For evolutionists that were christians at one time.

[Nathan Poe]

I guess God is so weak, he cannot keep his word true.

huh?
God never even said anything. The Bible is supposedly inspired by men. It's not like God sat down and dictated a letter.

The short version, as I understand it, is:
God ---> man --->Bible ---> us.

You think God's the weak link in that chain?

And if that's so in what you say, Who makes this determination of what is true and untrue in the word of God? Fallible man? Seems even that won't work. Fallible word of God(as you say) being judged by fallible man over what is true?

Unfortunately, "fallable man" is all we have. You're fallable; I'm fallable. You believe, I don'r believe. Either or both of us could be wrong.

Ever thought that this might just be an untruth you were told to confuse you about God's word?

Have you?

Go to a search engine and type in "KJV 1611 bible online". This is the first translation of this version which is the direct translation from the greek which was from the original hebrew. Then find which translation is like it. Not many but one. I'll let you figure that out.

Another chain, this one of language:

Hebrew ---> Greek ---> English.

Three different languages, from three diverse cultures. Did everything come through intact?

Worship it all you want, it's still a book.

 

[wblastyn]

Ok, just so I understand you correctly, do you believe any of the history in the Bible is true........

Yes, some of it is true, although maybe exaggerated, etc to make Israel or a person seem more important than they actually were.

You interpret it using extrabiblical evidence. Since evidence from creation shows Genesis could not posibly be literal then we don't interpret it as literal, just like we know there are not storehouses in the sky for rain and snow so verses saying there are are not literal.

Why else would he emphasize morning and evening or each day?

Because it's a poem. The repeating phrases give it meter in the original Hebrew.

I ask you, who is interpeting this so-called evidence?

Even so, the evidence does not fit a literal Genesis, no matter who is interpreting. Creationist organisations lie and leave out information so they can manipulate the evidence to fit literal Genesis.

 

[wblastyn]

I guess God is so weak, he cannot keep his word true.

Huh? What are you talking about.

And if that's so in what you say, Who makes this determination of what is true and untrue in the word of God? Fallible man? Seems even that won't work. Fallible word of God(as you say) being judged by fallible man over what is true?

LOL there are only "fallible men" to interpret the Bible for us, whether they say it is literal or not they are still fallible, hence we look to creation for help in interpreting scripture to be more accurate.

Ever thought that this might just be an untruth you were told to confuse you about God's word?
Go to a search engine and type in "KJV 1611 bible online". This is the first translation of this version which is the direct translation from the greek which was from the original hebrew. Then find which translation is like it. Not many but one. I'll let you figure that out.

huh?

 

[pudmuddle]

(Yes, some of it is true, although maybe exaggerated, etc to make Israel or a person seem more important than they actually were.--
wblastyn )

So, God chose to tell little white lies to make His people look more important? Sheesh, and I thought he was bigger than that....

(Even so, the evidence does not fit a literal Genesis, no matter who is interpreting. Creationist organisations lie and leave out information so they can manipulate the evidence to fit literal Genesis.---wblastyn )

So, you're saying, sure they (nonbelieving scientists) manipulate and misinterpret the evidence a little, but when those pesky YEC's get a hold of it, they just plain lie about it all. Sheesh, I didn't think Christians would do that. You're causing me major disillusionment here.

So, the creation acount is a poem, but the rest of the storys in the Old Testament are just slightly exaggerated, true accounts? Sure wish God would have mentioned that, I just always assume He means what he says and says what he means. Later, gotta mull this over...

 

[wblastyn]

So, God chose to tell little white lies to make His people look more important? Sheesh, and I thought he was bigger than that..

Why do you think God wrote the Bible? I'm saying the people who wrote the books in the Bible tended to exaggerate things, like how many horses a king had, etc. This was a common thing to do in the time the Bible was written.

So, the creation acount is a poem, but the rest of the storys in the Old Testament are just slightly exaggerated, true accounts? Sure wish God would have mentioned that, I just always assume He means what he says and says what he means. Later, gotta mull this over...

