Why Christians and evolutionists can NEVER agree

[bhsmte]

deleted

 

[Calminian]

Well, that would be because the origin of life is a separate issue, from how life evolved.

Only by human designation, though. There's no logical reason to separate them. The main motive seems to be they know there is no viable explanation for the inorganic evolving into the organic.

It would seem to me to be the same debate, regardless of how humans have classified it. Somehow, evolutionists have to get from an infinitely small infinitely dense singularity to the human brain, using only random mechanisms. This is why the god "father time" is invoked as "mother nature" is completely inadequate without him, even in their minds.

 

[SkyWriting]

It's important to keep in mind that changes to these hypotheses are a normal part of the process of science and that they do not represent a change in the basis of evolutionary theory.[/B][/B][/U]

Yes it says that. The two are not separate things.
They are the same thing. Changes to a hypotheses do not
represent a change in the basis. The basis being that things
change and we can make guesses why.

 

[SkyWriting]

Only by human designation, though. There's no logical reason to separate them. The main motive seems to be they know there is no viable explanation for the inorganic evolving into the organic.

It would seem to me to be the same debate, regardless of how humans have classified it. Somehow, evolutionists have to get from an infinitely small infinitely dense singularity to the human brain, using only random mechanisms. This is why the god "father time" is invoked as "mother nature" is completely inadequate without him, even in their minds.

There is no scientific separation between the two. A handful of people consider them to be separate topics.

 

[StanJ]

Question 1 - Which came first, the earth or the sun?

Yes I agree that the earth was first.

Question 2 - How old is the earth?

10,000 years old give or take a millenia. How old was Adam when he was created? 1 day old or 20 years old? IMHO, God created the earth and life WITH maturity. The chicken came first, NOT the egg.

Question 3 - How long did it take for life to appear on earth?

Day 5, unless of course you think plants are life, then day 3.

It seems from these 3 issues that being a Bible believing Christian and an evolutionist simply isn't an option. You HAVE to choose one side or the other.

This is indeed true. Unfortunately some TRY to dip their toes in BOTH worlds, which of course does NOT work. Warm water, spewing and all that...

 

[mark kennedy]

Yes I agree that the earth was first.

God made the heavens and the earth before creation week started, it's not unreasonable to assume the sun was created then. I did a little digging into the original language of Genesis 1 and found that there's a difference between God 'creating', 'making' and 'setting' the sun and moon as signs to mark the seasons

Then God made (06213) two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made (1443) the stars also. (Gen. 1:16)​

Basically it's saying God 'made' (`asah עָשָׂה Strongs H6213 ), the sun to rule the day and the moon to rule the night. That doesn't mean he brought them into existence but the idea is that he made them visible enough that they could 'rule' the day and night. The stars underwent no actual changes but were set, 'nathan' ( נָתַן nä·than' Strong's H5414) in the heavens, probably based on the same clearing of clouds or whatever atmospheric changes were required.

When you take a look at how 'nathan', translated 'set', is used elsewhere you get a statement like this one:

...gave (H5414) also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. (Gen. 3:6)​

I don't think it's saying that she created it, most often it's translated 'gave'. You have to understand, there are different words used in the creation account with precise meanings describing specific acts and aspects of creation.

If God were bringing the sun, moon and stars into existence the word used would have been 'bara', (Strong's 1254 בָּרָא bä·rä'). Everything in the Genesis 1 account is written from the face of the earth, that's the perspective the narration describes creation from. What you have to appreciate is that the text has been well translated and seldom needs the kind of in depth analysis I'm trying to introduce you to here. Usually when you see 'created' it's describing an act of creation that brings something into existence, something only God can do. Then when you see 'made' it's often a change to an existing creation. Finally when you see 'set' it is an even more precise word that is often translated 'give'. In this context the clearing of the atmosphere would now 'give' a clear point of reckoning for determining the times and seasons.

10,000 years old give or take a millenia. How old was Adam when he was created? 1 day old or 20 years old? IMHO, God created the earth and life WITH maturity. The chicken came first, NOT the egg.

