Why Creation Is Right and Evolution Is Wrong.

[one.opinion]

3 hours ago, Tristen said:

Palaeontologist (and renowned defender of evolution theory), Stephen J Gould, said; “The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.” (Gould (1982). “Evolution Now: a century after Darwin”, p 141)

Gould was promoting punctuated equilibrium, not claiming that transitional fossils didn't exist. I should probably add here that the hypothetical punctuated equilibrium still is change over very long periods of time - millions of years. Like I said previously in this thread, in my inexpert opinion, the number of transitional fossils is less than what had been expected. That does not mean that they don't exist. The number of transitional fossils is not nearly as important as the fact that quite a few fossils exist that certainly look like they are transitional.

[Guest shiloh357]

32 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

I'm interested in understanding your perspective. I just think it is interesting that you accept that Eve sinned, but her sin seems to have very little ramifications, although God hates sin and will not tolerate it.

I know you will disagree with my view, but I believe the account of the fruit-eating is figurative, symbolizing mankind choosing his (or her) way over God's. This represents not just a one-time event, but the continuous choice that God's children must make every day - choose our way, or choose God's way.

It's not a matter of disagreeing with you.  You are simply wrong and the Bible is right.  The Bible doesn't call it figurative and the Bible doesn't offer anything to corroborate your "belief."

You simply reject what the Bible says because everything has to be figurative since what the Bible actually says can't be reconciled with Evolution.   So, in order to insulate your unbelief, you have to make up a belief that allows you to reject the Bible's claims.

There is no figurative language, no evidence of symbolism.  Nothing exists in the Bible to support that.  It's just something you made up and you are wrong about it.   This is not a disagreement.  Your view is inferior and is rooted in rebellion against God and unbelief.

The Bible is correct 100% as written.   That is the ONLY correct and Christian way to look at it.  If you say otherwise you are wrong, period.

[one.opinion]

10 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

It's not a matter of disagreeing with you.  You are simply wrong and the Bible is right.  The Bible doesn't call it figurative and the Bible doesn't offer anything to corroborate your "belief."

You simply reject what the Bible says because everything has to be figurative since what the Bible actually says can't be reconciled with Evolution.   So, in order to insulate your unbelief, you have to make up a belief that allows you to reject the Bible's claims.

There is no figurative language, no evidence of symbolism.  Nothing exists in the Bible to support that.  It's just something you made up and you are wrong about it.   This is not a disagreement.  Your view is inferior and is rooted in rebellion against God and unbelief.

The Bible is correct 100% as written.   That is the ONLY correct and Christian way to look at it.  If you say otherwise you are wrong, period.

I accept that you need a Biblical statement telling you "this part coming up is figurative" for you to accept anything less than a literal interpretation in the creation account. However, what you are presenting is your opinion, plain and simple. Your opinion differs from mine, and I have zero problem with that. There are plenty of Biblical scholars that share my opinion. You have many brothers and sisters in Christ that have a different opinion from yours. We save the same Creator, regardless of how we view His creation.

[one.opinion]

4 minutes ago, Yowm said:

2. Off the top of my head...the eyeball.

The eyeball is a fascinating structure. God's ingenuity and creativity are evident to me when I look at the intricacy of the structures. However, for the irreducible complexity argument to apply to the eye and refute evolution, there could be no simpler version. The animal kingdom exhibits a variety of different versions, ranging from the light-sensitive eyespot of the Planarian, all they way up to the amazing visual acuity of birds of prey.

[Guest shiloh357]

4 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

I accept that you need a Biblical statement telling you "this part coming up is figurative" for you to accept anything less than a literal interpretation in the creation account. However, what you are presenting is your opinion, plain and simple.

No, it is not my opinion.   It is no more my opinion than it is my opinion that 2+2 is 4.  You actually have to have textual evidence for a textual argument.  That's how it works.  There are rules for literature and the Bible  obeys those rules, like it or not.    If you are going to lay claim to the notion that a given text is "figuarative,"  then the onus is on you to provide from the text and thus from the author, the textual justification for that claim.  

At this point you have exactly ZERO lines of evidence i justification of that claim.  Thus your claim is wrong.  It's not a different opinion.  It is a baseless and false claim that cannot be taken seriously by thinking people.

Quote

Your opinion differs from mine, and I have zero problem with that. There are plenty of Biblical scholars that share my opinion.

There are biblical scholars and there are Christian biblical scholars.  There are people that believe like you, who make a career out of the studying the Bible and they don't believe a word of it.   Those are the scholars YOU have to turn to make your claims.  Christian scholars who believe the Bible, who accept its total inerrancy, inspiration and infallibility are the ones who actually teach the truth.   They share in your error and unbelief.

Quote

You have many brothers and sisters in Christ that have a different opinion from yours. We save the same Creator, regardless of how we view His creation.

