Scripture and Creation

[The Lady Kate]

Can someone obey God and not be fallible while doing so?

Absolutely not. Any time man is given a choice, there exists the possibility of doing it wrong.

But what if their 'free will' was to to obey God and do as He says?

Do as he says... how?

In a perfect world that would be true, but alas, we don't live in such a world yet. Maybe soon.

That doesn't mean we can't try to be objective.

I would hope and expect the Christian scientist to have fewer ethical lapses, wouldn't you?

No, I wouldn't. Are Christians immune to error?

That's the beauty of God's Word, it was written for them and us, it is timeless.

Not all of it is so timeless, actually, unless you want to enforce the Levitical laws.

Just look at how our Constitution, which is simple and clear to understand, and how we've butchered that wonderful document.

You mean "Amended" that wonderful document, making it more applicable to the here and now?

Oh, on the contrary, they're input and history colors much of what we know, but it doesn't change the message.

But of course it does! The message is whatever they tell us it is.

Oh no, it just means we don't need to know other things when it comes to what is most important, our relationship to God and how to live our lives.

None of which requires a literal Genesis.

We still need to know about how to do our jobs, use the technology available, invent or discover, etc. The point is, none of those things are essential.

Nor is a six-day creation, or the mental contortions required to shoehorn it into what we know about the world around us.

Unfortunately, there always will be extremists amoung us.

Quite so.

C'mon you've got to admit if I approach my study of Creation as an atheist who believe in evolution, I am going to look at the 'evidence' with a different set of eyes than if I were a Christian who believes in the Bible. Again, in a perfect world your statement might hold up.

As would a Muslim, a Buddhist, or a Aborigine Indian. And yet most of them look at the same evidence... objectively... and arrive at similar conclusions. It's only a tiny but vocal sect of Christianity who thinks that "believing in the Bible" means YEC.

There's a difference between a different set of eyes and a closed set.

No, but it does mean that we should be like the Bereans and whatever is promoted must be held up to Scripture.

To "Scripture," or "To one extrememly limited way of reading Scripture"?

 

[Critias]

It's certainly possible to misinterpret either...

Ain't that the truth!

You don't think Genesis contains any poety, allegory, or mythology? On what do you base that belief?

I do, I just don't think Genesis 1-11 is all poetry, allegory and mythology. The TEs I have talked to do.

Which is the best that we as fallible humans can do... the best we can with what we have.

I agree. But we must realize that this is the best we can do and not call it a fact because it is our best guess. Fact does not equal best guess.

Now, some or many TEs here may not agree with many other evolutionists assertion that ToE is all fact not theory.

It still doesn't say that God wanted it to be read as a straight-up literal history. God has shown His creativity in His Creation; why must His word lack it?

No, it doesn't. I does help gives us a better understanding of how God used these Holy Men to write what He wanted to be said.

I don't think God's word lacks creativity. Proverbs, Psalms and wisdom are all clever and creative sayings about living a godly and righteous life; giving praise to God.

Of course. Must I revere them as infallible demi-Gods, or accept them as men charged with the daunting task of presenting God's message to His people?

No, you don't have to do anything. I am curious why, you being a Christian, are skeptical of men sent from God to proclaim His message? Do you think that they may not be telling the truth?

Hardly a "hidden" agenda.

No, thank God!

You've just proven that all men are fallible.

And I wouldn't be trying to assert otherwise. When God is involved, it is possible for man to speak from God, giving an infallible teaching. It is not the man that is infallible, it is the word from God given to man to speak that is.

If Jesus came up to you, right now, and said, 'I am the bread of life.' And then you told me this, would this message now be wrong because your mouth said Jesus' words?

I was referring to the peers of their particular time. Many believed that the world was to end soon... not much point thinking about the distant future.

One great thing about God, His message is timeless. His message was for the people of that day as well as for us today.


We shouldn't be spending our time making plans for tomorrow, we should be spending our time living for Christ today.

So you say, but I find Fingerprints to be far clearer on His creation.

And that is fine. I just view it differently because I feel God's Spirit is more trustworthy than scientists.

But not all we need to know.

I would disagree on the grounds of Jesus' teachings, Paul's teaching in 2 Timothy, Romans and Peter's in 2 Peter.

But that's not the fault of evolution.

No, it's not. It is the evolutionists fault.

Is that why Christ did it? For the glory?

For His Fathers Glory, which is His.

As a Christian we ought to start with Christ as our presupposition.

And what you know of Christ, what He did for us on that cross, we know because of the Bible.

Agreed. and again, TE is not to blame for that.

No, but some TE's are. There are some that think God shouldn't be discussed, shouldn't be heard because it is inappropriate.

I am not sure how recent this is, but the ACLU is trying to get several people who are teachers and administrators of a public school thrown in jail because they started one of their meetings with a prayer.

Is that one of those inappropriate places to mention God? Would you support throwing Christians in jail because they mention God in inappropriate places? How about losing their jobs or being fined?

That says it all, doesn't it?

I would if you take it out of context. Don't just try and take the bold by itself. I explained what I meant with the following sentence.

There are literal truths in the Bible that I am sure you accept, so the charge of literalism is a blanket charge that would apply to you if you took anything literal in the Bible.

When have I rejected God's word? What I have rejected is one particular way of reading His word.

I can't say when you have rejected God's word. When did it start to become ok for us to dictate how we want to read Scripture, therefore changing the intended meaning of it?

Evolution is not Atheism, as you must surely know by now. Nor is evolution incompatible with it.

Don't you really mean:

God -> Holy Men -> Bible -> Literalism -> You -> YEC?

I agree, evolution is not = to Atheism. Evolution is highly compatible with Atheism and incompatible with sound Christian doctrine.

Now, if you want to add in this new framework, lets be fair then:


God -> Holy Men -> Bible -> YEC -> literal Genesis

Creation -> Scientists -> ToE -> TE -> mythical Genesis

I do. Sadly you do not.

Oh, I do. We just won't agree on what we both see.

Who's keeping quiet about God? We still believe He created the world, and give him glory for it... I, for one, stand in awe at the boundless patience and subtlety he used to gently guide this world into what I believe He wanted it to be.

Those who agree that there are inappropriate places to mention God, say like school.

Must it be "wrong" if it disagrees with you?

Of course not. It is wrong if it disagrees with the Bible, God's word.

I see Genesis as serving a different, but no less important, purpose.

Well, then we disagree. I see Genesis as foresight of God knowing that we would be searching for our origins. He knew that we would come up with theories that didn't give Him any credit. So, here His word stands, telling that He created in six days.

 

[The Lady Kate]

I agree. But we must realize that this is the best we can do and not call it a fact because it is our best guess. Fact does not equal best guess.

It equals "fact to the best of our admittedly limited knowledge," which is as good as it gets for Scripture as well as creation... as well as anything else.

Now, some or many TEs here may not agree with many other evolutionists assertion that ToE is all fact not theory.

Well, in response to the "Evolution is only a theory!!!!!oneoneone" rubbish that is all too commonly posted, it should be known that evolution is a fact and a theory.

No, it doesn't. I does help gives us a better understanding of how God used these Holy Men to write what He wanted to be said.

And the question remains, what exactly did He want said? A step-by-step account of how he assembled this planet from spare parts, or a story about the relationship He wishes with us?

I don't think God's word lacks creativity. Proverbs, Psalms and wisdom are all clever and creative sayings about living a godly and righteous life; giving praise to God.

And Genesis is not?

No, you don't have to do anything. I am curious why, you being a Christian, are skeptical of men sent from God to proclaim His message? Do you think that they may not be telling the truth?

