Do you accept evolution as a valid scientific theory?

LoG · Jan 8, 2006

gluadys said:
No one is saying it is not true. Just that it is not literal. It is pretty short sighted to suppose something must be literal to be true. On that basis very little of the bible would be true.

The short-sightedness is more relevant for those who assume that the bible can't be literal. These will hold to the outward form of our religion, but reject its real power.

The Lady Kate · Jan 8, 2006

Lion of God said:
The short-sightedness is more relevant for those who assume that the bible can't be literal. These will hold to the outward form of our religion, but reject its real power.

What do you mean?

pastorkevin73 · Jan 8, 2006

The Lady Kate said:
Why not? Because Christianity is literalism?

Of course not. Knowing that God's words cannot contradict His actions, one must view Scripture in light of what God has revealed to us through His creation, and with that in mind, determine what cannot be literal, and what can.

"God inspired Moses to write it," or "God leaned in behind Moses and whispered in his ear exactly which words to use"?

One possibility makes God very much the deceiver...the other allows the authors of Genesis (as well as the rest of the Bible) the freedom to be poetic.

How does one define "inspired"?

How can you determine that Genesis is not literal?

Genesis is truth, not literal. If it were not true, it would not be inspired or God is a lair.

What it comes down to is do you believe that God's word is true and inerrent. Your answer will serve as proof as to who you believe God to be.

notto · Jan 8, 2006

pastorkevin73 said:
How can you determine that Genesis is not literal?

By comparing your literal interpretation of it with the creation you try to describe and seeing if there are gaps.

When Christians did this over 200 years ago, they realized that their understanding of creation based on their interpretation of Genesis didn't match with the reality of the creation that was before them when they went and examined it.

When your interpretation of scripture directly conflicts with the actual reality of creation, you can bet that it is your interpretation that is incorrect.

pastorkevin73 · Jan 8, 2006

notto said:
By comparing your literal interpretation of it with the creation you try to describe and seeing if there are gaps.

When Christians did this over 200 years ago, they realized that their understanding of creation based on their interpretation of Genesis didn't match with the reality of the creation that was before them when they went and examined it.

When your interpretation of scripture directly conflicts with the actual reality of creation, you can bet that it is your interpretation that is incorrect.

What "reality" are you talking about?

Doing so scientific research will point to science, indeed, point to scripture to be true. Case and point, read "The Case for the Creator" by Lee Stobel.

Science will always point to God and in the end prove scripture.

gluadys · Jan 9, 2006

Lion of God said:
The short-sightedness is more relevant for those who assume that the bible can't be literal. These will hold to the outward form of our religion, but reject its real power.

There is a forum rule which forbids casting aspersions on other Christians' faith, and your last sentence comes close to breaking it.

You do not have sufficient knowledge about the spiritual state of those who hold non-literal views to justify this statement.

Dannager · Jan 9, 2006

Lion of God said:
The short-sightedness is more relevant for those who assume that the bible can't be literal. These will hold to the outward form of our religion, but reject its real power.

Certain parts of the Bible are definitely meant literally. Certain parts, on the other hand, are definitely not meant as such. Genesis is likely an allegorical creation myth. Allow me to explain why this is the case.

Genesis and other contemporary books were written a long time ago. Thousands of years ago, in fact. Science had not even been invented at this time (yes, the concept of science had to come from somewhere). Humanity, as a whole, was not capable of understanding how the earth came to exist in the state we now see. We could not have comprehended natural selection or mutation. We didn't have a fossil record to refer to, nor geological studies to look to for evidence.

However, there still existed a need to impress upon man that God was the originator of all things. Thus, a creation story was needed - one that claimed God as original cause and that taught a morality lesson. Humanity had to learn that God was to be obeyed, and that they had within them a nature capable of doing wrong. This was accomplished through a creation myth, as seen in Genesis, that detailed God creating the world and punishing the first humans for their disobedience.

It is important to note that, at the time, it was not critical that anything in the early Bible be "historical". The people of that age had little concept of what history meant. They were not skilled at examining records (for few existed), nor at analyzing relics and fossils or tracing geneologies. The majority of people didn't care what actual happened 500 years before. They cared about placing their faith somewhere, and being content in the existence of a higher power. What they were good at is relating important morality tales, which is why we now have the stories expressed in Genesis.

It is not important that Genesis be literal. That God is the creator of the universe is not being disputed. That God is deserving of respect and worship is not being disputed. All these things, the only important things, are true in an allegorical Genesis. Genesis doesn't need to be literal to be true.

LoG · Jan 9, 2006

gluadys said:
There is a forum rule which forbids casting aspersions on other Christians' faith, and your last sentence comes close to breaking it.

You do not have sufficient knowledge about the spiritual state of those who hold non-literal views to justify this statement.

The quote from 2Titus 3:5 does not not say anything about "spiritual state" although it does imply a lack of faith in the power of God.
Perhaps the question needs to be asked if you don't believe that God could have done it literally or whether you believe He simply chose not to in spite of saying He did.

The Lady Kate · Jan 9, 2006

pastorkevin73 said:
How can you determine that Genesis is not literal?

As I said... by matching up God's words to His actions.

Genesis is truth, not literal. If it were not true, it would not be inspired or God is a lair.

As long as we agree that Genesis need not be literal, then there's no problem with TE.

What it comes down to is do you believe that God's word is true and inerrent.

Of course... but is it literal?

Your answer will serve as proof as to who you believe God to be.

Proof to whom? You... or to someone whose judgement of my faith carries weight?

The Lady Kate · Jan 9, 2006

Lion of God said:
Perhaps the question needs to be asked if you don't believe that God could have done it literally or whether you believe He simply chose not to in spite of saying He did.

God could have done it literally... he could have done it out of Play-Dough. But what did He do?

Where does He say He did it literally?

pastorkevin73 · Jan 9, 2006

If Genesis is not literal, then were does sin originate?

notto · Jan 9, 2006

pastorkevin73 said:
What "reality" are you talking about?

Doing so scientific research will point to science, indeed, point to scripture to be true. Case and point, read "The Case for the Creator" by Lee Stobel.

Science will always point to God and in the end prove scripture.

Perhaps you can share with us Lee's most compelling claim and the scientific research he uses to back it up with references.

Why would you expect Lee's opinion to be of any objective value at all when evaluating science? His is not a scientist and is obviously bias. His work is not one that should be used to evaluate anything.

Do you think that with Lee's background that if scientific research did not point to scripture to be true that he would be objective enough to tell you that? If you answer yes, then I would suggest that you are simply listening to what you want to hear and avoiding all information that might disrupt your preconceived conclusions.

LoG · Jan 9, 2006

notto said:
When your interpretation of scripture directly conflicts with the actual reality of creation, you can bet that it is your interpretation that is incorrect.

This is an interesting statement since it comes down to two different interpretations of the same evidence. Much of the evidence used by TE's to support their position also has perfectly plausible explanations from YEC perspective. The "reality" of creation has more to do with one's bias then with true reality. From a christian perspective when facing two equally plausible explanations for the same evidence it is natural to choose the one that is in line with the scripture. When one chooses the explanation that is in keeping with a materialistic viewpoint the obvious bias it to weight man's interpretations more heavily then God's.

pastorkevin73 · Jan 9, 2006

notto said:
Perhaps you can share with us Lee's most compelling claim and the scientific research he uses to back it up with references.

Why would you expect Lee's opinion to be of any objective value at all when evaluating science? His is not a scientist and is obviously bias. His work is not one that should be used to evaluate anything.

Do you think that with Lee's background that if scientific research did not point to scripture to be true that he would be objective enough to tell you that? If you answer yes, then I would suggest that you are simply listening to what you want to hear and avoiding all information that might disrupt your preconceived conclusions.

