My only question Lunar is why do we have to believe a man when there is No biblical evidence in scripture and more important It is not necessary when God has told us exactly what happened? If there was no other explanation then we could look more to men with an possible idea we might consider. But we are told what the truth is so why should we take a mans explanation over Gods??One of my hobbies is geology I know perfectly well how old rocks are what it takes to make a diamond ect. If I didnt thoroughly believe the bible explained this in a way that makes sense scientifically I would be the first to say hey that can not be. Just like I know the earth can not be just 6000 years old as the Jews and many Christians say it is scientifically impossible. However that's not what the Word says
Creation vs. Evolution Apologetics
- Thread starter Codegrazer
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
- Status
(kriss;25733)
I cant ask for more than that BT and believe it or not I do read your posts
I'll take you at your word, and be content to await your feedback on what I posted. :cool
Lunar;25734)
thesuperjag:I think the point that BT has been trying to make is that he thinks that evolution is in perfect accordance with the Word of God. Of course, evolution was originally proposed by a man, but there are lots of ideas that were proposed by men that aren't found in the original Bible that are perfectly fine, right? The dichotomy between man and the Word of God seems to be a false one.So, it's sort of begging the question, in this particular debate, to simply paint one's opponent as adopting the "word of men." There are plenty of instances in which the word of men can be harmonious with the word of God (like when one formulates a sound argument based on the Bible, or when one says things that are true). The "word of men" that I think you fear are ideas that presented by men that have no consistency with Christian theology, and that's fine - certainly you don't want to adopt views that aren't consistent with your faith. But the very essence of the argument that BT is trying to make is whether evolution is one of those things, or whether it is consistent with the word of God.So simply claiming that one is founded in the word of God and the other in the words of men doesn't prove very much. It's a circular argument, and it seems pejorative to me.
Couldn't have said it better myself.See, Superjag, and Wakka, and others reading this. I am proposing to you the idea that Evolution is in perfect accord with a sound understanding of the Scriptures. Nobody, as of yet, has asked me how I see these things as complimentary rather than contradictory. There is, as I pointed out, an assumption among many that to accept evolution and believe in Christianity, is to have a half-assed approach. This is what I am contesting. I think God is the God of Truth, and I think that the theory of evolution made me look into Genesis more critically, for which I thank God. I now have found, at least in my opinion, what is true.One way or another though, this argument isn't simply about doctrines. We can disagree about doctrines. However, this is really a battle between paradigms. I cannot accept the reinforcement of the false dichotomy which places faith on the one side, and critical skepticism on the other. I came to faith through skepticism and searching for the Truth, so I think that contrasting those two things is quite wrong.I believe we should all be open to consider all things, including questioning our faith. I believe that we should put our lives in the hands of God, and pray for his guidance, all while allowing ourselves the liberty of seeking actively to find objective truths, that we might not be led astray by the subjective.I am also asking for each of you to recognize at least that, in this case, evolution is a proved theory, beyond any reasonable doubt. I have provided the evidences people have asked me for, such as sites with entire indexes of "missing links" or what are called, intermediary fossils. I provided a video with Ken Miller, who was on stand at the Dover Trial, and is at least a theist, raised Roman Catholic {point being, not anti-faith or anti-Christian by any means}, where he deals with this extensively and eloquently.So, here, the two issues in my eyes are first, the false paradigm which Christians have, stunting their ability to critically consider freely, without fear, and secondly, the recognition of what evolution actually is, and how well it is actually attested to {beyond reasonable doubt}. In reality, though I won't say I don't care what people think about what Genesis means, it would be a lovely discussion to have indeed, and a great Bible study.. but it only has relevance here, in that the traditional evangelical understanding of Genesis leads people to blind themselves to the Truth which has become clear as day.In Hope,~Tyrel
I cant ask for more than that BT and believe it or not I do read your posts
I'll take you at your word, and be content to await your feedback on what I posted. :cool
Lunar;25734)thesuperjag:I think the point that BT has been trying to make is that he thinks that evolution is in perfect accordance with the Word of God. Of course, evolution was originally proposed by a man, but there are lots of ideas that were proposed by men that aren't found in the original Bible that are perfectly fine, right? The dichotomy between man and the Word of God seems to be a false one.So, it's sort of begging the question, in this particular debate, to simply paint one's opponent as adopting the "word of men." There are plenty of instances in which the word of men can be harmonious with the word of God (like when one formulates a sound argument based on the Bible, or when one says things that are true). The "word of men" that I think you fear are ideas that presented by men that have no consistency with Christian theology, and that's fine - certainly you don't want to adopt views that aren't consistent with your faith. But the very essence of the argument that BT is trying to make is whether evolution is one of those things, or whether it is consistent with the word of God.So simply claiming that one is founded in the word of God and the other in the words of men doesn't prove very much. It's a circular argument, and it seems pejorative to me.
Couldn't have said it better myself.See, Superjag, and Wakka, and others reading this. I am proposing to you the idea that Evolution is in perfect accord with a sound understanding of the Scriptures. Nobody, as of yet, has asked me how I see these things as complimentary rather than contradictory. There is, as I pointed out, an assumption among many that to accept evolution and believe in Christianity, is to have a half-assed approach. This is what I am contesting. I think God is the God of Truth, and I think that the theory of evolution made me look into Genesis more critically, for which I thank God. I now have found, at least in my opinion, what is true.One way or another though, this argument isn't simply about doctrines. We can disagree about doctrines. However, this is really a battle between paradigms. I cannot accept the reinforcement of the false dichotomy which places faith on the one side, and critical skepticism on the other. I came to faith through skepticism and searching for the Truth, so I think that contrasting those two things is quite wrong.I believe we should all be open to consider all things, including questioning our faith. I believe that we should put our lives in the hands of God, and pray for his guidance, all while allowing ourselves the liberty of seeking actively to find objective truths, that we might not be led astray by the subjective.I am also asking for each of you to recognize at least that, in this case, evolution is a proved theory, beyond any reasonable doubt. I have provided the evidences people have asked me for, such as sites with entire indexes of "missing links" or what are called, intermediary fossils. I provided a video with Ken Miller, who was on stand at the Dover Trial, and is at least a theist, raised Roman Catholic {point being, not anti-faith or anti-Christian by any means}, where he deals with this extensively and eloquently.So, here, the two issues in my eyes are first, the false paradigm which Christians have, stunting their ability to critically consider freely, without fear, and secondly, the recognition of what evolution actually is, and how well it is actually attested to {beyond reasonable doubt}. In reality, though I won't say I don't care what people think about what Genesis means, it would be a lovely discussion to have indeed, and a great Bible study.. but it only has relevance here, in that the traditional evangelical understanding of Genesis leads people to blind themselves to the Truth which has become clear as day.In Hope,~Tyrel
(kriss;25743)
My only question Lunar is why do we have to believe a man when there is No biblical evidence in scripture and more important It is not necessary when God has told us exactly what happened? If there was no other explanation then we could look more to men with an possible idea we might consider. But we are told what the truth is so why should we take a mans explanation over Gods??One of my hobbies is geology I know perfectly well how old rocks are what it takes to make a diamond ect. If I didnt thoroughly believe the bible explained this in a way that makes sense scientifically I would be the first to say hey that can not be. Just like I know the earth can not be just 6000 years old as the Jews and many Christians say it is scientifically impossible. However that's not what the Word says
Dear Kriss,Allow me to, in a very simple manner, put a point to you, which I think is important.You yourself understand Geology. As somebody who at least understands it, you know very well that the earth is clearly not under 10,000 years old. If a certified Geologist said the contrary, but you knew enough to see through his lies, and recognize that he was being disingenuous for the sake of sustaining his particular biblical understanding, would you not simply be able to point to the objective geologists who all agree with you?What happens, then, when all the objective and serious biologists, and scientists in various fields, all tell us that it is just as undeniable that we evolved from an ape like ancestor? For example, do you realize that the evidence we gained in 2004 from completely mapping out our Genome and the Chimp's Genome, and comparing them, is absolutely solid?The only answer to the incredible and obvious similarities in the Genome, is to simply shrug and say "well, that's just the way God made it".. right, he made it to look exactly as though we came from apes.. could this argument not be applied likewise to the field of Geology? For more information on Human Chromosome #2 and the study in 2004, please see the video where Ken Miller talks about these things clearly.It is absolutely unreasonable to question one beyond reason, and ignore the evidence, all while accepting the testimony of evidence on the other account. Keep in mind I do not think, nor do most other Christians {normative as defined by me perhaps, but let's take all of the RCC, the Lutherans, the Anglicans, and various others}, that us having evolved is contradictory to the Bible.The biological evidences, even if we put aside all the evidence from the fossil record with intermediary forms, stands on it's own, and gives full credence to evolution, such that to assert the contrary is to be ignorant, or else to fail to be objective.PS - (kriss;25743)
...6000 years old as the Jews and many Christians say it is scientifically impossible. However that's not what the Word says
Funny, I have asserted much the same thing pertaining to evolution. I suppose the age of the earth doesn't stir up as much trouble as evolution, no matter how obviously scientifically determined. Oh well, I guess I'm just stuck with the harder position for people to be open to.In Hope, ~Tyrel
My only question Lunar is why do we have to believe a man when there is No biblical evidence in scripture and more important It is not necessary when God has told us exactly what happened? If there was no other explanation then we could look more to men with an possible idea we might consider. But we are told what the truth is so why should we take a mans explanation over Gods??One of my hobbies is geology I know perfectly well how old rocks are what it takes to make a diamond ect. If I didnt thoroughly believe the bible explained this in a way that makes sense scientifically I would be the first to say hey that can not be. Just like I know the earth can not be just 6000 years old as the Jews and many Christians say it is scientifically impossible. However that's not what the Word says
Dear Kriss,Allow me to, in a very simple manner, put a point to you, which I think is important.You yourself understand Geology. As somebody who at least understands it, you know very well that the earth is clearly not under 10,000 years old. If a certified Geologist said the contrary, but you knew enough to see through his lies, and recognize that he was being disingenuous for the sake of sustaining his particular biblical understanding, would you not simply be able to point to the objective geologists who all agree with you?What happens, then, when all the objective and serious biologists, and scientists in various fields, all tell us that it is just as undeniable that we evolved from an ape like ancestor? For example, do you realize that the evidence we gained in 2004 from completely mapping out our Genome and the Chimp's Genome, and comparing them, is absolutely solid?The only answer to the incredible and obvious similarities in the Genome, is to simply shrug and say "well, that's just the way God made it".. right, he made it to look exactly as though we came from apes.. could this argument not be applied likewise to the field of Geology? For more information on Human Chromosome #2 and the study in 2004, please see the video where Ken Miller talks about these things clearly.It is absolutely unreasonable to question one beyond reason, and ignore the evidence, all while accepting the testimony of evidence on the other account. Keep in mind I do not think, nor do most other Christians {normative as defined by me perhaps, but let's take all of the RCC, the Lutherans, the Anglicans, and various others}, that us having evolved is contradictory to the Bible.The biological evidences, even if we put aside all the evidence from the fossil record with intermediary forms, stands on it's own, and gives full credence to evolution, such that to assert the contrary is to be ignorant, or else to fail to be objective.PS - (kriss;25743)
...6000 years old as the Jews and many Christians say it is scientifically impossible. However that's not what the Word says
Funny, I have asserted much the same thing pertaining to evolution. I suppose the age of the earth doesn't stir up as much trouble as evolution, no matter how obviously scientifically determined. Oh well, I guess I'm just stuck with the harder position for people to be open to.In Hope, ~Tyrel
I know you may find this hard to believe but I am a very logical scientific minded type person I would have to say I dont believe this guy I have heard alot about this genome gene studies everything I have ever heard is there is no human ape connection we are similar true I would never accept one mans word for anything. My knowledge is they have never found the missing link either genetically or skeletal I would question this guys research.before I would question God
(Biblical Tetragramaton;25722)
Thank you kindly.Wakka, though Lunar is absolutely correct, I can repeat what I have shared before. I am a Cegep Student.. something you might not know about if you don't live in Quebec, as there is no equivalent anywhere else. However, you can consider me on my way to University, in Theology.I've given you now my background in faith, and background in education, at least a little bit.However, Lunar is correct. It doesn't matter if you're Michael Behe, or if you're actually a bum off of the streets. Your arguments are what are supposed to stand or fall on their own. Once again, thanks Lunar.
I just wanted to know who I was dealing with. So you're a theological student, are you studying Hebrew and Greek?I would like to take some text out of a very popular Christian novel. I'm sure you have read it
."The man that met thee is one Worldly Wiseman; and rightly is he so called; partly because he favoureth only the doctrine of this world (therefore he always goes to the town of Morality to church); and partly because he loveth that doctrine best, for it saveth him best from the cross: and because he is of this carnal temper, therefore he seeketh to pervert my ways, though right. Now there are three things in this man's counsel that thou must utterly abhor.[list type=decimal][*]His turning thee out of the way[*]His labouring to render the cross odious to thee.[*]And his setting thy feet in that way that leadeth unto the administration of death.[/list]First, Thou must abhor his turning thee out of the way; yea, and thine own consenting thereto; because this is to reject the counsel of God for the sake of the counsel of a Worldly Wiseman."Gold star to the person who can cite where this text is from
.
Thank you kindly.Wakka, though Lunar is absolutely correct, I can repeat what I have shared before. I am a Cegep Student.. something you might not know about if you don't live in Quebec, as there is no equivalent anywhere else. However, you can consider me on my way to University, in Theology.I've given you now my background in faith, and background in education, at least a little bit.However, Lunar is correct. It doesn't matter if you're Michael Behe, or if you're actually a bum off of the streets. Your arguments are what are supposed to stand or fall on their own. Once again, thanks Lunar.
I just wanted to know who I was dealing with. So you're a theological student, are you studying Hebrew and Greek?I would like to take some text out of a very popular Christian novel. I'm sure you have read it
(kriss;25757)
I know you may find this hard to believe but I am a very logical scientific minded type person I would have to say I dont believe this guy I have heard alot about this genome gene studies everything I have ever heard is there is no human ape connection we are similar true I would never accept one mans word for anything. My knowledge is they have never found the missing link either genetically or skeletal I would question this guys research.before I would question God
If I may,The study was published thoroughly in "Nature", in 2004, and is corroborated by all scientists. Ken Miller, among these scientists, is not one of the ones who "made this up" or "made this discovery". Far from it. Thus, this research isn't his, it's simply that he is presenting it. It has been peer reviewed and is accepted throughout the scientific community.I would be a tad more careful when dealing with sources I am confident enough to bring up.
In Hope,~Tyrel
I know you may find this hard to believe but I am a very logical scientific minded type person I would have to say I dont believe this guy I have heard alot about this genome gene studies everything I have ever heard is there is no human ape connection we are similar true I would never accept one mans word for anything. My knowledge is they have never found the missing link either genetically or skeletal I would question this guys research.before I would question God
If I may,The study was published thoroughly in "Nature", in 2004, and is corroborated by all scientists. Ken Miller, among these scientists, is not one of the ones who "made this up" or "made this discovery". Far from it. Thus, this research isn't his, it's simply that he is presenting it. It has been peer reviewed and is accepted throughout the scientific community.I would be a tad more careful when dealing with sources I am confident enough to bring up.
(Wakka;25763)
I just wanted to know who I was dealing with. So you're a theological student, are you studying Hebrew and Greek?I would like to take some text out of a very popular Christian novel. I'm sure you have read it
."The man that met thee is one Worldly Wiseman; and rightly is he so called; partly because he favoureth only the doctrine of this world (therefore he always goes to the town of Morality to church); and partly because he loveth that doctrine best, for it saveth him best from the cross: and because he is of this carnal temper, therefore he seeketh to pervert my ways, though right. Now there are three things in this man's counsel that thou must utterly abhor.[list type=decimal][*]His turning thee out of the way[*]His labouring to render the cross odious to thee.[*]And his setting thy feet in that way that leadeth unto the administration of death.[/list]First, Thou must abhor his turning thee out of the way; yea, and thine own consenting thereto; because this is to reject the counsel of God for the sake of the counsel of a Worldly Wiseman."Gold star to the person who can cite where this text is from
.
Unfortunately I can't site where that is from. Probably due to the fact that I don't read many "recent" publications, but spend most of my time in the Bible, Pseudepigrapha, Dead Sea Scrolls, Nag Hammadi, and Early Church Fathers.. I rarely read anything not directly relevant to philology actually.Unfortunately, the real study of Theology doesn't begin until you enter into university. That's the Cegep system for you
, completely ridiculous sometimes. In any case, the answer is no, I'm not officially studying those, or any other languages in school. It is very hard to learn outside of school, so for the most part, I use common sense, cross referencing, and the like, to understand how a language basically works. If I have to, I'll go back to a scholar who knows the language. Generally though, I consider that a bit excessive.As far as knowing who you're dealing with.. hmm.. no simple answer. Without giving my whole life story, I think I've provided you with enough information throughout this thread for you to sort of imagine who and what I am.I won't ask about you. This is not because I don't care, but because first, I am a firm believer in the anonymity of Forums, and I feel that despite who you are, I should address your arguments as though I have no idea who you are. Though I think I can do this whether I know you or not, I don't particularly feel that your life story is required. If you wish to share it, by all means, I'll be more than happy to read through it. However, for myself, I prefer to stand not by credentials or background, but by my arguments. If I had my degree, I don't think that would greatly change. I don't think my credentials will ever be good enough for some, and I don't think my background will ever be genuine enough for some. I choose to stand by my words. Also, in the spirit of curiosity, let me share something with you from Christian Tradition, see if you can name the Father who said this;"First, the truth of scripture must be held inviolable. Secondly, when there are different ways of explaining a scriptural text, no particular explanation should be held so rigidly that if convincing arguments show it to be false anyone dare to insist that it is still a definitive sense of the text. Otherwise unbelievers will scorn Sacred Scripture, and the way of faith will be closed to them"~Tyrel
I just wanted to know who I was dealing with. So you're a theological student, are you studying Hebrew and Greek?I would like to take some text out of a very popular Christian novel. I'm sure you have read it
Unfortunately I can't site where that is from. Probably due to the fact that I don't read many "recent" publications, but spend most of my time in the Bible, Pseudepigrapha, Dead Sea Scrolls, Nag Hammadi, and Early Church Fathers.. I rarely read anything not directly relevant to philology actually.Unfortunately, the real study of Theology doesn't begin until you enter into university. That's the Cegep system for you
Unfortunately I can't site where that is from. Probably due to the fact that I don't read many "recent" publications, but spend most of my time in the Bible, Pseudepigrapha, Dead Sea Scrolls, Nag Hammadi, and Early Church Fathers.. I rarely read anything not directly relevant to philology actually.
Well, that's too bad. It's from The Pilgrim's Progress by John Bunyan. It was published in 1688, far from today's novels. You should read it.
Unfortunately, the real study of Theology doesn't begin until you enter into university. That's the Cegep system for you , completely ridiculous sometimes. In any case, the answer is no, I'm not officially studying those, or any other languages in school. It is very hard to learn outside of school, so for the most part, I use common sense, cross referencing, and the like, to understand how a language basically works. If I have to, I'll go back to a scholar who knows the language. Generally though, I consider that a bit excessive.As far as knowing who you're dealing with.. hmm.. no simple answer. Without giving my whole life story, I think I've provided you with enough information throughout this thread for you to sort of imagine who and what I am.I won't ask about you. This is not because I don't care, but because first, I am a firm believer in the anonymity of Forums, and I feel that despite who you are, I should address your arguments as though I have no idea who you are. Though I think I can do this whether I know you or not, I don't particularly feel that your life story is required. If you wish to share it, by all means, I'll be more than happy to read through it. However, for myself, I prefer to stand not by credentials or background, but by my arguments. If I had my degree, I don't think that would greatly change. I don't think my credentials will ever be good enough for some, and I don't think my background will ever be genuine enough for some.I choose to stand by my words.Also, in the spirit of curiosity, let me share something with you from Christian Tradition, see if you can name the Father who said this;"First, the truth of scripture must be held inviolable. Secondly, when there are different ways of explaining a scriptural text, no particular explanation should be held so rigidly that if convincing arguments show it to be false anyone dare to insist that it is still a definitive sense of the text. Otherwise unbelievers will scorn Sacred Scripture, and the way of faith will be closed to them"~Tyrel
So, Biblical Tetragramation, do you take pride in your education? You realize that a person can have the same education through outside sources. God can reveal onto a man wisdom through fear. In fact, many pastors that were raised up in the Soviet Union (they were suppressed in the Communist country for obvious reasons) taught with nothing more than a Bible. May I tell you that the Lord raised up some fine pastors, friend. Theological schools and even biblical study tools were unavailable.It seams to me that some of the most righteous people are from poor countries that really don't have an agenda for Christ. Some of the best men of God are indigenous pastors that risk their lives to spread the Gospel and plant churches. While other people worry about how they can take the latest bit of worldly wisdom and mesh it into Christianity somehow. Beware BT, don't let pride get to you.(edited due to grammatical errors)
Well, that's too bad. It's from The Pilgrim's Progress by John Bunyan. It was published in 1688, far from today's novels. You should read it.
Unfortunately, the real study of Theology doesn't begin until you enter into university. That's the Cegep system for you , completely ridiculous sometimes. In any case, the answer is no, I'm not officially studying those, or any other languages in school. It is very hard to learn outside of school, so for the most part, I use common sense, cross referencing, and the like, to understand how a language basically works. If I have to, I'll go back to a scholar who knows the language. Generally though, I consider that a bit excessive.As far as knowing who you're dealing with.. hmm.. no simple answer. Without giving my whole life story, I think I've provided you with enough information throughout this thread for you to sort of imagine who and what I am.I won't ask about you. This is not because I don't care, but because first, I am a firm believer in the anonymity of Forums, and I feel that despite who you are, I should address your arguments as though I have no idea who you are. Though I think I can do this whether I know you or not, I don't particularly feel that your life story is required. If you wish to share it, by all means, I'll be more than happy to read through it. However, for myself, I prefer to stand not by credentials or background, but by my arguments. If I had my degree, I don't think that would greatly change. I don't think my credentials will ever be good enough for some, and I don't think my background will ever be genuine enough for some.I choose to stand by my words.Also, in the spirit of curiosity, let me share something with you from Christian Tradition, see if you can name the Father who said this;"First, the truth of scripture must be held inviolable. Secondly, when there are different ways of explaining a scriptural text, no particular explanation should be held so rigidly that if convincing arguments show it to be false anyone dare to insist that it is still a definitive sense of the text. Otherwise unbelievers will scorn Sacred Scripture, and the way of faith will be closed to them"~Tyrel
So, Biblical Tetragramation, do you take pride in your education? You realize that a person can have the same education through outside sources. God can reveal onto a man wisdom through fear. In fact, many pastors that were raised up in the Soviet Union (they were suppressed in the Communist country for obvious reasons) taught with nothing more than a Bible. May I tell you that the Lord raised up some fine pastors, friend. Theological schools and even biblical study tools were unavailable.It seams to me that some of the most righteous people are from poor countries that really don't have an agenda for Christ. Some of the best men of God are indigenous pastors that risk their lives to spread the Gospel and plant churches. While other people worry about how they can take the latest bit of worldly wisdom and mesh it into Christianity somehow. Beware BT, don't let pride get to you.(edited due to grammatical errors)
Biblical Tetragramaton, you still have not given your best evidence for evolution yet. In fact I have seen none. By evolution, do you mean cosmic evolution, stellar evolution, macro-evolution etc....?I don't think it would be wise to worship a God that had to use misfits and suffering to get it right.
(Wakka;25778)
Well, that's too bad. It's from The Pilgrim's Progress by John Bunyan. It was published in 1688, far from today's novels. You should read it.So, Biblical Tetragramation, do you take pride in your education? You realize that a person can have the same education through outside sources. God can reveal onto a man wisdom through fear. In fact, many pastors that were raised up in the Soviet Union (they were suppressed in the Communist country for obvious reasons) taught with nothing more than a Bible. May I tell you that the Lord raised up some fine pastors, friend. Theological schools and even biblical study tools were unavailable.It seams to me that some of the most righteous people are from poor countries that really don't have an agenda for Christ. Some of the best men of God are indigenous pastors that risk their lives to spread the Gospel and plant churches. While other people worry about how they can take the latest bit of worldly wisdom and mesh it into Christianity somehow. Beware BT, don't let pride get to you.(edited due to grammatical errors)
Thank you kindly for the warning, but I am more than well aware.
Take special note though, not ever to mix knowledge with righteousness. They are not in any way mutually exclusive, but compliment each other. However, I have not claimed anything on the grounds of righteousness. I have made claims on the grounds of knowledge. Am I proud of how far God has brought me? Yes, I am. I hope I continue to grow and come to a greater understanding of Truth. I hope this for you as well.Oh, the the Church Father? St. Thomas Aquinas. :cooleternalarcadia;25785)
Biblical Tetragramaton, you still have not given your best evidence for evolution yet. In fact I have seen none. By evolution, do you mean cosmic evolution, stellar evolution, macro-evolution etc....?I don't think it would be wise to worship a God that had to use misfits and suffering to get it right.
Would it be wiser, then, to worship a God who created a world with Natural Evil, unfairness, and suffering? I think when you refer to the process of evolution here, you exemplify a slight misunderstanding of what it is. I think you also fail to understand that, given the abundant and definitive evidence, if evolution is not true, God is ultimately made the greatest author of confusion.However, I'll be clear and concise with you. I was speaking about biological evolution, or what you might call macro-evolution. Evolution of organisms and species.My evidence, eternalarcadia, is provided in the list of intermediary fossils available at www.talkorigins.org, along with various other points on the site. I also provided an extensive video covering this issue fairly well. Please, explain to me how the argument from irreducible complexity has intellectually genuine grounds left to stand on? Please, tell me how the Genome, in light of the discovering pertaining to human Chromosome #2, might possibly be explained otherwise? Please, explain the intermediary fossils between land creatures and whales. These, of course, cannot be addressed until you've watched the video. However, I'm sure you have already done that. Please, give me your thoughts. Give me some feedback. What reasons do you have to back up an alternate hypothesis? What about my provided evidences was insufficient?In Hope,~Tyrel
Well, that's too bad. It's from The Pilgrim's Progress by John Bunyan. It was published in 1688, far from today's novels. You should read it.So, Biblical Tetragramation, do you take pride in your education? You realize that a person can have the same education through outside sources. God can reveal onto a man wisdom through fear. In fact, many pastors that were raised up in the Soviet Union (they were suppressed in the Communist country for obvious reasons) taught with nothing more than a Bible. May I tell you that the Lord raised up some fine pastors, friend. Theological schools and even biblical study tools were unavailable.It seams to me that some of the most righteous people are from poor countries that really don't have an agenda for Christ. Some of the best men of God are indigenous pastors that risk their lives to spread the Gospel and plant churches. While other people worry about how they can take the latest bit of worldly wisdom and mesh it into Christianity somehow. Beware BT, don't let pride get to you.(edited due to grammatical errors)
Thank you kindly for the warning, but I am more than well aware.
eternalarcadia;25785)Biblical Tetragramaton, you still have not given your best evidence for evolution yet. In fact I have seen none. By evolution, do you mean cosmic evolution, stellar evolution, macro-evolution etc....?I don't think it would be wise to worship a God that had to use misfits and suffering to get it right.
Would it be wiser, then, to worship a God who created a world with Natural Evil, unfairness, and suffering? I think when you refer to the process of evolution here, you exemplify a slight misunderstanding of what it is. I think you also fail to understand that, given the abundant and definitive evidence, if evolution is not true, God is ultimately made the greatest author of confusion.However, I'll be clear and concise with you. I was speaking about biological evolution, or what you might call macro-evolution. Evolution of organisms and species.My evidence, eternalarcadia, is provided in the list of intermediary fossils available at www.talkorigins.org, along with various other points on the site. I also provided an extensive video covering this issue fairly well. Please, explain to me how the argument from irreducible complexity has intellectually genuine grounds left to stand on? Please, tell me how the Genome, in light of the discovering pertaining to human Chromosome #2, might possibly be explained otherwise? Please, explain the intermediary fossils between land creatures and whales. These, of course, cannot be addressed until you've watched the video. However, I'm sure you have already done that. Please, give me your thoughts. Give me some feedback. What reasons do you have to back up an alternate hypothesis? What about my provided evidences was insufficient?In Hope,~Tyrel
(Wakka;25778)
... While other people worry about how they can take the latest bit of worldly wisdom and mesh it into Christianity somehow.
ahh. Was this aimed at me perchance?
My my. Well, I didn't catch that the first time around. Probably because that's really not what I'm doing at all. In fact, I was about to throw the bible and my faith away, until I reexamined Genesis more closely, and was given better tools to do so with. As I said before, it was not only on the basis of the inevitable scientific conclusions, but also on the basis of Theology. Suddenly, all those small problems I had with Genesis previously, when I was an ardent Creationist and understood Genesis literally, vanished completely. It was like the wool had been taken away from my eyes, and I could all of a sudden see with clarity, and look with insight into the Word. I believe myself to understand Genesis properly. I open it up to challenge of course, but first thing is first.Being open minded, and extremely critical and skeptical.In Hope,~Tyrel
... While other people worry about how they can take the latest bit of worldly wisdom and mesh it into Christianity somehow.
ahh. Was this aimed at me perchance?
