Why should christians trust evolutionists?

[philadiddle]

Might I remind you that it was YOU who brought up Jesus telling parables? Then, when I asked you if you believed all of the supernatural, unexplainable, science denying, laws of nature overriding miracles that He performed, all of a sudden "we can't interpret the story of creation the same way we interpret the story of Jesus". Looks like you got called out....and lost the argument.

Now I remember why I haven't been around here in a couple of months. This kind of ignorant arrogance is a real turn off. I pointed out that we don't interpret everything in the bible the same way, which is a point you haven't addressed yet.

You still haven't explained why you are allowed to have a double standard with Genesis 3:15. You are dodging the question.

Watch this clip from a prominent Old Testament scholar and try to learn something about the bible that you think is the inspired word of God. If you seek to find out what the meaning is, I can assure you that your Christian walk will become much richer.

N.T. Wright and Pete Enns: What Do You Mean by Literal? - YouTube

Teaching people your interpretation is actually fine with me. I can see how it makes sense to you and fits with the Christian faith. But teaching that it is the only valid view for Christians to have is incredibly out of touch with the last 2,000 years of scholarly work that God has led the church body to do.

 

[Greg1234]

Jesus spoke in parables all the time. Do you take them all literally?

So the parable of the sower and the seeds is to be interpreted as bird migration? Or is that anti-Christian Darwinism "God of the gaps" implemented?

 

[Jase]

Jase, you call me a "fundie troll" beacuse I said homosexuality is an abomination. I do not know exactly what this means (although it does not sound good!), but perhaps in the light of this verse:

And thou shalt not lie with mankind as one lieth with a woman: it is an abomination (Leviticus 18:22)

you should consider God a "fundie troll" too?

I don't want to get into this discussion as it's off topic and against the rules, but 1) Leviticus does not mean that in Hebrew. Read the context. It's referring to pagan prostitution in the Caananite temples. Even most Jews now view it that way. Abomination is a mistranslation from the KJV. The Hebrew word it comes from doesn't have the same connotation. And 2), There are 612 other laws besides that one. You ignore over 500 of them.

Why are you quoting the Torah law when you don't follow it? The same law commands you to execute people who work on Saturdays, and rape victims.

 

[Mr.Waffles]

Hello,

I´m getting interested in this topic at the moment. Since all the threads on the "origins" sub-forum seem to have drifted away from the issue, or else are dead, I decided to start another one.

My reason for being interested in examining the claims of creationists, who up till recently I never would have taken seriously, is that I have come to distrust evolutionists. It is not so much a scientific problem, as a theological problem. I have witnessed darwinian evolution used as an argument in favour of all sorts of moral abominations; adultery, homosexuality, abortion, eugenics, euthenasia, etc. Looking at the history of philosophy, seeing where nazism and Planned Parenthood came from, it is clear to me that they owe much to the theory of evolution. Perhaps without it their organizations would never have got off the ground, because it gave them "scientific" credibility.

I do not want to become paranoid, thinking that everyone is trying to deceive us. However, for me as a catholic, conspiracy theory is a dogma of the faith. The original conspiracy is that of Satan, who has been plotting the ruin of souls and seducing the world since the beginning of mankind. So I see it as logical that he uses everything at his disposal. If evolution does the trick, why wouldn´t he want evolution in all the classrooms around the world, pushing belief in the Word of God into ever smaller circles?

I also observe that ALL atheists use evolution as an argument against christianity. Why is this? If it made no difference, why would atheists think it hurts christian belief to argue darwin´s theory? I have come to think that if you take God out of the creation equasion, you are left with nothing but random nothingness. This is exactly what atheists believe in; chance, but no intelligence.

Lately I have little trust in what is called the "scientific community". I am VERY sceptical about the GLobal Warming hype. I think it is all a huge lie, designed firstly to get money out of the taxpayer, and secondly to exert greater governmental control over nations, in preparation for a New World Order. Anyway, this is just to say that my scepticism towards scientists, no matter how well known or prestigious, allows me to entertain the possibility that evolution may be another big scam, put into circulation and perpetuated by the masons who rule in the shadow, in order to gradually erode belief in Jesus Christ. Before you all call me a conspiracy freak, please note that I am not asserting this categorically. I am simply saying that I consider it a POSSIBILITY. I have no way of proving it, and therefore cannot assert it.

