Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Not even science claims that evolution is a fact.
Yes it does.
Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming.
That evolution occurs and has occurred is a fact among the scientific community. The mechanisms of how that process took place is what is included in the Theory of Evolution.
You are certainly pulling the NT writers claim out of your hat. As for the church fathers, you have not addressed my point that it is a fallacious Appeal to Antiquity, and an inconsistent one at that, since you haven't repudiated your protestant revisionism and returned to the Catholic Church or the Orthodox. Of course Luther and Calvin were right to overturn tradition and go back to scripture. Your problem is embracing the revised theology of the Reformation while appealing here to the absolute authority of tradition and the Church Fathers.It goes back further then that:
The Early Church Fathers, every Christian tradition and the New Testament writers all understood Adam to be our first parent. I'm not pulling this out of my hat and you know full well that your interpretation of the Genesis accounts did not exist until the advent of Darwinism.
- ST. IRENAEUS (c. 180 AD) "But this man [of whom I have been speaking] is Adam, if truth be told, the first-formed man"
- TERTULLIAN (c. 200 AD) "And if we are all made to live in Christ as WE were made to DIE IN ADAM, then, as in the flesh we were made to DIE IN ADAM, so also in the flesh are we made to live in Christ."
- ORIGEN (c. 244 AD) "IN ADAM ALL DIE, and THUS the world FALLS PROSTRATE and requires to be SET UP AGAIN, so that in Christ all may be made to live [1 Cor 15:22]."
Nah, it is just that you are only able to recognise passages are metaphors where it is clearly indicated in the immediate context. You have just illustrated this beautifully over in your thread Christian Faith Requires the Acceptance of Creationism, where you didn't realise Jesus being 'the light shining in the darkness' was a metaphor. Of course you don't take it literally, you wouldn't for a minute think Jesus saved Joseph a small fortune in lamp oil lighting up the carpentry shop when he worked there. You don't take it literally, you just think you are taking it literally. And because you think all these passages are literal, you come to the strange conclusion metaphors are almost always indicated in the immediate contextYour hermeneutics are flawed and fallacious, when the Scriptures are using a metaphor it is almost always indicated in the immediate context.
Yes I know you assume it is a historical narrative. Yet God the potter making people from clay is a very common biblical metaphor, everywhere else this is interpreted metaphorically. Of course the very same imagery in Genesis can't possible be yet another instance of this very common biblical metaphor.In the case of Adam the passage in Genesis is clearly understood to be an historical narrative, not a metaphor for humanity.
Is this you assuming you know how the NT writers understood Adam?Throughout the New Testament when Adam is described as and understood to be created, not evolved from predecessors.
Of course not. This is looking at scripture, eisegesis of course, but your understanding of scripture none the less. The fallacious Appeal to Antiquity is when you try to answer a discussion about scripture by claiming we must follow the traditions of the (church) fathers.That is not an argument from antiquity
Let me google that for you(an expression you made up)
And yet the bible is full of metaphors, what is wrong with understanding biblical metaphors as metaphors, why ever would a follower of Jesus Christ who loved to teach in parables and metaphors think the only way to believe the bible is to take it literally?but an appeal to the absolute authority of Scripture. You don't get to dismiss what you don't believe about the Bible by labeling it a metaphor, your problem is that you don't believe the Genesis account, not that it's too old to be literal.
So all you can do is claim this very common biblical metaphor is being used literally in Genesis, you can't show that it is, or explain why this is the one place in the bible where this common biblical imagery is literal.I'm not chasing this this around the mulberry bush with you. You are mixing metaphor with historical narratives and it's a deeply flawed 19th century philosophy, not a sound hermeneutic of the clear testimony of Scripture.
How about Genesis 5:2 where Adam is is explained as the name God gave the people he created, male and female, and not just the name of an individual? Gen 5:2 He created them male and female, and blessed them, and called their name “Adam,” in the day when they were created.There is no indication that Moses is using 'Adam' as a metaphor,
Apart from telling us Adam was a figure of Christ?Paul never did
Jesus never mentioned Adam and Eve, the nearest you have is quoting the creation stories in Genesis, not to teach a literalist interpretation of the creation accounts, but as a lesson about marriage and divorce.and Jesus never did.
