Why do some Christian's dismiss evolution?

[Critias]

To give a blatant counterargument, Jesus was not omnipresent.

Who is Jesus?

If you claim Jesus is God, then He was omnipresent. If you claim Jesus is God and deny that He was omnipresent then you subscribe that God was only able to be Jesus and not the Holy Spirit that was active nor God the Father who reigns in heaven. Thus, God is limited and unable to be incarnate as Jesus Christ as well as be the Father and Holy Spirit.

(emphasis added; not quote-mining!)

Well, it seems our positions aren't too far apart - I would personally believe that Jesus didn't use His attributes at all times during His life so that He experienced normal human life. This is precisely why many during His lifetime felt justified to ignore His claim to divinity. He did not use the Godhood He possessed, and that was mistaken by many to mean that He did not in fact possess Godhood. It was only as the disciples experienced His resurrection and ascension - by which time He had already fulfilled His death, and so was free to reassert His Godhood - that they truly understood that this was indeed God-Man.

Many people would point to Jesus' miracles and authority as signs that He displayed His Godhood on earth. But I would be inclined (though speculatively) to believe that in fact, this was due to the powerful anointing of the Holy Spirit upon Jesus. Jesus never grieved, offended or quenched the Holy Spirit in any way, and so we can expect that His communion with the Holy Spirit was very, very intimate. I believe that this was how Jesus worked His miracles, not through any power or authority of His own, but through the power and authority of God the Holy Spirit. In this case, what people would marvel at was not His own power and authority, but the power and authority of the Holy Spirit and His closeness to the Holy Spirit so that He understood perfectly God's will and when to call upon the Holy Spirit's power. Today we see to a lesser degree Christians who are empowered by the Holy Spirit to heal, to cast out demons, to preach with authority, to receive "words of revelation" about somebody's thoughts or condition to help them pray - all things that Jesus began on earth. It is the Holy Spirit who works through modern-day Christians; I wouldn't be surprised if it was also the Holy Spirit working through Jesus in 1st-Century Palestine.

Do you think Jesus only became God when the Holy Spirit descended upon Him at His baptism?

Jesus gave all glory to the Father, but who's Name did Jesus use to forgive sins? It doesn't say, it just says 'Your sins are forgiven'. They Pharisees said who is this man who can forgive sins. They understood that only God can forgive sins. Did Jesus do this because He had the Holy Spirit within Him? Or did He do it because He has the right to do so because He is God?

This seems to really come down to one simple question, Who is Jesus of Nazareth? Was He truly God while here on earth, or just gifted by the Holy Spirit? If He was truly God, how much was He God? Completely? And if He was completely, then you cannot then turn around and say He didn't have His God attributes, and couldn't use them even if He so wanted to, because then He wasn't completely God.

It is truly a mystery but because we don't completely understand doesn't then give us the right to start saying Jesus wasn't totally God and then call ourselves Christians. He was fully God and fully man.

We think we know what it means to be a man without sin, but the fact is, we don't. We have never been without sin. We don't even truly know how badly sin affects us. We know what Jesus and the Apostles say, but experiencing the difference is something completely different.

We don't set the standards of what a man is, the Creator does. So, our limitations or our demands do not make what a man is. God chooses what a man is for He created man.

I am bound to believe that when Paul said Jesus contained all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, he knew what he was talking about.

 

[QuantumFlux]

On the point of the fossil record. I believe someone said it earlier. Would it matter if they found a rabbit in the "wrong spot" because then they would just come up with a new theory on how the rabbit evolved. In the article I gave on the new theory that Dinosaurs are in now way related to birds, they are already reforming the the fossil record to adapt to their new findings. If a rabbit was found in the cambrian era, they would just assume that it evolved from something else.

Right now the origin of birds is up for grabs which means that they really dont know where they came from until they create a new theory. In reality, if they stripped the dating method away and evolutionists put the fossils in order in which they felt one species would evolve into another, their version would be much different than their dating methods show them to be. Study the evolution of horses feet, the evolution seemed simple if you look at the fossil record, but in reality the dates show no logic to their evolution.

