Levels of EvC belief

[FredVB]

In that case the flaw in your argument is not a flaw of logic but the assumption of Logical Realism. But still, you have not shown how the existence of your proposed supreme being changes the science.

It does not need to change science. I am not against science, the way science is done. But my view does not exclude God from it. I see what happens has God involved in it. So I look to what that means. Others' view of God has them likely looking at God and God's involvement differently. But I answer the thread's subject with my approach. And my approach does involve a view of evolution.

 

[AV1611VET]

It does not need to change science. I am not against science, the way science is done. But my view does not exclude God from it. I see what happens has God involved in it. So I look to what that means. Others' view of God has them likely looking at God and God's involvement differently. But I answer the thread's subject with my approach. And my approach does involve a view of evolution.

Do you see Adam and Eve as mutant copy errors, made in the image and likeness of God?

 

[Yttrium]

This poll has always bugged me, and I regret voting in it. I can't remove my vote, though. At the time, I went with #1 because I don't currently see a need for a God in the development of life on Earth, but by that token I could just as easily have picked #2 or #3 as "closest" to my position. I lack a belief on whether God exists or not, so none of the options fit me.

Based on what I understand of the evidence in nature, I think I can safely conclude that the accounts of the creation of living things in Genesis are inaccurate and should not be interpreted literally. If God created everything, then what we see in nature is how God did it. The omnipotent and omniscient God popularized by Christians could easily have designed the basic forms of matter to eventually produce intelligent life through natural processes or could have subtly influenced the process of evolution over billions of years. Suddenly poofing things into existence doesn't match up to what we see.

 

[AV1611VET]

The omnipotent and omniscient God popularized by Christians could easily have designed the basic forms of matter to eventually produce intelligent life through natural processes or could have subtly influenced the process of evolution over billions of years. Suddenly poofing things into existence doesn't match up to what we see.

Yes He certainly could have.

But He didn't.

And I believe He didn't do it that way on purpose; knowing that, in the latter days, evolution would become a convincing lie of the devil.

So He purposely "jumbled up" the order of His creation.

In other words, the more jumbled it is, the more it stands apart from how scientists say nature did it.

The earth being created first is so against cosmic evolution as to be downright fairy tail-ish.

But Genesis starts out, "In the beginning, God."

Not, "Once upon a time."

 

[Aaron112]

knowing that, in the latter days, evolution would become a convincing lie of the devil.

Like that german dictator said "telll a lie big enough and often enough, the people will believe it"

Or be martyrs.

 

[Yttrium]

And I believe He didn't do it that way on purpose; knowing that, in the latter days, evolution would become a convincing lie of the devil.

That would be a pretty pointless lie.

So He purposely "jumbled up" the order of His creation.

In other words, the more jumbled it is, the more it stands apart from how scientists say nature did it.

The earth being created first is so against cosmic evolution as to be downright fairy tail-ish.

Jumbling things up would certainly be a problem for the Theory of Evolution. It would help to find some signs of that.

 

[Aaron112]

The so-called "signs" of men's lies are everywhere. Tricking gullible people for many centuries.

 

[AV1611VET]

That would be a pretty pointless lie.

Not if one is "the father of lies."

Then any lie -- big or small -- would be in character.

Jumbling things up would certainly be a problem for the Theory of Evolution.

It certainly would, but the purpose is not to create a problem for evolution, the purpose would be to create a riff between creation and evolution.

Thus a person would have to end up choosing between the two.

For thousands and thousands of years, creation was taken for granted, simply because the Bible says so.

Then the father of lies sewed his tares, and now look what we got: this creation vs evolution debate that goes on and on.

And, in fact, is going to get worse.

Much worse.

It would help to find some signs of that.

Yup.

Like I said, there was a time when creation was taken for granted.

Then came evolution, and people went out looking for signs of it.

And it took awhile.

It took a lot of hard work, assisted by computers, and juggling numbers and decimal places all over everywhere.

But with "father's" assistance, they're making progress.

 

[River Jordan]

That would be a pretty pointless lie.

Jumbling things up would certainly be a problem for the Theory of Evolution. It would help to find some signs of that.

Not all Christians believe in such a deceitful God. It's actually a pretty fringe belief within the faith.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not all Christians believe in such a deceitful God.

Including Paul?

1 Timothy 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

According to academia though, Eve lived 140,000 years before Adam.

It's actually a pretty fringe belief within the faith.

Ya -- you have to look hard for it.

It's overgrown with tares.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yes He certainly could have.

But He didn't.

And I believe He didn't do it that way on purpose; knowing that, in the latter days, evolution would become a convincing lie of the devil.

So He purposely "jumbled up" the order of His creation.

In other words, the more jumbled it is, the more it stands apart from how scientists say nature did it.

The earth being created first is so against cosmic evolution as to be downright fairy tail-ish.

But Genesis starts out, "In the beginning, God."

Not, "Once upon a time."

There's another way to look at everything and still remain faithful to Christ, but instead of squabbling with other, fellow Trinitarian Christians over it, I just hold to my 11-11 policy.

 

[AV1611VET]

There's another way to look at everything and still remain faithful to Christ, but instead of squabbling with other, fellow Trinitarian Christians over it, I just hold to my 11-11 policy.

What's your "11-11 policy"?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What's your "11-11 policy"?

Not to get into controversy with other Christians over the first 11 chapters of Genesis or the last 11 chapters of Revelation.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not to get into controversy with other Christians over the first 11 chapters of Genesis or the last 11 chapters of Revelation.

Oh ... got it ... thanks.

I'm more interested in the first two chapters of Genesis.

I consider creationism my forte.

What's yours?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Oh ... got it ... thanks.

I'm more interested in the first two chapters of Genesis.

I consider creationism my forte.

What's yours?

My forte? My forte is pulling the rug from underneath the feet of those who come against Christ's Church.

With that being the case, I'm glad you're on my team, AV.

 

[AV1611VET]

My forte? My forte is pulling the rug from underneath the feet of those who come against Christ's Church.

With that being the case, I'm glad you're on my team, AV.

Thanks!

To a point, my friend, to a point.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Thanks!

To a point, my friend, to a point.

That's fine by me, AV. In my view on 'Trinitarian Solidarity,' I'm not looking to get folks to conform to how I approach and interpret the Scriptures.

I try to focus more on what we have in common in Christ, especially since Screwtape is always attempting to break into the Church Pantry. We need to keep his hands off our Daily Bread.

 

[River Jordan]

Including Paul?

1 Timothy 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

According to academia though, Eve lived 140,000 years before Adam.



Ya -- you have to look hard for it.

It's overgrown with tares.

Yes, every fringe belief requires that sort of "looking".

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, every fringe belief requires that sort of "looking".

This is what happens when you substitute a literal Genesis 1 with a literal cosmic evolution.

A literal Genesis 1, over the years, gets relegated to the sidelines, while a literal cosmic evolution changes over and over as new discoveries are made.

 

[River Jordan]

This is what happens when you substitute a literal Genesis 1 with a literal cosmic evolution.

A literal Genesis 1, over the years, gets relegated to the sidelines, while a literal cosmic evolution changes over and over as new discoveries are made.

You're still forgetting the fact that Biblical and Jewish scholars were advocating for non-literal interpretations long before any knowledge of cosmic evolution came about, and how their arguments were based on the text itself, rather than an effort to appease science.