’Some kind of clay metaphor’? You mean the very common biblical potter and clay metaphor?Your awkward insistence that this is some kind of a clay metaphor is absurd and fails every test of Scripture.
OK so Paul didn’t speak of Adam as the first parent of humanity.The Scriptures offer an explanation for man's fallen nature, how we inherited it exactly is not importantMark:Paul always speaks of Adam as the first parent of humanity,
Assyrian: Where does he say that? Don't you get embarrassed quoting 2Peter 3 while misrepresenting what Paul says?
Jesus didn’t mention Adam and Eve, he didn’t mention the marriage of Adam and Eve, he did however quote Genesis as a lesson in marriage in divorce for us. You are reading things into scripture, thinking because you interpret Genesis that way, then if Jesus quoted the passage he must interpret it the way you do. That is eisegesis. Your quote about fasting is Basil not scripture and it is not affirmed by the NT. Luke says nothing in the genealogy either about fasting or about Adam being the first parent of humanity, nor does Paul say anything about Adam being the first parent of humanity in Romans.but when Adam and Eve sinned we did not fast. This is affirmed in the New Testament in no uncertain terms by Luke in his genealogy, in Paul's exposition of the Gospel in Romans and even Jesus called the marriage of Adam and Eve 'the beginning'.
What has this got to do with you claim “Paul always speaks of Adam as the first parent of humanity”?According to Paul:Sin came as the result of, 'many died by the trespass of the one man' (Rom. 5:15), 'judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation' (Rom. 5:16), the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man (Rom. 5:17), 'just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men' (Rom. 5:18), 'through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners' (Rom. 5:19).Paul says repeatedly that sin was the result of one sin/trespass and Paul identifies that man as Adam.
Wow you quote 2Peter 3 again about ignorant and unstable people distorting what Paul says, and again you distort scripture. Where does the bible say in Adam all sinned?Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. (II Peter 3:15.16)The Scriptures are crystal clear, in Adam all sinned and there is no orthodox Christian doctrine to the contrary. Don't you get tired of being wrong about everything you preach on these boards, distorting the Scriptures to fit your naturalistic assumptions.
So where do all the New Testament writers say Adam was the first parent of humanity? Instead of saying “no you are” why not back up your claim and show you aren’t distorting scripture, why not show us where all the NT writers say this, why not show us even one of the NT writers saying Adam was the first parent of humanity? (St Basil doesn’t really count as a NT writer.)I'm not the one distorting and twisting the Scriptures here, you have never made a single point stick and you have been refuted countless times. You can't make the most basic exposition of the requisite text without conflating an historical narrative with a metaphor in an unrelated text. You are begging the question of proof on your hands and knees and want to make a scathing indictment based on that.Paul always speaks of Adam as the first parent of humanity… as do all New Testament writers.
It's sad really but all too common.
So let's review our history with this half baked bible study you keep posting.You try to argue that Paul is speaking of Adam figuratively Paul makes this statement regarding Adam. Because the King James Bible translates tupos (G5179 τύποςas 'figure' you pretend it means that Adam is a figure of speech. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. (Romans 5:14)This is not how that word is used in the original. The word actually means:
From G5180; a die (as struck), that is, (by implication) a stamp or scar; by analogy a shape, that is, a statue, (figuratively) style or resemblance; specifically a sampler (“type”This is how the word is used in other passages:, that is, a model (for imitation) or instance (for warning) (Strong's Exhaustive Concordance)
tupoi1 Cor 10:6, here it means literal idolaters are examples of what not to do.tupon
1 Cor 10:11, here it means literal people who murmured, same meaning.
1 Pe 5:3, here it means literal leaders of the church are examples not Lords.
John 20:25, Here it means the literal print of the nail in Jesus hand.tupoV
John 20:25, Here it means the same thing.
Acts 7:44, Here it means a literal pattern.
Acts 23:25, Here it means the manner in which a letter is literally written.
Rom 6:17, Here it means a literal doctrine.
Php 3:17, Here it means a literal Paul and his companions.
2 Th 3:9, Same meaning here.
Titus 2:7, Here it means a literal pattern of good works.
