Is Theistic-Evolution an Oxymoron?

[Deaver]

You've ignored the other verses I provided, though. Not only is the sun said to move along the firmament, but the earth is also said to be immovable. So presuming you accept heliocentrism -- since that's what it sounds like -- why do you reject what the Bible says about cosmology?

I don’t think I do. Honestly I probably tend to look at any biblical cosmological verses which are literally untrue to see if they should be interpreted symbolically. Other times I may see that the difficulty lies in the fact that the original manuscripts are missing; or those authors, because God choose to use the language and social context of the time of writing, just lacked the words we use today to describe some of these events.

 

[Doveaman]

So what are you really concerned about? The Bible? Or God? Which is more important to you: the Bible or God?

Can you know God without the Bible?

The Bible is the inspired word of God given to us to explain God. You cannot know God without the Bible, nor can you know the Bible without God.

So what do you do when God tells you differently? Do you stick to your belief because the Bible is so important to you, or do you listen to God?

This is a nonsensical question.

What we believe about God is based on what God tells us about Himself in the Bible, so your question is misleading.

"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." (2 Tim 3:16-17).

 

[Deaver]

Perhaps John Milton said it best, “If there be any difference among professed believers as to the sense of Scripture, it is their duty to tolerate such difference in each other, until God shall have revealed the truth to all”

 

[Mallon]

Honestly I probably tend to look at any biblical cosmological verses which are literally untrue to see if they should be interpreted symbolically.

How do you know they are literally untrue? Does it say so in the Bible?

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Don't mind me butting it

I'm not sure Mallon's arguments are completely correct. The list of passages he gave here don't prove that the Bible supports geocentricity. For example:

- Joshua and Habakkuk were both describing miraculous events, they don't count.
- 1 Chronicles 16 describes the world (rather than the physical Earth), as does Psalms 96 and 93.
- Psalms 19 describes a set place for the Earth (although some version translate it as a 'pitched tent') rather than saying it doesn't move.

Basically the Bible only supports geocentricity when viewed through our own personal interpretation, it doesn't present it as an absolute fact. Heck, arguably I could say some passages support the fact the Earth revolved around the sun.

 

[Mallon]

I'm not sure Mallon's arguments are completely correct. The list of passages he gave here don't prove that the Bible supports geocentricity. For example:

- Joshua and Habakkuk were both describing miraculous events, they don't count.
- 1 Chronicles 16 describes the world (rather than the physical Earth), as does Psalms 96 and 93.
- Psalms 19 describes a set place for the Earth (although some version translate it as a 'pitched tent') rather than saying it doesn't move.

With respect, I don't see how any of those objections are valid. Joshua and Habakkuk "don't count" because they describe miracles? Why not? And trying to write off those passages that refer to the "world" as something other than the planet doesn't work, either, because Psalm 104:5 clarifies that it is referring to the land ('erets), not the people, if that's what you're implying. Moreover, the 'tent' along which the sun moves referred to in Psalm 19 is a reference to the firmament (see Psalm 104:2), which the Hebrews very much believed was a solid structure above the earth that held the heavenly bodies.

I think my point stands. The Bible assumes a geocentric cosmology and solid firmament. If someone can point me to a passage that describes the earth as moving about the sun, I'll gladly recant.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Joshua and Habakkuk "don't count" because they describe miracles? Why not?

Because miracles break the laws of nature. Saying Joshua and Habakkuk support the idea that the Earth doesn't move is a bit like saying Jesus' resurrection supports the idea that dead people always come back to life after three days. These particular events were the result of divine intervention, they don't happen as a matter of routine.

Or to put it another way - if the Bible states the Earth always remains still, then making it move would have been the miracle.

The Bible assumes a geocentric cosmology and solid firmament. If someone can point me to a passage that describes the earth as moving about the sun, I'll gladly recant.

- The repeated use of the word 'firmament' [a dome] especially in Genesis, suggesting that the Earth and it's atmosphere was sphericle. Admittedly this is more related to a flat earth rather that geocentricity.
- References to the Earth being 'set in it's place' refer to the fact the planet stays in its orbit instead of drifting out into space.
- Psalm 19:4 describes a 'tabernacle' [place of habitation] for the sun, which doesn't move.
- Psalm 19:6 describes the heavens as a circuit.