Finally, although perhaps this will mean little to protestants, all the Fathers of the Church believed in a creation ex nihilo (out of nothing). The Council of Trent teaches that we should never contradict the UNANIMOUS teaching of the Fathers on any subject pertaining to Revelation. St. Augustine had doubts about the exact meaning of the 6 days, but he certainly never implied that God used pre-existing material to make the Earth and the animals. The theory of evolution is totally foreign to all the Church Fathers, and thus is not an acceptable interpretation of Genesis for a catholic, as far as I understand.

I would appreciate any comments, as long as they are polite and intelligent. And please do not go down the catholic-bashing road. Go to another sub-forum for that! Thank you.

You are right on many points. Regardless of what TE proponents will say, evolution is foreign to the Bible and invariably incompatible with Biblical theology in general. Do not trust the theory nor those who progress it (though "rationalize it" is more accurate). I stand stupefied at how we have certain individuals who are hailed as the greatest minds of science, yet prove to be devoid of all honest and objective inquiry in this respect, as evolution by default becomes the filter through which all information is carefully passed (you only absorb what they want you to). It is not about attempting to understand reality as it is, it's about dictating reality and justifying that dictation, regardless of the costs.

Even scientifically speaking, it can very easily be understood how the Darwinian narrative of universal common ancestry is equivalent to a modern myth, it has just found a home in science.

It's like the Christian materialist forgets "our ways are not His ways".

P.S.

Creation-Evolution Headlines

Hands down my favorite site. Massive blog with daily entries on relevant scientific topics (as well as many other tools and resources). The writer is incredibly educated with an ear in the scientific mainstream, and more or less tears Darwinism and Darwinian proponents to shreds with his entries. If you like truth and objectivity, it's paradise.

 

[Mr.Waffles]

/

 

[philadiddle]

evolution is foreign to the Bible and invariably incompatible with Biblical theology in general.

Not according to Christian scholarship. This is something that predates Darwin.

 

[Mr.Waffles]

Not according to Christian scholarship. This is something that predates Darwin.

Mind elaborating? I cannot see what you are saying.

 

[good brother]

Now I remember why I haven't been around here in a couple of months. This kind of ignorant arrogance is a real turn off. I pointed out that we don't interpret everything in the bible the same way, which is a point you haven't addressed yet.

I did in fact address it after you brought up Jesus. You said He often talked in parables and tried to tie those parable teachings to the Genesis creation account and I rebutted with a list of all the unnatural miracles He performed (i.e. calming the storm with a word, turning water into wine, healing the sick, raising the dead, etc). In that manner I DID address it, because both instances call for God intervening in nature to produce MIRACULOUS outcomes otherwise unaffordable by nature.

Now, as far as interpreting different parts of the Bible differently, that's common sense. Let the content decide the context.

You still haven't explained why you are allowed to have a double standard with Genesis 3:15. You are dodging the question.

You asked me what I thought it meant, and I told you. I then asked you the meaning behind Genesis 2:4 which you have completely ignored. You are the one dodging the question.

Watch this clip from a prominent Old Testament scholar and try to learn something about the bible that you think is the inspired word of God.

What? Don't you mean "Watch this video clip of a liberal scholar..."?

Teaching people your interpretation is actually fine with me. I can see how it makes sense to you and fits with the Christian faith. But teaching that it is the only valid view for Christians to have is incredibly out of touch with the last 2,000 years of scholarly work that God has led the church body to do.

There is a bunch of stuff the church has taught or done that is not in line with what the Bible teaches. I am a Sola Scriptura kind of guy, I have no need of liberal "theologians" who claim the Bible is less than it actually claims.

I hope that makes sense to you.


In Christ, GB

 

[Assyrian]

Did Sola Scriptura teach you literalism?

 

[Astridhere]

Jase, you call me a "fundie troll" beacuse I said homosexuality is an abomination. I do not know exactly what this means (although it does not sound good!), but perhaps in the light of this verse:

And thou shalt not lie with mankind as one lieth with a woman: it is an abomination (Leviticus 18:22)

you should consider God a "fundie troll" too?

This is what the bible says. Theocratic rule is not meant to be democratic.

I also agree basically with your opening statements. Many evolutionary researchers are after glory and much offered as evolutionary support is misrepresented.

 

[Astridhere]

You are right on many points. Regardless of what TE proponents will say, evolution is foreign to the Bible and invariably incompatible with Biblical theology in general. Do not trust the theory nor those who progress it (though "rationalize it" is more accurate). I stand stupefied at how we have certain individuals who are hailed as the greatest minds of science, yet prove to be devoid of all honest and objective inquiry in this respect, as evolution by default becomes the filter through which all information is carefully passed (you only absorb what they want you to). It is not about attempting to understand reality as it is, it's about dictating reality and justifying that dictation, regardless of the costs.

Even scientifically speaking, it can very easily be understood how the Darwinian narrative of universal common ancestry is equivalent to a modern myth, it has just found a home in science.

It's like the Christian materialist forgets "our ways are not His ways".

P.S.

Creation-Evolution Headlines

Hands down my favorite site. Massive blog with daily entries on relevant scientific topics (as well as many other tools and resources). The writer is incredibly educated with an ear in the scientific mainstream, and more or less tears Darwinism and Darwinian proponents to shreds with his entries. If you like truth and objectivity, it's paradise.

I have nothing to add except this is a great post and I'll add the link to my folder.

 

[gluadys]

I have nothing to add except this is a great post and I'll add the link to my folder.

I noticed the line in your signature.

Do you know where Dawkins supports the idea that Lucy was a chimp ancestor? That seems to be inconsistent with what I have read of Dawkins, especially in The Ancestor's Tale where he clearly places the Australopithecines in-between the last shared human-chimp ancestor and the first appearance of Homo.

See page 94 "Bipedality came first. Lucy, who lived long after Rendezvous 1, ...." (Rendezvous 1 being the node at which humans and chimps share a common ancestor) Emphasis added.

 

[albrecht]

You are right on many points. Regardless of what TE proponents will say, evolution is foreign to the Bible and invariably incompatible with Biblical theology in general.

It is incompatible with a naive and ill-conceived literalist interpretation of certain passages in some books of the Bible.

Do not trust the theory nor those who progress it (though "rationalize it" is more accurate). I stand stupefied at how we have certain individuals who are hailed as the greatest minds of science, yet prove to be devoid of all honest and objective inquiry in this respect, as evolution by default becomes the filter through which all information is carefully passed (you only absorb what they want you to).

In some cases, yes, it has been used to buttress ideology. But as a scientific theory, it is not an ideology in itself. It is an explanatory theory about the nature of organic life and diversity, not a worldview.

It is not about attempting to understand reality as it is, it's about dictating reality and justifying that dictation, regardless of the costs.

Except that evolutionary theory has mountains of evidence behind it and your point of view has none whatsoever.

Even scientifically speaking, it can very easily be understood how the Darwinian narrative of universal common ancestry is equivalent to a modern myth, it has just found a home in science.

As I said, it can be made out to be what it's not and turned into a worldview or "myth." But it has a home in science at present because it is well-supported by the evidence.

It's like the Christian materialist forgets "our ways are not His ways".

Theistic evolution is not the same thing as materialism. At least make a hint of an effort to get basic philosophical issues straight.

P.S.
Hands down my favorite site. Massive blog with daily entries on relevant scientific topics (as well as many other tools and resources). The writer is incredibly educated with an ear in the scientific mainstream, and more or less tears Darwinism and Darwinian proponents to shreds with his entries. If you like truth and objectivity, it's paradise.

Are you also a devout believer in phrenology and homeopathy? Or are you only partial to particular ideas in pseudoscience like creationism and Intelligent Design?

 

[Mr.Waffles]

It is incompatible with a naive and ill-conceived literalist interpretation of certain passages in some books of the Bible.

No it's not, and if you care to peddle that kind of nonsense then fine, but I won't buy it. There is a fine line between what is to be literal or not, the problem is these TE's have forgotten their place and proceeded to blur these lines on purpose, and evidently for a reason. It is incompatibile, invariably. They are two different accounts, completely. Even in terms of its bare fundamentals, it only applies to a fallen world state where death and decay are realities. Thus, it is not only incompatible, but utterly useless theologically speaking.

In some cases, yes, it has been used to buttress ideology. But as a scientific theory, it is not an ideology in itself. It is an explanatory theory about the nature of organic life and diversity, not a worldview.

Fundamentally, it isn't. In it's application, it has become the most popular modern world view, and that is something you cannot argue.

Except that evolutionary theory has mountains of evidence behind it

Flat out comical. The mythical Darwinian process of universal common ancestry has very little actual science behind and is contradicted by mounds of evidence, not supported by it. It is not my fault that you do not understand the biological implications of this theory.

and your point of view has none whatsoever.

