An Explanation of the Big Bang and Evolution that doesn't exclude God.

"And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
"And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good."

The actual Hebrew words from which "whale" and "fowl" were derived are much more inclusive and less genotypically specific.

Source: God




Frank,

Enforcer did a fair job of 'cross-examining' your position, less strident and direct than per my own persona. Much of his content iterated what I'd have brought up.

Some of your opinion seems a very capitulative approach to theological treatment of faith in The Lord. In most areas The Lord has provided abundant room to move, however, there are those areas in which it is this man's opinion, as backed by traditional doctrinal belief, there is not room given for us to capitulate. To one extent of another, lesser or predominant, the contemporaneous prevailing opinion of the historical epochs has always opposed clear scriptural doctrine and admonition.

"We walk by faith and not by sight."

Now, lest this verse usage be erroneously deemed an exhortation to embrace abject anti-intellectualism let the Divine invitation and prerogative be included,"...Come, let us reason together."

Your difficulty seems entirely centered in the Mosaic writings, the epicenter of which being the historical account provided within the pages of the Genesis chronicle. Somewhere in the midst of this you presume a seperation between actual fact and a relegation of content to the abstractedly metaphorical/mythical.

You've yet to clearly delineate the basis for this opinion or specifically draw any definitive exegetical/hermeneutical theological lines by which to buttress the generalities of your seemingly inferential opinion, much less anything uncontroversially authoritative.

Potentially, to reiterate prior comments, if the Mosaic writings directly violated subsequent scriptural passages, especially in clear dichotomy sans interpolative hermeneutics,...and if most pertinently such was evident within the New Testament books(in which you seem to isolate and encapsulate your faith pertaining to historical narrative),...your argumentation would have a stronger case.

However, on the face of things, it might be argued Christ Jesus and The Church Fathers anticipated, even encountered argumentation similar if not identical to what is ostensibly the position you are presenting.

Such that, we have on record for the last approximately 2,000 years such statements, from The Lord Jesus;

"For had you believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
"But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?"


Impressively strong endorsement in my book. And this is not an isolated passage.

To further this we have passages such as Exodus 17:14, in which The Lord directly tells Moses to,"...Write this for a memorial in a book,..." And, again, such an instruction to Moses from The Lord is not an isolated incident.

There's a verse in the scriptures pertaining to, "...having a form of godliness but denying the power thereof." This isn't an indictment, but perhaps a call for self-examination.

As it is contained within the scriptures, as it is written, "Let God be true and every man a liar."

It would be my suggestion, to prayerfully study these matters, perhaps with the necessary use of an adequate exhaustive concordance. Examine all relevant references to Moses(quite an undertaking) throughout the scriptures. Then, perhaps examine what the scriptures say of themselves.

God provided us with our intellects, yet, also admonished us to come with the faith of children, and to "...trust in the Lord with all your heart, and lean not upon your own understanding." There is a time and place and p

 

Here's a great Skeptical Inquirer article about the evolution vs. ID debate (from the pro-evolution perspective):

By any objective measure, the evolution of species ranks among the most successful scientific theories ever. So why is the message not getting through?

 

DB - well put, I'm sure. But have you got anything else to offer? Your presumption still appears to be that since I don't agree with your position, I must not have enough faith. I don't begrudge you that, I assure you - but is that honestly all you've got? It seems like a difficult and circular position for you to take, saying that the reason you know I'm wrong about this is that I haven't got enough faith, and the way you know I don't have enough faith is that you know I'm wrong about this...

You asked before about the inconsistencies in Genesis - why don't you explain how to reconcile the chronologies between the two chapters, and make sure to lay out which of the two should be interpreted literally. Then you can explain why it's ok for you to fudge the meaning of the other one, but to go any further than you have is to display a gross impiety.

Forgive my abruptness, I'm short on time today.

FS

 

What's more believable?

1) An all powerful being (who we shall refer to as God) is created, and he proceeds to creat the whole universe with a snap of his finger (including his beloved humans)

2) Due to reasons beyond our current ability to comprehend, a universe came into existence. By sheer chance, the conditions in this universe resulted in planets and stars, etc., forming, and eventually the formation of life. And again by chance, some of these life forms, through the process of evolution, developed intelligent thought.

 

3) God creates the universe, waits for it to cool off a bit, creates the first life, and then manipulates its evolution as He sees fit.

 

George_Roper posted on 5/13/05 5:17pm

---

What's more believable?

