Christian Evolutionist

[Mistermystery]

Try discussing, or not, what she brought up instead of hitting her with nasty remarks asap...

Yeah because it was really her intend to debate this *roll eyes*.

 

[Andrea77]

Can you prove that gnosticism supported the idea that life evolves?

Can you prove that it did'nt.

 

[In A Perfect World]

Can you prove that it did'nt.

Argumentum ad ignorantium.

 

[Andrea77]

Argumentum ad ignorantium.

All I have done is simply put across my reason for not believing in evolution as a christian. Instead of arguing and getting angry with me why don't you just explain how you are right and I am wrong?

 

[random_guy]

All I have done is simply put across my reason for not believing in evolution as a christian. Instead of arguing and getting angry with me why don't you just explain how you are right and I am wrong?

That would be fine if it was your reason. However, you presume to speak for all Christians and slander all those that do believe in evolution.

If evolution is the fruit of a bad tree a christian should not accept it.

So if Christians do partake of a fruit of a bad tree, what does that make them?

Can you see why your posts are divisive?

 

[In A Perfect World]

All I have done is simply put across my reason for not believing in evolution as a christian. Instead of arguing and getting angry with me why don't you just explain how you are right and I am wrong?

If you aren't going to make sure your posts and requests are devoid of logical fallacies I see no reason for which I should attempt to respond to such burdens. Yet I continue to respond? I think I'll call it quits here.

 

[Elduran]

Argumentum ad ignorantium.

aka "Shifting the Burdon of Proof"

or "moving the goalposts"

or even "sneaky, weasely debating tactics"

 

[Mistermystery]

All I have done is simply put across my reason for not believing in evolution as a christian. Instead of arguing and getting angry with me why don't you just explain how you are right and I am wrong?

Because you don't put much effort into your claims/questions etc. Now I'm not saying that you are the worst poster out there, but if you got a question about evolution, why can't you ask it in your own words? If you don't even can do that, what tells me that you are learning anything (even to learn to combat evolution better at worst)?

 

[Andrea77]

That would be fine if it was your reason. However, you presume to speak for all Christians and slander all those that do believe in evolution.

So if Christians do partake of a fruit of a bad tree, what does that make them?

Can you see why your posts are divisive?

No, I don't see.

The above is simply the reason why I don't believe in evolution.

And as for this

So if Christians do partake of a fruit of a bad tree, what does that make them?

You are trying to put words in my mouth.


My point was:

If evolution came from a bad tree than it can be no good and christians should not accept it. (note the IF)

 

[Andrea77]

If you aren't going to make sure your posts and requests are devoid of logical fallacies I see no reason for which I should attempt to respond to such burdens. Yet I continue to respond? I think I'll call it quits here.

That's just a cop out.

 

[Tomk80]

My point was:

If evolution came from a bad tree than it can be no good and christians should not accept it. (note the IF)

Let's put another if here. If the theory of evolution is indeed the best explanation for the current biodiversity, given the evidence, shouldn't christians accept it as that, regardless of the origin of the idea? If that is the conclusion we (atheists and christians alike) arrive at when studying nature and by our best estimates it is 'true', should we reject it purely because it doesn't have it's roots in a non-christian viewpoint?


Let's take a hypothetical example. Suppose that the roots of the idea of the earth as a globe are pagan in stead of christian, when confronted with the evidence that the earth is indeed a globe, shouldn't christians accept this idea even though it is a pagan idea? Wouldn't christians be lying to themselves if they rejected the idea of the earth as a globe purely because the idea is pagan (again note, I'm not saying this is the case, this is a hypothetical question).

 

[random_guy]

No, I don't see.

The above is simply the reason why I don't believe in evolution.

And as for this

So if Christians do partake of a fruit of a bad tree, what does that make them?

You are trying to put words in my mouth.


My point was:

If evolution came from a bad tree than it can be no good and christians should not accept it. (note the IF)

But I'm not putting words in your mouth. You can read your posts.

As a christian I do not accept evolution simply because of its roots.

Jesus said in Matthew 7:15-20

"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognise them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognise them.

If evolution is the fruit of a bad tree a christian should not accept it.



.... In all such cases, these are merely different varieties of the fundamental evolutionist world view, the essential feature of which is the denial that there is one true God and Creator of all things.

Read your post in context of the entire post.

If evolution is a bad fruit, then Christian shouldn't accept it. A key part of the origin of evolution is it denies God as the one and true Creator of all things.

You didn't post "evolution is a bad fruit" but you sure as heck pointed to it. It doesn't take a detective to piece together your post to draw this conclusion. The conclusion comes from your very own post.

If Evolution denies God as the Creator, what kind of Christians could accept evolution? This is the underlining message of your post.

 

[Andrea77]

But I'm not putting words in your mouth. You can read your posts.


[/i]Read your post in context of the entire post.

If evolution is a bad fruit, then Christian shouldn't accept it. A key part of the origin of evolution is it denies God as the one and true Creator of all things.

You didn't post "evolution is a bad fruit" but you sure as heck pointed to it. It doesn't take a detective to piece together your post to draw this conclusion. The conclusion comes from your very own post.

If Evolution denies God as the Creator, what kind of Christians could accept evolution? This is the underlining message of your post.

No, it isn't.

Just because a christian excepts something that may be wrong or bad fruit, does not make them a terrible or evil christian as you are clearly trying to claim I am saying.

 

[Andrea77]

Let's put another if here. If the theory of evolution is indeed the best explanation for the current biodiversity, given the evidence, shouldn't christians accept it as that, regardless of the origin of the idea? If that is the conclusion we (atheists and christians alike) arrive at when studying nature and by our best estimates it is 'true', should we reject it purely because it doesn't have it's roots in a non-christian viewpoint?


Let's take a hypothetical example. Suppose that the roots of the idea of the earth as a globe are pagan in stead of christian, when confronted with the evidence that the earth is indeed a globe, shouldn't christians accept this idea even though it is a pagan idea? Wouldn't christians be lying to themselves if they rejected the idea of the earth as a globe purely because the idea is pagan (again note, I'm not saying this is the case, this is a hypothetical question).

But what if it is not just a viewpoint but a religion?

And what if it's wrong and contradicts the Bible what should we choose?

 

[nvxplorer]

No, it isn't.

Just because a christian excepts something that may be wrong or bad fruit, does not make them a terrible or evil christian as you are clearly trying to claim I am saying.

But you wrote, "the essential feature of [evolution] is the denial that there is one true God and Creator of all things."

This is patently false. Who is bearing the bad fruit now?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Let's put another if here. If the theory of evolution is indeed the best explanation for the current biodiversity, given the evidence, shouldn't christians accept it as that, regardless of the origin of the idea? If that is the conclusion we (atheists and christians alike) arrive at when studying nature and by our best estimates it is 'true', should we reject it purely because it doesn't have it's roots in a non-christian viewpoint?


Let's take a hypothetical example. Suppose that the roots of the idea of the earth as a globe are pagan in stead of christian, when confronted with the evidence that the earth is indeed a globe, shouldn't christians accept this idea even though it is a pagan idea? Wouldn't christians be lying to themselves if they rejected the idea of the earth as a globe purely because the idea is pagan (again note, I'm not saying this is the case, this is a hypothetical question).

Actually there were Christians who thought the spherical earth should be rejected as a pagan lie. If Cosmas Indicopleustes were still alive I suppose he would wonder how Christians could be geographers. I wonder how Christians can accept modern astronomy since the Bible says that the earth is fixed in space and cannot be moved and that stars will fall to earth like figs dropping from a tree neither of which is consistent with modern astronomy.

FB

 

[Tomk80]

But what if it is not just a viewpoint but a religion?

Since evolution is not a religion, that does not apply. The concept might stem from a religion, but that is also the case in my hypothetical example. My hypothetical example is exactly the same as your assertion regarding evolution (I am not very well versed in the history of the idea of evolution, but I am suspicious of the correctness of your claim).

And what if it's wrong and contradicts the Bible what should we choose?

We don't know if it is wrong or not, neither have we the ability to assert that with absolute 100% certainty. But then, we don't have that of anything. You can also not assert with 100% certainty that your interpretation of the bible is 100% correct. You believe your interpretation is the correct one, but you have no way of absolutely assuring this. The only thing that we know on the theory of evolution is that, given the current evidence, it is correct. In other words, to the best of our knowledge, it is correct.

And according to a large number of christians, it does not contradict the bible. And on the other hand, according to a fringe-group of christians, a round earth contradicts the bible. So the question is not whether it contradicts the bible, but whether it contradicts your interpretation of the bible.

So, if evolution is correct to the best of our knowledge and it contradicts an interpretation we have of the bible, could it be that our intepretation of the bible might in fact be incorrect?

 

[Andrea77]

Actually there were Christians who thought the spherical earth should be rejected as a pagan lie. If Cosmas Indicopleustes were still alive I suppose he would wonder how Christians could be geographers. I wonder how Christians can accept modern astronomy since the Bible says that the earth is fixed in space and cannot be moved and that stars will fall to earth like figs dropping from a tree neither of which is consistent with modern astronomy.

FB

The Bible also says that the earth is round.

 

[nvxplorer]

The Bible also says that the earth is round.

Had you been born in the sixth century, you likely would have disagreed with this statement.

 

[In A Perfect World]

The Bible also says that the earth is round.

wrong. http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Bible_says_the_earth_is_round

The Earth is not a circle. It is an oblate spheroid.

The "disc" so to speak refers to a flat disc in circular shape.