When debating a athistic evolutionist, how do you show them that their form of evolution is wrong and that TE is right? And along those lines how christian TE is right, since TE could have a deistic God or hindu?
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Quick Question for TEs
- Thread starter CPman2004
- Start date
- Status
T
The Lady Kate
Guest
CPman2004 said:
Personally, I don't debate it like that. Atheistic Evolution and Theistic Evolution pretty much already agree on the mechanics of it all; the only difference is in who's responsible.
That's a discussion of Theism vs. Atheism...there's no need to discuss evolution at all. It's apologetics, not science.
Again, the question is bigger than evolution: How do I know that God is God, and not Allah, or Buddha, or Brahma, or Nobody?
That's an easy answer: I don't know...I have faith.
Upvote
0
CPman2004 said:
You don't. The form of evolution does not change according to one's religious beliefs. Evolution is exactly the same for a theist, a deist, a pantheist or an atheist.
There is no debate among scientists of different faiths/non-faiths about the theory of evolution.
So in debating with an atheist, evolution is off the table entirely, and the whole discussion is a matter of apologetics with little or no reference to science at all.
And, ideally, one would not engage in debate either, but in witnessing.
Upvote
0
Ok i guess I should rephrase my question then....
How do you show an athistic evolutionist that God is behind the mechanics of evolution not natualistic/materialistic means? If evolution is the real sticking point for a person to believe or not to believe Christianity, then how do you show them that christian evolution is the right form of evolution, or way to look at evolution?
I think this issue is very important and does have place in the debate, since I bet a natualistic evolutionist would say that TE's version of evolution is debunk simply because God had something to do with the process of evolution. How does one allow a natualistic evolutionist see that God as most TEs say "guides the evolutionary process"?
How do you show an athistic evolutionist that God is behind the mechanics of evolution not natualistic/materialistic means? If evolution is the real sticking point for a person to believe or not to believe Christianity, then how do you show them that christian evolution is the right form of evolution, or way to look at evolution?
I think this issue is very important and does have place in the debate, since I bet a natualistic evolutionist would say that TE's version of evolution is debunk simply because God had something to do with the process of evolution. How does one allow a natualistic evolutionist see that God as most TEs say "guides the evolutionary process"?
Upvote
0
T
The Lady Kate
Guest
CPman2004 said:
Evolution is not a sticking point for Christianity...or at the very least, it shouldn't be. It is those who insist that their interpretation of the Bible ("Everything is literal, and all Christians MUST believe it!") that keeps them away in droves... at least that's what kept me away for the longest time...until I realized that Christianity is not creationism.
You would lose that bet. Most Naturalistic evolutionists have no problems discussing the processes of evolution with me... as for the cause... well, we just agree to disagree.
I think the key is to leave evolution out of the discussion. Witness, don't debate. Show them the presence of God in your own life, and how it can be a part of their lives as well...then, when the time comes, show how belief in God does not contradict evolution, but rather, completes it.
By showing them how God guides everything else...but like I said, that's a job for witnessing, not debate.
Upvote
0
Even as revised, the answer is still the same. It would be like presenting the Gospel message by trying to show an atheist why God is behind photosynthesis. Evolution is just another natural process like any other. So, the question is simply one of whether God exists, whether Jesus is His Son, come to redeem the world, etc. Same as it has been for 2000 years.
I have found the presentation of the Gospel much easier, and more effective, as a TE. Very often, one of the "sticking points" is, indeed, the idea that since Christianity = Creationism, they can't accept Christianity since they know Creationism is just wrong. By showing them that Christianity does not equal Creationism at all, the door is opened a bit more for them to receive the true Gospel message.
I have found the presentation of the Gospel much easier, and more effective, as a TE. Very often, one of the "sticking points" is, indeed, the idea that since Christianity = Creationism, they can't accept Christianity since they know Creationism is just wrong. By showing them that Christianity does not equal Creationism at all, the door is opened a bit more for them to receive the true Gospel message.
Upvote
0
CPman2004 said:
Ditto.
Remember that Christianity does not confine God to the gaps of super-naturalism. God guides everything, natural and supernatural alike.
So what needs to be dealt with here is not different versions of evolution, but the common perception that "natural"="without God".
Seeing God in natural process is a matter of faith for Christian and non-Christian alike, so it comes back to nurturing faith rather than trying to prove God exists.
If one has faith that God is behind all natural processes, that includes evolution as well.
Upvote
0
T
The Lady Kate
Guest
gluadys said:
Not everything God does is a "miracle"...He's quite capable of working with nature as well as outside of it.
Upvote
0
The Lady Kate said:
Of course, anytime He manipulates nature for His ends, that could be considered miraculous as well!
Upvote
0
Vance said:Of course, anytime He manipulates nature for His ends, that could be considered miraculous as well!
The word "miracle" comes from the Latin "miro, mirare" which means "look! see!". In Spanish "Mira!" still means "Look!" The emphasis was on seeing a wonderful thing. More precisely, on seeing a sign of God's presence and power. It did not include the concept of breaking a natural law. The whole concept of natural law did not emerge until medieval times and is not found as such in the bible.
Of course, in some cases, what we would call breaking or suspending a natural law is what made a sign wonderful and amazing. But natural events, when they become signs of God's presence, can be miracles too. Think of looking into your newborn's eyes for the first time. Or feeling the grasp of those tiny fingers on yours.
I expect many more miracles are natural than supernatural.
Upvote
0
shernren
you are not reading this.
- Feb 17, 2005
- 8,463
- 515
- 38
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
But that would depend on how you define a miracle.
Like I said somewhere else, taking head knowledge to convert an atheist is like trying to singe a dragon with a Zippo lighter ... you're going to get burnt. Atheists aren't atheists because of what they know, but because of what they feel. So trying to convert their science, or their ideas, is very hard unless you can reach their heart first.
If I had to face an atheist, I would say "You're an evolutionist? So am I!" There would be nothing to argue about, right? But as far as possible I would avoid the sticky question of creationists ... I can foresee them asking me, "Well, why are some Christians creationists then, if evolution is okay with the Bible?" I'd just answer that it's their business and I have no idea, and you wouldn't have to accept scientific creationism to be a Christian.
Like I said somewhere else, taking head knowledge to convert an atheist is like trying to singe a dragon with a Zippo lighter ... you're going to get burnt. Atheists aren't atheists because of what they know, but because of what they feel. So trying to convert their science, or their ideas, is very hard unless you can reach their heart first.
If I had to face an atheist, I would say "You're an evolutionist? So am I!" There would be nothing to argue about, right? But as far as possible I would avoid the sticky question of creationists ... I can foresee them asking me, "Well, why are some Christians creationists then, if evolution is okay with the Bible?" I'd just answer that it's their business and I have no idea, and you wouldn't have to accept scientific creationism to be a Christian.
Upvote
0
T
The Lady Kate
Guest
Vance said:Of course, anytime He manipulates nature for His ends, that could be considered miraculous as well!
True... I'm defining "miracle" as something which clearly violates the natural laws, doing something only God could accomplish.
Preferably something big and showy.... Ascending to heaven, or parting the Red Sea sort of thing...
After all, anyone can walk on water if the weather's cold enough
Upvote
0
rmwilliamsll
avid reader
Sabazi said:
and the answer is that the majority of real significant change takes place in isolated groups, the island effect.
Upvote
0
Sabazi said:
Actually there are many examples of gradual change, especially among marine invertebrates.
What you mean is that there are many instances in which a record of gradual change has not been preserved. And as rmwilliamsll noted, the explanation for this (in addition to the rarity of fossils in general) is the local island-like origin of new species. You won't find the record of gradual transition at location X if it occurred in location Y. All you will find in location X is the sudden replacement of one species by another as the species from Y migrates into location X.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
