A simple question

[rmwilliamsll]

Without science could any man realistically determine that evolution took place? If you're honest you would say no. Then it would be safe to say the science changed the interpretation of God's Word and therefor took precedent. So it really doesn't comes down to my personal reading of scripture because I'm not the one taking liberties with the text, you are. Therefore, it is you that must, beyond a shadow of a doubt clearly and convincingly, prove your point. Your task is great because the Word of God is clear and without ambiguity.

this is a really neat argument i haven't seen before so thanks.

does it mean that if i take out a Greek dictionary or find Jerusalem on a map that these references over ride the clear teaching of Scripture and therefore are being treated as superior? can i only use helps if i am unsure otherwise they may change my mind and this is elevating some else over Scripture? how uncertain must i be to ask for help?

even more to the point,
is it clear that there are two adams- one generic in gen 1 and one specific in gen 2 or is it clear that they are the same individual or is it federal head?
now to reference information i have from outside Scripture, what is the relationship to Scripture at that point? if it changes my mind, or only changes my mind on clear things? or only changes my mind on Gen 1-5?
what you propose is a variant on solo Scriptura, in particular, read the Scriptures in the most plainest sense to you and be unswayed by all extra material. however the problem is that it puts you in the center of the hermeneutical circle. you a 20thC english speaking western culture product of a particular history etc etc.
which flies in the face of the best hermeneutical principles.

cute argument but leads away from where you desire to be to some radical solipicism
...

 

[Scholar in training]

Without a doubt there are complicated things within scripture that a child will not understand. The point is they don't come out and clearly say one thing and then through nothing other than man's knowledge say something entirely different.

If one's interpretation of Genesis contradicts what we see in nature (and is therefore falsifiable) then we have a problem. We can assume a number of outcomes:

1. Our interpretation of nature is wrong.
2. Nature is lying to us.
3. Our interpretation of the Bible is wrong.
4. The Bible is wrong or the story is an allegory.

Number one may be possible, but it is doubtful given the evidence for evolution and its uses in numerous scientific fields. Number two is ridiculous. Number three is possible, especially if how we read the Bible conflicts with what we see in nature. Number four means that either the Bible is not 100% inspired, it is completely wrong, or the story can be taken as simple allegory.

Now, isn't it possible for the child to interpret Genesis wrong, and will interpret it differently once he or she studies up on the facts? YEC is automatically out the window because we know for a fact that the earth is old. It's as simple as that. Talkorigins.org is a very good site that refutes YEC arguments. OEC and TE are viable alternative interpretations, at least.

 

[Critias]

The above shows that more faith exists in those who interpret evidence than in those who are guided by the Holy Spirit in interpreting the Bible. In essence, it is the lack of faith in the Holy Spirit to do His job as the Teacher.

 

[Scholar in training]

The above shows that more faith exists in those who interpret evidence than in those who are guided by the Holy Spirit in interpreting the Bible. In essence, it is the lack of faith in the Holy Spirit to do His job as the Teacher.

My post only demonstrates that I lack faith in one interpretation of Genesis, because it does not match up with the evidence we have; and I am trying to figure out what the correct interpretation, inspired by the Spirit, is.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Without science could any man realistically determine that evolution took place? If you're honest you would say no.

Without science could any man realistically determine that the earth revolves around the sun? If you're honest you would say no.

Without science could any man realistically determine mental illness is not caused by demonic possession? If you're honest you would say no.

Without science could any man realistically determine that the principle of animation is not either in the blood or in the breath? If you're honest you would say no.

Without science could any man realistically determine that a solid firmament does not exist high above the ground? If you're honest you would say no.

Without science could any man realistically determine that the smallest seed is not mustard? If you're honest you would say no.

Without science could any man realistically determine that some men ought not to be slaves because they are descended from Ham? If you're honest you would say no.

i could go on for several pages but you get the point. we do not believe the same theology as just a few hundred years ago, and most of that change is due to science.


....

 

[Scholar in training]

Without science could any man realistically determine that some men ought not to be slaves because they are descended from Ham? If you're honest you would say no.

i could go on for several pages but you get the point. we do not believe the same theology as just a few hundred years ago, and most of that change is due to science.

On the contary, there are many moral arguments to be made against slavery, and I would like to point out the fact that slavery was outlawed both in the U.S. and Britain because of the moral argument (people like Conrad and Wilberforce argued against prejudice and slavery, respectively; Harriet Beecher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin argued against slavery on the basis of equality and Christian love). If anything, people at the time would have argued for slavery because of the faulty science of Social Darwinism. But I digress.

