Creation, evolution, the flood and science - Is the Bible without error?

by Andrew Sh 48 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Andrew Sh
    Andrew Sh

    I have taken the liberty of copying what I believe to be the relevant parts of a post of NewChapter to start, well a new chapter, or rather a new thread. The full post can be read in the original thread, shown below. Its as good a place to start as any.

    About me: I live in the UK and was brought up in a non-Christian, agnostic-leaning family. (The UK simply isn't like large sections of the USA: in the UK Christians, even Church-going nominal-only "Christians" are very much in the minority and have been for at least 50 years. This side of the Atlantic evolution is the religion and you can see the consequences in your newspaper every day.) I was brought up to believe in evolution. I went to private schools which generally have slightly more Christian input than state schools.

    When I was 8 to 12 years old, though there wasn't any Christianity on open display, we did read the Bible in one class each week, but no comment was made whether it was true or not, nothing was applied to us, because the teacher wasn't a Christian. But it did make me think the Bible is worthy of people's attention.

    At secondary school from 13 to 18, evolution was taught in Biology class and yet Christianity (of a sort) was taught on RE: but the RE teacher didn't challenge the "truth" of evolution.. perhaps he was asked not to, but most likely he believed evolution himself. The RE teachers seemed more Christian, but I don't remember them telling us anything really useful, either about science or about the way of salvation through faith in the work of Christ.

    By the time of University I was a thorough-going evolutionist; I studied psychology as part of my degree and evolution was studied there; I read evolution books such as "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins, and, as part of the course work, reviewed it approvingly. There was a stange thing in psychology though, one of the teachers would give examples of peculiar animals that looked as if they couldn't have evolved, and would proceed to show how maybe they might have evolved: it was difficult to escape thinking it sounded all a bit improbable, and I was brought to wonder if the teacher actually believed himself what he was saying: but even this didn't shake my confidence in Evolutionary Theory as a whole.

    Then I was saved while at University. The Christians around me, most of them it seems were Theistic evolutionists - God has used evolution to bring life to its current forms. It was about 4 years after being saved I looked into evolutionary theory, and after quite a long struggle, it finally dawned on me: it is just a lot of smoke and mirrors, the evidence for evolution simply isn't there. It is just as reasonable on scientific grounds to believe the Bible on Genesis, creation, the fall, the flood, and because I knew the Bible in other areas is reliable, "more powerful than a double edged sword", and clearly the Word of a God that "is not a man that He should lie", I choose to believe the Bible on Genesis 1 to 9 as well. It is because of this I start this thread.

    A word, though, of warning. I am not going to pretend I can answer every problem, and nor am I going to continue answering every complaint for ever. When I am happy with what I have said I shall stop: others can have the last word and hold their swords aloft with joy, the battlefield cleared of pesky Bible Fundamentalists: to the Atheists - perhaps you will be happy to know and encouraged to know you can have that victory right now.

    NewChapter

    Post 8852 of 8853

    Since 1/25/2011

    On Page 42 of “Christian Apologists - please watch this and tell us why it is wrong?”

    In what way or ways do you believe the god described in the bible is finite and limited?

    Well first of all, that creation story. It has been completely debunked. However if I were a bronze-aged nomad thinking about my origins, then it would have really made sense. Had this god not been limited, he could have given a simple version of evolution. but he couldn't---cuz evolution had not been invented yet---so he was only able to give a bronze-aged guess, because he was limited by bronze-age knowledge, because bronze-aged humans created him.

    I already can hear some believer's response to this. Ancient Israelites would not have understood---blah, blah. Okay, maybe they would not have understood the science of it, but certainly a simplified version could have been offered that while not going into great detail, would not have come into direct conflict over the truth of it. This is All Powerful God after all---and we humans do it for children all the time. But he wasn't all powerful, so that's the explanation.

    The worldwide flood. And IMPOSSIBLITY. But they didn't know that 3000 years ago, so they could make up stories like that. Had their god really been all wise, he would have known better.

    Virginity! Yes, there was a 'test' for women's virgiinity. But not a man's. Biologically---you understand. If virginity was such a coveted commodity, then I think this god could have figured out a way for both female and male virginity to be obvious. But he didn't. Because he didn't exist. So bronze-aged humans made him up and worked with what evolution gave them. Women have a hymen, men don't, so there was no penalty for a nonvirgin male marrying---because there was no virginity test. Very limiting.

  • Andrew Sh
    Andrew Sh

    But NewChapter, as I understand it, they ancients did have their own simple version of Evolutionary Theory..... and Moses chose to reject it. I shall look it up in google, long time since I read it and cannot remember where.

