Christianity & Evolution Are Compatible...A Reflection

[Amoeba]

So is evolution.

What you are doing is in fact imposing your worldly views on God, and getting him to fit into that box.

Evolution by natural selection is a natural fact, not my "worldly view".

No argument there, however so does the evolutionist. He has a prior commitment to materialism.

Evidence cannot speak for itself, it is always interpreted through a framework. The creationist has his framework, the evolutionist has a contrasting one.

Evolution is a fact. Not simply an "interpretation" on equal with creationism, which has absolutely no foundation in scientific inquiry.

We know, and I have never heard anybody say that it is.

You yourself are implying a literal translation of the Genesis creation story.

Incorrect, the main focus by a creationist is the word of God.

No, the Bible is your "evidence" of creationism. And it is obvious your focus is on debunking the fact of evolution.

Evolution is the Athiests strongest weapon against us, so of course the creationist is entitled to defend himself.

As I said before, evolution says nothing about god, the existence of god, etc. So your assumption that evolution is a weapon against Christianity is a comical, albeit, nonsensical belief. The false dichotomy lies in the belief that to believe in the fact of evolution means you cannot be a Christian.

I like that, its a great point ! I have never heard an evolutionist bring that up before (to be honest i never considered the atheist clever enough to pick up on that point)

I am a deist. I must bring to your attention that believing in the fact of evolution does not equate to a non-belief in god. The point is, the creation story of genesis is blatantly mystical in nature. But even it says we are essentially made of dirt. And we essentially are. Born of dirt, dead in dirt. Born out of the earth, and dead in the earth, in the endless circle of life.

I agree wholeheartedly. If one believes in Jesus Christ The origins of life argument is moot. On the day of judgment JC is not going to hand us a questionnaire, with two boxes, Evolution and Creation, with the instructions
"Tick One" It is what is in our heart that matters.

However it remains my opinion that the Creation viewpoint makes so much more sense of the whole redemption thing to me, once I really began to study in depth.

i suppose many people would argure that I was indoctrinated. Sure, if its possible to indoctrinate oneself.

In regards to ultimate salvation, yes the debate is moot. But when serious attempts are made to put literal interpretations of a mystical ancient document into a science class room, well, we have a debate on the nature of science, and what is and isn't science.

Call creationism, or intelligent design what it is. Creationists want it taught? Okay, teach it in an optional comparative religion class. Put it in an atmosphere in which it belongs. The science classroom is definitely not the place.

 

[Amoeba]

I've been asking you guys for years to tell me what you would even consider evidence --- and so far --- nothing.

QV please: .

I create an apple ex nihilo into the palm of your hand.

What evidence would you use to convince your friend I did this?

The universe wasn't created out of nothing. Nor does the bible say it was...

 

[Amoeba]

Ruling God out of the picture and going on empirical evidence alone.

Putting the creature (creation) above the Creator.

God is not measurable, testable, observable, in any scientific context. It would help you immensely if you could just understand what science is. Science says nothing about god, and it's not supposed to.

How do we describe and under the NATURAL processes of the universe? Saying, "God did it.", really explains nothing at all. God is supernatural. The discussion on God belong in philosophical and theological contexts. Not the science laboratory.

 

[Amoeba]

As best as I understand it, the Creation-ist does not claim that there is any physical evidence that God exists. So that is a non argument

Then please call creationism for what it is. A religious view based on a mystical ancient text. Not science.

When Sir Edmund Hilary got to the top of Mt Everest, was there a plaque there that said "Made in -4,500,000,000"?

There is no evidence that the earth is billions of years old, because evidence doesn't talk.

There is a massive volume of evidence for the age of the earth, solar system, etc. There are more than a dozen ways to date an object. You are simply rejecting, out of hand, observable, verifiable, facts.

Yes, like your framework is a preconceived idea that God does not exist. So whether you are looking at a bible or a rock, you have already decided which 'box' you are going to fit it in before you even begin investigation, and you will keep going until you get it into that box.

All false. Statements of fact are not just a "framework of belief applied to observation".

No Scientist is any different, and many are on public record in agreement with that, every single person has a world view and presuppositions that determine how we interpret evidence and use the tool of reason. And at the heart of every single world view is faith.

That's a given. But when we're speaking of verifiable, observable, testable FACTS, we are not in the realm of faith. Please refrain from equating scientific inquiry to philosophical/theological brain storming.

 

[AV1611VET]

Where did I say It was?

But it is NOT a scientific document. Let me repeat that. THE BIBLE IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC DOCUMENT."