Heb 8:5, Here is means literal Christians.
Rom 5:14, Here it means a literal AdamtupouV
1 Ti 4:12 Here it means the literal Timothy be an example to others.
Acts 7:43, here it means a literal idol, that represents a pagan god.Paul also makes mention of Adam in his first letter to the Corinthians. There is no indication that Paul is speaking figuratively of Adam:
1 Th 1:7, here it means that literal believers are to be examples to other believers.
For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. (1 Corinthians 15:22)Not once have you done a competent exposition of the requisite text and repeatedly shown that your false teaching regarding them is in error. Yet you still make these scathing indictments distorting the Scriptures to your own harm. I am not offended, I pity you Assyrian.
So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. (1 Corinthians 15:45)
Or at least no arguments you can address. That’s fine Mark, don’t worry about it..There are no arguments just shallow rationalizations.
What are you trying to claim Mark? That the imagery of God as a potter is not a metaphor? Some are similes but I don’t really think that helps you wriggle out of this common biblical imagery. That it is not common? I quoted a whole series of passages that use this imagery, which you edited out in your reply. That Paul wasn’t referring back to the potter imagery from the OT? In just the previous verse, Rom 9:20, Paul quotes Isaiah 29:16 and the imagery of the clay talking back to the potter.No he did not and you know it.So because Paul used the common biblical metaphor of God as a potter...
The bible talks about the movement of the sun and moon, and the earth being fixed and immovable which everyone interpreted literally as the sun going round a stationary earth before Copernicus. The bible also talks of God making people from clay, and one of these passages people have taken literally too. Why was the church right to revise its geocentric interpretations but wrong to revise its interpretation of Adam being made from clay? You can’t just say it doesn’t speak of astronomy but it does speak of human ancestry. All that tells us is which interpretation you believe in. It doesn’t tell us which interpretations the church should give up when faced with scientific developments and which interpretation it should hold onto, or how to tell them apart.The Bible does not speak to astronomy, it does speak to human ancestry and it begins with Adam. Why don't you just abandon these fallacious arguments and try something substantive? Could it be that you don't have anything?
And I think that some people go against their own fundamentals, as as far as TE's go, kind of mix up both science and the Bible. If there is something extremely important that TE's need to do, it's to get out of that trench and find higher reasoning.
Creationism on the other hand requires that science and the bible are inextricably linked;
You have continuously demonstrated that you do not understand the TE positionNo it doesn't, at least not in the sense of what TE's claim science to be.
But you fail to understand that Science is not the only kind of knowledge, nor is it the highest kind of knowledge; which is where your idea that science and the Bible must mix comes from.Science is knowledge, and knowledge begins with God.
Yes it does. It acknowledges that he created everythingTE's science does not begin with God, it begins with a naturalistic approach.
Demonstrating your false idea that you think science and the Bible must be inextricably linked; demonstrating your propensity for self contradiction in the space of just one post.Therefore, TE's use a science that is doomed to it's own subjective conclusions.
You have continuously demonstrated that you do not understand the TE position
Your science is built on naturalism, not God. You think because people have gone on, arrogantly assumed the initial condition of everything, and built conclusions from them, God must be a deceiver if those conclusions are not true.But you fail to understand that Science is not the only kind of knowledge, nor is it the highest kind of knowledge; which is where your idea that science and the Bible must mix comes from.
Please don't blame others for yur lack of comprehension.Every single TEist I have ever spoken to in my life have demonstrated that that it does not stand up to the Bible in any way.
Of course it's a historical document. It's just not always a literal historical documentIt's abundantly clear that if one takes Genesis as a historical document, there is no way of including common descent.
Quelle suprise, more handwaving and falsehoods.It's just that simple. It should be like explaining to Lebron James to shoot a basketball: not even worth mentioning.
But that does not stop TE's from throwing up something they know is not true anyways.
Of course lies and untruths make me mad, I suppose you like lies and untruths. Oh wait...that actually explains a few things....I have fully shown errors to you with TE, and you deny them, make up little lies about it and spam threads with nonsense because it makes you mad.
The Bible tells us that God is knowable through nature; nature speaks to us of God; yet God is not part of nature. How many times do I have to repeat myself?Your science is built on naturalism, not God.