In his book Lee interviews expert and highly respected scientists. Lee is a highly respected jounralist throughout North America, who seeks the truth. There is to much in his book for me to get into. You will have to read it for yourself.

notto · Jan 9, 2006

Lion of God said:
This is an interesting statement since it comes down to two different interpretations of the same evidence. Much of the evidence used by TE's to support their position also has perfectly plausible explanations from YEC perspective.

This statement is not supported by reality. If this was the case, YEC's would be able to pursuade the scientific community that there religiously motivated interpretations of evidence are valid. They have not been able to do that and the overwhelming majority of scientists in the related fields of geology and biology regardless of their faith, background, nationality, sex, age, or upbringing reject YEC as falsified explanations. This would not be the case if the YEC's interpretation was as plausible.

Why is it that so many Christian universities, medical schools, and universities in general teach mainstream biology including evolution and mainstream old earth geology?

Why is it that pharmaceutical and medical companies along with oil companies rely on mainstream biology including the theory of evolution and maintream old earth geology to get anything done?

Why? Because it works, generates testable and verifyable results. YEC interpretation is nothing but ad-hoc rationalizing, with the explanation of one phenomena often conflicting with another.

YEC's will undoubtably chalk this up to bias but that also doesn't jive with reality. YEC ideas were the status quo and it was only after Christian and religious people when looking at creation closely that it was found out that the ideas they had were wrong. No bias there, they wanted Genesis to be literal.

Special creation, same thing. The theory of evolution was doubted and needed to be supported with objective positive evidence in order to be accepted. It replace special creation and YEC because it could be supported and there was no equally persuasive interpretation of the evidence that could explain the diversity and history of life on this planet as well as it could. This still remains the case.

david_x · Jan 9, 2006

Why would you expect Lee's opinion to be of any objective value at all when evaluating science? His is not a scientist and is obviously bias. His work is not one that should be used to evaluate anything.

Ha ha ha, oh would i like to see anyone that is unbiased.

S Walch · Jan 9, 2006

tbh, in any book, the author is usually biased one way or the other.

gluadys · Jan 9, 2006

Lion of God said:
The quote from 2Titus 3:5 does not not say anything about "spiritual state" although it does imply a lack of faith in the power of God.

I wasn't talking about what Paul said to Titus. I was talking about what you said.

Perhaps the question needs to be asked if you don't believe that God could have done it literally or whether you believe He simply chose not to in spite of saying He did.

God can do what God chooses to do, and he has told us in his works exactly what he did. Since the works of creation were made by the Word of God, I am not going to dispute their testimony.

gluadys · Jan 9, 2006

pastorkevin73 said:
If Genesis is not literal, then were does sin originate?

In sinful actions. And the will to put one's own interests first that lies behind them.

gluadys · Jan 9, 2006

Lion of God said:
This is an interesting statement since it comes down to two different interpretations of the same evidence. Much of the evidence used by TE's to support their position also has perfectly plausible explanations from YEC perspective. The "reality" of creation has more to do with one's bias then with true reality. From a christian perspective when facing two equally plausible explanations for the same evidence it is natural to choose the one that is in line with the scripture. When one chooses the explanation that is in keeping with a materialistic viewpoint the obvious bias it to weight man's interpretations more heavily then God's.

The explanations are only "equally plausible" to someone who has not looked at the science, or who chooses to reject the science because of religious belief. Often, the person who supposes the explanations are "equally plausible" has very little understanding of how science works.

Do you accept evolution as a valid scientific theory?

Do accept evolution as a valid scientific theory?

Yes

No

Doesn't matter/neutral/I am in the mist of research

Four is my favorite number

Veteran

The Lady Kate

Guest

Senior Member

Legend

Senior Member

Legend

Back in Town

Veteran

The Lady Kate

Guest

The Lady Kate

Guest

Senior Member

Legend

Veteran

Senior Member

Legend

I So Hate Consequences!!!!

-

Legend

Legend

Legend

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency