Do evolutionists silence the critics?

Apologist · #91 30th December 2002, 03:07 PM

Here is the problem with theistic evolution:

If God used evolution to create everything then the first 3 chapters of Genesis are figurative and not literal. If the account in Genesis is not literal then Jesus was wrong when he referred to the first man and woman and even quoted from Genesis. If Jesus was wrong then he could not be God and therefore his sacrifice on the cross would be worthless.

I don't believe in evolution and I have read both sides of the argument.

I feel it is a waste of our time to go on and on over a subject that will most likely never be resolved since both sides have compelling arguments.

That's my $.02 anyway.

God bless

Morat · #92 30th December 2002, 04:03 PM

Does Creationism have a compelling argument that does not depend on the validity of the Bible?

If so, please post it. We've been waiting.

RufusAtticus · #93 30th December 2002, 04:24 PM

Originally posted by Apologist
That is laughable to say the least.

I guess a *Christian* has a different definition in academia.

Well my advisor (an evolutionary geneticist and population theorist) accepts Jesus Christ as her personal lord and savior. What defination do you use?

Apologist · #94 30th December 2002, 06:12 PM

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
Well my advisor (an evolutionary geneticist and population theorist) accepts Jesus Christ as her personal lord and savior. What defination do you use?

That would be my definition also, but my point was not to imply that there are no scientists who are Christians. My answer was aimed at the statement posted that said:

"Do you know that almost all scientists are Christians even the ones that are in the field of evolution?"

I am sure you would agree with my disagreement on that statement wouldn't you?

God bless

Jerry Smith · #95 30th December 2002, 06:14 PM

Originally posted by Apologist
If God used evolution to create everything then the first 3 chapters of Genesis are figurative and not literal.

Or sometimes talking about a spiritual existence and not a physical one at those times, while still being literal.

Or poetical and not literal.

Or mythical and not literal.

If the account in Genesis is not literal then Jesus was wrong when he referred to the first man and woman and even quoted from Genesis.

Or Jesus was right, and Gen 1-2 have spiritual elements besides physical ones in their literal description.

Or Jesus was right, but borrowing the Genesis metaphor (if it was a metaphor). He is thought to have been fond of them.

Or Jesus' words were paraphrased by the authors of the Gospels in ways that "made sense" to them with their understanding of the Hebrew scriptures.

Or Jesus was misquoted by the Gospel Authors.

Gosh, the list goes on and on of possibilities other than "literal or figurative" Genesis, implying, respectively, a "right" or "wrong" Jesus. You need to consider more possibilities. I think you went off somewhat half-cocked.

If Jesus was wrong then he could not be God and therefore his sacrifice on the cross would be worthless.

I'll leave this one well enough alone.

I don't believe in evolution and I have read both sides of the argument.

Your perogative. You should just be aware that, in so doing, you are rejecting the methods and results of 100+ years of strenuous scientific research in favor faith in your own fallible interpretation of the Bible. You should also be aware that what "you believe" has no bearing on what science has shown and what should or can be taught in public school science classes.

I feel it is a waste of our time to go on and on over a subject that will most likely never be resolved since both sides have compelling arguments.

Then why doesn't the creationist side ever offer any of them? Seems the only ones they've put forth are not very compelling to any but those uneducated in the sciences.

Apologist · #96 30th December 2002, 06:19 PM

Originally posted by Morat
Does Creationism have a compelling argument that does not depend on the validity of the Bible?

If so, please post it. We've been waiting.

I think there are good points that negate against evolution but it seems that everything anyone writes on the subject is ostracised as not using the facts. For instance Dr. Michael Behe's book, "Darwin's Black Box" is hailed as a great book showing the complexity of microbiological life, which points to a designer, but all I hear from the other side is negative statements.

Like I said in a post before, this subject is almost futile to debate.

God bless

Apologist · #97 30th December 2002, 06:28 PM

Originally posted by Jerry Smith

Your perogative. You should just be aware that, in so doing, you are rejecting the methods and results of 100+ years of strenuous scientific research in favor faith in your own fallible interpretation of the Bible. 

Yes it is my perogative.

You should also be aware that what "you believe" has no bearing on what science has shown and what should or can be taught in public school science classes.

My son goes to a Christian school so he isn't indoctrinated with naturalism.

chickenman · #98 30th December 2002, 06:34 PM

you mean he's indoctrinated with "supernaturalism" instead?

Jerry Smith · #99 30th December 2002, 06:38 PM

Originally posted by Apologist
Yes it is my perogative.

And I see you choose to excersize it. Very well then.

My son goes to a Christian school so he isn't indoctrinated with naturalism.

My sons go to public school and aren't indoctrinated with philosophical naturalism. They are educated in science (with its concommitant methodological naturalism), and I am glad of that. I would be proud if they chose science for a profession later in life.

I was also educated in public schools, and I have the fondest memories of my High School Biology teacher. He was a Christian (most everyone in my town is, I live in the Bible Belt) - yet he felt no need to try to conceal the truth about science from me. He did a great job teaching me about the science of evolution. He was not only a wonderful teacher, but he was also a great representative of his faith, and its dedication to truthfulness. 

Apologist · #**100** 30th December 2002, 07:44 PM

Originally posted by chickenman
you mean he's indoctrinated with "supernaturalism" instead?

No, he's shown that there are more choices to why we are here than atheistic naturalism alone.