Harrie wrote (View Post): › I am pretty sure that if you would have some personal experience that would contradict the Bible, you would consider that a trick of the devil or something like that. In that sense you seem trapped.

Since I am free, its difficult to imagine what you mean. I have experienced may things, both good and bad. Do I consider them to contradict the bible? .... Not at all! How can it? Later I give a link as an example.

Harrie wrote (View Post): › That story perhaps appeals to you as it is a promise you appreciate, to me it is a myth.

I am not sure if this is because you appeal to science (but there are high level scientists and evolutionists who are Christians) or because of your atheism, your belief.

If you claim to be scientifically inclined, I challenge you to do objective (as much as possible) personal research on the NT to gather the facts as far as it can be deduced and then tally the results: Facts versus Fiction. You can list Unknowns, but you should not let it count in the tally either way.

Harrie wrote (View Post): › Now I think the interesting issue is WHY you consider the Bible to be the truth, and WHY I don't.

Agreed, it is interesting. It's probably because of the way we respond to life experiences. You are probably too impatient but in case you are willing listen to this song.

Harrie wrote (View Post): › I don't belief it is meaningful trying to convert each-other, that will only lead to frustration at both sides. What is your opinion about that?

Sure, and I will add that I believe the real converter is the Holy Spirit. Without His involvement, there are no effective arguments that I can make.

Quote: › it has no relevant bearing on how it will develop.

Would you want me to construct a model that embodies evolution? Probably not.

Why would I want someone that is anti-creation to construct a model of it?

I think a person has to understand the premise of their respective models before they construct one. Don't you?

I would not want my appendix removed by a professional fisherman.

Quote: › you will now want to claim the creation model predicts all those odd finds,

If the initial setup was correct it would predict these findings.

Quote: › The creation model I outlined is what it was prior to finds of dinosaurs and other oddities

What was this model compared to?

And they were discovering dinos long before Darwin and his theories. So then, it couldn't be evolution.

And if they took the finds at face value and gave the credit to an infinite God, there should not have been a problem in the first place.

I mean, you can't be serious when you say that God has not created some very interesting creatures that are still alive today. From a biblical viewpoint of course.

Quote: › studying for a career change, work, and job searches.

Good luck on that. All the best with you.

Quote: › Then why the accusation of backpeddaling?

The same as I'm accused of, altering my model to fit current findings.

Quote: › It may have seemed such,

Then why the dogmatism associated with it?

Quote: › Really, I'd at least like a couple of references here as opposed to the blind assertions.

They will be from creationist websites. That way you can tell me how you think they are wrong in THEIR assertions. Is that ok?

Quote: › You'd know this if you knew more of the accepted literature

Accepted does not mean correct.

Quote: › creationist junk.

That's funny.

Let me ask, are you competent to conduct a radiometric examination of rocks?

Quote: › “I have experienced may things, both good and bad. Do I consider them to contradict the bible? .... Not at all! How can it?”

Suppose you would stumble upon what you would consider hard evidence for evolution. Assuming that you still view Genesis as a literal account and conflicting with evolution, what would you do?


Me: “That story perhaps appeals to you as it is a promise you appreciate, to me it is a myth.”

Quote: › “I am not sure if this is because you appeal to science (but there are high level scientists and evolutionists who are Christians) or because of your atheism, your belief.”

My religious doubts had at first little to do with science but more with logic: the effects of praying, the problems concerning the creation of the universe, the lack of need for the existence of a God.

Quote: › “If you claim to be scientifically inclined, I challenge you to do objective (as much as possible) personal research on the NT to gather the facts as far as it can be deduced and then tally the results: Facts versus Fiction.”

Why only the NT and exclude the OT? Are they not related?

Quote: › “You can list Unknowns, but you should not let it count in the tally either way.”

My problems with God go much deeper than the Bible alone even, but the Bible definitely doesn’t help: slavery, position of women, conflicts with science. I think we must have discussed most of it at one time.


Me: “Now I think the interesting issue is WHY you consider the Bible to be the truth, and WHY I don't.”

Quote: › “Agreed, it is interesting. It's probably because of the way we respond to life experiences.”

I think it is a combination of location, personality, upbringing and experiences. I was raised with the idea that the existence of God was not to be doubted, but not that evolution was out of the question; I was a theist who also believed in evolution; simply never thought about Genesis.

Quote: › “You are probably too impatient but in case you are willing listen to this song.”

If you know any rock songs I might give it a shot, but what I know from the past we do not have the same taste in music.

Quote: › “Sure, and I will add that I believe the real converter is the Holy Spirit. Without His involvement, there are no effective arguments that I can make.”

