just a quick question

[cyberlizard]

if the idea of evolution had never been invented, how many of you would have created it yourselves, or would you have taken the scriptures at face value instead???

if you would have taken the scriptures at face value, why is it that you do not do so now??? Do you value the opinions of men, more highly than the words of Moses himself.

Jesus said, if you do not believe Moses' writings to be accurate than you will not really believe Him [Jesus].

Steve

just thought i would throw this out there.

 

[Mick116]

if the idea of evolution had never been invented, how many of you would have created it yourselves, or would you have taken the scriptures at face value instead???

if you would have taken the scriptures at face value, why is it that you do not do so now??? Do you value the opinions of men, more highly than the words of Moses himself.

Jesus said, if you do not believe Moses' writings to be accurate than you will not really believe Him [Jesus].

Steve

just thought i would throw this out there.

The idea of evolution wasn't "invented", it was explained by Charles Darwin in terms of "natural selection". I would not have been able to formulate the theory independently, because I lack Mr Darwin's brilliant mind.

I like to think that if Moses were alive today, he would accept evolution as a valid theory.

Just the opinion of one humble student of both Darwin and Christ.

 

[IgnatiusDeLoyola]

I like Saint Augustine don't take the early chapters of genesis nearly as literally as you do, and i accept evolution because of all the scientific evidence in its favor. Now why do you in the face of all evidence, hold that early genesis should be interpreted so literally?

 

[shernren]

The God of the Bible is the same God who created the world. Why can't my knowledge of one be allowed to inform my knowledge of the other?

 

[crawfish]

if the idea of evolution had never been invented, how many of you would have created it yourselves, or would you have taken the scriptures at face value instead???

if you would have taken the scriptures at face value, why is it that you do not do so now??? Do you value the opinions of men, more highly than the words of Moses himself.

Jesus said, if you do not believe Moses' writings to be accurate than you will not really believe Him [Jesus].

Steve

just thought i would throw this out there.

Do you think the earth is a sphere, or do you believe the writings of Moses and the other OT authors that it is flat?

If the former, then why do you value the opinions of men more highly than the writers of the OT?

 

[gluadys]

if the idea of evolution had never been invented, how many of you would have created it yourselves, or would you have taken the scriptures at face value instead???

if you would have taken the scriptures at face value, why is it that you do not do so now??? Do you value the opinions of men, more highly than the words of Moses himself.

Jesus said, if you do not believe Moses' writings to be accurate than you will not really believe Him [Jesus].

Steve

just thought i would throw this out there.

What is the "face value" of the creation stories? Church Fathers like Origen and Augustine and Reformers like Calvin did not take the creation stories as literal reports of events, but taught that the stories were an accommodation to human understanding, especially the understanding of unlearned, illiterate people who did not need a "scientific" explanation, but did need the theological proclamation of creation.

Of course, their "scientific" understanding did not include evolution, but the science of their day. But the same principle applies.

Evolution is not the "opinions of men". It is a well-evidenced theory that accurately models how species interact with a changing environment over time.

I believe it is perfectly acceptable to value the testimony of the created world, since it is God-given. Whose witness should I value more highly than God's?

 

[Mallon]

Ditto everyone's arguments here. The Genesis creation account was being interpreted within an accomodationalist framework long before Darwin was born.
And if we were truly interested in taking the story at "face value", as the early Hebrews would have, why in the world would we read Genesis 1 and 2 as scientifically accurate description of the Earth when its primary audience had no use for science? Maybe it's the YEC endorsement of scientism that places more value on the products of men...

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The bible story begins with fully developed humans. If God used evolution to bring man to his present development it is irrelevant to our spiritual knowledge of either God or ourselves. In other words the theory of evolution is an unimportant sidebar in the history of man. Nothing of importance (yea, nothing at all) was recorded by those underdeveloped critters. Folks can piddle with 'dem bones' all they want, and while it is interesting it has no spiritual value whatsoever.

Just the other day I heard once again that scientists had begun yet another study of some relic to "better understand our origins". Good luck with that.

owg

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I don't think it's possible to understand the spiritual meanings of scripture using scientific methods. For example you cannot understand the nature of man via understanding evolution. You must take scripture at face value. For example the bible teaches that woman came out of man, and was made for man. When this is fully understood the whole bible story, and the present day relationship between men and women in particular becomes clear. Science cannot provide this insight, but rather confuses many christians who cannot reconcile the two positions. Only one is correct, and thus valuable for the christian.

owg

 

[Mallon]

For what it's worth, science doesn't pretend to offer answers to questions of spirituality. This doesn't make science a bad thing. We reap the benefits of science every day.

 

[Molal]

The theory of evolution, the mechanisms therein, etc. would have been invented without Darwin - the evidence strongly suggests such a mechanism. It would have been inevitable.

Plus, science has nothing to do with spirituality, which is in the same vein that the bible has nothing to do with science.

The bible is not a science book. Also, taking the scriptures at face value is an interpretation. You intepret the scriptures to be taken at face value. To maintain that assertion, one must provide a logical argument.

 

[cyberlizard]

Do you think the earth is a sphere, or do you believe the writings of Moses and the other OT authors that it is flat?

If the former, then why do you value the opinions of men more highly than the writers of the OT?

technically the earth is not a sphere it is slightly elliptical, so no i do not believe it to be a sphere..... saying that the bible teaches the earth is round (Job).....

all that aside, the idea of a flat earth society is a nonsense, such an idea did not exist until invented by washington irving (you know the guy who wrote legend of sleepy hollow) see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth


Steve

p.s. i do not believe God used evolution for one reason, if He did I am not a sinner, as death reigned as a result of natural processes, not the sin of one man.