No I simply assume that God's revelations do not conflict, that is all. Please don't make any more false accusations.You think because people have gone on, arrogantly assumed the initial condition of everything, and built conclusions from them, God must be a deceiver if those conclusions are not true.
Another good description of your arguments and Creationism in general.It's extremely foolish, and laughable if one steps back and just takes a good look at it.
My starting point is God. Why, where is yours?It's a very basic concept. It's all about where the starting point is.
That is something TE's stay conveniently oblivious of. When I first heard of theistic evolution, I thought there was more to it. Perhaps maybe even something biblical.
When I saw that it was based on pretty much nothing except assumption of the natural universe, I dropped it.
Because it is meaningless. All one has to do is marinate on it., and it's realized.
More lies. We are committed to God's revelation. You have singluarly failed to deal with it. Not our problem obviously since you are the one who prefers falsehoods to truth.TE's are just committed to ToE, that's all it is.
Creationists don't look on it that way. They divorce knowledge gained from Creation from the Holy Spirit.Is it really "human" interpretation? I always thought one is supposed to be taught by the Holy-Spirit about things relating to God (i.e creation) and not to rely on the knowledge of men, no?
1. Those are not "assumptions". They are conclusions.Take your signature for example, "If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437
"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." Rev. James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, 1890
Automatically, you assume that science is inerrant and if any bible interpretation contradicts science (human wisdom), then that interpretation is wrong.
That simply isn't true. That's what professional creationists tell people, but it is not true. Both evolution and Big Bang have massive amounts of concrete evidence.However, what science fails to mention is that the so-called theories they believe in (big-bang, evolution etc) are loaded with assumptions and no concrete evidence.
And here it is again: it's all about the Bible. It's not about God, but about the Bible. Why do you think "God's knowledge" is found only in the Bible? Why do you think your human interpretation is "God's knowledge"? Above you talked about "assumptions". Aren't you now making 2 assumptions?Is this not putting your own knowledge above God's? To claim to know how the earth and human beings were created when the bible clearly says otherwise?
Jesus never used Adam and Eve as literal. He used them as theological. Paul is contradictory. He uses a "literal" Adam in one case to explain why we need Jesus as Savior. (In that chapter, he gets the rest of scripture of Genesis 3 wrong, so I am not inclined to accept his "literal" Adam.) In other epistles Paul leaves all that out and simply says Jesus died for our sins.Now Genesis is being read as allegorical instead of being literal by some, when clearly Jesus and Paul believed in a literal Adam and Eve.
You put your faith in your literal interpretation of the Bible. If you put your faith in the Lord, you would not ignore the Lord when He speaks to you.I guess at the end of the day, it always comes down to where your faith rests, and I put my faith in the LORD.
And why do you confine yourself to the Bible when you are talking about God? Is the Bible God? However, as theFijian noted, are you familiar with Colossians 1:16 & 17?Every single TEist I have ever spoken to in my life have demonstrated that that it does not stand up to the Bible in any way.
The problem is that "if". Now we are talking about assumptions. Is the assumption that Genesis 1-3 history a valid assumption? God tells you "No!" in both Genesis 1-3 and in His Creation. Why do you stick with something God tells you is not true?It's abundantly clear that if one takes Genesis as a historical document, there is no way of including common descent.
No one "assumes" initial conditions. Those were initially hypotheses to be tested. The testing has supported the hypothesis. Sum1sgruj, have you ever done a scientific experiment? Even in high school? Did you build that experiment on God? If so, how?Your science is built on naturalism, not God. You think because people have gone on, arrogantly assumed the initial condition of everything, and built conclusions from them, God must be a deceiver if those conclusions are not true.
Since when is the natural universe an assumption? I thought the natural universe was something created by God. Are you saying it's not?It's a very basic concept. It's all about where the starting point is. That is something TE's stay conveniently oblivious of. When I first heard of theistic evolution, I thought there was more to it. Perhaps maybe even something biblical.
When I saw that it was based on pretty much nothing except assumption of the natural universe, I dropped it.
When we say "design", there is usually a hidden prepositional phrase: "by an intelligent entity".So are we talking about genuine (natural) design or just the appearance of design?
