one.opinion Posted July 3, 2021 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.07 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Author Share Posted July 3, 2021 7 minutes ago, Sparks said: You already know. I am particularly interested in the theology in this thread as you can see in the name I gave it. What do you think of the theological points I outlined and how would you suggest they be altered? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparks Posted July 3, 2021 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 23 Topic Count: 28 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 6,168 Content Per Day: 2.01 Reputation: 2,520 Days Won: 8 Joined: 01/20/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted July 3, 2021 3 minutes ago, one.opinion said: I am particularly interested in the theology in this thread as you can see in the name I gave it. What do you think of the theological points I outlined and how would you suggest they be altered? I guess it depends on your definition of evolution. If you simply claim 'changes' then that's a bogus definition. The real definition is something like: The common descent of all life on earth from a single ancestor, via undirected mutation and natural selection. Is that your definition, because that is the definition of evolutionists, minus God? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one.opinion Posted July 3, 2021 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.07 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Author Share Posted July 3, 2021 2 minutes ago, Sparks said: I guess it depends on your definition of evolution. This is not a theological consideration. Please check the theological points I posted in the OP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparks Posted July 3, 2021 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 23 Topic Count: 28 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 6,168 Content Per Day: 2.01 Reputation: 2,520 Days Won: 8 Joined: 01/20/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted July 3, 2021 13 minutes ago, one.opinion said: This is not a theological consideration. Please check the theological points I posted in the OP. I have already answered this dozens of times. You believe in a mixture of at least two religions, and you are trying to reconcile the two while literally dismissing what God told you He did in the Bible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one.opinion Posted July 3, 2021 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.07 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Author Share Posted July 3, 2021 1 minute ago, Sparks said: I have already answered this dozens of times. You believe in a mixture of at least two religions, and you are try to reconcile the two while literally dismissing what God told you He did in the Bible. This is false and doesn't address any of the theological points in the OP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparks Posted July 3, 2021 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 23 Topic Count: 28 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 6,168 Content Per Day: 2.01 Reputation: 2,520 Days Won: 8 Joined: 01/20/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted July 3, 2021 2 minutes ago, one.opinion said: This is false and doesn't address any of the theological points in the OP. It's true, and directly addresses anything theological between evolution (religion one) and Christianity (religion two). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AandW_Rootbeer Posted July 3, 2021 Group: Senior Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 7 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 586 Content Per Day: 0.53 Reputation: 167 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/10/2021 Status: Offline Share Posted July 3, 2021 29 minutes ago, one.opinion said: Yes, absolutely. Dr. Joshua Swamidass (MD/PhD), a computational biologist at Washington University in St. Louis, wrote a book that I've heard a lot about - The Genealogical Adam and Eve - that goes into that exact scenario. It turns out that Adam and Eve could very well have been created just as described in Genesis 1-2. Here is a good review of the book https://spectrummagazine.org/arts-essays/2021/genealogical-adam-and-eve-s-joshua-swamidass-book-review I actually have the book, but have not yet gotten around to reading it. I understand the conundrum. I believe it is important to consider the original audience for those passages - a people that had just been released from 400 years of bondage in an extremely idolatrous culture. God's major emphasis to His people was that He alone was Creator - what their culture had to tell them about their origins was completely untrue. The timing of the creation process was not the major emphasis - as we can see from the rest of the Bible. I do wonder where the idealism is that Moses was as uneducated as many propose. He was being trained to become Pharaoh. He had Engineering knowledge and Mathematical understanding with the Pyramids and other Egyptian creations. He would have been privvy to their medical advancement, how to embalm, and much more. As far as learned men go, Moses, fits the bill. And the knowledge Moses had, it seems illogical to think God could not have explained Evolution. And what really bothers me most, is if God did use Evolution, but reported He formed man from the dust of the ground. He is flat out lying because there are no direct links from Chemical Chain Reaction to the evolved man that includes dirt at all. Only decomposition would and could apply. God chose Moses, like He saved Moses, because Moses was highly intelligent. Secondly, Evolution does not involve dirt in the process of the evolved man. That means God lied. Even if God was simplifying, His explanation does not even relate to the process used. Why would I trust a God that flat out lied to one of the most intelligent human beings of that period? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one.opinion Posted July 3, 2021 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.07 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Author Share Posted July 3, 2021 13 minutes ago, AandW_Rootbeer said: I do wonder where the idealism is that Moses was as uneducated as many propose. No doubt Moses was highly educated. Regardless, God's audience for Genesis did not have the same education. There is also no doubt that no one of the time had even an inkling of what a cell was, or that there were millions of different kinds of single-celled organisms all around them. 14 minutes ago, AandW_Rootbeer said: And what really bothers me most, is if God did use Evolution, but reported He formed man from the dust of the ground. I find it interesting that "dust of the ground" would be a pretty good way to explain single celled organisms to a bunch of people that had no idea that such things existed. 16 minutes ago, AandW_Rootbeer said: He is flat out lying because there are no direct links from Chemical Chain Reaction to the evolved man that includes dirt at all. God uses a LOT of figurative language in the Bible - even in Genesis 1-3. I am certainly not claiming that God lied. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David1701 Posted July 3, 2021 Group: Royal Member Followers: 8 Topic Count: 15 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,731 Content Per Day: 3.46 Reputation: 3,524 Days Won: 12 Joined: 11/27/2019 Status: Offline Share Posted July 3, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, one.opinion said: No doubt Moses was highly educated. Regardless, God's audience for Genesis did not have the same education. There is also no doubt that no one of the time had even an inkling of what a cell was, or that there were millions of different kinds of single-celled organisms all around them. I find it interesting that "dust of the ground" would be a pretty good way to explain single celled organisms to a bunch of people that had no idea that such things existed. If I wanted to explain what a single-celled organism is, to someone who had never heard of such a thing, I certainly would not say "dust of the ground" and nor would anyone else who did not have an axe to grind! God created Adam, directly from earth, on day six (a literal day, with a morning and an evening) of the creation week. God did not cause single-celled organisms to gain huge amounts of genetic information, over many millions of years, gradually changing from one kind of creature to another, finally culminating in man! Quote God uses a LOT of figurative language in the Bible - even in Genesis 1-3. I am certainly not claiming that God lied. Genesis 1-3 is written in Hebrew narrative style, not poetic or prophetic style. Edited July 3, 2021 by David1701 typo 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one.opinion Posted July 3, 2021 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.07 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Author Share Posted July 3, 2021 3 minutes ago, David1701 said: I certainly would not say "dust of the ground" Maybe not, but there sure are a heck of a lot of single-celled organisms in the dust of the ground! 4 minutes ago, David1701 said: God did not cause single-celled organisms to gain huge amounts of genetic information, over many millions of years, gradually changing from one kind of creature to another, finally culminating in man! That's certainly what the evidence God left us suggests. 11 minutes ago, David1701 said: Genesis 1-3 is written in Hebrew narrative style, not poetic or prophetic style. Claiming it is so, does not necessarily make it so. There are many theologians that disagree. https://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/fw.htm https://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2007/PSCF6-07Hill.pdf I cannot honestly remember - have you addressed the theological points I made in the original post? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts