Irrantionality of Creationism

[sampson x]

Obsolete? Yes and No. Christianity as we understand it... and as we practice it... may very well become a thing of the past, as our knowledge and understanding of God and His works change and grow. Of course, one could easily argue that this has already happened. As Christians, the way we understand and express our relationship with Christ is far different than what people did thousands, or even hundreds of years ago.

We are still God's children... but we have done a little bit of growing up so far.

Whoa! Wait a second! Growing up? or drifting away? Aren't we always pointing to the Church Fathers as the ones who had it right, or mostly right? And how do we know that what we say today is right? We need to return to Scripture and the Holy Spirit. His Truth is absolute, and will never go obsolete. Christianity will never go completely obsolete in the sense that the Absolute truths must remain. Christ died and rose again for our sins. That's an absolute. Stealing is wrong. That's another example of the many absolutes that God has given us. Therefore, in that sense, Christianity will only go obsolete if we no longer believe these truths.

Wait, reword that. Christianity would only go obsolete if we would no longer hold that God sent his one and only son to die and conquer sin for our salvation. The other things are still absolutes, but not ones that get us salvation. By not breaking the absolutes such as stealing, we were pushed farther from our salvation, (and we cannot gain salvation by believing them), but through Christ's sacrafice, we can. That, I think, is what Christianity is about.

Biologically, we still are animals and always will be in this world.

From what I'm getting in evolutionary science, this isn't technically true. I mean, they drew the line for Plant/Animal Kingdoms and the others like Bacteria (Yeah, I know, there's two, maybe three, of those, I just don't remember how to spell them), the Protazoa, and the Fungus kingdoms. Who knows, according to evolution, we may someday have an entirely new kingdom, and then we wouldn't be animals anymore...(At least, I don't call myself a bacteria...)

 

[gluadys]

From what I'm getting in evolutionary science, this isn't technically true.

Yes, it is technically true. We have all the characteristics which are common to all animals. We do not have the characteristics of Fungi or Plants or other kingdoms of living things.

I mean, they drew the line for Plant/Animal Kingdoms and the others like Bacteria (Yeah, I know, there's two, maybe three, of those, I just don't remember how to spell them), the Protazoa, and the Fungus kingdoms.

Currently, there are two ways to classify at the top level of taxonomy: 5 kingdoms or 3 domains. They harmonize with each other. The 5 kingdoms are Monera (prokaryotic cells), Protists (basal eukaryotic cells) Plants, Fungi and Animals. The 3 domains are Archea, Bacteria and Eukaryota. Archea + Bacteria = Monera. Eukaryota = everything else.

By domain we are Eukaryotes, and within that domain, we are Animals.

Who knows, according to evolution, we may someday have an entirely new kingdom, and then we wouldn't be animals anymore...(At least, I don't call myself a bacteria...)

No. Future evolution does not change the past. Since we are animals, all of our descendants will be animals too. Evolution does not allow for jumping from one kingdom to another. (See my signature.)

 

[jckstraw72]

Belief in a literal interpretation of the Bible seems to be disappearing. This is probably because the more we discover about the natural world the less possible it is to reconcile a literal reading of Genesis with our observations. Fortunately, a literal interpretation of the Bible is not a requirement for healthy Christian faith.

What Fathers support this? The ones I have read a bit on, such as St. Basil, St. John Chyrsostom, and St. Ephraim the Syrian, have understood Genesis to be overwhelmingly literal.

 

[Dannager]

No. Future evolution does not change the past. Since we are animals, all of our descendants will be animals too. Evolution does not allow for jumping from one kingdom to another. (See my signature.)

gluadys is correct. If at any point a formerly animal species somehow manages to no longer exhibit the traits of an animal and instead exhibits the traits of another kingdom, the current theory of evolution would be disproven and would have to be rewritten to include the fact that populations can switch kingdoms.

 

[Gwenyfur]

gluadys is correct. If at any point a formerly animal species somehow manages to no longer exhibit the traits of an animal and instead exhibits the traits of another kingdom, the current theory of evolution would be disproven and would have to be rewritten to include the fact that populations can switch kingdoms.

And since we are just animals it's okay to act on our baser instincts becoming more and more amoral with no moral absolutes...and then sit in wonder as each generation becomes progressively more violent, more immoral, and farther away from L-rd than the generation before it....

 

[Dannager]

And since we are just animals it's okay to act on our baser instincts becoming more and more amoral with no moral absolutes...and then sit in wonder as each generation becomes progressively more violent, more immoral, and farther away from L-rd than the generation before it....

NO. This is not true. If you feel that just because you are scientifically categorized as an animal you can get away with moral depravity, that is your problem. Just because we remain animals does not mean that humanity is "just an animal". We are quite obviously that and so much more. Do not try to push moral decay onto science's claim that we are descended from animals. I don't care how base you think our instincts are. There are morally upstanding human beings out there who have enough integrity to be good people, to the point where not a one of us can use humanity's evolution as an argument for amoral behavior.

Don't make evolution or science your scapegoat.

 

[Gwenyfur]

NO. This is not true. If you feel that just because you are scientifically categorized as an animal you can get away with moral depravity, that is your problem. Just because we remain animals does not mean that humanity is "just an animal". We are quite obviously that and so much more. Do not try to push moral decay onto science's claim that we are descended from animals. I don't care how base you think our instincts are. There are morally upstanding human beings out there who have enough integrity to be good people, to the point where not a one of us can use humanity's evolution as an argument for amoral behavior.

Don't make evolution or science your scapegoat.

Not my scapegoat...I'm a good citizen of this country...haven't broken any laws except for speeding on my way to work and well...that just yeah...okay I'm a lead foot

But, I see these kids in trouble on a regular basis, and at least once in a week or so, I hear from them "what does it matter, there's nothing for it" I actually had one tell me "there's not G-d, there's no law, just what I want" when I asked him where he got taht idea he told me "I'm just an overgrown ape"

Shocking...adn eye opening...at least for me...

 

[The Lady Kate]

Whoa! Wait a second! Growing up? or drifting away?

Drifting away? Or drifting closer towards?

Aren't we always pointing to the Church Fathers as the ones who had it right, or mostly right?

They got the ball rolling, so to speak... but the ball's in our court now. (Forgive me for mixing metaphors)

And how do we know that what we say today is right? [/QUOTE]

Same way the Chuch Fathers knew.

We need to return to Scripture and the Holy Spirit. His Truth is absolute, and will never go obsolete.

And nobody's disagreeing. However... The issue isn't His Truth, but how we understand His Truth, and choose to act on it.

It may very well be that while God's Truth is absolute, we simply haven't gotten the message quite right... but we're getting closer.

Christianity will never go completely obsolete in the sense that the Absolute truths must remain. Christ died and rose again for our sins. That's an absolute. Stealing is wrong. That's another example of the many absolutes that God has given us. Therefore, in that sense, Christianity will only go obsolete if we no longer believe these truths.

Those are specific examples which I agree, are absolutes. But whether this verse of the Bible is literal or allegorical, or whether interpreting such-and-such in a particular way is necessary to salvation... those have less to do with God's Truth as they do with how we read and respond to it. And while God does not change... we do... hopefully for the better.

Wait, reword that. Christianity would only go obsolete if we would no longer hold that God sent his one and only son to die and conquer sin for our salvation.

Agreed, and that's simply not going to happen.

The other things are still absolutes, but not ones that get us salvation. By not breaking the absolutes such as stealing, we were pushed farther from our salvation, (and we cannot gain salvation by believing them), but through Christ's sacrafice, we can. That, I think, is what Christianity is about.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Not my scapegoat...I'm a good citizen of this country...haven't broken any laws except for speeding on my way to work and well...that just yeah...okay I'm a lead foot

But, I see these kids in trouble on a regular basis, and at least once in a week or so, I hear from them "what does it matter, there's nothing for it" I actually had one tell me "there's not G-d, there's no law, just what I want" when I asked him where he got taht idea he told me "I'm just an overgrown ape"

Shocking...adn eye opening...at least for me...

So you have let science and evolution be the scapegoat... on the word of a single child.

 

[chaoschristian]

And since we are just animals it's okay to act on our baser instincts becoming more and more amoral with no moral absolutes...and then sit in wonder as each generation becomes progressively more violent, more immoral, and farther away from L-rd than the generation before it....

We are indeed animals through our biology. It's rather difficult to refute that.

Our character, attitude and actions, however, are to be modeled from the examples set for us by our Lord, Jesus Christ. Jesus was both fully God and fully human, and therefore biologically an animal, yet I do not know of any Christian who would necessarily ascribe to Him the characteristic of depravity because of this.

Jesus saves us from our depravity, which is ascribed to us because of sin, not because of our biology. Regenerated Christians are no less animal than non-regenerated non-Christians.

But salvation isn't about biology, its about something that transcends biology.

Now, slightly off of this particular topic, where does this notion that animal=bad come from? I've spent my entire life around animals of the non-human persuasion, and I have found many more of them to my liking than animals of the human persuasion.

I don't know much about the theology around whether or not animals have souls, but it strikes me that animals act as if they were sinless by their very nature - in that they seem always to act out of a genuine sense of self. Whereas humans are masters of trying to hide from both themselves and God.

Regardless, this notion that animal nature is inherently depraved is contradicted by my own experience with animals, and I think its rather insulting to the animals at that. Human nature is depraved, that I can agree with. But again, it's not because of our biology.

 

[Gwenyfur]

So you have let science and evolution be the scapegoat... on the word of a single child.

That was the beginning of our talks...but seriously, we wonder about where these kids get the idea that certain crimes are okay...and then throw the book at them with moral absolutes, when they've been taught nothing of morality. Yes, it's partly the schools, partly the parents, and partly the church sitting on it's laurells....

I deal with a LOT of kids...his response is not unique...just the most straightforward answer I'd heard... it's heartwrenching to hear the hopelessness in their voices and see the pain in their eyes...and amazing at the same time how hope is gained when they hear about Y'shua, how they were created in His image and not evolved from some animal...that they are different because of the soul G-d gave them, and they can rise above what they've learned...and live in grace...

Part of why I stick to 6 day creation, I reach these kids with that on a level that can't be explained...but they reach for that preciousness hungrily...and most have turned their lives around...

there are a few who reject it, of course, and others who in their hopelessness take their own lives...

but the hope of being created in G-d's image...that's powerful to one who's never heard it...who thinks they are an "evolved accident"

 

[Gwenyfur]

We are indeed animals through our biology. It's rather difficult to refute that.

Our character, attitude and actions, however, are to be modeled from the examples set for us by our Lord, Jesus Christ. Jesus was both fully God and fully human, and therefore biologically an animal, yet I do not know of any Christian who would necessarily ascribe to Him the characteristic of depravity because of this.

Jesus saves us from our depravity, which is ascribed to us because of sin, not because of our biology. Regenerated Christians are no less animal than non-regenerated non-Christians.

But salvation isn't about biology, its about something that transcends biology.

Now, slightly off of this particular topic, where does this notion that animal=bad come from? I've spent my entire life around animals of the non-human persuasion, and I have found many more of them to my liking than animals of the human persuasion.

I don't know much about the theology around whether or not animals have souls, but it strikes me that animals act as if they were sinless by their very nature - in that they seem always to act out of a genuine sense of self. Whereas humans are masters of trying to hide from both themselves and God.

Regardless, this notion that animal nature is inherently depraved is contradicted by my own experience with animals, and I think its rather insulting to the animals at that. Human nature is depraved, that I can agree with. But again, it's not because of our biology.

hey...I love my cats...all 5 of them...and they are sweet loveable and well...just cool

I dont' see them intentionally hurting each other etc...4 are litter mates...my point wasn't that animals=bad...it was that telling a child they are evolved from animals and that we have the same instincts and it's okay to act on those instincts leads to an amoral mindset of "if it feels good to you, then it's okay"

We all know animals don't have a conscience, but they act out of self preservation for the pack and themselves...

Humans, especially our young people are struggling even with that these days...

 

[chaoschristian]

my point wasn't that animals=bad...it was that telling a child they are evolved from animals and that we have the same instincts and it's okay to act on those instincts leads to an amoral mindset of "if it feels good to you, then it's okay"

I think you are confusing evolutionary theory and some form of extreme hedonism.

I can teach that evolutionary theory is the best explanation for why bio-diversity exists, without inculcating my students with an amoral attitude towards life and society.

One does not logically follow from the other.

 

[Gwenyfur]

I think you are confusing evolutionary theory and some form of extreme hedonism.

I can teach that evolutionary theory is the best explanation for why bio-diversity exists, without inculcating my students with an amoral attitude towards life and society.

One does not logically follow from the other.

maybe these kids would have been better off in *your*classroom...but as you probably already know...not all teachers are as diligent in passing on a sound education as we would hope they would be

 

[Willtor]

maybe these kids would have been better off in *your*classroom...but as you probably already know...not all teachers are as diligent in passing on a sound education as we would hope they would be

No, it's true. Even at the college level, sometimes professors are not perfect in presentation of what Science says. However, I think it would be problematic to allow the way in which certain things are taught to influence whether we think those things are correct. Certainly, I'd hate to imagine someone making up his mind about Christianity from some of the (Christian) teachers I've had.

I think the same thing goes for everything. Especially controversial issues (such as Evolution). Rather than listening to Dawkins' rants about religion (something he apparently knows little about, content-wise), it would be worthwhile to explore the content of what Evolution does and does not say. If an Evolutionist ever tells you that Evolution makes statements about ethics, you can immediately tell him he's wrong. He's stepped over the bounds between Science and Philosophy. It is the same with a child who tells you that Evolution makes ethical statements.

 

[humbledbyhim]

FIRST OF ALL, GOD IS RATIONAL!

Why? He knows everything. The reason that the things of God may seem irrational to us is that we DO NOT know everything or anything even remotely close to everything. Yet, we continue to try to apply science to God. Go figure.

Suppose a group of people with today's engineering and scientific knowledge came up on Jericho's walls the day after they had fallen. I'm sure they would have come up with some bruhaha about how the wall was structurally unstable due to poor construction or whatever when in reality, God did it. Perhaps the was was struturally unstable, but it wasn't because of poor construction, it was because the Lord did it. Evidence seems to say something (ie. the construction was poor)that doesn't mean that the something is entirely accurate. The truth could have been entirely different (ie. God made the wall unstable so that the shouts could bring it down).


The truth is we are not rational when we think that something that God says/does should fit human rationale, when it reality it should fit God rationale (the only rationale that matters.

 

[Dannager]

maybe these kids would have been better off in *your*classroom...but as you probably already know...not all teachers are as diligent in passing on a sound education as we would hope they would be

The problem, though, comes up when you teach these children that they were created and didn't evolve, and then they learn later in life, as many eventually do, that evolution did occur. For those with a shaky faith, this discovery can separate them from God for good. What is important is that you don't lie to the children, ever. You shouldn't tell them that they didn't evolve naturally, because that would be a lie. You should tell them that they evolved naturally, but thankfully humans are unique in the world, for we alone are capable of taking responsibility for our actions. If you want to instill morality in them through religion, tell them how they were saved by Jesus. Lying to them should never be an option.

 

[pastorkevin73]

Pro,
I really like what you have to say. God truely is rational and it is in our humanness we at times to not see that. I too, would rather be thought illogical by the world and TEs and follow and believe what God says in His Word.

 

[jckstraw72]

You should tell them that they evolved naturally, but thankfully humans are unique in the world, for we alone are capable of taking responsibility for our actions.

so in our physical bodies, we arent inherently human? were just something else that got some mutations or something? its my understanding that we were created in the image and likeness of God, in body and soul, not soul alone--that would be Gnosticism. The Fathers are pretty clear on this.

 

[The Lady Kate]

so in our physical bodies, we arent inherently human? were just something else that got some mutations or something? its my understanding that we were created in the image and likeness of God, in body and soul, not soul alone--that would be Gnosticism. The Fathers are pretty clear on this.

So our bodies are in the image and likeness of God?

There are a little over 6 billion people walking around today. Roughly 100 billion since the beginning. Who looks the most like Him?