But of course these are just my interpretations, they no more prove heliocentrism than they prove geocentrism. My point was to say that the Bible does not state geocentrism as an absolute fact, but rather geocentrism is something people interpret by picking the quotes which fit their ideas.

 

[Mallon]

Because miracles break the laws of nature. Saying Joshua and Habakkuk support the idea that the Earth doesn't move is a bit like saying Jesus' resurrection supports the idea that dead people always come back to life after three days. These particular events were the result of divine intervention, they don't happen as a matter of routine.

These passages don't comment on the movement of the earth, though. They comment on the movement of the sun, saying that it miraculously stood still in the heavens. This suggests that, normally, the sun moves through the heavens. With respect, I don't think you have a point, here.

- The repeated use of the word 'firmament' [a dome] especially in Genesis, suggesting that the Earth and it's atmosphere was sphericle.

This doesn't follow with how the Bible describes the firmament, though. As we've already covered, the firmament is described as being like a tent, and the earth like a tent floor (i.e., flat). Job even describes the firmament as being hard like a mirror, and Ezekiel says it sparkles like ice. It definitely doesn't refer to the atmosphere. Even the word 'firmament' refers to a hammered piece of metal. And a dome isn't a sphere!

- References to the Earth being 'set in it's place' refer to the fact the planet stays in its orbit instead of drifting out into space.

The Bible doesn't say that, though. In fact, the Bible repeatedly states that the earth is set in place on pillars, not in orbit about the sun.

- Psalm 19:4 describes a 'tabernacle' [place of habitation] for the sun, which doesn't move.
- Psalm 19:6 describes the heavens as a circuit.

Those verses clearly describe the heavens as a circuit along which the sun moves. Again, this is clearly an ancient, geocentric cosmology being described.

My point was to say that the Bible does not state geocentrism as an absolute fact, but rather geocentrism is something people interpret by picking the quotes which fit their ideas.

Biblical geocentrism doesn't just follow from quote mining. The Bible is replete with references to this ancient cosmology. In fact, it's the ONLY cosmology described in Scripture. It's interesting that, in order to explain it away, you've had to inject modernist notions that the firmament actually refers to the atmosphere and the immobility of the earth actually refers to its being set in an orbit about the sun.

 

[Assyrian]

I did not read the entire thread where your referenced post was, so the context may have been different. Anyway, I mean no offense by this reply. However, if one understands the Bible to be the inspired word of God, then the creation story is in Genesis 1:1-31.

Why can't the bible be the inspired word of God and have a number of different creation stories: Genesis 1, Genesis 2, Job 38, Psalm 104 & Proverbs 8? Surely if we learn anything about God from Jesus Christ it is that he is very good at coming up with different ways to talk about the same thing?

Following that, Genesis 2 is an appendix to the history of the creation,

Only if you assume Genesis 1 is the only official creation story in the bible, but the bible doesn't say that.

more particularly explaining and enlarging upon that part of the history which relates immediately to man. Genesis the goes on to reveal the intrusion of sin into the world, the catastrophic effects of its curse on the race, and the beginnings of God’s plan to bless the nations through His seed.

Which it can do just as well as a separate creation story.

Moses, under the inspiration of God, is the author of Genesis.

Bible doesn't say that either.

In addition to recording God's creation of the world it also shows His desire to have a people set apart to worship him.

Almost there. Have you ever considered that the point might be to teach is God is the creator of everything, and that he has set up apart to be his people (as well as that we blew it and need a promised redeemer), rather than to provided a detailed record of God's timetable. If the point was to provide a timetable, why give us two different contradictory ones? What benefit is there in knowing God's timetable? We need to know God is the creator of all and that he has called us to walk with him and worship him, we don't need his work schedule. If you want to look at the point of the seven days of creation, it was used to teach Sabbath observance, which in turn is an OT symbol of the rest we have in God through the Gospel.

