essentialsaltes
Fact-Based Lifeform
- Oct 17, 2011
- 43,051
- 46,178
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Legal Union (Other)
Right. Good. They are not compatible, given a reasonable definition of 'literal'.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I guess I should have been more specific. My primary intention was questioning the notion of a compatibility between the theory of evolution and a literal Genesis account.
Ok then, I thought so.Right. Good. They are not compatible, given a reasonable definition of 'literal'.
So you believe in the account of Jesus Christ in the Bible because you have faith that it is true? Most historians accept Jesus as a real historical figure, but very few believe He actually rose from the dead. To many that account is false because it conflicts with their worldviews: that the supernatural doesn't exist. Isn't it then the same thing to believe in other books of the Bible based off of faith, even if they conflict with other worldviews?
I've come across it. Some people interpret different parts of the Bible to be figurative or literal compared to me. I'm just saying, that if you believe in the literal historical reading of the gospel accounts, regardless of what others say about them when claiming that they can't be true (ie: because miracles don't exist, because God doesn't exist, etc.), isn't it the same kind of thing for others to have faith in the literal historical reading of other books of the Bible, such as Genesis?I believe the Bible tells us a bunch of things about Christ that are true, yes. It says them, I see them, my faith responds to them. It is true that many people who don't have faith in Christ do not believe the parts about him rising from the dead. I do, because I do have faith. In fact, I believe all the books of the Bible are true. I think Genesis is true. I do not think it's true history, but I don't think it's meant to communicate history any more than The Chronicles of Narnia are about history. Myths aren't about history. Gospel accounts are a different genre, and are interpreted differently.
It seems like you haven't really come across this point of view before, but it's actually quite common. Seriously, check out Biologos and browse their forums.
You haven't really said anything so far apart from "You're wrong." so I see no reason to just take your word for it without some sort of explanation.
I find it hard to believe that it is impossible to consider the possibility of anything happening in the past without resorting to science.
I guess I should have been more specific. My primary intention was questioning the notion of a compatibility between the theory of evolution and a literal Genesis account.
If you believe in things that conflict with the Genesis account; ie: the theory of evolution? Correct?
Why should I feel obligated to follow every link or watch every video? Am I supposed to just do that until I stop believing what I believe, and am unable to be responded to until then? Do you only talk to others who believe in evolution, and just ignore people who don't, linking various websites telling them to 'get educated'?That is not true. I offered to link you some introductory videos, you did not take me up on my offer. I gave you a link to biologos a Christian group. It appears that you have not used that link. If you want to learn you need to do most of the work yourself. So far you are so obviously wrong that I have done more than enough.
The scientific method is a tool, and is not biased. The people who use the scientific method are biased, as all people are biased. The idea that just because somebody claims to use the scientific method, that therefore any conclusion they come to is unbiased and definitely true, is a bit naive.How else are you going to know what is real? Your creation myth is no better than the countless other creation myths out there. You need an unbiased way to judge an idea and that is done with the scientific method.
So if I am to go out and watch these videos and study these links, and come back still believing in creationism, then what? Do you have so much faith in naturalism that the theoretical idea of it being wrong is non-existent in your mind? So you refuse to discuss the subject with people who don't claim to believe the same exact thing?There is none. Genesis was shown to be wrong before the theory of evolution came out. Early geologists went looking for confirmation of the Flood of Noah and they found that it never happened. Again, you would need to educate yourself a bit to appreciate this fact. I can't teach you over the computer. I can only lead you to sites that can help you to learn. And then Darwin came along and showed that the Garden of Eden was not real either.
Yes, that is a lot of people's 'reason' for it; said reason being "There is a lot of evidence for it." and nobody ever really goes into much more detail than that.I accept the theory of evolution because we can show that there is massive evidence for it and there is no reliable evidence for the Genesis account.
Ok then, I thought so.
Well, according to a literal reading of the Bible, they were actually only created mere days apart. I don't see why this matters though, as the question of the thread was already answered.Then the question becomes... which of the two accounts is in the best accordance with the evidence?
Given your initial question: if animals were created after fruit trees, then we should be able to locate geological strata that are older than any animal, but that still contain fruit trees. This is not the case.
I believe in a literal historical reading of it.Spinner,
for the sake of clarity, maybe you could spell out exactly what it is you believe regarding the Genesis account, and/or its compatibility with the evidence from cosmology, geology and biology about the history of the earth and life on it?
Well, according to a literal reading of the Bible, they were actually only created mere days apart.
Oh, I don't believe in hundreds of millions of years.But the record of the fossils shows that there were animals in the sea hundreds of millions of years before there were fruit trees. Not a few days after the fruit trees.
I've come across it. Some people interpret different parts of the Bible to be figurative or literal compared to me. I'm just saying, that if you believe in the literal historical reading of the gospel accounts, regardless of what others say about them when claiming that they can't be true (ie: because miracles don't exist, because God doesn't exist, etc.), isn't it the same kind of thing for others to have faith in the literal historical reading of other books of the Bible, such as Genesis?
Oh, I don't believe in hundreds of millions of years.
There is also clear evidence that humans can't raise from the dead three days later, or turn a handful of fish and loaves into enough to feed a few thousand people with multiple baskets to spare, or walk on the surface water. A lot of people find it pretty irresponsible to believe such things actually happened as well.No, I don't think having faith in Christ is the same as having faith in a particular interpretation of Genesis. I have no faith in a particular interpretation of Genesis; I come to conclusions about interpreting it based on facts from Biblical scholarship and science. The resurrection of Christ has not been falsified by Biblical scholarship and science the same way that a Young Earth interpretation of Genesis has. Many people certainly do claim faith in a particular interpretation of Genesis the same way they have faith in Christ, but I do not, and I find the concept of faith in the face of clear evidence sounds pretty irresponsible.
Why would we expect to find them beneath the fish, according to the Bible?Well, according to the biblical account, we should find fossil layers with fruit trees that are older than ('beneath') fossil layers with fish. Instead, we find the opposite.
Why would we expect to find them beneath the fish, according to the Bible?
Yes, but the amount of time between the appearance of fruit trees and the appearance of fish is one day according to Genesis. Probably not long enough to form a geological strata.Well, I don't know that the bible says anything in particular about stratigraphy, but it's generally recognized that geological formations are laid down sequentially, so that (all things being equal) layers that are deeper are older. The bible does provide one timeline for the appearance of plants, the sun, and fish, and so on, and the geological record provides another timeline. They do not agree in order. Or in timing, if you stick to literal days.
There is also clear evidence that humans can't raise from the dead three days later, or turn a handful of fish and loaves into enough to feed a few thousand people with multiple baskets to spare, or walk on the surface water. A lot of people find it pretty irresponsible to believe such things actually happened as well.
I believe in a literal historical reading of it.
But the problem is the possibility of miracles and the supernatural. Many people don't believe in it, and believe evidence points to pure naturalism.There is a difference between specific and general evidence. People may not usually rise from the dead, but that doesn't prove a particular person did not. If I had a time machine and went back to see Jesus not rising from the dead, I would definitely stop being a Christian, because that would be specific evidence to the contrary. We do have a ton of scientific evidence about the age of our specific Earth, and it would be irresponsible for me to ignore it or the Biblical scholarship on Genesis.
Depends on how much of the theory of evolution you are talking about.So, does that preclude a 4.54 billion year earth and biological diversity via evolution?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?