Help me out here guys.

[consol]

Evolution has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt.

An old earth has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt.

What does this say for Christianity?


How can we reconcile this with the Bible?

I'm wondering, because right now I'm at a crossroads:

Become an atheist, or an OEC.

Thoughts?

You were obviously raised to be a Christian or a creationist like some of the others here,
but it's also obvious you were not indoctrinated to the degree some of the others were.

For a start, one does not BECOME an Atheist, if you do not or can not believe, it naturally follows that you ARE an Atheist,
you weigh up the things you have been told and your brain will decide what you can and can not believe,
you can either believe something or you can't, something will jump up as being crazy and others might even seem possible,
a willingness to please the people who raised you will also come into it, because if they told you, they must believe it,
that could be the hard part, but in the end you must decide for yourself, it's your choice, the natural or the supernatural.

It might help if you think that had you been born in Iran you would now most likely be a Muslim,
had that happened, you would not even give Christianity a second thought, (do you give Islam a second thought?)
as it is written, 'Religion is like pornography, it's just a matter of Geography',
where you are born and to whom is the deciding factor, it was not your choice, you are what you were raised to be,
had you been indoctrinated properly, this question would never have arisen.

 

[truth above all else]

Evolution has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt.
if you mean abiogenesis and macroevolution, you are wrong, the so called proofs are unconvincing at best
An old earth has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt...
nonsense , uniformatarianism the bedrock of geology is merely a hypothesis, it has never been proved, the methodology that assigns ridiculously vast ages to anything other than trees, is hopelessly unscientific, the uniformatarian geologist determines age based on a set of assumptions , and these assumptions are always based on the principle of uniformatarianism; circular logic at its best

What does this say for Christianity?

Christianity need not bow down to a lower form of knowledge

How can we reconcile this with the Bible?

reconcile pseudo knowledge with the Bible ? what for, The Bible contains truth,it must be approached with reverence and a contrite heart;your approach is driven by arrogance and pride

I'm wondering, because right now I'm at a crossroads:

life is littered with crossroads,in the fullness of time you will learn that the pseudo philosophy of Darwin is merely a speed hump

Become an atheist, or an OEC.

be yourself

Thoughts?

kljkl
Peace

 

[plindboe]

Evolution has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt.

An old earth has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt.

What does this say for Christianity?


How can we reconcile this with the Bible?

I'm wondering, because right now I'm at a crossroads:

Become an atheist, or an OEC.

Thoughts?

Why would the Bible either have to be 100% correct or 100% incorrect? It's a false dichotomy invented by creationists to make themselves even more pigheaded than they were to begin with. Fact is, the majority of christians in the world have strong faiths even though they realize that the Bible should not be taken 100% literally.

Btw, you shouldn't call yourself an OEC, the generally accepted term for a christian who doesn't live with his head in the sand is "theistic evolutionist".

Peter

 

[Chalnoth]

Evolution has not been proved beyond 'reasonable' doubt. No scientist on either side of the issue would ever state that a theory has been 'proven.' Geez, the 'theory of gravity' isn't even an absolute.

And Mark makes a good point. The term 'evolution' is defined by naturalist who allow for no other definition of the term than theirs. They then go on to sub-define the process using the terms 'micro' and 'macro' evolution, clearly establishing a differentiation between the two processes while maintaining that 'any' change in a species proves both processes.

The key word is reasonable. There is no reasonable doubt that the theory of evolution is an accurate theory as to how life on Earth diversifies. There is no reasonable doubt that all life forms on Earth share a common ancestry.

Creationists' doubts are simply unreasonable, usually because they have no understanding of science or of evolutionary theory.

And then they take people to court for daring to question.

No, they take people to court for pushing religious nonsense into scientific classrooms. We do have laws against that sort of thing, after all.

 

[plindboe]

Speciation is another term which has at least 12 different meanings,

1 actual scientific meaning and 11 misunderstandings/strawmen.

but we all know what we are talking about here.