My belief in the inerrancy of Scripture was formed at a time when bold comparisons with the evolutionary framework were not forced upon us in the classroom. However, today many liberal theologians have reevaluated their views of Genesis 1, and altered their assessments in order to accommodate the evolutionary framework.

It might be worth your while to look back at the beginnings of the modern Fundamentalism and the writers of The Fundamentals, who all reevaluated Genesis in in the light of what was known about the age of the earth, all were either Day Age, or Gap, and while some spoke against evolution, other were open to the possibility as long as it wasn't a version that excluded God like Huxley did back then or Dawkins does today.

And consequently, in the same manner you described, the Creation account is now stylized as a “myth” or a “hymn.”

I personally struggle with this, as well, because I support God creating and then microevolution of the different species, which I believe is completely in line with cripture. My concern is this could then lead to an “old earth” theory and the slippery slope. However, it is incredibly naïve to think that Christians can use the term “myth” to refer to Genesis 1, and there be not be a devaluated view of the inspiration of scripture.

I don't like the term myth myself, not because it devalues Genesis but because people who do not understand the term think it devalues it. But myth is simply a story used to teach truth, which after all is what Jesus did when he used parables.

 

[lucaspa]

Honestly I probably tend to look at any biblical cosmological verses which are literally untrue to see if they should be interpreted symbolically.

Yes, you do. How do you determine if they are "literally untrue"? You use extrabiblical evidence. In this case, evidence from astronomy.

Theistic evolutionists do the same thing with Genesis 1-3 and Genesis 6-8. We use extrabiblical evidence from biology, physics, and astronomy to determine that neither creation story is literally true. Evidence from geology and biogeography convinced Christians by 1830 that Genesis 6-8 could not be literally true.

or those authors, because God choose to use the language and social context of the time of writing, just lacked the words we use today to describe some of these events.

That's always an essential component of interpretation. You must first know how the people at the time understood the text. So you need to know the historical setting, the social context, and how language was used. I've already pointed that out for "in his image" in Genesis 1. It also applies to the tail of behemoth in Job. It turns out that "tail like a cedar" was a euphemism common in King James' England to mean "very large penis". The English at the time would know what it meant, but the phrase doesn't mean that anymore.

So, while you use those rules for heliocentrism and round earth, you don't apply them to age of the earth or how species were created. Theistic evolutionists are consistent in how we apply the same rules you do, in that we don't exempt Genesis 1-3 and Genesis 6-8.

 

[granpa]

actually 'tail like a cedar' is a word for word translation of the hebrew

Job 40 Biblos Interlinear Bible
Job 40:17 Biblos Interlinear Bible


stones are testicles

behemoth is probably an elephant.
leviathan is probably a megalodon

 

[lucaspa]

I did not read the entire thread where your referenced post was, so the context may have been different. Anyway, I mean no offense by this reply. However, if one understands the Bible to be the inspired word of God, then the creation story is in Genesis 1:1-31. Following that, Genesis 2 is an appendix to the history of the creation, more particularly explaining and enlarging upon that part of the history which relates immediately to man.

But we've shown that this doesn't work with the text. Now, we all here believe the Bible is inspired by God. But God can inspire 2 separate creation stories in order to tell 2 different sets of theological truths. And that is what happened.

Genesis the goes on to reveal the intrusion of sin into the world, the catastrophic effects of its curse on the race, and the beginnings of God’s plan to bless the nations through His seed.

That's a problem: the punishments in Genesis 3 are not that catastrophic. Rather, the punishments are naive and charming explanations for what everyone can see: farming is difficult and the weeds grow faster than the crops; childbirth is very painful and yet women retain their desire for sex (!); people hate and fear snakes. Creationism has tried to blow up these verses far beyond their meaning, even having one of the basic laws of the universe introduced: the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

BTW, have you ever looked on Genesis 3 as allegory so that Adam (Dirt) and Hearth (Eve) stand for each and every human? We continually introduce sin because each of us disobeys God at some point.

Moses, under the inspiration of God, is the author of Genesis. In addition to recording God's creation of the world it also shows His desire to have a people set apart to worship him.

That set apart comes more in Exodus, which was actually written first. Israel knew Yahweh as Creator because Yahweh created Israel out of nothing (slaves). Have you ever heard of the Documentary Hypothesis? Pick up any commentary on Genesis at Barnes and Nobles or Borders and you will find it explained.

My belief in the inerrancy of Scripture was formed at a time when bold comparisons with the evolutionary framework were not forced upon us in the classroom. However, today many liberal theologians have reevaluated their views of Genesis 1, and altered their assessments in order to accommodate the evolutionary framework.

The history of Christianity is quite different. Christianity accepted evolution within 25 years of the publication of Origin of Species.
"When my Father [Frederick Temple, Archbishop of Canterbury] announced and defended his acceptance of evolution in his Brough Lectures in 1884 it provoked no serious amount of criticism ... The particular battle over evolution was already won by 1884." F.A. Iremonger, William Temple, Archbishop of Canterbury, His Life and Letters, Oxford Univ. Press, 1948, pg. 491.

Look at the date: 1884. 24 years after the famous Huxley-Wilberforce debate. At nearly the same time, the foremost Christian theologian in the USA, Rev, James McCosh, wrote a book entitled The Religious Aspects of Evolution in 1890. You can see a quote from the book as the second quote in my signature.

If we go back to St. Augustine in the 400s AD, we find that he does not think Genesis is literal.

What happened was that a small group felt threatened by Higher Criticism and evolution. They wanted the Bible to be literal and inerrant (even tho Jesus tells us it has errors). It is this new religion they launched, Fundamentalism, that you think is the "old" view. It's not.

My concern is this could then lead to an “old earth” theory and the slippery slope. However, it is incredibly naïve to think that Christians can use the term “myth” to refer to Genesis 1, and there be not be a devaluated view of the inspiration of scripture.

First, how about we be more concerned with what God is telling us than "scripture" per se? God has 2 books. We need to listen to Him in both. Let's be less concerned about a particular interpretation of scripture and instead see what scripture is really trying to tell us.

Second, OK, let's drop the term "myth". I personally don't think either creation story qualifies as "myth". Instead, they are theological monographs. Genesis 1:1 to 2:3 is concerned with debunking the Babylonian religion. Genesis 2:4 - the end of Genesis 3 is concerned with 1) debunking the Egyptian religion, 2) explaining why people are cut off from God, using allegory, 3) explaining the close emotional relationship of men and women, and 4) providing, as I say, some charming but naive explanations for some puzzling aspects of human existence. That last -- the punishments -- might be termed "myth" in the sense that the story of Pandora is a myth.

 

[lucaspa]

He used the word "path". I thought "direction" was the better word.

Actually, he said "in all directions". My point remains the same. The point of the post was not about direction, but that the phenomenon of lightning is explained withour recourse to direct use of the supernatural.

The order that exists in chemical elements is created by God,just as the substance is. The shape of snowflakes is not really order,but design. Order is what we see in the workings of an organism.

I'm afraid you have that backwards. Design is what we see in organisms. That has been the argument all along, going back to Paley in 1803:
"The argument from design remains as it was. Marks of design and contrivance ... I mean, that the contrivnces of nature surpass the contrivances of art, in the complexity, subtlty, and curiosity of the mechanism; and still more, if possible, do they go beyond them in number and variety; yet, in a multitude of cases, are not less evidently mechanical, not less evidently contrivances, not less evidently accommodated to their end or suited to their office, than are the most perfect productions of human ingenuity." Paley, Natural History: or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of Nature (1802)

Now, is water directly created by God? Not really. Water results from the reaction of hydrogen and oxygen. So your statement that "the substance is" created by God is not accurate.

Yes, you can put God in there, but not where you are trying to do it. God sustains the chemical reaction that produces water. That is, each and every time hydrogen reacts with oxygen to produce water, we as Christians believe that God wills it to happen.

 

[lucaspa]

It's not a contradiction. I don't assume that the theory of evolution is a true explanation of how species originated. Evolution in the sense of speciation happens,but I don't believe in the theory,which is a narrative of the history of organisms.

