Question for Christian old-earth evolutionists

Originally posted by Chris H
Actually, I don't belive that God created the universe for any real scientific reason. I believe in God because I belive that he works in my life.

I belive in evolution because of the evidence.

Put 2 n 2 together.

I see NO scientific way to argue any kind of a creationist belief.

Chris

Okay, now we know what you DON'T consider to be a reason to believe G~d created the universe. And we know that you believe in G~d.

But you (or anyone else) still haven't said on what your thinking is based for why you DO believe G~d created life. If you don't have a scientific reason, fine. What's your unscientific reason?
 
Upvote 0

Annabel Lee

Beware the Thought Police
Feb 8, 2002
14,443
1,165
115
Q'onoS
✟39,227.00
Faith
Christian
Politics
US-Others
I thought of posting on this thread npetreley but, to be quite honest, your questioning was a bit aggressive.
For example:

Hello? You guys have no trouble at all going on at length about why you don't believe G~d created life according to a literal interpretation of Genesis. Why are you having so much trouble explaining why you do believe G~d created life, at all?

Why? And why won't anyone answer this question?

You still haven't answered the question. You state that you believe in an intelligent creator, but not why.

Deafening silence?


If you tone it down a bit you may find more people willing to post.
 
Upvote 0

Sinai

Well-Known Member
Apr 2, 2002
1,127
19
Visit site
✟1,762.00
Faith
Protestant
Originally posted by npetreley
Finally someone says why he believes!

If there were evidence to the contrary, which would you pick -- the Bible or the evidence?

Since your question deals with the beginning of life on our planet, I believe I answered that with the rest of my statement:


"....But even if abiogenesis were proven to be the way life began, it would not change that, since it would still not be contrary to the Bible. The only times the Hebrew word bara' (indicating that God created something out of nothing or that God created something where no matter had existed previously) are used in the creation account is once for the creation of the universe and twice when telling of God's creation of the neshama (or nishmath)--man's soul or capacity for special eternal fellowship with God. The rest of the time, God apparently used existing matter to make or fashion what he wished--but the Bible does not say how God did it. Science tends to be more interested in determining the when and the how, while the Bible tends to be more interested in telling us the why and the Who....."
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by David Gould
I did answer it.

It was because I felt a connection with Jesus. Like your faith, mine was not intellectual.

I still don't see the answer here. You felt a connection with Jesus - but did you think He was telling you He created all things? Or did you read it somewhere? Or did you find out by ESP?
 
Upvote 0

Didaskomenos

Voiced Bilabial Spirant
Feb 11, 2002
1,057
40
GA
Visit site
✟18,161.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Originally posted by npetreley
Does scientific evidence contradict anything you believe in?

What some people think is scientific evidence that homosexuality is completely genetically determined, I find largely for reasons of faith to be false.

Which takes precedence, a scientific statement or your faith?


It's case by case. What do you want, a rule-for-rule, all-contingency guide to determining Truth? That's not faith at all now, is it?
 
Upvote 0

Didaskomenos

Voiced Bilabial Spirant
Feb 11, 2002
1,057
40
GA
Visit site
✟18,161.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Originally posted by npetreley
But you (or anyone else) still haven't said on what your thinking is based for why you DO believe G~d created life. If you don't have a scientific reason, fine. What's your unscientific reason?

I believe because I have experienced. I grew up in a household of faith and I have seen God working all my life. This did not prohibit me from questioning some things (like the YEC view that I was so dedicated to at a young age). I test everything, and hold fast to that which is good. That's why I believe God is responsible for the universe.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Originally posted by Didaskomenos
I believe because I have experienced. I grew up in a household of faith and I have seen God working all my life. This did not prohibit me from questioning some things (like the YEC view that I was so dedicated to at a young age). I test everything, and hold fast to that which is good. That's why I believe God is responsible for the universe.

That's still not an answer, IMO. You experienced the creation? How? Where did you get the idea that G~d created the universe so that you could believe it's true?
 
Upvote 0

Didaskomenos

Voiced Bilabial Spirant
Feb 11, 2002
1,057
40
GA
Visit site
✟18,161.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Myth doesn't mean "myth" - it means Myth. :) The term has recently and unfortunately been made to be synonymous with "fairy tale," but as I've explained on countless threads, the original meaning of the term refers to a narrative meant to convey meanings (truth) beyond simple history (see C.S. Lewis's writings on the matter). Can you see that the story of Icarus falling because he flew too close to the sun on wings of wax is certainly "True" in that it has realistic metaphorical parallels to real life, although it is unhistorical and scientifically implausible? Were Jesus' parables "lies" because they were fictional?

Because God inspired Scripture, he obviously thought myth an appropriate vehicle for portraying the fact that he created the earth. If he wasn't concerned about giving us the historical details in the account, I can't imagine why anyone would be a crusader for turning the story into a history/science lesson.
 
Upvote 0

excreationist

Former Believer
Aug 29, 2002
234
3
45
Noosa, Australia
✟576.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Didaskomenos:
Do you think Jesus's earthly father, Joseph, literally descended from Adam in 60 or 74 generations? (depending on if you go by Matthew or Luke) (see these lists of Bible genealogies) If so, then this means that Adam would be a historical person, unlike your example of Icarus.
In Jesus's parables everything he says seems to serve a purpose to make the message of the parable clearer. And it clearly says that Jesus was telling them a parable. Do you know of any place in the Bible that says that certain bits of Genesis are a parable?
What about those genealogies in Genesis? Are they non-literal writings that communicate some kind of message? If so, what is that message? In Jesus's parables and in the Icarus one, the message (or "moral of the story") is pretty clear.
Note that those long ages aren't just in early Genesis...
e.g. Genesis 25:7-8 says that Abraham lived to be 175.
And Job 42:16 says "Job lived 140 years after that, living to see four generations of his children and grandchildren."

Is that a historical fact?

What about Exodus 20:11a - "In six days I, the Lord, made the earth, the sky, the seas, and everything in them, but on the seventh day I rested...."

And Exodus 31:17b - "...I, the Lord, made heaven and earth in six days, and on the seventh day I stopped working and rested."

This is right in the middle of a serious set of commandments. I thought in that context God wouldn't be retelling unscientific stories.

So WHY did God keep on saying that he made the world in six days? If God wanted to say he made the earth, why didn't he just say that he made the earth?

Were Jesus' parables "lies" because they were fictional?
Well the characters and events in the stories weren't real.... but he wasn't really insisting that they were real - the gospels say things like "Jesus told them this parable" and "suppose there was a...".
On the other hand, those parts like long life-spans, the tower of Babel, Adam and Eve, etc, and interwoven throughout the Bible. e.g. Paul and Jesus seem to talk about Adam and Eve and the events described in Genesis were literal.

e.g. 2 Co 11:3 - "I am afraid that your minds will be corrupted and that you will abandon your full and pure devotion to Christ—in the same way that Eve was deceived by the snake's clever lies."

Since Adam was listed in Luke 3's genealogies, Adam is meant to be a historical character. And 1 Timothy 2:13-14 talks about Adam as well as Eve so Eve would also be a historical character - from the point of view of the Bible's writers. And 2 Co 11:3 is saying that she was deceived by the snake... i.e. that was a historical event... though I guess the snake could be a metaphor for something else (but I've got counter-arguments for that)

So here we have these historical characters, Adam and Eve. In Genesis 3:20 it says that Eve became the mother of all human beings. Is that scientifically true? If you look at the genealogies (including the one in Luke) she lived less than 6000 years ago. If it isn't scientifically true, then does that statement have some kind of "deeper" meaning? What might that be?

It's easy to just say "it's all a big parable" but it is another story to justify your claims.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

kaotic

Learn physics
Sep 22, 2002
4,660
4
North Carolina, USA
Visit site
✟14,836.00
Faith
Agnostic
Politics
US-Democrat
Originally posted by Chris H
The Evidence.

Chris

Chris are you saying that there is Evidence of GOD, if so i would like to see the Evidence.  The only place that has it is the bible, and humans writen it, so i am not going to believe something that primitive people wrote there wasn't really any science back then.

You don't believe in easter bunny, or Santa Claus, or monsters from a book do you, so why would anyone want to believe in a GOD from a book.  I hope i didn't offend you.
 
Upvote 0

Didaskomenos

Voiced Bilabial Spirant
Feb 11, 2002
1,057
40
GA
Visit site
✟18,161.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Originally posted by excreationist
Didaskomenos:
Do you think Jesus's earthly father, Joseph, literally descended from Adam in 60 or 74 generations? (depending on if you go by Matthew or Luke) (see these lists of Bible genealogies) If so, then this means that Adam would be a historical person, unlike your example of Icarus.

No. I am not an inerrantist.

In Jesus's parables everything he says seems to serve a purpose to make the message of the parable clearer. And it clearly says that Jesus was telling them a parable. Do you know of any place in the Bible that says that certain bits of Genesis are a parable?

There is no parable in Genesis. Metaphor does not mean allegory. See below.

I contend that the mythological elements of Genesis were obvious to the people as myths. The Israelites may or may not have known that the creation account was historically inaccurate, but were probably aware that the story was concocted to give a particular subject (the existence of the world) meaning.

What about those genealogies in Genesis? Are they non-literal writings that communicate some kind of message? If so, what is that message?

Yes, they are meant to convey Jesus' worthy heritage and exceptional pedigree. The writers probably believed that Adam was a historical figure. There probably was a human(oid) creature to whom God-consciousness was first endowed, and we are the descendents of that prehistorical "Adam." But even if not, this does not disrupt the genealogies' contention that Jesus was a son in a royal line of the tribe of Judah, a descendent of David.

In Jesus's parables and in the Icarus one, the message (or "moral of the story") is pretty clear.
Note that those long ages aren't just in early Genesis...
e.g. Genesis 25:7-8 says that Abraham lived to be 175.
And Job 42:16 says "Job lived 140 years after that, living to see four generations of his children and grandchildren."

Is that a historical fact?

Probably not. The point of my comments about parables is that it does not matter. The story is as "true" as if it really occurred.

What about Exodus 20:11a - "In six days I, the Lord, made the earth, the sky, the seas, and everything in them, but on the seventh day I rested...."

And Exodus 31:17b - "...I, the Lord, made heaven and earth in six days, and on the seventh day I stopped working and rested."

This is right in the middle of a serious set of commandments. I thought in that context God wouldn't be retelling unscientific stories.

So WHY did God keep on saying that he made the world in six days? If God wanted to say he made the earth, why didn't he just say that he made the earth

Good question. It follows along the theory that God wanted the creation story to be told in the way that it was. For whatever reason, he has chosen to let the myth be told, and in some ways constructed the religion of his people around it (the same goes for Jesus being the "second Adam"). I do not have a complete answer on this. Another possibility is that this was a Mosaic or Levitical device to explain their 7-day week in terms of their own ancient myth.

Well the characters and events in the stories weren't real.... but he wasn't really insisting that they were real - the gospels say things like "Jesus told them this parable" and "suppose there was a...".
On the other hand, those parts like long life-spans, the tower of Babel, Adam and Eve, etc, and interwoven throughout the Bible. e.g. Paul and Jesus seem to talk about Adam and Eve and the events described in Genesis were literal.

e.g. 2 Co 11:3 - "I am afraid that your minds will be corrupted and that you will abandon your full and pure devotion to Christ—in the same way that Eve was deceived by the snake's clever lies."

That passage is a perfect use of the Genesis story as myth. You need to read this passage by Lewis:

"In the enjoyment of a great myth we come nearest to experiencing as a concrete what can otherwise be understood only as an abstraction. At this moment, for example, I am trying to understand something very abstract indeed - the fading, vanishing of tasted reality as we try to grasp it with the discursive reason. Probably I have made heavy weather of it. But if I remind you, instead, of Orpheus and Eurydice, how he was suffered to lead her by the hand but, when he turned round to look at her, she disappeared, what was merely a principle becomes imaginable. You may reply that you never till this moment attached that 'meaning' to that myth. Of course not. You are not looking for an abstract 'meaning' at all. If that was what you were doing the myth would be for you not true myth but a mere allegory. You were not knowing, but tasting; but what you’re tasting turns out to be a universal principle. The moment we state this principle, we are admittedly back in the world of abstraction. It is only while receiving the myth as a story that you experience the principle concretely." (from God in the Dock)

Since Adam was listed in Luke 3's genealogies, Adam is meant to be a historical character. And 1 Timothy 2:13-14 talks about Adam as well as Eve so Eve would also be a historical character - from the point of view of the Bible's writers. And 2 Co 11:3 is saying that she was deceived by the snake... i.e. that was a historical event... though I guess the snake could be a metaphor for something else (but I've got counter-arguments for that)

So here we have these historical characters, Adam and Eve. In Genesis 3:20 it says that Eve became the mother of all human beings. Is that scientifically true? If you look at the genealogies (including the one in Luke) she lived less than 6000 years ago. If it isn't scientifically true, then does that statement have some kind of "deeper" meaning? What might that be?

I have addressed your concerns elsewhere. 1) I do not think that the biblical writers were omniscient, and we must therefore allow that they might have thought the Genesis story was an historical account. 2) The "deeper" meaning of Genesis 1-11 is too deep for a simple solution like you want. It is not an allegory in which every component of the story has a 1:1 relationship to something in reality. I do know that the point of the creation story is that God created the earth. It has an infinite number of other applications (as all myths do), but that was the point of the myth - to explain the world's existence. It is not all "a big parable."
 
