Why do some Christian's dismiss evolution?

[shernren]

See, that's the problem. The YECs keep accepting the challenge over evolution on atheists' terms. Would atheists offer terms of battle under with they aren't certain of winning? We should be fighting evolution on our terms, not atheists' terms. Some ideas are more easily conquered by being converted than by being destroyed.

 

[theFijian]

Isn't it interesting how an atheist who's an evolutionist has such a clear understanding of the impact of evolution on Christianity.

It's only interesting because it's an atheist telling you what you want to hear.

 

[gluadys]

Or how about this one:

“The day will come when the evidence constantly accumulating around the evolutionary theory becomes so massively persuasive that even the last and most fundamental Christian warriors will have to lay down their arms and surrender unconditionally. I believe that day will be the end of Christianity.”

G. Richard Bozarth, “The Meaning of Evolution”, American Atheist, 20 Sept. 1979, p. 30

Well TEs are proving him (and you) wrong. We accept the massively persuasive evidence that has accumulated around evolution without backing one step away from Christian faith and practice. I wonder if he would write the same thing today.

 

[Numenor]

I'm sorry, did you read what I wrote? The 6 days signifies that he spent time on creation, that it wasnt just a whimsical decision to create the earth. billions of years shows that he spent more time building than he did loving. It not wasting 6 days, it had a purpose and 6 days is nothing compared to how long he has loved us.

By your reasoning he spent five times as long creating a universe as he did creating us, he wasted five days when he could have done it in one. He did as he saw fit, to assert that he wasted any amount of time is irrelevant and a fundamental misunderstanding of the eternal nature of God.

Now, I believe in predestination and I believe I am one of the elect, two very biblical doctrines I'm sure you'll agree, and as a result I believe God knew me and chose me before the beginning of time, before Creation. I didn't have to exist for God to already love me. Nevertheless, as I have pointed out and which you have not addressed, there was, is, and always will be love in the fellowship between the three persons in the Trinity. God did not need to create us to show love, there was no deficiency in God that he needed to create anything. Therefore, your assertion that God needed to create us to display love is wrong. Please address this point.

I'm sorry, could you try taking that alittle more out of context? David was obviously talking about how short our lives are compared to the history of man, he most certainly was not talking about the life of the species of man. Is this how you read your bible? making it into whatever you want?

First of all, please try to be less emotional when you debate. You'll find it beneficial to try to get along with people rather than constantly trying to belittle them.

Ps 103: [sup]15[/sup]As for man, his days are like grass; he flourishes like a flower of the field; [sup]16[/sup] for the wind passes over it, and it is gone, and its place knows it no more. [sup]17[/sup] But the steadfast love of the LORD is from everlasting to everlasting on those who fear him...

OK so there's a little more context for us. He is comparing the life of man to the Love of God which is from 'everlasting to everlasting' ie. eternal. He was not comparing the life of a man to the life of the species of man. So God is eternal, and for an eternal God billions of years is nothing, wouldn't you agree? My claim is not that God had to take billions of years, just that he did. Your assertion was that God wasted billions of years creating a universe for us to inhabit, my point is that God does not and cannot waste time because he is not constrained by it. And just because we have been around a very short time on the cosmological scale of things does not make us any more or less significant to God.

Still trying to figure out if you actually read what I wrote, and also calls into question your biblical knowledge in this statement. God created us to love him, so what was there to love him before? The angels, I suppose but their love is little compared to ours.

God did indeed create us to love him, but does he need that love? Was there really no love in the universe before we were created? Did God need to create us so he could show love? Is there no love within the Trinity? Please address this point. I have an excellent sermon by John Piper on this very subject which should shed some light on it for you.

Which means that there was nothing to love him back until mankind came along only several thousand years ago in a Billion year old universe. So we have billions of years where he is creating and creating and then at the very end he decides for a split second of geological existance there will be these creatures that love him.

I am perhaps labouring this point now but it is very important, there was no lack of love before Creation, God was able to express his love within the Trinity before he created us. Or are you really saying that God had to create us before he could love? Are you really saying that God was deficient in some way before he created us? Are you really saying that God was not perfect prior to Creation and had to make us?

you may not have thought about the implications of love on evolution, but that certainly is what it is saying. "Survival of the fittest" was the order of things until mankind came. Where is the love in that again? Why God would create the universe to destroy itself is beyond me. He made the lions to kill and the vultures to pick the bones of the dead and rotting. It's hard for me to buy that God would want creation to be so violent and morbid, which he would have to want it considering according to evolution, he made it that way.

Do the lions and vultures love God? Only man has that special relationship with God. The death of animals has no relevance here. Natural Selection is a work of divine genius imho, that's why scientists and engineers love genetic algorithms.

 

[QuantumFlux]

Achem, I'll be emotional if I want to....

OK so there's a little more context for us. He is comparing the life of man to the Love of God which is from 'everlasting to everlasting' ie. eternal. He was not comparing the life of a man to the life of the species of man.

Wow, you totally missed that concept. Seems some of the TE's have a hard time with context and parables. try re-reading it. Man kind is like grass. I dont know if you know much about grass but when one blade dies, another takes its place. The concept is not that eventually grass wont exist, but that one blade will die. Man's life is like this, one blade dies and time continues on and the cycle repeats and our lives are little compared to the field of other people.

My point, my friend, is not just that it is billions of years wasted, but if it wasnt, the time line shows that we are just that insignificant and that we are but a speck of God's creation and really alot less important than the earth itself. He spent alot more time on the earth's creation than our own, thus would say that the earth is more important.

God did indeed create us to love him, but does he need that love? Was there really no love in the universe before we were created? Did God need to create us so he could show love? Is there no love within the Trinity? Please address this point. I have an excellent sermon by John Piper on this very subject which should shed some light on it for you.

I don't even see how this could work in your favor. Of course he did not NEED to make us, he WANTED to make us and wanted to love us and for us to love him back. The problem is that the Fall gives us that point, that we could chose to love him or not. What you are saying is that we have always sinned which means God created us to sin. With an Eden, He shows that we had a choice, and he did not make us sin, but without the fall, there was no choice, we are just born sinners, which means that is how God made us. He created us with sin and then tells us not to?

In response to questions about my parable. I believe the earth is real and that God is the programmer in the parable, we are the players. We are confined by the physics that God made. It makes alot of sense that since our technology has progressed to where we can create virtual universes that we would mimic the way God created (obviously in a much more basic sense). We create worlds to look aged, we dont create the physics for a game and then expect them to evolve into a playable map, we create the world ready to be used. Do not mistake my parable as man having anything to do with the world's creation, God is the programmer of the world in this parable.

You say that God tells us that he used evolution because our genes tell us... I'm sorry, our genes don't look like a burning bush to me. And our genes most certainly do not tell us that we came from any other animal. Genes are the building blocks of living things, if those are bricks in which to build a body, it would only make sense that animals with similar features would have similar genes, it doesn't prove that one came from the other.

I believe if God was speaking through them, the evidence would be more factual than assumption, but you can only assume that one came from the other based on similar genes, and I can just as easily assume that God just built us with similar genes because we have similar features.

Even taking Genesis as an historical account, there were things created before humans. Genesis 1 places the creation of humans on the 6th day, not the 1st, and even on that day, terrestrial animals were created before humans. On that basis, if Jesus' words are damaging to evolution, they also contradict Genesis.

What? I dont know, day 6 doesnt seem that far from the beginning when you consider how old the earth is. It is in no way contradictory, day 6 is practically the very beginning considering that the earth in my view is 2,190,000 days old. Creation didn't end on the 6th day, because he rested on the 7th. A rest suggests that he will return to creating. Contradictory? far from it, but it certainly is contradictory to evolution. (for those who missed it, we are talking about Mark 10:6, to bring you up to speed, I know the context is talking about marriage, but he does mention the creating in passing, and if evolution is true, this statement is very deceptive)

 

[gluadys]

You say that God tells us that he used evolution because our genes tell us... I'm sorry, our genes don't look like a burning bush to me.

God spoke to Moses from the burning bush in order to commission him as the leader who would bring the Israelites out of Egypt. Did that require enlightening Moses about biology?

And our genes most certainly do not tell us that we came from any other animal. Genes are the building blocks of living things, if those are bricks in which to build a body, it would only make sense that animals with similar features would have similar genes, it doesn't prove that one came from the other.

So where did your genes come from, if they are only building blocks? Why do we use genetic information as evidence of family relationships if they are manufactured and not inherited?

I believe if God was speaking through them, the evidence would be more factual than assumption, but you can only assume that one came from the other based on similar genes, and I can just as easily assume that God just built us with similar genes because we have similar features.

We know that genes are inherited. We know that similar genes indicate a family relationship. We know that this extends to species with common ancestors since speciation has been observed. I don't see any assumptions here. Only observations and accurate predictions. Would you please identify the specific assumptions you are referring to?

What? I dont know, day 6 doesnt seem that far from the beginning when you consider how old the earth is. It is in no way contradictory, day 6 is practically the very beginning considering that the earth in my view is 2,190,000 days old. Creation didn't end on the 6th day, because he rested on the 7th. A rest suggests that he will return to creating. Contradictory? far from it, but it certainly is contradictory to evolution. (for those who missed it, we are talking about Mark 10:6, to bring you up to speed, I know the context is talking about marriage, but he does mention the creating in passing, and if evolution is true, this statement is very deceptive)

Jesus refers to the creation of humans--which took place at the very end of the last day of creation week--and calls it the "beginning of creation". So he clearly includes the tail end of creation, when humans were created, as the "beginning" of creation.

Now what difference does it make to an eternal God whether the creation of humans took place after 144 hours or after 13.7 billion years? Since God is eternal, the number of hours, days or years is irrelevant. Humans have been male and female since the beginning of creation, whatever the length of measured time was.

 

[QuantumFlux]

God spoke to Moses from the burning bush in order to commission him as the leader who would bring the Israelites out of Egypt. Did that require enlightening Moses about biology?

Do you have any sort of sense of using an extreme to make a point? God used a burning bush that did not burn up to speak to Moses. When God gives a sign, he gives a something that its unmistakable to make his point. Genes are far from unmistakable.

So where did your genes come from, if they are only building blocks? Why do we use genetic information as evidence of family relationships if they are manufactured and not inherited?

This is the same arguement. You are using information that can tell where we are going to tell where we have been. Genes are genetic material, God create it as he did the rest of physics. He can just as easily make the animals as he said in genesis with the genetics they have today and then use the genetic process of passing genes down as you can see today.

Your assumption is just that, its not evidence.

We know that genes are inherited. We know that similar genes indicate a family relationship. We know that this extends to species with common ancestors since speciation has been observed. I don't see any assumptions here. Only observations and accurate predictions. Would you please identify the specific assumptions you are referring to?

Yes, we know that genes are inherited. However, similar genes do not always indicate a family relationship. I, in part, have some similar genes with a gorrilla today over in africa, however, I have no family ties to that gorilla, I am just build to some degree in a similar manor as it is.

You have no evidence that I am related to that gorilla, you assume I am based on the assumption that evolution is true. I assume that gorilla's were created along with the rest of the mammals, seperate from humans, but with similar genes. Their physiology would suggest they need those genes to look and work the way they do, if they didn't have those genes they wouldnt be a gorilla.

Your assumption is that gorillas and man have a common ancestor yet have no evidence for. Your evidence is an assumpiton that our genes show common ancestor, rather circular reasoning if you ask me. You can make predictions on where we will go, but you cant predict where we have been.

Jesus refers to the creation of humans--which took place at the very end of the last day of creation week--and calls it the "beginning of creation". So he clearly includes the tail end of creation, when humans were created, as the "beginning" of creation.

I'm sorry, I guess I missed the part where he said "the beginning of creation week" no wait, it's not there. He said the beginning of creation, take a quick look, because creation is a noun there. It isnt the beginning of creating, its the beginning of creation, as in the beginning of what he created. And yes, day 6 of 2 million and more is definately the beginning. You're fighting a loosing battle on this. Just accept that what he said, is what he meant. Now your options are, he was being deceiving in what he said, or that he spoke the truth and that he made them in the beginning of creation, male and female.

There is no way to look at billions of years later and at the very end of that time line man evolves and consider man as being created at the beginning. The only way to do it, is warp what Jesus said and stretch the truth as much as possible. But something tells me that when Jesus said that, he was understood by the people around him. He wasnt talking in riddles. Sometimes the most simple answer is the right one.

Now what difference does it make to an eternal God whether the creation of humans took place after 144 hours or after 13.7 billion years? Since God is eternal, the number of hours, days or years is irrelevant. Humans have been male and female since the beginning of creation, whatever the length of measured time was.

Maybe it didn't make a difference to God, but it did make a difference to people he spoke to. Jesus saying the man was created in the beginning of creation was understood to mean just that. Jesus was not one to be misleading, and a statement like the one in Mark 10:6 would be highly misleading his people if evolution were true.

