Theistic Evolution Being Compatible With Christianity

[Mallon]

For what it's worth, a lot of evolutionary creationists (myself included) accept the word "day" as used in Genesis 1 to mean a literal 24-hour day. We just don't accept that the story was ever meant to convey history.

 

[Rex Lex]

the use of the words morning and evening only indicate that the 'day' consists of a first part and a last part.

if a day can represent some greater length of time then why on earth would you assume that a morning and an evening cant also.

That really isn't so, friend. The phrases, 'and the morning and the evening were the first day...second day...'etc. were added to clarify to all that a real, literal day of approx 24 hours was God's intented meaning.

When God told the Israelites to march around the city of Jericho six times He used the same expression and they knew exactly what He was talking about. (Hebrew for 'six' = shishshah. Hebrew for 'day' = yom)

In other words, "for in six days the Lord God made the heavens and the earth" compared to "Thus shalt thou do six days" have exactly the same meaning in the Hebrew.

The Jews were not confused in thinking that those days were long periods of time like modern theistic evolutionists are.

Not only so but the seventh day of the first week was hallowed by God as the Sabbath and marked as a special day of rest. It it dishonest to say that the Sabbath day was established by a period of millions of years instead of what they clearly understood as a literal, 24 hr day. God did not command a period of rest lasting several million years, but a rest of one literal day. That is very clear.

Not only so but when Moses gave the ages of the antediluvian partriarchs from Adam to Shem it equals 1656 yrs and all those names are repeated in I Chronicles. All of those same names are repeated by Luke in Jesus family lineage. That being so then the ages have to be correct literally, for no human being could live for millions of yrs. The family lineage of Jesus has to be correct or else He has no right to claim heir to the throne of David.

The Holy Spirit led Moses, the author of Chronicles, and Luke to legitimize the family of Christ and that rules out any possiblity of long evolutionary ages.

 

[Mallon]

The Jews were not confused in thinking that those days were long periods of time like modern theistic evolutionists are.

Again, reading long periods of time into the Genesis creation days is more an OEC thing than an evolutionary creationist thing.

 

[gluadys]

Again, reading long periods of time into the Genesis creation days is more an OEC thing than an evolutionary creationist thing.

Yes, I would agree the days in Genesis are literal, but not actual. They are a literary device to frame the story, not part of actual history.

 

[Rex Lex]

Yes, I would agree the days in Genesis are literal, but not actual. They are a literary device to frame the story, not part of actual history.

'literal' but not 'actual'? Is this some kind of a joke? Didn't I just establish that the Lord Jesus family lineage is verified in three seperate historical sources? (Genesis, Chronicles, and Luke?) and that line goes from Adam to Jesus Himself. Does that mean nothing to you?

All one need do to see the truth in this is read each and every passage in the New Testament that has anything to do with the creation, Adam, Eve, Seth, Lamech, Enoch, or Noah.

Example: "And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam"... (Jude) shoots down everything you T.E.'s say about the length of time. Those lengths were measured in hundreds of years from Adam to Shem and not millions of years, Why do you think the Holy Spirit used this phrase in Jude to begin with? So that people like me will not make the same mistake as people like you.

Those who think like you avoid the details that make a difference in this matter because those details make you all very uncomfortable.

 

[gluadys]

'literal' but not 'actual'? Is this some kind of a joke? Didn't I just establish that the Lord Jesus family lineage is verified in three seperate historical sources? (Genesis, Chronicles, and Luke?) and that line goes from Adam to Jesus Himself.

And those contradict each other. So at least some of them cannot be actual.

There are other reasons for the genealogies than historical accuracy.

Also you are jumping to a different topic. We were speaking of the days in Genesis 1.

 

[Mallon]

Yes, I would agree the days in Genesis are literal, but not actual.

It's a distinction that, frustratingly, some don't seem to make -- including some of our EC brethren, I might add!

 

[Rex Lex]

And those contradict each other. So at least some of them cannot be actual.

There are other reasons for the genealogies than historical accuracy.

Also you are jumping to a different topic. We were speaking of the days in Genesis 1.

