Christians Only : your evidence please

[JackRT]

Faith is taking God at His word:

"Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." -- (Romans 10:17)

A literal interpretation can actually lead to a contradiction of the essence of Christianity. The scripture cited above is a case in point. In the past some churches and/or congregations used it as justification for excluding the deaf and mute from Christian fellowship. This is just one reason why one must be very cautious about taking a literal understanding as your default position.

Evolution theory contradicts God's word:

"From one man He [God] made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and He determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live." -- (Acts 17:26)

Once again, only if you take a literal interpretation. To me the two different creation stories in Genesis are a human effort to explain the human condition --- who are we? how did we get here? why do we behave the way we do? how and why are we different from animals?

The Greek writer Aesop taught wisdom and ethics using little parables that we now call "fables". He used a clue to tell his reader that they were actually fictions. The clue was exaggeration and his favourite was to use thinking, talking animals as his characters. In some stories the Hebrew/Jewish scripture writers used the technique of exaggeration to convey their message and to warn the reader that it is not to be understood literally but for symbolic meaning. We see this technique in action in Gen 2ff, in Job, in Jonah and in numerous smaller passages like Balaam's talking ass.
My point being that if you miss the symbolic meanings by taking a literal understanding, you have probably missed the entire point.

 

[Doveaman]

A literal interpretation can actually lead to a contradiction of the essence of Christianity.

A symbolic interpretation can also lead to a contradiction of the essence of Christianity.

Some scriptures are meant to be literal, and others are meant to be symbolic. Not everything is symbolic.

The scripture cited above is a case in point. In the past some churches and/or congregations used it as justification for excluding the deaf and mute from Christian fellowship. This is just one reason why one must be very cautious about taking a literal understanding as your default position.

"Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." -- (Romans 10:17)

"Hearing" in the scripture cited above simply means to "pay attention to".

Faith comes by "paying attention to" the word of God.

I am sure there are ways for the deaf and mute to literally pay attention to the word of God.

Once again, only if you take a literal interpretation. To me the two different creation stories in Genesis are a human effort to explain the human condition --- who are we? how did we get here? why do we behave the way we do? how and why are we different from animals?

There are no two different creations stories in Genesis.

Genesis 2 is simply describing the creation of Man on day six of Genesis 1.

Genesis 2 is describing the creation of Man on day six after "the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden" (Genesis 2:8), and after "the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air." (Genesis 2:19), just as described in Genesis 1.

Genesis 2 is describing the creation of Man after God "had" already created vegetation and animals in Genesis 1.

My point being that if you miss the symbolic meanings by taking a literal understanding, you have probably missed the entire point.

And my point being that if you ignore the literal meaning by taking a symbolic understanding only, you have certainly missed the entire point.

 

[FredVB]

It's a scientific theory - a fact which scientists don't need to promote - or defend -- because the evidence is there to explore and challenge - if one has that sort of counter evidence

I wouldn't mean that scientists promote evolution as true, it is clear though that here in these discussions on CF there is that promotion of evolution as true. What do you have to give as evidence that there was not just necessary being, which is what God would be, before anything otherwise that came into existence, which would explain it?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I'm kidding --- you are all most welcome, even though my three wee question are for Christians !

I was a Christian for most of my adult life but at some point before learning about how evolutionary biology puts a different spin on what happened after God created us, I realized that I was living a lie

Now here's question 1 : Is Evolution, really a BIG FAT LIE?

Question 2 : What evidence would you offer in support of such an idea?

Question 3 : If you are a Christian who stands by the evidence in support of Evolution, how do you reconcile the two - your faith in Jesus and Evolution?

Thank you

1) No, simply a mistaken belief. It’s no more a lie than Ptolemy was lieing when he proposed epicycles to explain his belief the earth was the center of the solar system. Just a wrong theory in both cases, not a deliberate lie in either.

2) A) all fossils for every single type of creature found always remains the same for every one found for that creature. I.e. as per observations of life around us, cats remain cats, bears remain bears. B) when declaring creatures evolve into other creatures, they are required to insert missing common ancestors to bridge the gap. Common ancestors that are each and every one missing. When we do find a common ancestor - wolves - it’s descendants always remain the same species, despite variation of form. Lots of fossils after the claimed split, lots of fossils before the claimed split, but never any of the creatures that split. C) they refuse to apply relativity corrections - time dilation - to the radioactive decay rates, despite understanding all objects in motion must have these corrections applied. Therefore the further back in Time one calculates, the faster the radioactive decay rates occurred. But since they use the slower rate of today’s clocks to calculate what was by necessity faster in the past, they come to incorrect conclusions of age.

I will list D through F after A through C remains undisputed.

3) There is no need to, see 2).

 

[JackRT]

The problem with finding a transitional fossil is that it creates two new gaps for future transitional fossils.

 

[Kylie]

The problem with finding a transitional fossil is that it creates two new gaps for future transitional fossils.

But eventually you get to a point where the changes between them are so small that they can be explained by simple variation within a species.

