Gup20
Active Member
As you can see… I am more than willing to discuss these topics with people. I have already stated why I ignore UTEOTW – he believes that the Bible is a little off, and that God didn’t’ feel it is important to tell us the truth (he has actually stated this in the past). The basis of my belief is the Bible, therefore he and I have no common ground upon which to stand and have a discussion.
2Ti 3:5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
It’s not a question of morality - it’s a question of the pre-suppositional bias each of us comes into the discussion with.
Pro 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
By dismissing the Bible’s truth, UTEOTW has essentially ‘stacked the deck’. Since scripture destroys the possibility of evolution he asks by inference that it not be used in the discussion. I, however, take the Bible to be the ultimate authority on EVERY subject it touches upon. It is absolute truth. I do not see scripture as the fallible work of fallible men, but I see it as The Word of God – which is what it claims to be:
2Ti 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Therefore, when scripture and Darwinian conjecture come into conflict, it is the Bible that has the ultimate authority for me. To subject God’s Word to man’s ideas which are contrary to scripture is to place man’s word in greater authority than God’s Word. This is called Humanism. According to Genesis, it was this very concept that lead to Adam’s fall, and the Curse of sin and Death in the earth. God said not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, but Eve was tempted when the serpent said “hath God said?” – questioning the Word of God and the “surely God did not say” – contradicting the Word of God.
See my response to Paul of Eugene above. I think you will find it compelling.
Note specifically my response to PoE regarding the WAW form, and the fact that Jesus says “have you not read” indicating that He is quoting scripture. In one sentence, Jesus quotes 3 separate verses as though they are one contiguous statement:
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Gen 2:24 therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
Mat 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made [them] at the beginning made them male and female,
:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
:6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
Jesus’ logic is sound. He realizes that Genesis 1:1 says “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth”… but that each waw makes each day of creation inclusive in that statement.
In the Beginning God created the heavens and the earth and light and fish and birds and cattle man etc.
The waw (and) allows for each verse to describe separate detail while adjoining it to the statement of ‘in the beginning God created’. Furthermore, contained within these statements is the time frame for the entire event – six days and the last day God rested.
Also – note that Mark 10 gives us further indication of the intended meaning:
Mar 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
:7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
“The Beginning” cannot be defined as only the first day because of the rules of Hebrew grammar, and because Jesus’ own statements quote scripturally “The beginning” in Genesis 1:1 and the creation of man & woman in Genesis 1:26-27 to inclusive.
So where science contradicts scripture, you would take the word of science above the Word of God? How do you explain this to a young person who thinks that – scientifically – someone being raised from the dead is an impossibility? How would you reconcile that contradiction? How can you state that science overrules the Bible as to origins, but explain that the Bible overrules science when it comes to Christ? Moreover, upon examination that young person discovers that Jesus rising from the dead was God’s covenant with the Hebrew people to atone for the curse of sin and death that Adam brought into the world?
Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
Rom 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
1Cr 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit.
We see in scripture a direct correlation between Adam and Jesus. In fact, the scripture says that Jesus came to undo what had happened in Adam. As soon as you dismiss the literal truth of Genesis, you have begun down a logical progression to loosing your own salvation.
If Adam Genesis isn’t true, then Adam wasn’t a real person – and the fall never really happened. If death is not the result of a real person’s sin, then why would a real person have to die to save us from that sin? Did Jesus really have to die physically if Adam is just an allegorical story meant to present a spiritual lesion? If Jesus didn’t actually die and resurrect physically … … oops there you go, you’ve lost your salvation.
Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
If you don’t believe someone who is more intellectually honest than you (someone seeking truth) will go down that path take a look at Charles Templeton. You can read this article about it,, however his story was this:
On the contrary – you should wake up and realize that evolution is not some pure scientific endeavor devoid of biases and presuppositions. In fact, it is chalked FULL of it’s own set of presuppositions and axioms – the first and foremost of which is that the Bible isn’t true, and that everything on earth came about through natural causes. As I stated in the other thread – evolution is a priori committed to materialistic causes and conclusions. If you are a Christian, you would probably concede that there is more to life than the material realm – that there is also a spiritual realm. Evolution intentionally ignores the evidence which supports this realm and creation. If an evidence can be seen to give credence to any other possibility than a materialistic, natural, or “it happened without God’s interference, persuasion, or help” then it is investigated. If not, it is not only ignored, but it is rejected with prejudice.
That’s akin to a judge throwing out all other evidence in a trial except for the evidence that points to a specific suspect on the basis that it doesn’t point to that specific suspect. Then the judge proclaims “see I was right because an independent jury convicted that suspect”.
The Bible gives us clear descriptions of what really took place. Evolutionary science has chosen to ignore that. Just because a thing can be explained one way doesn’t mean it can’t be explained another way. For example, an evolutionist would see a few thousand layers of strata and assume that this was yearly strata. This might be justified based upon an observation of current rates of laying down strata. However, the observation of current rates does not provide an air-tight model for what has not been observed in the past. The scientists today make uniformitarian assumptions about the past based on what they observe in the present. However, in doing so, they also reject certain evidences based on their immaterial conclusions. Our geologist who sees thousands of layers and thinks thousands of years based on today’s observed rate is ignoring catastrophism. He isn’t taking into account that thousands of layers of strata can be laid down in just hours by things such as volcano eruptions (which has been observed). He has already rejected the idea of a global catastrophe capable of doing just that – Noah’s Flood.
Jhn 3:12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you [of] heavenly things?
How can you believe the “spiritual things” of the Bible if you can’t believe what it says about the physical universe?
Thing is, you CAN believe what it says about the physical world, you just choose not to. And your faith need not be a blind faith. Creationism can provide sound, explanations to support Biblical truth (such as the findings of the RATE group, for example).
You mean like Darwin disregarded Biblical evidences when his daughter died and he decided that God must not exist? Of course it happens – it’s call compromise – and usually leads to humanism. Your point, however, was that a commitment to any idea besides evolution would be detrimental to science. This demonstrates a lack of knowledge regarding the difference between origins science and operational science. Evolution is not qualified as science because science is the realm of the repeatable and the observable. There is no known mechanism whereby life (and information) can arise without an intelligent source (or life containing) source. Life comes from life, information comes from information. Evolution – by it’s definition – was not observed because it was billions of years before the first man could have observed it and recorded that observation. Therefore evolution (like intelligent design) is a forensic science which can only approximate the likelihood of specific possibilities. However, as I already discussed, evolution intentionally ignores any evidence that has non-materialistic causes or conclusions. This makes evolution just as much faith as it is science. The Bible - however - is the authentic, authoritative word from the One witness who was there and actually performed it (and is the only observer of what really happened). It seems taking the word of a credible witness is a more scientific approach than having to make materialistic assumptions.
Hrm… so it’s possible to make advancements in science without any belief in evolution? That’s a remarkable admission – and one that should serve to demonstrate the difference between origin axioms and operational science.
As I demonstrated, a fundamentalist (Dr. Russell Humphries) is responsible for the advancement of science. Therefore it can be seen that science and faith are not mutually exclusive. Moreover, fundamentally adhering to creationism does not hurt science. Therefore, your definition to science must be incorrect.
See Who’s really pushing bad science
