Could someone explain me evolution & Big Bang?

[HitchSlap]

No. Nor have you.

Is it possible you were wrong about having parents?

Every single person who has ever lived could have been wrong. Just because you self identify yourself as Christian, doesn't mean you have super secret ninja powers just because you say so.

We all make fundamental assumptions:
Reality exists.
We can know some things about reality.
Models with predictive capabilities work better than ones that don't.

Don't forget you're a mammal like the rest of us who puts his pants on one leg at a time.

 

[Doveaman]

How on earth is common descent not incompatible with Christianity? It seems to me that they are mutually exclusive.

Are theistic-evolutionists not Christians?

I would say they can be compatible if one is real and the other is a fantasy.

Christians do have fantasies.

 

[keith99]

The first and third are valid criticisms, but the second is chronological snobbery (do you really think that the ancient Hebrews must adhere to modern English nomenclature?), while the fourth is simply personal opinion.

Parsing out fine meaning of words in an ENGLISH translation is a fools errand. It is a house of cards built on shifting sand.

Yet it seems fools abound in large numbers in both the Christian and anti Christian camps. So it has been for as long as I can remember.

 

[keith99]

Parents are a little easier to prove, wouldn't you agree.

And, I have met christians that will admit (although stubbornly) that it is possible they are wrong about their beliefs.

I have never bothered asking.

I do know C.S. Lewis quite freely admitted that when he was an atheist he sometimes had doubts and when he became a Christian he also sometimes had doubts.

I'd class his statements as much stronger than the mere admission of the possibility of being wrong.

It is part of why I respect him.

 

[Doveaman]

Parents are a little easier to prove, wouldn't you agree.

Parents can be considered evidence that “proves” a first cause. We call that “first cause” God.

And, I have met christians that will admit (although stubbornly) that it is possible they are wrong about their beliefs.

Did the Christian admit to being wrong about why they are Christians?

 

[keith99]

Every single person who has ever lived could have been wrong. Just because you self identify yourself as Christian, doesn't mean you have super secret ninja powers just because you say so.

We all make fundamental assumptions:
Reality exists.
We can know some things about reality.
Models with predictive capabilities work better than ones that don't.

Don't forget you're a mammal like the rest of us who puts his pants on one leg at a time.

That is why I wear loose shorts on the weekend, so I can put them on 2 legs at a time.

 

[Doveaman]

Every single person who has ever lived could have been wrong.

But not every single person is wrong.

Just because you self identify yourself as Christian, doesn't mean you have super secret ninja powers just because you say so.

We do have “super secret ninja powers”, but we prefer to call it “super Holy Spirit powers.

We all make fundamental assumptions:
Reality exists.
We can know some things about reality.
Models with predictive capabilities work better than ones that don't.

I agree. That’s why we believe in God.

Don't forget you're a mammal like the rest of us

I refuse to be a mammal.

who puts his pants on one leg at a time.

Pants don’t have legs.

 

[bhsmte]

Parents can be considered evidence that “proves” a first cause. We call that “first cause” God.
Did the Christian admit to being wrong about why they are Christians?

Cool, I see what you did there. Parents first cause, so God first cause.

The christians simply admitted, they believe based on faith and they may in fact be wrong, but they were certainly hoping they were right.

 

[HitchSlap]

But not every single person is wrong.
We do have “super secret ninja powers”, but we prefer to call it “super Holy Spirit powers.
I agree. That’s why we believe in God.
I refuse to be a mammal.
Pants don’t have legs.

As I said, models with predictive capabilities work better than ones without.

Name one thing you can demonstrate to be true as a result of your "super Holy Spirit powers," that I could not demonstrate without appealing to an supernatural agent?

 

[EternalDragon]

As I said, models with predictive capabilities work better than ones without.

Name one thing you can demonstrate to be true as a result of your "super Holy Spirit powers," that I could not demonstrate without appealing to an supernatural agent?

They once called Joan of Ark crazy but now venerate her as a saint.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

They once called Joan of Ark crazy but now venerate her as a saint.

He asked for knowledge gleaned from a supernatural agent that he himself could not gain without said agent. That Joan of Arc (not 'Ark') is venerated as a saint is common knowledge, not knowledge only obtainable through the supernatural.

 

[mzungu]

If you have another source for there being a non-visible elements that make up the universe then by all means present it.

You do realise that Democritus (Greek philosopher and father of the atom) concluded that all in existence is made up of the smallest indivisible particle he called the atom. The very name ATOM comes from the Greek Ατομο which means indivisible. He concluded rightly that if you cut something in half and continue to cut the half into half then you will reach a point where you will not be able to cut further and this particle he called Atom. He concluded that all in existence is made up of these indivisible particles.
Modern scientists when they discovered the Atom they called it well the "atom". But this atom is not the smallest indivisible that Democritus envisioned. He specifically said that at some point you will reach a smallness where division is impossible.

The people who wrote the Bible believed in talking snakes, flat earth, geocentricism, and all manner of things that science has shown to be wrong.

Now show me one scientific discovery the Bible has given us.

 

[mzungu]

The first and third are valid criticisms, but the second is chronological snobbery (do you really think that the ancient Hebrews must adhere to modern English nomenclature?), while the fourth is simply personal opinion.

You heathen! "If English was good enough for Jesus then it is good enough for everyone!"

 

[driewerf]

You don't understand that indeed evolution is like a religion.

NO, IT's NOT.
And it lacks nearly all the features of a reilion.

• It has no holy book, unlike the bible, the quran, the talmud etc. On the origin of species? That's an influential book, historically important but not holy or sacred.
• It doesn't claim infallibility. Unlike the bible or the quran, the ToE is improved by what we learn new.
• It doesn't threaten you with eternal damnation, if you don't believe. Unlike what the bible and the quran teaches, Evolutionary non-believers are not threatened with hell.
• It doesn't require a monoply. Unlike christianity or islam, you can be an "evolutionist" and worship thet god of islam, christianity, the many gods of hinduism or no god at all.
• It doesn't impose any sexual morality.You can be straight or gay, have sex before mariage or after (or no at all) touch or not. Evolution doesnt' impose anything, forbids nothing and is fine if you want to follow the morality of christianity, judaism, islam or no morality at all.
  
• There is no "sacred moment". Unlike judaism that has the sabbath, christianity that honours the Sunday, muslims who pray at Friday, Evolution doesn't impose any ritual on any day of the week.
• It doesn't impose restrictions on food. Unlike muslims who have to eat hallal, or jews who have to eat koosher, Evolution doesn't impose anything. As it even doesn't impose any monopoly, you can even eat koosher/hallal and be an "evolutionist".
• It doesn't pray on the young. Unlike the three monotheistic religion who enlist babies before the age of reason (through baptism or circumcission) most people have their first contact with evolution around 14-15.
• It has never caused a war. Unlike the crusades, the Thirty years war, the Jihad, there has never been a war fighten over Evolution.

 

[stevevw]

NO, IT's NOT.
And it lacks nearly all the features of a reilion.

• It has no holy book, unlike the bible, the quran, the talmud etc. On the origin of species? That's an influential book, historically important but not holy or sacred.
• It doesn't claim infallibility. Unlike the bible or the quran, the ToE is improved by what we learn new.
• It doesn't threaten you with eternal damnation, if you don't believe. Unlike what the bible and the quran teaches, Evolutionary non-believers are not threatened with hell.
• It doesn't require a monoply. Unlike christianity or islam, you can be an "evolutionist" and worship thet god of islam, christianity, the many gods of hinduism or no god at all.
• It doesn't impose any sexual morality.You can be straight or gay, have sex before mariage or after (or no at all) touch or not. Evolution doesnt' impose anything, forbids nothing and is fine if you want to follow the morality of christianity, judaism, islam or no morality at all.
• There is no "sacred moment". Unlike judaism that has the sabbath, christianity that honours the Sunday, muslims who pray at Friday, Evolution doesn't impose any ritual on any day of the week.
• It doesn't impose restrictions on food. Unlike muslims who have to eat hallal, or jews who have to eat koosher, Evolution doesn't impose anything. As it even doesn't impose any monopoly, you can even eat koosher/hallal and be an "evolutionist".
• It doesn't pray on the young. Unlike the three monotheistic religion who enlist babies before the age of reason (through baptism or circumcission) most people have their first contact with evolution around 14-15.
• It has never caused a war. Unlike the crusades, the Thirty years war, the Jihad, there has never been a war fighten over Evolution.

I thought evolutions holy book was darwins the origin of the species and richard dawkins is the high priest.

 

[Aman777]

I thought evolutions holy book was darwins the origin of the species and richard dawkins is the high priest.

Dear Steve, Good one. Some think Darwin was God and when they die they are going to the Galapagos Islands.

What driewerf doesn't say is that Religion is one's "belief" of what is the Truth. God's Truth agrees in every way with every discovery of Science and History, but the False Theory of Evolution does NOT agree in any way, with any other Truth. Thus, the unsupportable belief in the False ToE is a False Religion, pure and simple. God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

 

[mzungu]

Dear Steve, Good one. Some think Darwin was God and when they die they are going to the Galapagos Islands.

What driewerf doesn't say is that Religion is one's "belief" of what is the Truth. God's Truth agrees in every way with every discovery of Science and History, but the False Theory of Evolution does NOT agree in any way, with any other Truth. Thus, the unsupportable belief in the False ToE is a False Religion, pure and simple. God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

Dear me Is there no end to ignorance? We do not "believe" in Darwin, nor in ToE, nor in any scientific theory. we "ACCEPT" it. BIG Difference!

Now when you decide to stop bearing false witness maybe we can have a meaningful debate!

 

[AV1611VET]

We do not "believe" in Darwin, nor in ToE, nor in any scientific theory. we "ACCEPT" it.

You accept things you don't believe in?

 

[selfinflikted]

As I said to AV, the reason I don't accept a literal global flood or special creation of each living species in the same form they are now, is not just because there is no scientific evidence for those things, but the evidence available paints a completely different picture, and says that something completely different happened. I don't believe God would deceive us like that.

In order to deny, for example, the Resurrection, on similar grounds, I would need something like a complete video record of Jesus' death, complete with His body decaying in the tomb and not rising again. Obviously no such record exists.

Well, I responded to a post about a sort of litmus test that WiccanChild said he sees as reasonable to parse literal and metaphorical content from the Bible. The problem that I brought up in that post is the same problem I will present to you now.

Basically what you're saying here is, if the Bible contradicts reality, then the passages doing the contradicting must not be literal.

To save time typing, I'll just copy/pasta my original response:

But this is potentially problematic, isn't it? According to this test, a thousand years ago the scriptures would've contained far more literal content than they do today. I mean, as science continues to fill in the gaps in our knowledge, that will simply mean that the Bible will eventually contain nothing but metaphor, allegory, or story-telling.

So basically, if you were more ignorant of the facts, you would be more likely to believe that the Bible should be read literally. As you gain knowledge, you read the Bible metaphorically (at least the parts that don't match up to what we currently know).

 

[mzungu]

You accept things you don't believe in?

You are playing with semantics AV. OK let us play then:

1: I believe you are telling the truth but do not accept what you are saying is correct.

2: I accept what you are saying as being correct but I do not believe you are saying it in earnest. (politicians)

3: I accept your order to kill but I do not believe it is morally justifiable.

4: I believe in your order to kill and I do not accept anyone telling me it is immoral.

5: I accept scientific theories and believe they will change as new knowledge is being acquired.

6: I do not believe in scientific theories. I accept them and expect them to be refined.

Want more?