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

[Stripe]

First, the sixth day begins with a command to initiate a process "And God said, Let the land produce living creatures..." . The language can not be more clear that a God ordained process was created. If one chooses to infer immediate creation from this they do so by totally ignoring what is plainly written.

Subsequently God "plants " a garden which in Hebrew also states a process (2:7-9, "to sprout and to grow" which does not imply either immediacy or completion). In verse 15 he was placed in the Garden of Eden "to work it and take care of it". Either he was placed in the garden and tended it or this is just a throw away verse, because tending it would have required time. The man was instructed as to what he could and couldn't eat, and so logically one would assume from the passage that he took the time to eat, and realistically would have sampled the various plants and fruits. Verse 19 begins with Adam naming the animals and birds a function of time. (One could question whether God had all of the animals and birds form a line for Adam to name them or more meaningfully that over a period of time as Adam had some understanding of animal characteristics, habits, etc. gave them appropriate names) Verse 2:23 which again clearly implies that a span of time had past in order for him to exclaim "Now" or "At last". How can a reasoned mind not see the necessity of time involved not only on day 6 but throughout the creation account?

Six fiat or Command days (not necessarily consecutive, indeterminate length, and overlapping) to me best interprets the Genesis account. There is unison with the 6 day account in both Genesis and Exodus 20:11. There is no conflict between TE/OEC and science except from the extremes on the right and left.OEC and

Well I reckon all that can be contained within and after the creation week. :idunno:

Has the advantage of simply reading Genesis and the rest of the bible as it is plainly written and not worrying that we're getting it wrong. :up:

And you haven't explained why the evolution verse is to be taken at face value but the six days part should not be.

 

[Tolken]

Well I reckon all that can be contained within and after the creation week.

Seriously? I’m simply suggesting that in order for the sixth day (specifically) to be “meaningful” what is written in Genesis could not occur in 24 hours. I think that is clear from the list of events, and comparing 1:31 – very good” to 2:18 “It is not good” to 2:22 which would actually represent the pronouncement of 1:31.

Has the advantage of simply reading Genesis and the rest of the bible as it is plainly written and not worrying that we're getting it wrong.

From a plain reading of scripture one would conclude, among other things, that - God has legs (Gen. 3), the earth doesn’t move (1 Chron. 16:30), God has hands (Isa. 42:12 and many other verses), God is not all-knowing because he asked Adam “Where are you?” (Gen. 3:9), and one can find many other passages that would lead to specific confusion by a plain reading.


And you haven't explained why the evolution verse is to be taken at face value but the six days part should not be.

But I do take the 6 days at face value just not as completion! I simply believe that each day encapsulates the commands while the processes to completion are indefinite. Thus “Day one”, or the “first day” is not an issue at all, what would necessitate them to be consecutive? As an analogy, which I appreciate fails at some level, if I told you that I built our horse run-in in 6 days but that those six days encompassed 6 months (or whatever) because of work and weather constraints still in fact the actual construction took six days.

 

[alwight]

This is a thread about "theistic evolution", not on how to make Genesis appear to somehow possibly fit with reality.

 

[Tolken]

This is a thread about "theistic evolution", not on how to make Genesis appear to somehow possibly fit with reality.

Appreciate your contribution to the discussion and I will certainly consider your insightful comments, done.. that didn't take long!

 

[jeffblue101]

I believe I've explained clearly the Biblical justification for theistic evolution and OEC...is there something specific that needs further explanation? How does the command "Let the land produce (or bring forth) living creatures" not strongly infer an evolutionary process?

simple, the order of events are contradictory to evolutionary theory.

 

[eameece]

Atheists seem to love Barbie for some reason. :idunno:

Oooh, I guess Barbarian doesn't love himself.

 

[eameece]

This is a thread about "theistic evolution", not on how to make Genesis appear to somehow possibly fit with reality.

That's right; theistic evolution is not confined to the Bible's account of it, unless you dogmatically assume that the Bible is the only theism.

 

[Tolken]

simple, the order of events are contradictory to evolutionary theory.

What events would those be??? How does such a process contradict evolution?

 

[alwight]

That's right; theistic evolution is not confined to the Bible's account of it, unless you dogmatically assume that the Bible is the only theism.

Any similarities between Genesis and evolution are probably quite coincidental imo, while many theists seem to have no problem with an allegorical nature of Genesis.
Not all obviously.

 

[Tolken]

Any similarities between Genesis and evolution are probably quite coincidental imo, while many theists seem to have no problem with an allegorical nature of Genesis.
Not all obviously.

Since the Bible is not a science manual one shouldn't expect to find an explicit outline. However, in my opinion, and many others, the fiats of Gen. 1 clearly support and invoke mediate creation...which in turn advances processes that relate to what we now term evolution.

 

[alwight]

Since the Bible is not a science manual one shouldn't expect to find an explicit outline. However, in my opinion, and many others, the fiats of Gen. 1 clearly support and invoke mediate creation...which in turn advances processes that relate to what we now term evolution.

Nevertheless many, here on TOL even, seem to think that Genesis is a completely accurate historical record which trumps any scientific conclusions that seem to contradict a literal interpretation.

 

[Tolken]

Nevertheless many, here on TOL even, seem to think that Genesis is a completely accurate historical record which trumps any scientific conclusions that seem to contradict a literal interpretation.

I would only note that obviously these ideas are not solely mine but have been gleaned from a number of sources. Some of these writings date back over 140 years. In 1869 for example Taylor Lewis in his editorial remarks concerning a book titled "Genesis" stated ..."The light is still evolving...". The collection of writers (theologians and scientists) all state that that the Genesis account involves extended times, overlapping processes, etc. and for the most part wrote about 100 years ago. From my perspective it isn't about fitting science into Genesis 1 it is simply about arriving at a proper yet general interpretation, as obviously details and specifics aren't part of the passages.

*I think that Proverbs and Ecclesiastes offer a genuine look at "reality".

 

[Stripe]

From a plain reading of scripture one would conclude, among other things, that - God has legs (Gen. 3), the earth doesn’t move (1 Chron. 16:30)

And if you read that passage, the plain meaning is cler and acceptable.

God has hands (Isa. 42:12 and many other verses)

That's right.

God is not all-knowing because he asked Adam “Where are you?” (Gen. 3:9)

But I do take the 6 days at face value just not as completion! I simply believe that each day encapsulates the commands while the processes to completion are indefinite.

Well, that's a nice idea. But you're just making it up in order to import evolution.

 

[Stripe]

This is a thread about "theistic evolution", not on how to make Genesis appear to somehow possibly fit with reality.

What's the difference? :idunno:

 

[alwight]

What's the difference? :idunno:

The fact that you can't or won't see any difference is not such a problem for less myopic or fundamentalist theists it seems. lain:

 

[Tolken]

And if you read that passage, the plain meaning is clear and acceptable. That's right.

Where exactly is that clarified in the passage?

Well, that's a nice idea. But you're just making it up in order to import evolution.

Why is it that when some people have no intelligent response they simply resort to remarks such as “...you’re just making it up...” The ideas I’ve set forth come from theologians, biblical scholars, and theologian-scientists. Am I to assume that anyone who disagrees with a YEC is just making things up? So many Christians are so afraid of evolution and an old earth that they refuse to consider scholarly biblical interpretation, the evidence, or reason... very sad. It seems that no one has answered the questions I’ve posed back or has a thoughtful response...again sad.

 

[Stripe]

Where exactly is that clarified in the passage?

Where is what clarified?

Why is it that when some people have no intelligent response they simply resort to remarks such as “...you’re just making it up...”

This explanation of yours does not come from scripture.

The ideas I’ve set forth come from theologians, biblical scholars, and theologian-scientists.

So do mine. :idunno:

But mine have the advantage of aligning with what the bible says.

Am I to assume that anyone who disagrees with a YEC is just making things up?

:think:

So many Christians are so afraid of evolution and an old earth that they refuse to consider scholarly biblical interpretation, the evidence, or reason... very sad.

Many more are so afraid of evolutionists that they will believe anything to include the idea within their faith.

It seems that no one has answered the questions I’ve posed back or has a thoughtful response...again sad.

What was the question?

 

[Tolken]

Where is what clarified?

That God has legs, fingers, hands, is not all-knowing, the earth is immovable, etc.

This explanation of yours does not come from scripture. So do mine. But mine have the advantage of aligning with what the bible says.

Please show me where what I've written does not align with scripture.



Many more are so afraid of evolutionists that they will believe anything to include the idea within their faith.

I'm not one of them, irrespective of such a lame attempt to dismiss a clearly defined interpretation of the Genesis narrative by those who choose a superficial reading.


What was the question

Rather then ask you to simply argue against what has been previously written to which the only answers were non-substantive dismissals. How about explain what "And God said,..." represents? What does "let the land...", Let the water...", Let there be...", mean in terms of creation? How is it that in all of the creation commands not once does it state an immediate creation, if you think it does (other then Gen.1:1) please point me to those verses and the specific sentence. Explain how you can justify all that occurs on the sixth day to fit a 24 hour time frame...does God have the animals form a line? Why would God place Man in the Garden and immediately realize it was "not good", did God make a mistake? As I pointed out in the Hebrew the terms relative to the garden mean "to sprout , to grow" please explain how this represents immediate creation if the words denote time? Finally please explain where I have not used scriptuure to justify my beliefs?

 

[Stripe]

That God has legs, fingers, hands, is not all-knowing, the earth is immovable, etc.

Jesus walked in the garden after creating it. When you speak of immovable, you're not talking about the entire globe in relation to the sun. You're talking about the land we live on.

Please show me where what I've written does not align with scripture.

The bible says that in six days God created everything. You say those six days had millions of years between them.

Rather then ask you to simply argue against what has been previously written to which the only answers were non-substantive dismissals. How about explain what "And God said,..." represents? What does "let the land...", Let the water...", Let there be...", mean in terms of creation?

It might just be an indication of where the creatures were made.

How is it that in all of the creation commands not once does it state an immediate creation, if you think it does (other then Gen.1:1) please point me to those verses and the specific sentence.
...
As I pointed out in the Hebrew the terms relative to the garden mean "to sprout , to grow" please explain how this represents immediate creation if the words denote time?

:idunno:

Maybe things were not created instantly. Maybe they grew up in a few hours. :idunno:

...does God have the animals form a line?

Something like that.

Why would God place Man in the Garden and immediately realize it was "not good", did God make a mistake?

He had a plan, tested it and found it needed doing.

Finally please explain where I have not used scriptuure to justify my beliefs?

The belief that there are millions of years between the days.

 

[eameece]

Where in Genesis does God define a "day" as 24 hours? How can you have a 24-hour day without the Sun?