Do you believe in evolution?

[The Mikado]

Technically, it's a theory, but, at this point, there's really not much debating it. I just accept it as a fact.

One of my pet peeves is people who don't understand the word "theory."  See above.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Evolution Prior to Adam?  I think a series of recreations is much more likely.  The length of “days” of creation are not defined. And Gen 1:1-2 can be translated “the earth BECAME void”

Evolution Since, Adam?  No, absolutely not, at least not in any appreciable way.  We are all descended from Adam and Eve.  And I believe in Noah’s Ark and a global flood too.  Such feats are trivial to a God capable of creating the entire universe.

But, in reality, it doesn’t really matter what took place prior to Adam, the only thing that matters is a relationship with God and for us that relationship began with Adam.

So, I am voting "No"

[Franzl]

And I believe in Noah’s Ark and a global flood too.  

How did they get two of EVERY animal on Earth onto his ark?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Evolution Prior to Adam?  I think a series of recreations is much more likely.  The length of “days” of creation are not defined. And Gen 1:1-2 can be translated “the earth BECAME void”

Evolution Since, Adam?  No, absolutely not, at least not in any appreciable way.  We are all descended from Adam and Eve.  And I believe in Noah’s Ark and a global flood too.  Such feats are trivial to a God capable of creating the entire universe.

But, in reality, it doesn’t really matter what took place prior to Adam, the only thing that matters is a relationship with God and for us that relationship began with Adam.

So, I am voting "No"

You are depressing...

[Torie]

And I believe in Noah’s Ark and a global flood too.  

How did they get two of EVERY animal on Earth onto his ark?

Here is a snap shot I took of the ark. I hope that helps explain it.

[John Dibble]

And I believe in Noah’s Ark and a global flood too.  

How did they get two of EVERY animal on Earth onto his ark?

This explains it.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Evolution Prior to Adam is possible but is dependent upon what is entailed by “God formed the man from the dust of the ground”.  Could “formed from the dust “ allude to a process of evolution?  Possibly, but doubtful.

But, regardless what “formed from the dust” entailed, evolution since the time of Adam is NOT compatible with either the old testament or the new testament.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Evolution Prior to Adam is possible but is dependent upon what is entailed by “God formed the man from the dust of the ground”.  Could “formed from the dust “ allude to a process of evolution?  Possibly, but doubtful.

But, regardless what “formed from the dust” entailed, evolution since the time of Adam is NOT compatible with either the old testament or the new testament.

You realize that this argument along with your statement of the length of days, supports my other thread belief that words meant different things then than now?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

You realize that this argument along with your statement of the length of days, supports my other thread belief that words meant different things then than now?

no, because "day" can still mean a length of time longer than a 24 hour period...."in his day he was a great player"

In Genesis, the sun and moon weren't even in place until the fourth day, and the 7th day was an eternal day....so obviously "day" in Genesis ch 1 can't be interpreted to mean 24 hours.

AGAIN, interpretation is based upon CONTEXT.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

You realize that this argument along with your statement of the length of days, supports my other thread belief that words meant different things then than now?

no, because "day" can still mean a length of time longer than a 24 hour period...."in his day he was a great player"

In Genesis, the sun and moon weren't even in place until the fourth day, and the 7th day was an eternal day....so obviously "day" in Genesis ch 1 can't be interpreted to mean 24 hours.

AGAIN, interpretation is based upon CONTEXT.

See, Gramps, when words can have multiple meanings, which happens a lot even with modern words like “day”, I was taught in grade school to use CONTEXT to determine which definition of the word is being used.  And that basic exercise is something you refused to do in our discussion of “submission” and you refused to do so because there was a mountain of contextual evidence and none of it was on your side, so you ignored it.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

You realize that this argument along with your statement of the length of days, supports my other thread belief that words meant different things then than now?

no, because "day" can still mean a length of time longer than a 24 hour period...."in his day he was a great player"

In Genesis, the sun and moon weren't even in place until the fourth day, and the 7th day was an eternal day....so obviously "day" in Genesis ch 1 can't be interpreted to mean 24 hours.

AGAIN, interpretation is based upon CONTEXT.

See, Gramps, when words can have multiple meanings, which happens a lot even with modern words like “day”, I was taught in grade school to use CONTEXT to determine which definition of the word is being used.  And that basic exercise is something you refused to do in our discussion of “submission” and you refused to do so because there was a mountain of contextual evidence and none of it was on your side, so you ignored it.

You're too focused on submission, which wasn't the topic of the other thread.  Plus I agreed with Dibble's reply so there was no need in repeating it but again, stop focusing on one word - submission.  The thread was about other examples...like you've illustrated here.  I'll unlock it so you can continue bashing me over there and not derail this one.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

You realize that this argument along with your statement of the length of days, supports my other thread belief that words meant different things then than now?

no, because "day" can still mean a length of time longer than a 24 hour period...."in his day he was a great player"

In Genesis, the sun and moon weren't even in place until the fourth day, and the 7th day was an eternal day....so obviously "day" in Genesis ch 1 can't be interpreted to mean 24 hours.

AGAIN, interpretation is based upon CONTEXT.

See, Gramps, when words can have multiple meanings, which happens a lot even with modern words like “day”, I was taught in grade school to use CONTEXT to determine which definition of the word is being used.  And that basic exercise is something you refused to do in our discussion of “submission” and you refused to do so because there was a mountain of contextual evidence and none of it was on your side, so you ignored it.

You're too focused on submission, which wasn't the topic of the other thread.  Plus I agreed with Dibble's reply so there was no need in repeating it but again, stop focusing on one word - submission.  The thread was about other examples...like you've illustrated here.  I'll unlock it so you can continue bashing me over there and not derail this one.

you jerk, you are the one who referred to the thread, I simply named what you were referring to...if you don't want it brought up then stop bringing it up.  I’m here putting everything on the line on a regular basis so suck it up and grow a pair

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Gramps,

I will keep these remarks limited to the discussion of the word “day”.  It is NOT a case of definition creep over time.  Rather it is simply a case where a single word has multiple definitions.  In such a case, you go back to the context in order to pick the correct definition.

So, no, this is NOT a case of inability to translate because of definition creep, rather it is a case of you using the age of the text as an excuse to throw up your hands and ignore context.  Rational (key word) people examine context BEFORE calling off the chase.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Um, yeah, who doesn't? Weird question.

[Derek]

You realize that this argument along with your statement of the length of days, supports my other thread belief that words meant different things then than now?

no, because "day" can still mean a length of time longer than a 24 hour period...."in his day he was a great player"

In Genesis, the sun and moon weren't even in place until the fourth day, and the 7th day was an eternal day....so obviously "day" in Genesis ch 1 can't be interpreted to mean 24 hours.

AGAIN, interpretation is based upon CONTEXT.

right that's true.

[anvi]

Yes, I think evolution describes the process of how human beings eventually got here pretty well. 

But, if somebody ever tells the other primates about evolution, they're going to be ashamed, disappointed and pissed.

[Derek]

Gramps,

I will keep these remarks limited to the discussion of the word “day”.  It is NOT a case of definition creep over time.  Rather it is simply a case where a single word has multiple definitions.  In such a case, you go back to the context in order to pick the correct definition.

So, no, this is NOT a case of inability to translate because of definition creep, rather it is a case of you using the age of the text as an excuse to throw up your hands and ignore context.  Rational (key word) people examine context BEFORE calling off the chase.

It is a case where the definition in ancient Israel meant something different than 21st century America.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Yes, I think evolution describes the process of how human beings eventually got here pretty well. 

But, if somebody ever tells the other primates about evolution, they're going to be ashamed, disappointed and pissed.

"Evolution" in this sense is not normative. It does not state that Humans are superior to any other creature. That is a common popular misconception but rating species hierarchially (in terms of "better" or "worse") is something of no scientific validity whatsoever. And it would be very wrong to see evolution as teleological process which led inexorabily to us (that is just theology/eschatology under a scientific guise).

[Tetro Kornbluth]

I'll add that I can not believe in any thought system which holds that the nature of the universe or of life is by nature anthrocentric. Anthropomorphizing the world around us is pretty much an inevitable part of being human but tells us nothing about the world only ourselves.

[Derek]

I'll add that I can not believe in any thought system which holds that the nature of the universe or of life is by nature anthrocentric. Anthropomorphizing the world around us is pretty much an inevitable part of being human but tells us nothing about the world only ourselves.

It's an ancient view but they were coming to terms the same as we are today. Think of horses, they may think the universe is horsecentric. The same with ants.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

I'll add that I can not believe in any thought system which holds that the nature of the universe or of life is by nature anthrocentric. Anthropomorphizing the world around us is pretty much an inevitable part of being human but tells us nothing about the world only ourselves.

It's an ancient view but they were coming to terms the same as we are today. Think of horses, they may think the universe is horsecentric. The same with ants.

Yes but then would not the horses and ants have different Gods? And how are we to Judge whether the "Horse God" or the "Human God" is more true (especially when considering how many Gods humans have... Ants may have millions given how much of them there are)?

[Derek]

I'll add that I can not believe in any thought system which holds that the nature of the universe or of life is by nature anthrocentric. Anthropomorphizing the world around us is pretty much an inevitable part of being human but tells us nothing about the world only ourselves.

It's an ancient view but they were coming to terms the same as we are today. Think of horses, they may think the universe is horsecentric. The same with ants.

Yes but then would not the horses and ants have different Gods? And how are we to Judge whether the "Horse God" or the "Human God" is more true (especially when considering how many Gods humans have... Ants may have millions given how much of them there are)?

I have no way of knowing if horses have gods, but if horses could draw the gods what would they draw? Perhaps it's natural to take the view that one's species is revolved around. This is a good discussion.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

I'll add that I can not believe in any thought system which holds that the nature of the universe or of life is by nature anthrocentric. Anthropomorphizing the world around us is pretty much an inevitable part of being human but tells us nothing about the world only ourselves.

It's an ancient view but they were coming to terms the same as we are today. Think of horses, they may think the universe is horsecentric. The same with ants.

Yes but then would not the horses and ants have different Gods? And how are we to Judge whether the "Horse God" or the "Human God" is more true (especially when considering how many Gods humans have... Ants may have millions given how much of them there are)?

I have no way of knowing if horses have gods, but if horses could draw the gods what would they draw? Perhaps it's natural to take the view that one's species is revolved around. This is a good discussion.

You are not making sense.

[ilikeverin]

Anthropomorphizing the world around us is pretty much an inevitable part of being human but tells us nothing about the world only ourselves.

But such interesting things it tells!

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I'm not sure which is more incredible... how scientifically backwards the majority of the Protestant community is, compared to Catholicism, or the fact that no one seems to take note of it.

maybe no one has taken note of it because the headlines of the last 100 years have been filled with the advances of the industrial revolution brought about by the inspiration of the protestant work ethic.  In fact, from 1901 to 1990, Protestants won 64% of the Nobel Prizes in Science, with Jews winning another 22%...and the Catholics winning less than 10%.

and maybe if you lived in Texas, which is being overrun by the stream of penniless refugees from predominately Catholic countries, you'd have a different opinion

but most of all, you really need to get over your inferiority complex

P.S. If Genesis is to be believed - as we "fundamentalists" do - work was a godly endeavor from the beginning, even before sin came into the world.