1) An all powerful being (who we shall refer to as God) is created, and he proceeds to creat the whole universe with a snap of his finger (including his beloved humans)

2) Due to reasons beyond our current ability to comprehend, a universe came into existence. By sheer chance, the conditions in this universe resulted in planets and stars, etc., forming, and eventually the formation of life. And again by chance, some of these life forms, through the process of evolution, developed intelligent thought.

[hr][/blockquote]

Let me reword your choices

1) Out of the blue, a being appears simply by chance, imbedded by chance with ultimate power.

2) The universe always existed and chemical and nuclear reactions occured (as we see them doing now) and brought about life. No magic involved.

The obvious answer is number 2.

There is no need for some all powerful god to make the universe. Its simply an extra step of unbelievability. If you can't except that this universe was always here, why bother with a being whose existance you can't prove always being here.

 

3) God creates the universe, waits for it to cool off a bit, creates the first life, and then manipulates its evolution as He sees fit.

But that doesn't explain how God was created.


Jediflyer, I do not believe in God. My points were to illustrate that a godless universe is more believable. Conditions were right for life on Earth to evolve for example. By chance. The conditions didn't have to exist. It would have been perfectly possible to have a lifeless universe.

 

But God created the world in six days, not billions of years. AND, God created people in His image, which denies evolution. I know Darwin was a smart guy, but he didn't know everything, like God.

 

Frank,

"DB - well put, I'm sure. But have you got anything else to offer?"

Lots to offer.

"Your presumption still appears to be that since I don't agree with your position, I must not have enough faith."

Is it a "presumption"?

It's not my position, Frank. It's The Lord's, it's the Holy Scripture's position. That position has been around about the last 3,500 to 4,000 years. But the fact is, I'm really still very mystified as to precisely what your actual "position" is and is not.


"I don't begrudge you that, I assure you - but is that honestly all you've got? It seems like a difficult and circular position for you to take, saying that the reason you know I'm wrong about this is that I haven't got enough faith, and the way you know I don't have enough faith is that you know I'm wrong about this..."

You've lost me. I see nothing "circular" about my questions, in fact they seem very straight forward to me.


"You asked before about the inconsistencies in Genesis - why don't you explain how to reconcile the chronologies between the two chapters, and make sure to lay out which of the two should be interpreted literally."

I think you need to specifically point out the alleged "inconsistencies", don't you?

At this point it can only be guessed at as to what you are specifically alluding.

What seems to be alluded to are some ostensible "inconsistencies" which have circulated for some time which fundamentally are based on trying to pidgeon-hole a verse or two, which ignore the overall narrative stylism throughout the entirety of The Book of Genesis and not just the opening two chapters, and which try to hold Genesis chapters 1 and 2 as both being creation accounts. Quite simply they are not. Genesis 1 is the creation account-proper, an overview, whereas Genesis 2 closes in to focus on humanity at it's inception. By analogy you might visualize a camera technique in a movie, wherein we, the audience have been presented with a broadly panoramic view of the universe starting in Genesis verse 1. The camera begins drawing closer to a specific planet, then an overview of that planet, and then slowly closing in to a specific location on that planet. At which point the narrator backs up a little to go into certain specifics touched on in the overview(Genesis 1).

The actual problem with this is not in the narrative itself, but rather within the approach to the narrative...in the individual or individuals who attempt to exegetically allege "inconsistencies", because to do so they take the stylistic rendering out of context by trying to isolate it, in ignoring that the chronicler doesn't use this form peculiarly only in the treatment of chapters 1 and 2, but does so throughout the entire book within the overall parameters of chapters 1 thru 50.

Further, if one really wanted to argue the point, technically there are a number of "creation accounts" throughout the Holy Bible entire. None of which are contradictory, but are complimentary. One might look at The Gospel of John, chapter 1, for instance. What the reader has are parallax accounts provided, not contradictory accounts.






"Then you can explain why it's ok for you to fudge the meaning of the other one, but to go any further than you have is to display a gross impiety."

Frank, again, I can only guess at what you're referring to specifically. I haven't "fudged" anything.

As far as "gross impiety"...well, perhaps we need make sure you aren't invoking what might amount to the legalistic "leaven of pharisees." You'll find The Lord loves the rough on the edges every bit as much as the more refined. We might also notice a certain parable pertaining to a pharisee and a publican(Luke chapter 18, starting at verse 10). Rigidly formalized and pretentiously sterile religious "piety" is not what pleases The Lord, Who looks upon the hearts of men. A slobbery, belching red-neck with bar-b-que smeared on a face sitting atop a heart of gold is more pleasing to Him t

 

DB, you must have missed this, taken from a post of mine about two weeks ago:

"Contradictions in a literal interpretation of Genesis - Chapter 1 states that man was the last of his creations to manifest, late on the sixth day, after creating all the beasts of the earth, and birds of the air, etc. Chapter 2, on the other hand, has man created first, out of dust, then God planted a garden, put the man in it, told him about the tree of knowledge, said it isn't good for man to be alone, and only then formed out of the ground every beast of the earth and bird in the air. My paraphrase is of course pedestrian, but if you would like to present for us an interpretation that jives the two together, by all means proceed. Try not to take the position that it really doesn't matter all that much - I'm not the one taking issue with non-literal interpretations. I have no problem with a nuanced blend of the two accounts, but then you'd have to explain why you get to draw extra-Scriptural conclusions but no one else does."

You've already sort of responded to this as though you had read it, though, and if I understand correctly, your argument is that the correct interpretation depends on the reader's perspective; that Chapter 1 represents the correct chronology, and Chapter 2 is just a different spin on the same message. Only trouble with that is, that's not what the text says. The two chapters describe two different chains of events, and no matter what your broader position about evolution is, you've got to make a decision which is correct on your own steam. You find for me the passage that says "Genesis 1 is correct word for word, but the details Genesis 2 can be fudged for the sake of the broader theme." Where did Christ refer to the distinction, and guide us to interpret it correctly? Try not to answer this question with your standard "if you had more faith you'd understand" bit, DB - it does nothing to advance your argument. You should have no trouble admitting that you yourself, as a rational individual, have made a judgment call on interpreting the text, unless you can find the Scriptural direction to support your interpretation. This is of course to say nothing of the fact that you yourself have admitted that "days" might not really mean "days" in the way we typically use the word - if you have a Scriptural reference to support that, by all means share it as well.

As far as your general position being circular goes...allow me to offer a rough illustration:

Frank: "DB, how do you judge whether creationism is true?"

DB: "It comes naturally from having enough faith in Scripture."

Frank: "OK, but how do you know you have more faith in Scripture than someone else?"

DB: "Simple - I believe in creationism."

Notice that you have drawn no logical link between faith and acceptance of creationism - for you it's just an assumption. I personally don't have a problem with this, but you should take care when describing my arguments as vague and inconsistent.

Following up on that - I freely admit that any decisions I have made regarding the literal interpretation of any part of Scripture are personal, nuanced, and situational. A discrete set of criteria that applies to all cases is of course well out of reach, and would be completely pointless in terms of measuring Scripture's value. I don't think that makes it illogical or inconsistent, but that's really beside the point. You don't have to agree with any of my beliefs - but once you open the door even a tiny little bit in terms of variance from the plain-old literal interpretation of every single word end-to-end of the Holy Bible, then the difference between you and I becomes a matter of degree only. Find that Scriptural reference that explains why we can deviate from the chronology in Genesis 2, DB, and make sure it's crystal clear - it seems your entire argument rests on it, because God clearly does not permit the rest of us to make judgments without some sacrifice of our deference to the Almighty.

FS

 

Frank,

Frank: "OK, but how do you know you have more faith in Scripture than someone else?"

Why don't you let me answer this time instead of putting words in my mouth?

1.)I've heard from The Lord.
(How do you argue with that? I know, sort of seems unfairly a kind of 'shut out.' Sort of like the 'Thou shalt nots' of the Commandments, I guess.)

2.)I'm not trying to find wiggle room around what Deity placed in front of us. The only reasons we look for wiggle room in the scriptures where they are clear is we've been lead to doubt, or we don't want to accept something out of more selfish motives.

Have you?
Genesis 2 summarizes/ in didactic reptition Gen. 1., then moves to progresses the narrative. This device is used throughout Genesis, Frank. It might almost seem that God anticipated such discussions as this, ergo He hammered into Genesis certain facts for we slow to believe mere mortals. Considering some of the admonitions in the Epistles, that may well be the precise case.

What verse are you having trouble with?
SPECIFICS.

Present a copy/paste.
Let's look at the translation you are using, at the actual verse/verses.

The only "difficulty" anyone has ever presented to me has been taken from a KJV, and in which one certain word was over looked as a past-tense. The one word misinterpreted changes everything. Not saying there might not be something else, but this has been my personal experience. Maybe you have something new.

Let's see what you have.


