Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?

[AVZ]

Unless there was a very unusual aneuploidy in the woman.   Then it could be.

So you are actually saying that the Virgin Birth perhaps was not a miracle?

[Michael2012]

Apparently you don't refute my post in reply #2656.

Science then is simply about the observations of fallible man about the physical realities around him.

Pretty much the way theology is about the observations of fallible man about God.

Observations of fallible man about God? Theology, unlike science is not about the observations and conclusions of fallible man about God.

Scientists tries very very hard to explain these things. Yet, all is nothing but their fallible observations and fallible conclusions.

And yet it tells us how to make computers out of dirt.   Not bad, um?

So? What does that have to do with the point of the statement? 

Fallible as they undeniably are, I am amazed that they are held, even by Christian scientists, as though, it is the truth, or as the basis of truth.

For a scientist, all theories are provisionally true.

Yes, they are, for them. Until scientists themselves prove themselves wrong, about what they now hold as true (provisionally). Nonsense and silly, I would have to say. 

The sad thing is, they even go out of their way to present them as the truth and intend to have others take it as they do, even as the truth.

It's like when you wake up and get out of bed.   You expect your feet to hit the floor.   You can't prove that you will, but you have enough data to be sure that it will happen.   Science is like that.

Nothing you said there makes the sad thing be a happy one.

So, while that is the case, the Christian must be careful not to build faith upon such nor base his believing and faith on fallible scientific observations and conclusions.

Never have faith in science.   Look at the evidence and conclude from there. 

So you don't have faith in science. And that should be the case, for no man made method, even science, used by man can get him the knowledge of the secret things or unrevealed things concerning God and His works.

How about in God, do you have faith? If you do, would you say that the truthfulness or falseness of the scientific theory of the evolution of man that you presently hold to be true, has anything to do with your faith in God? 

Our faith is in the infallible God.

Good.   Faith is for God, and evidence is for science.  Remember that you are fallible, and can be mistaken about either of them

.

That may be for you, not for me. For there is no mistake in my God. We may be fallible, but Jesus Christ is not. I can't go wrong with the Lord Jesus Christ. That is the difference perhaps, our understanding of what faith is.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but do you not claim to have faith in Jesus Christ? If so, by what you say, it seems to me that you are convinced that you could be wrong about Christ. And I'd say, that is not faith at all.

In God we have found the truth and so have the truth, upon which our faith is built upon and grows.

But fallible men make conclusions about God that may or may not be true.

Perhaps. But that does not change the fact that in God we have found the truth.

Why should we even consider looking for truth, even from fallible men, from their fallible observations and conclusions?

Good question.

And?

You may say and claim you observed evolution, but certainly not the evolution of man.

Over the last hundred years or so, scientists have.   Man continues to evolve, of course.   Remember what "evolution" is in biology.

The truth is, no one will ever directly observe an ape evolving into man. You may deny that all you like, but that will not change that. You can claim and say a million times that man continues to evolve, but that will not change anything too.

[The Barbarian]

So you are actually saying that the Virgin Birth perhaps was not a miracle?

Since God says it was His intervention, I believe Him.

[The Barbarian]

 

Science then is simply about the observations of fallible man about the physical realities around him.

Barbarian observes:
Pretty much the way theology is about the observations of fallible man about God.

Observations of fallible man about God? Theology, unlike science is not about the observations and conclusions of fallible man about God.

If it was otherwise, then everyone would agree about it.  But as you see, there is far more disagreement about God than about science.   So yes, fallible man trying to figure it out.

Scientists tries very very hard to explain these things. Yet, all is nothing but their fallible observations and fallible conclusions.

Barbarian observes:
And yet it tells us how to make computers out of dirt.   Not bad, um?

So? What does that have to do with the point of the statement?

It works.   Creationism doesn't. 

Fallible as they undeniably are, I am amazed that they are held, even by Christian scientists, as though, it is the truth, or as the basis of truth.

Barbarian observes:
For a scientist, all theories are provisionally true.

Yes, they are, for them. Until scientists themselves prove themselves wrong, about what they now hold as true (provisionally). Nonsense and silly, I would have to say.

