Posted on 03/20/2009 7:59:40 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
In a recent book review, Jerry Coyne, professor of ecology and evolution at the University of Chicago, admitted that the secular worldview of macroevolution (the development of complex life from “simpler” forms) is at odds with Christian faith...
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
>>Are you sure you’re conservative?
>>You have an absolutely progressive obsession with poop.
What goes in comes out. Have you never been to a farm?
So what happened to all that dung in the garden? Must have got pretty messy if it didn’t decay.
It’s a perfectly reasonable question.
No, what “decayed and died” after the fall, was Man’s RELATIONSHIP with his creator - nothing more and nothing less; and that was certainly enough.
>>Since when did GOd say a day or second
>>was anything other than a day or second?
Exactly - and that’s a significant crux in reconciling science with faith.
Some who hold a literal view of the Bible’s creation account insist that it was completed in 7 24 hour earth days. But as we see in Einstein’s special relativity - the progression of time is relative to the inertial frame(s) in which it is being observed.
>>Peter’s comment that a day is
>>like a thousand years
Completely reasonable that, relative to some other inertial frames in the universe, Peter’s statement is true.
As an inertial frame approaches the speed of light, the progression of time slows and a “second” would approach infinity.
It’s simply, beautifully, relative.
For a photon, which travels at the speed of light, there is no time.
And somehow you think God incapable of translating the relative value to his audience? Heaven hath not the capacity to contain hubris such as on display here.....
I guess that is why it is called the THEORY of evolution, right?
(Fortunately there are scientists that understand!)
You are apparently not one of them...
Not that you would actually know.
I'll tell you tomorrow. It was funny long ago in 5th grade, but now seems eerily apropos.
How did I "deride(ing) Christians for claiming the earth was the center of the universe"? IIRC, my point was that many Christians persecuted those who claimed earth was NOT the center of the universe. The point, in case you missed it, was not an intellectual disagreement on the physical center, but rather that there were many who believed a disagreement with the theology of the day should be meet with persecution, torture and and a gruesome death.
As regards the center of the universe, my guess still is that it's not in neighborhood. Similar to taking a random point on a line, surface or within a space and expecting it to be the center - chances are you are wrong.
You may speculate on my beliefs as much as you want. I'm not particularly interested in discussing them with you. Nor am I very familiar with Hindu (I suspect you are not either), other than the physical manifestations of their deities seem curious.
You're making this too easy, but thanks.
I suppose you would argue that the earth sucks and that gravity is just a THEORY? Huh?
****
From a Google search of "gravity":
you pointed to what man said
that clearly shows in your answers, you dont look to God for the source of your answers, you look to men for your source and use “God “ to verify what you end up believing
So, tell me, Was God lying when He said this?
Exodus 20: 9Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
10But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
11For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
God clearly and specifically said 6 days of Creation, while you can try to deny it, Here He clearly did.
So, tell me, Did God Lie?
Sounds like Santa is a stalker.
>>So, tell me, Did God Lie?
God made the universe. He created the relationship between matter and energy.
Does E=MC2 work?
Yes, it does. The folks at Nagasaki / Hiroshima received a practical demonstration.
E=MC2 is associated with Einstein’s theory of general relativity.
Special relativity deals with the progression of Time; and the rate of that progression is specific to the inertial frame in which it is observed.
The proper function of Science is the exploration and understanding of what God created; and that’s exactly what both General and Special Relativity do - they explore God’s creation and enable a more detailed understanding of that creation.
The insistence that God must be lying based upon these observations comes, not from God, but from human ego - human egos like yours. So get over it and get out of the way. Otherwise you do nothing but facilitate those who would deprive Christians of science and use that ignorance to destroy what is Godly.
We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God,
begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven:
[bow during the next two lines:]
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered, died, and was buried.
On the third day he rose again in fulfillment of the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.
For those of you who have a misunderstanding of Roman Catholics and Mary, I commend the following, which also summarizes how we view Her:
Hail Mary,
Full of Grace,
The Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou among women,
and blessed is the fruit
of thy womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary,
Mother of God,
pray for us sinners now,
and at the hour of death.
Amen. For WVKayaker, the priest certainly advises. More importantly, he has the power to Consecrate bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. He also has the power to forgive or to hold fast sins.
>>And somehow you think God incapable of
>>translating the relative value to his audience?
No, I think God chose to reveal only what He chose to reveal in His Word.
You’ll also notice bacteria and viruses weren’t mentioned in Genesis. Neither were the cellular organelles present in each cell of every living organism. Their absence from Biblical narrative does not negative their existence.
I think your post is worth repeating, so I will do so below, but first to clarify for others: this is the central argument of "theistic evolution" that so many seem to be uncomfortable with. Quite frankly, I don't know why the "Intelligent Design" crowd doesn't jump on "theistic evolution", because the two are almost the same thing. Both respect the beauty and complexity of nature. Both draw the reasonable inference from said beauty and complexity that there must be a hand behind creation. But the latter doesn't have a problem with taking the term "day" in Scripture to mean an undefined period of time, rather than a literal 24 hour day, whereas the former seems to need to hold onto such literalism. It's surprising to me; but I guess that's what we get with rigid dogmatics.
Someone mentioned somewhere that they "accept the Bible as literal, except where there is a clear distinction that Christ spoke in parables", but I guess such people are probably one eyed, one legged, one handed people (c.f. Matt 5:29, Matt 18:9, Mark 9:47) since the word "parable" is never mentioned in any of those verses, nor in the context of such verses.
"Yes, but it's *obvious* he's talking in parables there since it would be *unreasonable* to take those verses literally", is an anticipated common response.
So it's unreasonable to take those verses literally, but yet it's not unreasonable to take Genesis literally? I see.
To repeat your most excellent post as promised, with some emphasis added to point out the most important points IMO:
Well you would have to define “creationism” and “evolution.” The only reason some think those are incompatible is because they think evolution means evolution unaided by God.
It happens purely by chance. I am a physicist. To me the only thing chance by itself creates is chaos. That is the second law of thermodynamics. Some also define “CREATIONSM” as something that happens suddenly out of nothing. I reject both definitions. I believe God could have created the universe and man in a slow step by step process, or in other words, by evolution. To me it shows the patient, economical way of God working through nature. In other words, I don't believe in the ZAP theory.
I would simply add the clarification point for my own belief: I believe in creation ex nihilo, that is "something from nothing", in the beginning, however after God created the entire universe, with all its natural laws set in place, on the "first day", He then used these same laws to create the stars, and planets. And then the same laws which dictate natural processes to create plants, animals and then finally the physical form of man.
I also believe God is the "Creator", not just a one time creator, but a "Creator" Who is still Creating today. 6-day literalists (at least those on FR) seem to believe in a God that at ONE time "created" and then just said "Ok, I'm done, no more creating for Me, let's see if Man can figure this all out now", like some kind of vague god a theist would use. This is not the God of Christianity IMO, this is the god of a theist, a god that creatED, and then like some kind of game player sat back and now watches us like some kind of experiment in a bubble.
Once one realizes that this can't be the God of Christianity, that the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob is not a god conducting some kind of experiment for his own amusement but a God that is *actively* creatING and thus *active* in our lives TODAY, then the concept of "theistic evolution" not only becomes tenable, but I'd dare say becomes quite appealing indeed.
One should also note in closing, such a concept takes care of the "problem" with "evolution" that 6-day literalists like to go back to from time to time, specifically, the near statistical impossibility of the general complexity of nature arising from pure chance. It's so statistically improbable, they say, that it becomes "impossible" to believe.
This is precisely the point. Even beyond all the scientific explanation for all these complex structures, if one wishes to ignore or brush them aside, one should at least consider this: all of the statistical tests done on the "complexity of the eye" or the "complexity of the flagellum" or any complex system in nature show that it is statistically improbable, not impossible but improbable that they arose from pure chance. From this, many conclude that it is "so improbable that it is essentially impossible".
While it's true that it's "so statistically improbable as to be impossible" if one believes pure chance guides/guided the process, this is precisely not what theistic evolution proposes. In fact, theistic evolution fills in the missing gap (no pun intended) in all of this: God, in His infinite capacity to do whatever He pleases, used the very laws of nature He created, to create the seemingly impossible, by doing the improbable.
So if anything may come from this post, let us move past that particular strawman. And no, I'm not saying God can't do the impossible, in case someone is thinking I'm saying that. If anyone is thinking I said that after reading everything I've written here, re-read it again, carefully. Any response that strives to be critical of what I've said but yet doesn't address the points I've made here in a rational way will be ignored.
>>For a photon, which travels at the speed of light, there is no time.
Einstein and his associates weren’t even sure that time existed.
I view it as simply the progression of state change; and that’s consistent with Special Relativity.
The energy within a system increases with velocity, and with Energy, Mass. It’s an infinite progression toward a condition where mass and energy themselves approach infinity.
The ability to change state is the ability to overcome inertia - “a body at rest tends to stay at rest”. And the observed relativistic time differential is consistent with this.
Thanks for the heads up. I also accept the "Nicene Creed" as my statement of faith, as well. However, at that point we diverge. It uses the term catholic in it's proper form, recognizing ALL BELIEVERS, universally.
any BELIEVER can consecrate bread and wine. It is the symbol given to us by the Lord. His Blood and His Body are not in the bread and wine, nor is there any basis for that claim, Scripturally.
There is no need for ANY earthly intercessor, and the only forgiveness found in Scripture is in the Grace of God, not Rome. We are all priests, according to Scripture. Thrre are overseers, but they have unique toles, not including the decisions concerning other people's sin. There is something in there about judging others. Jesus made it very simple to be part of His body, the church. Faith, rested in HIM, and nothing more...
I do not recognize a Pope. I do not see any role for Cardinals, or church secretaries, nor historians. Historry was completed on the cross. All else is anticlimactic, and we are just biding time until His return.
Sorry, believe as you will, but put your faith firmly in Jesus Blood, and take Him down from the altar crosses. Your RC church organization is just that, another organization. It can't make any priority claim to the Grace of God. Sorry, it is NOT written!
He is risen. All power is His, not Rome. Mary was a woman. Saints are Christians, not RCatholics, and certainly have no power to give out party favors. or grant wishes.
He is risen. He is not speaking to Rome, if that is what you believe, He is speaking to YOUR heart. He is risen!
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.