Upvote 0

Sinai

Well-Known Member
Apr 2, 2002
1,127
19
Visit site
✟1,762.00
Faith
Protestant
Originally posted by excreationist:
Do you think Jesus's earthly father, Joseph, literally descended from Adam in 60 or 74 generations? (depending on if you go by Matthew or Luke

If you are tracing Joseph's family tree, use Matthew; if tracing Mary's family tree, then use Luke. Both are descended from David.
 
Upvote 0

excreationist

Former Believer
Aug 29, 2002
234
3
45
Noosa, Australia
✟576.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Sinai:

If you are tracing Joseph's family tree, use Matthew; if tracing Mary's family tree, then use Luke. Both are descended from David.

How do you know that the genealogy in Luke is Mary's family tree? In Luke 3:23 it says "...He was the son, so people thought, of Joseph." To me, that sentence obviously is referring to Jesus's foster-dad, Joseph because it says "He was the son, so people thought...." and most people would think that Joseph was Jesus's real father.

Didaskomenos:

(I've repeated and mixed up your quotes a bit)

There is no parable in Genesis. Metaphor does not mean allegory. See below.

I contend that the mythological elements of Genesis were obvious to the people as myths. The Israelites may or may not have known that the creation account was historically inaccurate, but were probably aware that the story was concocted to give a particular subject (the existence of the world) meaning.

What are the "mythological elements of Genesis"? Later you said that Job 42:16 probably isn't historically true. What about the rest of Job? Or the rest of the OT? What about all the demon possessions in the gospels? What about the stories in 1 and 2 Kings?

In Jesus's parables, it is obvious that it is a non-historical story. And in Revelation it says it is a vision and the things are symbolic (Rev 1:20). How can you be certain that many parts of the Bible isn't historical? Are these opinions based on any Bible verses? If so, could you list those verses?

Or maybe you think that whatever seems to be scientifically unlikely at the moment is mythology (like a parable or whatever)...

Why didn't God make it clear *in the Bible* that Genesis didn't really happen? Well except for the "God created the heavens and the earth" bit. Wouldn't an omniscient God know that there would be lots of time wasted with Christians debating it and devoting their careers to proving that the universe is less than 6000 years old? 


There is no parable in Genesis. Metaphor does not mean allegory. See below.

That quote by C. S. Lewis seems to be saying something like that people can get more deeply immersed into a story if they are told it is real. (Or something)

1) I do not think that the biblical writers were omniscient, and we must therefore allow that they might have thought the Genesis story was an historical account.

Why didn't the allegedly all-knowing, all-powerful and all-loving creator of the universe deliver his message more accurately than let myths and things distort his message? Doesn't God know that this would be a main reason people would leave Christianity, because of the problems in the Bible? Maybe God was trying to make it a challenge to believe so that we can have "free will" - but remember that Adam, Eve, Satan and a third of the angels in heaven knew God existed yet they turned away from him. So having mythological bits that appear to be part of the historical narrative is unnecessary. What do you think?

BTW, do you believe in the virgin birth, and demon exorcism, and Jesus ascending up into Heaven?


Yes, they are meant to convey Jesus' worthy heritage and exceptional pedigree. The writers probably believed that Adam was a historical figure. There probably was a human(oid) creature to whom God-consciousness was first endowed, and we are the descendents of that prehistorical "Adam." But even if not, this does not disrupt the genealogies' contention that Jesus was a son in a royal line of the tribe of Judah, a descendent of David.

So I guess you're saying that Adam wasn't a historical figure and at least parts of the gospels are fabricated.


For whatever reason, he has chosen to let the myth be told, and in some ways constructed the religion of his people around it (the same goes for Jesus being the "second Adam").

How do you know this? What Biblical support is there that God doesn't mind people believing that non-historical events actually occured? In Jesus's parables it seemed to be quite clear that he was telling hypothetical stories.

2) The "deeper" meaning of Genesis 1-11 is too deep for a simple solution like you want.It is not an allegory in which every component of the story has a 1:1 relationship to something in reality.

