mislav:ROFL indeed.
Luckily, to counterbalance it - we have this museum:
Btw, the next one to post gets a 4000th post.
Oh, that's great! I love that!
Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter Lost_At_Sea
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
- Status
Oh, that's great! I love that!
i think you'll find you did indeed come from glop. ask mummy and daddyLovin_sum_Bubbles:
the changes in this planet have taken place over the billions of years of existance the fossil record shows the may changes life has made on this world. you may need to read more about geography and geology or are these just theories? please remeber that the mountains you see are the youngest geological features on the planet thing slowly beening worn away a testement to how long things take to evolve
bwerb
Hoser/English Translator, eh
I just read an essay I really liked on this issue. I thought I'd share it:
http://www.internetmonk.com/articles/C/creation.html
To Be Or Not To Be
Everybody thinks I should be a young earth creationist. I'm not. Why?
by Michael Spencer
(a few passages to give a taste of the essay)
-snip-
In seminary I continued my study of Biblical interpretation. I had been warned that liberal professors would teach me evolution and deny the historicity of miracles in the Bible. There were some professors out there that fit the stereotype, but they weren't in the Bible department of my school. My Bible instructors taught me to respect the Biblical text by not imposing my interpretations and favorite hobby horses on the scriptures. What became clearer to me over my seminary career was that many of my evangelical and fundamentalist brethren were not willing to let the scriptures be what they were or to let them speak their own language.
Among the most valuable lessons I learned at seminary was to ask questions about the literary genre of the Biblical text. Literary criticism is among the most recent and helpful approaches to the Bible, and I don't claim to be an expert. But I did come to appreciate that identifying a text as history, poetry, song, drama, parable or epistle was essential in allowing that text to "play by its own rules." This had tremendous influence on my approach to the issues of young earth creationism, and continues to be the primary reason that I cannot accept their reading of Genesis.
-snip-
Let Us Do Your Speaking For You
Young earth creationists have not only not won me over with their approach to the Biblical text, and they have impressed me less with their attitude towards those interpretations that differ with them. Young earth creationists win the award for factionalism, and some of their achievements have to be noted.
-snip-
Some of the contentions of the young earthers seem, to a layman like me, somewhat far-fetched, like denying the existence of black holes or questioning the constancy of the speed of light, and the evidence cited for these positions is, to say the least, fringe or below the fringe. Yet young earthers feel that because these views must be accepted to keep the age of the earth less than 10,000 years,anyone who does not embrace these strange and unproven theories is rejecting the truthfulness of the Bible, even though such ideas are in no way related to any text in Genesis. I find their rejection of the speed of light and the measurability of the universe to be particularly troubling.
-snip-
This is a method of Biblical interpretation where a few questions will quickly determine where one stands. How old is the earth? Was there death before Adam? Do you believe in a world wide flood? Were there dinosaurs on the ark? Any number of these questions draw lines in the sand for the young earthers. I am sorry to say that I cannot think of any division in Christianity- Calvinist/Arminan, Catholic/Protestant, Pentecostal/Cessationist, Seeker/Traditional- where one side is more completely unlikely to appreciate the other position than this one.
Two issues particularly have bothered me. One is the young earth contention that there cannot be such a thing as theistic evolution.
-snip-
Theistic evolution may have its problems, but in the opinion of serious confessional theologians, it does not deny anything essential to the Christian faith.
The other issue is the rejection of the astronomical evidence for the "Big Bang."
Christians like Fred Hereen and Hugh Ross have taken the evidence of the "Big Bang" and produced powerful arguments for the existence of God. I personally find the evidence compelling and exciting, and very helpful to students in understanding why faith in a creator God is not irrational. Yet the young earthers, fully committed to rejecting any evidence that might challenge their age of the earth, routinely equate the "Big Bang" with atheism.
-snip-
Even if I were impressed with the Biblical or scientific claims of the young earth position, I would hesitate to identify with a movement this uncharitable towards other Christians.
Literally Missing the Point
The young earth creationists believe that Genesis 1 is "literally" a description of creation. I do not. It is this simple disagreement that is the cornerstone of my objection. I believe that Genesis 1 is a prescientific description of Creation intended to accent how Yahweh's relationship with the world stands in stark contrast to the Gods of other cultures, most likely those of Babylon. Textual and linguistic evidence convinces me that this chapter was written to be used in a liturgical (worship) setting, with poetic rhythms and responses understood as part of the text. It tells who made the universe in a poetic and prescientific way. It is beautiful, inspired and true as God's Word.
