Fellow Christians

[CezeN]

I was wondering - how do you reconcile your belief in the truth of the Bible(more specifically the story of our origin), with Abiogenesis or Evolution?

Honestly, I haven't made up my mind about the matters. I have a sort of doublethink thing going on.

I certainly believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God.
However, I also consider that evolution has evidence and is probably true.
It's sort of a conflict between what I have faith in and what I believe based on the scientific evidence Evolution is said to have.

I less so believe in Abiogenesis(there's no real evidence distinguishing it from being more than just a possibility), however I consider the possibility that it might be true - all while having Faith that Genesis is correct.

Today, I ventured to try to make them compatible, by drawing a symbolic connection between what Genesis says and what Science proposes.
It worked to a certain point, however an online friend still pointed out the other differences between what science thinks, and Genesis.
(Something about the timeline of the Universe and Sun&Moon)

So, back to the question, do you guys accept either or both Evolution and some of the current theories of Abiogenesis and how do you rationalize it with your faith?

[Rei]

Quite honestly, the first creation account in Genesis is very poetic and conveys truth that way; this does not mean that it is a scientific account of the exact process God used. So I figure that if science suggests that the process was the Big Bang and Evolution, then I have no problem with that. They just show me the physical process God may have used.

I can't comment on abiogenesis as I'm not familiar with the term and what it encompasses.

[jotabe]

In my case i don't believe the Bible to be the inspired word of God. Just playing on words, i believe it to be words inspired by the experience of God. And then, often twisted to fit the purpouses of some of the later writers and rewriters (which were to create an idea of "nation", in the times of the Babylon deportation). This is besides the point, in any case, sorry.

As a Christian, i have no problem with the likely possibility that the story of the Genesis is just an amalgamation of the creation myths the jewish people have come across from their neighbours. Rewritten to fit with their belief in God, an experience which left them marked, but with so many questions. And where there are questions unanswered, our mind will fill the blanks.

For Rei: as i understand the term, abiogenesis is the process through which inert but complex organic molecules become life, that is, gain the capabilities to self-sustain, to conserve their estructure, and to self-replicate. While the process that actually happened on Earth might never be known (unless that we learn to read as "fossiles" data that we can't interpret at the present), there are many candidate processes that are known to work, under certain environmental conditions. There is also a good idea of which molecule could be considered as the first "life-form".

[elfprince13]

I was wondering - how do you reconcile your belief in the truth of the Bible(more specifically the story of our origin), with Abiogenesis or Evolution?

Honestly, I haven't made up my mind about the matters. I have a sort of doublethink thing going on.

I certainly believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God.
However, I also consider that evolution has evidence and is probably true.
It's sort of a conflict between what I have faith in and what I believe based on the scientific evidence Evolution is said to have.

I less so believe in Abiogenesis(there's no real evidence distinguishing it from being more than just a possibility), however I consider the possibility that it might be true - all while having Faith that Genesis is correct.

Today, I ventured to try to make them compatible, by drawing a symbolic connection between what Genesis says and what Science proposes.
It worked to a certain point, however an online friend still pointed out the other differences between what science thinks, and Genesis.
(Something about the timeline of the Universe and Sun&Moon)

So, back to the question, do you guys accept either or both Evolution and some of the current theories of Abiogenesis and how do you rationalize it with your faith?

To quote C.S. Lewis:

"Do I agree that the theory of evolution, its truth or falsehood, is of fundamental importance to the Xtian faith?" This question can have several senses, in some of which the answer yes wd. most seriously misrepresent my position. I believe that Man has fallen from the state of innocence in which he was created: I therefore disbelieve in any theory wh. contradicts this. It is not yet obvious to me that all theories of evolution do contradict it. When they do not, it is not my business to pronounce on their truth or falsehood. My "message" on any biological theorem wh. does not contradict (or wh. I, with my imperfect process of reasoning, do not perceive to contradict) the Creed, is not "equivocal" but non-existent: just as my message about the curvature of space is not equivocal but non-existent. Just as my belief in my own immortal & rational soul does not oblige or qualify me to hold a particular theory of the pre-natal history of my embryo, so my belief that Men in general have immortal & rational souls does not oblige or qualify me to hold a theory of their pre-human organic history—if they have one.

Thanks for your interesting letter of the 8th:—I can't have made my position clear. I am not either attacking or defending Evolution. I believe that Christianity can still be believed, even if Evolution is true. This is where you and I differ. Thinking as I do, I can't help regarding your advice (that I henceforth include arguments against Evolution in all my Christian apologetics) as a temptation to fight the battle on what is really a false issue: and also on terrain very unsuitable for the only weapon I have. Atheism is as old as Epicurus, and very few polytheists regard their gods as creative.

