Theistic Evolution

[lasthero]

Atheists make more.

No, they don't.

 

[lesliedellow]

Two major reasons:
1. They have NEVER seriously considered how could a literal reading of Genesis fit the current science.

As both scientists and Christians, I should think they have given a great deal of thought to the relationship between science and scripture. The books some of them have published on the subject would certainly suggest that they have.

2. They are in the profession of using evolution theory. They need to keep their career. Even they do see (easily) the theory has millions of holes, they do not want to say the holes are not amendable.

That's why Francis Collins can be found explicitly contradicting the tripe creationists trot out.

 

[juvenissun]

As both scientists and Christians, I should think they have given a great deal of thought to the relationship between science and scripture. The books some of them have published on the subject would certainly suggest that they have.

That's why Francis Collins can be found explicitly contradicting the tripe creationists trot out.

What others said are theirs. They are irrelevant.
What do YOU say and what have YOU done? Is "I agreed with them" all could you say?

 

[lesliedellow]

What others said are theirs. They are irrelevant.
What do YOU say and what have YOU done? Is "I agreed with them" all could you say?

Not being a biologist myself, I tend to think twice about telling somebody who is a biologist that he doesn't know what he is talking, about when it comes to biology. I know creationists have no such compunction.

 

[pat34lee]

We can call it what we like but what ever we call Evolution it still remains a fact.

Adaptation is a fact. Heredity is a fact.
Natural selection is a fact.

Evolution is a folk myth, thousands of years old.

 

[pat34lee]

YOU not being able to see how it is possible doesn't mean it isn't possible. Many Christians are TE.

You should start a thread so we can show why compromise with
evolution is not only a bad idea, it is against scripture in many ways.
There is no defense for it biblically.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not being a biologist myself, I tend to think twice about telling somebody who is a biologist that he doesn't know what he is talking, about when it comes to biology.

What would you think about telling an Embedded Age Creationist that he's actually a YEC?

 

[[serious]]

Can't you find a new song to sing? This one is getting a bit same-ey.

You are just mad because fairy dust, plasma, birkeland currents.

 

[elopez]

I am not God. How would I know what would you missing in the Heaven? Pretty bad argument.

Well you dodged any response to the question. Can't be that bad!

No. I don't need to bend anything and do not need to add anything of science to the creation account. That is what literal means.

You need to add extra Biblical explanations to justify a literal interpretation. Honestly I would rather start another thread, though since it is relevant here, and unless you start such a thread, I will address this. I can start with one example. Specifically, the issue between no sun until day 4 but there being days all the while.

As science has it, a day is:

"The period of time during which the Earth completes one rotation with respect to the Sun is called a solar day."

You would say that the earth rotated around the "light" in Genesis 1:3, yet that "light" would have to have the equivalent mass, energy, gravitational fields, etc, as the sun for the earth to rotate around it in the time of 24 hours. Now, either you're going to add something to the passage of Genesis 1:3 to justify this light, or use some obscure definition of "day". Let us see which, if not maybe both.

Bending and adding are only needed in TE.

Like what? Be specific.

Yes, many many Christian scientists are in TE. I feel sorry for them.

No, many other scientists are Christian outside the field of evolution. There is nothing conflicting about the faith and science. Only if you make it so. And in that case, it is I who feel for you.

 

[-57]

If it's that obvious, how come so very few scientists appear to see it?

Perhaps for the same reason not all see the Calvinist view.

 

[lesliedellow]

Perhaps for the same reason not all see the Calvinist view.

That not all Christians are Calvinists tells us that there is room for debate.

The near unanimity amongst scientists tells us that the evidence leaves little room for debate.

 

[-57]

That not all Christians are Calvinists tells us that there is room for debate.

The near unanimity amongst scientists tells us that the evidence leaves little room for debate.

If your scientist are right..your bible is useless.

 

[lesliedellow]

If your scientist are right..your bible is useless.

I know of both scientists and theologians who would beg to differ.

 

[bhsmte]

If your scientist are right..your bible is useless.

It would appear, your interpretation of the bible is at serious risk and I understand this causes great turmoil for you and you need to protect it, because it is too painful to acknowledge any evidence, that puts your interpretation in question.

Others don't interpret the bible like you and or, can't reconcile ignoring boatloads of evidence, with reality.

 

[-57]

I know of both scientists and theologians who would beg to differ.

So do I.
They would be wrong...like you.

Could you tell me where the bible suggest evolutionism? I looked and it says Eve was created from Adams rib abd was the mother of all living. Now, that doesn't sound like evolutionism. Heck, it even says sin and death entered through one man...which also doesn't sound like evolutionism....
But, I'm sure your allowed to change scripture to reflect evolutionism. Yes?

 

[-57]

It would appear, your interpretation of the bible is at serious risk and I understand this causes great turmoil for you and you need to protect it, because it is too painful to acknowledge any evidence, that puts your interpretation in question.

Others don't interpret the bible like you and or, can't reconcile ignoring boatloads of evidence, with reality.

Coming from an atheist...I really don't care what you think concerning the bible.

 

[lesliedellow]

So do I.
They would be wrong...like you.

Could you tell me where the bible suggest evolutionism? I looked and it says Eve was created from Adams rib abd was the mother of all living. Now, that doesn't sound like evolutionism. Heck, it even says sin and death entered through one man...which also doesn't sound like evolutionism....
But, I'm sure your allowed to change scripture to reflect evolutionism. Yes?

You might want to try reading John Walton.

 

[-57]

You might want to try reading John Walton.

You might want to try reading the Bible.

 

[bhsmte]

Coming from an atheist...I really don't care what you think concerning the bible.

That's cool, but I was a Christian for 40 years and actually it was a thorough investigation into the NT, that was one reason I am no longer a Christian.

But anyway, the majority of Christians agree with evolution and they don't feel the bible is useless. So, you stating the bible is useless with evolution, likely rings hollow with these majority of Christians, who accept evolution.

 

[bhsmte]

You might want to try reading the Bible.

A lot of people read the bible, the fact they don't interpret like you, seems to be something you can't accept.