Fully formed and I would expect, mature. Adam and Eve 'knew' one another immediately following creation, I think it's safe to assume they were created adults.

Day 5, unless of course you think plants are life, then day 3.

Exactly.

This is indeed true. Unfortunately some TRY to dip their toes in BOTH worlds, which of course does NOT work. Warm water, spewing and all that...

Evolution is nothing more then a phenomenon by which things change over time. It's Darwinism that presupposes exclusively naturalistic causes going all the way back to the Big Bang. The problem has never been evolution but mistaking Darwinian arguments for science.

 

[StanJ]

God made the heavens and the earth before creation week started, it's not unreasonable to assume the sun was created then. I did a little digging into the original language of Genesis 1 and found that there's a difference between God 'creating', 'making' and 'setting' the sun and moon as signs to mark the seasons

Then God made (06213) two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made (1443) the stars also. (Gen. 1:16)​

Basically it's saying God 'made' (`asah עָשָׂה the sun to rule the day and the moon to rule the night. That doesn't mean he brought them into existence but the idea is that he made them visible enough that they could 'rule' the day and night. The stars underwent no actual changes but were set, 'nathan' ( נָתַן nä·than' in the heavens, probably based on the same clearing of clouds or whatever atmospheric changes were required.
If God were bringing the sun, moon and stars into existence the word used would have been 'bara', (Strong's 1254 בָּרָא bä·rä'). Everything in the Genesis 1 account is written from the face of the earth, that's the perspective the narration describes creation from. What you have to appreciate is that the text has been well translated and seldom needs the kind of in depth analysis I'm trying to introduce you to here. Usually when you see 'created' it's describing an act of creation that brings something into existence, something only God can do. Then when you see 'made' it's often a change to an existing creation. Finally when you see 'set' it is an even more precise word that is often translated 'give'. In this context the clearing of the atmosphere would now 'give' a clear point of reckoning for determining the times and seasons.

I used to be a believer in the 'gap theory', that is supposed to be between Gen 1:1 and 1:2. No longer, since I learned and saw the way the first 3 chapters of Genesis are contextually setup. 1:1 is a summation of all that is depicted in 1:2 to 2:25. It goes from 1:1, to details in 1:2 to 2:3 then more details about how God created man & woman in 2:4 to 2:25.
3:1 picks up the narration going forward.

I tend to trust the credentialed scholars that have done the work of translating into English, until I see or learn something that is obviously wrong. I see no inherent problem with the English versions I use so I tend to differ to these experts when it comes to proper context and wording. I use the NIV and MOUNCE mostly, along with the NRSV, HCSB and NASB as backup reference.

From what I read, Gen 1:2 says the world was DARK and then God created light. Now I have no idea if that means He just caused the sun to light up or that He made the sun at that moment. I prefer to believe the former, but either way works, just as He did the stars.
It may take a year for light to travel but that does NOT mean God could have made the light from those stars appear in a twinkling. Seems the most plausible for me but of course I was NOT there.

Like I said, I tend to let the experts do the translating and use what God gifted them to do, to see what His Word tells us.

 

[mark kennedy]

I used to be a believer in the 'gap theory', that is supposed to be between Gen 1:1 and 1:2. No longer, since I learned and saw the way the first 3 chapters of Genesis are contextually setup. 1:1 is a summation of all that is depicted in 1:2 to 2:25. It goes from 1:1, to details in 1:2 to 2:3 then more details about how God created man & woman in 2:4 to 2:25.

I look at a little differently, The days of creation being separated from the initial creation is perfectly logical and follows the narrative seamlessly:

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. (Genesis 1:1,2)​

Notice, the only reference to time here is the 'beginning' (Strong's H7225 רֵאשִׁית re'shiyth ), leaving the earth dark and covered in water. I don't know if there is a time 'gap' between Genesis 1:2 and verse 3 but there is a definite logical separation. The first verse says clearly that before creation week started the heavens and the earth were created, there is no good reason the believe the sun wasn't part of that creation. It becomes even more likely since Moses is using different words for different kinds of creative acts.

