Christianity... and the fact of evolution

[throughfiierytrial]

So what makes you so sure YOU on the right track?

My faith on this topic is Scriptural and that of the opposite perspective...pro-evolution...are anti-Biblical and claim Scripture contains myth,etc. Jesus said to Satan: man does not live on bread alone, but on every word which proceeds from the mouth of God...and I could go on citing.
Ever any doubts on your end?

 

[throughfiierytrial]

"The science field has set aside Darwin's book", what does that even mean?

You don't understand?

 

[Archivist]

The science field has set aside Darwin's book when it comes to origins...and yes, I now recall the study of Darwin and his book, but I was young and not scholarly...I was drilled on all his quasi-theorems/postulations

It is somewhat akin to Blackstone's Commentaries in the legal field--of historical value in understanding many concepts (which is why I read it) but in general no longer necessary for the practice of law.

 

[Anguspure]

Sorry, your prejudice against Darwin's place in the history of science will never demote him.

I think Postjudice is the correct term here. 160 years of Darwinian Natural Selection has failed to answer the basic challenges that the originator himself posed for the theory and even atheistic thinkers are beginning to look for another way.
If we are careful and maintain a true scientific ethic Darwin may inherit a similar place to Newton in physics.
But as it stands, because of the dogmatic manner of his true beleivers, he may well end up becoming an amusing curio of historical science.

 

[Armoured]

My faith on this topic is Scriptural and that of the opposite perspective...pro-evolution...are anti-Biblical and claim Scripture contains myth,etc. Jesus said to Satan: man does not live on bread alone, but on every word which proceeds from the mouth of God...and I could go on citing.
Ever any doubts on your end?

And you don't think the people in the churches you disagree with feel the same way about their own beliefs?

 

[throughfiierytrial]

You don't understand?

 

[Armoured]

I think Postjudice is the correct term here. 160 years of Darwinian Natural Selection has failed to answer the basic challenges that the originator himself posed for the theory and even atheistic thinkers are beginning to look for another way.
If we are careful and maintain a true scientific ethic Darwin may inherit a similar place to Newton in physics.
But as it stands, because of the dogmatic manner of his true beleivers, he may well end up becoming an amusing curio of historical science.

Isee these sorts of claims all the time. Strangely, they're never substantiated with any examples of all these things Darwin got wrong.

 

[Armoured]

You don't understand?

I understand the individual words just fine.

 

[Armoured]

It is somewhat akin to Blackstone's Commentaries in the legal field--of historical value in understanding many concepts (which is why I read it) but in general no longer necessary for the practice of law.

But, and this is crux, Darwin isn't the teaching text because he was wrong, but rather, that his discoveries have been added to by new evidebce and analysis, all of which reinforces his theory.

 

[Archivist]

But, and this is crux, Darwin isn't the teaching text because he was wrong, but rather, that his discoveries have been added to by new evidebce and analysis, all of which reinforces his theory.

Agreed. Actually Blackstone wasn't wrong either, but the law has advanced beyond what he wrote. BTW, Abraham Lincoln learned the law by reading Blackstone.

 

[Anguspure]

Isee these sorts of claims all the time. Strangely, they're never substantiated with any examples of all these things Darwin got wrong.

To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species by natural selection

So how, after 160 years has this challenge been addressed? With many just so stories.

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not

possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species by natural selection

The field of evolutionary development has revealed a number of biological forms that must have come about through a saltational event and there are a large number of non-adpative taxa defining traits evident for which there is no evidence for successive, slight modifications leading to the invention. In fact it can be shown that because of functional coherence, accidental invention in this way is fantastically improbable and thus physically impossible (Douglas Axe).

Darwin has it right when he sticks to the things his observations reveal, but when extrapolates beyond the evidence he only creates an ideaology that is attractive to atheism, with the appearance of science.

 

[throughfiierytrial]

But, and this is crux, Darwin isn't the teaching text because he was wrong, but rather, that his discoveries have been added to by new evidebce and analysis, all of which reinforces his theory.

Not at all so...Steven Hawking found the entire theory lacking and tossed it in favor of intelligence planted by aliens from another planet.