If there is a God He sure does not guide me in understanding the Bible...


But to get back towards the topic: Is there a way for a Christian to belief in evolution and NOT get in any conflict with Genesis?

Nator,

Click on the pics and take a look at the bony plated skull of the shark and the legs on the anglerfish.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100826/ap_on_sc/as_indonesia_us_ocean_explorers_3

Interesting.

Quote: › Would you want me to construct a model that embodies evolution? Probably not. Why would I want someone that is anti-creation to construct a model of it? I think a person has to understand the premise of their respective models before they construct one. Don't you? I would not want my appendix removed by a professional fisherman.

One can understand the premises of arguments one does not agree with and use that understanding to construct accurate models from those points of view.

This is done quite a lot actually.

Quote: › If the initial setup was correct it would predict these findings.

That's just it. With the initial set of premises set forth in the Bible and creationism, there is no way to predict these findings. You have to add to those premises in some way to reach that point, and even then there isn't really prediction per se.

Quote: › What was this model compared to? And they were discovering dinos long before Darwin and his theories. So then, it couldn't be evolution. And if they took the finds at face value and gave the credit to an infinite God, there should not have been a problem in the first place. I mean, you can't be serious when you say that God has not created some very interesting creatures that are still alive today. From a biblical viewpoint of course.

Paleontology and geology are relatively young fields of science. It would be most unusual to have finds of dinos dated much prior to Darwin's theory. You'll have to give me some hard dates on that.

That I can't say there are not odd creatures says very little really, because even they cannot lead me to predicting finds of yet odder creatures with a creationist model.

Quote: › The same as I'm accused of, altering my model to fit current findings.

But every time we have discussed that particular find, I have clearly stated it as an unkown that requires more research. I am not altering my view, which is what backpeddaling is.

Quote: › Then why the dogmatism associated with it?

I don't really see much dogmatism associated therewith. I see a theory for a process that while fairly well understood is not fully understood and subject to change as new data is discovered.

Quote: › They will be from creationist websites. That way you can tell me how you think they are wrong in THEIR assertions. Is that ok?

How about if I promise to only consider the contents of their arguments, validity of their source material, and the contemporaneousness of their arguments?

In other words, I'll only tear them apart for bad arguments, poor support, or out of date arguments instead of their own source of origin.

Quote: › Accepted does not mean correct.

Thus the use of the term. Accepted, in this sense, though does mean that it has been peer-reviewed, and thus is more likely to be accurate.

Quote: › That's funny. Let me ask, are you competent to conduct a radiometric examination of rocks?

I wish I was. But I am not, mostly due to my intense hatred for the actual study of chemistry (not the products thereof). I tend to keep up with a lot of it, though I have zero desire for the actual work involved, hence my understanding of what they are doing.

Quote: › Click on the pics and take a look at the bony plated skull of the shark and the legs on the anglerfish. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100826/ap_on_sc/as_indonesia_us_ocean_explorers_3 Interesting.

Very interesting, and I think I see some of where you want to take that, but I'll let you put it into words before I comment further.

Quote: › This is done quite a lot actually.

WHAT? You let a professional fisherman perform appendectomy's? You guys are strange out there.

No, seriously, couldn't there be a little bit of biased in constructing something you are adamantly opposed to?

Quote: › With the initial set of premises set forth in the Bible and creationism, there is no way to predict these findings.

How can you be serious? An infinite God creates life. A tenet of that should be uncertainty in the variety of life found. I can't see how this can be missed.

Or just plain left out.

Quote: › You have to add to those premises in some way to reach that point, and even then there isn't really prediction per se.

Unless you call all findings transitionals, and you inferred as much before, Darwin should have been vindicated by now when he said the fossil record will produce all kinds of transitional finds.

However, his vindication has yet to be found. Why?

Quote: › It would be most unusual to have finds of dinos dated much prior to Darwin's theory. You'll have to give me some hard dates on that.

See the "Dinosaur" wiki section 7.

Quote: › I don't really see much dogmatism associated therewith.

Then how can you say it is definitive and authoritative?

Quote: › I see a theory

I see lots of them too.

Quote: › In other words, I'll only tear them apart for bad arguments, poor support, or out of date arguments instead of their own source of origin.

Already you have begun your assessment with an extreme bias.

This will certainly be fair.

http://www.fillthevoid.org/Creation/Hovind/Brainwashed.html

Quote: › Thus the use of the term.

So you readily acknowledge you propose a view that is not fully correct?

Quote: › I wish I was.

So you are basing your determinations from someone elses guesses?

