Creationism - Lazy Man's science?

[AV1611VET]

is that what you said?

Ya, Pete, that was my 2nd question --- for you.

 

[Latreia]

Quote

Originally Posted by: AV1611VET

I don't care what He mentioned, Kaonashi.

Let's try this again:

Jesus didn't believe in evolution --- why should we?

Jesus didn't believe in electricity...

Jesus didn't believe in germ theory...

Jesus didn't believe in airplanes...

Jesus didn't believe in the moon landing...

Jesus didn't believe in quantum mechanics...

You can do this with anything that didn't appear until after Christ's death. It's fun!

This is totally awesome, that so many, faithful Christians or not, actually know exactly what Jesus believed on so many subjects!!!!!!

My word, now I am feeling "Left Behind" also "Left Out" "Left Over" and "Left At The Altar"

 

[AV1611VET]

No, You made the claim that Jesus did not accept evolution and now You have to back it up.
Where in the Gospels does it say that Jesus did not accept evolution?

Read the question, Kaonashi. Where did the word "accept" come from?

We're gonna stay focused, right?

Here it is again:

Jesus didn't believe in evolution --- why should we?

Does anyone have an answer --- if not --- please say so --- I'm hungry and need to go --- (wife's a good cook ).

 

[Tomk80]

Jesus didn't believe in Evolution. So why should we, who are His followers, believe in it?

How do you know? As far as I can tell, he made no statements about it.

He talked about creation, but if God exists and he is really omnipotent, as you believe, he could easily have used evolution as the tool to create.

So as far as I can tell, Jesus could very well have 'believed' in evolution. If, according to you, the earth is God's creation, why would you not accept evolution if that is what earth's history shows?

 

[Dal M.]

Over 1 hour since I asked this --- unbeli... er ... believable.

In case you're confused, the idea isn't to paint you as an abusive spouse. Pete's trying to get you to realize that your questions have implicit assumptions which you're failing to support or even acknowledge.

 

[AV1611VET]

In case you're confused, the idea isn't to paint you as an abusive spouse. Pete's trying to get you to realize that your questions have implicit assumptions which you're failing to support or even acknowledge.

The only think Pete has gotten me to realize, is that he hasn't answered my question yet.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Does anyone have an answer --- if not --- please say so --- I'm hungry and need to go --- (wife's a good cook ).

Go eat dude. Otherwise, I have a feeling we'll be here all night.

 

[Dal M.]

The only think Pete has gotten me to realize, is that he hasn't answered my question yet.

Actually, he did:

As to why you should accept it now, maybe because it's a cornerstone of modern biology backed by 150 years of scientific research and has applications in conservation, agriculture, medicine and other areas of applied biotechnology?

Or, if you're looking for some deeper theological reason, maybe because that's what God's Creation reveals?

 

[Dannager]

The only think Pete has gotten me to realize, is that he hasn't answered my question yet.

The point is that the question you asked is loaded. Reformat it so that it serves its purpose as an honest question and doesn't begin with unsupported assumptions and we'll answer you. We appreciate the respect that an honest question entails, and promise to return that respect in kind. Please rephrase your question so that it is no longer loaded.

 

[AV1611VET]

How do you know? As far as I can tell, he made no statements about it.

He talked about creation...

Look --- I'm hungry and I'll be back later. I need to chill a little, too. Please do try to answer, so when I do return, I won't waste another hour trying to get blood from a turnip.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

The only think Pete has gotten me to realize, is that he hasn't answered my question yet.

Wait a second... is this another example of Poe's Law?

 

[Kaonashi]

Read the question, Kaonashi. Where did the word "accept" come from?

We're gonna stay focused, right?

Here it is again:

Jesus didn't believe in evolution --- why should we?

Does anyone have an answer --- if not --- please say so --- I'm hungry and need to go --- (wife's a good cook ).

I tend to use "accept" and "believe" interchangeably as they tend to mean the same thing.

"Jesus didn't believe in evolution --- why should why should should we?" is using the same fallicy as "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" is.

 

[Kaonashi]

"Jesus didn't believe in using the King James Version only --- why should we?"

 

[Hydra009]

In case you're confused, the idea isn't to paint you as an abusive spouse. Pete's trying to get you to realize that your questions have implicit assumptions which you're failing to support or even acknowledge.

Right. For AV1611VET's benefit, let me explain. Asking the question, "When did you stop beating your wife?" is a common example of a loaded question, where the question has assumptions built into into it, that when answered in a strict yes or no, validates those assumptions. This is known as the complex question fallacy.

The problem with the question, "did Jesus believe in evolution?" is that it assumes that because a person didn't subscribe to an idea that hadn't even existed yet, that it must therefore be wrong. This is a very fallacious argument since this is a physical impossibility for anyone, and Pete hit on this by reducing it to absurdity - no one in ancient times subscribed to any modern scientific theories, yet it's unlikely that one who objects to evolution would argue that every modern scientific theory is wrong. QED - it's a bad argument.

 

[AngryNotice]

Jesus didn't believe in Evolution. So why should we, who are His followers, believe in it?

thats the bottom line, none of the package theories that go with evolution have any ring of truth because they were completely ignored by the bible and Jesus.

 

[dawiyd]

thats the bottom line, none of the package theories that go with evolution have any ring of truth because they were completely ignored by the bible and Jesus.

Jesus also didn't speak english, does that mean we should not aswell?

 

[Kaonashi]

thats the bottom line, none of the package theories that go with evolution have any ring of truth because they were completely ignored by the bible and Jesus.

By your reasoning, YECism doesn't have any ring of truth either because it's completely ignored by Jesus and the Bible.

 

[NASAg03]

How do you know? As far as I can tell, he made no statements about it.

He talked about creation, but if God exists and he is really omnipotent, as you believe, he could easily have used evolution as the tool to create.

So as far as I can tell, Jesus could very well have 'believed' in evolution. If, according to you, the earth is God's creation, why would you not accept evolution if that is what earth's history shows?

+1

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.

3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.
6There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. 7He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe. 8He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. 9The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world. 10He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.

Nothing in here says Jesus created everything at once, or how long it took Him to do it. Jesus also doesn't clairify what frame of reference a "Day" was in referring to.

It ways "the world was made through him" and "without him, nothing was made that has been made".

Does not specify if God guided evolution, or if everything was made and at what age. I believe the earth is old, and that God guided evolution, "tinkering" and "forming" his creation as necessary to acheive the end result: humans, or Day 6 of creation.

I also think that Adam was created when reason, intellect, and the mind finally came into being, differentiating us from other animals (apes).

I also think it's wrong to assume all creationist are lazy and dont seek knowledge and understanding. God commands Adam in Genesis to name (classify) all animals. Jesus says "seek and you shall find".

Neither of those statements support a lazy attitude where we should say "goddidit" and stop there. If someone is interested in understanding or universe, asking questions, and seeking answers, then great.

I have nothing wrong with that.

 

[JohnR7]

Does anyone have an answer --- if not --- please say so --- I'm hungry and need to go --- (wife's a good cook ).

At least she tries to bribe you with food to get you away from the computer.
My wife is more inclined to come up with something like the back yard is flooded can you unclog the drain.

 

[Garnett]

Jesus didn't believe in Evolution. So why should we, who are His followers, believe in it?

Because you live in more scientifically advanced times.

There. An answer.

Dismissal of this answer would open yourself to those claims of hypocrisy Pete Harcoff introduced anytime you use benefit from utilising electricity... germ theory... airplanes...quantum mechanics...


Now you can either:

a) Accept the answer and move on dicussing the debate.

b) Engage with the answer and develop the debate, or

c) Try to dismiss the answer, attempting to derail the debate without thought, giving a nod to the idea Creationists will usually take the lazy option.

I'll be interested to see your choice.