Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 1 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 153
  1. #1
    Registered User

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    1,637
    Post Thanks / Like

    Theistic Evolution????

    This purpose of this thread is to discuss theistic evolution…is it viable???…isn’t this a contradiction???

    I personally believe that this is a contradiction in terms, much like the phrase “flaming snowflakes”, I believe that either evolution is true…or the Bible is true, both cannot be true…here are my reasoning’s for this…

    Here is a quote from Jacques Monod…”Natural selection is the blindest, and most cruel way of evolving new species….The struggle for life and elimination of the weakest is a horrible process, against which our whole modern ethic revolts…I am surprised that a Christian would defend the idea that this is the process which God more or less set up in order to have evolution”

    "An omnipotent, omniscient God does not have to painfully plod through millions of mistakes, misfits and mutations in order to have fellowship with humans. Rather He can create humans in a microsecond. If theistic evolution is true, Genesis is at best an allegory and at worst a farce. And if Genesis is an allegory or a farce, the rest of the Bible becomes irrelevant..." -Hank Hanegraaf

    It is also interesting to note that until scientist started thinking that the Earth was billions of years old, Christians ALWAYS took the 7 day creation story literally…here are some of my reasons for believing in a literal 7 day creation…

    1. The days of Genesis each have “evening and the morning” (Gen 1:5, 8,13,19,23,31), something unique to 24-hour days in the Bible.
    2. The days were numbered (first, second, third, etc.), a feature found only with 24-hour days in the Bible.
    3. Exodus 20:11 compares the six days of creation with the six days of a literal work week of 144 hours
    4. There is no way life could survive millions of years from day three (1:11) to day four (1:14) without light.

    I believe that anything other than a literal 7 day creation is a distortion of the scripture…there are several “old” Earth creationists though, so if you need me to explain this further I will.

    Also note that the Bible says in Genesis 1:26 “Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness…
    Then in Genesis 1:27 “So God created man in his own image…” No where does this EVER imply that God FORMED man from his previous creations, rather, it says that God CREATED man in his own image.

    These are just a FEW of the reasons why I believe theistic evolution is a complete distortion of scripture and that either evolution is true, or the Bible is true( I believe the Bible is true)…both CANNOT be true.

    What say you?

    NOTE: This thread is NOT to debate the evidence for evolution or the validity of the Bible…it is to debate whether the Bible, in any way supports evolution!

  2. #2
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Sheffield, S.Yorks., UK
    Posts
    8,862
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic Evolution????

    I have already thrashed this one out on other threads. If you are 'fundy' literalist and in particular if you include in your literal belief mindset the Old Testament in all its 'gory', then it is totally contradictory, as are most scientifically established findings.

    Having said all that, as Pope John Paul II said to the 'Pontifical Academy of Science' on the subject, 'One truth cannot contradict another truth'. He affirmed that Creation and Evolution do not contradict each other, and that evolution was one of the outcomes of creation. What he also said though was that the 'soul' is not a product of evolution, that spirit(uality) comes direct from God.

    http://godandscience.org/apologetics/atheismintro.html
    "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." - Anais Nin.
    Emitte lucem et veritatem - Send out light and truth.
    'Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt' - Julius Caesar (rough translation, 'Men will think what they want to think')
    Kill my boss? Do I dare live out the American dream? - Homer Simpson.

  3. #3
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    4,896
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic Evolution????

    It depends on what parts of evolution you believe. There are many aspects about modern evolutionary theory which contradict the Bible. For example, mainstream macroevolution theory postulates that natural selection and mutations are in essence "unguided", and that invalidates the existence of divine intervention.

    Another example would be the evolutionary belief that birds descended from dinosaurs, or at least land animals. The Bible clearly states that birds were created first, then only land animals.

    Of course, you can cherry-pick certain parts of evolution to believe in which does not refute your Biblical views. I for one am open to the possibility of animal species changing through evolutionary mechanisms after being created by God. After all, it is a fact that most of the creatures we see now are not the same as those in the ancient age. However that does not necessarily show that they came from a common ancestor.
    Trendem

  4. #4
    Registered User

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    1,637
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic Evolution????

    Quote Originally Posted by FruitandNut
    I have already thrashed this one out on other threads. If you are 'fundy' literalist and in particular if you include in your literal belief mindset the Old Testament in all its 'gory', then it is totally contradictory, as are most scientifically established findings.

    Having said all that, as Pope John Paul II said to the 'Pontifical Academy of Science' on the subject, 'One truth cannot contradict another truth'. He affirmed that Creation and Evolution do not contradict each other, and that evolution was one of the outcomes of creation. What he also said though was that the 'soul' is not a product of evolution, that spirit(uality) comes direct from God.

    http://godandscience.org/apologetics/atheismintro.html
    Well, I have clearly demonstrated how the 7 day creation stoy has to be literal, I don't just take things literally just for the sake of taking things literally...rather I read the scripture and THEN determine if the text is literal or not.
    Also, I think it is important to note that I am not Catholic (I am Baptist) and just because the Pope says something, I don't just blindly believe it without reading the Bible for myself...so your "the Pope said so, so it must be true" argument is just horrible, if you are going to post, tell me what YOU think, try and refute my claims and support your argument!

