Posted on 06/11/2007 2:09:09 PM PDT by Alter Kaker
You wrote, “As it happens, my own religious denomination has found no conflict with evolution for over 100 years.”
My point is that evolution is just not consistent with how Scripture describes “all this” coming into existence. If you and your church preach something extra-biblical, something that is clearly different and incompatible with Scripture as it’s plainly written, then you’re in a frightening place, as you’re either implying or outright saying that the God of creation is so impotent that He’s unable to assure that Scripture is accurate, or that He lied when He communicated His truth with humanity. We’re told in Revelation not to alter any of it, are we not?
Again, it may sound harsh, but a church that preaches something contrary to Scripture is preaching a God different from Scripture, a God who is impotent and aloof from the creation process, and perhaps a liar as well.
As for me, I’ll believe Scripture, which is consistent with the evidence about how “all this” came into being.
Your doctrine here sounds good. It’s just the notion that “we’re all children of God” that’s off. Jesus told some of the religious leaders that they were “children of Satan,” which tells me that the weren’t “children of God” at the time....
I don't think it is so much doctrine between us as it may be semantics. I know Jesus carried me when there was only one pair of footprints in the sand until I came to know and trust only Him. From that day on, I belong to Him but I'm not perfect and can be enticed by satan. The Holy Spirit lives in me and always pulls me back and keeps me from trouble of the satan kind. Maybe I don't say it as clearly as you but I've invested a lot in my relationship with Him and my life means something for Him and to His glory. That is my purpose.
If we are separated on this one point, we'll have eternity to discuss it. Thanks for the dialog.
The problem here is that all antievolutionary elaborations of creationism also contain huge swaths of extra-biblical emendations, many of which also contradict the plainest sense of scripture.
For example the Bible gives zero indication that Noah's flood had any geological (as opposed to geographical) significance. There's nothing in there, not a single word, claiming, or entailing the claim, that vast quantities of sedimentary strata, and the fossils they contain, were deposited by Noah's flood.
In fact there's some evidence to the contrary, such as a few geographical place names (e.g. the Euphrates River, IIRC) being used both before and after the flood. This suggests a tranquil flood, that wouldn't wipe out and utterly remake such features as rivers, mountains and the like. But you'll find very, very few if any tranquil flood theorists among self-professed "Bible Believers".
Young earth creationists to a man propose a Noachian deluge that, unbeknownst to the Bible, did massive amounts of geological work. Creationists who accept an ancient earth tend to accept a regional flood, or some other scheme.
Nor is this the only example. The Biblical language strongly suggests, for instance, that the "firmament" or "expanse" (Hebrew "raqia") that divides the "waters above" from the "waters below" -- the realm of earth from that of heaven -- was firm and solid, hard like a mirror of beaten metal. For instance birds brush their wings against it, etc. (I can gather up the verses for you if you require.)
But none of this Biblical language stops the majority of creationists from gratuitously and utterly unbiblically proposing that the raqia was something airy like water vapor in the atmosphere, or more commonly a specific layer of water or water vapor high in the atmosphere. Again this is mostly young earth creationists. (Others just ignore the raqia altogether.)
There are few (e.g. dinosaur tracks = "manprint" nutter Carl Baugh) who propose that the raqia was made of ice, and therefore solid. But even they, and other antievolutionary creationists, all join the vapor canopy theorists in a further absolutely unbiblical assumption: That the canopy was destroyed and afterward ceased to exist in conjunction with Noah's flood.
Oh, sure, the Bible doesn't explicitly deny that the raqia suddenly ceased to exist then (or at any other time). But again there's absolutely nothing in the Bible to suggest that it did, and plenty to suggest otherwise. All the Bible says touching in any way on the firmament in relation to the flood is that "the windows of heaven were opened" (or words to that effect, I'm not looking up verses just now). That's it! At most this suggests the raqia was NOT destroyed, otherwise why suggest that "windows" were opened up in it to allow the "waters above" to pass through without destroying it? Or the windows of heaven could just be a poetic allusion to simple (if extraordinarily voluminous) rain.
I've studied the antievolution movement fairly extensively. Fact is there is not a single elaboration of antievolutionary creationism that doesn't extensively substitute the "opinions of men" for the actual Word of God (if the Bible is to be taken as such) and doesn't in the process extensively contradict the most simple and straightforward reading of scripture. It just isn't possible to make a fulsome elaboration (that anyone could pretend to believe) without doing so.
Like this from Merriam Webster Online (definition number 4 in particular):
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/religion
Main Entry: re·li·gion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Anglo-French religiun, Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY
1 a : the state of a religious b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
***********************************************************
Or this one:
http://www.bartleby.com/61/6/R0140600.html
SYLLABICATION: re·li·gionSYLLABICATION:
re·li·gion
PRONUNCIATION: r-ljn
NOUN: 1a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
**********************************************************
Or this:
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861700316
re·li·gion (plural re·li·gions)
noun
Definition:
1. beliefs and worship: people's beliefs and opinions concerning the existence, nature, and worship of a deity or deities, and divine involvement in the universe and human life
2. system: an institutionalized or personal system of beliefs and practices relating to the divine
3. personal beliefs or values: a set of strongly-held beliefs, values, and attitudes that somebody lives by
4. obsession: an object, practice, cause, or activity that somebody is completely devoted to or obsessed by
************************************************************
Scientists choose to believe science because they trust what other men do. Accepting what others tell you is called trust and demonstrates faith in their work and character. Scientists have just chosen their belief system based on something other than Scripture but is it a belief system and faith and trust are used. Christians just put their faith in something more dependable.
Of course we don't. Even if the earth were perfectly flat, currents would cause some unevenness in the sediment deposit.
The sediment wouldn't have been deposited like someone frosting a cake. It would settle out and would be thicker in low and valley areas, or under the oceans, than on mountain tops. Be real.
You claim to be scientific and get something so basic wrong, and then wonder why people don't buy the ToE tripe that evolution happened when they can't get something so simple correct.
With every post like this you demonstrate your disdain for science.
How about a definition of religion from another source besides the made up by FRevos and put in their List-O-Definitions? Something more authoritative and widely recognized?
Those definitions you continually carp on?
Try a google search for those terms. Google was my primary source. It was not "FRevos" who did that list. I did that list, with some advice from a wide range of folks. Changes can still be suggested to the thread.
But if you note, those definitions were chosen to be as close as possible to the way scientists use the terms. They do not include all definitions from Merriam Webster, but rather the definitions scientists use.
And I suspect they contradict your cherished assumptions, and that is why you hate them so.
Being children of God is not inherent in being human. It only comes as a matter of will, receiving Christ.
John 8:42-47 Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me. Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don't you believe me? He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God."
Making up your own definitions and claiming that they’re *as scientists use them* isn’t fooling anybody. It’s simply as Frevos use them. Everyone else I meet recognizes those other sources as authoritative.
The "global flood" is supposed to have been about 4350 years ago.
That is a time period that is easily studied by archaeologists and soil scientists.
There is no global silt layer at that time period. Rather, there is continuity of culture and DNA before, during, and after that date in most of the world.
You are following a religious belief, while denying overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary. You should at least be able to admit that much, rather than trying to bend and distort science until the data "fits" your presuppositions. The latter is not science but apologetics.
The "father" of the modern conservative movement? No wonder he lost. He didn't carry the religious right. You can claim that religion has no business in politics but just try and keep it out of politics. Even the demorats invoke it when holding hearings on judges. You want a government without religion? Then go to Russia. You just may fit right in. And just think, you can be happy with it instead of being angry about it being in politics here.
No, what I am meant was, if man descended from earlier primates, rather than was “made from scratch” in the Garden of Eden, Genesis is repudiated, and specifically the doctrine of “original sin” resulting from Adam’s fall from grace is repudiated. And if original sin is repudiated, Jesus’s death and resurrection were unnecessary. The Christian faith is based on the notion that God sent Jesus to earth as savior, i.e. to redeem man for his original sin (Adam’s), and as the exclusive pathway to redemption.
Therefore, one cannot believe in both evolution (macro, not micro) and Christianity. The creationists have a lot at stake in taking on evolution, for if they are wrong (as they surely are), their entire religion is nonsense.
You have a right to believe what you want Buckeye, and it may not be my place to say this, but please, don't throw your life away. Read the Gospels, and read them with an open heart, and listen to what Christ has to say.
Set aside your reason, your logic, your science, your pride, and just listen, and you will know that there is only one truth, and that truth is in the word.
There is no other truth except the word.
You're right! Which is why you're conflicting with the evidence. There's a thicker layer of sediment on the continental plates than on the ocean floor. Oops.
Of course this all makes sense on the conventional model: The ocean crust carries less sediment because it's far younger than the continental crusts. And within the oceans the deep sea trenches, where new oceanic crust is being created, are the youngest of all.
Or he could be an evolutionist and decide to let all those unfit organisms (people) get killed off by natural selection.
Many people reject it because it's stupid. Monkeys accidentally transforming into humans. Banana-picking monkeys gradually perfecting banana-picking skills by monkey trial-and-error, thereby changing into full-blown cathedral-building humans. It's stupid.
>>Many people reject it because it’s stupid. Monkeys accidentally transforming into humans. Banana-picking monkeys gradually perfecting banana-picking skills by monkey trial-and-error, thereby changing into full-blown cathedral-building humans. It’s stupid.<<
Well the genetic difference between a chimp and a human is about 10 times as great as between 2 very different humans.
That seems a reasonable difference to achieve in 200,000 generations. Particularly when you consider that every human has new mutations.
Consider the Woolly mammoth died out 12,000 years ago at 20 years per generation that’s only 600 generations but think how different mammoths are from modern animals.
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.