Posted on 11/30/2004 9:14:15 AM PST by cainin04
Are you kidding? Genesis IS a metaphor. This doesn't mean it isn't true, just that it can't be taken literally. Most of The Bible was translated during the zenith of allegorical English.
The water tasted rather funny.
I don't like you and won't discuss things with you. But, only to show your error - the statement made was that he would be shocked if it was in textbooks outside of college.
I'm a Creationist, believe in micro-evolution (kind to kind) and that has been proved. The crux of the issue is macro-evolution (kind to different kind). So for me it is very relevant what theory you believe in.
Two things: (1) Define "kind;" (2)Define the mechanism that prevents "micro-evolution" from bleeding over into "macro-evolution."
"Evolutionary theory wasn't discussed in Acts."
Good heavens, that wasn't what I said. I was only responding to the idea that maybe I'm a "zealout" and the insinuation that that was somehow a bad thing.
The point was that if by pointing out the incompatibility of evolution and Biblical theism is zealous, then so be it. I guess I'm a zealot. But I think that puts me in good company, specifically, in good company with the Biblical writers who made a clear distinction between justification by faith and justification by works/circumcision.
And, incidentally, though modern evolution is not discussed in Acts, worldviews incompatible with the Christian worldview are in fact discussed. Paul and Luke are obviously fully conversant with both Judaism and Greek philosophy and Roman religion...and they dispense with them all. I guess that makes them zealots.
Take a glance at the DOI and you'll understand why students should be taught where the founders believed their natural rights originated.
"Are you kidding? Genesis IS a metaphor. This doesn't mean it isn't true, just that it can't be taken literally. Most of The Bible was translated during the zenith of allegorical English."
the New Testament authors didn't rely on English translations...and they certainly didn't think of the Hebrew Scriptures as metaphor, including the Genesis account of creation. Paul's theology sort of falls apart if Adam is not a real man...not to mention Abraham ("Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness"). If those guys weren't real, then salvation isn't real. Salvation is a metaphor also. Now if you think salvation is a metaphor, then I don't think that you can say you are a Christian.
Not that I have a problem with that, to each his own.
However, I do think that clear definitions are helpful.
Not necessarily. There is the phenomenon of the "missing scaffolding" to account for. In other words, there may have been another part of the system that was required at one time, but has since gone by the boards. For example, building an arch would be impossible without supporting scaffolding; however, once the arch is complete the scaffolding can be removed without affecting the system.
"The only people who think that Darwinian evolution is an attempt at replacing God are religious people of little faith."
Actually they're very religious people with very strong convictions.
But it goes much further than replacing God. Religion gives way to culture. Culture gives way to the continued procreation and survival of the people within that culture. Therefore, the replacing/killing of God is the killing of religion, which it is to say the annihilation of its culture and, hence, its people.
Replacement of God is tantamount to the extinction of a people. When it comes down to being extirpated, people will fight it to the end.
Good heavens, that wasn't what I said. I was only responding to the idea that maybe I'm a "zealout" and the insinuation that that was somehow a bad thing.
Then why post it to me? My entire commentary on zealotry was specific to the extremists on either side of the evolution/theology debate.
The point was that if by pointing out the incompatibility of evolution and Biblical theism is zealous, then so be it. I guess I'm a zealot.
Perhaps you are. Where in the Bible is disbelief in evolutionary theory a necessary requirement for Salvation?
> Actually they're very religious people with very strong convictions.
Not really, if they are terrified of facts about the world being made public.
> Therefore, the replacing/killing of God is the killing of religion, which it is to say the annihilation of its culture and, hence, its people.
WOW. So... you are either opposed to converting the Muslims of the Middle East... or you are supportive of that goal, and believe that it is tantamount to genocide... which means that conversion is murder.
The Bible is many things. Unfortunately, it isn't a science textbook.
#2. There is plenty of science which is perfectly compatible with the Biblical account.
Actually, there isn't.
I would suggest checking out www.icr.org, but you are probably one of the people here who will say that the scientists there aren't real and they have diploma mill degrees.