Wait, I thought non-christians aren't allowed in the general theology forum? Unless you are a christian and just terribly misguided. I have seen more than enough of these kinds of comments by those who do not properly understand evolution (as well as science in general) and religion. They'll just insist mindlessly that you have "no proof" and that evolution has "all the evidence it could need". Are you one of those?

As I said, it can be made out to be what it's not and turned into a worldview or "myth." But it has a home in science at present because it is well-supported by the evidence.

The idea that it is well supported is a myth. Certain aspects are supported, but it is far from "well".

Theistic evolution is not the same thing as materialism. At least make a hint of an effort to get basic philosophical issues straight.

This is just a question of association. Materialism in general is the preoccupation of physical elements of existence, I simply meant to use the word within the context of Christianity.

Are you also a devout believer in phrenology and homeopathy? Or are you only partial to particular ideas in pseudoscience like creationism and Intelligent Design?

Evolution is a pseudoscience in its own respect, maybe just not as obviously as these 2 - simply because of their nature. And what are these petty associative tags and stereotypes that are you presenting here anyways? You can stop misrepresenting me, thanks. I am a believer in good science that makes sense, of which Darwinism isn't.

 

[cupid dave]

I noticed the line in your signature.

Do you know where Dawkins supports the idea that Lucy was a chimp ancestor? That seems to be inconsistent with what I have read of Dawkins, especially in The Ancestor's Tale where he clearly places the Australopithecines in-between the last shared human-chimp ancestor and the first appearance of Homo.

See page 94 "Bipedality came first. Lucy, who lived long after Rendezvous 1, ...." (Rendezvous 1 being the node at which humans and chimps share a common ancestor) Emphasis added.

Nevertheless, Apes all have 24 Chromosomes.

We know that 6 million or 7 million years ago in the womb of some ape, a new creature in god's reality was born when two chromosomes fused together.

The progeny from the "accident" is the one father of all humans with 23 chromosomes thereafter.

That Genesis tells us 22 creatures called sons of sons, begat the final product, Jesus, is no coincident but evidence of divine revelation.

Science at this very moment tells us also tha there 22 links now extinct humans in our past:


Here some of them:

[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']Gen 5:2 says god called them, the man and his wife, the "Adamites," a species:[/FONT]
[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif'] [/FONT]
Gen 5:2 [FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']Male and female created he THEM; and blessed THEM, and called THEIR name Adam, (a species), in the day when THEY were created.[/FONT]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']http://kofh2u.tripod.com/id31.html[/FONT]

 

[albrecht]

No it's not, and if you care to peddle that kind of nonsense then fine, but I won't buy it.

Apparently what you will and won't buy is completely arbitrary and has no basis in evidence, so what should I care?

There is a fine line between what is to be literal or not, the problem is these TE's have forgotten their place and proceeded to blur these lines on purpose, and evidently for a reason. It is incompatibile, invariably.

Then you apparently believe that the Bible isn't reconcilable with experienced reality.

They are two different accounts, completely.

They are different but not incompatible.

Even in terms of its bare fundamentals, it only applies to a fallen world state where death and decay are realities. Thus, it is not only incompatible, but utterly useless theologically speaking.

And yet there are volumes of natural theology that consider evolution to be a proven fact.

Fundamentally, it isn't. In it's application, it has become the most popular modern world view, and that is something you cannot argue.

Only in the same sense that the theory of gravity, the laws of thermodynamics, and the theory of relativity are "popular modern world views."

Flat out comical. The mythical Darwinian process of universal common ancestry has very little actual science behind and is contradicted by mounds of evidence, not supported by it. It is not my fault that you do not understand the biological implications of this theory.

Right, go ahead and discount the geographical evidence, the fossil evidence, the experimental evidence, the genetic evidence, the viral evidence, the paleontological evidence, the anatomical evidence, the geological evidence, and so on. While you're at it, simply deny that we can know anything about the universe. That way you can go ahead and believe whatever shoddy pseudoscientific refuse you like. Oh wait - that's what you're doing already.

Wait, I thought non-christians aren't allowed in the general theology forum? Unless you are a christian and just terribly misguided.

Contrary to what you may believe, scientific literacy isn't incompatible with Christianity. I am a Christian (Episcopalian, to be specific), I just refuse to support poor arguments for distorted versions of Christianity.

I have seen more than enough of these kinds of comments by those who do not properly understand evolution (as well as science in general) and religion. They'll just insist mindlessly that you have "no proof" and that evolution has "all the evidence it could need". Are you one of those?

There is evidence for evolution, and no scientific evidence for "creation science" or Intelligent Design. That's all I'm saying.

This is just a question of association. Materialism in general is the preoccupation of physical elements of existence, I simply meant to use the word within the context of Christianity.

It's a question of the presuppositions you make.

Evolution is a pseudoscience in its own respect, maybe just not as obviously as these 2 - simply because of their nature. And what are these petty associative tags and stereotypes that are you presenting here anyways? You can stop misrepresenting me, thanks. I am a believer in good science that makes sense, of which Darwinism isn't.

I'm not misrepresenting you. I'm just saying that your own beliefs are about as well supported as those of any other equivalent flat-earther or astrologer. That's not misrepresentation, that's fact. I understand that you probably don't believe in those things, but the reality is that they are just as well supported as your beliefs about evolution.

 

[Huram Abi]

Nevertheless, Apes all have 24 Chromosomes.

1. We know that 6 million or 7 million years ago in the womb of some ape, a new creature in god's reality was born when two chromosomes fused together.

The progeny from the "accident" is the one father of all humans with 23 chromosomes thereafter.

2. That Genesis tells us 22 creatures called sons of sons, begat the final product, Jesus, is no coincident but evidence of divine revelation.

3. Science at this very moment tells us also tha there 22 links now extinct humans in our past:

1. No, we don't know when.

2. No, there were much more begats than that.

3. No. At this very moment science tells us there are at least 26 extinct hominid species.

 

[good brother]

There is evidence for evolution, and no scientific evidence for "creation science" or Intelligent Design. That's all I'm saying.

I don't know about there not being any scientific evidence for creation or Intelligent Design. Let's look at the facts. First, let's look at the testimony:

God is recorded as having made everything: In the beginning, God made the heavens and the Earth.

He confessed to the creation act in Exodus: "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them"

God confessed to making us: "Let Us make man in Our image and in Our likeness..."

That's the confession of the events that transpired, now let's have a look at the physical evidence:

Exhibit A.The whole Earth is here.
Exhibit B. The heavens are here (I saw the moon last night, one of the things He supposedly made)
Exhibit C. You're here.
Exhibit D. I'm here.

After such an exhaustive court case made above, I have come to the conclusion that I will remain putting my full trust in God for everything from creation to salvation. After all, if He could not get it right in matters of telling me how He made everything, then who's to say He got it right on how to have eternal life.

Yes, I will trust my God and my Savior.

In Christ (resting comfortably), GB

 

[albrecht]

I don't know about there not being any scientific evidence for creation or Intelligent Design. Let's look at the facts. First, let's look at the testimony:

God is recorded as having made everything: In the beginning, God made the heavens and the Earth.

He confessed to the creation act in Exodus: "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them"

God confessed to making us: "Let Us make man in Our image and in Our likeness..."

That's the confession of the events that transpired, now let's have a look at the physical evidence:

Exhibit A.The whole Earth is here.
Exhibit B. The heavens are here (I saw the moon last night, one of the things He supposedly made)
Exhibit C. You're here.
Exhibit D. I'm here.

After such an exhaustive court case made above, I have come to the conclusion that I will remain putting my full trust in God for everything from creation to salvation. After all, if He could not get it right in matters of telling me how He made everything, then who's to say He got it right on how to have eternal life.

Yes, I will trust my God and my Savior.

In Christ (resting comfortably), GB

Evolutionary theory has nothing to say on why anything exists. It's not a theory of the beginning of life. It's not a theory of why there's something rather than nothing. Evolutionary theory pertains to the diversity of species.

 

[good brother]

Evolutionary theory has nothing to say on why anything exists.

You are correct there, because according to evolution, there is absolutely no "why" as to why we are here. According to evolution, we are all the accidental by-products of a ginormeous cosmic burp.

It's not a theory of the beginning of life.

Is that why every evolutionary textbook starts with something along the lines of..." Some many billions of years ago all there is was compressed into the area the size of a period on this page. When the energy built up enough..BANG! and everything we see came about..."?

It's not a theory of why there's something rather than nothing.

I thought evolutionary theory was a natural attempt to explain how everything got here natural.

Evolutionary theory pertains to the diversity of species.

I have a theory on that too, it's called Genesis.

In Christ, GB