Biblical literalism correlates with anti-science

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

No it doesn't.


Not according to Wormwood. Your views are rare and not at all representative of evangelical Christianity.

Yes it does. But you'll never know now because you wouldn't answer.

I think it obvious you twisted WW's words. You do it regularly, you're pretty good at, you should just take credit and admit it.

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

For everyone except River:

I find it difficult for a person to fully embrace Darwinian theistic evolution in light of Trinitarian Christian doctrine.

The key word is "random."

If Jesus Christ is the eternal son, His relationship to His father could not exist in eternity since the randomness of life had not developed in so much that a father/son relationship were even possible.

Remember, with Darwinian theory there is no room for prior knowledge, even from God. If God knew what organisms would evolve to be, then the natural selection of random mutations is a false dichotomy.

So, are you a Molinistic theistic evolutionist or a Calvinistic theistic evolutionist, choose your poison. The only thing you can't be is........what you are claiming to be.

 

[Forsakenone]

Quick question, is incest a sin?

Do you mean like intimate relations between a brother and sister, or a father and his daughter?

 

[River Jordan]

Yeah, that's not right. But I have seen your conversations, River. Your are regularly provoking people and attempting to make others look and feel stupid.

That's merely an unsubstantiated accusation. Unless you can show where I've said things similar to what's been said to me, you're just accusing me of something you have no evidence for.

I don't really know AIG. But I know there is a big difference in saying that the Scriptures are the foundation of truth and the Scriptures are science textbooks.

What's the difference between AiG saying "any data that conflicts with our interpretation of scripture is automatically wrong" and flat earthers doing the same?

Again, no one is denying actual science. People often deny "theories" that project back millions of years. These are two very different things. It's the difference between denying gravity that is proven now, and denying that a meteor hit the earth millions of years ago to wipe out the dinosaurs. One is a proven and present fact and the other is a theory that is derived from ideas about how to interpret present facts. Big difference.

How convenient of you to define "science" in such a way that things like the age of the universe and earth, and the history of life are outside of it. So do you think "science" only includes events that are directly witnessed?

I bet if you went to a somewhat conservative church on Sunday and asked 10 people what they believed about science as it relates to adaptation and genetic information, most of them would say, "I have no idea. Im sure if they discovered it, that it is true." If you asked them what they believed about creation, they would probably give a host of difference answers such as "I believe it happened as the Bible says" or "I believe God created it, but not exactly sure how or if the earth is young or old, I suppose I will find out when I meet the Lord."

Sorry, but your imaginary interactions with imaginary people don't trump what's been posted here by actual real people.

Again, lets not confuse "science" and "Darwinism." You seem to want to mix these as if they are synonymous terms.

Please explain how Darwinian evolution lies outside of science.

You are missing the point. Did Christians have slaves? Yes. Did they have slaves because the Bible told them to? No. Did some try to justify it in the BIble? Yes. Do homosexuals try to justify their homosexuality with the Bible? Yes. Do Polygamists try to justify their polygamy with the Bible? Yes. Do people try to justify their greed with the Bible? Yes. What is new? Its like you think that if you can find a group or even a segment of Christians that hold a view that it represents all of Christianity. Again, it was certain Christians that led the charge against these injustices..

Nope, never once said that those groups represent all of Christianity. But you've forgotten the original point. You were pining for the good ol' days when racism, misogyny, bigotry, and the like were institutionalized into our society and oftentimes justified by appealing to scripture. Given the choice, I'd prefer to live today when such things are generally unacceptable and are only found on the outer fringes of Christianity (rather than being more mainstream). Does that mean everything's perfect today? Of course not. But then, only black/white thinkers see things in those terms.

 

[River Jordan]

Yes it does. But you'll never know now because you wouldn't answer.

Or you could act like an adult and just state your point clearly.

I think it obvious you twisted WW's words. You do it regularly, you're pretty good at, you should just take credit and admit it.

Or you could actually back up your accusations, unless of course you feel no moral obligation to do so.

I find it difficult for a person to fully embrace Darwinian theistic evolution in light of Trinitarian Christian doctrine.

The key word is "random."

If Jesus Christ is the eternal son, His relationship to His father could not exist in eternity since the randomness of life had not developed in so much that a father/son relationship were even possible.

I'm sorry, but that makes no sense at all.

Remember, with Darwinian theory there is no room for prior knowledge, even from God.

Really? Where does any paper on Darwinian evolution say that?

If God knew what organisms would evolve to be, then the natural selection of random mutations is a false dichotomy.

Do you believe God controls every event in the universe, or do some things happen on their own?

 

[Forsakenone]

For everyone except River:

I find it difficult for a person to fully embrace Darwinian theistic evolution in light of Trinitarian Christian doctrine.

Why? So you can't believe in spontaneous generation but you believe a female generated a fertilized egg without a male.

Random is the keyword? So if the spontaneous generation of non-living matter into living matter is the foundation upon which evolution originates, then lack of sequential order or unexpected occurences would be consistent with what would be expected in the nature of evolution whereas a random or deviation in the logical order would actually be more like a female generating a fertilized egg without a male which contradicts the timeless and unchanging nature of an eternal God who had established and ordered the male and female to be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth. And the argument that the fertilized egg was not a random, but the intentional act of her heavenly Father and not her husband really doesn't reflect very well on the Trinitarian Christian doctrine. So if you can shade your beliefs to the color that you like, then why can't they who believe in evolution. As far myself, my opinion is that they both are rose colored glasses, just like the ones I wear.

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

According to Trinitarian doctrine Jesus Christ is the eternal Son. He was the lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Eternal?
From the foundation?
In the beginning was the word?
These all allude to attributes that require design.
They could not happen on their own because they happened before the world began.
You can't escape it.
Mutations are random.
Random mutations are selected, according to atheistic theory, and this selection drives evolution. If there is s goal, then by definition it's not random.
Dawkins says the watch maker is blind.
We could all get along much better if some would just accept design implications. If we only had to argue about the nuances of time for example.
However, you will not budge on anything that has to do with design. You give God no credit, even though He constantly claims it for Hinself. It's stiff necked and puffed up before Him.

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

Why? So you can't believe in spontaneous generation but you believe a female generated a fertilized egg without a male.

Random is the keyword? So if the spontaneous generation of non-living matter into living matter is the foundation upon which evolution originates, then lack of sequential order or unexpected occurences would be consistent with what would be expected in the nature of evolution whereas a random or deviation in the logical order would actually be more like a female generating a fertilized egg without a male which contradicts the timeless and unchanging nature of an eternal God who had established and ordered the male and female to be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth. And the argument that the fertilized egg was not a random, but the intentional act of her heavenly Father and not her husband really doesn't reflect very well on the Trinitarian Christian doctrine. So if you can shade your beliefs to the color that you like, then why can't they who believe in evolution. As far myself, my opinion is that they both are rose colored glasses, just like the ones I wear.

I believe in spontaneous generation. God said it and spontaneously it generated, perhaps by some process that resembles what scientists call evolution.
If Christ wasn't born of a virgin, we are wasting our time here. We probably are anyway as these conversation are fruitless.
I am making a specific claim as to how I believe evolution as defined by scientific naturalists is untenable based upon scripture.
What you are pontificating I have no idea.

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

Why? So you can't believe in spontaneous generation but you believe a female generated a fertilized egg without a male.

Random is the keyword? So if the spontaneous generation of non-living matter into living matter is the foundation upon which evolution originates, then lack of sequential order or unexpected occurences would be consistent with what would be expected in the nature of evolution whereas a random or deviation in the logical order would actually be more like a female generating a fertilized egg without a male which contradicts the timeless and unchanging nature of an eternal God who had established and ordered the male and female to be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth. And the argument that the fertilized egg was not a random, but the intentional act of her heavenly Father and not her husband really doesn't reflect very well on the Trinitarian Christian doctrine. So if you can shade your beliefs to the color that you like, then why can't they who believe in evolution. As far myself, my opinion is that they both are rose colored glasses, just like the ones I wear.

I believe in spontaneous generation. God said it and spontaneously it generated, perhaps by some process that resembles what scientists call evolution.
If Christ wasn't born of a virgin, we are wasting our time here. We probably are anyway as these conversation are fruitless.
I am making a specific claim as to how I believe evolution as defined by scientific naturalists is untenable based upon scripture.
What you are pontificating I have no idea.

 

[KingJ]

Quick question, is incest a sin?

I believe incest is a sin only because of what happens when you mate with your siblings :lol:. Was it unacceptable before Moses made the law? I am not sure. Perhaps. I would think that after a while that we crave to be with girls from other families over our sisters that we grew up with.

Back in the day when Adam's genes were strong.God also ensured that Noah and his sons was just sufficient diversity.

If there were other humans with Adam, I would expect us all to be living 900 or so years and not 70.

 

[KingJ]

So Cain married a soulless animal?
A monkey perhaps?
Could it speak?
Did the children have souls?
Half of them?
God created an Earth that was in chaos for billions of years?
It was the home of intelligent life?
Death reigned upon it for no apparent reason?
Then, 6,000 years ago God finally got around to paying attention?
Is this your story and you're sticking to it?

lol

 

[KingJ]

1. Right...your decision on whether to trust a site isn't based on accuracy or truthfulness, but rather is based on whether they share with your beliefs. IOW, tribalism, just as I described.


2. Um, no...the outrageous dishonesty behind how some creationists edit and misrepresent the words of scientists is well documented. it's one of the main reasons I've seen people cite for concluding that creationists aren't trustworthy.

1. It is. Sites that respect scripture are trustworthy.
2. It works both ways obviously. But with evolution there are not any facts to stand on. So I would expect the obvious. Much like .....Hitler with the Jews in WW2 and the eagerness to qoute Godwins law.

 

[KingJ]

Did you say things like this to your mom?

You are nothing more then a brain dead evolution poster girl.

I need only listen to ungodly atheists at work to hear and understand your latest belief

blah blah blah, you are a joke

At my church you wouldn't be allowed to open your mouth

You believe like an atheist, call yourself a Christian and have no respect for any scripture.

Why can't you just believe in one less god. You are atheistic of untold thousands of deities. Why not one more.

Zip your trap and stop trying to stumble fellow Christians.

That's been your purpose since you've joined this board. To discredit the Word. Sounding like an atheist in disguise.

Sit down, be quiet and learn from the elders.

Since y'all been on this forum all it look like y'all been doing is trying to debunk Genesis. You know Genesis and Revelation are the two books Satan attacks the most.

If anyone here interrogated you they will find you reject 99% of scripture. You may as well read from toilet paper.

No? Well, those are just a sampling of the things that have been posted to me here.

A trip down memory lane . As WW said, it has been give and take. That toilet paper line ^_^. I recall telling you something like this with it, which kind of ties in with the thread.... 'Scripture was Jesus's last words to the devil. The devil knew to stop talking and leave. We need to learn to do the same'.

10 Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’[e]”
11 Then the devil left him, and angels came and attended him.

'God of the universe' chose to quote scripture to counter the devils lies. Yet scripture is not good enough for some extremely wise... humans...

 

[Forsakenone]

I believe in spontaneous generation. God said it and spontaneously it generated, perhaps by some process that resembles what scientists call evolution.

Now I thought Jesus was the Word and God was the Spirit? it is written that in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. Now I don't deny that, it is written that in the beginning the Gods created the heaven and the Earth. As it is written, and the Gods said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. Are you a talking spirit?

If Christ wasn't born of a virgin, we are wasting our time here. We probably are anyway as these conversation are fruitless.

If Christ was born it doesn't make a difference because anything which has a beginning isn't eternal anyway.

The principle of eternal is very simple. It has no beginning of existence. It has no end of existence. Neither does the eternal change in nature or form. It always was, it is, and shall always be. As the written word teaches us in John 5:39, Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. Which one came first, the written Word or the spoken Word? But did the Word come from the flesh or the Spirit? And If I say neither would that mean that there mean there is no light in me?

m making a specific claim as to how I believe evolution as defined by scientific naturalists is untenable based upon scripture. What you are pontificating I have no idea.

Now I could respond by saying that it is obvious that you don't have a clue, but I would rather reason together because I have nothing to prove to anyone, but since you do then I believe you have.

 

[Wormwood]

That's merely an unsubstantiated accusation. Unless you can show where I've said things similar to what's been said to me, you're just accusing me of something you have no evidence for.

Well, I know what I read. I'm not interested in turning this discussion in to how mean everyone has been to each other. Its sad, but I guess if you don't want to take my comments as an opportunity for self-reflection, fine. I'm not going to do it for you.

What's the difference between AiG saying "any data that conflicts with our interpretation of scripture is automatically wrong" and flat earthers doing the same?

So are you suggesting that people should just throw out their Bibles if they feel scientists have made a discovery that may conflict with the Scriptures? I mean, it seems clear to me (although again, I don't know AIG) that many Christians seek to explain how both can be true and that there are explanations that coincide with scientific discovery and the biblical narrative. It seems you do not want to afford people this luxury. I see nothing wrong with standing on the Scriptures as the foundation of truth and giving the Bible the benefit of the doubt when things appear to look like they don't like up exactly. Naturalists do this all the time in scientific discovery, I don't know why Christians cannot be allowed to do the same without being pegged as "anti-science."

How convenient of you to define "science" in such a way that things like the age of the universe and earth, and the history of life are outside of it. So do you think "science" only includes events that are directly witnessed?

This is nonsense. Once again you are failing to see a very basic difference here. You believe in a resurrection, but resurrections are outside of the scientific realm. Yet, you claim you can be scientific and still hold to the idea that a miraculous event happened in the past. Why is this so different with creation? Could God have created the universe in a mature state? Could their be possible other explanations or catastrophes that give things the appearance of age? Not to mention the fact that many Christians embrace an old earth, but still do not embrace Darwinism. I just find it curious that when it comes to the biblical narrative of the resurrection you have no issues embracing the idea of the miraculous, but when it comes to creation of the world and living organisms you can allow no such possibility. I mean, that's fine if you can reconcile the biblical narrative of sin, death and the need of a savior with theistic evolution. Many cannot. Yet you want to claim they are anti-science because some want to hold to the idea of the miraculous and that there may be supernatural explanations for such findings rather than merely natural ones? Why cant you just appreciate someone's commitment to the Scriptures and disagree quietly with them on the science rather than brow-beating them over an inconsequential issue?

Please explain how Darwinian evolution lies outside of science.

Darwinian evolution is a "theory" that is based on a naturalistic explanation of scientific data. Many feel Darwinian evolution is the best theory and explanation for the data at hand. However, not all do. Some see large inconsistencies in the theory and feel there must be a different explanation. Now, you can argue that another person's theory doesn't match the data as well. But claiming that the denial of Darwinism is a denial of science is wrong-headed. I don't know how I can simplify this anymore. Its like you want to say: "If you accept creationism, you deny the science of geology and archeology." Yet, at the same time you don't want to say, "If you accept the historical resurrection of the dead, you deny the science of biology." Which is it? Giving a different narrative to the same facts is not denying the facts! You may disagree that the alternative narrative matches the facts, but again, its not the same as denying the facts!

Sorry, but your imaginary interactions with imaginary people don't trump what's been posted here by actual real people.

Well, considering I have been asking people these questions in church for about 15 years, I don't think my views are imaginary. But, you are entitled to your opinion.

You were pining for the good ol' days when racism, misogyny, bigotry, and the like were institutionalized into our society and oftentimes justified by appealing to scripture

Yeah, that's not exactly how the conversation went.

 

[River Jordan]

According to Trinitarian doctrine Jesus Christ is the eternal Son. He was the lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Eternal?
From the foundation?
In the beginning was the word?
These all allude to attributes that require design.
They could not happen on their own because they happened before the world began.

Right...that all happened before there was even any biological life that could evolve.

Mutations are random.
Random mutations are selected, according to atheistic theory, and this selection drives evolution.

Why the need for "atheistic theory"? Random mutations and selection are things we see with our own eyes every day. Why do you want to assign observed reality to atheism? Doesn't that therefore mean theism, including Christianity, must deny this reality?

If there is s goal, then by definition it's not random.
Dawkins says the watch maker is blind.

Why are you arguing against atheism, when no one here is an atheist?

We could all get along much better if some would just accept design implications. If we only had to argue about the nuances of time for example.
However, you will not budge on anything that has to do with design. You give God no credit, even though He constantly claims it for Hinself. It's stiff necked and puffed up before Him.

Sorry, but you're still not making the slightest bit of sense with this line of argument.

I believe in spontaneous generation. God said it and spontaneously it generated, perhaps by some process that resembles what scientists call evolution.

Then we agree, which makes everything you said above even more strange.

 

[River Jordan]

1. It is. Sites that respect scripture are trustworthy.

That's what I thought.

It works both ways obviously. But with evolution there are not any facts to stand on.

Sure there are, as I've posted here so many times. But then, if your standard of what is and isn't good evidence is based on "does the person presenting it agree with me", your denial of reality makes sense.

 

[River Jordan]

Well, I know what I read. I'm not interested in turning this discussion in to how mean everyone has been to each other.

I'm not surprised, since I actually backed up what I said, whereas you just accused me of things without backing it up at all. Do you do this sort of thing very often?

"You're guilty of this bad thing."

"Where?"

"I'm not interested."

So are you suggesting that people should just throw out their Bibles if they feel scientists have made a discovery that may conflict with the Scriptures?

????????? Where in the world did I say anything like that at all? :wacko:

I mean, it seems clear to me (although again, I don't know AIG) that many Christians seek to explain how both can be true and that there are explanations that coincide with scientific discovery and the biblical narrative. It seems you do not want to afford people this luxury. I see nothing wrong with standing on the Scriptures as the foundation of truth and giving the Bible the benefit of the doubt when things appear to look like they don't like up exactly. Naturalists do this all the time in scientific discovery, I don't know why Christians cannot be allowed to do the same without being pegged as "anti-science."

You didn't answer the question. Again: What's the difference between AiG saying "any data that conflicts with our interpretation of scripture is automatically wrong" and flat earthers doing the same?

This is nonsense. Once again you are failing to see a very basic difference here. You believe in a resurrection, but resurrections are outside of the scientific realm. Yet, you claim you can be scientific and still hold to the idea that a miraculous event happened in the past. Why is this so different with creation?

Because when it comes to things like the age of the universe and earth, and the evolutionary history of life, we have over a century of extremely solid science that consistently points to very obvious and clear answers. OTOH, when it comes to the resurrection of Christ, we have nothing of the sort. Those are entirely different situations.

Could God have created the universe in a mature state? Could their be possible other explanations or catastrophes that give things the appearance of age? Not to mention the fact that many Christians embrace an old earth, but still do not embrace Darwinism.

Yes, and God could have created everything 30 seconds ago too. Or....here's a thought....everything looks just the way God created it.

I mean, that's fine if you can reconcile the biblical narrative of sin, death and the need of a savior with theistic evolution. Many cannot. Yet you want to claim they are anti-science because some want to hold to the idea of the miraculous and that there may be supernatural explanations for such findings rather than merely natural ones?

Oh my goodness...how many times do I have to repeat myself? Remember the difference between "I believe in a young earth because that's how I read scripture" and "I believe in a young earth because that's how I read scripture, and no one should ever listen to those Satanic, evil scientists with their atheistic anti-God agenda"? Funny how you keep accusing me of not reading your posts, yet here I've had to repeat this basic concept to you at least 3 times now!

Oh, and once again you didn't answer the question: Do you think "science" only includes events that are directly witnessed?

Why cant you just appreciate someone's commitment to the Scriptures and disagree quietly with them on the science rather than brow-beating them over an inconsequential issue?

Again your version of reality seems rather skewed. I'm brow beating? Then what do you call all the things that have been said to me here, and all the terrible stuff that's been posted here about science and scientists? Do I need to pull up more quotes?

Darwinian evolution is a "theory" that is based on a naturalistic explanation of scientific data. Many feel Darwinian evolution is the best theory and explanation for the data at hand. However, not all do. Some see large inconsistencies in the theory and feel there must be a different explanation.

So? There's people (some have posted in this forum) who think a moving earth that orbits the sun is a flawed theory. Are you saying that if there isn't 100% universal acceptance of an explanation, then that explanation isn't science?

Now, you can argue that another person's theory doesn't match the data as well. But claiming that the denial of Darwinism is a denial of science is wrong-headed. I don't know how I can simplify this anymore. Its like you want to say: "If you accept creationism, you deny the science of geology and archeology." Yet, at the same time you don't want to say, "If you accept the historical resurrection of the dead, you deny the science of biology." Which is it? Giving a different narrative to the same facts is not denying the facts! You may disagree that the alternative narrative matches the facts, but again, its not the same as denying the facts!

First, you're still making the same error as above. Second, once again you didn't answer the question: How does Darwinian evolution lie outside of science?

Well, considering I have been asking people these questions in church for about 15 years, I don't think my views are imaginary. But, you are entitled to your opinion.

You've systematically taking statistical samples of Christians and young people who have left the church?

 

[aspen]

IMO creationists can choose to believe what they want, but I will never agree that creationism is science. I will never agree that belief in creationism is necessary for Christianity. I will never agree that God planted evidence of an Old Earth to shame the intellectually curious and exalt those who want security at all costs.

However, I am not an apologist for evolution. I am not a scientist, but I can recognize what it is. Evolution is a theory - the best theory science has to work with - it will either continue to be supported by more and more evidence or it will be thrown out - no need for Christians to run around ringing the persecution bell.

I am starting to think this topic needs a break on this board, sort of like gay marriage

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

River,

Unless you have changed your opinion, and maybe you have, we still do not agree. You have repeatedly argued against those who "do science" with design implications as their supposition. Meyer, Behe, Wells and others for example.

Your criticism of Behe has always been strange in my opinion because as one who advocates common descent he is not exactly a hero to fundamentalists.

So when did you change your mind about design? Who will get the credit for winning you over? I hope to get some. Stan, King J and Wormwood should also get a certificate. I don't want all the credit.