  • Flat_Accent
    Flat_Accent

    You admit yourself you can't answer every problem. By openly trying to accept the book of Genesis as literal and factual, you will never be able to answer the hundreds of problems therein. If you just accept it as mythological you'll really reduce your workload. And you cannot suggest the evidence for Adam & Eve, The Flood is equivalent to the evidence for Evolution.

    You're also using a bias when evaluating the book's validity, by saying that 'because the Bible is right here, this part must be accurate too'. Sure, the Bible contains some historical details. It also contains a lot of allegories, and impossibilities. Agreeing with one part isnt a sound basis for blindly accepting the rest, otherwise we could just as easily follow the Greek or Egyptian or other Ancient Gods. And that's not common sense.

    Use your thinking faculties, scrutinize the whole book. Don't be lazy and don't assume!

  • Phizzy
    Phizzy

    Andrewsh , "the evidence for evolution simply isn't there" ?????? How much evidence do you want ? go to the museums, read the work of a huge number of scientists in a number of fields.

    The evidence for evolution is in abundence, overwhelming in fact. The evidence for a creator using evolution is Nil, for the existence of "God" nil.

    Please don't come back with "you cannot prove a negative", until you have read Carl Sagan's " Dragon in the garage" example.

  • Andrew Sh
    Andrew Sh

    "Really reducing my workload" sounds great Flat Accent... but is that the basis upon which we should proceed in life? Sounds like you don't condemn laziness after all. Surely we should be pursuing Truth whereever it leads, whatever it costs.

  • Flat_Accent
    Flat_Accent

    I'm only trying to help here. You will never have justification for holding those beliefs, because they are so contrary to everything we now understand about life and the earth history. You're taking an unecessary burden on yourself by trying to prove Genesis. Not to mention 'the truth' about these subjects is already known, you don't have to do any searching. It's out there, published, waiting for you to read it.

  • Andrew Sh
    Andrew Sh

    Flat Accent - Confess I'm tempted to give up already. I spent an age ( I mean an aaaaaage) quoting from Colin Patterson's book Evolution and other stuff only for the pc to produce an error so when I had finished it wouldn't post. And being with firefox (I suppose) I couldn't cut and paste it anywhere else either.

    If anyone wants to get a brilliant summary of/introduction to the Creationist's issues with Evolutionary Theory then try:-

    "Bone of Contention: Is Evolution True?" by Sylvia Baker. It must be one of the most successful Creationist books having sold over 250,000 copies.

  • cofty
    cofty

    "Bone of Contention: Is Evolution True?" by Sylvia Baker. It must be one of the most successful Creationist books having sold over 250,000 copies.

    Yeah creationsists will swallow anything that reinforces their fairy stories.

    Andrew Sh how many books on evolution written by evolutionary scientists have you already studied? Can you tell us which ones in particular please?

    I'm sure you would agree it would be foolish for somebody to criticise Christianity if their information depended on books written only by opposers of religion. Even more so with science which is actually difficult to understand.

  • Yan Bibiyan
    Yan Bibiyan

    It must be one of the most successful Creationist books having sold over 250,000 copies.

    Andrew, book sale volumes tell little about the merits of a book or the success of its application.

    For example, the book "Skinny Bitch" is a bestseller in the US and the UK. You would think that with over 850,000 copies sold nearly everyone around will be a size 2, yet obesity in the western world, particularly in the US, is rising wth an alarming rate....

  • dark angle
    dark angle

    "Really reducing my workload" sounds great Flat Accent... but is that the basis upon which we should proceed in life?

    We should base our lives on reality. And how do we study reality? we have science and technology to aid us in our quest in studying our natural universe. This is a lot better than letting superstition guide our life.

    In the ancient past, humankind has heavily relied on human senses to make sense of the world, and since this a very crued way to observe our reality, mankind succumb to superstition when confronted with questions and events that are beyound what we can explain. we invented elaborate myths and religion to make sense on the unexplained phenomina.....and somehow this also gave some comfort and meaning to our ancestors existence.

    Today we know that our feable sense is not a good device to study natures' secrets. Our eyes can only detect a tiny band on the electromanetic spectrum. Our nose cannot even match the dog's sense of smell. we are blind to echolocation, we cant see germs, molecules, virus, and the invisible subatomic particles. We can hardly comprehend the vastness of our galaxy, much more the universe. Modern humans aware of these limitations, can understand that in order to measure the mysteries of reality, we should not rely on common sense. Now we have powerful machines that can aid us in searching for truth.

    That is why i love science. Science is nothing but a systematic study of reality. Self correcting & advancing technique in learning. This is the Method of Study that we humans should be proud of.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit