This is what I believe.

[Omacron]

1. God created the universe a very long time ago.

2. God created us by having us to evolve into what we are today.

3. We not only evolved physically but also spiritually and intellectually.

4. The eating of the fruit of knowledge was the symbolic. It was symbolic of mans turning to the use of his intellect for survival, rather than relying on instincts.

5. Mans expulsion from the Garden of Eden is symbolic of his reliance on intellect for survival, rather than only on God.

6. The Garden of Eden is a state of mind and mode of living, not a physical place defined by boundaries past or present.

7. Garden of Eden still exsists today. The animals live there for they rely only on God and are without sin.

8. The flood as recounted in Genises was not global. It covered the world that the ancients had knowledge of.

9. The 10 commandments must be obeyed.

10. Jesus was sacrifice in order to save man from sin.

11. Jesus is the son of God.

God bless you all.

 

[AndrewinIdaho]

If God can lie about Genesis then He can lie about anything and you are beliving in a false God (remeber Jesus said not to lie). If God (who is Jesus) lied when He said lying is a sin he has contradicted himself and proven to be false.

 

[Sabra]

Omacron:

Can I just ask you one question? Where is the God of "love" when He was creating everything? And I also missed where the sin was and what the curse is... What's your take on the restoration of all things at the end time as described in the Bible?

Also, AndrewinIdaho had good points too...

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

If God can lie about Genesis then He can lie about anything and you are beliving in a false God (remeber Jesus said not to lie). If God (who is Jesus) lied when He said lying is a sin he has contradicted himself and proven to be false.

Perhaps there are more types of writing than history and lie.

 

[Sabra]

fragmentsofdreams:

But there is no biblical evidence to suggest that Genesis should be taken any other way than history...

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

fragmentsofdreams:

But there is no biblical evidence to suggest that Genesis should be taken any other way than history...

There is evidence: poetic devices, textual seems, factual inconsistencies between accounts, symbollic names, similarities to the myths of other cultures, etc.

 

[stumpjumper]

Omacron:

Can I just ask you one question? Where is the God of "love" when He was creating everything? And I also missed where the sin was and what the curse is... What's your take on the restoration of all things at the end time as described in the Bible?

“Love by its very nature can not compel, and so any God whose very essence is love should not be expected to overwhelm the world either with a coercively directive power or an annihilating presence. Indeed, an infinite love must in some ways absent or restrain itself, precisely in order to give the world the space in which to become something distinct from the creative love that constitutes it as other. We should anticipate, therefore, that any universe rooted in an unbounded love would have some features that appear to us an random and undirected” (God After Darwin, John Haught p.112)

What is the God that Christian faith can claim to have encountered? A humble and self-emptying love that was witnessed by the Cross. Sin comes from freedom and even without the law we would have still sinned it is only counted against us because of the law (Romans 5).

In many ways, a theology which includes evolution makes more sense of the Christian message rather than less sense. It will be when "Gos wipes all the tears from our eyes" that the process will become complete.

 

[Omacron]

Omacron:

Can I just ask you one question? Where is the God of "love" when He was creating everything? And I also missed where the sin was and what the curse is... What's your take on the restoration of all things at the end time as described in the Bible?

Also, AndrewinIdaho had good points too...

God is, was and will be everywhere and everywhen. Before the creation, time and space as we know it didn't exsist. So I can not say there was a place he was. But sence there was no creation till he spoke it, he must have been all. Sence creation was by him, he is still all.

Revelation 1
8I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

Psalm 90
2Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.

Exodus 3
13And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them?



14And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

15And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, the LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.

As for the end times, I have read Revelations. There is much debate about it. As for myself, I don't worry about the end of time or concern myself with it. Jesus said:

Matthew 24
35Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.



36But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

37But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

So the only thing I can do is to try my best to please God and to serve him. And even though I am a sinner and unworthy, hope for the salvation promissed.

Revelation 4
20Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
21To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.


Revelation 4
11Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

Bless you and peace,

 

[Jipsah]

If God can lie about Genesis then He can lie about anything and you are beliving in a false God (remeber Jesus said not to lie).

I've always loved the "If you don't believe like I do you're calling God a liar and worshipping a false god and besides that you suck!" response. A sure winner every time. If you could somehow work in a reference to Hitler the thing would be absolutely bullet-proof.

 

[AndrewinIdaho]

I've always loved the "If you don't believe like I do you're calling God a liar and worshipping a false god and besides that you suck!" response. A sure winner every time. If you could somehow work in a reference to Hitler the thing would be absolutely bullet-proof.

Im sorry to say that if the scripture is to be divinly inspired it must be accurate, you cant say "God said this but meant that" it is a contradiction.

However that aside, let me ask you a question about evolution... if man evolved from something else where are the fossiles that show the transition from animal to animal then and only then will I belive in OEC.

 

[random_guy]

Im sorry to say that if the scripture is to be divinly inspired it must be accurate, you cant say "God said this but meant that" it is a contradiction.

However that aside, let me ask you a question about evolution... if man evolved from something else where are the fossiles that show the transition from animal to animal then and only then will I belive in OEC.

My guess is you don't understand what a transitional fossil is. Evolution is a tree, not a ladder, and it's very unlikely we have fossils on a fork of a tree. However, we have a lot of fossils of animals that show characteristics of 2 different groups. That's a transitional fossil.

 

[vossler]

My guess is you don't understand what a transitional fossil is. Evolution is a tree, not a ladder, and it's very unlikely we have fossils on a fork of a tree. However, we have a lot of fossils of animals that show characteristics of 2 different groups. That's a transitional fossil.

Evidently even a world famous paleontologist like Stephen Jay Gould isn't too clear as to what a transitional fossil is, at least not from having actually seen one.

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists is the trade secret of paleontology... In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ansectors; it appears all at once and fully formed." ("Evolution's Erratic Pace", Natural History, May 1977)

He's also said this:

"I regard the failure to find a clear 'vector of progress' in life's history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record... We have sought to impose a pattern that we hoped to find on a world that does not really display it." ("The Ediacaran Experiment", Natural History, Feb 1984)

So if a world famous scientist like him has questions, why is it that the rest of us don't? I know I do!

 

[random_guy]

Evidently even a world famous paleontologist like Stephen Jay Gould isn't too clear as to what a transitional fossil is, at least not from having actually seen one.

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists is the trade secret of paleontology... In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ansectors; it appears all at once and fully formed." ("Evolution's Erratic Pace", Natural History, May 1977)

He's also said this:

"I regard the failure to find a clear 'vector of progress' in life's history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record... We have sought to impose a pattern that we hoped to find on a world that does not really display it." ("The Ediacaran Experiment", Natural History, Feb 1984)

So if a world famous scientist like him has questions, why is it that the rest of us don't? I know I do!

Science doesn't work on quotes, it works on evidence. Why not address the transitional fossils found?

PS: BTW, saying Gould doesn't support evolution or that he thought there wasn't any is a lie.

[T]ransitions are often found in the fossil record. Preserved transitions are not common -- and should not be, according to our understanding of evolution (see next section) but they are not entirely wanting, as creationists often claim. [He then discusses two examples: therapsid intermediaries between reptiles and mammals, and the half-dozen human species - found as of 1981 - that appear in an unbroken temporal sequence of progressively more modern features.]

Faced with these facts of evolution and the philosophical bankruptcy of their own position, creationists rely upon distortion and innuendo to buttress their rhetorical claim. If I sound sharp or bitter, indeed I am -- for I have become a major target of these practices.

I count myself among the evolutionists who argue for a jerky, or episodic, rather than a smoothly gradual, pace of change. In 1972 my colleague Niles Eldredge and I developed the theory of punctuated equilibrium. We argued that two outstanding facts of the fossil record -- geologically "sudden" origin of new species and failure to change thereafter (stasis) -- reflect the predictions of evolutionary theory, not the imperfections of the fossil record. In most theories, small isolated populations are the source of new species, and the process of speciation takes thousands or tens of thousands of years. This amount of time, so long when measured against our lives, is a geological microsecond . . .

Oh snap. Seems like many Creationists continue to have to quote mine to prove their points.

 

[vossler]

Science doesn't work on quotes, it works on evidence. Why not address the transitional fossils found?

PS: BTW, saying Gould doesn't support evolution or that he thought there wasn't any is a lie.

Oh snap. Seems like many Creationists continue to have to quote mine to prove their points.

