just wondering!

[vossler]

I'm surprised you accuse TEs of making theological issues into scientific ones. I think perhaps you ought to point the finger at AiG, DI, CMI, ICR, CRS, etc. They're the ones trying to get creationism taught in the science classroom, not TEs.

I don't know why you're surprised, you obviously don't know me very well then. I see most issues from a theological position first. As far as the organizations you listed, all of them (except for maybe DI, I don't know who they are) put the Bible above science, therefore their priorities are correct and I believe God is being honored by their work.

Personally, I never replied to the OP in the first place. And as we have now established, if heatherwayno wanted to hear a creationist response, she ought to have posted in the creationist subforum (can't blame her for not seeing it, however). In any case, again, she asked a scientific question and got a scientific answer. Better to provide the right answer than none at all, even if you would rather not hear it. Again, refer to Proverbs 11:14 and 27:17.

Sure there's a scientific aspect to the question, but obviously she wasn't searching for that. Many questions have multiple view answers, the main issue is that she was asking for a one view answer and instead got another.

 

[Mallon]

As far as the organizations you listed, all of them (except for maybe DI, I don't know who they are) put the Bible above science, therefore their priorities are correct and I believe God is being honored by their work.

That's the problem. They put the Bible before science when trying to answer scientific questions like "how did the world come to be?" But the Bible is not a science text. It's no surprise, then, that the answers they come up with are both ludicrous and just plain wrong. They may be "doing it for the glory of God", but I think their misrepresentations of the world do more to turn people away from Christianity than anything. People don't want to have to give up their God-given brain to follow the Lord; I don't think they have to.

 

[vossler]

That's the problem. They put the Bible before science when trying to answer scientific questions like "how did the world come to be?" But the Bible is not a science text. It's no surprise, then, that the answers they come up with are both ludicrous and just plain wrong.

They put the Bible before science when answering all of life's questions because the Bible is where Truth is found. The answers that look to you as being ludicrous and wrong are biblically correct. We're called to preach the Word, not preach some of the Word or a manipulated version of it.

They may be "doing it for the glory of God", but I think their misrepresentations of the world do more to turn people away from Christianity than anything. People don't want to have to give up their God-given brain to follow the Lord; I don't think they have to.

1 Corinthians 1:21 states:

For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.

But my favorite passage on this topic is Ecclesiates 1:12-18 where Solomon, the wisest man the world ever knew, gave his description of wisdom.

I the Preacher have been king over Israel in Jerusalem. And I applied my heart to seek and to search out by wisdom all that is done under heaven. It is an unhappy business that God has given to the children of man to be busy with. I have seen everything that is done under the sun, and behold, all is vanity and a striving after wind.


What is crooked cannot be made straight, and what is lacking cannot be counted.

I said in my heart, "I have acquired great wisdom, surpassing all who were over Jerusalem before me, and my heart has had great experience of wisdom and knowledge." And I applied my heart to know wisdom and to know madness and folly. I perceived that this also is but a striving after wind.
For in much wisdom is much vexation, and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow.

Now this isn't to say that wisdom is bad, certainly Godly wisdom is a vital and necessary pursuit. What Solomon is referring to however isn't Godly wisdom, but worldly wisdom. That's exactly what evolution is.

Now if the Word of God turns people away from Christ then I don't believe they were actually looking for Him.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Now this isn't to say that wisdom is bad, certainly Godly wisdom is a vital and necessary pursuit. What Solomon is referring to however isn't Godly wisdom, but worldly wisdom. That's exactly what evolution is.


this shows several very important issues, i hope we can begin to talk about them....

in particular:

the way these ideas lead to manicheanism
what does the worldly wisdom teach about God?
is worldly wisdom useless or useless for salvation?
what is the relationship of general and special revelation?
is this an over-desacralization of the world?

 

[FallingWaters]

I was thinking today about different races of people. I don't know why but I just started wondering if there was a biblical explaination as to why different races have different characteristics and why there are so many races to begin with. I am glad there is diversity in the world but was just wondering if the bible mentions anything about it and could it have anything to do with the tower of babel??

Yes, it does have to do with the tower of Babel, when peoples were separated into groups taking their gene pools with them. You can find more about this on the Answers In Genesis website.

How did all the different ‘races’ arise (from Noah’s family)?
by Don Batten (editor), Ken Ham, Jonathan Sarfati, and Carl Wieland
First published in The Revised & Expanded Answers Book

 

[gluadys]

Correct me if I am wrong- but doesn't the dead sea scrolls show that the translation is still very close to the original meaning?