First, none of us "assume" that the theory of evolution is true. We conclude it is due to the data. The accurate way to state your claim is "I reject that the theory of evolution is a true explanation of how species originated."

Second, then you contradict that when you say "Evolution in the sense of speciation happens". That means that evolution is a true explanation of how species originate! The "narrative" is simply a geneology of speciation taken into the past; a history of the speciation events that led to the current species. You can't have it both ways. If evolution is how speciation happens, then evolution explains how species originated!

What you really believe is that species were created directly by God, isn't it?

A mere proposition about ultimate reality does not amount to a philosophy. Philosophy draws out moral inferences and implications from ideas and elaborates upon them.

I'm not sure why you are trying to nitpick this. But think about it. What ideas do philosophies use to draw out moral infernences and implications from? Ideas of ultimate reality! So when you have a statement of ultimate reality, you have a philosophy. Perhaps not the full-blown thing, but the essential statement of it.

It makes no difference,in regard to how phenomena are explained,whether you never admit the supernatural because of lack of knowledge or because of conviction. The explanations will be the same.

It's not "never admit". "never admit" means deny. MN is not denying the supernatural. It's a limitation that we can't comment on it. The explanations are not the same because denying the supernatural gives one explanation: there is only the material. MN gives a different explanation: this is the material component of an explanation.

MN is the adaptation of that belief for the purposes of science.

Atheists would like this to be true, but it isn't. As I showed, MN comes directly from how we do experiments. It's not an adaptation of any belief. It's just a result of how science works.

You said that science determines that we can't look for a supernatural component. Anyway,it is an unjustifiable limitation on reason.

I said that science can't look for a supernatural component. This has nothing to do with limiting "reason", it's a limitation that comes directly from how we do experiments. What part of my explanation with the causes of plant growth did you not understand? Let me go over it again:

Science determines explanations/causes by comparing an experimental group with the cause against a control group without the cause. If we want to determine whether water is a cause for plant growth, we compare 2 plants: one is experimental and we water it; the other is a control and we see to it that it gets no water. The one without water does not grow and dies; the one with water lives and grows. Water is a cause for plant growth.

Now, is God a cause for plant growth? How do we tell? Which plant can we point to and say "God is not in that one" as a control? For that matter, which plant can we point to and say "God is in that one."? We have no way of determining if God is present or absent, do we? This ignorance keeps us from saying, by science, whether God is necessary for plant growth. We can't say either "yes" or "no". We can find all the material causes for plant growth, but we can't comment on whether God (the supernatural) is also required.

Knowledge of nature is not limited to what science can and cannot see and experiment upon. There is also common observation and logical reasoning.

That's basically science. You need to tell us the logical reasoning that would allow us to conclude from observations that God is directly involved.

The fact that the supernatural cannot be tested does not mean that it should be excluded from all explanations of phenomena.

It's not "excluded". It's not commented upon. Exclusion means either it doesn't exist or you are not willing to admit it exists. Neither condition applies here. There are lots of scientists who are Christians, even more who are theists. Shoot, there are more than 3,000 scientists who are also Anglican ministers. We would be happy to include the supernatural in our experiments, if we could. We can't. If you can figure out a way to get around the experimental difficulty I outlined above, please share. I will help you get it published and I'm sure someone will nominate you for a Nobel Prize for that work.

If the supernatural causation exists in nature,then it should be considered.

Supernatural causation does get into science: by the backdoor. What happens is that God is hypothesized to cause a material cause. A classic example is Flood Geology. God causes a world-wide flood, the world wide flood then causes geological features. What gets tested, of course, is the material cause, not God. In this case, Flood Geology got tested and falsified by 1830.

No,it isn't a god of the gaps. It is about discerning necessary power,and what natural things can and cannot do,and bringing our knowledge of God's power over nature to bear upon our understanding of natural phenomena.

Look at what you said: "what natural things can and cannot do". That "cannot do" is the gap. It's a gap between 2 things in the universe. "natural things" cannot bridge the gap. So you put God to bridge the gap. God-of-the-gaps.

