Ostrich wings, Intelligent design. Goofed up?

[BCP1928]

Most of us who actually know about biology accept evolution, because it's being observed constantly around us. You wouldn't be the only person with a mistaken idea what it actually is.

And that it contradicts a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation stories, which some people seem to need to be accurate literal history (although we don't know why)..

 

[AV1611VET]

Just on the face of it those two creation stories (Gen 1 & 2, yes two stories,

No, not two stories.

One.

The "other one" is a story within a story.

What's called a "framework narrative."

Here's the whole story in chronological order:

Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

Genesis 1:1 ¶ In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 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.
3 ¶ And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
6 ¶ And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
9 ¶ And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
14 ¶ And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
20 ¶ And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24 ¶ And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
26 ¶ And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27a So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him;

Genesis 2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
8 ¶ And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.
11 The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold;
12 And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone.
13 And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia.
14 And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.
15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.
16 ¶ And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
18 ¶ And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
21 ¶ And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

Genesis 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
29 ¶ And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
31 ¶ And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Genesis 2:1 ¶ Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

 

[Roderick Spode]

I haven't seen references to specific scripture in relation to protons, either. But protons, like evolution, are completely compatible with scripture, in addition to being observed phenomena.

What theistic evolutionists*, or Christian evolutionists* seem to often emphasize is how evolution is compatible with scripture, as I assume that's the challenge presented to you at times. The question you seem to ask Bible literalists, sola scriptura-ists, YECs, etc., is our literal view of Genesis compatible with reality?

Is that fairly accurate?

*Not sure what term to use.

 

[AV1611VET]

A Christian who understands evolution is demonstrating vastly more respect for God ...

Paul says otherwise.

 

[BCP1928]

No, not two stories.

One.

The "other one" is a story within a story.

What's called a "framework narrative."

Why? What's the point of concocting that "framework narrative" scheme when from the standpoint of Christian doctrine it works just as well to have two stories, which is what they appear to be.

 

[BCP1928]

What theistic evolutionists*, or Christian evolutionists* seem to often emphasize is how evolution is compatible with scripture, as I assume that's the challenge presented to you at times. The question you seem to ask Bible literalists, sola scriptura-ists, YECs, etc., is our literal view of Genesis compatible with reality?

Is that fairly accurate?

*Not sure what term to use.

Not the question I would ask, which is, how is your literal view of Genesis necessary to Christian doctrine?

 

[AV1611VET]

Why?

Why what?

What's the point of concocting that "framework narrative" scheme ...

What???

Who are you saying concocted what?

... when from the standpoint of Christian doctrine it works just as well to have two stories, which is what they appear to be.

If, after reading my post, you still want to believe they are two different stories, then I can't help you.

 

[Roderick Spode]

And that it contradicts a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation stories, which some people seem to need to be accurate literal history (although we don't know why)..

I think you might be assuming a bit much here.

I can't speak for others, but there's nothing about the account given in Genesis that's particularly appealing in and of itself. I think we're also subject to cultural imagery. We see pictures of Adam and Eve in a garden wearing fig leaves, often with a snake hanging from a branch, we get a cultural image of mythology. We see pictures of Noah's Ark with 2 giraffes who's necks are longer than the boat, we get an image of church Sunday school. We see a picture of the ascent of man, throw in terms like natural science and history, throw on some Mussorgsky or Holst for background music, we see images of E=mc2, etc.

I can't pick or choose reality. Salvation is a miracle. And if I've seen or experienced just one miracle that I know came from God, who am I to choose which miracles in the bible are literal, and which are stories?

 

[BCP1928]

Why what?



What???

Who are you saying concocted what?



If, after reading my post, you still want to believe they are two different stories, then I can't help you.

But you didn't answer my question. Why go to the trouble of cutting and pasting like that? Two different stories (possibly from two different sources) works just as well and in a more straightforward way.

 

[BCP1928]

I think you might be assuming a bit much here.

I can't speak for others, but there's nothing about the account given in Genesis that's particularly appealing in and of itself.

What? The stories don't appeal to you?

I think we're also subject to cultural imagery. We see pictures of Adam and Eve in a garden wearing fig leaves, often with a snake hanging from a branch, we get a cultural image of mythology. We see pictures of Noah's Ark with 2 giraffes who's necks are longer than the boat, we get an image of church Sunday school. We see a picture of the ascent of man, throw in terms like natural science and history, throw on some Mussorgsky or Holst for background music, we see images of E=mc2, etc.

That makes no sense to me at all. I have no idea of what your point is here.

I can't pick or choose reality. Salvation is a miracle. And if I've seen or experienced just one miracle that I know came from God, who am I to choose which miracles in the bible are literal, and which are stories?

They're all stories, whether they are literal or not. Miracles don't take place in a book, they take place in the real world. All written accounts of things that take place in the real world are stories. The kicker is, is that Christians believe that the stories are divinely inspired, so they are in the book and told they way they are told for a reason that transcends whether the accounts are 100% accurate literal history or not.

 

[AV1611VET]

But you didn't answer my question.

