New early hominid fossil...

[<3God]

"The bible could read that - God created basic life - In a weeks' time some simple small life became plants and simple animals, some of those simple animals got more complex and even more complex and eventually humans arose. That could serve as a metaphor for evolution, but the Bible pretty much says the opposite of this."

That's a vague explanation without understanding any of the stuff you covered.

It's not as if the creation story in Gen. 1 gave man some special understanding that he couldnt have gotten with my creation story.

 

[<3God]

"Did you read my post concerning the symbolism in Revelation and how specific the book is, yet people don't take that literally?"
Certainly you mean most don't take it literally...

Logical Fallacy- Argumentum ad populum
Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[jarrettcpr]

"The bible could read that - God created basic life - In a weeks' time some simple small life became plants and simple animals, some of those simple animals got more complex and even more complex and eventually humans arose. That could serve as a metaphor for evolution, but the Bible pretty much says the opposite of this."

That's a vague explanation without understanding any of the stuff you covered.

It's not as if the creation story in Gen. 1 gave man some special understanding that he couldn't have gotten with my creation story.

No (though there are those like that one guy in that link I gave you who argue that the creation story can correspond with the big bang & evolution), the point of the creation story is that in the beginning everything God created was good, then you had sin enter into the world (man's disobedience) and then you had man's obedience (Noah & Abraham). That's the main points in Genesis and all throughout the Bible. God is always good, but man is either disobedient or obedient.

Again did you read my post about how symbolic and how specific the details are in the book of Revelation. Yet, we don't take that literally, but we take it seriously.

P.S. Yes, I know what fallacies are and I did not use the 'appeal to the masses' fallacy. I stated a fact, b/c there are things in the Bible you cannot take literally.

 

[laconicstudent]

1 last one because i hate being quote mined - Laconic,you said i said "you have to postulate things that aren't even in the Bible"

Then called me stupid, then said

"There are a LOT of things we postulate that aren't in the Bible. And you know what, we don't POSTULATE them, we have this thing called the fossil record, carbon dating, evidence of civilizations that are MUCH older then 6,000 years, canyons, the fact that we can actually see stars that are more then 6,000 light-years away."

My full quote was:

"You have to postulate things that aren't even in the Bible, nor is there any physical evidence for"

There is physical evidence for the things you mentioned, so I covered them.

I won't take this as a personal attack, I just think you missed my full statement

emphasis mine, that is not true, your actual full quote was:

"You have to postulate things that aren't even in the Bible, nor is there any physical evdince for, for the bible to remain true"

Altogether that sentence makes no sense. I quoted the entire sentence IN PIECES, which rules out your accusation of quote mining, to show that it is

1. Whether or not there is evidence in the Bible for physical phenomena is irrelevent

2. You are completely wrong to claim that there is no physical evidence for what is postulated in evolutionary theory.

3. Your third bit "for the bible to remain true" makes no sense, so frankly I ignored.

And as for me calling you stupid, that is a flat out lie, I called your argument stupid, not you. I do not appreciate having my words so blatantly misrepresented.


And when you say "There is physical evidence for the things you mentioned, so I covered them." I have no clue what you are referring to.

As to my missing your statement, I quoted your ENTIRE post, so I'm not sure what I could miss.

And as to this....

"The bible could read that - God created basic life - In a weeks' time some simple small life became plants and simple animals, some of those simple animals got more complex and even more complex and eventually humans arose. That could serve as a metaphor for evolution, but the Bible pretty much says the opposite of this."

That's a vague explanation without understanding any of the stuff you covered.

It's not as if the creation story in Gen. 1 gave man some special understanding that he couldnt have gotten with my creation story.

Frankly, this isn't an issue of you doubting evolution, but doubting God's word, seeing as you are here claiming you could write it better. Who knows why God didn't ensure Genesis was factually accurate, or bore more of a resemblance to established fact? That's something you'll have to take up with God after you've died.

 

[<3God]

"I stated a fact, b/c there are things in the Bible you cannot take literally."
I can't take them literally? Says who?

 

[gluadys]

I must confess, I am losing my faith. Im trying my best to put on a tough facade.
Evolution makes perfect sense to me and it describes the variety of living things in the world extremely well.

