Why Theistic Evolution Does not "fit".

[shernren]

... it is only within the last 20 to 30 years that evolutionists, and Christians, are sharring the the same faith, as openly as it is now.

This is a pretty interesting idea, where did you get it from? AFAIK none of the major YEC organizations have been claiming that TE is a very novel ("20-30 years" ago) development. For example, the American Scientific Affiliation was founded in 1941, and for most of its existence it has been very much weighted towards TEism.

 

[withreason]

This is a pretty interesting idea, where did you get it from? AFAIK none of the major YEC organizations have been claiming that TE is a very novel ("20-30 years" ago) development. For example, the American Scientific Affiliation was founded in 1941, and for most of its existence it has been very much weighted towards TEism.

as I said ...as openly as it is now....and that, at a distance! of course, I am speaking from My own expieriance.

 

[withreason]

Use a spellchecker and some formatting for crying out loud. That is nigh upon unreadable.

you people are amazing, and you say I'm crying....get real ....

 

[withreason]

This is a pretty interesting idea, where did you get it from? AFAIK none of the major YEC organizations have been claiming that TE is a very novel ("20-30 years" ago) development. For example, the American Scientific Affiliation was founded in 1941, and for most of its existence it has been very much weighted towards TEism.

as an addition..if I had issue's concerning Gen 1&2, a new creation would be a much safer alternative, than to deny the opening chapters of the very book that one claims to have faith in....wouldnt you agree?

 

[Parmenio]

When things are allegorical they have truths beyond fact. No one is denying the authenticity of scripture, just interpretations thereof.

Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by these who are not bound by the authority of our Sacred Books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position. Although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertions

-St. Augustine

 

[withreason]

When things are allegorical they have truths beyond fact. No one is denying the authenticity of scripture, just interpretations thereof.

What is allegorical is not left up to the readers discretion, it is the readers responsibility to determine what is allegorical and apply the wisdom given by God through the study of his word to find the fitting interpretation within his word.
Regardless, the word of God is not subjective to the readers interpretation, it is the reader that is subjective, it is that subjective nature that created this entire mess, and believing with faith in God “CHRIST” is the only redemption for our “subjective nature”

 

[japhy]

Genesis 2:7 clearly states that man was formed from primordial ooze (or slime [DR], or dust [KJV, RSV], or clay [NAB]), so perhaps Genesis does support an evolutionary theory of creation... unless you're saying that humans are made out of clay, and I'm sure even the staunchest fundamentalist Christian would admit humans share more genetic material with primates than with dust.

 

[withreason]

Genesis 2:7 clearly states that man was formed from primordial ooze (or slime [DR], or dust [KJV, RSV], or clay [NAB]), so perhaps Genesis does support an evolutionary theory of creation... unless you're saying that humans are made out of clay, and I'm sure even the staunchest fundamentalist Christian would admit humans share more genetic material with primates than with dust.

if your referring to the Hebrew verb asah,
it just implies a pre existence.

 

[withreason]

Genesis 2:7 clearly states that man was formed from primordial ooze (or slime [DR], or dust [KJV, RSV], or clay [NAB]), so perhaps Genesis does support an evolutionary theory of creation... unless you're saying that humans are made out of clay, and I'm sure even the staunchest fundamentalist Christian would admit humans share more genetic material with primates than with dust.

I'm sorry, I miss understood the meaning of what you were saying, and posted to something different from what you were saying, yes it could very well mean that, I do agree

 

[grimbly]

Glad you brought this up

What is allegorical is not left up to the readers discretion, it is the readers responsibility to determine what is allegorical and apply the wisdom given by God through the study of his word to find the fitting interpretation within his word.
Regardless, the word of God is not subjective to the readers interpretation, it is the reader that is subjective, it is that subjective nature that created this entire mess, and believing with faith in God “CHRIST” is the only redemption for our “subjective nature”

Been there, done that and got the T-shirt. Ok withreason, that's exactly what has been done and is the reason that TE's have arrived at the conclusion that Genesis is allegorical.
The earth has been studied in frightening detail over the last 150 years and the conclusion has always been the same. Our planet has been in existence for approximately 4.55 billion years . There is no more doubt to that conclusion than there is that the earth is spherical. And it's not just a few observations that resulted in that conclusion. You could go to any university with a geology department, find there technical library, go to their geology section and pour over Petrology and Geochemistry Journals and (reading 8 hours a day/5 days a week) not be able to keep up with the influx of observations that confirm the great antiquity of our planet.

So you are left with only two choices

1.) The earth really really is very ancient and Genesis was an allegorical tale used to transmit an important message.

2.) God is an extremely clever prankster who planted all kinds of false evidence for us to find.

Option 1 seems the most reasonable. Option 2 is theologically untenable.

Now I could link you to many Catholic Universities to show their position on YEC, but rather here is a linky to Baylor, aBaptist University in Texas. This is from there Geology Dept FAQ's

http://www.baylor.edu/Geology/index.php?id=26723

See what they have to say.

