...Do you even believe in Evolution in the first palce?

[AV1611VET]

What is the practical difference between the two?

That's what I thought.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

That's what I thought.

Well?

 

[Strathos]

I'm a theistic evolutionist. I believe most of the account in Genesis is allegorical, and many parts of the Bible are not literal, especially the parts concerning scientific claims, since it was never meant to be a scientific treatise. The evidence for deep time and common descent is pretty much incontrovertible, if you deny evolution then you have to fit into one of three categories:

1. You are not aware of the facts and are relying on false or incomplete information
2. You are being dishonest (which is against the 9th commandment)
3. You believe that God, Satan, or some other agency planted all of this evidence to deceive us. I don't accept this because if it was God, that would make Him a liar and an author of confusion, and I don't think God would allow Satan to do such a thing either.

 

[KWCrazy]

The evidence for deep time and common descent is pretty much incontrovertible, if you deny evolution then you have to fit into one of three categories:

1. You are not aware of the facts and are relying on false or incomplete information

I don't think that much of anyo9ne over 14 fits into this category.

2. You are being dishonest (which is against the 9th commandment)

Balgerdash! Denying evolution is dishonest? Have you not learned that evolution has never been observed or proven? Go back to number one!

3. You believe that God, Satan, or some other agency planted all of this evidence to deceive us. I don't accept this because if it was God, that would make Him a liar and an author of confusion, and I don't think God would allow Satan to do such a thing either.

Perhaps you simply do not interpret the information correctly, and having very little knowledge of science and no knowledge of God you pretend that your observations are correct.

Please cite for me the passages in the Bible which support an old earth.
Please explain why God would lie about a six day creation (Exodus 20:11).
Please explain why something spoken into existed in its mature form would not appear exactly the same as something which had aged.

It's not about planting information, it's about creating a mature planet as He wanted it. If God wanted the light from a star to shine on the earth it would do so instantly. God need not wait a thousand years for it to arrive. If you had the faith of a mustard seed, you would understand this.

Jesus very specifically mentioned Noah by name and repeated the story of the global flood. Science denies this ever happened. Which of the two is wrong, Jesus who was there, or your science professor who was not?

Your list is short sighted, self-serving and innacurate.

 

[Loudmouth]

Balgerdash! Denying evolution is dishonest? Have you not learned that evolution has never been observed or proven? Go back to number one!

We show you evidence that supports evolution. You turn around and announce to the world that there is no evidence for evolution. Sure seems dishonest to me.

Perhaps you simply do not interpret the information correctly, and having very little knowledge of science and no knowledge of God you pretend that your observations are correct.

An honest person would show how the interpretation is actually false. A dishonest person would just make baseless accusations and never back their claims with evidence and reason. Which are you? An honest or dishonest person?

Please cite for me the passages in the Bible which support an old earth.

It's right next to the verse that supports the existence of atoms and relativity.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Jesus very specifically mentioned Noah by name and repeated the story of the global flood. Science denies this ever happened. Which of the two is wrong, Jesus who was there, or your science professor who was not?

Well, technically Jesus wasn't there either. Unless you mean he was there as God. But that raises a moral question as to why a supposedly good and loving God would destroy the majority of all species on the planet. Why did he not incarnate as Jesus in the time of Noah instead?

 

[bhsmte]

I was raised a Naturalist. I was schooled in evolution and the natural sciences. You may not find any positive reason for me to now be different. In short, there is a Creator after all.

Why have you not found Him?

IMO, because not everyone has a psychological need to believe in something that makes no sense and has a book to rely upon that is seriously flawed, yet most who do believe, have either no clue about this or just don't want to hear about it and keep their head buried in the sand.

You see, some folks are cut out to keep their heads buried their entire lives and not acknowledge reality, some pull their head out later in life and others never allow their heads to get buried in the first place.

 

[bhsmte]

I'm a theistic evolutionist. I believe most of the account in Genesis is allegorical, and many parts of the Bible are not literal, especially the parts concerning scientific claims, since it was never meant to be a scientific treatise. The evidence for deep time and common descent is pretty much incontrovertible, if you deny evolution then you have to fit into one of three categories:

1. You are not aware of the facts and are relying on false or incomplete information
2. You are being dishonest (which is against the 9th commandment)
3. You believe that God, Satan, or some other agency planted all of this evidence to deceive us. I don't accept this because if it was God, that would make Him a liar and an author of confusion, and I don't think God would allow Satan to do such a thing either.

Strathos,

Quick question; How do you know which parts of the bible to take literally and which are allegorical?

 

[CabVet]

Strathos,

Quick question; How do you know which parts of the bible to take literally and which are allegorical?

Probably the same way everyone else does: the pieces that agree with your philosophy are literal, the ones that do not, are not. I have never met anybody that takes 100% of the Bible literally, neither in this forum nor elsewhere.

 

[bhsmte]

Probably the same way everyone else does: the pieces that agree with your philosophy are literal, the ones that do not, are not. I have never met anybody that takes 100% of the Bible literally, neither in this forum nor elsewhere.

My point is, how does one use a book as their core belief system that is so flawed? The answer is; most believers either refuse to acknowledge objective critique of the bible and choose to take it literally or they cherry pick what they like as you have described. They refuse to answer why God would allow such a flawed document to represent his word in the first place.

 

[AV1611VET]

Strathos,

Quick question; How do you know which parts of the bible to take literally and which are allegorical?

Probably the same way everyone else does: the pieces that agree with your philosophy are literal, the ones that do not, are not.

Then why do some leave their faith?

 

[CabVet]

Then why do some leave their faith?

When 100% has to be allegorical it just becomes silly.

 

[bhsmte]

Then why do some leave their faith?

Read about the "clergy project" online and it will give you some realistic reasoning why people simply can't reconcile reality, with the story they are supposed to tell any longer.

 

[AV1611VET]

When 100% has to be allegorical it just becomes silly.

I don't think even the Bible's worst critic thinks the Bible is 100% allegory.

Why would a person, for example, who was a YEC ... and was convinced by science of deep time ... leave his faith?

Why wouldn't he simply become a TE?

 

[AV1611VET]

Read about the "clergy project" online and it will give you some realistic reasoning why people simply can't reconcile reality, with the story they are supposed to tell any longer.

I don't understand what you're saying.

If I was convinced somehow that Genesis 1 wasn't literal, I would simply embrace theistic evolution; I certainly wouldn't become an atheist or agnostic.

 

[bhsmte]

I don't think even the Bible's worst critic thinks the Bible is 100% allegory.

Why would a person, for example, who was a YEC ... and was convinced by science of deep time ... leave his faith?

Why wouldn't he simply become a TE?

The Jesus seminar which was a group of the leading biblical scholars took on the task of determining which sayings attributed to Jesus could stand up to any level of historical critique. They concluded, that roughly 20% of sayings/quotes attributed to Jesus in the bible were likely legit and the rest were not reliable, or simply made up for effect.

 

[bhsmte]

I don't understand what you're saying.

If I was convinced somehow that Genesis 1 wasn't literal, I would simply embrace theistic evolution; I certainly wouldn't become an atheist or agnostic.

You asked why some leave the faith and the clergy project would give you some real life examples as to why. That is, if you have interest in seeing real examples.

 

[AV1611VET]

The Jesus seminar which was a group of the leading biblical scholars took on the task of determining which sayings attributed to Jesus could stand up to any level of historical critique. They concluded, that roughly 20% of sayings/quotes attributed to Jesus in the bible were likely legit and the rest were not reliable, or simply made up for effect.

How does that answer my question?

 

[bhsmte]

How does that answer my question?

It's information from well established biblical scholars, use it as you wish.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's information from well established biblical scholars, use it as you wish.

"Well established biblical scholars" wouldn't use a flawed voting system ...

Jesus Seminar: Use of a flawed voting system

... unless they were scientists who worked for the IAU.