Christianity & Evolution Are Compatible...A Reflection

[Cabal]

Evidence doesn't talk.

All evidence is interpreted through a framework. The evidence does back it up when viewed through the eyes of one who believes that God created, as he said he created.

Just wanted to point out that you're defending a creationist who doesn't believe there is any evidence for what he believes and has to resort to his own extrabiblical ideas in order to explain what is observed in nature.

 

[Hespera]

Evidence doesn't talk.

All evidence is interpreted through a framework. The evidence does back it up when viewed through the eyes of one who believes that God created, as he said he created.

If you are interpreting through a different framework, ie that there is no god and millions of years, yes, of course you will not agree.[/quote


Ok lets see. No physical evidence whatever that any "god" exists.

A very large body of evidence with many different sources of information, that indicate the earth is many millions of years old.


So what you call a "framework" actually a preconceived idea about something that doesnt exist on one side, and solid physical evidence on the otehr.

Talk framework all you like in court, an invisible magic man theory wont hold up against the bloodstained clothes, the photos, the money....you know?

BUt but your honour! They are interpreting through a framework!

99 years on the hard rock pile

 

[marktheblake]

see comment about mao, above.

Didn't get it, so i passed on it.

I was referring to your and others' apparently endless willingness to make excuses for all the slaughter of innocents.

I am not aware of any 'slaughter of innocents' so i have no excuses to make.

As for what we "ALL" expect from "god", speak for yourself.

I am speaking for all of us that believes in a merciful and gracious God. If you choose not to beleive in God thats fine, however if you are going to make arguments about his character, then you must do so from the perspective of the text. Otherwise you are just being dishonest with the 'I don't beleive in god anyway' comeback.

Right. blame the victims, support the agressors.

Huh? You are claiming god is evil for killing innocents, and now you advocate that evil should not be judged, and then receive the consequences.

Very strange, not to mention where you get your moral absolute from to determine what is good and what is evil.

 

[AV1611VET]

I guess i find it weird that you dont know anything about one of the most important figures of teh 20th century, but, ok.......

I'm not in to veneration --- especially if this guy is a crook or something.

I know from my high-school days some people were going on about "Chairman Mao", and Mao Tse Tung was on the news about this or that, but I was growing up and had other things on my mind --- and couldn't care less.

And still don't.

Mao Tse Tung (if I'm even spelling that right) is one of the last persons you'll see me interested in.

Another one that was big back then was someone named Chang Kai Shek (or someone).

I have no idea who he was, what he stood for, or anything --- and don't really care.

Genghis Kahn though? Now you're talking!

But the real Hero, of course, is Jesus Christ ---

his existence had a profound effect on my family / country, and a few members who were deeply involved have never gotten over the brainwashing they went thru becoming good little maoists.

I don't know if you're bragging or complaining, but if you're implying somehow that we Christians are Maoists, then I'll go ahead and disagree on principle.

I've been called a lot of stuff here, from a YEC to a 'freak in a freak show', even a wh**e --- I suppose adding 'Maoist' to the list isn't going to hurt --- (I'm assuming 'Maoist' is a negative connotation).

I find parallels in how people think, and act, here. Those ignorant of the topic wouldnt, much as those ignorant of history tend to repeat it.

I have the feeling that I'm not going to repeat this chairman's crimes anytime soon --- (if he committed any).

the bit about napoleon is probably intended to be some sort of snide, but the, im not always tactful in what i say. I dont get the whole bit of being proud of ignorance tho.

It's a science thing --- I don't know who said it, but someone recently said that he can't wait to be found wrong.

Scientists love to pwn themselves --- it gets them 15 minutes of fame and a little spending cash --- maybe even their name on the Periodic Table.

Unless they pwn a high-profile philosophy --- like evolution --- then they'll be able to retire comfortably.

 

[AV1611VET]

Just wanted to point out that you're defending a creationist who doesn't believe there is any evidence for what he believes and has to resort to his own extrabiblical ideas in order to explain what is observed in nature.

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

QV please: 1.

 

[AV1611VET]

I am not aware of any 'slaughter of innocents' ...

Nor am I.

 

[Hespera]

Didn't get it, so i passed on it.



I am not aware of any 'slaughter of innocents' so i have no excuses to make.


I am speaking for all of us that believes in a merciful and gracious God. If you choose not to beleive in God thats fine, however if you are going to make arguments about his character, then you must do so from the perspective of the text. Otherwise you are just being dishonest with the 'I don't beleive in god anyway' comeback.



Huh? You are claiming god is evil for killing innocents, and now you advocate that evil should not be judged, and then receive the consequences.

Very strange, not to mention where you get your moral absolute from to determine what is good and what is evil.

Waht I said about Mao wasnt that hard to get. People will follow their maximum leader and think that anything is justified if he orders it. Likewise if they think a god ordered something.

You didnt read my original comment about the slaughter of innocents. i said there are STORIES, I never said god is real, or evil, or anyting else, other than a construct of people's imagination.

People did a lot of evil things, and made up orders from a fictitious "god" as a way tojustify it.

Dunno where the talk of moral absolutes comes from. This is very simple. Killing innocents is wrong. A person cant follow that the slaughter of innocents is wrong by any possibls standard is a climical sociopath at best

In the wild speculation dept, you somehow decided that i dont think that "evil" should be judged or punished. Wrong.

if there is justice in an afterlife all those old time hebrews who committed atrocities and felt all sanctimonious about it should get an extra licking compated to say, the Mongols who probably knew they were just doing it for loot and didnt pretend anything.

 

[Hespera]

Nor am I.

Like i said, just define them as guilty then its ok.

 

[AV1611VET]

Like i said, just define them as guilty then its ok.

Depends on who is doing the defining.

If you can't trust reconnaissance in a war, who can you trust?

 

[Hespera]

I'm not in to veneration --- especially if this guy is a crook or something.

I know from my high-school days some people were going on about "Chairman Mao", and Mao Tse Tung was on the news about this or that, but I was growing up and had other things on my mind --- and couldn't care less.

And still don't.

Mao Tse Tung (if I'm even spelling that right) is one of the last persons you'll see me interested in.

Another one that was big back then was someone named Chang Kai Shek (or someone).

I have no idea who he was, what he stood for, or anything --- and don't really care.

Genghis Kahn though? Now you're talking!

But the real Hero, of course, is Jesus Christ --- I don't know if you're bragging or complaining, but if you're implying somehow that we Christians are Maoists, then I'll go ahead and disagree on principle.

I've been called a lot of stuff here, from a YEC to a 'freak in a freak show', even a wh**e --- I suppose adding 'Maoist' to the list isn't going to hurt --- (I'm assuming 'Maoist' is a negative connotation).I have the feeling that I'm not going to repeat this chairman's crimes anytime soon --- (if he committed any).It's a science thing --- I don't know who said it, but someone recently said that he can't wait to be found wrong.

Scientists love to pwn themselves --- it gets them 15 minutes of fame and a little spending cash --- maybe even their name on the Periodic Table.

Unless they pwn a high-profile philosophy --- like evolution --- then they'll be able to retire comfortably.

You say the strangest things.

 

[marktheblake]

Ok lets see. No physical evidence whatever that any "god" exists.

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

A very large body of evidence with many different sources of information, that indicate the earth is many millions of years old.

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.

So what you call a "framework" actually a preconceived idea about something that doesnt exist on one side

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.

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.

 

[Psudopod]

Originally Posted by Psudopod http://www.christianforums.com/t7388141-10/#post52510826
So why doesn't the evidence back it up then?
Evidence doesn't talk.

All evidence is interpreted through a framework. The evidence does back it up when viewed through the eyes of one who believes that God created, as he said he created.

If you are interpreting through a different framework, ie that there is no god and millions of years, yes, of course you will not agree.

If I have made a mistake, you should be able to tell me what mistake I have made. If you just claim it’s just my interpretation against yours, then you don’t really understand how science works. And why would an acceptance of millions of years imply that god doesn’t exist? These are two separate issues.

 

[Psudopod]

Originally Posted by Psudopod http://www.christianforums.com/t7388141-10/#post52510931
Even if we assume that the creation event left no evidence, the earth has 4.6 billion years of history. Why is that there?
That history is made-up, programmed into a computer, and left to sit there unchallenged.

It comes from taking the oldest substance on earth, Zircon, assuming it went around the sun 4.404 billion times, then dating the formation of the earth from just prior to that.

Fake science in action.

Why would you assume it hasn’t, other that a literal interpretation of the bible. Why make the zircon that old, if it isn’t? How do you show it’s fake? Remember, science can only work with what God has left us. And we know it does work, you and I wouldn’t be having this conversation if it didn’t.

 

[Hespera]

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



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.



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.

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.

The lack of physical evidence sure is not an argument FOR something. At best its a zero, nothing for nothing against.

The bit about Everest is such a silly strawman, thats unworthy of you.

So is the "evidence doenst talk". Try that in court! They have a stack of photos, documents, fingerprints, empty bullets, bloody clothes, etc and so on. Your defense is "evidence doesnt talk"?

Your ad hom about deciding what box put something in and then bending evidence to make it fit is also unworthy of you, or or any debate.

Pure and total objectivity is probably impossible. Theists of course, make no effort at all. Do they? In science, at least, we have people all around the wrold from every culture conpeting for the best interpretation. No ideology can stand up to that for long.

And finally the bit about "faith". For some reasons theists like to try to toss everyone in the same boat with them on this.

The kind of "fiath" that theists have may well seem like a basic way of approaching life that is common to all. It isnt. You keep it; I dont want it, wont accept it; its your problem, not mine.

 

[marktheblake]

Waht I said about Mao wasnt that hard to get. People will follow their maximum leader and think that anything is justified if he orders it. Likewise if they think a god ordered something.

Now i get it. How do you know that Mao is evil?

You didnt read my original comment about the slaughter of innocents. i said there are STORIES, I never said god is real, or evil, or anyting else, other than a construct of people's imagination.

Doesnt matter, you are making a truth claim on those stories to prove a point that does not exist.

People did a lot of evil things, and made up orders from a fictitious "god" as a way tojustify it.

Now why on earth would they need to do that. This does not make any sense at all.

Dunno where the talk of moral absolutes comes from. This is very simple. Killing innocents is wrong.

(a) How do you know it is wrong
(b) There are no killing of innocents in the bible.

A person cant follow that the slaughter of innocents is wrong by any possibls standard is a climical sociopath at best

I am not suggesting otherwise. Because God commands us that we have no right to take the life of another human being.

You do not beleive in God, so how do you know what is the difference between good and evil. Who decides this?

In the wild speculation dept, you somehow decided that i dont think that "evil" should be judged or punished. Wrong.

You are in no position to judge that certain groups of people mentioned in the bible are not guilty of the evil that they have received justice for.

I dont care if you do not beleive in the bible, if you are going to use the bible itself as an argument, then you have to use truth in the text - not your imagination.

if there is justice in an afterlife all those old time hebrews who committed atrocities and felt all sanctimonious about it should get an extra licking compated to say, the Mongols who probably knew they were just doing it for loot and didnt pretend anything.

Of course, that is not even an argument. There are definitely Hebrews who committed evil (but not what you said they did), so did some French, Chinese, and probably even some Americans. They will all answer to God.

 

[AV1611VET]

[/color]

Why would you assume it hasn’t, other that a literal interpretation of the bible. Why make the zircon that old, if it isn’t? How do you show it’s fake? Remember, science can only work with what God has left us. And we know it does work, you and I wouldn’t be having this conversation if it didn’t.

I do believe Zircon is that old, and I also believe the earth is as old as you guys [currently] say it is.

I actually agree with about 95% of you guys' conclusions --- you just don't realize it.

It's that 5% that I have to agree with, and don't, that makes me everything but a Homo.

Science is demanding --- and cruel.

 

[marktheblake]

[/color]

If I have made a mistake, you should be able to tell me what mistake I have made.

I answered a one liner with a one liner.

If you just claim it’s just my interpretation against yours, then you don’t really understand how science works.

you made a very very general statement. I am not sure how it can be detailed much further

And why would an acceptance of millions of years imply that god doesn’t exist? These are two separate issues.

I probably meant eg not ie, but No, the example you refer to is the other way around, firstly no God, that unquestionably implies millions of years.

 

[Hespera]

Now i get it. How do you know that Mao is evil?


Doesnt matter, you are making a truth claim on those stories to prove a point that does not exist.


Now why on earth would they need to do that. This does not make any sense at all.


(a) How do you know it is wrong
(b) There are no killing of innocents in the bible.



I am not suggesting otherwise. Because God commands us that we have no right to take the life of another human being.

You do not beleive in God, so how do you know what is the difference between good and evil. Who decides this?



You are in no position to judge that certain groups of people mentioned in the bible are not guilty of the evil that they have received justice for.

I dont care if you do not beleive in the bible, if you are going to use the bible itself as an argument, then you have to use truth in the text - not your imagination.




Of course, that is not even an argument. There are definitely Hebrews who committed evil (but not what you said they did), so did some French, Chinese, and probably even some Americans. They will all answer to God.

I personally dont think that being responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of people is very nice. So Im not a Mao fan.

" you are making a truth claim on those stories to prove a point that does not exist." huh? I said there are stories about god being responsible for the slaughter of innocents. There are. Simple. The stories arent true anyway. Tho no doubt a lot of people did get killed.

If you need a "god" to help you figure out whether tearing down cities and killing people is wrong, then you do. I dont.

I see that you are determined as any good little Maoist was, that whoever the maximum leader says should be killed, whoever you THINK the max guy said should be killed is therefore guilty and should be killed.

I have relatives who still think that way. I guess it would be too painful for their conscience if they didnt.

Why on earth would the old hebrews want to make up stories about how god sent them to do the killing, that the victims were evil? You honestly to goodness dont understand that?

I think Im done with this. You think that every firstborn in Egypt deserved to be killed, their parents hearts broken*. Im sure glad I wasnt brought up in a religion like that.

*not that it really happened, luckily. but the guys who thought up the story didnt see anything wrong with it!

 

[Psudopod]

I do believe Zircon is that old, and I also believe the earth is as old as you guys [currently] say it is.

I actually agree with about 95% of you guys' conclusions --- you just don't realize it.

It's that 5% that I have to agree with, and don't, that makes me everything but a Homo.

Science is demanding --- and cruel.

I know you agree with 95%, it’s more that I don’t understand why you don’t agree with the other 5%. Or perhaps why you think we should have got a different answer for those 5% of questions. I know you understand that science is the study of God’s creation, and I know you’ve said that scientists are gifted by God. So why, when those scientists are right 95% of the time, do you feel they are so wrong that other 5%? What are they doing differently?

And science isn’t any more demanding or cruel than a hammer (though the person welding it might be!)

 

[Psudopod]

you made a very very general statement. I am not sure how it can be detailed much further

You seemed to be implying that as "evidence doesn't talk" one interpretation is as good as another. I was trying to correct this idea. If I have misunderstood then I apologise.

I probably meant eg not ie, but No, the example you refer to is the other way around, firstly no God, that unquestionably implies millions of years.

Why would no God imply millions of years?