I'm skeptical of any man who claims to be sent by God... until I have reason to believe. Do you believe everything you hear?

And this has nothing to do with skepticism...it's about fallibility. You consider "Inspired" to be the same as "infallible." I do not.

And I wouldn't be trying to assert otherwise. When God is involved, it is possible for man to speak from God, giving an infallible teaching. It is not the man that is infallible, it is the word from God given to man to speak that is.

And anything infallible which passes through fallible hands (or lips) becomes.... fallible.

Never underestimate fallible man's ability to drop the ball.

If Jesus came up to you, right now, and said, 'I am the bread of life.' And then you told me this, would this message now be wrong because your mouth said Jesus' words?

Would you believe me if I said Jesus told me was craving a grilled cheese sandwich?

One great thing about God, His message is timeless. His message was for the people of that day as well as for us today.

The message is timeless... the medium is not. Oral tradition, poetry, and allegory were par for the course in ancient times. Had the Bible been compiled today, it'd probably be a documentary movie.... or at the very least a reality show.

We shouldn't be spending our time making plans for tomorrow, we should be spending our time living for Christ today.

And since the gospel writers believed there wasn't going to be a tomorrow, they certainly paid little heed to how future generations would interpret their words.

And that is fine. I just view it differently because I feel God's Spirit is more trustworthy than scientists.

There you go, substituting "God's Spirit" for "The Bible Authors."
If you want to believe that an inspired man can be infallible when he writes, and that you can be infallible when you read, that's your business.

I would disagree on the grounds of Jesus' teachings, Paul's teaching in 2 Timothy, Romans and Peter's in 2 Peter.

Then that's it. Close down the labs.... there's nothing more worth leaning.

No, it's not. It is the evolutionists fault.

Got any in particular in mind? The TEs, perhaps?

For His Fathers Glory, which is His.

So... that's a yes, then.

And what you know of Christ, what He did for us on that cross, we know because of the Bible.

So praise the message, not the book.

No, but some TE's are. There are some that think God shouldn't be discussed, shouldn't be heard because it is inappropriate.

Not very theistic for a Theistic Evolutionist, are they?

I am not sure how recent this is, but the ACLU is trying to get several people who are teachers and administrators of a public school thrown in jail because they started one of their meetings with a prayer.

Well, government-endorsed prayer is against the law. Write your congressman.

Is that one of those inappropriate places to mention God? Would you support throwing Christians in jail because they mention God in inappropriate places? How about losing their jobs or being fined?

People who break the law should be punished. If the law is wrong, or is interpreted wrong, then it needs to be changed. I ask for no special treatment from civil authorities because of my beliefs. Do you?

I would if you take it out of context. Don't just try and take the bold by itself. I explained what I meant with the following sentence.

So if a few words are literal, they're all literal?

There are literal truths in the Bible that I am sure you accept, so the charge of literalism is a blanket charge that would apply to you if you took anything literal in the Bible.

Huh?

I can't say when you have rejected God's word. When did it start to become ok for us to dictate how we want to read Scripture, therefore changing the intended meaning of it?

About the time we started trying to figure out what the intended meaning was in the first place, I would say.

I agree, evolution is not = to Atheism. Evolution is highly compatible with Atheism and incompatible with sound Christian doctrine.

So you say... I disagree that it is incompatable. I think my doctrine is quite sound.

Now, if you want to add in this new framework, lets be fair then:


God -> Holy Men -> Bible -> YEC -> literal Genesis

Creation -> Scientists -> ToE -> TE -> mythical Genesis

If you say so.

Oh, I do. We just won't agree on what we both see.

Fortunate for either or both of us that God will forgive our disagreement.

Those who agree that there are inappropriate places to mention God, say like school.

Or any other government institution covered by the First and fourteenth amendments.

Of course not. It is wrong if it disagrees with the Bible, God's word.

Whatever we finally decide God's word really means.

Well, then we disagree. I see Genesis as foresight of God knowing that we would be searching for our origins.

And in that I disagree. Every ancient civilization has a creation story. Surely one doesn't need to be a God to realize that people will start asking "Where did we come from?" or "Why are we here?" Pretty soon.

He knew that we would come up with theories that didn't give Him any credit. So, here His word stands, telling that He created in six days.

Except that TEs give God the credit. So where's the problem?

 

[Critias]

It equals "fact to the best of our admittedly limited knowledge," which is as good as it gets for Scripture as well as creation... as well as anything else.

Then the word fact is taken quite liberally.

Well, in response to the "Evolution is only a theory!!!!!oneoneone" rubbish that is all too commonly posted, it should be known that evolution is a fact and a theory.

You do have a point. Many Creationists refer to common descent as evolution; macro-evolution. They don't often clarify so they get judged for not clarifying.

Yes, creatures adapt to their environment. They don't have much choice in the matter, either make do or die.

But, to go from the primordial soup to man is quite a stretch for science. More like science fiction, if you ask me.

What's odd is that it relies heavily on mutations for complexity when mutations are purely random and more than 90% are either neuteral or having a negative affect. Rarely are they ever positive. Then it is stated that evolution, common descent, is not random.

What an odd thing to say, in my opinion. It is built on complete randomness yet it is not random. It is like saying the the moon is made of cheese but it isn't, but it really is.

And the question remains, what exactly did He want said? A step-by-step account of how he assembled this planet from spare parts, or a story about the relationship He wishes with us?

Actually, I think you could answer this quite well. The Christian beliefs, including creation, are all about faith. There is no micro-step by step description of how God created. Instead we have a macro-step by step description of how God created.

See, scientists and those who follow them want microscopic evidence of everything. Now, I don't think this is all that bad, except when you start dismissing every explanation that isn't microscopic.

It is often a TE claim that Genesis doesn't give us a [microscopic] account of how God created. They are right! It doesn't! We don't need it! We take it by faith that when it says six days the earth and the heavens and all that is in them was created that that is how it was done.

If you want to assert that evolution happened in six days, fantastic!

And Genesis is not?

You must have missed the part where I said Genesis has this, but Genesis 1-11 isn't completely full of mythology, allegories, figures of speech, etc. It uses such language of allegories and figures of speech, but it isn't completely all that style.

It would help you better understand if you took some time, sometime, to look into the Hebrew structure of Genesis and do a comparative analysis of it.

I'm skeptical of any man who claims to be sent by God... until I have reason to believe. Do you believe everything you hear?

And this has nothing to do with skepticism...it's about fallibility. You consider "Inspired" to be the same as "infallible." I do not.

No, I don't believe everything I hear. I am convinced that the Bible does give us God's teachings. So, I see no need to be skeptical of the Holy Men God picked out to use. I think God is quite capable of getting His message through.

Your second point I will touch on with another comment you made below.

And anything infallible which passes through fallible hands (or lips) becomes.... fallible.

Never underestimate fallible man's ability to drop the ball.

I disagree. When we talk about fallibility in the Bible we aren't talking about the ability to make an error, but rather it being an error.

I agree that man, when given a message from God, can make an error in presenting it by his choice. This is why God chose Holy Men to write the books we read in the Bible. They are committed to follow God and thus God sent them His Spirit and move them as the wind moves a boat to write what God wanted to be written. Thus, I believe, the message that is written is infallible even though it passed through fallible men.

I do not agree that because men are fallible that God cannot get His message to mankind because it will be error filled.

Lastly, you are undermining the Gospel accounts by your statement above. You are bringing to the table that the accounts of Jesus Christ here on earth are error filled. If they are, and we don't know where every error is, we cannot trust the Gospel accounts to be truly accurate.

