So you ignore science because you don’t like feminism? Seriously?
“Second, I say that, as you know, the Council [of Trent] prohibits interpreting Scripture against the common consensus of the Holy Fathers; and if Your [Reverence] wants to read not only the Holy Fathers, but also the modern commentaries on genesis, the Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Joshua, you will find all agreeing in the literal interpretation that the sun is in heaven and turns around the earth with great speed, and that the earth is very far from heaven and sits motionless at the center of the world.”–Cardinal Bellarmine, 1615
Why would God be a liar if he inspired human authors to use allegory in Genesis? Was Jesus a liar because he spoke in parables?
You say that evolution can’t be tested, but others on this thread have given you examples of specific tests for evolution. Are you able to explain exactly why they are not the tests for evolution that they are being presented as being?
For example, are you able to give a coherent non-evolutionary explanation of why both human and chimp DNA contain over 200,000 endogenous retrovirus sequences in exactly the same places?
“Breathed by” means “inspired by”. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that God dictated the entire Bible, much less Genesis. As far as I am aware, Islam is the only major religion that claims God dictated their scriptures.
So you ignore science because you don’t like feminism? Seriously?
Science, I love. Evolution is not science. But I will never interpret scripture through science. That is bad jujumagaiba
“Second, I say that, as you know, the Council [of Trent] prohibits interpreting Scripture against the common consensus of the Holy Fathers; and if Your [Reverence] wants to read not only the Holy Fathers, but also the modern commentaries on genesis, the Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Joshua, you will find all agreeing in the literal interpretation that the sun is in heaven and turns around the earth with great speed, and that the earth is very far from heaven and sits motionless at the center of the world.”–Cardinal Bellarmine, 1615
Again, Galileo used scripture first, and he wasn’t TOTALLY right about the science nor did he use the scripture correctly as well
Why would God be a liar if he inspired human authors to use allegory in Genesis? Was Jesus a liar because he spoke in parables?
Jesus would be a liar if he reiterated Genesis as truth with the knowledge it was false. The word, ‘parable’ explains itself.
Hi Jammycakes (luv that name) It is quite simple really. I do agree that these things can be tested. I, however, do not call that evolution. Evolution cast a wide net, because, let’s face it. What you call, “macro-evolution” cannot be observed, proven nor tested, so one must widen the net to include micro-evolution in order to give evolution credibility. The argument is not whether I believe that what you say can be tested. The argument is, whether I believe it is evolution at all.
Richard Dawkins Quote: “Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.”
So when the bible says. “THUS SAITH THE LORD!” How about the Holy Spirit in the writers (John 14:26) “26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.”
Then you have a very serious gap in your Biblical worldview, Wookin. The Bible clearly teaches that God is sovereign over every raindrop and every gust of wind. Would you like me to provide citations, or do you accept the point?
You take offense at the fact that biologists don’t ascribe any role to God in their scientific theories.
So where’s you outrage at those atheistic meteorologists? Every second of every day, the Weather Channel gives scientific accounts of weather without mentioning God even once. Why aren’t you denouncing those atheists at the Weather Channel? They never acknowledge the clear Biblical teaching about God’s control over the weather. Atheists!
I don’t intend to get into discussions about exactly what is or isn’t evolution. Different people have different ideas about that and we could easily get sidetracked.
Instead, I’m going to drill down into some specifics. Wookin, if you want to prove that macro-evolution can not be tested, you need to demonstrate that common ancestry can not be tested (because common ancestry implies macro-evolution). In order to do that, you need to explain, for example, exactly why endogenous retroviruses are not a test for common ancestry.
My friend, I said evolution cannot be tested. You definitely have the wrong person to debate this. You are clearly more learned than I am. My authority is scripture. and no where in scripture is there even a hint of evolution. I must follow scripture. Evolution runs contrary to the word of God, because, the so called, “natural order of things” death, decay, disease, animals ripping into each other etc… flies in the face of the character and nature of God.
You still need to make sure your facts are straight. I gave you an example of a test for evolution. Unless you can demonstrate, among other things, that endogenous retroviruses are not a test for common ancestry, your claim that evolution cannot be tested is simply not true.
Wookin, if you can’t reconcile evolution with Scripture then by all means reject it. It’s always possible that there could be an alternative explanation for the evidence that science hasn’t yet discovered. But just be careful if you do that you don’t end up making demonstrably false claims about what is or isn’t science, or what is or isn’t testable, in the process. Rejecting science may be faith, but misrepresenting science is either cluelessness or lying, depending on your level of understanding of the subject.
You still need to make sure your facts are straight. I gave you an example of a test for evolution. Unless you can demonstrate, among other things, that endogenous retroviruses are not a test for common ancestry, your claim that evolution cannot be tested is simply not true.
Ya, I beg to differ. I did not argue that these tests are not possible. What I am arguing is that these tests do not prove evolution. These are just scientific tests in which you slap an ‘evolution’ label on.
Wookin, if you can’t reconcile evolution with Scripture then by all means reject it. It’s always possible that there could be an alternative explanation for the evidence that science hasn’t yet discovered. But just be careful if you do that you don’t end up making demonstrably false claims about what is or isn’t science, or what is or isn’t testable, in the process. Rejecting science may be faith, but misrepresenting science is either cluelessness or lying, depending on your level of understanding of the subject.
Highly improbable, since there are only two options of creation; special creation and evolution. But if man had found another explanation. They would drop evolution so fast it would make your head spin. The more complex evolution becomes, the more ridiculous it’s claims are. Again, the bait and switch fallacy. I am not rejecting science. I am rejecting evolution. Contrary to popular belief, evolution is not the all-end all of science.
This is based on the assumption that Jesus was omniscient while he was on Earth. I don’t think that’s a valid assumption.
It hasn’t come up lately, but I’m not Christian. I’m a pantheist. I don’t blindly trust the Bible in every detail to get things right. But it’s got way more wisdom and truth and things that are in fact historically accurate than otherwise. I’m interested in stories, in how to be human, and in the discernment of truth. If you think Jesus magically got to be right all the time because God told him everything all the time, where then is the value in what he said when he claimed to represent truth? That’s not much of an accomplishment unless you have to put some effort into it.
This is based on the assumption that Jesus was omniscient while he was on Earth. I don’t think that’s a valid assumption
.Well your assumption is wrong that I believed Jesus was omniscient at the time in the form of a man.
It hasn’t come up lately, but I’m not Christian. I’m a pantheist. I don’t blindly trust the Bible in every detail to get things right. But it’s got way more wisdom and truth and things that are in fact historically accurate than otherwise. I’m interested in stories, in how to be human, and in the discernment of truth. If you think Jesus magically got to be right all the time because God told him everything all the time, where then is the value in what he said when he claimed to represent truth? That’s not much of an accomplishment unless you have to put some effort into it
.Interesting…All I can says is what C.S. Lewis said, Jesus is either Lord, Liar or Lunatic
Verse 15
and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
The purpose of Scripture is to make you “wise for salvation”. Even you agree the age of the earth or evolution is not a salvation issue so it is no surprise that Scripture doesn’t address either.