Can you give a rational explanation...?

[gluadys]

This was posted in a Christian Apologetics thread on rationality.

Belief in a Creator God is rational because of the absolute impossiblity of the opposite being true. The opposite of course being what is commonly referred to as evolution.
From observing nature itself, and the complexity therein, to suppose that it all came about by accident is absurd. More absurd however, is the fact that we humans even think about such things as reason of existence, etc.

And by the way, evolution is NOT compatibile with the God of the Bible.

I don't know if you are a seeking atheist or not, but...

Here's a question (or two) for you: Can you give a rational explanation for the belief in goo-to-you evolution? Since evolution is just an origins hypothesis and has already been scientifically debunked, what reason would be given to believe in it?

I responded as follows:

Way to go! I have seldom seen so much erroneous nonsense so neatly and compactly summed up in so few sentences.

The opposite of course being what is commonly referred to as evolution.

Evolution and creation are not opposites. Millions of Christians and other theists accept that evolution is one of the ways in which God brought new species into existence, including the human species in their biological aspect.

to suppose that it all came about by accident is absurd.

Indeed it is, but your error is to suppose that evolution is accidental. It is not. It operates as a law of nature and is no more accidental than gravity.

Can you give a rational explanation for the belief in goo-to-you evolution?

Yes. Evidence, evidence, evidence, evidence, and more evidence.

Since evolution is just an origins hypothesis ...

Actually, evolution is not an "origins" hypothesis at all, since it assumes the prior existence of the universe, our galaxy, solar system and planet and of life. Evolution is about changes in living species, not about their origin.

Nor is it a "hypothesis". It was when Darwin first proposed it, but the weight of evidence and the accuracy of its subsequent predictions and the observation of the formation of new species by the mechanisms predicted mean that it is an observed fact and an exceptionally well-supported theory.

has already been scientifically debunked

Whatever source of information gave you this impression is not to be trusted. It is giving you thoroughly false and discredited information.

evolution is NOT compatibile with the God of the Bible.

Many Christian theologians disagree. Consider these recent publications:


The God of Evolution: A Trinitarian Theology by Denis Edwards

Creation, Evolution and Meaning (Transcending Boundaries in Philosophy and Theology) by Robin Attfield

Cosmology, Evolution, and Resurrection Hope: Theology and Science in Creative Mutual Interaction by Robert John Russell and Carl S. Helrich

Thank God for Evolution!: How the Marriage of Science and Religion Will Transform Your Life and Our World by Michael Dowd

Evolution and Eden: Balancing Original Sin and Contemporary Science by Jerry D. Korsmeyer

Most of the Christian world sees evolution positively.

I don't know if you are a seeking atheist or not..

I don't know about PascalsWager either, but for my part I am a Christian.

And I don't want to see anyone turned away from Christianity by needless stumbling blocks such as you are presenting.

Here is Nathan's reply:

What kind of an argument are you presenting gluadys? Who are you trying to convince? Just because millions of Christians and others accept evolution as fact does not make it so.

My error? I beleive what Genesis says in a literal sense. You obviously do not. You instead rely on fallible human minds instead of God Himself...
The only change in organisms that has scientific support is a horizontal variation in 'kinds'. THAT is true. Evolution in the sense of the macro vertical change in kinds has NEVER occurred and will never occur.

Perhaps you could actually give just one article of 'evidence' that would prove your belief, instead of crying, "evidence, evidence, evidence"?

Actually, evolution is not an "origins" hypothesis at all, since it assumes the prior existence of the universe, our galaxy, solar system and planet and of life. Evolution is about changes in living species, not about their origin.

Sorry to inform you, but the majority of evolutionists would disagree with you. There are a few 'forms' taught about evolution and one of them is stellar evolution. This tries to explain by merely natural explanations, the origin, yes, origin, of the universe. You know, the 'Big Bang'? And variations of it...

As I mentioned before, where is your evidence? What formation of 'new species'? Define species... you will find that agreement on the definition is lacking. Yes, I agree that it is exceptionally well-supported... with money and publicity... that is all.

Is this a part of your argument? So what if the whole world, but a few, agree?
Many 'Christian' theologians are in gross error then and do not know God.

I don't want to see anyone turned away from Christianity by needless stumbling blocks such as you are presenting.

