• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Featured How to assimilate all of evolutionary theory into a literal 7 day creation without changing anything

Discussion in 'Controversial Christian Theology' started by drich0150, Sep 9, 2019.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. eleos1954

    eleos1954 God is Love Supporter

    +1,888
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others
    Although interesting theories ... it doesn't matter .... neither evolution nor creation by God is 100% provable ... both are theories and people believe what they want to believe

    Many different beliefs/theories in the scientific community, many different beliefs/theories in the religious community, many beliefs outside of those two as well.

    It's whatever a person decides to put their faith in.

    faith -
    complete trust or confidence in someone or something
     
  2. Brightmoon

    Brightmoon Apes and humans are all in family Hominidae.

    +2,923
    United States
    Episcopalian
    Single
    US-Others
    theories are essentially super facts . In order to have a scientific theory you first have to have facts . They arent mere guesses despite creationist attempts to muddy the waters by giving bizarre and incorrect definitions of scientific terms. Since we can watch populations evolve it certainly is 100% provable. Because of that I do put my trust in science . Science isn’t trying to deliberately mislead me and the phenomena are directly observable.
     
  3. eleos1954

    eleos1954 God is Love Supporter

    +1,888
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others
    Science changes their "facts" all the time ... and that is a fact ;o) Science itself evolves/changes as things are discovered and/or proven/disproven, modified, theorized etc. and not all scientists agree among themselves.

    People put their faith/trust in whatever science (or maybe something else) in regard to how life began outside of creation ... ok

    Others do not ... they put faith/trust in God as the creator of life ... also ok

    So ... the end game is ... all agree to disagree in what they believe, neither are intentionally misleading anyone ... people simply have different beliefs.

    What scientific indisputable "fact(s)" would be required and thereby accepted by the scientific community to prove God as the creator of life?
     
  4. drich0150

    drich0150 Regular Member

    +337
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Republican
    why not? Specifically (I said so, is not an answer)
    but again the bible does not identify any specific species in any way close to our system of identifying any biological organism. Example 1 again all winged creatures are under one category. this is birds, reptiles, mammals, fish, and insects and anything else that could fly or glide

    So how can you say change has happened or has not happened if and when the catalogue of animal one word describes is so large? How can you say aveon did not evolve from a flying lizard if the same word used to identify a bird and a reptile is the same?

    2) macro evolution is change above the species level in a taxonomic grouping genus or higher.

    ah, no.. look stuff up before you write.
    micro evolution happens on the level of the species or lower.

    An inter species change is what is being described. Man in the garden is genetically compatible with day 6 man that was developed outside the garden of eden. Even the Neiliphim which the bible identifies as the spawn/hybrid of a separate race. (Sons of Elohim IE the man made on Day 6) which again bred themselves with daughters of man to produce a hybrid, the word specifically describes a hybrid! Two different species under the same genus! Man out side the garden "son of God/elohim" is one species of the genus "man" and daughters of man As in man made in the garden by Yahweh is another species of the genus "man" these two species made a hybrid/giant. when two different species mate and the result is always the same that hybrid becomes a different evolution or different class of organism all together.

    that is because cats and dogs are not of the same genus. Donkeys and horses are and they are two separate species but under the same genus which is why they produce mules when hybridised. Mules are that "different class of organisms" much like the nehilphim!!!
    One class of man "sons of God" mated with of man daughters of Adam, and produced a hybrid! the fact that there are two sources of man/genetic material different enough when combined produced a giant is the proof two separate species are being identified here!

    There my confused friend in biblical proof of macro evolution in the bible in gen 6!!! Two different species mate to produce a third which had exaggerated traits when compared to homo sapiens!!!!

    Again Sons of Elohim (as in the deity responsible for chapter 1 7 day creation which had that species be created day 6) and sons of man which where created by Yahweh chapter 2 and was given a iving soul. this is further cemented when in chapter 4 it is said the sons of Adam Cain and seth (sons of day 2 man)had sex with their wives. (descendants of day 6 man created/evolved outside the garden.)
    Inner species sex.

    in so far as the bible in genesis 6 identifying the sons of God as being a different species as the daughters of men.


    life was seeded by God and evolved to fit it's specific environments. When God placed animals on the earth or in the garden that is referred too as seeding. In Science they use a similar term to describe life being transported and seeded to this planet by asteroids.. Both can again be in agreement here if one considers the asteroid may have been the pill God used to seed life..

    again no. Giants where identified by the bible as hybrids as the result of sexual relations between two different species of sexually compatible genus.

    The sons of God where one specific species identified and the daughters of men where again identified as a separate species, we know they where not the same because their off spring created hybrid giants.

    When you take two regular homosapieans and mate them they do not regularly produce giants. But when you take a homo sapien and Homo "son of God" and mate the pair it almost always creates a giant.

    now who is speaking where the bible is silent. the sons of God has a quality above that of man. As thier inter mixed DNA produces giants. This is not a racial trait. this is an interspecies trait. for example there was a race of small men named Homo floresiensis. They are not a race as race is a taxonomic category that comes after species. they are a different species as Homo is the genus and sapiain is the species. in this case this species of man named after "hobbits" is considered a different species. they are the homo floresiensis
    Homo floresiensis - Wikipedia
    the simply trait of these people being less than one meter tall made them a new species according to how laws of taxonomy works. the opposite is true for giants (saving the example to fix the next scientifically incorrect statement.)

    I'm sorry bt that is not scientifically accurate statement. if Nephilim were a consistent result of the inner mixing of two different species like donkey(Equus asinus) and horse (Equus caballus) = mule then like the mule they would be assigned a different taxonomic category that identifies them as a hybrid: Equus asinus × Equus caballus

    What makes them hybrids is the fact their mother were identified of being of one species and their father's from another.

    Deuteronomy 2:21
    A people great and many, and tall as the Anakim; but the Lord destroyed them before the Ammonites, and they dispossessed them and settled in their place,
    look again. The anakim where a Tribe or class of people who where taller than everyone else.
    Genesis 1:1 (KJV)
    when a group/tribe of people share a common genetic trait that consistently makes one in this case bigger does indeed get identified by science as a different SPECIES

    For instance here in philipeens in 2019 we have found evidence of giant species of of the homo genus.
    New species of ancient human discovered in the Philippines

    They are considered to be a different species just because they are taller. so this tribe of men along with the account of Josephus also described the Amorites as giants in his Antiquities of the Jews, circa 93 AD, indicating that some sort of fossils may have been on display at that time:[10] "For which reason they removed their camp to Hebron; and when they had taken it, they slew all the inhabitants. There were till then left the race of giants, who had bodies so large, and countenances so entirely different from other men, that they were surprising to the sight, and terrible to the hearing. The bones of these men are still shown to this very day, unlike to any credible relations of other men."[11]
    Giant - Wikipedia

    This may not be a bible quote but josephus is indeed a well known and accepted historian in and out of the church.

    So he out lines 3 major differences that would identify a different race. Crazy tall. differen contenances (face look unlike normal homosapeians) they made noises that hurt the ear, and had bone structure that was complete different than any other man.

    That my confused brother is definitely describes a different race. perhaps same genus meaning sexually compatible with homosapeian but different enough not to be the same plus or minus some racial differences.

    As bone structure is a dead give away as being something not human.


    why not? I just showed you how.
    brother respectfully you need to work on your science if you are to represent this to anyone being taught on the subject. I've shown you 1/2 a dozen errors in your understanding and labeling. this only serves to discredit you your argument and your line of thinking in the hands of the type of people who teach our children these higher learning courses.

