There is no basis for conflict with Evolution.

gluadys · Nov 8, 2005

CaiperLane said:
What we do not believe is that the Genesis account is or was ever intended to be a literal historical description of creation.

===================

Can't God create whatever way he chooses?

Well there is a non-sequitor question if I ever heard one. What does God's choice of creation methods have to do with how the scriptural passage about creation is to be read?

God can certainly create however God chooses.

What we learn from creation is that, in the case of biological species, he chose evolution.

notto · Nov 8, 2005

CaiperLane said:
Unable to explain exactly how matter and energy appeared where previously there was nothing, and unable to explain exactly how genetic information appeared in massive amounts where previously there was none, the evolutionist is scarcely entitled to demand to know how it was done by the Creator.

By this logic, we should reject chemistry and physics as well. Again, you are discussing things that have nothing to do with evolution such as the creation of matter and energy. Why is that?

As far as genetic information, the theory of evolution explains where that came from quite well.

It seems your argument boils down to 'science bad' because it isn't religion.

Micaiah · Nov 8, 2005

and unable to explain exactly how genetic information appeared in massive amounts where previously there was none

As far as genetic information, the theory of evolution explains where that came from quite well.

I would be interested in some kind of explanation as to how the information in the DNA arose in the first place. We await your explanation Notto.

notto · Nov 8, 2005

Micaiah said:
I would be interested in some kind of explanation as to how the information in the DNA arose in the first place. We await your explanation Notto.

Chemical reactions of self replicating molecules. Once established, random mutations within it passed on to future generations due to higher fitness.

There are several different types of mutations, all of which can lead to new information in DNA that did not exist before. Observed and fairly basic chemistry and biology.

Micaiah · Nov 8, 2005

Chemical reactions of self replicating molecules.

Where did these self replicating molecules come from and how did they get the ability to self replicate.

notto · Nov 8, 2005

Micaiah said:
Where did these self replicating molecules come from and how did they get the ability to self replicate.

Chemical reactions. There are several known self replicating molecules and reaction. Catalystic reactions have some of the same characteristics as well. The ability to self replicate is due to the nature of the reaction. They are simply molecules made up of natural elements so no real surprise that they could arise in nature under the right conditions.

Of course, none of that has much to do with evolution since evolution deals with the change of already existing species and already existing organisms. Where DNA came from or the first self replicating cell has no real impact on the validity of the theory of evolution just as where atoms came from has no real impact on the validity of chemistry.

Micaiah · Nov 8, 2005

notto said:
Chemical reactions. There are several known self replicating molecules and reaction. Catalystic reactions have some of the same characteristics as well. The ability to self replicate is due to the nature of the reaction. They are simply molecules made up of natural elements so no real surprise that they could arise in nature under the right conditions.

So how far as a percent do you think scientists have got in their attempt to provide a naturalistic explanation of life.

Of course, none of that has much to do with evolution since evolution deals with the change of already existing species and already existing organisms. Where DNA came from or the first self replicating cell has no real impact on the validity of the theory of evolution just as where atoms came from has no real impact on the validity of chemistry.

So your comment:

As far as genetic information, the theory of evolution explains where that came from quite well

in response to this comment,

and unable to explain exactly how genetic information appeared in massive amounts where previously there was none

was wrong. Not that I expect you will admit this if past experience is any indication.

CaiperLane · Nov 8, 2005

Even in the Genesis accounts. Do you think the snake was really, literally a snake? Or was it Satan? If you think it was Satan, then you are not interpreting the word "snake" literally. Does that mean you are disagreeing with what the bible is saying?
==========================

Satan was never a snake. The animal in the garden was a serpent. Satan possessed the animal and spoke to Eve. She didn't seem to surprised that this animal was speaking to her so maybe they could talk before the Fall. Who knows? But regardless, after the Fall the animals were also punished because God told the animal (the serpent) that he would crawl on his belly all his days....he was punished along with Adam, Eve and Satan.

