So why was the Creation thread closed?

I think many young Christians turn away from the faith because they are poorly educated about their religion. They aren't taught at home by their parents. This is a failure to live up to a biblical mandate and it is killing Christianity at large. They aren't taught in church. The pastor is failing and the sunday school system is a failure. They aren't getting the type of instruction they need because the pastor is too busy playing on words and being cute in his power point sermon instead of tackling serious issues and preaching the whole counsel of God.

 

RAdam,
you said

I understand your apprehension of Evolution on a Macro-level. However the Micro-level of evolution or

accusation in the "house" of evolution seems amiss. Certainly, the very element of evolution specifically natural selection has been proven time and again in the natural world.

To lump both suggestions as "not science" seems the ravings of man who will not accept data not in compliance with their own imaginings. Because of the theory of Evolution we've conseptualized DNA and how it works are able to manipulate genes and has advanced our understanding of our world tremendously. To say all of it is wrong is no better than locking up Gallileo for saying the solar system is not geocentric but heliocentric.

 

Good grief. Did you really compare me to the people that locked up Gallileo? Wow.

First of all, when I said evolution it was pretty clear that I was speaking of Darwinian evolution, that is the so-called "large scale" evolution. I even said: "The bible says a fish will always be a fish, a cow will always be a cow, a leopard cannot change his spots, etc. Evolution says in a few millions years (the earth hasn't been here that long) the change can take place." Should have been pretty clear what I was talking about.

I've never fought against adaptation by a species to its surroundings. What I've fought against is the totally unscientific and ridiculous view that one species can change into another. That's nonsense and it is not science. It has never been proven by science.

 

You're right of course Evolution on a Macro-level hasn't been proven by the fossel record nor observation. On the other hand since the Darwinian theory developed in the late 1800's we can say it hasn't been disproven either. There just isn't enough observable data to be conclusive. However, equally true evolution questions the theology of Death.

 

Well, first of all, the burden is not to disprove a theory, but to prove it. Until then it is a theory, and one having exactly zero evidence backing it up. The lack of "observable data" does not serve to lead us to a lack of a conclusion. Rather, it leads us to conclude something, that being that Darwin's theory is false. If it were true, among the extensive fossil remains we have, we would have found solid, undeniable scientific evidence, such as an intermediate fossil. They haven't. The fact that they haven't serves to discredit the theory.

How does "true evolution" (by which I take you to mean small scale adaptation) question the theology of death?

 

Lack of observable data is just that. You can't prove or disprove with it. It doesn't mean its false yet it doesn't mean its true either. We just need more information going one way or another to be desisive.

The geological record indicates that death may have occured before man. In which case it questions the theology of death.

 

The geological record doesn't indicate anything of the sort. The supposed geological record isn't even understood by man. This is shown in the fictitious geological strata, which is found nowhere on earth as it is so nicely laid out in diagram form in your geology textbook. Again, the same God denyers that believe in evolution despite any scientific evidence are the same ones who are claiming death millions of years before man.

If I claimed a theory that lacked evidence, I'd be dismissed by the scientific community and my theory would not be adopted. Why? Because the burden of proof is not on someone to disprove a theory but to prove it, and to prove it one needs evidence. Yet Darwinianism is accepted despite its lack of evidence.

 

Just an fyi that people who support evolution seem to feel that evolution does not refute or erode the bible, just certain interpretations of Genesis 1.

I am of the same view. I believe the bible is God's holy, pure, authoritative and trustworthy word to mankind. I just interpret Genesis 1 differently than you. In my interpretation, God is still all powerful, intimately involved in creation, creating things that are good and having a plan for mankind made in his image that is marred by sin. None of this changes because of the belief that he used evolution to achieve the diversity of animal species we see today.

You can say my interpretation is influenced by "worldly science" but I prefer to think of it as a hermeneutic of the specific revelation of God in the bible that is influenced by his general revelation in creation. I'm also willing to accept that my interpretation, like all hermeneutical exercises could be wrong so I welcome the diversity of interpretation that is associated with Genesis 1. Other well-studied Christians always have something to add to my hermeneutic that I can learn from.

