Theistic Evolution

[elopez]

I simply talk about science based on what the Scripture says.

No, you obscure science.

The sun came after the earth is completely understandable.

Not from a scientific understanding...

There is NO reason that our sun should be formed before the earth.

Well there is actually. Mainly as you NEED it to even have a day...

All you have is the obsolete nebula hypothesis.

Well the nebular theory is far from obsolete, even if you disagree with it. And no, you're ignoring the definition of a day, as according to science which has already been posted.

(Are you a scientist? I need to know what you can understand to talk to you efficiently on this matter.

Are you a scientist? You don't have to be a scientist to understand science lol...

For example, the "light" in Gen 1:3 should not be the sunlight.)

Except the "light" was called day, and day light is sun light. And still, the "light" would have been very similar to the sun for there to be a day..

 

[lesliedellow]

I don't know Walton, but do know about the bible and the Genesis account. For example, one of the major Reformers, Calvin, adopted an accommodation principle for interpreting Scripture. Accordingly, because we are so fallen and infantile, God has to use "baby talk" to explain things to us. Hence, Calvin argued that God was not here to teach us astronomy, that the passages dealing with geophysical issues were ones in which God was using "baby talk" and therefore he no actual bearing on the real world.

God wasn't trying to teach us astronomy, physics or biology. But he clearly was trying to teach something, so "no actual bearing on the real world," doesn't seem a particularly happy turn of phrase.

 

[-57]

No, you obscure science.


Not from a scientific understanding...


Well there is actually. Mainly as you NEED it to even have a day...


Well the nebular theory is far from obsolete, even if you disagree with it. And no, you're ignoring the definition of a day, as according to science which has already been posted.


Are you a scientist? You don't have to be a scientist to understand science lol...


Except the "light" was called day, and day light is sun light. And still, the "light" would have been very similar to the sun for there to be a day..

 

[-57]

No, you obscure science.


Not from a scientific understanding...


Well there is actually. Mainly as you NEED it to even have a day...


Well the nebular theory is far from obsolete, even if you disagree with it. And no, you're ignoring the definition of a day, as according to science which has already been posted.


Are you a scientist? You don't have to be a scientist to understand science lol...


Except the "light" was called day, and day light is sun light. And still, the "light" would have been very similar to the sun for there to be a day..

elopez, post 81...how was that created? Was it automatic or did you create the replies by hand?

 

[-57]

God wasn't trying to teach us astronomy, physics or biology. But he clearly was trying to teach something, so "no actual bearing on the real world," doesn't seem a particularly happy turn of phrase.

God was teaching us how He formed man from dust then Eve from his rib. God blows traditional science apart....especially when the dead Jesus rose to life on day 3 despite what the scientist have to say.

 

[lesliedellow]

Bottom line...you have no answer. thanks for playing.

I may not have biology as my number one interest, but I still manage to know more about it than you. Admittedly, that is not exactly difficult.

 

[lesliedellow]

You DO have reason, very critical reason, which is your faith to Christianity. Unless you do not care about it so much either.

Evolution gives me no theological problems whatsoever.

 

[lesliedellow]

God was teaching us how He formed man from dust then Eve from his rib.

No he wasn't.

God blows traditional science apart....especially when the dead Jesus rose to life on day 3 despite what the scientist have to say.

And how do you know what the scientist has to say? Which scientist would you be talking about exactly?

 

[Hoghead1]

I'm not sure I understand, Juvenissun. Just what problems do you see science as having with evolution? What specific holes? If you take Genesis literally, then yes, there are big problems here. But who says you should take Genesis literally? St. Augustine that it made no sense to take Genesis literally. In fact, he wrote a whole book on the subject, titled "Genesis in the Literal Sense. During the Reformation, Calvin argued that some biblical passages not be taken literally, and this includes ones that appear to be a geophysical witness. This is the accommodation theory of Scripture. We have such feeble intellects that God has to accommodate himself to us and talk "baby talk, just like we use the Stork example to explain where babies come from, to children. So he argued that God did not have scripture written to teach us astronomy, for example. The flat earth, etc., are all just baby talk and having nothing to do with the real world. And speaking of holes, I do not see how one can take a literal approach to Genesis and claim it as valid. Genesis breaks down into two conflicting chronologies. In Gen. 1, first animals, then man and woman together. In Gn. 2 fist,man, then animals, then woman. In addition, careful literary research shows the accounts are written each by a different scribe from different point in time. Attempts to force these two into one coherent account have all filed.

 

[Hoghead1]

You are missing my point, Lesliedellow. What Calvin is saying is that the literal statement of the biblical text, say, speaking about a flat earth, etc., is not at all true, just as the stork story isn't true.

 

[PsychoSarah]

So, Johnny teaches this...at the right time God conferred His image to all people.(43:33) This idenity and function made humanity distinct from its genetic predecessors. Hmmmmmm, just where does the bible teach this?

