Help me out here guys.

[Danyc]

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?

 

[flicka]

I just watched this video called "Evolution: What about God?". Much of it takes place at Wheaton College, which is a Christian school, and shows several of the students there who are struggling with this same issue and how the instructors handle their questions. You might find it interesting.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8868710003807845640

 

[Allegory]

You can't, might as well give up. Cancel good friday immediately.

 

[mark kennedy]

Evolution has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt.

Define evolution.

An old earth has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt.

So what?

What does this say for Christianity?

It says absolutely nothing.

How can we reconcile this with the Bible?

We don't, there is no conflict.

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

Become an atheist, or an OEC.

Thoughts?

Go ahead and cross over:

And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him. (Hebrews 11:6)

I don't personally care if you believe in a young earth but faith in God is foundational. Without that you have no perspective on this topic other then that of an atheist.

Lots of luck,
Mark

 

[Danyc]

Define evolution.

Why?

If you want to know, go look it up.

So what?

So, the earth is obviously not 6000 years old as the Bible seems to suggest.

It says absolutely nothing.

I doubt that.

Go ahead and cross over:

And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him. (Hebrews 11:6)

I don't personally care if you believe in a young earth but faith in God is foundational. Without that you have no perspective on this topic other then that of an atheist.

Lots of luck,
Mark

Do you mean to say that you believe there is no evidence for god? That god just wants us to choose him over all of the other gods that are equally as likely to exist and to have dominion over this earth?

To say such a thing is to say that god placed us in a world where we might choose him by no other means than chance.

 

[mark kennedy]

Why?

Because it's the topic of discussion.

If you want to know, go look it up.

I already know the scientific definition, you obviously could care less.

So, the earth is obviously not 6000 years old as the Bible seems to suggest.

So what?

I doubt that.

I don't

Do you mean to say that you believe there is no evidence for god?

No

That god just wants us to choose him over all of the other gods that are equally as likely to exist and to have dominion over this earth?

No

To say such a thing is to say that god placed us in a world where we might choose him by no other means than chance.

 

[Danyc]

Because it's the topic of discussion.

I am going to assume that everybody here already knows what evolution is. Why must I dredge up a definition for you?

I already know the scientific definition, you obviously could care less.

I care more than you do, seeing as you are already sitting pretty.

So what?

So, the bible is wrong, and this influences my decision whether to continue being a Christian or not. Is this so difficult?

 

[Gawron]

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.

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

 

[Danyc]

Anyways guys, ignore Mark, I don't want to derail this thread with what I am sure will become an aggravating and pointless discussion with him.

Back on track.



Thoughts?

 

[Gawron]

"So, the bible is wrong..."

Is it?

 

[Danyc]

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.

I know that. It has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

In this case, the word 'proven' is not an absolute. Beyond reasonable doubt means just what it says.

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.

Forgive, me, it's 2 in the morning where I am; let me give you this:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html#what

I'm not up to explaining things at the, moment.

 

[Danyc]

"So, the bible is wrong..."

Is it?

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

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

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

 

[PeterMaclellan]

Well even if you throw out the whole 6 day literal interpretation, the bible still specifically states that the earth was created before the moon and sun, and the pi equals exactly three. Interesting that a book supposedly inspired by an omniscient being contains factual information that's weak compared even to what the ancient greeks knew about the natural world.

 

[sbvera13]

Consider this:

If you trace the origins of life back far enough, you will eventually encounter chemistry. Certain molecules stick; they stick because of the various atomic bonds native to their structure (excuse, i'm not a chemist, so that will have to do.). Atomic properties stem straight from teh laws of physics and the nature of the universe. So, life is a direct consequence of the universe. Not only that, but life is not only likely, but almost certain to occur at some point. The universe itself will inevitably form life.

Now I'm not christian personally, but I still find spiritual meaning in knowing that the universe produces life by necessity. So, while it may not be literal to Genesis, there's plenty of room for God to coexist with science. Nobody should be compelled to rule either out.

 

[Gawron]

Yeah, I have read that talkorgins article before, and it contains the usual claim that 'creationist' are simply stealing the term and redefining it for their own evil purposes.

Speciation is another term which has at least 12 different meanings, but we all know what we are talking about here. 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.

I have a post on this on another thread, so I won't repeat it here.

 

[Danyc]

Yeah, I have read that talkorgins article before, and it contains the usual claim that 'creationist' are simply stealing the term and redefining it for their own evil purposes.

I skimmed the article myself and it didn't seem very negative towards creationists specifically; it seemed very informative though. Maybe I'm just too tired.

Speciation is another term which has at least 12 different meanings, but we all know what we are talking about here. 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.

Vaguely...Macroevolution is generally changes outside of a species, as opposed to microevolution, within a species.

 

[Danyc]

Now I'm not christian personally, but I still find spiritual meaning in knowing that the universe produces life by necessity. So, while it may not be literal to Genesis, there's plenty of room for God to coexist with science. Nobody should be compelled to rule either out.

A god, perhaps.

But then I get to the problem of, which God is it? There are numerous gods that claim I am going to meet hellfire at the end of my life if I don't choose them. How should I feel about that?

 

[sbvera13]

A god, perhaps.

But then I get to the problem of, which God is it? There are numerous gods that claim I am going to meet hellfire at the end of my life if I don't choose them. How should I feel about that?

Which one you like best is up to you. As for the hellfire business, it's utter croco-balone. It can be deomonstrated, easily, taht the bible was written by men. The value in reading the bible comes in learning from what those men went through in their struggle to understand god. Breaking it apart into petty "god commands this" strips away that value. Once you start looking for the human journey to the divine, you realize very quickly that hell is nothing more than a scare tactic written into an ancient mythology.

To begin with, hell is a logical contradiction. God is perfect, all knowing, and just. I'll start with #3. The average lifespan is 60 years or so, but lets assume you live 90. 90 of the most horrible, sinful, evil years you can imagine, raping and murdering left and right the whole time. Obviously, this person would deserve punishment. But hell is for eternity. Now, 90 years of evil, compared to an infinity of punishment, doesn't add up to justice. It's malice. 90 years of punishment, easy. Probly not enough. Maybe a couple thousand, to account for the thousand of people whos lives were stripped away. But infinity? No way that's just. It's evil in its own right, and I don't think God would be that malicious.

Now, all knowing. God created you knowing that you would sin. Knowing this, he prepared a punishment for you. That just doesn't make sense. If he knew you would sin, and let you be born anyway, then he is making a choice to allow that sin to occur. Then, he is punishing YOU for HIS choice. Again not fair. Not a god I want to worship, tyvm.

And God is perfect? Perhaps he is. A perfect god, of course, would not do any of the evil things that the existence of hell implies. So either god is none of the above, and is actually evil (in which case I'll give him a piece of my mind when the time comes), or the very idea of hell was concieved by men and not God himself. The latter seems to me to be far more likely.

 

[Split Rock]

Yeah, I have read that talkorgins article before, and it contains the usual claim that 'creationist' are simply stealing the term and redefining it for their own evil purposes.

Biologists define macroevolution as change resulting in speciation and the production of higher taxa. Creationists define it as evolution from one "kind" to another "kind" but cannot seem to come up with a definition of "kind." Funny that.

Speciation is another term which has at least 12 different meanings, but we all know what we are talking about here. 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.

Our ancestors did not crawl back into the sea to become whales. Glad to see you are as clueless as most creationists are about evolution.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

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.

Common decent has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The theory that explains common descent is evolution through mutation and natural selection. Scientfic theories are never proven and nothing in science can be proven beyond an unreasonable doubt.