Seven daze? [moved from general theology]

[Stryder06]

You assume Christians in the past only gave what they thought the bible said, whereas your views are looking at what the bible does say. Of course believers through the ages have tried to understand what the bible does say, and prayed for wisdom to understand it. But the bible is the eternal and almighty God communicating with man, his thoughts are far above ours and his ways high above our too. We can come to some understanding of what God is saying, but even Paul said he was only seeing through a glass darkly. All our understanding of what God is saying to us in his word, even in our deepest understanding, is still only a frail limited human opinion. And better people than us have got it wrong in the past. Luther and Calvin and all the church fathers believed the bible taught geocentrism.

Couple if things: God indeed is far beyond us, and knowing this, He made the bible plain enough to be understood. Second, I don't hold that people who came before us were "better" then us. Not one person here is restricted from having the same type of relationship with God that those who came before us did. Last, I'm not saying that I've got everything right with the bible. I'm saying that that which is right is right, and one of those things which is plainly spoken is that the world was created in seven days.

Of course. But if men of God like these can make such a basic mistake, we need to realise we are not immune. Of course it was science, the study of God's universe, that showed us Luther and Calvin got it wrong, so it is not very wise for Creationists to think their interpretation means the science has to be wrong. It wasn't in the past.

Science doesn't have to be wrong. I don't mind science. What I'm saying is that the bible is plain in regards to creation. One thing to keep in mind is that people use "science" for the seven day creation.

You just have to figure out which is which. Of course if you mistake a figurative passage for literal, then you are going to get the interpretation wrong. Some early church writer took 'the ends of the earth wrong' and other passages literally and thought the bible teaches a flat earth. Other as we have seen took the geocentric passages literally, but this is missing the point God is teaching in these passages. And you have people who take the creation days literally. But if these are not meant literally, then young earth creationism is as much a mistaken interpretation as flat earth or geocentrism were in the past.

It's one thing to misunderstand "the ends of the earth" especially during a time when the culture believed such a thing. It's another thing to misunderstand "and the evening and the morning was the 1st...2nd...3rd...4th...5th...6th..7th...day". There's nothing figurative about that.

This is the classic slippery slope argument, but it doesn't work because we are already on the slope. You already know there are scriptures that are figurative, you know Jesus wasn't literally a vine, but it doesn't make you question the virgin birth does it? In fact this was one of the issues the Catholic Church had with Galileo, because if you can't the rely on the bible says about geocentrism how can you trust what it says about the virgin birth.

It's not about a slippery slope. And I'm not on a slope of any sort. I plant my feet on solid, level ground. The fact remains that you can't throw out Genesis 1 as figurative and not start doing the same with other accounts in the bible. You may be able to stop at Genesis 1, but what if someone else goes further, and someone else further than that individual. Before you know you'll have people totally saying that the bible is nothing more then a collection of stories meant to teach people how to live a good life. O WAIT!!! We're already there.

Those are simply the metaphor and parables that are easy to spot, but Jesus would not have causes nearly so much confusion if he always said when he was going to use a metaphor or give a parable. But he didn't. And the OT is full of metaphors and parables that are given straight without the slightest hint. Exodus 19:4 You yourselves have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles' wings and brought you to myself.

I'm sorry but I'm not seeing anything in the OT that is hard to identify as a parable or metaphor. Christ didn't always give hints. It was implied. We do have a measure of intelligence that we are to use to discern the truth which He speaks to us. That verse in Exodus doesn't help your case any.

There is a differnce between what science cannot explain and what it says isn't true.

That's news to me. From what I've seen (when it comes to the bible and God at least) is that science says something doesn't exist because it can't explain it.

The bible can't explain the resurrection, but I would not expect it to. On the other hand science tells us the earth isn't flat, it is an oblate spheroid, and the earth isn't fixed in place and sitting on pillars, nor does the sun go round the earth. We know the flat earth and geocentric interpretations are wrong, not because science cannot explain them but because science shows us they are wrong, just like it tells us the earth is billions of years old, not 6000 year old.

First, the bible is very clear in it's explanation of the resurrection. The power to make alive rests in God. Science has simply revealed that which God has done. And I'm fine with that. What I'm not fine with is that evolution tries to get rid of the creator. Are you catching that? The earth isn't six billion years old. Do you really think God would allow sin to go on for so long a time? You think that if we were here for even 1 million years, that we wouldn't have destroyed ourselves by now?