 

[vossler]

Without science could any man realistically determine that evolution took place? If you're honest you would say no.

Without science could any man realistically determine that the earth revolves around the sun? If you're honest you would say no.

Without science could any man realistically determine mental illness is not caused by demonic possession? If you're honest you would say no.

Without science could any man realistically determine that the principle of animation is not either in the blood or in the breath? If you're honest you would say no.

Without science could any man realistically determine that a solid firmament does not exist high above the ground? If you're honest you would say no.

Without science could any man realistically determine that the smallest seed is not mustard? If you're honest you would say no.

Without science could any man realistically determine that some men ought not to be slaves because they are descended from Ham? If you're honest you would say no.

i could go on for several pages but you get the point. we do not believe the same theology as just a few hundred years ago, and most of that change is due to science.


....

I have nothing against science, my only objection to it is when it takes precedence over God's Word.

 

[Spiritualyalive]

I have nothing against science, my only objection to it is when it takes precedence over God's Word.

Science backs up Gods word when not used dishonestly!

 

[Scholar in training]

Science backs up Gods word when not used dishonestly!

How is science being used dishonestly?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

On the contary, there are many moral arguments to be made against slavery, and I would like to point out the fact that slavery was outlawed both in the U.S. and Britain because of the moral argument (people like Conrad and Wilberforce argued against prejudice and slavery, respectively; Harriet Beecher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin argued against slavery on the basis of equality and Christian love). If anything, people at the time would have argued for slavery because of the faulty science of Social Darwinism. But I digress.

the following italicized quotes are from:

The Bible and Slavery by Mark Noll
chapter 2 of _Religion and the American Civil War_ Miller, Stout, Wilson (eds)


As Noll aptly points out, "From the record of these sermons, it is evident that proslavery advocates had largely succeeded in winning the Bible, when taken in its traditional sense." Because the traditional hermeneutic in the mid 19thC, like the conservative one today, is tied to the words not the meaning as being the locus of inspiration, as being the very vehicle to transmit meaning, the South won this battle. It also ties into the last sentence of the essay: "The North-forced to fight on unfriendly terrain that it had helped to create-lost the exegetical war. The South certainly lost the shooting war. But constructive orthodox theology was the major loser when American believers allowed bullets instead of hermeneutical self consciousness to determine what the Bible said about slavery. For the history of theology in America, the great tragedy of the Civil War is that the most persuasive theologians were the Rev. Drs. William Tecumseh Sherman and Ulysses S. Grant."


there was no generally acceptable moral arguments against slavery in the American South after 1835. for evidence see my essay at:
from: http://dakotacom.net/~rmwillia/hap6.html


.....


...

 

[Scholar in training]

there was no generally acceptable moral arguments against slavery in the American South after 1835. for evidence see my essay at:
from: http://dakotacom.net/%7Ermwillia/hap6.html

I didn't say anything about "generally acceptable" arguments. Regardless of public opinion at the time, my point is that there is a very good case to be made against slavery on several grounds: that "all men are created equal" and if they aren't, why the black person should be discriminated against in the first place; why folks said slaves would never make it on their own when several slaves had managed to escape to Canada on their own and through operations like the Underground Railroad; why slaves, who had a soul like anyone else (though some slave owners actually thought African Americans had a lesser type of soul) should be owned by another human; not to mention, perhaps, the most compelling: slaves had no legal representation. If they were killed or beaten under their owner, they were up the creek without a paddle. When they were in court, they were descriminated against. All of this information can be found within Stowe's book alone, most explicitly stated in the Afterword, but found throughout the entire book.

 

[The Lady Kate]

The above shows that more faith exists in those who interpret evidence than in those who are guided by the Holy Spirit in interpreting the Bible. In essence, it is the lack of faith in the Holy Spirit to do His job as the Teacher.

But we too are guided by the Holy Spirit in interpreting the Bible... and the HS has told us, "C'mon, people, it's an allegory! Surely you've figured that much out by now and moved on to the bigger picture?"

Not sure what the Holy Spirit (or whatever has been guiding you) has been saying to you....but it seems to have a sense of humor.

 

[gluadys]

If anything, people at the time would have argued for slavery because of the faulty science of Social Darwinism. But I digress.

They didn't though. They argued on the basis of scripture as any collection of sermons from the American South at the time makes clear.

Just as white South Africans based apartheid on their understanding of scripture right into the 1980s.

It would seem the moral case of the bible against slavery and discrimination can be easily missed.

 

[gluadys]

O.K. I'm sorry but I didn't make clear my complete methodology. First I do a cursory examination of the evidence and its accuracy, if it doesn't add up then I determine it's not plausible or worthy of an in-depth review.

