Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
Yesterday at 11:43 PM notto said this in Post #23 How can you discuss Darwin's work when you haven't taken the effort to read it?
We were not having a discussion on Darwin's work, only one paragraph of it. I was asked for my opinion on the thinking in that one paragraph. I was rather brief, as I could have gone into quite a bit more depth.
That was why I asked if the person asking me the question about that paragraph wanted to talk more about it, or if they wanted to talk about another paragraph.
I was not asked for my opinion as someone who knows anything about Biology. It would be a little silly to ask a Biology question of someone who never even studied it in collage and only had one high school course on it over 30 years ago.
They wanted my opinion based on my 20 years of extensive research and study of the Bible.
To create, you have to have a creator. That is why Darwin came up with the theory of evolution. He tried to claim the universe was not created, it evolved.
John,
This is what I was commenting on. Please back up your assertation that Darwin came up with the theory of evolution to deny a creator or deny that the universe was not created.
Are you saying that this isn't a comment on Darwins work?
Perhaps my question should have been:
" How can you assert anything about Darwins work when you haven't bothered to read it ?"
Today at 04:07 PM Pete Harcoff said this in Post #28 "[i]Science indicates that we share most of our genetic structure with primates. What violence does that do to the Christian understanding of man? God is not an organism. He does not have a genetic structure. God is Spirit. The image of God in man does not refer to our physical form or body; it refers to our spirit. Our uniqueness is in our spiritual capacity to enter loving relationship with a God who loves us.
He just says that "science indicates that". One thing we may want to do is look at who he is talking to: "<SPAN lang=en-us>forum by the </SPAN>University of Oklahoma Zoological Society" No where does he endorse this belief, he just does not take issue with it.
So just what is his agenda:
1) Live by faith.
2) Don’t limit God.
3) Don’t tie faith too closely with any scientific view.
4) Exercise interpretive humility in both science and religion.
It does not sound like he is trying to promote evolution to me. He is just trying to make friends with people who believe in evolution, so he can promote his agenda. He is saying that he has something he can offer them that does not conflict with their beliefs on evolution. But he does not in any way validate or invalidate evolutionary theory.
I do not disagree with his approach. It may be a very good appoach for the people he is talking to. So, just what was the point you were trying to make again?
It does not sound like he is trying to promote evolution to me. He is just trying to make friends with people who believe in evolution, so he can promote his agenda. He is saying that he has something he can offer them that does not conflict with their beliefs on evolution. But he does not in any way validate or invalidate evolutionary theory.
I never said he was trying to promote evolution. The point is, he is stating that evolutionary theory and the Bible need not conflict. Or rather, that it is perfectly acceptable to be a Christian and hold that the theory of evolution is true.
I do not disagree with his approach. It may be a very good appoach for the people he is talking to. So, just what was the point you were trying to make again?
You see a conflict between Christian theology (at least, your version of it) and the theory of evolution. This person (Dr. Bruce Prescott) does not.
Now, what makes your word better than his? Why should I trust you when you claim evolution is a lie, because you perceive it conflicts with the Bible?
In other words, John, my point is: Why should I care what you think?
Today at 05:11 PM Pete Harcoff said this in Post #34 I never said he was trying to promote evolution. The point is, he is stating that evolutionary theory and the Bible need not conflict. Or rather, that it is perfectly acceptable to be a Christian and hold that the theory of evolution is true.
White man speak with forked tongue. He maybe saying that there need not be a conflict. He is not saying that it's true. That is just wishful thinking on your part. That has no bases in reality.
White man speak with forked tongue. He maybe saying that there need not be a conflict. He is not saying that it's true. That is just wishful thinking on your part. That has no bases in reality.
John, read this quote:
"Theologically, it makes no difference whether God decided to form our physical bodies through long stages of biological development or by a special creative act."
He is saying, explicitly, that if you subscribe to current evolutionary theory (that is, the idea we descended from a primitive ape-like species), it makes no difference from the perspective of Christian theology.
Again, why shouldn't I believe him? Why should I believe you, instead, when you say that belief in evolution is someone incompatible with Christian theology? Your inability to answer this so far is very telling.
Yesterday at 06:44 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #12
You have shown me no evidence that you even know the truth. So you have no way of knowing if I misrepresent it or not.
Let's see. I quote Darwin and other evolutionary biologists that they are not against God. You never respond but pull the ostrich act. I post scientific articles and quote from them. You never do. I quote from the Bible showing your exegeses to be wrong.
If you bury your head in the sand, of course you won't see evidence. You hide from it.
The only thing you have shown me is ..a disregard for the God who created you.