Satan speaks in half truths and lies, not jesus

 

[gluadys]

Do you have any sort of sense of using an extreme to make a point? God used a burning bush that did not burn up to speak to Moses. When God gives a sign, he gives a something that its unmistakable to make his point. Genes are far from unmistakable.

Not to a geneticist.

This is the same arguement. You are using information that can tell where we are going to tell where we have been. Genes are genetic material, God create it as he did the rest of physics. He can just as easily make the animals as he said in genesis with the genetics they have today and then use the genetic process of passing genes down as you can see today.

Pretty standard procedure. The present is what it is because the past was what it was. If you follow a river upstream you will find its source.

So you agree genes are inherited. Can you think of anything living today that did not inherit its genes?

Your assumption is just that, its not evidence.

What assumption? That genes are inherited? You just agreed they are.

Yes, we know that genes are inherited. However, similar genes do not always indicate a family relationship.

You have no evidence of that. Where can you show me genes that have not been inherited from an ancestor? If they have been inherited from an ancestor, they indicate a relationship both to that ancestor and to all other descendants of the same ancestor.

I, in part, have some similar genes with a gorrilla today over in africa, however, I have no family ties to that gorilla,

You have no evidence that the genes you share with a gorilla were not inherited from a common ancestor you share with a gorilla. Since inherited genes indicate a family relationship, you do indeed have family ties to that gorilla.

I am just build to some degree in a similar manor as it is.

You are built in the same manner because you inherited the same genes.

You have no evidence that I am related to that gorilla, you assume I am based on the assumption that evolution is true.

I am not making an assumption. I know that genes are inherited. I know that inheritance creates a family relationship.

I assume that gorilla's were created along with the rest of the mammals, seperate from humans, but with similar genes.

Why?

Your assumption is that gorillas and man have a common ancestor yet have no evidence for. Your evidence is an assumpiton that our genes show common ancestor, rather circular reasoning if you ask me.

The genes themselves are evidence. The fact of inheritance is evidence. The similarity of morphology is evidence, since we know that it has a genetic base. The fossil record is evidence, since it tends to confirm the dating of genetic separation. The historical record of geographical distribution is also evidence.

You can make predictions on where we will go, but you cant predict where we have been.

Actually, it is the other way around. We don't know what circumstances will shape future evolution, so we can't predict how it will proceed. But we can make lots of predictions (technically 'retrodictions') about where we came from. Darwin predicted we would find the site of human origin in Africa because that is where our closest biological relatives live today. He was right.

I'm sorry, I guess I missed the part where he said "the beginning of creation week" no wait, it's not there.

You're right. And so your whole argument is based on nothing. If "beginning of creation" doesn't mean beginning of creation week, it must refer to some other beginning---such as, perhaps, the beginning of human origin.

In that case it doesn't matter whether humans were created at the beginning, in the middle or at the end of the chronology of creation, since whenever they were created is the beginning of creation relative to humans.

Nor does it matter how long creation took. Whenever humans originated is the beginning of creation relative to humans.

Now your options are, he was being deceiving in what he said, or that he spoke the truth and that he made them in the beginning of creation, male and female.

Of course he spoke the truth. I have not disputed that.

There is no way to look at billions of years later and at the very end of that time line man evolves and consider man as being created at the beginning.

You are contradicting yourself. You just said "beginning" did not have to be "beginning of creation week". It can be any time, so long as it is part of the beginning of creation. Why can't billions of years be "the beginning"? Do you know when the end will be? Do you know how much of the whole those billions of years will be? When we look back from eternity, billions of years may be less than 1% of the whole.*

Maybe it didn't make a difference to God, but it did make a difference to people he spoke to. Jesus saying the man was created in the beginning of creation was understood to mean just that. Jesus was not one to be misleading, and a statement like the one in Mark 10:6 would be highly misleading his people if evolution were true.

No, Jesus was not being misleading. But perhaps you are not understanding what he was saying. I don't see anyway this text has any bearing one way or the other on evolution.


*The "beginning" can even be more than half of the whole. The Second World War began in September 1939. It ended in August 1945 (and in June 1945 in Europe). But on D-Day in June 1944, Winston Churchill called the invasion "not the end, not even the beginning of the end, but perhaps, the end of the beginning". So according to Churchill, the end of the beginning of a six-year war occurred in the fifth year of the war.

 

[QuantumFlux]

Wow, holy crap....Let me try this one more time. How do you know we have common ancestors if you weren't there to see it? How do you know that just because genes are inherited now, that that is the way it always has been? You don't, you assume. I assume that God created everything suddenly, therefore I assume that genes in the beginning were not inherited but created suddenly.

I'm trying to take a more simplistic approach, we will see how this goes.

No, Jesus was not being misleading. But perhaps you are not understanding what he was saying. I don't see anyway this text has any bearing one way or the other on evolution.

Perhaps everyone he was talking to didn't understand what he was saying. In fact, no one would understand what he was saying because man was not created in the beginning. That's not a misunderstanding, thats misleading.

It is highly significant, because if Jesus believed that man was in existance at the beginning of creation, I personally will believe what he believes over any evidence you show me.

You are contradicting yourself. You just said "beginning" did not have to be "beginning of creation week". It can be any time, so long as it is part of the beginning of creation. Why can't billions of years be "the beginning"? Do you know when the end will be? Do you know how much of the whole those billions of years will be? When we look back from eternity, billions of years may be less than 1% of the whole.*

You crack me up, I'm glad you got into this conversation, I love the smiles I get from reading your posts. Where did you get that since i said he didnt say creation week, that I put the creation of man somewhere other than beginning of creation like he said. You are looking at a timeline of 6 days and saying that man was not created in the beginning of creation week. My time is looking at a time line of over 2 million and saying that day six is the beginning. You added a variable that Jesus did not. You added "at the beginning of creation week" Jesus said "from the beginning of creation" day 6 of 2 million can certainly be considered the beginning.

According to evolution, mankind will either end or evolve in the next million years or so. So at that point, man won't exist anymore and he will have been around for but an instant of the geological timeline.

 

[gluadys]

Wow, holy crap....Let me try this one more time. How do you know we have common ancestors if you weren't there to see it?

My cousin Terry and I were not around to see my grandfather beget my mother and hers (siblings) either, but I know he is our common ancestor. As I know that my great-great-great-great-grandmother is the common ancestor of myself and my 5th cousins though I don't even know who she was. We know speciation happens so we know what see as separate species were once a single ancestral species. The evidence strongly suggests that all living species are related. Until there is evidence to the contrary we have no reason to actually see every speciation. What we need is evidence that halts the line of inheritance at some point and an explanation of why species without a genetic relationship have the same or very similar genes.

How do you know that just because genes are inherited now, that that is the way it always has been? You don't, you assume. I assume that God created everything suddenly, therefore I assume that genes in the beginning were not inherited but created suddenly.

I don't assume. I follow the evidence. When I see evidence that at some point genes popped into existence without an ancestor to provide them, I will reconsider my stance. You, as you admit, do assume. But your assumption has no scientific basis. You are assuming that you know how God would choose to produce bio-diversity. I let the evidence tell me how God produced bio-diversity.

Perhaps everyone he was talking to didn't understand what he was saying. In fact, no one would understand what he was saying because man was not created in the beginning. That's not a misunderstanding, thats misleading.

No, he said that from the beginning of creation God made humankind male and female. How is that saying that humankind was not created in the beginning?

According to evolution, mankind will either end or evolve in the next million years or so.

No it doesn't. Apparently you have some incorrect ideas about how evolution works.

 

[shernren]

QuantumFlux, I hope you will treat these forums as an avenue for discussion, not for battle. We are here to learn from others. Our positions, whether YEC or OEC or TE or whatever, have been thought through for a long time and substantiated within our worldviews, and we are confident in what we believe and you have nothing to gain by assuming otherwise.

In response to questions about my parable. I believe the earth is real and that God is the programmer in the parable, we are the players. We are confined by the physics that God made. It makes alot of sense that since our technology has progressed to where we can create virtual universes that we would mimic the way God created (obviously in a much more basic sense). We create worlds to look aged, we dont create the physics for a game and then expect them to evolve into a playable map, we create the world ready to be used. Do not mistake my parable as man having anything to do with the world's creation, God is the programmer of the world in this parable.

(emphasis added)

I hope this is something you have come up with yourself, because if there are Christian organizations teaching this sort of belief I would be even more deeply disturbed. What you have just articulated is a modern take on the ancient Hindu concept of maya. In other words, the world has no reality of existence in and of itself except as an abstraction dreamt up by God. This is a thoroughly un-Christian worldview (I do not make such accusations lightly) and has been used a lot recently to claim that quantum physics supports "ancient Eastern wisdom".