Yes, and it was probably written after Exodus and added to Genesis, you do realise Genesis has more than 1 author. Not all of scripture is exaggerated.

 

[wblastyn]

So, you're saying, sure they (nonbelieving scientists) manipulate and misinterpret the evidence a little, but when those pesky YEC's get a hold of it, they just plain lie about it all. Sheesh, I didn't think Christians would do that. You're causing me major disillusionment here.

Scientists have no use for manipulating the evidence, you have to be willing to accept that your theory could be falsified one day (which is unlike for evolution, but not impossible), because even falsifying theories leads to advances in science. Something like 40% of scientists are Christians, many of whom are biologists who accept evolution, and if evolution was falsified you'd win a Nobel Prize. YEC's, OTOH, have an emotional attachment to creationism because they connect it to Christianity, so if creationism is falsified then so is Christianity and they have believed a lie, hence their motovation to lie.

 

[wblastyn]

Creationist organisations are eaither very ignorant or the lie.

I have here a leaflet someone gave my father in town called "Evolution: Evidence For and Against", I was expecting a well balanced arguement or something, instead I get the same creationist rubbish. One of the arguments for example is "Dogs don't have kittens, cows don't have lambs, and pigs don't produce rabbits...". Now this is not what evolution claims, so the people who made the leaflet are either lying or very very ignorant (or possibly have been lied to - they do mention Dr Dino).

 

[Philosophic]

I see that this is a lengthy thread, and I've only just read the Opening Post, so there may well have been a lot said that might change my reply, but I'm going to go ahead anyway here.....

I was raised as a Presbyterian, and not as a Bible-literalist type, either. In my late 20s/early 30s, I got drawn into the "born again" movement, largely due to the conversion of my younger sister and my desire to "hang out" with some of her girl friends. I was single and in the market for "a nice girl."

After a couple of years of listening to the stuff upon which the whole fundamentalist "born again" movement was based, I ran for the exits, and I've never once looked back. If I were still a Christian (I'm most certainly not), I would have called those folks "Satan-inspired" for sure. But their views did impact my philosophy, and ultimately, my deconversion from Christianity was based upon a consideration of the following question:

Just how do I know what truths to believe are really true, and what alleged truths to believe are actually false?

This is the foundational question of the philosophical subject of epistemology. And in contemplating that question for several years, I was forced to conclude that ONLY SCIENCE YIELDS DEPENDABLE TRUTH ASSERTIONS!

The very existence of this forum, which is to explore the idea that evolution is not true because it allegedly contradicts the Holy Bible's assertion of creation by God, is a sure testament to the insanity which is born out of a dedication to a set of religious beliefs. For thousands of years, mankind has used scientific methods to ascertain contingent truths about our universe. The fact that science only produces contingent truths is used as a point of denegration by the advocates of religion. "God is the absolute" they claim. Well, they claim that from their position of ignorance, not from a foundation of anything resembling truth.

I've come to believe that religion requires willful ignorance. The more firmly you believe in the literal truth of the Christian religion, the more strongly you must push yourself away from the fruits of scientific method. You must deny that science produces any useful information, in spite of and in the face of the fact that science has been the only reliable source of truth values since the dawn of civilization.

And when you throw your allegiance over the other way, as I have, you discover that Christianity has little to distinguish it from the many other superstitions that have plagued mankind from the dawn of recorded history. There isn't any more reason to believe in Christianity than there is to believe in any of the other thousands of religions and sects that we know about from the past ten thousand years. Science tells us all of this, as it discovers the secrets of those belief systems, so far as they can be discovered by modern mankind.

