If evolution is not valid science, somebody should tell the scientists.

[gluadys]

Show me biblical evidence for evolution.

Why would you look for scientific evidence in the bible? It is not intended to be a scientific text.

Instead of making the bible fit science, thereby making science an idol, you should be seeing science through a biblical filter.

The real question of course should be "is the science true?" If the science correctly describes created nature, then it is true. Since created nature is the expressed result of the Word of God in action (Gen. 1) science which describes it correctly is as true as the Word of God.

It would be incorrect, and a deviation from the Word of God, to then interpret the bible in such a way as to contradict a true description of created nature.

One would only be making science an idol if one followed falsified science and claimed it to be true because according to you "the bible says so." In fact, in this case, you would also be treating the bible, or more accurately, your interpretation of what the bible says, as an idol as well.

God's Word is always truth. If it happens that God's Word is revealed through science, we have every right to adjust our fallible interpretations of scripture to that truth.

Unless of course you don't believe the Bible is the Word of God.

The Word of God is, by the bible's own testimony, the Logos, the Son of God, Christ, who was incarnate among us as Jesus of Nazareth.

The bible is honoured among Christians as a true testament to that Word and so having something of the nature of that Word. As Martin Luther said, scripture is scripture so far as it testifies of Christ. If it does not testify of Christ it is not scripture even if it was written by an apostle. As a true testament of the Word, we also give the title "word of God" to the holy scriptures, but we must always remember that the true Word is Christ, not the writings about Christ.

An even more important consideration is to remember that every human contact with scripture involves interpretation. Scripture itself is a gift of God. But interpretations of scripture are human and fallible. A literal interpretation of scripture is just that: an interpretation. It does not have the guarantee of infallibility which scripture has. So it is unwarranted to suppose that Christians who do not agree with your interpretation of scripture are denying the truth of scripture. Disagreement with your interpretation of God's Word in scripture is not automatically disagreement with God.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Show me biblical evidence for evolution. Instead of making the bible fit science, thereby making science an idol, you should be seeing science through a biblical filter. Unless of course you don't believe the Bible is the Word of God.

if you actually have a high regard for the Scriptures wouldn't it be better asking them what they can show or not show?

can you point to where God tells me in the Bible when to change the oil in my car?
how to stop the roof from leaking?
or better yet how to get that pesty crabgrass out of my garden beds?

these are certainly important questions to me, just as evolution is apparently an important question to you. however, i'd suspect you would doubt my sincerity in addressing these kinds of questions to the Bible, likewise your questions about science are inappropriately addressed to the Scriptures.

now exactly what is this Biblical filter for science? if astronomy finds out that there isn't a solid firmament with lights in it, will that bother your filter? how about if we find out that the earth is spherical and revolves around the sun, a star rather than the other way around? will this get past your filter?

how do you build this filter? what is it designed to do? where in the Scriptures do you find the blueprint for this filter? where in the scriptures do you find the operating manual for this filter?

Unless of course you don't believe the Bible is the Word of God this is a cheap shot and i'd wonder if it is really how a self-identified Christian ought to be arguing? it seems to me that the discussion is not advanced with such extraneous remarks that are meant to poison the well.

 

[Dannager]

Show me biblical evidence for evolution.

You aren't going to find any. Of course, you're not going to find biblical evidence for water on Mars either or the theory of relativity but it doesn't make them any less true. Don't act like you need evidence for everything from the Bible, because you don't.

 

[nolidad]

a shame that you confused the levels of explanation for competent usage of tools. again i believe it is a lack of imagination on your part.

But kids only know what they have been taught. Until they begin to understands the concpets behind how to press teh buttons until the right time appears on teh VCR they are technologically incompetent. They don't know how to use the tools in the toolbox any more than a pygmt in New Guines does unless they have been told how to use them. No I have great imagination, I am also someone who knows reality from fantasy. Once again someone become technoligally adept when they are taught the hows and whys of the technology. I can use a computer but I am not technologically adept at computers for I cannot program nor go into core memory and fool with it.

You aren't expecting me to interpret your posts non-literally, are you?

Well you did for if you interpreted it literally you would not have come up with the statement you did!

"This concept" obviously refers to the most recent concept before this sentence, namely the concept that God was just making a parable out of the first 2 chapters of Genesis to get a point across.

Well biblical parables are things rteal in human experience told to compare it to spiritual truths so the beleiver can gain more understandsing and the unbeleiver left out in the cold. So pray tell as you are convinced God was communicatin in parabolic form in Gen.1&2. What realities in nature is He realting to whern Her says 6 literal days to make all things created???

Not a single Christian before 1300 (or maybe even later) had a modernist post-Enlightenment understanding of the Bible.

