Some questions for Christians who accept evolution

[Loudmouth]

Yes they failed because they know the truth but rich CEO's suppress the truth so they can stuff money in their pocket.

They published their findings. That is all we can expect scientists to do. It isn't the job of scientists to buy tv ads to outcompete company CEO's. Scientists do science, not sales.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Well, why don't you take over, tell us what we need to do.

Sure the PBS book eat to live is a very good start. I can give you the reading list they gave me. These books are very popular so you can find one on Amazon for a very good price.

 

[bhsmte]

Sure the PBS book eat to live is a very good start. I can give you the reading list they gave me. These books are very popular so you can find one on Amazon for a very good price.

Is the PBS book based on sound science?

 

[joshua 1 9]

Any evidence of this conspiracy you are touting?

This week the Fed gov just banned trans fats. It was advertised as a replacement for butter. Now we find out it is worse for you than butter.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Is the PBS book based on sound science?

Of course it is. You do not trust PBS? If we can not trust them then we are all in trouble. But tell me who you do trust because everyone agrees on this. The results from the malicious research is conclusive.

 

[bhsmte]

This week the Fed gov just banned trans fats. It was advertised as a replacement for butter. Now we find out it is worse for you than butter.

I went to graduate school for physiology 20+ years ago and we knew very well that trans fats were bad back then. What they were not certain on, is whether they were worse than natural butter.

Science learns as it goes on, it isn't stagnant, like religious beliefs. New evidence, will be accepted if it is valid.

 

[bhsmte]

Of course it is. You do not trust PBS? If we can not trust them then we are all in trouble. But tell me who you do trust because everyone agrees on this. The results from the malicious research is conclusive.

If this book is based on sound science as you say, then it appears science is doing their job.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Give us an example of this diet you support.

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...&mid=F1898F08EDCD0E9C7785F1898F08EDCD0E9C7785

 

[armylngst]

NBC - yep, all fair questions. Here are some answers from me - other Christians may have different ideas.

you wrote:


Minor quibble - "a straightforward reading of the biblical account....". I'd say "a literalistic reading of a clearly poetic passage....."

Anyway....

You do know that a straightforward reading and a literal reading of a passage that is written in a Hebrew style that is not poetic, yet Hebrew does have a poetic style. Must be a reason why they did not use it here.

Referencing a story doesn't mean that the story was literally true. Jesus referenced the story of the good Samaritan, which is obviously a parable that didn't have to have actually happened. Because everyone knew the 6 day story back then, it made sense to reference it - regardless of whether or not it literally happened. You do this too, in your own life. You might say "don't pull that fire alarm if there isn't a fire - remember the boy who cried wolf?". Or, just recently House speaker Boehner said "this bill can't pass - we can't put humpty dumpty back together again". In those cases, you don't think that the boy who cried wolf story actually happened, just as speaker Boehner wasn't saying that he thought humpty dumpty was real. As humans, we reference stories that make our points - just as Jesus did - and we know that everyone is smart enough not to think that we are claiming those stories to be literally true.

Jesus did not reference the parable of the good Samaritan, He TOLD it, and everyone knows it was a story. It is such that in some translations of the Bible it says so. The stories Jesus told were parables, which means they had deeper spiritual meaning. If the story of Creation was not true and only a story, why was it the underpinning of Jewish society? if only a story... Their Ten Commandments include one that is based on Creation. Either God lied when He gave the Commandments, or He knows more than we do. In Martin Luther's time, they were defending against people who basically believe God snapped His fingers and it was. (Actually, it was more it only took God one day.) Martin Luther defended 7 days against this, because the Bible said 7 days.

When people rebelled against God. That's what the story of the fall is about. After all, if we make it a story about magical fruit, we suggest that God is weaker than magical fruit, that God would punish someone over the effects of magical fruit, and we basically make Christianity look silly. The sin of rebellion led to suffering that we would not have if we didn't rebel against God.

Magical fruit? Perhaps it is better to have a literal understanding of Genesis. Then you don't see magical fruit, you see a command of God backed up by a piece of fruit which had no power in and of itself other than to, by implication of breaking the Law of God, opening the eyes to good and evil. The impact of the sin was instant. Everything was cursed because of sin. (Notice how God even cursed the earth and creation.) You say death existed before rebellion, yet death is suffering and pain. So how can there be death if there is no suffering? How could a perfect world (I don't think God could create anything less than perfection) be so imperfect?

The Genesis story itself shows that death came before the fall. God tells Eve (and Adam) that they'll die if they eat the fruit - and they know what he's talking about. If there was no death, how would they have any idea what "death" was? Plus, how could anything work? They couldn't eat - because doing so kills plants (even fruit are made up of living cells) - and nothing could live. Nothing works without death. Genesis never says that there was no death - that whole idea is an unscriptural idea of some human.

God explained it to them. As for plants, even the Hebrew uses a different word in relation to life for plants and life for animals. Different words, because it is different. Plants were made to be food for all creation. It wasn't until after Noah's flood that animals became fully part of the food chain. (I do forget that a lot of people toss out most of Genesis.)

Adam - I do see a literal Adam, fully consistent with science, which you can find described in other posts I've made (use the search engine, my name, and "Adam, transitional"). Jesus' death was to atone for the original sin of rebellion against God. - As the scriptures say.

If Adam was not created by God, then Jesus death means nothing. If there was death, disease, and suffering before the fall, and Jesus came to redeem us (to make things as it was), how is death, disease, and suffering any better than death, disease and suffering? How is that eternal life? He is coming to restore things to the way they were before sin corrupted everything.

 

[bhsmte]

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...&mid=F1898F08EDCD0E9C7785F1898F08EDCD0E9C7785

He raises some good points and I agree with much of what he stated.

Since he did this talk though, there have been several studies indicating eating red meat and more of certain types of fats, is not unhealthy and more studies have to be done. Also, he stated; lifestyle is better at preventing diabetes than drugs. Well, there is no drug to prevent diabetes, there are only drugs to treat diabetes once you are diagnosed with the disease. In fact, besides vaccines, there are no drugs one would take to prevent a disease, drugs are used to treat disease.

I agree lifestyle is crucial and myself self personally, would put more emphasis on physical activity and exercise, than most people do. Diet is important, but if one wants a myriad of positive physiological changes to take place (among them becoming more sensitive to insulin, which is good), nothing does it like exercise and being fit.

 

[joshua 1 9]

He raises some good points and I agree with much of what he stated.

Since he did this talk though, there have been several studies indicating eating red meat and more of certain types of fats, is not unhealthy and more studies have to be done. Also, he stated; lifestyle is better at preventing diabetes than drugs. Well, there is no drug to prevent diabetes, there are only drugs to treat diabetes once you are diagnosed with the disease. In fact, besides vaccines, there are no drugs one would take to prevent a disease, drugs are used to treat disease.

I agree lifestyle is crucial and myself self personally, would put more emphasis on physical activity and exercise, than most people do. Diet is important, but if one wants a myriad of positive physiological changes to take place (among them becoming more sensitive to insulin, which is good), nothing does it like exercise and being fit.

Yes exercise is essential. I had a 105 % improvement going through the 2 month program. I exercised for one hour twice a week. Sometimes if people want to be healthy that is going to require a lifestyle change.

 

[joshua 1 9]

If this book is based on sound science as you say, then it appears science is doing their job.

Yes there are committed dedicated men of science doing their job. There are also people using science to harm others for their own personal gain.

 

[joshua 1 9]

You do know that a straightforward reading and a literal reading of a passage that is written in a Hebrew style that is not poetic, yet Hebrew does have a poetic style. Must be a reason why they did not use it here.



Jesus did not reference the parable of the good Samaritan, He TOLD it, and everyone knows it was a story. It is such that in some translations of the Bible it says so. The stories Jesus told were parables, which means they had deeper spiritual meaning. If the story of Creation was not true and only a story, why was it the underpinning of Jewish society? if only a story... Their Ten Commandments include one that is based on Creation. Either God lied when He gave the Commandments, or He knows more than we do. In Martin Luther's time, they were defending against people who basically believe God snapped His fingers and it was. (Actually, it was more it only took God one day.) Martin Luther defended 7 days against this, because the Bible said 7 days.



Magical fruit? Perhaps it is better to have a literal understanding of Genesis. Then you don't see magical fruit, you see a command of God backed up by a piece of fruit which had no power in and of itself other than to, by implication of breaking the Law of God, opening the eyes to good and evil. The impact of the sin was instant. Everything was cursed because of sin. (Notice how God even cursed the earth and creation.) You say death existed before rebellion, yet death is suffering and pain. So how can there be death if there is no suffering? How could a perfect world (I don't think God could create anything less than perfection) be so imperfect?



God explained it to them. As for plants, even the Hebrew uses a different word in relation to life for plants and life for animals. Different words, because it is different. Plants were made to be food for all creation. It wasn't until after Noah's flood that animals became fully part of the food chain. (I do forget that a lot of people toss out most of Genesis.)



If Adam was not created by God, then Jesus death means nothing. If there was death, disease, and suffering before the fall, and Jesus came to redeem us (to make things as it was), how is death, disease, and suffering any better than death, disease and suffering? How is that eternal life? He is coming to restore things to the way they were before sin corrupted everything.

Actually corruption goes back 300 million years to Pangaea.

 

[joshua 1 9]

I find it strange that you would say that science failed when you also think that science has found preventative measures for all of those problems.

The measures are not implimented untill after a health crises. Doctors can make more money doing surgery than then can trying to get people to make life style changes. Still there is some preventive medicine being practiced today. My doctor said people would rather take drugs then follow a diet. Perhaps they do not realize how much better they would feel living a healthy life.

 

[bhsmte]

The measures are not implimented untill after a health crises. Doctors can make more money doing surgery than then can trying to get people to make life style changes. Still there is some preventive medicine being practiced today. My doctor said people would rather take drugs then follow a diet. Perhaps they do not realize how much better they would feel living a healthy life.

Not all doctors perform surgery. And, many primary care docs do attempt to educate their patients on prevention and lifestyle. Getting them to listen and implement the lifestyle changes, is a completely different thing.

 

[Blue Wren]

Why does belief in Young Earth Creationism, barely exist in Europe, with the long history of Christianity there?

 

[bhsmte]

Why does belief in Young Earth Creationism, barely exist in Europe, with the long history of Christianity there?

Maybe religions have shelf lives, when society becomes more educated and can no longer reconcile their religion with reality. And there is no question, the science education and acceptance of the same, is much higher in Europe, than in the United States, where 40% of the population still believes the earth is 6000 years old and is truly amazing when you think about it.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

Why does belief in Young Earth Creationism, barely exist in Europe, with the long history of Christianity there?

Perhaps this is the reason, "The western media, particularly in Europe, strongly promotes Darwinian evolution and an old earth. The secular scientific community does likewise e.g. the Royal Society, which counts 21 Nobel Prize winners among its Fellows, claims that Creationism is unscientific and wrong and that evolution is right."

However, things might change as people in general become more aware, thus, "
On the other hand, there is also a growing number of professional, peer reviewed well published scientists who favour YE Creationism. And only some 37% of people in the UK believe that evolution is 'beyond all doubt' and nearly 50% of the US population hold anti-Darwinian beliefs [Spencer & Alexander, 'Rescuing Darwin', 2009]. So despite heavy lobbying, the layman (like many in the scientific community) remains unconvinced. But has the layman studied the subject sufficiently to defend his or her doubt?

If the subject of Creation has not been studied, then biblical fundamentals are easily undermined by secular arguments. If fundamental concepts in Genesis are undermined, such as the concept of man as a special and unique creation, the concept of man's sin and The Fall, the concept of a righteous God who judged the world through a Flood, and the concept of the need for redemption, then the rest of the biblical cards tumble. Who then needs Christ as Saviour? Theistic evolutionists attempt to marry these essential biblical concepts with evolutionary science, but how much have they studied the science of Creationism?"

Here's the link if you want to read more:-
http://www.seekingtruth.co.uk/young_earth_creationism.htm

 

[Not_By_Chance]

You do know that a straightforward reading and a literal reading of a passage that is written in a Hebrew style that is not poetic, yet Hebrew does have a poetic style. Must be a reason why they did not use it here.



Jesus did not reference the parable of the good Samaritan, He TOLD it, and everyone knows it was a story. It is such that in some translations of the Bible it says so. The stories Jesus told were parables, which means they had deeper spiritual meaning. If the story of Creation was not true and only a story, why was it the underpinning of Jewish society? if only a story... Their Ten Commandments include one that is based on Creation. Either God lied when He gave the Commandments, or He knows more than we do. In Martin Luther's time, they were defending against people who basically believe God snapped His fingers and it was. (Actually, it was more it only took God one day.) Martin Luther defended 7 days against this, because the Bible said 7 days.



Magical fruit? Perhaps it is better to have a literal understanding of Genesis. Then you don't see magical fruit, you see a command of God backed up by a piece of fruit which had no power in and of itself other than to, by implication of breaking the Law of God, opening the eyes to good and evil. The impact of the sin was instant. Everything was cursed because of sin. (Notice how God even cursed the earth and creation.) You say death existed before rebellion, yet death is suffering and pain. So how can there be death if there is no suffering? How could a perfect world (I don't think God could create anything less than perfection) be so imperfect?



God explained it to them. As for plants, even the Hebrew uses a different word in relation to life for plants and life for animals. Different words, because it is different. Plants were made to be food for all creation. It wasn't until after Noah's flood that animals became fully part of the food chain. (I do forget that a lot of people toss out most of Genesis.)



If Adam was not created by God, then Jesus death means nothing. If there was death, disease, and suffering before the fall, and Jesus came to redeem us (to make things as it was), how is death, disease, and suffering any better than death, disease and suffering? How is that eternal life? He is coming to restore things to the way they were before sin corrupted everything.

It's great to see someone on this Christian forum actually defending Biblical truths for a change.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

wow, what a tangent. To get us back on topic.....

NBC, back in post #167 I asked you this. Here it is again for your convenience:



So, then if we look only at the scientists who are Christian, and ignore those who are atheists, Islamic, Hindu, Taoist, etc, and if they overwhelmingly agree on one way that God created, you go with their expert, Christian, position, right?

In His name-

Papias

I think that first of all we have to realise that there are two types of science. There is the type that forms conclusions based on ideas that be be tested over and over again with repeatable results when carried out in the same set of circumstances. That kind of science put men on the moon and gave us computers, etc. The Second Law of Thermodynamics also comes from such science, and Louis Pasteur's famous experiments confirmed the truth of that life does not arise from non-living material (abiogenesis). To believe otherwise is purely a faith-based statement as it has never been observed.
Then there is historical science, which is based on observations about the past but since it cannot be verified by experiments, it cannot be proven. Yes, conclusions can be and are drawn, but such conclusions can never be more than theories because the events to which they refer are unrepeatable. Such theories and conclusions are inevitably coloured by one's ideas about where we came from. The so-called Big Bang fits into this category and requires the believer to abandon known laws of physics, such as 'from nothing, nothing always comes' or to put it another way, 'something never comes from nothing.' It has never been observed to happen and is therefore purely a faith-based statement. Since it is just based on faith, I personally prefer to put my faith in the account given in Genesis. I can't prove that it's true of course, but the Bible overall makes more sense to me if I just accept the straightforward reading of Genesis as historical fact as conveyed to us by God Almighty, who is the only one who was there and the only one who really knows for sure. You obviously take a different view and if you are comfortable with that then that's fine. We don't need to argue about it do we?