It conflicts with Genesis though. It does - theres no reasonable reading of Genesis that gives you evolution. They cannot both be true. Theres no metaphor that can link Genesis with evolution, that couldnt be better explained by the biblical God just not having a hand in it at all.

I want to believe but its really hard.

You are sharing the pain of many people who have made the same discovery. The important thing to realize at this moment is that you can come through it with your faith intact.

As many others here will tell you, coming to the viewpoint of evolutionary creationism has actually strengthened their faith.

So keep praying and have faith that God will take you step-by-step to a place of peace that accepts both Genesis and evolution if you allow it.

I for one, don't believe that anything in evolution can be "better" explained by saying God had no hand in it. But one may need to revise one's personal concept of what it means for God to have a hand in it.

How can you read that Adam and Eve evolved to become Adam and Eve - even through metaphor?
God said he created Adam from dust after he created the animals - how could this be even imagined as a metaphor for him having evolved from homo etrectus?

Actually, in that story , it says God created the man before he created the animals and the woman afterward. But that's by-the-by. The issue is whether the man and woman depicted in Genesis 2 are specific individuals or personifications of humanity as a whole. The story works as a perfectly good metaphor in the latter case, because one no longer needs it to correspond with a historical chronology. The Hebrew throughout is 'ha-adam' which is the ordinary Hebrew for "human being". Naming the 'ha-adam' in a personal way is not an exegetical necessity. The only place in the original text 'Adam' is presented as a personal name is in the genealogy of Genesis 5 (and its equivalents in later texts).

Also there had to be humanoid females before Adam and Eve, but God said he created Eve from Adam's rib - how's this a metaphor that explains anything about evolution?

It is not a metaphor relating to evolution. It is a metaphor of marriage.

Evidence is not inconsequential.
You dont care if the 1st part of the bible is just completely untrue? - im extrapolating - I know those arent your exact words.

If the genesis account isnt right, what else isnt right? Maybe the story of Jesus isnt right either. Maybe it is right.

The point is If 1 important part of the bible is wrong, I cannot help but doubt other parts of it too.

See, here again, you are denigrating metaphorical description, equating it with "completely untrue" simply and solely because it does not conform to a positivistic "scientific" report of how creation happened. That strikes me as not only a very modern, but very narrow, idea of "truth". Even in secular academia, such a positivist view of truth has been largely abandoned as inadequate. And to go a step further, from a post-modern view, science itself is "just a story".

I don't find either a positivist view or a post-modern view to be adequate Christian perspectives.

If i cannot bring myself to believe in Jesus and God even if i want to I am supposed to be eternally tortured - which doesnt make sense from a just, loving God.

Quite right. But it depends on what one thinks saving belief is.

 

[<3God]

"You have to postulate things that aren't even in the Bible, nor is there any physical evdince for, for the bible to remain true"

I was refering to his random claim that God visited humanity 100-250k years ago. He said without this, the creation doesnt make sense - im paraphrasing.

 

[laconicstudent]

"I stated a fact, b/c there are things in the Bible you cannot take literally."
I can't take them literally? Says who?

Empirical proof. We've said this over and over.

If you really WANT, you can bury your head in the sand and indulge in fanatical belief that isn't based in reality, but realize that no one with an understanding of science will agree with you.

 

[jarrettcpr]

"I stated a fact, b/c there are things in the Bible you cannot take literally."
I can't take them literally? Says who?

For Jesus himself spoke in parables, metaphors, similes, and etc. Those things one cannot take literally.

For they are not meant to be taken literally, but they are meant to be taken seriously.

Have you read the book of Revelation? If so, if you don't mind... do you truly believe that the book of Revelation is 100% literal, and that there is no spiritual or symbolic meaning to those passages in Revelation?

 

[<3God]

"Frankly, this isn't an issue of you doubting evolution, but doubting God's word"

I doubt God's word, yes. It doesn't make sense to me with what I understand of biology (evolution).
I doubt if God's word ( the bible ) is the word of God at all.

 

[gluadys]

Why would God create me already knowing I am going to hell?

Well, John Calvin believed that God created most of humanity already knowing they were going to hell. I am not saying he was right, but there is solid precedent for that belief in an important Christian tradition.

