Evolution and Christians

[HopeBforJC]

Hello Sophophile. My answers:


Thats not what the Bible says. It says 6 days. I read and reread and saw no mention of long periods of time for creation.



Poetic perhaps. Metaphorical, no. It clearly says 6 days. Jesus said 6 days. Moses said 6 days. I don't understand why this isn't clear.

You don't really think that the earth was created in 6 days? Do you? I may be a bit ignorant, but I do know that science has shown that the earth was formed over long periods of time.

How old do you think the earth is then? Do you deny the fact that science says its somewhere around 4.6 B years old?

To the OP:
Good to know you are interested in discovering your faith rather than just taking it for granted because someone tells you to. Keep your search but make sure you talk to those who believe in God and creation, not jsut those who oppose it.
You asked a question geared toward christian thought and you received mainly atheistic answers.
Listen with a true and honest and open heart before making your decision

I've never taken my faith lightly And I like to hear both views...helps me stay open minded.

 

[HopeBforJC]

Welcome back Hope! Many moons since I saw you last.

I'll give you the answer that I would have given you when I was a christian.

Genesis tells you what God did but not how he did it. Evolution tells us the how.

And you may wish to ignore AV, he's taken idolatry of the bible to new levels.

Long time no see! Hope you're doing well!!! Was excited to see you respond, as I feel like I don't know anyone here now that GA is closed...

I remember AV11 Thanks for your thoughts though...it makes sense.

 

[pgp_protector]

You don't really think that the earth was created in 6 days? Do you? I may be a bit ignorant, but I do know that science has shown that the earth was formed over long periods of time.

How old do you think the earth is then? Do you deny the fact that science says its somewhere around 4.6 B years old?





I've never taken my faith lightly And I like to hear both views...helps me stay open minded.

welcome to the world of Literal Reading.

 

[AV1611VET]

I think you'll find that YOU DID IT.

I think you'll find I didn't do it.

And if you're only human, and prone to making mistakes, maybe be a little less overbearing when putting forward your own personal interpretations in future?

And I'll tell you what I tell everyone else who omnisciently thinks they know everything I ever said or didn't say:

If you care to plod through my [now] 338,440 posts to verify that I haven't done that --- be my guest, newbie.

Maybe don't state them as absolute truth...

I'll try and call one or two of them my "pet theory" --- how's that?

(Not that it would really matter --- as it's not what I say that counts with you guys.)

Let's see you give an answer as to where the Flood waters went, or how all those animals on the Ark were fed.

maybe tell less stuff to take a hike?

I'm sure when the time comes, and you grow up toward where you should be in the nurture and admonition of the LORD, you too will realize how much stuff God, Himself has told to take a hike on your behalf.

 

[Chalnoth]

I'll take that as attempting to be funny as you totally missed that one.

I'm pretty darned certain that Nathan Poe had no intention of being funny. Or, at least, he had every intention on providing a serious criticism.

Here, I'll explain the same thing with more words:
The Bible is, unavoidably, a text composed by men, compiled by men, and believed by men to be the word of the god described therein. So, let's assume for a moment that this god actually exists, and actually created everything we see around us. You believe this, I am sure.

But if this is so, if this god created everything, why should you rely upon the opinions and interpretations of fallible humans? Why not just cut out the middle man and go straight for your god's handiwork: the world that surrounds us? After all, every time you read from the Bible, you have to interpret it. The real world requires no such filter.

So why do you trust the handiwork of men that is claimed by men to be the Word of God and is interpreted by men instead of what is indisputably the work of God? (indisputably given the assumption that this god exists) By relying upon men, including yourself, you're just asking to be wrong. There just isn't any need for that. Go out, open your eyes, and pay attention to the physical world around you.

Actions, after all, speak louder than words. Why not pay attention to the actions of the god you believe in, instead of what people say are his words?

But christianity does not work like this. We DO have a direct link with God. He is personal and we can talk to Him and He listens! Angels are there to do His will

That's all well and good, but there's no way to know if he's talking back, or you're just imagining it.

 

[Cabal]

I think you'll find I didn't do it.

Ah, my bad, I thought your statement actually had some relevance to what we were discussing.

And I'll tell you what I tell everyone else who omnisciently thinks they know everything I ever said or didn't say:

If you care to plod through my [now] 338,440 posts to verify that I haven't done that --- be my guest, newbie.

Firstly, you really need to subtract the number of counting posts from that number if you're going to even attempt to pretend that waving that number around means anything.

