- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,242
- 52,664
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Sans Scripture, Evolution?
- Thread starter AV1611VET
- Start date
Pwnzerfaust
Pwning
- Jan 22, 2008
- 998
- 60
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Upvote
0
Well then, let's call it "embedded evolution" then, okay?
Animals were created as though they had evolved for billions of years. Have you got a problem with that? if so, what?
Upvote
0
MrGoodBytes
Seeker for life, probably
I already took and answered this challenge, and I made it quite clear that I saw no deception or intent to deceive. You then accused me of a non sequitur and had the thread closed. In any case, your analogy utterly fails for all the reasons your analogies always fail - they oversimplify reality to the point of irrelevance.
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,242
- 52,664
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Which answer in no way fit the OP.
Which was justified.
Hmmm --- you thought you had answered it, I pointed out you didn't, now you say it's an utter failure. LOandL.
Upvote
0
Nathan Poe
Well-Known Member
The OP in no way fit reality -- so you had no choice but to tell reality to take a hike.
Upvote
0
Psudopod
Godspeed, Spacebat
AV, what was the point of the challenge? Was it so that you could say on other threads that we had all agreed embeded age didn't make God a deciever? Becuase if it was then you failed.
If you want to create a analogy, then it has to be analogous to the situation you are describing. Otherwise it is pointless. If I wanted to claim that cars didn't get damaged by driving into walls, by showing that it doesn't happen with childrens' cars, you'd say that my demonstation was inadequate becuase it doesn't acurately model reality.
Your OP in that thread might have modelled reality, but you didn't give us enough information to say one way or the other. And you refused to say. Wht was that? Why was making your op a better model on reality so bad? Is it because you could see that if you did we would be able to point out the deception?
I really want your honest answer about what you were trying to show. Worked examples are a good way of teaching, so educate us AV. Afterall, if you are right you shoudl be able to demonstrate it to us.
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,242
- 52,664
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Very simple, Psudopod --- the point of this thread is that the Bible is not responsible for starting or teaching evolution.
Upvote
0
Psudopod
Godspeed, Spacebat
Originally Posted by AV1611VET
Very simple, Psudopod --- the point of this thread is that the Bible is not responsible for starting or teaching evolution.He was talking about your latest rediculous "challenge" thread, AV. Not about this one.
Indeed, sorry I thought I was clearer. And where on earth did you get the idea that bible might be responsible for starting evolution?
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,242
- 52,664
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Nowhere at all --- but I'm amazed at why TEs believe the way they do. The Bible shoots down the E part of TE in It's opening chapter. I don't see TE in the Bible at all --- even if I step back and look at Genesis One allegorically.
Upvote
0
Psudopod
Godspeed, Spacebat
TE is no different from Christians accepting relativity or chemistry or partical physics. You don't see theistic newtonian dyamics in the bible either, but I bet you don't have a problem with that. The bible doesn't explictly state evolution, not acid base theory, or relativity. Because it's not the be all and end all. If we focused on the bible and nothing else, we'd have a stagnant society. The bible is a book about man's relationship with God. It's not cluttered up with scientific dicovery. We can go out and do that ourselves.
TEs are simply Christians who aren't afraid to look at God's creation and aren't blinded by the bible.
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,242
- 52,664
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
- Feb 9, 2007
- 6,089
- 2,288
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- UK-Conservative
How would taking Genesis allegorically mean it would shoot down evolution? Surely, you are placing your pre-conceived ideas into an allegorical account? If not, how not?
Also, what do you think allegorical means, in relation to a biblical interpretation? How do you know that certain allegorical interpretations are incorrect? Indeed, how do you know that a literal interpretation is correct?
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,242
- 52,664
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Creation is the antithesis of evolution --- and Jesus spoke of Creation.
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,242
- 52,664
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Because of the order of the events.
It's one thing to say God "evolved" the angiosperms on the third day, then "formed" the sun on the fourth; but it's quite another to say God "formed" the sun on the third day, then "evolved" the angiosperms on the fourth.
In other words, interpreting a word or passage allegorically is not the same thing as flip-flopping words and passages around like pancakes.
Upvote
0
- Feb 9, 2007
- 6,089
- 2,288
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- UK-Conservative
ok - thanks AV. I understand that even through this allegorical interpretation, you still impose a literal order of events.
So, what influences you to interprete that genesis is a literal description of creation?
Upvote
0
MasterOfKrikkit
Regular Member
Being 6000 years old is incompatible with being 14 billion years old. But you happily "reconcile" the two by saying 6000 years old with 14 billion years of age built in. So why not creation with evolution just built in?
Not to mention that creation is not the antithesis of creation. Unless you are incapable of crediting an omniscient omnipotent God with the ability to create something that can evolve.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