If that be the case then just throw your Bible away. What good is a family lineage for God's Son and his rightful inheritance to the throne of David if it is full of errors? By the way, all the first eleven names are exactly the same in Genesis, Chronicles, and Luke and you are avoiding the issue.

They are all 'actual' and historical and Jude confirmed that fact. You avoided the import of his words in the matter also.

The truthfulness and accuracy of Genesis is the issue and you are doing your best to avoid the difficult details.

 

[shernren]

'literal' but not 'actual'? Is this some kind of a joke?

Not really. When we sing the song "Twelve Days of Christmas", we mean a literal twelve days; the song does not mean "On the first unspecified long but finite period of time of Christmas". And yet, we do not think that the song is actually talking about a specific period of time. Therefore, literal but not actual.

If you like details so much, and you think the evening and morning indicate that the six days are specific 24-hour-days, then tell me this: why does the seventh day not have an evening or a morning? If evening + morning = literal actual day, then is the seventh day explicitly not a literal actual day?

 

[Rex Lex]

Not really. When we sing the song "Twelve Days of Christmas", we mean a literal twelve days; the song does not mean "On the first unspecified long but finite period of time of Christmas". And yet, we do not think that the song is actually talking about a specific period of time. Therefore, literal but not actual.

Now I know it's a joke; Friend, there is no such thing as 'literal but not actual'. Literal means

Quote: "in accordance with, involving, or being the primary or strict meaning of the word or words; not figurative or metaphorical."

Quote: "The most obvious or non-figurative sense of a word or words; language that is not perceived as metaphorical or ironic."

Quote: " following basic meaning: adhering strictly and concisely to the basic meaning of a word or text a literal interpretation."

These are dictionary meanings of the word and you cannot divorce them from that which is 'actual'.

Quote: "Existing and not merely potential or possible"

Quote: "existing in reality or in fact; not merely possible, but real; as it really is."

Did you fail to read Jude's statement, "And also Enoch, the seventh from Adam.."???

How in the world could you possibly mistake the portent of his words?

Why would God Almighty mislead countless millions of people for over 3,000 yrs to believe in the six day creation of the world only to (finally!) reveal the real 'truth' to mankind through Darwin? So Darwin was right but Moses was wrong?

I'll say it again which you and your T.E. friends seem to be avoiding deliberately; The family lineage of Christ Jesus mentioned by Luke was inspired by the Holy Spirit and Jesus said the scripture cannot be broken. That means that His family line is legitimate clear back to Adam as verified by THREE different accounts in the Bible. That speaks very strongly for the actual, literal, and historical position of scripture. No other position is honest.

I think I will stick with the Holy Spirits leading according to scripture and not your opinions.

 

[shernren]

What about the seventh day, Rex Lex? Explain to me why it does not have an evening and a morning.

Now I know it's a joke; Friend, there is no such thing as 'literal but not actual'.

But I've just shown you how such a thing can exist: the Twelve Days of Christmas are literal but not actual. For that matter, the characters of Jesus' parables are literal but not actual.

When we read the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man, for example, we interpret Lazarus as being a literal beggar with sores who was licked by dogs. It is not the case that Lazarus stood for, say, the sorry state of the oppressed Jewish people, for example. But just because we believe that Lazarus of the story is literally a beggar, instead of a nation, does not mean that we believe that there was anactual Lazarus the beggar whose sores were licked by dogs. (But then that does not mean that there wasn't an actual Lazarus, the cousin of Mary and Martha, who died and was resuscitated by Jesus. See how complicated these things can get?)

Did you fail to read Jude's statement, "And also Enoch, the seventh from Adam.."???

I'll say it again which you and your T.E. friends seem to be avoiding deliberately; The family lineage of Christ Jesus mentioned by Luke was inspired by the Holy Spirit and Jesus said the scripture cannot be broken. That means that His family line is legitimate clear back to Adam as verified by THREE different accounts in the Bible. That speaks very strongly for the actual, literal, and historical position of scripture. No other position is honest.