My journey through faith and science has been an interesting one, and intimately tied to the development of my personal belief structure and perception of the balancing act that is required for a healthy faith. For most of my childhood I embraced the idea of a literal 7-day creation, but at some point (probably.....5th grade) I became aware of the cognitive dissonance created by my frequent consumption of dino-literature and my belief in 7-day creation. Sometime shortly thereafter I was exposed to the concepts of old-earth Creationism, which I clung to and developed my theology around for most of my middle and high school years. I was exposed early on the writings of Phillip E. Johnson, and this (along with a societal-warfare mentality acquired from Citizen magazine) stuck with me for a long time and strongly influenced my perception of evolution. By 9th and 10th grade I was quite comfortable debating the merits of OEC with both skeptics of the Christian faith and with fellow Christians who still accepted a 7-day creation story.

It was actually my frustration at the lack of scientific understanding among my fellow believers that led me to realize my own lack of understanding of pretty much everything to do with biology. I still felt comfortable with my understanding of physics, astronomy, and the earth sciences and my ability to reconcile them with my understanding of scripture, but I felt way out of my depth in discussing biology. If pressed I could spout trite answers about macro and microevolution, but in my own mind it was increasingly difficult to see the difference between the two in the long term. Over the course of 2009 I had several experiences that helped mature my understanding of the issues involved, and I now consider myself a believer in what has been referred to as theistic evolution (though I still feel more comfortable discussing physics and theology than biology and theology). The most significant of these events was being given a copy of the book "The Language of God" by Francis Collins (a molecular biologist and geneticist who was the head of the Human Genome Project, and is now the director of the NIH) by my grandfather. Collins is a Christian, and in his writings he makes it very clear that his pursuit of science is harmonious with his faith. The second was attending a class which my dad was teaching on Reason and Faith, in which we discussed different schools of apologetics and the crucial roles of both reason and poetry/story/creative pursuits in understanding truth (delightful tangent: the greek words from which we get logic and myth were originally synonyms for truth). The third was a series of encounters with "The Dino Pastor", an ardent Young Earth Creationist, and a proponent of flood geology. What I took out of these three events can be approximated as follows:
1) Modern evolutionary theory is almost certainly correct. Historically it's had some rough patches, but that's besides the point.
2) Protestant-but-not-Calvinist Christianity provides the only worldview which I have found to be externally consistent with my observations of human nature. Given other evidences and encounters which I won't detail now, I have faith (read as: my belief is certain enough that it informs my actions) in Christianity.
3) If 1 and 2 are both true, they must be reconcilable. I know my understanding of both is flawed and incomplete, and I must strive for the best understanding I can to form a worldview which is both internally and externally consistent.
4) Most people have beliefs which are more or less rational when considered in the light of their presuppositions about the world (the "axioms" of their worldview). The most productive conversations between disagreeing parties begin when you start from the presuppositions and work upwards from there.
5) It is crucial for me to point out flawed arguments on all sides. This is the intellectual honesty version of "the ends don't justify the means."


tl;dr version: I strongly suggest reading The Language of God, by Francis Collins; studying the historical development of the Bible and the Israelite people; and develop your understanding of science in such a way that as to be inclusive of a God who is active in Creation and who created the laws of physics, rather than trying to stuff Him into the gaps in your scientific understanding. Also, check out http://www.biologos.org

Jota: You can't talk about scripture as a whole like that. The Bible is a mix of narrative, poetry, letters, prophecy, and various combinations thereof. While I would agree that, for example, Paul's writings or the historical accounts of the books of Kings or Chronicles may not be "God-breathed", I would be more inclined to say that the prophetic books contain a high proportion of God's actual words. Each book has a historical context and a purpose for which it was written and you have to know what's what and who's who for each book.

[jotabe]

I have to concede your point where not the whole scripture is like that. I was thinking mostly about the pentateuch, which are books probably heavily and intently re-written during the babylon period. There are earlier books in the bible which are more historically accurate.

Nevertheless, i see very little "God-breathed" text in the old testament, as the "lord of the armies" is very inconsistent with Jesus, and Jesus himself has to go to great lengths to make it look coherent. Plus, prophetic books are vastly misunderstood, and were even misunderstood in Jesus time, which isn't surprising in any case, as we are talking about very different peoples, whose only common factor is the idea of genetic continuity.

This is how i view it, in any case.

[CezeN]

To quote C.S. Lewis:

*snip*

My journey through faith and science has been an interesting one, and intimately tied to the development of my personal belief structure and perception of the balancing act that is required for a healthy faith. For most of my childhood I embraced the idea of a literal 7-day creation, but at some point (probably.....5th grade) I became aware of the cognitive dissonance created by my frequent consumption of dino-literature and my belief in 7-day creation. Sometime shortly thereafter I was exposed to the concepts of old-earth Creationism, which I clung to and developed my theology around for most of my middle and high school years. I was exposed early on the writings of Phillip E. Johnson, and this (along with a societal-warfare mentality acquired from Citizen magazine) stuck with me for a long time and strongly influenced my perception of evolution. By 9th and 10th grade I was quite comfortable debating the merits of OEC with both skeptics of the Christian faith and with fellow Christians who still accepted a 7-day creation story.

It was actually my frustration at the lack of scientific understanding among my fellow believers that led me to realize my own lack of understanding of pretty much everything to do with biology. I still felt comfortable with my understanding of physics, astronomy, and the earth sciences and my ability to reconcile them with my understanding of scripture, but I felt way out of my depth in discussing biology. If pressed I could spout trite answers about macro and microevolution, but in my own mind it was increasingly difficult to see the difference between the two in the long term. Over the course of 2009 I had several experiences that helped mature my understanding of the issues involved, and I now consider myself a believer in what has been referred to as theistic evolution (though I still feel more comfortable discussing physics and theology than biology and theology). The most significant of these events was being given a copy of the book "The Language of God" by Francis Collins (a molecular biologist and geneticist who was the head of the Human Genome Project, and is now the director of the NIH) by my grandfather. Collins is a Christian, and in his writings he makes it very clear that his pursuit of science is harmonious with his faith. The second was attending a class which my dad was teaching on Reason and Faith, in which we discussed different schools of apologetics and the crucial roles of both reason and poetry/story/creative pursuits in understanding truth (delightful tangent: the greek words from which we get logic and myth were originally synonyms for truth). The third was a series of encounters with "The Dino Pastor", an ardent Young Earth Creationist, and a proponent of flood geology. What I took out of these three events can be approximated as follows:
1) Modern evolutionary theory is almost certainly correct. Historically it's had some rough patches, but that's besides the point.
2) Protestant-but-not-Calvinist Christianity provides the only worldview which I have found to be externally consistent with my observations of human nature. Given other evidences and encounters which I won't detail now, I have faith (read as: my belief is certain enough that it informs my actions) in Christianity.
3) If 1 and 2 are both true, they must be reconcilable. I know my understanding of both is flawed and incomplete, and I must strive for the best understanding I can to form a worldview which is both internally and externally consistent.
4) Most people have beliefs which are more or less rational when considered in the light of their presuppositions about the world (the "axioms" of their worldview). The most productive conversations between disagreeing parties begin when you start from the presuppositions and work upwards from there.
5) It is crucial for me to point out flawed arguments on all sides. This is the intellectual honesty version of "the ends don't justify the means."


tl;dr version: I strongly suggest reading The Language of God, by Francis Collins; studying the historical development of the Bible and the Israelite people; and develop your understanding of science in such a way that as to be inclusive of a God who is active in Creation and who created the laws of physics, rather than trying to stuff Him into the gaps in your scientific understanding. Also, check out http://www.biologos.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Jota: You can't talk about scripture as a whole like that. The Bible is a mix of narrative, poetry, letters, prophecy, and various combinations thereof. While I would agree that, for example, Paul's writings or the historical accounts of the books of Kings or Chronicles may not be "God-breathed", I would be more inclined to say that the prophetic books contain a high proportion of God's actual words. Each book has a historical context and a purpose for which it was written and you have to know what's what and who's who for each book.

Thanks for the site, I'll check it out.

And, I've been more so leaning towards integrating my scientific understanding with my Christian beliefs, so I'm going down the same road as you.

*Edit*

[Rei]

While that is possible, I think it's bunk.

Sure they kinda line up if you turn your head sideways and close one eye, but I think it more likely that the Creation accounts are poetic accounts painting an image of cosmological order and God's relationship to us.

That is a big part of what Lewis was getting at: biology is not theology, and theology is not biology. I kind of suspect that the writer(s) of Genesis were less concerned with documenting the chemical process of the formation of this planet and life on it and more concerned with teaching us about God's relationship to His people.

[CezeN]

I guess I agree.

[elfprince13]

Jota: I've found it helpful to consult with my orthodox Jewish friends in understanding various parts of Old Testament scripture. I've also managed to provoke a holy-s*** response from one of them with Isaiah 9:6-7, which was vaguely satisfying to my Christian understanding of the passage.

So, one could argue that Genesis suggests some of the theories of Abiogenesis and Evolution, in nonliteral way.

There are some much much more in depth analyses of this type, and I've written them up before, but more and more I would tend to agree with Rei, that the Creation accounts in the old testament are meant to be understood with our imagination and not our intellect. That said, it's good to refine different arguments for different audiences.

[Rei]

Oh, I would hardly suggest divorcing imagination from intellect

And Jota, another way of looking at it is highlighting different aspects of God. I am very wary of trying to pick and choose what is divinely inspired and what isn't, though. And if we say that none of it is, then why bother with Christianity at all?

[jotabe]

In my case, i probably would take the understanding of believers about very old texts with a grain of salt. Probably not giving them much credit. I'd like better to read what historians and comp. lit. specialists have to say about it.

Rei, i'll agree that it's harder to be a believer when you can't accept any of the scripture as divinely inspired. God has better things to do than to dictate texts, anyway.

[elfprince13]

Oh, I would hardly suggest divorcing imagination from intellect

Nor I, quite the opposite in fact, but most forms of communication are more effective at influencing one over the other. Natural language falls in between mathematical proofs and the works of Mozart on the intellectual/imaginative spectrum, but I don't think you can deny that most written works have a distinct bias in which faculty they appeal to and that trying to understand a text with the wrong part of your mind is going to result (with fairly high frequency) in missing the point

[CezeN]

I believe I have found an interpretation of Genesis that isn't farfetched, but is based on the possibility that Genesis is poetic and uses figurative language, and that does not contradict science.

Moses wrote his account in Hebrew, and he wrote it from the perspective of a person standing on the surface of the earth. These two facts, combined with the knowledge that the universe existed before the beginning of the creative periods, or “days,” help to defuse much of the controversy surrounding the creation account. How so?

A careful consideration of the Genesis account reveals that events starting during one “day” continued into one or more of the following days. For example, before the first creative “day” started, light from the already existing sun was somehow prevented from reaching the earth’s surface, possibly by thick clouds. (Job 38:9) During the first “day,” this barrier began to clear, allowing diffused light to penetrate the atmosphere.
On the second “day,” the atmosphere evidently continued to clear, creating a space between the thick clouds above and the ocean below. On the fourth “day,” the atmosphere had gradually cleared to such an extent that the sun and the moon were made to appear “in the expanse of the heavens.” (Genesis 1:14-16) In other words, from the perspective of a person on earth, the sun and moon began to be discernible. These events happened gradually.
The Genesis account also relates that as the atmosphere continued to clear, flying creatures—including insects and membrane-winged creatures—started to appear on the fifth “day.” However, the Bible indicates that during the sixth “day,” God was still in the process of “forming from the ground every wild beast of the field and every flying creature of the heavens.”—Genesis 2:19.

Clearly, the Bible’s language makes room for the possibility of some major events during each “day,” or creative period, to have occurred gradually rather than instantly, perhaps some of them even lasting into the following creative “days.”

The Genesis account opens with the simple, powerful statement: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1) Bible scholars agree that this verse describes an action separate from the creative days recounted from verse 3 onward. The implication is profound. According to the Bible’s opening statement, the universe, including our planet Earth, was in existence for an indefinite time before the creative days began.

Geologists estimate that the earth is approximately 4 billion years old, and astronomers calculate that the universe may be as much as 15 billion years old. Do these findings—or their potential future refinements—contradict Genesis 1:1? No. The Bible does not specify the actual age of “the heavens and the earth.” Science does not disprove the Biblical text.

What about the length of the creative days? Were they literally 24 hours long? Some claim that because Moses—the writer of Genesis—later referred to the day that followed the six creative days as a model for the weekly Sabbath, each of the creative days must be literally 24 hours long. (Exodus 20:11) Does the wording of Genesis support this conclusion?

No, it does not. The fact is that the Hebrew word translated “day” can mean various lengths of time, not just a 24-hour period. For example, when summarizing God’s creative work, Moses refers to all six creative days as one day. (Genesis 2:4) In addition, on the first creative day, “God began calling the light Day, but the darkness he called Night.” (Genesis 1:5) Here, only a portion of a 24-hour period is defined by the term “day.” Certainly, there is no basis in Scripture for arbitrarily stating that each creative day was 24 hours long.

How long, then, were the creative days? The wording of Genesis chapters 1 and 2 indicates that considerable lengths of time were involved.

Focusing on his or her explanation for the first few creative days:
The Earth was said to form from the dust and glass ring of a Solar Nebula.
So, a bunch of dust and gas that detached from it was floating around, and some came together and became the Earth.

This allows for the possibility that there was still dust and gas in the Earth's atmosphere, blocking the sunlight.
After all, the Ice Age theory suggests that the debris, dust and gas, from an Asteroid hitting Earth blocked the sun - and caused the Ice Age.
Also, there's the fact that the origin theory of the Moon is that it was formed from similar debris in the Earth's Atmosphere from an Asteroid that hit the Earth.

Between the debris that could have made the moon or the debris that might have been lying around, since the Earth was first formed from a cloud of dust and gas, this interpretation is entirely plausible.

So God said "let there be light", and it cleared to the point that light was shining through.

Figurative Language.

And God said "let there be lights in the expanse of the sky", and it cleared to the point that you weren't only seeing light, but you could see the shapes and forms of both the Sun and Moon.
It possibly cleared because the debris that could have been possibly blocking the light - the debris from the asteroid - was the same one that formed into the Moon.

There are also other verses, including the ones I pointed out earlier in this thread, that make Creationism compatible with Science.

[Froth]

I dont have a problem with Genesis. I think Genesis makes sense scientifically speaking. You just have to use some of the original translations and realize that yes, a lot of it is poetic. I.E. the term day can mean (a) a literal 24 hour time period (b) a day by Gods reckoning or (c) an undefined unit of time. (Both A and C are literal translations whereas B would be a poetic one...Or possibly literal I guess)

But Noahs flood on the other hand...I cant reconcile that one with science. I believe it to have happened, but it would be nice if it would conform to my pre existing views of physics.

My current theory is that Noah was one man of many destined to continue the human race. But thats just a theory with no biblical reasoning behind it.

[Azarel]

God has better things to do than to dictate texts, anyway.

I'd be genuinely interested to read what you think they are. [not sarcasm]

[jotabe]

I'm not a scholar of bible linguistics, so my oppinion is hardly relevant. But the experts on the field have put forth three theories (documentary hypothesis, supplementary models, fragmentary models) which connect the torah with 2 gods of the ancient cananean pantheon, Elohim and yhwh, solidifying them into one, probably as the result of an earlier monotheistic revolution among the priestly class.

*here starts personal oppinion*
Is this entirely materialistic? Not really. It still can easily be the work of humans who had a powerful experience of god. And then misunderstood it. Of course, fallible as humans are, they still could use this experience to pursue their own agenda. Or fake the whole thing, and try to sneak it among the true experiences of other people.

If the old testament was the true word of god, then Jesus preaching for "3" years was an utter waste of time. He only needed to come, die for our sins and go. He could have done just that shortly after birth, think how many religions have baby-and-mother-worship. Instead of Christianism being a resurrectional sect of judaism, it would be a baby-and-mother-worship sect of it.

Or, he could have nothing to do with jewish monotheism, and just take advantage of the jewish religion makeup to give us his message. As we say over here, "god plows straight on bent ditches".

[Azarel]

thank you for responding, and maybe a new thread is needed (or just a PM) but could elaborate on why Jesus' 3 years preaching was a waste?

My initial thought is that even if the OT was the true word of God, Jesus' teaching was reaffirm it and present it in a new way else who would take notice of one more Jew dying under the hands of the Romans?

[TheTranskinator]

I don't believe in evolution or the big bang. For one, they take a one in a million chance just to get in the position that in turn causes another one in a million chance, which in another turn causes another one in a million chance, which yet again causes a one in a million chance, which... (keeps on going for a long, long time). All in all, both are just chance after chance causing complex results which could be explained by an easier solution... God. Boom. Thats it. God made us. The problem with believing the big bang and evolution side by side with the bible is this, the bible is meant to be taken literally in all books except Revelation and another book I cannot remember (Jude?) Which fall under the category of "Apocolyptice Literature" which is meant to be taken figuratively. If we take all all of the bible literaly, that Jesus came and died for us and our sins after living the perfect life, and then believe Genesis isn't the exact way things happened then the entire foundation for the rest of the bible is destroyed. If there is any part of the bible that is not credible, then the whole bible's integrity comes into question (unless of course it is a book meant to be taken figuratively. which genesis is not)

In response to Froth saying a day can be options A B or C, the original Hebrew text specifically says "Yom" which translates as a literal 24 hour day.

My reasoning for not believing evolution is this. Let me first ask, how did life begin? Spontaneous generation? Has ANYBODY ever seen that occur? There is less proof of that than there is of God for sure. So how did that single celled organism appear? Now let's assume that it did spontaneously generate. How did it just so happen to survive against all odds? How did it multiply and reproduce and have so many creatures turn out so similar? How did the mutations and chain of evolution lead to everybody looking so similar? I mean look around. Everyone has a nose... fingers... toes. Evolution occured at the same rate and pace throughout millions of organisms, evolving the exact same things in the neccessary order for survival? How? How did it evolve in the proper order so that our bodies can live? If we developed a need for oxygen before we had lungs, we'd be screwed. If we developed blood before we had veins, we're screwed. If we developed a need for food before we had stomachs, or our whole digestive system for that matter, we're screwed. So chance had us evolve EVERYTHING in the EXACT order we need them too? Sounds like a longshot. As opposed to a divine creator who created a universe that adheres perfectly to a set of rules that he made, and created us just the way we are.

Before you say I have no idea what I'm talking about and point out a flaw in one of my arguments, stop and thing about this. If there is a flaw in evolution's foundation, it is ruined. Just as if there is a flaw in the bible's foundation it is ruined.

(was extremely tired while typing this. will elaborate later if this is unclear. sorry)

[Rei]

The problem with believing the big bang and evolution side by side with the bible is this, the bible is meant to be taken literally in all books except Revelation and another book I cannot remember (Jude?) Which fall under the category of "Apocolyptice Literature" which is meant to be taken figuratively. If we take all all of the bible literaly, that Jesus came and died for us and our sins after living the perfect life, and then believe Genesis isn't the exact way things happened then the entire foundation for the rest of the bible is destroyed. If there is any part of the bible that is not credible, then the whole bible's integrity comes into question (unless of course it is a book meant to be taken figuratively. which genesis is not)

Is now when I wave John 6 in your face? Specifically verses 51 to 61. Unless you can say with honesty that you eat the flesh of Christ and drink His blood, you should consider a perhaps more nuanced understanding of the very long history of the writing of the Bible. (And even if you can say that with honesty, you still should consider a more nuanced understanding.)

