Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

semlogo

Reconciling Evolution With The Scriptures

Recommended Posts

It depicts an amoral,

You make this determination based on what?

brutal tribal God, not much different from the various pagan Gods who have come and gone throughout history.

Completely different from the God depicted by the NT, BOM & D&C.

And yet we see throughout the OT glimpses of The Christ.

So, for me, the Old Testament starts out with a huge handicap - a lack of moral authority,

I find this startling.

despite some of the beautiful writings by Isaiah and the Psalms, etc. Add to that the conflicts with science, and I have to take the whole thing with a very large grain of salt.

So you don't like the old testament because it doesn't square with your idea of morality - morality that is supposed to be based on God Himself. In addition, you are more willing to agree with those who investigate creation than the One who created.

Finally, it is easy to resort to the fall-back lds position "it must not have been translated correctly."

I don't know if the problems are intrinsic to the original text, or if it's been altered over the centuries, or what.

Share this post


Link to post
You make this determination based on what? brutal tribal God, not much different from the various pagan Gods who have come and gone throughout history. And yet we see throughout the OT glimpses of The Christ.I find this startling. So you don't like the old testament because it doesn't square with your idea of morality - morality that is supposed to be based on God Himself. In addition, you are more willing to agree with those who investigate creation than the One who created.Finally, it is easy to resort to the fall-back lds position "it must not have been translated correctly."I don't know if the problems are intrinsic to the original text, or if it's been altered over the centuries, or what.
Would you be willing to rape, murder children, commit genocide and even engage in human sacrifice in the name of God? I wouldn't. I have a God-given conscience, and all of that offends me. I don't say that all of the OT is wrong, but clearly some of it is VERY wrong.The scriptures I quoted are in complete opposition to what Jesus taught:Matthew 18 1At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? 2And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, 3And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. 4Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me. 6But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. 7Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh! 8Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire. 9And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire. 10Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven. So clearly there is a problem with either the NT or the OT. I prefer to believing in a loving, moral God. If you can accept a God who commands and encourages rape, murder, infanticide, genocide and human sacrifice, best of luck to you.
I find this startling.
I would question your priorities. What's more startling - encouraging atrocities or objecting to atrocities?

Share this post


Link to post
So for any of you believers in science (I know you're out there), how do you reconcile certain Biblical stories with not only evolution, but geology and history? If God didn't literally create Adam from the dust, what was Adam, merely the first human that God had dealings with? We know there was no global flood in the time frame that the Bible gives - maybe it was a localized flood that had been mythologized over time?

What are your thoughts?

I do not try to reconcile them. Personally, I think the prophets were shown the actual creation of the world and tried to explain what they saw to the best of their ability. Abraham, who barely knew how to work metal, is shown the creation and history of the entire universe from beginning to end. What does such a man know of black holes, particle physics, or DNA?

A scientist and a prophet will see the same event -- but their perspective will differ radically. The scientist knows nothing of the language and paradigm of the prophet. Neither does the prophet understand the scientist. They will use their own language and their own paradigms to explain what they observe. Attempting to reconcile two such differing paradigms is a monumental waste of time.

Share this post


Link to post
I do not try to reconcile them. Personally, I think the prophets were shown the actual creation of the world and tried to explain what they saw to the best of their ability. Abraham, who barely knew how to work metal, is shown the creation and history of the entire universe from beginning to end. What does such a man know of black holes, particle physics, or DNA?

A scientist and a prophet will see the same event -- but their perspective will differ radically. The scientist knows nothing of the language and paradigm of the prophet. Neither does the prophet understand the scientist. They will use their own language and their own paradigms to explain what they observe. Attempting to reconcile two such differing paradigms is a monumental waste of time.

Much too simplistic. If the science is right, then take an honest and righteous prophet, let him watch a videotape of the earth condensing from a nebular cloud, of life evolving in an intricate pattern, and of man evolving. If that prophet wrote the genesis account as his description of what he saw, he must have been out getting popcorn for the whole time, and realized he would have to just make up the whole summary of what he missed.

