Evolution vs. Creationism

[ProtestantDan]

Please present your proofs and URL's to refute the evidence presented HERE, ALSO HERE and, FINALLY, HERE that contradict your assumptions.

I personally don't need evidence for myself, for I am my own example. I am not a humanist. I accept many points of evolution. I am also a Christian. I will not let you take that away from me, no matter how hard you try.

 

[ProtestantDan]

Your view of humanism and evolution being inextricably linked to Nimrod is flawed at best. You assume humanism and evolution to be monolithic belief systems. They are not. Just as in christianity, there are many thoughts and opinions and interpretations. You assume conspiracy where there is none.

As a christian, I have no problem with an allegorical interpretation of Genisis. I also have no problem with people holding with integrity alternative views. What I do have a problem with, is people using their own views to discredit, disenfranchise and demean other christians.

Good points. Many of the YECs here try to project themselves as better Christians, when I don't think they are. I'm a Christian and yet I also agree with most of evolution. There is too much scientific evidence in my opinion to just blow evolution off as "the work of the devil" and to define science as "wild guesses." Many believe that faith doesn't require "sacrificium intellectum" (sacrifice of the intellect) to work. Believing everything with blind faith doesn't make you better than anyone else. I've even heard that is important to faith to ask questions and not accept everything put before you. How else would Protestants exist?

 

[Pilgrim 33]

None of those links appear....

No appearance to it, please READ and present your proofs and URL's to refute the evidence presented HERE, ALSO HERE and, FINALLY, HERE that contradict your "appearing" assumptions.

 

[ProtestantDan]

Question:
How could anyone, based on the previous three posts, claim to be a Christian AND a proponent of humanism &/or evolution? Obviously, they are diametrically opposed.

Obviously now. I'm not a proponent of humanism, but I am a proponent of evolution. In my book they're not the same, though I know that you'll refute this to the ends of the earth. I'm just going to disregard your opinion as YECs have disregarded my opinions and my evidence many times. Back to the point: It is possible through an allegorical and symbolic interpretation of the Scripture. Again, you'll say that I am either a bad Christian, a false Christian, or that there is no evidence to support this. Provide me evidence to support only a literal view. However, I am not alone in holding with a symbolic and metaphoric interpretation, in fact, I might be the majority. God gifted me with a good mind, and I'm not going to forsake his gift and absorb the viewpoints of people who don't have an open mind. I'll think for myself and reach my own conclusions.

I try to conduct an honest, fair, friendly debate on issues and often all I get in response is "you're not really a Christian" or "you're wrong, even though I have no evidence."

 

[Pilgrim 33]

I'm a Christian and yet I also agree with most of evolution.

Please present your proofs and URL's to refute the evidence presented HERE, ALSO HERE and, FINALLY, HERE that contradict your claims that Christianity can be mixed with humanism and it's "scientific tool", evolutionism.

Many believe that faith doesn't require "sacrificium intellectum" (sacrifice of the intellect) to work. Believing everything with blind faith doesn't make you better than anyone else.

True, it's simply what sets one apart as saved; something, according to Scripture, the faithless are not.

I've even heard that is important to faith to ask questions and not accept everything put before you. How else would Protestants exist?

Protestants are protestants because they protested and demanded the right to live by faith and to ask questions and not just accept everything put before them, unlike humanists and their offshoots like evolutionism.

Please address the issues raised and present your proofs and URL's to refute the evidence presented HERE, ALSO HERE and, FINALLY, HERE that contradict your aforementioned assumptions. Thank you.

 

[Arikay]

Sure thing,

1) What is evolution

A)"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html

As you see, nothing about humanism, religion or atheism.

B) Evolution is not against religion,
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html



2) Logical fallacies,
Your arguments are based on a number of logical fallacies.

A)Wrong direction,
You are assuming that Being an evolutionist makes you a humanist, but that is backwards.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrong_direction

B)Non sequitur,
You assume that because humanists are evolutionists all evolutionists are humanists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur

C)Hasty Generalisation
Similar to B, you assume that since some humanists are evolutionists, all evolutionists are humanists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalisation

Etc.


So, will that do?

Please present your proofs and URL's to refute the evidence presented HERE, ALSO HERE and, FINALLY, HERE that contradict your assumptions.