Your question came with a serious flaw attached to it, and I choose to address the flaw, not answer the question.

First things first.

Why go to the trouble of cutting and pasting like that?

To put the [one] story in chronological order.

Two different stories (possibly from two different sources) works just as well and in a more straightforward way.

Works just as well for whom?

Those who think they're "from possibly two different sources"?

Those who claim they contradict each other?

You?

 

[The Barbarian]

The question you seem to ask Bible literalists, sola scriptura-ists, YECs, etc., is our literal view of Genesis compatible with reality?

Is that fairly accurate?

*Not sure what term to use.

It seems clear enough that if one's interpretation of the Bible is at odds with observed phenomena, there's something wrong with the interpretation. How could God be wrong about His own creation?

I know that there are lots of arguments use explain the evidence in a YE context, but none of them seem compelling to me. Most interesting to me is Gerald Aardsma's virtual history idea; in his mind, all that evidence is just a backstory necessary to logically have a world only a few thousand years old. We are, in his view, essentially a story He created.

 

[BCP1928]

Your question came with a serious flaw attached to it, and I choose to address the flaw, not answer the question.

First things first.



To put the [one] story in chronological order.



Works just as well for whom?

For a Christian, or for adherents of the two other major religions whose creation stories these are.

Those who think they're "from possibly two different sources"?

Those who claim they contradict each other?

You?

They only contradict one another if they have to be taken as accurate literal history, but you haven't told me why they should be. They're not even the same literary genre and there is internal evidence of two different sources.

 

[Roderick Spode]

What? The stories don't appeal to you?

I don't know. Does the French Revolutionary War appeal to you?

That makes no sense to me at all. I have no idea of what your point is here.

That I, like I would imagine most people, can be influenced by cultural imagery.

They're all stories, whether they are literal or not. Miracles don't take place in a book, they take place in the real world.

Great! Give me an example of a miracle that has taken place in the real world.

All written accounts of things that take place in the real world are stories.

Except evolution?

The kicker is, is that Christians believe that the stories are divinely inspired, so they are in the book and told they way they are told for a reason that transcends whether the accounts are 100% accurate literal history or not.

You mean it would take a miracle in the real world for a book to be divinely inspired, thus 100% accurate?

 

[The Barbarian]

Paul says otherwise.

Paul said nothing at all about evolution. But he did say something you should have considered...

Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

He's right; you have no excuse.

 

[Astrid]

I think you might be assuming a bit much here.

I can't speak for others, but there's nothing about the account given in Genesis that's particularly appealing in and of itself. I think we're also subject to cultural imagery. We see pictures of Adam and Eve in a garden wearing fig leaves, often with a snake hanging from a branch, we get a cultural image of mythology. We see pictures of Noah's Ark with 2 giraffes who's necks are longer than the boat, we get an image of church Sunday school. We see a picture of the ascent of man, throw in terms like natural science and history, throw on some Mussorgsky or Holst for background music, we see images of E=mc2, etc.

I can't pick or choose reality. Salvation is a miracle. And if I've seen or experienced just one miracle that I know came from God, who am I to choose which miracles in the bible are literal, and which are stories?

You can choose to deny the plain
reality that the " flood miracle" is JUST
a story, just not true.
What that does to a person's religion
is up to the believer and his tolerance
for cognitive dissonance and self deception.

It's also the measure of a religion threatened
by reality.

 

[BCP1928]

I don't know. Does the French Revolutionary War appeal to you?

Not as such, but Les Miz is a pretty good show.

That I, like I would imagine most people, can be influenced by cultural imagery.

Where does the cultural imagery come from?

Great! Give me an example of a miracle that has taken place in the real world.

The resurrection of Christ is probably tops for any Christian.

Except evolution?

Evolution happens in the real world. A written account of it is just a written account of it.

You mean it would take a miracle in the real world for a book to be divinely inspired, thus 100% accurate?

That the book is divinely inspired is an article of faith. That miracles happen in the real world is another. That the book must be 100% accurate with respect to all aspects of history and science is apparently a third. The first two seem related to a religion based on faith in Christ, the third may be, but nobody has explained why it must be.

 

[The Barbarian]

And that it contradicts a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation stories, which some people seem to need to be accurate literal history (although we don't know why)..

Notice that it says God created all living things, but doesn't specify how. So there is that.

 

[Roderick Spode]

You can choose to deny the plain
reality that the " flood miracle" is JUST
a story, just not true.
What that does to a person's religion
is up to the believer and his tolerance
for cognitive dissonance and self deception.

It's also the measure of a religion threatened
by reality.

Not to cause division, but a number of members here who believe the flood is just a story, also (presumably)believe Jesus Chris was resurrected, and ascended into heaven. There's quite a few strong implications there to consider. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[BCP1928]

Notice that it says God created all living things, but doesn't specify how. So there is that.

The story in Genesis doesn't even say He did it all directly, He said, "Let the Earth bring forth..." So defending the fundamentalist idea of Special Creation from the theory of evolution on the grounds of literal inerrancy doesn't hold water, No, I am convinced that there is some theological axe being ground here that we are not privy to.