Some things have life,which is spirit from God,and most other things are dead.

And so there, supposedly, is a gap between things that are dead and those that have life, right? A gap that needs the "spirit from God" to bridge.

So what happens if we find a natural bridge between things that are dead and things that have life? What happens to God? The corollary to what you are saying is that, if we have "natural things" do this, then God doesn't. That's the danger of god-of-the-gaps.

As it happens, you can make things that have life from things that are dead in your kitchen. The recipe is below. Do that and tell us whether you see or detect the "spirit from God" when you do this. Let me remind you: I am not arguing against God or God's superintendence of nature. I amarguing against the unBiblical, unChristian, and theologically catastrophic position that you are stating: God is directly needed for dead things to become living things.

Call Sigma Chemical Co. at 800-325-3010 and order 1 bottle of catalog number M 7145 and one bottle of R 7131 amino acids solutions (you need both to get all the amino acids http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/sigma/formulation/M5550for.pdf ). They will cost you about $40 plus shipping for both. Empty the bottles into a fying pan, turn the heat on low and heat until all the water is evaporated. Then heat for 15 more minutes. Add water. You will have protocells in the solution. They are alive. If this is too "artificial" for you, then put the solution out on a hot rock for the afternoon and let it evaporate. Then add water (rain).

 

[lucaspa]

I agree the NIV provides a poor translation for Luke 2:1. The NIV is not my choice of translations. The problem is we do not have the original manuscripts, Therefore, I believe we should look at many translations and ask the Holy Spirit to help us discern their meaning.

Sigh. You seem to have missed the point. The point is that Christians have always allowed extrabiblical evidence to decide how to interpret scripture. The Greek in all the manuscripts we have of the gospel of Luke is very clear: the entire world was enrolled. It is the extrabiblical evidence that prompted the interpretation of that to be the Roman world. That interpretation is so solid (even tho not what was written) that it has now been included in a translation.

As I pointed out, the increased knowledge of the universe we have now -- that there are billions of galaxies -- makes it clear that the postdiction interpretation of Psalm 19:6 isn't true. Sorry.

What I am pointing out with Mallon, Papias, Gluadys, myself, etc. is not "majority = truth". Instead, it is that we are being consistent with our approach to God and the Bible. Whereas creationists are inconsistent in that they allow extrabiblical evidence to modify the interpretation of some verses but not others, we allow solid extrabiblical evidence to modify the interpretation of any verse that is affected. You tout that science is showing the "accuracy" of the Bible, but when science shows that the Bible is not literally true, then you trash the science. That is inconsistent and Special Pleading.

 

[lucaspa]

The theory of evolution is itself atheistic and materialistic in character,because it proceeds from MN and so it explains the history of organisms as if they came to exist only because of natural processes.

MN is not atheistic. It's agnostic. Did you even look at the quotes from Darwin I provided? OK, let's do them again:

"To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual." C. Darwin, On the Origin of Species,pg. 449.

Do you see that "secondary causes"? That's a Christian term. It means that God is sustaining those processes. Atheism can't tolerate that.

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." C. Darwin, On the Origin of Species, pg 450.

The bold should be obvious.

"No, he [Darwin] responded to the prelate E.B. Pusey's [an Anglican minister] sermon, the Origin had no 'relation whatever to Theology', although when he wrote it his own 'belief in what is called a personal God was as firm as that of Dr. Pusey himself.' " "Never an Atheist" in Desmond and Moore's biography Darwin, pg 635-657.

As much as you would like evolution to be atheistic, the truth is that it is not. We explain gravity by "only natural processes". Is gravity atheistic?

macro-evolution and micro-evolution,which is really just speciation.

Macroevolution is speciation.

Microevolution is "changes within populations and species".
Macroevolution is "the origin and diversification of higher taxa".
Douglas Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, pg 447, 1998

Species is the taxa. Macroevolution includes speciation.

 

[lucaspa]

IEven though there may be points of similarity the method of creation and the theology of creation are vastly different.