When have I shown a disregard for God? Now's your chance, John. Be specific.
But in the end, you will go before God and you will give an account. Do you think that He is going to be well pleased with you on that day?
That's up to God. But I have a lot better chance than a saboteur of Christianity like you.
Well, your having a discusson with me, so that must mean that I represent the truth.
LOL!! I am not having a "discussion". I am providing information to the other readers of this forum. No one can have a "discussion" with someone who's logic is as warped as what you just said.
Yeah? What? You have a hamster to feed or something?
I have real science to do and medical students and residents to educate.
Yesterday at 08:09 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #14
Lets get this into context.
"Authors of the highest eminence seem to be fully satisfied with the view that each species has been independently created. To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual."
First of all, this is no different than the twisted lies that the serpent gave Eve in the garden of Eden. "Authors of the highest eminence" means God has spoken,
That's not what Darwin meant. This is the serpent speaking with your voice, John. Darwin's "authors of the highest eminence" were Adam Sedgwick and Richard Owen.
But you never showed how Darwin denied creation, John. Try again.
What does he say next: "with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator". "Impressed" What does that mean?
From the Fontispiece of Origin: "But with regard to the material world, we can at least go so far as this -- we can perceive that events are brought about not by insulated interpositions of Divine power, exerted in each particular case, but by the establishment of general laws" Whewell: Bridgewater Treatise.
Psalm 2:3 "Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us." Darwin is saying, why should we allow this creator to press His law upon us, we can be free!
Your serpent tongue, John. Darwin is clearly saying these are the laws that God created. Not that we can get away from them.
Then Darwin goes on, after doing all he can to discredit the creator,
Where did Darwin discredit the Creator? Darwins lie is the same lie that the serpent gave to Eve in the Garden of Eden. Almost 6000 years later and it is still the same lie. So your falling for the same lie that Eve fell for almost 6000 years ago. It worked on her then and now it working on you now.
You seem to have skipped the second quote, John, where Darwin has the Creator breathing life into a few forms or just one. That one a little too tough for you to handle?
Yesterday at 09:02 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #16
The serpent takes the truth and twists it into a lie. If you do not know the truth, then it is easier for him to get you to accept a lie as if it were true.
There are so many problems with this paragraph from a theology viewpoint that it is unreal. Darwin had some good theology courses, but he managed to twist it into a lie. Of course he could not pass it off to theologians, they know better. But somehow he got the Biologists to buy into it.
First, are you saying that God is not responsible for the physical laws, John? Darwin says He is, and quotes the theologian Whewell in Fontispiece as one source. You seem to be trying to say that God is not responsible for the physical laws. If God really created the universe, John, how could He not also create the laws?
As to theologians, you are so wrong that it is painful.
"When my Father [Frederick Temple, Archbishop of Canterbury] announced and defended his acceptance of evolution in his Brough Lectures in 1884 it provoked no serious amount of criticism ... The particular battle over evolution was already won by 1884." F.A. Iremonger, William Temple, Archbishop of Canterbury, His Life and Letters, Oxford Univ. Press, 1948, pg. 491.
"The scientific evidence in favour of evolution, as a theory is infinitely more Christian than the theory of 'special creation'. For it implies the immanence of God in nature, and the omnipresence of His creative power. Those who oppose the doctrine of evolution in defence of a 'continued intervention' of God, seem to have failed to notice that a theory of occasional intervention implies as its correlative a theory of ordinary absence." AL Moore, Science and Faith, 1889, pg 184.
"The one absolutely impossible conception of God, in the present day, is that which represents him as an occasional visitor. Science has pushed the deist's God further and further away, and at the moment when it seemed as if He would be thrust out all together, Darwinism appeared, and, under the disguise of a foe, did the work of a friend. ... Either God is everywhere present in nature, or He is nowhere." AL Moore, Lex Mundi, 12th edition, 1891, pg 73.
"The last few years have witnessed the gradual acceptance by Christians of the great scientific generalisation of our age, which is briefly if somewhat vaguely described as the Theory of Evolution. ... It is an advance in our theological thinking; a definite increase of insight; a fresher and fuller appreciation of those 'many ways' in which 'God fulfills Himself'. JR Ilingsworth, Lex Mundi, 12th edition,
"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, The Religious Aspects of Evolution, 2d ed. 1890, pg 68.
Yesterday at 09:27 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #18
I have studied theology intensly for a long time now.
And with that you can still come up with the ridiculous creation of humans on both day 6 and day 8? Contrary to the exegesis of every other theologian. The evidence is that you know even less of theology than you know about biology.
Linear Mode