I doubt that.

Macro-evolution is the process which attempts to explain how some 'ancestor' of ours crawled out of the sea, became a land mammal, and then for some reason crawled back into the sea and became whales.

Perfectly demonstrating that we don't "all know what we are talking about here", since the whale ancestor you talk about is not an ancestor of ours.

Why do you have such strong opinions about something you don't seem to know much about? Wouldn't it be a good idea to learn about a subject before criticizing it?

Peter

 

[Chalnoth]

Evolution has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt.

An old earth has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt.

What does this say for Christianity?


How can we reconcile this with the Bible?

I'm wondering, because right now I'm at a crossroads:

Become an atheist, or an OEC.

Thoughts?

Well, I'm sure you can judge by my icon where I stand

My basic train of thought was the following:
1. I saw my pastors making proclamation after proclamation without evidence, and with completely invalid arguments. Furthermore, I found that many of their proclamations based upon the Bible were simply incorrect. I started to wonder why I believed any of it at all, and came to realize that the only reason I believed in the first place was that people told me it was true. That was no longer good enough: I wanted evidence.
2. It became obvious to me that parts of the Bible just don't describe reality accurately. So, I had a choice. I could consider that parts of the Bible to be allegorical, and other parts historical, as some do. Or I could consider the entire text to be unreliable. When thinking about this, I could think of no valid method by which to distinguish between the two parts by looking at the Bible alone. The best I could do is say, "Well, X disagrees with reality, therefore X is not literal." But what about the parts for which there isn't any direct evidence against, but are nonetheless supernatural? Things like Moses' burning bush, or Jesus' resurrection? Why should belief that these are real events be the default? Why only think that events are allegorical if they are falsified? The whole enterprise seemed horribly intellectually dishonest to me.
3. My last problem was an emotional one. Growing up, I had been told over and over and over again that the only way to be good was to be a Christian. And I really wanted to be a good person. So, I satisfied my emotional side finally by rationalizing (invalidly) that Christian morality was good morality, and so I promised myself that I would continue to follow Christian morality (of the particular brand I grew up with). This was enough to satisfy my emotional side, and was when I finally stopped believing entirely. Amazingly, it wasn't until five years later, when I went back and started to reinvestigate my beliefs, that I finally recognized just how utterly absurd this whole train of thought was.

The surprising thing for me is that all this didn't happen until I was 21 years old.

P.S. Danyc, what synod are you in?

 

[uberd00b]

What does this say for Christianity?

It says little about Christianity but does say something about the Bible.

How can we reconcile this with the Bible?

I would say by developing an understanding of the Bible deeper than the childish literalism that has infected some of the faithful.

I'm wondering, because right now I'm at a crossroads:

Become an atheist, or an OEC.

Thoughts?

Just be honest, that is the most important thing. You will see a blatant dishonesty within the creationism/ID movement that I do not believe can be reconciled with Christianity at all.

The veracity of science (as it is to the theist the study of God's creation) should have no effect on your faith. To the theist (in my opinion) science studies the creation which is at least one step closer to God than the Bible.

When reality (or creation) is at odds with the Bible which do you believe should take precedence?

 

[Assyrian]

If we read the Bible with a literalist perspective, yes, the Bible is wrong on the age of the universe.

Actually what we can say is that either the bible is wrong about the age of the universe or the literal interpretation is wrong. A question you need to ask yourself is does the bible advocate a literal interpretation of the Genesis account. If you read Genesis you will find the word day being used in three or four different ways in the first two chapters, including Gen 2:4 where the entire creation is described as taking place in a single day. Is this the way a book would be written if your were meant to take the days literally? If you read Psalm 90, a psalm which discusses the creation and is attributed to Moses, you will find that even Moses did not take God's days literally.

Psalm 90 A prayer of Moses the man of God.
1 Lord, you have been our dwelling place throughout all generations.
2 Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God.
3 You turn men back to dust, saying, "Return to dust, O sons of men (lit Adam)."
4 For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.

