Re: POLITICS - Evolution | Creation | Intelligent Design

[Guest guest]

wrote:

>

> You've done the same to me:

>

> " Just as God is not a part of people’s reality who believe in

evolution. "

>

I was unaware and for that I apologize.

Sheryl

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/29/04 11:42:09 PM Eastern Standard Time,

dovedesignsrus@... writes:

> I was unaware and for that I apologize.

Well, thank you Sheryl, I appreciate it.

It would seem natural to reciprocate, but I have to stand by the intended

meaning (perhaps not the perceived meaning) of my statement that any belief that

implies that a process or thing that God created is godless is an insult to

God. That's not a personalized statement-- one can easily hold a belief that,

without the intent of the holder of that belief, insults God, while

simultaneously being a faithful person with no ill intent toward God.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/29/04 10:10:49 PM Eastern Standard Time,

christiekeith@... writes:

> But to say that the story about God creating Eve out of Adam's rib -

> literally - or that there were no living creatures until God created Adam and

Eve,

> and animals .... this is the belief that evolution threatens. It doesn't

> threaten the belief in God. As you yourself have pointed out in other posts.

The Bible says that animals came before humans and plants before animals.

In any case, we agree that a " literalist " interpretation is not compatible

with science. But one can believe in evolution and accept the statement " God

made Eve from Adam's rib " as true, or " Adam gave a name to each creature, " etc

etc. One cannot use a " literalist " interpretation, but while the creation

story has been usually regarded as literally true (in some senses-- not

necessarily six days, etc) traditionally, it has not been the case that

" literalism " has

been the traditional mode of Scriptural interpretation, nor that it has ever

been a bright idea.

True " literalists " would have plucked both eyes out and cut both hands off

long ago, as Jesus commands when we sin.

The important point, I think, is that it is not inconsistent at the present

moment for a Christian to, on the one hand, accept science, and on the other

hand, believe that Adam and Eve truly existed and to revere them as saints.

Chris

[Guest guest]

> Re: POLITICS - Evolution | Creation | Intelligent Design

>

>

>In a message dated 2/29/04 3:25:12 PM Eastern Standard Time,

>christiekeith@... writes:

>

>> The Roman Catholic Church has no problem with accepting the theory of

>> evolution, nor do the majority of Christians and Christian

>theologists. That is

>> because the theory of evolution does not exclude God. ALL it

>excludes is Adam

>> and Eve. Period.

>

>I disagree with this. Genetic evidence, according to two evolutionist

>science professors I've talked to (neither of whom are

> " intelligent design " ists)

>indicates that humans came from a very, very tiny bottle-necked

>populations,

>possibly ONE couple.

>

>If this is true, it isn't the Adam and Eve story that is the problem, it's

>simply the literal interpretation of the geneologies and ages of

>the patriarchs,

>and the assumption that the addition of those numbers to Christ yields the

>length of time in years, minus 2000, that humans have been living

>on earth.

>(And a lot more scientific evidence that evolution prooves that's

>false, and

>worse, sheer insanity).

interesting theory. so if we did come from a single " adam and eve " couple,

then they would've been *african* based on current evolutionary theory,

right?

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

>

[Guest guest]

>The Bible says that animals came before humans and plants before animals.

>

>In any case, we agree that a " literalist " interpretation is not compatible

>with science. But one can believe in evolution and accept the

>statement " God

>made Eve from Adam's rib " as true,

can you explain this? how in evolutionary terms can a woman be " made " from a

man?

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

[Guest guest]

wrote:

Well, thank you Sheryl, I appreciate it.

It would seem natural to reciprocate, but I have to stand by the intended

meaning (perhaps not the perceived meaning) of my statement that any belief that

implies that a process or thing that God created is godless is an insult to

God. That's not a personalized statement-- one can easily hold a belief that,

without the intent of the holder of that belief, insults God, while

simultaneously being a faithful person with no ill intent toward God.

I do not think you still understand what I meant. . .But that does not matter

now. . .I am finished with this part of the forum.

Sheryl

Sheryl Illustrations

http://dovedesignsrus.com

[Guest guest]

wrote:

Well, thank you Sheryl, I appreciate it.

It would seem natural to reciprocate, but I have to stand by the intended

meaning (perhaps not the perceived meaning) of my statement that any belief that

implies that a process or thing that God created is godless is an insult to

God. That's not a personalized statement-- one can easily hold a belief that,

without the intent of the holder of that belief, insults God, while

simultaneously being a faithful person with no ill intent toward God.