 

[ProtestantDan]

The grammatical evidences within the texts deny such alleged and massive allegorical writing. Please present your evidence and URL's to refute this. This is not a matter of personal interpretation, our goal is to seek what God means and not what we want Him to mean.

Please provide evidence, preferably from literary authorities, that give evidence that deny possible allegory and/or symbols and metaphors in the Bible. The burden of proof lies on you to prove that it is impossible. Also, please provide evidence showing that your view on the Bible is the same as God's and is correct. Good luck.

Being in the literary field myself, I can tell you that if you asked 10 different literary authorities their take on it, you could possibly get 10 different explanations, views, etc. For literature is a liberal art.

 

[Ondoher]

No appearance to it, please READ and present your proofs and URL's to refute the evidence presented HERE, ALSO HERE and, FINALLY, HERE that contradict your "appearing" assumptions.

As you failed to explain how acceptance of evolution requires a person to be a humanist and that you failed to account for nonhumanist people who accept evolution, I will accept your tacit defeat. Thank you.

 

[Pilgrim 33]

I'm not a proponent of humanism, but I am a proponent of evolution

Please present your proofs and URL's to refute the evidence presented HERE, ALSO HERE and, FINALLY, HERE that contradict your claims that Christianity can be mixed with humanism and it's "scientific tool", evolutionism

It is possible through an allegorical and symbolic interpretation of the Scripture.

Oh, so now it's BOTH allegory AND symbolism; hopefully, we don't have to wait on all the hundreds more of figures of speech to be added.

Hey, don't just say it. Prove it! PLEASE, present proof that the Genesis texts contain grammatical evidence of allegorical writing and intent in the creation account.

1 Timothy 6:20, "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:"

Colossians 2:8, "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."

 

[ProtestantDan]

Your evidence is biased and is twisted to suit your needs. Your humanism evidence is one person/group's take things and cannot be applied to all people, no matter how much you'd like to. I didn't say I didn't have faith, I just am saying that many well-respected theologians support the idea of questioning things in faith. For many of the practices and beliefs in modern religion, including most of the Roman Catholic Church, is something men came up with and is not out of the Bible. Thus, it is quite possible to question practices created by man. My proof is myself. I am not a humanist but I am a Christian. Good enough for me, nothing is good enough for you. Humanists can say what they want about me but it won't change my view of myself.

Protestants are protestants because they protested and demanded the right to live by faith and to ask questions and not just accept everything put before them, unlike humanists and their offshoots like evolutionism.

This sounds an awful lot like they questioned the doctrines of the Catholic Church (which they did) which would be synonymous with questioning faith. You have just provided me with evidence that supports my claim and refutes yours. Thank you.

 

[Pilgrim 33]

[/color][/i].

Being in the literary field myself, I can tell you that if you asked 10 different literary authorities their take on it, you could possibly get 10 different explanations, views, etc. For literature is a liberal art.

The Bible is not just literature, except for the humanism disciplines.

Considering there are only two comprehensive works on figures of speech used in the Bible and, if, all of your ten experts were honest, in all likelihood they would have to abstain or agree with the majority accepted works on the subject.

In any event, please present your proofs and URL's to refute the evidence presented HERE, ALSO HERE and, FINALLY, HERE that contradict your unproved assumptions that The Gospel and humanism's evolution can be mixed.

 

[Arikay]

AiG (a creationist group) says Don't take that verse out of context:
"To develop a Scriptural model properly, we must understand what the author intended to communicate to his intended audience, which in turn is determined by the grammar and historical context. We must not try to read into Scripture that which appears to support a particular viewpoint. The original Greek word translated ‘science’ is gnosis, and in this context refers to the élite esoteric ‘knowledge’ that was the key to the mystery religions, which later developed into the heresy of Gnosticism. This was not an error by the KJV translators, but an illustration of how many words have changed their meanings over time. The word ‘science’ originally meant ‘knowledge’, from the Latin scientia, from scio meaning ‘know’. This original meaning is just not the way it is used today, so modern translations correctly render the word as ‘knowledge’ in this passage."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp

1 Timothy 6:20, "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:"

Colossians 2:8, "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."

 

[Pilgrim 33]

Your evidence is biased and is twisted to suit your needs. Your humanism evidence is one person/group's take things

Obviously, you have still not read the EVIDENCE presented HERE, ALSO HERE and, FINALLY, HERE that contradict your unproved assumptions that The Gospel and humanism's evolution can be mixed.