 

[Archivist]

Not at all so...Steven Hawking found the entire theory lacking and tossed it in favor of intelligence planted by aliens from another planet.

Hawking isn't a biologist. A great scientist, yes, but not a biologist.

 

[throughfiierytrial]

Hawking is not a biologist...he's better...he went to the start of the problem, origins, to solve the problem and attempt to answer the questions regarding origins and evolution and has written and given speeches on the topic of origins.
Physicists often give little credence to biologist b/c their science is lacking.

 

[Anguspure]

Not at all so...Steven Hawking found the entire theory lacking and tossed it in favor of intelligence planted by aliens from another planet.

Funny enough, even the Darwinian pan-adapionist biologist Richard Dawkins is willing to consider intelligent panspermea as a possibility for terrestrial biogenesis.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So. when you say "creationists" it appear you are saying that's not you? correct? (I've read very little of the thread) And since you agree the bible doesn't support evolution, are you saying you don't take the bible as the truth? And if that is so, and getting back to my original point, do you think God is ok with you not believing his word?

I suppose I am a Creationist, but I am of the type who sees Theological Evolution as the framework in which God's creative "acts" have taken place. Some fellow Christians don't count my position as a legitimate one, or as a form of Creationism. This is why I distance myself from that designation.

I do take the Bible as Truth, but I'm sure that my understanding of what constitutes truth is different than that which the typical person conceptualizes it to be.

And yes, I do think God is ok with my approach; on top of that, in my fellowship with other Christians, I make no judgment upon their faith when they choose to support one of the several positions that evangelical Christians resort to in resolving tensions between what they read in Genesis and what they see in the world. So, if they believe in a literal 6 day Creation, fine by me. If they think the Day-Age theory makes for a better explanation, that too is fine by me. If they want to subscribe to the Gap Theory, I'll go with them on that as well.

For me, all that one has to acknowledge is that, however it was done, God was and is the Creator of Heaven and Earth, along with the fact that Jesus died for sins and rose again from the dead.

2PhiloVoid

 

[Alithis]

?? this is not general theology ..this is promotion of evolution

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Is that what you are aspiring to through your supposedly scientific investigations which us silly, simpleton Christians neglect or dismiss in favor of taking God at His Word...the words of the Master, the Almighty?

No, I'm not aspiring to that because I know that God has His secrets that He isn't going to divulge them (assuming we'd understand any of those secrets even if He did decide to so divulge them). I'm glad to know that you don't make any pretenses to knowing "more" than the rest of us either.

I'm married to a nuclear engineer from CalTech and he too is a creationist. I've heard most of the theories which run contrary and one should cut them off short with Genesis. To be a Christian is to trust Jesus and to trust Jesus is to trust His Word. He gave the Kingdom to the children and has hidden it from the wise. My advice...don't try to be sooo wise by worldly standards.

Don't worry; I take Paul's admonitions in 1 Corinthians and Colossians very seriously.

Jesus walked on the water...defied gravity that is to say, Jesus had the boat arrive immediately at the other side the lake...defied time.

Hmmm...that's the first time I've ever heard that passage interpreted in a way that reads the boat as having "defied time." Which Bible scholar or pastor taught you that?

Jesus defies the wisdom of men...they are of limited intelligence. We accept Genesis only on the grounds of faith. And like it or not the theory of evolution is a theory for the godless and for those with an unhealthy curiosity and it appeals to the flesh which does not want to be accountable to God. If you ascribe to the theory you aid in such error. You try to mix the two and you create corrupted Christianity with seeds to grow deep and spread wide and more is called into question...like Scripture itself...as you yourself can attest to.

Fine. If you think Evolution is a theory for the godless, then I guess you're mind is made up. So, do you think the earth is approximately 10,000 years old according to Scripture?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Not trying to treat you as a heretic.

Just reminding you that evolution is a heretical subject and should be taught as such.

Ok. I respect that you think so. But, what do you think I should do with the evidence of the Geologic Column and the appearance that the earth is way, way more than 10,000 years old?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

God would not state in the most clearly defined terms that He created the world in six days if He had done otherwise. God does not deceive.

So, it couldn't be that the six days are theological, but poetic constructs that lay the devotional and working framework for the Law as given through Moses?