Doesn't add up according to what criteria? It could be your criteria need adjusting, not the scientific review of the evidence.

You may call it a misinterpretation of the Word of God, but I would submit that the vast majority of respected pastors would disagree.

Since the vast majority of respected pastors have little or no understanding of evolution, their uninformed opinion has no bearing on the matter. They cannot say evolution is contrary to the Word of God until they can evaluate evolution for its truth-value.

You make this sound as if it's an illegitimate objection.

Until information is defined, it is an illegitimate objection. Shannon defined information as transmitted in a phone message and so was able to measure loss of information. The K-C system measures the amount of information in electronic transfers of information. Both have wider applications to information in general. But to date, no one has come up with a way to define information in biological terms. If you cannot define a unit of information you have no way of counting the units to determine whether there is gain, loss or no change in the information transmitted from one generation to the next.

Biology is also more complex in that gains or losses in genetic information do not map one-to-one onto gains or losses of information in the protein product. There is also no clear mapping of genetic changes onto morphological changes.

So the whole information schtick is not currently applicable to biology. Maybe it will be someday.

If you keep it simple, very simple, I just might be able to digest some of your scientific explanations.

I'll try, but not with information as it is a complex subject requiring a level of competency in math that I don't have.

I don't know about anyone else but even the parts I do understand don't sound very compelling.

Please explain.

Anyways, if they haven't gotten this figured out yet I'm not too interested in what other "evidence" they have.

Why? Is there a particular pre-determined order in which scientists should figure things out? The evidence in other parts of the tree could be much firmer than at the root. After all the root represents the earliest stages of life on earth for which we have minimal evidence and maximum uncertainty. Perhaps you should look at horses instead. Lots more evidence, lots more studies, much firmer conclusions.

Yes it does say that we were formed from the earth. But I don't recall the part where it said we evolved from the earth.

Living things evolve, not non-living things like the earth. But life had to originate from what is not living, right?

I won't speak for anyone else but I have no problem with terms like simplification (remember I'm a simple guy ) and even devolution because they do make sense to my simple mind. To me it just means having less genetic information.

Devolution makes no scientific sense because it suggests a retreat to a former state and that doesn't happen on a macro-scale. When a reptile loses its legs and becomes a snake it doesn't retreat to being an amphibian. It advances to being a legless reptile.

It is often the case that "less genetic information" is advantageous in the circumstances and represents an increase in fitness which is selected for preservation.

Also you can get simplification with more genetic information. For example, added information may cause a gene malfunction, so that the gene will not be expressed even though no information has been lost. This can be the case with programmed cell death, which in human embryos is necessary for the dissolution of the embryo's tail so that the tail bones can be fused into the coccyx.

 

[gluadys]

I went the site and went to a few of the links. I must admit what I read was less than compelling when it comes to any sort of transitional forms.

Please explain what you mean by "less than compelling".

As much as we know about dinosaurs most scientists would probably agree what we do know is little compared to the whole.

As would be true of any field of science. Are you saying that because we don't know everything we can't know anything?

I'm sorry for not answering your question satisfactorily. I wasn't trying to evade it but answered it to the best of my ability.

You changed the question to one you were more comfortable answering and gave a canned answer. IMO that is evasion.

After rereading it I truly can't say I know what the question is. Please elaborate/or simplify your question for an obviously challenged individual.

ok. Try it this way.

Can you think of anything you know is true which is not God's truth?
Can you think of anything you know is true which contradicts God's truth?

Then consider these questions.

Is it even possible for any truth to exist which is not God's truth? Can any truth conceivably contradict God's truth?

 

[Spiritualyalive]

How is science being used dishonestly?

First would be useing carbon-14 dating to claim something is 1747585939020284376595489695490320 years old. We all know carbon-14 is has major problems and is total unreliable, yet they continue to claim things are millions, billions, trillons years old and a thing hapened at these or that time. That extremly dishonest, yet many evolutionists scientists continue to be dishonest about carbon-14 dating. If they where honest they say up front carbon-14 dated this to this time, but carbon-14 is extremly unrelible so it may omnly be 1,000 years old instead. yet this information is never presented, and the iteam is absolutly 100 million years old is presented as FACT, when it is not and they know it.

 

[vossler]

Doesn't add up according to what criteria? It could be your criteria need adjusting, not the scientific review of the evidence.

Common sense.

Since the vast majority of respected pastors have little or no understanding of evolution, their uninformed opinion has no bearing on the matter. They cannot say evolution is contrary to the Word of God until they can evaluate evolution for its truth-value.

I would say that not only the vast majority of pastors but of all mankind have nothing more than a basic understanding of evolution. They, like me, probably can't get past the fact that it just isn't plausible. It doesn't pass the smell test.

Until information is defined, it is an illegitimate objection. Shannon defined information as transmitted in a phone message and so was able to measure loss of information. The K-C system measures the amount of information in electronic transfers of information. Both have wider applications to information in general. But to date, no one has come up with a way to define information in biological terms. If you cannot define a unit of information you have no way of counting the units to determine whether there is gain, loss or no change in the information transmitted from one generation to the next.

There you go again getting technical on me. I'm sorry but I have no idea what it is you just said.

Biology is also more complex in that gains or losses in genetic information do not map one-to-one onto gains or losses of information in the protein product. There is also no clear mapping of genetic changes onto morphological changes.

Ditto

I'll try, but not with information as it is a complex subject requiring a level of competency in math that I don't have.

If it's complex for you please don't bother trying to explain it to me.

Please explain.

You ask why the evidence which was readily available wasn't satisfactory. I then go to the site you provided and it says things like this. "The rooting relationships...of the major lineages, are controversial." "The monophyly of Archaea is uncertain" (whatever that means???) "We hope to provide a comprehensive discussion of these issues on this page soon" Sounds like they've got nothing right now! Remember this is the site you provided me so that I could see the evidence. Does any of that sound compelling to you?

Why? Is there a particular pre-determined order in which scientists should figure things out? The evidence in other parts of the tree could be much firmer than at the root. After all the root represents the earliest stages of life on earth for which we have minimal evidence and maximum uncertainty. Perhaps you should look at horses instead. Lots more evidence, lots more studies, much firmer conclusions.

If the root of life doesn't isn't strong enough to stand up under scrutiny then why should I look at any of the branches?

Living things evolve, not non-living things like the earth. But life had to originate from what is not living, right?

Not in my world they don't. I'm not evolving. Remember the dictionary definition of evolution I gave earlier: A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. I'm definitely not going through such a process.

Devolution makes no scientific sense because it suggests a retreat to a former state and that doesn't happen on a macro-scale. When a reptile loses its legs and becomes a snake it doesn't retreat to being an amphibian. It advances to being a legless reptile.

I don't know much about scientific sense but I have a bit of horse sense. For me devolution means simply what I said earlier, where something loses genetic information, e.g., a white artic hare at one time had genetic information to be brown but today, unless it is bred with something other than another white artic hare, it will only produce white hares(kind of like those that are making themselves known on my head ). It has lost the genetic material to produce anything other than white offspring. This isn't a retreat to a former state because there isn't a former state because it always was a hare, it's just a loss of code.

It is often the case that "less genetic information" is advantageous in the circumstances and represents an increase in fitness which is selected for preservation.

Agreed, see above.

 

[GenemZ]

Science backs up Gods word when not used dishonestly!

Correct!



Whoops! You were not being politically correct! You icon should be more like this:

{aperson}

Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[vossler]

Please explain what you mean by "less than compelling".

Well it was a nice way of saying there just wasn't anything of substance there regarding regarding transitional forms. If I miss it please do show and tell.

As would be true of any field of science. Are you saying that because we don't know everything we can't know anything?

Obviously not, what I am saying is that since we what we do know is so very little, it makes it all the more absurd to use it to contradict God's Word.

You changed the question to one you were more comfortable answering and gave a canned answer. IMO that is evasion.

How can you make such an assertion? My response was as honest as I knew how to be. I obviously didn't understand the question adequately and for that I apologize, before responding I should have asked you to clarify it as I did in my second response. But for you to assert that I was being evasive is underhanded and not very Christ like.

ok. Try it this way.

Can you think of anything you know is true which is not God's truth?
Can you think of anything you know is true which contradicts God's truth?

Then consider these questions.

Is it even possible for any truth to exist which is not God's truth? Can any truth conceivably contradict God's truth?

1. No, all truth belongs to God. He is the author of truth.
2. No, it couldn't be truth if it contradicted God's truth.

2nd set:

1. All truth is from God.
2. To the carnal mind it might, but not to me.

 

[GenemZ]

They didn't though. They argued on the basis of scripture as any collection of sermons from the American South at the time makes clear.

Just as white South Africans based apartheid on their understanding of scripture right into the 1980s.

It would seem the moral case of the bible against slavery and discrimination can be easily missed.

There is slavery going on right now in parts of the world. It has nothing to do with the curse of Ham. These countries never follow the Bible.

In Christ, GeneZ