3:1 picks up the narration going forward.

The narration has some changes but the divisions that are there naturally are marked by a word, 'Generations', from which the book takes it's name.

I tend to trust the credentialed scholars that have done the work of translating into English, until I see or learn something that is obviously wrong. I see no inherent problem with the English versions I use so I tend to differ to these experts when it comes to proper context and wording. I use the NIV and MOUNCE mostly, along with the NRSV, HCSB and NASB as backup reference.

I have no problem with the modern translations except that the text critical approach is a little too liberal with the pruning shears. The King James Bible, Tyndal's original translation and the Geneva Bible all used Textus Recepticus. The reason virtually none of the modern translations use it is what they call 'variant text', text not in the oldest or majority copies. Nothing doctrinal or historical is effected so what translation you use should make little, if any, difference. I like going back to the original whenever possible, the Strong's is my first tool of choice, obviously. There are also a number of handy Lexicons and Dictionaries available to the layman. They are comprehensive enough for the kind of basic exposition you need to learn what the original words meant and how they were used elsewhere.

From what I read, Gen 1:2 says the world was DARK and then God created light. Now I have no idea if that means He just caused the sun to light up or that He made the sun at that moment. I prefer to believe the former, but either way works, just as He did the stars.

Ok, the Spirit of God is hovering over the face of the deep in the dark. Then God says, 'Let there be light', this light might not have been the light from the sun since the clouds would have prevented this. It might have been the 'Shekhinah' glory of God. I won't go into why this seems likely to me but it's one way of reading the passage and making sense of the narrative without disturbing the original wording.

It may take a year for light to travel but that does NOT mean God could have made the light from those stars appear in a twinkling. Seems the most plausible for me but of course I was NOT there.

Or they might have been hidden from view by the clouds.

Like I said, I tend to let the experts do the translating and use what God gifted them to do, to see what His Word tells us.

I'm not talking about translating it, I'm talking about using pretty basic tools to get some important insights into what the original says. I don't do that kind of in depth exegetical work but I can find a good dictionary or lexicon that has done the work for me with minimal effort. You might want to look into it, never know what you might learn.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[stan1953]

I look at a little differently, The days of creation being separated from the initial creation is perfectly logical and follows the narrative seamlessly:

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. (Genesis 1:1,2)​

Notice, the only reference to time here is the 'beginning' (Strong's H7225 רֵאשִׁית re'shiyth ), leaving the earth dark and covered in water. I don't know if there is a time 'gap' between Genesis 1:2 and verse 3 but there is a definite logical separation. The first verse says clearly that before creation week started the heavens and the earth were created, there is no good reason the believe the sun wasn't part of that creation. It becomes even more likely since Moses is using different words for different kinds of creative acts.

I said I used to believe in a time gap, I don't any longer. A lot of people see the word NOW in v2 and take it to convey a time gap for purposes of OEC, which I no longer support. It just shows that v1 was a synopsis and v2 is starting the details of creation.

The narration has some changes but the divisions that are there naturally are marked by a word, 'Generations', from which the book takes it's name.

What version do you use, as I don't see that word in the NIV or HCSB?

I have no problem with the modern translations except that the text critical approach is a little too liberal with the pruning shears. The King James Bible, Tyndal's original translation and the Geneva Bible all used Textus Recepticus. The reason virtually none of the modern translations use it is what they call 'variant text', text not in the oldest or majority copies. Nothing doctrinal or historical is effected so what translation you use should make little, if any, difference. I like going back to the original whenever possible, the Strong's is my first tool of choice, obviously. There are also a number of handy Lexicons and Dictionaries available to the layman. They are comprehensive enough for the kind of basic exposition you need to learn what the original words meant and how they were used elsewhere.

You're naming Bible versions that are centuries old and the translation techniques then were lacking to say the least. I don't think the issue is as much what manuscripts were used as it is how they are better constructed today. The NA/GNT is the most widely used today for all but the NKJV who insist on remaining with the TR, which IMO is more political than scholarly, as they don't want to admit that the original may have had some translation or contextual problems when rendered into English.