Yes. That's the point. Genesis 1 and the Enuma Elish are not the same creation story. Genesis 1 refutes the theology of the Enuma Elish. Genesis 1 is not a re-working of the Enuma Elish. Rather, the author(s) of Genesis 1 used the Enuma Elish as the story they wanted to refute. Therefore they used the timing of the appearance of the gods in the Enuma Elish to refute those gods in the order they appear there. As another example of the timing: it makes no sense for God to make plants before the sun. However, when we look at the Enuma Elish we find that Marduk (the chief Babylonian god and the 3rd generation) is the god of plants. His younger sister is goddess of the sun. So Marduk is destroyed first by having plants created by God, then the younger sister.

Even the date of authorship is contested between liberals and conservatives: According to liberal theologians, the Babylonian account of creation was written in the 12th century BCE, centuries earlier than the Biblical account; According to conservative Christian theologians, the opposite happened: the Babylonian account was written after the Biblical account.

The data is clear that Genesis 1 was not written until near the end or just after the Babylonian Exile around 500 BC.

Just because God created man last does not mean we evolved from previous species, it simply means we were created last..

No one has any facts that conclusively prove that “we did evolve from species that were non-human”.

You missed my reference to God's Creation. Yes, we do have facts that conclusively prove we evolved from species that were not human. There are transitional individuals (fossils of individuals that in-between species) that connect our species (H. sapiens) to H. ergastor (erectus) to H. habilis to A. afarensis. In the Omo I and II beds in Africa, the transitional individuals connecting ergastor to habilis are arranged from top to bottom, with the fossils at the top being ergastor, and as you go down becoming more like habilis and habilis at the bottom. Somehow creationist websites never get around to mentioning these fossils.

Considering the relative rarity of transitional series, this is like God shouting "I did it by evolution!"

Of course, I'm not even mentioning the genetic evidence such as ERVs, but looking only at the fossil evidence. When you add the morphological, physiological, and genetic evidence, "conclusively prove" is an understatement.

I do agree that we are dependent upon God.

I'm glad. That should make it easier for you to give up the idea we were created specially.

Instead, it [self-worth] is based on being made in God's image. Because we bear God's image, we can feel positive about ourselves.

So much for dependence on God.

God obviously did not create us exactly like himself because God has no physical body. Instead, we are reflections of God's glory. Most likely, our entire self reflects the image of God.

That is using modern meanings of "in his image". Not the meaning at the time. The meaning of the phrase at the time had nothing to do with resemblance but with giving power. Why are you simply ignoring the evidence and argument?

However, whether you chose to believe it or not, I choose to believe that we are special.

But why? Why are we special? Because we are created in the image of God (as in some resemblance to God)? Or because God chooses to regard us as special?

Think about this: why were the Hebrews special to God? Was it anything to do with themselves?

 

[lucaspa]

My comment was simply the converse to someone's comment that this verse promotes geocentricity,

No one brought up this verse as the Bible promoting geocentricity. Mallon and I said the Bible promoted geocentricity. Neither of us used this verse. You trotted out this verse as "the common verse" supporting geocentricity in an attempt to refute that the Bible supports geocentricity.

When we talk about the sun's movement, in everyday language, we see the sun's movement not the earths rotation.

True, but the verses that promote geocentricity don't talk about the sun's movement. They talk about the earth's movement. Specifically, they say the earth does not move. For that to be true, the earth has to be the center of the system (geocentrism) and the sun and planets orbit the earth.

FYI, there is a term "geocentricity". Geocentricity has all the planets orbiting the sun except earth. The sun (with the rest of the planets orbiting the sun) orbits the earth. This too preserves an earth that does not move.

 

[shernren]

No. The direction of lightning does not necessaily require supernatural power. But the order that we find in the natural world does.

Okay, so how did you decide the difference?

I mean, the Bible says that God "​​​​​​​​cleft a channel for the torrents of rain and a way for the thunderbolt" (Job 38:25, ESV). Why isn't that a clear indicator that the direction of lightning requires supernatural power?

 

[Greg1234]

Not reject it. Reinterpret it.

You do it. The data is against you anyways.