I'm going to need you to give us more details. I've never seen it said that genes organise themselves like a language. Instead, what I has a biochemists have always heard is that the coding of bases in DNA for the amino acids is like a language. Very different things. And no, it's not "intentional design", but the genetic code is also the result of natural selection.Genetics is a completely different case. From what little I know, genes do actually organise themselves almost like a language, even with their own 'grammar'. This seems as close to intentional design as nature is capable of.
Evolution of life on earth is not a a priori assumption. It is a well tested and strongly supported theory. Dr. Weinberg says as much in the lecture -- but not the part you quoted.That's because it's an a priori assumption, it comes before evidence, it applies to all life whether it has been discovered or not.
Darwinian Evolution governs the development of life forms on this planet that is not an artifact of the Earth. Darwinian Evolution is a logic which is applicable to all life forms and all biosystems that may exist in the universe, even the ones we have not discovered. (Prof. Robert Weinberg, MIT)That's not science, it's supposition.
What we call "evolution" as proposed by Darwin is 5 theories:The word evolution is used too loosely. What we observe in organisms is completely different then what we expect with common descent.
You may be lost, but that is your Argument from Ignorance. Evolution has mechanisms for descent with modification giving rise to diversity. Mechanisms that have been repeatedly tested and observed. Have you ever heard about allopatric speciation, sympatric speciation, and genetic drift?But common descent is due to a completely different mechanism that we have not only not observed, but are lost to how it could actually even happen.
That is not true at all. Deductive logic allows you to know many things without knowing everything. For instance, we know beyond a shadow of a doubt:In fact, real science is based on such a way, and that is why even what is called truth remains theory, because you cannot actually know anything until you know everything.
And what do you think Newton said? Please provide sources.Newton had a lot to say on these things as far as all this, and even laid out principles and rules on the matter.
And why do you confine yourself to the Bible when you are talking about God? Is the Bible God? However, as theFijian noted, are you familiar with Colossians 1:16 & 17?
So Genesis is a fable. If the Bible actually speaks to you in a way where God outright denies His own words after speaking them, cool.The problem is that "if". Now we are talking about assumptions. Is the assumption that Genesis 1-3 history a valid assumption? God tells you "No!" in both Genesis 1-3 and in His Creation. Why do you stick with something God tells you is not true?
Yes, assuming the initial conditions. Because of this naturalistic universe, which your science is based on, the world is billions of years old. Therefore, floods and gardens? No way. It just has to be your way or else God is a deceiver.No one "assumes" initial conditions. Those were initially hypotheses to be tested. The testing has supported the hypothesis. Sum1sgruj, have you ever done a scientific experiment? Even in high school? Did you build that experiment on God? If so, how?
TE's interpretation for God is not in the Bible. In fact, a TE's Bible may as well just be a biology textbook with a couple crosses in it.But I agree, the disagreement about creationism and TE is about "where the starting point is". For TE, the starting point is God. For creationism, it's their interpretation of the Bible. That interpretation, for creationism, is god.
I should have said DNA organises itself like a language, not genes. Sorry, that was a mistake.Lucaspa said:I'm going to need you to give us more details. I've never seen it said that genes organise themselves like a language. Instead, what I has a biochemists have always heard is that the coding of bases in DNA for the amino acids is like a language. Very different things. And no, it's not "intentional design", but the genetic code is also the result of natural selection.
It's good to see someone point out that going back through the founder of the evangelical movement, back to Augustine, shows that recognizing that the evidence from the world is divine revelation is part of being Christian.
Jonathan Dudley: Christian Faith Requires Accepting Evolution
Why do you think some people today have lost sight of this ancient truth?
Papias
tyronem said:lol, what's funny is that evolutionists use Augustine as backup and Augustine was a creationist !!!!!!!
An accurate theory of evolution didn't exist when Augustine was alive, so naturally he couldn't have been an evolutionist.
However he rejected a literal interpretation of Genesis so we cannot call him a creationist either.
Tyronem said:But it is a fallacy to assume he would adopt evolution in favor of creation.
He was a creationist, he just thought that God did it all at once in an instant rather than over 6 days. His viewpoint on this has been soundly theologically refuted.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?