Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Not core?I personally don't see evolution as a threat to our faith.
Does the facts that we are a creation loved by God with a soul and a unique connection to him, that we fell and commit sin every day, that God loves us even though we sin, that he sent Jesus to save us from our depravity so we could have eternal life with him.........
All become nonsense if the ToE correct?
Nope
God's existence, his love towards us, and our sinfulness does not go away if evolution is true.
Sure the ToE would make some things nonsense, such as a view of the Bible that believes the books have to be perfect and historically accurate all the time. But that view is not a core part of our faith. Christianity can survive without it.
Hello Ken.
I looked up, 'harmonizing the resurrection', on the web and found this.
Professor George Eldon Ladd did not recommend a harmonization of the four different resurrection
accounts. Though Ladd did offer, 'for my own amusement', the following attempt at harmonization
of the four resurrection accounts. (Jesus.walk.com)
Here are the first three points in order.
1 The earthquake and removal of stone occurs before dawn.
2 A group of four women come early to the tomb, wondering who will move the stone.
As they approach, they are amazed to see that the stone has been rolled away.
3 Mary rushes off to tell Peter and John that the body of Jesus has been stolen (John 20:2).
We will stop at point three of this harmonization.
I will now quote from Matthew's Gospel, the resurrection account.
Matthew 28
1 Now after the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the
other Mary came to look at the grave. 2 for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and
rolled away the stone and sat upon it. 3 And his appearance was like lightning, and his clothing as white as
snow. 4 The guards shook for fear of him and became like dead men. 5 The angel said to the women, “Do
not be afraid; for I know that you are looking for Jesus who has been crucified. 6 He is not here, for He has
risen, just as He said. Come, see the place where He was lying. 7 Go quickly and tell His disciples that He has
risen from the dead.
So we note specifically the harmonization proposed by Ladd, i.e., point three above.
3 Mary rushes off to tell Peter and John that the body of Jesus has been stolen. (John 20:2)
Matthew's account clearly states that the women were told by the angel.
7 Go quickly and tell His disciples that He has risen from the dead.
Matthew's account is in conflict with Ladd's account, that Mary rushes to tell Peter that the body of Jesus
has been stolen?
Ladd's third point is in direct conflict with Matthew's account. Any further examination of this attempted
and amusing harmonization by Ladd, is a waste of time.
I need a reasonable harmonization of the resurrection accounts, Ken. Professor Ladd
made no recommendation on the harmony.
You must post the web address of the harmony.
Nonsense. Hindu fundamentalist reject human evolution more fiercly than YECers!
You can call evolution " a religion" as many times as you like, it doesn't make it so. It is the theory best supported by scientific evidence, which makes it a science. Sorry.
Hello Hedrick.I agree. However if there are any differences at all, it indicates that inerrancy of the Chicago variety is not possible. Accepting that various Gospel writers differed in some respects is much closer to a mainline view, which is that God acted in history, and Scripture was written by humans in response to that, and thus is limited by the accuracy of witnesses and errors in transmission of information.
The evidence for the inerrancy of the Bible is internal. You either believe the testimony of Jesus (Matthew 5:18) and Paul (2 Timothy 3:16) and Peter (2 Peter 3:15) or you don't.The insistence of fundamentalists on scripture alone as a source of data from which to argue is always an interesting thing to see. One has to ask . . . . what logic and/or evidence led them to understand they should place the bible in such a high place - one where no other evidence is allowed to tread?
Many times such a thinker will merely quote a bible verse to back this idea up, and that of course is the error of circular reasoning.
But a few will attempt to cite evidence in favor of this idea from outside of the Bible, as they should. Historical confirmation of Bible statements, God using scriptures to change lives, personal confirmation from the Holy Spirit to trust the Bible . . . I invite readers to add to this list.
This is the only logical thing one can possibly do to assign the Bible such a high place in settling arguments. But notice this - it means, inevitably, irrevocably, that evidence from other places besides the Bible also counts. Because if evidence outside the Bible does NOT matter, you cannot establish that the BIBLE matters. And that evidence includes the findings of science, they cannot be excluded when considering evidence.
Gould's comments demonstrate the very attitude that David Berlinski debunks.This should prove useful:
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.
Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory—natural selection—to explain the mechanism of evolution.
Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981
It's amazing that decades later this article is till relevant today. A "fact," as Stephen J. Gould pointed out, means something that is so highly probable that it would be silly not to accept it.
Gould's comments demonstrate the very attitude that David Berlinski debunks.
They do not.You either believe the testimony of Jesus (Matthew 5:18) and Paul (2 Timothy 3:16) and Peter (2 Peter 3:15) or you don't.
Hello Paul.
Science is about hard evidence, not imagined associations between groups in the
evolutionary tree. Science is empiricism, observable evidence.
Lol im arguing both sides now, just playing devils advocate here.
But isnt it possible, since other gospel accounts say there were more women than mary and mary magdalene (which, by the way, isnt a contradiction, matthew is just leaving the other women out because he felt no need to give an exhaustive list, and likewise the number of angels), that Mary ran and told the disciples the body was stolen before seeing the angel, and then the angels appeared to the other women and said that to them?
I dont really have an opinion either way, just keeping an open mind.
When I read the four accounts, I found them confusing in places but not incompatible or contradictory.
If evolution is one of the strongest explanatory theories in any academic field, I mean, the evidence is simply overwhelming, how do Christians reconcile this?
What about the Biblical scholars that generally dismiss Genesis as a "historical" representation... but rather "myth" (however you want to define that)?
I understand I'm courting "controversy" here, but I'd genuinely like to hear this, supposedly, untouchable theological answer.
Yeah yeah. Said over the internet.I Timothy 6:20-21:
20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.
You name the word science as though things discovered by it are facts cast in stone...fact is the sciences waver back and forth on their beliefs...come back home to the Word which never wavers!
Hello Ken.A group of women visited the tomb, not all are named by all the Gospels. Matthew names only two of the group. You are assuming that "Mary Magdalene and the other Mary" were the only women there.
If you are interested in debating this subject I suggest you start a new thread.
Hello Ken.Not conflicting - just confusing until you study it closely.
Hello Paul.Fossils are observed evidence. DNA similarities are observed evidence. Shared retroviral inserts are observed evidence. Shared genetic defects are observed evidence. Useless left over vestiges are observed evidence. And news flash . . . lots of those fossils are hard.
Hello Indent.This should prove useful:
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.
Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory—natural selection—to explain the mechanism of evolution.
Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981
It's amazing that decades later this article is till relevant today. A "fact," as Stephen J. Gould pointed out, means something that is so highly probable that it would be silly not to accept it.
Fossils are observed evidence that fossilised things existed a long time ago and perhaps that they arrived in a sequence of events. But evidence for Darwinian pan-adaptionism as a creative law? Not even close.Fossils are observed evidence.
Do you observe similarities between the Model T Ford and the Ford Ranger? Are they are related? Do you think they evolved by a process of natural selection?, or do you think perhaps that there might have been a development process that involved intelligent people?DNA similarities are observed evidence.
Again, these supply evidence of past events but no new invention ever came about from shared retrovirals and therefore shared retrovirals do not supply any evidence of accidental invention of anything.Shared retroviral inserts are observed evidence.
Same again, but also, any defect is a retrograde step from an earlier more complete form.Shared genetic defects are observed evidence.
Vestiges supply evidence of degredation from an earlier more complete form and therefore provide evidence of top down design that subsequently becomes subject to general entropic law, such as is observed in cases of design, development and invention.Useless left over vestiges are observed evidence.
Hello Armoured.Yeah yeah. Said over the internet.
Sure, science makes errors, then corrects them. That doesn't change the fact that evolution is a science, supported by scientific evidence.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?