Why do you believe in the evolution theory? (2)

[Followers4christ]

This thread was split automatically after 1000 replies and this thread has been automatically created.
The old thread automatically closed is here: "Why do you believe in the evolution theory?"

 

[Davian]

 

[Subduction Zone]

From dad at the last thread:

"Jesus did not do that. Period"

So what. Christians do what Jesus did not do all of the time. You can't disown people just because they did something that you do not like. They are still part of your group, like it or not.

 

[Davian]

A common New Atheist, rookie errand.

Surprisingly, I have had more than few religionists run off on that errand.

There is nothing to explain, which has not already been explained.

And remains unexplained.

Are you reliving the past. We've covered this already.

No, it has not.

If slander bordering on blasphemy is brushed away by your in-expertise, then I suggest you get a proper lawyer.

Slander is a "a false and malicious spoken statement".

Get thee to a dictionary.

If that is how you appease your conscience, then so be it.

Actually, if you are not going to run that errand of yours, and provide a proper, robust, testable, falsifiable definition of whatever we are supposed to be discussing, then you are without a reference for which to base your accusations of false or inaccurate statements. Your opinion is insufficient.

Goodbye.

Are you leaving again?

 

[Davian]

I have not called it libel, only a gentle warning because I am more concerned with the inaccuracies than I am with the slander bordering on blasphemy.
As you note, my simple question about the difference between Wonder Woman and the God of the Bible -- is not as serious as the one which I am considering at the moment. Namely the matter of heresy (whether before as a Christian) which has turned a heart to repeatedly take cheap shots at the God of the Bible. Either one is here with respect, to engage in discussion, argument and debate -- or one is here to play court Jester.

I do not accept your false dichotomy.

One can be here and respect the site rules, and their fellow members, and engage in reasoned discussion, but ideas, by themselves, do not warrant respect that is not justified.

Every time I see the old invisible-yet-plainly-seen chestnut rolled out, as if it is a seasoned, reasonable argument, I laugh out loud. What may have been poetic or profound in its time is reduced to empty rhetoric in a physical sciences subforum, and should be called out as such.

I know the Joker laughs at all of us, but it's just silly to mock another persons beliefs. I know Christians (YEC) mock and deride Scientists (not all are) here for having great confidence about a scientific theory, and that is BAD, BAD, BAD but I don't see why we (I am not yet a proper scientists -- only a baby biologist in training) should give back the same -- and not turn the other cheek, by showing that we know what we are talking about. Hmm?

Let me know when you've changed AV's mind on this.

 

[dad]

From dad at the last thread:

"Jesus did not do that. Period"

So what. Christians do what Jesus did not do all of the time. You can't disown people just because they did something that you do not like. They are still part of your group, like it or not.

I have not seen anyone make a good case for God wanting us to fight wars today.

 

[RBPerry]

I have not seen anyone make a good case for God wanting us to fight wars today.

Oh come on, we are dispatching thousands of radical Muslims to meet Ala, and have a lot more to go.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

In response to AV1611VET's post 997
You mean like AIG, DI, ICR, Ken Ham and Kent Hovind are taken seriously?

Employing arguments and quotes from such websites as AIG, DI, ICR and Kent Hovind, is generally diluted with bias. It's better to engage in the subject with as little bias as possible. That certainly goes both ways -- for Scientists (not all are) here, who pretend to understand the Bible.

To hold to something as being true based on what others say, is certainly not the wisest path to follow. One should pursue truth for truth's sake, and not worry about the consequences.

As you have shown that you favor the ideas of others, rather than your own journey of truth -- you'll only find the ideas repeatedly rebutted, until you forget about all the hearsay and begin studying real science. It's really up to you to choose that option, but I am conscious (having been through something similar) that it is a very hard road!

Welcome to Creation & Evolution.

 

[HKS]

Selfinflikted wrote: "Curious: The Bible says god created the first man, Adam, from the dust of the ground (as an adult, commonly accepted) and the first woman, Eve, from Adam's rib. I assume you don't take this story literally, as you seem to be championing evolution, and I assume common descent. The Bible also says Jesus was the son of god, was crucified, then rose from death. How do we know this (or any other fantastical story found in the Bible) isn't simply metaphor, too? How can one tell the difference between literal truth and metaphor in the Bible?"

You do hit a nerve there. The simple answer to your question is: "I don't know". I can't prove anything about the life or Divinity of Christ whatsoever. Perhaps some day one will have to ask oneself: So, what if Jesus' miracles simply ARE metaphors? What if there were no other miracle than Jesus' moral teachings? A man pointing to God rather than being God. "The divine teacher", It would be a blow to many Christians, I know, but speaking for myself: If I at the end of the day have to redefine my belief system because of proven facts, so be it.

To sum up in the words of Socrates: "I know one thing; I know NOTHING"!

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Surprisingly, I have had more than few religionists run off on that errand.

It helps to know what is worth discussion, arguing and debating. As I've never been much good at the latter, I have opted for discussion rather than argument.

And remains unexplained.

No, it has not.

As you choose to reply in this fashion, there is little point in going any further with it.

Slander is a "a false and malicious spoken statement".

Get thee to a dictionary.

I did and there is a lighter version of slander, as I said I am only giving you a gentle warning. I realize it might mean a big change for you, to begin showing due respect for the divine attributes of the God of the Bible -- but I must remind you that you are on a Creation and Evolution forum and so showing due courtesy to the beliefs of believers here, might help you in your quest to share with them the wonderful science that is Evolution.

Actually, if you are not going to run that errand of yours, and provide a proper, robust, testable, falsifiable definition of whatever we are supposed to be discussing, then you are without a reference for which to base your accusations of false or inaccurate statements. Your opinion is insufficient.

You protest too much.

Are you leaving again?

In the words of an old Blues singer, "Walk on, walk on ....!"

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

<edit>

Every time I see the old invisible-yet-plainly-seen chestnut rolled out, as if it is a seasoned, reasonable argument, I laugh out loud. What may have been poetic or profound in its time is reduced to empty rhetoric in a physical sciences subforum, and should be called out as such.

Yes, you have shown yourself to be on the side of those who mock the doctrine of the God of the Bible and his unique Son, Jesus Christ. It's not going to aid you in your quest to share the wonderful science which is Evolution, and I am sure I am not the first person to point this out to you.

Let me know when you've changed AV's mind on this.

I have not set such a task for myself. Changes of that sort happen gradually over time. Surely you've heard that the religious evolve along with those who prefer to live without any -- in the end the tares and wheat will be gathered up together etc. etc.

 

[dad]

Oh come on, we are dispatching thousands of radical Muslims to meet Ala, and have a lot more to go.

No. "WE" are not. Speak for yourself.

The crusades sanctioned by a pope did a lot of that. Have we learned anything? The weapons that win hearts and minds are what are needed. Not endless violence and jungle laws of the devoid.

That being said, if God allows or uses some ungodly nation, or even the AntiChrist..in a police action to destroy those who kill Christians...I say go man go.

I think Israel today should learn this. If they looked to God to save and defend them..He would! he would bow the very heavens and make their enemies lick the dust of their feet in a New York minute. But when they try to use little nukes or whatever to do it themselves...they will fail. There is NO other way but to look to God.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

No. "WE" are not. Speak for yourself.

The crusades sanctioned by a pope did a lot of that. Have we learned anything? The weapons that win hearts and minds are what are needed. Not endless violence and jungle laws of the devoid.

That being said, if God allows or uses some ungodly nation, or even the AntiChrist..in a police action to destroy those who kill Christians...I say go man go.

I think Israel today should learn this. If they looked to God to save and defend them..He would! he would bow the very heavens and make their enemies lick the dust of their feet in a New York minute. But when they try to use little nukes or whatever to do it themselves...they will fail. There is NO other way but to look to God.

The sacred texts of the tribe have been/and continue to be employed as a mandate for bloodshed. Add to that the frightening fact that we are a race of beings, seem to be inclined to blood lust.

The sacred texts may be employed as a mandate for bloodshed, but bloodshed seems to occur without them too.

No matter if we have evolved over millions of years, it seems the one thing which we have not evolved and that is a sense that such acts are no longer a part of how we deal with our neighbors.

To read the sacred texts the way Jesus read them, might be our redemption -- but who has time to consider that obedience to the first command (and the one like it) might be the key to moving forward to the next stage of our evolution as a species?

 

[ThinkForYourself]

The sacred texts of the tribe have been/and continue to be employed as a mandate for bloodshed. Add to that the frightening fact that we are a race of beings, seem to be inclined to blood lust.

The sacred texts may be employed as a mandate for bloodshed, but bloodshed seems to occur without them too....

True that.

But the sacred texts are a powerful tool for demonization/dehumanizing the enemy. They're basically a "get out of jail free" card for our morality/immorality, not a good thing considering man's basic nature.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

True that.

But the sacred texts are a powerful tool for demonization/dehumanizing the enemy. They're basically a "get out of jail free" card for our morality/immorality, not a good thing considering man's basic nature.

Yet when we look at the big picture of religion, much like what Karen Armstrong did in her wee book "12 Steps to Compassion" we see that the basic truth of what the gods want from us, is not sacrifice but simple obedience to the higher function of our evolved sense of what makes for a more loving world.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Yet when we look at the big picture of religion, much like what Karen Armstrong did in her wee book "12 Steps to Compassion" we see that the basic truth of what the gods want from us, is not sacrifice but simple obedience to the higher function of our evolved sense of what makes for a more loving world.

You mean if there is a higher power it isn't interested in being sought out and worshipped? It is only interested in us treating each other as we would like to be treated ourselves? What good would that be to creationists?

 

[RBPerry]

No. "WE" are not. Speak for yourself.

I just knew someone would take me seriously.

The debates on evolution vs creation serves no useful purpose. Many people are going to hold to their particular beliefs no matter what the is proven to be true. As a Christian I don't need to hold to young earth creation beliefs because it has no effect on my relationship with God. Science can not prove evolution, what they can prove is that mankind has been around for a very long time.

Maybe the focus should be on how we live our lives and how we deal with our fellow man.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I just knew someone would take me seriously.

The debates on evolution vs creation serves no useful purpose. Many people are going to hold to their particular beliefs no matter what the is proven to be true. As a Christian I don't need to hold to young earth creation beliefs because it has no effect on my relationship with God. Science can not prove evolution, what they can prove is that mankind has been around for a very long time.

Maybe the focus should be on how we live our lives and how we deal with our fellow man.

Technically science does not "prove" anything. There are literally mountains of scientific evidence that support the theory of evolution and no scientific evidence that supports creationism.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Yet when we look at the big picture of religion, much like what Karen Armstrong did in her wee book "12 Steps to Compassion" we see that the basic truth of what the gods want from us, is not sacrifice but simple obedience to the higher function of our evolved sense of what makes for a more loving world.

I have to note that you used the plural "gods".

 

[ThinkForYourself]

Yet when we look at the big picture of religion, much like what Karen Armstrong did in her wee book "12 Steps to Compassion" we see that the basic truth of what the gods want from us, is not sacrifice but simple obedience to the higher function of our evolved sense of what makes for a more loving world.

I don't know what religious texts Karen was reading, but the bible certainly wasn't one of them.