We’ve been reading Charles Darwin all wrong

[AV1611VET]

I'm curious, how did you prove that a natural process was responsible for mammals descending from fish, for example?

 

[AV1611VET]

You said embracing evolution leads to atheism. The lie detector determined that was a lie.

You've never met anyone who has said, "I used to believe the Bible, until I found out science says ..."?

Or, "I had questions my pastor couldn't answer, so I left the church."

 

[AV1611VET]

You said embracing evolution leads to atheism. The lie detector determined that was a lie.

By the way, feed this into your lie detector and let me know the result:

From AI Overview:

If individuals perceive a strong conflict between evolution and their religious beliefs, especially regarding aspects like common ancestry or human evolution, it can contribute to doubt and potentially lead to deconversion.

 

[Hans Blaster]

It's entirely wrong? Really?

I'm curious, how did you prove that a natural process was responsible for mammals descending from fish, for example?

Try reading a biology book first, and then come back to this discussion when you know something.

 

[AV1611VET]

Try reading a biology book first, and then come back to this discussion when you know something.

How about you answer his question and quit ignoring everyone?

You know good and well that science teaches land animals came from the ocean.

You know -- from gills to lungs?

Via natural processes.

 

[public hermit]

By the way, feed this into your lie detector and let me know the result:

From AI Overview:

If individuals perceive a strong conflict between evolution and their religious beliefs, especially regarding aspects like common ancestry or human evolution, it can contribute to doubt and potentially lead to deconversion.

Yes, fundamentalists really struggle with evolution, I know. Sadly, it has been a squandered opportunity for them. Mainline Protestants and the Catholic Church accept evolution. Billy Graham accepted evolution. And you know why all these Christians haven't become atheists? Pace your own post, they don't "percieve a strong conflict between evolution and religious belief."

Here's a novel idea. Perhaps the bigger contribution to believers becoming atheist is...what for it...fundamentalism.

 

[BCP1928]

You said embracing evolution leads to atheism. The lie detector determined that was a lie.

No, that's just a red herring. Embracing evolution doesn't lead to atheism and everybody knows it. The real fear is that It may lead to something even more dangerous to biblical creationists, to something they despise even more than they despise atheism: Traditional Nicene Christianity.

 

[AV1611VET]

Here's a novel idea. Perhaps the bigger contribution to believers becoming atheist is...what for it...fundamentalism.

Why would believers turn their backs on all this:

Psalm 34:8 O taste and see that the LORD is good: blessed is the man that trusteth in him.

Psalm 51:12 Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with thy free spirit.

Hebrews 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,

... to become atheists?

 

[AV1611VET]

Embracing evolution doesn't lead to atheism ...

Paul says otherwise.

That settles it.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Paul says otherwise.

Only because you say he does.

 

[public hermit]

No, that's just a red herring. Embracing evolution doesn't lead to atheism and everybody knows it. The real fear is that It may lead to something even more dangerous to biblical creationists, to something they despise even more than they despise atheism: Traditional Nicene Christianity.

I've probably shared this Augustine quote from The Literal Meaning of Genesis too many times on these boards, but maybe not. Early interpreters, including Augustine, often gave multiple interpretations of Genesis. As Origen pointed out, a literal interpretation was the least desired or helpful.

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although 'they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.'"

Alas, reckless and incompetent expounders abound to our dismay. There's a lot about Augustine with which I heartily disagree, but he was prescient on this point.

I'm also glad we got away from calling those without faith "infidels."

 

[The Barbarian]

Humans descended from bacteria via a natural process?

Let's test that. Name me one change in the long journey
from prokaryotes to humans that you can show is impossible to have happened naturally. Other than a God-given immortal soul, that is.

What do you have?

No one has ever observed any prehistoric life-form evolving via mutation and natural selection.

There are no records of such observations. Prehistoric, you know. However, we do have plenty of examples of species evolving from other species when we started looking. It seems rather foolish to argue that biology worked differently before we started paying attention.

 

[AV1611VET]

However, we do have plenty of examples of species evolving from other species when we started looking.

Ya ... the Asian elephant and the African elephant are still ... elephants.

 

[BCP1928]

Ya ... the Asian elephant and the African elephant are still ... elephants.

Which Genus?

 

[AV1611VET]

Which Genus?

Yes ... and I've addressed this before.

The genus name is arbitrary and subject to change.

From AI Overview:

Genus names can change. They change for a variety of reasons, most commonly due to new research, updated classifications, or the discovery of earlier published names. Sometimes, species are reclassified into different genera based on new evidence, and sometimes genera themselves are split or merged.

 

[BCP1928]

Yes ... and I've addressed this before.

The genus name is arbitrary and subject to change.

From AI Overview:

Genus names can change. They change for a variety of reasons, most commonly due to new research, updated classifications, or the discovery of earlier published names. Sometimes, species are reclassified into different genera based on new evidence, and sometimes genera themselves are split or merged.

I thought you always claimed that genera were equivalent to biblical "kinds" and cannot change.

 

[AV1611VET]

I thought you always claimed that genera were equivalent to biblical "kinds" and cannot change.

That is correct.

The fact that scientists change them on paper doesn't mean their DNA changes.

Evolution is a paper tiger.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I've probably shared this Augustine quote from The Literal Meaning of Genesis too many times on these boards, but maybe not. Early interpreters, including Augustine, often gave multiple interpretations of Genesis. As Origen pointed out, a literal interpretation was the least desired or helpful.

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although 'they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.'"

Alas, reckless and incompetent expounders abound to our dismay. There's a lot about Augustine with which I heartily disagree, but he was prescient on this point.

Way back to the beginning, hmm. Interesting. Always a faction at war with Western knowledge and learning. Same as it ever was.

I'm also glad we got away from calling those without faith "infidels."

I don't know. It sounds kind of fun. At least the origin of the word correctly identifies those of us "without faith". It might make it easier for all of those "what do you worship?" kinds to understand.

 

[The Barbarian]

Ya ... the Asian elephant and the African elephant are still ... elephants.

They are genetically more different than humans and chimpanzees. You sure you want "the chimpanzee and the human are still... apes?"

 

[NxNW]

Exactly. Atheists worship nothingness and and meaninglessness ... which is what life amounts to if this life is all there is to existence.

Wrong again! If I phrased it thus: atheists do not worship anything, maybe that will be more comprehensible.