It really has only one thing going for it.   It works.    But that's a pretty big thing.

It's like when you wake up and get out of bed.   You expect your feet to hit the floor.   You can't prove that you will, but you have enough data to be sure that it will happen.   Science is like that.

Nothing you said there makes the sad thing be a happy one.

If you happen to like computers or modern medical care, it does.

So, while that is the case, the Christian must be careful not to build faith upon such nor base his believing and faith on fallible scientific observations and conclusions.

Barbarian suggests:
Never have faith in science.   Look at the evidence and conclude from there. 

So you don't have faith in science.

I have faith in God.   Science has to provide evidence.    It's why creationism isn't science. 

And that should be the case, for no man made method, even science, used by man can get him the knowledge of the secret things or unrevealed things concerning God and His works.

Now, you're wising up.

How about in God, do you have faith?

As God says, one is justified by faith as well as by works.   So a Christian must have faith.

If you do, would you say that the truthfulness or falseness of the scientific theory of the evolution of man that you presently hold to be true, has anything to do with your faith in God?

Good question.  Science can't actually replace faith for you.   You have to do that for yourself.   However, I have moments when my little understanding of His creation puts me in awe and worship of His wisdom and goodness.   Does that count?

Barbarian explains Christians:
Our faith is in the infallible God.    Faith is for God, and evidence is for science.  Remember that you are fallible, and can be mistaken about either of them

That may be for you, not for me.

Well, I've spent a lifetime learning about both of them, so I might have a different perspective than one who is less familiar with one or both.

For there is no mistake in my God. We may be fallible, but Jesus Christ is not. I can't go wrong with the Lord Jesus Christ.

Unless you start adding things to what He actually said.  Then, it's a problem.   This is the flaw of YE creationism.  It asserts man's word for God's.

If you have faith in Jesus Christ, trust that what He actually told you is sufficient.   

If so, by what you say, it seems to me that you are convinced that you could be wrong about Christ.

Notice that there are many, many things about Jesus on which Christians do not agree.   At best only one of the dozens of sides can be right.   On the other hand, the message He left us is universal among Christians.   So I'd say you were safe on those things.

And the wonderful thing is, that's all you need for salvation.   Be happy in that, and if you're wrong on the things that don't matter, don't fret about it.

Barbarian observes:
Fallible men make conclusions about God that may or may not be true.

Perhaps.

No perhaps about it.   All those different denominations all saying different things...  there it is.

But that does not change the fact that in God we have found the truth.

Then be happy in that which unites Christians and don't get caught up in men's additions.

Why should we even consider looking for truth, even from fallible men, from their fallible observations and conclusions?

Barbarian observes:
Good question.

And?

Instead of adding things to Christianity, each man believing what is right in his eyes, just accept it as it is.

You may say and claim you observed evolution, but certainly not the evolution of man.

Barbarian observes:
Over the last hundred years or so, scientists have.   Man continues to evolve, of course.   Remember what "evolution" is in biology.

The truth is, no one will ever directly observe an ape evolving into man.

And no one will ever directly observe a seed grow into a giant redwood.   You may deny that all you like, but that will not change that. You can claim and say a million times that giant redwoods can grow from seeds, but that will not change anything too.

[AVZ]

Since God says it was His intervention, I believe Him.

In the same Bible God also says He formed Adam from the dust of the ground.
Yet you believe and promote that Adam descended from apes.

For both scenarios you have a scientific alternative, so why not be consistent?

[AVZ]

And no one will ever directly observe a seed grow into a giant redwood.

Not true.
This has been observed thousands of times and can be observed every single day.

[4WD]

In the same Bible God also says He formed Adam from the dust of the ground.
Yet you believe and promote that Adam descended from apes.

The Bible says that you are made of dust.  How do you explain that?  And how is that different from Adam?

[Texas Conservative]

Unless there was a very unusual aneuploidy in the woman.   Then it could be.

No, because if the woman had aneuploidy, she would be infertile.

https://evolvegene.com/your-genetics-may-be-preventing-you-from-conceiving-a-child/

[Texas Conservative]

Not if God utilized the insemination process to start the miracle.

It is still impossible via science.  Science does not allow for God working.  It explains natural processes or seeks to do so.  With the natural processes God put in place, a virgin birth is impossible.

God directly interfered in the birth of Jesus Christ.  Science has no way to account for that, and I don't believe your average scientist would even allow for that.

[The Barbarian]

In the same Bible God also says He formed Adam from the dust of the ground.

The only difference is, you don't approve of the way he did it.

[The Barbarian]

No, because if the woman had aneuploidy, she would be infertile.

Nope.   And in at least one form of observed aneuploidy, a woman gave birth to an XX individual who was male. 

Guess how that happened.

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:   
And no one will ever directly observe a seed grow into a giant redwood.

Not true.

Absolutely true.  No one could ever live long enough to observe it.

This has been observed thousands of times and can be observed every single day.

Ah, you're talking about growing from a seed to a small tree.  That's microgrowth.   Everyone knows that microgrowth is true.   But as you know, macrogrowth is impossible, since no one has ever seen it happen.

[Michael2012]

Observations of fallible man about God? Theology, unlike science is not about the observations and conclusions of fallible man about God.

If it was otherwise, then everyone would agree about it.  But as you see, there is far more disagreement about God than about science.   So yes, fallible man trying to figure it out.

The point remains, science is simply about the observations of fallible man about the physical realities around him.

On the other hand, Theology is about understanding God, who created these physical realities. Man understand differently. Why? One is, God is Spirit. And as scriptures say, "But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." With that then, Theology is not a matter of discernment by observation and conclusion, but by the spirit.

Scientists tries very very hard to explain these things. Yet, all is nothing but their fallible observations and fallible conclusions.

Barbarian observes:
And yet it tells us how to make computers out of dirt.   Not bad, um?

So? What does that have to do with the point of the statement?

It works.   Creationism doesn't. 

Well, you may see it that way for you. How that works and works for you is not the point. The point is simply that science is nothing but scientist's fallible observations and conclusions. 

Fallible as they undeniably are, I am amazed that they are held, even by Christian scientists, as though, it is the truth, or as the basis of truth.

Barbarian observes:
For a scientist, all theories are provisionally true.

Yes, they are, for them. Until scientists themselves prove themselves wrong, about what they now hold as true (provisionally). Nonsense and silly, I would have to say.

It really has only one thing going for it.   It works.    But that's a pretty big thing.

And again, that is beyond the point.

The sad thing is, they even go out of their way to present them as the truth and intend to have others take it as they do, even as the truth.

It's like when you wake up and get out of bed.   You expect your feet to hit the floor.   You can't prove that you will, but you have enough data to be sure that it will happen.   Science is like that.

Nothing you said there makes the sad thing be a happy one.

If you happen to like computers or modern medical care, it does.

You are actually telling me that liking computers or modern medical care turns the sad thing that scientists "even go out of their way to present them as the truth and intend to have others take it as they do, even as the truth", into a happy one? Well, if that is the case for you, it certainly is not for me. Wow! You are really something else.

So, while that is the case, the Christian must be careful not to build faith upon such nor base his believing and faith on fallible scientific observations and conclusions.

Barbarian suggests:
Never have faith in science.   Look at the evidence and conclude from there. 

So you don't have faith in science.

I have faith in God.   Science has to provide evidence.    It's why creationism isn't science.

Good to hear, behind all that you say, that you have faith in God.

And that should be the case, for no man made method, even science, used by man can get him the knowledge of the secret things or unrevealed things concerning God and His works.

Now, you're wising up.

And you don't agree? Or do you think that man can or you can? Well, I'm sorry to disappoint you for I'm pretty sure, you can't nor any scientist can nor all of you combined.

How about in God, do you have faith?

As God says, one is justified by faith as well as by works.   So a Christian must have faith.

Well, I can see now why, for you believe that your justification before God is by faith and by your works. That's a misunderstanding. For justification before God is not by works but by faith. For it if works justify a man before God, then, as scriptures say, man have something to boast about. He certainly can boast about his works, but not before God. I think you should read and study the Bible and know more about God more than science. That I'm sure would do you more good than not.

If you do, would you say that the truthfulness or falseness of the scientific theory of the evolution of man that you presently hold to be true, has anything to do with your faith in God?

Good question. Science can't actually replace faith for you.   You have to do that for yourself.   However, I have moments when my little understanding of His creation puts me in awe and worship of His wisdom and goodness.   Does that count?

Anything that glorifies God is right and good and counts. But telling this board that God created man as per science's fallible theory of evolution makes the difference.

Our faith is in the infallible God.

Faith is for God, and evidence is for science.  Remember that you are fallible, and can be mistaken about either of them

That may be for you, not for me.

Well, I've spent a lifetime learning about both of them, so I might have a different perspective than one who is less familiar with one or both.

You could be right about that in human terms. But if you don't realize it yet, with regards God, a lifetime of learning does not mean one knows better by that.   

For there is no mistake in my God. We may be fallible, but Jesus Christ is not. I can't go wrong with the Lord Jesus Christ.

Unless you start adding things to what He actually said.  Then, it's a problem.   This is the flaw of YE creationism.  It asserts man's word for God's.

If you have faith in Jesus Christ, trust that what He actually told you is sufficient.

Yes, I have faith in Jesus Christ and I trust that what He told us (written in scriptures) is sufficient. Is that not the case for you?

If so, by what you say, it seems to me that you are convinced that you could be wrong about Christ.

Notice that there are many, many things about Jesus on which Christians do not agree.   At best only one of the dozens of sides can be right.   On the other hand, the message He left us is universal among Christians.   So I'd say you were safe on those things.

And the wonderful thing is, that's all you need for salvation.   Be happy in that, and if you're wrong on the things that don't matter, don't fret about it.

No sir. The wonderful thing is that the Lord Jesus Christ is all I need for my salvation.

And with that, I would say, you don't have to put down YE creationist which you do time and again in this forum, just because they don't agree with you about certain scientific fallible theory. With your own words, "Be happy in that, and if you're wrong on the things that don't matter, don't fret about it".

In God we have found the truth and so have the truth, upon which our faith is built upon and grows.

Barbarian observes:
Fallible men make conclusions about God that may or may not be true.

Perhaps.

No perhaps about it.   All those different denominations all saying different things...  there it is.

Well you don't get to make my opinion. And you must avoid taking what I said into isolated pieces, for they are stripped off of their context. It's misleading by the way.

But that does not change the fact that in God we have found the truth.

Then be happy in that which unites Christians and don't get caught up in men's additions.

That goes for you as well.

Now, if you agree that we have found truth in God, then to whom else would we go if we're in search for truth? To whom would you point anyone who searches for truth? Of course, to Jesus Christ, is it not?

Why should we even consider looking for truth, even from fallible men, from their fallible observations and conclusions?

Good question.

And?

Instead of adding things to Christianity, each man believing what is right in his eyes, just accept it as it is.

That's your opinion. I respect that.

Relative to this discussion, I would say, that the Christian must realize that he can't know the truth about God and His works by any man made method other than by the Spirit of God.

You may say and claim you observed evolution, but certainly not the evolution of man.

Barbarian observes:
Over the last hundred years or so, scientists have.   Man continues to evolve, of course.   Remember what "evolution" is in biology.

The truth is, no one will ever directly observe an ape evolving into man.

And no one will ever directly observe a seed grow into a giant redwood. You may deny that all you like, but that will not change that. You can claim and say a million times that giant redwoods can grow from seeds, but that will not change anything too.

The point remains, no one will ever directly observe an ape evolving into a man. And you know what that means.

[AVZ]

Barbarian observes:   
And no one will ever directly observe a seed grow into a giant redwood.

Absolutely true.  No one could ever live long enough to observe it.

Ah, you're talking about growing from a seed to a small tree.  That's microgrowth.   Everyone knows that microgrowth is true.   But as you know, macrogrowth is impossible, since no one has ever seen it happen.

If I give you a Giant Redwood seed and you would put it in soil, after some time you will see it sprout.
You now have a Giant Redwood seedling, which you can observe.
After a few months you will have a Giant Redwood plant, which you can observe
After a few years you will have a small Giant Redwood tree which, you can observe
After a few decades you will have a bigger Giant Redwood tree, which you can observe.

After that the tree will just grow bigger. It will still remain the same tree with the same properties.
All it does is grow bigger.
The observation from seed into Giant Redwood however was made years earlier, right at the start.

I had to look up the term "microgrowth" and "macrogrowth" but am unable to find any reference for it.
Is that a scientific term?
Perhaps you can give some guidelines?


What is also obvious is your corruption of the term observation.
There is no scientific requirement that an observation must be made by one person within his life span.
On observation is a thing in and by itself and it may be executed by many different people over many generations if necessary.
What counts in science is the proper recording of the observation.
Even if the observation would last 10 generations, it would still count as 1 observation.

The other objection is your arbitrarily use of the word "direct observation".
"Direct" does not mean "from begin to end".
A Giant Redwood tree does not become a Giant Redwood tree only in the last second of its life.
It became a Giant Redwood tree many many decades before.
In fact a Giant Redwood seed turns into a Giant Redwood tree way within the lifespan of a human.

So, the growth of a seed into a Giant Redwood tree has been directly observed numerous times by numerous people.
What has however never been observed is a Giant Redwood seed producing and Oak Tree or a Pine Tree or a Tomato Plant.

[The Barbarian]

If I give you a Giant Redwood seed and you would put it in soil, after some time you will see it sprout.

(If I give you a population of animals, and you keep them for a while in unusual conditions, you will observe a change in allele frequencies.) 

You now have a Giant Redwood seedling, which you can observe.

(You now have a population of evolving animals)

After a few months you will have a Giant Redwood plant, which you can observe

(after a few generations, you will see more genetic changes)

After a few years you will have a small Giant Redwood tree which, you can observe

(After even more generations, you will see significant evolutionary change)

After a few decades you will have a bigger Giant Redwood tree, which you can observe.

After a lot of generations, your population will be noticably different from others like it)

After that the tree will just grow bigger. It will still remain the same tree with the same properties.

(After that, the population will continue to evolve.   It will be a different population, with new alleles)

All it does is grow bigger.

(all the population does is continue to evolve, although it might at some point become a new species within your lifetime)

The observation from seed into Giant Redwood however was made years earlier, right at the start.

(the observation of evolution was made years earlier, right at the start)

However, a redwood tree needs many human lifetimes to grow into a giant redwood.   You're still focusing on microgrowth, pretending it's macrogrowth.   Likewise, a population will generally take many human lifetimes to evolve into a new genus or family, although speciation might happen withina lifetime..

I had to look up the term "microgrowth" and "macrogrowth" but am unable to find any reference for it.
Is that a scientific term?

It's having a little fun with the creationist revision of "microevolution" and "macroevolution."

Perhaps you can give some guidelines?

A good text on evolution could probably help you, but here's the key: "macroevolution" is the evolution of new taxa.   Speciation, in other words.

There is no scientific requirement that an observation must be made by one person within his life span.

Right.  So evidence from the past can be used to determine what happened.  This is why we know about common descent.

In fact a Giant Redwood seed turns into a Giant Redwood tree way within the lifespan of a human.

Nope.  Redwoods grow three to ten feet a year, depending on age.   Mature redwoods average 500 to 1000 years old.   You're willing to accept the evidence for that, because giant redwoods don't upset your new doctrines of creationism.   

Likewise, you don't accept common descent, because it does interfere with your man-made doctrine.   Simple as that.

[Johnb]

The Barbarian 
So are you saying the Biblical account of creation is a man made doctrine?  I have not been following this eternal thread so perhaps I missed something

[AVZ]

However, a redwood tree needs many human lifetimes to grow into a giant redwood.   You're still focusing on microgrowth, pretending it's macrogrowth.   Likewise, a population will generally take many human lifetimes to evolve into a new genus or family, although speciation might happen withina lifetime..

I think its time you shapen up your biology a little.

