I will look it up, but I bet the word beginning in that verse is the same as
that in Genesis 1:1. The Very Beginning, that is, creation.
>>Clearly evolution is not mentioned in the Bible, but that notion can still
>>be inconsistent with other verses of Scripture. I must be stubborn but I
>>can't see how one can reconcile the Fall of Man with evolutionary thoughts
>>unless by ad hoc assumptions.
>As long as there is a break of some sort between the animal part of our
>ancestry and the spiritual part, then the fall occurs as described in
>Scripture. It is for this reason I can't accept a gapless economy that I
>think Howard van Till advocates. Is it ad hoc? Maybe. "ad hoc" in Latin
>means "towards this [end or purpose]." The entire reason Christianity has
>rejected evolution is ad hoc. It is toward the end of defending the
>authority of Scripture. So I would say that your anti-evolutionary position
>is also ad hoc. If you had no desire to believe the scripture, you would
>have no reason to be antievolutionary. If you doubt this, ask yourself how
>many NON-christians are antievolutionists based upon the scientific
>evidence. There are very, very very few.
I think there is a difference in kind between men and animals. I believe it
was Shaffer (?) who said that there is a separation between God and all
created things, e.g. men, animals, etc. However, on the nature of
personality man and God stand on one side and the rest of creation on the
other. The question is when that separation took place. I believe it was
from the very beginning, that is, when God created paradisal man. Perhaps
paradisal man was like a brute who knew no evil. It was the Fall that made
us into the beings that we now are. Of course, if you believe in God and
know that there is such a thing as revealed truths, then you are ahead of
the game and know enough to perhaps not be an evolutionist. With pout
revealed truths and the entry of God into our world, we would be at the
mercy of nature.
>>I still do not have a clear answer from you regarding the nature of cloning.
>>Wouldn't the wiring of the human brain be accomplished also by cloning thus
>>the coding for the wiring is derived from the original cell used in cloning?
>No. A clone would not have the identical wiring diagram. It would be
>similar, but not identical.
I thought the question was that the wiring needed something more than the
physical, the genes. I am confused.
>>>So what? Even if the word sin means nothing to them, that is not the issue.
>>> Evolution does not breed more racism than sinning Christians do. Evolution
>>>does not breed more killing than the "Christian Ku Klux Klan" did. How about
>>>the Christians who baptized the Incas then marched them off to their deaths?
>>>My point is, that you can not show that Christians are pure where it comes
>>>to racism, abortion, etc and the evolutionists are the bad guys. We have
>>>all fallen short of the glory of God.
>>I do not believe you realize what a horrible society we would have if the
>>finding of unfettered science were to be used to perfect human society.
>I don't seek a perfect human society. Sin prevents that. I also don't want
>science with no morals. But the concept that evolution gives rise to racism
>is clearly wrong. Sin gives rise to racism whether that sin is in the
>Christian or in the non-christian.
An evolutionist that has no regard for God would!! To them the words sin,
evil have no meaning and is used by stupid people who believe in spiritual
matters. Evolution is necessary but not sufficient for people to believe
that they may be superior to others. However, being a Christian removes any
room for racism since Christ died for "us" as well as for "them."
>>not defend the actions of those so-called Christians who do not obey the
>>Lord. I once mentioned a "Christian" that the Armenian Genocide of the
>>Ottoman Turks in 1915 was done by Moslems on Christian Armenians because of
>>our faith. This "Christian" said there were all sorts of Christians implying
>>thereby that my people where not the brand of Christians which he himself
>>was--the select ones. I know in my own flesh what you are talking about.
>>Therefore, how can I be defending such "Christians?"
>My point is that scientific theories, like theologies, can be used for good
>or for bad. It is not the theory that brings the bad, but the sin.