Yeah those were the good old days of bible understanding.

False accusation? This just shows you don't understand how evolution works. Evolution the principle is proven beyond doubt. Evolution as history is simply a most reasonable hypothesis.

Evolutiuon in principle has not been proven beyond doubt. Even "speciation by mutation" can be better answered in mnay cases by Mendellian variation and not mutation. The history of evolution is fraught with supposition from beginning to end.

To prove the principle of evolution true-- show the evidence of continual speciation by mutation and preservation by natural selection so that the species bercome the genra, family, phyla, order, kingdoms. If you cannot prove the history-- the principle is suspect-- all you have is thesis without empirical data to support it. It is the empirical data that history supplies to prove a thesis to become fact.

how many 1st century Christians were heretics, and how many 1st century Christians simply have worldviews you don't understand?

Well every Christian is a heretic knowingly or unknowingly in some measure for we are finite. Any Chrtistian who does not have a biblical worldview would be one I disagree with and in the first cewntury there were not too many that are recorded.

And you can prove that, I suppose. Oral tradition was a very important part of their culture.

Please do not change definitions, it really is in poor taste. Oral tradition in the senbse used by Hebrews and Chriastians is completely different than folklore.

More later. Go away for a few days and there becomes way too many posts to answer in one sitting.

 

[livingword26]

No. I believe Jesus is. I believe the Bible is a book of Jewish mythology and man written, God inspired, writings.

This explains a lot. If you don't believe the bible, then your arguments can be tempered with whatever you desire, because you are not bound by any sort of biblical truth. There is really no point in one who beleives the bible and one who doesn't, arguing about this particular subject. The evolutionist beleives that everything must be accountable to nature. The creationist believes that everything is accountable to God via the bible.

 

[livingword26]

It's posts like this that make it seem the entire debate is utterly pointless at times.

Despite attempts to cloud the issue with micro and macro the FACT is there is no such delineation in biological theory.

She is not making anything cloudy. She is making a very valid and important distinction that you are perfectly aware of. You are also aware of why this distiction is important to creationism. So I won't bother to point it out to you. If you wanted to address it, you would addressed Romanseights point.

 

[KerrMetric]

This explains a lot. If you don't believe the bible, then your arguments can be tempered with whatever you desire, because you are not bound by any sort of biblical truth. There is really no point in one who beleives the bible and one who doesn't, arguing about this particular subject. The evolutionist beleives that everything must be accountable to nature. The creationist believes that everything is accountable to God via the bible.

You are right our differences do explain a lot. More than you realise I'd guess.

I am bound by the truth in Christ not the truth in print. I have a personal relationship with God, I don't need a dogmatic go between.

 

[KerrMetric]

She is not making anything cloudy. She is making a very valid and important distinction that you are perfectly aware of. You are also aware of why this distiction is important to creationism. So I won't bother to point it out to you. If you wanted to address it, you would addressed Romanseights point.

Creationism has no say in this matter - in fact the entire false edifice of Creation science is vacuous. This is biology not crank science.

It is a meaningless distinction invented by Creationists to create the appearance of a schism. Of course, as is par for the course, when they are pressed on how to limit their "micro" and prevent it being "macro" they are left stammering and then running for cover.

 

[livingword26]

You are right our differences do explain a lot. More than you realise I'd guess.

I am bound by the truth in Christ not the truth in print. I have a personal relationship with God, I don't need a dogmatic go between.

Many people in many countries following many types of religions think that very thing. What makes unity in the church is the bible. The bible is our souce of truth. I too hear from the Holy Spirit, but He does not contradict the bible.

Acts 17:11

11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
KJV

 

[KerrMetric]

Many people in many countries following many types of religions think that very thing. What makes unity in the church is the bible. The bible is our souce of truth. I too hear from the Holy Spirit, but He does not contradict the bible.

That is patently incorrect. We don't even all have the same Bible. The Canon was voted on for crying out loud. Some denominations consider Revelation nonsense and Luther didn't even include it in the NT. The Bible is a guide to the truth but not a definitive statement of the only truth - or even close. The Bible is often a source of silliness.

 

[gluadys]

This explains a lot. If you don't believe the bible, then your arguments can be tempered with whatever you desire, because you are not bound by any sort of biblical truth. There is really no point in one who beleives the bible and one who doesn't, arguing about this particular subject. The evolutionist beleives that everything must be accountable to nature. The creationist believes that everything is accountable to God via the bible.

You are pulling a bait and switch here. The original issue was whether the bible is the Word of God. Since the bible itself makes no such claim and points instead to Jesus as the Word of God, Kerrmetric gave you a good answer.