 

[pat34lee]

But eventually you get to a point where the changes between them are so small that they can be explained by simple variation within a species.

I think that variation is so broad that most so-called
transitions are actually breeds within a kind or even
the same species at different stages in their lives.

What they say here probably goes for many types of
fossils, from fish to mammals. Maybe insects, too.
A Third of Dinosaur Species Never Existed?

 

[Kylie]

I think that variation is so broad that most so-called
transitions are actually breeds within a kind or even
the same species at different stages in their lives.

What they say here probably goes for many types of
fossils, from fish to mammals. Maybe insects, too.
A Third of Dinosaur Species Never Existed?

I was actually referring to the differences we see between individuals in a population. I mean, I am the only human like me. There are no other mes around. All other humans have some variation which makes them different to me. Very small variations, but variations nonetheless.

Likewise, the more transitional species we find, the smaller the variations there will be between them. Eventually, the variations will be so small that they are equivalent to the variations between individuals.

 

[Ancient of Days]

The problem with finding a transitional fossil is that it creates two new gaps for future transitional fossils.

The problem with finding a transitional fossil is that it creates two new gaps for future transitional fossils.

The real problem with finding them is that they don't exist. Your answer is just another false argument that proves nothing based on nothing.

 

[Ancient of Days]

I was actually referring to the differences we see between individuals in a population. I mean, I am the only human like me. There are no other mes around. All other humans have some variation which makes them different to me. Very small variations, but variations nonetheless.

Likewise, the more transitional species we find, the smaller the variations there will be between them. Eventually, the variations will be so small that they are equivalent to the variations between individuals.

So you explain away the invisible with the invisible. Sounds more like fantasy land...

 

[Ancient of Days]

A literal interpretation can actually lead to a contradiction of the essence of Christianity. The scripture cited above is a case in point. In the past some churches and/or congregations used it as justification for excluding the deaf and mute from Christian fellowship. This is just one reason why one must be very cautious about taking a literal understanding as your default position.



Once again, only if you take a literal interpretation. To me the two different creation stories in Genesis are a human effort to explain the human condition --- who are we? how did we get here? why do we behave the way we do? how and why are we different from animals?

The Greek writer Aesop taught wisdom and ethics using little parables that we now call "fables". He used a clue to tell his reader that they were actually fictions. The clue was exaggeration and his favourite was to use thinking, talking animals as his characters. In some stories the Hebrew/Jewish scripture writers used the technique of exaggeration to convey their message and to warn the reader that it is not to be understood literally but for symbolic meaning. We see this technique in action in Gen 2ff, in Job, in Jonah and in numerous smaller passages like Balaam's talking ass.
My point being that if you miss the symbolic meanings by taking a literal understanding, you have probably missed the entire point.

So then according to your belief system the life of Jesus and his dying on the cross can be taken as symbolic and NOT literal.

 

[Kylie]

So you explain away the invisible with the invisible. Sounds more like fantasy land...

Says the guy who invokes magic...

 

[Colter]

The evolution of animal life has been characterized by mutations with some intervening adaptations. They will never find transitional fossils among the great divisions of the animal kingdom or between the highest of the pre-human animal types and the dawn men of the human races for the simple reason that they never existed.

 

[Ancient of Days]

Says the guy who invokes magic...

No magic, the Living God is who I call upon and am answered by. I don't expect you to understand that. If God doesn't exist like you say then we both loose. But if he does(and he does) I win and you loose out for all eternity. Think about that, your life on earth is a but a grain of sand. Can you fathom eternity? You have 5600 posts on this forum, what is it you seek?

 

[JackRT]

So then according to your belief system the life of Jesus and his dying on the cross can be taken as symbolic and NOT literal.

I have no doubt at all that Jesus existed and was crucified. However the interpretation of the meaning of his life and death may indeed be symbolic.

 

[Ancient of Days]

It seems that the parts of Gods word that don't fit your hidden agenda you try to explain away as symbolic. "which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."

And again, "For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven."

 

[Speedwell]

It seems that the parts of Gods word that don't fit your hidden agenda you try to explain away as symbolic. "which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."

And again, "For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven."

What hidden agenda is that?

 

[tyke]

But if he does(and he does) I win and you loose out for all eternity.

I've always seen Pascal's Wager as an ill-disguised threat of something that isn't true.

 

[Ancient of Days]

I've always seen Pascal's Wager as an ill-disguised threat of something that isn't true.

"For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned."
Just because you don't believe something is true does not make it untrue. When disaster, calamity and death come for you who will you cry out to? Darwin? The rock you profess that you descended from? Will you be answered by a rock? No you wont, you will cry out to God in your affliction, you all eventually do. What say you then? Shall you be reminded of your convictions against him, by him? You will seek mercy and none shall be found. Being a Christian is a win win endeavor.

 

[ruthiesea]

There is no conflict between science and belief in G-d. The conflict is between science and certain religious beliefs, not shared by all religions.