You are free to persist in a black and white, it's literal everywhere except when I think it's too weird understanding of Scripture, but please understand that the more you add to the "this is too weird" category, the more your interpretation will appear less credible.

[Eaquae Legit]

Not to mention the false dichotomy. It isn't "a literal interpretation of Genesis" v. "Godless atheist science". There's a whole huge spectrum in between.

Plenty of Christians (including the aforementioned C.S. Lewis, St. Augustine of Hippo, St. Thomas Aquinas, the pope and his astronomer, and the vast, vast majority of everyone living outside the United States) manage to get along just fine not believing in a literal 6-day creation without suddenly realising it's all a lie! and becoming atheists. Heck, the Jews don't even believe it's literal, and they wrote the dang thing!

Dratted Americans* thinking they're the centre of the universe and just because they're scientifically illiterate so is the rest of the world. You know, this is only a debate of even marginal significance within the USA. Everyone else has moved on.

Also, I eat Jesus.




* Generalised frustration, not specific animosity.

[jotabe]

Really not going to enter into the whole discussion *again*.
Just pointing out two things:
-You say you don't believe in evolution. Wonderful! because you shouldn't! I don't believe in it, either. Evolution is part of the scientific knowledge, and you don't have to believe it. You just use it and see that it works.

-You said:

If there is a flaw in evolution's foundation, it is ruined. Just as if there is a flaw in the bible's foundation it is ruined.

That's wrong. Evolution won't be ruined because of a flaw in it, the way the biblical literalism would be. Evolution is a scientific theory, and hence it has mechanisms to self correct and and improve. Evolution is not nearly the same as when Darwin first proposed it... actually, by then it was just a hypothesis, now it is a fully fledged theory that fits really well with the observational data. Finding flaws to it is expected and encouraged, and it only makes it stronger. Or a paradigm finding allows it to be substituted by a new theory, which would be awesome, and would enable the scientists who discovered it to get tons of money in grants.
On the other hand, biblical literalism has enough internal lacks of coherence and mismatches with physical evidence as to be a completely discredited hypothesis.

[neo-dragon]

All in all, both are just chance after chance causing complex results which could be explained by an easier solution... God. Boom. Thats it. God made us.

By that logic the answer is always that God did it, so why bother trying to understand anything?

There is less proof of that than there is of God for sure.

As far as I know there isn't any proof of the existence of God.

Before you say I have no idea what I'm talking about and point out a flaw in one of my arguments,

You haven't actually made any arguments, you've just asked a lot of questions, which is actually a good thing. My question for you is, have you actually sincerely tried to find answers to them? Because your "argument" is basically "evolution is false because I don't understand it."

stop and thing about this. If there is a flaw in evolution's foundation, it is ruined. Just as if there is a flaw in the bible's foundation it is ruined.

Dude, speaking as a Christian and a science teacher (though I'm far from the most knowledgeable in either category), I don't think you want to throw stones in that glass house.

[TheTranskinator]

1. I believe that the words that Jesus spoke, saying that we are eating his flesh and blood are symbolic. I don't believe the whole book is, only that particular statement, as the actual narrative is not taken unliterally.

2. I have nothing against Christians who believe that evolution or the big bang were used, or that we have an old earth. In fact, they may be correct. It's just my belief and my own inner logic (which may not be logic at all, only what I like to hear ) that makes me believe what I believe. I hold no grudge against you, and accept that belief. I probably should have made this clear from the beginning that I don't neccassarily say "My way or the highway"

3. What I meant in saying that evolution would be ruined isn't that "the entire theory collapses because we missed a stage" or something like that. What I meant was that if a flaw that made an important step of evolution obviously untrue, one that led to many many different other beliefs of evolution, it would discredit those other beliefs as well. For example, say I think two plus two equals five. So if I were to say that two plus two plus three equals eight by doing five plus three my logic would have failed because of a pivotal thought being wrong.

4. My logic in saying that God did it is that the idea of a creator comes easier to me than the idea of a long series of chance random events causing the extremely complex results we see today. I look outside, and see trees that filter oxygen for us to breathe. I see water that is neccessary for us to drink. I see the sky filled with clouds, that result in a cycle to keep the ecosystem and earth going. It's far too complex in my opinion for random chances to evolve us this way where everything works fine.

5. Which is why spontaneous generation is so incorrect. God cannot be proven in any way. He has no HARD facts going for it. Neither does spontaneous generation. I should have said instead, "There is no more proof of spontaneous generation than there is of God, and a creator seems more logical to me"

6. I have sincerely tried to find the answers. I used to believe in evolution and the big bang. But the more I read, the more I began to discredit it in my own logic and thinking. I've talked to my teachers about it, I used to debate on forums a while ago about it. I'd research stuff alot. (It's been a while though, so I don't remember everything I should). I understand evolution, I just find it hard to believe. My questions are things I don't agree with. I know this opens up the "well I find God hard to believe too" argument. Well thats fine, because in both cases our minds are pretty decided on what we believe, and it's going to be hard to convince either one of us otherwise, expecially when, at least in my opinion, there is no definite answer that can be obviously seen.