 

[withreason]

Genesis 2:7 clearly states that man was formed from primordial ooze (or slime [DR], or dust [KJV, RSV], or clay [NAB]), so perhaps Genesis does support an evolutionary theory of creation... unless you're saying that humans are made out of clay, and I'm sure even the staunchest fundamentalist Christian would admit humans share more genetic material with primates than with dust.

of course, my agreement to the genome does not imply anything more than the curiosities I find in the inactive human GULO, it does not mean anything more than that!

 

[japhy]

I'm sorry, I miss understood the meaning of what you were saying, and posted to something different from what you were saying, yes it could very well mean that, I do agree

Specifically, the Genesis account continually refers to life coming from somewhere, not popping into existence from nothing. Existence itself came from nothing apart from God, but the earth brought forth the plants, and the waters brought forth fowl and fish, and the earth brought forth cattle and other beasts.

In other words, as unscientific as the Genesis creation is, it implies life being derived from other things: the ocean is not alive (it's only water) but from it came life. Clearly, something happened to/in the water such that life appeared in it. As a person who believes in theistic evolution, I believe the "something" that caused life to come forth from non-living matter was God (or God's plan), and that all life (including humans) has derived (or evolved) from that original event as God.

If I'm to take the creation of the universe as recorded in Genesis literally, I'm to believe humans (in all their complexity: skin, bones, muscles, nerves, cells and sub-cellular structure) are made out of dust, which science and reason have shown is not the case.

 

[withreason]

Glad you brought this up



Been there, done that and got the T-shirt. Ok withreason, that's exactly what has been done and is the reason that TE's have arrived at the conclusion that Genesis is allegorical.
The earth has been studied in frightening detail over the last 150 years and the conclusion has always been the same. Our planet has been in existence for approximately 4.55 billion years . There is no more doubt to that conclusion than there is that the earth is spherical. And it's not just a few observations that resulted in that conclusion. You could go to any university with a geology department, find there technical library, go to their geology section and pour over Petrology and Geochemistry Journals and (reading 8 hours a day/5 days a week) not be able to keep up with the influx of observations that confirm the great antiquity of our planet.

So you are left with only two choices

1.) The earth really really is very ancient and Genesis was an allegorical tale used to transmit an important message.

2.) God is an extremely clever prankster who planted all kinds of false evidence for us to find.

Option 1 seems the most reasonable. Option 2 is theologically untenable.

Now I could link you to many Catholic Universities to show their position on YEC, but rather here is a linky to Baylor, aBaptist University in Texas. This is from there Geology Dept FAQ's

http://www.baylor.edu/Geology/index.php?id=26723

See what they have to say.

This verse seems to imply that God created the heavens OLD 2Pe 3:5 -
For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
there seems to be a possibility of a creation being made old, yet. I personally have no qualm with new creation, if it allows the reader to accept the creation as told in Gen 1&2

 

[grimbly]

This verse seems to imply that God created the heavens OLD 2Pe 3:5 -
For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
there seems to be a possibility of a creation being made old, yet. I personally have no qualm with new creation, if it allows the reader to accept the creation as told in Gen 1&2

Unfortunately, the evidence supporting evolution is more overpowering than the evidence for an ancient earth.
Go back to Baylor, check out their Biology Dept and see their statement on evolution. Worse yet, go to PubMed and do search on evolution. Thousand and thousands of articles each year are being published

good luck

 

[withreason]

Specifically, the Genesis account continually refers to life coming from somewhere, not popping into existence from nothing. Existence itself came from nothing apart from God, but the earth brought forth the plants, and the waters brought forth fowl and fish, and the earth brought forth cattle and other beasts.

In other words, as unscientific as the Genesis creation is, it implies life being derived from other things: the ocean is not alive (it's only water) but from it came life. Clearly, something happened to/in the water such that life appeared in it. As a person who believes in theistic evolution, I believe the "something" that caused life to come forth from non-living matter was God (or God's plan), and that all life (including humans) has derived (or evolved) from that original event as God.

If I'm to take the creation of the universe as recorded in Genesis literally, I'm to believe humans (in all their complexity: skin, bones, muscles, nerves, cells and sub-cellular structure) are made out of dust, which science and reason have shown is not the case.

within the dust of this earth contains all the elements of everything on the face of this earth, the lack of H2o would make biological life impossible, yet the lack of the elements within the dust also, would make biological life impossible, to define what that means to a specific, is beyond the information given to us to precisely determine, so....does that mean it's not true?

 

[hsilgne]

Glad you brought this up

The earth has been studied in frightening detail over the last 150 years and the conclusion has always been the same. Our planet has been in existence for approximately 4.55 billion years . There is no more doubt to that conclusion than there is that the earth is spherical.