Where does the bible say God did this to the evolving human population?

Did you ever consider the fact that ancient peoples would not have had the vocabulary to portray the world as accurately as modern scientific findings do? I could give them the benefit of the doubt, that they wrote down what "god" communicated to the best of their limited ability. Even a deity would not have been able to be understood using words that didn't exist yet; at least, not after people wrote them down.

 

[juvenissun]

No, you obscure science.

Not from a scientific understanding...

Well there is actually. Mainly as you NEED it to even have a day...

Well the nebular theory is far from obsolete, even if you disagree with it. And no, you're ignoring the definition of a day, as according to science which has already been posted.

Are you a scientist? You don't have to be a scientist to understand science lol...

Except the "light" was called day, and day light is sun light. And still, the "light" would have been very similar to the sun for there to be a day..

OK, the "day".
Without our sun, what is our time unit called "day"? No. without the sun, our (your) day does not exist.
So, what is a "day" without the sun?
Day mean periodical alternating dark and light. If we have a light source, then it means: rotation.
Do you see everything in our universe rotates? That is what the "day" and "evening" mean in Gen 1.

I am not able to obscure science. But if you are not familiar with science, I can certainly obscure you.

 

[juvenissun]

Evolution gives me no theological problems whatsoever.

Do you want to know some problems? I can give you many, but one at a time.

 

[-57]

I'm not sure I understand, Juvenissun. Just what problems do you see science as having with evolution? What specific holes? If you take Genesis literally, then yes, there are big problems here. But who says you should take Genesis literally? St. Augustine that it made no sense to take Genesis literally. In fact, he wrote a whole book on the subject, titled "Genesis in the Literal Sense. During the Reformation, Calvin argued that some biblical passages not be taken literally, and this includes ones that appear to be a geophysical witness. This is the accommodation theory of Scripture. We have such feeble intellects that God has to accommodate himself to us and talk "baby talk, just like we use the Stork example to explain where babies come from, to children. So he argued that God did not have scripture written to teach us astronomy, for example. The flat earth, etc., are all just baby talk and having nothing to do with the real world. And speaking of holes, I do not see how one can take a literal approach to Genesis and claim it as valid. Genesis breaks down into two conflicting chronologies. In Gen. 1, first animals, then man and woman together. In Gn. 2 fist,man, then animals, then woman. In addition, careful literary research shows the accounts are written each by a different scribe from different point in time. Attempts to force these two into one coherent account have all filed.

Your post said "But who says you should take Genesis literally? " and "I do not see how one can take a literal approach to Genesis and claim it as valid."

Here's your answer.....Paul took Genesis as literal. Paul wrote the following
Romans 5:8 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—

1 Cor 15:47 puts is this way...The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. This seems as if Paul wrote pretty literally.

Here's some real trouble for those who think Genesis isn't literal.... Paul is writing to Timothy giving direction to the women in the church. His logic is based upon the following verse which reaches directly back to Genesis. Why would Paul have women instructed based upon some type of myth?

Tim 2:13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.14And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

 

[-57]

Did you ever consider the fact that ancient peoples would not have had the vocabulary to portray the world as accurately as modern scientific findings do? I could give them the benefit of the doubt, that they wrote down what "god" communicated to the best of their limited ability. Even a deity would not have been able to be understood using words that didn't exist yet; at least, not after people wrote them down.

Problem being, there would have been so many easy things to say using words and concepts esaily understood.

God could have said in Genesis....From the animals I made mankind. Would they have not understood that?

 

[lesliedellow]

God could have said in Genesis....From the animals I made mankind. Would they have not understood that?

Assuming that his intention was to give them a science lesson, rather than to direct their attention towards himself as their Creator.

 

[elopez]

Without our sun, what is our time unit called "day"? No. without the sun, our (your) day does not exist.

Without the sun, we would have nothing that pulls us in with a gravitational force that has the earth orbit. The sun's mass is what draws earth near it, making it orbit, and without it, we would fly off in space. Something that seems off is how you readily admit "without the sun, our (your) day does not exist" yet are atill trying to argue the sun does not need to be for there to be a day...Do you not realize how conflicting that sounds on your behalf?

So, what is a "day" without the sun?

Sun light takes about 9 minutes to reach earth, meaning if there were no sun, we would still see it for another 9 mins before it dissappeared. After that it would be completely dark. We wouldn't be able to see the moon, either, as the sun light is what reflects on the moon to make it visible (not to mention the moon also wasn't created till day 4).

Day meaning periodical alternating dark and light. If we have a light source, then it means: rotation.

And a great example of how you must obscure science, or simply do not grasp it. See, there is already a mistake in your premise, which is very telling of your idea of science. The earth would still need a lot more than a mere rotation for there to be a day. The earth does not rotate around the sun (or in this case, a "light"). The earth orbits the sun, and would orbit the "light". The earth rotates (or spins) on its axis, and the earth revolves (or orbits) around the sun. Just to clarify that for you.