Does it match up with scientific evidence? Who cares? Here I differ with Hugh Ross and the CRI writers. I do not believe science, history or archaeology of any kind establishes the truthfulness of the scripture in any way. Scripture is true by virtue of God speaking it. If God spoke poetry, or parable, or fiction or a prescientific description of creation, it is true without any verification by any human measurement whatsoever. The freedom of God in inspiration is not restricted to texts that can be interpreted "literally" by historical or scientific judges of other ages and cultures beyond the time the scriptures were written.
In my view, both the scientific establishment's claims to debunk Genesis and the creationists claims to have established Genesis by way of relating the text to science are worthless.
-snip-
Does the Bible need to be authorized by scientists or current events to be true? What view of inspiration is it that puts the Bible on trial before the current scientific and historical models? Has anyone noticed what this obsession with literality does to the Bible itself?
-snip-
Am I treating Genesis as a special case? Are Ham and others correct that this is straightforward description and there is no reason for putting a literary "spin" on how I read the text? My objection is to saying what a "straightforward description" means in a text several thousand years old; a text from a specific culture with a particular purpose. I am not claiming any special insight into Genesis. I am simply saying that, in my opinion, Genesis was not written with reference to the questions or methods of modern science, and making its truthfulness depend on that is a misuse of the text.
Give it a read...
http://www.internetmonk.com/articles/C/creation.html
To Be Or Not To Be
Everybody thinks I should be a young earth creationist. I'm not. Why?
by Michael Spencer
(a few passages to give a taste of the essay)
-snip-
In seminary I continued my study of Biblical interpretation. I had been warned that liberal professors would teach me evolution and deny the historicity of miracles in the Bible. There were some professors out there that fit the stereotype, but they weren't in the Bible department of my school. My Bible instructors taught me to respect the Biblical text by not imposing my interpretations and favorite hobby horses on the scriptures. What became clearer to me over my seminary career was that many of my evangelical and fundamentalist brethren were not willing to let the scriptures be what they were or to let them speak their own language.
Among the most valuable lessons I learned at seminary was to ask questions about the literary genre of the Biblical text. Literary criticism is among the most recent and helpful approaches to the Bible, and I don't claim to be an expert. But I did come to appreciate that identifying a text as history, poetry, song, drama, parable or epistle was essential in allowing that text to "play by its own rules." This had tremendous influence on my approach to the issues of young earth creationism, and continues to be the primary reason that I cannot accept their reading of Genesis.
-snip-
Let Us Do Your Speaking For You
Young earth creationists have not only not won me over with their approach to the Biblical text, and they have impressed me less with their attitude towards those interpretations that differ with them. Young earth creationists win the award for factionalism, and some of their achievements have to be noted.
-snip-
Some of the contentions of the young earthers seem, to a layman like me, somewhat far-fetched, like denying the existence of black holes or questioning the constancy of the speed of light, and the evidence cited for these positions is, to say the least, fringe or below the fringe. Yet young earthers feel that because these views must be accepted to keep the age of the earth less than 10,000 years,anyone who does not embrace these strange and unproven theories is rejecting the truthfulness of the Bible, even though such ideas are in no way related to any text in Genesis. I find their rejection of the speed of light and the measurability of the universe to be particularly troubling.
-snip-
This is a method of Biblical interpretation where a few questions will quickly determine where one stands. How old is the earth? Was there death before Adam? Do you believe in a world wide flood? Were there dinosaurs on the ark? Any number of these questions draw lines in the sand for the young earthers. I am sorry to say that I cannot think of any division in Christianity- Calvinist/Arminan, Catholic/Protestant, Pentecostal/Cessationist, Seeker/Traditional- where one side is more completely unlikely to appreciate the other position than this one.
Two issues particularly have bothered me. One is the young earth contention that there cannot be such a thing as theistic evolution.
-snip-
Theistic evolution may have its problems, but in the opinion of serious confessional theologians, it does not deny anything essential to the Christian faith.
The other issue is the rejection of the astronomical evidence for the "Big Bang."
Christians like Fred Hereen and Hugh Ross have taken the evidence of the "Big Bang" and produced powerful arguments for the existence of God. I personally find the evidence compelling and exciting, and very helpful to students in understanding why faith in a creator God is not irrational. Yet the young earthers, fully committed to rejecting any evidence that might challenge their age of the earth, routinely equate the "Big Bang" with atheism.
-snip-
Even if I were impressed with the Biblical or scientific claims of the young earth position, I would hesitate to identify with a movement this uncharitable towards other Christians.
Literally Missing the Point
The young earth creationists believe that Genesis 1 is "literally" a description of creation. I do not. It is this simple disagreement that is the cornerstone of my objection. I believe that Genesis 1 is a prescientific description of Creation intended to accent how Yahweh's relationship with the world stands in stark contrast to the Gods of other cultures, most likely those of Babylon. Textual and linguistic evidence convinces me that this chapter was written to be used in a liturgical (worship) setting, with poetic rhythms and responses understood as part of the text. It tells who made the universe in a poetic and prescientific way. It is beautiful, inspired and true as God's Word.
Does it match up with scientific evidence? Who cares? Here I differ with Hugh Ross and the CRI writers. I do not believe science, history or archaeology of any kind establishes the truthfulness of the scripture in any way. Scripture is true by virtue of God speaking it. If God spoke poetry, or parable, or fiction or a prescientific description of creation, it is true without any verification by any human measurement whatsoever. The freedom of God in inspiration is not restricted to texts that can be interpreted "literally" by historical or scientific judges of other ages and cultures beyond the time the scriptures were written.
In my view, both the scientific establishment's claims to debunk Genesis and the creationists claims to have established Genesis by way of relating the text to science are worthless.
-snip-
Does the Bible need to be authorized by scientists or current events to be true? What view of inspiration is it that puts the Bible on trial before the current scientific and historical models? Has anyone noticed what this obsession with literality does to the Bible itself?
-snip-
Am I treating Genesis as a special case? Are Ham and others correct that this is straightforward description and there is no reason for putting a literary "spin" on how I read the text? My objection is to saying what a "straightforward description" means in a text several thousand years old; a text from a specific culture with a particular purpose. I am not claiming any special insight into Genesis. I am simply saying that, in my opinion, Genesis was not written with reference to the questions or methods of modern science, and making its truthfulness depend on that is a misuse of the text.
Give it a read...
bwerb
Hoser/English Translator, eh
AXL72:1. the reason is we closed this thread....it is dead...we only started posting again so that sndy could get #4,000 :doh:
2. the post is too long (YAWN)...so thanks but no thanks
1.) Hmm...so it's alright to open a thread for the "game" of hitting 4000 posts but...
2.) ...it isn't alright to post parts of a MUCH longer essay
which actually adds something new, engaging and debatable to the thread which is "dead". Not enough thinking or contemplation going on their, too much "instant gratification"...that's unfortunate, very unfortunately, but not surprising. Our society as a whole tends to want to shy away from deep contemplation, extensive reading, research, and true, open hearted, mind engaged debate/discussion. We are in dire need of true, deep thinkers, not "it's too long" to pay attention and work through.
This thread has had some absolutely phenomenal exchanges, references, insights and been a great deal of fun...I'm sorry for trying to add something to the topic instead of posting simply to bump up my post count.
- Messages
- 22,171
- Reaction score
- 2,790
- # of dives
- 5000 - ∞
I guess I missed something but I thought bwerb's post was on topic (wide ranging as our discussion was). It'll take me a while to read the whole thing and comment. Should I do that or start a new thread?
This thing is still open?? DANG!!!!
Soggy
Contributor
Ok, I have a question for the evolution experts out there that I don't quite understand.
How does evolution at the chromosomal level work? Ancient humans (chromagnon(sp) man and neandertals, for example) had difference numbers of chromosomes than we do. At some point, there must have been a mutation that occurred where the number of chromosomes changed in an offspring. But, who did they mate with? If you mate a horse and a donkey, you get a sterile mule because, among other things, the chromosome count is different and the mule has an odd number.
I'm not sure if my question is coherent, but hopefully someone understands what I'm asking.
How does evolution at the chromosomal level work? Ancient humans (chromagnon(sp) man and neandertals, for example) had difference numbers of chromosomes than we do. At some point, there must have been a mutation that occurred where the number of chromosomes changed in an offspring. But, who did they mate with? If you mate a horse and a donkey, you get a sterile mule because, among other things, the chromosome count is different and the mule has an odd number.
I'm not sure if my question is coherent, but hopefully someone understands what I'm asking.
Bruce3
Contributor
well apes have 24 pairs and we humans have 23, reason being one pair has fused to another. you can even see what chromosome number pair fused together. we know this because of DNA markers so to speak.
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html
- Status
Similar threads
