Convince me

[bibleblevr]

I have not settled on a the position regarding orgins, I was originally a YEC but I then started looking into it and became an OEC then I reread Genisis and after some thought became a Gap theorist after that I had a brief Hyades from being a Gap theorist and became a theistic evolutionist, then I jumped back to YEC then back to Gap. Currently my best description of what I am, is confused.

So convince me of one! I would like to hear firstly why it can be compatible with scripture. Secondly, I would like to hear how it is proven scientifically. Unlike Many of the other threads, I would like to hear information from credible and verifiable sources.

Throughout this thread I will be spraying each argument with questions, and by the end I will adopt what I believe to be the most reasonable position.

 

[juvenissun]

I have not settled on a the position regarding orgins, I was originally a YEC but I then started looking into it and became an OEC then I reread Genisis and after some thought became a Gap theorist after that I had a brief Hyades from being a Gap theorist and became a theistic evolutionist, then I jumped back to YEC then back to Gap. Currently my best description of what I am, is confused.

So convince me of one! I would like to hear firstly why it can be compatible with scripture. Secondly, I would like to hear how it is proven scientifically. Unlike Many of the other threads, I would like to hear information from credible and verifiable sources.

Throughout this thread I will be spraying each argument with questions, and by the end I will adopt what I believe to be the most reasonable position.

In order to establish a faith on this matter, which is scientific in nature, one needs to establish a confidence on the scientific accuracy of the Bible. If you do not have that, then whatever origin you try to believe, it will not be set on a solid ground and you will always be frustrated after all. This is an issue involves both science and Bible. One can not take one without accommodate the other one.

Put down those unknown issues (such as 6-day creation, Noah's Flood, etc). But think about many things said in the Bible which are already confirmed by science. If we do not know what is already known, then we can not talk about what is still not known.

For example: Job 9:5 "Which (God) removeth the mountains, and they (mountains) know not: which (God) overturneth them (mountains) in His anger." Do you feel comfortable to explore the scientific meaning of this verse? If you do not feel so, then you may as well forget your concerns in the OP.

 

[gluadys]

I have not settled on a the position regarding orgins, I was originally a YEC but I then started looking into it and became an OEC then I reread Genisis and after some thought became a Gap theorist after that I had a brief Hyades from being a Gap theorist and became a theistic evolutionist, then I jumped back to YEC then back to Gap. Currently my best description of what I am, is confused.

So convince me of one! I would like to hear firstly why it can be compatible with scripture. Secondly, I would like to hear how it is proven scientifically. Unlike Many of the other threads, I would like to hear information from credible and verifiable sources.

Throughout this thread I will be spraying each argument with questions, and by the end I will adopt what I believe to be the most reasonable position.

I think one of the best reasons for adopting a theistic evolution or evolutionary creationist position is that it respects scripture for what it is and does not try to distort it into what modern readers think it ought to be: namely scientific, chronological, prosaic, without symbols.

Our modern culture has accustomed us to a "just the facts, ma'am" style of description that is alien to ancient genres of literature. Our modern culture has also forgotten that for 1500 years, Christians expected scripture to be interpreted allegorically.

We need to recover some of the sanity of earlier Christian theologians like Augustine and Calvin who understood the principle of accommodation: God accommodating himself to our level of understanding in order to present his teaching. This is part of the meaning of the Incarnation. We have been given a view of God in human form such that we can understand and believe and follow him.

The same principle can apply to scripture. Taken as if it were science, scripture endorses the ancient near east three-story model of the cosmos. We know this ancient model is not factual; but the message of sin and salvation doesn't depend on ancient Hebrews or the first-century church knowing 21st century astronomical science. It is no detriment to inspiration that important spiritual teachings were clothed in images derived from the world-view of the time. We can make the necessary mental adjustments and preserve the spiritual teaching scripture was written to convey.

 

[bibleblevr]

For example: Job 9:5 "Which (God) removeth the mountains, and they (mountains) know not: which (God) overturneth them (mountains) in His anger." Do you feel comfortable to explore the scientific meaning of this verse? If you do not feel so, then you may as well forget your concerns in the OP.

No I don't feel comfortable exploring the scientific meaning behind this verse because I believe it to be metaphorical in nature. The context in which it is written makes clear that it is used as a way of expressing the grander of God not a scientific principle, or a literal natural event.

4 His wisdom is profound, his power is vast.
Who has resisted him and come out unscathed?
5 He moves mountains without their knowing it
and overturns them in his anger.
6 He shakes the earth from its place
and makes its pillars tremble.
7 He speaks to the sun and it does not shine;
he seals off the light of the stars.

8 He alone stretches out the heavens
and treads on the waves of the sea.

Furthermore, I fail to see how this relates to the matter of origins, would you care to explain?

You mentioned establishing a confidence in the scientific accuracy of the Bible. First off, Genesis and Job can't be lumped together as if, if one where true the other would be true by default, nether can we say that if part of the Genesis account is literal it must all be literal, the flood, the 6days and the garden of Eden, to name a few, need to be examined piece by piece, not presumed correct on the merit of other passages.

Finally, to get to the root of the matter, what has prompted you to have "confidence on the scientific accuracy of the Bible" as you put it, in relation to the Genesis creation account.

 

[bibleblevr]

I think one of the best reasons for adopting a theistic evolution or evolutionary creationist position is that it respects scripture for what it is and does not try to distort it into what modern readers think it ought to be: namely scientific, chronological, prosaic, without symbols.

Our modern culture has accustomed us to a "just the facts, ma'am" style of description that is alien to ancient genres of literature. Our modern culture has also forgotten that for 1500 years, Christians expected scripture to be interpreted allegorically.

We need to recover some of the sanity of earlier Christian theologians like Augustine and Calvin who understood the principle of accommodation: God accommodating himself to our level of understanding in order to present his teaching. This is part of the meaning of the Incarnation. We have been given a view of God in human form such that we can understand and believe and follow him.

The same principle can apply to scripture. Taken as if it were science, scripture endorses the ancient near east three-story model of the cosmos. We know this ancient model is not factual; but the message of sin and salvation doesn't depend on ancient Hebrews or the first-century church knowing 21st century astronomical science. It is no detriment to inspiration that important spiritual teachings were clothed in images derived from the world-view of the time. We can make the necessary mental adjustments and preserve the spiritual teaching scripture was written to convey.

And how does the garden of Eden fit into your view? If there was no garden, then what of original sin?

Did we evolve souls, and at what point did the animal humanoid that evolved into a person have the capacity to have communion with God?

Are we not made in his image, but rather made in the way the natural selection decided?

 

[philadiddle]

Are we not made in his image, but rather made in the way the natural selection decided?

Natural selection is God's tool, as it is a part of His creation. Being made in His image is not a reference to a physical trait.

 

[mark kennedy]

I have not settled on a the position regarding orgins, I was originally a YEC but I then started looking into it and became an OEC then I reread Genisis and after some thought became a Gap theorist after that I had a brief Hyades from being a Gap theorist and became a theistic evolutionist, then I jumped back to YEC then back to Gap. Currently my best description of what I am, is confused.

The only cure I know of for that is to take your time and let the evidence speak for itself. We will all give you serious arguments for our particular point of view but in the end decide on something that answers the questions that matter the most to you.

So convince me of one! I would like to hear firstly why it can be compatible with scripture. Secondly, I would like to hear how it is proven scientifically. Unlike Many of the other threads, I would like to hear information from credible and verifiable sources.

Throughout this thread I will be spraying each argument with questions, and by the end I will adopt what I believe to be the most reasonable position.

A literal interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis is the one the New Testament writers affirmed in no uncertain terms. Paul in Romans 5 elaborates at length about Adam's sin being the first cause of sin entering humanity, in Adam all sin. Luke's genealogy ends with 'Adam, son of God' indicating special creation exactly as it is described in Genesis. There are a number of other Scriptural reasons but the only one that is linked to essential doctrine is the fall of man, aka the sin of Adam and Eve. Paul makes it clear that the need for justification goes back no further then Adam and Eve, this makes no sense if Adam had parents.

One of the most telling things about evolution as natural history is the absence of chimpanzee fossils. There are literally hundreds of so called hominid fossils but nothing that tells us about the chimpanzee ancestors going back maybe 10 million years. I have concluded after years of study and debate that fossils like Taung are nothing more the chimpanzee ancestors. I am convinced that evolutionists twist the evidence to fit their Darwinian model of common ancestry

Assessment of Holloway's chimpanzee data supports my claim that the dimple on the Taung endocast is within the chimpanzee range for the medial end of the lunate sulcus.Ape-like endocast of ape-man Taung​

In short there is a controversy regarding whether Taung is more like chimpanzees then humans, Darwinians will never admit this. I can and will elaborate on this if you like, it's just an example of the disingenuous nature of Darwinism. Be discerning with regards to the actual evidence and remember, if someone tries to make this personal they are just revealing something about themselves.

