Evidence for God from Science

hughfarey wrote:That's OK, Rick, I know you were joking. Philip, however, I think, was attempting to discredit the Pope's speech by equating the opinions of the leader of a billion Christians to the opinions of, at the very least, an 'average bloke', which is absurd, quite apart from the circumstances of the speech. If I wanted to know why my stomach hurt, I would consider the opinions of 'a guy in a white coat' in a hospital as a little more worthwhile than somebody I sat next to in the waiting room. Philip, as far as I know, is indeed, an 'average bloke', as I am myself. For that reason, it would be good to know if he has any justification at all for considering the first two chapters of Genesis as both literally true, and why he thinks his own personal opinion should carry any authority at all.

Catholics are Christians?

Kidding*









*kinda

HughF: Philip began the OP with "if one is a Christian" before implying that belief in evolution was somehow un-Christian. My point was to demonstrate that "if one is a Christian" one is far more likely to believe in evolution than not, and that such a belief is entirely orthodox.

NO! I was NOT implying that belief in evolution is un-Christian. What I asserted very clearly was that if one wants to assert that Adam and Eve are the result of evolution, then that forces them to take certain non-literal views of foundational passages for the rest of Scripture, the need for a Savior, etc. It's also why I showed that the Creation-relate accounts in Genesis 1 and 2 may not be talking about the same creations of man - as the first could be mankind, the second would be the creation of Adam and Eve/Christ's line. That those two different accounts have been traditionally married by the Church doesn't mean they were meant to be. If you take the text ONLY at face value, for what it DOES say, but not what it doesn't, then, absolutely, the accounts could be different. And I can show you where some theologians agree. The earth was not the same as the Garden of Eden. In fact, the Garden was not the same as Eden - but it was IN Eden. However possible, that may or may not be true. So, a person could believe in the evolution of mankind, but NOT that Adam and Eve were products of evolution, nor that they were even connected to the original creation of mankind. Now, some theistic evolutionist Christians DO believe Adam and Eve were products of evolution - but if they believe that, they must also view the accounts of their creations as only allegorical - which opens a theological can of worms.

One's views of evolution and Creation have absolutely nothing to do with determining whether or not one is a Christian. If one has put their faith in Christ, that person IS a Christian. Period!

Hugh: Philip's little whimsy about the two Genesis creation stories both being literally true is entertaining, but as he is no more than 'a guy in a little hat', 'but one man with an opinion', why should anyone pay him heed, unless he has some other justification for his views?

Hugh, this is not just my opinion - it's also the opinion of some very knowledgeable theologians, based ONLY upon what the texts would allow for. That view presents some challenges - just like all of the Creation view do - and just like all of them, none of them are provable. I'm not the one that presented the Pope's view, AS IF his should be any more authoritative than yours, mine or anyone's.

Hugh: Philip, however, I think, was attempting to discredit the Pope's speech by equating the opinions of the leader of a billion Christians to the opinions of, at the very least, an 'average bloke', which is absurd, quite apart from the circumstances of the speech.

So, Hugh, please tell me, why should "the opinions of the leader of a billion Christians" be taken as being any more authoritative than other theologians? I was merely pooh-poohing your appeal to authority through which you attempted to discredit opposing views. Do you not realize that vast millions of Christians do not believe in evolution? Do you know that many who do not also believe in a 14 billion year old universe? There are a range of views within Christianity.

OK, Hugh Farey, here are some good things for you to read:

Michael Heiser, a theologian, scholar, and expert in ancient Hebrew and the languages and cultures of the Bible, writes about the three major views of the Genesis 1 Creation account, and what the original Hebrew does and does not allow. He examines Gap Theory, the traditional view, and the Pre-Creation Chaos Theory: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... Ww&cad=rja

In this link, Heiser examines whether or not the two Genesis Creation passages were meant to be connected - DID all humanity originate with Adam and Eve? What does a plain reading of the texts possibly suggest or allow for. What don't they allow. Great stuff: http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible ... -research/

RickD wrote:I'll be a TE for this.

Adam and Eve were humans created specially by God, as the first in the lineage of Jesus Christ of Nazareth. God wanted to set apart a specific people, to bring about His plan for all of humanity. Humans existed before, and at the same time that Adam and Eve lived. God created Adam outside the garden of Eden, then He put Adam in the Garden. The Garden was different than the "outside world". Adam had God's protection, including access to the tree of life, which allowed him to live forever, as long as he had access.

Genesis is about the lineage of Christ. Not about all of humanity. Read the creation story in that light, and while not "literal and concrete", like a young earth interpretation, it still fits scripture.

Paul, Byblos, how'd I do?

That's not the TE I know.

bippy123 wrote:

Byblos wrote:I'm not going to address your post point by point or the chock full of non sequiturs and false dichotomies.

Suffice it to say that as a bible-believing Christian (being Catholic is just a bonus ) and a non-committed theistic evolutionist, I believe the following are compatible and reconcilable:

1) Biblical inerrancy
2) Literal Adam and Eve (in fact that's de fide)
3) Evolution

Byblos , how do you reconcile a literal Adam and Eve with evolution ?
Do you When man evolved from his ancestors then God infused his human soul into hm ?

Yes, this is the TE I know. We are created in His image. What image is that? Certainly not the physical image so it must be the spiritual one. Our spiritual image is our soul, that which animates us and makes us human. Our physical ancestors prior to being endowed with a rational soul were living creatures with a sentient, non-rational souls. Adam and Eve are the first to have received such human, rational souls and therefore we are all literally descendants of Adam and Eve.