And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: (KJV)

So that account describing this in Genesis I believe really happened.

You made the claim that Christians who accept evolution must not be conversant with all aspects of the theory. I am pointing out that this is an incorrect assumption.

Perhaps they know Biblical theology and have decided they don't believe parts of it. Since we don't know them personally and cannot sit down with them and talk we can't make assumptions about their faith OR their research.

I am sorry you seem so preturbed at me. I've already apologized but now it seems you're not interested in one anyway.

I have a feeling that Creationists and Evolutionists will never agree. So maybe this is a subject that people have to skip over...

But there are as many that go from Evolutionists to Creationists:

Former Evolutionists who became Creation Scientists

Emeritus Professor Tyndale John Rendle-Short - (From (theistic) evolution to creation

For Prof himself, educated at Cambridge and brought up with his father's writings, theistic evolution (or its variant, progressive creationism) was the natural direction for him to take. His odyssey to being chairman of one of the most effective creation science outreach ministries in the world was overseen by the Lord's hand in countless ways, both large and small.

Charlie Lieberts - (Chemist)

Charlie Lieberts idea of a good time back in New Jersey was to drink beer with a bunch of buddies and mock Billy Graham on television. A self-described atheistic evolutionist, Liebert would ridicule the fact that he and his friends were sinners.

Dr. Gary Parker - (Biologist)

"I was very consciously trying to get students to bend their religious beliefs to evolution."
"Evolution was really my religion, a faith commitment and a complete world-and-life view that organized everything else for me, and I got quite emotional when evolution was challenged." Dr. Gary Parker's testimony as to how he went from teaching evolution at the college level to being a leading spokesman for Biblical creationism.

Dr. D. Russell Humphreys - (Physicist)
Darwin's Theory and Evolution was his Origins of Belief stance.

Dr. Alan Galbraith (Watershed Science)

"I attended a creation seminar arranged by my pastor. I had only been a Christian for some four years or so, and was still a convinced evolutionist. I have to admit that I went with the attitude what can this pastor, whose last science course was probably in junior high school, tell me about the area I know so much about?"

Dr. Donald Batten - (Agriculturist) As a young Christian I naively thought that 'science was facts' and tried to believe in evolution and the Bible by accepting the notion that 'God used evolution', days-are-ages, 'progressive creation', etc.

Dr. David Catchpoole - (Plant Physiologist)

Until his mid-20s, David was an ardent evolutionistic atheist, but a personal crisis while working in Indonesia brought him to embrace Christianity. However, for a decade he struggled to reconcile popular evolutionary beliefs with the Bible...

Dr. A. E. Wilder-Smith - (3 Doctorates and a NATO 3-star General)

The late Dr. Arthur E.Wilder-Smith, an honored scientist with an amazing three earned doctorates. He held many distinguished positions. A former Evolutionist, Dr. Wilder-Smith debated various leading scientists on the subject throughout the world. In his opinion, the Evolution model did not fit as well with the established facts of science as did the Genesis Creation model of intelligent design.

Dr. Robert V. Gentry - (Physicist)

According to modern evolutionary theory, our planet originated from the accumulation of hot, gaseous material ejected from the sun, and the Precambrian granites were among the first rocks to form during the cooling process. University science courses convinced me that the evolution of the earth was just a part of the cosmic evolution of the universe. As a result I became a theistic evolutionist. Years later I began to re-examine the scientific basis for that decision. My thoughts turned to the age of the earth and the Precambrian granites. Were they really billions of years old?

Note: Dr. Gentry is a nuclear physicist who worked 13 years for the Oakridge National Laboratory as a guest scientist. During the time he worked there, he was recognized as the world's leading authority in his area of research. It is interesting to note that when he began his research, he was an evolutionist. Today, Dr. Gentry is a fully convinced young earth creation scientist

You may find this information in the below link interesting:

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/top.htm

We've both had turns in stating our cases and where we stand. I'm done, I've included factual information as well as Biblical.