Giant Redwood is a proper name. In Latin that would be "Sequoiadendron giganteum"
Its like you have a baby and you name him "Big Johnny".
So even if the baby is 6 pounds and 50cm tall...he still is knows as "Big Johnny".

Redwood trees do not become Giant Redwoods, only those redwood trees which are Giant Redwoods will remain Giant Redwoods.
The other redwood trees, such as for example Sequoia sempervirens may grow very large, but they will never become Sequoiadendron giganteum.

Now, quite similar to baby "Big Johnny" who we can observe growing into maturity within a human lifespan, we can also observe a little Sequoiadendron giganteum grow into maturity within a human lifespan. Maturity starts at an approximate age of 15 years, well within the span of human observation.

Your self-invented terms "microgrowth" and "macrogrowth" make absolutely no sense, moreover since you are unable to present a proper definition for the terms.
You attempt to borrow from the terms "micro evolution" and "macro evolution" in a totally misguided attempt to draw similarities where they do not exist.
Micro Evolution means small adaptations within one species, whilst Macro Evolution points to significant changes in multiple species.

What you are trying to do is to take the total lifespan of one tree of one species and try to divide its life into two parts: namely the earlier part of its life (microgrowth) and the later part of its life (macrogrowth).
Its not even scientific, it has absolutely no similarities to micro/macro evolution, it limits itself to one individual compared to multiple species.

But it also again shows the totally arbitrarily use of terminology and made up definitions for which your posts are well known.
I am of course hinting to terminologies like "facts" which are not "facts", "observations" which are not "observations", "proof" which is not "proof", "evidence" which is not "evidence", "irrefutable" which can be "refuted", "miracles" which are not "miracles" and "belief" which is not "belief"...all because you say so.

The funny part of your Giant Redwood analogy however is that it does not serve your position whatsoever.
See, the Giant Redwood tree was a Giant Redwood 1000 years ago..and still is. Its seeds are Giant Redwood seeds from which new Giant Redwood trees grow.
In turn these new trees drop seeds from which Giant Redwood trees grow and so on.
Nothing changes. The Giant Redwood tree remains a Giant Redwood tree and if you stand in a Giant Redwood forest, you have more or less the longest living record that proves nothing changes even after thousands of generations, over thousands of years, over thousands of offspring.
And its all there: observable, measurable and conclusive.

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
However, a redwood tree needs many human lifetimes to grow into a giant redwood.   You're still focusing on microgrowth, pretending it's macrogrowth.   Likewise, a population will generally take many human lifetimes to evolve into a new genus or family, although speciation might happen within a lifetime..

I think its time you shapen up your biology a little.

Always looking to do that...

Giant Redwood is a proper name.

No, it's a common name.

And as you learned, they take many human lifetimes to grow to maturity.   
 

Your self-invented terms "microgrowth" and "macrogrowth" make absolutely no sense,...

Precisely the way creationist misuse of "microevolution" and  "macroevolution" make absolutely no sense.   I'm funning you a little about it.

Micro Evolution means small adaptations within one species,

Yep.

whilst Macro Evolution points to significant changes in multiple species.

Nope.  It means the evolution of new taxa.  Speciation, in other words.

Its not even scientific, it has absolutely no similarities to micro/macro evolution, it limits itself to one individual compared to multiple species.

Just noting that you're perfectly willing to accept indirect evidence for the growth of a seed to a mature giant redwood, but you're unwilling to accept the same sort of evidence for common descent.   And it's clear why.   Your new interpretation of Genesis won't let you accept those facts.

The funny part of your Giant Redwood analogy however is that it does not serve your position whatsoever.

See above.   It quite nicely showed your logical blind spot when it came to the facts about common descent.

[The Barbarian]

So are you saying the Biblical account of creation is a man made doctrine?

I'm saying the modern revision of Genesis by YE creationists is a man-made doctrine.

Since the text itself tells you that it's not a literal history, it's an error to try to make it so.

[AVZ]

I'm saying the modern revision of Genesis by YE creationists is a man-made doctrine.

Since the text itself tells you that it's not a literal history, it's an error to try to make it so.

