Posted on 09/20/2005 5:35:52 PM PDT by curiosity
Most adult Sunday school classes don't raise eyebrows, but my church is planning to hold one that's sure to. It's called "Evolution for Christians," and it will be taught this winter by David Bush, a member of the church I lead, Fairfax Presbyterian. David is an articulate government retiree who has been interested in this topic for nearly two decades, teaches a class on theories of the origins of life every five years or so, and once again has really done his homework. His view is that science and religion answer two different sets of questions about creation, with science answering the "how" questions, and religion answering the "why" ones. "With a little bit of wisdom and tolerance on each side," he tells me, "I think they can complement rather than contradict each other."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
"Care to elaborate?"
No, not tonite, I don't have that kind of time.
This relatavistic "time dilation" effect has been measured as shifts in atomic clocks traveling at orbital speeds (relative to clocks stationed on Earth). IOW, relativistic time effects are demonstrably real.
What "reference frame" could be more different from ours (confined here on this spinning, God-created ball of dirt) than that of eternal, omnipotent, omnipresent, infinite Creator God?!? Our time and God's are not one and the same, for 2 Peter 3:8 clearly states that, "...one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."
I am convicted that it is the epitome of (sinful) hubris for man to insist that the length of God's day must be defined by the rotation rate of this nth-rate planet.
Insistence on confining the God's "yom" of creation to one rotation of this ball of mud implies that the Almighty had no way to measure time before he created Earth and set it to spinning.
How arrogant, prideful, and self-centered is that?
Re your tagline: words, indeed, do "mean things". Whose words were (are) Genesis: God's or man's?
Why is it that when a creationist wishes to portray an idea as false and worthless, he calls it religion, and when an ID advocate seeks respect, he calls ID science?
Thanks so much for the ping, curiosity. Very interesting, and well worth a follow-up look. Will come back as soon as I can.
"OK. So God, by definition, cannot lie, correct?
Incorrect. God cannot lie because it is not in his nature to lie. To say everything God says is true by definition is nominalism."
Hebrews 6:18 ...it is impossible for God to lie...
It's true that God cannot lie not that He will not. It's not because it's IN His nature not to lie, it's becasue it IS His nature. God is Truth. That is why He cannot lie.
It's definitely not a transitional. It's either a reptile with a lot of bird characteristice, or a bird with a lot of reptile characteristice, but it can't be a transitional.
If you disagree, I'll hold my breath until I turn blue.
Very interesting, TXnMA. Thanks so much for the ping!
It was not necessary. It just so happened that birds were better adapted to their environment.
So, it seems that what you are saying is that modern repitiles would not be evolving anymore.
They are. They're just not evolving into mammals or birds. Those niches are filled.
If evolution is a continuous process then we should still see transitional forms today as lower forms are evolving into higher ones.
From a strictly biological standpoint, no form is "higher" or "lower" than another. They are evolving into something, but we can't know what that is until it actually happens.
Your link to darwinwatch has the cooties real bad.
Did anyone else notice anything going to the islamofascist website. My evil detectors went beserk. I viewed it with Firefox, but my spyware software wouldn't let it come up with IE.
I think anyone who clicked on that POS needs to wash their chips real good.
Genesis 1:4b,5 ...God divided the light from the darkness. 5God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.Even before He created the sun and the other lights in the heavens, He divided the light from the darkness, He called the light "day" and the darkness "night," and He ordained evening and morning. Awesome.
His audience knows the period of time called a day is 24 hours, the period of one rotation of the earth. It's been that way from the beginning.
Do you think God is not powerful or smart enough to create every species EXACTLY like he wanted to in the beginning?
Do you think God makes mistakes and has to EVOLVE a species or the species just evolves itself? How does it happen...where is the evidence?
Have ALL species evolved or just man and a few others??
Just where would that mountain of evidence be ? So if there is a mountain of evidence, it's not a "theory" anymore...evolution is a fact and the Churches and synagogues should trumpet it...right???
I've read a lengthy summary and an unfavorable review by an avowed atheist. The book does not appear to be kooky or nuts. But it seems to put the emphasis on the moral teaching of genesis rather than Hollywood literalism -- a position not unlike that of theistic evolutionists.
The record above perfectly accords with the findings of modern science. Ironically, some have found fault with it for its simplicity and brevity. We must remeber, first, that the recorder of the events, Moses, lived some 3500 years ago, and he was writing not only for the people of his time and culture but for all people of all times and cultures. Use of the simplest possible terms was essential. Second, the apparent purpose of the account is to document various demonstrations of God's miraculous power in forming the earth and life upon it. With obvious necessity, the account is selective. Only the highlights, those events most important for achieving God's final goals, are included. As a result, dinosaurs, for example, receive no particular mention.
Did or did not Darwin denounce evolution on his deathbed?
Don't sell it short; this planet is pretty special to Him. It's the one to which He sent His Son to die in order that sinners could be saved by His grace, reconciled to Him for eternity, rather than spend it apart from Him in the outer darkness of hell, as we truly deserve.
Insistence on confining the God's "yom" of creation to one rotation of this ball of mud implies that the Almighty had no way to measure time before he created Earth and set it to spinning.
Or, it simply acknowledges that He wrote His Word for the benefit of mankind (whom, by the way, He created in His own image). Furthermore, it's entirely conceivable that, prior to even creating this special planet in His seemingly infinite creation, He already decided a day was a day, and "in the beginning" He put time in motion (for us and the lesser things in His creation).
How arrogant, prideful, and self-centered is that?
Certainly no more so than to insist when He says one thing to us, He means something else entirely.
"...one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."
Which is to say He is not bound by time as we are. He is completely outside the realm of time. Time did not exist until "the beginning" of His creation. Which is another reason to be sure that, when He says it took 6 days to create His creation, that's what He meant.
Well, I would EXPECT an atheist not to give it a good rewiew.
I have it on my shelf and it's been years since I read it. I guess it's time to dust it off....
I only suggested it because it appears that some evolutionists seem to think that if you're a creationist you HAVE to believe in a literal 6 day creation that happened 6,000 years ago. The Bible states the 6 day creation part but the "the world was created in 4004 B.C." was a mans idea. Some guy sat down one day and calculated the age of the Earth working back through the geneologies listed in the Bible starting with the birth of Christ. I don't put much stock in it, myself. The recommendation was not even to try to "convert" any evolutionists to a creationist mindset, but as a reference to expose them to other creationist thinking.
Hugh Ross earned his PhD in Astronomy from the University of Toronto and has done research on galaxies and quasars. (from the back of the book)
"Did or did not Darwin denounce evolution on his deathbed?"
I do not know the answer to this question, however, if you know, would you please inform me. I have read Darwin hid from his wife what he was dabbling in and apparently for good reason.
I have heard that Darwin denounced evolution on his deathbed, but I have NOT seen it substantiated. Anyone???
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.