Theological of Evolution

[juvenissun]

Give me a verse that implies heliocentrism while I pile on you verses for a flat earth and geocentrism.

Heb 1:10 In the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands.

Psalm 104:5 He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved.

Psalm 93:1b The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved.

1 Samuel 2:8b For the foundations of the earth are the LORD's; upon them he has set the world.

Psalm 75:3 When the earth and all its people quake, it is I who hold its pillars firm.

Isaiah 11:12 And He will lift up a standard for the nations; And assemble the banished ones of Israel; And will gather the dispersed of Judah; From the four corners of the earth.

While to give you a verse to illustrate heliocentrism is super easy (In fact, you can find many on yourself. If you want to challenge any of them, we can talk about it) , I would like to ask you to reconsider ONE basic understanding in all the verses you quoted: The "foundation" of the earth.

Why would this word, foundation, give you an impression of a flat geometry? To me, it is absolutely a word to describe object of 3D.

Based on this single, minor "correction" of understanding, it is enough to say that it is not adequate to use all those verses for the illustration of a flat earth.

As far as the "pillar" goes, it has been discussed many times in this forum. Just show you some images which may relate to it: try to search "mantle plume" or "hotspot +mantle" on Google Image, you may see many gigantic pillars in the earth.

 

[ClearSky]

What problem do all the people have with geocentrism? Heliocentrism is just as right or wrong as geocentrism because science support neither of them. Besides, geocentrism has never been proven wrong because it's just a different frame of reference.

The Bible used the frame of reference of geocentrism because this is what the people of that time understood. They would not understand heliocentrism or Big Bang or whatever science has found out today. For a Bible believing Christian, geocentrism is still correct, because it just means you use the earth as a frame of reference.

 

[Jase]

What problem do all the people have with geocentrism? Heliocentrism is just as right or wrong as geocentrism because science support neither of them. Besides, geocentrism has never been proven wrong because it's just a different frame of reference.

Satellites and probes would not work if we followed the geocentric model.

The Bible used the frame of reference of geocentrism because this is what the people of that time understood. They would not understand heliocentrism or Big Bang or whatever science has found out today.

Exactly, it's because that's what the Biblical authors understood. Just like they didn't understand evolution either. But us in the 21st Century do understand these concepts, which is why we no longer accept the Biblical models as accurate.

For a Bible believing Christian, geocentrism is still correct, because it just means you use the earth as a frame of reference.

I don't think it quite works that way. The Sun doesn't revolve around the Earth - so why is geocentrism still accurate?

 

[crawfish]

The Bible used the frame of reference of geocentrism because this is what the people of that time understood. They would not understand heliocentrism or Big Bang or whatever science has found out today. For a Bible believing Christian, geocentrism is still correct, because it just means you use the earth as a frame of reference.

It's nice to see that someone gets it.

 

[Markus6]

I don't think it quite works that way. The Sun doesn't revolve around the Earth - so why is geocentrism still accurate?

Sure it does.

 

[Calminian]

Why do you say that?

Well, it was actually a quite redundant (and really not the best) statement. If evolution is falsified, it's a problem for evolutionists. Really goes without saying. If A is disproved, non A.

As far as the faith issue goes, people who believe in naturalistic solutions, tend to believe them no matter what. Even christians fall into this category since the age of science (naturalism) dawned. Evolution is really the only way to reconcile the existence of life and species with naturalism. It has to be believed or scientism is injured.

 

[Calminian]

What problem do all the people have with geocentrism? Heliocentrism is just as right or wrong as geocentrism because science support neither of them. Besides, geocentrism has never been proven wrong because it's just a different frame of reference.

I think you're on the right track but need to be careful here, or at least a little more precise. Geocentrism is actually a model that involves orbiting patterns, including gravity, centrifugal force and inertia. In that frame of reference the earth has definitely been proven to orbit the sun.

But in terms of communication, all movement is relative and the communicator must indicate a point of reference. This is why modern astrophysicists use terms like sunset and sunrise in everyday language. This is why when a policeman yells "stop!" we don't look at him funny thinking "How can we stop? Doesn't he realize how fast the earth in moving?"

The Bible used the frame of reference of geocentrism because this is what the people of that time understood. They would not understand heliocentrism or Big Bang or whatever science has found out today. For a Bible believing Christian, geocentrism is still correct, because it just means you use the earth as a frame of reference.

Again, just for the sake of precision, using points of reference to describe movement is not limited to christians. It's actually universal. And there's nothing incorrect about using the earth as a point of reference even to describe movements of the sun. There's nothing incorrect about speaking of the sun rising, nor even stopping. This is exactly the way the event in Joshua's time would have been described today in normal communication.

My only advise is with the use of the term "geocentrism." The term doesn't merely speak of earth as a reference point for describing movement, but also implies orbiting patterns, and in that sense has been falsified. Thus christians are in no way geocentrists.

But I agree with you for the most part.

 

[Mallon]

As far as the faith issue goes, people who believe in naturalistic solutions, tend to believe them no matter what.

On what basis do you make this claim? When has the global scientific community ever refused to abandon an old theory in light of a new, more powerful one?

Even christians fall into this category since the age of science (naturalism) dawned. Evolution is really the only way to reconcile the existence of life and species with naturalism. It has to be believed or scientism is injured.

Scientism is the belief that the only authentic knowledge is scientific knowledge. But believing that evolution most accurately describes the history of life on earth doesn't make one guilty of scientism any more than believing in a natural explanation of weather or atomic bonding, which I'm pretty you do.
Scientism is exemplied best by those who would insist that in order to be of any worth, the Bible must be scientifically accurate. As though if it were not, it would not be of any value as a book about faith. THAT'S scientism.

 

[Calminian]

On what basis do you make this claim? When has the global scientific community ever refused to abandon an old theory in light of a new, more powerful one?

I don't think you're quite understanding. Naturalists are always willing to jump from one natural solution to another. But they will never jump to anything outside of naturalism. They can't, because science can't investigate it.

Scientism is the belief that the only authentic knowledge is scientific knowledge.

More precisely it is the belief that science is the best way to discover truth.

But believing that evolution most accurately describes the history of life on earth doesn't make one guilty of scientism any more than believing in a natural explanation of weather or atomic bonding, which I'm pretty you do.

Not quite because there are no logical problems with current naturalistic weather predictions. There are logical problems with naturalistic origins theories.

Scientism is exemplied best by those who would insist that in order to be of any worth, the Bible must be scientifically accurate.

This is where you guys err. You understand science, but are generally poor in your ability to reason outside of science (which, unfortunately, makes you poor theologians). The Bible speaks of miracles throughout its pages, but they could certainly not be described as "scientifically accurate." Miracles, by definition, are contradictions of scientific understandings. Origins is also described as a supernatural, not a natural process. You guys are trying to weigh something with a yardstick. This is the heart of your problem and why you tend to stay so far biblical truths.

 

[Assyrian]

Eph 3:9 and to bring to light for everyone what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things,
Col 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things were created through him and for him.

The "mystery" referred in EPH:3 has >95% probability to refer to the fact of gospel and salvation (see verse 6). Only <5% chance for other uncertain features such as evolution, creation, etc. etc.

And, you have to reveal to me why do you quote COL:1:16. I don't see anything in it related to evolution.

Oh the mystery is the gospel all right, and more, the complete fulfilment of God plans. But it wasn;t the mystery I was talking about. It was the last phrase in Eph 3:9 and Col 1:16 says the same thing.

Eph 3:9 and to bring to light for everyone what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things,
Col 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things were created through him and for him.

Evolution is real, our biological origins, the biological origins of all species from earlier ancestor species is real. The God who created all things created evolution. Anything that science finds out about the nature and history of the universe, it is discovering what God created. The bible doesn't tell us about the DNA double helix, gravity, atoms or evolution. It does tell us he created them all.

 

[juvenissun]

Oh the mystery is the gospel all right, and more, the complete fulfilment of God plans. But it wasn;t the mystery I was talking about. It was the last phrase in Eph 3:9 and Col 1:16 says the same thing.

Eph 3:9 and to bring to light for everyone what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things,
Col 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things were created through him and for him.

Evolution is real, our biological origins, the biological origins of all species from earlier ancestor species is real. The God who created all things created evolution. Anything that science finds out about the nature and history of the universe, it is discovering what God created. The bible doesn't tell us about the DNA double helix, gravity, atoms or evolution. It does tell us he created them all.

Let me help you a little bit:

May be you could emphasize the word "were". Everything "were" created, then the evolution process took over since then.

This gives rise of another question: I was told that tens, if not hundreds of species extinct every year (?). So even there are millions of species, it would probably die out in a short period of time. On the other hand, I also hear that there are new species continuously be discovered. That makes it sound like the total pool of life species on the earth is kept in a dynamic balance. Is this true?

If it were true, could we see some insight of evolution or creation in this fact? Is the act of creation still happening today?

I would think TE would jump on this and said: See, I told you !

 

[Assyrian]

Let me help you a little bit:

May be you could emphasize the word "were". Everything "were" created, then the evolution process took over since then.

Perhaps it is clearer in John 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made. God does not limit his creation to the originals made in Genesis. Job 31:15 Did not he who made me in the womb make him? And did not one fashion us in the womb? Psalm 100:3 Know that the LORD, he is God! It is he who made us, and we are his; we are his people, and the sheep of his pasture. When trees grow in the wilderness God has created them. Isaiah 41:18 I will open rivers on the bare heights, and fountains in the midst of the valleys. I will make the wilderness a pool of water, and the dry land springs of water. 19 I will put in the wilderness the cedar, the acacia, the myrtle, and the olive. I will set in the desert the cypress, the plane and the pine together, 20 that they may see and know, may consider and understand together, that the hand of the LORD has done this, the Holy One of Israel has created it. People and nations are God's creation too Isaiah 43:7 everyone who is called by my name, whom I created for my glory, whom I formed and made. Isaiah 54:16 Behold, I have created the smith who blows the fire of coals and produces a weapon for its purpose. I have also created the ravager to destroy. When the bible say all thing are created by God it means everything, even when we know the biology behind the creation of the smith, or of you and I, all that business about mammies and daddies, even when we know how new species evolve, it is still God who makes them. John 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made.

This gives rise of another question: I was told that tens, if not hundreds of species extinct every year (?). So even there are millions of species, it would probably die out in a short period of time. On the other hand, I also hear that there are new species continuously be discovered. That makes it sound like the total pool of life species on the earth is kept in a dynamic balance. Is this true?

If it were true, could we see some insight of evolution or creation in this fact? Is the act of creation still happening today?

I would think TE would jump on this and said: See, I told you !

The discovery of new species usually means finding ones that were there for some time, so it does not balance against extinctions.

Unfortunately we seem to be living in the middle of an extinction event at present, one caused by us. We take over their habitats or introducing foreign predators, and it will get a lot worse as the climate warms and habitats endangered species are barely clinging on in change and become unsuitable for them.

 

[gluadys]

Juvenissun:

If you have any space on your reading list, an excellent book on the subject of new species and extinction of species is The Biodiversity of Life by Edward O. Wilson.

 

[juvenissun]

Juvenissun:

If you have any space on your reading list, an excellent book on the subject of new species and extinction of species is The Biodiversity of Life by Edward O. Wilson.

Thanks. If I had time (rarely), I will do logic exercise. Biological stuff, well, I don't think I will read much of it at all for the rest of my life. Too bad. I am leaning on people, such as you, Mallon, Assyrian and TV and others to educate me on some biology.

 

[Mallon]

I don't think you're quite understanding. Naturalists are always willing to jump from one natural solution to another. But they will never jump to anything outside of naturalism. They can't, because science can't investigate it.

We agree then: Because science cannot investigate supernatural explanations, any explanation of a phenomenon that goes beyond what can be accounted for via natural causes is unscientific.
So who can blame scientists for rejecting antievolutionary creationism as unscientific?

More precisely it is the belief that science is the best way to discover truth.

As I said earlier, scientism is the belief that science is the ONLY way to discover truth.

Not quite because there are no logical problems with current naturalistic weather predictions. There are logical problems with naturalistic origins theories.

What logical problems are those, and how do they differ from the roles that chance and chaos play in the formation of weather? (And what does the creation of life have to do with its subsequent evolution, anyway?)

This is where you guys err. You understand science, but are generally poor in your ability to reason outside of science (which, unfortunately, makes you poor theologians).

The Bible speaks of miracles throughout its pages, but they could certainly not be described as "scientifically accurate." Miracles, by definition, are contradictions of scientific understandings. Origins is also described as a supernatural, not a natural process. You guys are trying to weigh something with a yardstick. This is the heart of your problem and why you tend to stay so far biblical truths.

My statement earlier was to the effect that many antievolutionary creationists promote scientism by insisting that the Bible must be scientifically accurate to be of any worth. I don't see how your response relates to that. Let's face facts: If "creation scientists", as they call themselves, weren't making an idol of science, they wouldn't try accounting for biblical phenomena like the firmament, Flood, or "created kinds" in scientific ways. Why the need to subject the Bible to science when, assuming you reject scientism, science isn't the way to reveal truth?

 

[theIdi0t]

For those who interpret the Bible literally, I suspect those who embraced an "all or nothing" belief would abandon Christianity completely. Other literalists would find some way to deny the evidence (further evidence of Satan's growing influence, for example), while others might re-examine their beliefs and change them as needed.

They lose their myths, and that hopeless theology that once provided a slight bit of meaning (even if it was only diversion), turns their life into meaninglessness. I think for (a number of) creationist, just like a number of atheist, all their hopes lie in science, and if their science fails their hopes are crushed along with it. A meaningless worldview with a thinly held myth that gave their lives some semblance of meaning would be lost, and perhaps as Nietzche warned a nihilist pathos follows such disengagement.

I think there's something much more deeper about the creationist myths then meet the eyes, there is a frail and wounded view of life, that is not all to easy to argue against, not because of disillusion, but because it can reasonably be true, that human history has no meaning, and we are just currents in a drift of genes as cynical unbelievers such John Gray proclaim.

I've always had a deep rooted sympathy for creationist, and I'm not always sure if I had the ability to rob them of their myths, if I would.