So you're telling me if one fossils is out of place it would disprove the whole thing for you? I don't think so, it's impossible to find a fossile out of place in an "ever self-correcting" theory. The only thing that I know about "ever self-correcting" meaning is that it only means that it will always be wrong until the end of time.

 

[shernren]

Who is Jesus?

If you claim Jesus is God, then He was omnipresent. If you claim Jesus is God and deny that He was omnipresent then you subscribe that God was only able to be Jesus and not the Holy Spirit that was active nor God the Father who reigns in heaven. Thus, God is limited and unable to be incarnate as Jesus Christ as well as be the Father and Holy Spirit.

I don't get what you're saying. ...Just because Jesus was not omnipresent while on Earth before His crucifixion (which I should have clarified earlier, sorry) doesn't mean God the Father and the Holy Spirit was not omnipresent during that time.

Do you think Jesus only became God when the Holy Spirit descended upon Him at His baptism?

Jesus gave all glory to the Father, but who's Name did Jesus use to forgive sins? It doesn't say, it just says 'Your sins are forgiven'. They Pharisees said who is this man who can forgive sins. They understood that only God can forgive sins. Did Jesus do this because He had the Holy Spirit within Him? Or did He do it because He has the right to do so because He is God?

This seems to really come down to one simple question, Who is Jesus of Nazareth? Was He truly God while here on earth, or just gifted by the Holy Spirit? If He was truly God, how much was He God? Completely? And if He was completely, then you cannot then turn around and say He didn't have His God attributes, and couldn't use them even if He so wanted to, because then He wasn't completely God.

It is truly a mystery but because we don't completely understand doesn't then give us the right to start saying Jesus wasn't totally God and then call ourselves Christians. He was fully God and fully man.

We think we know what it means to be a man without sin, but the fact is, we don't. We have never been without sin. We don't even truly know how badly sin affects us. We know what Jesus and the Apostles say, but experiencing the difference is something completely different.

We don't set the standards of what a man is, the Creator does. So, our limitations or our demands do not make what a man is. God chooses what a man is for He created man.

I am bound to believe that when Paul said Jesus contained all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, he knew what he was talking about.

I hope I'm not being touchy or reading too much into your statement but it seems as if you are making out that I deny the full divinity of Jesus. No, I do not. Jesus was fully God on earth. But He did not exercise that Godhood. God cannot be tempted by sin - Jesus allowed Himself to be. God does not simply go hungry and thirsty - Jesus allowed Himself to be. God does not die - in some mysterious way, Jesus actually died, and yet He rose again from the grave, the first true manifestation that He was absolutely God and had all the powers His Godhood gave Him. It was not until then that His disciples truly understood that He was the God-Man.

Whether or not He had His attributes and chose not to use them or He chose to discard His power before He came to earth seems semantic. I believe that the central issue is that as someone fully human to identify with our weaknesses He did not use His divinity, whether or not He possessed it on earth. Would you agree?

On the point of the fossil record. I believe someone said it earlier. Would it matter if they found a rabbit in the "wrong spot" because then they would just come up with a new theory on how the rabbit evolved.

No, they'd probably come up with a theory about how the process of fossilization went wrong and two layers got mixed. But there haven't been any Cambrian rabbits found AFAIK, so your argument is moot.

 

[QuantumFlux]

No, they'd probably come up with a theory about how the process of fossilization went wrong and two layers got mixed. But there haven't been any Cambrian rabbits found AFAIK, so your argument is moot.

What are you talking about? This kind of stuff could happen all the time they just keep coming up with new theories to explain the discrepencies. In the case of the dinosaurs and birds, now they really have no idea where they came from. Their new theory is that their evolution started in the trees and moved downward. As of right now, they do not know who that ancestors of birds are, so the fact that these fossils pop out of no where shows that this kind of stuff does happen, but they are currently forming a new theory to explain it away.

Every evolutionist on this thread believed that Archy was the missing link between dinosaurs and birds and some could even name the fossils that linked them. Now it turns out that not only is Archy not even close to a dinosaur, but none of his ancestors are either. so now a new link will be made up and gain acceptance. the problem is that the new link will be no more founded than the last one.

 

[shernren]

What are you talking about? This kind of stuff could happen all the time they just keep coming up with new theories to explain the discrepencies. In the case of the dinosaurs and birds, now they really have no idea where they came from. Their new theory is that their evolution started in the trees and moved downward. As of right now, they do not know who that ancestors of birds are, so the fact that these fossils pop out of no where shows that this kind of stuff does happen, but they are currently forming a new theory to explain it away.

Every evolutionist on this thread believed that Archy was the missing link between dinosaurs and birds and some could even name the fossils that linked them. Now it turns out that not only is Archy not even close to a dinosaur, but none of his ancestors are either. so now a new link will be made up and gain acceptance. the problem is that the new link will be no more founded than the last one.

Of course, when you don't understand what is happening there must be a conspiracy being cooked up somewhere by the evil atheistic evolutionists to deceive the entire world on the monumental matter of the origins of birds. Look closely at the dino-bird link article you gave a lot earlier in the thread: http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20051010/birddino.html

All it says is that we have some new options as to the origins of dinosaurs, and that some old options are not so viable. That's hardly earthshaking. When Einstein said that nothing could travel faster than light, why didn't Christians start shaking their heads and condemning Newton for having gotten it wrong all along? The reason people come up with new theories to explain discrepancies is because they were better than the old theories, not because they want to save face or something. If creationists can come up with a proper scientific theory, be my guest. Right now the only thing they seem to be able to do is to take chunks out of evolutionary theory with aberrations and as-yet-unknown details, without offering any constructive scientific alternatives of their own: an oddly un-Christian way to behave, isn't it?

And no, not every evolutionist on this thread believed that Archy was the "missing link". Hey, it was YECs who taught me early on that there were true birds which predated Archy. Go get your facts right or something.

Trustable information:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC214_1.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC214_1_1.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archeopteryx

 

[Bonhoffer]

My problem with evolution is mainly philosophical and theological.
It undermines the gospel, the way we veiw people, sexuality and society etc...

Jesus said that you shall tell a tree by its fruits. The theory of Evolution has led to atheism, humanism, racism, genocide,dehumanisation of disabled people,abortion,capitalism,communism,fascism and about every evil ideology you could think of. Therefore evolution doesnt seem to have provided much good fruit.

 

[The Lady Kate]

My problem with evolution is mainly philosophical and theological.
It undermines the gospel, the way we veiw people, sexuality and society etc...

How so?

Jesus said that you shall tell a tree by its fruits. The theory of Evolution has led to atheism, humanism, racism, genocide,dehumanisation of disabled people,abortion,capitalism,communism,fascism and about every evil ideology you could think of. Therefore evolution doesnt seem to have provided much good fruit.

Of course, evolution is to blame for all of sociey's ills.

 

[Bonhoffer]

Of course, evolution is to blame for all of sociey's ills.

No its not. But belief in evolution has help evil ideas to flourish.

Name something good that has come out of a belief in evolution?(in terms of morality and spirituality etc...)

 

[stumpjumper]

My problem with evolution is mainly philosophical and theological.
It undermines the gospel, the way we veiw people, sexuality and society etc...

Maybe upon a cursory glance but not really in actuality.

Jesus said that you shall tell a tree by its fruits. The theory of Evolution has led to atheism, humanism, racism, genocide,dehumanisation of disabled people,abortion,capitalism,communism,fascism and about every evil ideology you could think of. Therefore evolution doesnt seem to have provided much good fruit.