Quote: › I'll let you put it into words before I comment further.

Legs on the fish is sure to spur some evolutionary bias. The media will love this.

Quote: › No, seriously, couldn't there be a little bit of biased in constructing something you are adamantly opposed to?

Possibly, but I try to keep that to a minimum. I don't like using strawmen to build my cases.

Quote: › How can you be serious? An infinite God creates life. A tenet of that should be uncertainty in the variety of life found. I can't see how this can be missed. Or just plain left out.

But if God can create anything, then you can predict nothing significant. It opens the model to becoming nearly useless.

Quote: › Unless you call all findings transitionals, and you inferred as much before, Darwin should have been vindicated by now when he said the fossil record will produce all kinds of transitional finds. However, his vindication has yet to be found. Why?

His vindication has been found time and time again. The only ones who deny this are the ones with a vested interest in an alternative model that fits with their chosen religious views.

Quote: › See the "Dinosaur" wiki section 7.

Will do later. No time right now.

Quote: › Then how can you say it is definitive and authoritative?

Being definitive and authoratative does not mean that it has to know everything about the given process. It simply means that we have to know enough of the process to formulate ideas that fit reality off of it.

How does not being dogmatic in one's understanding undermine one's authority?

Quote: › Already you have begun your assessment with an extreme bias.

There's no bias in the offer I gave. I am going to judge what you provide on its quality, timeliness, and support. I'm going to leave its source of origin, questionable as that may be, alone.

Quote: › http://www.fillthevoid.org/Creation/Hovind/Brainwashed.html

I'll look and assess this gem later tonight when I have time.

Quote: › So you readily acknowledge you propose a view that is not fully correct?

Not at all. The term correct has connotations that I am not willing to throw around willy-nilly, while the term accepted has less baggage. I believe my views are correct, but I am leaving them open to changes and adjustments as new data comes my way.

Quote: › So you are basing your determinations from someone elses guesses?

Hardly guesses. I understand the principles of radiometric dating. I have looked into the problems of radiometric dating that others have written. I have looked at the research that supports radiometric dating. And I have looked at the research that argues against radiometric dating. So, while I do not have the skills to perform radiometric dating myself, I have a strong enough understanding of its strengths, weaknesses, and methods that I know whom to trust on the issue and who to not trust.

Quote: › Legs on the fish is sure to spur some evolutionary bias. The media will love this.

I think they have bigger things to deal with for now. The media won't even get close to touching it unless a scientific journal makes a bold claim about it, and even then a story may not come of it.

Harrie wrote (View Post): › Suppose you would stumble upon what you would consider hard evidence for evolution. Assuming that you still view Genesis as a literal account and conflicting with evolution, what would you do?

Re-assess my view. By the way did you go to the link I posted where you will find materials from a geneticist and proponent of evolution who is a Christian? Not only that but theologians too?

Harrie wrote (View Post): › My religious doubts had at first little to do with science but more with logic: the effects of praying, the problems concerning the creation of the universe, the lack of need for the existence of a God.

Man did not survive the ages only because of his logic. He is an emotional beast too.

Harrie wrote (View Post): › Why only the NT and exclude the OT? Are they not related?

Start simplest and most recent, but by all means go for the whole bible if you wish. You have to take into account wisdom and poetic portions etc. The important thing is that you do it.

Harrie wrote (View Post): › If you know any rock songs I might give it a shot, but what I know from the past we do not have the same taste in music.

I like some of Meatloaf's songs, but that is beside the point. That link is one of many that tells the story of a particular man's response to God in the face of tremendous adversity.

Harrie wrote (View Post): › If there is a God He sure does not guide me in understanding the Bible...

Check to see if the problem is that you are not willing to be helped.

Harrie wrote (View Post): › But to get back towards the topic: Is there a way for a Christian to belief in evolution and NOT get in any conflict with Genesis?

Yes, this is what this thread is about.

Me: “Suppose you would stumble upon what you would consider hard evidence for evolution. Assuming that you still view Genesis as a literal account and conflicting with evolution, what would you do?”

Quote: › “Re-assess my view.”

Could you give an example of what you might consider evidence for evolution?

Quote: › “By the way did you go to the link I posted where you will find materials from a geneticist and proponent of evolution who is a Christian? Not only that but theologians too?”

I do remember trying a link but that linked to heaps of information; no idea what you wanted me to read there. I rather have you use your own words and perhaps link to a site as a reference.

Quote: › “Man did not survive the ages only because of his logic. He is an emotional beast too.”

Sure, we simply will disagree about the source of that emotion.

Me: “Why only the NT and exclude the OT? Are they not related?”

Quote: › “Start simplest and most recent, but by all means go for the whole bible if you wish. You have to take into account wisdom and poetic portions etc. The important thing is that you do it.”

We have been through the Bible at other threads many times before; you must know my objections to the truth of the Bible. I don’t think those objections will disappear by reading the Bible again.
Sure, there are indeed wise, true and beautiful things in the Bible, but there are even greater, wiser and truer things in non-Christian writings. There are also some very dark, cruel and unfair verses in the Bible to the point that if God would really exist I would not even like to follow Him (slavery, playing cruel games with people, position of the woman, etc...)
But I see not one single reason to assume that people received divine assistance in order to come up with that.

Quote: › “I like some of Meatloaf's songs, but that is beside the point. That link is one of many that tells the story of a particular man's response to God in the face of tremendous adversity.”

Yes, I realize that you enjoy linking to songs you expect will explain your love of your God, perhaps hoping that I will be so emotionally moved that I will start to belief again, but like I said before, I miss the background to enjoy it the same way you do; I suspect that you need to be Christian to be moved by those words, even if it is only a little bit.


Me: “If there is a God He sure does not guide me in understanding the Bible...”

Quote: › “Check to see if the problem is that you are not willing to be helped.”

We have been here before many times too; I will try to be as clear as possible this time.

The @theists view: after we die there is nothing, we stop existing. We will never be able to see our deceased loved ones again. There might never be justice for some criminals. We as a person do not belong to some special selected group of people, we as humans do not have any special position in life or in the universe.
Christians (but only the right kind of course, the real Christians) belong to a selected minority of people who will exist forever in a very happy place and will be able to see their deceased loved ones again. In the end there will be justice for all and God will make everything OK. The universe is created just for us and we are appointed to rule over all there is on earth and probably also over all other planets we might find.
I can’t speak for all other @theists, but why would I not be WILLING to belief all that? Have you considered the possibility that people WANT to belief all that, but simply CAN’T?

Do you think I would not like to see my deceased father again? A man I loved very much? That I would not like to see my children after one of us dies? That I don’t want big shot corporate criminals to meet some form of justice? Do you think I don’t want to exist forever as a member of a small selected group? That I don’t like the idea that we as beings are more than a short blip in time, somewhere in a tiny forgotten corner of a stupendously huge universe?
WHY would I not WANT to belief that? Why would anybody not WANT to belief that?
And now I hear you saying: “But you can have all that; simply open up your heart to the Lord, let Him in, make that leap of faith and you will be saved, existing forever in the most fantastic place beyond your imagination. Here, listen to the words of this song that always moves me so much, that will do the trick.”

Do you still belief that I do not want to belief?


Me: “But to get back towards the topic: Is there a way for a Christian to belief in evolution and NOT get in any conflict with Genesis?”

Quote: › “Yes, this is what this thread is about.”

That was what I figured and brought it up again, but as there is a bit of a lack in evolutionist Christians responding to it, can YOU come up with some possible solution to belief in evolution AND a way to interpret Genesis that does not conflict with that? As I can’t.


In short, do you see a way A evolutionist Christian MIGHT be able to interpret Genesis, so Genesis would NOT conflict with the Christians belief in evolution?

Harrie wrote (View Post): › Do you think I would not like to see my deceased father again? A man I loved very much? That I would not like to see my children after one of us dies? That I don’t want big shot corporate criminals to meet some form of justice? Do you think I don’t want to exist forever as a member of a small selected group? That I don’t like the idea that we as beings are more than a short blip in time, somewhere in a tiny forgotten corner of a stupendously huge universe? WHY would I not WANT to belief that? Why would anybody not WANT to belief that? And now I hear you saying: “But you can have all that; simply open up your heart to the Lord, let Him in, make that leap of faith and you will be saved, existing forever in the most fantastic place beyond your imagination. Here, listen to the words of this song that always moves me so much, that will do the trick.” Do you still belief that I do not want to belief?

No offence but what I am reading is indeed that you want to believe... but what you want to believe are only the things you want. On the other hand what God requires is that you believe what you seemingly do not want, namely Jesus Christ crucified.

Harrie wrote (View Post): › In short, do you see a way A evolutionist Christian MIGHT be able to interpret Genesis, so Genesis would NOT conflict with the Christians belief in evolution?

I suggest you or others post specific areas of difficulty that might come up. Then we look at it one at a time.

As far as evolutionary science is concerned take a look at this particular article.

As far as the theology is concerned I might start off with this.

