Evolution vs. Creation

[Redzeppelin]

While I agree with you that God is most certainly omnipotent, and need not harmonize with nature, I believe that God decided to act (at least mostly) according to the laws of nature

Then why not just say so in the original account? Why say "6 days" if God really means "6 million years"? Why be intentionally misleading about something that is crucial (in my opinion) to our picture of Who God Is? Schroeder's a smart guy all right - who wants to argue with MIT? But his explanation sounds like an attempt to harmonize science and the Bible at the expense of what God told us.

God created the "laws of nature" for us - not for Himself. The laws of nature that govern the world didn't exist until He created them. Why take the long way?

[yingqiee]

Like I said earlier, I think that that parts of the original book of Genesis was like poetry, implying that it may not have been intended to be literal: http://www.bibleresourcecenter.org/v...method=display
I believe the original poetic effect was lost in certain bible translations, and I think that time may work differently for God as opposed to us humans. Hence, the 6 days as stated by the Bible(from God's point of view) relative to us may have been of a different value.

Personally, in the end, I see no reason to argue about how the earth was created with a Christian; I think that God would rather us asking Him what to do with our lives as opposed to asking Him how the world was created. I just did not like it that posters were dismissing arguments for Creationism as being "an assault on the faculty of reason" when their arguments against Creationism were worse.

[Redzeppelin]

Like I said earlier, I think that that parts of the original book of Genesis was like poetry, implying that it may not have been intended to be literal: http://www.bibleresourcecenter.org/v...method=display
I believe the original poetic effect was lost in certain bible translations, and I think that time may work differently for God as opposed to us humans. Hence, the 6 days as stated by the Bible(from God's point of view) relative to us may have been of a different value.

Right: and I'm willing to admit that this may very well be true. What I'm asking is based on logic (I guess): if you were God, and you had to provide your believers with a sort of "manual" that was supposed to guide their lives and their choices and their beliefs, why not be direct about things that do not gain any power by being metaphorical? How do 6 million years become 6 days in a translation error? I guess I'm asking whether or not God says what He means. Granted: some parts of the Bible are metaphoric or parable-based - but the context often makes that clear. What context (besides the desire to harmonize science with God) makes Genesis figurative instead of literal? It's identity as poetry does not imply that it must be figurative in nature. Hebrew poetry, in fact, is generally distinguished by its structure more than traditional poetic devices (such as analogy, etc).

Personally, in the end, I see no reason to argue about how the earth was created with a Christian; I think that God would rather us asking Him what to do with our lives as opposed to asking Him how the world was created. I just did not like it that posters were dismissing arguments for Creationism as being "an assault on the faculty of reason" when their arguments against Creationism were worse.

I agree. But I do think it matters how things came into being because each method says something different about who God is. While the time-table for creation is not necessarily a crucial issue (I think there will be those in heaven with all kinds of interpretations), I do think it matters.

[MattG]

Why not jump right into the fray for my first post here?

I believe in God but generally dislike organized religion. My beliefs would definitely tend toward Christianity, but I'm not a card carrying member of a church.

I also believe that evolutionary theory has a lot of merit and that as a whole it doesn't really conflict with my other beliefs unless I start making unfounded leaps in logic.

I believe in both things to a point so I'm thinking I'll pick 'other'.

-SF

[Whifflingpin]

Redzeppelin: "Hebrew poetry, in fact, is generally distinguished by its structure more than traditional poetic devices (such as analogy, etc)."

"Moab is my wash-pot and over Edom will I cast out my shoe"

"He maketh me to lie down by still waters"

"Your hair is like a flock of goats, frisking down the slopes of Gilead"

Are these poetic devices merely tricks of translation? The psalms, the Song, even the prophets are full of poetical and rhetorical device - is all that down to St Jerome?

[Redzeppelin]

Hebrew poetry, in fact, is generally distinguished by its structure more than traditional poetic devices (such as analogy, etc).

My post makes it clear that I did not say figurative devices are totally absent from Hebrew poetry. My use of "generally" makes that point clear. Either way: poetic language does not necessarily mean that something should be interpreted figuratively.

[Whifflingpin]

Redzeppelin: "I did not say figurative devices are totally absent from Hebrew poetry. My use of "generally" makes that point clear. "

My objection is precisely to your use of the word "generally." I am quite aware that it does not mean "totally," but Hebrew poetry is very rich in figurative language, and to imply otherwise (as use of "generally" does) is misleading. I have just browsed through the psalms, and every one of them contained metaphors or similes, at least. The Song of Solomon is almost one vast collection of similes, and may indeed be pure allegory.

Not only are such poetic devices used in passages designed as poetry, but the prophets speak largely using "the traditional poetic devices." Isaiah looks forward to a time when swords are beaten into ploughshares, and lions lie down with lambs. There is not one of them that speaks without recourse to figurative language.

So - in general - traditional poetic devices (such as analogy, etc.) are a major feature of Hebrew writings, poetic and other.

Please note, I am not arguing against your assertion that Genesis should be taken literally - only against one part of your supporting argument. The fact that excited Hebrews rarely spoke without resorting to figuative language does not mean that any particular passage may not be taken literally if you so wish.

[Redzeppelin]

Fine. Perhaps I need to recheck my source (it's been a while since I read it). I'm not bent on pushing this point, because the real point is that poetry does not necessarily imply a figurative reality. Metaphoric language that implies something TOTALLY different than the truth the poet intends to express without establishing a context that points to how the metaphor points to the truth is badly written poetry. I do not think God is a bad poet (and, I assume that anybody writing under the inspiration of God would do a reasonably clear job of it).

[WriterAtTheSea]

Who does believe this? Certainly not evolutionists . . . or have I completely misdigested the entire theory? I thought we were supposed to share a common ancestor (?).

By the way, that Leadership U is a great website. They hold WLC's material.

Anthropologists by the bucket loads (lol) believe that. At least the few that I have known do. I think you might have mis-digested your pepperoni pizza with green peppers, sausage and onions... (Just kidding) I thought we were supposed to share a common ancestor too... But it is not the apes... surely not... Sigh, it simply cannot be!

Yeah, Leadership U is fascinating.

[Stanislaw]

Why not jump right into the fray for my first post here?

I believe in God but generally dislike organized religion. My beliefs would definitely tend toward Christianity, but I'm not a card carrying member of a church.

I also believe that evolutionary theory has a lot of merit and that as a whole it doesn't really conflict with my other beliefs unless I start making unfounded leaps in logic.

I believe in both things to a point so I'm thinking I'll pick 'other'.

-SF

You tend to be in the state that I am now. I don't really think evolution contradicts religious thinking.

nice avatar btw

[Pendragon]

Originally Posted by yingqiee
Hence, creationism and evolution can coexist; i.e. A superior entity created something(s), and that something(s) slowly evolved into the somethings now.

This would strike me as a great answer if the Biblical account didn't fully contradict it.

I am so tired of this subject that it is unbelievable, yet no one seems to want to build the poor old horse a coffin and bury it. Red, mon ami, the wording of Genesis leaves room for a lot of time. First of all, it states that in the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth. And the Earth was with out form, and void, and darkness moved upon the face of the deep. This is Prior to the seven days of creation, for the next thing stated is that the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said "Let there be light.", and there was light. Then He divided the light from darkness and called it day and night, the first day.

How long did the Earth hang there void? It doesn't say. But there is a verse that states that a thousand years is a day with the Lord and a day as a thousand years. So The time span could be measured in thousand year increments, for the six days of creation, then God rested, recall for a day-- so tack on another possible thousand years.

Please do not try to tell me that the events described in Genesis 2 are but repeats of Genesis 1. In Genesis 1, God speaks, and it happens. In Genesis 2, He forms the stuff out of the things that make up the Earth, which is why we are carbon-based lifeforms. He now plants the grasses and trees, forms man and the animals. How long were they in Eden? The Bible doesn't say, but they were there for a time, because God came down in the cool of the eve to talk with them.

Genealogy in the Bible starts with the fall. That's when time as we know it began.

You can disagree, and that is your privilege. But don't claim there is no evidence there for the other side, that God created, and animals and man have evolved since into what we are now. We Are not all one race, are we? Yet we started with Adam and Eve. People moved to different areas, the great land mass (dry land) broke apart, stranding some in various places, and adapt or die.

Take a place like Madagascar. Why does it have so many life forms found nowhere else? The Galapagos? Borneo? See!?

God Bless.

Pen.

[Redzeppelin]

I am so tired of this subject that it is unbelievable, yet no one seems to want to build the poor old horse a coffin and bury it. Red, mon ami, the wording of Genesis leaves room for a lot of time. First of all, it states that in the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth. And the Earth was with out form, and void, and darkness moved upon the face of the deep. This is Prior to the seven days of creation, for the next thing stated is that the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said "Let there be light.", and there was light. Then He divided the light from darkness and called it day and night, the first day.

How long did the Earth hang there void? It doesn't say. But there is a verse that states that a thousand years is a day with the Lord and a day as a thousand years. So The time span could be measured in thousand year increments, for the six days of creation, then God rested, recall for a day-- so tack on another possible thousand years.


You can disagree, and that is your privilege. But don't claim there is no evidence there for the other side, that God created, and animals and man have evolved since into what we are now. We Are not all one race, are we? Yet we started with Adam and Eve. People moved to different areas, the great land mass (dry land) broke apart, stranding some in various places, and adapt or die.

Pen - I respect that you're tired of this argument; perhaps some of us haven't been engaged in it long enough yet to reach a similar feeling as yours. As well, I'm not here to "win" - I'm here to listen to the arguments and understand how others see them as valid and to explain (as best I can) how I see mine to be valid. I do not intend to convert anybody here - I believe that discussion and debate is less about winning than it is about understanding the opponent's position and evaluating it and examining my own position for areas of weakness.

As far as the theory you presented, yes - I'm aware of the "gap theory" (which states that an indeterminate period of time elapsed between Gen 1:1 and 1:2) as well as the "day age" theory (a day = 1000 years) and I do not buy either of them. They may both be right, the may both be not. As a literary critic, I have difficulty playing around with the biblical narrative and interpreting certain things based on a lack of certain language. Speculating on what an omission means is very tricky in my book. I don't want to get into competing interpretations with you - you clearly are much more knowledgable than I in terms of the Bible - but I like to think that God speaks literally unless there is more to be gained by figurative speaking because figurative speaking requires interpretation.