You will have to explain your position better on which approach you are taking to fallibility. Is it "possiblity to error" or "is in error". The true definition of fallibility is the former, but it is often used as the latter.

Would you believe me if I said Jesus told me was craving a grilled cheese sandwich?

I would probably ask you, did He really tell you that?

Should I assume that you are liar before hand?

The message is timeless... the medium is not. Oral tradition, poetry, and allegory were par for the course in ancient times. Had the Bible been compiled today, it'd probably be a documentary movie.... or at the very least a reality show.

I underlined the above. Have you studied the Hebrew language enough to make this assertion?

And since the gospel writers believed there wasn't going to be a tomorrow, they certainly paid little heed to how future generations would interpret their words.

I don't get that same feeling that they believed tomorrow wouldn't come. I do think they thought Jesus could come back at any moment. Do you have Scripture that you feel supports this belief of no tomorrow?

There you go, substituting "God's Spirit" for "The Bible Authors."
If you want to believe that an inspired man can be infallible when he writes, and that you can be infallible when you read, that's your business.

That is because it was God's Spirit that moved them to write what God wanted to written. Or do you think Peter was in error in 2 Peter 1?

Remember, I made it quite clear that it was not the man who was infallible when writing God's message. The message is infallible, because it is God's message and God doesn't error.

Then that's it. Close down the labs.... there's nothing more worth leaning.

You think Creation can teach us how to be righteous? How to be saved by the Blood of Lamb?

Got any in particular in mind? The TEs, perhaps?

Not really, you?

So... that's a yes, then.

Aye.

So praise the message, not the book.

Who is praising the book. I just told you that YECs praise the God for His message, not the book. Why this assertion now?

Not very theistic for a Theistic Evolutionist, are they?

That is why theistic evolution makes no sense.

Well, government-endorsed prayer is against the law. Write your congressman.

People who break the law should be punished. If the law is wrong, or is interpreted wrong, then it needs to be changed. I ask for no special treatment from civil authorities because of my beliefs. Do you?

So you agree then? Christians who pray in the wrong place need to go to jail?

Do you agree too that the Apostles should have been murdered? It was against the law to do what they were doing, spreading the Gospel. The punishment was death for not bowing down and worshipping Caesar and denying God.

By your statement above it would seem that you would agree that the Apostles deserved their death and were wrong to spread the word about Jesus Christ.

So if a few words are literal, they're all literal?

And I never said that. I don't follow the approach that many TEs here want to pin on creationists: if you read Genesis 1-3 as literal history then you are a literalists who takes everything literally.

That is no better than name calling and lying.

Huh?



About the time we started trying to figure out what the intended meaning was in the first place, I would say.

Learn Hebrew then. Do a comparative analysis.

So you say... I disagree that it is incompatable. I think my doctrine is quite sound.

All TEs agree with you.

If you say so.



Fortunate for either or both of us that God will forgive our disagreement.

Amen!

Or any other government institution covered by the First and fourteenth amendments.

One day, God's name will not be allowed to spoken anywhere. Shall you follow the law that will govern this or shall you follow Christ's commandment to preach about Him?

Whatever we finally decide God's word really means.

Oddly, as hard as this is for TEs to understand, we don't decide what God means to say.

And in that I disagree. Every ancient civilization has a creation story. Surely one doesn't need to be a God to realize that people will start asking "Where did we come from?" or "Why are we here?" Pretty soon.

Yes, and you don't see that as ironic at all, do you?

Except that TEs give God the credit. So where's the problem?

That some TEs here support being quiet and not sharing God because it is inappropriate to do so by mans standard. That TEs here support Christians going to jail because they prayed.

Thats the problem, Christians support being quiet about God and support Christians going to jail for praying. Truly Sad.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Then the word fact is taken quite liberally.

Or at least the meaning is abbriviated. Anything fallible man says sould come with the unspoken caveat: "But of course, I could be wrong."

You do have a point. Many Creationists refer to common descent as evolution; macro-evolution. They don't often clarify so they get judged for not clarifying.

And Evolutionists get judged for not clarifying "fact" as "Fact to the best of our knowledge based on what we know."

Yes, creatures adapt to their environment. They don't have much choice in the matter, either make do or die.

Well, there's a choice... just not a particularly pleasant one...

But, to go from the primordial soup to man is quite a stretch for science. More like science fiction, if you ask me.

I didn't ask, but you're entitled to your informed opinion as much as the next person.

What's odd is that it relies heavily on mutations for complexity when mutations are purely random and more than 90% are either neuteral or having a negative affect. Rarely are they ever positive. Then it is stated that evolution, common descent, is not random.

Mutations are random... the effect of natural selection is not. Previously, I used the example of pulling Scrabble tiles out of a bag. The letters are random. Are the words formed also random?

What an odd thing to say, in my opinion. It is built on complete randomness yet it is not random. It is like saying the the moon is made of cheese but it isn't, but it really is.

Except, as I just said, it is not built on complete randomness, only partial randomness. Don't forget natural selection.

Or is it impossible to form coherent words out of a handful of Scrabble tiles?

Actually, I think you could answer this quite well. The Christian beliefs, including creation, are all about faith. There is no micro-step by step description of how God created. Instead we have a macro-step by step description of how God created.

Micro- and Macro- Creationism now? Will the made-up terms never cease?

See, scientists and those who follow them want microscopic evidence of everything. Now, I don't think this is all that bad, except when you start dismissing every explanation that isn't microscopic.

You lost me here. What exactly is a "microscopic" explanation?

It is often a TE claim that Genesis doesn't give us a [microscopic] account of how God created. They are right! It doesn't! We don't need it! We take it by faith that when it says six days the earth and the heavens and all that is in them was created that that is how it was done.

And turn off our brains from that point forward? Write off the rest as "Not worth studying"? Sorry, that's not the way we're wired... as God knows perfectly well.

If you want to assert that evolution happened in six days, fantastic!

Why would I want to do that?

You must have missed the part where I said Genesis has this, but Genesis 1-11 isn't completely full of mythology, allegories, figures of speech, etc. It uses such language of allegories and figures of speech, but it isn't completely all that style.

Even the most outrageous myth (And I'm certainly not saying that Genesis is outrageous) is built on a few facts. History and mythology often tend to get comingled in ancient cultures.

It would help you better understand if you took some time, sometime, to look into the Hebrew structure of Genesis and do a comparative analysis of it.

It may certainly give me a more detailed knowledge of Hebrew beliefs and literary styles. My brother is a World Literature teacher...I'll pick his brain when I get a chance.

No, I don't believe everything I hear. I am convinced that the Bible does give us God's teachings. So, I see no need to be skeptical of the Holy Men God picked out to use. I think God is quite capable of getting His message through.

And so He has. but what was the message?

I disagree. When we talk about fallibility in the Bible we aren't talking about the ability to make an error, but rather it being an error.

No, to be fallible is to be capable of error. Men are always fallible.
It is not an issue of the Bible author's fallibility, but our own. When we say "It's literal," or "It's allegorical," are we correct?

I agree that man, when given a message from God, can make an error in presenting it by his choice. This is why God chose Holy Men to write the books we read in the Bible. They are committed to follow God and thus God sent them His Spirit and move them as the wind moves a boat to write what God wanted to be written. Thus, I believe, the message that is written is infallible even though it passed through fallible men.

So holy men are incapable of error?

I do not agree that because men are fallible that God cannot get His message to mankind because it will be error filled.

I don't agree either...but that's not what I'm saying. I'm not saying that God cannot do it, but that He did not do it. God could've easily hardwired everything we need to know directly into our brains...yet He chose not to.

