I'm continuing a thread here originally posted in the Creationism subforum, given that it has strayed from the "fellowship" rule there. The thread was called "Microevolution" and theoddamerican and I were in the midst of dicussing theistic evolution. Given the range of beliefs held by TEs, I hope others might join in the chorus here and express their views on the matter as well...
I certainly wouldn't argue that all online dictionaries have defined evolution incorrectly, but many have. I think you should read through the definition of evolution from dictionary.com again, however. The first definition given relates to organisms becoming "more complex or better." This I take issue with. If you keep reading down, though, you will find:
Likewise, the definition of evolution from a layman's source would likely fall short of a scientist's approval, don't you think? Dictionaries are great for defining simple concepts like "house" or "dog". Big things like "evolution" or "God" are harder to summarize in a sentence.
I completely disagree. This may be the only form of evolution you're familiar with (assuming you're equating adaptation with microevolution), though we've also observed speciation (read: macroevolution) occuring in the wild as well as in the lab. Google "observed speciation" and see what comes up. For starters:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://darwiniana.org/rings.htm#Rings
Which questions of yours have I not answered?
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CC
We've had this discussion here countless times before, re: death before sin, so I suggest that if you want to persue that route, you search the archives first. You may also want to have a read through this informative article, which addresses the issue:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2004/PSCF6-04Snoke.pdf
In a sentence, there's no way of being sure whether physical death entered the world via Adam's original sin, or spiritual death. It's an important distinction to make.
The answer to your question is simple, but lengthy. I'll try to keep it short.
Firstly, you are creating falsy dichotemies where there should be none. The Bible isn't either "all true" or "all false." You have to keep in mind the books of the Bible were written independently by different, thousands of years apart, in some cases. If Genesis includes a mythological account of the creation of the world, why should that discredit, say, the writings of Paul???
Secondly, regardless of whether the Genesis creation account literal occurred or not is irrelevent to the teachings we garner from it. What spiritual lessons did God intend us to take from the story? That we should rest and honour God on the Sabbath? That we are God's favoured creation? That God is all-powerful? Or that birds reproduce "according to their kind"? The Bible was written so that we might come to know God and be saved through Christ. It seems to me the latter detail is unrelated to our salvation. The Bible speaks truth irrespective of whether every story contained within it is historically accurate.
I certainly wouldn't argue that all online dictionaries have defined evolution incorrectly, but many have. I think you should read through the definition of evolution from dictionary.com again, however. The first definition given relates to organisms becoming "more complex or better." This I take issue with. If you keep reading down, though, you will find:
This I have little problem with. Since the type of evolution we are dealing with is biological evolution, it is likely the biological definition of evolution you should be referring to, not the coloquial one.dictionary.com said:
Likewise, the definition of evolution from a layman's source would likely fall short of a scientist's approval, don't you think? Dictionaries are great for defining simple concepts like "house" or "dog". Big things like "evolution" or "God" are harder to summarize in a sentence.
I completely disagree. This may be the only form of evolution you're familiar with (assuming you're equating adaptation with microevolution), though we've also observed speciation (read: macroevolution) occuring in the wild as well as in the lab. Google "observed speciation" and see what comes up. For starters:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://darwiniana.org/rings.htm#Rings
Which questions of yours have I not answered?
This is just a rediculous lie, which is probably why you got no reply. "All ape men have been disproved"? What do you mean by this? Certainly, there have been a few hoaxes 100+ years ago, but these were revealed by evolutionary scienists, as you admit. This hardly puts a dent the theory, however. We've moved on in the last hundred years, found more specimens, and have solidified the hominid phylogeny. I think most of the "disproved ape men" you're thinking of are well addressed here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CC
This is just baloney. Are you implying that we are saved through a disbelief in evolution? If so, you wouldn't be the first creationist I've heard say that. If one thing is clear to me as a Christian, it that we are saved through a faith in Christ, not in a literal interpretation of Genesis. I trust even the earlier Christian scientists knew this.
We've had this discussion here countless times before, re: death before sin, so I suggest that if you want to persue that route, you search the archives first. You may also want to have a read through this informative article, which addresses the issue:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2004/PSCF6-04Snoke.pdf
In a sentence, there's no way of being sure whether physical death entered the world via Adam's original sin, or spiritual death. It's an important distinction to make.
The answer to your question is simple, but lengthy. I'll try to keep it short.
Firstly, you are creating falsy dichotemies where there should be none. The Bible isn't either "all true" or "all false." You have to keep in mind the books of the Bible were written independently by different, thousands of years apart, in some cases. If Genesis includes a mythological account of the creation of the world, why should that discredit, say, the writings of Paul???
Secondly, regardless of whether the Genesis creation account literal occurred or not is irrelevent to the teachings we garner from it. What spiritual lessons did God intend us to take from the story? That we should rest and honour God on the Sabbath? That we are God's favoured creation? That God is all-powerful? Or that birds reproduce "according to their kind"? The Bible was written so that we might come to know God and be saved through Christ. It seems to me the latter detail is unrelated to our salvation. The Bible speaks truth irrespective of whether every story contained within it is historically accurate.