    Again personally I do not care what you believe this is bigger than you or me as it pertains to the future of the church. you can pretend macro evolution is the problem when in fact micro evolution and everything I have shown you here concerning inter species mixing as the bible describes is not only supportive of evolutionary theory the bible provides examples of it that result into taxicomical change in species (man himself) otherwise it is way too vague to say other animals did not evolve.
    personal conjecture based on want. I have shown you conclusively otherwise using passages and definition provided by the bible, with 1st century biblical historians and scientific data.. do with it as you will.
    why seek only a remnant when the church can still thrive?
    the only thing need change is the idea God need remain a mystery.

    there are no threats here. look at the church in europe look at the church of england look at our neighborhood churches... look at the coming census. and again I have for nearly every work day for the last 10 years spent hours helping young people push back the demands of the secular educational system so that they can just maintain faith. Many simply give up because we have nothing like what they have been taught to identify as intellectually sound reasoning/logic. The sad thing is we have it at our finger tips but yet, once most of us figure our groove or nitch that is all we need so we close everything else out, and expect others to find fulfillment the same way we do.

    Remember we are to love our lord God with all of our mind, heart, spirit and strength, because we are all different that expression of love will look different. My mind may include a job in a scientific field and I can not ignore the truth of it, so then my love of God must also include science other wise I with hold apart of my self I am to give to God.

    Our collage age kids are not stupid. they know when you have legit answers and when you do not. If you can not reconcile the paradoxes created by the higher learning process we will loose them.
    Because they know they can not meet this standard of love to God either, so why try? to them everyone gets a trophy in the end anyway.

    will the events in revelation be new? if yes if no why push them when there is still so much to do?

    ah, no. they teach both. I deal will collage age kids. we are loosing them at a rate between 70 and 85% meaning upto 85% of God fearing Jesus Christ centered kids that go to collage come out as atheist on the other side of their 'higher learning experience.' 70% of those kids stop believing with in the first 2 years!
    https://lifewayresearch.com/2007/08/07/reasons-18-to-22-year-olds-drop-out-of-church/
    Ministries tackle 70% rate of college students leaving faith
    Are Young People Really Leaving Christianity? | Cold Case Christianity

    You can not pretend those numbers will not deplete the church with in our life time.

    preaching to the choir.. however they can turn their phone on and say science did this they can step on a plane and say science did this. they can point to a baby cured of cancer and say science did this. while at the same time they can use their phone and google the planes crashing into buildings in nyc and DC and say this was done for God (or crusades or spanish inquisition or witch hunts and or trials the nazi's KKK or christians holding signs that says God hates [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse].. or anything else pop culture deems the evil of God) they can point to the fact that the baby science cured who had cancer to begin with was a result of a all 'loving all powerful god.' Faith is so much easier when anyone can access it. (again these kids for whatever reason have no access to God)

    Yes faith is a part of the puzzle but it does not have to be the only thing one has to work with. God is the God of creation all of it. meaning science should be nothing more than man's way of explaining how God does what he does. Bridge that gap and belief in God is a matter of choice again. Cause right now belief in science over God is a mandate for our next generation.

    before you try and argue macro and mirco evolution again look it up and post some links like:
    Macroevolution - Wikipedia
    Microevolution - Wikipedia

    So to recap... as far as macro evolutionary change is concerned. The Dragons of the seas as mentioned in that do not seem to be here or now identified as whales may indicate a macro change as dragons are typically considered to be reptile. There also can be some argument about the behemoth and leviathan as being evolved or perhaps simply extinct. and then there are the ammeroite giants who faces did not look human and bones where also unlike anything humanity has ever seen.

    Microevolution can be support not in the animals listed in Genesis 1 because their descriptions are too vague and misaligned with our taxocomitical understanding of biology to say one create was created as this and morphed into this... However the existances of the two species of man at the time of noah the sons of God and daughters of men who produced a very unique off spring prooved micro evolution EG evolution on a species level as where two distinct form of man genetically compatible with one another but where of different species as there would not be a unique life form being created when they bred.
     
  5. Brightmoon

    Brightmoon Apes and humans are all in family Hominidae.