Let me hexadeca-repeat this:

Using the Bible as a science book is like using Bill Gate's diary as a computer manual.

 

[AV1611VET]

This is the part where AV insists something along the lines of, "Of course it's not a 'scientific document,' it's the personal diary of the Great Scientist Himself."

That too ---

And then we all laugh, and the world keeps on spinning.

You mean you all laugh, and the same questions keep on getting asked.

 

[Cabal]

Where did I say It was?Let me hexadeca-repeat this:

Using the Bible as a science book is like using Bill Gate's diary as a computer manual.

55 73 69 6e 67 20 74 68 65 20 42 69 62 6c 65 20 61 73 20 61 20 73 63 69 65 6e 63 65 20 62 6f 6f 6b 20 69 73 20 6c 69 6b 65 20 75 73 69 6e 67 20 42 69 6c 6c 20 47 61 74 65 5c 27 73 20 64 69 61 72 79 20 61 73 20 61 20 63 6f 6d 70 75 74 65 72 20 6d 61 6e 75 61 6c 2e

Fix'd.

 

[Skaloop]

Using the Bible as a science book is like using Bill Gate's diary as a computer manual.

If, in his diary, Mr. Gates described how computers work in a way that was absolutely different than how computers actually do work, you might have a point.

 

[AV1611VET]

God is not measurable, testable, observable, in any scientific context.

Let me save you a bunch of predicate adjectives, Amoeba --- "God is transcendent".

It would help you immensely if you could just understand what science is. Science says nothing about god, and it's not supposed to.

Since you only have like 9 posts, and don't know a thing about me, and seem to be saying the same things I usually have said about 90 times (+/- three times), I'll answer this little remark of yours, then I'll drop it until you learn a little more about where I stand on issues.

But to answer this --- at the risk of parroting you --- science says nothing about God, and it's not supposed to.

In fact, it couldn't if it tried.

When science can build a machine that can do this:

And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.

--- then maybe science might have something to say --- like, "Wow! I didn't know that! I stand corrected!"

Put another way: Science is too myopic to be a viable critique of the Bible.

How do we describe and under the NATURAL processes of the universe?

Is that even a sentence?

Saying, "God did it.", really explains nothing at all.

Fair enough --- just remember that the next time you see them on the news say, "Joe did it," when speaking of a crime.

God is supernatural.

Ya --- I've heard that rumor a thousand times --- and said it ten times more.

The discussion on God belong in philosophical and theological contexts.

Or maybe history?

Not the science laboratory.

Okie-doke.

 

[Cabal]

?Fair enough --- just remember that the next time you see them on the news say, "Joe did it," when speaking of a crime.

Does that depend if it was prophesied and described as being done by supernatural means in an old tome that kinda doesn't really describe it all that well, or if we deduced that via forensics?

 

[BananaSlug]

In other words, that must mean that the lawful killing of a human being is not murder. Thank you for the clarification.

Yes, I did state that.

You tell me, you are tossing up these claims that innocent are being murdered. But you have not given any scripture to support this.

Strawman. You have yet to establish that babies have been murdered.

2 Thus says the LORD of hosts: ‘I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel, how he ambushed him on the way when he came up from Egypt. 3 Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’” 1 Samuel 15:2-3

So is the killing of infants and nursing children murder? Were the infants innocent?

You are applying argument from outrage here.

No. Just tell me if you think killing babies is murder.

What about doctor that is faced with a situation when a woman is in serious trouble giving birth, where he can only save the life of the mother, or the baby being born. In all cases he will sacrifice the child for the sake of the mother.

That is a totally different scenario than killing babies for no reason other than what their parents did.

16 “Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall children be put to death for their fathers; a person shall be put to death for his own sin. Deuteronomy 24:16

20 The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself. Ezekiel 18:20

Their remains countless examples in reality and in fiction where a parent has killed their own child to save them from a worse fate, like rape, murder, eaten by wild animals, starvation and so on.

So an omnipotent God couldn't do this either?

So there is two justified reasons.

Killing a child to prevent them from being murdered?

You are claiming murder, now kill. You need to make up your mind what you are arguing for.

Was the killing of the infants and nursing children in 1 Samuel justified? Are infants innocent? If so, is the killing of an innocent justified because God didn't feel like taking care of babies?

 

[Amoeba]

Where did I say It was?Let me hexadeca-repeat this:

Please don't play dumb....

He told us how He created --- in Writing.

In fact, He not only told us what He did, but how He did it, when He did it, where He did it, why He did it, what order He did it in, and even who the eyewitnesses were.