In Jesus's stories, he was a good storyteller and didn't go off into unnecessary details. And he didn't make statements like "so and so was the mother of all humans" when talking about a non-historical character in a parable. BTW, do you think the story of Jonah happened? What about when God rained burning sulphur on Sodom and Gomorrah... did that happen? Did Lot's wife really turn into a pillar of salt? Did all the things in Exodus happen? What about in Acts 2 where everyone can hear the believers speak in their own native language? And what *looked* like "tongues of fire" spread out and touched them? What about the feeding of the four thousand and five thousand men? I wonder if you have opinions on how historical those things were.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Didaskomenos

Voiced Bilabial Spirant
Feb 11, 2002
1,057
40
GA
Visit site
✟18,161.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Originally posted by excreationist

Why didn't the allegedly all-knowing, all-powerful and all-loving creator of the universe deliver his message more accurately than let myths and things distort his message? Doesn't God know that this would be a main reason people would leave Christianity, because of the problems in the Bible? Maybe God was trying to make it a challenge to believe so that we can have "free will" - but remember that Adam, Eve, Satan and a third of the angels in heaven knew God existed yet they turned away from him. So having mythological bits that appear to be part of the historical narrative is unnecessary. What do you think?

BTW, do you believe in the virgin birth, and demon exorcism, and Jesus ascending up into Heaven?


More accurately? What's inaccurate about it? Just because he spoke to these people in their own language doesn't mean he was being dishonest. Because we have evolved past a certain point in history and have changed our epistemology, we often tend to think that now God doesn't have to use this "baby talk" to communicate with us - but that's arrogant nonsense. In our present age we may like "science" and "history" as we know it, but it doesn't eliminate the inevitable gap between God's mind and that of man. Besides, there is no distortion of truth in mythology. Every myth of every country in history is "true." The Hebrew myth God chose to spread his truth to mankind. Why should we think it insufficient?

I believe in the virgin birth. I believe that Jesus exorcised demons, and that Jesus ascended to heaven. The NT is a fairly trustworthy view of history.

In Jesus's stories, he was a good storyteller and didn't go off into unnecessary details. And he didn't make statements like "so and so was the mother of all humans" when talking about a non-historical character in a parable. BTW, do you think the story of Jonah happened? What about when God rained burning sulphur on Sodom and Gomorrah... did that happen? Did Lot's wife really turn into a pillar of salt? Did all the things in Exodus happen? What about in Acts 2 where everyone can hear the believers speak in their own native language? And what *looked* like "tongues of fire" spread out and touched them? What about the feeding of the four thousand and five thousand men? I wonder if you have opinions on how historical those things were.

excreationist, I understand your consternation. I really do. Sorry you have problems with my interpretation. In order to get what I'm saying, you must understand that faith is more important than our constructs. Reality is so whether or not we have a systematic and foolproof method for distinguishing it from falsehood. In fact, there is no method that is so foolproof as you might wish to get at Christian truth. If I had it, I'd give it to you.

Unfortunately, you have not been here long enough to have read my many posts that go into depth on the specifics of my view. It doesn't fit all neatly in a box like you would like it to, so all you would do is attack parts that you don't understand. Try searching for the threads where I talk about the changing concerns of the biblical writers over time due to Hellenization, etc.

In Jesus's stories, he was a good storyteller and didn't go off into unnecessary details. And he didn't make statements like "so and so was the mother of all humans" when talking about a non-historical character in a parable. BTW, do you think the story of Jonah happened? What about when God rained burning sulphur on Sodom and Gomorrah... did that happen? Did Lot's wife really turn into a pillar of salt? Did all the things in Exodus happen? What about in Acts 2 where everyone can hear the believers speak in their own native language? And what *looked* like "tongues of fire" spread out and touched them? What about the feeding of the four thousand and five thousand men? I wonder if you have opinions on how historical those things were.

Let me say that just because my reasoning/interpretations are often inconsistent from one passage to the next doesn't make them wrong. I'm not an idiot - there are reasons for every one of my deviations. I just don't have sufficient time nor you the real interest for me to go into delineating the finer points of my analysis. Jonah? It's possible, I guess. Sodom and Gomorrah? Maybe. Pillar of salt? Not likely. Exodus? Most of the above were probably based on remembrances that have for the most part a basis in history but which were augmented into a much more saga-type form, as were the patriarchy and monarchy narratives. The NT writers were much more interested in presenting history as we know it and considered deception sinful, so I would trust at very least that they were not lying when reporting things. What knowledge they had that was based on the ancient writings of their people is irrelevant to their trustworthiness in presenting the history that they witnessed (e.g., the miracles of Jesus, the history of the Church in Acts written by a Greek, not a Semite, etc.).

This post won't satisfy you, but I have some nasty midterms coming up, so I doubt I'll be disposed to answer you for awhile. Just so you know! :)
 
Upvote 0