The church has always known that God operate both through the supernatural miracles and through the ordinary working of the natural world. Does understanding about agriculture and cookery remove God from providing our daily bread? Christians still thank pray for God's provision and thank him for their food. I believe God formed my in my mother's womb, I love Psalm 139 I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Yet I see no contradiction between that and the lessons I learned about human reproduction in biology class.

Again, I have no problem with science revealing/explaining the power of God and what He's done. My problem is with science explaining away God. Science for some people, if you haven't noticed, has become a god. That's my problem.

Here's something simple. If my wife says she's pregnant and I say she isn't, we both can't be right. If someone tired to explain how we were both right and said they saw no contradiction between the two statements, it'd be obvious that they were coming up short in the intelligence department. It's the same thing with creation and evolution. God said seven days. Man says billions. They both can't be right.

 

[AndOne]

Or the universe is 13.7 billion years old and Genesis is a beautiful parable.

prove it...

 

[CalmRon]

It's not about a slippery slope. And I'm not on a slope of any sort. I plant my feet on solid, level ground. The fact remains that you can't throw out Genesis 1 as figurative and not start doing the same with other accounts in the bible. You may be able to stop at Genesis 1, but what if someone else goes further, and someone else further than that individual. Before you know you'll have people totally saying that the bible is nothing more then a collection of stories meant to teach people how to live a good life. O WAIT!!! We're already there.

it took me a while to understand that when I struggled with these questions a few years ago. I remember that I brought up these questions in my churches bible study and I just saw that all of these members ardently defending the creation, I thought to myself that these people were closed minded, But that point you made came to my mind when I talking about it with another person; if you deny one miracle, whats to stop you from denying everything else? what about the joshua's long day the pillars of fire and smoke with the israelites, that God ever appeared in any form to abraham, moses and other men, why not even deny the inspiration of the prophets? If creation is too much to believe how can one take jesus seriously? were his miracles metaphors?

once this was set in my mind, I realized that it would be wise for me to believe the bible account for the sake of my faith.

 

[Stryder06]

it took me a while to understand that when I struggled with these questions a few years ago. I remember that I brought up these questions in my churches bible study and I just saw that all of these members ardently defending the creation, I thought to myself that these people were closed minded, But that point you made came to my mind when I talking about it with another person; if you deny one miracle, whats to stop you from denying everything else? what about the joshua's long day the pillars of fire and smoke with the israelites, that God ever appeared in any form to abraham, moses and other men, why not even deny the inspiration of the prophets? If creation is too much to believe how can one take jesus seriously? were his miracles metaphors?

once this was set in my mind, I realized that it would be wise for me to believe the bible account for the sake of my faith.

This is beautiful Ron. Honestly. This shows that the Spirit was truly working on your heart. Doubt only leads to more doubt which eventually leads to disbelief (queue the star wars puns )

In my opinion God creating everything in seven days would be one of the easier things to believe considering everything else that occurs in the bible.

 

[Assyrian]

Couple if things: God indeed is far beyond us, and knowing this, He made the bible plain enough to be understood.

The basics of the gospel are so simple a child could understand them, but the rest of the bible? We are never told it is simple or plain. Mark 8:21 And he said to them, "Do you not yet understand?" 1Cor 8:2 If anyone imagines that he knows something, he does not yet know as he ought to know. Heb 5:11 About this we have much to say, and it is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing. 2Pet 3:16 There are some things in them that are hard to understand...

Second, I don't hold that people who came before us were "better" then us. Not one person here is restricted from having the same type of relationship with God that those who came before us did.

Don't get me wrong I am not putting them on a pedestal, they were great men, but still men like you and I and their relationship with God was the same as ours as you say. Whether you want to say they weren't any better than us or not, we certainly aren't greater than them. And if they could get things wrong, so can we.

Last, I'm not saying that I've got everything right with the bible. I'm saying that that which is right is right, and one of those things which is plainly spoken is that the world was created in seven days. Science doesn't have to be wrong. I don't mind science. What I'm saying is that the bible is plain in regards to creation. One thing to keep in mind is that people use "science" for the seven day creation.

Well you think the seven day creation is one of the plainly spoken parts, but Luther and Calvin thought scriptures spoke plainly about the sun going round the earth.

It's one thing to misunderstand "the ends of the earth" especially during a time when the culture believed such a thing. It's another thing to misunderstand "and the evening and the morning was the 1st...2nd...3rd...4th...5th...6th..7th...day". There's nothing figurative about that.

Why not? Jesus spoke of the third hour... sixth hour...ninth hour... eleventh hour, in a parable.

It's not about a slippery slope. And I'm not on a slope of any sort. I plant my feet on solid, level ground. The fact remains that you can't throw out Genesis 1 as figurative and not start doing the same with other accounts in the bible. You may be able to stop at Genesis 1, but what if someone else goes further, and someone else further than that individual. Before you know you'll have people totally saying that the bible is nothing more then a collection of stories meant to teach people how to live a good life. O WAIT!!! We're already there.

Why is it alright to take Jesus being a vine figuratively, or taking a loaf of bread and saying this is my body, yet if the creation accounts in Genesis are figurative the whole bible slides down the slope? If you are a literalist there probably are a whole lot of passages that are figurative that you take literally. But that doesn't mean everything is figurative. It means we need to work harder at understanding what the word of God means. And as you point out we need the Holy Spirit.

I'm sorry but I'm not seeing anything in the OT that is hard to identify as a parable or metaphor. Christ didn't always give hints. It was implied. We do have a measure of intelligence that we are to use to discern the truth which He speaks to us. That verse in Exodus doesn't help your case any.

There is nothing in the passage that suggests it is a metaphor, yet you said that when language in the bible is metaphoric it is explained as such. Exodus 19:4 isn't explained. The main reason to take it as a metaphor is because the Israelites walked out of Egypt rather than being carried by eagles. It contradicts another account of the Exodus, but then Genesis 1 gives a different order of creation to Genesis 2, isn't this evidence one or both of the creation accounts are metaphorical?

Nor are the talking trees in Judges 9 describes as a parable. Why? Well the most obvious indication is that trees don't talk. But then again neither do snakes...

That's news to me. From what I've seen (when it comes to the bible and God at least) is that science says something doesn't exist because it can't explain it.

There are plenty of things that science can't explain yet but they are not rejected simply for that reason. Atheists reject anything that doesn't fit a materialist view of the universe (even if some material things aren't explained yet) but the claim the material universe is all there is, is not something science can ever say. That is more the world view of the atheists than science.

First, the bible is very clear in it's explanation of the resurrection. The power to make alive rests in God.

Saying it was God's power that raised Jesus from the dead, does not explain how God did it.

Science has simply revealed that which God has done. And I'm fine with that. What I'm not fine with is that evolution tries to get rid of the creator.

It doesn't. Science can't say anything about God, it can tell us life has been on the earth for billions of years and that we evolved. It can not say the evolution that happened was not the work of God any more than your mother's obstetrician can say you are not God's handiwork and God did not form you in your mother's womb, the doctor can tell you all about the process that was involved, he cannot say it wasn't the work of God.

Are you catching that? The earth isn't six billion years old. Do you really think God would allow sin to go on for so long a time? You think that if we were here for even 1 million years, that we wouldn't have destroyed ourselves by now?

Firstly I think the eternal God is slightly more patient than you are and secondly, for there to be sin there has to be moral awareness and a command of God to be broken. The only command God gave the animals was to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, which they enthusiastically obey.

Again, I have no problem with science revealing/explaining the power of God and what He's done. My problem is with science explaining away God. Science for some people, if you haven't noticed, has become a god. That's my problem.

The Egyptians worshipped cats, but that was not the cats' fault.

Here's something simple. If my wife says she's pregnant and I say she isn't, we both can't be right. If someone tired to explain how we were both right and said they saw no contradiction between the two statements, it'd be obvious that they were coming up short in the intelligence department. It's the same thing with creation and evolution. God said seven days. Man says billions. They both can't be right.

God's son said he was a grape vine. It does not have to be literal to be true.

 

[Assyrian]

prove it...

Doesn't Behe accept that the universe is billions of years old?

 

[AndOne]

Doesn't Behe accept that the universe is billions of years old?

What Behe believes is irrelevant - I didn't ask him - I'm asking you to prove your statement...

 

[Assyrian]

What Behe believes is irrelevant - I didn't ask him - I'm asking you to prove your statement...