And therein lies the true reason why Christians must deny evolution: it is the crack in the door which leads to the renunciation of Christianity and the reliance upon scientific method as the producer of truth values. But if 6 billion people all believe a wrong thing, it is still a wrong thing. The only way to know truth is to approach the questions objectively, and that is the definition of the discipline of science. Approaching questions with the preconceived notions that Christianity is true (or false; or whatever) only introuduces biases into the objective study of any questions which human beings might wish to explore. The history of the past 500 years demonstrates time and time again that religious leaders insisted upon non-scientific truths that later religious leaders were forced to eventually reject, accepting the scientific explanation for the way that our universe actually is.

When you become a Bible literalist, you necessarily turn the clock of human achievement back by 15 centuries or more to when the Bible was finally written down as a complete text. I guess that I was never a very good Christian because I could never bring myself to accept that this was the correct way to approach knowledge in our modern world.

Today I am an atheist so far as any Christians are concerned. I see Jesus as not God, but a man who lived 1950 to 2000 years ago, more or less, and about whose real life we know virtually nothing. The story of the real Jesus was exterminated by Christians who were interested in enhancing their temporal power through the promulgation of the great mythology of Jesus, which we now call the New Testament.

As is painfully obvious from just reading the opening chapters of the Book of Galatians, St. Paul took what Jesus stood for and turned it inside out, for his own purposes. St. James and St. Paul were the bitterest of enemies because of this. Even if I believed that Jesus was God, I would have to also believe that Christianity is nothing that Jesus himself would wish for mankind to adopt as a belief system.

These days, I battle against the mythology of Christianity because so many Christians today seek to turn back the clock of human achievement. Tossing science out on its ear is the goal of forums like this one. Get people to accept that one science, evolution, is untrue, and it is only a short journey from there to returning to a belief that all of science is little different from witchcraft, and we all know what the Bible says about witches!

That is where this whole business is headed, if it is not stopped. We will see witch hunts of those who dare to seek out scientific truths. We will, once again, see people put to death for daring to advocate a different point of view. You don't believe me? Just check out some of the writings of Bob Enyart. Of course, I hear you reply, he isn't a True Christian (tm), so there isn't anything really to worry about from beliefs like his....

But unfortunately, there is a pattern to this entire business, and Bob Enyart is just at one extreme end of the pattern. The so-called "liberal" Christians are back at the other end of the pattern. And arrayed between those two extremes are all of the rest of you Christians. Some of you reject evolution today and some of you do not, but you all contribute your time and your money to the eventual destruction of science as the one foundation of truth in human society.

Well, of course, I have to battle that movement of yours to return us all to the dark ages. I have no choice!

==========

Well, so much for my checking in back here after being away for a few months. I didn't realize just how worked up I was going to get over this whole evolution/creation business.

Sorry to bother you. You may now return to your regularly scheduled rants against civilized society and scientific method, the only proven technique for ascertaining what is true.....

 

[pudmuddle]

Interesting post, Philosophic
Of course I disagree with a couple of things (ok a lot of things)

1.ONLY SCIENCE YIELDS DEPENDABLE TRUTH ASSERTIONS!

In other words, science is YOUR religion. Remember, I'm a literalist. With the above statement, you have literally revealed where you stand. Science to you is absolute truth. Fair enough, but call it what is it.
This leads me to my next point I wanted to make before
Philosophic entered the discussion. Evolutionists defend their postion with a zeal equal to that of creationists, or more so. It is their religion. Man is created (opps-there I go using that word again) with a need to worship. I think even an athiest has to concur that. Why else is there multitudes of religions? I really don't think of evolution as science, just as I don't think of history as science. Science must be observed. You can't observe the past, so you're left with a guessing game. But I digress.

(Today I am an atheist so far as any Christians are concerned. I see Jesus as not God, but a man who lived 1950 to 2000 years ago, more or less, and about whose real life we know virtually nothing - Philosophic )

We don't? There are other texts that talk about the man.


(But if 6 billion people all believe a wrong thing, it is still a wrong thinG--
Philosophic )

I agree. And if everyone but me believes evolution is absolute truth, that doesn't make it true....

 

[pudmuddle]

(Why do you think God wrote the Bible? I'm saying the people who wrote the books in the Bible tended to exaggerate things, like how many horses a king had, etc. This was a common thing to do in the time the Bible was written.--wblastyn )

I don't think God wrote it, in the sense that he picked up the pen. I do believe that he inspired man to write it, and I don't think he encouraged exaggeration of the facts.

(Yes, and it was probably written after Exodus and added to Genesis, you do realise Genesis has more than 1 author. Not all of scripture is exaggerated--- )

Here we go again. You selectively believe some scripture is truth and some isn't? Does God deliberately play guessing games with his followers?
Were Jesus' miracles exxagerated? I don't see how you can have it both ways-but maybe I'm thinking too literal.

(Scientists have no use for manipulating the evidence... )

Disagree. Evolution is the sacred stone on which all their theorys are built. It is big business in tourism. Without it, the whole stack or cards tumble and they are left with what? Intelligent design, perhaps?

How a great Lord's day. I'll pray for ya'll....

 

[Sophismata]

In other words, science is YOUR religion. Remember, I'm a literalist. With the above statement, you have literally revealed where you stand. Science to you is absolute truth. Fair enough, but call it what is it.
This leads me to my next point I wanted to make before
Philosophic entered the discussion. Evolutionists defend their postion with a zeal equal to that of creationists, or more so. It is their religion. Man is created (opps-there I go using that word again) with a need to worship. I think even an athiest has to concur that. Why else is there multitudes of religions? I really don't think of evolution as science, just as I don't think of history as science. Science must be observed. You can't observe the past, so you're left with a guessing game. But I digress.

We defend it with "zeal" until it can be disproven. What we are defending is not the stance of "evolutionism", but our ability to interpret evidence produced by professionals in their respective fields.

I don't think of history as science.

Now you realm into the philosophical, what is to say that the universe wasn't created 10 minutes ago with all of our memories in place giving the appearance that it's not.

Science must be observed

By remembering something such as a fact you are observing the past by means of your memories and by observing the fossil record and drawing conclusions from it, you are practicing science.

Disagree. Evolution is the sacred stone on which all their theorys are built. It is big business in tourism. Without it, the whole stack or cards tumble and they are left with what? Intelligent design, perhaps?

Scenario: it is discovered that evolution is not the mechanism which is the cause for the fossil record being the way it is.
Cosmology would be left untouched; astrophysics would be left untouched; regular archaeology would be left untouched; anthropology would be left untouched; genetics, QFT, QED, QCD, GR, M-Theory, K-Theory, would be left untouched. The only things it would throw off would be evolutionary biology itself, and its subsets, such as phylogeny. Even evolutionary ecology would be be left pretty much untouched because ecosystems do change overtime.

 

[Sinai]

ONLY SCIENCE YIELDS DEPENDABLE TRUTH ASSERTIONS!

You are obviously entitled to your beliefs and opinions, but this appears to be an overly broad assertion, since much in the library of human knowledge we assume to be true rests outside the confines of scientific inquiry.

The very existence of this forum, which is to explore the idea that evolution is not true because it allegedly contradicts the Holy Bible's assertion of creation by God, is a sure testament to the insanity which is born out of a dedication to a set of religious beliefs.....Tossing science out on its ear is the goal of forums like this one.

Really? And some of us were under the impression this forum was for the general discussion of science, creation and evolution....

 

[Sinai]

Scientists have no use for manipulating the evidence

I wish this were always the case. Unfortunately, since scientists are still human, they can sometimes become so attached to a pet theory or preconceived conclusion that they can be very reluctant to let go--and sometimes data has been suppressed or manipulated....even by some of the best in the business, such as Charles D. Walcott (Burgess Pass incident) and Albert Einstein (cosmological equation). And that is why one must remain vigilent and careful when doing experiments and research

 

[wblastyn]

I wish this were always the case. Unfortunately, since scientists are still human, they can sometimes become so attached to a pet theory or preconceived conclusion that they can be very reluctant to let go--and sometimes data has been suppressed or manipulated....even by some of the best in the business, such as Charles D. Walcott (Burgess Pass incident) and Albert Einstein (cosmological equation). And that is why one must remain vigilent and careful when doing experiments and research

Well what would be the point of all the evolutionary scientists (including those who are Christian) manipulating the evidence. Sure, maybe one scientist would be so attached to their hypothesis that they have problms letting go, but evolution is a well established theory.

 

[wblastyn]

I don't think God wrote it, in the sense that he picked up the pen...

Inspired doesn't mean dictated either, the people who wrote the Bible encountered God and decided to write about those encounters, hence God "inspired" them to write, but He didn't tell them what to write.

Here we go again. You selectively believe some scripture is truth and some isn't? Does God deliberately play guessing games with his followers..

Non-literal doesn't mean "false". I don't select which scripture is literal and which isn't just by what suits me, I look at the evidence in God's Creation, which says Geensis cannot be true (plus magic trees and talking snakes). I don't care if genesis is literal or not, although if it is God has a lot of explaining to do.

Disagree. Evolution is the sacred stone on which all their theorys are built...

LOL "all" theories? Evolution is only applies to biology. Sure, other areas of science back it up like geology, etc but ultimately it is biology.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Interesting post, Philosophic
Of course I disagree with a couple of things (ok a lot of things)

1.ONLY SCIENCE YIELDS DEPENDABLE TRUTH ASSERTIONS!

In other words, science is YOUR religion. Remember, I'm a literalist. With the above statement, you have literally revealed where you stand. Science to you is absolute truth. Fair enough, but call it what is it.

you're a literalist? Not just with the Bible, it seems. That could be dangerous if you're in an argument and someone tells you to "drop dead..."

This leads me to my next point I wanted to make before
Philosophic entered the discussion. Evolutionists defend their postion with a zeal equal to that of creationists, or more so. It is their religion. Man is created (opps-there I go using that word again) with a need to worship. I think even an athiest has to concur that.

Utter nonsense. I would say that man has a need to learn and understand; to ask questions and find answers. Religion is convenient because it provides easy answers for difficult questions. That's its lure.

Why else is there multitudes of religions? I really don't think of evolution as science, just as I don't think of history as science. Science must be observed. You can't observe the past, so you're left with a guessing game. But I digress.

History is a science. Archeology, Anthropology, Paleontology, Sociology, Forensic science.... all these things deal with the past, don't they? And that's just the beginning.

(Today I am an atheist so far as any Christians are concerned. I see Jesus as not God, but a man who lived 1950 to 2000 years ago, more or less, and about whose real life we know virtually nothing - Philosophic )

We don't? There are other texts that talk about the man.

Name a few.

(But if 6 billion people all believe a wrong thing, it is still a wrong thinG--
Philosophic )

I agree. And if everyone but me believes evolution is absolute truth, that doesn't make it true....

Agreed. Truth is not a popularity contest. Good thing evolution has a lot more going for it than popular opinion. It has hundreds of years of observed evidence to support it.

 

[pudmuddle]

Posted by wblastyn - Yesterday at 09:24 PM

(Inspired doesn't mean dictated either, the people who wrote the Bible encountered God and decided to write about those encounters, hence God "inspired" them to write, but He didn't tell them what to write.
Non-literal doesn't mean "false". I don't select which scripture is literal and which isn't just by what suits me, I look at the evidence in God's Creation, which says Geensis cannot be true (plus magic trees and talking snakes). I don't care if genesis is literal or not, although if it is God has a lot of explaining to do.)


"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work" 2 Timothy 3:16-17

inspiration of God (Gk theopneustos) Strong's #2315
The Greek word means "God breathed", for theos (God) and pneo (to breathe) Although is is difficult to fully recreate the thought of this Greek expression in English, we are fairly sure that Paul meant to say that all scripture was breathed out from God. This is the primary meaning. But the expression could also mean the Word was "inbreathed," or inspired, by God. The first definition affirms the Bible's divine orgin; the second speaks of God's spiritual presence in the Word. Thus God not only inspired the authors who wrote the words of the Bible, but He also inspires those who read it with a heart of faith.

Ok these are my questions: Are you reading with a heart of faith?

One thing I've already noticed about this part of the forum is that these discussions are mainly cerebral. In other words, meeting of the egos and intellect, with no room given for the spiritual side of man. And yes, we all have a spirit.

I don't plan to ask God to explain he Creation when I meet Him. I will fall at his feet and cry Holy if I am able to speak at all in that moment.

"For it is written: "As I live, says the Lord, Every knee shall bow to Me, And every tongue shall confess to God." Romans 14:11

 

[pudmuddle]

(Utter nonsense. I would say that man has a need to learn and understand; to ask questions and find answers. Religion is convenient because it provides easy answers for difficult questions. That's its lure.--
Posted by Nathan Poe -)


In some religions that may be so, but there is nothing easy about being a commited Christian. Denying ones self is not a natural, easy action, but it is commanded by Christ. Is it convenient for those who give up material possesions for His Cause? For missionarys who choose to live in poverty-stricken countrys when they could enjoy a life of ease in their homelands?

(you're a literalist? Not just with the Bible, it seems. That could be dangerous if you're in an argument and someone tells you to "drop dead...")

That's the problem with computer conversations. Actually, I was being a bit tounge in cheek by calling myself literalist in that instance.

 

[Nathan Poe]

(Utter nonsense. I would say that man has a need to learn and understand; to ask questions and find answers. Religion is convenient because it provides easy answers for difficult questions. That's its lure.--
Posted by Nathan Poe -)


In some religions that may be so, but there is nothing easy about being a commited Christian. Denying ones self is not a natural, easy action, but it is commanded by Christ. Is it convenient for those who give up material possesions for His Cause? For missionarys who choose to live in poverty-stricken countrys when they could enjoy a life of ease in their homelands?

Does the Muslim who fasts from dawn to dusk during the month of Ramadan sacrifice any less? Or the Buddist Monks who shun all material possessions to a degree that would put a Christian Priest to shame? Or the Shaolin who train their body and spirit to ashtonishing degrees? Or the North American Indians who give away or destroy their material possessions as part of their Potlatch celebration? Or any of a dozen other examples I could give?

Self-Denial is hardly exclusive to Christians. Nor is charity. And the whole "Flesh is bad/Spirit is good" dicotomy is common to many religions.

(you're a literalist? Not just with the Bible, it seems. That could be dangerous if you're in an argument and someone tells you to "drop dead...")

That's the problem with computer conversations. Actually, I was being a bit tounge in cheek by calling myself literalist in that instance.

You might want to try putting in a smiley to show when your kidding. Many of the Fundies on this board have no sense of humor, so it's often hard to tell.

(Note the proper use of a smiley!)

 

[pudmuddle]

(Does the Muslim who fasts from dawn to dusk during the month of Ramadan sacrifice any less? Or the Buddist Monks who shun all material possessions to a degree that would put a Christian Priest to shame? Or the Shaolin who train their body and spirit to ashtonishing degrees? Or the North American Indians who give away or destroy their material possessions as part of their Potlatch celebration? Or any of a dozen other examples I could give?

Self-Denial is hardly exclusive to Christians. Nor is charity. And the whole "Flesh is bad/Spirit is good" dicotomy is common to many religions.--
Posted by Nathan Poe )

Exactly. So I don't see how religion can be veiwed as an easy answer. Self-sacrifice is never easy.
Believing we pulled ourselves out of the primoral ooze, and hoisted ourselves upright by our own non-existant bootstraps could be viewed as the easy way out. After all "everyone" believes it and it is a perfect excuse to behave as selfishly as we want. The philosophy of self as god is certainly easy, if not too fulfulling in the long run....