Skip to comments.Churches urged to back evolution
Posted on 02/20/2006 5:33:50 AM PST by ToryHeartland
click here to read article
Perhaps, but do you think God just looked around one day, saw that life had appeared and evolved on earth without His involvement, and decided to stick a soul inside of us?
[...God's inerrant word clearly states that evolution
did not happen, and the two are mutually exclusive...]
Isa 48:3 ... I have declared the former things from the
beginning; and they went forth out of My mouth, and I
shewed them; I did [them] SUDDENLY, and they came
Proof text for future reference. Well done ES!
I refuse to believe that. Even your average deist believes God is less impersonal and more caring than a gov't employee. :-)
God doesn't need a domain, he is just God@heaven.
All your domain are belong to HIM!!!
By 150 B.C., the Greek astronomer Eratosthenes had already measured the 25,000-mile circumference of the earth. The round shape of our planet was a conclusion easily drawn by watching ships disappear over the horizon and also by observing eclipse shadows, and we can assume that such information was well known to New Testament writers. Earth's spherical shape was, of course, also understood by Christopher Columbus.
Which is true, but is irrelevant regarding the Bible. As I noted in post 590, the text, as a whole, is consistent with the view held in that part of the world contemporaneously with the time the Old Testament was written (i.e., the earth as a flat disk or rectangular shape, surrounded by ocean, capped with a canopy ("vault") of sky on which the sun, moon, planets and stars traversed.) This is inconsistent with anything approaching a modern cosmology.
I'm sure if you study your bible, you can find the references on your own.
[...Religion need not be specifically theistic to be religion...]
Excellent point. I am religious about hygiene and paying my bills.
There are plenty of "Religious" people in the world. But FAITH...
That is the question.
Luk 18:8 I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless
when the Son of man cometh, SHALL HE FIND FAITH on the earth?
If you want biblical discussion on the shape of the earth, and the motion of the earth and planets, you have to go to the oldest writings:
The epistles of Enoch. There is considerable description therein, and it is all in keeping with the current general understanding of the solar system.
As to whether the earth hangs on nothing, it definately appears to hang on nothing, and to that extent, the description in Job is accurate for the purpose of the statement, and the context thereof.
Fast forward to when my son is about through high school, didn't go to college, does not attend any church regularly or read the bible, but he is a person of faith albeit imperfect. One day out of the blue, he said, "Mom, evolution just can't be true."; I can't remember the rest of the conversation, there wasn't much, because now and then I had kicked it around myself, but hadn't been able to reconcile my belief system with the theory of evolution. Now just because my son came to that conclusion doesn't make it so.
I know it is Neanderthal to believe in creation, but I do, the six days being epochs of what duration I don't know. I do not believe in evolution, but do believe in mutation and survival of the fittest. Mutation if continued unchecked seems to adversely affect any given species, making prone to slide into extinction. Some mutations appear to be positive and beneficial. Human mutations since we have been able to track them tend to be negative overall and cause untold numbers of undesirable genetic conditions at the point we are in history. Man's three score and ten have been extended by science in the west causing the actuarial tables to be revised and by unexplained phenomena in other small populations of the non-western world where average life span is longer.
To further muddy the waters, I believe that life was created by benevolent being(s) (the bible and credo claims Christ did it) and some evil force entered the picture and tampered with it, the fall being an allegorical explanation of a process no one can explain to this day.
In college, I took an anthropology class which focussed on Australopithecus, Homo Erectus, Neanderthal, etc., wasn't convinced by it but kept quiet so I could pass the course (I may have anyway; things were more tolerant then). It was a catholic college, and I didn't have any counter arguments anyway. As a child I was exposed to some of the new ideas, saw the reassembled dinosaur in the Chicago Museum of Natural History, my father had a mastodon tusk from Alaska, but I was never swayed by any of it. When I went to high school, I don't remember any talk about evolution; we studied other things in science class and that was left alone, probably because parents at that time would have objected strenuously. There could have been hints at it along the way.
That's it. I can understand why it cannot be taught in science class, but it should be presented as theory and not fact.
I do believe that if we are allowed to continue long enough, science, abrogating the role of creator, will eventually be able to create new speciation which will be able to mate with itself and blocked from mating with the parent species or genetic manipulation will allow for inter-breeding. It will require the intervention by man to bring it about.
If science comes up with something convincing enough, I will change my position. So far they have not. We have been conditioned to accept it as fact, and they should leave the churches alone, and I suppose the churches ought to leave the state schools alone.
It's the same thread, and already the short-term amnesia's kicking in.
[...I'm sure if you study your Bible, you can find the references on your own...]
Oh no. Rules of engagement. The burden of proof is on you. Nice try.
Maybe God told you personally that the Bible is his Word. He hasn't revealed such to me. Until then, it's only men who have told me such.
If anyone could demonstrate that the world was created by God then we wouldn't be having this "discussion", such as it is.
If I look up the word "oath" in the dictionary, will the word "religious" be anywhere in the result?
I don't see how the word implies religiosity per se.
Perhaps the Bible isn't a science textbook, but a book of metaphor and ancient religious narratives?
One can take the Bible seriously without being a fideist.
[...Evolution does not advance civility, it excuses depravity...]
If I am a beast, then I am accountable to nothing but "instinct"
and my behavior is excused.
Job 12:7-8 But ask now the beasts, and they shall teach thee;
and the fowls of the air, and they shall tell thee: God's hand
is the life and breath of every living thing.
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible
attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly
seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are
without excuse. 3:10 for they exchanged the truth of God for a
lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator,
who is blessed forever.
[...substantiate your claim by pointing out specific deficiences in the evidence presented for evolution rather than relating vague anecdotal tales...]
This personal "anecdote" is a fact that I observed. Which is more than I can
say for some scientists. Evidence should be observable, repeatable and documentable.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.