We only find the six day creation in the Genesis and Exodus and Moses did not seem to take it literally. No one else in the entire bible mentions a six day creation, The nearest we get is Hebrews 3&4 where God's seventh day rest is interpreted as a rest that is still continuing today that we are told we need to enter ourselves.

Being a Christian is about following and trusting Jesus Christ. He spent three years teaching his disciples to understand parables and metaphors. That is how God loves to speak to us. The bible is full of parable, metaphor and poetry. Is it such a surprise to find that a theology that insists on literal interpretation turns out to be wrong?

It is not as if we suddenly found out Genesis creation account can not be taken literally after modern Geology came along. Throughout the history of the church there have been Christian scholars who have looked at the account of the creation days and told us it was not meant to be taken literally, people like Origen, Augustine, Justin Martyr, Duns Scotus, Anselm and Aquinas. Turns out they were right about that.

That is part of the reason why I made this thread.

How does one reconcile the actual age of the universe with the Bible?

The bible simply doesn't tell us how old the universe is.

 

[AV1611VET]

If we read the Bible with a literalist perspective, yes, the Bible is wrong on the age of the universe.

No, It's not --- the Bible doesn't give the age of the universe, but It does give us the first 4100 years of its existence.

How does one reconcile the actual age of the universe with the Bible?

Easily --- God created the universe with age embedded into it. This is why Adam and Eve were fully-mature adults the day they were created.

 

[sfs]

First, it is certainly possible to accept evolution while still being a Christian; there are many people who do. Most Christian denominations will tell you the same, as will most Christians who are scientists (including me). Christianity is not fundamentally about Genesis; it is about Jesus. If you find Jesus compelling, or find yourself encountering God through Christian worship, then start from there.

Christians who do accept the evidence for evolution take quite a wide range of stances toward the Bible. For convenience, you can divide them into (1) those who believe that the early chapters of Genesis contain history, but don't imply a young earth; (2) those who think Genesis is divinely inspired and true, but the truths are theological, expressed in the conceptual framework of the culture in which it was written; and (3) those who view Genesis (and perhaps the rest of the Bible) as recording the thoughts and beliefs of a people's encounter with God, experienced through the lens of their culture. There are also intermediate positions between these three (e.g. the Bible's authors were inspired but also fallible) and subdivisions within them.

Of course, there are books and articles promoting all of these positions (assuming you're willing to do some reading). For the first position, you could google "Glen Morton" and read his story -- he's a geologist and theistic evolutionist who has spent a lot of time and effort coming up with a harmonization of Genesis and science. For the second position, there are lots of books. Some examples: Henri Blocher is a conservative evangelical theologian who believes in a literal Adam, but who argues that the first chapter of Genesis was not intended to say anything chronologically (see his book In the Beginning). Conrad Hyers (e.g. in his book The Meaning of Creation) is more sweeping in dismissing history from Genesis, focusing instead on theological messages that are conveyed in terms shaped by the surrounding culture. A good collection of viewpoints within this approach is Perspectives on an Evolving Creation, edited by Keith Miller.

I'm not familiar with resources oriented toward the third position, mostly because I usually interact with evangelicals; anyone who is willing to seriously entertain the third view is probably not that troubled by evolution to start with.

 

[flatworm]

Danyc,

Remember that the theory of evolution is an explanation of the diversity of life. It does not and cannot draw conclusions about metaphysics.

I am now an atheist but was raised Catholic. I know that the Catholic church regards the Bible as true and inerrant as it concerns God's plan for the salvation of mankind. In other words, it is neither a science textbook nor a literal historical chronicle (although certain parts are certainly intended to be read as histories, such as the gospels).

Strictly speaking, it is possible that there is a God who guided evolution. It is also possible that He set up laws of nature such that guidance would not be necessary. It's also possible he could set up a cyclic Big Bang/Big crunch universe and just wait a billion eons until the desired result happened. Although I do not personally believe them, I find these conceptions of God to be more representative of an infinite, transcendental being- as opposed to the "magic man" concept that seems implicit in creationist theology.

 

[Chalnoth]

Strictly speaking, it is possible that there is a God who guided evolution.

Possible? Well, sure, but who would want to worship that kind of a deity? One who knows so little about biology that he has to use a trial and error process to find the "right" organism? One who is content to kill off nearly all species that ever live on a regular basis? One that is just fine with letting organisms perish, sometimes in horribly painful ways, simply because they were born with the wrong combinations of genes?

Besides, it's as valid to believe that God guides evolution as it is to believe that God makes planets move in their orbits, and gravity is only an illusion of this motion that God likes.

 

[AV1611VET]

Possible? Well, sure, but who would want to worship that kind of a deity? One who knows so little about biology that he has to use a trial and error process to find the "right" organism? One who is content to kill off nearly all species that ever live on a regular basis? One that is just fine with letting organisms perish, sometimes in horribly painful ways, simply because they were born with the wrong combinations of genes?

This is one of the reasons why the Bible is against evolution --- qv points 2 & 3.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

This is one of the reasons why the Bible is against evolution --- qv points 2 & 3.

1. NOT ENOUGH TIME.

• The Bible portrays this universe as having been in existence for approximately 6100 years. This is much too short a time for evolution to work.

So you are a YEC. Thanks for admitting it again. It is only your YEC interpretation of the Bible that does not allow enough time, but since you are a YEC you really can't help here can you.

 

[AV1611VET]

So you are a YEC. Thanks for admitting it again. It is only your YEC interpretation of the Bible that does not allow enough time, but since you are a YEC you really can't help here can you.

Both YEC and Embedded Age account for a universe that has been in existence for only 6100 years.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Both YEC and Embedded Age account for a universe that has been in existence for only 6100 years.

So embedded age is only embedded history making it exactly Omphalos. If embedded age were embedded time there would be time for evolution to occur. You have just conclusively demonstrated for all to see that you are indeed a YEC who accepts the Omphalos hypothesis.

 

[AV1611VET]

So embedded age is only embedded history making it exactly Omphalos.

Indeed --- embedded history = Omphalos --- but CLICK HERE for the definition of Embedded Age, viz.

• maturity without history

If embedded age were embedded time there would be time for evolution to occur.

But it's not embedded time, though --- it's embedded age.

You have just conclusively demonstrated for all to see that you are indeed a YEC who accepts the Omphalos hypothesis.

No --- you had to change some of the wording before you accused me of that --- for shame, for shame.

 

[Chalnoth]

Both YEC and Embedded Age account for a universe that has been in existence for only 6100 years.

I have no understanding why people would wish to worship a liar. Embedded Age means God is deceiving us about the age of the world.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Indeed --- embedded history = Omphalos --- but CLICK HERE for the definition of Embedded Age, viz.

• maturity without history

But it's not embedded time, though --- it's embedded age.


.

So it is maturity without history and age without time? That is absurd. Twist all you want you have conclusively demonstrated that you are a YEC who accepts the Omphalos hypothesis. Your mental gymnastics and self delusion about age without history or time don't change that fact and there is no reason that anyone capable of rational thought should pay the least bit of attention to your absurdly irrational ideas except to point out how absurd and irrational they are. The earth clearly has a history which either results from billions of years of time or was embedded by a deceptive creator. You go for a deceptive creator. Most of the rest of us go for actual time and maturity and not your fantasy about a deceptive creator. But this whole discussion is off topic for this thread so I think it should end here.

No --- you had to change some of the wording before you accuse me of that --- for shame, for shame

I didn't change any wording. I quoted you exactly.

 

[AV1611VET]

I have no understanding why people would wish to worship a liar. Embedded Age means God is deceiving us about the age of the world.

This is why He documented it --- so we wouldn't be deceived about the length of time the universe has existed.