Secondly, I've had to pull you up with your use of generalising language enough to know that if you have done that, you definitely haven't done it enough.

I'll try and call one or two of them my "pet theory" --- how's that?

That would be fantastic! I also suggest "personal interpretation."

(Not that it would really matter --- as it's not what I say that counts with you guys.)

Ha, right! Just like how you simultaneously nail us for having confusing jargon and trying to clear it up?

Let's see you give an answer as to where the Flood waters went, or how all those animals on the Ark were fed.

Global or local?

And there's always manna

Then again, it could all be allegorical, like Gilgamesh. And the nice thing about allegories is they don't leave empirical evidence behind, a bit like creation ex nihilo

I'm sure when the time comes, and you grow up toward where you should be in the nurture and admonition of the LORD, you too will realize how much stuff God, Himself has told to take a hike on your behalf.

Ah, and to crown it all off we have the "aw, you'll learn" canard. Hooray.

You're not God, AV. I trust Him with his hike-taking recommendation - not you.

 

[AV1611VET]

Firstly, you really need to subtract the number of counting posts from that number if you're going to even attempt to pretend that waving that number around means anything.

I disagree --- to tell someone that has even 1000 posts that they didn't say this, or they did say that, or they don't say this enough, or that, enough --- is just being --- [sorry - I don't know what word to use here] --- presumptuous?

Secondly, I've had to pull you up with your use of generalising language enough to know that if you have done that, you definitely haven't done it enough.

Cabal, like once asked, do you guys seriously want every singe one of my posts to be prefaced with, "I think...", or, "In my opinion...", or something like, "I believe..."?

What if every sermon everywhere went like this:

"In my opinion, Jesus died for you on the cross."

I think it stands to reason that most of what I say, if not all of it, is what I believe.

 

[Cabal]

I disagree --- to tell someone that has even 1000 posts that they didn't say this, or they did say that, or they don't say this enough, or that, enough --- is just being --- [sorry - I don't know what word to use here] --- presumptuous?

Not particularly, if they have several fairly recent posts indicating a particular pattern of behaviour. I don't need to read you writing down posts and posts of integers to appreciate a particular aspect of your behaviour when debating on other topics (except that I can't say that we'd both do the same things for fun.)

Cabal, like once asked, do you guys seriously want every singe one of my posts to be prefaced with, "I think...", or, "In my opinion...", or something like, "I believe..."?

What if every sermon everywhere went like this:

"In my opinion, Jesus died for you on the cross."

I think it stands to reason that most of what I say, if not all of it, is what I believe.

Actually, in that particular quote, when I said "generalising language," I'm referring to those times when you use the catchall term "scientists", and lumping fellow brothers and sisters in Christ in with the mix. I usually pull you up on it when you're implying something really horrible about Christian scientists (and the non-Christian ones too). Yup, those times.

And no, I don't expect you to necessarily preface all your words like a legal document, but you could definitely lose a few other words, like "x can take a hike", or "/thread" when you get an answer you don't like. Or some of the contradictory stuff, like claiming scientists are gifts from God, while claiming that they're the sort of horrible people that would gamble on whether or not their space shuttle would explode. When you got a gift from your parents on Christmas day, would you express your gratitude by throwing it in the trash?

 

[MoonLancer]

be my guest, newbie.

i can only imagine what this word is trying to replace.

Let's see you give an answer as to where the Flood waters went, or how all those animals on the Ark were fed.

lol. theirs no evidence because it diden't happen. pesky reality crushing your your inflexible theology.

 

[AV1611VET]

...or "/thread" when you get an answer you don't like.

The only time I "'/thread' when I get an answer I don't like", is when that "answer" is downright blashpemy.

Otherwise, I thread-out either because of excessive repetition*, or because the heckling outnumbers the points being made.

* Sometimes, if a thread goes excessively long, people will join in halfway through it, and then start asking questions that I've already answer in the first half.

I've probably done the same thing, myself.

Or some of the contradictory stuff, like claiming scientists are gifts from God, while claiming that they're the sort of horrible people that would gamble on whether or not their space shuttle would explode.

I can't remember if I said the SPACE SHUTTLE exploding --- if I did, it was an error.

Please put this hypothetical scenario in your head for future use:

SCIENTIST A: I can't believe they're gonna launch this thing.
SCIENTIST B: It's safe.
A: No it's not --- the O-ring is gonna blow.
B: I doubt it.
A: Wanna bet?
B: How much?
A: 20 dollars says they'll hit the CHICKEN SWITCH and bail when that ring gives out.
B: You're on!

 

[AV1611VET]

Let's see you give an answer as to where the Flood waters went...

lol. theirs no evidence because it diden't happen. pesky reality crushing your your inflexible theology.

Claiming the Flood didn't happen, and then asking where the water went is disingenuous, if you're not going to accept an answer --- even if that answer is a pet theory; especially if you know ahead of time that the question you are asking is not covered by Scripture.

If you don't believe that the Flood occurred in the first place, which answer is more ludicrous: saying it went to Neptune, or saying it went anywhere?

If you don't believe that the Flood occurred, it shouldn't matter where we say the water went, should it?

But back to my point --- if you don't believe there was a Flood --- why ask where the water went?

And if you do ask where the water went --- why critique the answer (or the answerer)?

 

[Cabal]

The only time I "'/thread' when I get an answer I don't like", is when that "answer" is downright blashpemy.

Otherwise, I thread-out either because of excessive repetition*, or because the heckling outnumbers the points being made.

Alrighty - can't say I'd leave a thread for those reasons myself, but fair enough.

Sometimes, if a thread goes excessively long, people will join in halfway through it, and then start asking questions that I've already answer in the first half.

I've probably done the same thing, myself.

Yeah, ditto.

I can't remember if I said the SPACE SHUTTLE exploding --- if I did, it was an error.

Please put this hypothetical scenario in your head for future use:

SCIENTIST A: I can't believe they're gonna launch this thing.
SCIENTIST B: It's safe.
A: No it's not --- the O-ring is gonna blow.
B: I doubt it.
A: Wanna bet?
B: How much?
A: 20 dollars says they'll hit the CHICKEN SWITCH and bail when that ring gives out.
B: You're on!

Hypothesise all you like - but when you make blanket statements, at least try in future to ground them in reality somewhere?

 

[AV1611VET]

Hypothesise all you like - but when you make blanket statements, at least try in future to ground them in reality somewhere?

Fair enough --- I'd hate to be accused of something I didn't say.

 

[Cabal]

Fair enough --- I'd hate to be accused of something I didn't say.

What I mean, AV, is that if you want to make yet another point about the Challenger to badger us scientists with (because, y'know, we all worked on the Challenger, every single one of us here, I was negative one week old at the time), get some actual facts, as opposed to made up ones.

On a more general scale, I tackled your words because your admission that you make mistakes sometimes was quite unexpected given how vehemently you debate by QVs full of of unanswered points and double standards. I would have expected someone so quick to retreat on their fallibility to...well...not do that so much.

 

[gaara4158]

But back to my point --- if you don't believe there was a Flood --- why ask where the water went?

And if you do ask where the water went --- why critique the answer (or the answerer)?

We've been over this. It's the same reason we ask you guys anything about the Bible. We can't come up with any acceptable answers ourselves, so we want to see what you're telling yourselves. And since we don't seem to be accepting your answers, they must not be passing our plausibility tests.

 

[AV1611VET]

We've been over this. It's the same reason we ask you guys anything about the Bible. We can't come up with any acceptable answers ourselves, so we want to see what you're telling yourselves. And since we don't seem to be accepting your answers, they must not be passing our plausibility tests.

Again though --- and not to sound repetitive ---

And if you do ask where the water went --- why critique the answer (or the answerer)?

 

[Nathan Poe]

And if you do ask where the water went --- why critique the answer (or the answerer)?

The answer? Or merely an absurd answer?

 

[gaara4158]

And if you do ask where the water went --- why critique the answer (or the answerer)?

We're telling you why that answer isn't acceptable. So that you can either come up with a better one, or realize that you don't have one.

 

[mpok1519]

Abiogenesis is very very possible. Scientists have conducted experiments where they ran an electric current through what is essentially cytoplasm, and RNA and polymer chains began to form. RNA and protein polymers, and amino acids are essentially the smallest, fundamental building blocks of life. This proves that life can come from 'nothing'. When inreality, that nothing, is essentially, alot of many, many things cooperating in precise ways in complicated patterns.

 

[AV1611VET]

The answer? Or merely an absurd answer?

Guess which --- hint: if it contains the words "in my opion" or "pet theory" --- it's probably --- what do you call it --- "an absurd answer".

QV please: 34