[_ Old Earth _] Christians, why not evolution?

[dad]

..
Sorry, but the bible clearly says that God created each animal to its own kind. That means that God created each animal to its own kind and that is how the world works, plain and simply.

So let me get this straight then. God creates some cats in Eden. Now, say He made tigers then as well. If we now have 30 something varieties or species of tiger, where did they come from? Are you saying each one is a kind? Or, to take it further, if God created one pair of cats that were something like our housecats, say- then, in the pre flood adapting, they branched out into tigers, lions, cheetahs, etc, could not we say thay all are a cat kind? If not why not? Where do you think the line must be drawn? Evemn man comes in many colors, sizes, etc. Yet we are all 'man', even, I would think the little Flores man they recently found. You should be careful about being dogmatic, unless you know what it is you are talking about.
I know the bible a fair bit, and nowhere do I see the kind of lines drawn you claim are 'plain and simpple!! If you make a mistake in some of these things, coming off sounding as if you are authoritive, and people know it, the rest of the possibly good stuff you say will be considered bunk as well.

[quote:d0d4d] Each animal breeds its own kind. The theory of evolution is a man-made theory that has nothing to do with the bible. And because it is man-made, it is by definition, fallible. End of story.

[/quote:d0d4d]
No, not end of story. There is a little thing called evidence. If we know that some creatures do, and did adapt, then why would someone want to be in denial? There is nothing wrong with adaptability being a gift of the creator. Long as it fits in with the bible, and the evidence. Your opinion must be in line with at least the bible. I would also suggest trying to be in line with the evidence as well, if possible, and it is. A different past allows for a true bible, and a creation 6000 years ago, just as it says.

 

[Heidi]

...
Because not only does the bible not say that we came from wild beasts, but that contradicts the reproductive process.

What am I missing here? I said the adaptations or 'evolving' stsrted at the creaion. So we have creation week, all the creatures mads already, then man, on day six. No one cam from any wild beasts anywhere I can see? Where the evolutoin comes in, is that, after the fall, perhaps some adapting was needed in some creatures as they spread out in the world, that was still not that habitable in many places, and kind of harsh. With things starting to die, perhaps God had some creatures adapt into being scavengers, etc, to help feed them, and clean up the dying mess? Then, later, after the flood, many say the ice age came. Why not have some elephants adapt to the cold weather, and become mammoths? Etc.
This means we steal evolution from the evolutionists, and put it in it's place as a process that God made. All they are left with now, would be the claim of some common ancestor (i.e no creation) which they can't begin to evidence or prove, cause it never happened, there was no first lifeform! No science tells us there was at all. They do detect some changes that go on, however, so why not face the facts?

Evolutionists have to say that there were millions of "accidental" changes that happened in a fictitious beast called a "common ancestor" in order to produce the human being, for which there is zero evidence, only speculation.

Correct, that is not science, and is sheer anudulterated nonsense. That is not the kind of evolution I mean in any way.

[quote:f02a5]So the question then becomes, why claim evolution at all? :o What's the point?

The point is, to me, it shows the past was different from the present. Things apparently could adapt very quickly. If all cats, for example did come from the one original created pair, that is a lot of adapting. Or if Noah had just the pair on the ark, and later, I don't know how many different types of tigesrs there are, I believe it is 30 something species-all came from the original pair. Now, in the present that could not happen in a few thousand years as we know. Then, however, the world was quite different.[/quote:f02a5]

But my point is, why speculate at all? Anyone with eyes can see that cats come from cats, dogs come from dogs, humans come from humas. So why make up scenarios that alter that fact and claim this all happened before there were any witnesses around to prove it? :o

Why is there such a need in some people to think they know better than God does and simply claim that cats have not always come from cats, dogs did not always com from dogs and humans did not always come from humans? Why do this when that's the way the world has worked since the beginning of recorded history? :o Why not just leave God's creation alone instead of making up new theories that conytradict the way the world has worked since man has been able to record it? :o

 

[Heidi]

The theory of evolution is like someone looking at the stars and saying; "Wouldn't it be neat if there was life out there? That would be so cool." Then finding old rocks that could truly look like anything in the imagination, and claiming that there is a "mysterious" element in them that has not been identified so it must have come from an alien source like the stars, so that means aliens once inhabited the planet. Then if I had a Ph.d., I could get my opinion in a magazine and it would then become a fact. Once again, it's not hard to dupe the public. It's the easiest thing in the world to do particularly if one claims that man came from a fictitious beast that has yet to be identified or even known to have existed. If the public sees that as a fact, then they can see anything as a fact if it comes from the mind of a person with a Ph.d! ;-)

 

[dad]

...But my point is, why speculate at all? Anyone with eyes can see that cats come from cats, dogs come from dogs, humans come from humas. So why make up scenarios that alter that fact and claim this all happened before there were any witnesses around to prove it? :o

Because the education system teaches some of these scenarios to kids that basically say the bible is a lie. They spent billions in research, and the various so called sciences, and some things they do know. So if they tell me that it is silly to believe that God created everything 6000 years ago, I like to put them in their place. So, I try to see what we actually, really know, and then, see how it must have actually happened. For example if they say the ark was too small for all the creatures, and that they "know" some creatures have changed, or adapted, like a mammoth, I have to look at the possibility that the ark creatures did a lot of adapting faster than is possible in the present. I see no reason that it did not happen, and quickly, because the world was so different. Chromosones were passed on, and dna etc, without the damage we now see. Otherwise how could we live so long, and how could Noah populate the earth again, much like Adam did, if his dna or cells, or chromosones, and whatnots, was so damaged already?

Why is there such a need in some people to think they know better than God does and simply claim that cats have not always come from cats, dogs did not always com from dogs and humans did not always come from humans?

Cats always did come from cats, I agree. The question is, how much adapting took place from eden's cats? Or from the ones on the ark. If there were say, on pair of tigers on the ark, and now there are 30 something species of tigers, why could they not have adapted from the one pair? This does not affect the bible in any way, except to make it more of a real history.

 

[dad]

The theory of evolution is like someone looking at the stars and saying; "Wouldn't it be neat if there was life out there? That would be so cool." Then finding old rocks that could truly look like anything in the imagination, and claiming that there is a "mysterious" element in them that has not been identified so it must have come from an alien source like the stars, so that means aliens once inhabited the planet.

I do not believe in anything but the creation written the bible as it reads. I think there are untold billions of beings out there, in God's universe. But I think they live in the spiritual one right now. WE can't see them, and if we went to a far planet we would not see them there, I don't think either. My opinion is that when the 'new heavens' are revealed, it will no longer be a physical universe as we see it. Then, it will be together with the spiritual, and we will see them then, the angels, and God, our departed loved ones, etc. In that sense, I believe in abundant life in the universe. The only catch is that we can't see it now, cause we are separated into a physical only part of the original complete universe. Therefore, the time before this separation, which I think was after the flood a century or so, - was a very different complete universe. That is why the bible past seems so different, and those who measure everything by only the physical present find it unbelievable.



Then if I had a Ph.d., I could get my opinion in a magazine and it would then become a fact. Once again, it's not hard to dupe the public. It's the easiest thing in the world to do particularly if one claims that man came from a fictitious beast that has yet to be identified or even known to have existed. If the public sees that as a fact, then they can see anything as a fact if it comes from the mind of a person with a Ph.d! ;-)[/quote]

 

[Khristeeanos]

Humans had absolutely no knowledge that this was the case and yet it is obvious to me that God knew and told mankind.

You're jumping to conclusions there. We only found out the cause for it being the best to wait until day eight to circumcise in 1947 - but the consequences of not doing it on that day are quite visible to anyone.

Don't you think people 3500 years ago were quite capable of noticing that circumcision on day eight caused the least problems? In order to realize that one does not need to understand the reasons behind it.

Man figured it out when God told them what to do. That is only one bit of evidence among many evidences.

[quote:b01b8]But the Bible speaks for itself. It is reliable in science matters, even though it isn't primarly a science book.

Such as the pillars of the earth, the earth being a circle, cud chewing rabbits and so on?[/quote:b01b8]

Please clarify what you are talking about. I am confused. Thank you. :D

 

[Heidi]

Sorry, but the bible clearly says that God created each animal to its own kind. That means that God created each animal to its own kind and that is how the world works, plain and simply. Each animal breeds its own kind. The theory of evolution is a man-made theory that has nothing to do with the bible. And because it is man-made, it is by definition, fallible. End of story.

May I remind you that the Bible is a man made book, and the only reason it is "inspired by God" is because the men that made it, said so.

The Bible has hundreds of prophecies and medical and scientific facts that were given hundreds and in some cases thousands of years prior to human knowledge.

That proves it is inspired by God.

I feel like Jon Stewart when bush announced he was going to answer a few questions.

what?????

Care to give some evidence please? I am a bit confused. considering, it originally seemed to say that the earth was teh center of the universe, and the sun orbitted us.

And how do you know that passage doesn't mean that the earth is the focus of the universe? :o Considering you didn't provide a quote for either phrase, you are quick to interpret the bible through your individual perspective that you don't see the other meanings that it could imply. "The Spirit searches all things" but the human mind is limited in understanding.

 

[ArtGuy]

...you are quick to interpret the bible through your individual perspective that you don't see the other meanings that it could imply.

...says the YEC.

Anyway, here are some passages that show the Bible as supporting, given a strict translation, a geocentric, flat-earth, immovable-earth view:

1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.â€Â
Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...â€Â
Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.â€Â

These lines, taken literally, show that the Earth is stationary.

Daniel 4:10-11: "Now these were the visions in my mind as I lay on my bed: I was looking, and behold, there was a tree in the midst of the earth and its height was great. The tree grew large and became strong. And its height reached to the sky, and it was visible to the end of the whole earth."

This line, taken literally, clearly requires a flat earth. There's no way a tree could be seen from all over the planet if it were round.

Matthew 4:8: “Once again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in their glory.â€Â

Ditto. A flat Earth is required for Jesus to see all of the kingdoms of the world from atop a high mountain.

Now, clearly the Earth moves, and clearly it's not flat. As such, the above passages must be taken metaphorically, and that was, I believe, the intention. However, it makes little sense to consider those passages metaphorical, while also claiming the utter absurdity in taking other passages metaphorically - like, say, those involving the age of the Earth, or the account of Creation.

If the Bible is speaking metaphorically when it talks of a tree being visible to all the world, then why can't other passages be metaphorical as well?

 

[Khristeeanos]

Matthew 4:8: “Once again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in their glory.â€Â

Ditto. A flat Earth is required for Jesus to see all of the kingdoms of the world from atop a high mountain.

Now, clearly the Earth moves, and clearly it's not flat. As such, the above passages must be taken metaphorically, and that was, I believe, the intention. However, it makes little sense to consider those passages metaphorical, while also claiming the utter absurdity in taking other passages metaphorically - like, say, those involving the age of the Earth, or the account of Creation.

If the Bible is speaking metaphorically when it talks of a tree being visible to all the world, then why can't other passages be metaphorical as well?

The devil is a spiritual creature and Jesus wasn't limited by physical either as we can see in the transfiguration.

To simply put a blanket over these is to take it too far.

We don't blast the weather man on the TV when he says the sun is going to "rise" or "set" do we?

No, it is slang language more or less to let us know when the sun becomes visible to us.

 

[dad]

...
Anyway, here are some passages that show the Bible as supporting, given a strict translation, a geocentric, flat-earth, immovable-earth view:

1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”
Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...”
Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.”

These lines, taken literally, show that the Earth is stationary.

The earth is forever, at least most of it. The surface will be burned with fire, but the foundations will be still here. Those you never have seen, deep below our feet. It is very firm, and will never be moved.

[quote:fe77b]Daniel 4:10-11: "Now these were the visions in my mind as I lay on my bed: I was looking, and behold, there was a tree in the midst of the earth and its height was great. The tree grew large and became strong. And its height reached to the sky, and it was visible to the end of the whole earth."

This line, taken literally, clearly requires a flat earth. There's no way a tree could be seen from all over the planet if it were round.

Wasn't this a pagan king's dream? Maybe he had a hangup from some pagan teaching that was reflected in his dream! We do dream sometimes based on things we hear, or think, etc. Don't blame God!
Matthew 4:8: “Once again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in their glory.”

[quote:fe77b]Ditto. A flat Earth is required for Jesus to see all of the kingdoms of the world from atop a high mountain.

No, New Jerusalem is like the mountain of the Lord's house. Some even think it is shaped like a mountain or pyramid. It has not landed yet here on earth, and is a spiritual place at the moment. If it was orbiting the earth at the time, and the devil still had access to heaven, he may have taken Him there, where He could see the whole earth. Either that, or taken Him somewhere so He could have these things revealed, like a movie, or spiritual time travel experience or something of that nature. Spirits do have power, you know. And the spirit here, was the chief spirit of the dark side.

. However, it makes little sense to consider those passages metaphorical, while also claiming the utter absurdity in taking other passages metaphorically - like, say, those involving the age of the Earth, or the account of Creation.

[/quote:fe77b][/quote:fe77b]

No, if any lack wisdom let him ask of God-and get it. There is a difference. Jesus refered to the time of the garden, and the flood, and they were clearly real events. Some things have a spiritual element, so unless we are spiritually minded, we cannot comprehend them. (Like Jesus seeing all the world kindoms in a high mountain)
Trying to fabalize the bible is not the answer.

 

[ArtGuy]

The devil is a spiritual creature and Jesus wasn't limited by physical either as we can see in the transfiguration.

If the idea is that Jesus wasn't really seeing all the kingdoms of the world, then the Bible is embellishing in hyperbole. If the idea is that Jesus could see things that weren't in his line of sight, then going to the top of a mountain was unnecessary.

Either way, it doesn't matter. The Bible was not speaking literally, it was speaking allegorically. What I would like is some justification why Genesis absolutely cannot be allegorical, given the many other parts of the Bible - Jesus speaking with the devil, David's vision, the Tower of Babel, etc. - that simply must be. Saying, "Oh, well it's obvious that it isn't" isn't an answer, it's a sidestep. Why is it obvious?

 

[Nocturnal_Principal_X]

Now, clearly the Earth moves, and clearly it's not flat. As such, the above passages must be taken metaphorically, and that was, I believe, the intention. However, it makes little sense to consider those passages metaphorical, while also claiming the utter absurdity in taking other passages metaphorically - like, say, those involving the age of the Earth, or the account of Creation.

If the Bible is speaking metaphorically when it talks of a tree being visible to all the world, then why can't other passages be metaphorical as well?

Interesting statements about the Bible. What you forgot to consider is the context of the verses you used to justify your claim.

When trying to interpret the text it is dangerous and frankly incorrect to do the following (which you did):

1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.â€Â
Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...â€Â
Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.â€Â
[….]
Daniel 4:10-11: "Now these were the visions in my mind as I lay on my bed: I was looking, and behold, there was a tree in the midst of the earth and its height was great. The tree grew large and became strong. And its height reached to the sky, and it was visible to the end of the whole earth."
[….]
Matthew 4:8: “Once again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in their glory.â€Â

After looking over your presentation of verses it is easy to notice you have a habit of taking one or two from a passage to make a point. Well, you cannot do that. When you do that you strip the passages of the context. As far as interpreting scripture the following information from Wikipedia is good:

The word exegesis means "to draw the meaning out of" a given text. Exegesis may be contrasted with eisegesis, which means to read one's own interpretation into a given text. In general, exegesis presumes an attempt to view the text objectively, while eisegesis implies more subjectivity.
Traditional exegesis requires the following: analysis of significant words in the text in regard to translation; examination of the general historical and cultural context, confirmation of the limits of the passage, and lastly, examination of the context within the text.

(Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exegesis)

The point I am making by posting that information is that proper interpretation requires more then merely reading a passage. In order to understand the meaning one MUST examine the context of the passage. Now I promise if one where to keep scripture verses in context they will often come to understand whether or not to take a passage literally or figuratively.

 

[dad]

If the idea is that Jesus wasn't really seeing all the kingdoms of the world, then the Bible is embellishing in hyperbole.

He was. It was with the aid of the spiritual in this case.

[quote:37292]If the idea is that Jesus could see things that weren't in his line of sight, then going to the top of a mountain was unnecessary.

Not if it was the spiritual city, or mountain.

Either way, it doesn't matter. The Bible was not speaking literally,

No, it was speaking truly, but not limited here to the physical you understand. This is where you miss out.

it was speaking allegorically.

No, spiritual is not allegorical. He really was taken to the 'mountain' and did see all the kingdoms of this world, not just in His time, but ours today as well, and etc.

What I would like is some justification why Genesis absolutely cannot be allegorical,

There is no reason to say it was, it appears to be a real story, is repeated, and even in the new testament we find it, even from Jesus!

given the many other parts of the Bible - Jesus speaking with the devil, David's vision, the Tower of Babel, etc. - that simply must be.

[/quote:37292]

No, He did speak with the devil, and there was a tower of Babel.

 

[Khristeeanos]

If the idea is that Jesus wasn't really seeing all the kingdoms of the world, then the Bible is embellishing in hyperbole. If the idea is that Jesus could see things that weren't in his line of sight, then going to the top of a mountain was unnecessary.

Either way, it doesn't matter. The Bible was not speaking literally, it was speaking allegorically. What I would like is some justification why Genesis absolutely cannot be allegorical, given the many other parts of the Bible - Jesus speaking with the devil, David's vision, the Tower of Babel, etc. - that simply must be. Saying, "Oh, well it's obvious that it isn't" isn't an answer, it's a sidestep. Why is it obvious?

The context of Genesis 1-11 clearly indicates that it is literal history. It names real people doing real things.

Adam was a person who we have some personal information on, as well as his children, grandchildren and so on and so forth.

Here is something interesting to consider.


By the time Abram (Abraham, father of Isaac and Jacob...) was born, only 3 generations had passed from Adam.

Very fascinating!!!

Adam lived to be almost 1000. Just before Adam died, I believe it was Methuselah was born. Before Methuselah died, Shem was born. Before Shem died, Abraham was born.

That means that there were only 3 generations from Adam to Abraham.

 

[Solo]

Adam and Noah's father were alive at the same time, therefore the history of the beginning of creation was only one generation from the only man whose family was saved from destruction by the flood.

 

[Sempill]

Starting from creation week, and the garden, and the created men and beasts, why not some evolution?

I'm sure we can slip in some evolution if it makes you feel better. Doesn't matter too much to me personally...

 

[Khristeeanos]

Adam and Noah's father were alive at the same time, therefore the history of the beginning of creation was only one generation from the only man whose family was saved from destruction by the flood.

The name Methuselah means "when he dies it will come" and he died the same year the flood came.

1,565 years after the six day creation.

 

[ArtGuy]

The context of Genesis 1-11 clearly indicates that it is literal history. It names real people doing real things.

Adam was a person who we have some personal information on, as well as his children, grandchildren and so on and so forth.

Yes. There was most likely really an Adam and an Eve. But Genesis makes just as much sense if you take a few liberties with how "literal" certain passages are. In fact, it makes more sense, because such liberties prevent us from having to throw logic and reason out the window when we try to reconcile the Bible with the obvious facts that our sense tell us.

The Tower of Babel is in Genesis, yet clearly the idea of that being literal is absurd. It must, therefore, be allegory. If part of Genesis is allegory, why not more of it, or all of it?

 

[dad]

Starting from creation week, and the garden, and the created men and beasts, why not some evolution?

I'm sure we can slip in some evolution if it makes you feel better. Doesn't matter too much to me personally...

Since it was created anyhow, I don't need any adapting to make me feel better. But since the evidence seems to indicate that some evolving may have occurred, yes, I see a need for some young earth evolving.

 

[dad]

....
The Tower of Babel is in Genesis, yet clearly the idea of that being literal is absurd. It must, therefore, be allegory. If part of Genesis is allegory, why not more of it, or all of it?

It was real.