Do you agree?

[Beowulf]

At one time Genesis was treated as fact and evolution as myth, as pure theory, but in these latter days Genesis is treated as myth and evolution as fact.
Scripture takes a backseat to the idea of evolution, Genesis has been compromised.

 

[Vance]

Personally, I don't believe God created anything with the 'appearance of great age.' I simply think science has misinterpreted what God has created as being old. "This bone is a dinosaur, therefore it must be millions of years old and carbon dating will prove it and if you believe differently you are a fool." I'm also not sure God could have done it any faster. he seemed pretty worn out after working 6 straight days.

Well, I would hope that last sentence was a joke! :0)

But, as to your first sentence, I think it is correct, God did not created anything with the appearance of great age, He let it age by itself. But your second sentence is just plain wrong. The earth, and the universe, does look old by every method you can use. Not only does it test old, there are things about the earth and the universe that simply could not exist if the earth was only 6,000 years old and that have nothing at all to do with creating "in maturity".

 

[Vance]

At one time Genesis was treated as fact and evolution as myth, as pure theory, but in these latter days Genesis is treated as myth and evolution as fact.
Scripture takes a backseat to the idea of evolution, Genesis has been compromised.

Well, this is just wrong. It is only when you read Scripture as conflicting with evolution that someone would conclude that one was taking a back-seat to the other.

Did Scripture take a backseat to science when the Church finally gave in and acknowleged that heliocentrism was correct and their reading of Scripture was incorrect?

Of course not.

 

[Vance]

A TE can not answer the question with a yes or no. To say "yes" goes against evolution (plants before the sun). On the other hand a "no" is too uncomfortable and must have conditions. Therefore there must be a compromise between evolution and scripture. The idea of evolution will not be compromised, it must be upheld at all costs. Still, there has to be a compromise and it's scripture that will take the hit.

I'm sure of my answer.
An unconditional "Yes".

Therein lies the rub mixing Darwin with the bible.

I can answer an unconditional NO, because I don't think that the poetic, allegorical text of Genesis 1 and 2 requires a reading that the order given was the actual chronological, historical order things actually appeared.

You are using the logical error of the false dichotomy.

 

[seebs]

At one time Genesis was treated as fact and evolution as myth, as pure theory, but in these latter days Genesis is treated as myth and evolution as fact.
Scripture takes a backseat to the idea of evolution, Genesis has been compromised.

Actually, for millenia, Genesis was understood as myth. The notion of "fact" in the sense that you are using it was simply not part of human understanding of religion, or much of anything else, until probably at least the 1600s; the idea that history existed as anything other than stories we tell to understand our relationship with other people is sort of novel. I mean, there were historians... But the idea that the objective truth mattered was not really widespread.

If you read Rabbinical commentaries on Genesis, or Augustine's work, you'll see that the "plain literal facts" interpretation you're pushing is the invention, not the historical understanding. TE's are pushing for a return to the historical roots of Judeo-Christian understanding of Genesis; it is the literalists who are advocating a dramatic change, and ultimately, a major compromise with God's message to us.

 

[TwinCrier]

TwinCrier:

How many times have we TEs posted that we believe God could have created any way he wanted? How many times have we countered people thinking we think God couldn't create in six days. And yet, again, we are asked as if it's surprising.

I don't know how many times you've stated that and i don't think all evolutionist nessasarily believe that (I didn't when i believed in it) but you're just going to have to get use to the same questions. I haven't been here long enough to understand what you believe. Ionly understand what I believe.

 

[Didaskomenos]

TE's are by definition people who believe in God. God is defined as an omnipotent being by every major faith known to man. Hence, it would take a very very oddball TE (especially a Christian TE) to believe that God couldn't do anything he wanted.

 

[herev]

A TE can not answer the question with a yes or no. To say "yes" goes against evolution (plants before the sun). On the other hand a "no" is too uncomfortable and must have conditions. Therefore there must be a compromise between evolution and scripture. The idea of evolution will not be compromised, it must be upheld at all costs. Still, there has to be a compromise and it's scripture that will take the hit.

I'm sure of my answer.
An unconditional "Yes".

Therein lies the rub mixing Darwin with the bible.