No. The Dead Sea Scrolls have nothing to do with the accuracy of translations.

What they show is that the standard Hebrew text used today differs little from the Hebrew text used in the first century BCE.

There are actually hundreds of differences, but most are along the lines of variant spellings that do not affect the meaning of the text. A few offer a significantly different meaning and that creates problems for translators.

 

[theFijian]

Obviously to many it isn't to be read literally but in whatever way that suits you.

Quite so, it suits YECs to read the Bible literally despite not being able to point out where in the Bible it says it must be read literally.

 

[heatherwayno]

I am taking a 3 year class on the bible. Last night was the first class of this semester. Guess what what covered in one of the classes? The tower of babel and how it caused the different races when God scattered people into groups and the groups quickly (not over billions of years), started to show dominant common characteristics. I had no idea that this was going to be covered last night- but I tell you that it is not a coinicedence. God works in awesome ways and I wanted an intellegent correct answer to this question- and last night- he saw that I got one!!!

 

[heatherwayno]

That's the problem. They put the Bible before science when trying to answer scientific questions like "how did the world come to be?" But the Bible is not a science text. It's no surprise, then, that the answers they come up with are both ludicrous and just plain wrong. They may be "doing it for the glory of God", but I think their misrepresentations of the world do more to turn people away from Christianity than anything. People don't want to have to give up their God-given brain to follow the Lord; I don't think they have to.

The bible is ludicrous?? What a direct insult to God almighty who inspired every word of it not to deceive us or for us to interpret in whatever way suits us- but to guide us and teach us to be more like him. If the world says evolution is fact and the bible disagrees- I will follow the bible. I trust God everytime. The more "accurate" scientist get to the origin of life- the farther from the real truth (which is God inspired and can be found in the bible) that they get. What turns people off to christianity is that you have christians who say that we should trust the world rather that the contents of the bible. If they can't believe the bible- why in the world would someone want to become christian? If you can interpret the bible to really mean something else- they could someone tell me why the tower of Babel story is in the bible anyway? I would just like to hear the views of someone who is choosing to substitute their knowledge over the infinite wisdom of the one who inspired it. Tell me- answer for God- what was he meaning and why did he not just really say what he meant. Why is he trying to confuse us and turning people away because the book we are supposed to live by is not really true? If you interpret the bible- how can you be sure that Jesus is really a savior? Perhaps this is just a symbol for something else. Once you create a new meaning for anything in the bible- anything other than how God intended it- you are destroying the credibility of the entire bible because it is left open for people to dissect- rejecting any part that is too difficult, unpleasant to follow. Sins are viewed as ok- you can find a verse- twist it around in your head to make it acceptable in your eyes. However- your eyes are not the same as God's. Your eyes are not capapble of understanding his awesome power. Of course- no one understands why God works the way he does- why he imbedded age into the Earth. I can say for sure it was not to deceive us. But do we really understand anything about God? Can our feeble minds grasp his amazing grace, his love when we rip apart his word and fail to follow it, his forgiveness? No we cannot. If we were to stop beleiving in anything concerning God that we didn't totally understand- we would not beleive anything. Our mights are not equipped to fully understand his ways. That is why he is gOd and we are not. The problem is that people are getting "too big for their britches", thinking that their wisdom exceeds what God has said. What an ego these people have!!!!

 

[heatherwayno]

http://www.christianforums.com/f425-creationism.html

in case you haven't already found it.

Are you trying to get me to leave? LOL!! Is it that I am making you uncomfortable becuase I choose to walk totally in faith and follow the bible everytime instead of the world?? If that is the case- perhaps it is the HS convicting you as to the error of your ways.

 

[heatherwayno]

And why do you put so much faith in a book, not even in it's original language that has gone through thousands of years of changes and translations and debates? Do you know how involved the creation and translation of the modern day Bible actually is?

Why do I put so much faith in the bible?? Are you kidding? Does it not make sense that if God were able to create the universe that he would preserve his word for all time so people could follow it. Not sure of where- but there are verses in the bible that say that his word is being preserved. Yes- there are things lost in translation- I believe very few and that the original meaning of what God has first inspired are still there.

 

[artybloke]

The bible is ludicrous?? What a direct insult to God almighty

Do please learn how to read, dear. He didn't say that the Bible was ludicrous, he said that interpreting it as if it had anything to say about science or history is ludicrous. In other words, it's not the Bible that is ludicrous: it's the literalistic modernist-scientistic reading* of the Bible that is ridiculous.

