Evolution, Science, Creation

Metaphor · Dec 21, 2005

The Lady Kate said:
Genesis IS ALSO clear that the Fall, sin, suffering, death, and all of the world's woes can be traced back to Eve taking bad advice from a talking snake.

Surely we can allow the authors of Genesis a bit of poetic license.

Sorry, but I really don't understand what that has to do with the current debate. I mean yeah the authors of Genesis were cool at writing...But my point was that the idea of apes becoming humans is COMPLETELY un-biblical.

-John

Robert the Pilegrim · Dec 21, 2005

TK2005 said:
The Bible itself is where the divine interpretation resides. If you do not believe that, then you do not trust the Bible. []
Either you believe and trust the whole bible or none of it. It can't be both ways.

So you, being a Bible believing Christian, believe that the Sun revolves about the Earth?

Metaphor · Dec 21, 2005

Robert the Pilegrim said:
So you, being a Bible believing Christian, believe that the Sun revolves about the Earth?

Um, could you give us a direct quote of scripture that CLEARLY states the sun revolves around the earth?

-John

LewisWildermuth · Dec 21, 2005

Metaphor said:
Sorry, but I really don't understand what that has to do with the current debate. I mean yeah the authors of Genesis were cool at writing...But my point was that the idea of apes becoming humans is COMPLETELY un-biblical.

Metaphor said:
-John

The idea that the Earth moves is un-biblical if you take all the passages about it not moving unless God shakes it as literal.

The idea that hail forms in clouds is unbiblical if you take the verses about it being stored in warehouses in heaven literally.

One could argue plenty of weird things by taking some verses literally.

Why are the verses that describe the creation of Adam and Eve to be taken literally when the verses about Earth not moving not?

How did we come to the decision that the Earth could move even though the literal reading would have it stay still?

What make you so sure that those who say evolution cannot be correct because of these verses are any more correct then those who said that the Earth could not be revolving around the Sun because of their verses?

Robert the Pilegrim · Dec 21, 2005

Metaphor said:
Sorry, but I really don't understand what that has to do with the current debate. I mean yeah the authors of Genesis were cool at writing...But my point was that the idea of apes becoming humans is COMPLETELY un-biblical.

-John

So is the idea of using computers, or using antibiotics so that you don't have to send anybody with a bleeding ulcer outside of camp.

Metaphor · Dec 21, 2005

LewisWildermuth said:
The idea that the Earth moves is un-biblical if you take all the passages about it not moving unless God shakes it as literal.

The idea that hail forms in clouds is unbiblical if you take the verses about it being stored in warehouses in heaven literally.

One could argue plenty of weird things by taking some verses literally.

Why are the verses that describe the creation of Adam and Eve to be taken literally when the verses about Earth not moving not?

How did we come to the decision that the Earth could move even though the literal reading would have it stay still?

What make you so sure that those who say evolution cannot be correct because of these verses are any more correct then those who said that the Earth could not be revolving around the Sun because of their verses?

Simple, we have hard evidence for all of what you mentioned. we do NOT have hard evidence for the fact that humans were once apes.

ALSO, God never said that the earth didn't move at all. He didn't say that it doesn't move. God DID, however, say HE CREATED MAN IN HIS IMAGE. He did NOT say that He created ape, thus becoming man. He CLEARLY states that He created man. Period.

My point remains: The thought of humans once being apes in completely un-biblical.

-John

Metaphor · Dec 21, 2005

Robert the Pilegrim said:
So is the idea of using computers, or using antibiotics so that you don't have to send anybody with a bleeding ulcer outside of camp.

But we are. We can physically see that that is possible. We cannot physically see if we were once apes or not.

The bible makes it CLEAR that we were not though.

-John

LewisWildermuth · Dec 21, 2005

Metaphor said:
Simple, we have hard evidence for all of what you mentioned. we do NOT have hard evidence for the fact that humans were once apes.

Okay so there is a certian level of evidence that can sway your opinion.
What evidence would be required for you to accept evolution?

ALSO, God never said that the earth didn't move at all. He didn't say that it doesn't move.

Plasm 104
5 He set the earth on its foundations;
it can never be moved.

God DID, however, say HE CREATED MAN IN HIS IMAGE.

Does God have a hairy back? You see I do not but some people I know do... Which of us is closer to the image of God?

He did NOT say that He created ape, thus becoming man. He CLEARLY states that He created man. Period.

God also did not say that He created an iron core for the earth, or that He set the Earth in orbit around the sun, or the sun in orbit around the galactic core, or the ozone layer, or uranium, or a lot of other things we see. Should we ignore these?

My point remains: The thought of humans once being apes in completely un-biblical.

