Why does evolution threaten God?

[Chesterton]

...it's spelt 'tyre'

It's spelled tire.

 

[The Lady Kate]

It's spelled tire.

If you spell it again, you'll have to re-tire.

 

[Doveaman]

No, one cannot believe the Bible and Evolution at the same time. They contradict each other.

I should point out that Catholics believe in evolution. Many self professed "Christians" are able to reconcile evolution and their "religion". It seems to me that your claim is entirely subjective.

Maybe there is no contradiction, but evolutionists seem to have a hard time showing there isn’t.

Perhaps creationists believe evolution theory is not consistent with Scripture because no evolutionists seem to be able to show that it is. Just claiming God did it through evolution without showing from God’s word the consistency between Scripture and evolution theory isn’t going to convince a creationist that it is so.

Remember, the creationist is a staunch Bible believer, so evolutionists cannot just present them with genetic similarities between species or dried up old bones while ignore the Scripture and expect creationists to take them seriously. Evolutionists will need to do more than that.

Creationists do believe in evolution, the universe does evolve, life does evolve, but it is specific aspect of evolution theory that creationists have a problem with, such as dinosaur becoming bird or ape becoming man, which creationists consider to be all inferred (or assumed) based on subjective interpretations of observations by a consensus, the same subjective interpretations that are used in denying the fact that the universe is electric.

In addition, evolutionists often claim that Catholics rely on the Bible but still believe in evolution theory, but this doesn’t really mean mush to a creationist since many creationists see Catholics as idol worshipers, which is not consistent with the same Bible that Catholics are said to be relying on:

- Source

Also, creationists do not determine that Genesis 1 and 2 is a literal historical account just by reading Genesis 1 and 2. They also rely on the writings of the other Biblical authors who often quote Genesis 1 and 2 as if a literal historical account. Even Jesus quoted from Genesis 1 and 2 when He used the marriage union God established between Adam and Eve as a model for all other marriages.

But when evolutionists are asked to explain scriptures such as these you can actually hear them biting their tongues and bloodying up their computer keyboards trying to explain those scriptures. Some go as far as accusing the Biblical authors of being ignorant. Well, evolutionists are not going to be taken seriously by a creationist if evolutionists are going to resort to such ridiculous nonsense. Instead, they will need to show a consistency between Scripture and evolution theory.

 

[Doveaman]

I don't really interpret the Bible "literally" to begin with, but for argument sake....

Whatever "changes" took place that created what is now a uniquely human species, it could have occurred in one or two generations. Furthermore these same single generation genetic changes could be passed down to others and they too could became "uniquely human" based on these genetic differences. I fail to see why their could not have been a specific "person" (or persons) that we might refer to as an "Eve" or an "Adam" that looked very different from their original parent species due to the unique genetic changes.

Keep in mind that I interpret the whole story metaphorically, but even a "literal" interpretation is possible in terms of science and macroevolutionary theory.

I don't totally agree with everything you said here, but most of it.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Maybe there is no contradiction, but evolutionists seem to have a hard time showing there isn’t.

perhaps because Creationists make connections between Their own literalism and God which aren't there?

It's similar to trying to reason with a conspiracy theorist... the only facts that matter are the ones which support the connections they've established themselves.

Perhaps creationists believe evolution theory is not consistent with Scripture because no evolutionists seem to be able to show that it is. Just claiming God did it through evolution without showing from God’s word the consistency between Scripture and evolution theory isn’t going to convince a creationist that it is so.

Perhaps that's because creationists are far too much in love with their own ideas on how Scripture is to be read and interpreted to be willing to change?

Remember, the creationist is a staunch Bible believer, so evolutionists cannot just present them with genetic similarities between species or dried up old bones while ignore the Scripture and expect creationists to take them seriously. Evolutionists will need to do more than that.

Remember, the creationist is a staunch self-believer, so evolutionists cannot just present them with mountains of evidence which damage their self-assuredness without offering something to assuage their damaged pride.

