Is evolution something we can cast aside

[AV1611VET]

“If we are going to teach creation science as an alternative to evolution, then we should also teach the stork theory as an alternative to biological reproduction.”

Creation Science is a contradiction in terms.

The stork theory is actually closer to the Truth than most think, since it runs on punctuated equilibrium, which is one step away from how it actually happened.

 

[IanC.]

Swing and a miss. You miss the point entirely. Care to try again?

 

[dad]

I always assumed we evolved throughout the years but a friend of mine at church ( which I just started attending for the first time) said that the evidence of neanderthal and cro magnon man . Please excuse the spelling are very loose on their factual material. They may have three small parts of bone and try to complete a skeleton based on speculation. Also what if the person was deformed or had rickets or something like that??

Or what if evolving in that different time happened fast? No need to cower or retreat from N man, or etc.

 

[Riski]

Or what if evolving in that different time happened fast? No need to cower or retreat from N man, or etc.

I agree, I expect it only took about 15 minutes (in real time) for it to happen in fact it might not have taken that long because God was watching over it, as we all know God can do whatever God wants to do so time was not a factor,
of course I'm only guessing because there is no evidence for or against any of this happening so we can let our minds wander and make up any old crap we like, if we like any of the ideas we think up we can incorporate them into our religion then everyone will believe them, they will become part of 'THE TRUTH'.

 

[AV1611VET]

... if we like any of the ideas we think up we can incorporate them into our religion then everyone will believe them, they will become part of 'THE TRUTH'.

Or we could [rig] vote on it and go from there.

Would that be better?

 

[rockaction]

Or we could [rig] vote on it and go from there.

Would that be better?

Hey, that's how the Bible was canonized!

 

[AV1611VET]

Hey, that's how the Bible was canonized!

Er ... not hardly.

 

[Tomatoman]

Er ... not hardly.

I bet they teach a very interesting version of how the bible gospels were selected in your church, AV.

 

[AV1611VET]

I bet they teach a very interesting version of how the bible gospels were selected in your church, AV.

I assume it would be very interesting to you?

175

 

[Tomatoman]

I assume it would be very interesting to you?

Yes, and very amusing too.

I looked at your post on your 175 link. It's bilge.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, and very amusing too.

I looked at your post on your 175 link. It's bilge.

Of course it is --

Otherwise you'd have to accept it?

 

[rockaction]

I assume it would be very interesting to you?

175

The canonization of the New Testament is about as political as it gets. The Gnostics were kicked out of theology debates and labeled "heretics", and many many theologians in the first century hotly debated the Trinity and many other nuances of theology. It really appears like the winners wrote the history on this one.

You REALLY have to have a lot of faith to believe God orchestrated his perfect word through such chaos. Those who canonized the Bible were very divided on Revelation, for example. Yet you believe it's a book that describes the End Times? (Most scholars these days say it was, at best, a book written about Roman oppression of Christians)

 

[AV1611VET]

The canonization of the New Testament is about as political as it gets. The Gnostics were kicked out of theology debates and labeled "heretics", and many many theologians in the first century hotly debated the Trinity and many other nuances of theology. It really appears like the winners wrote the history on this one.

As I have said before, the validity of the books were already established.

It was just a matter of sorting them out from the rest of the books.

You can argue the validity of a 5 dollar bill all you want; you can even come to blows over it, but if you don't consider that 5 dollar bill legal tender, then you're making a mistake.

As one wag put it: The objective was not to create an authoritative list of books, it was to create a list of authoritative books.

If I took the 66 books of the KJV Bible and mixed them in with the 14 books of the apocrypha and 66 pseudepigraphs and put them all in a pile in a room, how long would it take you to separate the Word of God from the rest?

We've got kids in our church that could do that in about 10 minutes or less.

But you atheists and scientists?

It would, in my opinion, take you guys years and years before you finally gave up -- (especially if I threw the Epic of Gilgamesh in for good measure).

 

[rockaction]

It would, in my opinion, take you guys years and years before you finally gave up -- (especially if I threw the Epic of Gilgamesh in for good measure).

Before I was an atheist, I was a Christian. I know my way around the Bible (NIV, though). And Gilgamesh has a polytheistic pantheon, so that'd be rather easy to sort out.

You could use a refresher in the History of Christianity. Most conservative theologians these days would roll their eyes at your assessment of the canonization process.

 

[AV1611VET]

Most conservative theologians these days would roll their eyes at your assessment of the canonization process.

And would these 'conservative theologians' agree with your assessment, viz., 'as political as it gets'?

ETA and just FYI:

Evangelicals tend not to accept the Septuagint as the inspired Hebrew Bible, though many recognize its wide use by Greek-speaking Jews in the first century. They note that early Christians evidenced a knowledge of a canon of Scripture, based upon internal evidence, as well as by the existence of a list of Old Testament books by Melito of Sardis, compiled around 170 A.D. (see Melito's canon). Many modern Protestants point to the following four "Criteria for Canonicity" to justify the selection of the books that have been included in the New Testament:

1. Apostolic Origin — attributed to and based upon the preaching/teaching of the first-generation apostles (or their close companions).
2. Universal Acceptance — acknowledged by all major Christian communities in the ancient world (by the end of the fourth century) as well as accepted canon by Jewish authorities (for the Old Testament).
3. Liturgical Use — read publicly when early Christian communities gathered for the Lord's Supper (their weekly worship services).
4. Consistent Message — containing a theological outlook similar to or complementary to other accepted Christian writings.

 

[rockaction]

And would these 'conservative theologians' agree with your assessment, viz., 'as political as it gets'?

They would agree that it was a very political process (because those are the facts), but likely just say "well, we just have to have faith that that is the way God put his word together". Which I don't buy as an explanation.

 

[AV1611VET]

Which I don't buy as an explanation.

Fair enough -- and I don't buy your knock-down-drag-out 'hotly debated' scenario, either.

As I said, the Word of God was already settled.*

It was just a matter of sorting the wheat from the tares.

* Psalm 119:89 For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.

 

[rockaction]

You can't use the Bible as evidence that the Bible is the Word of God.

 

[Tomatoman]

You can't use the Bible as evidence that the Bible is the Word of God.

Why AV doesn't understand this, I couldn't tell you. A psychiatrist might be able to tell you, but I can't.

 

[AV1611VET]

You can't use the Bible as evidence that the Bible is the Word of God.

Then get out there and get us some.