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

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

    I wanted to discuss with noguru the topic of Biblical Christianity and evolution. I hope that noguru and myself can flesh out ideas about whether a person can hold a belief in Biblical Christianity and naturalistic evolution (meaning the origin of life). This thread is NOT a debate about naturalistic evolution, vs YEC or OEC, or theistic evolution per se. This thread is about the precepts or beginning assumptions or "first laws" of Biblical Christianty and naturalistic evolution. This thread was motivated by the following post

    Originally posted by noguru
    Because I am a Christian I am committed to the truth. The truth is that the evidence does not support a young earth, multiple origins, global deluge model better than the long age naturalistic model. I do not defend it. I try to point out where misrepresentations and/or misunderstandings of the evidence lead to innacurate conclusions. You call yourself a Christian but you do not seem to be concerned with accuracy and truth in the material sciences. And that is fine, if the implications contradict what you have already chosen to beieve about the subject. But at least be honest and admit the reason you have chosen your beliefs. You are more concerned with your eternal salvation than you are with accuracy and truth in the material sciences.
    Apparently, noguru accuses me of having my "head in the sand" for not accepting what he believes to be true. As a Christian I am absolutely concerned with accuracy and truth, especially God's truth. I believe that there is a Creator God and that he created the entire universe from nothing (ex-nihilo). I believe that the the form, structure and function of the universe was initially created by God and that universe functions in a predictive manner that god himslef has set. All natural laws (law of gravity, photosynthesis, Kreb's cycle. laws of thermodymanics, etc.) were created by God so that the universe would function in an orderly manner and that man would see the power and greatness of God through this order. Paul speaks of this in Romans:

    For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. Romans 1:20
    I believe that since God cannot be "seen" in the phyiscal realm (usually not), God took it upon himself to reveal Himself by interjecting himslef into human affairs and by revealing his truth to mankind and that mankind wrote down these truths. I believe that the Bible is the revealed Word given by God to man. God's Word is superior to any man-made document simply because God is the author of it. It is inerrant in all that it talks about. When it touches on history and science, it is completey true and accurate though it may not be as detailed in it's descriptions. Many people argue that the Bible is not a science book ans we should not look for our answers in it when it comes to origins. And they are right, it's not a science book. And I'm glad it's not a science book because most science books have a very short life span. Most science books become obsolete in a very short time. I believe that naturalistic evolution (macro-evolution or "molecules to man") runs contrary to the Word of God because it posits an idea that the process itself is random and that no intellegence was required.


    In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:1
    That is the first line of the Bible. God created everything.

    I believe that God gave us the Bible because he wants us to know Him and understand His plan for all of us. This is a key point. If we are to know God we MUST read His Word. Not only does God's Word teach us about who He is but it also gives us perfect wisdom for our daily living. The Bible is historically and scientific accurate when it does touch on these subjects.

    So, I like to ask noguru some preliminary questions:

    1. Do you believe that the Bible is inerrant in all it's aspects?

    2. Do you believe that if the Bible is inerrant that the truths in it would supercede any man-made truth?

    3. Have you let go of any personal belief becuase it was contrary to the Word of God? (Here's a personal example. I gave up my atheism becuase it ran contrary to the Word of God).

    noguru, I look forward to your first response.

    God Bless,

    The Berean
    Last edited by The Berean; November 10th, 2005, 03:52 PM. Reason: typo
    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

  • #2
    Originally posted by The Berean
    I wanted to discuss with noguru the topic of Biblical Christianity and evolution. I hope that noguru and myself can flesh out ideas about whether a person can hold a belief in Biblical Christianity and naturalistic evolution (meaning the origin of life). This thread is NOT a debate about naturalistic evolution, vs YEC or OEC, or theistic evolution per se. This thread is about the precepts or beginning assumptions or "first laws" of Biblical Christianty and naturalistic evolution. This thread was motivated by the following post



    Apparently, noguru accuses me of having my "head in the sand" for not accepting what he believes to be true. As a Christian I am absolutely concerned with accuracy and truth, especially God's truth. I believe that there is a Creator God and that he created the entire universe from nothing (ex-nihilo). I believe that the the form, structure and function of the universe was initially created by God and that universe functions in a predictive manner that god himslef has set. All natural laws (law of gravity, photosynthesis, Kreb's cycle. laws of thermodymanics, etc.) were created by God so that the universe would function in an orderly manner and that man would see the power and greatness of God through this order. Paul speaks of this in Romans:


    I believe that since God cannot be "seen" in the phyiscal realm (usually not), God took it upon himself to reveal Himself by interjecting himslef into human affairs and by revealing his truth to mankind and that mankind wrote down these truths. I believe that the Bible is the revealed Word given by God to man. God's Word is superior to any man-made document simply because God is the author of it. It is inerrant in all that it talks about. When it touches on history and science, it is completey true and accurate though it may not be as detailed in it's descriptions. Many people argue that the Bible is not a science book ans we should not look for our answers in it when it comes to origins. And they are right, it's not a science book. And I'm glad it's not a science book because most science books have a very short life span. Most science books become obsolete in a very short time. I believe that naturalistic evolution (macro-evolution or "molecules to man") runs contrary to the Word of God because it posits an idea that the process itself is random and that no intellegence was required.




    That is the first line of the Bible. God created everything.

    I believe that God gave us the Bible because he wants us to know Him and understand His plan for all of us. This is a key point. If we are to know God we MUST read His Word. Not only does God's Word teach us about who He is but it also gives us perfect wisdom for our daily living. The Bible is historically and scientific accurate when it does touch on these subjects.

    So, I like to ask noguru some preliminary questions:

    1. Do you believe that the Bible is inerrant in all it's aspects?

    2. Do you believe that if the Bible is inerrant that the truths in it would supercede any man-made truth?

    3. Have you let go of any personal belief becuase it was contrary to the Word of God? (Here's a personal example. I gave up my atheism becuase it ran contrary to the Word of God).

    noguru, I look forward to your first response.
    God Bless,

    The Berean

    1) No.

    2) Yes.

    3) Yes.

    Your personal example is a poor one. If you were an atheist you did not believe in God. If you began to believe in God then you were no longer an atheist. You didn't give it up because it ran contrary to God's word.

    My personal example is my feelings toward homosexuality. I used to be very tolerant about their lifestyle. Altough I was not comfortable with the advances male homosexuals made. When I renewed my faith in God I began to see that homosexuals are not as courageous as I once thought. I now believe their homosexuality comes from a lack of courage in dealing with the opposite sex. And in this sense it is an abomination.
    Last edited by noguru; November 11th, 2005, 05:43 AM.
    Militant Moderate

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by noguru
      1) No.

      2) Yes.

      3) Yes.

      Your personal example is a poor one. If you were an atheist you did not believe in God. If you began to believe in God then you were no longer an atheist. You didn't give it up because it ran contrary to God's word.

      My personal example is my feelings toward homosexuality. I used to be very tolerant about their lifestyle. Altough I was not comfortable with the advances male homosexuals made. When I renewed my faith in God I began to see that homosexuals are not as courageous as I once thought. I now believe their homosexuality comes from a lack of courage in dealing with the opposite sex. And in this sense it is an abomination.
      I apologize for the delay. I had a very busy weekend. First I would like to address you comment about my example. I do not believe it is a poor example. The reason I became a Christian is because I read the Bible as an atheist and the Bible convicted me that what it was saying about God was true. God does exist. To deny His existence is foolishness and will lead to eternal separation from God. I did give up my atheism because it did run contrary to the Word of God.


      I would like to address your answer to the first question. I’m curious to understand why you believe the Bible is NOT inerrant. I found your answer surprising since you are a Christian. I believe that one of the fundamental concepts for a Christian to hold to would be the inerrancy of Scripture. Before I move on I’d like to define what “inerrancy” is. The “Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy” written in 1978 pretty much sums up what I believe.

      1. God, who is Himself Truth and speaks truth only, has inspired Holy Scripture in order thereby to reveal Himself to lost mankind through Jesus Christ as Creator and Lord, Redeemer and Judge. Holy Scripture is God's witness to Himself.

      2. Holy Scripture, being God's own Word, written by men prepared and superintended by His Spirit, is of infallible divine authority in all matters upon which it touches: it is to be believed, as God's instruction, in all that it affirms: obeyed, as God's command, in all that it requires; embraced, as God's pledge, in all that it promises.

      3. The Holy Spirit, Scripture's divine Author, both authenticates it to us by His inward witness and opens our minds to understand its meaning.

      4. Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God's acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God's saving grace in individual lives.

      5. The authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited or disregarded, or made relative to a view of truth contrary to the Bible's own; and such lapses bring serious loss to both the individual and the Church.
      Hundreds of times the Bible refers to itself as the Word of God. It never says it’s man’s ideas about God or man’s philosophy about God. The OT prophets, Jesus Christ, and the NT Apostles all claimed the Bible was God inspired. Here’s an example from Psalms 19: 7-13:

      7 The law of the LORD is perfect,
      reviving the soul.
      The statutes of the LORD are trustworthy,
      making wise the simple.

      8 The precepts of the LORD are right,
      giving joy to the heart.
      The commands of the LORD are radiant,
      giving light to the eyes.

      9 The fear of the LORD is pure,
      enduring forever.
      The ordinances of the LORD are sure
      and altogether righteous.

      10 They are more precious than gold,
      than much pure gold;
      they are sweeter than honey,
      than honey from the comb.

      11 By them is your servant warned;
      in keeping them there is great reward.

      12 Who can discern his errors?
      Forgive my hidden faults.

      13 Keep your servant also from willful sins;
      may they not rule over me.
      Then will I be blameless,
      innocent of great transgression.
      And here is an example of Jesus referring to the Book of Genesis:

      Matthew 19:3–6:

      3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, ‘Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?’
      4 ‘Haven’t you read,’ he replied, ‘that at the beginning the Creator `made them male and female,’
      5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?
      6 So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.’
      Here, Jesus is clearly speaking of Adam and Eve as real historical people. And here is Paul speaking on Scripture:

      …The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. 11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12 We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. -1 Cor 2:10-13
      And Paul again…
      13 And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe. -1 Thess 2:13
      And finally on my favorite Scriptures:
      16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. –2 Tim 3:16-17
      The Bible clearly teaches that it a direct message from God. Given this why would God give us a Bible with factual errors or false teachings?

      noguru, can you explain why you believe he Bible is not inerrant and can you give specific examples in the bible that you consider to be errant passages. I believe that we can discuss these points and perhaps tie them to your evolutionary beliefs. I look forward to your response.

      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


      • #4
        Originally posted by The Berean
        I apologize for the delay. I had a very busy weekend. First I would like to address you comment about my example. I do not believe it is a poor example. The reason I became a Christian is because I read the Bible as an atheist and the Bible convicted me that what it was saying about God was true. God does exist. To deny His existence is foolishness and will lead to eternal separation from God. I did give up my atheism because it did run contrary to the Word of God.


        I would like to address your answer to the first question. I’m curious to understand why you believe the Bible is NOT inerrant. I found your answer surprising since you are a Christian. I believe that one of the fundamental concepts for a Christian to hold to would be the inerrancy of Scripture. Before I move on I’d like to define what “inerrancy” is. The “Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy” written in 1978 pretty much sums up what I believe.



        Hundreds of times the Bible refers to itself as the Word of God. It never says it’s man’s ideas about God or man’s philosophy about God. The OT prophets, Jesus Christ, and the NT Apostles all claimed the Bible was God inspired. Here’s an example from Psalms 19: 7-13:



        And here is an example of Jesus referring to the Book of Genesis:



        Here, Jesus is clearly speaking of Adam and Eve as real historical people. And here is Paul speaking on Scripture:


        And Paul again…

        And finally on my favorite Scriptures:


        The Bible clearly teaches that it a direct message from God. Given this why would God give us a Bible with factual errors or false teachings?

        noguru, can you explain why you believe he Bible is not inerrant and can you give specific examples in the bible that you consider to be errant passages. I believe that we can discuss these points and perhaps tie them to your evolutionary beliefs. I look forward to your response.