Lastly, you are undermining the Gospel accounts by your statement above. You are bringing to the table that the accounts of Jesus Christ here on earth are error filled.

Not at all... merely capable of error, and certainly capable of being read erroniously.

If they are, and we don't know where every error is, we cannot trust the Gospel accounts to be truly accurate.

And that's why we call it faith. because we cannot be sure. The whole thing might (and I stress "might") be an utter fabrication, yet we choose to have faith.

I have faith that despite man's fallibility and literary embelleshments, God's message got through... just not on the surface.

You will have to explain your position better on which approach you are taking to fallibility. Is it "possiblity to error" or "is in error". The true definition of fallibility is the former, but it is often used as the latter.

I already have. Because men are capable of error, the Scriptures may contain errors. But that's not the point. The point is that we also contain the possibility of error when we read and interpret scripture.

I would probably ask you, did He really tell you that?

Should I assume that you are liar before hand?

When I answer "of course! And a diet Dr. Pepper to wash it down." what will you assume then?

I underlined the above. Have you studied the Hebrew language enough to make this assertion?

Never mind the language, study the culture. Ancient civilizations, particularly those which survived on oral tradition, relied heavily on allegory and poetry. Are the Hebrews so different?

I don't get that same feeling that they believed tomorrow wouldn't come. I do think they thought Jesus could come back at any moment. Do you have Scripture that you feel supports this belief of no tomorrow?

Read Matthew 24: Jesus' speech to his disciples about the End Times.

[BIBLE]Matthew 24:34[/BIBLE]

Jesus himself certainly made it clear to his disciples that they are on borrowed time.

That is because it was God's Spirit that moved them to write what God wanted to written. Or do you think Peter was in error in 2 Peter 1?

Where's the connection to YEC or Literalism? Peter just says that the Gospel writers were eyewitnesses.

Remember, I made it quite clear that it was not the man who was infallible when writing God's message. The message is infallible, because it is God's message and God doesn't error.

Apparantly, neither does man.

You think Creation can teach us how to be righteous? How to be saved by the Blood of Lamb?

You think that's the point?

Who is praising the book. I just told you that YECs praise the God for His message, not the book. Why this assertion now?

Which message?

That is why theistic evolution makes no sense.

Makes perfect sense to me.

So you agree then? Christians who pray in the wrong place need to go to jail?

Government officials who use their position and government resources to promote their religious beliefs on others need to be stopped. Take it up with the framers of the Constitution.

Do you agree too that the Apostles should have been murdered? It was against the law to do what they were doing, spreading the Gospel. The punishment was death for not bowing down and worshipping Caesar and denying God.

Apples and oranges. Because Christians were once persecuted by those in power, do they now have the right to do the same once they themselves attian power?

By your statement above it would seem that you would agree that the Apostles deserved their death and were wrong to spread the word about Jesus Christ.

Only if my statement is twisted beyond all recognition.

And I never said that. I don't follow the approach that many TEs here want to pin on creationists: if you read Genesis 1-3 as literal history then you are a literalists who takes everything literally.

That is no better than name calling and lying.

Oh, relax.

Learn Hebrew then. Do a comparative analysis.

To what point and purpose?

All TEs agree with you.

Of course they do. Who would hold to a doctrine that they believed wasn't sound?

One day, God's name will not be allowed to spoken anywhere.

Doubtful (as you can probably guess. I see Revelation as allegorical too)

Shall you follow the law that will govern this or shall you follow Christ's commandment to preach about Him?

I will give unto Caesar what is due to Caesar, and give unto God what is due to God.

Oddly, as hard as this is for TEs to understand, we don't decide what God means to say.

Of course you do! That's what "interpretation" is.

Yes, and you don't see that as ironic at all, do you?

not in the slightest. Nothing ironic about curiosity.

That some TEs here support being quiet and not sharing God because it is inappropriate to do so by mans standard. That TEs here support Christians going to jail because they prayed.

Once more, please, with the actual facts...?

Thats the problem, Christians support being quiet about God and support Christians going to jail for praying. Truly Sad.

it would be, if that were truly the case.

 

[vossler]

Absolutely not. Any time man is given a choice, there exists the possibility of doing it wrong.

Yes, the possibility exists, but couldn't the possibility that he got it right exist, especially when the Holy Spirit is leading you?

Do as he says... how?

Write down His Word as He wanted him to.

That doesn't mean we can't try to be objective.

What about when that objectivity contradicts the Bible?

No, I wouldn't. Are Christians immune to error?

C'mon you don't have to challenge everything I say. I said fewer ethical lapses, you can't actually believe there's no difference between a Christian and a non-Christian.

Not all of it is so timeless, actually, unless you want to enforce the Levitical laws.

If it isn't timeless and appropriate, why do you study it?

You mean "Amended" that wonderful document, making it more applicable to the here and now?

Again, you're seemingly challenging something just for the sake of argument. Truly, you can't believe that the 1st Amendment is applied today the way our forefathers intended it or that how we're using it today is more applicable?

But of course it does! The message is whatever they tell us it is.

Yes it is whatever they tell us, that's the point. It isn't what believe the hidden meaning to be.

None of which requires a literal Genesis.

Who said anything about it requiring a literal Genesis?

As would a Muslim, a Buddhist, or a Aborigine Indian. And yet most of them look at the same evidence... objectively... and arrive at similar conclusions. It's only a tiny but vocal sect of Christianity who thinks that "believing in the Bible" means YEC.

There's a difference between a different set of eyes and a closed set.

It is not nearly as tiny of group of people as you would lead us to believe. Most national polls tell us that approximately 50% of people believe in evolution.

To "Scripture," or "To one extrememly limited way of reading Scripture"?

The correct reading of Scripture, which sometimes can and does appear extreme.

 

[gluadys]

Yes there is knowledge over and above what we need to know that is practical and useful in this life and/or interesting to know for its own sake and no it is not forbidden to seek it.

Sorry for the delay in answering. I have scarcely had any time this last two weeks, but I can be more regular now.

And thanks for this reply. What we need to know, and what we do know are not the same thing and I am glad you do not consider everything we do know over and above what we need to know to be out of bounds.

So by your definition, if we have a bigger drop of knowledge in our bucket today than we did 500 years ago, no faith is required to ascertain the knowledge missing in the bucket.

That is correct. No faith is needed regarding missing knowledge. Only the patience to wait until the missing knowledge is found. Science is built on knowledge we are aware of, not on missing knowledge.

Well that's quite a stretch you've got there. You've won the lottery on our origins. Since the 'game' is over, so to speak, everything else is obsolete. Tell me, how many times over the past 150 years has evolution itself evolved into something different?

Basically once, when the modern synthesis (aka neo-Darwinism) brought genetics, mutations and natural selection together. This did not change Darwin's orginal thesis much, but it set it in a more comprehensive framework. There have also been a few minor tweakings, such as punctuated equilibrium.

The discovery of the structure of DNA and the subsequent work in molecular biology has not resulted in any major change in the theory, but rather confirmed the modern synthesis as being basically correct. It has added an immense amount of knowledge about evolution without generating any different theory of evolution.

At what point, during this time, did the 'game' end;

That would be a matter of opinion. Some candidates would be:
the development of the modern synthesis
the observation of speciation
the concordance of the nested hierarchy based on morphology with the nested hierarchies based on DNA analysis.

and if it has ended with only a drop (a big one at that) of the evidence in the bucket, what does that say about the rules that evolution operates under?

The science of evolution operates under precisely the same rules as any other field of science.

The answer is; the rules themselves, based on changing evidence, have evolved also over the same period of time.

So what rules have changed and how?

Then this drop of evidence, which is based on years of study by many people, is now called truth, and this new truth has thereby called all arguments against it obsolete.

And why should it not be called truth? You would make the case that a thorough study of scripture is the basis for knowing the truth of scripture, no? Why go for a double standard and refuse the same to science?

Obsolete arguments, dating from a time before more recent evidence came to light, are indeed obsolete. Just as arguments for geocentrism or the phlogisten theory of fire are obsolete in light of current knowledge.

If evolution were true and I denied it, it would be me who failed to accept the evidence man accumulated in his effort to find the truth of God's Creation and thereby I would have failed in my effort, or lack thereof, to find the truth. It was up to me, throught the evidence, to have figured out that God was speaking allogorically or mythologically when He said 6 days. This should, according to you, be considered a failure to glorify God.

Yes, I would consider a failure to acknowledge God's truth to be a failure to glorify God.

If a young earth is true and you denied it, it would be you who failed to trust that when God said 6 days He actually meant 6 days. But because you trusted man's measurements and intelligence and not God's word, you will have failed in your attempt to figure out His Creation. It would be true that you denied the truth of His Word and thereby you would have failed to honor and glorify God, but honored and glorified yourself.

Right. More or less. I would not consider it glorifying myself, but maybe glorifying human so-called knowledge.

The question then is not which story glorifies God. We know the true story glorifies God, which ever it is. The question is, which is the true story and how do we know?

If God's creation appears to say one thing and God's scripture appears to say another, something is wrong somewhere, and it is not in the actual testimony of creation, nor in the actual testimony of scripture, but in our fallible and incomplete understanding of one or the other or both.

How do we test out which it is?

As far as I can see, we have a hard enough time determining present history with any clarity, yet accounts of what happened 'millions' of years ago seem to become very easy, quite clear and factual to the point of being considered truth for you. Interesting!

All our knowledge of history is partial, of course. But if we can have any true knowledge of any part of history, it doesn't really make any difference whether the history is recent or not. What matters is the quality and consistency of the evidence.

Now, according to your statement, if I were to exercise dominion without loving the animals you would consider that harsh and indifferent. So how is a rancher to do his job without being, in some way indifferent and even harsh to the animals he raises and slaughters? What about the man who raises chickens? Certainly these people are not loving these animals, so according to you; are these people sinners? Do they need to repent and fall on their faces before God?

This is just my opinion, but I think the primary thing would be not to raise them in the harsh conditions of factory farms and feedlots. Remember that they are taking care of God's creatures and not treat them as if they were machines.

Here is Genesis 1:20-25

I don’t see anything where God tells us that He loves animals or that we’re to love the animals.

You don't? I am puzzled. How could you miss it?

God is love. Creation is an act of love. How could God not love what he created?

God made us in his image. How can we not be created to love what God loves?

God gave the care of creation into our hands. Would he give what he created and loves into our hands without willing that we love and care for it as he does?

No, I looked before I spoke and I think you’ll find that there isn’t a single place in Scripture where God tells me that He loves animals and wants us to care for them with love.

Yet the law makes provision for the loving care of animals e.g "You shall not muzzle the ox as it treads the grain."

And Jesus speaks of his care for sparrows and lilies.

One of the first hymns I learned as a child was "God sees the little sparrow fall" with its concluding refrain of "Because God loves the little things, I know he loves me too."

Do you think that hymn misrepresents God's intention toward animals?

 

[The Lady Kate]

Yes, the possibility exists, but couldn't the possibility that he got it right exist, especially when the Holy Spirit is leading you?

Of course, but possibility is never certainty... especially when free will is involved.
And to what extend did the Holy Spirit lead? A word-for-word dictation, like the Koran supposedly is?

Write down His Word as He wanted him to.

I'm afraid I don't quite have your insight into the mind and intention of God.

What about when that objectivity contradicts the Bible?

Objectivity is essential in the pursuit of truth. How can that contradict the Bible's teachings?

C'mon you don't have to challenge everything I say.

Of course not... but I choose to challenge that which I disagree with.

I said fewer ethical lapses, you can't actually believe there's no difference between a Christian and a non-Christian.

No... but neither do I believe that a Christian is automatically more ethical than a non-Christian. We are not better than anyone else, remember?

If it isn't timeless and appropriate, why do you study it?

Because much of it is. It takes study to discover which parts apply to us, and which apply to the people of the time.

Again, you're seemingly challenging something just for the sake of argument. Truly, you can't believe that the 1st Amendment is applied today the way our forefathers intended it or that how we're using it today is more applicable?

Actually, that's exactly what I believe. Our forefathers wanted no religious institution, not even their own, to be endorsed by the government at the expense of others. The 14th amendment extends that protection to include endorsement from any government institution.

And I'll thank you to not tell me what I can and cannot believe... truly.

Yes it is whatever they tell us, that's the point. It isn't what believe the hidden meaning to be.

I said "they" meaning current Biblical Literalists.

Who said anything about it requiring a literal Genesis?

Just every YEC from here to heaven.

It is not nearly as tiny of group of people as you would lead us to believe. Most national polls tell us that approximately 50% of people believe in evolution.

A poll of a sample of a single country, with a poor educational systems for an industrialized nation. Not a ringing endorsement.

The correct reading of Scripture, which sometimes can and does appear extreme.

And ALWAYS can and does appear to be identical to the personal view of whomever is calling it "correct."

 

[vossler]

Sorry for the delay in answering. I have scarcely had any time this last two weeks, but I can be more regular now.

Welcome back, even though we may not see eye to eye on a lot things I always enjoy our dialog. You challenge me and that’s good for me!

And thanks for this reply. What we need to know, and what we do know are not the same thing and I am glad you do not consider everything we do know over and above what we need to know to be out of bounds.

Is that an impression you got for me or others here?

That is correct. No faith is needed regarding missing knowledge. Only the patience to wait until the missing knowledge is found. Science is built on knowledge we are aware of, not on missing knowledge.

I guess it would depend on how you define what knowledge we are aware of. From my point of view, evolution bases its knowledge on hypotheses’ it cannot prove; the missing link, which is missing knowledge. So I don’t have a problem with science if it doesn’t make claims that cannot be substantiated. Evolution requires faith in missing knowledge.

So what rules have changed and how?

Looks like I may have misspoke. The actual rules, from as much as I know, haven’t changed all that much. I guess the confusion comes from how the evidence is continually being updated, sometimes just to match previous claims.

And why should it not be called truth? You would make the case that a thorough study of scripture is the basis for knowing the truth of scripture, no? Why go for a double standard and refuse the same to science?

I suppose my idea of what truth is probably not the same as yours. The only significant truth I know or care about originates from the Bible. Now remember, I’m not talking about observations like gravity, etc. but of knowledge that isn’t immediately observable. These truths, that the Bible tells me, are absolute.

Creation has some absolute truths also, but evolution, at least the billions of years and common ancestor part don’t even come close to qualifying.

The question then is not which story glorifies God. We know the true story glorifies God, which ever it is. The question is, which is the true story and how do we know?

If God's creation appears to say one thing and God's scripture appears to say another, something is wrong somewhere, and it is not in the actual testimony of creation, nor in the actual testimony of scripture, but in our fallible and incomplete understanding of one or the other or both.

How do we test out which it is?

This is a key element of the entire disagreement. A good start to testing any theory of this type is to look at the issue from the standpoint of who is to gain if one theory is put ahead of another. Well, with evolution, man gains while with Creation, God gains. That keeps it simple for me.

