• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.

Christian without creationism

Discussion in 'Creation & Evolution' started by LiveFreeOrDie, Sep 3, 2002.

  1. kaotic

    kaotic Learn physics

    +3
    Agnostic
    US-Democrat
    Hmm yeah its a proven Theory. Just cause you quote Malcolm Muggeridge doesn't change the fact that the THEORY has been proven.
     
  2. Reckless Abandon

    Reckless Abandon (Enter Title Here)

    26
    +0
    If a theory is proven,wouldn't that make it a fact? Evolution is not a fact, because it has never been proven. It still remains a theory.

    He's not the only person I quoted...
     
  3. Praxiteles

    Praxiteles PraxAce

    +268
    Agnostic
    Hi Reckless Abandon.

    That's quite an assertion. 

    Before I address it, though, I'd just like to alert you to the fact that a string of quotes has no bearing on the veracity of a scientific theory.  Just so you know. ;)

    Now, you claim that the ToE exists just so people can have an excuse to avoid the Bible.  Are you serious? 

    For starters, there is already a myriad of other religions that one can choose from if one wants to avoid the precepts of Christianity. There's no need to develop a scientific theory to do that.

    Secondly, after having made your sweeping generalisation, how do you explain the millions of Christians that both accept the ToE, and love their Lord?  It seems that you've made the all too common (and frustrating) mistake of equating atheism with evolution.  It just ain't so, mate.

     

    Cheers,

    Prax

     
     
  4. kaotic

    kaotic Learn physics

    +3
    Agnostic
    US-Democrat
    The real truth is that evolution will never be a proven fact, well i take that back in time science can proof almost everything. But we can show some what that we did come from something else.

    http://melbourne.museum.vic.gov.au/exhibitions/gallery_evolution.asp
    http://www.naturalsciences.be/museum/expoperm/prehist
    http://www.paleo.pan.pl/museum/museum.htm
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/
     
  5. Pete Harcoff

    Pete Harcoff PeteAce - In memory of WinAce

    +65
    Other Religion
    And it will always remain a theory. Theories are constructed to explain facts, not to become them.
     
  6. kaotic

    kaotic Learn physics

    +3
    Agnostic
    US-Democrat
    That's exactly right.
     
  7. OneLargeToe

    OneLargeToe Mister Boisei to you!

    155
    +5
    Atheist
    As has been stated before, evolution is both a fact and a theory.   Common descent with modification is a proven fact.  What the processes are is the theory part.
     
  8. Praxiteles

    Praxiteles PraxAce

    +268
    Agnostic
    The pie nicker has it.  The above is quite correct.

    Reckless Abandon, you seem to be less than au fait with regard to scientific terminology.  A scientific theory is not a guess, or speclation, as you seem to think it is.  Within science, a theory is a very solid framework which explains facts as they are observed.  Witness such theories as TheTheory of General Relativity, The Germ Theory of Disease etc.

    Theories do not become facts.

    Cheers,

    Prax

     
     
  9. fragmentsofdreams

    fragmentsofdreams Critical loyalist

    +410
    Catholic
    :D
     
  10. Reckless Abandon

    Reckless Abandon (Enter Title Here)

    26
    +0
    After this post I have to leave, but we can continue our conversation later.



    Thanks. What does make a scientific theory, a scientific theory. Or a scientific fact, a scientific fact?

    I don't think I said that it exists only for that reason. If I did, that's not what I meant. Yes, I am serious that some people believe in evolution because it doesn't come with rules, things you can do, and things you can't. Others are fooled into thinking that evolution is FACT (like seesaw).

    Like I said, that's not what I meant. (see above)

     

    That's an argument form authority, you say something is true because lots of people believe it. But in answer to that, it's is possible to fool lots of people into believing something that is not true. I am not putting people who believe in evolution and are Christians, but I believe the Bible clearly explains clearly what happened, and it does not say that God had to use suffering and death to get something right. I believe he could do it first try, no problem. He IS a all-powerful God.
     
  11. fragmentsofdreams

    fragmentsofdreams Critical loyalist

    +410
    Catholic
    It complicates things and forces us to look at things from a different perspective, but it does not destroy Christianity. It's the same as the death of heliocentricism, just more complicated.
     
  12. OneLargeToe

    OneLargeToe Mister Boisei to you!

    155
    +5
    Atheist
    How do you explain then that what you believe directly contradicts observed reality?
     
  13. fragmentsofdreams

    fragmentsofdreams Critical loyalist

    +410
    Catholic
    If you ask different Christians for a detailed explaination for how Jesus' death brought about our salvation, you will get many different explanations. Does this mean that they are wrong about whether Jesus' death brought about salvation? No.
     
  14. fragmentsofdreams

    fragmentsofdreams Critical loyalist

    +410
    Catholic
    You're thinking of an argument of popularity. However, he is not using a fallicious argument here because he is not arguing that evolution is true because lots of people believe in it. He was disproving the claim that one can't be Christian and believe in evolution. This was implied by you:
    This is a much more respectable argument than "Christains can't believe in evolution."