I thought you took you user name after him? You profile says your origin of life view is ID why should IDers have a problem with the age of the universe?

Proof as they say, is for alcohol mathematics and philosophy, science goes by evidence which supports the multi billion years old universe. If you want to discuss particular lines of evidence I suggest you take it over to the Creation and Evolution forum. But really there are only two options here, apart from ignoring the issue or course. We can go with the best science available and accept it simply because it is the best information science has been able to come up with, or we can decide we know better because we have come to our conclusion without the need for scientific evidence. Then we can either claim science is deceived or try to make the evidence fit our preconceived conclusions and claim this is real science. But if it is right to refuse to follow science when it contradicts our interpretation of scripture, then the church should never have accepted heliocentrism when Copernicus came along. We should have gone with the flat earth literalists in the early church too. And that would have been a disaster for the church. It is bad enough there even were flat earthers in the early church and the Galileo standing trial before the Inquisition for publishing a book on heliocentrism still brings reproach on the gospel.

 

[AndOne]

I thought you took you user name after him? You profile says your origin of life view is ID why should IDers have a problem with the age of the universe?

Proof as they say, is for alcohol mathematics and philosophy, science goes by evidence which supports the multi billion years old universe. If you want to discuss particular lines of evidence I suggest you take it over to the Creation and Evolution forum. But really there are only two options here, apart from ignoring the issue or course. We can go with the best science available and accept it simply because it is the best information science has been able to come up with, or we can decide we know better because we have come to our conclusion without the need for scientific evidence. Then we can either claim science is deceived or try to make the evidence fit our preconceived conclusions and claim this is real science. But if it is right to refuse to follow science when it contradicts our interpretation of scripture, then the church should never have accepted heliocentrism when Copernicus came along. We should have gone with the flat earth literalists in the early church too. And that would have been a disaster for the church. It is bad enough there even were flat earthers in the early church and the Galileo standing trial before the Inquisition for publishing a book on heliocentrism still brings reproach on the gospel.

"best information science has been able to come up with..." is not proof. And that is why I take issue when people make statements of fact that have no basis in truth. Truth requires proof - not excuses.

I don't have a problem with the age of the universe - and I certainly don't go around making statements that I know how old it is - because I don't...

 

[Khomm]

Cribstyl,

1.What day if any were angels created?

Hopefully we can agree that the Bible is very clear that the angels are not eternal and that they were indeed created (see Nehemiah 9:6 and c.f. Colossians 1:16-17). I personally believe that the angels were created on day one, after God created the universe but before God created - or more accurately, "formed" - the Earth as the Bible tells us that the angels shouted for joy when God created the it (see Job 38:4-7).

This is also the most likely option given that one of the major functions of angels is to be ministering spirits for believers (see Hebrews 1:14), providing for them, protecting and delivering, strengthening and encouraging, and guiding them and revealing God's will to them.

2.Was it before creation or one of the 7days of creation?

As per general relativity which shows that time is linked to matter and space, there was no time before matter, so it doesn't make sense to argue that the angels (who, unlike God, are not eternal) could exist before the creation of the universe, as there was no "before."

3. If you think it was one of 7literal days, what day did Lucifer rebelled?

None of them - because God described the whole creation as being "very good" it isn't reasonable to presume that Satan fell before this time. I don't presume to believe that God finds millions of years of sin, suffering, and death to be "very good." If He does, He is not someone that I want to know.

4. Why would 1/3 of the angels side with lucifer and abbandon their place if they only knew Lucifer for a short time?

Perhaps because they felt the same way about themselves as Satan did and shared similar ideals? Or maybe, like Adam and Eve, they were deceived, or allowed themselves to be deceived, into supporting Satan's rebellion, remembering the great pre-fall presence and position that he had.

I mean, if you think about it, it isn't really that difficult to imagine. How many average people throughout time have allowed themselves to be persuaded into doing or supporting things that they otherwise wouldn't have done? Some examples in modern times include the various genocides like the one that took place in Rwanda or the Holocaust. It is easy to image why so many could have followed Satan's lead, as foolish as it was.

 

[Khomm]

Assyrian,

Of course it is not as if God doesn't love to speak in metaphor and parables, but if you are going to claim science is a deception of the devil what make you think he only started in the nineteenth century?

It never ceases to amaze me when I see people argue that macro-evolution and stellar evolution is science. It's naturalistic yes - but that isn't equivalent to science. They teach all kids in high school what science is, the scientific method, and so on, and yet it always surprises me that they don't apply the definition to what they believe. It must be selective application I guess.

So, how about we go back to basics here and define what science is? We have to know what science is in order to determine if an idea or ideology is "scientific," right? Consider the following few definitions:

Science is obtained knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially obtained and tested through scientific method; b: such knowledge of such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena.

The scientific method are the principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and fomulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

Natural science is any of the sciences (as physics, chemistry, or biology) that deal with matter, energy, and their interrelations and transformations or with objectively measurable phenomena.

It should be obvious that both the big bang, stellar evolution, and macro-evolution are - if true - history and as such cannot be proven by science. Those naturalistic ideas are not scientific as we cannot observe them nor can we test them. We can't observe or experiment them because all the data exists in the present. The best that can be done is to use observations and experiments in the present to make inferences about the past, but this often involves quite a deal of guesswork and more assumptions are required the farther back in time the event being studied happened.

In summary, to quote Ernst Mayr, "evolution is a historical process that cannot be proven by the same arguments and methods by which purely physical or functional phenomena can be documented."

 

[Montalban]

Of course it is not as if God doesn't love to speak in metaphor and parables, but if you are going to claim science is a deception of the devil what make you think he only started in the nineteenth century? Why not heliocentrism and a round earth as well? They certainly caused problems for the literalists of their day.

Likewise many scientific beliefs that have subsequently been discarded. I accept that many scientists believe that evolution fits facts as we know them, but there lies the possibility it could be wrong.

To argue for a possible mistaken belief* (evolution) against the Bible being wrong, when it holds absolute truths I think it a strange position to take.

Jesus himself talks of God as creator of the world. According to science no supernatural force was responsible for this happening. There is a clear and distinct choice


*-in that it is simply currently accepted. Note here too that there are many shades of evolution. There is a belief life evolved gradually, or, more rapidly (punctuated equilibrium), or very rapidly - 'the hopeful monster' (as propsed by Goldschmidt)

 

[Assyrian]

"best information science has been able to come up with..." is not proof. And that is why I take issue when people make statements of fact that have no basis in truth. Truth requires proof - not excuses.

I don't have a problem with the age of the universe - and I certainly don't go around making statements that I know how old it is - because I don't...

"Truth requires proof" Prove it.

It has been 500 hundred years since western world switched from philosophical proof as the basis of our knowledge of the world around us to evidence based science. The reason we switched? Because evidence based science was much better at explaining how the universe worked than the proofs of the philosophers. Philosophers cannot even prove they themselves exist, "I think therefore I am ... I think." Specifically, Galileo's laws of motion could tell the armies of Renaissance Europe where their cannon balls will land a whole lot better than the philosophy of Aristotle. Could Galileo prove his laws of motion? No. And they were actually wrong because they do not include relativistic time dilation. But for cannon balls relativity is a tiny factor, much smaller that anyone's ability to measure at the time. But his laws of motion and Newtons gravitation were much closer to reality than anything you could come up with as 'proof'. Ever since, science has been revealing more and more of the truth about the universe around us. But it is always provisional, the best science today will be superseded by even better science tomorrow. Scientific truth is simply as true as we have got it so far. But if you want to reject what science tells us because you want to argue about proof, then you have to go all the way back to the 16th century and start again, sticking only to what can be 'proven' by philosophy, all the way back to geocentrism and the four humours based medicine.

 

[Montalban]

"Truth requires proof" Prove it.

It has been 500 hundred years since western world switched from philosophical proof as the basis of our knowledge of the world around us to evidence based science. The reason we switched? Because evidence based science was much better at explaining how the universe worked than the proofs of the philosophers. Philosophers cannot even prove they themselves exist, "I think therefore I am ... I think." Specifically, Galileo's laws of motion could tell the armies of Renaissance Europe where their cannon balls will land a whole lot better than the philosophy of Aristotle. Could Galileo prove his laws of motion? No. And they were actually wrong because they do not include relativistic time dilation. But for cannon balls relativity is a tiny factor, much smaller that anyone's ability to measure at the time. But his laws of motion and Newtons gravitation were much closer to reality than anything you could come up with as 'proof'. Ever since, science has been revealing more and more of the truth about the universe around us. But it is always provisional, the best science today will be superseded by even better science tomorrow. Scientific truth is simply as true as we have got it so far. But if you want to reject what science tells us because you want to argue about proof, then you have to go all the way back to the 16th century and start again, sticking only to what can be 'proven' by philosophy, all the way back to geocentrism and the four humours based medicine.

Prove to me, using science that science is the best way of showing how the world works.

During the 1930s and 1940s German scientists experimented on unwilling human 'guinea pigs'. In general scientists reject the chance of using the information gained in those experiments based on the fact that there was unwilling particpation. They use a 'moral' stance to determine what science 'truths' we should use. Do you agree with this? As you are in favour of science over philosophy I'd like you to stick to using science in your determination of whether it's right, or wrong.

 

[Timothew]

Assyrian, If you can't "prove" evolution, can you provide evidence for it? You aren't asking us to believe scientists as a matter of faith, are you?

 

[Assyrian]

Likewise many scientific beliefs that have subsequently been discarded. I accept that many scientists believe that evolution fits facts as we know them, but there lies the possibility it could be wrong. To argue for a possible mistaken belief* (evolution) against the Bible being wrong, when it holds absolute truths I think it a strange position to take.

Science discards a lot less than you think. A lot of what is discarded was never actually established by science. No one ever tested geocentrism to see if it could be established experimentally, it was assumed. Discarding geocentrism was not discarding established science. However, Copernicus did get things wrong too. He said the earth and planets moved in circles around the sun, it was Kepler that showed they actually moved in elliptical orbits and Newton explained the orbits by the force of gravity. But Newton got it wrong too, the orbit of Mercury does not quite fit his calculations, and Newtonian gravity has been replaced by the theory of relativity. But do we say Copernicus and Newton were discarded? They weren't completely right but they were a lot closer than anything that had gone before.

So what should the church have done when Copernicus came along? They knew the bible contained absolute truths, and their interpretation of scripture for the previous millennium and a half was that the bible said the sun went around a fixed earth. Copernicus could have possibly been mistaken, in fact he was in some areas. But as the scientific evidence slowly mounted up behind heliocentrism (and it mounted up much more slowly than the evidence for evolution and an ancient earth) the church left behind their old literal interpretation of the geocentric passages and found new ways understand how God was speaking to us in his word. Were they wrong? Should the church have stuck with geocentrism? If they were right to accept heliocentrism with all its incompletion and flaws, why shouldn't we do the same with evolution which is much better supported by the evidence than heliocentrism was in their day?

Jesus himself talks of God as creator of the world. According to science no supernatural force was responsible for this happening. There is a clear and distinct choice

Science simply describes what happened, it cannot tell us if God was behind it or not or whether or not evolution was how God created all the different species.

*-in that it is simply currently accepted. Note here too that there are many shades of evolution. There is a belief life evolved gradually, or, more rapidly (punctuated equilibrium), or very rapidly - 'the hopeful monster' (as propsed by Goldschmidt)

Hopeful monster is a bit of a caricature, but you have both forms of evolution going on, in large population evolution is very gradual, while isolate groups can evolve much more rapidly simply because it doesn't take long for a new gene to spread through the gene pool. Darwin actually proposed both forms in The Origin of Species and explained the sudden appearance of new species in the fossil record by their evolution in isolated areas before spreading more widely. The punk eek debate came about simply because biologist concentrated on the gradual evolution in larger populations after Darwin before rediscovering what happens in a smaller groups.

 

[Montalban]

Science discards a lot less than you think. A lot of what is discarded was never actually established by science. No one ever tested geocentrism to see if it could be established experimentally, it was assumed.

That's simply not true. Geocentrism fit the best understanding of the universe as understood by scientists for more than 1,000 years.

Discarding geocentrism was not discarding established science.

That's not what I've argued. Discarding any scientific theory does not mean the discarding of science.

However, Copernicus did get things wrong too. He said the earth and planets moved in circles around the sun, it was Kepler that showed they actually moved in elliptical orbits and Newton explained the orbits by the force of gravity. But Newton got it wrong too, the orbit of Mercury does not quite fit his calculations, and Newtonian gravity has been replaced by the theory of relativity. But do we say Copernicus and Newton were discarded? They weren't completely right but they were a lot closer than anything that had gone before.

And that is the point. The best understanding as according to the science of its day

So what should the church have done when Copernicus came along? They knew the bible contained absolute truths, and their interpretation of scripture for the previous millennium and a half was that the bible said the sun went around a fixed earth.

Where does it say that, as a dogmatic truth?

Copernicus could have possibly been mistaken, in fact he was in some areas. But as the scientific evidence slowly mounted up behind heliocentrism (and it mounted up much more slowly than the evidence for evolution and an ancient earth) the church left behind their old literal interpretation of the geocentric passages and found new ways understand how God was speaking to us in his word. Were they wrong? Should the church have stuck with geocentrism? If they were right to accept heliocentrism with all its incompletion and flaws, why shouldn't we do the same with evolution which is much better supported by the evidence than heliocentrism was in their day?

I think you are displaying a very narrow concept of 'church'. You keep referring to 'the church' and even in Copernicus' day there were churches outside the Catholic Church - my own (the Orthodox) being one. You're attempting here to tarnish 'the Bible' (as per its veracity) based on your own notion of
a) 'the church'
and
b) what that church taught as dogmatic truth

Science simply describes what happened, it cannot tell us if God was behind it or not or whether or not evolution was how God created all the different species.

If it can't do this then science isn't the ultimate arbiter of truth as you would like it to be.

Hopeful monster is a bit of a caricature,

It was a proposal by Goldschmidt.

but you have both forms of evolution going on, in large population evolution is very gradual, while isolate groups can evolve much more rapidly simply because it doesn't take long for a new gene to spread through the gene pool. Darwin actually proposed both forms in The Origin of Species and explained the sudden appearance of new species in the fossil record by their evolution in isolated areas before spreading more widely. The punk eek debate came about simply because biologist concentrated on the gradual evolution in larger populations after Darwin before rediscovering what happens in a smaller groups.

I don't want to broaden this into a discussion about the more general problems evolution faces, but evolution has mulitple theories going on all the time.
What must now seem a long time ago (1986), I did a course at university called 'Pre-history'. Our textbook was
Poirier, F E, “In Search of Ourselves: An Introduction to Physical Anthropology”, (see p346ff)

As to the ascent of man (though it says 'descent'; itself a loaded term), there were many different theories then that had currency. Each followed scientific method, and each had its fair share of evidences to support it.

My textbook stated that each of the following;
the Unilinear School;
the Polyphyletic School'
the Preneanderthal School; and
the Presapiens School
were all valid possibilities to the pathway our ancestors took. This seemed ludicrous to me (then, and still), that each mutually conflicting theory would be accepted (as long as it doesn't involve God).

Now all these theories have been discared in favour of two other, but mutually exclusive ideas;
the multiregional (or Diregional) Evolutionary Hypothesis
and the
"Out of Africa" Evolutionary Hypothesis

 

[Montalban]

BUMP

During the 1930s and 1940s German scientists experimented on unwilling human 'guinea pigs'. In general scientists reject the chance of using the information gained in those experiments based on the fact that there was unwilling particpation. They use a 'moral' stance to determine what science 'truths' we should use. Do you agree with this? As you are in favour of science over philosophy I'd like you to stick to using science in your determination of whether it's right, or wrong.

 

[Magentic]

The gap theory places an undetermined time between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2 which was the time that Lucifer ruled and rebelled, leaving a wasteland.

WikiAnswers - What is the Gap theory
Creation vs. Evolution - Gap Theory

above post ^ What's to prove, it's all in the bible.

 

[Khomm]

above post ^ What's to prove, it's all in the bible.

To quote the second link verbatim:

This creation was populated with plants and animals and perhaps even with a race of pre-Adamic men who had no souls.

Okey dokey, so just where in the Bible is that again? I must have missed that in the gap between the verse 1 and 2...

I also cannot find any difference in the verses that indicate that day one was any different to day two, three, nth, as "there was evening, and there was morning - the first/second day."

Please be honest and admit that you believe what you do because you want to, but do not distort and twist Scripture to support something that to be blunt just simply isn't there.

Nothing annoys me more than someone saying that "The Bible says..." when it doesn't and is, in fact, in clear contradiction to the thing that the Bible actually says.