All our knowledge of history is partial, of course. But if we can have any true knowledge of any part of history, it doesn't really make any difference whether the history is recent or not. What matters is the quality and consistency of the evidence.

Since it has been sometimes difficult to get some consistent high quality evidence to support many present day studies, the ability to do so for material millions, if not billions, of years old is going to be exponentially even harder and more difficult.

This is just my opinion, but I think the primary thing would be not to raise them in the harsh conditions of factory farms and feedlots. Remember that they are taking care of God's creatures and not treat them as if they were machines.

I can’t argue with that, but what about my question. Are these farmers, who clearly don’t love these animals, but don’t treat them harshly, considered sinners? Would they need to repent?

You don't? I am puzzled. How could you miss it?

God is love. Creation is an act of love. How could God not love what he created?

God made us in his image. How can we not be created to love what God loves?

God gave the care of creation into our hands. Would he give what he created and loves into our hands without willing that we love and care for it as he does?

Are you saying because God is love and He created that we are called to love everything He created? So we are called to love not just God and our neighbors, but also all the animals, trees and even rocks?

Yet the law makes provision for the loving care of animals e.g "You shall not muzzle the ox as it treads the grain."

And Jesus speaks of his care for sparrows and lilies.


One of the first hymns I learned as a child was "God sees the little sparrow fall" with its concluding refrain of "Because God loves the little things, I know he loves me too."

Do you think that hymn misrepresents God's intention toward animals?

A children’s hymn is not something one can base such a view on.

Caring for things is far different than loving things. I hope you can understand the difference. Yes we are to take care of the animals and other things that God created, but no where are we commanded to love them. Again, if so please show me where it clearly and unambiguously states anything even remotely like that.

 

[shernren]

This is a key element of the entire disagreement. A good start to testing any theory of this type is to look at the issue from the standpoint of who is to gain if one theory is put ahead of another. Well, with evolution, man gains while with Creation, God gains. That keeps it simple for me.

Could you elaborate on that? What does man gain with evolution and what does God gain with Creation?

 

[vossler]

Could you elaborate on that? What does man gain with evolution and what does God gain with Creation?

Man gains recognition of his efforts to "figure out" Creation, the wonder of it all is to some degree lost and God loses out. I don't believe God ever intended for man to "figure out" how He did what He did. It's not important to our lives in any way. Just so you don't misunderstand, I'm not advocating that we're not to investigate how the human body works etc., none of that has anything to do with accepting Genesis as it is written. Scientists can still do all their research, studies, etc. they want, but should get out of the business of proselytizing their world-views.

God, btw, gains all the glory if we as man accept Him at His Word, acknowledging that we don't have the answers and that we never may. Think of it, by man's measurement efforts the earth looks to be much older than what the Bible states, yet man, in his acknowledgement of God as supreme, yields his pride and knowledge to the ultimate source of knowledge and truth, God Himself. Wouldn't that glorify Him?

 

[Numenor]

This is a key element of the entire disagreement. A good start to testing any theory of this type is to look at the issue from the standpoint of who is to gain if one theory is put ahead of another.

Right, so the evidence isn't a good enough start then.

Well, with evolution, man gains while with Creation, God gains.

This logic could be applied to any scientific theory, like Catastrophic Plate Tectonics for example. Besides you are comparing apples with motorbikes, evolution is a scientific theory, Creation is a Christian doctrine. I presume you were meaning Creationism.

That keeps it simple for me

Simple does not mean correct.

 

[Numenor]

Man gains recognition of his efforts to "figure out" Creation, the wonder of it all is to some degree lost and God loses out

And this makes evolution wrong....how? Even if this were the case, all it does is highlight the sinfulness of Man's heart and says nothing about evolution itself.

 

[gluadys]

Is that an impression you got for me or others here?

It is an impression I have often taken from the argument about what we need to know. Those who press this argument often seem to be saying that we ought to limit our knowledge to what we need to know. As if there were something wrong about studying ballet or auto mechanics or anything else that we don't need to know--like geology or evolution.

I don't see any pertinence to the "need to know" argument. So we don't need to know the age of the earth. How does that make it wrong to know it? As long as we also know what we need to know.

I guess it would depend on how you define what knowledge we are aware of. From my point of view, evolution bases its knowledge on hypotheses’ it cannot prove; the missing link, which is missing knowledge. So I don’t have a problem with science if it doesn’t make claims that cannot be substantiated. Evolution requires faith in missing knowledge.

You couldn't be more wrong. There is absolutely nothing in the theory of evolution which is not based on currently available knowledge. Evolution may predict a "missing link" at various points, but until the link is actually found (and many have been found) nothing in evolution is based on it. When a missing link is found, then, of course, it becomes part of the currently available evidence for evolution. Everything in the theory of evolution is based on substantiated information.

I think that if you try to identify some part of the theory of evolution which is not, one of two conclusions are possible:
a) the evidence does exist, but you were not aware of it, or
b) the claim you present is not actually part of the theory of evolution.

I guess the confusion comes from how the evidence is continually being updated, sometimes just to match previous claims.

Not updating evidence is as foolish as not updating a database. I can't figure out why creationists can't grasp this. Is it a virtue to hang on to outdated information?

However, I would like an example of evidence being updated "just to match previous claims". My understanding is that evidence which does not fit the theory results in a change to the theory to accommodate the evidence, not vice versa.

I suppose my idea of what truth is probably not the same as yours. The only significant truth I know or care about originates from the Bible. Now remember, I’m not talking about observations like gravity, etc. but of knowledge that isn’t immediately observable. These truths, that the Bible tells me, are absolute.

Well gravity is not immediately observable either. We see things fall or attract each other. We say they fall or attract each other because of gravity. But what is gravity and how does it work? We used to say that things fell because they contained the element earth and were therefore attracted to the earth. And that planets stayed in their orbits because angels kept them there. Now we say the planets stay in their orbits because they are following the curvature of space-time. And that also explains, on a smaller scale, why things fall. But does either explanation show us or tell us what gravity is?

As for the absolute truths of the bible, are you sure you have any greater knowledge of them than scientists have of the absolute truth of creation?

Creation has some absolute truths also, but evolution, at least the billions of years and common ancestor part don’t even come close to qualifying.

Why not?

This is a key element of the entire disagreement. A good start to testing any theory of this type is to look at the issue from the standpoint of who is to gain if one theory is put ahead of another. Well, with evolution, man gains while with Creation, God gains. That keeps it simple for me.

But you are setting up that false dichotomy again. Evolution is not a denial of Creation or of God. It is simply an explanation of how one part of Creation occurred. The only question is whether or not it is a good and true explanation. All the evidence says that it is. And God surely gains whenever truth is discovered. That is what I mean by a simple truth.

Since it has been sometimes difficult to get some consistent high quality evidence to support many present day studies, the ability to do so for material millions, if not billions, of years old is going to be exponentially even harder and more difficult.

A good deal of evidence can be destroyed in a billion years, but what continues to exist is no more difficult to deal with than evidence only 24 hours old. Also some sorts of evidence don't deteriorate over time---such as the evidence for the age of the universe given by starlight or the evidence for the age of igneous rocks given by radioactive decay rates.

I can’t argue with that, but what about my question. Are these farmers, who clearly don’t love these animals, but don’t treat them harshly, considered sinners? Would they need to repent?

If they are giving their animals proper care, my conclusion would be that they do love them.

Are you saying because God is love and He created that we are called to love everything He created?

Yes. That seems to me to be simple, straightforward logic. We are to love what God loves, and God loves all that God created.

