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

[eameece]

The bible doesn't say a lot of things. :idunno:

But what is not in the Bible is not true, according to you. Strange position to be in, Stripe. This far and no farther.

Or else there was and it does. :idunno:

But there was no Sun until the 3rd day, and no rotating Earth acc. to the Bible.

Name one. :thumb:

Matthew 13:24-30
Matthew 13:31-32
Matthew 13:33

Matthew 13:34 :
All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables, and without a parable spake he not unto them

Also, Matthew 13:3-15
In this case he only explained the parable to his disciples, not to others.

Which is evidence for or against what?

That's my answer to your question about why things come in 6 (actually 7) stages.

It's a theory because someone made it up and millions haven't let go. :chuckle:

It's a theory because there's evidence for it. I don't think it's the whole truth, and I don't think a fairy tale from Genesis is the whole truth either. You are obviously the one who won't let go. This far and no farther.

I have a degree in Earth Science.

Why have you forgotten everything you learned?

The bible does not say the sun rotates. Yet it does. Why does the bible need to specify that on days 1-3 the Earth was rotating?

Earth science should answer that question for you. Unless the Earth rotates, there is no day and night. If the Bible says there were 6 literal days, there can't be such a thing without the Earth rotating around the Sun in 24 hours. Morning and evening therefore must refer to something else. God's time.

 

[eameece]

Where it states God separated the light, it is telling of the matter/energy in the universe clumping together after the Big Bang, with the darkness being between the light sources. When the universe began, there were no objects or even space itself for their to be darkness. So light literally was the 1st creation.

The Big Bang is a theory, just as evolution is a theory. Neither one is stated explicitly in Genesis. If one is compatible with the Bible, so is the other.

The beginning statement of Genesis is an opening sequence, not an actual occurrence, and the light was created before the 1st Day (meaning the universe had already long been laid out before God started sculpting it). One will see this if they look at the context closely.

Genesis 1:1 says In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth. Therefore, those were God's first creation according to the Bible, and not light.

*This also leaves room for a young Earth.

The Earth was young once, yes. But YE creationism IS a fairy tale. Noone takes it literally except 6-year olds and those who think like them.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

But there was no Sun until the 3rd day, and no rotating Earth acc. to the Bible.

You can't have a morning or an evening without a rotating Earth, and you don't need a sun -- any light source will do.

 

[The Barbarian]

You can't have a morning or an evening without a rotating Earth, and you don't need a sun -- any light source will do.

If that were true, we would call the aurora borealis, "morning." But we don't. Words mean things, and if we redefine them to suit our needs, then all arguments can be made equally logical.

 

[The Barbarian]

The bible does not say the sun rotates. Yet it does.

This from the moral relativist whose argument against evolution was that the Bible didn't mention it.

 

[Stripe]

You are assuming there is a rotating Earth because it is "reasonable" to you to add an explanation which the Bible authors knew nothing about. I think evolution happened, and that it is a "reasonable" interpretation of the creation story. I guess we're even.

Nope. Your addition is explicitly denied by the bible. Mine is not.

But what is not in the Bible is not true, according to you.

No. The sun does rotate. This is true. It is also not recorded in the bible.

But there was no Sun until the 3rd day, and no rotating Earth acc. to the Bible.

Please show us where the bible says the Earth was not rotating.

He ... explained the parable

So you cannot find one that was not explained?

That's my answer to your question about why things come in 6 (actually 7) stages.

Did I ask that question? :idunno:

Earth science should answer that question for you. Unless the Earth rotates, there is no day and night. If the Bible says there were 6 literal days, there can't be such a thing without the Earth rotating around the Sun in 24 hours. Morning and evening therefore must refer to something else. God's time.

Or, more reasonably, the Earth was rotating. :thumb:

If that were true, we would call the aurora borealis, "morning." But we don't. Words mean things, and if we redefine them to suit our needs, then all arguments can be made equally logical.

We have an appropriate light and we assume a rotating Earth. We also have a day defined by morning and evening. And we have God saying repeatedly and consistently and without contradiction, "Six days". Or what is it the bible says otherwise?

This from the moral relativist whose argument against evolution was that the Bible didn't mention it.

Liar.

The best argument against theistic evolution which I posted in my OP was that the bible explicitly denies evolution.

Pays not to lie in the same thread as the one that is currently underway. :thumb:

 

[One Eyed Jack]

If that were true, we would call the aurora borealis, "morning." But we don't.