    +2,923
    United States
    Episcopalian
    Single
    US-Others
    of course they change facts . some facts are incorrect. Those get discarded. The facts that get better into the details also get added. That only make a scientific theory fits nature even better . Modern theories of nature just add details and they’ve already been thru that winnowing process. Every fossil ,every elucidated biochemical process , every new astronomical fact gives scientists a clearer picture of what’s going on. The main theories ( old earth and universe, evolution, Big Bang, heliocentrism etc ) haven’t been changed; just details are corrected or updated with new info
     
  6. eleos1954

    eleos1954 God is Love Supporter

    +1,888
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others
    so... if facts are able to be changed, corrected or updated then they aren't or were not totally 100% proven true, so therefore are not/were not necessarily factual in the first place.

    Correct theories - theory (as you stated, thank you)

    Theory - This word is a noun and comes from the Greek theoria, which means "contemplation or speculation."

    Again, both evolution and creation are theories (we agree), and people decide what they believe to be "true".

    fact -
    a thing that is known or proved to be true

    and truth (true) is ...
    (accurate or exact)
    (accurately or without variation)

    a fact or belief that is accepted as true

    It is what one accepts ...

    Is evolution true? Because you/others accept (believe) it as such, it is true for you/others

    Is creation true? Because I/others accept (believe) it as such, it is true for me/others.

    End game .... they are both theories.

    We believe differently and I'm ok with that ... are you?
     
  7. Sanoy

    Sanoy Well-Known Member

    +1,104
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    I share this deep concern. But that concern should be shared over the preservation of our scriptural heritage. For the present sake of our children we must discover the truth, and for the sake of their future, we must preserve for them a scriptural heritage with scholarly backing and not merely avenues to dodge difficulties. I fear your first concern is not being shared with the latter. I know you will object, but I am concerned over their future if they are taught these things.
     
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2019
  8. drich0150

    drich0150 Regular Member

    +337
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Republican
    Define scriptural heritage.

    To me is sounds as if your primary concern is not the scripture but how it is interpreted and traditionally understood.

    To which if that is your concern I have no issue with discarding the bits that freeze God in a dark ages understanding of The bible or him. My only concern is what the bible actually says and what it does not.

    In this case it allows for expansion over the traditional telling of the narrative. This allowance is needed for the 85% of our children mae to choose to stay with or walk away from the faith.

    We send them to school to teach them logic and reason. However logic and reasons are the tools used to force God out of their hearts and minds. With the mere possibility of biblically permissible expansion to include the logic and reason supported by the fossil record, belief in God becomes a choice again. meaning logic and reason no longer mandate you choose intelligence and learning over what seems to be blind faith.

    Understand the bible does not make those objections you had. I showed you conclusively with scripture the plausibility is there. faith in your denominational understanding of the passage is the only thing being challenged.

    If you goal as a christian is not to be luke warm how questioning a 3 or 4 hundred year old understanding of Adam and even be a bad thing? What does the bible actually say verse what does the preacher say what the bible says? There is a huge divide if you understand their interpretation is really just as marginal than anyone else as this book was not written in our time nor in our language. there is always a deeper understanding no one alive got it right the first time 300 years ago. yet most of us do not know where the bible stops and religion's teachings begin.
     
  9. Sanoy

    Sanoy Well-Known Member

    +1,104
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    This statement fully captures my worry. This isn't a matter of interpretation, it is expansion by fiat. This is identical to Rabbinic Judaism, where one can simply add a narrative to the Bible as needed. You might keep them through such things but they will not inherit the scriptures, they will instead inherit your narrative, and all the theology that comes as a result of your narrative.

    There is a need to deal with the problems but it must not be done by the pen. Conflicts between a text and reality should be tackled through the text itself by investigating grammar, language, and cultural milieu. This way our children and their children will have a theological heritage on scripture, rather than individual rabbis.
     