Honestly, I don't know. If God meant for the creation narrative to imply thousands of years or multiple creations, why not make that clear - as opposed to requiring us to interpret the "silences"?

[JGL57]

...Honestly, I don't know. If God meant for the creation narrative to imply thousands of years or multiple creations, why not make that clear - as opposed to requiring us to interpret the "silences"?

Why doesn't the bible make clear, in the words of Jesus, in the N.T., that abortion is murder?

Why doesn't the bible make clear, in the words of Jesus, in the N.T., that slavery is morally wrong?

Why doesn't the bible make clear, in the words of Jesus, in the N.T., that homosexual behavior is especially heinous?

Why doesn't the bible make clear, in the words of Jesus, in the N.T., that evolution is incompatible with creationism, and that Genesis "days" mean 24 hr. long days?

- if, indeed, all of this is of the greatest importance, as many fundie Christians believe?

Also, why doesn't the bible make clear, in the words of Jesus, in the N.T.m that no Christian, at any time, under any circumstances, should ever be converted at the edge of a sword, and failing that, be killed in the name of Jesus? IOW, why did not say at something straightforward to kick the legs from under the inquisitions, witch-burnings, Jew murders, genocidal crusades, Catholic/Protestant murders, and other tortures and murders - all in the Name of Jesus? He just couldn't be put out - had better things to do - what?

To put it mildly - and in a nutshell - the bible is less than clear on a lot of important issues.

[Redzeppelin]

Why doesn't the bible make clear, in the words of Jesus, in the N.T., that abortion is murder?

You mean it's not obvious that abortion is murder? You needed to be told that?

Why doesn't the bible make clear, in the words of Jesus, in the N.T., that slavery is morally wrong?

Jesus was not a social revolutionary. He did not come to "fix" society or address all of its problems. Slavery is incompatible with Biblical principles - that's why Christians were generally supportive of ending slavery here in America.

Why doesn't the bible make clear, in the words of Jesus, in the N.T., that homosexual behavior is especially heinous?

God made it clear in both the OT and in the NT through the words of Paul.

Why doesn't the bible make clear, in the words of Jesus, in the N.T., that evolution is incompatible with creationism, and that Genesis "days" mean 24 hr. long days? - if, indeed, all of this is of the greatest importance, as many fundie Christians believe?

Why does Jesus have to say all this? These things were not his priority - saving human souls was. Here:

"And God said, Let there be light; and there was light. And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day." Genesis 1:3-5

Which part of that is unclear?

Also, why doesn't the bible make clear, in the words of Jesus, in the N.T.m that no Christian, at any time, under any circumstances, should ever be converted at the edge of a sword, and failing that, be killed in the name of Jesus? IOW, why did not say at something straightforward to kick the legs from under the inquisitions, witch-burnings, Jew murders, genocidal crusades, Catholic/Protestant murders, and other tortures and murders - all in the Name of Jesus? He just couldn't be put out - had better things to do - what?

To put it mildly - and in a nutshell - the bible is less than clear on a lot of important issues.

Your questions, understandable as they are, reveal that you do not have even the slightest understanding of Christ's mission on earth; as well, they imply that you've not read very closely the book you are choosing to criticize. As a matter of fact, Christ did have "better" things to do - saving humanity from the consequences of its sin. Christ was not a social revolutionary; He did not come here to correct society's ills with a neat listing of new commandments. He came here to show us a better way of living, and to offer us the gift of eternal life - all of us. A careful examination of the NT clearly reveals principles that are to guide us in making decisions about abortion, slavery, etc. Christ did not have to address every social/personal problem in order for us to understand how to address them - behaviors inconsistent with the principles put forth in the Bible ought not be done. Period.

For those of us who have spent years studying the Bible, we find that it can be quite clear. That doesn't mean that there aren't points of confusion, but that clarity can be found in the Bible - provided one is being led by the Holy Spirit. Non-believers reading without God's guidance may very well be confused by certain things that make perfect sense to believers.

[ennison]

Someone above said that atheists were often looked on as 'hedonistic sociopaths'

Hedonists I can live with. Sociopaths are different but you don't judge a sociopath by what he/she says but by actions and if the sociopathic behaviour is based on or justified by a set of beliefs then it is normal to be suspicious of these beliefs - theist or a-theist. But of course being sociopathic it may be that a claim to justify actions by beliefs is only a lie or smokescreen for a deeper underlying malaise. Sin is what I believe that refers to. I doubt if many people are persuaded one way or the other by what is posted here but feel themselves more akin to poster A than poster B or C and so on. Maybe later a thought might take root that was first aired here - who knows. People are touchy and would rather not face up to unpleasant truths about things that have been done by their co-believers and frequently find themselves adopting apparently rigid positions in order not to give an inch in argument. It is usually easier to discuss these matters with those who have similar beliefs - everything else is argument.