Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Where is your evidence creationists?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="JediMobius" data-source="post: 59517481" data-attributes="member: 137345"><p>Perhaps you can find some common ground in the following: (I can't find the source, though.)</p><p></p><p>"Gerald Schroeder, an MIT trained physicist, believes that modern science contains nothing inimical to a literal reading of Genesis. Indeed, modern science allows one to understand the "true literal meaning of the Creation narrative." To Schroeder, it is Einstein's relativity, the "distortion of time facing backwards in a forward rushing cosmos," that accounts for the compression of time in a 15-billion year-old universe into six days of creation.</p><p></p><p>To Schroeder, the emergence of modern man can be dated to the beginning of writing. Archeologists date the first writing, he notes, "at five or six thousand years ago, the exact period that the Bible tells us the soul of Adam, the neshama, was created." To Schroeder, who cites the Targum of Onkelos, Adam was the first man who could write, and the creation of Adam from more primitive man was a divine ensoulment."</p><p></p><p>I have thought for years that the relativity of time itself accounts for why 7 days appear as billions of years, and it does make sense that the significance of the creation of man is about our spiritual likeness, not our physical likeness. God is not physical, so how can the physical likeness be what is meant?</p><p></p><p>Evolution has its flaws, but staunch creationism that denies scientific evidence has its flaws as well. The only Christian approach, I think, is to meet where the two intersect according upon scripture. Whatever science observes and discovers, after compensating for bias, can only be what God has created. This will line up with scripture, even if biased scientific analysis does not.</p><p></p><p>Faith necessitates that we object to the origin of life from purely natural causes, and theology that we object to a history that contradicts Genesis, but evolution pertains to much more than these two things. The simplest concept of evolution is one of growth and adaptation within the different types of life, and part of fruitfully multiplying appears to be diversifying as well. But, butterflies are always butterflies. So, not only do I believe speciation as the means of diverse life from one common ancestor is preposterous on account of faith, it is also unsupported by scientific evidence.</p><p></p><p>All this to say: physically, we are dust. We are from dust, and will return to dust. For this reason, there is no need to object to a physical relationship to the rest of creation. It's inherent. However, from within we are different creations. It is not the human mind that makes us so unique, all mammals have minds and some even quite intelligent ones. It is not by our physical nature that we have a relationship with God, so why is it necessary to reject a physical relationship to other primates (though it may only be a similarity, i.e. no biological common ancestry either)? Instead, why not focus on our unique spiritual creation? It would make for a much more poignant argument anyway.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="JediMobius, post: 59517481, member: 137345"] Perhaps you can find some common ground in the following: (I can't find the source, though.) "Gerald Schroeder, an MIT trained physicist, believes that modern science contains nothing inimical to a literal reading of Genesis. Indeed, modern science allows one to understand the "true literal meaning of the Creation narrative." To Schroeder, it is Einstein's relativity, the "distortion of time facing backwards in a forward rushing cosmos," that accounts for the compression of time in a 15-billion year-old universe into six days of creation. To Schroeder, the emergence of modern man can be dated to the beginning of writing. Archeologists date the first writing, he notes, "at five or six thousand years ago, the exact period that the Bible tells us the soul of Adam, the neshama, was created." To Schroeder, who cites the Targum of Onkelos, Adam was the first man who could write, and the creation of Adam from more primitive man was a divine ensoulment." I have thought for years that the relativity of time itself accounts for why 7 days appear as billions of years, and it does make sense that the significance of the creation of man is about our spiritual likeness, not our physical likeness. God is not physical, so how can the physical likeness be what is meant? Evolution has its flaws, but staunch creationism that denies scientific evidence has its flaws as well. The only Christian approach, I think, is to meet where the two intersect according upon scripture. Whatever science observes and discovers, after compensating for bias, can only be what God has created. This will line up with scripture, even if biased scientific analysis does not. Faith necessitates that we object to the origin of life from purely natural causes, and theology that we object to a history that contradicts Genesis, but evolution pertains to much more than these two things. The simplest concept of evolution is one of growth and adaptation within the different types of life, and part of fruitfully multiplying appears to be diversifying as well. But, butterflies are always butterflies. So, not only do I believe speciation as the means of diverse life from one common ancestor is preposterous on account of faith, it is also unsupported by scientific evidence. All this to say: physically, we are dust. We are from dust, and will return to dust. For this reason, there is no need to object to a physical relationship to the rest of creation. It's inherent. However, from within we are different creations. It is not the human mind that makes us so unique, all mammals have minds and some even quite intelligent ones. It is not by our physical nature that we have a relationship with God, so why is it necessary to reject a physical relationship to other primates (though it may only be a similarity, i.e. no biological common ancestry either)? Instead, why not focus on our unique spiritual creation? It would make for a much more poignant argument anyway. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Where is your evidence creationists?
Top
Bottom