toldailytopic: Theistic evolution: best arguments for, or against.

[Arthur Brain]

That's what the bible says. Creation took six days. :thumb:

Uh huh. Creation took literally 144 hours. A day couldn't possibly mean anything but that which we see as....'today'....lain:

Any luck on those links yet?

lain:

 

[Stripe]

Uh huh. Creation took literally 144 hours. A day couldn't possibly mean anything but that which we see as....'today'....

Words have meanings that we can be certain of by context. They can also be used metaphorically when certain clues enable us to derive additional meaning. If you have good reason why six days does not mean six days then we'd like to hear your evidence. :thumb:

Until such a time the best evidence against theistic evolution remains the word of God. The bible, in several ways, explicitly denies evolution as a possibility.

 

[some other dude]

If you didnt see or understand the relevance, why did you try to refute what you didnt even get?

:duh:

Because he's a tard.

 

[The Barbarian]

Back to the topic, To those of you who are christians, and believe in theistic evolution, do you believe the immaculate conception, if so why - since science says the virgin cannot get pregnant without sperm. ?

Good question. You see, nature itself is God's biggest miracle in this world. It works the way it does, because He is constantly making it so. God doesn't have to do miracles in nature; it's already made to work the way He intended. He does miracles not because He has to, but to teach us something.

Second - if you do believe in the immaculate conception, why would you believe evolution theory because science says so, when they don't even agree on it, and God says otherwise?

Secondary issue. Creationist ignorance of what "science says." Science doesn't say miracles aren't possible. It can't even comment on the supernatural, because the method is intrinsically limited to the natural universe.

Why is one possible but not the other when both defy modern scientific theory?

That secondary problem, again. Of course evolution is consistent with scientific theory. That's why scientists overwhelmingly accept it. And of course, miracles don't defy scientific theory, which can't even comment on such things.

Libraries are free.

Lastly if you still believe the virgin birth but don't believe in literal creation like it says in the bible,

See above. And the most influential writing in Christian faith about Genesis is De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim (translates to The Literal Meaning of Genesis) by Saint Augustine. And if you take Genesis as it is written, it is impossible to accept it as a literal history, as Augustine wrote.

what criteria do you use to determine what parts of the bible are truth and what parts aren't?

It's all true. Unlike YE creationists, other Christians accept all of it. They just don't adjust it to their personal preferences.

 

[Desert Reign]

Originally Posted by Arthur Brain
Uh huh. Creation took literally 144 hours. A day couldn't possibly mean anything but that which we see as....'today'....

Words have meanings that we can be certain of by context. They can also be used metaphorically when certain clues enable us to derive additional meaning. If you have good reason why six days does not mean six days then we'd like to hear your evidence. :thumb:

Until such a time the best evidence against theistic evolution remains the word of God. The bible, in several ways, explicitly denies evolution as a possibility.

Well, I've already given you the evidence but you just ignore it and prefer your own ignorance and you will not move on.

The word 'day' in the Bible has a wide range of meanings, of which the 24 hour period is hardly the most common.

But you are right that the context does determine the meaning and, predictably, you ignore that as well. The context of the passage clearly indicates that a 24 hour period is not the meaning. You have been shown how each of the days fits into a literary pattern before.

So I do think it is slightly dishonest of you to ask for evidence that you know already exists.

 

[Stripe]

Well, I've already given you the evidence but you just ignore it and prefer your own ignorance and you will not move on.

The word 'day' in the Bible has a wide range of meanings, of which the 24 hour period is hardly the most common.

But you are right that the context does determine the meaning and, predictably, you ignore that as well. The context of the passage clearly indicates that a 24 hour period is not the meaning. You have been shown how each of the days fits into a literary pattern before.

So I do think it is slightly dishonest of you to ask for evidence that you know already exists.

If you have evidence, feel free to present it. :thumb:

 

[organiccornflake]

God spoke the universe into existence, right? "God said" this, or "God said" that.

Try to speak something into existence right now.

.....Did it work? Of course not. Therefore you must assume that god just didn't "speak." The bible mentions nothing of his voice being special during creation; just that he spoke. I can speak. You can speak. So this doesn't make sense.

Your test fails, for the reasons noted below.

Man cannot speak without air, since our vocal cords work by creating vibrations in the air.
God can speak without air, since air was not available until He spoke it into existence, so when God speaks it must cause vibrations at the quantum physics level or it causes vibrations in the aether.

Actualy; this only further proves my point. How can you speak if there is no air? Therefore, even the most literal interpretationists must assume that god did not just "speak."

 

[Tolken]

First, I'm late to this discussion so though I've browsed through many posts hopefully what follows isn't redundant.

It would seem to me that a clear objective reading of Gen. 1 makes evolution quite credible as to the creative process. (Gen. 1:20 and 1:24) It is also quite plausible to note that the 6 days are fiat days and not restricted to consecutive days.

The creation process of Gen. 1 follows a uniform pattern first with "And God said..." It defines not doing something but simply to have said (commanded) something. Thus as Capron notes the operating agent is the command itself "Let the..." or "Let there be...". Subsequent to the command is explanatory statements between the fiat and the day. Implicit within many commands is a note of processes "Let the waters be gathered..", "Let the land produce...", etc.

One can also reasonably argue that there can exist a separation of time between the fulfillment from the day based on the processes involved.

 

[organiccornflake]

OEC Christians: The universe is billions of years old; that is a fact. Its been proven. Why do you insist that it contradicts the bible?

YEC Christians: "LALALA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"

 

[some other dude]

OEC Christians: The universe is billions of years old; that is a fact. Its been proven. Why do you insist that it contradicts the bible?

YEC Christians: "LALALA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"

"that is a fact. Its been proven."

This is not the way science presents itself. "The evidence suggests..." or "Currently accepted theories show..." would be better.

 

[voltaire]

OEC Christians: The universe is billions of years old; that is a fact. Its been proven. Why do you insist that it contradicts the bible?

YEC Christians: "LALALA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"

It has not be proven. It has been inductively inferred from physical evidence available. That does not equal proven.

 

[organiccornflake]

It has not be proven. It has been inductively inferred from physical evidence available. That does not equal proven.

Of course you cannot PROVE it; in order to prove something scientifically you must be able to re-create the experiment in a controlled environment in order to 100% prove it.

You cannot 100% prove to me that George Washington existed, however, with all of the evidence available, it's safe to conclude that it is a fact that George Washington existed. It is the same with the age of the universe.

 

[eameece]

The Spirit of God through many different men.

And you don't trust them.

God

Did God do an OK job creating humans, or not?

John 1:12-13 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Quoting the Bible to find support for obvious arrogance, is obvious arrogance.

If another part of the Bible says God created humans, as Genesis does, then that means it says "we are all children of God." If St. John was saying only Christians can know God, then St. John was wrong.

Christ says it. John 14:6

You have decided what you think this statement means. Other have other ideas.

God gave me the authority to claim the Spirit of God through Christ by this : Romans 10:9-10

Clearly, in this case it refers to being "saved," not "having the Spirit of God."

You give me too much power by saying i can deny it to others, if its denied to others its because they refuse it.

But you are the one denying it to others.

Thats irrelevant to this conversation. Was that suppose to bother me in some way that you think that?

Hope springs eternal that someday you will wake up. God works in mysterious ways. :help:

The way of the new age is to recognize God is in all. No more warring religions and intolerance.

 

[eameece]

I am strictly debating biblical interpretation and not using science to support my position. I am using a tool of interpretation.

You specifically used scientific terms such as carbon dioxide and glucose. Such terms were not known to Bible writers. If you can use science to interpret the Bible, then don't knock others who do so. It is obviously true that plants did not come into existence on earth before the Sun did. So it is obvious that the Bible is wrong if you interpret it literally. The only correct way to interpret the 7 days is along the lines of the kaballah.

That tool is that you cannot invoke a miracle when none is written down.

That is your decision. There is no basis for it in the Bible, or in logic. God has done an infinity of things that were not written down. God continues to do miracles today, and they are not being written down in the Bible.

When you have to have a miracle occur for your interpretation to be valid, then you interpretation is invalid.

What? Genesis interpreted literally is all a bunch of miracles.

The fact is that the sun was created a day later than the plants. Plants cannot survive for long without sunlight without miraculous intervention. We cannot invoke miraculous intervention because none is mentioned. Therefore, the time between the creation of plants and the creation of the sun was extremely small and certainly not millions of years.

The FACT is that plants appeared much later than the Sun. It can only be a miracle to have it happen the other way around. Plants cannot exist without sunlight. If they do, that is a miracle. If you have one miracle written down, you can have others that were not. The Bible is not an exhaustive account of all miracles.

 

[eameece]

And God said nothing about creating CO or glucose--eameece.

God didn't say anything about DNA either, but it is a reality. God created the plants. We know they produce glucose by using sunlight and water and carbon dioxide, therefore we know God created glucose and water and sunlight.

We also know the earth appeared only after the Sun, and plants later only on the already-existing Earth. Therefore the Bible is not true. To have it make any sense, it has to be interpreted, and not taken literally.

 

[eameece]

I guess the A's and B's I earned in several college science classes were a fantasy too then. There are no common consensuses as a whole in any area of evolution theory.

Just because God gave you the intelligence to earn a B in a science class, does not mean you are using that intelligence to understand evolution. It you think the Earth is not at least 4 billion years old, you are simply misinformed or in fantasyland. Anyone who got an A in a science class, can still indulge in fantasy if (s)he wishes. YE creationists are doing so.

And you keep disconnecting with what ive said over and over now, all those classes are irrelevant to whether one trusts God or appeals to the authority of man.

Who wrote the Bible? Who staffs the churches?

I see in all your rhetoric, you still haven't answered what i keep asking you about what you believe, because unless i know what you believe, i cannot tell you the relevance for you because the verses i posted that you tried to refute for some reason when you didnt get them - is speaking to one who says they believe the bible.

What anyone believes, is what is irrelevant.

 

[eameece]

:chuckle:

You're a fruit loop. :kook:

I wrote:

The Bible said nothing about the earth rotating, so you have no right to claim it does.

"it does" meaning, of course, you have no right to claim that the Bible said the Earth rotates. I trust that was clear.

 

[eameece]

Back to the topic, To those of you who are christians, and believe in theistic evolution, do you believe the immaculate conception, if so why - since science says the virgin cannot get pregnant without sperm. ?

That's not the topic.

 

[eameece]

You do realize that my stating that such is what I believe does not require, or necessitate, that I provide any proof or evidence for why I believe such, right? I am just merely stating what I believe.

No, you said "the evidence" for it is good.

And if you don't know of any evidence that plants and animals adapt to their environments, through physical changes passed on through genetics then I'm not sure I can help you understand my position at all.

There's plenty of evidence for that, but none for the idea that God specifically created plants with the ability to adapt to their environments. You said there is such evidence, but refuse to provide it, because you can't.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

The FACT is that plants appeared much later than the Sun. It can only be a miracle to have it happen the other way around. Plants cannot exist without sunlight.

They can for a day.

If they do, that is a miracle. If you have one miracle written down, you can have others that were not. The Bible is not an exhaustive account of all miracles.

Maybe not, but it certainly lists the all-time greats.