*That is, reading the Bible as if it were written by a 19th century scientist, rather than by a whole lot of ancient Jewish poets, theologians, priests and scribes who had no understanding, no interest in, modern day science. That's what a "literalist" interpretation does: it reads a view of the world that is modernist back into the Bible. In other words, it is eisegesis (reading into) not exegesis (reading out of.)

 

[Everloving]

No one has a clue about heaven? Angels (not 'angles') have bodies? What the heck is happening in American churches today? Is there no teaching happening? Granted you're only 15 so I guess its not all your fault. I've already told you that evolution occurs in biological organism, angels are not biological organism, so they do not evolve. What my not having seen an angel has to do with it is anyone's guess.

I didn't say angels have real bodies. I'm just saying, if God created the angels emmidiatly, why take billions of years to create us in His image???

 

[Everloving]

Sure I did. You said:

The process you describe for creating new skin colours (read: the mixing of genes) after Babel is the same process that occurs today in "interfamily marriage." (And is a type of evolution whether you want to admit it or not -- most creationists seem happy to.) You seem to be admitting here that any new skin colours that come about through the mixing of two families is a "degeneration". If you believe otherwise, then please clarify yourself, lest you be accused of practicing eugenics!

Micro-evolution is true, but only to a point. Yes, it does exist though. For example, dogs. God didn't create every breed of dog there is. But with interbreeding and other such things. Micro-evolution took place. Still, they are still dogs, nothing more. The changeing of skin color is the same thing. Just a result of micro evolution, which isn't actually evolution. I'm not saying that skin color is degenerative. I'm just saying that mutations can not give forth possitive effects. Can you argue against that???

 

[heatherwayno]

Angels don't have bodies? Read the first chapter of Ezekial. It describes angels in great detail.

 

[Jase]

I didn't say angels have real bodies. I'm just saying, if God created the angels emmidiatly, why take billions of years to create us in His image???

Being created in God's image has nothing to do with our physical appearance.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Angels don't have bodies? Read the first chapter of Ezekial. It describes angels in great detail.

do you realize that this is the basis for the discussion of:
how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?


do angels occupy space?

 

[Jase]

Why do I put so much faith in the bible?? Are you kidding? Does it not make sense that if God were able to create the universe that he would preserve his word for all time so people could follow it. Not sure of where- but there are verses in the bible that say that his word is being preserved. Yes- there are things lost in translation- I believe very few and that the original meaning of what God has first inspired are still there.

There are quite a few differences between the English translations and the Hebrew. Genesis just being one problem since Bereshit is read quite different in Hebrew than in English. It is a fact that there are copyist and translation errors in the Bible. Even Christian apologist sites admit this. You can't not accurately translate everything from Hebrew to English. It just doesn't work.

And how do you know your version of the Bible is right? You do know there are many other scriptures that aren't part of your particular Bible right? Why is your Bible right, and the Catholics Bible is wrong?

 

[Jase]

Micro-evolution is true, but only to a point. Yes, it does exist though. For example, dogs. God didn't create every breed of dog there is. But with interbreeding and other such things. Micro-evolution took place. Still, they are still dogs, nothing more. The changeing of skin color is the same thing. Just a result of micro evolution, which isn't actually evolution. I'm not saying that skin color is degenerative. I'm just saying that mutations can not give forth possitive effects. Can you argue against that???

At what point does microevolution stop before macroevolution occurs? They are the same thing. Macroevolution is nothing more than a series of microevolutions. Macroevolution has been observed.

Microevolution isn't evolution? It most certainly is evolution. It's the very basis of evolution.

Even answers in genesis says new species have formed. Speciation is macroevolution.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Micro-evolution is true, but only to a point. Yes, it does exist though. For example, dogs. God didn't create every breed of dog there is. But with interbreeding and other such things. Micro-evolution took place. Still, they are still dogs, nothing more. The changeing of skin color is the same thing. Just a result of micro evolution, which isn't actually evolution. I'm not saying that skin color is degenerative. I'm just saying that mutations can not give forth possitive effects. Can you argue against that???


in past threads here we have established that some YECists assign the family Canid to the YECist kind dog.

to have a discussion about dogs and evolution we need to know if you think the same. or do you assign kind to something smaller than a family?

so what exactly is the relationship of the scientific taxonomy to the YECist kinds for "dogs"?
how did you establish it?