    God could have created a world without suffering, where everyone loved Him and worshiped Him, and the weather was always sunny except for decorative snow for Christmas, but He didn't. Why? Because God wants a world which has its own identity, one that grows. God could have created a pot, but He has chosen to use a potter's wheel and kiln to create the pot over time.
     
  15. Praxiteles

    Praxiteles PraxAce

    +268
    Agnostic
    From http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

    Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

    Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are NOT about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms


    I don't usually like to cut and paste, but I am a lazy sod, and mostly there's someone else that says it better than I do. :)  What's written above explains the difference reasonably well, I think.


    I think what you mean is that some people choose to be atheists to avoid the truth of the Bible.  You can be Christian and accept evolution.  To say otherwise is an insult.  There are plenty of Christians here who accept evolution. 

    No, it's not.  My point was that you can be both evolutionist and Christian - they are not mutually exclusive, and if you argue that they are you would be wasting your time and everyone else's.

    In any case, I think the fallacy you're meaning here is "argument from popularity", but it's not that either.  I'm not saying evolution is true because a lot of people believe it, which is what an argument from popularity would say.
    Aha.  So, you rail against evolution not based on any scientific evidence, but because of your belief that it contradicts the Bible.  In fact, Reckless Abandon, that statement again is an insult to those Christians that accept evolution.

    All the ToE contradicts is a literal reading of Genesis.  And it's not just Evolution (biology) that does that.  If you want to defend a literal Genesis, you're also ignoring the evidence from cosmology, astronomy, physics, chemistry etc. 

    That's a huge task!

     

    Cheers,

    Jeff
     
  16. Reckless Abandon

    Reckless Abandon (Enter Title Here)

    26
    +0
    I'm sorry, I'm not the smartest guy around...

    Oh ok, I see the difference now, thanks for explaining.

    -

    If you're refering to creation as contradicting observed reality, God created "reality"! He is not in it, he does not have to follow all of its rules. He is beyond time and all of the laws that we have on this earth. It would be almost impossible to imagine the power that God has.

    Not a world totally without suffering, It was all good till Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden. But when He created everything, He created everything. He didn't need billions of years to get His creation right. He did it right on His first try.


    No, I just think they are mistaken. If you can say you're a Christian, then you would believe in the Bible. Evolution goes totally against what the Bible says happened, so how can they claim to be Christian and not believe what the Bible literally says?
     
  17. Douglaangu

    Douglaangu Dance Commander

    330
    +3
    Atheist
    Why should genesis be taken literally, when other parts of the bible are not? What is so important about it being seen as a literal account of creation?
     
  18. fragmentsofdreams

    fragmentsofdreams Critical loyalist

    +410
    Catholic
    The problem is that God would have to create a world designed to fool people into believing that it was billions of years old. Why would He do that? At what point does it become a problem with your interpretation and not with science?

    1. God never stops creating. The moment God stops creating, we cease to exist. We are utterly dependent on God for our very existence.

    2. God chose a method of Creation that allows the Universe in general and humanity in particular to participate in Creation. It is the Universe that needs the time. The billions of years do not represent repeated failures but the gradual formation of humanity from chaos.

    I don't divorce passages in the Bible from their context. When Jesus tells a parable about a vineyard, I don't believe that He has an actual vineyard in mind. Instead, He is using imagery to convey a message about the Kingdom of God. In the same way, I don't interpret Genesis literally, because it is intended to tell us about God's relationship with Creation and humanity, not historical or scientific facts.
     
  19. Reckless Abandon

    Reckless Abandon (Enter Title Here)

    26
    +0
    Because it says, this is what happened. "God created..." it doesn't mention that this is a parable in any way. (as I show below, the Bible mentions when it is about to, or has mentioned a parable...)

    Like I said above, the Bible says "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth," And it doesn't say anywhere later that this is a parable or that this is just an example to teach us something. As you see here, the Bible tells us that the "Parable of the Tenants", that you mentioned, that it is a parable:

    Matthew 21:33
    "Listen to another parable: There was a landowner who planted a vineyard. He put a wall around it, dug a winepress in it and built a watchtower. Then he rented the vineyard to some farmers and went away on a journey."


    Here are some more examples:

    Matthew 13:3
    "Then he told them many things in parables, saying: "A farmer went out to sow his seed."

    Matthew 22:1
    "Jesus spoke to them again in parables, saying:..."

    Mark 3:23
    "So Jesus called them and spoke to them in parables:..."

    Mark 4:2
    "He taught them many things by parables, and in his teaching said:..."

    Luke 5:36
    "He told them this parable:..."


    There are TONS more, but this shows us that these are parables, not something that actually happened. But in Genesis, when it tells of what God created and how He did it, it doesn't say anything about it being a parable. So, if it is not a parable, then it would be what literally happened.
     
  20. npetreley

    npetreley pumpkin sailor

    +2
    You can have non-literal interprations without it being identified as a parable. For example, it could be metaphor, hyperbole, etc. But there's nothing in the language to indicate Genesis 1-2 is metaphor or meant to be taken anything but literally, so I believe it is literal. The only problem is that it doesn't give enough detail to know exactly what a literal interpration means, but it's pretty easy to get a rough idea.
     
Loading...