This sounds an awful lot like they questioned the doctrines of the Catholic Church (which they did) which would be synonymous with questioning faith.

nope. Their faith questioned the system

1 Timothy 6:20, "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:"

Please, focus on the evidence presented.

 

[Arikay]

I already have, post #606

I have shown that your claims that evolution is humanistic are false, and that you have linked the two by logical fallacies. Thus I have refuted your claim.

Or will it be ignored?

In any event, please present your proofs and URL's to refute the evidence presented HERE, ALSO HERE and, FINALLY, HERE that contradict your unproved assumptions that The Gospel and humanism's evolution can be mixed.

 

[Arikay]

AiG (a creationist group) says Don't take that verse out of context:
"To develop a Scriptural model properly, we must understand what the author intended to communicate to his intended audience, which in turn is determined by the grammar and historical context. We must not try to read into Scripture that which appears to support a particular viewpoint. The original Greek word translated ‘science’ is gnosis, and in this context refers to the élite esoteric ‘knowledge’ that was the key to the mystery religions, which later developed into the heresy of Gnosticism. This was not an error by the KJV translators, but an illustration of how many words have changed their meanings over time. The word ‘science’ originally meant ‘knowledge’, from the Latin scientia, from scio meaning ‘know’. This original meaning is just not the way it is used today, so modern translations correctly render the word as ‘knowledge’ in this passage."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/hom...aq/dont_use.asp

(heh, this is fun).

1 Timothy 6:20, "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:"

Please, focus on the evidence presented.

 

[Pilgrim 33]

Apparently there is no one present that is either able or willing to challenge the first hand evidences of evolution's parent, humanism, and which UNDENIABLY AFFIRMS TOTAL COMMITTMENT TO THE COMPLETE DESTRUCTION OF RELIGION AND, IN PARTICULAR, CHRISTIANITY and presented HERE, ALSO HERE and, FINALLY, HERE and that contradict ALL claims made in this thread that Christianity can be mixed with humanism and it's "scientific tool", evolutionism.

Is there NO one that will address the above listed evidences and links?

This is be a VERY good topic for discussion.

 

[Arikay]

To repeat myself, Post #606.
But it appears you are ignoring it. I guess that means I win (A mild logical fallacy but the best it appears I will get from attempting to actually have a discussion. ).

 

[Pilgrim 33]

I already have, post #606

I have shown that your claims that evolution is humanistic are false,

personal unfounded claims, without evidence and without substance of merit. PLease do not play these games and take a fair look at the links provided.

and that you have linked the two by logical fallacies.

Just saying it dones not refute what the links prove without a doubt otherwise.

Next time, please actually read the links that refute your assumptions presented HERE, ALSO HERE and, FINALLY, HERE that The Gospel and humanism's evolution can be mixed.

 

[ProtestantDan]

The Bible is not just literature, except for the humanism disciplines.

Considering there are only two comprehensive works on figures of speech used in the Bible and, if, all of your ten experts were honest, in all likelihood they would have to abstain or agree with the majority accepted works on the subject.

In any event, please present your proofs and URL's to refute the evidence presented HERE, ALSO HERE and, FINALLY, HERE that contradict your unproved assumptions that The Gospel and humanism's evolution can be mixed.

I'm not saying the Bible is just literature, I agree it is more than that, however, by the very definition of literature it is literature. In any event, please present your proofs and URL's to refute posts 606, 607, 608, 612, 614 and 615 before proceeding. Or perhaps you'd rather ignore them?

Also, there are only two comprehensive works based on your definition. Who's to say that they'd have to abstain or agree with these "comprehensive" works? I've witnessed firsthand people in the field debate basically anything in literature.

 

[Arikay]

Pilgrim, you must actually read post #606. Maybe visit some of the links in it.

But I get the feeling nothing anyone posts will be accepted because they contradict Pilgrims already made up conclusion.

Pilgrim, if you would like to actually have a discussion about this, it would be best to explain how my post didn't refute your claims, in which case I would be happy to continue the discussion with relevant information. However, if you would like to continue to ignore the post and in internet-debate lingo* concede victory, that is fine too.

*Often in message board debates it seems that refutations are often dodged, enough dodging can suggest that the dodger can not back up his position and so must dodge the refutation until it goes away.