We have time...
Posted on 12/14/2008 8:37:32 AM PST by tpanther
Strength For The Journey New Creation People Part 1 August 4, 2005 Is Evolution A Fact?
READ: Genesis 2:1-7, Hebrews 11:1-3
By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God. —Hebrews 11:3The theory of evolution is not without its problems. One scientist says this about life starting on its own: "Amino acids would have to be arranged in an exact sequence to form a protein . . . just like the letters in a sentence. Mere laws of chemistry and physics cannot do that. The probability of a protein forming by chance would be 1064 [10 with 64 zeros after it] to 1!"
Many people assume the theory of evolution to be true. But can it be scientifically proven? Something is considered scientifically true only if it can be repeatedly verified under laboratory conditions. The claim that life sprang up on its own out of a long impersonal process cannot pass this test of truth. That is why evolution remains only a theory.
So if you're ever tempted to doubt the Genesis account of the creation story, consider the alternative. The odds against even a simple protein creating itself are astronomical. How much more reasonable to believe God and His Word: "By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible" (Hebrews 11:3).
Isn't it more reasonable to believe that God designed and created the universe? (Genesis 1:1). — Dennis Fisher
All things bright and beautiful, All creatures great and small, All things wise and wonderful— The Lord God made them all. —Alexander
All creation points to the almighty Creator.
Indeed!
Who cares what the chances are for LIFE to arrive by chance, random selection or Space Aliens - it's what are the odds that cell critters decided to quit DYING and start SPLITTING!
I blame it on that Timothy fellow!
2 Tim 4:2
We have time...
Thanks!
I'll keep a sharp eye out for THIS!
If someone fails to recognize allegory, metaphor, simile and poetry in Scripture, they miss out on a lot of TRUTH.
Great point. The truth is we just don’t know that timeline. I often wonder if a thing such as time even existed then.
“If someone fails to recognize allegory, metaphor, simile and poetry in Scripture, they miss out on a lot of TRUTH.”
Precisely! Therefore, it is not a literally inerrant document. Divinely inspired, yes, but not, in general, literally true. Creation may in fact have been brought to its current state through a mechanism such as evolution. That assertion is not contradictory to your own representation of the Bible as largely symbolic.
“On "open" threads in the Religion Forum, posters may attribute motives and/or read the minds of an entire group of believers.” [excerpt]Ah, ok, thanks for clarifying!
We dont know, and we may never know. It's irrelevant to the TOE, since the TOE does not deal with the origins of the first lifeforms.
Welcome ;-)
When somewhere in the Bible the statement is made that *God did such and such*, it doesn't take much of a stretch to think that it means what it says. That is not taking the whole Bible literally, but it is the common sense reading of that particular passage.
It does take a stretch to try to force it to mean things that it did not say or imply.
Why is it either/or with you guys? Someone comments on a common sense reading and they're labeled a *Bible literalist*. Sheesh.
Evolution is NOT consistent with the Bible and a common sense reading of the passage- Gen 2:7 Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.
As far as evolution being consistent with Christianity, then perhaps you could explain why it is that Christ Himself repeatedly refers to the creation of man, male and female He [God] created them?
If it comes down to believing men or Christ, guess who gets my vote?
And what does *literally inerrant* mean?
Why do evos keep making up terms and then forcing their definitions on everyone?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literal%5B1%5D
Main Entry: lit·er·al
1 a: according with the letter of the scriptures b: adhering to fact or to the ordinary construction or primary meaning of a term or expression : actual *liberty in the literal sense is impossible — B. N. Cardozo* c: free from exaggeration or embellishment *the literal truth* d: characterized by a concern mainly with facts *a very literal man*
2: of, relating to, or expressed in letters
3: reproduced word for word : exact , verbatim *a literal translation*
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inerrant
Main Entry: in·er·rant
: free from error
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/truth
Main Entry: truth
1 a archaic : fidelity , constancy b: sincerity in action, character, and utterance
2 a (1): the state of being the case : fact (2): the body of real things, events, and facts : actuality (3)often capitalized : a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality b: a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true *truths of thermodynamics* c: the body of true statements and propositions
3 a: the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality bchiefly British : true 2 c: fidelity to an original or to a standard
To say that something is the *literal truth* is to say that it’s “free from exaggeration or embellishment”. It does NOT mean that it must be taken as word for word. The Bible is true and inerrant, but to claim that people take every word as literal in the sense evos mean, doesn’t work.
Trying force someone into a non-existent framework of interpretation and then saying, *See, it doesn’t work* is disingenuous.
Just out of curiosity, how old do you think the Earth is?
If it deals with the evolution of a species, then it is completely relevant.
The first cell evolved from what?
Darwin published *The Origin of the Species.* That bacterium was a species, was it not?
I don’t know. I think it’s older than 6,000 years, but am not sure that it’s the billions that scientists say.
They have rightly pointed out that if a change in conditions occurred like is mentioned in Genesis, then it would mess up their calculations and make them meaningless.
There is also this:
The Age of the Universe
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1576941/posts
and the indication from Scripture that God created the universe pretty much as is so that it would be inhabitable.
There are several hypotheses out there on the origins of life. Some seem more plausible than others. But any of them could be true, or none, and that would make no difference to the TOE.
The first cell evolved from what?
We don't know.
Darwin published *The Origin of the Species.* That bacterium was a species, was it not?
The Origiin of Species never attempted to cover abiogenesis. Rather, it only dealt with changes in already-existing life.
So do you think the modern cosmology is as erroneous as modern biology?
It’s not “either/or”; it’s “what/how”. The bible says God created man—that’s the “what”. It doesn’t say “how” (and, no, I don’t accept the breathing of life into man’s nostrils as a literal “how”. That is a figurative statement.). “How” is the question that God has given us the smarts to figure out for ourselves. Although flawed, the Darwinism or one of its many derivatives comes awfully close to explaining the evidence that God has left behind.
Let’s not be tempted by evidence now. It’s a Trap!
“Literal Inerrancy” is exactly the foundation upon which Creationinsts base their steadfast refusal to consider anything other than the literal Genesis account of creation. It can also be found to manifest itself in the creationists’s insistence on posting scripture and dictionary definitions of obvious terms(including all subordinate usages of the term).
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.