(kriss;25718)
See this proves my point exactly Men over God this statement: {quote} Evolution is very much true and is observed and verified scientifically{quote}this is an out right lie evolution is a theroy is has never been proved that is why its called offically THE THEROY OF EVOLUTION a theroy is a idea that has no hard facts to back it up.Now if you chose to believe it fine but call it what it is a theroy not fact never proven
A scientific theory is different from what "a theory" is. A scientific theory IS based on hard facts, which Evolution is. Evolution IS truth. It is part and parcel of God's design. It is OFFICIALLY called the SCIENTIFIC THEORY of Evolution. In otherwords, it is a fact. It HAPPENED. On the otherhand, literal creationism is not a fact, nor is it even a scientific theory. It has not been proven, and in fact there is much evidence out there to prove that the literal Genesis did not happen. Which again shows that Genesis is meant to ONLY be taken symbolically.
See this proves my point exactly Men over God this statement: {quote} Evolution is very much true and is observed and verified scientifically{quote}this is an out right lie evolution is a theroy is has never been proved that is why its called offically THE THEROY OF EVOLUTION a theroy is a idea that has no hard facts to back it up.Now if you chose to believe it fine but call it what it is a theroy not fact never proven
A scientific theory is different from what "a theory" is. A scientific theory IS based on hard facts, which Evolution is. Evolution IS truth. It is part and parcel of God's design. It is OFFICIALLY called the SCIENTIFIC THEORY of Evolution. In otherwords, it is a fact. It HAPPENED. On the otherhand, literal creationism is not a fact, nor is it even a scientific theory. It has not been proven, and in fact there is much evidence out there to prove that the literal Genesis did not happen. Which again shows that Genesis is meant to ONLY be taken symbolically.
So if Man and animal all originated form the same species of single celled organisms, then wouldn't that make all of the animals today subject to God's Judgment and grant them right to either go to Heaven or Hell?
(Wakka;25793)
So if Man and animal all originated form the same species of single celled organisms, then wouldn't that make all of the animals today subject to God's Judgment and grant them right to either go to Heaven or Hell?
Nope. Because Man is the only one that evolved a sense of morality, as a result of us evolving with a more powerful brain, and thus a greater capacity to understand scientific truths, historical truths, and ethical truths. Original Sin is a symbollic reference to the first homosapien who, when faced with a choice of altruism v.s. a selfish act, chose a selfish act. Perhaps it was to steal from his fellow tribesmen, or perhaps it was that he killed a fellow human, or something of the sort. But that is what Origin Sin symbolically represents. Animals, at least todate, have evolved such a powerful brain as we have. Thus, it is God's decree that only humans be faced with such moral choices. Not other animals.
So if Man and animal all originated form the same species of single celled organisms, then wouldn't that make all of the animals today subject to God's Judgment and grant them right to either go to Heaven or Hell?
Nope. Because Man is the only one that evolved a sense of morality, as a result of us evolving with a more powerful brain, and thus a greater capacity to understand scientific truths, historical truths, and ethical truths. Original Sin is a symbollic reference to the first homosapien who, when faced with a choice of altruism v.s. a selfish act, chose a selfish act. Perhaps it was to steal from his fellow tribesmen, or perhaps it was that he killed a fellow human, or something of the sort. But that is what Origin Sin symbolically represents. Animals, at least todate, have evolved such a powerful brain as we have. Thus, it is God's decree that only humans be faced with such moral choices. Not other animals.
(Dei-Gnostica;25796)
Nope. Because Man is the only one that evolved a sense of morality, as a result of us evolving with a more powerful brain, and thus a greater capacity to understand scientific truths, historical truths, and ethical truths. Original Sin is a symbollic reference to the first homosapien who, when faced with a choice of altruism v.s. a selfish act, chose a selfish act. Perhaps it was to steal from his fellow tribesmen, or perhaps it was that he killed a fellow human, or something of the sort. But that is what Origin Sin symbolically represents. Animals, at least todate, have evolved such a powerful brain as we have. Thus, it is God's decree that only humans be faced with such moral choices. Not other animals.
Explain to me why animals don't have morality. I believe that some do. Elephants freak out when they see the bones of other elephants. They become paranoid just as a human would when they see another persons skeleton.Again. I can not understand why you would believe in an idea thought up by man. There is no mention of it in the Bible.And if you're going to say "black holes aren't mentioned" then refer back to genesis where it says that God made the heavens and the earth.
Nope. Because Man is the only one that evolved a sense of morality, as a result of us evolving with a more powerful brain, and thus a greater capacity to understand scientific truths, historical truths, and ethical truths. Original Sin is a symbollic reference to the first homosapien who, when faced with a choice of altruism v.s. a selfish act, chose a selfish act. Perhaps it was to steal from his fellow tribesmen, or perhaps it was that he killed a fellow human, or something of the sort. But that is what Origin Sin symbolically represents. Animals, at least todate, have evolved such a powerful brain as we have. Thus, it is God's decree that only humans be faced with such moral choices. Not other animals.
Explain to me why animals don't have morality. I believe that some do. Elephants freak out when they see the bones of other elephants. They become paranoid just as a human would when they see another persons skeleton.Again. I can not understand why you would believe in an idea thought up by man. There is no mention of it in the Bible.And if you're going to say "black holes aren't mentioned" then refer back to genesis where it says that God made the heavens and the earth.
(Wakka;25798)
Explain to me why animals don't have morality. I believe that some do. Elephants freak out when they see the bones of other elephants. They become paranoid just as a human would when they see another persons skeleton.
That's survival instinct, not morality.
Again. I can not understand why you would believe in an idea thought up by man. There is no mention of it in the Bible.
Because the Bible isn't meant to be a science textbook. The Bible is an indicator of things beyond this universe. Science dictates the behaviour of things in this universe. Thus science dictates that Evolution did occur. And since God dictates science, God thus dictates Evolution.
And if you're going to say "black holes aren't mentioned" then refer back to genesis where it says that God made the heavens and the earth.
Quasars aren't mentioned.Quanta aren't mentioned.Pulsars aren't mentioned.Cells aren't mentioned.Planck's constant isn't mentioned.Calculus isn't mentioned.etc.The Bible is not a science textbook. It is a spiritual textbook. It is symbolic with the intent of showing God's greatness. Science is God's greatness literally observed through our own senses. We've observed Evolution. It happened, and it is great, and indicative of the brilliance and maginificence of our God.
Explain to me why animals don't have morality. I believe that some do. Elephants freak out when they see the bones of other elephants. They become paranoid just as a human would when they see another persons skeleton.
That's survival instinct, not morality.
Again. I can not understand why you would believe in an idea thought up by man. There is no mention of it in the Bible.
Because the Bible isn't meant to be a science textbook. The Bible is an indicator of things beyond this universe. Science dictates the behaviour of things in this universe. Thus science dictates that Evolution did occur. And since God dictates science, God thus dictates Evolution.
And if you're going to say "black holes aren't mentioned" then refer back to genesis where it says that God made the heavens and the earth.
Quasars aren't mentioned.Quanta aren't mentioned.Pulsars aren't mentioned.Cells aren't mentioned.Planck's constant isn't mentioned.Calculus isn't mentioned.etc.The Bible is not a science textbook. It is a spiritual textbook. It is symbolic with the intent of showing God's greatness. Science is God's greatness literally observed through our own senses. We've observed Evolution. It happened, and it is great, and indicative of the brilliance and maginificence of our God.
It still contradicts Genesis. God doesn't need evolution. God created Man.I'm tired and am going to bed.
(Wakka;25800)
It still contradicts Genesis. God doesn't need evolution. God created Man.I'm tired and am going to bed >:0(.
It doesn't contradict Genesis because Genesis is not literal. It's like comparing apples and oranges. Shakespeare's plays delved deeply into the human condition. They were symbolic, and they were meant to teach and bring forth ideas. There never was a literal Romeo or Juliet as far as history is concerned. Nor was there ever an actual Hamlet in existence. There WAS Julius Caesar, but much of the work in the play was extrapolation; again to teach about the human condition. On a Divine level, Genesis and much of the Bible does just that: It teaches on the Divine condition. It teaches about spirituality and God and the nature of spiritual reality. It's not a literal work. It was never meant to be taken as solely a literal work. What it commands us to do: "Love thy neighbour", "Remember the Sabbath", etc. are literal. Its stories in Genesis, and events beyond the scope of this universe, are symbolic.
It still contradicts Genesis. God doesn't need evolution. God created Man.I'm tired and am going to bed >:0(.
It doesn't contradict Genesis because Genesis is not literal. It's like comparing apples and oranges. Shakespeare's plays delved deeply into the human condition. They were symbolic, and they were meant to teach and bring forth ideas. There never was a literal Romeo or Juliet as far as history is concerned. Nor was there ever an actual Hamlet in existence. There WAS Julius Caesar, but much of the work in the play was extrapolation; again to teach about the human condition. On a Divine level, Genesis and much of the Bible does just that: It teaches on the Divine condition. It teaches about spirituality and God and the nature of spiritual reality. It's not a literal work. It was never meant to be taken as solely a literal work. What it commands us to do: "Love thy neighbour", "Remember the Sabbath", etc. are literal. Its stories in Genesis, and events beyond the scope of this universe, are symbolic.
(Wakka;25800)
It still contradicts Genesis. God doesn't need evolution. God created Man.I'm tired and am going to bed.
it doesn't Contradict at all. You are simply not willing to understand Genesis properly. What the dude said above me is seconded. Did you not get my hint, why I used St Thomas Aquinas' quote? I want you to open your mind and your eyes to the truth.Please, don't presume blindly that it contradicts when we are telling you, at least from our perspective, it absolutely does not. To say we are being dishonest is beginning to be insulting.
It still contradicts Genesis. God doesn't need evolution. God created Man.I'm tired and am going to bed.
it doesn't Contradict at all. You are simply not willing to understand Genesis properly. What the dude said above me is seconded. Did you not get my hint, why I used St Thomas Aquinas' quote? I want you to open your mind and your eyes to the truth.Please, don't presume blindly that it contradicts when we are telling you, at least from our perspective, it absolutely does not. To say we are being dishonest is beginning to be insulting.
It's still a doctrine of man. And It plays with salvation. If you're wrong, you'll be in big trouble with the Lord, because you then call his a liar by saying that His word is not serious enough to take literally. There is no way I'm believing in Evolution.
- Status
Similar threads
