• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.

Why I don't believe in evolution...

Discussion in 'Creation & Theistic Evolution' started by Humble_Disciple, Aug 3, 2021.

  1. Sam Saved by Grace

    Sam Saved by Grace All of salvation is God's doing

    174
    +54
    United States
    Calvinist
    Single
    This is just embarrassing. How can you be so dense? And look, you even used bold caps.

    Obviously, I do not believe the truth of God to be foolish. When I refer to the world, I am referring to the world in the same sense as Christ, and the New Testament in multiple places. When I say that the world hates Christ, I am not saying everyone hates Him, or that I hate Him, but the world - the unsaved, fallen realm in which we currently abide.

    Those who belong to the Lord are not of the world, but have been called out of the world. This is a concept utterly foreign to you, hence your confusion and mischaracterization of my words. It's not hard to understand what I mean. The world laughs at our unscientific claims, considering them to be foolish. It is just as it was in the days of Noah. But the time will come when the foolishness of God will triumph over the certainty of man and all his methods. And God will be glorified in this.

    You can foolishly try and somehow distinguish between a methodological naturalism and a philosophical naturalism, but it is essentially the same. You say it does not rule out the supernatural. Yet I say that it does. "Ontological naturalism" is assumed, and regardless of what the scientist believes personally. Under no circumstances would a supernatural explanation be accepted as valid. Whether it be the origin of the universe, the formation of the planets, or the origin of life, the atheistic position of a godless, metaphysically natural reality is insisted upon in every aspect of scientific practice. Claiming that methodological naturalism doesn't deny the supernatural is patently absurd, a perfect example of empty words. The scientist himself may very well not deny miracles, but methodological naturalism is an approach that assumes that are no miracles by virtue of it's methodology. That's why it's called methodological naturalism - it's methodology rules out the supernatural.

    So therefore your defense of philosophical naturalism as a practice that somehow doesn't deny or rule out miracles is just a bunch of empty doubletalk.
     
  2. Sam Saved by Grace

    Sam Saved by Grace All of salvation is God's doing

    174
    +54
    United States
    Calvinist
    Single
    You don't have to be a scientist to look at the fossils found in the earth and notice discrepancies between what is actually seen and Darwinism.
     
  3. Isaiah 41:10

    Isaiah 41:10 Well-Known Member

    +2,427
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    As a methodological naturalist, I'd disagree that ontological naturalism follows. Because the truth is that methodological naturalism always has a cause and effect kind of pattern. A ball is thrown in the air, and it falls. An object hits another object, both objects move. In ontological naturalism, there's never really a circumstance in which an effect has no naturalistic cause.

    But in the real world, we find effects that have no logical cause of predictability, naturalistic cause and effect ideas are just insufficient in explaining them. Events that are seemingly random and unpredictable. Such as, how subatomic particles move or decay. Subatomic particles move contrary to what we know, or what we think we know. The fundamental nature of the universe doesn't align with a deterministic cause and effect kind of naturalistic logic.

    Which means that miracles could happen right before our eyes every day at the hand of God, and we might never know it. A tornado takes down someone's home but they miraculously survive. Naturalists might call it luck, but who is to say that God didn't play a role in controlling the seemingly random nature of the event? Naturalists call it random or blind luck. But who's to say that God isn't operating in every event in every being in a way that eludes our macroscopic deterministic assumptions?

    Methodological naturalism doesn't mandate ontological naturalism because methodological naturalism just can't explain what we see. It's too limited. Thus miracles are always a possibility. God's hand in events is always a possibility. And for that reason, people can be both honest scientists, methodological naturalists, plumbers, and Christians at the same time.

    A plumber depends on the cause and effect of his plunger working, but there's no reason a plumber can't be a miracle believing Christian, no more than a scientist that also depends on cause and effect of lab experiments and repeated observations.
     
    Last edited: Sep 7, 2021
  4. Isaiah 41:10

    Isaiah 41:10 Well-Known Member

    +2,427
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    This is nothing more than a sound bite. Your vague statements cannot overwrite my analysis nor the scientific publications already made.

    If you really think you can do it on your own, then address my analysis of the fossil record in detail, and let's see how far you get. I don't mind, and I don't doubt that you can understand what I'm saying. But I do doubt that you will let the research guide you. Nothing more would please me than for you to prove me wrong.
     
  5. Isaiah 41:10

    Isaiah 41:10 Well-Known Member

    +2,427
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    Maybe we can start with my table.

    Screenshot_20210906-204501~2.png

    Do you doubt that 9 phylum are observed in the Cambrian vs 10 found before and after the Cambrian? Do you doubt that even of the 9, that molecular studies and further paleontological finds suggest that theyve originated from precursors of the precambrian? Maybe you doubt that 40 million years is enough time for species to evolve?

    If evolution were not true, we might expect no major phylum and no precursors to predate the Cambrian at all. So what gives?

    And even further, the irony of it all, is that we are focusing on precambrian fossils, rather than the more recent and better collected Paleozoic to cenozoic fossils. It's like someone arguing that Michael Jordan is a bad basketball player by focusing on the time he was cut from his highschool basketball team. Some positions are just dishonest right out the gate.
     
    Last edited: Sep 7, 2021
  6. The Barbarian

    The Barbarian Crabby Old White Guy

    +8,573
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    You shouldn't feel like that. It's mostly misunderstanding, I think.

    That's good.

    A Christian should be in the world, but not of it. I think you have that backwards but I could be wrong. Maybe you should try to do this one step at a time.

    Depends, I suppose. You realize that it's O.K. to be unscientific apart from science, do you not? I am often unscientific myself.

    Not even close. If science is a bit difficult, consider plumbing. Plumbing is methodologically naturalistic. Plumber look for natural causes for things they see. They don't (at least most of them) try to exorcise the demons of blockage.

    Yet that methodological naturalism doesn't mean that plumbing is ontologically naturalistic. This is why both theists and non-theists can do science and plumbing. Science and plumbing can't consider the supernatural, but scientists and plumbers can.

    It's just a fact. See above, WRT plumbers.

    No. Just as plumbers don't deny miracles and the methodological naturalism of plumbing does not rule out miracles, so it is with science and scientists.
     
  7. The Barbarian

    The Barbarian Crabby Old White Guy

    +8,573
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    Well, that sounds like a testable belief. Let's ask a YE creationist who is familiar with the evidence...

    Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species — include such species as Baragwanathia27 (betweenrhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids).

    Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39

    Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.

    YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms
     
  8. Isaiah 41:10

    Isaiah 41:10 Well-Known Member

    +2,427
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    Demon blockage haha. Potty humor always gets to me unfortunately. ^_^
     
  9. Isaiah 41:10

    Isaiah 41:10 Well-Known Member

    +2,427
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    The real difference between a plumber and a scientist is that one has discovered that earth isn't at the center of the universe, while the other simply unclogged a toilet. One discovery worth persecution, while the other discovery nobody seems to care about.

    It has nothing to do with methodology and everything to do with the implications of reality.

    It says a lot about man's pride.
     
  10. Sam Saved by Grace

    Sam Saved by Grace All of salvation is God's doing

    174
    +54
    United States
    Calvinist
    Single
    That is beautifully put. I agree with it wholeheartedly.

    If your analogy of tossing a ball into the air is truly how you view methodological naturalism as a scientist, then I think you are a credit to your profession. But I would argue that many scientists, if not most, do not approach it the way you do. I have flat out heard scientists admit that belief in God and science are mutually exclusive and in total conflict with each other. Their methodology is such that if they experienced the manifest presence of the divine, they would commit themselves to a psychiatric ward.
     
  11. Isaiah 41:10

    Isaiah 41:10 Well-Known Member

    +2,427
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    Are you familiar with the biologos foundation?

    The way I see it, we have two options. And I'll just put it bluntly.

    Option A involves denying science. And I know people try to differentiate between theories, X theory is more credible than Y theory and this one is good and that one is bad etc.

    And the idea that the theory of evolution might be some kind of a lesser proven theory, in my opinion, is absurd. Because no one really is able to address the summation of phylogenetic trees without it. It's just quite simply the only logical conclusion.

    And I can give a pass for people who aren't paleontologists, and for people who haven't been studying the earth for the past 20 years. But the longer you study it, the more it becomes clear that it is truly one of the strongest theories there are. Evolution is as true as the sun is hot. It's just the way it is. And I'm not talking about people changing skin color, I'm talking about fish to man, reptiles to birds etc.

    So anyway, back to our two options.

    Option A involves denying science to preserve a literalist position of Genesis. It is bluntly that simple. We could all flock to Ken Hams ark encounter and live blissfully in defiance of every field of science and in defiance of every scientific journal and scientists around the world (and I really mean every field, not just one or two).

    Option B, well there's really only one other option and that's to melt science and faith together. And to do this in full, not some half science or some partial science but to take the full scope of discovery and to melt it in.

    Groups like the intelligent design institute Ken Hams answers in Genesis, they try to grab a little bits and pieces of science, and throw 99% of it away. They cherry pick and choose what parts of science they want to accept and then just reject the rest.

    Intelligent design advocates like the design institute try to get a bit more technical. They might grab something like 40% of science, then the other 60% they just ignore or act stupid over.

    Some figures like Behe would even go as far as to accept common descent of man from the animal kingdom, but still wouldn't accept mutations could account for our differences.

    But I don't think this cherry picking is particularly useful because anyone who actually takes time to investigate the subject will immediately find holes in this cherry picking approach.

    Ken Millers finding Darwin's God is a good effort in my opinion.

    So it's a take it or leave it kind of topic. Either we are Christians who deny science or we are Christians who accept it. and by science, I mean recorded observations if reality. In which case I might rephrase, either we are Christians who accept God's creation as it truly is, or we don't.

    And as a scientist, I accept creation as it is. Some might say it stands in defiance of scripture. Well, there isn't much I can do about that. I can't make the sun not hot, no more could I make evolution not true. So the only remaining choice, is to bring them together, assuming you trust and put your faith in God.

    The same goes with ancient Chinese history dating back 10,000 years. Some might say this contradicts scripture. Well, there's nothing I can do about this. I can't delete Chinese history from existence. I can't just make their ancient pottery and artifacts disappear. So the only real option remaining is to accept reality and to melt it into our theology.

    But I also think that this God, God of an old earth, His creative power, is much more mighty, glorious, beautiful and detailed when viewed in an old earth perspective. Whereas what I would consider a young earth "god" as just some remains of theology gone wrong, in a very dark worldview where logic is long gone. Like a small boat lost at sea, oftentimes there is nothing we can do for young earthers but let them sail. Until the hereafter.
     
    Last edited: Sep 8, 2021
  12. Sam Saved by Grace

    Sam Saved by Grace All of salvation is God's doing

    174
    +54
    United States
    Calvinist
    Single
    I have no doubt whatsoever that there are biological similarities between organisms, nor do I deny adaptation as a natural force accounting for the variation that exists within a species. But I do not believe natural selection and random mutation is sufficient to account for the magnificent beauty and diversity found in creation. Darwinism denies intelligent design, but is itself intelligently designed to fit the evidence that is there, and does so with metaphysically naturalist presuppositions. And while I find the evidence of an intelligent creator to be overwhelmingly self-evident and undeniable when looking at the beauty found in nature, I will concede here and now that if you take God out of the equation, Darwinian evolution is inescapable, and the blind forces of random mutation and natural selection pretty much become forgone conclusions.

    But I believe in a God who has an eternal purpose. I believe the Bible, His Word, to be the ultimate truth, to which all other truths are subservient. Forget evolution for a moment. There are multiple scientific observations that really are, in my estimation, undeniable - yet the Bible contradicts them. Even the center of my faith: the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Therefore, even if random mutation and natural selection were manifestly obvious to me, being demonstrably true beyond the very shadow of every kind of doubt, I would still hold the Word of God above all things, and defer to the Bible in every conflict, knowing that even 2+2=4 is subordinate to God.

    It simply doesn't make any difference to me if I get left behind in the great progress of human enlightenment. I am not of this world, and I do not live for this world. And I don't care if my beliefs are tantamount to intellectual suicide, because I glory only in Christ, and I know the world likewise laughed at Noah, considering him deluded, and did so with all natural observation seemingly on their side. And I won't lose any sleep over the possibility that such an approach would cause the masses to dismiss Christianity and abandon their faith, because I believe that the Lord knows those who are His, and His sheep will surely hear His voice.
     
  13. Isaiah 41:10

    Isaiah 41:10 Well-Known Member

    +2,427
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    Would you believe that the world were also 6,000 years old, as it appears to be stated by scripture? Or that the planet was flooded?

    It's important to remember that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.

    One way I separate ideas such as evolution from ideas related to the resurrection, is that with respect to the resurrection, there actually isn't any specific evidence to it's contrary. And I'll explain.

    When it comes to things like a literalist interpretation of Genesis, such as the world being 6,000 years old or the flood being global, aside from OT scholarly commentary indicating that Genesis shouldn't be taken literally to begin with (see Claus westermanns Genesis Commentary for example which we've already discussed), these ideas not only do not have explicitly evidence for them, but they also have explicit evidence that runs contrary to them. For example, not only is there no evidence for the planet being 6,000 years old, but there are also many explicit lines of evidence that run directly contradictory to the idea, such as Chinese artifacts dating back 10,000 years, or tree ring dating going back 100,000 for example (though we could name dozens of independent lines of evidence if we wanted to that explicitly demonstrate that earth is older than 6,000 years).

    When it comes to the resurrection, in one hand we have scripture indicating that it occurred without scholarly translations and commentary indicating that it wasn't a literal event. So that's one step that makes the resurrection more credible than a young earth or global flood. Additionally, the resurrection doesn't have countless lines of evidence explicitly against it. For example, we don't have Jesus' skeleton sitting in a tomb demonstrating that He had never risen, this would be an example of evidence that explicitly tells us of an alternative narrative. We don't have any historical or archaeological evidence demonstrating a contrary narrative to the resurrection. So that puts the resurrection multiple rungs above young earth creationism and global flood beliefs. So not only do scholars agree that the resurrection wasn't figurative or non literal, which puts us on right standing with scholarly and theological approaches, but scientifically we don't see any explicit evidence to it's contrary either.

    And some might think that evidence of other people (who aren't derivations of God) aside from Jesus not being resurrected is evidence against Jesus being resurrected. Though this isn't as strong as a counter with explicit evidence against the occurrence. I could say that scientifically people aren't born of a virgin either, but in actuality, in extremely rare cases this too can happen, meaning that an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. These are two different concepts.
    Parthenogenesis - Wikipedia

    So these are a few reasons that rejection of things like evolution or rejection of an old earth or a local flood, on the basis that there are other miracles that are recorded in scripture, is not a particularly good argument. Because with respect to the topic of evolution, There is explicit evidence that produces the narrative of evolution that stands in contrast of claims of a 6,000-year-old earth, meaning that there is explicit evidence for the absence of a 6,000-year-old earth. Whereas with the resurrection, the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. In addition to Genesis being non-literal, as per OT scholars.

    Which means that evolution is fair game for Christians. And so we have the biologos foundations
    of Christians who accept evolution, in addition to Christian scientists and of course the Catholic church (good on them for not repeating their mistakes of the past with Galileo).
     
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2021
  14. Sam Saved by Grace

    Sam Saved by Grace All of salvation is God's doing

    174
    +54
    United States
    Calvinist
    Single
    That is so dishonest. Just stop with the gymnastics.

    There are multiple arguments that go directly against the resurrection - such as every last person on the face of the earth who has ever lived, and died, has stayed dead. You want to talk about skeletons - the graveyards are full of them! How many have risen? Zero. And it is not, as you deemed it, merely an "absence of evidence". It goes beyond that. Not only do we have a plethora of natural observation that directly refutes the biblical narrative, we also have direct scientific evidence to the contrary. When a person dies, rigor mortis sets in, and the organs begin to break down due to lack of oxygen. Cellular membranes burst, releasing enzymes that break down the body. Gases are released, causing massive bloating, and ultimately, the organs and flesh are completely liquified. Eventually, all that is left is a skeleton, teeth, and hair. If exposed to the elements, even that will break down. We know exactly which natural processes follow death, and resurrection ain't one of them. When people donate organs, the organs have to be retrieved almost immediately upon death. Jesus had been dead for around 30-40 hours. At that point, it isn't merely a matter of turning the brain back on, as if that were possible. The body would be well into the process of breaking down, with vital organs damaged beyond the point of ever functioning again. Ever hear of body farms? It's not a mystery the kind of condition the body of Jesus would've been in after going through that sort of ordeal, and then being left to decay for nearly two full days. Yet, the Bible says that Jesus rose bodily - even His wounds were still present. So it's not like all the damage was undone. Yet, there was no decay. Hmm...

    Well, despite what science would tell us, we know that the Bible says that God would not leave Jesus in the grave, nor would He allow His Holy One to see corruption. God is above science.

    There are tons and tons of examples throughout scripture that can be similarly "refuted" by science. The ascension of Jesus Christ. Not only it is impossible for a man to ascend, but the Bible says that Jesus ascended to heaven, disappearing in a cloud. Where is He? There is nothing up there but space. An unbeliever could charge the Jews of antiquity didn't realize this, but God would have. The Exodus is another example. We have zero archeological evidence to support it. With Jonah and the great fish, we know that a whale is not a fish, and we also know that a man cannot live in the belly of a fish (or a whale) for three days. He would be broken down and digested. The miracles of the Apostles can likewise be dismissed on the basis of scientific fact. And pretty much every other miraculous event in the Bible.

    Everything God does is a miracle, and flies in the face of scientific fact. That's why the things recorded in the Bible were such a big deal then and are such a big deal now. Things actually happened exactly as the Bible described. And if we truly have "evidence" to the contrary, it's certainly because God chose for there to be "evidence" to the contrary. A strong delusion. A judgment on those idolaters who, for love of darkness, would fix their gaze upon the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever.

    The Word of God is 100% true in all things. Science is not. That's a fact.
     
  15. Isaiah 41:10

    Isaiah 41:10 Well-Known Member

    +2,427
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    Like I said, the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.

    It's true that someone could argue that because other people aren't raised from the dead that Jesus wasn't either, but this isn't made with any explicit evidence demonstrating that he hadn't. On the contrary, scripture, which theologians and scholars agree was not figuratively written, suggests that He has risen.

    This runs contrary to the literalist position of Genesis in which theologians and biblical scholars have indicated is not a literal text. And which holds many lines of evidence directly contrary to it.

    This isn't gymnastics, it's just the truth. A literal Genesis is less supported than a literal resurrection, Biblically. And scientifically, a mountain of evidence runs directly contrary to literal Genesis interpretations but not the resurrection.

    I could name dozens of independent lines of evidence which explicitly demonstrate an old earth. But in regards to the resurrection, at most only an absence of evidence for it (excluding the Biblical account) would be the best that a denier has.

    They just aren't on the same level of credibility.

    And no, we don't have the skeleton of Jesus in a tomb demonstrating an alternate narrative. Whereas with a 6,000 year old earth, earth is still here before our very eyes to investigate. Jesus' body on the other hand is not present for us to investigate (which arguably lends credence to the resurrection).

    And again, Biblically speaking, OT scholars have indicated that Genesis isn't to be taken literally, while the resurrection is. Else we would all be flat earthers.
     
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2021
  16. Isaiah 41:10

    Isaiah 41:10 Well-Known Member

    +2,427
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    I like this analysis.

    I tend to think of a wrecked train or a vehicle accidence.

    Screenshot_20210909-095356~2.png


    So we could have this discussion where one person asks "what happened?". And to answer the question we can look at the car and we can look at the telephone pole and we can see based on present-day evidence, what happened to the vehicle in the past.

    The key point being that a time machine is not necessary to understand the past when the evidence still remains today.


    So with the resurrection, Jesus' physical body is the vehicle, it's the car that was damaged (crucified).

    But we don't actually have the body of Jesus today to affirm an alternative narrative that it never resurrected. Just as if there was no car, we wouldn't have evidence that the car was ever damaged in an accident.

    You could rely on historic accounts of what happened, on police records. And in the case of Christ, the police record says that the man had risen from the dead.

    Whereas with planet earth, the car is still here. Earth is still here. And anyone can walk outside and can study the car and can study the earth to affirm the narrative that the earth is old or that the car was involved in an accident and was never towed away (or resurrected upon body shop repairs).

    The difference is that In one hand with the resurrection, the car is gone and historical record suggests that the body had risen. The evidence of a contrary narrative is absent.

    Where as with planet Earth The evidence is still here for anyone to walk outside and to look at and to affirm the alternate narrative that the earth is old.

    Then additionally we have Old Testament scholarly commentary suggesting that Genesis was never meant to be taken literally to begin with. But we don't have that for the resurrection.

    They're just on different levels of credibility.
     
  17. Isaiah 41:10

    Isaiah 41:10 Well-Known Member

    +2,427
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    "Not only it is impossible for a man to ascend, but the Bible says that Jesus ascended to heaven. "

    Don't take this the wrong way, but your arguments make it sound like maybe you are doubting that Jesus ascended.

    I tend to view this as a metaphysical resurrection. Jesus had to get to heaven with the Father. And Heaven is a metaphysical place, so to get there, Jesus would have to be beyond the physical upon resurrecting. And so his body wouldn't be resting in the clouds but would rather be beyond the physical universe.

    And again, we don't see Jesus in outer space through our telescopes, so we shouldn't expect this to be a physical place where physical resurrected bodies go.
     
  18. Isaiah 41:10

    Isaiah 41:10 Well-Known Member

    +2,427
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    And here's one last thought.

    So we seem to agree that literal interpretations of Genesis appear to contradict what we see in the physically observed universe.

    Wouldn't the real dishonesty in this be for us to disregard what we experience in reality, in favor of what we imagine in our minds?

    For example, let's say the sun is hot in accordance with science. Now obviously I haven't been to the sun to touch it, but we use scientific instruments to measure it, so we scientifically conclude that it's hot.

    If scripture hypothetically said that the sun was cold, what would it mean?

    In my opinion, it's more reasonable to assume that the language isn't meant to be taken literally. And there happens to be Old Testament Scholars that also indicate that the language isnt to be taken literally, so this isn't too controversial of a conclusion.

    But wouldn't it truly be dishonest to say that the sun were cold, even despite explicit evidence to the contrary?

    There's always room for error in interpretation of scripture, but with the sun being hot, there is only so much error one can make. So why would someone put their imagined perception before their physical bodily corroborated and repeated experience?

    It's like with the movie "the matrix", why would neo put the "dream world" that exists only in his mind as truth above what is physically experienced and affirmed in external corroboration beyond his imagination? Why would neo rather be plugged into the matrix, rather than being in the real world?

    In my opinion, the real dishonesty is forgoing what we see with our eyes in favor of what we imagine but do not see.
     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2021
  19. The Barbarian

    The Barbarian Crabby Old White Guy

    +8,573
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    Indeed, the discovery of genetics and of the function of DNA has shown the relationships between taxa of living things on Earth. And we know it works, because we can check it with organisms of known descent.

    You're underestimating God. He's remarkably good at creating amazing things with very simple rules. In fact, the Universe works by four rules (or maybe just one).

    Show us that. It would come as a surprise to Michael Behe, who is a IDer and a Darwinist. Darwin for example, just thought that God created the first living things.

    You're confusing methodological naturalism with ontological naturalism, again.

    Kind of the way "blind forces" of gravity and inertia produced our solar system. Maybe He's a lot smarter than creationists think He is.

    Can't think of one. Remember methodological naturalism does not rule out miracles.

    God is truth and infallible. Man is neither. So when some men interpret God's word like that, I'm not impressed.

    God is not neutral on that point. "Know the truth and the truth will set you free."

    There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
    Charles Darwin, last sentence of On the Origin of Species, 1873
     
  20. Sam Saved by Grace

    Sam Saved by Grace All of salvation is God's doing

    174
    +54
    United States
    Calvinist
    Single
    The only truth that sets free is the truth of Jesus Christ. The only truth that I care about is the truth found in the Bible. That is what is 100% true in all things. And in any and all discrepancies between the Word of God and the science of man, I will always defer to the Word of God. This is where I stand.

    I don't go looking for a fight. If you all want to believe nonsense, be my guest. It's not like I make it my great commission to go into all the world and argue against any particular teaching of man. My focus is on the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the Word of God. The truth of God, as defined by the Bible, is the only truth that is of any value. The world is dead. It is dead because Adam and Eve allowed sin into the world. Christ crucified must be preached to all the world. This is the only thing with which to concern oneself.

    I would encourage anyone reading this to examine yourself to see if you are in the faith. Where are your priorities? Where is your heart? Is Almighty God, Jesus Christ, the ruler of your life? Have you turned from sin and love Him beyond compare? Do you love His ways? Do you delight in the Law of God in the inner parts? This is the question that is of prime importance to every man.
     
Loading...