I feel like i have a strong point here, but putting it aside for a sec, isnt it a problem that i will be eternally tortured if I cannot believe even if i want to?

It would be if it were true. But what would be the basis for thinking it is true?

Sorry evolution is like a can of worms for me - it leads to other things

Yes, the "other things" are the real problem. And mostly the problem is that they are erroneously connected with evolution. Anti-evolution rhetoric tends to make evolution out to be much more than it actually is.

But, be specific about some of the other things, and we can discuss them.

Do you think God still loves me even *If* because of evolution, I cant bring myself to believe in him?

Absolutely.

 

[<3God]

Perhaps revelation is neither literal nor figurative, perhaps it was invented by man to scare and control people.

 

[laconicstudent]

"Frankly, this isn't an issue of you doubting evolution, but doubting God's word"

I doubt God's word, yes. It doesn't make sense to me with what I understand of biology (evolution).
I doubt if God's word ( the bible ) is the word of God at all.

No offense, but before starting this again, you should know this is becoming tiresome and has very little mileage left. For someone who now claims to be doubting, you continue to espouse a literal interpretation quite vehemently.

 

[<3God]

"am not saying he was right,"
So God does things that are immoral?

"But what would be the basis for thinking it is true?"
That the only way from hell is belief in God?
Jesus said it - I cannot recall the verse, but this is one of the big tenets of Christianity
someone can im sure recall the verse for me.

Originally Posted by <3God

Do you think God still loves me even *If* because of evolution, I cant bring myself to believe in him?
​

"Absolutely."

Would you send someone you love to be tortured eternally?

 

[laconicstudent]

Originally Posted by <3God

Do you think God still loves me even *If* because of evolution, I cant bring myself to believe in him?
​

"Absolutely."

Would you send someone you love to be tortured eternally?

Belief in Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not you believe in the sinfulness of man, and the need for God's redemptive Grace.

 

[<3God]

Not directly, but if evolution did convince me that the God of the bible isnt real, I couldn't accept the sinfulness of man, and the need for God's redemptive Grace.

Even if Im going about it wrong and evolution says nothing about God, if i was wrong and it caused me to not believe in god I would be eternally tortured, just for being wrong about my idea.

 

[<3God]

""am not saying he was right,"
So God does things that are immoral?"

My mistake here, I thought the he was God, but you are talking about Calvin.

Would you dispute that God knows all though?
If he does, he knew when he created me that I would end up not believing in him and be eternally tortured in hell. Why just not make me in the first place? Id take not being created to an eternity in torture

 

[laconicstudent]

Not directly, but if evolution did convince me that the God of the bible isnt real

There is absolutely no reason that it should. Evolutionary theory doesn't address the issue of God either way, it leaves plenty of room for the existence of God.

, I couldn't accept the sinfulness of man, and the need for God's redemptive Grace.

That is certainly your perogative

Even if Im going about it wrong and evolution says nothing about God, if i was wrong and it caused me to not believe in god I would be eternally tortured, just for being wrong about my idea.

Your fixation on the torture issue and hell disturbs me, if you are getting this from your current church, I recommend you switch churches immediately.

God condemns no one to hell for believing in Evolution, Evolution contains plenty of room for God, people only get condemned to hell for not accepting God's redeeming Grace to absolve their sins.

 

[laconicstudent]

The incorrect assumption being made is that there are only two options:

1. Believe that the Genesis account is literally correct

2. Believe that the Genesis account isn't literally correct.

Unfortunately, you've erroneously associated #2 with the idea that it somehow makes God's Word untrue. This is a lie. The MAJORITY of Christians believe in Evolution, and yet still believe in the Bible.

 

[<3God]

How can I not be fixated on Hell? An eternity of torture and if I died right now I can't say god would judge that i accepted his redeeming Grace to absolve my sins and not send me to hell.

It's not that I don't want to believe. Even if you're right and I just don't get it(which I don't admit- but for sake of argument) and god judges that i dont believe when i die my fate is any eternity of pain. So if I die right now there's a good chance I would go to hell. Shouldn't i be scared?

I got the H1N1 right now by the way.