While you are considering Theistic Evolution as an alternative to Creationism I suggest you browse the pages linked below. The first one is a list of essay style arguments against TE and one in particular that I especially liked:

Answers in Genesis, Get Answers

10 Dangers of Theistic Evolution

Theistic Evolution is a compromised view of origins, you will have to concede aspects of Scripture are figurative which is a nice way of saying false. I don't make statements like that lightly, there is a serious danger here. Be discerning and if there is anything I can do to help you figure this out you have only to ask.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Papias]

First, the theology:

There are longer and more detailed answers for all of these, but I don't have much time now, and these short answers will have the gist of it. Also, there are millions of Christians who support this, as well as theologians from many denominations.

biblebeliever wrote:

And how does the garden of Eden fit into your view? If there was no garden, then what of original sin?

Original sin is what happened when humans evolved enough mental capacity to reject God. Original sin the rejection of God, not the consequences of some magical fruit.

Did we evolve souls,

No, at one point in human evolution God intervened and gave us a soul. The humanoid who was first with a soul was Adam. After all, Genesis describes Adam as being formed "from the dust of the ground", a reference to evolution.

and at what point did the animal humanoid that evolved into a person have the capacity to have communion with God?

Sometime 1 to 3 million years ago. At that point, God gave that human a soul.

Are we not made in his image, but rather made in the way the natural selection decided?

God used evolution to make us in his spiritual image, not his physical image. Saying that we are in God's physical image is like asking if God has blue or brown eyes - it's pointless and harmful. God is beyond the human physical form.

From "magic fruitism" to "God's Body", creationism belittles and trivializes God at every turn, in addition to making Christianity look silly.

Hopefully all that will help with the theology. Evolution makes Christianity a stronger position.
*****************************************

For the facts, I recommend starting with http://www.talkorigins.org/. Note that the site is endorsed by major scientific organizations, including the Smithsonian and much more. This means it is reliable, unlike the creationist sites like AIG, which aren't endorsed by anyone and are filled with falsehoods and half-truths.

You may also find useful the index to creationist claims at:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/


Which is where you can look up practically all of the most common distortions creationists use - when you hear a creationist claim something, look it up there before going any farther. You can also see from that, as well as by checking claims you will hear creationists say, that the creationists very often just simply lie to you, and quote mine. By doing this, creationists over and over make it look like Christians are liars and hypocrites. Creationism does more damage to Christianity than atheists could ever dream of doing, because the creationists speak from within Christianity.

Papias

 

[Papias]

Mark wrote:

Theistic Evolution is a compromised view of origins, you will have to concede aspects of Scripture are figurative which is a nice way of saying false.

So Mark, being that Jesus talked all the time in figurative language, using metaphors and parables, are you saying that Jesus spoke falsehoods?

Being that when God walked the earth as Jesus, he spoke figuratively all the time, is it any surprise at all that this same God uses figurative language to start off his revelation to us?

Papias

 

[juvenissun]

One of the most telling things about evolution as natural history is the absence of chimpanzee fossils.

I appreciate very much this type of information. Simple, very informative, powerful and open ended.

Thank you very much, Mark.

 

[Dark_Lite]

As I have said before to you biblebelievr, creationism is based on made-up science, outright denials, goalpost shifting, out of context quoting, and sometimes complete lies. The "there's no transitional fossils!" argument is a perfect example of this. The claim generally goes "there's no fossils for X," and when presented with fossils for X, the claim becomes "that's just fossils of Y!" or "they're not evolving from one kind to another" (whatever a kind is).

Evolution is proven scientifically. There isn't any doubt amongst those with knowledge in the fields. The finer points of the theory and the construction of our biological history of course change, but the overall concept is sound and has stood the test of scientific time for over 150 years. When creationists tell you that people are "defecting from Darwinism" or that evolution is a "theory in crisis," this is yet more misinformation.

Papias gave you a good index to specific creationist claims. As for the science in general, though, you should of course take a biology course. From a scriptural standpoint, when you look at Scripture from a human perspective and realize that the writers of Scripture were inspired and not dictated to by God, it becomes far easier to accept the supposed literalness of the creation accounts. The Bible is part legend, part literal history, part figurative parable, etc. The creation account is a legend from the collective minds of the Jewish people meant to convey spiritual truth.

In response to the above you will often get slippery slope arguments like "the validity of the New Testament relies on the literalness of the Old Testament." I've never found a good reason as to why this was so. It generally goes "if you don't take the creation account literally, then how do you know to take Jesus literally?" The answer lies in studying the literary genres of the Bible as well as taking a look at the big picture of world history. By the time of Jesus, events were generally recorded historically. Ancient legends, however, were borne out of oral tradition handed down through generations and generations.

 

[juvenissun]

No I don't feel comfortable exploring the scientific meaning behind this verse because I believe it to be metaphorical in nature. The context in which it is written makes clear that it is used as a way of expressing the grander of God not a scientific principle, or a literal natural event.

4 His wisdom is profound, his power is vast.
Who has resisted him and come out unscathed?
5 He moves mountains without their knowing it
and overturns them in his anger.
6 He shakes the earth from its place
and makes its pillars tremble.
7 He speaks to the sun and it does not shine;
he seals off the light of the stars.

8 He alone stretches out the heavens
and treads on the waves of the sea.

Furthermore, I fail to see how this relates to the matter of origins, would you care to explain?

You mentioned establishing a confidence in the scientific accuracy of the Bible. First off, Genesis and Job can't be lumped together as if, if one where true the other would be true by default, nether can we say that if part of the Genesis account is literal it must all be literal, the flood, the 6days and the garden of Eden, to name a few, need to be examined piece by piece, not presumed correct on the merit of other passages.

Finally, to get to the root of the matter, what has prompted you to have "confidence on the scientific accuracy of the Bible" as you put it, in relation to the Genesis creation account.

Look at it this way:

1. The Bible is our Book of faith, regardless of the origin problem. If your view of origin has nothing to do with what's said in the Bible, then the view is secular. Many atheists also have their views of origin. So, the first premise is the view of origin must be related to faith (in additional to science). And the only way to guarantee that is to find some sort of support, both spiritual and scientific, in the Bible.

2. The origin problem is a science problem under faith. So, if you are not willing to talk about science in Bible verses, then you can not talk about the origin problem in Christianity. For example, if you do not feel comfortable to talk about science in Job 9:5, which is a pretty small and limited earth science problem, how could you talk about the origin problem which involves many many more scientific issues? Job or Genesis, they are in the same Book. Just like the problem of sin is described in nearly every books of the Bible, there are scientific messages in nearly every books of the Bible.

To give you another example: Luke 5:4-5. If I say there are wonderful scientific messages hidden in these two verses, would you feel comfortable to explore it? If you do not, then I would say again: forget about the origin problem. You are contradicting to yourself.

[BIBLE]LK 5:4 Now when he had left speaking, he said unto Simon, Launch out into the deep, and let down your nets for a draught. 5:5 And Simon answering said unto him, Master, we have toiled all the night, and have taken nothing: nevertheless at thy word I will let down the net.[/BIBLE]

 

[crawfish]

While you are considering Theistic Evolution as an alternative to Creationism I suggest you browse the pages linked below. The first one is a list of essay style arguments against TE and one in particular that I especially liked:

Answers in Genesis, Get Answers

10 Dangers of Theistic Evolution

By all means, please read these links. But don't stop there. If you just put in a little bit of effort, you will see how much the authors misunderstand and mislead about evolutionary creationism. I encourage you to study their claims carefully. Visit sites like BioLogos.org and study the answers you'll see to these various claims. Feel free to ask us on this site.

In the end, I have rejected young-earth creationism for just such sites as these. They are proof that the YEC crowd puts absolutely no thought or effort into understanding those things in which they do not agree with, and instead prop up strawmen arguments for their followers to ape. I love them as my Christian brothers, but I am disappointed in their seeming ethical bankruptcy. God does not NEED us to lie or mislead to do His work, and when we do, we only hurt His cause.

 

[juvenissun]

By all means, please read these links. But don't stop there. If you just put in a little bit of effort, you will see how much the authors misunderstand and mislead about evolutionary creationism. I encourage you to study their claims carefully. Visit sites like BioLogos.org and study the answers you'll see to these various claims. Feel free to ask us on this site.

In the end, I have rejected young-earth creationism for just such sites as these. They are proof that the YEC crowd puts absolutely no thought or effort into understanding those things in which they do not agree with, and instead prop up strawmen arguments for their followers to ape. I love them as my Christian brothers, but I am disappointed in their seeming ethical bankruptcy. God does not NEED us to lie or mislead to do His work, and when we do, we only hurt His cause.

You need to know though,

YEC is YEC.
People lie is people lie. (if you think they do)

There is no logic relation between these two.

 

[philadiddle]

You need to know though,

YEC is YEC.
People lie is people lie. (if you think they do)

There is no logic relation between these two.

YECs lie. That's the relationship. Even if someone starts off sincere with their YEC view, they will be corrected about the various falsehoods they are teaching, and as they continue to teach them anyways it becomes a lie.