A second grader might not understand that same video, but IĆ¢??ll bet they would not write the summary down so far from reality.

Share this post


Link to post

Thephy:

While the LDS can have any opinion as to how God made the earth. Your distortions of what we believe in is so off the mark as to be laughable.

Share this post


Link to post
Would you be willing to rape, murder children, commit genocide and even engage in human sacrifice in the name of God? I wouldn't. I have a God-given conscience,

Is this the same God that inspired the OT?

and all of that offends me. I don't say that all of the OT is wrong, but clearly some of it is VERY wrong.

It's not clear to me. Is it just the parts that offends you that are wrong? What about the ones that mildly perturb you?

he scriptures I quoted are in complete opposition to what Jesus taught

Actually, no, they are not. Let's remember that the sinful cultures in the OT were way and far beyond what we deal with today. And, God's puprose (of many) was to preserve the nation Israel.

And,here again, the lds view of original sin plays a part. If you do not accept Genesis, then you do not accept original sin. If you do not accept original sin then, I suppose, one can claim that there are "innocents" in that respect.

But that doesn't square with scripture. We DO have original sin and it demands justice.

Finally, you are criticizing an all powerful, omniscient God who not only created morality but is perfect justice and mercy. He can not be one - as you seem to want Him to be in the NT - at the expense of another.

Share this post


Link to post
If you read the creation account in Abraham you will see that it does not say that the gods created the plants and animals, you will see that it says the gods prepared to seas and the earth to bring forth the plants and animals.

Yes, but the most interesting thing is the frequent use of the phrase "after their kind".

The pertinent verses are here, in Abraham 4:

20 And the Gods said: Let us prepare the waters to bring forth abundantly the moving creatures that have life; and the fowl, that they may fly above the earth in the open expanse of heaven.

21 And the Gods prepared the waters that they might bring forth great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters were to bring forth abundantly after their kind; and every winged fowl after their kind. And the Gods saw that they would be obeyed, and that their plan was good.

22 And the Gods said: We will bless them, and cause them to be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas or great waters; and cause the fowl to multiply in the earth.

23 And it came to pass that it was from evening until morning that they called night; and it came to pass that it was from morning until evening that they called day; and it was the fifth time.

24 And the Gods prepared the earth to bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth after their kind; and it was so, as they had said.

25 And the Gods organized the earth to bring forth the beasts after their kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after its kind; and the Gods saw they would obey.

The frequent qualifiers that the animals brought forth "after their kind" creates problems for a theory involving God-directed evolution.

Share this post


Link to post
If I say heat my food, and my wife places the food in the microwave and heats it, I could in fact write, "Heat my food, and it was heated" with full honesty.

You are far closer to the truth than you realize. In theory, you could boil water with nothing but the sound of your voice alone. Just tell it to "boil" often enough and long enough and eventually the water would begin to boil. Granted, you would probably starve to death and the water would evaporate long before that ever happened, but that is essentially the basic principle of the microwave oven. The microwave just works at a much higher frequency and higher energy level than your own voice.

God, who has unlimited energy and who is not subject to entropy or time as we know them, would have no problem with commanding water to boil -- and it would boil.

Share this post


Link to post
(semlogo @ Nov 18 2008, 12:25 PM)

So for any of you believers in science (I know you're out there), how do you reconcile certain Biblical stories with not only evolution, but geology and history? If God didn't literally create Adam from the dust, what was Adam, merely the first human that God had dealings with? We know there was no global flood in the time frame that the Bible gives - maybe it was a localized flood that had been mythologized over time?

What are your thoughts?

I think you will see religions and there adherents continue to reinterpret the bible and other scriptures to fit with science. We will always have some who view the scriptures literally, but there numbers seem to be dropping with each new generation. Science will continue on it's merry way discarding things that don't work for things that do with religion following a ways behind. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Is this the same God that inspired the OT?

It's not clear to me. Is it just the parts that offends you that are wrong? What about the ones that mildly perturb you?

Actually, no, they are not. Let's remember that the sinful cultures in the OT were way and far beyond what we deal with today. And, God's puprose (of many) was to preserve the nation Israel.

And,here again, the lds view of original sin plays a part. If you do not accept Genesis, then you do not accept original sin. If you do not accept original sin then, I suppose, one can claim that there are "innocents" in that respect.

But that doesn't square with scripture. We DO have original sin and it demands justice.

Finally, you are criticizing an all powerful, omniscient God who not only created morality but is perfect justice and mercy. He can not be one - as you seem to want Him to be in the NT - at the expense of another.

Do you believe in morality, or the inerrancy of scripture? You can't believe both. I believe in morality. In bending over backwards to defend inerrancy, you're excusing some of the most heinous, evil behavior imaginable. You're saying God is a villain, and that's okay because he's God, and the Israelites were a rowdy bunch, which of course would explain why God would not just permit but command them to sacrifice some virgins and rape the others, and murder children. Inerrency leads inevitably to the elevation of scripture over God. You're okay with God commanding his children to devour each other, as long as the integrity of the Bible isn't impugned. Keep the Bible clean while dragging God through the mud, in other words.

The whole depiction of that event is either a complete fiction or an attempt on the Israelites' part to excuse their ancestors' behavior. Either that, or there is no God, or God is evil. Take your pick. - You seem to have chosen the fourth option.

Share this post


Link to post
Actually facts are pretty expensive. They've taken a lot of research money and millions of man hours of study to come by.

Even setting aside the conflict with science, the OT contains a LOT of really offensive stuff, that conflicts with the nature of God as described by the NT, BOM, D&C etc. I have a hard time setting much store by the OT, especially the histories.

Then you are ignoring a lot of the NT, BOM, D&C and even the teachings of modern day prophets. Jesus Christ had no problem with validating the Old Testament and referred to it constantly. All of the scriptures refer to the judgments of God coming upon the earth as "the day that will burn like an oven," when the wicked will be destroyed, when the seas will be dried up and horrible plagues unleashed upon the earth, when Jesus Christ will appear with his robe dyed red with the blood of the wicked, that those who fought against the restored Church will be cursed unto the third and fourth generation, that Missouri would be destroyed and only the smoking chimneys of homes left standing, that the nations of the world would cry out in terror at the Lord's coming, the earth heaving to and fro and the seas leaping beyond their bounds destroying entire cities and even continents.

I have a hard time setting much store by your rather narrowly defined view of God.

Share this post


Link to post
It's not clear to me. Is it just the parts that offends you that are wrong? What about the ones that mildly perturb you?

Actually, no, they are not. Let's remember that the sinful cultures in the OT were way and far beyond what we deal with today.

That is not what we hear in general conference, is it? We are told, quite frequently, that the world is as wicked now as it has ever been and that the judgments of God are at hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Then you are ignoring a lot of the NT, BOM, D&C and even the teachings of modern day prophets. Jesus Christ had no problem with validating the Old Testament and referred to it constantly. All of the scriptures refer to the judgments of God coming upon the earth as "the day that will burn like an oven," when the wicked will be destroyed, when the seas will be dried up and horrible plagues unleashed upon the earth, when Jesus Christ will appear with his robe dyed red with the blood of the wicked, that those who fought against the restored Church will be cursed unto the third and fourth generation, that Missouri would be destroyed and only the smoking chimneys of homes left standing, that the nations of the world would cry out in terror at the Lord's coming, the earth heaving to and fro and the seas leaping beyond their bounds destroying entire cities and even continents.

I have a hard time setting much store by your rather narrowly defined view of God.

There is quite a difference between the just judgments of God and the things described in the passages I quoted.

Share this post


Link to post
Thephy:

While the LDS can have any opinion as to how God made the earth. Your distortions of what we believe in is so off the mark as to be laughable.

Some elucidation, please?

Share this post


Link to post
So for any of you believers in science (I know you're out there), how do you reconcile certain Biblical stories with not only evolution, but geology and history? If God didn't literally create Adam from the dust, what was Adam, merely the first human that God had dealings with? We know there was no global flood in the time frame that the Bible gives - maybe it was a localized flood that had been mythologized over time?

What are your thoughts?

Science doesn't know everything there is to know about origin of the earth. In fact, neo-Darwinists often state that they are not concerned with origin theories. Having said that, they then begin to make religious conclusions about whether or not God could have fashioned anything in creation or whether it was the result of natural processes. The problem they whitewash is that they have never demonstrated, (although they will deny this vehemently), that it is even possible for natural processes to evolve anything.

Descent with modification is a no-brainer. However, morphing from one type of creature into another species of creature requires a beneficial morphological change to occur. All of the observed morphological changes are not benefical, and all the observed beneficial changes are not morphological. 150 years after Darwin, we still have not proven that his theory is even possible, and we have zero evidence that any such thing occurred.

But if you ask the textbook writers, they will tell you its a done deal.

When you hear the words, "overwhelming evidence" , ask yourself, overwhelming to whom. And what is the purpose behind the overwhelm? It's a PR stunt to convince you that resistance is futile, quit asking questions. So I don't rely on anyone else's understanding, I don't take a scientists word on the matter, I ask them, do you have a direct observation that evolution occurred, is occurring at the level you claim it must occur, or any evidence that it is possible to occur?

When they answer, o, yes, we have overwhelming, irrefutable data that it happened, I look at the evidence they present very carefully, and in every case I find there are exactly zero beneficial morphological changes involved in their evidence. They are not proof of Darwinist theory.

If Darwinism were true, by the way, each of us would be striving to have as many children as humanly possible. Our genes would be trying to 'overwhelm' the gene pool. And we would have a large mortality rate as the least fit among us would succumb to the difficulties of life.

But notice how Darwinists deal with objections to their theory. They claim the theory isn't wrong, just that there are mitigating circumstances. They fault the evidence, not their theory.

Share this post


Link to post
There is quite a difference between the just judgments of God and the things described in the passages I quoted.

Jesus Christ saw fit to condemn the Jews for killing the prophets, but not for any of the things you cited. Why not? Could it have been that Jesus Christ, as Jehovah, really did order them? Do you consider Nephi's account of his beheading of Laban a justification made up after the fact? And why would so many prophets, including Jesus Christ, continually refer to the people of Noah's time and before that if they did not believe in the Flood? Are you claiming that Jesus Christ was deceived? Why would Jesus organize the teaching of the gospel to those spirits who lived before Noah if Noah never existed?

Share this post


Link to post

OK here comes the devil's advocate.

What proof is there for evolution?

What proof is there for any other form of "creation"?

Since some may find this slanted toward "science" because it asks for proof,

So I'll turn to faith.

Does faith haver the power to tell you if evolution is true?

There must be an answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Jesus Christ saw fit to condemn the Jews for killing the prophets, but not for any of the things you cited. Why not? Could it have been that Jesus Christ, as Jehovah, really did order them? Do you consider Nephi's account of his beheading of Laban a justification made up after the fact? And why would so many prophets, including Jesus Christ, continually refer to the people of Noah's time and before that if they did not believe in the Flood? Are you claiming that Jesus Christ was deceived? Why would Jesus organize the teaching of the gospel to those spirits who lived before Noah if Noah never existed?

Perhaps Christ didn't condemn those accounts because they never really happened. Nevertheless, if the accounts were true, they go opposite to the teachings of Christ.

Just a raise of hands here, how many of you think there is such a thing as justifiable human sacrifice? Justifiable rape? Justifiable genocide & infanticide? Bonus questions: how does that effect your position on abortion?

Share this post


Link to post
OK here comes the devil's advocate.

What proof is there for evolution?

What proof is there for any other form of "creation"?

Since some may find this slanted toward "science" because it asks for proof,

So I'll turn to faith.

Does faith haver the power to tell you if evolution is true?

There must be an answer.

According to Ralph Seelke, microbiologist seeking to understand by experimentation what evolution can do, the proof is "not much", that evolution can do what its proponents have argued it has done. As for intelligent design, the proof that the bacterial flagellum, to take one example, was designed by a higher intelligence is the fact that here we have a highly complex tail with multiple components, all of which must be there, that couldn't have been created piecemeal, i.e., in random, one-step-at-a-time fashion. The evidence points, not to a random chance evolution over time, but to some intelligent designer who acted with purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
So for any of you believers in science (I know you're out there), how do you reconcile certain Biblical stories with not only evolution, but geology and history? If God didn't literally create Adam from the dust, what was Adam, merely the first human that God had dealings with? We know there was no global flood in the time frame that the Bible gives - maybe it was a localized flood that had been mythologized over time?

What are your thoughts?

scriptures teach there was no death of any creature before the fall of man.

Evolution seems to require death.

also there is this nagging passage on the subject:

Gen 1:21 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.

22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply,

and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind,

cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind,

and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:

and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air,

and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Share this post


Link to post
scriptures teach there was no death of any creature before the fall of man.

Evolution seems to require death.

also there is this nagging passage on the subject:

Gen 1:21 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.

22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply,

and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind,

cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind,

and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:

and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air,

and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

How does "after their kind" contradict evolution? Does evolution teach that a whale will literally give birth to a horse?

What about a less literal interpretation? How do you know it's literal? It doesn't sound fact-based. It sounds like a fable or a parable to me.

Share this post


Link to post
How does "after their kind" contradict evolution? Does evolution teach that a whale will literally give birth to a horse?

What about a less literal interpretation? How do you know it's literal? It doesn't sound fact-based. It sounds like a fable or a parable to me.

Now that stirs up my imagination, don't do that.. :P a whale of a seahorse

If you believe in the Bible in a literal sense as I do then you would see it as Cows will only have cows and Horses will have horses

and women will have cowboys, oops another crossbreed.

speaking of mixes like mules - they do not propagate so well. Built in that way - after their own kind but the mules do not do well beyond that.

Now micro-eveloution does not change into another species. ( Kind = species - IMO )

" Amongst animals limits of hybridity between parents of distinct species

are more narrow since the hybrid is totally unable to continue its race

with one of its own kind and although it may propagate

with one of its parent species the progeny

Principles of Human Physiology By William Benjamin Carpenter, Henry Power,

Dogs and wolves and other like creatures have some flexibility but that is as far as it goes.

Perhaps when we mix some DNA we will screw up the system but as for now this is the command.

each after their own kind...

Share this post


Link to post
Now that stirs up my imagination, don't do that.. :P a whale of a seahorse

If you believe in the Bible in a literal sense as I do then you would see it as Cows will only have cows and Horses will have horses

and women will have cowboys, oops another crossbreed.

speaking of mixes like mules - they do not propagate so well. Built in that way - after their own kind but the mules do not do well beyond that.

Now micro-eveloution does not change into another species. ( Kind = species - IMO )

" Amongst animals limits of hybridity between parents of distinct species

are more narrow since the hybrid is totally unable to continue its race

with one of its own kind and although it may propagate

with one of its parent species the progeny

Principles of Human Physiology By William Benjamin Carpenter, Henry Power,

Dogs and wolves and other like creatures have some flexibility but that is as far as it goes.

Perhaps when we mix some DNA we will screw up the system but as for now this is the command.

each after their own kind...

Yes, but evolution also teaches that cows will only give birth to cows and horses to horses. Changes occur very gradually, except in certain simple organisms like bacteria. Seems like a strawman to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Perhaps Christ didn't condemn those accounts because they never really happened. Nevertheless, if the accounts were true, they go opposite to the teachings of Christ.

Just a raise of hands here, how many of you think there is such a thing as justifiable human sacrifice? Justifiable rape? Justifiable genocide & infanticide? Bonus questions: how does that effect your position on abortion?

Justifiable to whom?

Share this post


Link to post
Justifiable to whom?

Say, anyone other than Satan, lesser demons and homicidal maniacs.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...