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2019
  10. AbbaLove

    AbbaLove Circumcision of the Heart is Messianic

    +568
    Messianic
    In Relationship
    Don't you just love-it when man attempts to theorize GOD'S Word ;) Paul came close, but still he confesses it's a mystery (1 Corinthians 13:12).

    BTW, "Yahweh/the word" should be Yahweh/the Word (John 1:1). Personally i like the name YaHaVaH (to me: "His banner of 'loving kindness' over me is Love"). Even so it isn't an actual Hebrew word as "aleph" isn't a Hebrew vowel in the sense that "a" is a vowel in the English language. The three aleph's inserted in the tetragrammaton represent to me 3-in-1 perfection.

    Aleph indicates the Oneness and Unity of the Creator. It hints that beyond the illusion of separation and deity is underlying Oneness – that nothing is separate and the Creator is the source of everything.

    [​IMG]
    Aleph whether an artistic hand rendering or a sans serif typeface it has two Yods, one above and one below, with a diagonal line, the Vav, between them.

    Aleph
    begins the three words that make up God's mystical name in Exodus, I Am who I Am (in Hebrew, Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh אהיה אשר אהיה)

    Aleph represents the creation of something from nothing. It is the essential symbol of beginnings and cannot be divided, representing perfection beyond human comprehension.

    Bottomline: "The just shall live by faith" as GOD'S Wisdom is beyond man's comprehension. Whereas so-called scientists (at play) want to smash an atom to smithereens to see if they can better understand what caused the BIG BANG.
     
  11. KomatiiteBIF

    KomatiiteBIF Well-Known Member

    +1,494
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    The theory of evolution has been around since the 1800s. It's not really something that has been demonstrated to be incorrect, rather the theory is updated with time.

    One popular example of science "changing" is with Newton's theory of gravity. It involved observations of planetary motion and general physics of objects here on earth. It was eventually replaced by Einstein's relativity, not because it was truly incorrect, but rather Einstein's models were simply more expansive in detail and in explanation.

    The same holds true for the theory of the earth/uniformitarianism and the theory of evolution. These are theories that are hundreds of years old and have been proven true countless times. The only changes we have seen in these are updates that include more expansive research and detail. These are things like the theory of plate tectonics and the modern synthesis.

    These days, science doesn't really change. Rather it just gets better. If the theories in discussion are hundreds of years old, it's hard to argue that science has changed and come up with "new facts" when these theories have been around for so long.
     
  12. Tolworth John

    Tolworth John Well-Known Member

    +2,103
    United Kingdom
    Non-Denom
    Married

    A mile of sdementary rock laid down woith no evidence of errosion between the layers.
    Sedimentary rock that is bent and folded with no sign of heat stress or distortion or cracking.

    There are no blind people like those who will not consider other explanations than there preconcieved ideas.
     
  13. Tolworth John

    Tolworth John Well-Known Member

    +2,103
    United Kingdom
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Except for when that pseudoscience is the prevailing bias like evolution.
    Then it is all nonsence.

    The point of rejecting the debate challenge was that Christians with scientific degrees would have debated the science that supported rejected evolution/creation.

    That science will not do this shows a lack of believe in the evidence for evolution.
     
  14. Brightmoon

    Brightmoon Apes and humans are all in family Hominidae.

    +2,923
    United States
    Episcopalian
    Single
    US-Others
    I’ll tell you exactly why creationist storytelling about science isn’t actually doing science but this person summed it up perfectly 2ED99E2D-7175-4399-A4E2-7012B4AB2771.jpeg
    The ‘checkmate atheists’ at the bottom was sarcasm just in case you didn’t get it. This is exactly why scientists DONT accept creationist pseudoscience.
     
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2019
  15. eleos1954

    eleos1954 God is Love Supporter

    +1,888
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others
    The point being they are theories ... science does change ... yes ... additional information is learned, explored, and theorized as time goes on ... that is the nature of it. That doesn't make it a bad thing ... or a negative thing.

    If something gets better (or worse) that is change.