  5. #5
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    9,345
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic Evolution????

    Quote Originally Posted by nanderson
    This purpose of this thread is to discuss theistic evolution…is it viable???…isn’t this a contradiction???

    I personally believe that this is a contradiction in terms, much like the phrase “flaming snowflakes”, I believe that either evolution is true…or the Bible is true, both cannot be true…here are my reasoning’s for this…
    Only a literal interpretation of the bible yields evolution as (allegedly) false. Many Christians accept evolution as "god's work".

    Here is a quote from Jacques Monod…”Natural selection is the blindest, and most cruel way of evolving new species….The struggle for life and elimination of the weakest is a horrible process, against which our whole modern ethic revolts…I am surprised that a Christian would defend the idea that this is the process which God more or less set up in order to have evolution”
    1) Jaques Monod's area of study was not evolution.

    Monod obtained his Science Degree in 1931, and his doctorate in Natural Sciences in 1941. After lecturing at the Faculty of Sciences in 1934, and spending some time at the California Institute of Technology on a Rockefeller grant in 1936, Monod joined the Institut Pasteur after the liberation as Laboratory Director in Lwoff's Department. He was made Director of the Cell Biochemistry Department in 1954, and in 1959 was appointed Professor of the Chemistry of Metabolism at the Sorbonne. In 1967 he became Professor at the Collège de France, and in 1971 he was appointed Director of the Institut Pasteur.

    Source.

    2) Discarding a theory because one finds it to be "cruel" is absurd. Shall we toss out the idea that lions rend the flesh of their prey with their claws and fangs because we find it "cruel"?

    3) No one is demanding that human beings embrace natural selection as a basis of morality. Such an assertion (the implication of his quote) is ridiculous. The FACT is that life in the animal kingdom is harsh and unforgiving. That does not mean that we have to be harsh and unforgiving... but it does not change the FACTS.

    "An omnipotent, omniscient God does not have to painfully plod through millions of mistakes, misfits and mutations in order to have fellowship with humans. Rather He can create humans in a microsecond. If theistic evolution is true, Genesis is at best an allegory and at worst a farce. And if Genesis is an allegory or a farce, the rest of the Bible becomes irrelevant..." -Hank Hanegraaf
    Well, since we KNOW that there have been millions of species that have come and gone before us... well, that's not the quote I would choose to employ were I arguing your side.

    It is also interesting to note that until scientist started thinking that the Earth was billions of years old, Christians ALWAYS took the 7 day creation story literally…here are some of my reasons for believing in a literal 7 day creation…

    1. The days of Genesis each have “evening and the morning” (Gen 1:5, 8,13,19,23,31), something unique to 24-hour days in the Bible.
    2. The days were numbered (first, second, third, etc.), a feature found only with 24-hour days in the Bible.
    3. Exodus 20:11 compares the six days of creation with the six days of a literal work week of 144 hours
    4. There is no way life could survive millions of years from day three (1:11) to day four (1:14) without light.

    I believe that anything other than a literal 7 day creation is a distortion of the scripture…there are several “old” Earth creationists though, so if you need me to explain this further I will.
    So, you're saying that Christians thought one thing about the Earth until science proved them wrong and they now thing another. Interesting indeed...

    Also note that the Bible says in Genesis 1:26 “Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness…
    Then in Genesis 1:27 “So God created man in his own image…” No where does this EVER imply that God FORMED man from his previous creations, rather, it says that God CREATED man in his own image.

    These are just a FEW of the reasons why I believe theistic evolution is a complete distortion of scripture and that either evolution is true, or the Bible is true( I believe the Bible is true)…both CANNOT be true.

    What say you?
    I say it's very silly of you to interpret the bible literally.

    NOTE: This thread is NOT to debate the evidence for evolution or the validity of the Bible…it is to debate whether the Bible, in any way supports evolution!
    Granted, but if you take a step back from the bible and treat it as allegory, it starts to make a whole lot more sense.

  6. #6
    Registered User

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    1,637
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic Evolution????

    Quote Originally Posted by Zhavric
    So, you're saying that Christians thought one thing about the Earth until science proved them wrong and they now thing another. Interesting indeed...
    I am saying that Christians unanimously believed in a literal 7 day creation before scientist started thinking the Earth was billions of years old, there are still MANY "young" Earth creationists, but you are right...SOME Christians changed their interpretation of Genesis once scientist started THINKING the Earth was billions of years old(Note: while we haven't yet, let's not start debating whether the Earth is old or young, I will be more than happy to debate that if you start a different thread, this thread is about "Does the BIBLE support theistic evolution", I have clearly demonstrated that it doesn't)


    I say it's very silly of you to interpret the bible literally.
    I don't take the WHOLE Bible literally, just things that the text imply are literal, I have clearly demonstrated in my first post on this thread that the text in the Bible clearly demonstrates a LITERAL interpretation of a 7 day creation. Again, I DO NOT take the WHOLE Bible literally.
    Last edited by nanderson; May 31st, 2005 at 09:12 AM.

  7. #7
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Texas.
    Posts
    3,681
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic Evolution????

    As an addendum to what Zhav has posted, I also find the notion that one must take the Genesis creation story as literal in order to believe in the relevancy of the rest of scripture as absurd.

    Jesus spoke in parables. Stories that may or may not have basis in fact in order to teach. What prevents Genesis from being such a story concerning the importance of God's law and subsequent punishments for not following it?

    Science does NOT support a 7 day creation, end of story.

    The tale, like a lot of the bible is simply allegory.
    But if you do not find an intelligent companion, a wise and well-behaved person going the same way as yourself, then go on your way alone, like a king abandoning a conquered kingdom, or like a great elephant in the deep forest. - Buddha

  8. #8
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,893
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic Evolution????

    Seeing as I am what one would call a theistic evolutionists perhaps I should give some perspective.

    First off:

    It is also interesting to note that until scientist started thinking that the Earth was billions of years old, Christians ALWAYS took the 7 day creation story literally…here are some of my reasons for believing in a literal 7 day creation…
    I am saying that Christians unanimously believed in a literal 7 day creation before scientist started thinking the Earth was billions of years old, there are still MANY "young" Earth creationists, but you are right...SOME Christians changed their interpretation of Genesis once scientist started THINKING the Earth was billions of years old(Note: while we haven't yet, let's not start debating whether the Earth is old or young, I will be more than happy to debate that if you start a different thread, this thread is about "Does the BIBLE support theistic evolution, I have clearly demonstrated that it doesn't)
    This is utterly false.

    For instance take these Church fathers, who all lived long before Darwin (as much as i hate merely posting quotes, I have limited time and I think this is one instance where the situation demands such action.

    From:http://www.catholic.com/library/Crea...nd_Genesis.asp

    Justin Martyr



    "For as Adam was told that in the day he ate of the tree he would die, we know that he did not complete a thousand years [Gen. 5:5]. We have perceived, moreover, that the expression ‘The day of the Lord is a thousand years’ [Ps. 90:4] is connected with this subject" (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 81 [A.D. 155]).


    Theophilus of Antioch



    "On the fourth day the luminaries came into existence. Since God has foreknowledge, he understood the nonsense of the foolish philosophers who were going to say that the things produced on earth come from the stars, so that they might set God aside. In order therefore that the truth might be demonstrated, plants and seeds came into existence before the stars. For what comes into existence later cannot cause what is prior to it" (To Autolycus 2:15 [A.D. 181]).

    "All the years from the creation of the world [to Theophilus’ day] amount to a total of 5,698 years and the odd months and days. . . . [I]f even a chronological error has been committed by us, for example, of 50 or 100 or even 200 years, yet [there have] not [been] the thousands and tens of thousands, as Plato and Apollonius and other mendacious authors have hitherto written. And perhaps our knowledge of the whole number of the years is not quite accurate, because the odd months and days are not set down in the sacred books" (ibid., 3:28–29).


    Irenaeus



    "And there are some, again, who relegate the death of Adam to the thousandth year; for since ‘a day of the Lord is a thousand years,’ he did not overstep the thousand years, but died within them, thus bearing out the sentence of his sin" (Against Heresies 5:23:2 [A.D. 189]).


    Clement of Alexandria



    "And how could creation take place in time, seeing time was born along with things which exist? . . . That, then, we may be taught that the world was originated and not suppose that God made it in time, prophecy adds: ‘This is the book of the generation, also of the things in them, when they were created in the day that God made heaven and earth’ [Gen. 2:4]. For the expression ‘when they were created’ intimates an indefinite and dateless production. But the expression ‘in the day that God made them,’ that is, in and by which God made ‘all things,’ and ‘without which not even one thing was made,’ points out the activity exerted by the Son" (Miscellanies 6:16 [A.D. 208]).


    Origen



    "For who that has understanding will suppose that the first and second and third day existed without a sun and moon and stars and that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? . . . I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance and not literally" (The Fundamental Doctrines 4:1:16 [A.D. 225]).

    "The text said that ‘there was evening and there was morning’; it did not say ‘the first day,’ but said ‘one day.’ It is because there was not yet time before the world existed. But time begins to exist with the following days" (Homilies on Genesis [A.D. 234]).

    "And since he [the pagan Celsus] makes the statements about the ‘days of creation’ ground of accusation—as if he understood them clearly and correctly, some of which elapsed before the creation of light and heaven, the sun and moon and stars, and some of them after the creation of these we shall only make this observation, that Moses must have forgotten that he had said a little before ‘that in six days the creation of the world had been finished’ and that in consequence of this act of forgetfulness he subjoins to these words the following: ‘This is the book of the creation of man in the day when God made the heaven and the earth [Gen. 2:4]’" (Against Celsus 6:51 [A.D. 248]).

    "And with regard to the creation of the light upon the first day . . . and of the [great] lights and stars upon the fourth . . . we have treated to the best of our ability in our notes upon Genesis, as well as in the foregoing pages, when we found fault with those who, taking the words in their apparent signification, said that the time of six days was occupied in the creation of the world" (ibid., 6:60).