As for the NIV, it's uses the following;
Textual basis:
NT: Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament.
OT: Biblia Hebraica Masoretic Hebrew Text, Dead Sea Scrolls, Samaritan Pentateuch, Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion, Latin Vulgate, Syriac Peshitta, Aramaic Targums, for Psalms Juxta Hebraica of Jerome.
Translation type: Mixed formal & dynamic equivalence​

Ok, the Spirit of God is hovering over the face of the deep in the dark. Then God says, 'Let there be light', this light might not have been the light from the sun since the clouds would have prevented this. It might have been the 'Shekhinah' glory of God. I won't go into why this seems likely to me but it's one way of reading the passage and making sense of the narrative without disturbing the original wording.

Sorry but that is speculation. First of all there were no clouds then. Weather patterns did NOT exist until AFTER the flood.
I won't bother to explain then why I disagree with your POV on the Shekinah Glory, seeing as you won't bother explaining your POV, exceopt to say "Let there be light" is a command, and God's Shekinah was what men called His presence AFTER creation. It was a natural result of His presence, NOT something He had to create.

I'm not talking about translating it, I'm talking about using pretty basic tools to get some important insights into what the original says. I don't do that kind of in depth exegetical work but I can find a good dictionary or lexicon that has done the work for me with minimal effort. You might want to look into it, never know what you might learn.
Grace and peace,
Mark

No offense , but you're assuming I haven't looked into what I have posted. In any event, THAT is my POV.

 

[mark kennedy]

I said I used to believe in a time gap, I don't any longer. A lot of people see the word NOW in v2 and take it to convey a time gap for purposes of OEC, which I no longer support. It just shows that v1 was a synopsis and v2 is starting the details of creation.

I am YEC by default, but whether your YEC or OEC the age of the universe and the sphere we inhabit does not affect Genesis 1 as history or doctrine.

What version do you use, as I don't see that word in the NIV or HCSB?

When I use a modern translation the NIV is fine but most of them are pretty close anyway. Generally I use the NKJV for reading and I have to use the KJV because my primary exposition tools are keyed to the KJV. I also have a number of other translations I keep handy including the ESV and the RSV.

You're naming Bible versions that are centuries old and the translation techniques then were lacking to say the least. I don't think the issue is as much what manuscripts were used as it is how they are better constructed today. The NA/GNT is the most widely used today for all but the NKJV who insist on remaining with the TR, which IMO is more political than scholarly, as they don't want to admit that the original may have had some translation or contextual problems when rendered into English.

I disagree, I think TR is perfectly reliable differing from the oldest and majority text by only marginal text variations. There are a number of reasons I see the modern translations as complimentary and supplemental but they are really beside the point. The text variation isn't of any great significance to me and I'm far from impressed with modern text critical approaches.

As for the NIV, it's uses the following;
Textual basis:
NT: Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament.
OT: Biblia Hebraica Masoretic Hebrew Text, Dead Sea Scrolls, Samaritan Pentateuch, Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion, Latin Vulgate, Syriac Peshitta, Aramaic Targums, for Psalms Juxta Hebraica of Jerome.
Translation type: Mixed formal & dynamic equivalence​

Yes I know, all modern translations use the same thing. I'm not doing that kind of in depth exegetical work so I consider the NIV and KJV to be complimentary translations, the variant text is of marginal significance at best.

Sorry but that is speculation. First of all there were no clouds then. Weather patterns did NOT exist until AFTER the flood.

There was darkness, it's not speculative to conclude it was due to clouds.

I won't bother to explain then why I disagree with your POV on the Shekinah Glory, seeing as you won't bother explaining your POV, exceopt to say "Let there be light" is a command, and God's Shekinah was what men called His presence AFTER creation. It was a natural result of His presence, NOT something He had to create.

Then you would have to come up with an alternative light source if it's not the sun or the Shekinah glory of God. I'll leave you to your own devices to sort through that as you see fit.

No offense , but you're assuming I haven't looked into what I have posted. In any event, THAT is my POV.

None taken, I was just explaining how I gain insights into the original meaning of the text and the intended meaning of the author. It's just an explanation and a suggestion you can take it for whatever its worth.

Thanks for the exchange.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[bhsmte]

deleted

 

[bhsmte]

deleted

 

[Smidlee]

Logic and empirical evidence shows the theory of evolution to be correct and the theory says nothing about how life started and is not dependent on how life started.

You can choose to combins them together if it makes your personal beliefs safer, but the evidence to support evolution is not going away, it is only getting stronger.

I see the exact opposite. Both evolution and OOL has a serious information problem and it's getting bigger.

 

[dcalling]

Logic and empirical evidence shows the theory of evolution to be correct and the theory says nothing about how life started and is not dependent on how life started.

You can choose to combins them together if it makes your personal beliefs safer, but the evidence to support evolution is not going away, it is only getting stronger.

Can you show me some evidences that supports evolution? Most the evidences, if analyzed logically, shows natural selection, not evolution (Most likely I missed many, if you can pick some of the strong ones will appreciate it).

 

[mark kennedy]

Logic and empirical evidence shows the theory of evolution to be correct and the theory says nothing about how life started and is not dependent on how life started.

It also produces a remarkable degree of stasis which is irrelevant to Creation and the origin of life at large. See my signature.

You can choose to combins them together if it makes your personal beliefs safer, but the evidence to support evolution is not going away, it is only getting stronger.

If you mean evolution as defined scientifically 'the change of alleles in populations over time', I would agree and say big hairy deal. If your talking about the Darwinian naturalistic assumptions of universal common ancestry going all the way back to the Big Bang I'd say it's doomed to fade into obscurity like the many mythologies that went before it.

Are you serious? You claim science does not separate evolution from how life began?

Evolution defined as what exactly because you beginning to spiral into circular rhetoric.

You couldnt be more wrong. Evolution DOES NOT address how life began and never dix.

Indeed, its a living theory that is a phenomenon following life being fully formed as the result of something like creation. Evolution has never been a problem for Creationists, the problem is that Darwinism passes itself off as science, a charade that fools only the gullible and the sincerely self deceived.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[bhsmte]

deleted

 

[gluadys]

Can you show me some evidences that supports evolution? Most the evidences, if analyzed logically, shows natural selection, not evolution (Most likely I missed many, if you can pick some of the strong ones will appreciate it).

Well, natural selection is part of the evidence that supports evolution. After all, it is one of the principal mechanisms of evolution. IOW, where natural selection is the input, evolution is the output. So evidence of natural selection is evidence of evolution.

 

[Smidlee]

Since about 99% of the biologists (some of them christians) who are members of the national academy of science strongly support the theory of evolution.

So, is it your position that the scientific community is involved in a conspiracy to support evolution?

It's human nature to attempt to wipe out (or silence) all competition in business, in politics and yes even in religion and science. This isn't a conspiracy but a scientific and historic fact.
Since there is a cost for a scientist publicly stated their doubts of Darwinism we really don't know how many support the theory. If I was a scientist I wouldn't make my doubts public unless I was going to be directly involve with the origins debate.

 

[bhsmte]

deleted

 

[dcalling]

Evidence to support evolution have been posted on this board too many times to count and is readily available with a few clicks of your mouse. If you have investigated the empirical evidence and dont agree, that is your choice.

The ones I saw so far just suggests natural selection. Scientists are still trying to find the missing link (I remember the latest 'almost evidence' was 2 fossils stocked on top of each other). That is why I wonder you got new evidence.

But it begs a question or two i like to ask those who state the evidence is weak or non existent:

Since about 99% of the biologists (some of them christians) who are members of the national academy of science strongly support the theory of evolution.

So, is it your position that the scientific community is involved in a conspiracy to support evolution?

It is not a conspiracy theory, but if you know the scientific community, you know that most of them (they are human after all) likes people who agree with them. One example is there are 3 schools of mathematics, the first 2 has the most members and the last school (doing fun stuff like Rubik cubs) never got any prices etc. because the first 2 school just won't take them seriously.