The problem is that the creation account is not disconnected from salvation and the NT and what you believe about one part of the Bible tells us what your faith is really based on.  Because I am finding you having a hard time accepting what the Bible says about sin and its origin, which is directly connected to what the Bible says about salvation and the plan of redemption.

[one.opinion]

53 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

No, it is not my opinion.   It is no more my opinion than it is my opinion that 2+2 is 4.  You actually have to have textual evidence for a textual argument.  That's how it works.  There are rules for literature and the Bible  obeys those rules, like it or not.    If you are going to lay claim to the notion that a given text is "figuarative,"  then the onus is on you to provide from the text and thus from the author, the textual justification for that claim.  

At this point you have exactly ZERO lines of evidence i justification of that claim.  Thus your claim is wrong.  It's not a different opinion.  It is a baseless and false claim that cannot be taken seriously by thinking people.

You claiming it is wrong does not make it wrong. You are not the arbiter of truth.

53 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

The problem is that the creation account is not disconnected from salvation and the NT and what you believe about one part of the Bible tells us what your faith is really based on.

1. We are all sinners.

2. Jesus Christ was made flesh in order to die on our behalf to pay the requirement our sins incurred.

3. Jesus Christ rose triumphant over death, allowing those that believe in Him to become new creations and His "joint heirs".

A literal interpretation of the creation account does not factor into the picture. Paul does not tell the Philippian jailor "Believe in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, plus believe in a literal creation account, and thou shalt be saved."

To be honest, if you do not accept our brotherhood in Jesus Christ, then ironically, it is you that have serious trouble believing what the Bible says.

[Tristen]

1 hour ago, one.opinion said:

5 hours ago, Tristen said:

Palaeontologist (and renowned defender of evolution theory), Stephen J Gould, said; “The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.” (Gould (1982). “Evolution Now: a century after Darwin”, p 141)

Gould was promoting punctuated equilibrium, not claiming that transitional fossils didn't exist. I should probably add here that the hypothetical punctuated equilibrium still is change over very long periods of time - millions of years. Like I said previously in this thread, in my inexpert opinion, the number of transitional fossils is less than what had been expected. That does not mean that they don't exist. The number of transitional fossils is not nearly as important as the fact that quite a few fossils exist that certainly look like they are transitional.

"Gould was promoting punctuated equilibrium, not claiming that transitional fossils didn't exist"

The reason "Gould was promoting punctuated equilibrium" was to explain away the complete absence of transitional fossils found in the record (as Darwin conceived transitional fossils). You are right that he wasn't claiming they don't "exist", only that we haven't found any, and that their conspicuous absence is a problem for evolution theory. Punctuated Equilibrium is a story generated to explain their absence by claiming intermediate forms to be such rare, short-lived and localised occurrences - so as to drastically diminish the likelihood of them being fossilised (and ergo our finding them in the fossil record).

 

"Like I said previously in this thread, in my inexpert opinion, the number of transitional fossils is less than what had been expected. That does not mean that they don't exist"

When properly defined, the current number of transitional fossils is zero. But you are right - apart from faith, we can't claim absolutely that "they don't exist", only that we haven't found any.

 

"The number of transitional fossils is not nearly as important as the fact that quite a few fossils exist that certainly look like they are transitional"

None of them "look like they are transitional" in the Darwinian sense of the word. Shared features between species is a fact that secularists interpret to evidence Common Ancestry, not a defining characteristic of transitional fossils (unless you decide to adopt an updated, more evolution-friendly definition of transitional fossil - which, in effect,  makes almost all ancient forms transitional - and so is ultimately meaningless as it adds nothing new to the argument).

[Guest shiloh357]

9 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

You claiming it is wrong does not make it wrong. You are not the arbiter of truth.

It is not wrong because I say it is wrong.  It is wrong based on the lack of any real facts or biblical corroboration.  The Bible is the final arbiter of truth and the Bible says what it says.  It doesn't say what you say.  I can find plenty of Atheist and apostates who will agree with you.  I can find plenty of unbelievers who will affirm your position.  No committed follower of Jesus takes your position.

Quote

 

1. We are all sinners.

2. Jesus Christ was made flesh in order to die on our behalf to pay the requirement our sins incurred.

3. Jesus Christ rose triumphant over death, allowing those that believe in Him to become new creations and His "joint heirs".

A literal interpretation of the creation account does not factor into the picture. Paul does not tell the Philippian jailor "Believe in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, plus believe in a literal creation account, and thou shalt be saved."

 

It does factor into the credibility of the Gospel claims the Scripture for three reasons. 

Firstly, Jesus is the Creator. (John 1:-3, Col. 1:15-18, Heb. 1:1-2). In all of those verses, Jesus is the literal Creator.   

Secondly, Gen. 1-3 is where ALL of the doctrines of Scripture either directly or indirectly find their origin.  The doctrine of sin is just one of the doctrines.  And the origin of sin depends on a literal interpretation of Genesis.   If we take your view that the Fall was figurative and not literal history, we run into a huge theological problem, namely in the book of Romans.   Rom. 5:12-21 is the very heart of the book of Romans.  Romans is Paul's magnum opus on salvation.  

Paul links salvation to a literal view of the fall of man.   He treats Adam's disobedience and Jesus' obedience as both literal events.   He points to Adam's disobedience as the cause of the curse of death and Jesus' death on the cross as the reversal of that curse.  He doesn't take your ridiculous "figurative" notion at all.   Jesus didn't die to redeem us from a figurative fall that never really happened.   The fall of man is the reason that Jesus went to the cross.  Paul links the plan  of redemption to a literal interpretation  of Genesis 3 and Adam's disobedience.

Thirdly, if Evolution is true, there is no sin because man doesn't die because of sin.  In Evolution sin doesn't exist.   In evolution, sexual immorality, murder, etc. don't exist.  In Evolution there is no one standard of right and wrong and no moral lawgiver, no God, no Judge, No Creator, no Eternal Sovereign and no need for any plan of redemption, as man is not a sinner in an evolutionary worldview.  It's why Richard Dawkins said that Evolution makes an Atheist a better and more fulfilled Atheist.  Evolution fits an atheistic worldview.

So a literal interpretation does factor in and it must factor in because the doctrines of salvation find their origins directly in a literal interpretation of Genesis 3.

Quote

To be honest, if you do not accept our brotherhood in Jesus Christ, then ironically, it is you that have serious trouble believing what the Bible says.

No, that is not true.  I am not the one trying to do an end run around what the Bible says.  I am not the one with an  incoherent theology.  I am not the one that rejects the Bible's inerrancy and other other essential doctrines of the Christian faith.  I am not the one whose worldview is more in line with Atheists and skeptics and other unbelievers.   

That's all you.   You really need to re-examine the authenticity of your profession of faith.   You're the one with huge problem with Scripture, not me.  I believe the Bible.   I am under NO obligation to you to take your word for anything.   You need to decide if you're an evolutionist or if you believe the Bible, because even Atheists admit that the two are simply incompatible.   It is troubling when Atheists are actually more honest about the Bible than some "Christians."

[one.opinion]

1 hour ago, shiloh357 said:

Firstly, Jesus is the Creator. (John 1:-3, Col. 1:15-18, Heb. 1:1-2). In all of those verses, Jesus is the literal Creator.   

Agreed.

1 hour ago, shiloh357 said:

Paul links salvation to a literal view of the fall of man.   He treats Adam's disobedience and Jesus' obedience as both literal events.   He points to Adam's disobedience as the cause of the curse of death and Jesus' death on the cross as the reversal of that curse.  He doesn't take your ridiculous "figurative" notion at all. 

I never disputed that Adam sinned. I said he did choose his way over God's, just as we do today. I don't know if it was taking a bite of fruit that was the sin, that is the part that I maintain could be figurative.

 

1 hour ago, shiloh357 said:

Jesus didn't die to redeem us from a figurative fall that never really happened.

Your strawman is showing itself here. I never claimed that the fall never happened. Quite the opposite, the Fall happened and we continue to fall.

1 hour ago, shiloh357 said:

Thirdly, if Evolution is true, there is no sin because man doesn't die because of sin.  In Evolution sin doesn't exist.   In evolution, sexual immorality, murder, etc. don't exist.

And the strawmen continue to pop up. Your argument isn't even valid against atheistic evolution, let alone what I believe.

1 hour ago, shiloh357 said:

It's why Richard Dawkins said that Evolution makes an Atheist a better and more fulfilled Atheist.  Evolution fits an atheistic worldview.

Evolution has enabled atheism in people like Richard Dawkins, but evolution is only a scientific explanation. As such, it is amoral, although it can obviously be misused.

1 hour ago, shiloh357 said:

I am not the one that rejects the Bible's inerrancy and other other essential doctrines of the Christian faith.

Not surprisingly, the strawmen continue to appear. I never claimed the Bible was in error. Accepting a figurative interpretation does not mean that I think the Bible is mistaken.

1 hour ago, shiloh357 said:

I am under NO obligation to you to take your word for anything. 

When did I make it an obligation for you to believe me?

1 hour ago, shiloh357 said:

You need to decide if you're an evolutionist or if you believe the Bible

I see we are now handing out advice. Great, allow me to suggest that you make a better effort to stick with truth and avoid strawman arguments.

1 hour ago, shiloh357 said:

even Atheists admit that the two are simply incompatible.

Have you considered the possibility that atheists could be wrong?

[Guest shiloh357]

8 hours ago, one.opinion said:

I never disputed that Adam sinned. I said he did choose his way over God's, just as we do today.

I never accused you of saying that Adam never sinned.   You are responding to an argument I didn't make.

Quote

I don't know if it was taking a bite of fruit that was the sin, that is the part that I maintain could be figurative.

More accurately, you don't BELIEVE that taking a bite from the fruit was sin.   The Bible says it was.  You don't accept what the Bible says, so you decide to reject what the Bible says and claim that it was figurative.  The Bible's authority is limited in your eyes to what you are willing to accept.   And what you're willing to accept depends on whether or not you can reconcile it with Evolution.  The Bible links death with Aadm's sin as the direct cause of death, but in Evolution, Adam didn't cause death; death created Adam.  Adam is the product of death in an evolutionary worldview. 

So the fall of man has to be figurative in order to maintain a belief that death isn't the result of sin, but the result of Evolution.   In fact, death is the workhorse of Evolution.

You still cannot wrap your mind around the fact that when you make a claim that something is figurative, you have to textual evidence for that claim.  You cannot arbitrarily assign "figurative"  to any part of the Bible you reject.  There is nothing figurative about it.  It is written in the same historical fashion as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.   Just because it has supernatural elements to it, doesn't make it figurative.  

If we follow your rather feeble logic, Jesus' miracles never really happened; they were just figurative.   Jesus was not born of virgin; that was just figurative.  Jesus didn't really rise from the dead; that was just figurative. 

Quote

Your strawman is showing itself here. I never claimed that the fall never happened. Quite the opposite, the Fall happened and we continue to fall.

No strawman at all.

See, the way it works is that the Bible is inspired by an inerrant, infallible God who doesn't lie, doesn't get his facts, wrong and doesn't stutter.    He says that man fell by Adam eating the fruit that He had forbidden him to eat.   That is how it happened.   You try to skirt around the story by claiming the fall happened but you reject what the Bible says happened.    But since God doesn't lie, you are left with either agreeing with God's history, or calling God a liar.    That is your only binary choice.    You don't get to make up a different narrative.  You either believe God, or you don't. 
 

Quote

 

And the strawmen continue to pop up. Your argument isn't even valid against atheistic evolution, let alone what I believe.

 

 

 

LOL, Calling anything you can't refute, a "strawman" is your intellectual crutch.   My argument is exactly correct because it is one that Evolutionists make.  The most popular proponents of Evolution, based on Evolution deny the existence of sin.   Some "Christian" evolutionists redefine sin, but both reject the Bible's doctrine of sin.   "Christian" evolutionists have to edit the Bible and redefine terms and, as you have done, mythologize parts of the Bible in order to reconcile it with their evolutionary beliefs.

In Evolution "sin" is really part of the evolutionary process.  When Adam "sinned," in evolutionary thought, he gained knowledge, which means that he evolved.  He didn't sin; he got better, more advanced.  In Evolution, man did not bring about death.   Death existed for millions/billions of years before man ever came on the scene.  Death is the product of natural processes and do not have any real connection to man's "fall."  The fall is a myth in evolutionary thought.

In Evolution, man is not a special creation, made in God's image from the dirt, separate from the animal kingdom.  He is the result of the millions of years of evolution and death.  He is just a higher animal, nothing special.   Stephen Gould made the analogy of the universe as a many-branched tree of which man was an obscure,  insignificant, meaningless twig.  He said that if this tree (universe) were uprooted and destroyed, and a new one grew up in its place, the odds of man existing on that tree was essentially nill.

I actually listen to what evolutionists say.  

Quote

Not surprisingly, the strawmen continue to appear. I never claimed the Bible was in error. Accepting a figurative interpretation does not mean that I think the Bible is mistaken.

Yes, you do it is mistaken, ultimately.  You reject the historicity of the Bible's claim.  The Bible says in literal fashion, that man fell when he ate of the fruit forbidden by God.   You deny the Bible's history and have decided that man fell in some way or another, but NOT the way the Bible says. So, you deny the Bible's inerrancy on the matter.  Furthermore, you deny the Bible's infallibility on the doctrine of sin, which means you reject the Bible's claim that man brought death into the world.  You cannot agree with that teaching and hold to the theory of Evolution.  So rejecting the historical narrative and opting for a figurative view denies what the Bible specifically says, as true.

Quote

Have you considered the possibility that atheists could be wrong?

No, because what they say lines up with the evidence, ironically.   They understand that the specific claims of the Bible are not at all in line with Evolution and cannot be reconciled.    They are at least honest about that.   And that is more than I can say for "Christian" Evolutionists who are trying to edit the Bible to make it fit, and frankly they just look really foolish to both those of us who believe the Bible and ardent Evolutionists.

Either believe Evolution and call God a liar, or believe the Bible. 

Edited January 14, 2018 by shiloh357