        God Bless,

        The Berean
        The Bible is not inerrant in regard to natural history. It was not meant to be. Nowhere in the Bible does God claim this to be the case. This referrence does not support a claim that the Bible is text dealing with natural history.

        Matthew 19:3–6:

        3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, ‘Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?’
        4 ‘Haven’t you read,’ he replied, ‘that at the beginning the Creator `made them male and female,’
        5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?
        6 So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.’
        It simply supports the notion that there were both male and female members of the human family which accepted the monotheistic view of God and the subordinate idea of marriage. I do not deny that there were an Adam and an Eve. This referrence does not negate my ideas about natural history or theology.

        Berean I no longer want to continue this discussion with you. In my opinion you are not a reasonable person. I felt this way from your comments in the original thread before you started this one. You supported my suspicion with your opening post in this thread, and then again with your deflection of my comments about your example for changing your views based on the Bible. I can already see that this discussion is going nowhere. So do us both a favor and save your "fundamentlist" prosletyzing for someone who will be more receptive. Perhaps another "fundy" atheist might take your bait.

        Thank you and
        God Bless
        Militant Moderate

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by noguru
          The Bible is not inerrant in regard to natural history. It was not meant to be. Nowhere in the Bible does God claim this to be the case. This referrence does not support a claim that the Bible is text dealing with natural history.



          It simply supports the notion that there were both male and female members of the human family which accepted the monotheistic view of God and the subordinate idea of marriage. I do not deny that there were an Adam and an Eve. This referrence does not negate my ideas about natural history or theology.

          Berean I no longer want to continue this discussion with you. In my opinion you are not a reasonable person. I felt this way from your comments in the original thread before you started this one. You supported my suspicion with your opening post in this thread, and then again with your deflection of my comments about your example for changing your views based on the Bible. I can already see that this discussion is going nowhere. So do us both a favor and save your "fundamentlist" prosletyzing for someone who will be more receptive. Perhaps another "fundy" atheist might take your bait.

          Thank you and
          God Bless
          I am most disappointed in your withdrawal from our one-on-one. My purpose for this one-on-one was to try to understand how one can claim to be a "Christian" and hold to a evolutionary worldview. You claim I'm not a reasonable. That is a baseless charge. According to the dictionary "reasonable" is defined as follows:
          [quote]Main Entry: rea·son·able
          Pronunciation: 'rEz-n&-b&l, 'rE-z&n-&-b&l
          Function: adjective
          1 a : being in accordance with reason b : not extreme or excessive c : MODERATE, FAIR d : INEXPENSIVE
          2 a : having the faculty of reason b : possessing sound judgment

          I believe I have been reasonable. My claim is that Christianity and evolutionary theory are incompatible on theological grounds. I was simply showing theological reasons for my assertion. I gave Scriptural evidence that Jesus Christ (remember Him, our Lord and Savior?) took Genesis as historical narrative. You apparently believe that Jesus was incorrect on this issue (I guess evolutionary "science" knows more than Jesus Christ).

          I didn't deflect you comments on my example on changing my views based on the Bible. I directly responded to your comment.
          The reason I became a Christian is because I read the Bible as an atheist and the Bible convicted me that what it was saying about God was true. God does exist. To deny His existence is foolishness and will lead to eternal separation from God. I did give up my atheism because it did run contrary to the Word of God.
          Again, I became a Christian because the Word of God, through His Spirit, brought conviction to my heart that God was indeed real. For you to say that this is not true is to basically call me a liar.

          The point of a one-on-one is to discuss different ideas and beliefs. Apparently, you do not have the desire or perhaps you do not like to be challenged by other Christians. I don't know. You claim that you do not deny that Adam and Eve exists but most evolutionary scientists would claim that there was no "real" adam and Eve. So are you picking and choosing parts of evolutionary theory that you like? You accuse me of being a "fundy" If by "fundy" you mean a Christian that gave his life to Jesus Christ and considers the Scriptures, given by God to man, to be the final authority on all matters of life, faith, and practice then I am guilty as charged. I gladly take the title of "fundy". If you have no time for what the Word of God really says and the words of Jesus Christ then you are losing out on much of what God has to offer you and that is sad.

          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


          • #6
            Originally posted by The Berean
            I am most disappointed in your withdrawal from our one-on-one. My purpose for this one-on-one was to try to understand how one can claim to be a "Christian" and hold to a evolutionary worldview. You claim I'm not a reasonable. That is a baseless charge. According to the dictionary "reasonable" is defined as follows:

            Main Entry: rea·son·able
            Pronunciation: 'rEz-n&-b&l, 'rE-z&n-&-b&l
            Function: adjective
            1 a : being in accordance with reason b : not extreme or excessive c : MODERATE, FAIR d : INEXPENSIVE
            2 a : having the faculty of reason b : possessing sound judgment
            I believe I have been reasonable. My claim is that Christianity and evolutionary theory are incompatible on theological grounds. I was simply showing theological reasons for my assertion. I gave Scriptural evidence that Jesus Christ (remember Him, our Lord and Savior?) took Genesis as historical narrative. You apparently believe that Jesus was incorrect on this issue (I guess evolutionary "science" knows more than Jesus Christ).

            I didn't deflect you comments on my example on changing my views based on the Bible. I directly responded to your comment.


            Again, I became a Christian because the Word of God, through His Spirit, brought conviction to my heart that God was indeed real. For you to say that this is not true is to basically call me a liar.

            The point of a one-on-one is to discuss different ideas and beliefs. Apparently, you do not have the desire or perhaps you do not like to be challenged by other Christians. I don't know. You claim that you do not deny that Adam and Eve exists but most evolutionary scientists would claim that there was no "real" adam and Eve. So are you picking and choosing parts of evolutionary theory that you like? You accuse me of being a "fundy" If by "fundy" you mean a Christian that gave his life to Jesus Christ and considers the Scriptures, given by God to man, to be the final authority on all matters of life, faith, and practice then I am guilty as charged. I gladly take the title of "fundy". If you have no time for what the Word of God really says and the words of Jesus Christ then you are losing out on much of what God has to offer you and that is sad.

            God Bless,

            The Berean
            The reason I claim that you are unreasonable is because you distorted the original thrust of my ideas. You tried to imply that I am somehow Stratnerd's bulldog. I come to my own ideas with my own mind and experiences. I am not trying to defend Stratnerd. I simply believe that the empirical evidence better supports an old earth naturalistic explanation for natural history. I would be lying if I did not admit this. I realize that science is not about absolute certainty. You claimed that I am not a true Christian because of these beliefs.

            You then started this thread by claiming that I insulted you. In defending my beliefs you percieved that I was insulting you. That is also an unreasonable reaction.

            You then claimed that believing in God was one example of you changing your beliefs so that they were aligned with the Bible. Logically you would have had to accept that the Bible was written by God before you accepted it as a guide in which to shape your own beliefs. I cannot tell if your claim is because you are dishonest or illogical.

            And again here in this post you make another unreasonable statement. I don't pick and choose which parts of evolution I like or don't like. I certainly don't like the idea that we share common ancestry with cockroaches. But I accept that the empirical evidence supports this notion.

            You claim that you do not deny that Adam and Eve exists but most evolutionary scientists would claim that there was no "real" adam and Eve. So are you picking and choosing parts of evolutionary theory that you like?
            The likelihood of a scientific conclusion should not be dependant on our moral or emotional sensibilities. The reason I do not deny that there was an Adam and Eve is that noone who studies natural philosophy or history can make the statement "Adam and Eve did not exist" with absolute certainty. Obviously the names did exist. So there must have been people named that.

            If you are not conflating and confusing issues, then you are either purposely misrepresenting or misinterpreting the claims you have heard. Those who accept the old earth naturalistic model of origins, do not claim there was no Adam and Eve. They simply do not accept the young earth multiple forms model of origins for Adam and Eve.

            I will continue this discussion with you, if you are more careful in your statments and stop trying to make this a cat and mouse game.
            Militant Moderate

            Comment


            • #7
              Good, then we shall continue. I will repsond to your last post ASAP.
              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


              • #8
                Originally posted by noguru
                The reason I claim that you are unreasonable is because you distorted the original thrust of my ideas. You tried to imply that I am somehow Stratnerd's bulldog. I come to my own ideas with my own mind and experiences. I am not trying to defend Stratnerd. I simply believe that the empirical evidence better supports an old earth naturalistic explanation for natural history. I would be lying if I did not admit this. I realize that science is not about absolute certainty. You claimed that I am not a true Christian because of these beliefs.
                1. I'm not sure what ideas I distorted.

                2. I never said you were not a Christian.

                3. The "Stratnerd's Bulldog" was meant in jest. If it bothered you then I humbly apologize for it. [/quote]

                You then started this thread by claiming that I insulted you. In defending my beliefs you percieved that I was insulting you. That is also an unreasonable reaction.
                I didn't say you insulted me. I actually said you made a baseless charge of me being unreasonable. I gave counter evidence to refute it.
                You then claimed that believing in God was one example of you changing your beliefs so that they were aligned with the Bible. Logically you would have had to accept that the Bible was written by God before you accepted it as a guide in which to shape your own beliefs. I cannot tell if your claim is because you are dishonest or illogical.
                Not true at all. The purpose of the Bible is to bring truth and to cause a person to "see" that truth through conviction by the Holy Spirit. A person is saved by "hearing" the Gospel. A person hears the Gospel, is convicted, then they accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. It's NOT the other way around, a person first believes in Jesus Christ, then believes the Bible. As I stated before I accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior because the Gospel brought conviction to my heart. For some reason you seem think I am lying or being illogical. Why do you think this?

                I will continue this discussion with you, if you are more careful in your statments and stop trying to make this a cat and mouse game.
                Tell you what, why don't you explain what your beliefs are about the orgins of man and Book of Genesis. That way I will know what YOU believe and I can't misrepresent your beliefs.That would save a lot of time and confusion.
                Last edited by The Berean; November 20th, 2005, 10:34 PM.
                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


                • #9
                  Originally posted by The Berean
                  1. I'm not sure what ideas I distorted.

                  2. I never said you were not a Christian.

                  3. The "Stratnerd's Bulldog" was meant in jest. If it bothered you then I humbly apologize for it.
                  You distorted my views on the Bible.

                  But you claimed that as a Christian accepting an old earth naturalistic model of origins created theological and philosophical inconsistencies. Then I stated that as a Christian I felt it was my right and perhaps my duty to be honest about my beliefs and understandings. And I do not believe that there can be inconsistencies between our understanding of natural history from an empirical view and Genesis. The Bible is not about natural philosophy. And the theory of evolution is not about theology. Therefore the two need not be consistent in their details. They do however, need to be consistent in their rigor and honesty when evaluating relevant subject matter.

                  Also, I do not believe that Genesis is an accurate account of natural history regardless of the contained historical narratives. It does not claim to be. And it is quite obvious that it is not.

                  It bothered me because I can see that the empirical evidence supports the naturalistic model regardless of Stratnerds existence or posts on this site. So if it was in jest. It was a downright foolish jest. I accept your apology.

                  Originally posted by The Berean
                  I didn't say you insulted me. I actually said you made a baseless charge of me being unreasonable. I gave counter evidence to refute it.
                  The insult was that you claimed I felt you "had your head in the sand". This is not the case. You cannot be expected to know everything there is to know about the natural world.

                  And I do not believe that your evidence "refuted it". Perhaps you think so. You PMed me about starting this thread. In that PM you led me to believe that you were going to demonstrate how accepting old earth and Being a Christian created philosophical and theological inconsistencies. You started this thread with some major distortions of your initial claim of intent. You need to stick to defending your claim that there are greater theological inconsistencies in a Christian old earth viewpoint than there are in a Christian young earth viewpoint. You seem to have gone off on a host of other tangents.

                  Originally posted by The Berean
                  Not true at all. The purpose of the Bible is to bring truth and to cause a person to "see" that truth through conviction by the Holy Spirit. A personed is saved by "hearing" the Gospel. A person hears the Gospel, is convicted, then they accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. It's NOT the other way around, a person first believes in Jesus Christ, then believes the Bible. As I stated before I accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior because the Gospel brought conviction to my heart. For some reason you seem think I am lying or being illogical. Why do you think this?
                  I agree to a certain point. But I would like to add that the Bible is meaningless as theological truth to someone who does not already accept that there is a God.

                  For example I believed in God enough to at least consider the Bible. I used to have some reservations about accepting Jesus as God. But after a rigorous review of Jesus actions/words from the Bible and realizing that the dichotomy between the two questions "God as Man? Or Man as God?" is a moot point, I became convinced that he was.


                  Originally posted by The Berean
                  Tell you what, why don't you explain what your beliefs are about the orgins of man and Book of Genesis. That way I will know what YOU believe and I can't misrepresent your beliefs.That would save a lot of time and confusion.
                  Tell you what, why don't you stick to explaining how accepting an old earth and being a Christian leads to greater theological/philosophical inconsistensies than accepting a young earth and being a Christian. If you are not aware of what it is that I believe, then how can you claim that there are greater inconsistencies with what I believe compared to what you believe?

                  Just so that we are on the same page here is your PM that prompted me to agree to a one on one.

                  Originally posted by The Berean
                  Richard,

                  I just want to ask you some thoght-provoking questions. I'm trying to understand how one can be a Bible-believing Chrisitan and hold to an evolutionary belief at the same time. Being a former atheist, to me, at least, I see this as an theological and philosophical inconsistency. Perhaps we can learn from each other. I'm not trying to change your mind or anything like that. As two brothers in Christ, I'm sure we can have an honest thought provoking discussion without any "shouting".

                  In Christ,

                  Adam
                  Last edited by noguru; November 19th, 2005, 03:02 PM.
                  Militant Moderate

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Here is an excerpt from your first post of this thread. I would like to address this because I believe a major part of our contentions can be highlighted here. First I will post it in its entirety. Then I will address each section as I see fit.

                    Originally posted by The Berean
                    I believe that since God cannot be "seen" in the phyiscal realm (usually not), God took it upon himself to reveal Himself by interjecting himslef into human affairs and by revealing his truth to mankind and that mankind wrote down these truths. I believe that the Bible is the revealed Word given by God to man. God's Word is superior to any man-made document simply because God is the author of it. It is inerrant in all that it talks about. When it touches on history and science, it is completey true and accurate though it may not be as detailed in it's descriptions. Many people argue that the Bible is not a science book ans we should not look for our answers in it when it comes to origins. And they are right, it's not a science book. And I'm glad it's not a science book because most science books have a very short life span. Most science books become obsolete in a very short time. I believe that naturalistic evolution (macro-evolution or "molecules to man") runs contrary to the Word of God because it posits an idea that the process itself is random and that no intellegence was required.
                    Originally posted by The Berean
                    I believe that since God cannot be "seen" in the phyiscal realm (usually not), God took it upon himself to reveal Himself by interjecting himslef into human affairs and by revealing his truth to mankind and that mankind wrote down these truths.
                    I agree. However any revelation from God to man is inherently filtered through the world view of the person receiving the revelation. This is why historical context is so important when considering what is being said in the Bible.

                    Originally posted by The Berean
                    I believe that the Bible is the revealed Word given by God to man. God's Word is superior to any man-made document simply because God is the author of it. It is inerrant in all that it talks about.
                    It is inerrant and superior in the subject matter for which it was intended. And since you have admitted that it is not a science or history textbook, it cannot be assumed that any part of it was meant to be.

                    Originally posted by The Berean
                    When it touches on history and science, it is completey true and accurate though it may not be as detailed in it's descriptions.
                    How can something be accurate but not detailed?

                    Here are the three definitions of accurate that I found:

                    1 : free from error especially as the result of care
                    2 : conforming exactly to truth or to a standard : EXACT
                    3 : able to give an accurate result

                    Here are the three for detail:

                    1 : to report minutely and distinctly : SPECIFY
                    2 : to assign to a particular task
                    3 : to furnish with the smaller elements of design and finish
                    intransitive senses : to make detail drawings

                    Have you ever heard of the phrase "paying attention to detail"? Do you know what that enables someone to do?

                    Yes that would be "being precise".

                    Here are the definitions of precise:

                    1 : exactly or sharply defined or stated
                    2 : minutely exact
                    3 : strictly conforming to a pattern, standard, or convention
                    4 : distinguished from every other
                    synonym see CORRECT

                    Here are the defintions of concise:

                    1 : marked by brevity of expression or statement : free from all elaboration and superfluous detail
                    2 : cut short : BRIEF

                    You see how accurate can be divided into precise and concise. I think that you are closer to concise rather than precise in your use of accurate. Now when someone is concise they leave out the irrelevant details and focus on the point they are trying to make. Since the Bible is not about the material sciences it does not involve details about this subject. It therefore cannot be expected to be precise in discussing this subject. It is however, concise and accurate when discussing theology.

                    Originally posted by The Berean
                    Many people argue that the Bible is not a science book ans we should not look for our answers in it when it comes to origins. And they are right, it's not a science book. And I'm glad it's not a science book because most science books have a very short life span. Most science books become obsolete in a very short time.
                    Yes, the material sciences are progressive, they are not absolute or perfect. Investigation into precision does not allow one to ever find perfection or absolute certainty of knowledge. On the other hand, expressing oneself concisely requires this.

                    Originally posted by The Berean
                    I believe that naturalistic evolution (macro-evolution or "molecules to man") runs contrary to the Word of God because it posits an idea that the process itself is random and that no intellegence was required.
                    I disagree with all three of your points here. The naturalistic model does not run contrary to the Word of God. The naturalistic model does not propose pure randomness. Nor from its worm's eye view can it make assumptions about an intelligent cause. Anyone who claims that pure randomness is responsible has not payed close attention to detail. And anyone who claims that there is no intelligence involved, is making a metaphysical assumption that is unwarranted from the empirical evidence.
                    Last edited by noguru; November 19th, 2005, 04:10 PM.
                    Militant Moderate

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Good post noguru.

                      Originally posted by noguru
                      I agree. However any revelation from God to man is inherently filtered through the world view of the person receiving the revelation. This is why historical context is so important when considering what is being said in the Bible.
                      I agree with this 100%. Understanding the historical context is extremely important.
                      It is inerrant and superior in the subject matter for which it was intended. And since you have admitted that it is not a science or history textbook, it cannot be assumed that any part of it was meant to be.
                      Yes, the Bible is not a "science" book specifically. Yet, it does touch on scientific topics from time to time. The first chapter of Genesis is all about the creation of the entire universe. It does give specific details about the "order" of creation. It does delineate that man was created after all other life forms and man's creation was "different". God breathed his spirit into man. From Genesis 2:7
                      the LORD God formed the man [e] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
                      How can something be accurate but not detailed?
                      That's easy. If I told you I had dinner with my wife last night, that would be accurate but not detailed. You wouldn't know where we had dinner, what time we had dinner, or what we ate.But you so know that I had dinner with my wife as a FACT.

                      Here are the three definitions of accurate that I found:

                      1 : free from error especially as the result of care
                      2 : conforming exactly to truth or to a standard : EXACT
                      3 : able to give an accurate result

                      Here are the three for detail:

                      1 : to report minutely and distinctly : SPECIFY
                      2 : to assign to a particular task
                      3 : to furnish with the smaller elements of design and finish
                      intransitive senses : to make detail drawings

                      Have you ever heard of the phrase "paying attention to detail"? Do you know what that enables someone to do?

                      Yes that would be "being precise".

                      Here are the definitions of precise:

                      1 : exactly or sharply defined or stated
                      2 : minutely exact
                      3 : strictly conforming to a pattern, standard, or convention
                      4 : distinguished from every other
                      synonym see CORRECT

                      Here are the defintions of concise:

                      1 : marked by brevity of expression or statement : free from all elaboration and superfluous detail
                      2 : cut short : BRIEF

                      You see how accurate can be divided into precise and concise. I think that you are closer to concise rather than precise in your use of accurate. Now when someone is concise they leave out the irrelevant details and focus on the point they are trying to make. Since the Bible is not about the material sciences it does not involve details about this subject. It therefore cannot be expected to be precise in discussing this subject. It is however, concise and accurate when discussing theology.
                      Yes, I agree with this. But consice versus precise is not the issue here. The Bible says that God created man different from all other life. Evolution teaches that man is a product natural selection and common descent.
                      In biology, the theory of universal common descent proposes that all organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor or ancestral gene pool (which is called having "common descent").

                      Evidence for common descent may be found in traits shared between all living organisms. In Darwin's day, the evidence of shared traits was based solely on visible observation of morphologic similarities, such as the fact that all birds — even those which do not fly — have wings. Today, the theory of evolution has been strongly confirmed by the science of DNA genetics. For example, every living thing makes use of nucleic acids as its genetic material, and uses the same twenty amino acids as the building blocks for proteins. All organisms use the same genetic code (with some extremely rare and minor deviations) to translate nucleic acid sequences into proteins. Because the selection of these traits is somewhat arbitrary, their universality strongly suggests common ancestry.

                      source

                      Yes, the material sciences are progressive, they are not absolute or perfect. Investigation into precision does not allow one to ever find perfection or absolute certainty of knowledge. On the other hand, expressing oneself concisely requires this.

                      I disagree with all three of your points here. The naturalistic model does not run contrary to the Word of God. The naturalistic model does not propose pure randomness. Nor from its worm's eye view can it make assumptions about an intelligent cause. Anyone who claims that pure randomness is responsible has not payed close attention to detail. And anyone who claims that there is no intelligence involved, is making a metaphysical assumption that is unwarranted from the empirical evidence.
                      What I really mean by ramdomness is that no intelligence was needed for life to arise. I'm sure Richard Dawkins would disagree with you strongly on this point. In Blind Watchmaker, he makes the argument that all apparent design features in living organisms is just coincidence. Our of our resident evolutionists, Skeptic, is always arguing that there is no evidence for creation and that no evidence that any intellegence was involved in the origin of life on earth.
                      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


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by The Berean
                        Good post noguru.
                        I agree with this 100%. Understanding the historical context is extremely important.
                        Well thank you, Adam.

                        Originally posted by The Berean
                        Yes, the Bible is not a "science" book specifically. Yet, it does touch on scientific topics from time to time. The first chapter of Genesis is all about the creation of the entire universe. It does give specific details about the "order" of creation. It does delineate that man was created after all other life forms and man's creation was "different". God breathed his spirit into man. From Genesis 2:7
                        Yes the Bible does touch on scientific topics from time to time. Just like with any subject, it often touches on other subjects. But if the Bible is not a scientific textbook, why would you expect it to be precise in regard to science. The purpose of Genesis is to set the stage for a theological understanding of the human relationship to God and the universe. And yes, even paleobiology delineates that man was created after most/all (that depends on how one categorizes life forms) other life forms. And yes God did breathe his spirit into man. But this is not a conclusion that can be ascertained from studies in the material sciences.

                        Originally posted by The Berean
                        That's easy. If I told you I had dinner with my wife last night, that would be accurate but not detailed. You wouldn't know where we had dinner, what time we had dinner, or what we ate.But you so know that I had dinner with my wife as a FACT.
                        Yes, and? God created the heavens, the earth, flora and fauna, and mankind. This is one of the main points of Genesis, but not from a precise biological viewpoint. I also believe that the seven day model for the week is set in Genesis, so that we can acknowledge God's creative power each week. I certainly wouldn't want to wait millions of years for the next Sabath. I don't think God would have us do that either.

                        Originally posted by The Berean
                        Yes, I agree with this. But consice versus precise is not the issue here. The Bible says that God created man different from all other life. Evolution teaches that man is a product natural selection and common descent.
                        I disagree. The Bible explains that God made a specific attempt to breathe his spirit into man. But to bring forth terrestrial life from the earth, and marine life from the water is basically the same as from dust.

                        Originally posted by The Berean
                        In biology, the theory of universal common descent proposes that all organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor or ancestral gene pool (which is called having "common descent").
                        Oh really! And how does this material science view contradict the theological view? I think they align nicely.

                        One of the arguments that YECs love to use is genetic realtionships are due to a common designer and not from common descent. Now why would they be using that argument?

                        Originally posted by The Berean
                        What I really mean by ramdomness is that no intelligence was needed for life to arise. I'm sure Richard Dawkins would disagree with you strongly on this point. In Blind Watchmaker, he makes the argument that all apparent design features in living organisms is just coincidence. Our of our resident evolutionists, Skeptic, is always arguing that there is no evidence for creation and that no evidence that any intellegence was involved in the origin of life on earth.
                        Well what Richard Dawkins thinks about intelligence is only his opinion. And since he is an atheist he assumes that there is no universal intelligence such as God. I believe that from a purely empirical view of the world we can make no assumption as to whether or not an intelligence was involved. This is a metaphysical decision that becomes an a priori assumption in our world view. It is derived through rationalism and cannot be derived through empiricism. When it comes to empiricism the most honest approach and the one that facilitates objectivity best is to take an agnostic stance in regard to rationalism. Dawkins is not being honest because he takes an atheistic stance, when he knows that God can neither be proved nor disproved through empiricism.
                        Last edited by noguru; November 21st, 2005, 06:26 PM.
                        Militant Moderate

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by noguru
                          Well thank you, Adam.
                          Your post was well written. There's no need to be confused.
                          Yes the Bible does touch on scientific topics from time to time. Just like with any subject, it often touches on other subjects. But if the Bible is not a scientific textbook, why would you expect it to be precise in regard to science. The purpose of Genesis is to set the stage for a theological understanding of the human relationship to God and the universe. And yes, even paleobiology delineates that man was created after most/all (that depends on how one categorizes life forms) other life forms. And yes God did breathe his spirit into man. But this is not a conclusion that can be ascertained from studies in the material sciences.
                          I don't expect the Bible to be precise when it comes to it's scientific descriptions. My unserstanding of evolution is that all life on earth (including man) arrived through common descent from lower life forms. That is, billions of years ago, sinple life arose and through natural selection, genetic drift, or populations in population structure. Evolution clearly teaches that man is mearly one evolved species amongst millions of other life forms. Again I don't see the issue as a question of precision. According to Scripture, man is separate from all other life forms because

                          1) Man was created after all other life.

                          2) Man was formed form the Earth.

                          3 ) God breathed his spirit into man and he became alive.

                          By God breathing His spirit into man he clearsly shows that He intended man to be different from other life. And man is different. Only man has a sense of history, creates art, has the ability for abstract conceptual thinking, mathematics, science, music, etc. So I see a clear conflict in how evolution teach man arose and what Scripture teaches how man arose.
                          Yes, and? God created the heavens, the earth, flora and fauna, and mankind. This is one of the main points of Genesis, but not from a precise biological viewpoint. I also believe that the seven day model for the week is set in Genesis, so that we can acknowledge God's creative power each week. I certainly wouldn't want to wait millions of years for the next Sabath. I don't think God would have us do that either.
                          I see that we agree that God created everything in six ordinary days.
                          I disagree. The Bible explains that God made a specific attempt to breathe his spirit into man. But to bring forth terrestrial life from the earth, and marine life from the water is basically the same as from dust.
                          Scripture doesn't teach this. It simple says God created non-human life on certain days. However, since all life shares certain common genetic traits I don't hold to my view so dogmatically.

                          Oh really! And how does this material science view contradict the theological view? I think they align nicely.
                          How is "common descent" Biblical? It's not and here's why. Common descent implies that man's creation is contingent and relied on previous life. But Scripture teaches that man's creation was completely separate from the creation of all other life. In no way is man's creation reliant on the creation of previous life. Here is a definition of "common descent:
                          A group of organisms is said to have common descent if they have a common ancestor. In biology, the theory of universal common descent proposes that all organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor or ancestral gene pool.

                          A theory of universal common descent based on evolutionary principles was proposed by Charles Darwin in his book The Origin of Species (1859), and later in The Descent of Man (1871). This theory is now generally accepted by biologists, and the last universal common ancestor (LUCA or LUA), that is, the most recent common ancestor of all currently living organisms, is believed to have appeared about 3.5 billion years ago (see: origin of life).
                          .
                          I don't see how this aligns with Scripture since Scripture teaches that man was created separately (also the sea creatures werre created separately from the land animals and plants). If this is true then they can't have a "common ancestor".
                          One of the arguments that YECs love to use is genetic realtionships are due to a common designer and not from common descent. Now why would they be using that argument?
                          Since YECs (and all creationists for that matter) reject the common descent hypothesis it's logical to conclude that all life has similar genetic traits because God "used" common genetic material to create such life.
                          Well what Richard Dawkins thinks about intelligence is only his opinion. And since he is an atheist he assumes that there is no universal intelligence such as God. I believe that from a purely empirical view of the world we can make no assumption as to whether or not an intelligence was involved. This is a metaphysical decision that becomes an a priori assumption in our world view. It is derived through rationalism and cannot be derived through empiricism. When it comes to empiricism the most honest approach and the one that facilitates objectivity best is to take an agnostic stance in regard to rationalism. Dawkins is not being honest because he takes an atheistic stance, when he knows that God can neither be proved nor disproved through empiricism.
                          Exactly! One cannot conclude life had no designer just from pure empiricism.

                          So, noguru, It seems that we do agree on much. So what part of evolutionary theory do you hold to?
                          Last edited by The Berean; November 23rd, 2005, 01:48 PM.
                          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


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by The Berean
                            Your post was well written. There's no need to be confused.
                            How does a well written post mean that I can't be confused by your obstinance?

                            Originally posted by The Berean
                            I don't expect the Bible to be precise when it comes to it's scientific descriptions.
                            Well if you don't expect it to be precise when it comes to scientific descriptions why are you comparing it to scientific descriptions?

                            This effort on your part makes no practical sense.

                            Originally posted by The Berean
                            My unserstanding of evolution is that all life on earth (including man) arrived through common descent from lower life forms. That is, billions of years ago, sinple life arose and through natural selection, genetic drift, or populations in population structure. Evolution clearly teaches that man is mearly one evolved species amongst millions of other life forms. Again I don't see the issue as a question of precision.
                            That is a very imprecise and muddied illustration of evolution.

                            And again what you fail to see as the issue is your own failure, not mine.

                            Originally posted by The Berean
                            According to Scripture, man is separate from all other life forms because

                            1) Man was created after all other life.

                            2) Man was formed form the Earth.

                            3 ) God breathed his spirit into man and he became alive.

                            By God breathing His spirit into man he clearsly shows that He intended man to be different from other life. And man is different. Only man has a sense of history, creates art, has the ability for abstract conceptual thinking, mathematics, science, music, etc.
                            Very good. You get an A-, for effort.


                            Originally posted by The Berean
                            So I see a clear conflict in how evolution teach man arose and what Scripture teaches how man arose.
                            I don't. Could you elaborate?

                            Originally posted by The Berean
                            I see that we agree that God created everything in six ordinary days.
                            Well since I wasn't there, I wouldn't know for sure. However from a view that only considers the empirical evidence, I would say this is not a scientifically accurate assessment.

                            Originally posted by The Berean
                            How is "common descent" Biblical?
                            It is as Biblical as "common design". If God used different substances to create human life than he used for other life, why are the basic components so similar?

                            Originally posted by The Berean
                            It's not and here's why. Common descent implies that man's creation is contingent and relied on previous life.
                            Man's creation is contingent on God's plan. Who are you to determine God's plan?

                            Originally posted by The Berean
                            But Scripture teaches that man's creation was completely separate from the creation of all other life.
                            Seperate how? Certainly not in the substances used. If that were true why does DNA and biological life share many of the same substances?

                            Originally posted by The Berean
                            I don't see how this aligns with Scripture since Scripture teaches that man was created separately (also the sea creatures werre created separately from the land animals and plants). If this is true then they can't have a "common ancestor".
                            Well maybe you should do a little more investigation before you make claims about other peoples beliefs.

                            Originally posted by The Berean
                            Since YECs (and all creationists for that matter) reject the common descent hypothesis it's logical to conclude that all life has similar genetic traits because God "used" common genetic material to create such life.
                            Well what YEC's reject is not based on logic. It is based on emotion.

                            Yes, God used similar substances to create human life and other life. This contradicts your earlier claim that the substances used to create other life were different from what God used for Man.

                            Originally posted by The Berean
                            Exactly! One cannot conclude life had no designer just from pure empiricism.
                            Wow may the wonders never cease. We agree on one point.

                            Originally posted by The Berean
                            So, noguru, It seems that we do agree on much. So what part of evolutionary theory do you hold to?
                            Come on! Are you purposely being obtuse? Or have you just run out of new material to support your currently unsupported claims?
                            Militant Moderate

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by noguru

                              Well if you don't expect it to be precise when it comes to scientific descriptions why are you comparing it to scientific descriptions?
                              A lack of precision doesn’t imply inaccuracy. Genesis 1 doesn’t give details as to how God created all life but it gives detail as to the order in which all life was created.
                              That is a very imprecise and muddied illustration of evolution.
                              Says you. And of course you give no definition of your own. Then please enlighten me. Here is description of evolution from various sources:

                              Wikipedia:
                              In biology, evolution is the process by which populations of organisms acquire and pass on novel traits from generation to generation, affecting the overall makeup of the population and even leading to the emergence of new species. The terms organic evolution or biological evolution are often used to distinguish this meaning from other usages.

                              …In the 1930s, scientists combined Darwinian natural selection with the re-discovered theory of Mendelian heredity to create the modern synthesis, now one of the fundamental scientific theories of biology. In the modern synthesis, "evolution" is defined as a change in the frequency of alleles within a population from one generation to the next. This change may be caused by different mechanisms, including natural selection, genetic drift, or changes in population structure (gene flow).

                              The theory underlying modern synthesis has three major aspects:

                              1. The common descent of all organisms from a single ancestor or ancestral gene pool.
                              2. The manifestation of novel traits in a lineage.
                              3. The mechanisms that cause some traits to persist while others perish.

                              Common Descent
                              A group of organisms is said to have common descent if they have a common ancestor. In biology, the theory of universal common descent proposes that all organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor or ancestral gene pool.
                              Skeptic has a link in his profile to an evolution website.

                              Biological evolution is not simply a matter of change over time. Lots of things change over time: trees lose their leaves, mountain ranges rise and erode, but they aren't examples of biological evolution because they don't involve descent through genetic inheritance.

                              The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother.

                              Through the process of descent with modification, the common ancestor of life on Earth gave rise to the fantastic diversity that we see documented in the fossil record and around us today. Evolution means that we're all distant cousins: humans and oak trees, hummingbirds and whales.
                              And again what you fail to see as the issue is your own failure, not mine.
                              A pointless statement. Please stay on target.

                              I don't. Could you elaborate?
                              Ok, I’ll explain it so even you noguru can understand it. God created man separate from all other life. He created man on the 6th day after all the land animals. So if God created man separate form all other life how can man share a common ancestor with other life?

                              Well since I wasn't there, I wouldn't know for sure. However from a view that only considers the empirical evidence, I would say this is not a scientifically accurate assessment.
                              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?

                              It is as Biblical as "common design". If God used different substances to create human life than he used for other life, why are the basic components so similar?
                              He didn’t used “different” substances, he created man separately using the same “substances”.

                              Man's creation is contingent on God's plan. Who are you to determine God's plan?
                              Another pointless statement. Please stay on target.


                              Seperate how? Certainly not in the substances used. If that were true why does DNA and biological life share many of the same substances?
                              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.

                              Well maybe you should do a little more investigation before you make claims about other peoples beliefs.
                              Well then present your beliefs noguru. You keep saying I misrepresent your beliefs. Well, then present your beliefs.


                              Well what YEC's reject is not based on logic. It is based on emotion.
                              Another pointless statement. We are not discussing YEC in this one-on-one. Please stay on target.

                              Yes, God used similar substances to create human life and other life. This contradicts your earlier claim that the substances used to create other life were different from what God used for Man.
                              I never said this. You are simply wrong. I said man was created separately, not that God created man with “different” materials.

                              Come on! Are you purposely being obtuse? Or have you just run out of new material to support your currently unsupported claims?
                              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.

                              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?
                              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