Can you tell me where this justification for slavery can be found?

"Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem! Let Canaan (descendents of Ham) be his SLAVE! May God expand Japeth. So that he dwells among the tents of Shem: Let Canaan be his slave!"

Can you guess how many of our pre-Darwin religious leaders use this Book (I'll let you guess the title) to justify slavery?

If the ill's of society and people's abuse of each other began after Darwin, you might have a case. But, the problem is people not our scientific knowledge. If people can twist the teachings of the Bible to justify slavery, genocide (remember the conquest of Canaan), capital punishment (an eye for an eye which Jesus taught against), inequality between the sexes, and a host of other human wrought evils; do not be surprised if people use a scientific theory in the same way.

 

[stumpjumper]

Name something good that has come out of a belief in evolution?(in terms of morality and spirituality etc...)

By helping us look at life, our origin, and our eschatological goal in a different light. Instead of looking at life as a fall from perfection (actually just good in the Hebrew), we can look at life as evolving towards something better. A self-transcendence of man as in the resurrection of Jesus. Christianity teaches a material resurrection but not neccessarily the same body.

Look at the Gospel accounts and you will see that the resurrected Christ was different in physical nature. The disciples did not recognize Jesus after he was changed and transformed. Theologian Karl Rahner compares our resurrection to a transcendence of our self into an all-cosmic body. It is a new-heavens and a new-earth that can come about in the future not a once gone past. The emergence of new and novel life is the bedrock of evolutionary theory and it most certainly is a dynamic aspect of life and one that is not in contradiction to a good and loving Creator.

I'll quote Tolstoy: "The essence of every religious teaching lies not in the desire for a symbolic expression of the forces of nature, nor in the dread of these forces, nor in the craving for the marvelous, nor in the external forms in which it is manifested, as the men of science imagine; the essence of religion lies in the faculty of men of foreseeing and pointing out the path of life along which humanity must move in the discovery of a new theory of life, as a result of which the whole future conduct of humanity is changed and different from all that has been before."

The essence of religion, life, and price of peanuts is found in the future not in the past. Evolution might show us our past. But, if you look at the whole theory you find it does not stop at us and does not simply apply to our biological nature. We are all related as a glance at Genesis will tell you. We are not just related to other humans, but to the plants, birds, and the sun. We can find God in our garden and on the paths of life and we should take care of what we find because the good of creation lies in the present and the future not in a once begone Garden of Eden.

 

[artybloke]

The theory of Evolution has led to atheism, humanism, racism, genocide,dehumanisation of disabled people,abortion,capitalism,communism,fascism and about every evil ideology you could think of. Therefore evolution doesnt seem to have provided much good fruit.

Out and out lie. Racism? See above. Stop peddling this a-historical nonsense. Racism was a part of every empire under the sun, including the British, and it was justified from the Bible. Even abortion was practised before evolutionary theory - wherever, in fact, poor people who can't afford children find it necessary. And the Romans practised child exposure a couple of thousand years before evolution. Eugenics? Well, it's there in cultures that exposed children, or leave lepers to rot in colonies away from the rest of society (Christians and Jews have been as responsible for that as anyone else) and in the idea that disability is a punishment of sin from God (as preached by countless preachers throughout the centuries.)

Atheism isn't an "evil," and neither is humanism. They're just alternative philosophies. Communism was practised by the early church, and as I've pointed out to you before (you obviously weren't listening) Soviet communism rejected Darwinism for 50 years.

The Turks practised genocide on the Armenians and they weren't committed to evolution; and apartheid is the result of a supposedly Christian society, under the influence of extreme Calvinism.

And what good has evolution done? Well, liberal theology for starters. Without liberal theology, the field would let to demogogues and fundamentalists who believe in a God who sends hurricanes and cancers on folks to punish them for their sin. Without liberal theology we'd still be under the thumb of the holy-rollers who think that only they have access to the one true unadulterated Gospel and everyone else is a heretic. Without liberal theology, we'd still be burning defenceless old women at the stake for supposedly being witches, discriminating against Catholics, Unitarians and Quakers (and any other dissenting sect) and burning "heretics."