Just my thoughts. I probably could have replied to you all, but I figured t

[Eaquae Legit]

48"I am the bread of life.

49"Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died.

50"This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die.

51"I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh."

52Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, "How can this man give us His flesh to eat?"

53So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.

54"He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.

55"For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink.

56"He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.

57"As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me.

58"This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever."

59These things He said in the synagogue as He taught in Capernaum.

60Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this said, "This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?"

61But Jesus, conscious that His disciples grumbled at this, said to them, "Does this cause you to stumble?

62"What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before?

63"It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.

64"But there are some of you who do not believe " For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him.

65And He was saying, "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father."

66As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore.

67So Jesus said to the twelve, "You do not want to go away also, do you?"

68Simon Peter answered Him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life.

Nowhere in there does he say it is symbolic. In fact, when people are upset at the idea of cannibalism, he doesn't reassure them and tell them it's symbolic, he tells them "tough", and they leave him.

You have decided that that passage is symbolic, despite the fact there is precious little indication he meant it that way. Unlike in the parables, he never says "My flesh is like true food", like he does when discussing the kingdom of heaven. You said "the bible is meant to be taken literally in all books", but you don't truly, 100% believe that. No one does or can, it's impossible to reconcile.

[jotabe]

So you find it easier to believe that vast areas of human knowledge, from molecular biology to nuclear physics, passing through geology, are entirely wrong, despite the evidence that our technology based on such knowledge actually works.

[neo-dragon]

3. What I meant in saying that evolution would be ruined isn't that "the entire theory collapses because we missed a stage" or something like that. What I meant was that if a flaw that made an important step of evolution obviously untrue, one that led to many many different other beliefs of evolution, it would discredit those other beliefs as well. For example, say I think two plus two equals five. So if I were to say that two plus two plus three equals eight by doing five plus three my logic would have failed because of a pivotal thought being wrong.

Taking Genesis literally requires a lot of 2 + 2 = 5 logic. For instance, how did Adam and Eve provide a viable gene pool for the entire human race?

I'm also curious about your thoughts on fossil records which show incremental development of various species, including humans.

[Eaquae Legit]

Transky, how about instead of throwing a bunch of stuff at you, I ask if you wouldn't mind giving one or two specific examples of things you found troubling scientifically, and what sort of research you did that lead you to your conclusions.

:)

[TheTranskinator]

1. The Bible is meant to be taken literally except a few books. I said the quotation of Jesus saying "For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink" was said symbolically. Through communion the bread and wine symbolically stand for it. The reason being is this, communing together as a congregation of believers would be nothing without Jesus. That is why this is said, so it would be the common ground. But the book itself isn't a quotation, it is meant to be taken literally. Jesus literally said the words, but they weren't meant to be taken literally. I can literally say a few certain exact words, but my friends will know that I only literally said it, and wasn't truly serious. (this is hard to explain... i'll try and give an example) Say my friend points out something stupid I say. I literally say, "I hate you." for it, but we both understand that it is not what is truly meant. It isn't the exact same circumstance, but that is the best picture I could paint for you...


Look at verse 63. It is the spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. That is what eating the "true body" and drinking "the true blood" of Jesus means. It is a holy sacrement embedded with the holy spirit.

2. I never said science is entirely wrong. I don't think molecular biology, nuclear physics, or other branches of sciences are wrong altogether. I think there are flaws in some of the theories we have formulated, and I think we put too much faith into these theories too. (again, I realize the same argument can be made against religious people. it comes down to a matter of choice, and I choose christianity)

One thing I disagree with is carbon dating. (this kind of also applies to the "did you ever study this question I was asked) I did infact study carbon dating, and found that while it is accurate to some extent in the dating of recent bones, it isn't as accurate as people believe. Expecially long term. See, bones from fifty years ago are dated pretty accurately, from between 38-62 years. (the numbers may slightly vary, these are numbers from a project i did a few years ago on carbon dating. this is from memory, because sadly my laptop was stolen that i did it on) But that window of error grew. Bones from two hundred years ago suddenly had margins of error up to 100 years both ways. And the older the bones/objects being dated got, the larger that window got. (the main reason I chose to say I disagree with carbon dating is because i'm lazy, and didn't want to talk about something else i seriously researched and because it is a form of science i disagree with, so it was a double whammy)

3. Look at so many of the missing links from ape to man. There are admitted and proven fakes (the Piltdown Man, Java Man, and my favorite, The Nebraska man, which turned out to be a pig tooth...) that people still consider to be "proof" of evolution. This troubles me, because we still use these proven fake missing links in textbooks and research, still considered to be true. I think that this shows that many scientists make their predetermined hypothesis, and then bend their results and findings to fit their own theory. (I wrote a paper on this topic for a science class I took in eighth grade i think? Sadly it was on my laptop too but anyways this is my second point, and it mainly points out the flaw that, at least in the example of evolution, some scientists will desperately fling evidence that is proven as false into science books and use it as proof for their theories. in reality, anything they have discovered or claimed due to the discovery of these evolutionary missing links cannot be trusted, seeing as how they were made off of faulty information.)

