Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

One-on-One: Biblical Christianity and Evolution, The Berean and noguru

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by The Berean
    However, God was there, right? He was the only “eyewitness” of creation and he recounted what he did in Genesis 1. Do you not believe what God says?
    I don't think God physically wrote down Genesis. It was a narrative from the view of the person who recieved the revelation about their only being one God. In the narrative it shows that all other things were created by the One. It was not a narrative designed to have scientific significance.

    Originally posted by The Berean
    He didn’t used “different” substances, he created man separately using the same “substances”.
    Well the empirical evidence supports the notion of commonality of the basic substances. So whether it was dust or dirt from the ground the fundamental idea remains accurate. It is just not accurate on a scientific level. It is more a poetic example.

    Originally posted by The Berean
    OK, I’ll explain it to you again. God created man on the sixth day after all other life. Life already existed before man was created. He created man from the “dust of the ground“ according to Genesis 2:7. Man did not have any biological descendants in the sense that man was the product of previous life forms. Man was made from non-life.
    You don't have to explain what Genesis says to me. I can read. My point is that this is not an accurate scientific account. It is a poetic narrative. Therefore the scientific concept of common descent does not contradict the main ideas. That man and all other life were made from non-life by God.

    Originally posted by The Berean
    Well then present your beliefs noguru. You keep saying I misrepresent your beliefs. Well, then present your beliefs.
    Well Berean you started this discourse as an attempt to show that my world view was less consistent than yours. How can you possibly make that statement if you do not understand my world view.

    Originally posted by The Berean
    I never said this. You are simply wrong. I said man was created separately, not that God created man with “different” materials.
    I know, and my point was that, whether it be from the ground or from dust, the fundamental components are the same. The empirical evidence supports this. The point being made in Genesis about man being created seperately is to illustrate how we differ from the rest of life. We are imbued with the spirit of God. The empirical evidence does not negate this notion. In fact our frontal lobe which allows us to have logic, deeper emotions, and cognizance of both, supports this idea.

    Originally posted by The Berean
    How am I being obtuse? I’ve been quite clear on my points. Here are my points again:

    1. Evolutionary theory teaches as one of its basic principles, the idea of common descent, all life share a common ancestor or common gene pool. I gave two definitions with links.

    2. Common descent contradicts Scripture. Since man was created separate from all other life, man cannot have a “common ancestor” with other life. It’s logically impossible based on Scripture. I gave Scripture supporting this position
    3. Common descent is not Biblical. I showed the conflict between Scripture and the idea of common descent.

    You are being obtuse in regard to the points I have been making. Not in regard to what you believe. I understand your world view. You place less confidence in the empirical view and more on a stagnant interpretation of genesis devised hundreds of years ago.You also claim that your theology is more consistent than mine. And have yet to support that notion.
    Originally posted by The Berean
    noguru, I have some questions for you.

    1. Can you elaborate on your belief of evolutionary theory that way I van’t misrepresent your beliefs.
    2. Can you show, given that man was created separately from other life, how it can be Biblical?
    Why would I do that? I do not believe that investigations into the material sciences should be stringently restrained by a certain interpretation of Genesis. This goes against the scientific method. I agree with St. Augustine on this issue. If the evidence contradicts our interpretation of Genesis then our interpretation is probably wrong. One more time, and please try to absorb what I am saying this time. I do not view Genesis as an attempt at being precise in regard to the material sciences. Doing so is making scripture something that it obviously is not.

    Now that we have gone over this issue ad nauseam, are you ready to move on?