Please point me to a YEC who isn't being dishonest about it. (Preferably an actual person that is a part of an organization, because mentioning anonymous posters on a board would be hard to confirm.)

 

[Papias]

Philadiddle wrote:

Even if someone starts off sincere with their YEC view, they will be corrected about the various falsehoods they are teaching, and as they continue to teach them anyways it becomes a lie.

Yes, or I would say:

Many honest people start off with a YEC view, perhaps they've been taught that, perhaps it simply seemed simplest to them, or whatever.

Some remain without much information, and remain YEC.

Some look into it, or get into discussions live or online about origins. These people soon find out that there is overwhelming evidence for evolution, and that practically all scientists and many, many Christian theologians support evolution. Soon it becomes apparent that they can either abandon YEC, or become dishonest. Some abandon YEC and support evolution, many of those finding evolution to support a strong Christian faith, while some decide they'd rather become dishonest.

Mainly I wanted to clarify that once someone starts off with a naive YEC view, it is not inevitable that they will become dishonest as they learn. They can always move to theistic evolution or evolutionary creationism.

Papias

 

[gluadys]

And how does the garden of Eden fit into your view? If there was no garden, then what of original sin?

Did we evolve souls, and at what point did the animal humanoid that evolved into a person have the capacity to have communion with God?

Are we not made in his image, but rather made in the way the natural selection decided?

What is original sin? Original sin is that aspect of human nature that is in rebellion against God. The garden of Eden is representative of that state of nature in which we were not in rebellion against God.

Perhaps that was before we developed the intellectual capacity to see ourselves as separate from God, to assert ourselves as autonomous agents.

After all, in the garden story, the tree that brought about original sin was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. So when we began to have a concept of good and evil and began deciding for ourselves what is good and evil we also separated ourselves from God.

Souls? One needs to have some idea of what a soul is before one can answer that. Papias has given you one answer and I believe it is the one most commonly taught by the Catholic church. Personally I have problems with it, because I don't think in such dualistic terms that one can divide soul and body in such a clear-cut way. I am open to the notion that the soul evolves with the body. In fact, I would go to a different Catholic theologian, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, who emphasized that all things have a spiritual nature, even atoms and quarks.


No one animal humanoid evolved into a person. Evolution happens in populations, not individuals.

As for timing, no way to say. There is no physical trait that tracks the existence and development of spiritual capacities, and the only traits by which we can follow evolutionary changes are physical traits. So did humanoids develop souls even before H. sapiens appeared? Were H.erectus and H. neanderthalensis and H. floresiensis creatures who had the capacity to have communion with God? Or maybe that capacity came much later. Maybe it didn't even exist in the first generations of H. sapiens but only appeared in our species in a more recent time-frame. We find archaic H. sapiens fossils up to 170,000 years old. But someone has also pointed out that we don't find many remains of human creativity, such as cave paintings and decorated tools, more than 40,000 years old. If bodily form is not a guide to existence/development of spiritual nature, perhaps we acquired human souls much more recently---or much more anciently---than we acquired human bodies.

As for whether we are made in God's image or as natural selection decided, there is no reason we can't say both. In the first place "image of God" does not refer to bodily form, since God is entirely spirit and his image must also be entirely spirit. In the second place, even if a particular body was necessary to house the spiritual image of God, there is no reason God could not use the instrument of natural selection to get whatever body he chose.

 

[Partaker of Christ]

YEC's are true to the scriptures.
The rest have to alter the truth to fit their foolish opinions.

Exo 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Exo 31:17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.

Gen 5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
Gen 5:2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
Mark 10:7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;

Luke 3:23 - 38 the generation of Jesus to Adam = around 4000 years

Rom 5:14 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.

Believe the truth of God, or believe the lie.

2Th 2:8 And then the lawless one will be unveiled, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth, and will destroy by the brightness of His coming,
2Th 2:9 whose coming is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders,
2Th 2:10 and in all deception of unrighteousness among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
2Th 2:11 And because of this, God will send them strong delusion, in order for them to believe the lie,

The lying wonders will be so very convincing as to decieve all those who love not the truth.

 

[Mallon]

YEC's are true to the scriptures.

So are flat-earth geocentrists.

 

[juvenissun]

YECs lie. That's the relationship. Even if someone starts off sincere with their YEC view, they will be corrected about the various falsehoods they are teaching, and as they continue to teach them anyways it becomes a lie.

Please point me to a YEC who isn't being dishonest about it. (Preferably an actual person that is a part of an organization, because mentioning anonymous posters on a board would be hard to confirm.)

Does Obama/Bush lie?

This illustrates what does a lie mean today for everything. A meaningless word.