Micro evolution + micro evolution = macro evolution

Yeah, why is it the only ones who are willing to call God a deceiver in light of the evidence are the creationists?

I don’t recall having called him that. Since I don’t think of the Bible as being more reliable than any other book, the only way I think God could have deceived us would be if he faked the physical evidence, which I don’t think he did.

I didn’t think of God as being a deceiver back when I was a Christian either, though. What I believed then wasn’t that God had been lying to us in the Bible, but just that people who took the beginning of Genesis literally weren’t understanding it correctly. You’re aware that there’s more than one possible interpretation of it, don’t you? John Calvin, Saint Augustine, and Bejamin B. Warfield all thought that the beginning of Genesis should be interpreted as symbolism, and that the “days” described there weren’t literal 24-hour days. Saint Augustine lived before the discovery of any of the geological evidence for an old earth, so his belief in a non-literal creation account was based only on his studies of the Bible itself.

When I was a Christian, the way I thought of this was that there are two possible interpretations of Genesis: it could be either literal or symbolic, and either interpretation could be considered valid as far as scripture is concerned. Outside the Bible, however, evidence in the world itself supported a non-literal interpretation of Genesis much more strongly. Unlike the Bible, which could be interpreted either way, the only way the physical evidence could be interpreted in a way that was consistent with a young earth / no macro-evolution involved God having intentionally made things look different from the way they really are.

So, I had to choose between two possibilities: Either humans were misunderstanding the Bible (as they’ve done in the past about issues such as geocentrism), or God had faked this evidence in order to deceive us. Accepting evolution meant that humans were just misunderstanding God the same way we’ve done in the past, whereas creationism made God into a liar. Can you see why I think it’s more reasonable for a Christian to believe the first one?

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I believe in Microaddition, you Macroadditon heretics!

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

There are Creationists, and there are Realists. Which one are you? - Dracil
"The Bible is true, and some of it happened" - Catholic priest
"There may be many other fish in the sea, but there are just as many fishermen." - Dracil

no that's what you said you compared it to making an ocean drop by drop

but to me it's more like having seen a glass of water before but not the ocean

dude gravity is only a constant on earth

now the entire quote:

not such an impartial source that's a direct quote from:

http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Macroevolution.cfm

and he wrote it, that's what he thinks, wikipedia starts off a paragraph called "critics of macroevolution" and quote this guy.

but this is what really [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]es me off:

http://www.talkreason.org/articles/s..._intermediates

everything's just predicted.

Originally Posted by Aggie

You’re aware that there’s more than one possible interpretation of it, don’t you?

Yes --- the Allegorical Method was made popular by the school at Alexandria [Egypt], and clashed with the Literal Method, used by the school at Antioch.

Originally Posted by Aggie

John Calvin, Saint Augustine, and Bejamin B. Warfield all thought that the beginning of Genesis should be interpreted as symbolism, and that the “days” described there weren’t literal 24-hour days. Saint Augustine lived before the discovery of any of the geological evidence for an old earth, so his belief in a non-literal creation account was based only on his studies of the Bible itself.

Citing people who lived outside of the Bible does nothing. I couldn't care less what Calvin, Augustine, Warfield, or anyone "outside the Book" thinks.

Here's my list of those who took Genesis literally:

• Jesus Christ
• Paul
• Peter
• John
• Polycarp - (there's one "outside the Book")

So, I had to choose between two possibilities: Either humans were misunderstanding the Bible (as they’ve done in the past about issues such as geocentrism), or God had faked this evidence in order to deceive us.

Let me clear the air on Geocentrism. The Catholic Church endorsed this error - against the writings of Scripture. It was taught by scientists, not by Baptists. People love to lay this at the feet of Christians, but the fact is, it was taught by scientists, endorsed by the Catholic Church, and has never been associated with Baptist doctrine.

We're not responsible for anything that comes from the Vatican, nor have we ever been.

Accepting evolution meant that humans were just misunderstanding God the same way we’ve done in the past, whereas creationism made God into a liar. Can you see why I think it’s more reasonable for a Christian to believe the first one?

No

__________________

Against scripture?

__________________
"the only lie is evolution itself. sometimes you must lie to defeat a lie. as silly as that might sound."
- AngryNotice
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"It does not matter if I understand it or not. I just do not agree with it."
- JohnR7
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"I am not delusional.
I would probably outwit a professional psychiatrist,"
- Knowledge3
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Originally Posted by Edx

Against scripture?

Hmmm --- that's a good point. The Scriptures are silent on geocentrism/heliocentrism. I can't think of any verse right now that supports heliocentrism. Ecclesiastes 1:5 is the closest, but really doesn't say anything about the relation of the earth to the sun.

• [bible]Ecclesiastes 1:5[/bible]

__________________

I know the acceleration due to gravity is constant and at it's value of 9.81 m/s^2 only on earth. That's what I'm saying. We only have mirco-gravity here on the surface of the earth as opposed to the marco-gravity we see on the surface of the sun.

__________________

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.-UDHR

Originally Posted by Maxwell511

I know the acceleration due to gravity is constant and at it's value of 9.81 m/s^2 only on earth. That's what I'm saying. We only have mirco-gravity here on the surface of the earth as opposed to the marco-gravity we see on the surface of the sun.

Microgravity is the term they use in place of zero gravity, since mass at one end of the universe exerts a pull on mass at the other end.

__________________

Really? Didn't know that. Thanks.

__________________

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.-UDHR