Christianity & Evolution Are Compatible...A Reflection

[Amoeba]

The Bible refers to evolution (at least in its infant stage) as a "philosophy":--- and an "invention":

Colossians 2
8See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.

Key word, DECEPTIVE. Evolution is not a deception. The bible refers to evolution as a philosophy and invention? Big LOL.

Ecclesiastes 7
28 while I was still searching
but not finding—
I found one upright man among a thousand,
but not one upright woman among them all.
29 This only have I found:
God made mankind upright,
but men have gone in search of many schemes."

Apparently, you like to take bible verses completely out of their context to support your narrow point of view. The verse is talking about God having made man a moral creature, not God making man walking upright apart for apes. I really do hate liars and decievers and the more I read your posts, the more I view you as such.

 

[AV1611VET]

Apparently, you like to take bible verses completely out of their context to support your narrow point of view. The verse is talking about God having made man a moral creature, not God making man walking upright apart for apes. I really do hate liars and decievers and the more I read your posts, the more I view you as such.

I could have also mentioned how Paul compares evolution to fables:

Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

 

[Hespera]

I could have also mentioned how Paul compares evolution to fables:

only in your imagination

 

[Skaloop]

I could have also mentioned how Paul compares evolution to fables:

A) There's no mention of evolution in that passage.

and

B) Paul didn't know what evolution was, let alone able to speak to its veracity.

 

[Hespera]

A) There's no mention of evolution in that passage.

and

B) Paul didn't know what evolution was, let alone able to speak to its veracity.

Oh now you are comparing AV and Paul

 

[AV1611VET]

B) Paul didn't know what evolution was...

Neither do I.

... let alone able to speak to its veracity.

So do I.

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh now you are comparing AV and Paul

LOL --- I wrote it that way too, then changed it ---

(Actually, I typed: "Looks like Paul and I have something in common.")

 

[Hespera]

LOL --- I wrote it that way too, then changed it ---

(Actually, I typed: "Looks like Paul and I have something in common.")

hmm, you sure you improved it?

So do i let alone able to speak to its veracity-?

Let alone able to speak to its veracity so do i-?



Originally Posted by Skaloop

... let alone able to speak to its veracity.
​

So do I.

 

[AV1611VET]

hmm, you sure you improved it?

So do i let alone able to speak to its veracity-?

Let alone able to speak to its veracity so do i-?



Originally Posted by Skaloop

... let alone able to speak to its veracity.
​

So do I.

Hespera, you realize you don't really need those quote buttons, don't you?

You can manually format your replies.

Some of your posts are hard to interpret.

 

[Hespera]

Hespera, you realize you don't really need those quote buttons, don't you?

You can manually format your replies.

Some of your posts are hard to interpret.

Some of MINE are hard to interpret??

how am i supposed to interpret "so do I let alone able to speak to its veracity"?

What DOES that mean?

 

[AV1611VET]

Some of MINE are hard to interpret??

how am i supposed to interpret "so do I let alone able to speak to its veracity"?

What DOES that mean?

What Skaloop is saying is: Paul was not speaking of evolution, therefore he could not have been comparing it to fables.

 

[Assyrian]

是，它。

Perhaps if you showed where the verses mention evolution in the Hebrew and Greek instead of Chinese?

不，它不。

 

[Amoeba]

I could have also mentioned how Paul compares evolution to fables:

You are delusional and can't be reasoned with. What's sad is your butchering of the bible...

 

[marktheblake]

Who's crying?

By the looks of the last couple of pages - all the evolutionists. Yet they will use all the name calling under the sun - hypocrites.

The sooner you lot realise that both sides are just as one eyed as each other you can get on with understanding what makes each other tick, instead of wasting your playing silly semantics.

Fine with me - just don't think of going down the evolution-as-ideology route with it.

Evolution is an idealogy.

See, if i wanted to say it, I would just say it.

 

[AV1611VET]

You are delusional and can't be reasoned with.

And you have no evidence to back that assessment up until I take the Rorschach Test.

QV please.

 

[gaara4158]

And you have no evidence to back that assessment up until I take the Rorschach Test.

QV please.

AV! BAD! NO!

BAD BAD BAD!

(you know why)

 

[AV1611VET]

AV! BAD! NO!

BAD BAD BAD!

(you know why)

Because I have a Christian icon?

Because I disagree with about 5% of scientists conclusions?

 

[Cabal]

Because I have a Christian icon?

*looks at my own icon*

Nope, can't be that.

 

[gaara4158]

Because I have a Christian icon?

Because I disagree with about 5% of scientists conclusions?

You are so lucky I don't bother to archive your threads. You promised Hespera once that you would cease this "not what I say, but what I am" nonsense. That's still in effect here. Don't forget.

Don't you remember all those discussions we had about the Rorschach Test? How

1. Your source is biased and therefore not the best resource for information
2. The Rorschach Test doesn't test for insanity, it tests for trends which must be interpreted subjectively?

Once again you are commenting on a field of science that you know very little about, trusting only in the information you get from Christian sources. And once again, you are completely and utterly wrong.

AND ONCE AGAIN, you revisit subjects you've already been beaten to death on like it's the first time. You're not fooling anyone.

I know you're just doing it to change the subject, but the other guy was expressing no interest in continuing the conversation with you anyway.




So yeah. That's why you're "BAD BAD BAD."
ugh.

 

[Cabal]

By the looks of the last couple of pages - all the evolutionists. Yet they will use all the name calling under the sun - hypocrites.

Hey, you wait till you get called a phoney Christian just because of accepting one theory among many others.

Anyway, I wasn't involved in the "evolutionism" word debate, I just thought you were asking an honest question, which I thought I'd help to answer. You want people to use manners, you start using some yourself perhaps?

The sooner you lot realise that both sides are just as one eyed as each other you can get on with understanding what makes each other tick, instead of wasting your playing silly semantics.

It would help A LOT if they came up with something new to discuss.

Given that our opponents in this STILL can't handle the simple fact that words can have more than one definition (as evidenced by the fact that the "only a theory" canard is for some reason still around), you'd be surprised how often "silly semantics" come up, and guess whose fault they are most of the time?

And btw, we did just explain to you something that made us tick, why "evolutionism" is a loaded word, and you just blew it off. Not exactly leading by example here for someone talking like they're transcending the debate.

Evolution is an idealogy.

See, if i wanted to say it, I would just say it.

And you'd still be wrong.