Especially since the plants and vegitation were created on day three, and still no sun. The "light" would have to provide the same amount of energy and light as the sun to produce photosynthesis.

My point here is that the "light" would have to be remarkably similar to the sun in literally every way. And since it is virtually no different from the sun, it very well could be the sun itself! And what's more, is if we look at Genesis 1:14 (to separate the day from the night) it describes the same event as Genesis 1:4-5 (and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.”). Seems to me to be describing the same event twice. Literally, as you take it, word for word, it says the same event occuring twice. If there is a creating of the sun by that language in verse 14 and on, then there is doing so in verses 4-5 too.

 

[juvenissun]

Without the sun, we would have nothing that pulls us in with a gravitational force that has the earth orbit. The sun's mass is what draws earth near it, making it orbit, and without it, we would fly off in space. Something that seems off is how you readily admit "without the sun, our (your) day does not exist" yet are atill trying to argue the sun does not need to be for there to be a day...Do you not realize how conflicting that sounds on your behalf?

Sun light takes about 9 minutes to reach earth, meaning if there were no sun, we would still see it for another 9 mins before it dissappeared. After that it would be completely dark. We wouldn't be able to see the moon, either, as the sun light is what reflects on the moon to make it visible (not to mention the moon also wasn't created till day 4).

And a great example of how you must obscure science, or simply do not grasp it. See, there is already a mistake in your premise, which is very telling of your idea of science. The earth would still need a lot more than a mere rotation for there to be a day. The earth does not rotate around the sun (or in this case, a "light"). The earth orbits the sun, and would orbit the "light". The earth rotates (or spins) on its axis, and the earth revolves (or orbits) around the sun. Just to clarify that for you.

Especially since the plants and vegitation were created on day three, and still no sun. The "light" would have to provide the same amount of energy and light as the sun to produce photosynthesis.

My point here is that the "light" would have to be remarkably similar to the sun in literally every way. And since it is virtually no different from the sun, it very well could be the sun itself! And what's more, is if we look at Genesis 1:14 (to separate the day from the night) it describes the same event as Genesis 1:4-5 (and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.”). Seems to me to be describing the same event twice. Literally, as you take it, word for word, it says the same event occuring twice. If there is a creating of the sun by that language in verse 14 and on, then there is doing so in verses 4-5 too.

From your comments, I can see you are not in the field of science. I would never obscure science because of the Genesis 1. I only understand more about science because of the wonderful chapter.

Your world of the earth and the sun is all "current".
In the "early time", the earth, the sun and the universe were very different and they did not work like they are now.

For example, the earth would still rotate and orbit like she does now, but the sun was only a collection of dense gases and did not emit its light yet (It was not a star yet). In that situation, we say the earth existed before the sun.

 

[elopez]

From your comments, I can see you are not in the field of science.

Yeah? Point to something precise then.

I would never obscure science

Yet you already did by this comment:

If we have a light source, then it means: rotation.

you conflated "rotate" with "revolve". So really, it is from your comments that it can be exposed you are "not in the field of science"...

Your world of the earth and the sun is all "current".

"Current"? Whatever you want to call it, that's how it works. To say otherwise would be to misconcieve of this most baisc earth-sun science even more than you have already begun to do.

In the "early time", the earth, the sun and the universe were very different and they did not work like they are now.

Yes, they were very different in the early solar system. However, the sun has not chaged in any dramtic way for a long time. Even by your standards and definition of "early" the sun has not changed much. It is referred to as "middle aged." The sun will continue in this stable condition for what is predicted to be at least 4 more billion years.

For example, the earth would still rotate and orbit like she does now, but the sun was only a collection of dense gases and did not emit its light yet (It was not a star yet).

What do you mean the sun did not emit it's light? Even in Genesis 1:15 it states "and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth." Genesis indicates the sun was emitting light on the earth.

Let me point out another specifc point that shows your misunderstanding of science. In regards to the claim that the sun was not yet a star. The sun originated as an interstellar cloud consisting mostly of hydrogen gas. The hydrogen gas cloud condensed under the influence of its own gravity. It eventually became a spehre when big blobs of gas collected together from smaller ones. The ball of hydrogen gas grew denser because of its gravity, as many trillions of tons of gas in the upper layers compressed in the center, raising its temperature to millions of degrees.

When the sun wasn't a star (a protostar), gravity and pressure begin to condense matter in the center of the nebula, but no nuclear fusion had taken place. When nuclear fusion begins, a star is "born". The sun would have had to been as it is now in the early solar system (under yec) as if it was a mere protostar and earth was formed then, the sun would not be massive enough to pull earth into it's gravitational field in order for earth to orbit it.

 

[juvenissun]

if it was a mere protostar and earth was formed then, the sun would not be massive enough to pull earth into it's gravitational field in order for earth to orbit it.

How do you figure that? I think a protostar can certainly do that.