Does evolution cause you problems?

Steve · Mar 16, 2005

linwood said:
Galileo was summoned because his views confilcted with the Roman Catholic Church his views did not conflict with Scripture!

That whole sun standing still in the sky thing was a big problem for Galileo.

Galileo harmonized it by stating that the sun stopped it`s revolutions(spinning).

Jos 10:13And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. [Is] not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

Yes the bible is full of miracles!!!
However im not sure why you brought miracles in the bible up because it wasnt that Galileo was reluctance to belive in miracles that he was brought befor the Roman Catholic Church, It was because he stated that the Earth revolved around the Sun, the Catholic Church at that time thought the idea to heretical.

linwood · Mar 16, 2005

Yes the bible is full of miracles!!!
However im not sure why you brought miracles in the bible up because it wasnt that Galileo was reluctance to belive in miracles that he was brought befor the Roman Catholic Church, It was because he stated that the Earth revolved around the Sun, the Catholic Church at that time thought the idea to heretical.

I hardly think the act of the sun standing still is a miracle.
LOOK!!!
I`m doin it now!!!
The sun is standing still.
I must be divine.

The church did have a problem with it.
Stating that the sun is already static caused the Church concern from a scriptural point of view considering scripture said the sun moved.
Scripture was wrong Galileo and Copernicus were right.

Joshua 10:13 was a key concern for the Church and the focus of a published letter Galileo wrote to his benefactor the Grand Duchess Cristina of Lorraine.

In this letter he made the harmonization I mentioned above.

Steve · Mar 16, 2005

linwood said:
Yes the bible is full of miracles!!!
However im not sure why you brought miracles in the bible up because it wasnt that Galileo was reluctance to belive in miracles that he was brought befor the Roman Catholic Church, It was because he stated that the Earth revolved around the Sun, the Catholic Church at that time thought the idea to heretical.

I hardly think the act of the sun standing still is a miracle.
LOOK!!!
I`m doin it now!!!
The sun is standing still.
I must be divine.

The church did have a problem with it.
Stating that the sun is already static caused the Church concern from a scriptural point of view considering scripture said the sun moved.
Scripture was wrong Galileo and Copernicus were right.

Joshua 10:13 was a key concern for the Church and the focus of a published letter Galileo wrote to his benefactor the Grand Duchess Cristina of Lorraine.

In this letter he made the harmonization I mentioned above.

"The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day."
You would hardly consider that a miracle?

Ok so how bout you watch the news tonight on TV. You will notice (if the weather report includes it) the times that the "sun rise" and "sun set" are expected for the following day. Would it concern you that the News is teaching contrary to science? No! it isnt an issue because they use those terms to convey a message, not for a science lesson.
The story in the bible that your talking about is telling us
Joshua 10:13-14 ".... The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day. There has never been a day like it before or since, a day when the LORD listened to a man. Surely the LORD was fighting for Israel! "
Its obvious what this part of scripture is trying to tell the reader!

To argue that this proves the bible incorrect is like saying in 500 years its ok to claim that the news reporters of our day still didnt understand that the earth revolved around the sun. Both the news example and the bible are giving us a message using terminolgy which the author knows will convey the intended message.

Majikthise · Mar 16, 2005

In those ancient day's the only way to measure the passage of time WAS the sun's movement. So who had the stopwatch to time the sun? meh.

linwood · Mar 16, 2005

Steve,

I`m not debating Biblical errancy in this thread.
I`ll gladly do it in another thread if you like.

My point in posting Joshua 10:13 was that you have said....

Galileo was summoned because his views confilcted with the Roman Catholic Church his views did not conflict with Scripture!

I posted Joshua 10:13 because it was the scripture the inquisition based it`s allegation of heresy against Galileo on.

The Church wasn`t just defending it`s Aristotelian ideology, they had a real problem with what Galileo wrote in his "Dialogue" on a scriptural basis.

That basis being Joshua 10:13 for the most part.

Considering Galileo himself published at least one letter in his own defense against the charge of scriptural heresy (Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina)using Joshua 10:13 as his point of defense should lead one to believe that there was indeed at least a percieved conflict between his writings and scripture.

I`m not here to argue the validity of Joshua 10:13.
I`m here to argue that it was indeed a point Church leaders made against Galileo.

painted wolf · Mar 17, 2005

steve said:
Once again Science doesn't contradict the Bible.

right so you should have no problem with Evolution then

wa:do

Godless Dave · Mar 17, 2005

Steve said:
Yes the bible is full of miracles!!!
However im not sure why you brought miracles in the bible up because it wasnt that Galileo was reluctance to belive in miracles that he was brought befor the Roman Catholic Church, It was because he stated that the Earth revolved around the Sun, the Catholic Church at that time thought the idea to heretical.

Just as a minority of Christians think the idea that humans are related to chimps is heretical.

angellous_evangellous · Mar 17, 2005

Steve said:
The word [font=CGTimes,Italic]firmament[/font] used by the KJV is a bad choice of words as it is based upon a false view of the universe. H. Vos says of this word. "The firmament is a mistranslation due to the false astronomy of the Greeks of the third century B.C., who believed that the sky was a solid crystalline sphere. Hence the Hebrew word [font=CGTimes,Italic]rakia [/font]was rendered [font=CGTimes,Italic]stereoma [/font]in the Greek translation of the Old Testament.

and this from http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/Difficult-Texts-from-Genesis.pdf

Actually, the word "firmament" is the unfortunate translation of the Hebrew raqia, which means an "expanse" (Davidson, 1963, p. DCXCII) or "something stretched, spread or beaten out" (Maunder, 1939, p. 315). Inaccurately, the Septuagint translated raqia with the Greek word stereoma, which connotes a "solid structure" (Arndt and Gingrich, 1967, p. 774). Those uninspired men probably chose that word because it reflected the current astronomical conception.

Actually, firmament is an excellent translation which reminds the English reader of the Hebrew worldview. For the worldview see
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/skepticism/universe.html

The Genesis account presents a very unscientific account of creation which is essentially a theological response to other early creation stories that teaches the unity and exclusive power of God to create by fiat. The Bible is not a science book but a theological revelation.

EDIT: Furthermore, the Hebrew word raquia means "to beat out with a hammer" and connotates beating metal out to shape a bowl. We also see in the Genesis account that the Lord placed stars in the firmament - like one punching holes into the metal bowl. Very unscientific indeed. Please see the article for supporting examples.

Click to expand...

angellous_evangellous · Mar 17, 2005

No*s said:
I'd like to see how many theists consider evolution a problem. I think that it would serve a good purpose, particularly for our Christian members that don't like it, to see how many people on all sides of the camp do accept evolution. It'd also be interesting to see which religions beyond Christianity and Islam have members that seem to have problems with it.

I strongly suspect the fourth option will never be selected .

Evolution causes no problems for my theology. I recently had a discussion with a Baptist pastor about this topic and he says the reason why he opposes it is theological and this is his logic:

P1: Sin brought death into the world
P2: Man sinned
P3: Evolution is based upon death before sin

C: Since evolution teaches that there were millions of years of death before man, it is theologically incorrect

First, I think that death is natural and a part of life from the beginning - Adam was not created immortal (this would be Platonic); sin simply changed the nature of death and necesitated a Savior to bring new life. With sin, death changed from being death into a new life with God to death as judgement. There are now two deaths: natural death and death as judgement (that is, hell). Thus we have John 11.25 : 25 Jesus said to her, "I R720 am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies, 26 and everyone who lives and believes in Me will R721 never die.

Here we see that there is a natural death and death which is the result of judgement. Christians are given life in Jesus, and though they die, there is no sting in death and they are given life after natural death. Unbelievers, however, die into death rather than into life.

More references to the second death are:
Re 2:11 - Show Context `He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. He who overcomes will not be hurt by the second death.'

Re 20:6 - Show Context Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years.

Re 20:14 - Show Context Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.

Re 21:8 - Show Context "But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death."

Therefore, evolution does not affect my theology. I will not use theology to call an apple what science calls an orange. Nevertheless, I find meaning for the world in Christian theology while the philosophy scientific naturalism offers no hope for humanity.

Dinogrrl · Mar 17, 2005

I have no problem with evolution and God. In fact, the more I study it, the more connections I see between the physical and the Divine.

However, a /lot/ of people in my circle (Christian) enjoy giving me crap about how I 'can't be a true Christian if I believe in evolution and am studying to be a paleontologist'. It used to annoy me, and now it downright ticks me off. Evolution, whether or not that's how we got to where we are today, is still a fact--things /change/. And it has NOTHING to do with whether or not I believe in Jesus, which is, after all, the whole basis of Christianity.

Draka · Mar 17, 2005

Evolution is no "problem" for me especially considering my strong belief in it...it is fact as far as I can see.

As a side note to the earlier conversation...The sun stopping would be one heck of a miracle, because that would mean that the Earth has halted in it's revolutions and if that would happen then the centrifugal force that constitutes our gravity would hence end and everything on the Earth would have nothing to hold it down and would, in essence, just float away...water would cease to run and come up off the Earth and we would no longer weigh anything and fly away off the ground and so on and so forth. To me that proves a huge discrepency between science and biblical tales.

No*s · Mar 17, 2005

So far, the vast bulk of everyone on every side has no problem with it, with only one dissenting opinion

. It's actually turned out better than I hoped.

Fatmop · Mar 30, 2005

Question, not entirely related to topic: centrifugal force causes gravity? If you've ever seen a centrifuge, or played on a tire swing, you might have noticed that the force was sending you flying outward. Maybe you mean inertia - if the Earth stopped suddenly, everything not directly attached to it would keep on going.

I have seen two accounts now that say that centrifugal force holds us to the ground, so maybe I'm wrong somehow - explain it to me.

Damien Bishop · Mar 30, 2005

LOL, Sorry "NO" I guess im the only Non-theist that has a problem with evolution

Ill explain:

I believe we are ultimatley the product of evolution, BUT, I do not believe the whole theory, as its believed to be today. Example: I do not believe that Homo Erectus immediatley preceeded us, Homo Sapien Sapien. Since it had already be genetically proven that Homo Neadertalensis, is not a father, but a cousin to us, and that Cro-magnon is but archaic Homo Sapiens, again, us. I cannot concur with the contention that Homo Erectus broke of into coastal tribes in isolation and there is where the magic happened, the change into us. I don't think though there was enough time for the changes that occured, to happens as said. To think that in 150,000 years man changed from Erectus to Sapien, that doesn't make sense to me. I think that there is a missing link, or links that still need to be found. Though I still hold true to the fact that we did come from monkey's

HoooHoooo HaahaaHaaaa (spit)

Just one man's opinion

martha · Mar 30, 2005

This is my thought about it; God created life, life constantly evolves. No problem.

God created monkeys too. Did their ancestors come before us? What's the dif? Monkeys are still here and so are we. They are cute and so are we. They have a certain degree of intellegence and so do we. What's all the hubbub, bub? Creation is creation in the end, no?
Somebody did it, whether you call it intelligent design or creation. IMHO

Granted...a simplistic view...to the inth degree!

Majikthise · Mar 30, 2005

Evolution of technology in the past 100 years or so has blown away the efforts man has put forth for thousands of years.Why couldn't this also aply to biological evolution?

Feathers in Hair · Mar 30, 2005

I'm very interested that so many people are theists and don't have a problem with evolution. I'm one of 'em, so I like learning why!

Dinogrrl · Mar 30, 2005

Damien Bishop said:
I believe we are ultimatley the product of evolution, BUT, I do not believe the whole theory, as its believed to be today. Example: I do not believe that Homo Erectus immediatley preceeded us, Homo Sapien Sapien. Since it had already be genetically proven that Homo Neadertalensis, is not a father, but a cousin to us, and that Cro-magnon is but archaic Homo Sapiens, again, us. I cannot concur with the contention that Homo Erectus broke of into coastal tribes in isolation and there is where the magic happened, the change into us. I don't think though there was enough time for the changes that occured, to happens as said. To think that in 150,000 years man changed from Erectus to Sapien, that doesn't make sense to me. I think that there is a missing link, or links that still need to be found. Though I still hold true to the fact that we did come from monkey's

Where did you here that we evolved from early humans that got trapped on islands?

Actually, recently, along with the 'hobbit people' that have been found (not at the same place, but around the same time as those discoveries), there have been 'Goliaths' found. And evidence to say that there were as many as three types of humans living together in Africa /at the same time/.
Anyway, some scientists are beginning to believe that we evolved not from the small 'Lucy' type of human, but rather, the 'Goliath' type.

There was a special on...Discovery? not too long ago about this. Should be showing again some time soon :}.

CaptainXeroid · Mar 30, 2005

Since I voted.....the problem I have with evolution is its advocates' 'use' of evolution to dismiss creationism. And, the problem I have with creationism is its advocates dismiss of evolution.

My belief is that the 2 are not so mutually exclusive as extremists would purport. Evolution lacks an origin and causality while creationism as described by many doesn't jibe with science with regards to its timeline. I believe God created the world and Man, and things have been evolving since.

No*s · Mar 30, 2005

CaptainXeroid said:
Since I voted.....the problem I have with evolution is its advocates' 'use' of evolution to dismiss creationism. And, the problem I have with creationism is its advocates dismiss of evolution.

My belief is that the 2 are not so mutually exclusive as extremists would purport. Evolution lacks an origin and causality while creationism as described by many doesn't jibe with science with regards to its timeline. I believe God created the world and Man, and things have been evolving since.

You'll find the vast majority of Christians voted "no" for that very reason. We don't feel a tension

Does evolution cause you problems?

Is evolution a problem for you?

Nope, and I'm a theist.

Yep, and I'm a theist

Nope, and I'm a non-theist

Yep, and I'm a non-theist

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Majikthise

Guest

Well-Known Member

Grey Muzzle

Member

angellous_evangellous

Guest

angellous_evangellous

Guest

peeb!

Wonder Woman

Captain Obvious

Active Member

Member

Active Member

Majikthise

Guest

World's Tallest Hobbit

peeb!

Following Christ

Captain Obvious