But now you shift to "If you don't believe the bible...."

That is an entirely different matter than believing the bible is the Word of God. Nothing Kerrmetric said implied that he does not believe the bible. Only that he doesn't take the bible to be Christ, the Word of God.

 

[KerrMetric]

That is an entirely different matter than believing the bible is the Word of God. Nothing Kerrmetric said implied that he does not believe the bible. Only that he doesn't take the bible to be Christ, the Word of God.

You are correct but in the interest of clarification I will say I don't believe the Bible in the sense of literal history, anthropology, physics, astronomy or geology. In fact on these it is far more wrong than correct. However, as a guide of the spirit in light of God that I do believe. But my spiritual guide doesn't need to be a text for sedimentary geology or stellar physics.

 

[livingword26]

That is patently incorrect. We don't even all have the same Bible. The Canon was voted on for crying out loud. Some denominations consider Revelation nonsense and Luther didn't even include it in the NT. The Bible is a guide to the truth but not a definitive statement of the only truth - or even close. The Bible is often a source of silliness.

Ok. Now that we have the truth established. I will pray for the Lord to open the eyes of your heart to the truth that is in His Word.

James 1:21
21 Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls.
KJV

2 Tim 3:15-16
15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures , which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
KJV

 

[KerrMetric]

Ok. Now that we have the truth established. I will pray for the Lord to open the eyes of your heart to the truth that is in His Word.

As long as that prayer is about the Word and not the Bible then good.

 

[Romanseight2005]

You are correct but in the interest of clarification I will say I don't believe the Bible in the sense of literal history, anthropology, physics, astronomy or geology. In fact on these it is far more wrong than correct. However, as a guide of the spirit in light of God that I do believe. But my spiritual guide doesn't need to be a text for sedimentary geology or stellar physics.

Dr. Robert Gentry is a physicist, (please don't say he is not because he has made discoveries that can not be refuted) he has a sight that is called Fingerprints of Creation.

 

[livingword26]

You are pulling a bait and switch here. The original issue was whether the bible is the Word of God. Since the bible itself makes no such claim and points instead to Jesus as the Word of God, Kerrmetric gave you a good answer.

But now you shift to "If you don't believe the bible...."

That is an entirely different matter than believing the bible is the Word of God. Nothing Kerrmetric said implied that he does not believe the bible. Only that he doesn't take the bible to be Christ, the Word of God.

I think that weather or not you believe that the bible is the word of God is extremely relevant to this conversation. In fact it is th only reason for this conversation. The bible is full of warnings about heading what is written.

2 Tim 3:15-16
15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures , which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
KJV

Acts 17:11
11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
KJV

2 Peter 3:15-16
15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures , unto their own destruction.
KJV

2 Thess 3:14
14 And if any man obey not our word by this epistle , note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.
KJV

 

[KerrMetric]

Dr. Robert Gentry is a physicist, (please don't say he is not because he has made discoveries that can not be refuted) he has a sight that is called Fingerprints of Creation.

I know who Gentry is. And I know of his so called work. And I know he has his conclusion before his evidence is analysed and I know he is wrong. He also dabbles in areas of science he has no expertise whatsoever. But I have heard he treats his pet cats well so he's not a bad chap altogether.

 

[KerrMetric]

I think that weather or not you believe that the bible is the word of God is extremely relevant to this conversation. In fact it is th only reason for this conversation. The bible is full of warnings about heading what is written.

Please spell it whether not weather. The latter is to do with rain, snow and sunny days.

The Bible is indeed full of many things, many of which are factually incorrect. My objection is when people with no expertise in an area tell me I should use these errors as facts. I'd be out of a job if this were to occur.

 

[livingword26]

I know who Gentry is. And I know of his so called work. And I know he has his conclusion before his evidence is analysed and I know he is wrong. He also dabbles in areas of science he has no expertise whatsoever. But I have heard he treats his pet cats well so he's not a bad chap altogether.

You must have a lot of expertise yourself, in many areas to be able to refute all of these people without any explanations.

 

[KerrMetric]

You must have a lot of expertise yourself, in many areas to be able to refute all of these people without any explanations.

****Edit: I noticed you didn't actually give any thing to actually refute****

I have a better grasp of physics than Gentry if that is what you mean. Quite simply, he has allowed his pre-conceived conclusions to turn him from a scientist to a clown. You do realise his Creationist work is not in any area of his expertise don't you - he is moonlighting on the side.

You do realise he doesn't even have a PhD don't you and doesn't actually research physics? (He has a honorary doctorate from a Seventh Day Adventist school)

I mean, you were familiar with that weren't you?