The Two Extremes

[SallyNow]

There seems to be a lot of threads where two extremes try to battle it out - the atheists on one side, the YECists on the other. Sure, sometimes an agnostic or a less conservative poster will wander into the threads and post - but that's not the meat of what happens in this forum.

So I ask: what do you all think of theistic evolution, that is, that the universe was created as science theorizes it has, that evolution as taken place as science has proven it has, and that the entire process was guided by a Creator, something which as been neither proven or disproven by science.

Anyone up for a cordial discussion? (must provide own cordial )

 

[notto]

I don't see the extremes you do. I see Christians and atheists who accept science against those who promote pseudoscience.

 

[Atheuz]

I think Theistic Evolution is a much more acceptable explanation than YEC or OEC, though Evolution doesn't need God to guide it and it does the job just fine itself.

 

[Mavros]

There seems to be a lot of threads where two extremes try to battle it out - the atheists on one side, the YECists on the other. Sure, sometimes an agnostic or a less conservative poster will wander into the threads and post - but that's not the meat of what happens in this forum.

So I ask: what do you all think of theistic evolution, that is, that the universe was created as science theorizes it has, that evolution as taken place as science has proven it has, and that the entire process was guided by a Creator, something which as been neither proven or disproven by science.

Anyone up for a cordial discussion? (must provide own cordial )

What make atheism extreme? There is no evidence for any god existence so why should we believe? For me atheism is just common sense.

 

[KCfromNC]

There seems to be a lot of threads where two extremes try to battle it out - the atheists on one side, the YECists on the other. Sure, sometimes an agnostic or a less conservative poster will wander into the threads and post - but that's not the meat of what happens in this forum.

So I ask: what do you all think of theistic evolution, that is, that the universe was created as science theorizes it has, that evolution as taken place as science has proven it has, and that the entire process was guided by a Creator, something which as been neither proven or disproven by science.

Anyone up for a cordial discussion? (must provide own cordial )

As others have pointed out, you're confusing "atheist" with "someone who accepts science". Both on this forum, as in the sciences themselves, there are a range of religious views present. I'd wager that many of those who both accept scientific findings and have religious beliefs are sophisticated enough and confident enough in their faith not to have to add "because god wanted it that way" to every scientific fact or theory they state.

For example, people familiar with physics say that F=ma provides a good model for how forces produce acceleration in an object. Almost no one, regardless of how religious they are, will add "because god guides objects this way" to this explanation for acceleration. In a similar way, there's no need to add this to each and every scientific explanation from biology, geology, cosmology or any other field (despite the political noise generated by a few well funded radical religious groups). But the lack of "because god did it" in these scientific explanations isn't indicative of any religious beliefs, or lack thereof. It's just an understanding that these kinds of statements aren't part of science.

 

[SallyNow]

What make atheism extreme? There is no evidence for any god existence so why should we believe? For me atheism is just common sense.

I did not mean to imply that atheism is extreme. I was using extreme in the form showing to ends of a spectrum, in this case, the so-called "atheistic big bang evolution" and on the other end "YECism". And I'm saying the middle ground - the one that trusts in science and understand and accept the Big Bang and evolution, but believe there is/ maybe a creator behind it often get lost in the debate, as the stance is often given in a pretty modest way.

Then, of course, there some who allege that Christians that understand and accept The Big Bang and evolution are "soft Christians", that because they see the Bible as full of allegory, metaphore, Truth, and some history, they are "less Christian" than literalist Christians. I happen to strongly disagree - an allegorical, science-accepting Christian is just as Christian as YECist, they just go about it in different ways.

I don't see the extremes you do. I see Christians and atheists who accept science against those who promote pseudoscience.

That's pretty much what I meant, but it doesn't as flashy as the way I wrote it

 

[AV1611VET]

Anyone up for a cordial discussion? (must provide own cordial )

Hi, Sally

Evolution required a universe that's millions (billions?) of years to operate --- according to the Bible, this universe has only been in existence for 6100 years.

Evolution leaves a trail of death --- there was no death at Creation.

Evolution says the amount of mass/energy in the universe is a constant --- the Bible says it started out at zero, then rose to its current amount in 6 days.

Evolution has the sun before the plants --- the Bible has the plants before the sun.

Etc.

 

[Atheuz]

Hi, Sally

Evolution required a universe that's millions (billions?) of years to operate --- according to the Bible, this universe has only been in existence for 6100 years.

Evolution leaves a trail of death --- there was no death at Creation.

Evolution says the amount of mass/energy in the universe is a constant --- the Bible says it started out at zero, then rose to its current amount in 6 days.

Evolution has the sun before the plants --- the Bible has the plants before the sun.

Etc.

Evolution actually has evidence to back it up unlike Creation which is blind faith in a 2000 year old book that was written by humans whose intelligence and overall knowledge of natural phenomenon was a lot lower than todays standard - You need to include other sources than the Bible that provides solid evidence that the earth is only 6000 years old.

 

[AV1611VET]

Evolution actually has evidence to back it up...

Where evidence disagrees with the Bible --- evidence is wrong.

...unlike Creation which is blind faith in a 2000 year old book that was written by humans...

As my pastor says --- and I totally agree --- humans weren't smart enough to write the Bible.

...whose intelligence and overall knowledge of natural phenomenon was a lot lower than todays standard...

Was it now? Even though It speaks of the Internet, submarine currents, the universe expanding, hydrology, the Laws of Thermodynamics, conservation of mass/energy, entropy, the nuclear forces, sterilization and advanced medicine, and much more?

You need to include other sources than the Bible that provides solid evidence that the earth is only 6000 years old.

Maybe you believe the earth is only 6000 years old --- I don't.

 

[Atheuz]

Where evidence disagrees with the Bible --- evidence is wrong.

Blind faith at work, you're a good Fundie.

As my pastor says --- and I totally agree --- humans weren't smart enough to write the Bible.

That's all fine and dandy then, but you shouldn't say in the next paragraph that the amount of knowledge about natural phenomenen was higher for Humans if it was God that wrote the Bible.

Was it now? Even though It speaks of the Internet, submarine currents, the universe expanding, hydrology, the Laws of Thermodynamics, conservation of mass/energy, entropy, the nuclear forces, sterilization and advanced medicine, and much more?

I thought you said Humans weren't smart enough to write the Bible? e.g. the amount of knowledge humans had was a lot lower and it wasn't even high enough to write a book. I'll play along, if it was God that wrote then it was God that had the knowledge you speak of, and not humans.

Maybe you believe the earth is only 6000 years old --- I don't.

Didn't you just say in your previous post that the Universe is only 6100 years old? How can the earth be older then?

I'm really confused since your post in a large contradiction.

 

[AV1611VET]

Didn't you just say in your previous post that the Universe is only 6100 years old?

No, I did not.

 

[Atheuz]

No, I did not.

1. Evolution required a universe that's millions (billions?) of years to operate --- according to the Bible, this universe has only been in existence for 6100 years.

2. Where evidence disagrees with the Bible --- evidence is wrong.

Science says the Universe is 13.7 Billion years old, if the Bible disagrees with that then Science must be wrong?

 

[omarrocks]

There seems to be a lot of threads where two extremes try to battle it out - the atheists on one side, the YECists on the other. Sure, sometimes an agnostic or a less conservative poster will wander into the threads and post - but that's not the meat of what happens in this forum.

So I ask: what do you all think of theistic evolution, that is, that the universe was created as science theorizes it has, that evolution as taken place as science has proven it has, and that the entire process was guided by a Creator, something which as been neither proven or disproven by science.

Anyone up for a cordial discussion? (must provide own cordial )

Except you've missed out the Gap Theorists, the Old Earth Creationists and the Theistic Evolutionists.

There is more common ground than you'd think sister.

Blessings and love.

Omar

 

[omarrocks]

What make atheism extreme? There is no evidence for any god existence so why should we believe? For me atheism is just common sense.

It's not common sense in the general sense (lol) though. It's an active belief (NOT religion-this has been debunked on numerous occasions) that there is no God.

Neither can you prove there isn't any God EMPIRICALLY. If you look at things in the totally materialistic sense, then you are of course going to miss that which is supernatural or paranormal.

Extreme in this sense was meant to mean one pole of the whole argument.

Blessings buddy. Love in Christ, and nice to meet you.



Omar

 

[AV1611VET]

Science says the Universe is 13.7 Billion years old, if the Bible disagrees with that then Science must be wrong?

God created this universe 6100 years ago, with age embedded in it.

It is physically [insert any number here]-years-old.

But it has only been around for 6100 years.

Example: Adam was created as an adult --- so were the plants and animals.

 

[Mavros]

It's not common sense in the general sense (lol) though. It's an active belief (NOT religion-this has been debunked on numerous occasions) that there is no God.

Its not active belief, we dont see god on every day life and there is zero evidence that he even exists. So why should i or anybody else believe?

Neither can you prove there isn't any God EMPIRICALLY. If you look at things in the totally materialistic sense, then you are of course going to miss that which is supernatural or paranormal.

Jes we cant prove something dont exists, Can you prove santa dont exists? What about
Flying Spaghetti Monster?

 

[omarrocks]

Evolution actually has evidence to back it up unlike Creation which is blind faith in a 2000 year old book that was written by humans whose intelligence and overall knowledge of natural phenomenon was a lot lower than todays standard - You need to include other sources than the Bible that provides solid evidence that the earth is only 6000 years old.

Heya bro!

Yes, evolution does have evidence to back it up. Creationists is not necessarily as blind as one perceives it to be. One BELIEVES that all we see was made by God; the other BELIEVES it was not made by God. I think it was Jesus who said "we should remove the planks from our own eyes before we try and pick the specks from somebody else's eyes" ; )

Their intelligence was NOT lower. They simply had less accumulated knowledge. That does not make them stupider than people today. Intelligence, although hard to define is the ability to learn something and subsequently and successfully apply it. Therefore, the people were not stupid, nor were they unintelligent.

The Bible does NOT say the Earth is 6,000 years old. That's a ridiculous claim made by people with no grounding in any kind of geology or indeed natural science. The Earth IS 4.6 billion years old, and as a Christian, I have no problem with that.

However, buddy, if we start using the Bible to do what it was never meant to do, then of course, we're going to run into problems-ie, the Bible is a (set of) book (s) about God's relationship to man. It's not meant to be empirical, it's not meant to be used as any kind of science textbook.

Bless you bro, and good post! You have some good points there mate, and I would encourage you to keep on posting!

Omar

omarrocks16@hotmail.com

 

[omarrocks]

Its not active belief, we dont see god on every day life and there is zero evidence that he even exists. So why should i or anybody else believe?



Jes we cant prove something dont exists, Can you prove santa dont exists? What about
Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Oh, of course it's active belief. You believe God is not there, and then act upon that decision accordingly. You may not worship in a church, you may not worship God, and atheism is definitely not a "religion" in that sense, but it IS an active belief in the sense that we can make the decision based on our belief.

I would say that there is plenty of evidence that God is there, but if you confine yourself to the rigours of pure materialism you'll miss these things-such as, the evidence of changed lives, miraculous events (skeptical as many people are, I believe them-and I myself am a scientist incidentally-a biochemist, going into my third year of University this year!) etc. You mean to say zero empirical evidence.

I'm not forcing you to believe. God gave us free will and choice; therefore if He won't force you, neither will I or can I. I'll present the Gospel, yet, your decision is what is matters in then end, and I'll respect that, as will God. But remember causality and effect.

Sorry buddy, I couldn't understand what you meant by the last part. Can you retype it or rephrase it, and then I can give you an answer?

Thanks for your reply bro. Love in Christ. Blessings.

Omar

 

[omarrocks]

1. Evolution required a universe that's millions (billions?) of years to operate --- according to the Bible, this universe has only been in existence for 6100 years.

2. Where evidence disagrees with the Bible --- evidence is wrong.

Science says the Universe is 13.7 Billion years old, if the Bible disagrees with that then Science must be wrong?

The Bible does not categorically state the Earth is 6.000 years old bro.

As for the age of the Universe, it has been altered quite drastically in the past 50 years lol- Down from 20 billion to just around 13 billion. But that's the beauty of science I suppose-progress and discovery.

Blessings bro, love in Christ.

Omar

 

[Split Rock]

Where evidence disagrees with the Bible --- evidence is wrong.

This should read: "Where evidence disagrees with my interpretation of the Bible -- evidence is wrong."

You always leave that interpretation part out. Don't worry, though, I will always try and be here to remind you.