Why is it un-Christian? Firstly, because the Bible says that the heavens and creation declare the glory of God. While the heavens and creation do not represent a specific revelation that is sufficient for bringing people to God, they do represent a general revelation for all whether believer or not and is more than sufficient for making people aware of God. So if the heavens are declaring the glory of God, wouldn't a fictional heavens declare a "fictional" glory of God? The Bible does place high emphasis on general, natural revelation - in Romans 1 what turned the heathens away from God was not that they rejected the Scriptures or the "word of God" as we call it, but that they rejected natural revelation, or what any human can see from God in the order of creation.

So what can we see of God? God is completely self-consistent and so any and every action He undertakes must represent some facet of His character. What would it mean for God to create a fictional universe? Well, it would mean basically that God is a God who likes fiction more than reality. Christian science - in fact, all science is based on this Christian paradigm; the idea of Eastern religion that what we see is an illusion leads to the path of meditation or using mindpower to break past that illusion to reality - affirms that because God is a good God, and a real God, and created real humans with senses to appreciate real things, thus God must have created a real creation worth studying with orderly rules of causation. Not a fake world designed to trick humans into seeing scientific rules that aren't actually there.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

So are we de-evolving?

No, we are evolving.

What i am saying is, there is no more evidence that we evolved beyond their use than there is that they were a superior gene that degenerated until it didnt work anymore.

This sentence makes no sense to me.

If you say evolution is your proof,

My proof of what?

thats seriously circular thinking. Pseudo genes prove evolution, what what proves Pseudo genes? well, evolution.... I dont buy that.

We observe evolution every day, talk to a bio student looking at DNA changes in fruit flies.

I suppose it is possible that somebody built a car to look just like a real car that had its engine sieze up but it seems more likely that it just was a real car that had its engine sieze up.

Ocham's razor, the simplest explanation that best explains the data is choosen. It's not proof, but without it we have demons controlling lightning strikes. Once you leave Ocham's razor behind you go into the field of faith. Nothing particularly wrong with that, as long as you understand where you stand.

I seriously think you missed the point of what I was saying. yes, sometimes eyewitness has proven to be faulty, but that is completely irrelevant to what I said. In some cases, eye witness testimony shined a totally new light on the evidence they had and gave them a completely different scenerio than what they had without it.

Evolution makes an assumption that the layers of the earth were created over millions and billions of years.

No, it doesn't.

However, no one saw this happen. In fact, there is evidence to say they might have been created quickly,

Where?

however, this evidence is thrown out because evolution is true....
Basically anything that says the layers were not created over billions of years is thrown out because we know that evolution is true.

That comes under the heading of slander.

C14 carbon dating is a good example. Measuring the carbon was once thought to be extremely accurate, this has the historical professors in an uproar because basically all of their egyptian artifacts that they knew how old they were, c-14 was telling them other wise.

I find that interesting since Egyptian artifacts were used to do the original calibration of C-14 decay curve.
AFAIK the differences in opinion about dating artifacts from early civilizations in the eastern Mediterranean were not solved by the re-calibration of C-14 dates.

Finally they discovered that solar bombardment affect carbon levels, so then a bell curve was added to the calculation. The first assumption was that c-14 in itself was solid evidence, then it was c-14 with the bell curve is solid. Bad assumptions since we have no idea what else affects carbon levels.

You have just demonstrated that you have next to no clue about what you are talking about.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

After coming across Bozarth's last quote I got to searching what else he says, here's another quote to muse:

“Christianity is - must be! totally committed to the special creation as described in Genesis, and Christianity must fight with its full might, fair or foul against the theory of evolution.”

G. Richard Bozarth, “The Meaning of Evolution”, American Atheist, 20 Sept. 1979, p. 19

Wishful thinking.

On two levels. He wants to believe that Christianity is the cardboard cutout he has described and he wants to believe that Christianity will be that easy to defeat.

Just as an aside while Bozarth is an atheist, the defining label that applies is anti-Christian. The two are not identical.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

I'm not placing mankinds love above God's in anyway, but I am putting it above all of his other creations. Which means that there was nothing to love him back until mankind came along only several thousand years ago in a Billion year old universe. So we have billions of years where he is creating and creating and then at the very end he decides for a split second of geological existance there will be these creatures that love him.

Are you claiming to have some evidence that he didn't decide to create humanity until he actually created humanity?
I remind you that the Bible tells us that God does not experience time in the same way as we do.
Do you have any explanation for why God "wasted" his effort creating a universe that is far huger than anything we need, that has far more to it than we can see with our eyes or even with optical telescopes? How do quasars or stars hidden behind dust clouds help us determine the season?

I have a further question, does free will exist/is it of any real consequence if making mistakes doesn't have any cost?

 

[night2day]

I am wondering if Young Earth Creationists dismiss evolution on scientific grounds or solely because of a literal interpretation of the Bible.

I haven't read much of the thread so...please forgive me if this was already addressed.

While true that there are areas of the scriptures to be taken literally, what is the determining factor is the literary context. Or, to state it differntly, being literal means regardless how something is phrased it's to be taken as literal. A good example would be when Jesus said the Kingdom of Heaven was like a perl of great price. Overlooking the metephor "was like a" one could think Jesus ment the Kingdom of Heaven was an actual pearl from a literal oyster.

The literary context is determined based on the words within the passage itself to determine it's very meaning. Using the same example as above, the "was like a" indicated Jesus was speaking in parable to get a specific point across. And the parables were most always explained to the disiples. Sometimes with the crowds, sometimes apart from. Other events, such as when it indicates Jesus is in hte midst teaching the parable, give no indication His actively teaching the parable was nothing less than what was actually and historically occuring. The parable was a metephor. Jesus' teaching was not.

Literary and literal cannot be counted as the same. Literalism holds to a strict way of reading despite the words in and around a given passage. The same cna be said of those who regard the Old and New Testaments as Myth. Literary context takes the surrounding passages those into account and allows them to state for themselves what they were intended say.

That said...

...lets say for instance that God used natural processes to start life. We would probably be able to uncover the process that God used and then it would be natural even though it was initiated by the supernatural.

However, going by evolution, it is then being stated there had to have been death before the Fall into sin which takes place in Genesis 3. Yet, death was not even present before the Fall occured. Death is the ultimate by product of sin. If there was no sin, there was no death. Yet,it has been stated by some within the "natural process" death is required in order for evolution to take place. And death had indeed always been natural. Yet, in many places the Scriptures state death is unnatural.

Which leads to the big question for theistic evolutionists, where did sin orginate from? If there was always death since the beginning...then why did Adam and Eve's disobediance and rebellion in the Garden of Eden have such disasterous consequences to bring a curse over all of creation? What were those concequences? And why do we need a Savior from sin, death, and Hell when logically speaking, one shouldn't even be needed?

Wouldn't that immediately cancel out the need for Jesus to suffer and die on the cross and take on the full brunt of God's wrath for sin, as well as His resurrection?

 

[shernren]

The literary context is determined based on the words within the passage itself to determine it's very meaning. Using the same example as above, the "was like a" indicated Jesus was speaking in parable to get a specific point across. And the parables were most always explained to the disiples.

What about when Jesus told the parable of the Prodigal Son and said, "There was..."? Can we say just based on that that Jesus was indeed talking about a real family? Furthermore, the parables were most often not explained to the disciples, leaving us modern folks a big mess in some places (like in the Parable of the Shrewd Manager).

Which leads to the big question for theistic evolutionists, where did sin orginate from? If there was always death since the beginning...then why did Adam and Eve's disobediance and rebellion in the Garden of Eden have such disasterous consequences to bring a curse over all of creation? What were those concequences? And why do we need a Savior from sin, death, and Hell when logically speaking, one shouldn't even be needed?

Quite simply, sin originates from man disobeying God. Whether or not it was via Adam eating a fruit is up for grabs. The consequence of sin is separation from God, and the consequence of separation from God is fear about the hereafter - therefore a fear of physical death and the abhorrence of it. We need a saviour because we cannot overcome our own sin. There has always been "physical death" because a finite physical world cannot support an infinite number of physical organisms. Just look at how overcrowded the world is today and imagine how much worse it would be if there was no death. But death was not an enemy before man made an enemy of God.

 

[gluadys]

Literary and literal cannot be counted as the same. Literalism holds to a strict way of reading despite the words in and around a given passage. The same cna be said of those who regard the Old and New Testaments as Myth.

I don't think so. I don't know of anyone who identifies myth in the bible claiming that all the bible is mythical or that every passage must be read as myth unless we have reason to read it otherwise.

The point is to determine the character of each passage on a case-by-case basis. One must have sufficient reason to call a passage mythical. One must also have sufficient reason to call a passage literal history. And one should remember that most of the bible is neither.

However, going by evolution, it is then being stated there had to have been death before the Fall into sin which takes place in Genesis 3. Yet, death was not even present before the Fall occured.

There had to be natural death in Eden if there was life in Eden. That is a consequence of life. Do you realize that if there was no death, the grounds of Eden would quickly be littered with undecaying excrement? Not great to walk around on with bare feet.

And death had indeed always been natural. Yet, in many places the Scriptures state death is unnatural.

So apparently there is natural and unnatural death. More than one kind of death.

Which leads to the big question for theistic evolutionists, where did sin orginate from?

Human pride and egotism. The desire to "do it my way".

And why do we need a Savior from sin, death, and Hell when logically speaking, one shouldn't even be needed?

Since sin is a fact, however it originated, it is not logical to say a Saviour is not needed.

 

[QuantumFlux]

I don't assume. I follow the evidence. When I see evidence that at some point genes popped into existence without an ancestor to provide them, I will reconsider my stance. You, as you admit, do assume. But your assumption has no scientific basis. You are assuming that you know how God would choose to produce bio-diversity. I let the evidence tell me how God produced bio-diversity.

That is just it, you do assume based on what you consider evidence. This is the problem with that stance. In our court system we have found that even though we can have boat load of evidence, that evidence can point to the wrong conclusion. What is my evidence that genes popped into existance? Moses, a prophet of God, wrote Genesis and God allowed it to continue. I don't believe God would allow a prophet to be blatently false about something like this. Jesus obviously believed that mankind was made with the beginning of his creation.

I'll take his word over any other evidence (not that evolution is solid ground or that I dont have scientific problems with it). I guess, in the end I believe God was truthful and did not mislead the jews for millenium on end about creation. Our God is not one of half truths, if you can show me an instance where God did not give the full truth, I'd like to hear it.

No, he said that from the beginning of creation God made humankind male and female. How is that saying that humankind was not created in the beginning?

It most certainly isnt saying that, but evolution certainly is saying that mankind wasn't created in the beginning. So either Jesus was being misleading or he believed that mankind was created in the beginning of creation (and if you start with that creation week thing again, I'm not even gonna respond to it).

No it doesn't. Apparently you have some incorrect ideas about how evolution works.

I'm sorry, I guess i missed that class where evolution has stopped.

 

[QuantumFlux]

I hope this is something you have come up with yourself, because if there are Christian organizations teaching this sort of belief I would be even more deeply disturbed. What you have just articulated is a modern take on the ancient Hindu concept of maya. In other words, the world has no reality of existence in and of itself except as an abstraction dreamt up by God. This is a thoroughly un-Christian worldview (I do not make such accusations lightly) and has been used a lot recently to claim that quantum physics supports "ancient Eastern wisdom".

What? I mean really, do you know what a parable is? At what point did I say the world wasnt real? I didn't say God created a virtual world. Parables align where they align and thats it, I showed you where the parable aligned, don't add parallels that were not given. You are suggesting that my parable says the earth isnt real, however, that is an alignment I did not make.

What you did is the equivalent of taking Matthew 20 and insisting that the kingdom of heaven owns a field and planted a garden.

The rest of your post is pointless because I dont believe the world isnt real or is God's dream.

 

[QuantumFlux]

I don't think so. I don't know of anyone who identifies myth in the bible claiming that all the bible is mythical or that every passage must be read as myth unless we have reason to read it otherwise.

This statement amuses me because the only reason you take Genesis as a myth is because you believe in evolution, not that the context, culture, wording or anything else says that this shouldn't be taken literal. You simply choose man's wisdom over God's "foolishness".

There had to be natural death in Eden if there was life in Eden. That is a consequence of life. Do you realize that if there was no death, the grounds of Eden would quickly be littered with undecaying excrement? Not great to walk around on with bare feet.

Does it matter how quickly we would grow? God has alot of space in the universe to use.

All I ever hear from evolutionists is how you have to twist the words of God to make it fit in with evolution. You talk of symbolism and poetic where all the hebrews of the time took it literal. Which means that some how the wisedom of man has grown enough to truly understand what the first chapters of Genesis means, because God was very vague until now.

Whatever, you can't convince me the bible is myth by throwing science at me. I'll always believe God over your science and your assumptions. Sorry, that's the way it goes. Keep twisting it to say what you want, I'll read it like it is in the proper context.