Needless stumbling block? Do you realise that we are saved by faith? Faith in God through Jesus Christ, believing that what God has told us is true. This includes more than an intellectual acknowledgement about who Jesus was and the fact that he lived and does live.
If God used evolution to create, then he lied to us in the giving of the Genesis account. It would also mean that death and suffering and the curse itself has always been a normal part of creation. This flies right in the face of God's account. If God used evolution to create, then Jesus' death on the cross was meaningless... You see, it is a major issue that Christians need to take a stand on. Either take a stand on the side of biblical authority, or take a stand in the sinking sands on human philosophy and deceit... take your pick.

Question: Do you believe the Genesis account and just accept horizontal species variation, or do you accept a theistic evolutionist position entirely? A combination?

Thanks for the anticipated answers...

At this point we agreed to bring the conversation to this forum.

 

[Molal]

Well - you hit all the points. Not much more you can say or do.

The problem is, like many walks of life, that biology requires lots of time spent in a learning environment. One cannot just pickup a biology text book, read it and fully understand biological evolution. It's just not going to happen.

I love debating evolution and origins - but there is only so much teaching I can do.

So, I perceive two problems:
1.) a lack of knowledge. I do not mean to be rude, but we all have our speciality areas. Mine is geology, it definitely isn't physics or law, etc. I am literally ignorant in physics and law.

2.) a literal interpretation of genesis. I do not perceive genesis to be literal, since this is diametrically opposed to the earth that God created. Why would he create something with age yet tell everyone that it only took 6 days? A literal interpretation conflates biblical inerrancy with literality - the two are not the same.

You know how to push my buttons

 

[shernren]

Oh dear, oh dear. Lumping stellar evolution into "evolution" is a tactic that's been relegated to Hovind and his ilk, as far as I know. NathanCGreen is almost certainly walking in those footsteps.

 

[Vance]

As always, the error can be traced back to that faulty view of Genesis 1 and 2 as literal historical narrative. Seriously, absent a person's clinging to that interpretation of Genesis, the evidence simply speaks for itself.

Ultimately, I am coming to the conclusion that the best approach is simply to say "look, evolution happened, it is established beyond any reasonable doubt by the evidence of a dozen independent scientific disciplines. Now, you have to deal with that and there are only two paths to follow. Either you cling to your literalist interpretation of Genesis, which makes Genesis false (with all that comes from that), or you accept that your reading of Genesis has been faulty and maintain your belief that Genesis is TRUE, just not in the way you expected."

 

[gluadys]

Just because millions of Christians and others accept evolution as fact does not make it so.

True. Science is decided by evidence, not by popular vote. So all this means is that millions of Christians have been convinced by the evidence.

I beleive what Genesis says in a literal sense.

Why?

You instead rely on fallible human minds instead of God Himself...

Actually, you are also relying on fallible human minds. The fallible human minds that tell you to believe Genesis in a literal sense.

The only change in organisms that has scientific support is a horizontal variation in 'kinds'.

Not true. If you want to dispute the science, the first thing you need to do is learn the science yourself and stop relying on inaccurate reports about the science from anti-science sources. Would you expect an atheist source to describe Christianity accurately? Would you expect a colour-blind person to describe accurately the difference between red and green? No more should you expect anti-evolution sources to describe evolution accurately.

Perhaps you could actually give just one article of 'evidence' that would prove your belief, instead of crying, "evidence, evidence, evidence"?

In all species studied the distribution of alleles changes across generations.

We can start with that.

There are a few 'forms' taught about evolution and one of them is stellar evolution.

Stellar evolution has no more to do with biology than the evolution of computers or the evolution of rock and roll.

This tries to explain by merely natural explanations,

So what? Do you think natural explanations exclude God?

As I mentioned before, where is your evidence? What formation of 'new species'?

Stick with alleles for now. Formation of species is a little more advanced.

Many 'Christian' theologians are in gross error then and do not know God.

By what criteria do you judge whether another Christian knows God or not? Or do you just assume that because they don't agree with you, they must not know God?

Needless stumbling block? Do you realise that we are saved by faith?

Actually, we are saved by grace. But we receive grace by faith, and when you erect stumbling blocks to faith, that is a problem.

If God used evolution to create, then he lied to us in the giving of the Genesis account.

Or you are not hearing the Genesis account correctly. Is it not arrogance to assume there is no problem in your understanding of scripture?

If God used evolution to create, then Jesus' death on the cross was meaningless...

If that were true, no one who accepts evolution could still be a Christian. Yet the majority of Christians accept evolution and also find the life, death and resurrection of Christ to be deeply and personally meaningful.