[Rei]

Regarding "the flesh profits nothing", I would suggest that perhaps he means our own physical strivings, our own purity of flesh (do not wash the outside of the cup and call it clean without washing the inside). More than that, I would say there is a stronger literal argument in favour of Christ saying that one gains the spirit by the consumption of His flesh. I do understand what you mean by saying you believe Jesus literally said this (having grown up with this mindset), but the difficulty with that is you run into discrepancies between the Gospels. These make it very difficult to rely on Scripture as being an exact dictation in every instance. With all sincerity, I suspect most opposition people have to saying "I believe the Bible is literal" is that, as you have demonstrated, you do not believe it in every instance, and especially that you do not believe the teachings are literal, just the words. (In the case of Revelation, you could then say that it is also literal, assuming you mean "these words happened".)

Regarding evidence of evolution, I do not know what you may have been taught (I was certainly taught a number of misunderstandings in my Christian high school), but the Piltdown Man as well as a number of other fakes are not taught as proofs in a secular context anymore. Certainly not in universities. Sadly there are some elementary and high school classes which are still using very out of date textbooks, but it is not anywhere near standard.

[jotabe]

Carbon dating is not even used for fossiles. Precisely because the carbon-14 concentration drops too quickly over time (quickly in geological times). Typically, when you want to date rocks (what is what fossiles are) you use different much heavier radio-isotopes with half-lifes ranging from the tens of thousands of years to the billions of years. This is what gives the first order approximation to the real age of the rock strata you are trying to date. Then you use stratigraphy for relative dating.
And to say that radio-isotope dating is wrong, you need a good chunk of the quantum mechanics and relativity to be wrong... good luck with that! Because the calculations done using them really fit well with measurements.

Those proven fakes are not considered proof by anyone. Indeed they were proven to be fake like very shortly after being fabricated. By scientists. It would be stupid to think to use them when we have discovered so many species of the human genus who are genuine. And they are genuine because you can bet that scientist are all the time trying to prove each other wrong... that's how bad data is weeded out.
No, those fakes are never taught in biology textbooks as examples. Actually, if i know that there was ever such fabrications like the piltdown man and the nebraska man it's because i read about them... in creationist books!

[TheTranskinator]

I understand that carbon dating isn't GENERALLY used because of that. I'm just saying that it has been used, and is sometimes still used, and widely believed. I'm not saying that dinosaurs or whatever are being dated with it. But occasionally people do test objects, and take the testing as truth. Thats something I have a problem with.

And that is what is wrong I guess. I didn't realize that so many people don't use them as proof, because every school book that talked about the matter did list some of those false evolutionary steps. My biology, anatomy and physiology, and basic 7th or 8th grade science (can't really remember) all spoke of them. I guess I (wrongly) assumed that they were in most school books.

The stories are the same throughout the gospels, just not the direct quotations (for the most part. some gospels have exclusive stories, and others are told from the perspective of the witnessess of the events. for example, Matthew had a different perspective than Luke, who was an indirect source. and Matthew probably has a better idea of the direct quotations of Jesus, being there himself, than Luke. however both understand what was being said, so when they didn't get the exact quotation they got the message.) And Revelation was written as, and deemed apocolyptic literature. It was meant to be taken figuratively. And so I take it figuratively.

These thought provoking posts are time consuming

[Eaquae Legit]

The stories are the same throughout the gospels, just not the direct quotations (for the most part. some gospels have exclusive stories, and others are told from the perspective of the witnessess of the events. for example, Matthew had a different perspective than Luke, who was an indirect source. and Matthew probably has a better idea of the direct quotations of Jesus, being there himself, than Luke. however both understand what was being said, so when they didn't get the exact quotation they got the message.) And Revelation was written as, and deemed apocolyptic literature. It was meant to be taken figuratively. And so I take it figuratively.

Mark.

Also, fun fact: there is evidence that the Book of Revelations (apocalypse simply means "revelation", bonus fun fact!) was written as a metaphor for the early mass.

[jotabe]

No, really, carbon-14 is only used to date organic objects no more than very few millenia old. And the people who use it know very well the limitations, and the error margin.
Also, dating isn't something done with a single piece of whatever tissue you are analyzing. A proper dating requires several samples, and usually different labs will try to date the same thing, attempting to prove each other wrong. When several independent datings arrive to roughly the same age, that is considered reliable. If the results can stand even when using other dating techniques then you can consider that date as a reliable fact. It's as close to the truth as we will ever get. Why would you have a problem with this?

And forgive me for being skeptical, but i have a hard time believing any science book, no matter how basic, would use those examples... except, as, you know, examples of how some people try to create frauds. If you could be so kind as to check said books...