• 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
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

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

What does that have to do with anything I wrote?
 
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
27,654
19,331
Colorado
✟540,227.00
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

HitchSlap

PROUDLY PRIMATE
Aug 6, 2012
14,723
5,468
✟288,596.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married

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.
 
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 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

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.