Christianity... and the fact of evolution

[BobRyan]

Perhaps thats because when most people challenge a Creationist with the "fact of evolution" this is exactly what they mean: Godless Biogenesis.
No Creationist, young earth or otherwise, that I have encountered rejects the idea that all things are related (through the Creator) nor do they reject the idea that things change over time.

True - the weather changes.

Fingernails grow longer

bacteria learn to eat new things for breakfast.

Things do change.

But "observations in nature" prove that even 50,000 generations of bacteria will not get you an eukaryote as the end result.

Now then - 50,000 generations of humans would cover more then 2 million years --which goes wayyyy beyond the massive-story time alloted for all of human evolution and 'more'. So how 'instructive' that the vastly more adaptive bacteria cannot manage a simpler transition - to eukaryote in 10 times the generation count that it supposedly took humans to evolve in the first place.

Evolutionism is "just-in-time-story-telling". So we anticipate that they may "imagine" a "convenient" Heisenberg principle such that " bacteria should not allow themselves to be seen to evolve" into eukaryotes over ten times the generation count that humans supposedly evolved -- but that is merely more "just-in-time" stories told out of necessity when observations in nature don't square with evolutionism's orthodoxy.

 

[BobRyan]

Whatever happened in primordial chaos as God's Spirit "hovered over it" isn't something for us to be overly concerned about---besides, those things from the prehistoric past can't do anything for us in taking us into the future with Christ as our Savior, other than to move us to contemplate His role as Creator.

Peace
2PhiloVoid

Are you a literal "virgin-birth-ist"?
a literal "bodily resurrection-ist"?
a literal "ascension into heaven-ist"?
a literal "7 day creation-ist"?

or do you say that since none of that is reproduced by tiny mankind - in the lab -- then none of it happened "in real history"?

 

[BobRyan]

It's not about "what's useful" in the bible, it's a matter of interpretation. If someone thinks the opening chapters of Genesis are telling a particular story, and not a journalistic account of material origins, it's a matter of interpretation.

2+2 = 4 ... is that too "a matter of interpretation" or can God say something that is accurate, correct, and understandable?

As for "the obvious" it is not merely Bible believing Christians that notice it.

Turns out ---

Atheists often don't mind "admitting" to what the Bible says - they simply reject what it says. As in rejecting the virgin birth, the bodily ascension of Christ, the miracles of the bible and in this example they freely admit to what the Bible says - while rejecting it as 'truth'.

Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’

=======================

In the Bible we have this "legal code" -

Ex 20:8-11 "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy - SIX days you shall labor... For in SIX days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."

Gen 2:1-3
Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts. 2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made

No such language found in even ONE of evolutionism's 'texts' to state that particular "belief".

Romans 1 says that our infinite God has made what we see around us - and that HIS "invisible attributes are CLEARLY SEEN in the things that have been MADE" -

Obviously atheists would not agree with that statement. Rejecting Romans 1 is a "distinctively atheist" position

 

[dms1972]

Hi DMS,

I don't think this discussion is a set up, rather just a reflection of the discussion that has already been taking place in society at large for the last 150 plus years. It is also a reflection of the kind of discussion that can be seen among legitimate Christians who disagree about the way in which the concepts of Creation and Evolution come to bear upon our evaluations and understanding of the Bible. One such "discussion" can be seen in the book, Three Views on Creation and Evolution (Eds. J.P. Moreland & John Mark Reynolds), with another side of this discussion seen in the book, Four Views on the Historical Adam (Eds. Matthew Barrett, Ardel B. Caneday, & others).

Peace
2PhiloVoid

I appeciate 2philovoid that you yourself and some others participate in a manner that is exemplary. There is a good deal of difference between a scholarly debate which allows the various positions to present their case for materialistic evolution, theististic evolution, creationism, intelligent design, or alternatively reading of Genesis chapter 1 that comprehends it to be transcendent truth, or revelatory fact at least partly in the form of a epic poem. A debate allows informed criticism, questions to be raised, merits to be considered. While a forum could allow for that it would take the question to be framed in a less partisan manner. Unfortunately what has happened is someone has asked others to present their viewpoint theologically as if they wanted a debate, while claiming that their own viewpoint is indisputable fact rather than a theory presented in its original form as being falsifiable, dealing with gaps in an agnostic's knowledge. One has to be willing at least to consider other learned sources of views on this subject fairly rather than refering to them as 'shills'. Don't forget the evolutionists warming up moths on their car bonnet and gluing them to the trunks of trees, resulting in the Journal Nature lamenting the loss of a prize horse in their stable of evidence? Prize horse indeed

Verifiable fact unfortunately (for neo-darwinists).

Of course I recognise discussions on forums move on from an original post quite often and part company with the views expressed therein. But I don't see much point myself in doing more than raising some questions with the opinion expressed in the OP and leaving those with them. An 'untouchable theological answer' he asks for and yet he hasn't presented an 'untouchable answer' of his own, but only made a few assertions to keep the debate on his turf. Answers don't need to be wholly untouchable, and won't be while there is unbelief and sin distorting human thinking.

But if the OP is really simply asking for a theological answer, then:

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth..." will be sufficient. [edit] ie. all that Genesis says in its early chapters.

 

[BobRyan]

Don't forget the evolutionists warming up moths on their car bonnet and gluing them to the trunks of trees, resulting in the Journal Nature lamenting the loss of a prize horse in their stable of evidence? Prize horse indeed

Contrived evidence - such as the moth and Marsh's infamous horse series still on display at the Smithsonian - has strong "emotional appeal" but is of no actual scientific value.

What then is the "motivation" to produce "contrived evidence" -- well Ernst Haeckel will tell you that the answer among blind-faith evolutionists is that "everyone is doing it" -- but that level of perfidy alone would not be sufficient to explain the trend. There is another more devastating reason for pumping out "contrived evidence" and it is the great paucity of substantive evidence for evolutionism.

====================================


Collin Patterson (atheist and diehard evolutionist to the day he died in 1998) - Paleontologist British Museum of Natural history speaking at the American Museum of Natural History in 1981 - said:



Patterson - quotes Gillespie's arguing that Christians

"'...holding creationist ideas could plead ignorance of the means and affirm only the fact,'"


Patterson countered, "That seems to summarize the feeling I get in talking to evolutionists today. They plead ignorance of the means of transformation, but affirm only the fact (saying): 'Yes it has...we know it has taken place.'"


"...Now I think that many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years, if you had thought about it at all, you've experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. I know that's true of me, and I think it's true of a good many of you in here...


"...,Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge , apparent knowledge which is actually harmful to systematics..."

Patterson said -

“Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing…that is true?

I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural history and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology seminar in the University of Chicago, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said “I know one thing – it ought not to be taught in high school”

"...I'm speaking on two subjects, evolution and creationism, and I believe it's true to say that I know nothing whatever about either...One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, well, let's call it non-evolutionary , was last year I had a sudden realization.
"For over twenty years I had thought that I was working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up, and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years, and there was not one thing I knew about it. "That was quite a shock that one could be misled for so long...

It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not to be taught in high school, and perhaps that's all we know about it...

about eighteen months ago...I woke up and I realized that all my life I had been duped into taking evolution as revealed truth in some way."
========================================

Now time to "think" -- this is coming from a highly published diehard atheist full-fledged "believer" in evolutionism. He is not about to leave that position no matter how much junk-science he finds there.

But many blind faith evolutionists argue that their religion of evolutionism is not junk science - but is in fact solid objective science... like chemistry or math. When is the last time you heard a world-renowned chemistry or math scientist say -- "knowledge about chemistry is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not to be taught in high school, and perhaps that's all " ?? - while standing before an all-star list of his peers??

Does not happen!!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Perhaps thats because when most people challenge a Creationist with the "fact of evolution" this is exactly what they mean: Godless Biogenesis.

Yes, we do see too much of that kind of thing. But, in the midst of this turmoil which has evoked polarized reactions among Christians in one sector of the Church, I'd like to suggest that my fellow Christians try to do a better job at discerning the difference between a biological evolutionist like Richard Dawkins and a biological evolutionist like Francis Collins. Because, these are two different spiritual species, if you well allow my use of metaphor. The former has chosen to thus far be an enemy of the faith; the latter has chosen faith in Jesus Christ.

No Creationist, young earth or otherwise, that I have encountered rejects the idea that all things are related (through the Creator) nor do they reject the idea that things change over time.

Well .... this issue might depend on what we each think the Biblical notion of "kind" means, and as we both know, there is more than a couple of notions as to how to specify the nature of this concept--that ol' macro vs. micro thing. But, I'm not going to get into that here because I'm here just trying to address the social disruption between Christians who hold to different praxis of science.

Peace
2PhiloVoid

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Dawkins (an atheist) and Eugenie Scott both agree that blind faith evolutionism should be swallowed 'as observed fact' - no matter what the Bible says to the contrary -- where these two religions collide on the doctrine of origins.

Of course, you're right on your first point. Both Dawkins and Scott are atheists and evolutionists, and they both believe that evolution is an "observable fact." But, my point of setting Dawkins and Scott side-by-side isn't to suggest that there are a "legion" of atheists/evolutionists in the world, nor to show that I agree with all of their philosophical conclusions, but to show that EVEN DESPITE THE FACT that they are both atheists and evolutionists, they both have a significant difference in their praxis (i.e. theory and application) of science and as to how it works and what it can do, particularly in relation to additional considerations that flow from the minds of Theists and Christians.

They differ philosphically on what to do about the fact that religion still exists and argue about whether to imagine that these two opposing religions truly oppose each other or whether some religion can be bent to accomodate blind faith evolutionism as the doctrine on origins.

Yes, and as I said above, that difference is significant, and it constitutes a running debate among various scientists today, even (surprisingly) among those who have atheism in common. And it is this fact that often is ignored by ardent atheists on one side (because they think Dawkins is right and not Scott), and also ignored by the other side represented by most Christians; it is also often ignored for various reasons pertaining to one's interpretation of Scripture which seem to obscure the value of discerning the methodological nature of science.

But for those of us on this board - we do not have such games in mind -- we prefer to be Christians.

And that's great, especially because I don't only prefer to be Christian, rather I really see no other framework than New Testament faith that explains the social and spiritual nature of the world we live in.

Many of us prefer to believe that Bible is true and evolutionism is just poor guesswork to the contrary that may be ultra-necessary for atheists and anyone that wants to get a research grant -- but is not a required belief for Christians who accept the Bible.

And I would heartily agree with you. Evolution is not a "required belief" to be a Christian, nor have I been arguing for such a position. What I will defend, however, is the point that those Christians who feel that a more literal interpretation is the right one, thus excluding evolution, at the least still extend the right hand of fellowship to those other Christians of us who don't take such a literal approach to Genesis, particularly the 1st chapter.

What I find interesting is that it is not just Bible believing Christians that notice the glaring contradiction between the Bible and blind-faith-evolutionism - it is also well respected scientists and as James Barr points out - pretty much everyone in the world class universities on this subject.

I'm sure your quote from James Barr is poignant, but without a specific citation reflecting its exact source, I'm afraid it will be a bit less meaningful to me than it is to you, Bob.

Good talking to you.

Peace
2PhiloVoid

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Are you a literal "virgin-birth-ist"?

Yes.

a literal "bodily resurrection-ist"?

Yes.

a literal "ascension into heaven-ist"?

Yes.

a literal "7 day creation-ist"?

On a literary and theological level, yes. On a scientific level, no.

or do you say that since none of that is reproduced by tiny mankind - in the lab -- then none of it happened "in real history"?

Since I'm a Christian, I don't foresee that I'll be denying the central facts of our faith in Christ. However, some of the difference in my approach toward the Bible from yours, perhaps, isn't in whether I think the events described in the Bible actually happened in the "real history" of the past, but is in my understanding of the nature of written history as a whole and in the Philosophy of History that I enact in my mind to explain the nature of any kind of history, whether Biblical or Secular.

But, I'm not going to nail anyone to the wall for disagreeing with my philosophical stance on written history. It is an open question and given to our corporate exploration.

Peace
2PhiloVoid

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I appeciate 2philovoid that you yourself and some others participate in a manner that is exemplary.

Thanks, DMS. I do try to keep things civil, and I do strive to remember that I'm dealing with fellow human beings who are each, like me, trying to find their way through this struggle we call life, many of whom are hoping to find the Lord Jesus at the end of it all. But, some people (other than you) don't want to make my job very easy.

There is a good deal of difference between a scholarly debate which allows the various positions to present their case for materialistic evolution, theististic evolution, creationism, intelligent design, or alternatively reading of Genesis chapter 1 that comprehends it to be transcendent truth, or revelatory fact at least partly in the form of a epic poem. A debate allows informed criticism, questions to be raised, merits to be considered. While a forum could allow for that it would take the question to be framed in a less partisan manner. Unfortunately what has happened is someone has asked others to present their viewpoint theologically as if they wanted a debate, while claiming that their own viewpoint is indisputable fact rather than a theory presented in its original form as being falsifiable, dealing with gaps in an agnostic's knowledge. One has to be willing at least to consider other learned sources of views on this subject fairly rather than refering to them as 'shills'. Don't forget the evolutionists warming up moths on their car bonnet and gluing them to the trunks of trees, resulting in the Journal Nature lamenting the loss of a prize horse in their stable of evidence? Prize horse indeed

And you are quite right, DMS. Some of the supposed prize exhibits of evolution have turned out to be but paltry construals of some fact or another in nature. But, I say "some" ....

Verifiable fact unfortunately (for neo-darwinists).

Sure. But I'd contend that all of the following concepts are open to debate as to their exact nature: evidence, fact, proof, verification, falsification, validity, method, .... science, and so on.

Of course I recognise discussions on forums move on from an original post quite often and part company with the views expressed therein. But I don't see much point myself in doing more than raising some questions with the opinion expressed in the OP and leaving those with them. An 'untouchable theological answer' he asks for and yet he hasn't presented an 'untouchable answer' of his own, but only made a few assertions to keep the debate on his turf. Answers don't need to be wholly untouchable, and won't be while there is unbelief and sin distorting human thinking.

Well, I can see where you're coming from, really, and I appreciate your approach, DMS. I can also see where Indent is coming from, even if there are a few tiny bits here and there on which I'd slightly deviate.

But if the OP is really simply asking for a theological answer, then:

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." will be sufficient.

In some way, I think this is what Indent is trying to imply, or that it at least "should be" sufficient. For some Christians, though, affirming the basic essence of the first verse of the Bible isn't sufficient when speaking of the 'origins' of all.

Peace

 

[Anguspure]

Yes, we do see too much of that kind of thing. But, in the midst of this turmoil which has evoked polarized reactions among Christians in one sector of the Church, I'd like to suggest that my fellow Christians try to do a better job at discerning the difference between a biological evolutionist like Richard Dawkins and a biological evolutionist like Francis Collins. Because, these are two different spiritual species, if you well allow my use of metaphor. The former has chosen to thus far be an enemy of the faith; the latter has chosen faith in Jesus Christ.

Well .... this issue might depend on what we each think the Biblical notion of "kind" means, and as we both know, there is more than a couple of notions as to how to specify the nature of this concept--that ol' macro vs. micro thing. But, I'm not going to get into that here because I'm here just trying to address the social disruption between Christians who hold to different praxis of science.

Peace
2PhiloVoid

Many of the Christian people I know even have a problem with the stance of Discovery Institute, and for some reason Bill Lane Craig or even John Lennox for that matter. I have been informed that these guys don't stay close enough to the G-d of the Bible and shouldn't really be encouraged. Go figure?!?!
So you can see the huge gulf that has to be crossed to get them to consider somebody like Colins or even engage properly with the work of D-cky (how about that; the unpronouncable name of Dawkins on CF).

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Many of the Christian people I know even have a problem with the stance of Discovery Institute, and for some reason Bill Lane Craig or even John Lennox for that matter. I have been informed that these guys don't stay close enough to the G-d of the Bible and shouldn't really be encouraged. Go figure?!?!
So you can see the huge gulf that has to be crossed to get them to consider somebody like Colins or even engage properly with the work of D-cky (how about that; the unpronouncable name of Dawkins on CF).

LOL! Da--ns, the Unpronounceable! I like that.

With all we've brought to the fore thus far in conversation about Christian faith and Evolution, I would like to be clear that although I lean more toward Francis Collins' (Theological Evo) type position, this doesn't mean I don't like to hear what Bill Lane Craig, John Lennox, or William Dembski (I.D) have to say. I'm all open to their position too.

I'm also willing to hear out Henry M. Morris and friends (Creation Science); in fact, it was Morris and Gary Parker's stuff that they taught us in Bible college years ago.

And, I might add ... during some moments, for comparative purposes, I'll "Ham it up" with Ken Ham (Literal Creationism), but I find that my eye rolling reflex comes on strong when doing so. [But, you never know ... what if Ken Ham is right? ]

Peace
2PhiloVoid

 

[BobRyan]

Are you a literal "virgin-birth-ist"?
a literal "bodily resurrection-ist"?
a literal "ascension into heaven-ist"?
a literal "7 day creation-ist"?

or do you say that since none of that is reproduced by tiny mankind - in the lab -- then none of it happened "in real history"?

\
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
On a literary and theological level, yes. On a scientific level, no.

I understand that they all get a "literary yes" because the text itself is stating the fact as we read it.

But then they all get a "science no" because they cannot be reproduced in the lab????.

But then a double-speak "yes" on a theological level of 'yes theologically a virgin birth idea is ok but as science fact of what happened in real life - it gets a no"??

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Are you a literal "virgin-birth-ist"?
a literal "bodily resurrection-ist"?
a literal "ascension into heaven-ist"?
a literal "7 day creation-ist"?

or do you say that since none of that is reproduced by tiny mankind - in the lab -- then none of it happened "in real history"?



I under stand that they all get a "literary yes" because the text itself is stating the fact as we read it.

But then they all get a "science no" because they cannot be reproduced in the lab????.

But then a double-speak "yes" on a theological level of 'yes theologically a virgin birth idea is ok but as science fact of what happened in real life - it gets a no"??

If you want to accuse me of "double-speak," I can't stop you from doing so. Have at it, Bob! But here's the thing, I'm not dogmatic about science, and I recognize that it isn't science that is going to impart Eternal Life to me--and it's also for this reason that I'm not a Transhumanist. I don't have faith in science.

On the other side of the coin, how is the Virgin Birth or the Resurrection subject to science?

 

[BobRyan]

Are you a literal "virgin-birth-ist"?
a literal "bodily resurrection-ist"?
a literal "ascension into heaven-ist"?
a literal "7 day creation-ist"?

or do you say that since none of that is reproduced by tiny mankind - in the lab -- then none of it happened "in real history"?

\
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
On a literary and theological level, yes. On a scientific level, no.

I understand that they all get a "literary yes" because the text itself is stating the fact as we read it.

But then they all get a "science no" because they cannot be reproduced in the lab????.

But then a double-speak "yes" on a theological level of 'yes theologically a virgin birth idea is ok but as science fact of what happened in real life - it gets a no"??

But here's the thing, I'm not dogmatic about science, and I recognize that it isn't science that is going to impart Eternal Life to me

I am dogmatic that science is a great tool for knowledge and objective science unbent by efforts to make it junk science is ideal -- especially for Christians who think critically and are not easily "duped" as Patterson would put it.

--and it's also for this reason that I'm not a Transhumanist. I don't have faith in science.

On the other side of the coin, how is the Virgin Birth or the Resurrection subject to science?

the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the bodily ascension of Christ the 7 day creation week are obviously physical events that take place in nature - in real life - in history. Real historic events where the actor is "God Himself".

Can we "trust God" to have done what He actually said He did -- in real history? "The fact" of the 7 day creation week is embedded "in legal code" as we see in Exodus 20:11.

None of these Bible-history "events" can be "reproduced in the lab" as I keep pointing out. (And you keep sidestepping)

They are all foundational to faith - as even John points out in chapter 1 of his Gospel.

Believe the Bible - or deny the Bible. it is a "literary fact" that Moses was not writing as a Darwinist and neither was John - nor were their readers inclined to "read darwinism into the text". Both start off their text with affirmation of the Bible fact of creation - and both move on from that foundation to the subject of the fall man and the Gospel.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Believe the Bible - or deny the Bible.

Amein.

 

[BobRyan]

Of course, you're right on your first point. Both Dawkins and Scott are atheists and evolutionists, and they both believe that evolution is an "observable fact." But, my point of setting Dawkins and Scott side-by-side isn't to suggest that there are a "legion" of atheists/evolutionists in the world, nor to show that I agree with all of their philosophical conclusions, but to show that EVEN DESPITE THE FACT that they are both atheists and evolutionists, they both have a significant difference in their praxis (i.e. theory and application) of science and as to how it works and what it can do, particularly in relation to additional considerations that flow from the minds of Theists and Christians.