Look I'm not a scientist nor will I ever be one, and I'm certainly am not going to pretend to be one either. My point was solely to show how an atheist like Gould has questions yet Christians here don't seem to have any. I appreciate his honesty.

BTW - I never claimed Gould doesn't support evolution or that it was a lie, you did!

 

[blueanjel]

Genesis 1:1 - In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

we did not evolve we were created

 

[random_guy]

Look I'm not a scientist nor will I ever be one, and I'm certainly am not going to pretend to be one either. My point was solely to show how an atheist like Gould has questions yet Christians here don't seem to have any. I appreciate his honesty.

BTW - I never claimed Gould doesn't support evolution or that it was a lie, you did!

No, Gould knows what a transitional fossil is. Let's take a closer look at what you posted.

"I regard the failure to find a clear 'vector of progress' in life's history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record... We have sought to impose a pattern that we hoped to find on a world that does not really display it." ("The Ediacaran Experiment", Natural History, Feb 1984)

And let's look at the entire quote.

"I regard the failure to find a clear 'vector of progress' in life's history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record. But I also believe that we are now on the verge of a solution, thanks to a better understanding of evolution in both normal and catastrophic times."

So, tell me. Why would you only post part of the post, and leave the last section out?

What if I went around telling people the Bible said, "There is no God."? Would this be honest? If this is dishonest, why would you go around making seem like Gould thinks evolution is not correctly reflected in the fossil record?

 

[vossler]

No, Gould knows what a transitional fossil is. Let's take a closer look at what you posted.
[/font][/size]

And let's look at the entire quote.


So, tell me. Why would you only post part of the post, and leave the last section out?

What if I went around telling people the Bible said, "There is no God."? Would this be honest? If this is dishonest, why would you go around making seem like Gould thinks evolution is not correctly reflected in the fossil record?

Wow, you're just missing the entire point of my post. Let's see if we can do this again.

Gould has questions, why don't you? There that's it!

 

[EchelonForm]

5. Mans expulsion from the Garden of Eden is symbolic of his reliance on intellect for survival, rather than only on God.

6. The Garden of Eden is a state of mind and mode of living, not a physical place defined by boundaries past or present.

7. Garden of Eden still exsists today. The animals live there for they rely only on God and are without sin.

8. The flood as recounted in Genises was not global. It covered the world that the ancients had knowledge of.

Does anyone else see the contradictions here? First the garden is symbolic, then its a state of mind, then it exists....with pure animals? And the flood did not destroy it because...it was not in the known world or it was strictly symbolic, or the animals went on the ark and then went back whats the deal with that.

I've always loved the "If you don't believe like I do you're calling God a liar and worshipping a false god and besides that you suck!" response. A sure winner every time. If you could somehow work in a reference to Hitler the thing would be absolutely bullet-proof.

I always love how people disregard logic when it disargees with something in their
world view.

My guess is you don't understand what a transitional fossil is. Evolution is a tree, not a ladder, and it's very unlikely we have fossils on a fork of a tree. However, we have a lot of fossils of animals that show characteristics of 2 different groups. That's a transitional fossil.

Way to contradict your self I guess evolution is a tree with ladders on it? Your analogy doesn't really make any sense but then you contradict it. Plus, if evolution is a tree the forks are where the non-transitional fossils would be.

Science doesn't work on quotes, it works on evidence. Why not address the transitional fossils found?

Really, so wouldn't quoting a 'so called expert' be supportive evidence to his claim? Science works on the the interpretation of evidence, I heard evidence that the world could have been created 6,000 years ago, that the global flood makes sense and on and on. But those scientists are just crackpots because they're not main-stream enough right?

So, tell me. Why would you only post part of the post, and leave the last section out?

Well if you look at your's you do the same thing. Moreover you ignore everything Gould says just to jump on his back when he says "I also believe we are on the verge of a solution." To be honest All the Gould quotes presented in this thread personally strengthen my believe in a young earth.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Genesis 1:1 - In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

we did not evolve we were created

What if God creates using evolving?

 

[random_guy]

Wow, you're just missing the entire point of my post. Let's see if we can do this again.

Gould has questions, why don't you? There that's it!

Fine, let's start over, ignoring the quote mining. There's questions in every area of science. There's no problem with that. We still don't exactly know how disease works, but it doesn't mean we should stop teaching Germ Theory.