    Many "facts" do change.

    Regarding the origin of life .... it is theory based upon theory, based upon theory.

    If the basic theory (idea) is ... life evolved ... then additional theories are put forth to theorize to that end.

    The truth is ... we don't know how life began (we don't have indisputable facts) ... so we theorize ... (ideas and experiments that seem plausible to explain something) ... and theories on the origin of life have been going on since the dawn of mankind and will continue.

    So the end game is .. it is what one decides to believe and accepts as truth (and each of us does this) ... doesn't make one right or one wrong. There isn't a right or wrong to it.
     
  16. drich0150

    drich0150 Regular Member

    +337
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Republican

    This is 100% a matter of challenging denominationally specific interpretation. Other show me one place where I changed anything the bible said.

    I only ever pointed out that the bible itself does not lend itself to one specific understanding. meaning the traditional narrative behind your brand of christianity is Not the only way to understand genesis.

    In fact you way presents paradoxes in what is written where my telling solves everything without changing anything.

    Your telling literally makes it ok for incest or make incest necessary for the propagation of the species. your telling ignores or makes up the fossil record, your telling ignores the fact that there where different species of man outlined in the bible, just because you prefer to stay with what is comfortable rather than question everything and to hold on to what is good. This way of 'faith in religion' is short lived. it is all but completely dead in europe and we are loosing the next generation fast . not because we are unfaith to the bible. but because we refuse to challenge what our religion tells us the bible says. to most there is no difference our denomination has become God it has become infallible it is what we now worship. as it can not be questioned.

    but again if you think I changed what the bible said show me from what i said in the op

    Again my whole premise is based on two things. Chapter 2 is a garden only story apart from the events of chapter 1

    and 2, there is not a stated time line between Chapter 2 and chapter 3.

    what was changed? what was added to the bible what was taken away? nothing I provide a literal 7 day creation in the order the bible records. the only thing I do it free this creation event from the church's time line. which btw is not in the bible.
     
  17. drich0150

    drich0150 Regular Member

    +337
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Republican
    So we should remain in ignorance and blindly follow/make no attempts to reconcile our world with the word of God?

    If God is truth then God can be found in our world.
     
  18. drich0150

    drich0150 Regular Member

    +337
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Republican
    The most important take way here is I am not supporting one theory or another. I am pointing out how to assimilate any theory you want into a 7 day creation. Simply by lifting the artificial time line put on creation narrative.
     
  19. Sanoy

    Sanoy Well-Known Member

    +1,104
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Your response, which I quoted, and my response to it said nothing of change, but expansion. Despite that clear language your recent response is over what you changed, rather than my remark of what you have added, like 'planet' Eden, souless people, and the reincarnation of Adam who dies twice in conflict with scripture where it is appointed to man to die once.

    And no I have not "literally" said incest is ok. I haven't even mentioned incest.
     
  20. drich0150

    drich0150 Regular Member

    +337
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Republican
    Where did you get planet eden?

    Eden was a garden. All I said was eden and everything in it was complete before the rain on day 3 per verse 5.

    I did not add soulless people I pointed out man created on day 2/adam in the garden was recorded as having a soul breathed into him.

    Then I pointed out man made in the image of God on day 6 was never said to have been given a soul as man made on day 2.

    Which again means complete man with soul was placed in the garden which was a picture of what the world look like 6000 ish years ago. and man outside the garden was allow to evolve or "multiply" any way you see fit.

    Well either God lied and adam only died once like you seem to be selling or Adam and eve both died or what ever they where in the garden died, and where exiled to earth to live out a 930 sentence here for his sin.

    Again even if you did not openly say incest yet... if I asked who did adam's children marry aside from inventing narrative that says God created more people when they were ready to marry the bible never speaks of you would have to concede to incest. So you have to out right invent narritive or you have to accept incest as your only two options if you do not agree with man being made in the garden is apart from day 6 man who was created in the image of God, but again was not have said to have a soul.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...