 

[Molal]

Using very technical nomenclature, the earth is an oblate spheroid.

But that wasn't crawfish's point.

 

[Vance]

I think the fallacy in his argument is found in the term "taking Scripture at face value". That is question-begging in the extreme of what the "face value" of the early Genesis texts were all about. It is assuming that the "obvious meaning" of the text is that it is strict literal historical narrative, and I think that is entirely wrong, and I came to that conclusion long before I had come to any conclusion on the scientific side, while I was technically still a young earth creationist (by default since I had been brought up that way and didn't know any Christians believed differently).

Once I realized that Genesis was written VERY differently than I had been taught, and that Genesis said nothing at all about how and when God created, I was open to whatever the evidence actually said and that is, of course, that God created by way of evolution.

 

[juvenissun]

The theory of evolution, the mechanisms therein, etc. would have been invented without Darwin - the evidence strongly suggests such a mechanism. It would have been inevitable.

People has faith and see these "evidences", they attributed it to creation.

People has no faith and see these "evidences", they attributed it to evolution without God.

Some people (minority) has faith, but not enough. So when they see these "evidences", they are confused, and invented a wield thing called TE.

An undeniable fact is: no one in the above three categories really understand what do these "evidences" mean. They are just guessing (with or without reason)

 

[shernren]

p.s. i do not believe God used evolution for one reason, if He did I am not a sinner, as death reigned as a result of natural processes, not the sin of one man.

Whether my father is a bishop or a brawler, I am still a sinner. Why then should it make any difference if there happens to be an ape somewhere in the distant past of my lineage?

 

[Vance]

People has faith and see these "evidences", they attributed it to creation.

People has no faith and see these "evidences", they attributed it to evolution without God.

Some people (minority) has faith, but not enough. So when they see these "evidences", they are confused, and invented a wield thing called TE.

An undeniable fact is: no one in the above three categories really understand what do these "evidences" mean. They are just guessing (with or without reason)

Wow, this is wrong in so many ways.

First, even those who first were proponents of evolution did not necessarily see it as evolution "without God", any more than they see photosynthesis as "photosynthesis without God".

Second, the Christians who accept evolution are in the majority, not the minority.

Third, it has nothing at all to do with a lack of faith, which is as insulting and presumptuous as it is ridiculous.

Fourth, no one "invented" TE, it is just what happens when you accept the scientific evidence and don't see any conflict with Christian belief. Happens all the time to people who have never even heard the term "TE".

Fifth, TE's tend to be the least confused people I know. The make-up of this forum is evidence of that.

Sixth, the evidences are, indeed, understood, and are not mere "guesses". Yours is a comforting concept for the creationist, since it equalizes all approaches into mere subjective choices. But the fact is that some positions are supported by the vast weight of the evidence and other ones are supported only by a particular reading of the Scriptures and contrary to all the evidence.

 

[Molal]

People has faith and see these "evidences", they attributed it to creation.

People has no faith and see these "evidences", they attributed it to evolution without God.

Some people (minority) has faith, but not enough. So when they see these "evidences", they are confused, and invented a wield thing called TE.

An undeniable fact is: no one in the above three categories really understand what do these "evidences" mean. They are just guessing (with or without reason)

I disagree with you Juve, I believe that I have significant faith even though I believe TE.

You see I believe (this is my opinion) that a literal interpretation of genesis creates an environment where the interpretation becomes worshipped rather than God. In addition, I can extract as much theologic truth from an allegorical reading as you can from a literal interpretation.

Also, I believe that those who read genesis as literal conflate a literal interpretation with biblical inerrancy. The two do not go hand in hand.

I have seen these evidences that you refer to, I have researched them and I do attribute them to evolution. But God created evolution. God created everything. It just so happens humans have found God's methodology.

So, no - TE's do not have less faith in God - they have more because we get to see how God did things, rather than interpret how we think God did things.

 

[Vance]

I disagree with you Juve, I believe that I have significant faith even though I believe TE.

You see I believe (this is my opinion) that a literal interpretation of genesis creates an environment where the interpretation becomes worshipped rather than God. In addition, I can extract as much theologic truth from an allegorical reading as you can from a literal interpretation.

Also, I believe that those who read genesis as literal conflate a literal interpretation with biblical inerrancy. The two do not go hand in hand.

I have seen these evidences that you refer to, I have researched them and I do attribute them to evolution. But God created evolution. God created everything. It just so happens humans have found God's methodology.

So, no - TE's do not have less faith in God - they have more because we get to see how God did things, rather than interpret how we think God did things.

You know, that is a good point. I have found that TE's are likely to have a stronger faith foundation and are less likely to have that faith undermined. I have seen a number of creationists lose their faith as a result of their inability to adjust to a different view of Scripture once they realize that the scientific evidence is so solid.

I guess it is the willow v. brittle reed.

 

[jamielindas]

The thing is... science is trying to do one thing; accurately describe the natural world which includes making theories that explain existing evidence, utilizing these descriptions and (hopefully) the ability to make predictions about evidence that hasn't been gathered yet.
Science, doesn't have an agenda beyond that. Some scientists DO, but science itself does not.
It's a constantly changing field because the goal is to explain, describe and understand. When there is evidence that doesn't fit what we know, we must find out why, and, if necessary, adjust our description to explain as much evidence as possible. The fact that is changes isn't a failure, it's a success. It means the process is working, thus current descriptions are better than past description
because they incorporate more information.

Just because there was a time when we didn't understand nuclear physics, evolution, or gravity doesn't mean those things didn't exist. We don't INVENT scientific properties in this way, we're trying to describe them.