Posted on 02/13/2009 8:34:41 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
Are mutations part of the “engine” of evolution?
....
Are mutations really the “key to our evolution”? Do mutations provide the fuel for the engine of evolution? In this chapter, we take a close look at mutations to see what they are and what they are not. When we understand genetics and the limits of biological change, we will see how science confirms what the Bible says, “God made the beasts of the earth after their kind” (Genesis 1:25)...
(Excerpt) Read more at answersingenesis.org ...
It’s not a tactic, and I don’t have faith in “Darwinism”, although I do recognize your tactic. Christianity is much more than the Bible, and the Bible is frequently allegorical. The dogged adherence to the literal inerrancy of the Bible is an indication of a lack of faith in Christianity. It’s easy to point to the words, it’s harder to have faith in God’s greatness that trancends the book.
If DNA decay were in the Bible then it would be wrong about that also.
There is indeed allegory in the Bible so how do you determine what is and what is not?
A multitude of ways, including the context of the current era. I count science as part of the context of the era. As an example, it is incontrovertible that the age of the earth is considerably more than 5000 years. Therefore, the creation method and timing in Genesis is allegorical. It is not false; there was, in fact, a creation. It is only the description of how it happened and how long it took that is allegorical.
Seeing that Genesis says nothing about the age of the earth, that it may be more than what creationists assert in no way demonstrates that the account is allegorical.
That still leaves “science as part of the context of the era.”
In other words, you understand science to be in conflict with a real flesh and blood Adam and Eve and animals made to produce after their kind, but not in conflict with an allegorical account using such terms.
One difficulty I see with taking the Genesis account as allegory is that Christ in speaking of Adam and eve did not treat them as such at Matt. 19:4, nor did Luke at Luke 3:38, or Paul at Romans 5:12-14.
So in order to make Darwinism compatible with Christianity we would have to understand their words in a way other than what they're saying.
I find it interesting that creationists use the standard definitions of words that everyone understands and evos make up their own as they go.
You’re defending the scriptural account with...more scripture. Don’t you see the inherent problem with that? I’m sorry, but your post adds nothing to the discussion.
You're being dishonest. As allmendream pointed out, it's "special creationists" who started calling themselves "creationists." And I've adduced three dictionaries and three encyclopedias supporting my version of what "everyone understands" the word to mean. As far as I can see, you've got nothing but your wish it wasn't that way.
This is what you don’t want to read?
“So in order to make Darwinism compatible with Christianity we would have to understand their words in a way other than what they’re saying.”
Too bad. I’m here.
And welcome.
Go back ad re-read my post.
Why? I read them the first time and I don’t think I missed anything.
You did. Keep trying!
So what do you call people who don't believe in the YEC literalist creation of the world and universe as put forth in Scripture and how do you expect someone reading your posts to know which definition you are using when you disparage creationists?
So you're now elevating *scientific scrutiny* above the level of Scripture when it comes in conflict with science? When there's a conflict between the two, science is correct by default? Science which changes by the day and is constantly adjusted as new data comes in?
Truth is a word best avoided in science, haven't you heard? How can something as likely to be wrong as not, be used to make a determination of whether something else is right or not?
Who decided that science is the absolute standard of truth and reality anyway?
Scripture is not in conflict with Science, just the cockamamie interpretation of Scripture that has the world only a few thousand years old and starlight as a testament of lies rather than a testament to the glory of God.
When your observations conflict with plain, clear (Romans 1:18-20) scripture,
you’d best pause a while and examine the assumptions you’re making from your observations.
The early scientists (and even modern scientists) based their research on biblical/Christian truths and made many discoveries from these foundational assumptions.
How so? How does the age of the earth, not even mentioned in the creation account, dictate that the creation account is to be read allegorically?
Why do you presume that declarative sentences are to be read allegorically? What literary device used leads you to the conclusion that when Scripture says, *God made* or *God said* and then *And it was so*, that it is allegorical instead of a factual account of what God did?
What about men's cockamamie interpretation of the evidence they see around them?
What makes you so sure that your interpretation of the evidence you see is so infallible?
Psalms 104:5 He set the earth on its foundations, so that it should never be moved.
Many Christians interpreted (and some still do) this Psalm to mean that the Earth does not move. It is certainly the “plain text reading” of the Psalm.
Are you saying that once this Scripture was interpreted to mean that the Earth is immobile, that NO AMOUNT of scientific data should be able to change your interpretation?
In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to be observed. The first is, to hold to the truth of the Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false, lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing.
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.