So we are called to love not just God and our neighbors, but also all the animals, trees and even rocks?

Animals, trees and rocks are our neighbours. Animals and trees are even relatives. We share a common ancestor with them.

A children’s hymn is not something one can base such a view on.

I didn't ask you to base a view on it. I asked if it misrepresented scripture. If you think it does, should it not be removed from hymnbooks, so that children no longer learn it?

Caring for things is far different than loving things.

Care is an expression of love. We do not care for what we do not love.

Again, if so please show me where it clearly and unambiguously states anything even remotely like that.

I have already given you three instances. What good would it do to give others? To me, this is an illustration of the fallacy of identifying words with the Word. You are so focused on the words of scripture you do not hear them speaking the Word of God. If you cannot hear the Word of God when scripture speaks it as plainly as in this case, how do you know you are ever hearing the Word of God in scripture?

 

[vossler]

O.K., let's see if we can simplify this discussion.

Can you show me how man evolved from an amoeba to his present state or for that matter any animal?

My only requirement is that you show me with clear and decisive evidence this process, not through some picture chart with forms that have never been proven to exist, but through proven verifiable facts.

If you can do something along those lines, I'll most certainly be impressed.

As for the absolute truths of the bible, are you sure you have any greater knowledge of them than scientists have of the absolute truth of creation?

God is the source of truth and the Bible is our source to God's truth. Creation is a product of God, not necessarily a source of truth. So as to whether or not I have any greater knowledge of truth than a scientist would, it would depend upon how much biblical truth we each had.

If they are giving their animals proper care, my conclusion would be that they do love them.

Caring isn't the same as loving.
God commands us to love him and one another, never things, animals, or plants etc.

Yes. That seems to me to be simple, straightforward logic. We are to love what God loves, and God loves all that God created.

Show me where God said he loves everything He created.

Animals, trees and rocks are our neighbours. Animals and trees are even relatives. We share a common ancestor with them.

The idea that you would claim that I have a common ancestor with a tree is absolutely absurd. Now you claiming that when Jesus said "Love your neighbor as yourself" he was speaking about animals, trees and rocks? How crazy is this going to get?

Care is an expression of love. We do not care for what we do not love.

Yes we care about things we love. We also do not love everything we care for. The two are not synonomous. Caring for things is not the same as loving them. Do you love your car? Clothes? Computer?

To associate the word care with love is to cheapen love.

I didn't ask you to base a view on it. I asked if it misrepresented scripture. If you think it does, should it not be removed from hymnbooks, so that children no longer learn it?

No I don't think it is a correct representation of Scripture. Yes it should be removed.

I have already given you three instances. What good would it do to give others? To me, this is an illustration of the fallacy of identifying words with the Word. You are so focused on the words of scripture you do not hear them speaking the Word of God. If you cannot hear the Word of God when scripture speaks it as plainly as in this case, how do you know you are ever hearing the Word of God in scripture?

I'm sorry but it's views like this that permit all sorts of liberties to be taken with Scripture. Care is now synonomous with love, is it any wonder how a day can become synonomous with millions of years.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Man gains recognition of his efforts to "figure out" Creation, the wonder of it all is to some degree lost and God loses out.

Are you saying that man can only be impressed by things he doesn't understand?

or that God is only glorified as long as man stays ignorant?

I don't believe God ever intended for man to "figure out" how He did what He did.

Then He has no one to blame but Himself for making us as curious as we are.

It's not important to our lives in any way.

According to whom?

Just so you don't misunderstand, I'm not advocating that we're not to investigate how the human body works etc., none of that has anything to do with accepting Genesis as it is written. Scientists can still do all their research, studies, etc. they want, but should get out of the business of proselytizing their world-views.

You mean the business of publishing their findings? Keep what they learn a secret?

God, btw, gains all the glory if we as man accept Him at His Word, acknowledging that we don't have the answers and that we never may.

How much glory does God gain by being used as the excuse not to look for answers?

Think of it, by man's measurement efforts the earth looks to be much older than what the Bible states, yet man, in his acknowledgement of God as supreme, yields his pride and knowledge to the ultimate source of knowledge and truth, God Himself. Wouldn't that glorify Him?

So man finds something out, and continuously tells himself it's wrong, because it runs afoul of how he chooses to read the Bible.

Didn't George Orwell call that "Doublethink"? How does it glorify God to convince oneself that black is white and night is day?

 

[vossler]

Are you saying that man can only be impressed by things he doesn't understand?

or that God is only glorified as long as man stays ignorant?

Niether

Then He has no one to blame but Himself for making us as curious as we are.

That's one way of looking at it.

According to whom?

If you could show me the importance, I may be persuaded.

You mean the business of publishing their findings? Keep what they learn a secret?

How about instead of proselytizing, they just report their findings. This is comparable to judges legislating from the bench.

How much glory does God gain by being used as the excuse not to look for answers?

I didn't notice we were talking about excuses!?!

So man finds something out, and continuously tells himself it's wrong, because it runs afoul of how he chooses to read the Bible.

Didn't George Orwell call that "Doublethink"? How does it glorify God to convince oneself that black is white and night is day?

I prefer to to think of it like this. God tells man the truth, man respects and honors His truth.

As I recall there was an incident back in Eden...

 

[shernren]

Man gains recognition of his efforts to "figure out" Creation, the wonder of it all is to some degree lost and God loses out. I don't believe God ever intended for man to "figure out" how He did what He did. It's not important to our lives in any way. Just so you don't misunderstand, I'm not advocating that we're not to investigate how the human body works etc., none of that has anything to do with accepting Genesis as it is written. Scientists can still do all their research, studies, etc. they want, but should get out of the business of proselytizing their world-views.

I wonder if you'd feel the same if you were more scientifically inclined. For me I am very much into sciences especially the layman aspect of some of the more difficult disciplines like relativity and quantum physics. I can see that the more I understand, the more I appreciate, not the less. In Malay we have an aphorism "what you don't know you won't love" ("Tak kenal maka tak cinta") and we apply it a lot to race relations here: we can only grow to love and appreciate our neighbours when we know and understand them as people instead of just as "others".

I don't believe that God didn't intend science. (And on the side, the divide between "origins science and operational science" is a bogus divider thrown up by creation science so that they can happily close their eyes to some science while accepting others.) God made a world that operates on logical rules, and then He creates man with a mind that processes and understands logic. Am I supposed to believe that's a coincidence? God could easily have made an acausal universe. He could make it so that light travels faster than a bullet train one minute and slower than a snail the next, and being God He could easily have made it a universe with life. But why not? He created structure because He is an orderly and rational God. And He made us rational to enjoy that rationality He built into the universe.

Read Kenneth Miller on Finding Darwin's God. I think he answers your issue ("to understand God's creation is to lose the wonder of God") very well.

And we can't just say "stop, science doesn't go there". Science is as much a way of understanding (elucidating rational cause-effect rules) as a body of knowledge. The same science that goes into the Big Bang is the same science that goes into GPS and space telescopes. The same science that goes into radiodating is the same science that goes into nuclear reactors. (Would you feel safe at home knowing that the nuclear fuel giving you energy might suddenly decay a billion times faster on a whim and blow the reactor to smithereens?) Dividing science into real science and forbidden science only serves to deepen the public opinion that Christianity has something against science.

I agree with you that scientists have no business proselytizing their worldviews. (I'd wager that if Richard Dawkins had never opened his big trap a lot more Christians would be evolutionists.) But then again, once they have gotten results it's only fair that they publish them. If they get results they don't publish it's a waste of research money at the very least.

God, btw, gains all the glory if we as man accept Him at His Word, acknowledging that we don't have the answers and that we never may. Think of it, by man's measurement efforts the earth looks to be much older than what the Bible states, yet man, in his acknowledgement of God as supreme, yields his pride and knowledge to the ultimate source of knowledge and truth, God Himself. Wouldn't that glorify Him?

I know you've heard this so many times you're probably numb to it, but the earth only looks much older than what you think the Bible states. The fact is that God simply has not seen fit to hand scientific knowledge to us on a platter. If God took the bother to tell us the age of the universe in a handbook of theology and salvation, I think He could have done much better throwing in the Periodic Table and Newton's Laws instead! If the Bible was meant to dictate our science then why does it have so little science in it?

 

[vossler]

Thanks for your non-confrontational post.

I wonder if you'd feel the same if you were more scientifically inclined. For me I am very much into sciences especially the layman aspect of some of the more difficult disciplines like relativity and quantum physics. I can see that the more I understand, the more I appreciate, not the less. In Malay we have an aphorism "what you don't know you won't love" ("Tak kenal maka tak cinta") and we apply it a lot to race relations here: we can only grow to love and appreciate our neighbours when we know and understand them as people instead of just as "others".

I don’t know, that’s an interesting question. I can understand the aphorism, yet I would use the word appreciate instead of love.

I don't believe that God didn't intend science. (And on the side, the divide between "origins science and operational science" is a bogus divider thrown up by creation science so that they can happily close their eyes to some science while accepting others.) God made a world that operates on logical rules, and then He creates man with a mind that processes and understands logic. Am I supposed to believe that's a coincidence? God could easily have made an acausal universe. He could make it so that light travels faster than a bullet train one minute and slower than a snail the next, and being God He could easily have made it a universe with life. But why not? He created structure because He is an orderly and rational God. And He made us rational to enjoy that rationality He built into the universe.

I don’t believe God didn’t intend science either. There may be some truth to the claims you make, yet I can’t entertain much of what the secular world tells me due to my inherit skepticism. I have a big, big problem when science tries to tell me that man came from an amoeba and then provides me with scantly nothing for proof. Why can’t scientists admit they don’t really know and then tell me what they think?

Read Kenneth Miller on Finding Darwin's God. I think he answers your issue ("to understand God's creation is to lose the wonder of God") very well.

Thanks, I’ll have to put that on my list. Unfortunately I’ve got a lot of other books already ahead of it.

And we can't just say "stop, science doesn't go there". Science is as much a way of understanding (elucidating rational cause-effect rules) as a body of knowledge. The same science that goes into the Big Bang is the same science that goes into GPS and space telescopes. The same science that goes into radiodating is the same science that goes into nuclear reactors. (Would you feel safe at home knowing that the nuclear fuel giving you energy might suddenly decay a billion times faster on a whim and blow the reactor to smithereens?) Dividing science into real science and forbidden science only serves to deepen the public opinion that Christianity has something against science.

I don’t have a problem with anything you’ve said here, I just want total honesty.

I agree with you that scientists have no business proselytizing their worldviews. (I'd wager that if Richard Dawkins had never opened his big trap a lot more Christians would be evolutionists.) But then again, once they have gotten results it's only fair that they publish them. If they get results they don't publish it's a waste of research money at the very least.

I understand and appreciate your view here, but it would take a lot for me to accept evolution. Not so much because of the science, but because the Bible says 6 days. Unlike many here, I believe the Bible is our only source of truth and so therefore anything man comes up with to counter it will automatically be met with a strong skepticism.

I know you've heard this so many times you're probably numb to it, but the earth only looks much older than what you think the Bible states. The fact is that God simply has not seen fit to hand scientific knowledge to us on a platter. If God took the bother to tell us the age of the universe in a handbook of theology and salvation, I think He could have done much better throwing in the Periodic Table and Newton's Laws instead! If the Bible was meant to dictate our science then why does it have so little science in it?

I think the Bible sets the foundation to science and it wasn’t intended to dictate how we do science. Like most things, God tells us what’s important and He leaves the rest for us to figure out. The important thing for us is to remain true to His truth, the Bible.​

 

[gluadys]

O.K., let's see if we can simplify this discussion.

Can you show me how man evolved from an amoeba to his present state or for that matter any animal?

Yes, though humans did not evolve from amoebas. But to do so would take a long time as you need to understand both the process of evolution and the evidence for evolution, especially the evidence for speciation and the standard phylogeny of life.

Rather than go through all that on this forum, I suggest you read The Ancestor's Tale by Richard Dawkins. It covers a lot more detail than we could cover here in a month of Sundays.

If you prefer the forum format though, we can begin with what you understand about the structure and replication of DNA.

God is the source of truth and the Bible is our source to God's truth. Creation is a product of God, not necessarily a source of truth.

How can a work of God not be a source of truth?

So as to whether or not I have any greater knowledge of truth than a scientist would, it would depend upon how much biblical truth we each had.

That was not the point. You have said---and rightly--that scientists do not have a complete knowledge of creation. In fact, what we know about creation may be only a drop in the bucket compared to what we have yet to learn.

Yet you presume to think that you do have complete or nearly complete knowledge of the absolute truth of scripture. In fact, your knowledge of the truth of scripture may also be not more than a drop in the bucket compared to what you have not learned from scripture yet. Our conversation on love illustrates to me that you have much to learn about how to read scripture yet. I find it astonishing that you cannot come to simple and obvious conclusions, yet you flatter yourself that your knowledge of scripture is sufficient to outweigh a scientist's knowledge of nature.

All of our knowledge is partial. Your knowledge of scripture is just as partial as a scientist's knowledge of nature. There is no access to absolute knowledge this side of heaven, no matter where we seek it.

Caring isn't the same as loving.

I didn't say it was. I said it is an expression of love.

Show me where God said he loves everything He created.

Genesis 1:1, John 1:3, John 3:16, 1 John 4:8, Job 38-39 and any of several psalms praising creation, Genesis 8:21-22, Exodus 20: 10, Leviticus 25: 6-7, and several other laws on the care of animals, Matthew 6: 26-30.

How can Love not love what Love creates?

The idea that you would claim that I have a common ancestor with a tree is absolutely absurd. Now you claiming that when Jesus said "Love your neighbor as yourself" he was speaking about animals, trees and rocks? How crazy is this going to get?

Then the truth is absurd. Jesus was speaking of non-Jews, for in his day most Jews had to be convinced even that non-Jews were neighbours. But just as Peter learned to expand the circle of "neighbour" to include Gentiles, we can learn to expand the circle of "neighbour" to include all parts of God's creation. This has been an aboriginal teaching from time immemorial and it is in no way inconsistent with a Christian perspective on creation. In fact, it was also the teaching of Francis of Assisi who regularly referred to Brother Sun and Sister Water, etc. Celtic Christianity is filled with similar references.

Yes we care about things we love. We also do not love everything we care for. The two are not synonomous. Caring for things is not the same as loving them. Do you love your car? Clothes? Computer?

As a matter of fact, I don't care for my clothes. They don't get ironed or mended. And I don't take care of my computer either. I don't have a car, but when I did, I was no better at taking care of it.

On the other hand I do care for my books, my garden and my cats.

To associate the word care with love is to cheapen love.

Wow! I would say the exact opposite. How would you express love without caring for what and who you love? Remember what James said? What good is it to wish someone well and do nothing for their needs? Who loves the neighbour? The one who speaks of warm feelings or the one who provides them with food and clothing?

No I don't think it is a correct representation of Scripture. Yes it should be removed.

Yet it is clearly based on Matthew 6: 26-30