 

Thats not a fair statement. First of all not all "God denyers" hold to theories without some support. Next the geological record does indicates many things. With the use of Stratigraphy and radiometric dating we can approach geology with a process that can be measured and data obtain with relative confidence in the resulting finds.

 

The dating method is based on assumptions that are questionable at best. Relative confidence? Is that why scientists of equal abilities can date the same object and not even by close to each other?

 

The problem is your interpretation of Genesis 1 is in violation of the text. God very specifically there tells us how He created the world and all things therein. He created them by speaking them into existence. When He created the animals and the plants He created every one of them "after their kind." He didn't use evolution to acheive diversity in the animal or plant kingdom, He created those kingdoms with diversity. He created the fish, the flying creatures, the beast of the field, the water mammals, etc. He didn't need evolution and He didn't use evolution, He created things the way they were in 6 days and rested on the 7th. Any other interpretation is in violation of the clear language of the text.

 

That argument only hold's water when you ask the number of occurances of that observation.

 

It amazes me that people put so much trust in something so uncertain. And then they dare call it science.

 

What would be the reason for not interpreting Genesis literally?

 

Unless the text is meant to be read in such a way that is not entirely literal. First I find the similarities to Atrahasis to be significant. 2nd if its not be meant as a literal week but a week in organization it might also read that way. For instance Days 1,2,3 are the Major catagories of creation in the method God made it. Then follows Days 4,5,and 6 which are the more detail sub catagories of Days 1,2, 3. Thus Day 1 is God creation generally speaking and day 4 is the specificity of that creation. and So it goes.

 

This type of biblical interpretation is in clear violation of the simplest and clearest meaning of the text. What you are telling me is I can't read the bible and take it at face value when it is using clear and simple language. That's nonsense. God said the evening and morning were the first day. He didn't say a thousand evenings and a thousand mornings were the first day, He said the evening and the morning. That is a literal day and any attempt to read it otherwise is to overthrow the clearest and simplest meaning.

The fact that you would give credence to atrahasis shows a lot.

 

You obviously don't understand what I'm saying. The clearest simplest reading of chapter 12 of the book of revelation alots for several interpretations. So I wouldn't hang your hat on that one. The bible is composed of several literature types. Some books contain more than one literature type as well. Credence isn't given to atrahasis however literary type is noted and compared. Poetry compared to poetry etc... Not everything in the bible is as simple as the simplest reading. Imagine if you did that with every passage what beliefs would you come up with then? Can you imagine taking Daniel's dreams literally? Where are the statues and what are the beast doing? How about text in the bible that said the whole world heard when in fact we know the whole world did not indeed know. Or how about if citizens took kings literally in the bible when they said I will give you up to half my kingdom and actually asked for half the kingdom?

 

Chapter 12 of Revelation, and nearly all of Revelation, is written in highly symbolic language, what some call apocalyptic langauge. So were Daniel's visions. Meanwhile Genesis is written in historical language. There aren't comparable. Do you take Cain killing his brother Abel to be symbolic and able to be interpreted any other way than the way it was written? How about the Israelites crossing the Red Sea?

 

Are you certain that is the intent of Genesis? The creation account seems to be of a liturature set similar to that of Atrahasis. Crossing the Red Sea (or more appropiately translated the Reed Sea) happened in Exodus which of course is a different literature set than that of the creation account. Cain and Able brings up many more questions than answers. Who did Cain marry? Why was Cain affraid of other people killing him when there were no others? Yet with the absence of the answers for these questions (we should be silent about them because scripture is silent) the events between Cain and Able still could have occured though the back story seems rather lacking.

 

Genesis is written in historical fashion. This is simple and clear from its style. Exodus is also written in historical fashion. Revelation and the visions of Daniel are written in the style of biblical prophecy, which is to say they use highly symbolic language.

Now, comparing the bible to a book outside the bible and then using that extrabiblical book to form an opinion about the bible is not a good interpretation method. Atrahasis is a heathen account that should have no bearing on the bible in any way shape or form.

The bible is to be taken literally except when it isn't possible to do so.

Who did Cain marry? One of his sisters. Who was Cain afraid of? Some of his other brothers and sister. How do we know? Eve was named Eve because she is the mother of all living, meaning all humans. The bible doesn't speak of her giving birth to all these people because it isn't necessary to what Genesis is following.