Either take a stand on the side of biblical authority, or take a stand in the sinking sands on human philosophy and deceit... take your pick.

Evolution is not a philosophy. It is a scientific model of biological change. It is a description of one aspect of God's creation.

 

[Vance]

oooh, please, can we skip right to the formation of new species? :0)

Even Answers in Genesis finally had to give up on that one and admit that new species have been observed. They just fell back on the "kinds" position as the "barrier", but then refuse to define what "kinds" mean since they realize that whatever level they put it at, we either already have evidence for such a development or could have it very soon. So, they are happier sticking with an undefined "kinds" and then saying (using circular reasoning) that whatever changes are shown to happen obviously must not be a change in "kind" then. :0)

 

[NathanCGreen]

True. Science is decided by evidence, not by popular vote. So all this means is that millions of Christians have been convinced by the evidence.

Rather they have just been duped into believing a lie. Perhaps even just wanting to remain friends with the world. But whosoever shall be a friend of the world, is the enemy of God.

I believe in a literal Genesis because I read Genesis in a straightforward manner. He made the days for our weekly cycle.
When I was a kid, I didn't read long ages into the text, I just took God's word for it... as you should. Remember Jesus' words?
By the way, do you realise that Jesus himself beleived in a literal Genesis? He believed in the Flood as fact, he believed that God made mankind male and female in the beginning, he also believed the story of Jonah to be factual.

What exactly do you believe about God and His creation? And what about the biblical record in Genesis?

Actually, you are also relying on fallible human minds. The fallible human minds that tell you to believe Genesis in a literal sense.

How am I relying on fallible human minds? Genesis was written in a literal sense. It can only be taken in a literal sense if you are honest enough to see it.
If long ages were true, then God could have told us straight up through Moses and it would be fine... but that is not the case.

Not true. If you want to dispute the science, the first thing you need to do is learn the science yourself and stop relying on inaccurate reports about the science from anti-science sources. Would you expect an atheist source to describe Christianity accurately? Would you expect a colour-blind person to describe accurately the difference between red and green? No more should you expect anti-evolution sources to describe evolution accurately.

Evolution does not equate to science, and so even if one were anti-evolution, does not make one anti-science. On the contrary, most creationists are anti-lies. Not anti-science.

In all species studied the distribution of alleles changes across generations.

We can start with that.

Okay, big whoop. What does this prove?
This suggests a mere variation within a species (kind), such as the human species (kind). You do realise that we must differentiate one from another, don't you?
We are reproductions (albeit marred, nearly defaced) of the original pair.
The reshuffling has caused no new information, nor can it, scientifically. Only in the minds of those who hold to the religion of evolutionism, can it be possible.

If your 'starting point' argument doesn't even hold water, then how do you propose to convince me?

Stellar evolution has no more to do with biology than the evolution of computers or the evolution of rock and roll.

So sorry. I didn't realise the topic was restricted to biology.

You have just incorporated your philosophy of evolutionism into the upgrades of computers and changes of style in rock and roll. And you say that evolution is not a philosophical belief?

So what? Do you think natural explanations exclude God?

For the origin of life, there is nothing natural about it. It was supernatural. And so, yes, if you believe that creatures have evolved, then that does exclude God. Because there is only one True God, and He is revealed as creating the heavens and the earth in six literal days.
God has not caused 'evolution' to occur. Evolution is just an outright lie. And this will be made apparent soon, as you will not be able to provide evidence for it.

Stick with alleles for now. Formation of species is a little more advanced.

Hehehe. Oh yes, I'm sure it is.

By what criteria do you judge whether another Christian knows God or not? Or do you just assume that because they don't agree with you, they must not know God?

Well, I judge by the word of God. Those who cannot trust their Maker to provide them with an accurate account of their origin have left faith in Him behind.
Trust is a major ingredient of faith.

I don't care if they disagree with me on various issues, but I do care if they disagree with God, otherwise I wouldn't bother typing these posts in, huh...

Actually, we are saved by grace. But we receive grace by faith, and when you erect stumbling blocks to faith, that is a problem.

Yes, we are saved by unmerited favour. But once again, without faith in what God has said to be surely true, it is not genuine faith in God, but double-mindedness. And God is not pleased with those who doubt His word.

Or you are not hearing the Genesis account correctly. Is it not arrogance to assume there is no problem in your understanding of scripture?

The probability of Genesis' creation account not being literal is so minute that it is virtually non-existent. Have you directed this question to yourself lately?

If that were true, no one who accepts evolution could still be a Christian. Yet the majority of Christians accept evolution and also find the life, death and resurrection of Christ to be deeply and personally meaningful.

"Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it." Jesus

Evolution is not a philosophy. It is a scientific model of biological change. It is a description of one aspect of God's creation.

It may be a model, but it is a false one.

On to the next 'proofs' then?

 

[SpiritDriven]

The prophecies concerning the rebirth of Israel amongst the Nations...is living proof of the accuracy of the Bible and the existance of God.

I have read some studies on the actual timing of Israels reformation as a Nation as well, I will see if I can re find them.
The most amazing thing was God foretelling in the Bible that if the Israelites did not return to Israel in the time God set for them, after they where led away into captivity....that God would increase their banishment punishment 7 fold.

One study I was reading on that, did a calculation on Israel being punished 7 fold via calculating the number of days, and arrived at a day within the exact month of 1948 when Israel was actualy recognised as a Sovereign Nation at the United Nations.

Amazing...will see if I can find it again....

 

[SpiritDriven]

Here we are...check this out....

Ezekiel, one of the great prophets of the Bible lived in Babylon during the time Israel was taken over and its people exiled to Babylon. God appeared to Ezekiel in a vision and gave him a prophecy that Israel would be punished for 430 years (Ezek. 4:3-6). For God was fed up with His people's iniquities, and they would be dispersed from their homeland for a trial period.

The land of the Jews was ruled by the Babylonians for 70 years, and for much of that time, many Jews were held as exiles in Babylon. But in the spring of 536 BC, they were allowed to return to Jerusalem by the Persian King Cyrus, after the Persians overthrew the Babylonians. Subtracting the 70 years from the 430, we are left with 360 years of further punishment. Israel did not repent of its sins after 70 years, and most of the nation did not return to Israel. The majority stayed as colonists in what is now Iraq-Iran. 360 years later the Jews still did not fully return to Israel, and nothing significant happened. Why were the Jews still being punished by God 360 years after the Babylonian captivity ended? The answer is in the book of Leviticus. Four times in this book, in chapter 26, God tells Israel, that if she did not repent, she would be punished seven times more for her sins.

Now take the 360 years and multiply it by 7, and you get 2,520 Biblical years. A Biblical year is 360 days, as reaffirmed in the Bible. The Jewish year of Biblical times was lunar-solar and had only 360 days. Therefore the end of the punishment and restoration to Israel would be accomplished in 2,520 years of 360 days each. Multiply the 2,520 years by the 360 days, and we get 907,200 days. Converting this figure into our calendar year of 365.25 days, by dividing 365.25 into 907,200 days we reach a total of 2,438.8 calendar years. Therefore, the end of Israel's worldwide captivity would occur after a total of 2,438.8 years had elapsed from the spring of 536 BC. Keep in mind there is only one year between 1 BC and AD 1. Now add the 2,438.8 years to 536 BC, and we come to the spring of 1948. In the spring of 1948, on May 14th, an event took place that shocked the world. The Jews proclaimed the independence of the reborn state of Israel. The Jewish people celebrated the end of their worldwide dispersion and captivity at the exact time prophesied thousands of years earlier by the prophet Ezekiel.

Awesome eh!

 

[NathanCGreen]

2.) a literal interpretation of genesis. I do not perceive genesis to be literal, since this is diametrically opposed to the earth that God created. Why would he create something with age yet tell everyone that it only took 6 days? A literal interpretation conflates biblical inerrancy with literality - the two are not the same.

You know how to push my buttons

God did not create the earth with 'age'. He created it with apparent age. You do realise that He made Adam and Eve as full grown adults, with the ability to reproduce, right?
If you disagree with Genesis being literal, then you are in effect calling God a liar.

God made the earth in six literal days for a reason. Of course He could have done it in a flash... but He chose not to. He chose to give us our weekly cycle from this creative process.

If you have a problem with the starlight time travel, then just remember that there is evidence that the speed of light has dramatically reduced in the past. Would you believe by as much as 10 billion times? Or at the very least, by as much as 11 million times?

 

[artybloke]

Rather they have just been duped into believing a lie.

True but the other way round. All creationists have been duped by the debill....

God did not create the earth with 'age'. He created it with apparent age.