I think I will stick with the Holy Spirits leading according to scripture and not your opinions.

Very good. Did you know that many TEs here believe that Adam was a real, historical figure? Moreover, did you know that they also believe that Jesus was descended from him?

Why would God Almighty mislead countless millions of people for over 3,000 yrs to believe in the six day creation of the world only to (finally!) reveal the real 'truth' to mankind through Darwin? So Darwin was right but Moses was wrong?

Yeah, well why would God Almighty mislead countless millions of people for over 2,000 years to believe that their sins could be cleansed through the blood of bulls and goats?

And why would God Almighty mislead countless millions of people for over 1,600 years to believe that your sins could be cleared by priests waving receipts?

The simple fact of the matter is that God has seen fit for the human race to not receive the full package of all possible truth about life and the universe at once. There are always people who are "deceived" because they haven't got everything yet, like the disciples of John's baptism in Ephesus in Acts 19. Is that God's fault? We are the ones who rejected perfect communion with the God of all knowledge. Darwin's theory is merely one possible scientific theory about life.

 

[gluadys]

Now I know it's a joke; Friend, there is no such thing as 'literal but not actual'. Literal means

Quote: "in accordance with, involving, or being the primary or strict meaning of the word or words; not figurative or metaphorical."

Quote: "The most obvious or non-figurative sense of a word or words; language that is not perceived as metaphorical or ironic."

Quote: " following basic meaning: adhering strictly and concisely to the basic meaning of a word or text a literal interpretation."

These are dictionary meanings of the word and you cannot divorce them from that which is 'actual'.

Sure you can.

"Jack and Jill went up a hill to fetch a pail of water.
Jack fell down and broke his crown and Jill came tumbling after."

Every word in that familiar nursery rhyme is used in its most obvious non-figurative, sense, adhering strictly and concisely to the basic meaning of a literal interpretation.

But nobody supposes that Jack or Jill are actual people or that they ever climbed an actual hill to fetch an actual pail of water or actually fell down it either.

 

[swordmaster]

No. Please cite the study you referred to. You didn't just make it up, did you?

No, I didn't make up the scenario, but neither did I say it was from a paper. So, you are stating that you don't understand how adaptation works and you need a paper to spell it out?

That's what I meant by "your kidding."

I'm sure there are papers describing adaptational changes, but I don't really think you need me to find you one.

 

[swordmaster]

Do you stand by this as a scientific statement of biology?

I stand by this as natural fact, whether currently accepted theories of biology recognize it or not. Please, don't quibble about words, I realize that I may have used a different word in my description than what you would like, so please don't pull the normal evolutionary word games with me, that will get us no where.

Cheers!

 

[swordmaster]

Natural selection is the differential reproductive success of varying phenotypes in a population. It is non-random and environmentally-determined and leads to the adaptation of the population to its environmental cues. There is nothing mystical about it.

Exactly what, in your mind, does "differential reproductive success" mean?

No, it is not, because the pre-existing variational genes did not come about as a response to environmental cues. They occurred randomly with respect to the effect on the organism or its population.

You misunderstand what I said. I didn't say that genes came about as a response to environmental cues, I said that their expression comes about in response to environmental cues. Variational alleles to not occur randomly with respect to their affects on the organism, they are already present within the genome en trans, kept until they are cued into expression...they have been there since God put them there the day they were created.

Thank you for providing references. I have looked up both of them and neither supports your claim.

Then you didn't understand what I said, or you didn't understand what the papers state. They both support what I said they do.

The Ralston & Shaw paper says specifically:

Thus, there appear to be certain situations in which the environment affects not only the growth and health of an organism, but also the use or deployment of the organism's genes. Does this mean that genes aren't, in fact, everything? The observation that genetically identical organisms often vary greatly in phenotype clearly shows that gene-environment interaction is indeed an important regulator of phenotypic variation, including variation related to a number of diseases.​

Emphasis added.

This says nothing about genes being altered by environmental cues.

And I didn't say that they were. Genes are not altered by their environment, their expression is either turned "on" or "off" by the cues they receive from their environment.

It is the gene expression which is affected, and it alters the phenotype not the genotype. The genotypes, in fact, are identical.

Correct.

Note as well, that the phenotypes are not inheritable. In fact, the offspring may have different phenotypes than their parents if they are raised in a different environment, because the gene expression will be altered even though the genes themselves have not changed.

You aren't making much sense here. Whether or not the direct offspring's phenotype is the same as the parent, the exact compliment of the genotype remains the same. Expression does not change that, and the parent's grandchildren, if raised in the same environment as they were, will inherit their phenotype. So phenotypes are heritable.

Evolutionary change implies actual, inheritable, genetic change.

No, evolutionary change states that a single celled organism can, over eons of time, give way to an elephant. What you describe here is genetic inheritance. There is no such thing as "microevolution" except in the mind of the evolutionist. This is another word game played to give "macroevolution" the feel and smell of reality.

The other paper says:

The study revealed that allelic differences in hemoglobin-oxygen affinity are attributable to the independent or joint effects of substitutions in five exterior amino acid residues that line the opening of the heme pocket. Additionally, patterns of DNA sequence variation indicate that functionally distinct a-globin alleles are maintained by natural selection that favors different genotypes in different elevational zones.​

Emphasis added.

Again the variation is pre-existent and nothing is said about the environmental cues producing new alleles. But natural selection favours different existing genotypes in different environments.

Agreed, the variation is pre-existent, environmental cues do not create new alleles, but that's not what I said. I said that environmental cues signal into expression variational alleles that have been stored within the genome unexpressed until they are needed.

What exactly do you mean by "natural selection favours?" and how is that not "mystical" to assign cognative words to a mindless process?

Cheers!

 

[swordmaster]

the use of the words morning and evening only indicate that the 'day' consists of a first part and a last part.

if a day can represent some greater length of time then why on earth would you assume that a morning and an evening cant also.

Because whenever these two words are used for morning and evening, they always mean exactly that...morning and evening. If God meant eons of time, there is another Hebrew word meaning the equivalent of eon, or undefined time span, but He did not use that word.

Here is what I think, God made the earth in 6 literal days, as the scripture (and Jesus Himself) acknowledge as truth. But...we are not told how long Adam and Eve were in the garden before they got kicked out. For all we know, they could have lived there for 10,000 years, we aren't told, but I seriously doubt it was millions of years.

The earth was horribly scarred as a result of the flood, and aside from dramatic and unreliable readings from just about every method of testing that evolutionary geologists utilize...that they will accept...only because these methods give dates they are looking for, there is plenty of scientific evidence that the earth is somewhere between 10,000 to 12,000 years old.

A lot of the "facts" that evolutionary geologists give in support of great ages of the earth are only, at best, assumptions that they cannot verify, while a great many other fields of earth dating, which are verifiable, are simply ignored and tried to be discredited because they don't give the evolutionary geologist what he needs for his pet theory.

Cheers!

 

[swordmaster]

For what it's worth, a lot of evolutionary creationists (myself included) accept the word "day" as used in Genesis 1 to mean a literal 24-hour day. We just don't accept that the story was ever meant to convey history.

Not even when God Himself quoted it as factual history? Be careful where that leads you, unless you are calling God a liar.

 

[swordmaster]

The Holy Spirit led Moses, the author of Chronicles, and Luke to legitimize the family of Christ and that rules out any possiblity of long evolutionary ages.

Amen!!!

 

[swordmaster]

Yes, I would agree the days in Genesis are literal, but not actual. They are a literary device to frame the story, not part of actual history.

But again, unless you are calling God a liar, they are quite historical and quite literal. Remember, this is God talking here...

Exodus 20:8-11
"Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. 11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."

 

[swordmaster]

And those contradict each other. So at least some of them cannot be actual.

Actually, you are quite wrong on this point. Matthew's lineage of Christ is from the point of view of Joseph's blood line, and Luke's is from Mary's blood line. They were both descandants of David, and God wrote these two gospels according to His will to demonstrate that whether from Mary, or from Joseph's blood line, Jesus IS the legal King of Israel.