    "For he [the pagan Celsus] knows nothing of the day of the Sabbath and rest of God, which follows the completion of the world’s creation, and which lasts during the duration of the world, and in which all those will keep the festival with God who have done all their work in their six days" (ibid., 6:61).


    Cyprian



    "The first seven days in the divine arrangement contain seven thousand years" (Treatises 11:11 [A.D. 250]).


    Victorinus



    "God produced the entire mass for the adornment of his majesty in six days. On the seventh day, he consecrated it with a blessing" (On the Creation of the World [A.D. 280]).


    Lactantius



    "Therefore let the philosophers, who enumerate thousands of ages from the beginning of the world, know that the six-thousandth year is not yet complete. . . . Therefore, since all the works of God were completed in six days, the world must continue in its present state through six ages, that is, six thousand years. For the great day of God is limited by a circle of a thousand years, as the prophet shows, who says, ‘In thy sight, O Lord, a thousand years are as one day [Ps. 90:4]’" (Divine Institutes 7:14 [A.D. 307]).


    Basil The Great



    "‘And there was evening and morning, one day.’ Why did he say ‘one’ and not ‘first’? . . . He said ‘one’ because he was defining the measure of day and night . . . since twenty-four hours fill up the interval of one day" (The Six Days Work 1:1–2 [A.D. 370]).


    Ambrose of Milan



    "Scripture established a law that twenty-four hours, including both day and night, should be given the name of day only, as if one were to say the length of one day is twenty-four hours in extent. . . . The nights in this reckoning are considered to be component parts of the days that are counted. Therefore, just as there is a single revolution of time, so there is but one day. There are many who call even a week one day, because it returns to itself, just as one day does, and one might say seven times revolves back on itself" (Hexaemeron [A.D. 393]).


    Augustine



    "It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation" (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20 [A.D. 408]).

    "With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation" (ibid., 2:9).

    "Seven days by our reckoning, after the model of the days of creation, make up a week. By the passage of such weeks time rolls on, and in these weeks one day is constituted by the course of the sun from its rising to its setting; but we must bear in mind that these days indeed recall the days of creation, but without in any way being really similar to them" (ibid., 4:27).

    "[A]t least we know that it [the Genesis creation day] is different from the ordinary day with which we are familiar" (ibid., 5:2).

    "For in these days [of creation] the morning and evening are counted until, on the sixth day, all things which God then made were finished, and on the seventh the rest of God was mysteriously and sublimely signalized. What kind of days these were is extremely difficult or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say!" (The City of God 11:6 [A.D. 419]).

    "We see that our ordinary days have no evening but by the setting [of the sun] and no morning but by the rising of the sun, but the first three days of all were passed without sun, since it is reported to have been made on the fourth day. And first of all, indeed, light was made by the word of God, and God, we read, separated it from the darkness and called the light ‘day’ and the darkness ‘night’; but what kind of light that was, and by what periodic movement it made evening and morning, is beyond the reach of our senses; neither can we understand how it was and yet must unhesitatingly believe it" (ibid., 11:7).

    "They [pagans] are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of [man as] many thousands of years, though reckoning by the sacred writings we find that not 6,000 years have yet passed" (ibid., 12:10).
    This prove without a doubt that there was much debate about the exact time of Creation long before the advent of modern science.

    Dwell on this a while, and I will answer the rest of your challenges later as now I must go to work.
    I typically cite original research papers and reviews that are available only to a personal or institutional subscriptional. If you wish a PDF copy of the papers I cite, send me a request.

  9. #9
    Registered User

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    1,637
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic Evolution????

    Quote Originally Posted by Slipnish
    As an addendum to what Zhav has posted, I also find the notion that one must take the Genesis creation story as literal in order to believe in the relevancy of the rest of scripture as absurd.

    Jesus spoke in parables. Stories that may or may not have basis in fact in order to teach. What prevents Genesis from being such a story concerning the importance of God's law and subsequent punishments for not following it?

    Science does NOT support a 7 day creation, end of story.

    The tale, like a lot of the bible is simply allegory.

    These are the reasons the Genesis story IS literal and NOT a parable

    1. The days of Genesis each have “evening and the morning” (Gen 1:5, 8,13,19,23,31), something unique to 24-hour days in the Bible.
    2. The days were numbered (first, second, third, etc.), a feature found only with 24-hour days in the Bible.
    3. Exodus 20:11 compares the six days of creation with the six days of a literal work week of 144 hours
    4. There is no way life could survive millions of years from day three (1:11) to day four (1:14) without light.

    You can't just look at a text and just because you don't believe it say "I think I will take this symbolically", by the examples above the "days" in Genesis HAVE to be literal...NOT an allegory...either evolution is right or Genesis is right....Genesis (as demonstrated above) is clearly in conflict with the notion that the Earth is billions of years old...also note (as someone else has pointed out) that in Genesis, birds were created before land animals, this is also in conflict with evolution...there are MANY texts in the Bible that I take symbolically, but those texts have the style and language that imply a symbolic interpretation, the creation in Genesis doesn't.