Actually, the estimated age of the earth, according to evolutionary scientists has gone from an approximate 100 milllion at the turn of the century, to 500 million in the 1920's to 2 billion in 60's to the current estimate of 4.5 billion.

Interestingly enough, the age of the universe has been dropping. 30 years ago it was believed that the universe was 30 billion years old. Now they think it is 8 - 10 billion. In a strange twist, while their observations inform them of this, they also observe the oldest stars in the universe to be 16 billion years old.

I'm not sure we can say there "is no doubt" to their conclusions. At least I can't at this point.

Peace.

 

[grimbly]

Actually, the estimated age of the earth, according to evolutionary scientists has gone from an approximate 100 milllion at the turn of the century, to 500 million in the 1920's to 2 billion in 60's to the current estimate of 4.5 billion.

Interestingly enough, the age of the universe has been dropping. 30 years ago it was believed that the universe was 30 billion years old. Now they think it is 8 - 10 billion. In a strange twist, while their observations inform them of this, they also observe the oldest stars in the universe to be 16 billion years old.

I'm not sure we can say there "is no doubt" to their conclusions. At least I can't at this point.

Peace.

Yep, That's how science works...keep plugging at it while you constantly refine your answers.

Now a big jump happened with respect to the age of the earth with the advent of radiometric dating techniques. Prior to that, we didn't have any means to date things back billions of years but it was still very apparent to early investigators that the earth was very very old. As our instrumentation and analytical techniques have became more refined and we were able to incorporate new independent dating techniques, that number keeps getting more reliable every year.

Interestingly enough, here's a group of geochemists who think we can do even better since they are not happy with a 99% agreement across various dating techniques and laboratories. They think they can get 99.9% agreement with a little more refinement in technique
linky http://www.earth-time.org/

I also watched the date of the cosmos jump around, but they have currently settled in to around 13.7 billion years. There are still some unresolved issues, but that number seems to be the general consensus. Won't surprise me at all if it still vacillates between 13.0 and 14.5 billion years but here again with better instrumentation and new techniques, we will eventually settle down to a fairly accurate estimate.

The point is that all this work even with current levels of uncertainty (and all scientific conclusions come with error bars) absolutely, unequivocally precludes the concept of a 6000 to 10000 year old universe/planet. There's just too much data that fits together too well with out the need for ad hoc rationalizations.

 

[shernren]

Actually, the estimated age of the earth, according to evolutionary scientists has gone from an approximate 100 milllion at the turn of the century, to 500 million in the 1920's to 2 billion in 60's to the current estimate of 4.5 billion.

Actually, my sources say the Earth's age was measured at 4.55 billion years in 1956 with the uranium-lead dating of the Canyon Diablo meteorite. Hasn't budged much in 50 years.

 

[Xaero]

This verse seems to imply that God created the heavens OLD 2Pe 3:5 -
For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
there seems to be a possibility of a creation being made old, yet.

Psalm 102:25 "Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens [are] the work of thy hands."

There are several other verses proclaiming ancient hills,mountains ...

 

[Assyrian]

they are the absalute!
you can not remove the creation by God and claim to have faith in him!

Let's make this absolutely clear.

Some of the Young Earth Creationists who have been chatting on this forum recently have a serious misunderstanding of what TEs believe. You may believe your understanding of science is correct. You may believe your understanding of scripture is correct. That is fine, we can discuss these things. But if you want to have a sensible conversation with people, you need to simply accept, on faith, that they believe the things they claim to believe.

We all believe God is the Creator. The fact that God created everything is foundation to Christianity. However the method he used to create it all, and whether the description in Gen 1-3 is literal history or a poetic or allegorical description of his creation, are not foundation.

reduction even explains that much, not to mention
2 Timothy, Chapter 3, 016: All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness
all except geneis 1&2,..right?
if you remove the first 2 chapters of genisis,you remove the root & law of all the order set by God.
The elementery principle of law is constant isnt it. or is it not??
to change one is to change the whole!!
but, lets ignore that becaus God does not work by the laws of science...right!

Lets see if Genesis 3 is profitable for doctrine and reproof

so..if Christ coming to bruise the head of the serpent from the garden of eden constitutes the first promise of redemption, as a result of the creation of Adam,
resulting from the 6th day...resulting from the 5th..down to.. in the beginning...then tell me..where is the root?
the whole of faith is centered around Christ, born from the seed of woman being geneologicaly traced down to Adam..(Eve coming from Adam) there is a reducible root my friend.

In Genesis 3 God promises a saviour who will crush the head of the snake who tempted Eve.

However, the question you have to ask yourself is, where in the gospel account do we read of of Jesus stepping on a snake's head? Yes this is the first promise of the Messiah and his foundational sacrifice on the cross. However the promise is allegorical and was only fulfilled by Jesus if the snake in Gen 3 was an allegory description of a fallen angel, Satan, rather than the literal description of a talking reptile.