-John

Same with the thought of hail forming in clouds, the Earth revolving around the sun, computers, running tap water, not banishing those with disease, and plenty of other things we use and do today.

gluadys · Dec 21, 2005

TK2005 said:
The Bible itself is where the divine interpretation resides. If you do not believe that, then you do not trust the Bible.

You have got to be kidding. And no, I do not accept your judgment that this means I do not trust the bible. Scripture has always needed to be interpreted. We see this in Jesus' teachings. The law of Moses sets out that we are to love our neighbour as ourselves. Seems like a clear teaching with no intepretation needed. But the lawyer had to ask Jesus for an interpretation of "neighbour". "Who is my neighbour?" he asks. And Jesus interprets the scripture for him through the parable of the Good Samaritan. After his resurrection, as he accompanied the disciples on the road to Emmaus, he had to interpret to them the scriptures which spoke of him. Similarly, the NT also needs interpretation that does not exist in the pages of scripture itself. Paul speaks of the elect. Who are they? The disciples are told to go and baptize in Jesus name. Does this include Gentiles? The Church was not sure at first that it did. Does it include children of believers? The Church is still divided on that question.

And with all these questions in relation to some of the central beliefs of Christianity, why should we expect any clearer guidance through scripture of the much less important (from a spiritual perspective) issues of science?

Please show me how the divine interpretation of scripture in scripture points to the fact that the earth orbits the sun rather than vice versa. And it is not sufficient to say that it never clearly states that the sun orbits the earth. Whether it clearly states that or not, that was the inference made from its statements for over 2 millennia and any scientist or clergy or theologian you spoke to in pre-Copernican times would affirm that scripture clearly attests to the central position and immobility of the earth in the cosmos.

How is it that divine interpretation of scripture in scripture failed them so completely for 2,000 years and more?

If you look at it as fallible man's interpretation, then how do you know the gospels are true? Either you believe and trust the whole bible or none of it. It can't be both ways.

I don't know them to be true. I believe them to be true. I believe and trust the whole bible on the basis of faith. Maybe you have heard of faith?

Metaphor · Dec 21, 2005

[quote]Does God have a hairy back? You see I do not but some people I know do... Which of us is closer to the image of God?"[/quote]

He did not mean physical image. He ment image as in: We know right from wrong. [animals follow their instincts.] We can commune and fellowship with God. We will rise again when God comes back. We have the choice to do right or wrong. We also have the choice to resist satan. Animals arn't tempted. Animals don't give a care about right or wrong, they know nothing of it. We have dominion over animals.

Buliding apon that, if God clearly gives us dominion over all else...do apes also have dominion over all else? Doesn't look like it to me. I call an ape an aminal, that I have God-given dominion over, just like all other animals.

God also did not say that He created an iron core for the earth, or that He set the Earth in orbit around the sun, or the sun in orbit around the galactic core, or the ozone layer, or uranium, or a lot of other things we see. Should we ignore these?

He didn't say He didn't. He doesn't have it one way or another with that. He DOES say that He created man.

Same with the thought of hail forming in clouds, the Earth revolving around the sun, computers, running tap water, not banishing those with disease, and plenty of other things we use and do today.

Again, He didn't say any of that would or would not happen. Again, He DOES say he created man. period. He did leave alot of that stuff for us to discover. But if humans were first apes, He would have said that.

Also, with that Plasm you posted...God didn't write that. That was an authors opinion of something.

-John

The Lady Kate · Dec 21, 2005

Metaphor said:
Sorry, but I really don't understand what that has to do with the current debate. I mean yeah the authors of Genesis were cool at writing...But my point was that the idea of apes becoming humans is COMPLETELY un-biblical.

-John

My point is that if your reason for rejecting science is based on what the Bible "clearly" says, then you can't afford to shy away from anything the Bible "clearly" says.

The Lady Kate · Dec 21, 2005

Metaphor said:
But we are. We can physically see that that is possible. We cannot physically see if we were once apes or not.

Fossil record + DNA comparison.

The bible makes it CLEAR that we were not though.

-John

And we're back to the talking snake issue.

The Lady Kate · Dec 21, 2005

Metaphor said:
Buliding apon that, if God clearly gives us dominion over all else...do apes also have dominion over all else? Doesn't look like it to me. I call an ape an aminal, that I have God-given dominion over, just like all other animals.

Oh, I wouldn't be too sure.... if you were alone with an ape, a tiger, a grizzly bear, a shark, or some of God's other animals, they would most likely have dominion over you... or at least a quick lunch.

Also, with that Plasm you posted...God didn't write that. That was an authors opinion of something.

-John

I've been taught that all scripture was inspired by God... was I misinformed?

gluadys · Dec 21, 2005

Metaphor said:
Simple, we have hard evidence for all of what you mentioned. we do NOT have hard evidence for the fact that humans were once apes.

We have hard evidence that humans ARE apes--here and now, today. Look up a biological definition of ape and see what characteristic of ape is not found in humans.

(Be sure you have that the right way around. Humans have characteristics which are not found in other apes, just as ducks have characteristics that are not found in other birds. But humans also display characteristics found in all other apes, just as ducks have characteristics found in all other birds.)

gluadys · Dec 21, 2005

Metaphor said:
He DOES say that He created man.

Again, He DOES say he created man. period.

That is not the point at issue. We are all agreed that God created humans.

But if humans were first apes, He would have said that.

Why do you make that assumption? Why would he not leave that among the things we were to discover?

Also, with that Plasm you posted...God didn't write that. That was an authors opinion of something.

It doesn't make a difference that the Psalmist was an inspired author? I thought it did.

TK2005 · Dec 21, 2005

Man is special by design. God created MAN in his own image. Apes are irrefutably animals. What sets humans apart from animals? Self awareness. Animals act on instinct to preserve themselves. They have no concept of what death is. Man on the other hand are completely aware of themselves. What causes this? The soul. God created MAN in His image and gave MAN dominion over all the earth. Bottom line, there is no room for evolutionary thought.

Robert the Pilegrim · Dec 21, 2005

Metaphor said:
Also your evolutionary opinions agree that humans were once apes; over time evolving into humans. But Genesis IS clear then humans were made separately with love and care. God formed man in HIS image, [not ape], them formed woman from man.
-John

Err, no, Adam was created in his image, and part of Adam was take away and formed into woman, leaving Adam as man.

But are you suggesting that God looks like homo sapians (sp?)?

I do not believe that a good case can be made to suggest that "image" refers to our physical existance.

Personally I have no problem with the posibility that God guided evolution to some extent, but there is no real scientific evidence of that.

I'm curious, do you also believe that the Sun goes around the Earth?

Robert the Pilegrim · Dec 21, 2005

Metaphor said:
Um, could you give us a direct quote of scripture that CLEARLY states the sun revolves around the earth?

-John

Joshua 10: 12 On the day the Lord gave the Amorites over to the Israelites, Joshua spoke to the Lord in the presence of Israel:
"Sun, stand still over Gibeon,
and moon, over the valley of Aijalon."
13 And the sun stood still and the moon stopped, until the nation took vengeance on its enemies.Isn't this written in the Book of Jashar? So the sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed its setting almost a full day.

(The Holman Christian Standard Bible , courtesy of Crosswalk.com)

Robert the Pilegrim · Dec 21, 2005

TK2005 said:
Man is special by design. God created MAN in his own image. Apes are irrefutably animals. What sets humans apart from animals? Self awareness. Animals act on instinct to preserve themselves.

Animals act on far more than instinct.

They have no concept of what death is.

And we know this how?

Man on the other hand are completely aware of themselves. What causes this? The soul.

And you know this how?
Certainly the ass had more awareness than the prophet in at least one instance.

God created MAN in His image and gave MAN dominion over all the earth. Bottom line, there is no room for evolutionary thought.

By any reasonable method of definition humans qualify as animals.

We also appear to be more than animals, I am inclined to agree that a significant part of that difference comes from our "soul" (whatever that is).

The biological/DNA/fossil evidence is really quite overwhelming that our physical bodies share a common ancestor with the great apes.

I believe that at some point God gave our ancestor(s) a soul. When or how I don't know. Nor do I consider it to be terribly important.

Ultimately if you don't want to accept evolution as the origin of humanity, I don't have a beef with that position as long as you don't claim that the physical evidence agrees with you.

Metaphor · Dec 21, 2005

Robert the Pilegrim said:
Animals act on far more than instinct.

And we know this how?

And you know this how?
Certainly the ass had more awareness than the prophet in at least one instance.

By any reasonable method of definition humans qualify as animals.

We also appear to be more than animals, I am inclined to agree that a significant part of that difference comes from our "soul" (whatever that is).

The biological/DNA/fossil evidence is really quite overwhelming that our physical bodies share a common ancestor with the great apes.

I believe that at some point God gave our ancestor(s) a soul. When or how I don't know. Nor do I consider it to be terribly important.

Ultimately if you don't want to accept evolution as the origin of humanity, I don't have a beef with that position as long as you don't claim that the physical evidence agrees with you.

Personally, I don't care where PHYSICAL evidence stands at all. If I were going on physical evidence...I wouldn't be a christian. God is not physical. The idea of humans becoming apes is not biblical in the least. There is not a scrap of evidence in the bible that leads us to that assumption. Read Genesis...it really makes the thought of us being apes werid.

-John

Evolution, Science, Creation

Active Member

Senior Veteran

Active Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Active Member

Active Member

Senior Veteran

Legend

Active Member

The Lady Kate

Guest

The Lady Kate

Guest

The Lady Kate

Guest

Legend

Legend

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Active Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency