• 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.

The theory of evilution seems to be contradictory.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Heissonear

Geochemist and Stratigrapher
Site Supporter
Dec 21, 2011
4,962
982
Lake Conroe
✟201,642.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
There are actually serious theologians that expose you as a pretender. You deny easily demonstrated scientific truth. Your denials are void of demonstrated facts. Your denials are merely your projection of your false theology. This was warned against many times by wiser Christians. They recognized the harm people like you could cause.

For some of my favorite examples, working backwards in time;

The first revelation of the Tanakh, or Hebrew Bible, demands that the physical universe is co-equal with the textural revelation. The second revelation, the New Testament, generally affirms the old revelation regarding the revelation of nature (eg. Romans 1:20) with the added bit that “Jewish fables and genealogies” are expressly to be ignored as they are “unprofitable and worthless,” (Titus 3: 9). That pretty much finished the YEC cult “revelation” right there.

But, this was not my original insight.

There is a strong recent effort to salvage Christian theology from the YEC cult in the Christian Clergy Letter Project, which states,
“Within the community of Christian believers there are areas of dispute and disagreement, including the proper way to interpret Holy Scripture. While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook. Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible – the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark – convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation. Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts.

We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.


Over 13,013 Christian clergy as of 09/24/15 have affirmed this statement. But of course, the anonymous "AsIwassaying" is far more pious, Christ-like, and educated than any of these thousands of clergy.

But these are not new efforts to save Christianity from derision and irrelevance. For example, consider the following:
"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." (Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437).

That was a fairly recent admission occasioned by the scientific discoveries, not of Darwin, but of geology. It was in turn anticipated by,
“Tis a dangerous thing to engage the authority of scripture in disputes about the natural world in opposition to reason; lest time, which brings all things to light, should discover that to be evidently false which we had made scripture assert.” Telluris theoria sacra (1684 English edition, “The Sacred Theory of the Earth” Preface, pg. 10), Reverend Thomas Burnett (1635?-1715).

But that is recent still as we have the testimony of Cardinal Baronius (1598) for the statement, "The Bible was written to show us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go." This was cited by Galileo, not that it did him any good.

Still earlier we have John Calvin (1509 – 1564) writing on Genesis,

"For to my mind this is a certain principle, that nothing is here treated of but the visible form of the world. He who would learn astronomy and the other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere.” And later he stated, “It must be remembered, that Moses does not speak with philosophical acuteness on occult mysteries, but states those things which are everywhere observed, even by the uncultivated, and which are in common use. (Genesis, I, 79 & 84 (1554).”

Why can’t your ignorant YECs follow the logic of Calvin when he observed,
“ Lastly since the Spirit of God here opens a common school for all, it is not surprising that he should chiefly choose those subjects which would be intelligible to all. If the astronomer inquires respecting the actual dimensions of the stars, he will find the moon to be less than Saturn; but this is something abstruse, for to the sight it appears differently. Moses, therefore, rather adapts his discourse to common usage.” Calvin J., Genesis, Vol. I, Part 3 (1554).

I should hope that all you YEC cultists give serious attention to Thomas Aquinas on science and faith, who wrote,
"In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to be observed, as Augustine teaches. The first is, to hold to the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false, lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing." Thomas Aquinas, c.a. 1225 - 1274, Summa Theologica, Prima Pars, Q68. Art 1. (1273).

Aquinas refers to the Christian father, Augustine of Hippo (A.D. 354-430) who advised Christians trying to interpret Scripture in the light of scientific knowledge in his work “The Literal Meaning of Genesis” (De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim). The following translation is by J. H. Taylor in "Ancient Christian Writers," Newman Press, 1982, volume 41.

“Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. {Augustine here has referred to 1 Timothy 1.7}”

Here we enter back into the Revelation that nitwit creationists want to vouchsafe over the work of science. But, as before we find that this revelation rejects them and their YEC cult. Why did Aquinas, and Augustine warn against making “obstacles be placed to their believing?” They were warning any Christian who would try to enforce a denial of the physical revelation to support a false biblical interpretation. They were making a direct reference to Luke 17:1. (Jesus) said to His disciples, "It is inevitable that stumbling blocks come, but woe to him through whom they come! 2. "It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea, than that he would cause one of these little ones to stumble.” Also, Matthew 18:7. "Woe to the world because of its stumbling blocks! For it is inevitable that stumbling blocks come; but woe to that man through whom the stumbling block comes!” Or, as the Apostle Paul wrote, "determine this--not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother's way" (Romans 14:13).

I hope you creationists will read Scripture in their broader meaning and then give full consideration of my current favorite verse;

James 3:1. Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment.

Personally I feel fine about this. If I were you, I would soil my pants with terror because you are preaching lies. But, I don’t think you really believe any of this at all.
I'm a Creationist, though not one when raised in naturalism and academically trained in geology.

You show repetitively you have the wrong measuring stick - the words and precepts of men. Men who's breath is in the nostrils. And you obtain Truth from such? I call it Dust Perspective at best.

Denomination-ism shows you Scriptures can be misinterpreted.

And those who through their 5 senses and unbelief try to derive the truth about how this physical realm came about possess empty philosophy about the rudimentary principles of this life.

Many, and I do say many, do not comprehend the vastness of God's understanding. It escapes your notice how He made apparent age, in its vastness. Physical materials representating billions of years display the vastness of His Wisdom and Power.

When a person turns to Him the veil starts to be removed. Until then people do not get to see what is worth more than all the gold in this world.

But like before you may remain in life where you look up to, quote, and listen to men's opinions, knowledge through leaning on their own understanding.

Or by turning to Him find I John 2:20, 27
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

The Cadet

SO COOL
Apr 29, 2010
6,290
4,743
Munich
✟53,117.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
Well the best thing you can do is clean up all those atheists who keep saying that the earth is this old or that old.

Please cite any contemporary source, or any source that was contemporary within the last 20 years, claiming that the earth is not approximately 4.54 billion years old.

I know atheists cannot consider life outside of facts, figures and every minute detail of every minute detail

unlike atheists, I do not need to write down every jot and tittle

the religion of nothing which is what atheism is

Hi, uh, atheist here. You know nothing about what I believe or why, you have no understanding of how I think, and you should probably stop talking about a group of people you have no understanding of as though your pronouncements were absolute truth.

You show repetitively you have the wrong measuring stick - the words and precepts of men

Well, what else do we have? The bible? That book written, retold, rewritten, and translated dozens of times by men? Which version, the NIV? CEB? Can't go wrong with the KJV. Even if the texts of the bible were given out by god, the book you have in your bedside table is not a direct copy.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,143
Visit site
✟98,025.00
Faith
Agnostic
Dr. Ian Hutchinson, who is a member of the American Scietific Affiliation, and professor of nuclear engineering at MIT and fellow of the American Physical Society and of the Institute of Physics and whose work is primarily magnetic confinement of plasma and head of the Alcator Project, the largest university based fusion research team in the nation believes that faith informs science by encouraging integrity and professional discipline, and by the knowledge that the laws governing the physical world were established by God and can be discovered through science.

He has no doubt that modern science is Christian in nature as it germinated in the work of pioneers like Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Boyle, Pascal, Newton, Faraday and Maxwell all of whom were committed followers of the Christian Faith.

The Enlightenment which brought about atheism, was nothing more than an attempt to sweep aside the religious and christian aspect of science so that it could be replaced by man's own efforts to become god's themselves. And look where it has got us. The bible is so true when it says that the fool has said in his heart there is no God.

Today we have the modern atheist trying to put religion and christianity to bed, never to rise. It attacks anything that upsets its beliefs and rather than stand on their own two feet, they resort to the courts to do their dirty work for them.

Rather than let the religion of atheism speak for itself, they are like the muslims who are not happy unless they are conducting jihad against those they don't like. Rather than get involved in works of charity, they would rather stop those who are involved in works of charity like Samaritan's Purse, bringing a bit of sunshine to poor kids because it is a christian organisation and of course we know that we can't have christian organisations bringing charitable relief to others in case the others become christians.

We are still waiting for you to give a your scientific source that said the Earth was 200 million years old. What "atheists" are telling you this? Or did you just make it up?
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,143
Visit site
✟98,025.00
Faith
Agnostic

Dr. Richard Bube, a former professor in the Dept of Materials Science and Engineering at Stanford University said that the biblical doctrine of creation is one of the richest doctrines revealed to us by God. It reveals to us that the God who loves us is also the God who created us and all things; at once it establishes the relationship between God and religious faith and the God of physical reality...It is because of creation that we trust in the reality of a physical and moral structure to the universe, which we can explore as scientists and experience as persons. It is because of creation that we know that the universe and everything in it depends moment-by-moment upon the sustaining power and activity of God. Richard H. Bube, "We Believe in Creation," in Origins and Change: Selected Readings from the Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation (1978)iii-iv, 1978​

What does that have to do with anything I wrote?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

HitchSlap

PROUDLY PRIMATE
Aug 6, 2012
14,723
5,468
✟288,596.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I was a non-believer for a time, a Christian most of my life, and now thinking again of returning to it. I'm a believer again, at the very least. That said, why is it necessary to disprove evolution if you're a Christian?
Science and the bible are incompatible, at least.
 
Upvote 0

Ada Lovelace

Grateful to scientists and all health care workers
Site Supporter
Jun 20, 2014
5,316
9,295
California
✟1,024,756.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
My point is, a literal six day creation is incompatible with what we know to be true.

Of course. Most Christians do not believe in a literal six day creation, the talking snake, a young Earth, or baby dinosaurs being on Noah's Ark, and instead view Genesis as a parable with profound truths about human's nature and God's. There have long been differing hermeneutical beliefs about Genesis. Dr. Francis Collins is one of the leading scientists of our time; he's the director of the NIH; formerly lead the Human Genome Project; and he's an evangelical Christian who of course accepts evolution and an old universe. Guy Consolmagno, a MIT-educated astronomer at the Vatican has dedicated his life to God and science. He was the first clergy member to ever win the prestigious Carl Sagan Award. He has described the YEC rigidly literal interpretation of Genesis and insistence in a six day creation as "bordering on blasphemy." The Vatican has long accepted evolution. Last year Pope Francis made international headlines by his support of the Big Bang Theory and evolution.
Those comments were again supported this year. http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/20...behind-the-popes-rejection-of-god-as-magician Most mainline Protestant churches also do not view the Bible as being incompatible with science.
 
Upvote 0

durangodawood

re Member
Aug 28, 2007
27,629
19,317
Colorado
✟539,940.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Of course. Most Christians do not believe in a literal six day creation, the talking snake, a young Earth, or baby dinosaurs being on Noah's Ark....
But they believe a man came back to life after being dead three days, into the same body. So, why not the rest...?
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,143
Visit site
✟98,025.00
Faith
Agnostic
But they believe a man came back to life after being dead three days, into the same body. So, why not the rest...?

There is no evidence that contradicts the miracle of Jesus coming back to life. There is an absence of evidence for or against.

There is massive amounts of evidence contradicting a young Earth, a recent global flood, and separate creation.

That's the difference.
 
Upvote 0

Dr GS Hurd

Newbie
Feb 14, 2014
577
257
Visit site
✟26,009.00
Faith
Taoist
Marital Status
Private
I'm a Creationist, though not one when raised in naturalism and academically trained in geology.

Describe the sequence of events in this exposure:

SrU-01.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

HitchSlap

PROUDLY PRIMATE
Aug 6, 2012
14,723
5,468
✟288,596.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Of course. Most Christians do not believe in a literal six day creation, the talking snake, a young Earth, or baby dinosaurs being on Noah's Ark, and instead view Genesis as a parable with profound truths about human's nature and God's. There have long been differing hermeneutical beliefs about Genesis. Dr. Francis Collins is one of the leading scientists of our time; he's the director of the NIH; formerly lead the Human Genome Project; and he's an evangelical Christian who of course accepts evolution and an old universe. Guy Consolmagno, a MIT-educated astronomer at the Vatican has dedicated his life to God and science. He was the first clergy member to ever win the prestigious Carl Sagan Award. He has described the YEC rigidly literal interpretation of Genesis and insistence in a six day creation as "bordering on blasphemy." The Vatican has long accepted evolution. Last year Pope Francis made international headlines by his support of the Big Bang Theory and evolution.
Those comments were again supported this year. http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/20...behind-the-popes-rejection-of-god-as-magician Most mainline Protestant churches also do not view the Bible as being incompatible with science.

Prior to the nineteenth century, a literal six day creation was accepted as fact. In the interest of maintaining certain relevance and credibility, religious leaders are pressured to "update" doctrines as new evidence informs our understanding of the natural world. Were it not for the progress of science, the faithful would still believe in a literal six day creation.

My question is, how does one determine what is literal, and what is not? Men raising from the dead? Two fish feeding five thousand? Talking donkeys? Water to wine? Walking on water? Healing blindness? Literal A&E? Faith of mustard seeds?

As for Dr. Collins, he's a fundamentalist Christian who caught the eye of W, and happened to be a good administrator. He hasn't done much "science" in quite some time, and is a classic example of a person who has effectively compartmentalized his beliefs.

The fact is, science and religion cannot be reconciled.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,143
Visit site
✟98,025.00
Faith
Agnostic
The fact is, science and religion cannot be reconciled.

I don't think that is entirely true. As long as religion does not make claims about how nature works, then they can certainly co-exist. If someone wants to believe that the supernatural exists without any detectable influence on the natural world, then there isn't any conflict between the two.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ada Lovelace
Upvote 0

HitchSlap

PROUDLY PRIMATE
Aug 6, 2012
14,723
5,468
✟288,596.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I don't think that is entirely true. As long as religion does not make claims about how nature works, then they can certainly co-exist. If someone wants to believe that the supernatural exists without any detectable influence on the natural world, then there isn't any conflict between the two.
I agree with you on this point. Maybe I should have specified the bible. However, any religion make a 'truth claim,' then it can be tested.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,143
Visit site
✟98,025.00
Faith
Agnostic
I agree with you on this point. Maybe I should have specified the bible.

I could agree that there are more problems for the Bible. I think it is pretty obvious that the creation and flood narratives are myths. I am willing to go along with a faith based belief in the Resurrection. The real problem that I see is the Exodus. However, that takes us down the path of general apologetics, so we should probably leave it there.
 
Upvote 0

Astrophile

Newbie
Aug 30, 2013
2,338
1,559
77
England
✟256,526.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Widowed
Dr. Ian Hutchinson, who is a member of the American Scietific Affiliation, and professor of nuclear engineering at MIT and fellow of the American Physical Society and of the Institute of Physics and whose work is primarily magnetic confinement of plasma and head of the Alcator Project, the largest university based fusion research team in the nation believes that faith informs science by encouraging integrity and professional discipline, and by the knowledge that the laws governing the physical world were established by God and can be discovered through science (my emphasis).

He has no doubt that modern science is Christian in nature as it germinated in the work of pioneers like Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Boyle, Pascal, Newton, Faraday and Maxwell all of whom were committed followers of the Christian Faith.

If this is what you think, why do you reject what scientists, many of whom are Christians, have discovered about the age of the Earth (4540±20 million years) and the Universe (13.799±0.021 billion years), and about the evolution of living things from a small number of common ancestors?
 
Upvote 0

Dr GS Hurd

Newbie
Feb 14, 2014
577
257
Visit site
✟26,009.00
Faith
Taoist
Marital Status
Private
My question is, how does one determine what is literal, and what is not? Men raising from the dead? Two fish feeding five thousand? Talking donkeys? Water to wine? Walking on water? Healing blindness? Literal A&E? Faith of mustard seeds?

For all religions that I am aware of, the idea of an event that is "beyond" natural is assumed to be possible. How these are to be processed/interpreted is an open question. The recommendation made by Thomas Aquinas would be a good guide for Christians;

"In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to be observed, as Augustine teaches. The first is, to hold to the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false, lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing." Thomas Aquinas, c.a. 1225 - 1274, Summa Theologica, Prima Pars, Q68. Art 1. (1273).
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.