Skip to comments.Imagine There's No God.....Only Evolution
Posted on 10/03/2011 5:29:32 AM PDT by spirited irish
click here to read article
Actually, not everyone.
Quite so. What I believe to be the root cause of this is where secular man tries to use the Bible as a book of science, which it was never intended to be. It contains science but essentially it is a book about the relationship between God and man starting with His children Israel (Old Testament) and then how God reconciled man to Him through His son at the cross (New Testament).
Go back to the basis of belief - if you want to avoid accountability to an unappealable objective Judge,
you try to factor Him out of your “reality”.
God doesn’t lie. That’s why the literal interpretation of Genesis is wrong.
And some day, reality is that every knee will bend and every tongue confess.....
Nobody will any longer be able to plug their ears and sing, "La, la, la, la,... laaaaa..... I can't hear you....."
1 Peter 3:15 "Always be prepared to give an answer, to anyone who asks, to give a reason for the hope that you have."
Biblical apologetics should be in every Christians book of knowledge. If we do not understand our faith, then we are quick to lose it. The only thing God wants us to take on blind faith is His unwaivering devotion to those who love Him. Everything else is to be supported through the scriptures and rational, logical thought.
Defining right and wrong for ourselves since Gen 3:4-5.
Imagine through divine inspiration God gave you complete understanding of how the universe, life on Earth, and human beings came to be. But you only had the vocabulary of a bronze age shepherd. You could not have expressed that knowledge better than the author of Genesis.
For your answer you will have to petition the Lord with prayer.
There are some conflicts between man’s current interpretation of the world and what Moses wrote that you can’t explain with your assertion that it was just a matter of being able to express himself in understandable terms.
That’s the problem. Logical, rational thought does not often enter into screeching pronouncements of thoughtlessly held beliefs.
I always read through these threads, but they devolve pretty quickly for the most part.
How so? Since the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God, how could He lie? I agree that there are aspects of the Bible that are intended to be poetic and Christ Himself used hyperbole, but to claim that Genesis cannot be taken literally is problematic. Which aspect of Genesis do you take umbrage with?
You misread my post, too, if you think I suggested that God is not omniscient, since I clearly implied quite the opposite: that God is infinite.
Your previous post was an elaborate non-sequitur.
Now you’ll have to excuse me but I see no point in discussing this any further with you. Have a blessed day!
My apologies then. Your post reads quite the opposite.
May the Lord bless you also!
I see such a lack of faith in that position. Pull one thread and your whole belief edifice crumbles to ashes.
My faith is much stronger than that. It consisted of a finely woven cloth of belief. Tease out one thread and it is still a strong whole.
Getting Genesis right isn’t going to save me. Getting it wrong isn’t going to condemn me. I was saved when Jesus gave up the Ghost 2000 years ago.
Indeed they do. Passion can win over when it comes to politics, religion and who makes the best hamburger!
I don’t “take umbrage” with any of it.
Interesting. If the literal interpretation of the special revelation (the Bible) is "wrong", that implies that if fails to match or meet some absolute standard that you hold above this interpretation.
And that absolute standard which if fails to meet is MAN'S INTERPRETATION of general revelation. Think about what you're holding up as a standard above all else. That should give you pause.
You must since you believe it is wrong to take Genesis literally.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
In the beginning God created evolution.........
We can both hold Genesis as the Inspired Living Word of God and have different interpretations of it.
rjsimon: " Do you understand how oxymoronic that statement happens to be? How can a designer allow something to happen by random chance? It is a self-defeating argument."
I believe that Christianity can still be believed, even if Evolution is true. ~ C. S. Lewis
"...What is the significance of such a theory? To address this question is to enter the field of epistemology.
A theory is a metascientific elaboration distinct from the results of observation, but consistent with them.
By means of it a series of independent data and facts can be related and interpreted in a unified explanation. A theory's validity depends on whether or not it can be verified; it is constantly tested against the facts; wherever it can no longer explain the latter, it shows its limitations and unsuitability. It must then be rethought.
Furthermore, while the formulation of a theory like that of evolution complies with the need for consistency with the observed data, it borrows certain notions from natural philosophy.
And, to tell the truth, rather than the theory of evolution, we should speak of several theories of evolution.
On the one hand, this plurality has to do with the different explanations advanced for the mechanism of evolution, and on the other, with the various philosophies on which it is based.
Hence the existence of materialist, reductionist, and spiritualist interpretations.
What is to be decided here is the true role of philosophy and, beyond it, of theology.
Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider _the spirit_ as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter are _incompatible with the truth about man_. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person. ..."
- John Paul II October 22, 1996 Excerpted from: Theories of Evolution
"Without a doubt, the ultimate Black Swan is whatever it was that permitted merely genetic human beings to emerge into full humanness just yesterday (cosmically speaking), some 50,000 years ago.
Prior to this there was existence, but so what? There was life, but who cares? With no one to consciously experience it, what was the point? Without self-conscious observers, the whole cosmos could bang into being and contract into nothingness, and it would be no different than the proverbial tree falling in the forest with no one there to hear it.
One of the reasons why this is such a lonely and unpopular blog is that it takes both science and religion seriously. Most science and religion are unserious, but especially -- one might say intrinsically -- when they exclude each other.
A religion that cannot encompass science is not worthy the name, while a science that cannot be reconciled with religion is not fit for human beings. And I mean this literally, in that it will be a science that applies to a different species, not the one that is made to know love, truth, beauty, existence, and the Absolute. Science must begin and end in this principle -- which is to say, the Principle -- or it is just a diversion. ...."
We left off [on 8/18/2010 - see above] with Ridley's observation that "there appeared on earth a new kind of hominid, one that refused to play by the rules. Without any change in its body, without any succession of species, it just kept changing its habits. For the first time, its technology changed faster than its anatomy. There was an evolutionary novelty, and you are it." Some of you anyway.
Now, this is not supposed to happen under the iron hand of natural selection. But as Ridley properly notes, our species was born in rebellion. It simply "refused to play by the rules," rules that are only invented a posteriori anyway by scientists looking through the rearview mirror with 20/20 hindsight. ...."
One would be well served, I believe, by believing the Word, as written, before trying to interpret what could be misleading in the world.
In the beginning God created evolution.....
Certain aspects, probably, but the truths contained therein are not up for negotiation. That God created the world in 6 days is not up for interpretation. If you choose to believe that a 'day' is as a thousand 'days' then you are free to do so, I do not believe it effects your salvation. To say that God did not create the world strips Him of omnipotence which is fundamental. So again I ask, which parts do you take umbrage with?
Biology is an emerging science. Still lots of basic research going on in the subject. Our understanding of it is too sketchy to be held as an absolute standard.
The old Earth theory is much more solid. There is voluminous data that supports it and no evidence to date that invalidates it. The testimony of God’s creation tells us that from our perspective it is very very old.
I am a Christian. I believe God did His entire creation in 6 days, with a rest on the seventh. As for any other theories, “let God be true and every man a liar”.
Any further thought on the matter is unacceptable.
When you “take umbrage” with parts of the Bible, or interpretations thereof,
you are inherently applying a standard which you hold above the written Word or the interpretation thereof.
Carefully think about what you are holding as the measuring stick and what you are measuring.
I use the example of telling a child to go get a stick out of the yard, then handing a ruler to him and asking him to tell me how many “sticks long” the ruler is.
"Gerald Schroeder's scheme for matching up the days of Genesis doesn't work. He has to invent the idea that "waters above the heavens" is when the Milky Way formed, but the earth wasn't even around at the time so the text is pretty meaningless if his interpretation is correct.
Also, he says that "let there be light" on Day 1 is when the cosmic background radiation thermally separated from the primordial plasma. However, the problem with that is the Bible describes the period before that event as having darkness on the surface of the earth's waters, whereas the primordial plasma was intensely bright before the light decoupled thermally from it.
Just because the light had a very short mean free path (wasn't yet statistically decoupled) doesn't mean that it wasn't there. The light in the primordial plasma was many times brighter than under a noon day sun on Earth today.
So again, if Schroeder's interpretation is correct, then the Bible text makes no sense. Bottom line: he is really stretching to make his scheme work."
Phil Metzger (NASA Scientist (Physics) who is also a Christian)
Admitting that you haven't looked into it very deeply.
I don’t hold God in a prison of time. Time is his creation.
From His perspective it took 7 days. From our perspective it was 4.6 billion years. The longer I’m aware of that the easier it is to accept.
Before Abraham was He Is. And -
He is in the universe 16 billion years ago.
He is at the genesis of the Earth 4.6 billion years ago.
He is in the world right now.
Typical that creationists are unable to argue against a scientific theory without making an argument against atheism - while being too ignorant to recognize the difference.
As I remember it, he argues against scientists rationally and dispassionately observing the evidence, but that scientists project their own beliefs on the evidence before them. He goes on to say that science must be redeemed from the atheistic worldview to one where God is ultimate authority.
On a different note: To those that state that the Bible is the authoritative word of God, and yet that there can be two interpretations, there is only one conclusion: at least one of the interpretations is wrong.
If that were true you could read the Bible through once and put it away. Nothing more to get out of it.
Instead there is something new every time you read it. People have been writing commentaries about it for 2000 years. It is still the source of new insights. There is no one interpret ion of the Bible. There are infinite interpretations.
Only if our understanding of radiometric dating is correct. Since we have no observation for anything more than a couple of hundred years, they are all speculation and based upon incomplete data. In other words, they are guessing. The law of entropy states that an isolated system in a given state will get to a more probable state, until it reaches thermodynamic equilibrium. Basically saying warm stuff gets cold. 4.6 billion years would have expired all thermodynamic energy and our planet would have been long dead some time ago.
God did indeed create time, but He also gave us an understanding of that creation, how to measure it and how to define it. When God says He did something in a day and uses the same word to describe a 24-hour period, then I take Him at His word. There are those in the faith that subscribe to a young Earth theory but I do not as the 6,000 year attestation came from an account where the analyst could only account for 6,000 years. That does not mean we do not have a longer history, but I certainly do not subscribe to a 4.6 billion year old Earth either.
First, there is a difference between insight and interpretation. There are many text books that I have read that I have gained new insight as I have better understood what the author was trying to convey. What the author said has not changed, but how I understand it has changed.
Second, if there are two opposite interpretations of a text, at least one must be wrong.
Third, the reasons for the "infinite interpretations" and also for the unfortunate mess of multiple denominations is that man has fallen, and brings his own sinful nature to the text and to his faith. So each interpretation is a mixture of truth and error. The question is how much of our fallen nature are we projecting on to the text.
Lets say you were listening to a boring lecture. Your mind wanders and you see a person sitting beside the speaker peeling potatoes. You watch the man and notice that every time the second hand of the clock reaches 12, he reaches into the basket and peels a potato. Just before it reaches 12 again, he tosses a fully peeled potato in a second basket and then reaches in the basket of unpeeled potatoes and gets another one just as the second hand reaches 12 again. You have observed the process and timed it. So far, so good. Thats science!
You wonder how long has he been doing this? You get up (everyone else is so bored by the lecture theyve fallen asleep so you feel free to move around) and go to the basket of peeled potatoes. You count 18 of them. You build a model of the unobserved past and say, It takes one minute to peel a potato and deposit it in the basket. There are 18 in the basket. Therefore, this man has been peeling potatoes for eighteen minutes. Most people would nod their heads and say That makes sense. Except it doesnt.
Too many assumptions were made in this example. You might be correct, but you might be way off. Was the rate of potato peeling constant throughout the unobserved history of this event? You have no way of knowing. It could be that the man peeled potatoes much faster at first but has now slowed down because he is tiring. It could be that he was much slower at first but is speeding up because he is getting better at it. You simply have no way of knowing. For you quantum buffs, you also have to assume that time progresses in a strictly linear fashion and you know who you are that just cant be assumed!
Also did anyone or anything add peeled potatoes to the basket? Did anyone or anything take away peeled potatoes from that basket? You dont know. You werent there and neither was any other observer other than the potato-peeler himself and he isnt talking. Were there peeled potatoes in the basket before the peeler got there?
And those are the very same (possibly) false assumptions used by those who use radiometric dating. They assume a constancy in the rate, an isolation from the environment that might have caused a change in the rate, and they assume what the original state of the rock was. All three of these are assumptions made without observation or measurement. They are, then, not strictly science.
Your problem is simple, modern day science misinterprets the age of the earth and universe. No where does the scientific method allow for discarding any/all data contradicting a theory, but many do it anyway.
That’s a cop out answer on your part.
YOU implied purpose with your statement. YOU need to back it up.
To be fair, 5 years ago, I was where he is now. I have an engineering degree, and all the requisite “science” courses to go along with it. Everywhere along the way, my “education” made the assumptions of old earth and evolution, it was all that was taught, so it was all that I knew, until...
a few years ago I started studying the contradictory evidence, put on “new glasses”, and looked at the evidence cited for evolution/old earth in a new way, and saw where the errors were.
And just how old was Adam the day that God created him as an adult human being?
Was he one day old, as Scripture tells?
Or was he (for the sake of argument) say, 30 years old, as the physical, *scientific* evidence would indicate?
Then what? Did God create Adam as an adult human for the purpose of deception? Or functionality, because you simply cannot lay an egg and sperm on the ground and expect anything to happen?
So, until you know the purpose of God creating the universe with the appearance of age, it is simply not possible to accuse Him of doing it to be deceptive. If it appears that way to you, then the problem again, is with your reasoning, not with God.
The main point of that is to address the time dilation and perspective issue.
Adam appeared, what, 20 something perhaps,
when he was 1 millisecond “old”.
What’s happening is that those who claim to be scientists and criticize the Bible for being wrong, are working on the baseless assumption that what we know from science is right, or truth. Scripture is being held up to and compared to and judged by very weak standard, one that is constantly in a state of flux.
Our knowledge of the universe is woefully lacking in so many ways. the more we learn, the more unanswered questions arise and the more we realize we don’t know.
To presume that we have the correct answer based on incomplete and faulty knowledge is the height of arrogance.
Yes, and the goal is the same as it was then: the seizure of the Fruit of the Tree of Eternal Life.
[T]he Great Work... is the establishment of a techno-utopia for the Revolutionary Vanguard, and the scouring of the rest of humanity from the face of Mother Earth. The Revolution's ultimate goal: the enlightened few, walking alone and in silence among the unspoiled beauty of a depopulated world. Heaven will be a Place on on Earth. They Will have Gotten Themselves Back to the Garden. These eternal Mandarins will eat freely of the digital trees of a technocommunist Paradise, their lives extended to the maximum by technological means, their humanity and the hole in their souls they cannot plug with all their orgasms, hedonism, and soma genetically engineered away. This is C.S. Lewis Abolition of Man: they will do away with humanity their own included to build by the wisdom of Solomon the new Temple of Hiram Abiff, incarnate the goddess Liberty upon the Holy of Holies, and by so doing realize the promise of Genesis 3:22.
One of the promises of the communist utopia is immortal man, accomplished through aiding evolution in culling out, as in animal husbandry, the traits that lead to death.
I did not and do not accuse Him of deception.