 

[marktheblake]

I come from a deep cultural tradition that has its sense of right and wrong, good and bad.

where did that deep cultural tradition get its sense of right or wrong from?

Regardless of that, I dont know of any reason that a 'god" has anything to do with setting standards.

There is either an absolute morality, or that we decide morality for ourselves. Which is it?

Blame the entire nation of Egypt for what the leader ordered troops to do?.

Did only Hitler receive justice for the for the crimes against the Jews. In comparison you are suggesting that the troops that did the acts were not guilty, as they were only following orders.

The women and childen that died as a result of Allied bombing on Germany - does that make Roosevelt and Churchill evil?

The entire nation of Germany experienced the consequences of the actions of its leader. Fact of life, happens in good times and bad times.

Hebrews could have gone out at night to all parts of Egypt and sought out the first born, sneaked in and killed them, and all the first born cows.... honestly. I dont think so.

The population of Egypt, was around 2 Million, so lets say 400,000 families, each one with a first born, and thats not counting the animals.

I more than dont think so. It is logistically impossible.

I see no moral or funcitonal distinction between believing a god sent word, or some more mortal kind of max leader.

The people that do believe in God do see the distinction.

I might well be able to out-snark you but I dont want to play.

It is really very dishonest for you to engage in a discussion about the biblical text by
1. claiming you dont beleive in any of it., then
2. disregarding parts of it.

If you don't beleive any of it, fine, but you have to accept it as a whole if you want be critical of parts of it.

 

[marktheblake]

The lists of "scientists who don't believe in evolution" that I have seen are generally made up of scientists from fields that are far removed from the study or use of evolutionary theory, and top out between 1 and 2 hundred..

The argument that i was responding to, was that the only accomplished scientists who believed in Creation had doctorates in Theology, or literature, and thus is undermining their credibility.

Thank you, you really have just confirmed that claim is false.

It mattes nought if a Phd that doesn't beleive in evolution is an Astronomer. That does not undermine his credibility whatsoever.

 

[Amoeba]

Let me save you a bunch of predicate adjectives, Amoeba --- "God is transcendent".

Great. What is your point?

Since you only have like 9 posts, and don't know a thing about me, and seem to be saying the same things I usually have said about 90 times (+/- three times), I'll answer this little remark of yours, then I'll drop it until you learn a little more about where I stand on issues.

When you make statements like this, "Ruling God out of the picture and going on empirical evidence alone. Putting the creature (creation) above the Creator." It makes it blatantly clear you have a distorted view of what science is.

But to answer this --- at the risk of parroting you --- science says nothing about God, and it's not supposed to.

Then please don't lament the fact that science is not the place for a discussion or examination of the divine.

In fact, it couldn't if it tried.

When science can build a machine that can do this: --- then maybe science might have something to say --- like, "Wow! I didn't know that! I stand corrected!"

I'm sure scientists around the world are waiting for flaming chariots to come out of the sky...

Put another way: Science is too myopic to be a viable critique of the Bible.

Science is strictly the examination of natural processes. NOT examination of supernatural and divine things. Your fundamental error is your erroneous understanding of what science is and is not.

Is that even a sentence?

Ever heard of a typo?

Fair enough --- just remember that the next time you see them on the news say, "Joe did it," when speaking of a crime.

I see you're now resorting to rhetorical arguments. That's unfortunate.

Ya --- I've heard that rumor a thousand times --- and said it ten times more.

Okay, then you shouldn't have a problem with scientific inquiry not being involved in discussion of the supernatural.

Or maybe history?

Instead acting like an arrogant prick, perhaps you could take some of this stuff seriously?

Okie-doke.

Ok what? This debate with you feels like I'm talking to a brick wall.

 

[marktheblake]

The creation story in Genesis is blatantly mystical in nature. How you can see this as literal is beyond me, and frankly, ridiculous.

It is only ridiculous for someone to believe this if they are an Atheist. For a beleiver in God, nothing is impossible.

"The Bible is full of wisdom, history, and theology. But it is NOT a scientific document. Let me repeat that. THE BIBLE IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC DOCUMENT."

Repeat it all you like, nobody is saying that it is.

Evolution by natural selection is a natural fact, not my "worldly view".

Your world view determines whether you view evolution of dirt to humans as fact or not.

Evolution is a fact. Not simply an "interpretation" on equal with creationism, which has absolutely no foundation in scientific inquiry.

Dirt to Humans evolution is unobservable, and unrepeatable.

You yourself are implying a literal translation of the Genesis creation story.

I take the bible seriously, thank you for the affirmation.

No, the Bible is your "evidence" of creationism. And it is obvious your focus is on debunking the fact of evolution.

No, the Bible is the framework through which i view things in this world.

And no, my focus is not on debunking evolution. My focus is on supporting creation.

As I said before, evolution says nothing about god, the existence of god, etc. So your assumption that evolution is a weapon against Christianity is a comical, albeit, nonsensical belief.

Good, you go tell that to all the evolutionists who feel they have to spend so much time attacking creationists. They are wasting their time, as evolution is so grounded in fact it stands alone and withstands criticism.

I am a deist. I must bring to your attention that believing in the fact of evolution does not equate to a non-belief in god.

never suggested anything of the sort. Your world view determines how you view evolution not the other way around.

Call creationism, or intelligent design what it is. Creationists want it taught?

No they dont. They want evolution given more critical analysis. Get with the times man.

 

[marktheblake]

Yes, I did state that.

Thank you, therefore if God commands the Israelites to kill someone, then that is a lawful command, and cannot under any circumstances be called murder.

It is your constant claim that the Israelites are committing murder therefore the foundation of your skepticism is fundamentally wrong.

You need to start again, by addressing the authority of God first.

 

[BananaSlug]

Thank you, therefore if God commands the Israelites to kill someone, then that is a lawful command, and cannot under any circumstances be called murder.

It is your constant claim that the Israelites are committing murder therefore the foundation of your skepticism is fundamentally wrong.

You need to start again, by addressing the authority of God first.

Would you care to address the rest of the post?

 

[Amoeba]

It is only ridiculous for someone to believe this if they are an Atheist. For a beleiver in God, nothing is impossible.

You don't have to be an atheist to believe a literal interpretation of the genesis creation story, as ridiculous. It just plain is...

Repeat it all you like, nobody is saying that it is.

You can not escape the implications of you and AV's arguments. Yea, we all know you didn't directly say it, but your arguments imply it.

Your world view determines whether you view evolution of dirt to humans as fact or not.

World view has nothing to do with acceptance of a scientific fact.

Dirt to Humans evolution is unobservable, and unrepeatable.

The process by which evolution occurs is very observable. Natural selection is all around you and scientists have observed natural speciation in nature at length.

One example of natural speciation is the diversity of the three-spined stickleback, a marine fish which, after the last ice age, has undergone speciation into new freshwater colonies in isolated lakes and streams. Over an estimated 10,000 generations, the sticklebacks show structural differences that are greater than those seen between different genera of fish including variations in fins, changes in the number or size of their bony plates, variable jaw structure, and color differences.

Kingsley, D.M. (January 2009) "From Atoms to Traits," Scientific American, p. 57

I take the bible seriously, thank you for the affirmation.

Taking the bible seriously does not have to involve taking mystical parts of it as literal, scientific fact. Do you believe a seven headed beast is coming out of the ocean as it says in Revelation? It is clear the bible is full of history, yes. But much of the bible is also blatantly mystical/allegorical. A fundamentalist literal view of the entire bible is misguided.

No, the Bible is the framework through which i view things in this world.

There are sources of truth outside of the bible. Science being the main one.

And no, my focus is not on debunking evolution. My focus is on supporting creation.

Great, just what I wanted to hear. Can you refer me to any scientific research paper, which has been peer-reviewed by a committee of experts in any field of natural science, and explains in scientific terms how an untestable, unmeasurable god, influences or controls any specific aspect of nature?

Good, you go tell that to all the evolutionists who feel they have to spend so much time attacking creationists. They are wasting their time, as evolution is so grounded in fact it stands alone and withstands criticism.

You don't get the point. You have made it clear you think evolution is the atheists weapon against your theism. You need to know evolution is not a weapon against anything. Evolution is a statement of fact, nothing more. You can reconcile scientific fact and your belief in a created reality!

never suggested anything of the sort. Your world view determines how you view evolution not the other way around.

Again, my world view is irrelevant in relation to acceptance of scientific facts.

No they dont. They want evolution given more critical analysis. Get with the times man.

Excuse me, please don't talk to me like that.

What critical analysis? The only critical analysis creationists want is that which sows doubts into the minds of students as to the truthfulness of scientific facts. That is not critical analysis. That is indoctrination. And critical analysis in favor of what? What's the scientific alternative? There is none...

 

[SiderealExalt]

Religion and Science are compatible in that a supernatural explanation can accommodate pretty much ANYTHING. Conversely, science is not compatible with religion.