1. They do have diploma mill degrees.
2. They have been caught misrepresenting the evidence....and persisting in doing so, even after they (a) acknowledged that they were wrong, and (b) promising to stop.
That would of course be completely wrong, but you'd probably insist in order to try to discredit them.
ICR discredited itself long before I ever showed up.
#3. I think you need to redirect your salvo to yourself. It is not me who is trying to tell God how to run things.
Again, it is.
If, from His perspective, he created the Universe in six days, that doesn't mean that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. You're confining Him to our definition of "six days."
He has told us how he runs things in the Bible.
He is silent on the science of it.
And you're telling Him to get with the program and just shut up and believe the scientists.
Nope. The scientists just record what they observe. God did it that way, I'm not going to argue with Him.
So, while I agree with the sentiment of "quit telling God how He's supposed to be doing things" the target is not me. But you.
I'm not the one telling Him thet He must have created the Universe in 144 hours.
#4. With regards to the scientific community being united against creationist like 99%...I can only say, of course they are.
Those scientists include many devout Christians.
That's what I would expect. But I would also point out that probably 75% of the "economists" on American faculties are socialists and probably 99% of the "political scientists" are socialist.
Neither of those disciplines are on anything resembling a scientific basis.
Here's a brief list of what you'd have to ignore to throw evolution out of the scientific picture:
Genetics
Immunology
Petroleum Geology
Plate Tectonics
Botany
Biology
The remaining 1% are communist. Just kidding. Sort of....You get the point, though. The people that brought us socialism might be wrong on the origins of the universe.
Science isn't socialism.
Especially since no one alive today was there to observe the origin of the universe. Isn't science based on observation?
Yes, it is. That's why creationism isn't science, because it involves carefully not observing the evidence at hand.
Friends, the real issue here is the authority of Scripture. Either you buy it or you don't.
What are you going to believe, the Bible's valuation of pi (3), or those evil secular mathemeticians who say it's 3.141596523...?
I don't really have a problem with either camp. I happen to belong to the camp that buys it. But it is intellectually dishonest to say that you believe the Bible - and evolution.
The Bible was written by men, who were inspired by God. It wasn't dictated word for word by God--unless, for example, God forgot who some of Paul's associates were.
They wrote as the Spirit of God moved them to. Sometimes made mistakes. But those mistakes were in the accidents--i.e., the trivial stuff of physical description, such as giving the value of pi as exactly 3--but not in the substance of the message--i.e., what God was trying to tell us.
Yep. In a communist society, God needs to be explained away.
It served it's purpose there and was adopted by likeminded individuals in the rest of the world who hate God, don't believe in God or detest people who do. God is a contentious fellow. And men don't want to be held to account for their actions - some don't even want to be reminded that they might be if there is a God. If they can convince everyone there is no God, they think they erase him from consciousness. Basic psychological defense mechanism - out of sight out of mind. Why is it do you think that modern Darwinist/evolutionist scientists get so bent out of shape when something even hints at propping up biblical texts.. you'd think the world was coming to an end. They'll calmly dismiss any such thing in public wishing for some other explanation even if it's absurd. But, yes, Darwinism is Anti-God. It calls God a liar. Plain and simple.
Well said!
Semantics, shemantics, you and everyone else understands what is referred to as Moses' flood.
I'm not kidding. I believe in the literal truth of the Bible. It appears you do not. Big deal, we believe differently.
You are not the first one to be wowed, and won't be the last one.
The issue at hand is the killing of God, not conversion. Darwinism is the killing of God.
I've made my points and have spoken the truth as best I know, if you cannot rebut them, do not digress. The ultimate struggle won't be fought with fancy words, trite and ready-made phrases or hiding behind a monitor -- it will be fought on the streets. Innate ability of easily retriving from our memory banks will also be of no use.
But don't feel bad. To be WOWed by the truth is normal.
There is something referred to as Moses' flood? I've honestly (and I am a religion minor from quite awhile ago) never heard that term. Where is it found?
Kind, species "unto their own kind" like in the Bible. Dogs and wolves are one kind.
I would define that mechanism as God.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.