Followed by an article on Genesis 1 here. This view suggest that it was written as a polemic against neigbouring religions and their gods. This sets up a background of the creation narrative that might further loosen the grip of sequential thinking.

Harrie wrote (View Post): › Yes, I realize that you enjoy linking to songs you expect will explain your love of your God, perhaps hoping that I will be so emotionally moved that I will start to belief again, but like I said before, I miss the background to enjoy it the same way you do; I suspect that you need to be Christian to be moved by those words, even if it is only a little bit.

Emotional responses on its own are weak and easily broken. Faith is an action that requires more than just emotion. Even human understanding must be made subservient.

Quote: › “No offence but what I am reading is indeed that you want to believe... but what you want to believe are only the things you want. On the other hand what God requires is that you believe what you seemingly do not want, namely Jesus Christ crucified.”

Why do you think that I would not want to belief in Jesus crucification if I would belief all those others things I mentioned?
Because I do not belief in God, that story is just as impressive to me as the stories of Robin Hood are to you, it has little to do with NOT wanting. It would be great if Robin Hood turned out to be real and on top of that really split an arrow in two with another arrow? Would you NOT WANT to belief that? Or CAN’T you simply belief that at the moment?


Me: “In short, do you see a way A evolutionist Christian MIGHT be able to interpret Genesis, so Genesis would NOT conflict with the Christians belief in evolution?”

Quote: › “I suggest you or others post specific areas of difficulty that might come up. Then we look at it one at a time.”

You quoted all kinds of rather lengthy articles. Yes, I might google my question and end up with countless long articles.

One last attempt: “do YOU see a way A evolutionist Christian MIGHT be able to interpret Genesis, so Genesis would NOT conflict with the Christians belief in evolution? In YOUR OWN words”
As I can't come up with any way out.

Quote: › “Emotional responses on its own are weak and easily broken. Faith is an action that requires more than just emotion.”

Emotion can be the push that sets you off in a certain way of thinking. In my case it was thinking that counteracted the emotional attachment to the supernatural.

Harrie wrote (View Post): › One last attempt: “do YOU see a way A evolutionist Christian MIGHT be able to interpret Genesis, so Genesis would NOT conflict with the Christians belief in evolution? In YOUR OWN words” As I can't come up with any way out. ......In my case it was thinking that counteracted the emotional attachment to the supernatural.

I have answered you Harrie. You asked if I "see a way" an "evolutionist Christian might be able to interpret Genesis". Yes I see a way that an evolutionist christian might interpret Genesis. The article by Dr Ernest Lucas, if you care to even read it, will tell you the answer. He is one such person and he has explained how he interprets Genesis.

The fact that I have answered you and you still think that I haven't makes me wonder if I could make it any simpler, or could it be that your "thinking" continues to lead you astray?

Quote: › Yes I see a way that an evolutionist christian might interpret Genesis. The article by Dr Ernest Lucas, if you care to even read it, will tell you the answer. He is one such person and he has explained how he interprets Genesis.

Sorry, I don't have the time looking through several lengthy articles, searching for what YOU might think is the point. Than at least give me a SHORT quote the relevant parts of that article, WITH a link to the source, if you really can't put in in your own words.
But why is it so difficult to explain it in your own words? Why do you need someone else his words?

Quote: › The fact that I have answered you and you still think that I haven't makes me wonder if I could make it any simpler, or could it be that your "thinking" continues to lead you astray?

Here is a link where you can find the answer to that question. I hope you found my answer helpful?

Quote: › Possibly, but I try to keep that to a minimum.

So, there is NO way that the model you are using has any unfair bias in it?

I find that very hard to believe considering your responses.

Quote: › It opens the model to becoming nearly useless.

Yeah, and it is nearly useless using a finite definition to define an infinite God. So, big deal. The model is useless. I've tried telling you that for sometime now.

You can't put God in a box.

And don't say you haven't, because you have.

Quote: › His vindication has been found time and time again.

Please. Why, then, did some very prominent atheists come up with the idea of punctuated equilibrium?

From the wiki:

Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species.

Quote: › Being definitive and authoratative does not mean that it has to know everything about the given process.

Then acknowledge the assumptions instead of trying to hide them. At least on a level that the general public can understand.

Quote: › I'll look and assess this gem later tonight when I have time.

Yeah, no bias. Ha, ha.

Quote: › while the term accepted has less baggage.

To you personally, perhaps. How about the everyday individual that accepts your view as correct and authoritative?

Quote: › How does not being dogmatic in one's understanding undermine one's authority?

Because you have no foundation except faith. And I know you won't like that.

You trust your authorities on this matter are correct, right?

What is the difference between you and me then?