  10. #10
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,893
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic Evolution????

    These are the reasons the Genesis story IS literal and NOT a parable

    1. The days of Genesis each have “evening and the morning” (Gen 1:5, 8,13,19,23,31), something unique to 24-hour days in the Bible.
    2. The days were numbered (first, second, third, etc.), a feature found only with 24-hour days in the Bible.
    3. Exodus 20:11 compares the six days of creation with the six days of a literal work week of 144 hours
    4. There is no way life could survive millions of years from day three (1:11) to day four (1:14) without light.
    1. Evening and morning also imply an end and a beggining. It would be impossible for there to be evening and morning before the creation of the sun, yet that is what we find. No where else in the scripture is it implied that this necessarily means that it must be a 24 hour period.

    2. Your evidence? Why must the numbering of days imply literal 24 hour periods.

    The Hebrew word Yom (day) can be used in many different ways. One way in which it is used is to indicate a period of time. Numbering the days could easily mean 7 time periods.

    3. In Exodus 20:11 Moses uses the word Yom to refer to the entirety of the 6 Yom of creation. This obviously is not the usage of the word Yom to refer to a 24 hour period. This is demonstration how the word Yom could be used to refer to periods of time other than the 24 hour day.

    4. Now wait just a moment, the Bible claims that there was light before any life was created. Nor can we tell from the passage refering after the creation of the first life if this included the sun or if this refered stictly to the stars.

    The creation account in Genesis is brief and it is vague, leaving plenty of room for interpretation.
    I typically cite original research papers and reviews that are available only to a personal or institutional subscriptional. If you wish a PDF copy of the papers I cite, send me a request.

  11. #11
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,893
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic Evolution????

    Furthermore think about this nanderson;

    Before science gave any evidence that the Earth was older than 6000 years, Christian theologians and Jewish theologians both found reason and argued that the days in Genesis were not literal days.

    They had absolutely no physical foundation for such a belief, but based their argument solely on scripture. Nobody can say with certainty what exactly Genesis means in these regards, it is not like other, more important, parts of the Bible where scripture makes things very clear and a closed case.
    I typically cite original research papers and reviews that are available only to a personal or institutional subscriptional. If you wish a PDF copy of the papers I cite, send me a request.

  12. #12
    Registered User

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    1,637
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic Evolution????

    Quote Originally Posted by chadn737
    1. Evening and morning also imply an end and a beggining. It would be impossible for there to be evening and morning before the creation of the sun, yet that is what we find. No where else in the scripture is it implied that this necessarily means that it must be a 24 hour period.

    2. Your evidence? Why must the numbering of days imply literal 24 hour periods.

    The Hebrew word Yom (day) can be used in many different ways. One way in which it is used is to indicate a period of time. Numbering the days could easily mean 7 time periods.

    3. In Exodus 20:11 Moses uses the word Yom to refer to the entirety of the 6 Yom of creation. This obviously is not the usage of the word Yom to refer to a 24 hour period. This is demonstration how the word Yom could be used to refer to periods of time other than the 24 hour day.

    4. Now wait just a moment, the Bible claims that there was light before any life was created. Nor can we tell from the passage refering after the creation of the first life if this included the sun or if this refered stictly to the stars.

    The creation account in Genesis is brief and it is vague, leaving plenty of room for interpretation.
    1. First of all, the sun COULD have been created on the first day, but only appeared (after the mists cleared, when god seperated the sea from the mists of the sky) on the fourth day...on a cloudy day there is still a Sun, though it's light is greatly reduced...if the 7 days are not literal then the plants at the beginning of creation would have to of survived without much light for a very extended period of time.
    2. The numbering of the days is important because there are 7 "days", the same amount of days that we have in a week....it would be extremely ironic if there were 7 "periods of time"...I suppose this is possible, but still, it would be very ironic...also, no where else in the Bible that I know of does it talk about "7 days" as a reference to anything other than actual literal days.
    3. Exodus 20:80-11 "8 "Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. 11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. " In these verses Moses is comparing our week to the creation week...God worked 6 days, we should work 6 days, God rested on the 7th day, we should rest on the 7th day...he is NOT referring to "periods of time" here...the whole reason there was a Sabbath day in the Old Testament was because God rested on the 7th day...NOT the 7th "period of time"

    Also note that the Genesis creation account has birds being created before land animals, this is in direct conflict with evolution....These are reasons that the Genesis creation story and evolution are NOT compatible, one or the other is true...NOT both.

  13. #13
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    7,671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic Evolution????

    Quote Originally Posted by Slipnish
    Science does NOT support a 7 day creation, end of story.

    The tale, like a lot of the bible is simply allegory.
    I could have done the job in 6 days and rested on the 7th day - but why stop there - isn't life in constant flux? How can you (not you Slip) deny the randomness of creation and evolution? Use snowflakes as an example.
    While laughing at others stupidity, you may want to contemplate your own comedic talents. (link)
    Disclaimer: This information is being provided for informational, educational, and entertainment purposes only.

  14. #14
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    7,671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic Evolution????

    Quote Originally Posted by nanderson
    These are reasons that the Genesis creation story and evolution are NOT compatible, one or the other is true...NOT both.
    I disagree - I still think creation and evolution can both be compatable and true at the same time. Your case has not convinced me, and no case presented by anyone else has convinced me otherwise. I will be convinced when I have proof - I have no proof to the contrary.
    While laughing at others stupidity, you may want to contemplate your own comedic talents. (link)
    Disclaimer: This information is being provided for informational, educational, and entertainment purposes only.

  15. #15
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,388
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic Evolution????

    Quote Originally Posted by FruitandNut
    I have already thrashed this one out on other threads. If you are 'fundy' literalist and in particular if you include in your literal belief mindset the Old Testament in all its 'gory', then it is totally contradictory, as are most scientifically established findings.

    Having said all that, as Pope John Paul II said to the 'Pontifical Academy of Science' on the subject, 'One truth cannot contradict another truth'. He affirmed that Creation and Evolution do not contradict each other, and that evolution was one of the outcomes of creation. What he also said though was that the 'soul' is not a product of evolution, that spirit(uality) comes direct from God.

    http://godandscience.org/apologetics/atheismintro.html
    This doesn't make much sense to me. Your link doesn't appear to go along with your argument. That site appears to be in favor of a 7 day literal creation...yet you say this is not the case. You've just provided evidence it would seem...that refutes your very claim (that God used evolution).
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  16. #16
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,388
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic Evolution????

    Quote Originally Posted by nanderson
    Well, I have clearly demonstrated how the 7 day creation stoy has to be literal, I don't just take things literally just for the sake of taking things literally...rather I read the scripture and THEN determine if the text is literal or not.
    Also, I think it is important to note that I am not Catholic (I am Baptist) and just because the Pope says something, I don't just blindly believe it without reading the Bible for myself...so your "the Pope said so, so it must be true" argument is just horrible, if you are going to post, tell me what YOU think, try and refute my claims and support your argument!
    While I'm don't particularly believe in evolution, I don't dismiss the possibility that the days in Genesis, were long periods of time.

    There seem to be 2 issues here...

    1) Did God use evolution as his "form" of creation?
    2) Are the 7 days literal 24 hours, or are they longer periods of time?

    You mentioned Old Earthers...while I'm always changing my position as I understand the facts and theories more, I'm currently an Old Earther who believes in creation. That is, I tend to believe that God created "as is", but did so in longer periods of times than just 24 hrs.

    I see no contradiction in this view. It is often claimed that the Hebrew word for day yom is always meant for a 24 hr period of time...but this is not so.

    http://godandscience.org/youngearth/sixdays.html provides examples as to how it can be used to represent longer periods of time.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  17. #17
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,388
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic Evolution????

    Quote Originally Posted by Zhavric
    1) Jaques Monod's area of study was not evolution.
    I don't know too many scientists whose area of study is "evolution" in and of itself. Astronomers, biologists/zoologists, chemists, geologists, etc... all study evolution as it pertains to their actual areas of study. Yes...even chemists...which Monod was.

    2) Discarding a theory because one finds it to be "cruel" is absurd. Shall we toss out the idea that lions rend the flesh of their prey with their claws and fangs because we find it "cruel"?
    You missed his point...which is actually quite good. It is not the case that a scientific theory is dismissed because it is cruel...but rather the idea that a an alleged all-powerful, all-good, loving creator would use such a system that would be cruel, as opposed to a system that would not be cruel.

    The context of the argument remains in the Bible...this includes the nature of the Biblical God, which would seem to contradict the "cruel" theory of evolution. His point is valid.

    3) No one is demanding that human beings embrace natural selection as a basis of morality. Such an assertion (the implication of his quote) is ridiculous. The FACT is that life in the animal kingdom is harsh and unforgiving. That does not mean that we have to be harsh and unforgiving... but it does not change the FACTS.
    No claim was ever made that this would be the basis of any moral system. No claim was ever made that the animal kingdom is harsh and unforgiving. You are not reading clearly at what is being said. See above response.

    Furthermore, remember the disclaimer: NOTE: This thread is NOT to debate the evidence for evolution or the validity of the Bible…it is to debate whether the Bible, in any way supports evolution!

    We don't care about the facts of evolution/creation in this particular argument. The issue is NOT evolution vs creation. The issue is, does the Bible allow for theistic evolution? Does theistic evolution contradict scripture or not?

    If it is true that evolution did in fact occur, then does this or does this not contradict scripture? THAT is the thesis of the argument.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  18. #18
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Texas.
    Posts
    3,681
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic Evolution????

    Quote Originally Posted by nanderson
    These are the reasons the Genesis story IS literal and NOT a parable

    1. The days of Genesis each have “evening and the morning” (Gen 1:5, 8,13,19,23,31), something unique to 24-hour days in the Bible.
    Something unique in a particular book does NOT ascribe truth to same.

    2. The days were numbered (first, second, third, etc.), a feature found only with 24-hour days in the Bible.
    Many nations used numbers for their days. Anceint Jews did the same. As they are the authors of the earliest portions of the book, this comes as no surprise and again, does not support the veracity of your claim.

