The false dichotomy.

[Hilltrot]

Many times people have insisted on one of two beliefs.

1. A belief in a specific literal interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis.

2. A belief in some form of Evolution.

This is a false dichotomy. I don't believe in either of these.

I believe the first chapter of Genesis is about God speaking the world into existence, creating order from chaos. And I believe this may have happened over 7 days. However, I am also open to the idea that the days mentioned were not suppose to be literal 24 hour days. However, I don't believe as some Calvinists do that God created everything in one simple action.

Regardless, I don't believe anything coming from evolution which claims to know what supposedly happened a billion years ago. From my point of view everything which comes from evolution is fantasy science fiction. They haven't been able to replicate anything they claim and they also cannot make predictions.

A replication would be take an ape and evolve a human from it. Or take a fish and evolve a lizard or a bird. They can't do it. They commonly list some silly fruit fly experiment or the like which does not even close to proving what they are actually saying is true.

The next test is prediction. This is easy. Tell us the next disease which will infect humans and go ahead and have the cure ready while you are at it. What? Can't do that? Don't tell me you are going to ramble on like a TV psychic saying things which may come true and pointing out only those that do while ignoring your failures? Oh, that is how you plan on doing your "predictions". Weathermen are better at predicting things.

Evolution is the most popular pseudoscience like Scientology and shouldn't even be called an hypothesis. An hypothesis can be tested, while evolution can only be believed. The sole purpose of evolution is to take God out of the equation.

 

[Trump Gurl]

Many times people have insisted on one of two beliefs.

1. A belief in a specific literal interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis.

2. A belief in some form of Evolution.

This is a false dichotomy. I don't believe in either of these.

What you said does not make sense. Believing in BOTH would be impossible because one would cancel out the other.

But believing in one OR the other is fine. Believing in one OR the other is not a false dichotomy

Me, I reject the first one and believe the second one.

 

[Hilltrot]

What you said does not make sense. Believing in BOTH would be impossible because one would cancel out the other.

But believing in one OR the other is fine. Believing in one OR the other is not a false dichotomy

Me, I reject the first one and believe the second one.

What I am saying it that one does not have to chose either. It's a false choice. One does not have to choose one or the other. One can choose neither. I never said one could choose both. And, yes, choosing both would not make sense. However, I have seen many who have tried.

 

[Trump Gurl]

What I am saying it that one does not have to chose either. It's a false choice. One does not have to choose one or the other. One can choose neither. I never said one could choose both. And, yes, choosing both would not make sense. However, I have seen many who have tried.

Oh, I see. So you don't take the creation narrative literally (that is good) but you also reject any sort of Evolution. That presents quite a problem. How do you explain earlier versions of man, or the fact that some species that exist today did not exist millions of years ago.

 

[Hilltrot]

How do you explain earlier versions of man, or the fact that some species that exist today did not exist millions of years ago.

I don't.

If I don't know something, I don't make up something just so that I can say I have an explanation when I don't have one I consider to be valid. When scientists aren't willing to say "I don't know," they cease to be scientists and are instead mythologists.

 

[Trump Gurl]

I don't.

You'd better, otherwise you find yourself in the same boat as the atheists. "Well, if there was a big bang, then do you know where all the stuff for the big bang came from?"

The atheist replies, "I don't." Everyone chuckles.

Since you admit that don't know then you cannot slam the door on some form of evolution, isn't that right

 

[Hilltrot]

You'd better, otherwise you find yourself in the same boat as the atheists. "Well, if there was a big bang, then do you know where all the stuff for the big bang came from?"

The atheist replies, "I don't." Everyone chuckles.

Since you admit that don't know then you cannot slam the door on some form of evolution, isn't that right

Not at all. In fact, by not having to defend a specific creation "mythology" I actually put the evolutionists on defense as they have nothing to attack. I am simply attacking their creation myth.

As far as the Big bang there are many explanations for the question you asked. However, I am not interested in playing devil's advocate and defending their position.

 

[Trump Gurl]

So, your belief systems includes that fact that you don't have the slightest idea or theory or even guess at how most things that exists today came to be. Thats not very Christian.

It is far more Christian to believe that God created everything, and set into motion his laws of nature that caused everything to be as they are today.

If I asked to to define "Time" what would you say?

 

[Trump Gurl]

So, your belief systems includes that fact that you don't have the slightest idea or theory or even guess at how most things that exists today came to be. Thats not very Christian.

It is far more Christian to believe that God created everything, and set into motion his laws of nature that caused everything to be as they are today.

If I asked to to define "Time" what would you say?

Let me continue:

TIME is merely a measurement of change. All things are in motion and changing, and the amount of change indicates the passage of time. Therefore things necessarily change as time goes by.

I would also add that this is why God does NOT change because he is outside of time, or should I say that God is outside of time and that is why He does not change.

Allow me to quote:
“Let us look a little more closely at what is implied by change. It means that the being which is subject to it is never at any moment the whole of itself: it possesses its being successively, as the philosophers say. You, for instance, are never at any moment the whole of yourself. What you were last year, what you will be next year, all belongs to the totality called you. But last year has gone, and next year has not arrived. It is obviously an overwhelming limitation that one never wholly possesses one’s self, that one possesses one’s being in successive moments and not simply in one act of being, that one is never wholly there. There is no such limitation in God. He possesses Himself wholly in one act of being. This is what we call His eternity. Thus eternity does’ not mean time open at both ends, time stretching away back into the past with no beginning, stretching away forward into the future with no ending. In fact we are back at our earlier principle: that infinity means not only the absence of external limits, but of internal divisions as well. Just as space has parts lying alongside one another, time has parts following one another. The Infinite has no parts, of either (or any other conceivable) sort. Eternity is not time, however much we may try to glorify the concept of time. The philosophic definition of eternity is in two Latin words, tota simul,1 which may be roughly translated as “all at once”. God’s eternity means that He possesses the totality of what He is, not in successive acts as we do, but in one single act.”
― Frank Sheed, Theology and Sanity

​

 

[Hilltrot]

So, your belief systems includes that fact that you don't have the slightest idea or theory or even guess at how most things that exists today came to be. Thats not very Christian.

It is far more Christian to believe that God created everything, and set into motion his laws of nature that caused everything to be as they are today.

Strawman. Allow me to quote myself.

I believe the first chapter of Genesis is about God speaking the world into existence, creating order from chaos. And I believe this may have happened over 7 days. However, I am also open to the idea that the days mentioned were not suppose to be literal 24 hour days. However, I don't believe as some Calvinists do that God created everything in one simple action.

That being said, I don't know exactly how God did it. To say that one knows exactly and in detail how God did it is conceited. Read the Book of Job.

If I asked to to define "Time" what would you say?

Time is the a dimension everyone travels travels forward through. Time doesn't stop and time no one goes back in time. Time travel does not exist in the Bible - not in any form. (One can change what a sundial reads without changing time.)

 

[Hilltrot]

Let me continue:

TIME is merely a measurement of change. All things are in motion and changing, and the amount of change indicates the passage of time. Therefore things necessarily change as time goes by.

I would also add that this is why God does NOT change because he is outside of time, or should I say that God is outside of time and that is why He does not change.

Allow me to quote:
“Let us look a little more closely at what is implied by change. It means that the being which is subject to it is never at any moment the whole of itself: it possesses its being successively, as the philosophers say. You, for instance, are never at any moment the whole of yourself. What you were last year, what you will be next year, all belongs to the totality called you. But last year has gone, and next year has not arrived. It is obviously an overwhelming limitation that one never wholly possesses one’s self, that one possesses one’s being in successive moments and not simply in one act of being, that one is never wholly there. There is no such limitation in God. He possesses Himself wholly in one act of being. This is what we call His eternity. Thus eternity does’ not mean time open at both ends, time stretching away back into the past with no beginning, stretching away forward into the future with no ending. In fact we are back at our earlier principle: that infinity means not only the absence of external limits, but of internal divisions as well. Just as space has parts lying alongside one another, time has parts following one another. The Infinite has no parts, of either (or any other conceivable) sort. Eternity is not time, however much we may try to glorify the concept of time. The philosophic definition of eternity is in two Latin words, tota simul,1 which may be roughly translated as “all at once”. God’s eternity means that He possesses the totality of what He is, not in successive acts as we do, but in one single act.”
― Frank Sheed, Theology and Sanity

​

The Bible does not say God is outside of time - Plato did. I don't worship the god of Plato, I worship the God of Abraham.

The quote is fantasy science fiction.

 

[Trump Gurl]

The Bible does not say God is outside of time - Plato did. I don't worship the god of Plato, I worship the God of Abraham.

The quote is fantasy science fiction.

Adios. I won't waste further time with you since you have chosen to be rude.

 

[Stripe]

Many times people have insisted on one of two beliefs.
1. A belief in a specific literal interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis.
2. A belief in some form of Evolution.

This is a false dichotomy. I don't believe in either of these.

Can you name some of these people? I bet you cannot find any on TOL.

There are plenty here who claim that Genesis specifically teaches Darwinism.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Adios. I won't waste further time with you since you have chosen to be rude.

How was he being rude? Stating facts isn't being rude.

 

[Trump Gurl]

How was he being rude? Stating facts isn't being rude.

I was stating facts and trying to have a real conversation. When he accuses me of "science fiction" that's when I chop it off. I am not even going to take one step down that road.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I was stating facts and trying to have a real conversation. When he accuses me of "science fiction" that's when I chop it off. I am not even going to take one step down that road.

He said what you quoted was science fiction.

He didn't accuse you of anything.

 

[Right Divider]

... earlier versions of man, ...

Hilarious!

 

[Hilltrot]

Can you name some of these people? I bet you cannot find any on TOL.

There are plenty here who claim that Genesis specifically teaches Darwinism.

Those people would be part of category 2 - A belief in some form of evolution.

 

[Caino]

Many times people have insisted on one of two beliefs.

1. A belief in a specific literal interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis.

2. A belief in some form of Evolution.

This is a false dichotomy. I don't believe in either of these.

I believe the first chapter of Genesis is about God speaking the world into existence, creating order from chaos. And I believe this may have happened over 7 days. However, I am also open to the idea that the days mentioned were not suppose to be literal 24 hour days. However, I don't believe as some Calvinists do that God created everything in one simple action.

Regardless, I don't believe anything coming from evolution which claims to know what supposedly happened a billion years ago. From my point of view everything which comes from evolution is fantasy science fiction. They haven't been able to replicate anything they claim and they also cannot make predictions.

A replication would be take an ape and evolve a human from it. Or take a fish and evolve a lizard or a bird. They can't do it. They commonly list some silly fruit fly experiment or the like which does not even close to proving what they are actually saying is true.

The next test is prediction. This is easy. Tell us the next disease which will infect humans and go ahead and have the cure ready while you are at it. What? Can't do that? Don't tell me you are going to ramble on like a TV psychic saying things which may come true and pointing out only those that do while ignoring your failures? Oh, that is how you plan on doing your "predictions". Weathermen are better at predicting things.

Evolution is the most popular pseudoscience like Scientology and shouldn't even be called an hypothesis. An hypothesis can be tested, while evolution can only be believed. The sole purpose of evolution is to take God out of the equation.

Something is true.
By the times of the writing of Genesis a great deal of history was lost.
Genesis appears to conflate a number of stories and ancient beliefs into a comprehensive story of origins of the Israelites.

The earth and life upon it disclose a very old creation event followed by hundreds of millions of years of evolution and geological organization.

 

[Clete]

Many times people have insisted on one of two beliefs.

1. A belief in a specific literal interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis.

2. A belief in some form of Evolution.

This is a false dichotomy. I don't believe in either of these.

I believe the first chapter of Genesis is about God speaking the world into existence, creating order from chaos. And I believe this may have happened over 7 days. However, I am also open to the idea that the days mentioned were not suppose to be literal 24 hour days. However, I don't believe as some Calvinists do that God created everything in one simple action.

Regardless, I don't believe anything coming from evolution which claims to know what supposedly happened a billion years ago. From my point of view everything which comes from evolution is fantasy science fiction. They haven't been able to replicate anything they claim and they also cannot make predictions.

A replication would be take an ape and evolve a human from it. Or take a fish and evolve a lizard or a bird. They can't do it. They commonly list some silly fruit fly experiment or the like which does not even close to proving what they are actually saying is true.

The next test is prediction. This is easy. Tell us the next disease which will infect humans and go ahead and have the cure ready while you are at it. What? Can't do that? Don't tell me you are going to ramble on like a TV psychic saying things which may come true and pointing out only those that do while ignoring your failures? Oh, that is how you plan on doing your "predictions". Weathermen are better at predicting things.

Evolution is the most popular pseudoscience like Scientology and shouldn't even be called an hypothesis. An hypothesis can be tested, while evolution can only be believed. The sole purpose of evolution is to take God out of the equation.

Excellent post!

While I think you're on very slippery slope in regards to your semi-exceptance of Genesis (for want of a better term), I agree with you entirely in regards to the totally unscientific nature of evolution. There is real evidence for many of the truths taught in Genesis. Evidence that the Earth is both young and that there was a global flood. Without such evidence, whether it were true or not, Genesis would little, if anything more than the myth the left accuses us of believing in. It would be a simple matter of faith and nothing more.

As is common with those on the left, they accuse those of us on the right of that which they are themselves guilty. There is literally no evidence for evolution whatsoever - none - and there are so many holes in the Big Bang that is laughable. It's been falsified so many times that it is literally a joke. But instead of allowing observational science to falsify the theory, Big Bang cosmology is now full to the brim with ad hoc "theories" that are nothing more than rescue devices designed to plug the holes that real science keeps punching through it. As such it has become an unfalsifiable dogma, the very opposite of science. Thus, the irony is that Evolution, along with Big Bang cosmology have together become the atheist's creation myth. Those two ideas stopped being about science a very long time ago. They are both matters of faith and nothing more.