Evolution, Science, and God

[rsc2a]

Here are the descriptions of the options above:


Naturalistic evolution is the belief that there was no supernatural force (i.e.

 

[Izdaari]

For me, the only possible choices are Theistic Evolution or Progressive Creation. The other forms of Evolution ignore Special Revelation (i.e., the Bible), and Strict Creation is IMHO flatly contradicted by General Revelation (i.e., observations of the created universe). I voted TE, but it was a toss-up. I think the Framework Interpretation, which allows for both, is the best explanation.

I am not interested in formal debates at all, and especially not on this subject.

 

[T-Bone]

Personally, I see no conflict with strict creationism and what is observable...except in the mind of those who have determined to see any kind of evolution where there is none (not talking about adaptation)...and the strict creationism is the only view totally inline with the Scripture...final authority of all truth.

 

[FSSL]

Informed strict creationists, I know, do hold to microevolution. So, as a 24hour adherent, I am between strict and progressive as you have defined.

 

[Bro Blue]

I believe God gave his creation the ability to adapt to their surroundings. I am a strict creationist. Haven't seen any evidence of macro-evolution. And I don't believe in mermaids.

 

[rsc2a]

I am not interested in formal debates at all, and especially not on this subject.

The reason I chose this subject as a possible topic for debate isn't because of the subject matter. I have my beliefs, but I'm not dogmatic about them. I chose this subject because I believe the larger question that this subject addresses is how one approaches hermeneutics, a question that I believe is very important.

Personally, I see no conflict with strict creationism and what is observable...except in the mind of those who have determined to see any kind of evolution where there is none (not talking about adaptation)...

Although I specifically limited it to biology, there is a lot in conflict with strict creationism (YEC) and what is observable. Biology (inc. evolutionary theory and paleontology), geology, cosmology, anthropology, archeology, and a host of other -ologies all run counter to YEC.

If you "see no conflict" between them, then you're being willfully ignorant. The argument isn't one of "Where is there any conflict?", but one of "Which position provides the best explanation when you consider all the obvious conflicts?".

...the strict creationism is the only view totally inline with the Scripture...final authority of all truth.

This is why I said the larger question is one of hermeneutics. I am not a YEC yet I firmly believe my view is "totally inline with the Scripture".

 

[T-Bone]

[

Personally, I see no conflict with strict creationism and what is observable...except in the mind of those who have determined to see any kind of evolution where there is none (not talking about adaptation)...

Although I specifically limited it to biology, there is a lot in conflict with strict creationism (YEC) and what is observable. Biology (inc. evolutionary theory and paleontology), geology, cosmology, anthropology, archeology, and a host of other -ologies all run counter to YEC.

If you "see no conflict" between them, then you're being willfully ignorant. The argument isn't one of "Where is there any conflict?", but one of "Which position provides the best explanation when you consider all the obvious conflicts?".

...the strict creationism is the only view totally inline with the Scripture...final authority of all truth.

This is why I said the larger question is one of hermeneutics. I am not a YEC yet I firmly believe my view is "totally inline with the Scripture".

I am sure you see you all these conflicts...I don't...what you call willful ignorance, I call man's bias approach to creation and his attempt to understand things from that place of ignorance on man's part, not God's Word.  I affirmed adaptation or (micro-evolution, if you like that term)...the teaching of macro-evolution in the form of "theistic evolution" is heresy and cannot fit into the Genesis account statements of creation of "each of their own kind".  Young earth or old earth, I know good Christians in both camps who hold to creationist view concerning evolution.  I have no problem believing the strict interpretation where again the Scripture makes it clear it is a 24 hour day.."and the evening and the morning..."  God could have done it in a milli-second or taken millions of years...His Word says He did it in a specific period of time.

I am sure you feel your view of creation fits into Scripture...but to quote you...well. you're willfully ignorant of Scripture!

 

[Bob H]

I am sure you see you all these conflicts...I don't...what you call willful ignorance, I call man's bias approach to creation and his attempt to understand things from that place of ignorance on man's part, not God's Word.  I affirmed adaptation or (micro-evolution, if you like that term)...the teaching of macro-evolution in the form of "theistic evolution" is heresy and cannot fit into the Genesis account statements of creation of "each of their own kind".  Young earth or old earth, I know good Christians in both camps who hold to creationist view concerning evolution.  I have no problem believing the strict interpretation where again the Scripture makes it clear it is a 24 hour day.."and the evening and the morning..."  God could have done it in a milli-second or taken millions of years...His Word says He did it in a specific period of time.

I am sure you feel your view of creation fits into Scripture...but to quote you...well. you're willfully ignorant of Scripture!

What he said

 

[rsc2a]

I am sure you see you all these conflicts...I don't...

You don't understandhow seeing galaxies billions of light years away when the universe is only~10k years old is a conflict?

...what you call willful ignorance, I call man's bias approach to creation and his attempt to understand things from that place of ignorance on man's part, not God's Word...

"And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.

 

[T-Bone]

You don't understandhow seeing galaxies billions of light years away when the universe is only~10k years old is a conflict?

No problem for me.  God created both time and space...and when He was through everything was complete and good.  How old do you think Adam was the day after God created him? 

"And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.

 

[Bob H]

You don't understandhow seeing galaxies billions of light years away when the universe is only~10k years old is a conflict?

No problem for me.  God created both time and space...and when He was through everything was complete and good.  How old do you think Adam was the day after God created him? 

What T said

 

[rsc2a]

You don't understand how seeing galaxies billions of light years away when the universe is only~10k years old is a conflict?

No problem for me.  God created both time and space...and when He was through everything was complete and good.  How old do you think Adam was the day after God created him?

Illogical thought processes aren't a problem for you? At least, you are honest about it.  ;D

And, to answer your question about Adam, I don't believe the text was intended to tell us how old Adam was, so the answer I have is "I have no idea." I try not to derive answers from Scripture that Scripture wasn't intended to answer. That kind of thinking leads to crazy theology.

"And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.

 

[T-Bone]

You don't understand how seeing galaxies billions of light years away when the universe is only~10k years old is a conflict?

No problem for me.  God created both time and space...and when He was through everything was complete and good.  How old do you think Adam was the day after God created him?

Illogical thought processes aren't a problem for you? At least, you are honest about it.  ;D

And, to answer your question about Adam, I don't believe the text was intended to tell us how old Adam was, so the answer I have is "I have no idea." I try not to derive answers from Scripture that Scripture wasn't intended to answer. That kind of thinking leads to crazy theology.

"And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.

 

[wheatpenny]

Furthermore, the word "day" isn't in the text at all. The word "yom" appears in the text which, likewise, does not mean a 24-hr period but simply a "period of time".

According to my Hebrew-Greek Key Word Study Bible, the Hebrew word "yom" can mean either an indefinite period of time, or a literal day (either sunrise to sunset, or a 24-hour period).
Strong's dictionary, the Theological Word Book of the Old Testament, and Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon all agree with that definition.

 

[T-Bone]

Furthermore, the word "day" isn't in the text at all. The word "yom" appears in the text which, likewise, does not mean a 24-hr period but simply a "period of time".

According to my Hebrew-Greek Key Word Study Bible, the Hebrew word "yom" can mean either an indefinite period of time, or a literal day (either sunrise to sunset, or a 24-hour period).
Strong's dictionary, the Theological Word Book of the Old Testament, and Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon all agree with that definition.

You have to understand that rca has no problem leaving out relevant information that conflicts with he/she or its view.

 

[rsc2a]

Furthermore, the word "day" isn't in the text at all. The word "yom" appears in the text which, likewise, does not mean a 24-hr period but simply a "period of time".

According to my Hebrew-Greek Key Word Study Bible, the Hebrew word "yom" can mean either an indefinite period of time, or a literal day (either sunrise to sunset, or a 24-hour period).
Strong's dictionary, the Theological Word Book of the Old Testament, and Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon all agree with that definition.

Maybe I should have said...

"Furthermore, the word "day" isn't in the text at all. The word "yom" appears in the text which, likewise, does not have to mean a 24-hr period but often can mean simply a "period of time"."

...either way, the point remains unchanged. Nothing in the text necessitates (or even hints at) a 24-hr period of time.

You have to understand that rca has no problem leaving out relevant information that conflicts with he/she or its view.

Funny how you decided not to reply to my latest rebuttal of your points....I can understand these things can get overwhelming, so I'll just ask one. What is your thoughts on this:

Also, how do you interpret the different creation accounts in Genesis 1 and 2?

Like much of what Moses style of writing does...Chapter 1 overview...Chapter 2 specific...especially on creation of man.

Ah! But here is where you get into trouble. You see....the creation accounts in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are different. You have to address those differences in order to have a completely sound interpretation for the creation account(s).

 

[T-Bone]

Furthermore, the word "day" isn't in the text at all. The word "yom" appears in the text which, likewise, does not mean a 24-hr period but simply a "period of time".

According to my Hebrew-Greek Key Word Study Bible, the Hebrew word "yom" can mean either an indefinite period of time, or a literal day (either sunrise to sunset, or a 24-hour period).
Strong's dictionary, the Theological Word Book of the Old Testament, and Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon all agree with that definition.

Maybe I should have said...

"Furthermore, the word "day" isn't in the text at all. The word "yom" appears in the text which, likewise, does not have to mean a 24-hr period but often can mean simply a "period of time"."

...either way, the point remains unchanged. Nothing in the text necessitates (or even hints at) a 24-hr period of time.

You have to understand that rca has no problem leaving out relevant information that conflicts with he/she or its view.

Funny how you decided not to reply to my latest rebuttal of your points....I can understand these things can get overwhelming, so I'll just ask one. What is your thoughts on this:

Also, how do you interpret the different creation accounts in Genesis 1 and 2?

Like much of what Moses style of writing does...Chapter 1 overview...Chapter 2 specific...especially on creation of man.

Ah! But here is where you get into trouble. You see....the creation accounts in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are different. You have to address those differences in order to have a completely sound interpretation for the creation account(s).

I don't have the time or inclination to continually  answer your questions...I am not going to change your mind, nor you mine.  I check in every once in a while and try to give quick answers...as I said you don't like them...tough.  Indepth debate on this issue can be done...but as I said, I am not one who would choose to give it that much time.  So I will continue to pop in and briefly say what I feel like saying...rather than get into a long diatribe with someone that it will make no difference to.

 

[wheatpenny]

The phrase "evening and morning" suggests literal days. I think, given Moses' use of that phrase, he definitely had literal days in mind when he wrote it

 

[rsc2a]

I don't have the time or inclination to continuing to answer your questions...I am not going to change your mind, nor you mine.  I check in every once in a while and try to give quick answers...as I said you don't like them...tough.  Indepth debate on this issue can be done...but as I said, I am not one who would choose to give it that much time.  So I will continue to pop in and briefly say what I feel like saying...rather than get into a long diatribe with someone that it will make no difference to.

Then you shouldn't leave little one-line ad hom attacks. If you aren't willing to engage in the conversation, don't engage. Taking little pot shots while refusing to stand face-to-face (metaphorically speaking) is unscrupulous.

 

[T-Bone]

I don't have the time or inclination to continuing to answer your questions...I am not going to change your mind, nor you mine.  I check in every once in a while and try to give quick answers...as I said you don't like them...tough.  Indepth debate on this issue can be done...but as I said, I am not one who would choose to give it that much time.  So I will continue to pop in and briefly say what I feel like saying...rather than get into a long diatribe with someone that it will make no difference to.

Then you shouldn't leave little one-line ad hom attacks. If you aren't willing to engage in the conversation, don't engage. Taking little pot shots while refusing to stand face-to-face (metaphorically speaking) is unscrupulous.

When you open your own forum and if I choose to join then I will follow your rules...til then I will answer as I choose and to the extent I choose. I gave you much more than one ine ad hom attacks...but as usual you twist facts to your benefit...carry on "Twister".  You know where I stand and I know where you stand...I am not required to spend all my time trying to explain to you what you will not receive why I stand where I do.  You don't like the approach I take...I believe the ignore feature if available.