    [qutoe]3. Exodus 20:11 compares the six days of creation with the six days of a literal work week of 144 hours[/quote]

    The use of a 7 day work week have been around a long time, and seems to have Pagan origins beginning with the names of the planetary bodies the ancients attributed to gods.

    During this time, Egyptians thought that the most distant was Saturn, shown at the bottom of the graphic above. They thought that the order of closer members (shown counterclockwise following Saturn) was Jupiter, Mars, Sun, Venus, Mercury and closest, the Moon. So they believed that the first hour was ruled by Saturn, the second by Jupiter and so on. 1
    Egyptians also believed that after each seven hours the order in which these objects ruled was repeated, so it started again with Saturn.
    According to those ancient Egyptians, the planet that ruled the first hour also governed the entire twenty-four hour period, and gave its name to that day. 2 The first (and also the 8th, 15th and 22nd) hours of the first day were sacred to Saturn, the 23rd to Jupiter, the 24th to Mars and the first hour of the next day to the Sun. Therefore, they believed that the first day was ruled by and named after Saturn (Saturday) and the second was ruled by (and named after) the Sun (Sunday). 3

    Celsus claimed that the same doctrine was part of 'Persian theology.' 4 Six hundred years ago, Chaucer described this belief in his Treatise on the Astrolabe under the heading of Special declaracioun of the houres of planetes.5 Chaucer's text was translated from a much earlier manuscript from Greece.
    The distance that these sky gods were perceived to be from Earth is not the same as the order in which they were believed to have ruled days. This is easy to understand but difficult to visualize. If you care to see it shown in the form of a chart, select Hourly Cycle that Determined Day Names.
    Egyptians once divided all twelve 30-day months (of their 360-day calendar year) into three 10-day weeks in the same manner as Greeks of the same period. 6 The epoch at which planet worship caused them to change its length to seven days is not known, but it must have been over twenty-five hundred years ago because Herodotus, writing in his History during the 5th century B.C. said: "Here are some other discoveries of the Egyptians. They find...each day belongs to a god..." 7
    Adherents of the cult of Sin at Harran, who were known as Harranians or Sabeans by Arabic and Syrian authors, named their days after the same solar system members 8 as Egyptians and Persians. Like Hebrews and many other peoples, they considered the one named after Saturn to be the seventh day, so they began their week with a day named after the Sun. All seven days were named after solar system members in the same order as they were in Egypt.


    http://www.12x30.net/origin.html

    4. There is no way life could survive millions of years from day three (1:11) to day four (1:14) without light.
    As an allegory this is moot.

    You can't just look at a text and just because you don't believe it say "I think I will take this symbolically", by the examples above the "days" in Genesis HAVE to be literal...NOT an allegory...
    Okay. But I can look at what the ancients believed to be true and what modern science can show is true. And one thing I know is that the earth and subsequent celestial bodies do NOT form in 7 twenty-four hour periods. There are tons of stars "hatching" in the view of the Hubble now, and none of them are "birthed" in that time.

    A little reasoning on anyones part shows that the story is an allegory.

    either evolution is right or Genesis is right....
    Or maybe the allegorical Adam and Eve were the first Homo Sapiens. Deigned to be cursed by an intelligence unshared by their less bright parent species.

    There both are now right. And for the love of God. Evolution does not speak to abiogenesis. We have covered that umpteen eleven times now.

    Genesis (as demonstrated above) is clearly in conflict with the notion that the Earth is billions of years old...
    As an allegorical tale it speaks to more important things than the age of the earth. Frankly I consider God bright enough to know that.

    Secondly, the bible is a religious text not a science book. If you want science go to class. If you want religion, go to church, or synagogue, or temple, or whatever...

    also note (as someone else has pointed out) that in Genesis, birds were created before land animals, this is also in conflict with evolution...
    And again. NOT A SCIENCE BOOK. As a corollary, God didn't write the silly thing, a person did. And like all creation myths, it holds some interest for a variety of reasons. It does NOT, however, address the science behind the issue.

    there are MANY texts in the Bible that I take symbolically, but those texts have the style and language that imply a symbolic interpretation, the creation in Genesis doesn't.
    Okay then. Who wrote Genesis? What is the purpose of the tale? Compared to other creation myths, how is it any different?

    We have talking snakes, magic trees, flaming swords, God sneaking around in the Garden playing Hide and Seek with Adam...

    Are you telling me all of those things are LITERAL???

    Get a grip Anderson.
    But if you do not find an intelligent companion, a wise and well-behaved person going the same way as yourself, then go on your way alone, like a king abandoning a conquered kingdom, or like a great elephant in the deep forest. - Buddha

  19. #19
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,893
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic Evolution????

    1. First of all, the sun COULD have been created on the first day, but only appeared (after the mists cleared, when god seperated the sea from the mists of the sky) on the fourth day...on a cloudy day there is still a Sun, though it's light is greatly reduced...if the 7 days are not literal then the plants at the beginning of creation would have to of survived without much light for a very extended period of time.
    Whatever, but say we accept the above scenario, I could fill several pages with plants that can survive on very small amounts of light. I could also fill a page with organisms that have never seen light and organisms that obtain their energy from inorganic sources other than sunlight.