That "modern" revision happens to be something people believed for centuries past.
It is of course evolutionists who recently came with a "modern revision"

[Ginger Rella]

LOOK....

This has been nagging me for a while now.....

I am not firmly entrenched in the evolution end of things like many of you.... but....

Is there a possibility that all the changes in the homosapien species that range from everything LGBTQ-U ( u for undecided and my addition)
to all the truly weird food afflictions from Celiac... ( at epidemic proportions) and nut allergies .... ( at epidemic proportions) and lactose intolerance... ( at epidemic proportions)  That stuff that  was never heard much of 50 years ago.

Could these explsions of what we would call the not normal human experience actually be evolution in the works?

[Jaime]

That would be DE-volution.

[Amo]

That would be DE-volution.

Correct. Which is exactly where all the evidence really points. The world, plant and animal life are all now inferior to God's original creation. It was all bigger, better, and lasted a lot longer than it does now.

[Ginger Rella]

Correct. Which is exactly where all the evidence really points. The world, plant and animal life are all now inferior to God's original creation. It was all bigger, better, and lasted a lot longer than it does now.
[/quote

That is true.

[Johnb]

The Barbarian   Can you point out where scripture declares that the creation is not literal history?

[The Barbarian]

That "modern" revision happens to be something people believed for centuries past.

Maybe someone did, but it was never the opinion of most Christians.  Augustine, for example, showed how the text itself says that it's not a literal history.

Spurgeon, the great Baptist theologian, pointed out that scripture was consistent with an Earth millions of years old.

The creationism presented at the Scopes Trial was old Earth creationism.

YE is a very modern revision of Genesis.

[The Barbarian]

The Barbarian   Can you point out where scripture declares that the creation is not literal history?

As Augustine pointed out, the mention of mornings and evenings with no Sun to have them, makes it very clear that it's not a literal history.

But it's not a salvation issue.   Most denominations quite properly make no doctrinal claims one way or the other.

[AVZ]

Maybe someone did, but it was never the opinion of most Christians.  Augustine, for example, showed how the text itself says that it's not a literal history.

Spurgeon, the great Baptist theologian, pointed out that scripture was consistent with an Earth millions of years old.

The creationism presented at the Scopes Trial was old Earth creationism.

YE is a very modern revision of Genesis.

You say "it was never the opinion of most Christians" and then you proceed to mention 2
What a sad state we are in if the majority is 2 people.

Anyway, both Augustine and Spurgeon are bad examples for you.
Augustine actually argued that the whole of creation was done at once and at the same time.
And if you wish Augustine to be your guideline of truth, do you agree with him that man was created directly by God and that woman was made from a rib of man?

Same goes for Spurgeon, he did not necessarily reject the idea on an old earth, but he would whoop your ass for all the other claims you make.
Sure you want him on your side?

So if both Augustine and Spurgeon represent "most" Christians...can we conclude your theories are the new kid on the block and a laughing stock to Christians of the first 19 centuries?

YE is not at all a modern revision, it has existed from as long as we are able to go back in history.
Which by the way is far longer than you can go back with regards to evolution.

[The Barbarian]

(Barbarian notes that a literal Genesis was never the opinion of most Christians)

You say "it was never the opinion of most Christians" and then you proceed to mention 2

Augustine was the most influential Christian in his time. He is still honored as a major theologian by all three major branches of Christianity.

Spurgeon is perhaps the greatest Baptist theologian.

And as you know, I pointed out that OE creationism was the dominant creationist doctrine at the time of the Scopes trial.

Anyway, both Augustine and Spurgeon are bad examples for you.
Augustine actually argued that the whole of creation was done at once and at the same time.

He said the initial creation was instantaneous, from which everything else developed.   Pretty good theology, I think.

And if you wish Augustine to be your guideline of truth, do you agree with him that man was created directly by God

Augustine notes that man's soul was created directly by God.   Which is true.   Augustine also understood that Adam was a real person.   However, I'm looking for a place wherein Augustine said man's body was directly created by God.   The Bible says it came from the earth like other animals, and only says that our soul was directly given by God.