    I know that I am. In fact, I refuse to discuss this any more. If you have some support for your original claim that my view is less consistent than yours, you can post it now. A list of my inconsistencies compared to a list of yours might be helpful. But I am not sure how you are going to do this if you don't have a good idea of my views.
    Militant Moderate

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by noguru
      I don't think God physically wrote down Genesis. It was a narrative from the view of the person who recieved the revelation about their only being one God. In the narrative it shows that all other things were created by the One. It was not a narrative designed to have scientific significance.
      God inspired the writer of Genesis to write down what God wanted to write down. It doesn't matter than God himself didn't phyiscally write Genesis.
      Well the empirical evidence supports the notion of commonality of the basic substances. So whether it was dust or dirt from the ground the fundamental idea remains accurate. It is just not accurate on a scientific level. It is more a poetic example.
      This is simply incorrect. As I stated several times before Genesis clearly states that man was created after alll other life and man was created spearately. So if man is created separately how can he be related to other life or descended form other life?
      You don't have to explain what Genesis says to me. I can read. My point is that this is not an accurate scientific account. It is a poetic narrative. Therefore the scientific concept of common descent does not contradict the main ideas. That man and all other life were made from non-life by God.
      Your assertion that Genesis is poetic narrative is completely false. If you had any understanding of Biblical hermeneutics you would know that Genesis is a historical narrative. It has always be considered historical narrative. Even Jesus Christ considered it hisotrical narrative. Jesus made many references to Adam, Noah, and The Flood.
      Well Berean you started this discourse as an attempt to show that my world view was less consistent than yours. How can you possibly make that statement if you do not understand my world view.
      I've given you several reasons why I believe your "worldview" is not consistent with the Bible. You've accused my of not understanding your position, but when I have asked you to elaborate on your position, you have refused.
      I know, and my point was that, whether it be from the ground or from dust, the fundamental components are the same. The empirical evidence supports this. The point being made in Genesis about man being created seperately is to illustrate how we differ from the rest of life. We are imbued with the spirit of God. The empirical evidence does not negate this notion. In fact our frontal lobe which allows us to have logic, deeper emotions, and cognizance of both, supports this idea.
      So what are you saying here. It seems that you are saying that man was created spearately from other life. If you believe this then how can you believe that man is descended from other life forms? That makes no sense at all. You believe two contradictory assertions!
      Why would I do that? I do not believe that investigations into the material sciences should be stringently restrained by a certain interpretation of Genesis. This goes against the scientific method. I agree with St. Augustine on this issue. If the evidence contradicts our interpretation of Genesis then our interpretation is probably wrong. One more time, and please try to absorb what I am saying this time. I do not view Genesis as an attempt at being precise in regard to the material sciences. Doing so is making scripture something that it obviously is not.
      Why would you not want to elaborate you position. Really, I do not understand you refusal to elaborate on your position? I've asked you sevral times to do this after you accused me of not understanding you posiiton. What are you afraid of noguru?

      Now that we have gone over this issue ad nauseam, are you ready to move on?

      I know that I am. In fact, I refuse to discuss this any more. If you have some support for your original claim that my view is less consistent than yours, you can post it now. A list of my inconsistencies compared to a list of yours might be helpful. But I am not sure how you are going to do this if you don't have a good idea of my views.
      What do you actually discuss. You refuse to elaborate on your position so what is th point? Your major inconsistencies is this:

      You claim that man is descended from other life forms. Yet, you also claim that God made man separately and in His imagine. You believe two contradictory assertions.

      If God did indeed make man separately then man cannot be descended from other life forms. It's that simple.

      noguru, it's obvious to me that you really do not understand the concept of evolution and natural selection. You are picking and choosing parts of evolution that satisfy you. You also deny the inerrancy of the Bible. if the Bible has errors then why read it? How do you determine what parts of the Bible are and what parts are in error?

      I was a little disappointed with the one-on-one. I thoguht we would have a thought-provoking discussion about the issues of evolution and its relationship to the Bible. Unfortunately, that did not happen. And with that, this one-on-one has come to the end.

      God Bless,

      The Berean
      Your problem is not technology. The problem is YOU. You lack the will to change...You treat this planet as you treat each other. - Klaatu

      What are you talking about? There is no such thing as the "Mafia"......it doesn't exist. Just a bunch of lies told to defame honest hardworking Italians like myself. - TomO

      I will do you, let's see, goofy, wacky, and to the left side of the bell curve
      . -Ktoyou

      I'm white. I'm not black. I can't convert to being black. It doesn't matter how much I want to become black. I could listen to rap and date fat white women all day; for all that, I'll still remain white.- Traditio

      Comment

      Working...
      X