 

[QuantumFlux]

The reason people come up with new theories to explain discrepancies is because they were better than the old theories, not because they want to save face or something.

You believe as you wish, I still think they are trying to save face.

Right now the only thing they seem to be able to do is to take chunks out of evolutionary theory with aberrations and as-yet-unknown details, without offering any constructive scientific alternatives of their own: an oddly un-Christian way to behave, isn't it?

Of course they offer an alternative.... read genesis.... just because its not "scientific" doesn't mean its not an alternative. Besides, you can't negate negative evidence by saying they don't have an alternative. Evidence against is evidence against.

Out and out lie. Racism? See above. Stop peddling this a-historical nonsense. Racism was a part of every empire under the sun, including the British, and it was justified from the Bible.

Talk about your wishful thinking. Just because it existed before doesnt mean that evolution doesn't support those ideals. In fact, according to the evolutionary theory homosexuals are a lesser species because they cannot reproduce.

The problem with evolution is that it not only allows but points out "lesser" species, "unevolved" species if you want to call them. in doing so who is to say that someone is wrong if they point out a particular culture and say that they are unevolved and should be treated like animals?

biblical teachings show that it is okay to hunt animals for food, so from an evolutionistic stand point, I could classify homosexuals as a lesser species and hunt them for food and who could say that I was wrong in doing so?

 

[QuantumFlux]

On a totally different note, one conclusion I have come to during these discussions is that scientific theories are a religion of their own, that is why they are called theories, because they are a belief. People would like to think that these theories are non-bias but as long as man is involved with making them they will be biased.

As christians, we step out of the scientific boundaries. We believe in miracles and a God who can do anything and those beliefs put us outside of "scientific" principles.

Before someone says it (because everytime I say something like this, someone does), No, I'm not saying throw out science. I am saying that as a christian our beliefs are not scientific. You cannot put Jesus in a test tube and explain the resurrection with any hope of a scientific explaination. If we believe in the resurrection but reject the beginning of what we consider the word of God because it is "unscientific" then we have now put man's wisdom above God's.

You can then just as easily make the resurrection into a myth because it just couldn't scientifically happen.

This is exactly what you do when you say "Now that we know that the 7 day creation could not have scientifically happened, we have to figure out what Genesis REALLY means". Using that theology, I could just as easily say "Now that we know that the resurrection could not have scientifically happened, we have to figure out what the Gospels REALLY mean".

So to those of you who are trying to make God's word fit into scientific theories, I pity you, because it will never happen.

 

[Bonhoffer]

Out and out lie. Racism? See above. Stop peddling this a-historical nonsense.

Are you accusing me of being a liar or of being misguided by a lie? If its the former then thats a serious accusation. (I'm sure its not what you meant though )

Atheism isn't an "evil," and neither is humanism. They're just alternative philosophies.

I dont understand how a Christian can call atheism 'good'. Atheism says there is no God and even the most liberal of Christians cannot see that as a positive thing.

Atheism and humanism are either right or they are wrong. I hate all this postmodern stuff about there being no right or wrong. Humanism isnt an alternative philosophy, its the death of the western world. I know people think evangelicals are looney when they call something 'evil', but I call things by how I see them.

Communism was practised by the early church, and as I've pointed out to you before (you obviously weren't listening)

That was voluntary communism, a variety I actually agree with. What I dont like is Marxism.

And what good has evolution done? Well, liberal theology for starters. Without liberal theology, the field would let to demogogues and fundamentalists who believe in a God who sends hurricanes and cancers on folks to punish them for their sin. Without liberal theology we'd still be under the thumb of the holy-rollers who think that only they have access to the one true unadulterated Gospel and everyone else is a heretic. Without liberal theology, we'd still be burning defenceless old women at the stake for supposedly being witches, discriminating against Catholics, Unitarians and Quakers (and any other dissenting sect) and burning "heretics."

This depends on what is meant by liberal theology. In the way you discribe liberalism here then I am a liberal. But this 'loving others despite our differences' does not come from a belief in evolution, it comes from the teachings of the New Testament and by the power of the Holy Spirit.
The liberal theology that has its base in evolution tends to undermine the entire Bible including the parts on loving people.

Belief in evolution hasnt encouraged the church to treat people better, its a belief in the Bible and in the promptings of a loving Holy Spirit that has.

I suppose I am a liberal in practice because I do not burn women even if they are witches and I am very moderate compared to the extremists you describe. But evolution is not the reason that the church has improved its record of treating people. Its the getting back to Bible basics that has.

 

[Mikecpking]

Talk about your wishful thinking. Just because it existed before doesnt mean that evolution doesn't support those ideals. In fact, according to the evolutionary theory homosexuals are a lesser species because they cannot reproduce.

The problem with evolution is that it not only allows but points out "lesser" species, "unevolved" species if you want to call them. in doing so who is to say that someone is wrong if they point out a particular culture and say that they are unevolved and should be treated like animals?

biblical teachings show that it is okay to hunt animals for food, so from an evolutionistic stand point, I could classify homosexuals as a lesser species and hunt them for food and who could say that I was wrong in doing so?

God still classes homosexuals as humans and any killing is murder. God says its wrong to commit and in no way can you set yourself up as Judge.

Back to the evolution point, I think you have lost the plot. There has been evil commited by people all through history well before the theory of evolution was even thought about. So you can't use belief in evolution as a reason for society's ills. I admire your tenacity to what you hold dear in believing God's word, but you only alienate yourself and christianity from rational minded people who understand science who would otherwise embrace the gospel. I have seen this happen many times in Alpha course discussions when people on the course ask' do I have to believe in a 7 day creation then' whenever the discussion comes up.

 

[QuantumFlux]

God still classes homosexuals as humans and any killing is murder. God says its wrong to commit and in no way can you set yourself up as Judge.

well that is a direct contradiction of evolution because according to evolution those that cannot reproduce naturally are a dieing and unevolved species therefore they are not humans and i can hunt them for food.

no reply to my post after that one?

I admire your tenacity to what you hold dear in believing God's word, but you only alienate yourself and christianity from rational minded people who understand science who would otherwise embrace the gospel.

youre right, maybe i should bend the truth in order to gain acceptance among the people.... how dangerous of an idea is that?! If it is one thing that I have learned in this life is that you may attract more bees with honey, but you will only keep them with free will.

I cannot talk someone into coming to believe in Jesus and even if I did it wouldnt matter because if I can talk them into it, someone else can talk them out of it. Coming to know the one true God is an individual decision that no amount of debating or pursuation will alter.

How do you rationalize the resurrection? How do you make that scientific? You can't because it's not. If you accept the resurrection you accept something that is beyond science and directly contradicts science. It is just the same with creation. You can't align God's acts with science.

This is exactly what you do when you say:

"Now that we know that the 7 day creation could not have scientifically happened, we have to figure out what Genesis REALLY means."
​

Using that theology, I could just as easily say:

"Now that we know that the resurrection could not have scientifically happened, we have to figure out what the Gospels REALLY mean."

There is no difference.
​

 

[Mikecpking]

well that is a direct contradiction of evolution because according to evolution those that cannot reproduce naturally are a dieing and unevolved species therefore they are not humans and i can hunt them for food.

no reply to my post after that one?

Where is your reference for that one? I have never heard any evolutionist describe homosexual humans that way.

youre right, maybe i should bend the truth in order to gain acceptance among the people.... how dangerous of an idea is that?! If it is one thing that I have learned in this life is that you may attract more bees with honey, but you will only keep them with free will.

I cannot talk someone into coming to believe in Jesus and even if I did it wouldnt matter because if I can talk them into it, someone else can talk them out of it. Coming to know the one true God is an individual decision that no amount of debating or pursuation will alter.

How do you rationalize the resurrection? How do you make that scientific? You can't because it's not. If you accept the resurrection you accept something that is beyond science and directly contradicts science. It is just the same with creation. You can't align God's acts with science.

This is exactly what you do when you say:

"Now that we know that the 7 day creation could not have scientifically happened, we have to figure out what Genesis REALLY means."​

Using that theology, I could just as easily say:

"Now that we know that the resurrection could not have scientifically happened, we have to figure out what the Gospels REALLY mean."​

There is no difference.



​

No bending of God's word is required. Its a matter of interpretation. I think the whole thing about why Genesis 1 and 2 has already been discussed. I believe every word to be true, but don't arrve at the same interpretation as you. Why? Because I made some study in biblical writing styles and also studied Geology, Biology and Geography at college level.
As for the resurrection, if it were not true, I would not waste my time with Christianity. It was a miracle from God and our hope for resurrection. There are many factors and even psychological, circumstantial and witness evidence for the resurrection. Good evidence if it ever came to court. With your account of a 6 day creation, the geological formations, fossil layering,, there is nothing to support your view. So I ask, 'what is right?' The bible is not wrong. 'So what is Genesis about?'. Its about why God created, why humankind is the pinnacle of his creation. Why we are to be caretakers of the earth, the importance of Sabbath etc etc.

 

[QuantumFlux]

Why? Because I made some study in biblical writing styles and also studied Geology, Biology and Geography at college level.

Perhaps you have missed some things, I have had plenty of classes on biblical writing styles. each of them confirmed that in context there is no way to take the first few chapters as anything but literal. If you talk about how other cultures had myths that they accepted so the hebrews considered this a myth that is incorrect. But even if it were true, you could just say the exact same thing for the resurrection.

The only evidence you have for taking Genesis any other way than literal is your belief in evolution. I always love to hear the vague meanings given for what the first few chapters are REALLY for, but its very clear what the purpose of the first chapter is for. It is very specifically giving the order of creation and how it was made, the second chapter may get into the "why", but the first is very specifically the "how" of creation.

With your account of a 6 day creation, the geological formations, fossil layering,, there is nothing to support your view.

I beg to differ, it's supported by the word of God, and that's all I need. If your "science" contradicts that, so be it, I have accepted that science will always contradict many things in the bible.

Besides I know all about your geological formations, fossil layering and etc. and I "don't arrve at the same interpretation as you".

 

[Mikecpking]

Perhaps you have missed some things, I have had plenty of classes on biblical writing styles. each of them confirmed that in context there is no way to take the first few chapters as anything but literal. If you talk about how other cultures had myths that they accepted so the hebrews considered this a myth that is incorrect. But even if it were true, you could just say the exact same thing for the resurrection.

The only evidence you have for taking Genesis any other way than literal is your belief in evolution. I always love to hear the vague meanings given for what the first few chapters are REALLY for, but its very clear what the purpose of the first chapter is for. It is very specifically giving the order of creation and how it was made, the second chapter may get into the "why", but the first is very specifically the "how" of creation.



I beg to differ, it's supported by the word of God, and that's all I need. If your "science" contradicts that, so be it, I have accepted that science will always contradict many things in the bible.

Besides I know all about your geological formations, fossil layering and etc. and I "don't arrve at the same interpretation as you".

Then how about we do some field study and explain to me a few things in geology with me?

 

[theFijian]

well that is a direct contradiction of evolution because according to evolution those that cannot reproduce naturally are a dieing and unevolved species therefore they are not humans and i can hunt them for food.

Where did you get this definition of evolution from? I can't believe how wrong it is, and shows the ludicrous lengths that people will go to build strawmen and avoid a meaningful discussion.