Evolution vs. Creation

[dinadan]

amodman said:

Personally, I take the days as face value. If God says days he means days. Otherwise, we might have the Sabbath every 7,000 years .

Hmm...well, if there was some way of knowing what God said--not through third hand reporting--then I'd be able to buy that with no skepticism at all. As it stands, I tend to think in terms of metaphor.

[dgan]

I apologize in advance for the length of this opinion...

The metaphorical insinuation of "a day is like a thousand years" is not entirely logical in regards to creation. For starters, the context in which that statement exists is about God's knowledge - not time measurement. If God is all-knowing, then it makes no difference when something happens or if it already happened, be it a day or a thousand years from now. He still knows it. It has nothing to do with "what does God really mean when he says a day?"

Secondly, the story of creation describes the creation of the earth, moon, and sun - and that the creation of those elements determines how the days are measured. Although possible, I find it unlikely that God originally created the earth to make one full rotation every 1000 years....

That said, God created time measurement. God doesn't need time or use time - it is created by Him for our benefit. Therefore, he could have changed the definition of "a day" at anytime. Again, though, I find this unlikely.

Why does any of this matter? For the most part, it doesn't. However, it is a fundamental ideal that you cannot believe in the God described in the Bible if you do not believe the Bible. If you only believe portions of the Bible, then you do not truly believe in the God described in the Bible (because the Bible claims to be God-breathed and without blemish, so believing it to be blemished is believing it is lying, which is not possible of the God described), which means (theoretically) that you believe in a different God, therefore making you a heretic in a general sense. That line of thinking is a bit simplistic, but that is the basic concept.

However, one can easily be removed from that problem by admitting ignorance (a forgotten concept in this age of "knowledge is power" - admitting you don't know is unthinkable). For example, I believe the account of creation is truthful, albeit somewhat ambiguous, therefore I accept the fact that I don't know all the truths behind creation. However, **this is the key!** I have faith in the God of creation that he is truth. Christianity is faith, not knowledge.

It is faith that people cannot accept - not creation. And, quite frankly, I don't blame them. It is not a light thing to put your life in the hands of someone or something you don't understand.

That is why it doesn't really matter. There is no need to prove creation or disprove evolution. Your salvation is not based on that understanding, and most people are not brought to faith through proof. That's what makes it faith. However, it is still important that people understand evolution is a theory, because then they realize they are making a decision, placing their faith in either evolution or creation. It is dangerous and completely false to present evolution as science because science, by nature, is truth and you cannot have conflicting truths. (When I refer to evolution, I exclude natural selection, which others have touched on, because it is really seperate from the concept of evolved species.)

I tried to make that as non-argumentative as possible. If anyone has a response that is too...umm...intense ...for this thread, feel free to message me.

[dinadan]

First of all, when you make statements like "God says" you are already in trouble because you are trying to say that the Bible was written by God; in fact, the Bible was written by people, who are imperfect instruments and prone to falibility. Not to mention that all of Genisis was oral history until Moses wrote it down. Then you have to contend with the multitude of translations and retranslations of the words (and if you've ever worked at translation, you realize what a difficulty there is in keeping the meanings the same).

Then, there's the matter that you claim that the Bible is without blemish because it says so. First of all, where does it say that? And, does that mean that Catholic Bibles, which include the Apocrypha, are imperfect because they have extra material? Or, cutting the other way, that Protestant Bibles are incomplete because they don't have the Apocrypha. Or, how about the fact that the cannon was decided by comittee, and wasn't even formal until the 4th century AD. Not to mention that self-justifying authority is one of the big transgressions of logic (fallacy of circular reasoning).

That's not to imply that I think that Faith must be rational--because it can't. However, I'm of the Kierkegaardian school of thought on this, which basically means that I believe you can rationally get to the point where you must make a leap of faith in God; but believing in the absolute power of God is not the same as believing in the absolute authority of the Bible. Anything that is made of matter is subject to corruption; anything that is left in the hands of the people who benefit from the perception of its inherent authority for 1500 years (give or take a century) is suspect. Do you think that the Church, which had no compunctions about selling indulgences, would have compuctions about "altering" the text to serve them better? Moreover, it's a fact that St. Jerome, when traslating his Vulgate version (the authoritative version of the bible for almost 1000 years) was, shall we say, less than entirely accurate with his translations (proving that the old adage "Translators are traitors" is true).

Now, yes, I'm a Christian--but I'm also a skeptic. So, in the face of facts, or reasonablely established arguments, I refuse to turn a blind eye and say "No no no, it's a matter of faith." To me, that's wrong. It's better, in my view, to accept the facts and try to discover the truth in order to completely integrate them into your belief system.

[pink3elephant]

So we came from monkeys, right? Then how come we don't see half-monkey half-human creatures today?

[twyrch]

pink3elephant said:

So we came from monkeys, right? Then how come we don't see half-monkey half-human creatures today?

I don't think anyone here has said that. particularly me. You have to admit that small evolutions take place within a species. God created Adam and Eve. Now.. Unless he created other people with different skin color, then man has evolved slightly right there.

Evolution carries a nasty connotation with it. it doesn't have to mean we came from a primordial soup... or used to fling poo at each other from neighboring caves.

[dinadan]

pink3elephant said:

So we came from monkeys, right? Then how come we don't see half-monkey half-human creatures today?

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of how evolutionary processes happen. The changes happen so gradually over many generations for a long time, so there would never be any point where something was half one thing and half another. Besides that, I don't believe in interspecies evolution, but I do belive in intraspecies evolution. As the example Twyrch pointed out, people with different skin colors is a great example.

But, back to the half-monkey, half human thing for a moment. Think about it this way...if you have a bucket of white paint, and you dropped drops of black paint in it, stirring it all the while, eventually, you'd have black paint (or paint so dark grey it would appear black to your eye)...but at which point does it become "black"? Or, thinking about it another way, say a man begins losing hair a single hair at a time; how many hairs must a man lose before he is "bald"? Where does that change occur? This is what is called the problem of vagueness. The same thing occurs with evolution.

[Lady Bookwyrm]

Dinadan...you rock! You brought up some very good points. I didn't read in too much detail, but I think it is safe for me to say I mainly agree with you.

And I would like to point something out that irks me...the evolution theory does not state that people came from monkeys. In fact, it says that primates evolved from a common ancestor. So we evolved WITH monkeys, not FROM them. Plus, we are much closer to apes than monkeys. Big differences there.

[twyrch]

Lady said:

Dinadan...you rock! You brought up some very good points. I didn't read in too much detail, but I think it is safe for me to say I mainly agree with you.

And I would like to point something out that irks me...the evolution theory does not state that people came from monkeys. In fact, it says that primates evolved from a common ancestor. So we evolved WITH monkeys, not FROM them. Plus, we are much closer to apes than monkeys. Big differences there.

I agree Booky.

Here's something else to "chew" on... since we're talking about monkeys and such...

Think of how everything is broken up scientifically. Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus and Species. The reason everything can be classified is because of similaries between them.

Why are there similarities between them? Do you not think God could have used a common blueprint for plants and animals? The part of Genesis where God says, "Let us create man in our own image".... I just wonder if it would make more sense, had he said... "This time, let us make man in our own image."

[Lady Bookwyrm]

*slightly branching off topic*

My friend took a religion and philosophy class, and this is one of the things they discussed:

So the bible has been translated a lot.

The first commandment in the KJV is: Thou shalt not worship any other gods before me.

Now why is that worded that way? Is God admitting there are other gods by refusing to allow us to worship them? Why use the word "before"? Does that mean it's ok to worship other gods, as long as God comes first? Or does that mean don't worship other gods in front of Him, where He can see it?

Ok, so there is another version of the bible (don't know what that one's called), where it is translated directly from the original Hebrew to English, with no Latin/French/whatever inbetween. In this version, the commandment now translates: You should not worship any other gods before My face.

Ok...now things get kooky. This makes it sound like God is saying "If you worship other gods, just don't do it in front of me."

Opinions? Please...no flaming. If it gets nasty, the mods will just remove it.

[laurelin]

Ah...I have missed this...(btw, canon, not cannon; sorry)

I've always believed there's more of a problem with reading the Bible than there is with writing it. One of my world history professors claimed that Moses was a polytheist because he admits there are other gods. I'd always thought it was understood he meant false gods, but apparently that can be misread. One thing I do believe is that if you read the Bible with your heart open to God, you'll hear what he wants you to.

I'm not going to get into the evolution debate, because, frankly, it doesn't matter.

[dgan]

Dinadan, as usual, I agree with your rationale but I have a difference of opinion on your conclusion.

Rather than going through each of your very well established points, I'll just make a general comment. If you do not believe the Bible, than you do not believe in the God of the Bible - you simply believe in a "higher power". I'm not saying that is right or wrong (although I do have a personal conviction on the matter), but simply that is how a heretic is defined, which is a topic Twyrch had brought up earlier. I was just expanding on the concept.

Do I believe there are inaccuracies resulting from translation? Of course, probably tons. Does that detract from the general concept of salvation, the description of God, etc...that God intended to convey. I don't think so. And again, if you believe that the Bible is just human opinion, you are simply believing in a higher power.

I also fully agree we should always pour over facts and try to determine the truth - the problem is that, sometimes, the truth is that we don't know and we have no way of knowing. It is when people refuse to accept this that I have a problem.