Again, I think you are incredibly intelligent and informed about your belief system.

We can just leave it at that.

God Bless you!

CaiperLane · Nov 8, 2005

By the way Jesus himself said that 'the scriptures cannot be broken'. John 10:35:

"If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken"

He didn't break it down and say this part is unbreakable but the rest is up for grabs to interpretation.

Jesus words:

John 5:46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me.

John 5: 47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

As the worst case scenario, to have put ourselves in a place where we are judge of what may be accepted and what may be rejected. That is a very dangerous place for anyone claiming the name of Christ to be.

Peace and Love In Our Lord And Savior Jesus Christ who loves us ALL.

Mikecpking · Nov 8, 2005

CaiperLane said:
Millions of Christians? Real Christians? Where are your statistics? I doubt millions of born again believers believe in evolution over creationism.

Are you implying we TEers are not real christians?

If they fully accept Evolution and claim to be Christians, A) they don't fully know ALL the aspects of Darwism and Evolution Theory because if they did they would not adhere to this ungodly theory and B) Remember just because someone says their a Christian and may think their a Christian doesn't make them a Christian.

I think this one does, but in other threads; we have a different approach to the truth of Genesis 1 and 2

They've done national surveys and polls asking who believes in Creation over Evolution. Creation always won out even among people who said they were not religious! Ministry organization, state polls, independant polls, magazine polls......I've seen them for years!
Every poll or research done on people's perspective of the origins of man that I've seen showed that these peole believed that a Higher Power/God Created the world to be higher ranked than Evolution when given the two choices in Americans from ALL backgrounds. Not just so-called Christian backgrounds.

Evolution DOES NOT point to a Creator. Genesis clearly describes Creation and what took place. If anyone calling themselves a Christian reading the Genesis account still chooses NOT to believe what The Word of God says....then yes we can "question" the authenticity of their salvation.

The God of the Bible is the same yesterday today and forever. He created the world as stated in Genesis. If a believer reads the Genesis account and STILL says he doesn't believe it, how can you not question the authenticity of their salvation experience?

No one is questioning authority, every word of the bible is true. It not about authenticity of salvation, you cannot set yourself up as judge on someones' interpretation of the Scriptures.

If we all took a literal view, what does it mean in Revelation 'A third of all the stars fell onto the earth'?

CaiperLane · Nov 8, 2005

Mikecpking said:
Are you implying we TEers are not real christians? (Nope.)

I think this one does, but in other threads; we have a different approach to the truth of Genesis 1 and 2.

Probably. But I'd rather believe God'a account than a man's.

No one is questioning authority, every word of the bible is true. It not about authenticity of salvation, you cannot set yourself up as judge on someones' interpretation of the Scriptures.

I wasn't. I was saying the scriptures should be the final authority for ALL believers.

If we all took a literal view, what does it mean in Revelation 'A third of all the stars fell onto the earth'?

Revelation is intented as a book of symbolism and hidden prophesies. John's vision/dream was given in a symbolic nature on purpose. That's a given when discussing Revelation. Literal doesn't mean every word. Like when the Bible says God covers us with his wings.....it doesn't mean he has feathers. Wings has many definitions. Plus bats don't have feathers.....it's the literal message that you take literally.

(But the other Books OT & NT

By the way Jesus himself said that 'the scriptures cannot be broken'. John 10:35:

"If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken"

He didn't break it down and say this part is unbreakable but the rest is up for grabs to interpretation.

Jesus words:

John 5:46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me.

John 5: 47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

As the worst case scenario, to have put ourselves in a place where we are judge of what may be accepted and what may be rejected. That is a very dangerous place for anyone claiming the name of Christ to be.

Never labeled anyone as an unbeliever. I said it makes people question you when you make statements that are contrary to scripture.

