jesus has saved those who believe in him (and truly repent of their sins) from eternal damnation.

Who is the hypocrite? The person who believes that God wants us to use our free will to worship him, and yet at the same time condemns those who do not have the 'knowledge' of God that removes any will, or is it the person who accepts that his belief is a choice, and not knowledge, and has chosen carefully what to believe?
Which do you think is more appealing to God as a free decision: the careful thought, or the emotional certainty?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Show me how the Creation account is an allegory.

As I have said, the important message to take away from Genesis 1 is not that it took 6 days to make the world, but that one supreme God did it, according to a plan, and intentionally, and that He was pleased with the results. I view it as an allegory because science shows that it cannot be literal. (For the purposes of this thread, it is enough that I think it cannot be literal; to debate the age of the earth is for another thread).

And the descendants of apes can sin and be saved. We do not require Original Sin in order to be redeemed, our own sins are quite enough.

 

[Sidhe]

It's important to point out he was pleased not proud though, because look what happened to Satan because of his pride I gotta admit though them stars are just awesome If I could put on such a great fireworks display I'd be proud too, particularly when you realise how much time went into making them.

 

[classical_hero]

As I have said, the important message to take away from Genesis 1 is not that it took 6 days to make the world, but that one supreme God did it, according to a plan, and intentionally, and that He was pleased with the results. I view it as an allegory because science shows that it cannot be literal. (For the purposes of this thread, it is enough that I think it cannot be literal; to debate the age of the earth is for another thread).

And the descendants of apes can sin and be saved. We do not require Original Sin in order to be redeemed, our own sins are quite enough.

Romans chapter 5 totally disagrees with what you just said. So Jesus came to save the apes also. Right. Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Note how is was the result of man that sin entered the world and death came as a result. There is no mention of apes causing this problem that we have.

Also this is just a cop out to say that in spite of what the Bible i says, it really does not matter that much. Absolute rubbish. Genesis is the foundation of the Bible and taking it away ruins the whole Bible. It is amazing that some atheists see this, but those who call themselves "Christian" do not see this