I fully agree that some atheists want to point out the utter nonsensical nature of a self-conflicted appeal to atheist evolutionism "as if fact" married to 'but I still believe the Bible even though it is wrong and evolution is the real creation account". Scott says that this sort of nonsense should be allowed .. P.Z. Meyers also an atheist would agree with Scott that this is "knitting" for Christians to somehow cling to a discredited Bible - all the while "believing" to themselves that evolutionism is the real factual historic account of creation.

i agree that such atheists exist.

Dawkins, Provine and Meyers all admit that they used to be Christians until they became convinced that the Bible was wrong and blind faith evolutionism was the real true - the real "creation account'.

 

[BobRyan]

Regarding the Atheist debate over self-conflicted T.E. arguments attempting to cling to a discredited Bible while claiming to "believe" in the creation account of evolutionism - you said

Yes, and as I said above, that difference is significant, and it constitutes a running debate among various scientists today, even (surprisingly) among those who have atheism in common. And it is this fact that often is ignored by ardent atheists on one side (because they think Dawkins is right and not Scott), and also ignored by the other side represented by most Christians;

As far as I know - nobody ignores this non-science discussion had among atheists about how to tolerate or else to insult T.E. groups that try to marry evolutionism to the Bible.

it is also often ignored for various reasons pertaining to one's interpretation of Scripture

The dirty little "secret" is that that is almost never true. As James Barr points out - "an interpretation problem" does not even exist there -- not even among atheist and agnostic professors of Hebrew and OT studies in all world class universities.

Nobody argues that Moses was a Darwinist and nobody argues that the legal code of Exodus 20:11 is "promoted as Myth or allegory or symbolism by Moses"

What you reference is in fact a story - a fiction that some prefer to imagine when it comes to 'The text" but the experts themselves claim that this is just not true.

The eisegesis of the T.E. is "required" -- bible-bending-needed because they need to insert their bias into the text.

Atheists don't need to do that. They don't care if the Bible says 2+2=4 or 2+2=5. They aren't going to lose sleep over it either way. They don't mind "reporting the news" because they have no conflict-of-interest demanding that they bend a historic account "into an allegory or myth or symbolism" if the context and the text don't require it.

 

[BobRyan]

Many of us prefer to believe that Bible is true and evolutionism is just poor guesswork to the contrary that may be ultra-necessary for atheists and anyone that wants to get a research grant -- but is not a required belief for Christians who accept the Bible.

What I find interesting is that it is not just Bible believing Christians that notice the glaring contradiction between the Bible and blind-faith-evolutionism - it is also well respected scientists and as James Barr points out - pretty much everyone in the world class universities on this subject.

And I would heartily agree with you. Evolution is not a "required belief" to be a Christian, nor have I been arguing for such a position.

Indeed - I don't think that point is even debatable.

The question is "believe the Bible or bend the Bible to your preference" - that is the one being discussed.

What I will defend, however, is the point that those Christians who feel that a more literal interpretation is the right one, thus excluding evolution, at the least still extend the right hand of fellowship to those other Christians of us who don't take such a literal approach to Genesis, particularly the 1st chapter.

Agreed. I don't think the debate is whether to fellowship with Christians that differ - the point under debate is whether embracing Bible destroying contradiction to feed an atheist agenda for origins -- even makes sense for a Christian.

The fact that some choose such an illogical course of action does not mean we do not fellowship with them.

I have given you the example of the "ists" where you wish to "pick and choose" between them - trying to reject the Bible statement on creation yet accept the virgin birth - when in fact neither of these historic events can "reproduced in the lab"

I'm sure your quote from James Barr is poignant, but without a specific citation reflecting its exact source, I'm afraid it will be a bit less meaningful to me than it is to you, Bob.

Pretty funny! But you and I both know that the source in fact does not matter to T.E.s because many know their position is self-conflicted if it has to be defended just from "What the text says". If they thought they had no evolutionism stories to promote another view - they would not have inserted that view in to the Genesis 1-2:3 (Exodus 20:11) text to start with.

And we both know it.

 

[AV1611VET]

What I find interesting is that it is not just Bible believing Christians that notice the glaring contradiction between the Bible and blind-faith-evolutionism - it is also well respected scientists and as James Barr points out - pretty much everyone in the world class universities on this subject.

You realize you're not too popular with those who practice science, don't you?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

You realize you're not too popular with those who practice science, don't you?

THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT Y'SHUA SAID ! GOOD !

"ANYONE who takes a stand for the TRUTH...... " will be persecuted.