"- it seems your entire argument rests on it, because God clearly does not permit the rest of us to make judgments without some sacrifice of our deference to the Almighty."

God allows us to choose to believe what we will, on any topic, including Himself. Real life is evidence of this fact. He didn't argue, beg or plead. Note Christ's example; He offered truth to those who would accept it, then He walked on and they followed or walked away in another direction.

"Choose ye this day whom ye will serve..."
Whom will you serve, God or man.
That whole thing.


I'll be looking forward to your reply.


Pax out.

 

The two chapters describe two different chains of events, and no matter what your broader position about evolution is, you've got to make a decision which is correct on your own steam

This assertion is not correct. They do not contradict in the least bit!

If you look at the very first sentence in chapter 2 it says "Thus the heavens and the earth and all their army came to their completion", meaning everything has already been created.

So the obvious conclusion is that the events decribed in chapter 2 are not refering to the creation of man then trees but was more of a review, a by-the-way type incedent. It is about God creating the Garden of Eden not the creating of all trees on earth.

 

DB and OB1 - I'll make every attempt to provide a response to this in the coming days, but for now, in the spirit of acknowledging that what unites us is far more profound than what divides us, I'd like to send on my very best wishes to you and everyone else going to see Episode III this week. Be safe, and have a great time.

 

Frank,

Understand completely, take your time.
After reading my last post, I think you can determine it was written post-haste.
(pun intended. groan. )


To be totally opaque, one concern of mine is obviously your faith, and by this I do not intend to convey that it is my opinion that you do not know Christ. Nor do I intend to implicitly intone my own faith is greater than your measure over all, but perhaps it might be considered that Our mutual Lord has presented me with a measure in some areas to be considered for your own further edification. The Lord has provided each of us with our own strengths and gifts in differing areas to varying extents. We have no less than the examples of the very Apostles, even Peter and Paul, who struggled and contended for the faith, who at times needed to accept corrective instruction from one another for their own growth in faith in Christ. Paul's "thorn in the flesh" is well known. In other words everyone of us have areas in our personal faith with which we struggle and need encouragement and exhortation. None are exempt, and most especially not myself. What I desire to stress is that my words to you are by no means perfect or "holier-than-thou." I do not know where you are in your walk with Christ, and we are all at different places.

Our faith is based foremost on relationship and not religious systems, organizations, or dogma.
Many who lay hold or claim to the title of "believer" have never encountered the Risen Savior, and of those we have the contingency which fall into the category of "wolves in sheep's clothing," and of them some intentionally and in awareness and some obliviously unaware.
"The wheat and the chafe/tares."

We are forewarned to don the full armour of God in Ephesians. (Eph. 6:10) We must adorn ourselves with the "belt of truth," of which you are apparently well aware, but do not think it is a lone sufficient accouterment of the arsenal of The Lord, and we must also remember the other components, one being the shield of faith and the "...sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God."

Frank, further, we are warned that we do have a very real adversary. I can personally attest to the reality of these adversaries, and of their cunning and cruelty and malice. I can attest in an everyday sense, as well as verify through a real and actual malignantly diabolical supernatural presence. "Doubt" is one of the enemies chief weapons, and through it confusion, and from thence all manner of harrassments and torments mental and physical. The Lord is our strength and we must rely upon proximity to Him, upon a close relationship.

Our relationship to the Lord may be manifested in what is deemed "supernatural" occurrences, but primarily it is in the usual sense of mundane occurrences, and so we must rely upon coming to know God through His revelation in the express life of Christ and through the Holy Word that is the Logos and through Holy Scripture. We are presented with the very "mind of Christ." If we will not believe and trust in the express written Word, we will doubt all veracity pertaining to God. If we will not trust the scriptures, even should an angel of Heaven appear before you, how would you attempt to discern between such a one and the enemy who we've been forewarned will disguise itself as an "angel of light?" We are presented with safe instructive guidelines within scripture by which to test the spirits, but if we avail ourselves not of the veracity of the Holy Word what man could then possibly make a reliable discernment? Why, no one could if God's word is layed aside. Many have been and are deceived.

Frank, we are called to lay everything in subjection to God, and not to merely rely upon our own feelings or how we sense things to be, but to line them up contrastingly with scripture as our litmus. 'Every man has a way which seems right to himself, but the end thereof is destruction.' It may be merely the destruction of a concept or more tragically the loss of lives.


In the context of our discussion, it seems e

 

Still here...hope to respond this week, thanks for your patience.