You still don't understand what I meant. You have misconstrued my words to work

for you intent. . .Only God can truly judge my heart and the motives of my

statement and it's intent. only he has the right to declare me innocent or

guilty.

He knows my love for him, and that I would not say anything that would be an

insult to him. But that does not matter now. . .I am finished with this part of

the forum, and for that I am glad, as this has truly been a painful dialog for

me.

I would in fact love to quit this forum entirely, but find the information on

the other part of this forum wonderful.

I do believe that God sent to this forum to find a cure for my physical burden I

have been carrying for five years. I think the people on the other part of this

forum have helped with that. I am doing much better. Perhaps your dialog was

intended to be his way of saying that it is time for me to leave.

The Bible says:

Do not speak evil of one another, brethren. He who speaks evil of a brother and

judges his brother, speaks evil of the law and judges the law. But if you judge

the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. 4:11 (NKJV)

Sheryl

Job 16

1 24 13

Sheryl Illustrations

http://dovedesignsrus.com

[Guest guest]

>

> Well, thank you Sheryl, I appreciate it.

>

> It would seem natural to reciprocate, but I have to stand by the

intended meaning (perhaps not the perceived meaning) of my

statement that any belief that > implies that a process or thing

that God created is godless is an insult to > God. That's not a

personalized statement-- one can easily hold a belief that,

> without the intent of the holder of that belief, insults God,

while > simultaneously being a faithful person with no ill intent

toward God.

>

>

>

> I do not think you still understand what I meant. . .But that does

not matter now. . .I am finished with this part of the forum.

>

I have to agree with Sheryl, Chris. I don't see where she ever

implied that chaos was godless. I think you imposed that idea on her

words, or extrapolated in some way that does not necessarily match

what she was thinking. And I think your response was beside the

point - someone can believe that chaos is divine order (or at least

not godless) and still not expect life to come from it. Even if a

person did think chaos had the potential to produce order, that

person still might think that life came about by some other pathway.

(I don't think it's worth going back and rehashing this though.)

[Guest guest]

>

>>

> I do not think you still understand what I meant. . .But that does

not matter now. . .I am finished with this part of the forum.

>

>

(I responded to this post once but it hasn't come through - which

either means I erased it by mistake or more likely that this will be

a duplicate post.)

I agree with Sheryl that you misinterpreted her post. I don't

think she said what you suggested she said. I think you extrapolated

from her words in a way that does not appropriately represent her

thinking.

I think someone can believe chaos is divine order (or at least not

godless) and at the same time think that chaos will not necessarily

produce life. And I think someone might believe that chaos has the

potential to produce order (or life) and yet believe that life

appeared by a different pathway (also a product of divine order).

Marty

[Guest guest]

>interesting theory. so if we did come from a single " adam and eve " couple,

>then they would've been *african* based on current evolutionary theory,

>right?

Absolutely! The current theory (note I said theory! ;-) is that the first humans

came from Africa, and in fact didn't LEAVE Africa for a long time. Which

I think is just too cool, for all the white supremist types ...

it is assumed those first humans were dark skinned, as a light-skinned

person with no clothes or fur would not survive well in that climate.

-- Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

Suze,

>interesting theory. so if we did come from a single " adam and eve " couple,

>then they would've been *african* based on current evolutionary theory,

>right?

Yes.

> can you explain this? how in evolutionary terms can a woman be " made " from

> a

> man?

Well I don't think it could be true in a physical literalist sense, unless

one allowed for the distant possibility (if even that) that the bottle-necking

was so severe as to limit the human population to Adam, from whence Eve was

then generated a la Biblical literalism.

What I meant was that the truth is contained in its typology and allegory.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/1/04 8:54:59 AM Eastern Standard Time,

dovedesignsrus@... writes:

> It would seem natural to reciprocate, but I have to stand by the intended

> meaning (perhaps not the perceived meaning) of my statement that any belief

> that

> implies that a process or thing that God created is godless is an insult to

> God. That's not a personalized statement-- one can easily hold a belief

> that,

> without the intent of the holder of that belief, insults God, while

> simultaneously being a faithful person with no ill intent toward God.

>

>

>

> You still don't understand what I meant. You have misconstrued my words to

> work for you intent. . .

No, I'm explaining my own interpretation of the *implications* of your idea.

Clearly this is independent of your own intended meaning or intended

implications.

>Only God can truly judge my heart and the motives of my statement and it's

intent.