Yet, even here, you limit God and the Bible by saying that it must be a simple black and white.
For example, the question, do you believe everything in the Bible is fact?
You answer it, yes or no--and someone will twist your words or prove you are wrong, it's just not that simple. Again, you beleive that I place a higher value on a scientific theory than I do the Bible--this too, is simple-minded--and not true. Somehow the mind of the literists simply cannot comprehend that others can hold to a different interpretation and still believe the Bible to be the inspired word of God. It is condescending at best--and comes from a definitive decision on the part of creationists to refuse to listen, hear, and accept what other Christian brothers and sisters are telling you about their own faith. In this sense, it is judgmental, and self-righteous, as well as sanctimonious, and is part of the reason that so many evolutionists (theistic or not) will not listen when creationists want to teach them the Gospel--the spiritual arrogance simply rules the day and IT IS THIS that will not be compromised. So which is it? Do you believe everything in the Bible is fact?

 

[herev]

At one time Genesis was treated as fact and evolution as myth, as pure theory, but in these latter days Genesis is treated as myth and evolution as fact.
Scripture takes a backseat to the idea of evolution, Genesis has been compromised.

Genesis is ONLY compromised if one refuses to allow facts to get in the way of belief--usually that means it's a sacred cow being defended--and sacred cows make great hamburgers

 

[gluadys]

Could God have created the earth in 6 literal days and then scientists extremely intent on disproving his existence forged and faked "evidence" to make it look like evolution occured? OF COURSE!!!! (And I believe this is what happened).

The big problem with the belief is that most of the evidence that makes it look like evolution occurred was gathered by scientists who were Christian and had no interest in making God look bad.

 

[gluadys]

Evidence presented supports the assumption.
When I set out to gather evidence I begin with an assumption then I put effort, time and money to work to find what supports that assumption. That's science, that's how it should be. Anything not supporting what I seek isn't considered as being relevant to the search.

Actually that is NOT science. Science works the other way around. It's always too easy to find what you want to find. So what scientists do is try to find evidence that shows their assumptions are false! So evidence that does not support what they seek is the most important evidence.

The reason for doing this is that scientific statements can never be fully proved, so we can never be absolutely certain that science is right.

But scientific statements can be disproven. We can be absolutely certain that we have shown an assumption to be false, when it leads to a false consequence. So scientific effort goes toward weeding out bad scientific statements by showing they are false.

The rest are accepted as provisionally true.

The reason creationism is not accepted by science is not a bias against belief. It is because it has been shown to have false consequences, so it cannot be true.

 

[gluadys]

Personally, I don't believe God created anything with the 'appearance of great age.' I simply think science has misinterpreted what God has created as being old. "This bone is a dinosaur, therefore it must be millions of years old and carbon dating will prove it and if you believe differently you are a fool." I'm also not sure God could have done it any faster. he seemed pretty worn out after working 6 straight days.

Do you really think its as simple as that? Not really. For example, you can't use carbon dating on a fossilized bone, because its not bone any more. And besides, you can't measure millions of years with carbon dating.

It's these kinds of very elementary scientific errors that make creationists look foolish. And makes any charges of conspiracy or bad motives on the part of scientists not credible.

It just shows that you have no idea of what scientists actually do, of how they evaluate their results and of why they have confidence in their conclusions.

Why do you think God could not have created any faster? What would limit God's power?

 

[gluadys]

Genesis says God made the plants first then the next day made the sun and moon.
No matter how it's read, literal or not, Genesis conveys the message that plants were here before the sun.

Is this correct?
I can say a solid "yes" without condition.

Is it correct that Genesis conveys the message that plants were here before the sun? Yes.

Is it correct that plants were here before the sun? No.

That is why we know that what Genesis literally conveys is not to be understood literally.

 

[gluadys]

At one time Genesis was treated as fact and evolution as myth, as pure theory, but in these latter days Genesis is treated as myth and evolution as fact.
Scripture takes a backseat to the idea of evolution, Genesis has been compromised.

In the first place, this is making the error that the only definition of "myth" and the one that applies to biblical myth is "falsehood". That is not the case. Myth is also a literary genre. It is a non-historical way of speaking profound truths. To recognize myth in the bible is not compromising anything.

Secondly, this is poor history. When it was taken for granted that the description of creation in Genesis was factual, evolution was not treated as a myth. It was not treated in any way at all, because the idea of evolution had not occurred to most people yet.