Adam

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Your claim is 9 out of 10 people, very unlikely result

Not really. I don't think any of the Anglican clergy I've ever known have believed that Adam and Eve were literal people, and certainly none of them were YECs. It wouldn't even pass the laugh test.

 

[lovegod_will]

Surely the Bible is relevant today, and is Gods word( otherwise why are we even debating this) and as such we cannot claim the transcendence of scripture, because we are not God and we cannot pick and choose which parts of the bible we take as literal truth and others poetic or alagorical. The first 5 book of the bible are all written as historical fact, the historical fact relevant to God's message to us.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Surely the Bible is relevant today, and is Gods word( otherwise why are we even debating this) and as such we cannot claim the transcendence of scripture, because we are not God and we cannot pick and choose which parts of the bible we take as literal truth and others poetic or alagorical. The first 5 book of the bible are all written as historical fact, the historical fact relevant to God's message to us.

Have you taken a trawl through recent threads?

If we cannot "pick and choose" - (I prefer the word "discern") which are literal and which are not, why not say all are not? Why is literal the default option?

I strongly dispute that Genesis 1-3 especially were written as historical fact - the poetic structure, the presence of symbolic elements, all point to a mythological nature for these accounts, for my money.

Thing is, if it's meant to be literal truth, it's plainly and demonstrably wrong. Do you really want to go there?

 

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

Very good advice lovegod_will. The first century church almost undoubtedly believed in the literal interpretation as well. One of my favorite scriptures is Colossians 2:

8See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.

You are indeed right in saying we cannot put our own modern twist on things. All that we have been taught is useless before God, only our knowledge of His true Word stands.

 

[lovegod_will]

'Thing is, if it's meant to be literal truth, it's plainly and demonstrably wrong. Do you really want to go there?'

Why is it plainly and demonstrably wrong? If u are using scientific evidence as your 'proof' for this then, it is not so plain. The dopler effect which is used to analyse the distance of stars is based on many huge assumptions, for instance that the elements react in the same way in space as they do in a lab. Why do u swallow scientific evidence? much of science is only a theory based uponm some evidence, The Bible is evidence and your quite quick to belittle that.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

How far away do you think the Andromeda Galaxy is?

You say: The dopler effect which is used to analyse the distance of stars is based on many huge assumptions, for instance that the elements react in the same way in space as they do in a lab.

Can you explain how that is so? What phenomenon do you suggest is responsible for the shift in absorbtion lines? What does it have to do with reactions between elements?

I do not "swallow science" - I study it. I accept its conclusions in the main because they are extremely well derived and stand up extremely well to scrutiny. You complain that "much of science" is just theory based on some evidence - but my dear boy, the whole of science is "just" theory based on some evidence! All of it! The way that semiconductors make your computer work is just theory based on evidence. The idea that disease is caused by germs is just theory based on evidence. So is the sphericity of the earth. Evidence, and theories based on it, is all science has. Don't be befuddled by "laws" and "theories" - laws are just parts of theories that can be expressed mathematically.

You further say: The Bible is evidence and your quite quick to belittle that..

Far from it. What I am quick to do is to interpret it according to its intended purpose, which is not scientific teaching. This Creationist insistence that if one does not take the Bible literally one is belittling it would be offensive were it not so pathetic.

 

[oworm]

What I am quick to do is to interpret it according to its intended purpose,.

In your opinion. What; would you say; is the bibles intended purpose ?

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Who was the famous man who said that the Bible teaches us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go?

 

[lovegod_will]

The dopler effect or red shift has everything to do with elements, The change in frequency of the light given off by different elements at different speeds on earth are correlated to the frequency of light given off by stars, the assumption lies in the a true correlation between the elements on earth and in space.
And you talk about scientific evidence standing up to scrutiny, but take Einsteins theory of relativity, which is widely accepted, E=MC2, The 'C' stands for a cosmic constant, which is just a number he put in to make his mathmatical equations work, so his theory is really mathmatical guessing, admittedly informed mathimatical guessing, but still only guessing or thoerising.

Surely God would have explained the creation of the earth and the role of Humankind in a simple evoloutionist way or made refernce to how he made many men on the earth, surely his creating many 'adam's and eve's' would show his glory far more than just one. Is it not reasonble to then assume that the reason the Bible records it as such is because that is the way it happened?

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

The dopler effect or red shift has everything to do with elements, The change in frequency of the light given off by different elements at different speeds on earth are correlated to the frequency of light given off by stars, the assumption lies in the a true correlation between the elements on earth and in space.

Nope. The light given off is of the same frequency regardless of the velocity of the body. The Doppler effect is caused because the light wave is stretched, - i.e. each wave front has to move a little further to get to you because the object is moving away, effectively lowering its frequency. This causes the absorption lines to move. It's exactly like the way a police siren drops in pitch as it passes you - the pitch emitted by the siren does not change, but the pitch you perceive does, because of the stretching of the sound wave.

Incidently, outside of particle accelorators, noting on earth moves fast enough to give comparable redshifts to those observed of distant bodies in space. It's not a case at all of measuring redshifts on earth and comparing them with ones in space because we do not get measurable redshifts on earth (I bet Capn Jack will now tell me of some incredibly detailed instrument that can measure the redshift of car headlights......)

And you talk about scientific evidence standing up to scrutiny, but take Einsteins theory of relativity, which is widely accepted, E=MC2, The 'C' stands for a cosmic constant, which is just a number he put in to make his mathmatical equations work, so his theory is really mathmatical guessing, admittedly informed mathimatical guessing, but still only guessing or thoerising.

Completely wrong. In Einstein's equation, 'c' is the velocity of light, not an arbitrary constant at all. There are various cosmic constants, if you want to call them that, and they are derived experimentally, not made up on the spot as you would want to imply.

Given that you've demonstrated a lack of knowledge of basic science and a lack of understanding of the nature and process of science, do you really think you're in such a good position to tell millions of working scientists that they've got it completely wrong? The answer to this question starts with an "n" and is very short.

Surely God would have explained the creation of the earth and the role of Humankind in a simple evoloutionist way or made refernce to how he made many men on the earth, surely his creating many 'adam's and eve's' would show his glory far more than just one. Is it not reasonble to then assume that the reason the Bible records it as such is because that is the way it happened?

Reasonable, perhaps, but it turns out, once the facts are examined, that it is not so.

 

[lovegod_will]

Reasonable, perhaps, but it turns out, once the facts are examined, that it is not so.

To what facts do u specifically refer?

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

The fact the earth is millions, indeed billions of years old
The fact that current biodiversity was not created in six days
The fact that the sun was not created three days after the earth.

Just for starters.

 

[muffler dragon]

If we're going to talk about time and such. I think we can also conclude that it's very unlikely that billions of years would afford evolution the degree of latitude to supposedly get all that we see accomplished. I understand that people try to separate abiogenesis from evolution, and that is perfectly fine for this discussion. However, even if we keep them separate, billions of years do not yield enough time for 1) life to form from non-life 2) the result that life is progressing through evolution.

One also cannot default to the statement that evolution had enough time, because 'here we are' any more than the same will be given to a creationist. Therefore, all things being equal, there simply isn't enough time available without G-d. If we then say that G-d was involved, then by all means, He could have done it however He felt led.

 

[oworm]

He could have done it however He felt led.

sorry to nitpick here but God isnt "led" he "leads"

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

If we're going to talk about time and such. I think we can also conclude that it's very unlikely that billions of years would afford evolution the degree of latitude to supposedly get all that we see accomplished. I understand that people try to separate abiogenesis from evolution, and that is perfectly fine for this discussion. However, even if we keep them separate, billions of years do not yield enough time for 1) life to form from non-life 2) the result that life is progressing through evolution.

One also cannot default to the statement that evolution had enough time, because 'here we are' any more than the same will be given to a creationist. Therefore, all things being equal, there simply isn't enough time available without G-d. If we then say that G-d was involved, then by all means, He could have done it however He felt led.

