[_ Old Earth _] Big Bang ?

[Gary]

You are not addressing my question: Here is the question. It is clear, well-formulated, and unambiguous. Please answer it:

Given the undeniable fact that at least parts of Scripture are allegorical (or otherwise are not to be taken literally), on precisely what grounds do you conclude that the creation account in Genesis is to be read as literal history, and that therefore the theory of evolution is substantially incorrect?

The theory of evolution is incorrect because there is zero evidence to support it. It has nothing to do with which scriptures are literal and which ones aren't. Evolution is a lie, plain and simple.
.

 

[Drew]

Ask Drew if he thinks the Big Bang happened without God.

While I would of course not dare to claim an answer to the "first cause" problem that has bedevilled minds greater than ours for centuries, I believe that God is indeed the agent of creation. And I also believe in the Big Bang.

Why do I believe in the Big Bang? Precisely because it is perishingly improbable that thousands, nay tens of thousands, of skilled experts are:
1. All mistaken while YECers, without appropriate credentials, are all right;
2. All engaged is a mass conspiracy to hide the truth;
3. All deluded, but not actually conspiring with one another to this effect.

The evidence for the Big Bang is "public", unlike claims of special revelation by, for example, the Holy Spirit.

The evidence is there to be seen, measured, challenged, probed, etc. I would rather accept the bald facts that are presented to us by nature and therefore see the creation account as an allegory than accept any of the three alternatives above in order to preserve a literal reading of the first bits of Genesis.

 

[Drew]

And I will never tire of telling you the truth, God, the third person thereof, the Holy Spirit testifies to it's truth.

Why are not answering my question?

Here it is again:

Given the undeniable fact that at least parts of Scripture are allegorical (or otherwise are not to be taken literally), on precisely what grounds do you conclude that the creation account in Genesis is to be read as literal history, and that therefore the theory of evolution is substantially incorrect?

I know how this works by the way. When a poster is caught in a tight spot, as evidenced, for example, by refusal to answer a question, they know they can afford to continue to evade. Why is this? It is because the poor moderators finally have to put an end to back and forth, often by closing the thread.

Result: The person evading the tough question is more or less let off the hook.

Please do us all the simple courtesy of answering the question.

 

[Drew]

The theory of evolution is incorrect because there is zero evidence to support it. It has nothing to do with which scriptures are literal and which ones aren't. Evolution is a lie, plain and simple.
.

If this is so, what explanation do you offer as to why there is virtual unanimity among properly trained experts that the theory is, in fact, supported by lots of evidence?

Are they all lying?

Are they all incompetent?

Are they all colluding to hide the truth?

Are they all individually deluded (even though they are not conspiring).

Theoretically, one of these could be true. I will leave it to the readers to assess how likely that is.

 

[Gary]

If this is so, what explanation do you offer as to why there is virtual unanimity among properly trained experts that the theory is, in fact, supported by lots of evidence?

Actually that's not true. There is zero evidence to support the theory of evolution. And the fact that many evolutionists are jumping ship attests to that.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Actually that's not true. There is zero evidence to support the theory of evolution. And the fact that many evolutionists are jumping ship attests to that.

This gave me a nice chuckle. How about your support those claims.

 

[Gary]

This gave me a nice chuckle. How about your support those claims.

What would you like to see?

 

[Doulos Iesou]

What would you like to see?

Support for the claims you just made, as I stated. Citing a couple people rejecting evolution after previously holding it is not what I am looking for. I am looking for data that scientists are increasingly becoming convinced that it is not true.

I would also like to see you demonstrate how there is zero evidence for evolution. Perhaps you can address the genetic evidence and fossil record.

 

[th1b.taylor]

Why are not answering my question?

Here it is again:

Given the undeniable fact that at least parts of Scripture are allegorical (or otherwise are not to be taken literally), on precisely what grounds do you conclude that the creation account in Genesis is to be read as literal history, and that therefore the theory of evolution is substantially incorrect?

I know how this works by the way. When a poster is caught in a tight spot, as evidenced, for example, by refusal to answer a question, they know they can afford to continue to evade. Why is this? It is because the poor moderators finally have to put an end to back and forth, often by closing the thread.

Result: The person evading the tough question is more or less let off the hook.

Please do us all the simple courtesy of answering the question.

Drew,
I just went back one page and the post did not get lost in hyper-space, the answer is there, in black and white. I did not choose to belabor the point because I had already, in other posts given thorough explanation of the answer but if you and perhaps some simpler mids missed it I'll do the forum and this string the injustice and run through it again.

The Creation Account or most of the first two chapters is told in two formats but both are the same story, from differing perspectives. I know that they are, absolutely not metaphor nor are they allegorical because the third person of the Triune God, the Holy Spirit, testifies to me that it is literal. There is no better truth than that of my LORD.

Now, I am apparently asking a great deal but I, honestly, know of no ailment of yours that is akin to my MS that destroys the memory so I am left to decide you have a short attention span? If so, please accept my apology because I recall with all the damaging scars on my brain that I admitted, previously, in this string that there are Parables and metaphors in the scripture, I have never said otherwise. The problem is that when I surrendered every fiber of my body and every second of my life to God, God, through the Holy Spirit took control and continues to be in control except when the old Bill Taylor that is tied to my back rears it's ugly head and seeks to quench the spirit.

Now, Drew, I can leave this right here without angering God, so what tight spot do you, in your imagining find the spirit of God to be caught up in?

So, now, I answered so how about you doing me a favor and begin to examine both sides of the issue and become more widely versed in this matter? You have nothing but the false perspective to loose, I previously posted three links with hours and hours of material to study.

 

[th1b.taylor]

If this is so, what explanation do you offer as to why there is virtual unanimity among properly trained experts that the theory is, in fact, supported by lots of evidence?

As Gary said, that is patently not true. Your team is working with selected evidence and discarding about 90%.

 

[Drew]

I am out, at least for now. No hard feelings, but I believe that these discussions really are ultimately a waste of everyone's time. The only possible value I can imagine is that "lurkers" who are not otherwise committed to a particular position might find that these discussions help them come to a conclusion.

When one has too much of one's personal identity invested in a particular belief (whatever that belief might be), it is extraordinarily unlikely that such a person will consider a change in position, no matter how powerful the arguments are for such a change.

 

[Rick W]

Drew,
There are no rules or guidelines concerning answering any questions

What usually happens is the questioner pushes the issue too far and tempers flare.
Nobody is required to answer questions to the contentment of the one asking.

 

[Rick W]

As far as closing threads that's usually done when only a certain few continue to reply, oftentimes 2 or 3, tempers flare on all sides and the thread is locked instead of points being issued to those involved. We'd rather do it that way and let all those involved off the hook.

 

[th1b.taylor]

it is extraordinarily unlikely that such a person will consider a change in position, no matter how powerful the arguments are for such a change.

I sincerely regret that you are that invested in the lie but I bid you farewell and good studies.

 

[Gary]

When one has too much of one's personal identity invested in a particular belief (whatever that belief might be), it is extraordinarily unlikely that such a person will consider a change in position, no matter how powerful the arguments are for such a change.

Where is one's "personal identity" if not with God?
.

 

[Free]

Where is one's "personal identity" if not with God?
.

In what they think the Bible says.

 

[th1b.taylor]

http://realtruth.org/articles/101126-001-science.html
A relevant article and a lot of proof and below is a sample. Worthy read.


Meet Ardi. She was featured on the July 2010 National Geographic cover. According to scientists, this 4-million-year-old female, Ardipithecus Ramidus (Ardi for short), is the oldest hominid skeleton—a look back in time along mankind’s “evolutionary road.” The previous year, the magazine published an article on Ardi that boasted, “Move over, Lucy. And kiss the missing link goodbye.”

At the time, Science magazine proclaimed the find the “Breakthrough of the Year.” Other publications produced detailed drawings of Ardi, how she looked and might have lived.

But there is disagreement in the scientific community. Was Ardi an early human or just an extinct ape? Primatologist Esteban Sarmiento questioned Ardi as a human ancestor in a comment in Science: “Molecular and anatomical studies rather suggest that [Ardi] predates the human/African ape divergence”—which supposedly occurred 3 to 5 million years ago.

Must edit, the link provided by a friend and I submit it to you.

 

[Edward]

I'll answer in Bold in your quote again.

Indeed it could be true, and the evidence seems to indicate that. So until there arises evidence to contradict these discoveries, I will continue to accept this. Fair enough.


Certainly not that piece of evidence alone, but the whole of the evidence makes the Theory of Evolution our best explanation for the diversity of life. Do you mean besides the bible?


This is a very narrow view of science, and really of knowledge in general. Why do you believe George Washington existed? You never observed him cross the Delaware, or saw him inaugurated as President, and yet you believe in his existence? Are you taking his existence on Faith? Or does the evidence of these events occurring in the past compelling enough to convince of such? Oh come on Doulos, you can do better than this, lol. Ok. Yes I suppose since I didn't know or see George Washington that I take it on faith that he existed. But it's NOT the same. There is a LOT of written documented history about Washington as it was happening. There's portraits of him, letters and stuff that he wrote. The same is NOT true for evolution. We don't find fossilized footprints and say hey this proves Washington lived. Eh?!

The same is true for evolution, but instead of analyzing historical documents, we analyze fossils, DNA and many other factors which all culminate to be understood by the explanation that the Theory of Evolution offers.


How do you know, are you a geologist? Or Paleontologist? No, just common sense. It may prove that the item is old, but can't "prove" much else. It suggests things and good minds theorize what it may be, how it may fit in to other existing theories and knowledge and so forth like that. You don't have to be a scientist to have a little common sense. In fact I've even heard crdible scientists make the statement that, that's what they do, and what the fossil does...it suggests possibilities.


Yes, it shows that I am convinced by the compelling evidence. Ok, that's what I said, and there's nothing wrong with that. We all do that, human nature. Let me ask you a question though, Christian brother...Ok, so you're also a Christian. How does this compelling evidence fit in with your beliefs of the bible and our Lord and what He has said? You have posted under your name that you are Christian, and yet...you hardly make mention of the Lord. Don't get me wrong, I'm not questioning your faith or anything of the sort, but you haven't mentioned how these theories of evolution fit in with your beliefs in God and His Word, so I find myself curious. Do you believe that God created man and earth & animals and so forth? I'm just curious brother.


This is a fallacious argument. Just because scientists are wrong about one thing, does not mean that they are wrong about another. They aren't infallible, but each scientific should be regarded by the strength of the evidence supporting it, and should be refuted by contrary observations and experiments. No, it's fallacious at all. It's skepticism coupled with the knowledge that we are in a spiritual war and deception is the enemies primary tool. Scripture say do not trust any man, but look to God in everything. There's a lot of evidence for God also.

Theories can also be clarified and improved, as Darwinian Evolution is pretty different than when Darwin first presented it. Sure enough, and we do know a lot of things for fact. We also know things about the universe that we were wrong about at first, but now know the truth of the matter...yet they still teach the lie in schools. Like about the constants of the universe not being constant.


Scientists compete with each other to make discoveries, so why would they sit on information? This sounds like a conspiracy theory to me that is founded on no verifiable or credible evidence, and simply just reflects your opinion.
Well it largely is my opinion. I came to this conclusion over time after reading many different things and putting them all together for myself. A lot of compelling evidences brought together.


I do recall in Romans 13 that Paul said that the government are his ministers and he said this in reference to the Roman Empire. It seems that God is ultimately the one behind governments, and he gives men power. I have no reason to think that scientists are in some global conspiracy to deceive people. I don't want to talk about this much for fear of making the mods mad. It's not the scientists anyway, it's the governments.


Are you claiming that people who believe evolution can't be saved? On what basis do you make this claim. In no way did I say that, and you sir are putting words in my mouth there. I'm just saying that there's more going on than we realize and it behooves us to be careful. That's all.


This is a strange measure of something's truthfulness. Is Calvin Johnson or Demayrius Thomas a better Wide Receiver? Neither answer really points to God, so according to your analysis it would be a lie whatever the answer was. Uhh, what? My best answer to that is I like chocolate. We're not talking about sports, we're talking about God, Creation, and evolution, so your question is inane. (I'm not lying about liking chocolate either lol)

Science is simply about knowledge of the natural world, and is gained through empirical methods without previous bias. Hence all scientists practice methodological naturalism, even if they believe in God. I'll buy that, makes sense.

Is this certain rock granite or graphite? Does the answer really relate to God? Not really. I like chocolate.
A better on topic question would be, where did that rock come from? Created by God, or evolved out of natural processes?

Science is simply possible because God has setup laws for how natural processes work, so we are discovering his orderly universe. Mmmm, yeah. We're trying to. It's an admirable endeavor also. But we have to be careful because mistakes are easily made. In a long journey, a very slight deviation from the flight path, say .5% may take one thousands of miles off course in the long run. So we should be willing to make in flight adjustments.


This is a conspiracy theory, which is against the Terms of Service to present. We'll move on from here. Actually, it's established fact. And in all actuality, that Satan wants to stop us from knowing God is what the world and even this site is all about. We're Christians fighting the enemy and seeking God. Praise God that we have this site to be able to discuss these things and edify each other. Everyone should find God and know His ways and get to live. God bless you all here!


We've gone over this and we are kind of going in circles.

1. Our understanding of Scripture is different.
2. I disagree with your opinion about scientists.
3. I have no emotional proclivity to believe in proto-feathers, I don't think you have a better perspective as regards my feelings than myself. Ok, fair enough. It sounds like you're becoming frustrated with me again anyway. That shouldn't be. My apologies if I offended you somehow. I'm just talking. Not trying to ruffle your proto feathers, lol.

 

[Edward]

But there is a hidden assumption here. Yes, we should trust what God has said. But for the creation account, a very legitimate question arises: Is God's word to be taken literally, or is it instead an allegory that teaches us important truths but is not to be understood as literal history?

That's a good question Drew. I tend to take the bible literally very much so. Yes, there are a few allegories and euphemisms in it, but their usually fairly obvious. When they're not, and the passage is hard to understand, I have found that it seems easier to understand if one reads it literally rather than making it a big allegory thing. God is not the author of confusion and it is said to be simple so that a child can understand it. Personally, I believe that people say certain passages are allegories for a couple reasons, they either can't understand it, or it conflicts with their desired lifestyle and they don't want to believe it, so they say it's an allegory. they use it as a cop out.

I don't like everything scripture says, I admit it. It puts me on the spot and challenges me. But I respect the truth and want to know the real score good or bad, whether I like it or not. I think that;s more important (and more honorable) to find out the truth, otherwise we're largely wasting time reading it.

Some things in the bible we will probably not ever understand until after we cross over. But in a way, that's ok, because we don't need to be able to understand God to believe in Him or to put our trust into Him.

 

[Edward]

Absolutely.

Right. This is a basic truth that we must adhere to. Everything must agree with scripture, science, knowledge, morals, every aspect of life and our lives. This is Christianity 101 stuff right here.

When there is a difference between individuals on how to interpret certain passages then it makes this a much more complicated issue.

Yes and no. Yes for when we sit around and talk theology and life issues. No, when we accept the fact that there really is one truth. This new fangled idea of what is truth for one man may not be truth for another man is a lie. Only one interpretation is going to be correct, however, I do think that God is wise enough that He has been able to put multiple messages within one passage. I have read certain passages before and understood it, then later after some spiritual growth, I can read it again and the Holy Spirit will show me a new perspective on the passage. Multiple perspectives can be found, but not multiple truths, if that makes sense. There's still only one truth.