That's it.

And I'm not replying to this thread anymore. Or I'll just start repeating myself like I just....did....with...this post.......oh well........

notto · Nov 8, 2005

Micaiah said:
So your comment:

in response to this comment,

was wrong. Not that I expect you will admit this if past experience is any indication.

Not really - the theory of evolution explains where new genetic information comes from - it does not explain the chemical origins of DNA itself which seems to be where you are headed when you are discussing chemical replicators. I simply anticipated your jump. Based on past experience, I'm not surprised that you didn't catch the context of the comments.

You will notice if you read carfully that I said the following:

Chemical reactions of self replicating molecules. Once established, random mutations within it passed on to future generations due to higher fitness.

There are several different types of mutations, all of which can lead to new information in DNA that did not exist before. Observed and fairly basic chemistry and biology.

CardinalBaseball · Nov 8, 2005

Enoch7 said:
Want to talk about literal meaning? How about when God created the Sun on the fourth day? The FOURTH day. Obviously that means that at least the first three days could not have been in the time frame we pictured. If the very thing which we use to define night and day was not here until the fourth step in God's creation, then how can we have any bearing on what was the definition of a day was beforehand?

And how does this support evolution?

Micaiah · Nov 8, 2005

Like I said, I didn't think you would admit you were wrong, though clearly that is the case if you carefully read the authors comments in context. This stubborn refusal to admit wrong seems a quintessential characteristic of TE's.

Micaiah · Nov 8, 2005

CardinalBaseball said:
And how does this support evolution?

As discussed at length in another thread, one day = one rotation of the earth's sphere. The definition was recognised by a leading Jewish rabbi about 1000 years ago. Light =/= sun.

gluadys · Nov 8, 2005

CaiperLane said:
Even in the Genesis accounts. Do you think the snake was really, literally a snake? Or was it Satan? If you think it was Satan, then you are not interpreting the word "snake" literally. Does that mean you are disagreeing with what the bible is saying?
==========================

Satan was never a snake. The animal in the garden was a serpent.

"snake" and "serpent" refer to the same sub-order of reptiles. As in many cases in English we have two words for the same thing--one derived from Anglo-Saxon and one derived from French or Latin. "Snake" comes from Anglo-Saxon, "serpent" comes from Latin via Old French. They both mean the same thing and a dictionary will list them as synonyms.

Satan possessed the animal and spoke to Eve.

So you are claiming it was not the snake/serpent which actually spoke to Eve, but Satan who possessed it.

Now where in Genesis 3 does it say this is what happened? If a person had never heard of Satan, would they come to this conclusion just by reading the text? Or would they take it to say that the snake/serpent spoke?

When you attribute the speech of the animal to Satan when there is no reference to Satan in the text (nor anywhere in Genesis for that matter) then you are not interpreting the text literally.

Now when you are not interpreting the bible literally----are you disagreeing with it?

I ask because you said: "We can't take some things in the Bible literally and the ones we don't agree with say they weren't meant to be taken literally." implying that when people who accept evolution disagree with you about whether a passage of scripture ought to be read literally,they are retreating from literalism because they disagree with what the scripture says.

Rejecting a literal interpretation of scripture has nothing to do with disagreeing with scripture.

We all read some scripture as literal history and some as vision, symbol, parable, myth, allegory, poetry, etc. And we all draw the line between the literal and the non-literal differently. Just because someone disagrees with where you choose to draw that line is no indication at all that they disagree with scripture.

CaiperLane · Nov 8, 2005

gluadys said:
"snake" and "serpent" refer to the same sub-order of reptiles. As in many cases in English we have two words for the same thing--one derived from Anglo-Saxon and one derived from French or Latin. "Snake" comes from Anglo-Saxon, "serpent" comes from Latin via Old French. They both mean the same thing and a dictionary will list them as synonyms.

