Darwin's evolution theory?

dunkel · Nov 10, 2005

Sophia7 said:
Some Christians actually believe that there is evidence of telescoping of geneologies in the Bible and such, so the 6,000-year estimate is somewhat skewed.

I am not familiar with "telescoping" geneologies, so I can't comment on that right now.

Sophia7 said:
I am reposting my previous comments here because they seem to have gotten lost amidst all of the goofy pictures and silly jokes. I would really appreciate an answer to my questions about how the human sinful nature relates to theistic evolution.

Ok

Sophia7 said:
I am a creationist. I believe in a literal Adam and Eve. And I am not hung up on the idea of the earth being 6,000 years old. I actually believe that the earth is probably older than that. Please don't generalize and assume that all creationists believe the same way on all of these issues.

Fair enough. But this is a belief held by many creationists, which is why I brought it up. I did not mean to imply that it is held by ALL creationists.

Sophia7 said:
One question I have that no one has answered yet is how would you explain the entrance of sin into the human experience?

The concept of sin is purely theological. Evolution does not try to account for it. That's like expecting the theory of gravity to explain how the Red Sox won last year's World Series...it's simply not within it's scope to do so.

Sophia7 said:
According to an evolutionary model, death would have had to occur before sin because other organisms existed, died, and became extinct before humans evolved. Would you say that the account of the Fall of Man is not literal either?

Yes, I would say that the account of the fall of man is not literal.

Sophia7 said:
If not, was there ever a time when people were not sinful, and how did they become sinful?

I don't believe in original sin, so I'm not sure how to answer this question. I know my 6 month old daughter is without sin, despite what many claim the Bible says in this regard. As noted above, sin is a theological concept, anyway, so how could early humans, with no concept of the idea of God as we have, commit sins? Sins against whom? Adultery might have always been wrong, but it didn't become a "sin" until God included it in his 10 Commandments.

Sophia7 said:
And, if metaphorical, what would the biblical account be a metaphor for? How would it relate to the process of human evolution?

There are many ideas about what the Genesis story is all about. I think the simplest answer is that the originators of the story were looking around them, wondering how and why everything they saw got there, just like the originators of any myth. Why is there land and water? Why is childbirth so painful? Why must we work so hard to get food out of the ground? Why are there some people that want to hurt other pepole? The story of Genesis answered their questions. Obviously, we no longer know the questions to some of the answers that Genesis provides...why was Cain's sacrifice rejected while Abel's was accepted? There must have been a reason to include that in the story, but we don't now what it is now.

Edited to fix some cut an paste mistakes

ArchangelGabriel · Nov 10, 2005

dunkel said:
Not sure what you mean here.

What is the alternative?

Um...the point was that if apes are able to do some of the things humans are able to do...maybe they weren't "human skills" after all...maybe when we are using a hammer, we're actually displaying an "ape skill", albeit with a much more sophisticated tool.

like since if we evolved from apes shouldnt our DNA be exaclty the same? or does it not work that way is there a way to lose or change dan over time?

that either we evolved from apes or we were created as humans in the image of God

ArchangelGabriel · Nov 10, 2005

dunkel said:
dunkel said:

The concept of sin is purely theological. Evolution does not try to account for it. That's like expecting the theory of gravity to explain how the Red Sox won last year's World Series...it's simply not within it's scope to do so.
well i could prob. explain that through gravity but thats not your point
evolution and The study of the nature of God and religious truth(theology)
go hand in hand since evolution may or may not be a religious truth

I don't believe in original sin, so I'm not sure how to answer this question. I know my 6 month old daughter is without sin, despite what many claim the Bible says in this regard. As noted above, sin is a theological concept, anyway, so how could early humans, with no concept of the idea of God as we have, commit sins? Sins against whom? Adultery might have always been wrong, but it didn't become a "sin" until God included it in his 10 Commandments.

Click to expand...

how do you know that she hasnt sinned?
-has she ever cried?
-humans have always known about God though, if what your sayig is true and huamns really did never have original sin and God never let them know he existed then why not if they were sinless
-you dont sin against someone sinning is the lack of following God

Click to expand...

ArchangelGabriel · Nov 10, 2005

Melethiel said:
At the end however, it doesn't really matter. Genesis is merely the introduction, much like Revelation is the ending. It is what is in between that matters; the "climax", to use a literary term, took place on the Cross..

ALL OF GOD MATTERS

A. believer · Nov 10, 2005

Donkeytron said:
Oh you're going to lecture on what science is and isn't? The fact that you put together the words evolution-as-dogma tells me right off the bat you don't know jack about science. Behe and Dembski's books aren't "peer reviewed" by any means. Behe has been repeatedly shown how his arguments in Black Box are incorrect-everything he supposes to require a designer turned out to be perfectly viable through evolution. At this point he's just shilling for publicity.

And hey, you found the only articles remotely related to ID that were published in real journals. Lets see..the first one by Meyer was snuck in to the journal because he knew the editor and didnt actually have it reviewed (the editor was fired). And like I said, being a creationist doesn't prevent you from publishing. It's just that no articles on creationism end up being published.

Except the ones that are. But they're obviously few and far between since the keepers of the gate of the scientific establishment aren't about to give up their stranglehold without a fight.

I'll leave you with some testimony from michael Behe in the Dover trial. You know, the one where he says that the definition of science would have to change for ID to be considered science. And astrology would be considered scientific under his definition:

Q But the way you define scientific theory, you said it's just based on your own experience; it's not a dictionary definition, it's not one issued by a scientific organization.

A It is based on my experience of how the word is used in the scientific community.

Q And as you said, your definition is a lot broader than the NAS definition?

A That's right, intentionally broader to encompass the way that the word is used in the scientific community.

Q Sweeps in a lot more propositions.

A It recognizes that the word is used a lot more broadly than the National Academy of Sciences defined it.

Q In fact, your definition of scientific theory is synonymous with hypothesis, correct?

A Partly -- it can be synonymous with hypothesis, it can also include the National Academy's definition. But in fact, the scientific community uses the word "theory" in many times as synonymous with the word "hypothesis," other times it uses the word as a synonym for the definition reached by the National Academy, and at other times it uses it in other ways.

Q But the way you are using it is synonymous with the definition of hypothesis?

A No, I would disagree. It can be used to cover hypotheses, but it can also include ideas that are in fact well substantiated and so on. So while it does include ideas that are synonymous or in fact are hypotheses, it also includes stronger senses of that term.

Q And using your definition, intelligent design is a scientific theory, correct?

A Yes.

Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?

A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.

Q The ether theory of light has been discarded, correct?

A That is correct.

Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?

A Yes, that's correct.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day11pm.html

And I'm expected to react to this how? This is the very point I've been making. Evolution and Intelligent Design are interpretive paradigms. This is the same sense in which astrology was once a scientific paradigm, but one that was discarded for its complete lack of corroborating evidence. This site that I visited in Rajasthan India five years or so ago is good example of how seriously the paradigm was taken at one time.

calidog · Nov 10, 2005

Dark_Lite said:
Perhaps you ought to go to the school board and tell them to get better biology teachers?

Evolution is a tree model. Not linear. Humans and "monkeys" share a common ancestor.

The bible says Adam is the human ancestor. It infers that the monkey is the monkeys ancestor.

calidog · Nov 10, 2005

GraceInHim said:
are you talking about I Love Lucy??

thank you, if a forum could use comedy relief, this is it.

calidog · Nov 10, 2005

Dark_Lite said:
How does "circuit" and "compass" imply sphere?

Round means circle. Spherical means sphere.

isnt a sphere circular?

calidog · Nov 10, 2005

GraceInHim said:
DL - you are really nice debater - meaning your not at all rude - like some people can be - I am actually LOL when I post -

this is one thing I will say - it is not proven - but it goes with Gods words

4 or 40 - 400 is Gods number to reprimand or trial period

7 or 70 is gods number of perfection

Jesus was born say 4000 yrs after Adam - 70ad Jerusalem was destroyed - 70 +/- after the birth of our Lord

God would not lie with numbers and dates of genology of the Bible men who lived

you type the number 70 or 40 or 7 or 400 - you see all the times of trouble and perfection

6 is the number of unperfect - so I think we are living in that century - 1 day is like a thousand to God and he is patient.

plus we were created on day 6

calidog · Nov 10, 2005

Dark_Lite said:
Genesis is not necessarily literal...

thank you for the " necessarily"....."literal" is still an option.

calidog · Nov 10, 2005

invisible trousers said:
i don't think you understand science.

keep in mind gravity is still a theory too.

Gravity is a fact. Evolution is a theory. The Bible is the Word of God.

calidog · Nov 10, 2005

PaladinValer said:
Gravity is still a theory. We have't got all the math worked out properly. Until we do, it remains a theory. When we get the math worked out, then, I believe, it becomes a law.

So therefore, a theory can be a fact at the same time.

And evolution is no different. We've observed it; we just don't got all the math done yet.

we can test gravity. YOU may have observed evolution.

ArchangelGabriel · Nov 10, 2005

caldog said:
Gravity is a fact. Evolution is a theory. The Bible is the Word of God.

gravity is a law

ArchangelGabriel · Nov 10, 2005

caldog said:
we can test gravity. YOU may have observed evolution.

people in Utah MAY have observed UFOs and Aliens it doesnt mean that they really did or didnt and since the "math" is basicly logic then how do you say science can see it as a fact if it isnt logical yet?

dunkel · Nov 10, 2005

ArchangelGabriel said:
like since if we evolved from apes shouldnt our DNA be exaclty the same? or does it not work that way is there a way to lose or change dan over time?

that either we evolved from apes or we were created as humans in the image of God

If we had exactly the same DNA, we'd still be apes. The whole idea of evolution is that DNA is changing. So we're not "losing" DNA...that 2% has simply changed slightly over time.

Sophia7 · Nov 10, 2005

ArchangelGabriel said:
how do you know that she hasnt sinned?
-has she ever cried?

I have to disagree that a six-month-old baby is sinning if she cries. She cries because she is hungry or sad or hurt or tired or wants to be held, not because she is being willfully disobedient.

invisible trousers · Nov 10, 2005

caldog said:
Gravity is a fact. Evolution is a theory. The Bible is the Word of God.

0/3, yikes!

gravity is a fact in that masses somehow attract each other. our theories about gravity are scientific theories that are not fact but have been pretty darn accurate even though gravity still isn't well understood.

evolution is a fact in that living organisms change over time, ie

.
the theory of evolution is a scientific theory which attempts to explain the methods of evolution. we understand evolution a whole lot more than gravity, and there hasn't been anything scientific which has been remotely close to challenging it.

the bible is not the Word of God. God is the Word:
[bible]john 1:1-5[/bible]

ArchangelGabriel said:
gravity is a law

incorrect.

calidog · Nov 10, 2005

ArchangelGabriel said:
people in Utah MAY have observed UFOs and Aliens it doesnt mean that they really did or didnt and since the "math" is basicly logic then how do you say science can see it as a fact if it isnt logical yet?

I did'nt. It isnt.

calidog · Nov 10, 2005

invisible trousers said:
0/3, yikes!

gravity is a fact in that masses somehow attract each other. our theories about gravity are scientific theories that are not fact but have been pretty darn accurate even though gravity still isn't well understood.

evolution is a fact in that living organisms change over time, ie .
the theory of evolution is a scientific theory which attempts to explain the methods of evolution. we understand evolution a whole lot more than gravity, and there hasn't been anything scientific which has been remotely close to challenging it.

the bible is not the Word of God. God is the Word:
John 1:1-51 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

incorrect.

Jesus is the Word. The bible are Gods words. Gravity is a fact of life. Evolution is theory. (the bible is often referred to as the word of God, is it not?)

ArchangelGabriel · Nov 10, 2005

Sophia7 said:
I have to disagree that a six-month-old baby is sinning if she cries. She cries because she is hungry or sad or hurt or tired or wants to be held, not because she is being willfully disobedient.

i didnt say that
-and i need a answer in order to continue with my statement

Darwin's evolution theory?

Active Member

Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

Contributor

Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

Active Member

Tall73's Wife

~*this post promotes non-nicene christianity*~

Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency

~this post promotes non-nicene christianity~