Same goes for Spurgeon, he did not necessarily reject the idea on an old earth, but he would whoop your ass for all the other claims you make.

He surely wouldn't be considered an orthodox apostolic Christian, but he was a Christian, and he did realize that a young earth was inconsistent with Scripture.

Sure you want him on your side?

When he's right, he's right.

So if both Augustine and Spurgeon represent "most" Christians...

As you know, a young earth and a literal Genesis have never been Christian orthodoxy.    There have always been those who thought these were right, but such ideas were never church doctrine.

can we conclude your theories are the new kid on the block and a laughing stock to Christians of the first 19 centuries?

See above.  As you know, YE creationism is a modern invention, no older than the 20th century.   It was invented by the Seventh Day Adventists, and spread to other sects by Price.

[Johnb]

Quote   As Augustine pointed out, the mention of mornings and evenings with no Sun to have them, makes it very clear that it's not a literal history.

But it's not a salvation issue.   Most denominations quite properly make no doctrinal claims one way or the other.


So I guess when Jesus spoke in the future and said at the last supper take and drink this is my blood which is poured out and take eat this bread id my body which is broken for you then the crucifixion is not literal because He had not been put on a cross or had any injuries yet?  Your explanation of God speaking of what He was putting into place makes little sense.  You believe in a God that tells us lies,  That is not the God I believe in or the God of the bible.   

God created us with the ability to change both spiritually and physically but in the limits He has imposed.  If you believe that life started from a one cell creature that took millions of years to become man you do not believe in the God of scripture. 

[Alan]

God created us with the ability to change both spiritually and physically but in the limits He has imposed.  If you believe that life started from a one cell creature that took millions of years to become man you do not believe in the God of scripture.

That's a very obtuse conclusion John, no one is claiming that all biblical verses should be taken metaphorically but some chapters and verses are designed to be left up to man to figure out and compare with our findings, Genesis 1 is a perfect example of where the creation account works perfectly with scientific theories, however the reverse is not true.

As has been repeatedly pointed out in this very long thread, the Bible contains verses that are not literal but they never seem to be an obstacle when YEC are discussing the literal intent of the creation account.

[Texas Conservative]

It was not mentioned by Barbarian that the view that man evolved from a "retarded monkey-fish-frog" was not held by Spurgeon.

[4WD]

If you believe that life started from a one cell creature that took millions of years to become man you do not believe in the God of scripture.

That is terribly naive and unfair.  Scripture clearly says it is the sun that moves across the earth from morning to night (Eccl 1:5) and that the earth is stationary and does not move (1 Chron 16:30).  Do you believe in the God of Scripture? Or is there a non-literal meaning associated with those verses? Does the earth really rotate once every day and revolve around the sun once every year?  If so, prove it from Scripture; prove from Scripture that the earth is not stationary that it actually does move; prove from Scripture that both Ecclesiastes 1:5 and 1 Chronicles 16:30 are wrong.

[Michael2012]

Quote from: Johnb on Today at 07:05:46
If you believe that life started from a one cell creature that took millions of years to become man you do not believe in the God of scripture.

That is terribly naive and unfair.  Scripture clearly says it is the sun that moves across the earth from morning to night (Eccl 1:5) and that the earth is stationary and does not move (1 Chron 16:30).  Do you believe in the God of Scripture? Or is there a non-literal meaning associated with those verses? Does the earth really rotate once every day and revolve around the sun once every year?  If so, prove it from Scripture; prove from Scripture that the earth is not stationary that it actually does move; prove from Scripture that both Ecclesiastes 1:5 and 1 Chronicles 16:30 are wrong.

I have to agree with Johnb there. Besides, can you tell us what you think is God's purpose in doing that? God, in everything He does is with purpose, don't you agree?

Regarding Eccl. 1:5, it is not saying that it is the sun that moves across the earth from morning to night nor does it say the opposite. What it says is from the writer's experience of things and perspective. And we can all relate to that, don't we? From where we are, our perspective and experience of the sun is the same as Eccl. 1:5 tells us.

 

[Alan]

I agree, let's introduce the writers perspective to this discussion.