> only he has the right to declare me innocent or guilty.

I kept the quote you're responding to above, so you can read from it that I

unambiguously, explicitly, stated that I was not judging the intent of your

statement nor judging you personally, nor declaring you guilty.

> He knows my love for him,

Again, I made it quite clear that I was not judging your love or

faithfulness.

> and that I would not say anything that would be an insult to him.

Love and faithfulness indicate a lack of ill-will and ill-intent, but do not

indicate an inability to do harm or insult. It is a fact of every day life

that people constantly unintentionally hurt people that they love.

But that does

> not matter now. . .I am finished with this part of the forum, and for that

> I am glad, as this has truly been a painful dialog for me.

I'm sorry it's been painful for you. I don't see why you take this

personally, since I've expended the effort to make it explicit that I'm not

expressing

personal judgments.

> I would in fact love to quit this forum entirely, but find the information

> on the other part of this forum wonderful.

>

> I do believe that God sent to this forum to find a cure for my physical

> burden I have been carrying for five years. I think the people on the other

part

> of this forum have helped with that. I am doing much better. Perhaps your

> dialog was intended to be his way of saying that it is time for me to leave.

I doubt that. I'm glad your doing better.

>

> The Bible says:

> Do not speak evil of one another, brethren.

Again, I made it explicit I was making no personal judgments.

He who speaks evil of a brother and judges his brother, speaks evil of the

law and

> judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but

> a judge.

I simply judged an idea and its logical implications. That's a normal part

of daily discourse, religious or otherwise, because people with intent to

support truth will want their false ideas to be revealed as false so they can

abandon them. Thus, people discuss ideas and criticize each other's ideas, with

a

level of personal detachment that allows the discussion to remain impersonal

and free from personal attacks and judgments.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/1/04 9:35:10 AM Eastern Standard Time,

darkstar@... writes:

> I think someone can believe chaos is divine order (or at least not

> godless) and at the same time think that chaos will not necessarily

> produce life.

Oh I agree. But the suggestion that evolution denies God's involvement in

creating life with the basis that order cannot come from chaos quite clearly

rests on the presupposition that evolutionism is godless, regardless of the

philosophical and theological views of its proponent, which are entirely

independent, and on the presupposition that so-called " chaos " and the natural

laws that

accompany it are not manifestations of God's will.

It isn't the idea that life could have been created without evolution that

I'm critcizing; it's the idea that evolution is a godless process and that a

process that relies entirely on natural laws rather than intervention into those

laws is a hypothetical process that is anything other than the unfolding of

the will of God (if God is assumed the creator of said laws.)

And I think someone might believe that chaos has the

> potential to produce order (or life) and yet believe that life

> appeared by a different pathway (also a product of divine order).

Of course.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/1/04 5:16:19 PM Eastern Standard Time,

darkstar@... writes:

> I have to agree with Sheryl, Chris. I don't see where she ever

> implied that chaos was godless. I think you imposed that idea on her

> words, or extrapolated in some way that does not necessarily match

> what she was thinking. And I think your response was beside the

> point - someone can believe that chaos is divine order (or at least

> not godless) and still not expect life to come from it. Even if a

> person did think chaos had the potential to produce order, that

> person still might think that life came about by some other pathway.

> (I don't think it's worth going back and rehashing this though.)

Out of curiosity, why did both you and Sheryl respond twice to this very same

post? somehow posts copies of posts, but each of you said the same

thing reworded in response to the same post. That's an odd coincidence.

Anyway, of course, my previous reply applies...

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/1/04 6:36:45 PM Eastern Standard Time,

s.fisher22@... writes:

> >Well I don't think it could be true in a physical literalist sense, unless

> >one allowed for the distant possibility (if even that) that the

> >bottle-necking

> >was so severe as to limit the human population to Adam, from

> >whence Eve was

> >then generated a la Biblical literalism.

>

> right, which would make it *counter* to evolutionary theory, not in

> consonance with.

Only in each email I said I didn't think it was true in a literalist sense.

> >What I meant was that the truth is contained in its typology and allegory.

>

> i'm still not following unless you're saying it has mostly to do with the

> bottleneck theory, with a small group of folks being our common ancestor.

> but it still doesn't allegorically represent the female emanating from the

> male, which is what i was asking about.

I didn't mean allegory about the origin of the female sex (I think that has

it's roots very very pre-human!), I meant typology about the Trinty, typology

about the relationship between God and the Church, etc.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>> can you explain this? how in evolutionary terms can a woman be

> " made " from

>> a

>> man?