FS

 

I'm sure that some day, when Christianity is just a page in history books, scientific scholars are going to look at the things that people believed and laugh.

How can an all-powerful, all-knowing, ever-present being come into existence? Where does it get its powers, knowledge, etc.? How would it guide evolution, since evolution happens constantly in every one of Earth's species? This being would have to be one master-multitasker to be able to create life and then guide every single species on an evolutionary path, with all its false starts and dead ends, all the while being the center of attention for 3 major world religions without getting distracted or forgetting any certain task or tasks that needed to be done - natural disasters to punish a populus, directing weather patterns, etc. AND...how can something be in more than one point in space and time at once? Current experiments can only do this with electrons...using lasers. It can't be done as a mental feat, no matter how big or powerful something's brain is.

I really don't think that a model of the universe or evolution or life needs such a deity. There is no magic in the workings of atoms and molecules. It took almost all of Earth's existence just to form the simplest one-celled life, and many million more years before those single-cells would assimilate the bacteria that would become the organelles known as mitochondria so they could become more complex in structure and function. It is hard for humans to imagine such a tediously slow process, and they tend to view things in the scope of a single lifetime. If a process is not fast enough to be noticeable in their lifetimes, humans tend to ignore them: global warming/cooling, erosion, evolution, etc.

Just because you can't see something happening doesn't mean that it isn't.

If you're going to try and do the impossible by sticking one religion's deity into the cogs of the universe's workings, you have to be fair and throw in all the other religions' deities, too. Otherwise you'd be biased. Whatever solution you might come up with will be so profoundly obsurd you'd probably either question your sanity, start again from scratch, or give up altogether.

 

I'm sure that some day, when Christianity is just a page in history books, scientific scholars are going to look at the things that people believed and laugh.

Quite true, but what makes you think that time is not now?

Just because you can't see something happening doesn't mean that it isn't.

Also true. But who are we to draw conclusions?





Not to revive a dead thread or anything...

 

"How can an all-powerful, all-knowing, ever-present being come into existence? Where does it get its powers, knowledge, etc.? How would it guide evolution, since evolution happens constantly in every one of Earth's species?"

How could everything come into existence out of NOTHING? Since when has NOTHING made everything? How would NOTHING guide microevolution or even "macroevolution" since afterall, it is nothing and therefor can't do anything?

 

Who cares?

In all seriousness, nobody knows, and nobody ever will know. I mean, we know evolution happens, but we don't know where the first single-celled organisms came from. Some things can never be proven or disproven...that's why they have to be taken on faith.

 

ClonedEmperor

The problem is that the question ruins both 'theories' (I don't like calling creationism a theory). However the non-believer I feel is in a slightly stronger stance because since there are no absolutes it is possible that there does not have to be a creator or a reason. Whereas a believer, especially one who would use such an argument, needs to explain how God fits in with Him having no creator.

(This is purely made up; it is just to illustrate my point) From a scientific point of view, there could be some sort of anit-mass out there that makes the net mass of the universe nothing. Same with energy. That could be an explanation as to how the universe could have come from nothing. Yet for God, you need to make a special loophole to make the question not apply to Him which IMO ruins religions creditability.

 

Valid point, and good arguement, but what i don't understand is if someone like Jediflyer can accept that the universe could have possibly always been here, why couldnt they accept that God has always been here?

 

Because there is a possibility that the Christian God, like the Greeks' Zeus or the Vikings' Odin, is a fictional character that primitive people just made up. I don't believe that is the case, but it is a possibility. However, we know that the universe is not fictional, because we're...well...in it. Therefore, the idea that the universe is infinite and has always been around is more plausible to some than the idea that some supernatural deity is infinite and has always been around...and then one day, he snapped his fingers and created everything we know exists.

 

Good explination, thank you

 

Valid point, and good arguement, but what i don't understand is if someone like Jediflyer can accept that the universe could have possibly always been here, why couldnt they accept that God has always been here?

What I don't understand is if you can except that God could always have been there, why couldn't the universe?

You see, if we ask the question where did the universe come from, and the answer is god, we then have the question "where did god come from?"

There are two ways to answer this:

1) We don't know -- Then this question did not help us any and we should go with the accept not knowing without adding additional steps.

2) He was always there -- But why would you accept this answer for god and not for the universe?

 

Faith... If you can believe the universe has always been here, therefore God could have always been here, then why not accept the fact that the Bible is God's word, and therefore God made the universe and everything in it.no need to answer, hypothetical question)