How do we know how long is required? Measurements of actual evolution rates in guppies indicate a rate orders of magnitude faster than what is required.

 

[muffler dragon]

And yet they stayed guppies. I'm speaking of macro, not micro.

By the way, I would like to ask, in theistic evolution is it a matter of G-d being a part of life from non-life?

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

And yet they stayed guppies.

I'm speaking of macro, not micro.

When is a guppy not a guppy? How much bigger must it get?

By the way, I would like to ask, in theistic evolution is it a matter of G-d being a part of life from non-life?

No. It's a matter of God expressing His creative activity through natural causes.

 

[muffler dragon]

When is a guppy not a guppy? How much bigger must it get?



No. It's a matter of God expressing His creative activity through natural causes.

I guess I didn't state myself clearly enough, I apologize.

I was discussing the time necessary for evolution to get us to the present state in my first post. You responded by the rate of guppies evolving was a much larger number than anticipated, thus allowing for a more change in less time. I, then, stated that I was talking about macro-evolution (species to species change) not micro (speciation or change within a species). There is a much larger degree of difficulty and work to go into macro than there is micro. Therefore, your statement about the guppies doesn't really play a role in what I originally said. Does that make any more sense?

What creative activity would G-d use through natural causes to create life from non-life?

By the way, the reason I asked the first question about theistic evolution is, because that was always my presumption: for a theistic evolutionist G-d just happened to start the 'engine' by creating life, but let nature work its course (so to say).

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

I guess I didn't state myself clearly enough, I apologize.

I was discussing the time necessary for evolution to get us to the present state in my first post. You responded by the rate of guppies evolving was a much larger number than anticipated, thus allowing for a more change in less time. I, then, stated that I was talking about macro-evolution (species to species change) not micro (speciation or change within a species). There is a much larger degree of difficulty and work to go into macro than there is micro. Therefore, your statement about the guppies doesn't really play a role in what I originally said. Does that make any more sense?

It makes perfect sense, but it's based on a misapprehension:

There is a much larger degree of difficulty and work to go into macro than there is micro

Really, there isn't. Speciation is really the end result of a series of micro-evolutionary changes. Suppose in a few thousand years these larger guppies can no longer interbreed because the gonopodia of the males are too large. And then their environment becomes more acidic, so they are selected for acid tolerance. And then it becomes cooler up in their streams because of a change in mountain climate, so they adapt to cold water - when are they a new species?

What creative activity would G-d use through natural causes to create life from non-life?

The natural processes behind abiogenesis are unclear at the moment. We don't know. The Theist says that whatever it was, that is how God did it.

By the way, the reason I asked the first question about theistic evolution is, because that was always my presumption: for a theistic evolutionist G-d just happened to start the 'engine' by creating life, but let nature work its course (so to say).

A common enough misunderstanding. From a purely scientific frame of reference God doesn't come into it; only the natural processes are part of the scientific model. From a theological point of view, God did all of it. What you describe is really more akin to Deism. At the very least, it's a risky God of the Gaps position. God may have supernaturally created the first life forms, but I wouldn't use current ignorance of the exact process as a gap into which to shoe-horn God.

 

[muffler dragon]

Maybe I'll give a little bit more clarification as to my definitions:

Speciation - variety within a species.

I know that speciation is a series of micro-evolutionary changes. But it's still a very large assumption that all of these changes will then become a completely different organism.

But then again, this is all simply based on disagreeing points of view. So, with your permission, I think we'll just drop this whole issue since we'll only wind up going in a circle.

Do you find yourself pondering the abiogenesis question much as a theistic evolutionist or do you keep it separate?

This is a huge sticking point for me as a creationist. I understand how it all can go back and forth in discussion (and that's not my goal), but I look at it this way:

I am assuming that there will never be a 'discovery' of how life came from non-life. You are assuming that there will be in time. I think this is one major fork in the road.

Anyway, this post looks as though it is an attempt to derail; therefore, we can discuss this elsewhere should you desire or we can just drop it. I thought I would add that last part in just to give you a small peak inside my brain.

Take care,

m.d.