Creationists do believe in evolution, the universe does evolve, life does evolve, but it is specific aspect of evolution theory that creationists have a problem with, such as dinosaur becoming bird or ape becoming man, which creationists consider to be all inferred (or assumed) based on subjective interpretations of observations by a consensus.

Is the creationist believe any different, except that in their case, the subjective interpretatino and consensus is their own?

In addition, evolutionists often claim that Catholics rely on the Bible but still believe in evolution theory, but this doesn’t really mean mush to a creationist since many creationists see Catholics as idol worshipers, which is not consistent with the same Bible that Catholics are said to be relying on:

Which all fits in to the typical creationist pattern of seeking irrelevant ways to discredit any person or group of people who threaten the Creationist idea.

Also, creationists do not determine that Genesis 1 and 2 is a literal historical account just by reading Genesis 1 and 2. They also rely on the writings of the other Biblical authors who often quote Genesis 1 and 2 as if a literal historical account. Even Jesus quoted from Genesis 1 and 2 when He used the marriage union God established between Adam and Eve as a model for all other marriages.

Which is the point that creationists don't allow themselves to see... a model is just that: a model. It is not the real thing... which is one of those inconvenient facts that creationists choose to ignore to preserve their self-esteem.

If I wanted to discuss models of friendship and loyalty, I could very easily talk about the characters of the Harry Potter series, the whole time speaking of Harry, Ron, and Hermione as if they were literal historical people... and the only ones who would think they actually were are people who were already convinced that they were real, and were so set on missing the point I ws making in order to shore up their own.

But when evolutionists are asked to explain scriptures such as these you can actually hear them biting their tongues and bloodying up their computer keyboards trying to explain those scriptures. Some go as far as accusing the Biblical authors of being ignorant. Well, evolutionists are not going to be taken seriously by a creationist if evolutionists are going to resort to such ridiculous nonsense.

Quite... bruising such fragile egos never ends well. The Creationists get so snippy they shut down any attempt at further debate.

Instead, they will need to show a consistency between Scripture and evolution theory.

When can we expect the Creationists to show a consistency between literalism and observed reality? Because we've been waiting for centuries now, and it jus hasn't happened.

 

[Maxwell511]

Instead, they will need to show a consistency between Scripture and evolution theory.

Pseudo-intellectualism is fun. I mean who does not like a bit of sophistry?

I do not believe what you are asking for is what creationists require. I do not believe that creationists are sophists or that idiotic.

It is impossible to show consistency between any two ideas. It is only possible to show inconsistency or contradiction. The idea that a person must show consistency is fundamentally stupid.

I believe that my parent's cat is named Socks and I believe that the world is round. Am I required to show that these things are consistent in order for others to believe these statements?

 

[sandwiches]

I do believe Catholics believe in Adam & Eve.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, please.

Like in any religion and sect, there's as many interpretations as there are people. I was raised catholic and although the fathers would speak of Adam and Eve as though they had existed, in Catechism they taught us that it was a parable.

So, to answer your question, not all Catholics believe that Adam and Eve were real.

 

[AV1611VET]

I know! Everyone know's it's spelt 'tyre'

It's gotta be 'tire', or it erases the wit in my next reply: 72 .

 

[Michael]

Science can not threaten God, what science threatens is the credability of certain sources that intend to speak for God.

I agree wholeheartedly.

 

[The Lady Kate]

I agree wholeheartedly.

Ditto... and those sources don't react kindly to being marginalized... even when they deserve it.

 

[The Lady Kate]

It's gotta be 'tire', or it erases the wit in my next reply: 72 .

No big loss...

 

[Gracchus]

It's gotta be 'tire', or it erases the wit in my next reply: 72 .

Half of it wasn't there anyway.

 

[Doveaman]

Pseudo-intellectualism is fun. I mean who does not like a bit of sophistry?

I do not believe what you are asking for is what creationists require. I do not believe that creationists are sophists or that idiotic.

It is impossible to show consistency between any two ideas. It is only possible to show inconsistency or contradiction. The idea that a person must show consistency is fundamentally stupid.

I believe that my parent's cat is named Socks and I believe that the world is round. Am I required to show that these things are consistent in order for others to believe these statements?

Dictionary.com:

Consistency: agreement or harmony between parts of something complex; compatibility.

Reality is complex. Theologians seek to explain that complex reality base on what they observe in Scripture. Scientists seek to explain that same complex reality base on what they observe in nature. If both are seeking to explain two different “parts” of the same complex reality then both their explanations need to be compatible.

 

[Maxwell511]

Doveman[/left];55364461]
Reality is complex. Theologians seek to explain that complex reality base on what they observe in Scripture. Scientists seek to explain that same complex reality base on what they observe in nature. If both are seeking to explain two different “parts” of the same complex reality then both their explanations need to be compatible.

I was not denying that they need to be compatible. I was just bringing up the fact that your requirement for evolutionists to convince "Bible believing Christians" was massively idiotic.

Btw creationism is not an internally consistent theological position. If we are to believe great theologians like Thomas Aquinas creationism is fundamentally wrong. I hope to God that you are not functioning on the delusion that Creationists are theologians. Theologians actually read and think about the Bible, Creationists seem to have no ability to think about the content of the Bible at all.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Dictionary.com:

Consistency: agreement or harmony between parts of something complex; compatibility.

Reality is complex. Theologians seek to explain that complex reality base on what they observe in Scripture. Scientists seek to explain that same complex reality base on what they observe in nature. If both are seeking to explain two different “parts” of the same complex reality then both their explanations need to be compatible.

I think this need is asymmetric. Scientific theories don't need to compromise in order to satisfy what theologians extract from religious texts, since the veracity of theories can be independently and objectively verified. On the other hand, a theological 'theory' (YEC, millennialism, etc) can be judged according to its compatibility with science: YEC is rejected by virtually all non-US Christians, and a large chunk of US Christians, because it conflicts with science.

 

[Doveaman]

I was not denying that they need to be compatible. I was just bringing up the fact that your requirement for evolutionists to convince "Bible believing Christians" was massively idiotic.
Btw creationism is not an internally consistent theological position. If we are to believe great theologians like Thomas Aquinas creationism is fundamentally wrong. I hope to God that you are not functioning on the delusion that Creationists are theologians. Theologians actually read and think about the Bible, Creationists seem to have no ability to think about the content of the Bible at all.

To be honest, I'm still waiting for a clear definition of creationism, because I'm thinking that anyone who believes God created the universe is technically a creationist.

 

[Doveaman]

I think this need is asymmetric. Scientific theories don't need to compromise in order to satisfy what theologians extract from religious texts, since the veracity of theories can be independently and objectively verified.

But never proven.

On the other hand, a theological 'theory' (YEC, millennialism, etc) can be judged according to its compatibility with science: YEC is rejected by virtually all non-US Christians, and a large chunk of US Christians, because it conflicts with science.

Well, this may be true of some theological 'theories'. But science cannot explain miracles.

 

[Cabal]

But never proven

Neither has any religion.

Well, this may be true of some theological 'theories'.

Like the ones WC suggested.

But science cannot explain miracles.

Depends on the miracle, and whether what is being alleged as a miracle really is a miracle.

 

[AV1611VET]

Neither has any religion.

It's not up to us to 'prove our religion'.

That task belongs to Jesus Christ, and He will soon return to take care of even the most hard-lined skeptic.

Our job, in the meantime, is to walk by faith -- not sight.

And we get rewarded for that, too; as one of our five crowns we get is just for that purpose (walking by faith).

 

[Cabal]

It's not up to us to 'prove our religion'.

Could have fooled me. Some of the attempts by creationists to do so smack of desperation.

That task belongs to Jesus Christ, and He will soon return to take care of even the most hard-lined skeptic.

Our job, in the meantime, is to walk by faith -- not sight.

And we get rewarded for that, too; as one of our five crowns we get is just for that purpose (walking by faith).

That's nice.

In the mean time, creationists should stop making like this somehow trumps empiricism.

If you walk by faith and not by sight, then start acting like it.