Theistic Evolution

[GenMarshall]

Ooooohhh... DIFFERENT VERSIONS OF THE BIBLE! How do I know which one is true, then? I can't. You can't. Nobody can. And thus that whole inerrancy thing is moot, since the fact that we have different Bibles, different interpretation, shows that even if the Bible is inerrant, it does not result in One Truth. And thus I don't see any issue with theistic evolution.

Now were not here to refute or debate about the bible or prove or disprove if the bible is inerrant or not.

 

[Shadylookin]

I will still humbly and will still refute on your statement is wrong. Let me kick it right into your thick head . A day in creation is not a litteral 24 hour day in human terms for the concept and the word for a very very long time was not around. You can state as many times that your wrong, I will still insist that you are wrong.

but i'm not. you and i both know that they thought of it as a literal 6 day time frame otherwise they wouldn't have translated it into english as such. The biblical account even says "And the evening and the morning were the second day." not many evenings not many mornings just 1.

Excuse me, but I did explicidly remember posting a statement of what Pope John Paul II explicidly stating (as well as his predicessor) that Evolution does not conflict with the doctrines and teachings of the church so long as it does not conflict with the materialistic origans of the Human spirit. I am not an expert in Judaism (Though I hope that some Jewish posters would jump in to defend their viewpoint), but I recall that the non fundamentalist protestant Christians such as Lutherism and Anglicanism/Episcopal dont take Genesis and Creation litteraly.

plenty of people that claim to be christian see genesis as a mere story. doesn't mean that genesis isn't the very basis of the christian religion and without it it becomes meaningless.

I am sorry to say but a day in God's relm is totaly different than our time (Chronos). Its like comparing a foot (our time) with the length of a mile (God's time). The exact length and equality or overlap of your so called "days" may varry from model to model

how do you know anything about gods time?

O RLY?! Well I am sorry to burst your bubble on that one. But the bible did listed the events in order. As I stated earlyer in this post and I will repeat it again that the Order of light, then firmament, then starts, Might be taken as a simplified discription of modern theories of cosmology, namely the Big Bang (First light), followed by cosmic inflation, followed by stellar evolution (God created the heavens). Simmilarly, how modern zoology believes that marine animals preceded land animals (On the fifth, created marine life.. ..on the sixth, land animals and finaly man and woman.

hmm no it did not. earth, water, and plants, existed before the sun. and the sun and the moon were created at the same time. Therefore the genesis account is completely wrong scientifically.

NOW, Many Old Earth creationists (such as myself) hold that the Sun, Moon, and Stars were only given their status by God on the fourth day and not literally created ex nihio. As for plant life comming before aqutic life is logical and is correct in the bible, for it is the first plants that produced the oxygen and thus making animal life possible. The Sun, Moon, and stars were only made completely visible "for signs and for seasons and for days and years" in the fourth period when the atmosphere was made fully transparent and that the that the Sun was in existence well before Earth. On the topic of Earth and the bible. The "earth" mentioned in the first verse would be the cosmos as it existed in before the big bange and not literally the Earth itself in modern form. This comes from the hebrew phrase "shamayim erets" which translates roughly into "Heavens and the earth" has always reffered to the entire universe.

sorry but the bible clearly states the sun and the moon were made on the fourth day.

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


Well how would you go about explaining to someone who does not understand the origan of the universe. It most certanly did not pop out of no where in just one day.

course not it took 6

Have you ever heard of the phrase "Rome was not built in a day", well the same also applied to the creation of the universe which is a timely and lengthy process that God has to take his time sculpting his work. God does not rush his work, he takes his time even if it takes millions or billions of years.

god is omnipotent whatever he wants is. no need to sculpt, no need for evolution he simply wills and it is so.

Ho boy, here we go again. I will say it again more bluntly. The six days referred to are not ordinary 24-hour days, but insted the hebrew word for "day" which is yom and is interpreted in this context to mean a long period of time. We do accept the divinity of Jesus and we still accept the 6 PERIOD creationism.

the six periods are unscientific and not in agreement with evolution. quite frankly neither does the story of adam and eve. You can't rip out a mans rib and make a woman.

Sorry, but the bible should be trusted only if you dont take it too litteraly. Somehow in all this commotion of all this I do have to say Put a Helmet On and stop taking the Bible so litteral .

I do not take it litterally at all I find the bible to be complete and utter rubish and apparently so do most christians that use it to base their beliefs off of

There are no facts that apply to beliefs. If there were they would not be beliefs: they would either be facts themselves or theories. I do not know that Jesus existed and was the son of God. I choose to believe so. So, I do indeed admit that I do not know; calling my belief a belief is an implicit admission.
Admittedly, others have a certainty in their belief that beggars belief. That, as I have said, is not what I'd consider the correct attitude or even a justifiable attitude.

You have no idea what an omnipotent being might desire. Why would he not make a distinction between humans and insects? Why would he not value the active mind over mindless procreation? How can you know that he would not desire worship?

You have a ridiculously narrow-minded view of Christianity. I have repeated that this is not the sort of religion that I am trying to defend, and you bringing it up again makes no difference to this statement. Which part of the Bible tells you that it was written (or dictated, or inspired) by God itself?

Who says that the books in the Bible are required for Christianity? The Council of Nicaea. And who were they? Fallible humans. Why should I accept their judgement when I have a mind capable of its own thought? Why should I accept each book as a whole literal truth if I accept it at all?

And, once again, forget original sin. It's not an essential feature of Christianity.

such councils are where they also came up with the basic tennents of christianity like the divinity of christ

 

[Elrohir]

Fair enough. However, having seen how you dismiss all scientific evidence that opposes a 6000 year old earth I have a hard time seeing you support the position you state above.

I don't dismiss all scientific evidence against a 6000 year old Earth. I read it, and then decide. As of yet, I haven't seen anything that I, or others haven't explained away rationally.

Anyway, awhile back I came to the realization that this is something of a pointless thing to argue about. Whether the world was created 6000 years ago, or 16 billion has, as far as I can tell, absolutely zero practical effect upon my life. So why argue about it?

 

[Masquerouge]

Now were not here to refute or debate about the bible or prove or disprove if the bible is inerrant or not.

I think my final point was 'And thus I don't see any issues with theistic evolution'.
Note the "Thus".

 

[ironduck]

I don't dismiss all scientific evidence against a 6000 year old Earth. I read it, and then decide. As of yet, I haven't seen anything that I, or others haven't explained away rationally.

Anyway, awhile back I came to the realization that this is something of a pointless thing to argue about. Whether the world was created 6000 years ago, or 16 billion has, as far as I can tell, absolutely zero practical effect upon my life. So why argue about it?

Well, if you have any evidence against a 6000 year old earth please share it in the KO thread or some other one.. so far all I've seen in those threads are people who cut and paste from creationist sites and then disappear or plain ignore it when each and every one of their claims are refuted.

As for arguing about it, there's no problem with what anyone believes as long as people don't fight science with their political/religious motives. When religious groups want their religion taught as an 'equal alternative' to evolution in biology classes then there is a problem.

 

[Elrohir]

Well, if you have any evidence against a 6000 year old earth please share it in the KO thread or some other one.. so far all I've seen in those threads are people who cut and paste from creationist sites and then disappear or plain ignore it when each and every one of their claims are refuted.

I could, but like I said, I'm sick and tired of arguing over something that really does not affect my life in any meaningful way. I and the world exist either way/

As for arguing about it, there's no problem with what anyone believes as long as people don't fight science with their political/religious motives. When religious groups want their religion taught as an 'equal alternative' to evolution in biology classes then there is a problem.

I don't expect public schools to teach Creationism; if I want my (Hypothetical and unlikely) children to learn that instead, I'll teach them at home or send them to a Christian private school.

 

[ironduck]

'instead'? So you would teach them creationism instead of biology?

 

[Elrohir]

'instead'? So you would teach them creationism instead of biology?

No, I have no problems with biology. It's macro-evolution, the idea that we all evolved from primordial ooze, that I have a problem with.

 

[ironduck]

No, I have no problems with biology. It's macro-evolution, the idea that we all evolved from primordial ooze, that I have a problem with.

Teaching biology without the theory of evolution is like teaching physics without atomic theory.

 

[Elrohir]

Teaching biology without the theory of evolution is like teaching physics without atomic theory.

I learned the Theory of Evolution. I just learned that there is a difference between macro and micro evolution; the first is variation within a kind; the second is evolution from one kind to another. The first is observed scientific fact, the second is an unproven assumption.

Please, let's not get into this. This thread wasn't intended to be about arguing over the definition of "evolution".

 

[ironduck]

I learned the Theory of Evolution. I just learned that there is a difference between macro and micro evolution; the first is variation within a kind; the second is evolution from one kind to another. The first is observed scientific fact, the second is an unproven assumption.

Well, you didn't learn that in any biology textbooks because there is no such thing as a 'kind' in biology.

 

[Elrohir]

Well, you didn't learn that in any biology textbooks because there is no such thing as a 'kind' in biology.

Now you're just nitpicking. Ironduck, do you have any serious questions or comments for me, or do you want to just talk about definitions? Really, if you have a serious issue you want me to address, then fine, I'll answer it. But you seem to have some weird fascination with continuing conversations after they've really ended, by continuing to talk about things that really don't matter.

 

[ironduck]

Eh? You're the one who say you don't dismiss science. Yet, everything I've ever seen you say that relates to biology has been completely unscientific. Your entire post 150 for instance.

edit - I'll say that's quite on topic given that you're dismissing science as it's clashing with your religious beliefs.

 

[El_Machinae]

I don't dismiss all scientific evidence against a 6000 year old Earth. I read it, and then decide. As of yet, I haven't seen anything that I, or others haven't explained away rationally.

Anyway, awhile back I came to the realization that this is something of a pointless thing to argue about. Whether the world was created 6000 years ago, or 16 billion has, as far as I can tell, absolutely zero practical effect upon my life. So why argue about it?

I'd think that you deciding to live your life based on your opinion of the inerrancy of the Bible (as read by your presents circle of faithful) is a fairly big thing.

Heck, if you didn't think that the Bible was inerrant, what else would change?

 

[El_Machinae]

Teaching biology without the theory of evolution is like teaching physics without atomic theory.

I don't know if I agree. I have a rather advanced biological education, and evolution rarely cropped up at all.

My only concern about homology (for example) was how for how the proteins interact between the species. A prof could explain the evolutionary explanation, but it had little impact on the actual usefulness of the data.

Though explaining animal behaviour through the lens of the evolutionary theory was a lot of fun. It's a similar mindset to the one we use in economics.

 

[nihilistic]

I don't know if I agree. I have a rather advanced biological education, and evolution rarely cropped up at all.

Hmm ... what do you mean by a "rather advanced biology education"? All I've taken are the required college courses, and evolution is mentioned quite often there. It is in fact the organizational principle behind modern biology.

 

[El_Machinae]

Yeah, I guess the terms cropped up quite a bit, but they just didn't matter.

To me, biology is mostly about facts and discovering new facts. First you find out what a heart is, then you find out what a heart is made of, etc. You can talk about ancestral homology when talking about putting human proteins in a pig's heart - but it doesn't really matter. What really matters is that a pig's heart is awfully similar to a human's heart in a lot of ways.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

To answer a few points made in earlier threads:

First, I am no spelling Nazi. But when I see people conscientiously capitalize most proper nouns, but always ignore several that involve religious belief, I am led to think it is intentional, and that they are breaking grammar rules just to, I don't know what to call it, belittle the concept. It appears that this is being done as a philosophical position. If it were a mistake I would understand, but it appears to be intentional. I am merely pointing it out.

Second, science has not proved the impossibility of a virgin conception. What has happened is that no human has been able to use science to recreate the event as described. Enormous difference there. If God did it, then by definition we aren't going to be able to repeat it.

Third, the Bible is not a book but a library. If I go to a library and see a book that describes something that is actually impossible, I do not go around proclaiming that the entire library is a lie. There are parts of the Bible that are clearly true (such as that a Jewish convert to Christianity named Paul existed, I think most accept that) and others that are clearly not, at least as described (the earth being created in 6 days). The rest falls in between, some very implausible looking unless one is able to accept the existence of God. Now I view the Bible as a combination of literal facts, metaphorical facts, poetry, and things that aren't true (more likely honest errors than fabrications). How I distinguish between them I already said; the validity of my methods is beyond the scope of this thread. It is enough that I hold the Bible to be fairly true and reliable, but I can also accept the validity of TENS.

 

[GenMarshall]

First, I am no spelling Nazi.

Who said you were a spelling cop? (Hey, I need to avioid the Godwin's Law )

Second, science has not proved the impossibility of a virgin conception.

There might be a posibility, though only within confines of the insect world. I know the queen bee would somehow enduce an egg to become another bee. Though the downside is that bee will be strictly female and would be a haploid (Only have one set of chromosomes) and steril. I do agree that there is much to learn about virgin conception within humans as well as amongst mammals. Though the next question would be how Jesus would pop out as a male when the egg contains an X chromosome. I do apologise if I dont sound too clear, but its been a while since I have taken Biology.

Third, the Bible is not a book but a library.

I thought the Bible is a collection of books. Though the library analogy sounds good as well .

 

[ironduck]

I usually type religions and other organisations as well as their concepts without capital letters. Why should I put capital letters for every little organisation out there and each one of their concepts? The Mighty Mojoles of the Margarita Maroons and the Aquatic Subawoobas as well as their Insidious Overlomper.

No thanks, I'll stick to capitalizing names of people and places. Besides, if you specifically object to my lack of capitalising 'god' then just go look in the dictionary:

Main Entry: 1god
Pronunciation: 'gäd also 'god
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English; akin to Old High German got god
1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
2 : a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
3 : a person or thing of supreme value
4 : a powerful ruler

Note that only definition 1 is capitalized. Since there are many versions of many gods and I don't know any of them I have no reason to use the first definition, rather it's usually the second definition that's relevant.