As for reconciling the Genesis accounts with evolution, first (obviously) I don't read literal 24-hour days, second, I read it in a topical rather than chronological sense, and more importantly third, I read it as a historical account.

See? Easy, it all fits.

I understand Byblos.

I've seen both beliefs within TE. Yours which says Adam and Eve were existing physically already, and were given a soul by God. And also the belief that while other humans preexisted, Adam and Eve were specially created.

If you get a chance, look at the link Philip posted. I think what Heiser says, allows for either TE or PC. Interesting link.

I found an issue in Philip's link I posted in my last post. In the comments, Heiser says that the flood only pertains to the line of Adam. The descendants of the other people that he says were alive when Adam was formed, are not relevant to the flood. I'd really like to see how he says that, while keeping to scripture.

Rick, there are other views that perhaps animals evolved, but that the first humans were special/instant creations - and those creations could have been separate lines: Either mankind first, with Adam and Eve unconnected and being created later, or Adam and Eve were the first of ALL humans and that all mankind sprang from them. But if Adam and Eve were instant creations, it's entirely possible that both the rest of mankind AND the animals were also special/instant creations (per Progressive Creationism). So, there are a variety of views out there. But, again, what I see as the only truly important things are that 1) Scripture is true and reliable (HOWEVER that played out, by whatever mechanisms God so chose to use), and 2) That all we see would be impossible without God (and certainly without a god or some entity of great power, intelligence and purposes in what was created).

The rest of these Creation issues are great fun and fascinating to speculate upon, but they don't really matter too much. ALL theistic views concerning the details of Creation are unprovable, and so those holding to any of them, while perhaps thinking that "proof" of THEIR view is certain, or that their view is key to convincing others of Scripture being true and God-given, is to entertain pure folly. And that is the reason the HOW of what God did, or HOW LONG it took Him to do them, are completely irrelevant to the things that truly matter: God created, man fell, Christ came to redeem mankind, we must believe/have faith so as to have a glorious eternity with the Lord.

Philip
"God created, man fell, Christ came to redeem mankind, we must believe / have faith so as to have a glorious eternity with the Lord" Yes.

Rick: I found an issue in Philip's link I posted in my last post. In the comments, Heiser says that the flood only pertains to the line of Adam. The descendants of the other people that he says were alive when Adam was formed, are not relevant to the flood. I'd really like to see how he says that, while keeping to scripture.

Rick, not sure what you're asking. But as for the descendants of the rest of humanity - certainly, if the flood killed all of it, excepting Noah and his family - then what emerged post-flood would have been ONLY Adam's line (immediately afterward, through Noah) - from which the rest of humanity descended. So if mankind was created before and separate from Adam and Eve, that line died in the flood. Is that what you were wondering about?

Philip wrote:

Rick: I found an issue in Philip's link I posted in my last post. In the comments, Heiser says that the flood only pertains to the line of Adam. The descendants of the other people that he says were alive when Adam was formed, are not relevant to the flood. I'd really like to see how he says that, while keeping to scripture.

Rick, not sure what you're asking. But as for the descendants of the rest of humanity - certainly, if the flood killed all of it, excepting Noah and his family - then what emerged post-flood would have been ONLY Adam's line (immediately afterward, through Noah) - from which the rest of humanity descended. So if mankind was created before and separate from Adam and Eve, that line died in the flood. Is that what you were wondering about?

Yes. But Heiser is saying that the flood story is only concerned with the line of Adam. Not the other line(s) outside of Adam's. And he goes on to say that a local Mesopotamia region flood would only affect Adam's line. If I read him correctly, he says that only Adam's line died in the local flood, because the others were dispersed beyond the flood region.

Rick: Yes. But Heiser is saying that the flood story is only concerned with the line of Adam. Not the other line(s) outside of Adam's. And he goes on to say that a local Mesopotamia region flood would only affect Adam's line. If I read him correctly, he says that only Adam's line died in the local flood, because the others were dispersed beyond the flood region.

Rick, Heiser discusses this issue with a poster on this page: http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible ... -thoughts/. Do a text search on that page for "June 3, 2012 at 5:18 AM" - and start reading there - he addresses thoughts on that issue there.

Isn't day age compatible with theistic evolution?

IceMobster wrote:Isn't day age compatible with theistic evolution?

Two different creation beliefs, with some overlapping similarities.

bippy123 wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Why would God provide an allegory instead of going into detail... One needs to understand that the more systematic scientific way of thinking people possess now is a recent phenomenon. The state of the human psyche back then was more likely to assign meaning to coincidences, more prone to superstition, unable to fathom the regularities in nature, and incapable of abstract thought. In fact the idea that nature has a set of laws governing it was not at all obvious. Sure we knew things fell to the ground but it was believed heavier items fell faster than lighter things for millennia even though it would be so easy to test!!! So the question really should be how is it that you fail to appreciate that the way people experienced the world has not always been the way you experience it now?

Can you imagine God trying to explain it all to a simple goat herder ?
The herder just wouldn't understand and under think God would expect him to get it.

He tried explaining a little of it to job and job was humble enough to understand that he understood squat about the creation of the universe and everything in it.

I think God gave them as much as they could understand , and plus their salvation wasn't dependent on understanding it.
Everything lead to our lord and savior coming
That's what matters

Thanks for paraphrasing me, some seem to have missed my point.