So, in other words, God created a lie...

If you disagree with Genesis being literal, then you are in effect calling God a liar.

So everybody who uses fiction, poetry, metaphor and symbolism to discuss a spiritual truth is a liar? So the parables are lies (little fictional stories told by Jesus)?

Would you believe by as much as 10 billion times?

Do you have any idea what would happen to the universe if this were to happen to the speed of light?

 

[Paul365]

God did not create the earth with 'age'. He created it with apparent age. You do realise that He made Adam and Eve as full grown adults, with the ability to reproduce, right?
If you disagree with Genesis being literal, then you are in effect calling God a liar.

Which part of Genesis do you mean? The part with the animals created before Man, or the part with the animals created after Man? Obviously, when you take both parts literal, one of them is a lie. And when you then claim an "apparent age" of the earth, it adds cheating to the lie. Well, I'm sure God will forgive you...

If you have a problem with the starlight time travel, then just remember that there is evidence that the speed of light has dramatically reduced in the past. Would you believe by as much as 10 billion times? Or at the very least, by as much as 11 million times?

Certainly you can then answer two little questions - where is the evidence you are talking about? And how do you then explain our existence? Stable atoms require the light speed having precisely its current value, and last I looked, science still assumes that we consist of stable atoms.

 

[birdan]

Evolution does not equate to science, and so even if one were anti-evolution, does not make one anti-science. On the contrary, most creationists are anti-lies. Not anti-science.

First, evolution does "equate" to science. It provides the basic underpinning of all modern biology. It is a model of how life currently exists and changes over time, and conclusively supported by mountains of evidence.

Second, your literal reading of Genesis does indeed make you "anti-science". For a literal Genesis to be true, all the physical sciences have to be wrong (or "lies" in your parlance). This includes physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, cosmology, paleontology, archeology, linguistics, genetics, geology, etc. Yes, your beliefs do indeed make you anti-science.

 

[Molal]

God did not create the earth with 'age'. He created it with apparent age. You do realise that He made Adam and Eve as full grown adults, with the ability to reproduce, right?
If you disagree with Genesis being literal, then you are in effect calling God a liar.

God made the earth in six literal days for a reason. Of course He could have done it in a flash... but He chose not to. He chose to give us our weekly cycle from this creative process.

If you have a problem with the starlight time travel, then just remember that there is evidence that the speed of light has dramatically reduced in the past. Would you believe by as much as 10 billion times? Or at the very least, by as much as 11 million times?

I disagree - by saying that God created the earth in 6 days and created the earth with age, then you have cognitive dissonance. With this you have to create ever elaborate means to explain away the data.

It is apparent from your post you have already started to create elaborate explanations. Can you provide peer reviewed published research that describes your position concerning the travel time for light? Can you provide any peer reviewed published research for apparent age?

Can you provide any evidence whatsoever for your position?

 

[crawfish]

God did not create the earth with 'age'. He created it with apparent age. You do realise that He made Adam and Eve as full grown adults, with the ability to reproduce, right?
If you disagree with Genesis being literal, then you are in effect calling God a liar.

How do you KNOW they were full-grown adults? Where does the bible say that? Couldn't they have been made 10-year-olds? Young teenagers?

If you have a problem with the starlight time travel, then just remember that there is evidence that the speed of light has dramatically reduced in the past. Would you believe by as much as 10 billion times? Or at the very least, by as much as 11 million times?

Such evidence has been debunked, many times.

Anyway, the bible says no such thing. It doesn't state that the speed of light was faster then.

The truth is, you're stepping way beyond the authority of scripture. Why can't you just accept the text? Why do you have to state beliefs that the bible is silent on? Why must you attempt to add fallible human knowledge?

 

[Mallon]

By the way, do you realise that Jesus himself beleived in a literal Genesis? He believed in the Flood as fact, he believed that God made mankind male and female in the beginning, he also believed the story of Jonah to be factual.

What exactly do you believe about God and His creation? And what about the biblical record in Genesis?

God accomodates His message to the limitations of human understanding all the time. Just look at the parables. Look at Jesus. Heck, look at the Bible itself.
If, say, the Flood story and Genesis creation account were popular among the ANE people and circulating at the time, wouldn't we expect Jesus to accomodate his message to his audience using these familiar accounts as a vessel?
I highly recommend you read some more about accomodation vs. concordism. It is a dichotomy that has been discussed since the time of Augustine. Here's a good place to start:
http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/3EvoCr.htm

 

[shernren]

God made the earth in six literal days for a reason. Of course He could have done it in a flash... but He chose not to. He chose to give us our weekly cycle from this creative process.

Actually, that can't be literally true.

God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning--the sixth day. Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array. By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.
This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created. When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens ...
(Genesis 1:31-2:4 NIV)

Note that days 1 to 6 are accompanied by the refrain "and there was evening, and there was morning - the Nth day". According to a YEC reading, those refrains enforce the necessity of those days being actual, literal, historical 24-hour days. (Those three "-al" adjectives all mean different things!) However, if their presence denotes this, what can their absence denote for the seventh day?

It is obvious from the narrative that the seventh day is completely different from the previous six. For starters, each day normally isn't introduced. So, for example, when the fourth day ends (1:19), the description of the next day simply begins "And God said ... " (1:20), and the day is only called the fifth day after that creation act (1:23). Here, however, the seventh day is introduced right after the sixth day finishes - and, again, it is not introduced with the "evening and morning" clause marking the rest of the days.

Furthermore, the passage shows no sign of the seventh day ending. For right after its description is finished, the next sentence introduces a section that, by YEC interpretation, happens on the sixth day. In other words, the story never actually gets to day 8. And this makes some theological sense as well: if God's rest had stopped, would we be able to enter it and call it Today (Hebrews 4)? If God's rest has stopped, then day 8 should see Him resuming the work of days 1-6 - but there is no new material creation happening now, not within the YEC framework anyways.

Therefore, within the YEC framework, the seventh day can't be a day. It is actually about 6,000 years long - from the end of the sixth day to right now. And therefore, you cannot say that God's work week makes a pattern for our work week. For which Christian would insist that it is a Christian duty to work six days - and then rest for the rest of your life?

So your "reason" for the six days is unsound. You have to find something else to prop up your doctrine - which is unstable, anyhow.

 

[Vance]

Yes, as I suspected, this is not about the evidence at all, it is about a faulty reading of Scripture.

Here is a telling question:

Nathan, try a thought experiment for me. Let's assume for a minute that you were entirely convinced that the creation accounts were not meant to be read as strict literal historical narrative, but instead were written in the style of the day: as figurative, symbolic and typological accounts of actual past events. So, with that in mind, and the corollary conclusion that those texts, while entirely true, were not meant to convey literal history and, thus, say nothing directly about the timing or exact method of God's creative work, what would you say about the scientific evidence.

In short (since that was a convoluted question), if you believed that Scripture said nothing whatsoever about HOW and WHEN God created, what would you conclude from the evidence from God's creation all by itself? Honestly and truly.

 

[gluadys]

Rather they have just been duped into believing a lie. Perhaps even just wanting to remain friends with the world. But whosoever shall be a friend of the world, is the enemy of God.

Ah, setting yourself up as judge and jury again. What gives you the right to usurp the place of God?

I believe in a literal Genesis because I read Genesis in a straightforward manner. He made the days for our weekly cycle.

I also read Genesis in a straightforward manner. I don't find this requires me to understand it literally.

When I was a kid, I didn't read long ages into the text,

Neither did I, and I still don't.

I just took God's word for it... as you should.

I do. But you still have not explained why you read it literally.

By the way, do you realise that Jesus himself beleived in a literal Genesis?

Jesus cited Genesis. We cannot tell from a citation whether or not he understood it literally.

He believed in the Flood as fact, he believed that God made mankind male and female in the beginning, he also believed the story of Jonah to be factual.

All we know is that he cited all of these for their theological truth. This gives us no idea at all about his opinion of their scientific basis.

How am I relying on fallible human minds? Genesis was written in a literal sense.

You are relying on fallible human minds who told you that Genesis was written in a literal sense.

And I am not even certain that you understand what "literal" means.

I think you may equate it with "scientific fact". If so, you are accepting a way of reading scripture that is less than 300 years old and was definitely not the way Jesus read scripture or the way Moses wrote it.

If long ages were true, then God could have told us straight up through Moses and it would be fine... but that is not the case.

Why do you make that assumption? What obligation does God have to inspire Moses to write for a 21st century CE mind instead of for a 12th(?) century BCE mind?

On the contrary, most creationists are anti-lies.

But they are not very good on documenting actual lies in science.

Okay, big whoop. What does this prove?
This suggests a mere variation within a species (kind), such as the human species (kind).

ok. I mentioned alleles. You mentioned variation. I assume you see some relation between changing the distribution of alleles in a population and variation in a population.

What is that relationship?

So sorry. I didn't realise the topic was restricted to biology.

Typically, unless one qualifies it, the word "evolution" refers to biological evolution. That is why, when it refers to some other sort of change, it almost never stands alone, but is accompanied by an adjective e.g. stellar evolution.

You have just incorporated your philosophy of evolutionism into the upgrades of computers and changes of style in rock and roll.

I don't have a philosophy of evolutionism. But I have seen those phrases in popular magazines. Also: the evolution of the automobile, of fashion, of capitalism and many other objects, trends, ideas.

For the origin of life, there is nothing natural about it. It was supernatural.

What do you mean by "supernatural"?

I can see two possible meanings:
1. the origin of life required an act by a supernatural being

or
2. the origin of life required an action outside of nature.

The first I would agree with. On the second, I am not sure. Can God not act within nature to create life?

And so, yes, if you believe that creatures have evolved, then that does exclude God.

Does the normal process of human reproduction exclude God? Does it require an action outside of nature to unite a sperm with an egg to develop into you?

I expect you will answer "no". So then, are you or are you not, a creation of God?

Evolution is a similarly natural process. So how does it exclude God?

God has not caused 'evolution' to occur. Evolution is just an outright lie. And this will be made apparent soon, as you will not be able to provide evidence for it.

The evidence for evolution is already abundant and being added to every day.

Well, I judge by the word of God.

And you judge scripture by the norms of fallible human literalism.

I don't care if they disagree with me on various issues, but I do care if they disagree with God, otherwise I wouldn't bother typing these posts in, huh...

Circular reasoning since in your frame of reference, they are disagreeing with God because they are disagreeing with you.

On to the next 'proofs' then?

We haven't finished with alleles yet. Answer the question on the relation between alleles and variation and we can move on.

 

[NathanCGreen]

Which part of Genesis do you mean? The part with the animals created before Man, or the part with the animals created after Man? Obviously, when you take both parts literal, one of them is a lie. And when you then claim an "apparent age" of the earth, it adds cheating to the lie. Well, I'm sure God will forgive you...

Why are you people so ignorant of so many things? Why can't you just take God's word as truth? You people have been brainwashed... I'm sure you would say the same thing about me though... so be it.
Paul, if you can't even understand the account of creation in Genesis, then I'm afraid no mortal can help you. God did not create animals after man. Chapter 2 just goes into a little more detail regarding Adam's formation and the garden of Eden. In verse 4 of the 2nd chapter, we have Moses telling us that what he had just written were the accounts (generations) of the heavens and the earth when they were created, and of the plants of the 'field' which had not been planted yet, for there was no man as yet to till the ground. In other words, Moses was comparing the fact of his day's agricultural pursuits, as well as ours, to the Pre-Fall time. And that this work (the tilling) was not needed.

God never lies. God made trees (tree of life for an example) fully grown. Does that mean these were aged? No. Why should it? Seemingly, according to you, you would then expect God to have made Adam and Eve as newborns, or even fetuses, to not lie about 'age'...
And so your accusation is groundless and absurd to say the least.

Certainly you can then answer two little questions - where is the evidence you are talking about? And how do you then explain our existence? Stable atoms require the light speed having precisely its current value, and last I looked, science still assumes that we consist of stable atoms.

Fine, here are the reports:

(T. Norman and B.
Setterfield,​

​

The Atomic Constants, Light and Time, August, 1987. Stanford Research Institute;
Professor V.S. Troitskii, article in Astrophysics and Space Science, Vol. 139, pp.389-411,
December, 1987)​

May I tell you about another experiment that was conducted by Creationists?
Well here goes anyway...

They set up an environment that would have resembled the Pre-Flood era. In this environment, they placed two snakes.. It was decided to test the snake venom. Over a period of time, they had the snakes milked three times. In the first test (before the snakes were placed in the biosphere) their venom looked like a lump of spaghetti – all together. After a period inside the biosphere, the snakes were milked again. And their venom still looked like spaghetti – but now the lump was separated. After a longer time in the biosphere, they were again milked and their venom examined. It now

looked like honeycomb. Disorder had been transformed into order. Snake venom viewed with a scanning electron microscope is gnarled and
unstructured. The sulphide bonds in snake venom produce the toxic agent under such conditions.
But when ultra violet light is eliminated and the atmosphere pressure is doubled (simulating conditions that existed in the original world) the venom regains its structure.

As for the weekly cycle.. why did God then tell the Israelites to work six days and then rest every seventh day as a sabbath? And then He gave them the example of His own creating in six days and ceasing that work on the seventh day... God did not expect the Israelites to work a six thousand years or more, then take a break for a thousand years... in other words, He told them the truth about creation again, and did not lie to them. If you deny this, you are calling God a liar, not me.

Anyone honest enough (so I guess that excludes the majority on this thread) will see clearly that Jesus understood the Flood and Creation to be literal, historical events. The context of his words are too plain for doubt. The doubts you have, come from elsewhere, not scripture.

Gluadys, I have already explained why I take Genesis as a truthful account of our origins. There is no other way that it could be taken accurately, in harmony with the rest of scripture.

Gluadys, you said this (foolishly): Does the normal process of human reproduction exclude God? Does it require an action outside of nature to unite a sperm with an egg to develop into you?

I expect you will answer "no". So then, are you or are you not, a creation of God?

Evolution is a similarly natural process. So how does it exclude God?

I respond: What kind of a comparison is this!? LOL.
Reproduction is NOT evolution.. It has nothing at all to do with evolution and if you think it does, you are seriously confused. The God of the Bible did not and does not evolve organisms. He has however made reproduction a natural act, however, He is able to stop it as well, as is evidenced in the case of Leah and Rachel.
Evolution does not happen at all. It is therefore not natural. It is not observed. Decay and disorder is observed, but not an increase in information or order.

Supernatural is a term that is used to describe something above and beyond nature. I'm sure you know this. God is the God of nature. He is not restricted to it.

Vance (and others), have you ever read these verses:
"Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as [they were] from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men."

Do you really think that Jesus talked about any old flood to describe a theological truth? And what theological truth would that be? I'll tell you what... it was the truth that idolaters refused to liten to. They had forsaken God's word to be true.
"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee".

Vance, I agree that it isn't about the evidence at all, but it is about a faulty reading of scripture... yours. Unless you change your mind. The style of the day, as you put it, was the same as ours. Sometimes it was symbolic, but mostly it was historical narrative. Look in the book of Numbers, and tell me that was figurative, with a straight face...

Mallon, the link didn't work, but I don't need to read apostates' reasonings anyway.

Crawfish, you said this: Anyway, the bible says no such thing. It doesn't state that the speed of light was faster then.

I respond: The Bible does not have to explicitly state such things, that is not what it is for. However, in regards to what it DOES touch on, it is flawless. I will now expect someone to point out so-called errors within, but I have heard all of them before and are stale and pathetically ignorant.

Crawfish also said: The truth is, you're stepping way beyond the authority of scripture. Why can't you just accept the text? Why do you have to state beliefs that the bible is silent on? Why must you attempt to add fallible human knowledge?

Back at ya. You are the one doing this very thing, attempting to add fallible human reasoning to the scriptures.

Birdan, you said this: Second, your literal reading of Genesis does indeed make you "anti-science". For a literal Genesis to be true, all the physical sciences have to be wrong (or "lies" in your parlance). This includes physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, cosmology, paleontology, archeology, linguistics, genetics, geology, etc. Yes, your beliefs do indeed make you anti-science.

I respond: It is amazing how blindly ignorant people can be sometimes... :o

Didn't you know that all of these fields do NOT need evolution to have validity and use? This is a typical comment from those in the dark. Of course it is true that scientists within these areas do espouse a belief in evolution and usually put a 'story' behind some of their findings, this does not make the actual science they do, proof of evolution... But Creationists have already taken the 'theory' apart, and have exposed it for what it is. But unfortunately, the exaggerations in the media about this topic are always biased towards the fairytale that is evolution.
And so no, the actual physical sciences do NOT have to be wrong if evolution is (And it is).

Artybloke said: Do you have any idea what would happen to the universe if this were to happen to the speed of light?

I respond: Do you? And what evidence will you present? You do realise that new finds come in from time to time, right?

When it comes to alleles, they offer you no evidence for evolution. Their migration across generations just causes variation. How much can I say? It is no proof for evolution.


Gluadys and others, why don't you just give up on the Bible then? Since you don't accept so many things as they obviously are revealed in it, you may as well. Let man's fluctuating flawed ideas guide you. That is what you apparently want...



​