As far as evolution goes, I only say that if you DO believe the Bible, you must believe that human was created in God's image, animals were not. Therefore, I agree there is plenty of latitude in intraspecies evolution, but there is no way to biblically satisfy an argument for interspecies evolution, especially for humans. Any type of argument for human species evolving from any animal species, regardless of time or other factors, is in conflict with basic biblical principles.

As much as I enjoy discussing these topics, I hate doing so in a forum setting, so this will be my last comment on this topic. However, I am very satisfied to hear that so many people put an effort into understanding their beliefs and convictions. It is encouraging to hear these days.

Dinadan - I once again tip my hat to you. Your arguments are always very well thought out and logically based. I wish we could sit down for lunch some day...

[twyrch]

Lady said:

*slightly branching off topic*

My friend took a religion and philosophy class, and this is one of the things they discussed:

So the bible has been translated a lot.

The first commandment in the KJV is: Thou shalt not worship any other gods before me.

Now why is that worded that way? Is God admitting there are other gods by refusing to allow us to worship them? Why use the word "before"? Does that mean it's ok to worship other gods, as long as God comes first? Or does that mean don't worship other gods in front of Him, where He can see it?

Ok, so there is another version of the bible (don't know what that one's called), where it is translated directly from the original Hebrew to English, with no Latin/French/whatever inbetween. In this version, the commandment now translates: You should not worship any other gods before My face.

Ok...now things get kooky. This makes it sound like God is saying "If you worship other gods, just don't do it in front of me."

Opinions? Please...no flaming. If it gets nasty, the mods will just remove it.

I'm suddenly reminded of a story in the OT. I think it was Elijah who was in competition with people who worshipped Baal or Bezelbub (sp?) and he told them to get dry branches to build a bon fire... he got green wood and soaked it in water. Then each group prayed to their own 'god' to light the fire.

Only Elijah's became lit... the other one didn't. When the Bible talks about Elijah's response... the KJV says, "Where is your god? Is he indisposed?" However, the Living Bible says, "Where is your god? Going to the bathroom?"

I don't know why... I'm just struck funny by that.

Perhaps "lesser" gods are power angels sent down with Lucifer. We'll never know in this lifetime.

[dinadan]

dgan, if we're just going to concede points because it's not really a lot of fun to discuss this via discussion forum, then we might as well abandon bringing them up at all.

Here's what I think about your statement that not believing in biblical inerrancy=not belieing in the God of the Hebrew/Christian bible: you're entitled to your opinion on the matter, of course, but I think it's insane. The idea of a common canon (thanks for correcting my spelling mistake earlier laurelin--I was just a typo) being inerrant is just so middle to late medieval. It was just an accepted fact before then that the Greek Christians didn't use the exact same canon as the Latin Church (and then, there's that sub-branch of Orthodoxy in Egypt, the Copts, and God knows they have some of the more odd texts in use). And then, as I stated before, Protestants now use a form of the bible which was altered from the Latin one. So, whose bible is inerrant? Obviously they all can't be, can they? And if your statement holds, then only one group is really a group of believers. I can't accept that. As to just believing in a "supreme being"--oh, I resent the charge of Theism/Deism. I believe in a personal God, the YHVH of the Old Testament and that he had a physical son in the person of Jesus. I believe that Jesus was capable of performing miracles (by the power of the Holy Spirit) and that he ascended into heaven and all that jazz that the Apostle's Creed details out. But, I think that some reason and logic aren't incompatible with religion and religous teaching--after all, there is some circumstantial evidence that since God created a universe that runs through orderly, logcial, predictable methods, He must have some penchant for order and logic.

[DanTheMan]

This is a hard thing. I totally believe the Bible, but I will admit there are flaws in the translations. That doesn't stop me from believing in the inerrent Word of God. If you dwell on the problems of the translations too much, you might just miss the point of the Bible. I think some translations are better than others, and if it matters to you then do some research. But it does matter that Creation took just 6 days, and on the 7th he rested. It shows a powerful Creator. But he could have done it in 1 day, I believe. Why do it in 6 days?
More questions. In the first day, he created light and darkness, Day and Night. But he hadn't created the sun and moon yet. How do you get light without the sun? Maybe there's a purpose for that. Maybe He wants you to think about that. It doesn't mean that it's an old folk tale or that it's a false story. God can do amazing things! If creation took millions of years, then it would destroy so much meaning that God wants us to see.

[JestersTear1]

Just for the record - I go with the Evolution theory.

I don't believe in 'God'. I don't ridicule people who do either.

I want proof before I can truly believe in something - blind faith just doesn't do it for me I'm afraid.

Before anyone tells me - I know Evolution hasn't been proven. I just think it's a more likely scenario.