    2. The numbering of the days is important because there are 7 "days", the same amount of days that we have in a week....it would be extremely ironic if there were 7 "periods of time"...I suppose this is possible, but still, it would be very ironic...also, no where else in the Bible that I know of does it talk about "7 days" as a reference to anything other than actual literal days.
    Which came first? The creation or the 7 day week? Seven day weeks dont even exist until Exodus when God commands man to work 6 days and rest on the 7th. I see no irony at all. God creates the universe in seven periods of time, each marked by some signifigant event. He then commands his people to represent this in their daily lives, especially the Sabbath. The importance of the Sabbath is that it is a day set aside for God.


    3. Exodus 20:80-11 "8 "Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. 11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. " In these verses Moses is comparing our week to the creation week...God worked 6 days, we should work 6 days, God rested on the 7th day, we should rest on the 7th day...he is NOT referring to "periods of time" here...the whole reason there was a Sabbath day in the Old Testament was because God rested on the 7th day...NOT the 7th "period of time"
    That is debateable.

    For instance, the Jews also celabrated the sabbath for time periods longer than a day. In fact there was a whole year that was considered the Sabbath.

    Look at Leviticus 25:1-4, God represents the 7 periods of time in years, not days. So to say that because we have a 7 day week to represent a literal 7 days contradicts the representation of this in Leviticus.

    There are so many different places in the Bible when the Hebrew word for day is used for anything but a a 24hour day. Sometimes it means 12 hrs, sometimes it means entire decades.

    Also note that the Genesis creation account has birds being created before land animals, this is in direct conflict with evolution....These are reasons that the Genesis creation story and evolution are NOT compatible, one or the other is true...NOT both.
    We'll get to that, dont worry.

    But before we get into deeper details we must address the larger issues.
    I typically cite original research papers and reviews that are available only to a personal or institutional subscriptional. If you wish a PDF copy of the papers I cite, send me a request.

  20. #20
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,388
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic Evolution????

    Quote Originally Posted by nanderson
    1. First of all, the sun COULD have been created on the first day, but only appeared (after the mists cleared, when god seperated the sea from the mists of the sky) on the fourth day...on a cloudy day there is still a Sun, though it's light is greatly reduced...if the 7 days are not literal then the plants at the beginning of creation would have to of survived without much light for a very extended period of time.
    Why does it have to be the sun? Since God is all-powerful and obviously, capable of great miracles, why couldn't the light been from another source?

    OR...

    Seeing as how God is all-powerful...why couldn't he also make the plants live without the requirements of sunlight? It would seem as if YE believers only believe that God is all-powerful...up to a point. That he can create the universe, the world, all life, have a perfectly balanced and fine-tuned system...but he can't temporarily suspend the characteristics or needs of that which he created. Why is that?


    2. The numbering of the days is important because there are 7 "days", the same amount of days that we have in a week....it would be extremely ironic if there were 7 "periods of time"...I suppose this is possible, but still, it would be very ironic...also, no where else in the Bible that I know of does it talk about "7 days" as a reference to anything other than actual literal days.[/quote]
    The number 7 is a "holy" number. It's used throughout scripture. It wouldn't be ironic, it would be symbolic and keeping in with God's nature and holiness. It would be odd if it was different number, not the same.

    3. Exodus 20:80-11 "8 "Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. 11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. " In these verses Moses is comparing our week to the creation week...God worked 6 days, we should work 6 days, God rested on the 7th day, we should rest on the 7th day...he is NOT referring to "periods of time" here...the whole reason there was a Sabbath day in the Old Testament was because God rested on the 7th day...NOT the 7th "period of time"
    Same as above. Applying a smaller, literal 7 actual days to a larger, grand 7 periods of time as symbolism.

    Also note that the Genesis creation account has birds being created before land animals, this is in direct conflict with evolution....These are reasons that the Genesis creation story and evolution are NOT compatible, one or the other is true...NOT both.
    My argument re: 7 days as time periods is more of a sub-argument (since it came up earlier). As far as the 2 being problematic with one another...I may lean more to your position...but my mind still isn't made up for sure on the matter. IMO, this is a good point you have made here (at first glance anyway).
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




 

 
Page 1 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Evolution is not PROVEN
    By Apokalupsis in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 190
    Last Post: February 25th, 2013, 10:06 AM
  2. Georgia School to Appeal Evolution Ruling
    By KevinBrowning in forum Religion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: January 19th, 2005, 04:48 AM
  3. My thoughts on Evolution
    By ShadowKnight in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 88
    Last Post: January 16th, 2005, 02:08 PM
  4. Law of Biogenesis vs. Evolution
    By Bostown in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: December 29th, 2004, 03:06 PM
  5. The Wisdom of "Dr." Kent Hovind
    By Dionysus in forum General Debate
    Replies: 70
    Last Post: December 22nd, 2004, 10:10 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •