Religion and evolution

[Dunban]

And where did these lower life forms evolve from? Remember, every cell comes from a pre-existing living cell.

What are you getting at?

The explanation "God did it" is neither science nor provable. That doesn't mean it is untrue, but it does mean that you've said nothing which disproves evolution as fact.

Even if you traced it all back to the Big Bang 13 billion years ago, that still says nothing either way about one's concept of divinity. God could have done that, or you could posit, as some atheists do, that it just "happened" or "we don't know" (which is true).

 

[Dunban]

Some of the replies here make me want to seriously consider atheism as a valid proposition. And it's the creationist arguments doing so, ironically.

 

[TG123]

In what context is it used?

Here are two examples.

Isaiah 45:16,17
16 All of them are put to shame and confounded;
the makers of idols go in confusion together.
17 But Israel is saved by the Lord
with everlasting salvation;
you shall not be put to shame or confounded
to all eternity.


2 Peter 3:17,18

17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability. 18 But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.

 

[TG123]

What are you getting at?

The explanation "God did it" is neither science nor provable. That doesn't mean it is untrue, but it does mean that you've said nothing which disproves evolution as fact.

Even if you traced it all back to the Big Bang 13 billion years ago, that still says nothing either way about one's concept of divinity. God could have done that, or you could posit, as some atheists do, that it just "happened" or "we don't know" (which is true).

I am getting at that it is illogical and impossible for life to have formed out of non-living things, as the Big Bang Theory suggests. If the Big Bang Theory is correct then the Bible is wrong, since God created people, they did not "evolve" from other life forms.

"It just happened" makes a lot less sense than the idea that an all-knowing Creator made what is our beautiful planet.

 

[TG123]

Some of the replies here make me want to seriously consider atheism as a valid proposition. And it's the creationist arguments doing so, ironically.

I'm sorry to hear that you would allow the words of an anonymous poster you don't know make you want to seriously consider turning away from God.

 

[awitch]

I am getting at that it is illogical and impossible for life to have formed out of non-living things, as the Big Bang Theory suggests.

BBT says nothing about origins of life; that would be abiogenesis, which is also separate from evolution.

 

[LoAmmi]

Here are two examples.

Isaiah 45:16,17
16 All of them are put to shame and confounded;
the makers of idols go in confusion together.
17 But Israel is saved by the Lord
with everlasting salvation;
you shall not be put to shame or confounded
to all eternity.

I'm not addressing things I don't consider scripture, so I'll only hit Isaiah.

What is that saying? Basically, it's saying forever. It isn't tackling eternity. It's tackling the idea of this happening without end.

 

[Dunban]

I am getting at that it is illogical and impossible for life to have formed out of non-living things, as the Big Bang Theory suggests. If the Big Bang Theory is correct then the Bible is wrong, since God created people, they did not "evolve" from other life forms.

"It just happened" makes a lot less sense than the idea that an all-knowing Creator made what is our beautiful planet.

Then the bible is also false, since God is not a "living" (i.e. biological, physical being) thing.

Case closed. We're both wrong. We can all go home.

You deny a third possibility.

Also, humans did evolve. What you do with that information, is up to you. You can lie, distort it, pretend it never happened or adjust your faith accordingly, but don't say it didn't happen, because it did.

 

[Dunban]

I'm sorry to hear that you would allow the words of an anonymous poster you don't know make you want to seriously consider turning away from God.

The severe misuse of logic and overuse of ignorance makes me facepalm much. I used to think like you and it is shameful for me to admit that.

And the sad thing is, you're in the majority. I don't understand how people can choose to be so willfully IGNORANT of facts, data and truth in favor of believing a book that man wrote 2000 years ago (while denying the church's right to interpret that same book that they wrote and produced, no less).

If you alone were the sole voice of this movement, I would easily dismiss you. But you're not and are far from it.

 

[LoAmmi]

(while denying the church's right to interpret that same book that they wrote and produced, no less).

Is it ok if I deny the church's right to interpret the Tanakh?

 

[TG123]

I'm not addressing things I don't consider scripture, so I'll only hit Isaiah.

What is that saying? Basically, it's saying forever. It isn't tackling eternity. It's tackling the idea of this happening without end.

How can humans understand "without end"?

 

[LoAmmi]

How can humans understand "without end"?

As odd as it may seem, that is actually less difficult a concept to resolve than the concept of eternity by itself.

Something will never stop. That isn't something we have trouble with.

 

[TG123]

BBT says nothing about origins of life; that would be abiogenesis, which is also separate from evolution.

You are correct here, awitch.

The Big Bang Theory is about the origin of the universe, not life. I was wrong on this, thanks for correcting me.

 

[Dunban]

Is it ok if I deny the church's right to interpret the Tanakh?

Sure, you would anyway.

I'm just saying it's foolish to take the bible and interpret yourself, while dismissing the church, its history and context, as well as the fact that the church produced and wrote the bible (as far as the NT goes).

I personally think Hebrew interpretations of the OT are far better than some backwoods preacher in the U.S. who has no formal training, concept of ANE history or Hebrew language or idioms. I think more highly of the Jewish interpretation of scripture, as far as the OT goes, than most Christians'. But interpreting the NT has always belonged to the Church God established - eastern and western rite Catholics.

 

[TG123]

Then the bible is also false, since God is not a "living" (i.e. biological, physical being) thing.

Of course God is alive. The existence of God well explains the origin of life, since an eternal and living being who is not bound by science can do anything. The idea of cells evolving from non-living materials doesn't.

Case closed. We're both wrong. We can all go home.

I am home by my keyboard, don't know about you.
God is the Creator of life though, and we came to be by how is expained in the Bible.

You deny a third possibility.

Which would be?...

Also, humans did evolve. What you do with that information, is up to you. You can lie, distort it, pretend it never happened or adjust your faith accordingly, but don't say it didn't happen, because it did.

It didn't.

 

[TG123]

As odd as it may seem, that is actually less difficult a concept to resolve than the concept of eternity by itself.

Something will never stop. That isn't something we have trouble with.

How can something never stop? That isn't any less hard to understand for me than eternity. Yet I accept it because it is from God.

 

[LoAmmi]

Sure, you would anyway.

I'm just saying it's foolish to take the bible and interpret yourself, while dismissing the church, its history and context, as well as the fact that the church produced and wrote the bible (as far as the NT goes).

I personally think Hebrew interpretations of the OT are far better than some backwoods preacher in the U.S. who has no formal training, concept of ANE history or Hebrew language or idioms. I think more highly of the Jewish interpretation of scripture, as far as the OT goes, than most Christians'. But interpreting the NT has always belonged to the Church God established - eastern and western rite Catholics.

I tend not to interpret the NT with some exceptions. I will tell people the faults I find with it but that's a bit different.

I agree. Generally speaking, I laugh when I hear what most backwoods preacher says with regards to the Tanakh. They are usually far off and really could care less if what they say is consistent with the Hebrew. You can tell it's a problem when the person's entire argument is built upon a certain English translation!

 

[TG123]

The severe misuse of logic and overuse of ignorance makes me facepalm much. I used to think like you and it is shameful for me to admit that.

And the sad thing is, you're in the majority. I don't understand how people can choose to be so willfully IGNORANT of facts, data and truth in favor of believing a book that man wrote 2000 years ago (while denying the church's right to interpret that same book that they wrote and produced, no less).

If you alone were the sole voice of this movement, I would easily dismiss you. But you're not and are far from it.

Actually, in Canada and especially where I live, I am in the minority. I would not be allowed to say what I say on this forum in a public school. "You" are definitely in the majority where I'm from.

 

[awitch]

You are correct here, awitch.

The Big Bang Theory is about the origin of the universe, not life. I was wrong on this, thanks for correcting me.

Kinda have to be nitpicky when it comes to discussions about science.

 

[LoAmmi]

How can something never stop? That isn't any less hard to understand for me than eternity. Yet I accept it because it is from God.

Because it's the concept behind "I'll love you forever". We say it so easily even though, in the end, it isn't going to happen correctly.

If you have an easy time understanding YOU existing FOREVER in a very literal way, I suggest you write up something because it has challenged philosophers for years and years.