>

>Well I don't think it could be true in a physical literalist sense, unless

>one allowed for the distant possibility (if even that) that the

>bottle-necking

>was so severe as to limit the human population to Adam, from

>whence Eve was

>then generated a la Biblical literalism.

right, which would make it *counter* to evolutionary theory, not in

consonance with.

>

>What I meant was that the truth is contained in its typology and allegory.

i'm still not following unless you're saying it has mostly to do with the

bottleneck theory, with a small group of folks being our common ancestor.

but it still doesn't allegorically represent the female emanating from the

male, which is what i was asking about.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

[Guest guest]

> In a message dated 3/1/04 5:16:19 PM Eastern Standard Time,

> darkstar@p... writes:

>

> > Out of curiosity, why did both you and Sheryl respond twice to

this very same > post? somehow posts copies of posts, but

each of you said the same > thing reworded in response to the same

post. That's an odd coincidence.

>

>

For me, I thought I had posted but wasn't sure, and then the post

didn't show up on the website. It usally posts very quickly. So I

rewrote the post (adding a comment about double-posting), The

rewritten post showed up immediately. But the first post didn't show

up until maybe four hours later. I have no idea where it was during

that time. Since Sheryl posted at about the same time, it may be

that was having glitches at that time and she also thought her

post had not gone through. That's a guess.

Marty

[Guest guest]

> But to say that the story about God creating Eve out of Adam's

rib - literally - or that there were no living creatures until God

created Adam and Eve, and animals .... this is the belief that

evolution threatens. It doesn't threaten the belief in God. As you

yourself have pointed out in other posts.

Actually evolution is 180 degrees from bible based Christianity. The

bible's primary message is the message of salvation. So what does

this have to do with Adam and Eve? It has to do with when 'death'

appeared. After creation everything was perfect. There was no death,

no death among animals, no pre-human types before Adam and Eve that

lived and died. When Adam & Eve sinned, death entered the world.

Genesis 3:19 " By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until

you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you

are and to dust you shall return. " (NIV) Romans 5:12 " Therefore,

just as sin entered the world through one man [Adam], and death

through sin, and in this way death came to all men, for all sinned "

(NIV) So, death came as the result of sin. Sin separates us from God

and God promised a savior to save us from our sin. The first

promise of a savior was given to Adam & Eve and is recorded in

Genesis 3:15. Romans 5:17 " For if, by the trespass of the one man,

death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who

receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of

righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ. "

(NIV) So, if the bible is wrong about when death entered the world

what else is it wrong about? Do I have a savior from sin or not?

Degner

[Guest guest]

--- In , " yjrd416 " <jrd416@j...>

wrote:

> Actually evolution is 180 degrees from bible based Christianity.

The > bible's primary message is the message of salvation. So what

does > this have to do with Adam and Eve? It has to do with

>when 'death' > appeared.

>So, if the bible is wrong about when death entered the world >

>what >else is it wrong about? Do I have a savior from sin or not?

>

Lots of churches are not Bible-based though, as I'm sure you know.

Clearly many Christians and many mainstream Christian churches are

able to accept evolution as a reasonable explanation for the origin

of the human species, and to see the Adam and Eve story as an

allegory, and at the same time believe in Jesus as a savior. There

must be books and writings that explain how they deal with the

question that you have raised.

Marty

[Guest guest]

>> Actually evolution is 180 degrees from bible based Christianity. <<

That has absolutely zilch to do with my point, but for the sake of this

discussion... Don't you think it's awfully arrogant to equate " belief in God "

with " belief in bible based Christianity " ? Are you saying that Jews do not

believe in God? Or that other non-Christians do not believe in God? That

Christians who do not ascribe to biblical literalism do not believe in God?

>> So, if the bible is wrong about when death entered the world

what else is it wrong about? <<

Is your belief in God contigent on the bible being inerrant?

>> Do I have a savior from sin or not? <<

The answer to that is not related to the inerrancy of the bible. You either do

or you don't, but if you had never seen or heard of the bible, or couldn't read

it, or had accidentally fallen victim to a bad translation, or been born into

one of the many Christian denominations that don't ascribe to biblical

literacy/inerrancy, none of those things would change that answer.

Christie

[Guest guest]

Suze-

>can you explain this? how in evolutionary terms can a woman be " made " from a

>man?

I suppose much the way genetic engineering doesn't somehow prove that

evolution doesn't exist.

-