You won't have any aurora borealis without the sun.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
If that were true, we would call the aurora borealis, "morning." But we don't. Words mean things, and if we redefine them to suit our needs, then all arguments can be made equally logical.

We have an appropriate light and we assume a rotating Earth. We also have a day defined by morning and evening.

Not without a Sun, you don't. By definition. That's why we don't call the Aurora "morning." It's a big light in the sky, but it's not the Sun.

And we have God saying repeatedly and consistently and without contradiction, "Six days".

As you learned, the Hebrew word is used for various lengths of time, or even figurative things compared to time. So that won't work for you, either. Why not just accept it as it is?

Barbarian chuckles:
This from the moral relativist whose argument against evolution was that the Bible didn't mention it.

Liar.

C'mon, Stipe, you've repeatedly made that argument. Why lie about it?

The best argument against theistic evolution which I posted in my OP was that the bible explicitly denies evolution.

Except you couldn't find that part. Genesis does specifically deny life ex nihilo, but as you learned, that is what creationists (not all of them) are peddling. Nowhere does it explicitly deny evolution.

Pays not to lie in the same thread as the one that is currently underway. Would you like me to show you where you made that argument?

 

[Sum1sGruj]

The Big Bang is a theory, just as evolution is a theory. Neither one is stated explicitly in Genesis. If one is compatible with the Bible, so is the other.

The Big Bang theory was invented by a Catholic theologian. Scientists just saw it as accurate and stole it. That is the irony of atheists trying to use such against Christians.

Genesis 1:1 says In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth. Therefore, those were God's first creation according to the Bible, and not light.

The Days of Creation are the beginning. It is an opening sequence. However, since you aim to debunk creationism, you are going to refuse that. In which case, why even debate it? If something is formless and void, then it does not exist, and the 'waters' in Genesis, when looking at it from a respectful angle, can simply be considered the 'expansions' of the universe.

The Earth was young once, yes. But YE creationism IS a fairy tale. Noone takes it literally except 6-year olds and those who think like them.

I don't take it literally, I take it for how it should be read. Translators break it up into verses and through there guesswork try to conform the story to how they feel it should work, but the truth of the matter is that if one took away all of that and just made it into one long paragraph then it becomes far more applicable. The Hebrew language didn't have such complexities in it's written tongue.

 

[noguru]

Intelligent Design is a science and Albert Einstein himself believed it.
He made the following statement in an essay entitled "The Religiousness of Science," which appeared in a collection of his essays published in English under the title "The World As I See It":




(Updike 2007: 77 [emphasis added])

I reckon' Einstein wasn't a real scientist though huh....

Einstein did not reject any scientific conclusions based on any commitment to YECism, nor can you claim he was a YEC. But I don't suspect that reality matters to you either, right?

 

[Angel4Truth]

Einstein did not reject any scientific conclusions based on any commitment to YECism, nor can you claim he was a YEC. But I don't suspect that reality matters to you either, right?

Who said anything about YEC in that post about einstein, i was responding to the claim that intelligent design wasnt a science, but i don't suspect that reality matters to you either, right?

 

[noguru]

I don't take it literally, I take it for how it should be read. Translators break it up into verses and through there guesswork try to conform the story to how they feel it should work, but the truth of the matter is that if one took away all of that and just made it into one long paragraph then it becomes far more applicable. The Hebrew language didn't have such complexities in it's written tongue.

What criteria do you use to determine "how it should be read"?

And how is "How it should be read." any different for you than "How they feel it should work"?

I guess your claim is that only the YEC perspective is closest to objective accuracy, right?

 

[noguru]

Who said anything about YEC in that post about einstein, i was responding to the claim that intelligent design wasnt a science, but i don't suspect that reality matters to you either, right?

You did not. But your implication was "That since Einstein was a theist and a scientist, then his views are more accurate than other atheist/scientists". So I am simply applying that same argument to your claims of YECism.

Einstein also said "God does not play dice with the universe". But he is by no means a classical theist as you seem to have implied. Einstein was either a pantheist or a panentheist. His theological views are quite distinct from ID, in that he believed the natural universe was seemless and self-sufficient. But I don't suspect you have the intellectual capacity to understand that either, right?

 

[Angel4Truth]

You did not. But your implication was "That since Einstein was a theist and a scientist, then his views are more accurate than other atheist/scientists". So I am simply applying that same argument to your claims of YECism.

Einstein also said "God does not play dice with the universe". But he is by no means a classical theist as you seem to have implied. Einstein was either a pantheist or a panentheist. His theological views are quite distinct from ID, in that he believed the natural universe was seemless and self-sufficient. But I don't suspect you have the intellectual capacity to understand that either, right?

Uh hello, you want to talk about intellectual capacity, or clairvoyance ? (youre not doing well in the intellect department and your mind reading gift has dried up so don't quit your day job)

I said nothing you attributed to me or even implied with my post therefore your wasted effort to pigeonhole me into your little box of a mind has failed and now you must be punished.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

What criteria do you use to determine "how it should be read"?

And how is "How it should be read." any different for you than "How they feel it should work"?

I guess your claim is that only the YEC perspective is closest to objective accuracy, right?

Let me put up the beginning of Genesis and show you what I mean.

Genesis 1:1-5
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
---------------------------------------------

This can respectfully be the opening sequence.


This can be respectfully be explaining an empty reality. There is just God moving over the face of the 'waters' which could simply be the 'expanse'. This ties in later when God separates the waters and makes land appear, as in God collided material from space into a 'knot' which would be Earth. Literalists just don't see Genesis this way, that's all. It doesn't mean that it isn't applicable. It's more realistic to physical reality.

And this is a 'doozy' right here. Is it being said that the prior events were the first day, or that via evening and morning were the first day?

You see, hermeneutics are extremely important to Genesis because it is such a fundamental book. I encourage others to break down such things rather then taking them at the face value of translators and other theologians.

 

[eameece]

You can't have a morning or an evening without a rotating Earth, and you don't need a sun -- any light source will do.

And since there's no rotating Earth in the Bible, you can't have a morning or evening. So Genesis makes no sense. It's just a fairy tale. It's full of unexplained events; you need evolution and physics to fill in the "gaps." Reminds me of something about "God of the gaps..."

 

[noguru]

Uh hello, you want to talk about intellectual capacity, or clairvoyance ? (youre not doing well in the intellect department and your mind reading gift has dried up so don't quit your day job)

I said nothing you attributed to me or even implied with my post therefore your wasted effort to pigeonhole me into your little box of a mind has failed and now you must be punished.

The reality is that you will use a theist/scientists ideas about theology when they seem to support your views, yet you will reject that very same scientist/theist when they do not support your views.

I repeat:

"Einstein was not an IDer, nor did he hold to the classical theism implied by IDism". This much is very clear. So your attempt to use Einstein quotes to support ID is a bit disingenuous, if not completely dishonest.

 

[eameece]

Nope. Your addition is explicitly denied by the bible. Mine is not.

The Bible does not explicitly deny evolution.

So you cannot find one that was not explained?

Not one that you are capable of reading, apparently.

Or, more reasonably, the Earth was rotating. :thumb:

You are not a literalist, then. So stop demanding that others be so.

From your first post in this thread:

the bible consistently, repeatedly and without contradiction upholds "Six days" of creation

I guess that claim has been shot full of holes!

 

[noguru]

Let me put up the beginning of Genesis and show you what I mean.

Genesis 1:1-5
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
---------------------------------------------

This can respectfully be the opening sequence.


This can be respectfully be explaining an empty reality. There is just God moving over the face of the 'waters' which could simply be the 'expanse'. This ties in later when God separates the waters and makes land appear, as in God collided material from space into a 'knot' which would be Earth. Literalists just don't see Genesis this way, that's all. It doesn't mean that it isn't applicable. It's more realistic to physical reality.

And this is a 'doozy' right here. Is it being said that the prior events were the first day, or that via evening and morning were the first day?

You see, hermeneutics are extremely important to Genesis because it is such a fundamental book. I encourage others to break down such things rather then taking them at the face value of translators and other theologians.

This does not answer my question.

What criteria do you use to determine "proper hermeneutics"?

 

[Angel4Truth]

The reality is that you will use a theist/scientists ideas about theology when they seem to support your views, yet you reject them when they do not support your views.

Mind reading again i see.

I repeat:

"Einstein was not an IDer, nor did he hold to the classical theism implied by IDism". This much is very clear. So your attempt to use Einstein quotes to support ID is a bit disinguous, if not completely dishonest.

That line is what is disingenuous, and completely dishonest, since i never stated such to begin with so you can cut the feigned outrage.

Since you want more scientists who believe in ID though, heres another for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew

But again i responded to a post asking for a science that supports the bible and ID was my response. Everything else you added, was ....added by you.

Whose disingenuous? (this is how to spell it btw mr intelligence)