So you are claiming it was not the snake/serpent which actually spoke to Eve, but Satan who possessed it.

Now where in Genesis 3 does it say this is what happened? If a person had never heard of Satan, would they come to this conclusion just by reading the text? Or would they take it to say that the snake/serpent spoke?

When you attribute the speech of the animal to Satan when there is no reference to Satan in the text (nor anywhere in Genesis for that matter) then you are not interpreting the text literally.

Now when you are not interpreting the bible literally----are you disagreeing with it?

I ask because you said: "We can't take some things in the Bible literally and the ones we don't agree with say they weren't meant to be taken literally." implying that when people who accept evolution disagree with you about whether a passage of scripture ought to be read literally,they are retreating from literalism because they disagree with what the scripture says.

Rejecting a literal interpretation of scripture has nothing to do with disagreeing with scripture.

We all read some scripture as literal history and some as vision, symbol, parable, myth, allegory, poetry, etc. And we all draw the line between the literal and the non-literal differently. Just because someone disagrees with where you choose to draw that line is no indication at all that they disagree with scripture.

Okay I wasn't going to reply just because my hands are starting to hurt.... and I'm sleepy....and I don't want to debate this anymore. We can agree to disagree. But I did wanted to clarify.

{Now where in Genesis 3 does it say this is what happened? If a person had never heard of Satan, would they come to this conclusion just by reading the text? Or would they take it to say that the snake/serpent spoke?

When you attribute the speech of the animal to Satan when there is no reference to Satan in the text (nor anywhere in Genesis for that matter) then you are not interpreting the text literally.}

In the account of the temptation of Eve and the Fall of mankind, in Genesis chapter 3, we are introduced to a creature called 'the serpent'. Some people try to make out that the story is just symbolic or an allegory, because animals do not speak human language. So who or what is the person who uses the body of this 'beast of the field', not only to speak to Eve, but also to persuade her to disobey almighty God?

The cardinal rule in understanding Scripture, and especially those verses which may be something of a puzzle, is to interpret Scripture by Scripture, that is, to see what other verses have to say on the same subject.

On one occasion Jesus said to some Pharisees who were trying to kill him,

'Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning . . . he is a liar, and the father of it' (John 8:44).

To what event, involving lying and murder, from the beginning, could Jesus have been referring?

The temptation of Eve certainly qualifies as being in the beginning, as it is the first recorded event involving Eve after her creation. The serpent lied to Eve when he said, 'Ye shall not surely die', and as this is the first lie recorded in Scripture, the title 'father of it' [it = lies or lying] would seem to be a very apt description of the person doing the lying on this occasion.

'He [Satan] is the great promoter of falsehood of every kind. He is a liar, all his temptations are carried on by his calling evil good, and good evil, and promising freedom in sin'.1

Finally, the serpent's efforts resulted in the penalty of death falling not only on Adam and Eve, but on the whole human race. Jesus' term of 'murderer' therefore certainly applies to whoever tempted Eve.

The work of the serpent is thus the enactment of everything that Jesus ascribed to 'the devil' in John 8:44. Furthermore, there is no other event in recorded history that better fulfils this description of the devil than does the account of the temptation by the serpent in Genesis 3.

A further tie-up between the serpent of Genesis 3 and Satan, or the devil, is given in Revelation 12:9 and 20:2:

'And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world.'

The word "Satan" means "adversary" primarily to God, secondarily to men; the term "devil" signifies "slanderer" of God to men, and of men to God'. 2

Was the serpent then Satan? Although the Bible tells us that 'Satan himself is transformed into an angel of Light', or 'masquerades as an angel of light' (2 Corinthians 11:14), there are difficulties in assuming that something like this happened in the Garden of Eden. Theologian Henry C. Thiessen comments:

'. . . the serpent is neither a figurative description of Satan, nor is it Satan in the form of a serpent. The real serpent was the agent in Satan's hand. This is evident from the description of the reptile in Genesis 3:1 and the curse pronounced upon it in 3:14 [. . . upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy Life].3

The Bible tells us that, just before Judas left the Upper Room to go and betray Jesus, 'Satan entered into him' (John 13:2627). Likewise demons can, under certain conditions, indwell either human bodies or animal bodies for example, the time when Jesus cast out a legion of devils from a man, and they then entered a herd of pigs which ran down a steep place into the sea (Mark 5:113). It is therefore proper for us to conclude that Satan appropriated and used the body of a specific serpent on this occasion to carry out his subtle purpose of tempting Eve to sin.

It is also clear that the use of euphemisms about the serpent, such as calling him 'the personification of evil', or labelling the whole incident 'myth' or 'theological poetry', will not do. The Bible presents this episode as a personal encounter between Eve and Satan, as real as that between Christ and Satan in the wilderness.

The identification of the serpent as the one whose body Satan used raises further questions, such as does Satan speak audibly?

When Satan tempted Jesus, he did so with words. Jesus replied and their conversation is recorded for us in both Matthew's and Luke's Gospels (Matthew 4:111; Luke 4:113)

'It has been suggested that just as the speaking of Balaam's donkey was a divine miracle, so the speaking of the serpent was a diabolic miracle.'

"Scripture compliments scripture. Scripture works as a whole to reveal God Almighty, His plan and His works."

May The Peace And Love Of Our Savior Jesus Christ be With You.

(Okay I promise this time I'm done. Back to the recreation board )

gluadys · Nov 8, 2005

CaiperLane said:
Okay I wasn't going to reply just because my hands are starting to hurt.... and I'm sleepy....and I don't want to debate this anymore. We can agree to disagree. But I did wanted to clarify.

{Now where in Genesis 3 does it say this is what happened? If a person had never heard of Satan, would they come to this conclusion just by reading the text? Or would they take it to say that the snake/serpent spoke?

When you attribute the speech of the animal to Satan when there is no reference to Satan in the text (nor anywhere in Genesis for that matter) then you are not interpreting the text literally.}

In the account of the temptation of Eve and the Fall of mankind, in Genesis chapter 3, we are introduced to a creature called 'the serpent'. Some people try to make out that the story is just symbolic or an allegory, because animals do not speak human language. So who or what is the person who uses the body of this 'beast of the field', not only to speak to Eve, but also to persuade her to disobey almighty God?

The cardinal rule in understanding Scripture, and especially those verses which may be something of a puzzle, is to interpret Scripture by Scripture, that is, to see what other verses have to say on the same subject.

You are avoiding the issue. Or not understanding what the issue is.

1. A literal interpretation means taking the words at face value in their simplest most obvious meaning. Put yourself in the place of a tribesman in New Guinea who hears this story read aloud with no commentary. He cannot compare scripture to scripture because he is illiterate and has no bible to refer to. Would he understand the snake to be possessed by a creature called Satan of whom he has never heard? Or would he understand that a snake spoke to Eve?

2. My real point was about referring to a non-literal interpretation as disagreement with scripture. I hope we have clarified that interpreting scripture non-literally does not constitute disagreement with scripture. The disagreement is not with scripture; the disagreement is between fallible human interpretations of scripture, as to when a text should be interpreted literally and when it should be interpreted non-literally.

CaiperLane · Nov 9, 2005

The cardinal rule in understanding Scripture, and especially those verses which may be something of a puzzle, is to interpret Scripture by Scripture, that is, to see what other verses have to say on the same subject.

rmlittleone · Nov 9, 2005

What would be good is to give a definition of evolution. That way people wouldnt have different ideas of it. THen we could argue it correctly.

There is no basis for conflict with Evolution.

Legend

Legend

Well-Known Member

Legend

Well-Known Member

Legend

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Senior Member

Active Member

Legend

Cardinals > Cubs

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Legend

Active Member

Legend

Active Member

Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency