Evolution v Creationism

[LittleGrizzly]

Thanks for that sasaki... so much easier than opening the spoiler....

Can someone define what creationism we are actually comparing evolution to ?

No one seems to be arguing for 6-day creationism, If we are just talking evolution with a creator at the start i don't really see the need for a different name... we don't have gravity and godity, godity being the effects of gravity but put in place by god...

[Sigurd]

Thanks for that sasaki... so much easier than opening the spoiler....
Can someone define what creationism we are actually comparing evolution to ?

There is creationism and then there is Creationism. I believe we are discussing Creationism which is the fundamentalists with a political agenda and has invented Creation-science. They are pushing it into school boards and courts trying to get their religious views into textbooks and teaching materials, even into science classes.
Their literal interpretation of the Bible is used as basis for their weird ideas, dismissals of scientific discoveries and instead appeal to "magic" as answers.
They should not be confused with creationists which are normal people of faith that do not know how God created the world, but believe He was the cause of all.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Bleh, embarassing mistake. I've been reading a site on ancient Greek which started with John 1:1 and that got me confused with the God created the Heavens and the earth bit, its a while since I read Genesis, I've only been through the OT fully once.

Point still stands though, God's laws don't change.

[Tribesman]

Point still stands though, God's laws don't change.

Srry Rhyf , but you are having real problems getting any of your points to stand at all ...oh and gods laws do change , read your bible

[Askthepizzaguy]

If God's laws don't change, we are SERIOUSLY behind on all those animal and plant offerings and sacrifices.

ATPG, the Bible story doesn't go that we are all descended from Adam and Eve directly. Other people come out of nowhere, so the only answer from a Christian point of view is that God created them seperately. Not to mention the Bible is against incest so they would hardly make the human race through incest plus that's disgusting anway.

Ummm.... That's so DEAD WRONG. It says, explicitly, in the Bible that Eve was the mother of ALL MANKIND. That means everyone in existence (except Adam, supposedly) came from her womb or her children.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...was-cains-wife

In Genesis 3:20 we read, “And Adam called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living.” In other words, all people other than Adam are descendants of Eve—she was the first woman.

Eve was made from Adam’s side (Genesis 2:21–24)—this was a unique event. In the New Testament, Jesus (Matthew 19:4-6) and Paul (Ephesians 5:31) use this historical and onetime event as the foundation for the marriage of one man and one woman.

Also, in Genesis 2:20, we are told that when Adam looked at the animals, he couldn’t find a mate—there was no one of his kind.

All this makes it obvious that there was only one woman, Adam’s wife, from the beginning. There could not have been a “race” of women.

Thus, if Christians cannot defend that all humans, including Cain’s wife, can trace their ancestry ultimately to Adam and Eve, then how can they understand and explain the gospel? How can they justify sending missionaries to every tribe and nation? Therefore, one needs to be able to explain Cain’s wife, to illustrate that Christians can defend the gospel and all that it teaches.

All human beings came from this supposed "Eve", according to the Bible itself and your Christian scholars and "scientists".

You continue to espouse your personal, contradictory views as if they are the only accepted explanation of the Bible, often times directly opposing what is actually written in the scripture. You are free to do this, my faithful friend, but you cannot actually say that you're literally following the word of the Bible, and if so, then WHY must you continually harp on what amounts to a couple lines out of thousands and thousands regarding the gays, for example? If the Bible isn't literal and it's open to such wild misinterpretations (interpretations regarded as false by the religious authorities) then who are YOU to be the authority on what the Bible says? If it's open to interpretation, I'm just as much of a Biblical authority as you are, and one of the bonuses in my favor is that I seem to understand what the Bible actually says, no offense.

One cannot truly criticize religion without studying it in great detail. I understand you feel you must defend your faith, but you simply haven't ever done so convincingly. Your interpretations about hell, for example, are quite unique and aren't found in the Bible. Your interpretation on the lineage of mankind is directly refuted by Biblical passages.

Should I get you the white-out? Apparently you want to make numerous changes and call it what the Bible says. That makes you no different from most Christian denominations though, so join the hypocrisy club. Especially when it's written in the Bible that those who alter the word of God are in some pretty deep doo-doo.



Believe what you want; but all your arguments to date indicate that basically, you do believe whatever you want, regardless of what the Bible says. So... why bother quoting it? It's not even an authority in your own mind. It certainly isn't in mine, unless you're discussing what it says, in which case I have the Bible handy and we can debate what it actually says all day long.

It's much like your interpretation of the English language. In prior debates, you would come up with definitions of words entirely the opposite and contradictory from the actual definitions found in a dictionary.

There can be no debate until we agree on what is actually written in the books we use as authoritative references on the subjects we discuss, and in the language we discuss them in. Since you refuse to do so, you've conceded the argument by default.

[Kadagar_AV]

Rhy, you scare me in a way.

I mean, anyone can be wrong from time to time, happens to me often enough. No, what scares me is that you have no idea what battle to fight, wich debate is winable. And you have no idea how to win it, or, as it seems, even an interest to learn anything from it.

I have yet to see you change your mind about anything religious even the slightest even after a mountain of proof has swept over you.



What would it take for you to aknowledge that creationism is just utterly wrong? Would god have to come down, smack you on the head saying "Doh!"

Seriosly, given ALL the scientifical research there is on teh subject, what would make you accept you are wrong? Would anything?

[Incongruous]

Bleh, embarassing mistake. I've been reading a site on ancient Greek which started with John 1:1 and that got me confused with the God created the Heavens and the earth bit, its a while since I read Genesis, I've only been through the OT fully once.

Point still stands though, God's laws don't change.

What?!?

Are you a Christian? What on earth do you think Jesus' ministry was about? Good god! The Christ clearly discarded nearly every facet of the OT, all that crap from Deut and Numbers, all that stuff Moses said, thrown away.

I often wonder why the heck the OT is even part of Christian scripture, as far as I'm concerned it is a different God, the Lord God of Christ was in no way the same as the thing which demanded that no covenant be made with an enemy, that the "chosen" destroy utterly all whom stand in their way, men, women and children.

What are you? A Puritan?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

What?!?

Are you a Christian? What on earth do you think Jesus' ministry was about? Good god! The Christ clearly discarded nearly every facet of the OT, all that crap from Deut and Numbers, all that stuff Moses said, thrown away.

I often wonder why the heck the OT is even part of Christian scripture, as far as I'm concerned it is a different God, the Lord God of Christ was in no way the same as the thing which demanded that no covenant be made with an enemy, that the "chosen" destroy utterly all whom stand in their way, men, women and children.

What are you? A Puritan?

Worse a Puritan Calvinist, so his God only loves some people, or loves some more than others.

[Incongruous]

Worse a Puritan Calvinist, so his God only loves some people, or loves some more than others.

I'm fuzzy on Heretical teachings (), but what?

How is this even justified by the ministry of Jesus? Where on earth did Jesus procalim that?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'm fuzzy on Heretical teachings (), but what?

How is this even justified by the ministry of Jesus? Where on earth did Jesus procalim that?

Calvin decided that since God was all powerful then EVERYTHING must be according to his direct will. Ergo, evil acts must be something God ordained as part of his Divine Plan.

Further, God decides who he wants to save and inflicts upon them his "Special Grace" which compels them to love him, as opposed to "Common Grace" which is what everyone else gets, does not allow them to love God, condemns them to Hell, but makes their Earthly life bearable.

Such is Calvinism.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Evolution, the Bible, homosexuality, history. Your views reflect a lack both of knowledge and of experience.

Maybe I shouldn't be so harsh on someone who valiantly (and without any ad hominems!) defends his views against so many detractors in various threads. Kudos to you for that sang froid.

But I also remember an exchange we had last year, when you told us that your family dissuaded you from reading the Bible and that you had therefore never really bothered to look at it. I impressed on you that you had a right to read anything you wanted and to pursue your own interest and curiosity. I even pointed out to you various angles from which to study the Bible.

It's not so much that they dissauded me, more it would have been embarassing, yeah I know I need some backbone.

I didn't come here to argue about creationalism, for now I'll just hold my hands up and say I'm not sure, if you re-read the first post you can see I'm not taking an argumentative tone. The only time I ever presented any sort of argument on the matter was when I asked (not stated) if it is possible that DNA similarties equated to common descent, something Sigurd also asked in more detail.

I started arguing more when things got off topic and people started telling me I don't know the Bible. I dind't read the whole thing and works of lots of other theologians to get told that. In fact, things like ATPG has said that I have made up are not actually my ideas. Take for example the non-eternal hell issue. I didn't come up with that, the Jehovas Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists did - two of the scrictest fundamentalist sects of there (with the former of course adding a word here or there).

Call me a sentimental old cynic, but I supposed that it would make you a wiser man. It is disappointing to see that only a year later you censure other peoples' lifestyles and views in the most scathing terms in the name of the Bible and 'nature', though based on scant knowledge of either. Have your curiosity and will to learn suddenly evaporated? Has one year of reading Scripture entitled you to pass judgment on science, parenting and other peoples' emotional or sexual life alike?

Did it teach you false pride instead of modesty?

Who's views did I censure? If I wasn't trying to learn I wouldn't have made a thread asking for other people to present their views. And on the original topic of evolution, I didnt' even argue against it, I just questioned if it could fit with the Bible! As for the thread on homosexuality... that is something I have always believed, that children should be raised by heterosexual parents. I'm not judging them, I'm not doing a Fred Phelps, I'm just saying that I don't think that such an environment would be good for a child. That's just what I think, a gut feeling, do I have to be an expert on stuff just to give an opinion?

What?!?

Are you a Christian? What on earth do you think Jesus' ministry was about? Good god! The Christ clearly discarded nearly every facet of the OT, all that crap from Deut and Numbers, all that stuff Moses said, thrown away.

I often wonder why the heck the OT is even part of Christian scripture, as far as I'm concerned it is a different God, the Lord God of Christ was in no way the same as the thing which demanded that no covenant be made with an enemy, that the "chosen" destroy utterly all whom stand in their way, men, women and children.

What are you? A Puritan?

I'm a puritan with a small 'p'. Please don't go down that road of calling all non-Catholics/non-close-to-Catholics as non-Christian, its not very nice and I could do the same to Catholic views but it's not what this thread is for.

Worse a Puritan Calvinist, so his God only loves some people, or loves some more than others.

Is there any other kind of Puritan (if we're using capital P's)?

[Adrian II]

[..] do I have to be an expert on stuff just to give an opinion?

That depends on the arguments you use. If you appeal to nature, the Bible or history in support of your opinion, you better make darn sure you cover those bases.

I remember I was totally delighted the first time my oldest son started talking to me. I mean talking as in: making sense of an issue by using his own brains, his own imagination, instead of preconceived notions handed to him by adults, including me.

I asked him what made Odysseus a hero, expecting the standerd kiddy answer that Odysseus was a winner. Instead, my son said: 'Because he was smart.' So I asked him what made Odysseus smart, expecting something along the line of: because he out-smarted his adversaries. Instead, my son said; 'Because he knew his own limits.'

Boink!

In his eleventh year of life, my son hit the fount of all wisdom. Just like that, between two bites of a sandwich. And thanks to a children's version of Homer, of course. It made him discover something about himself. That's what the good books are for, if they serve any useful purpose at all. Same goes for nature or history: in the end they are sources of self-knowledge for us, not of (natural) history or jurisprudence.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It's not so much that they dissauded me, more it would have been embarassing, yeah I know I need some backbone.

I didn't come here to argue about creationalism, for now I'll just hold my hands up and say I'm not sure, if you re-read the first post you can see I'm not taking an argumentative tone. The only time I ever presented any sort of argument on the matter was when I asked (not stated) if it is possible that DNA similarties equated to common descent, something Sigurd also asked in more detail.

I started arguing more when things got off topic and people started telling me I don't know the Bible. I dind't read the whole thing and works of lots of other theologians to get told that. In fact, things like ATPG has said that I have made up are not actually my ideas. Take for example the non-eternal hell issue. I didn't come up with that, the Jehovas Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists did - two of the scrictest fundamentalist sects of there (with the former of course adding a word here or there).

You don't interpret though, you just absorb. I've said this to you before, if you aren't willing to make your own judgements just don't ever touch theology, don't read the Bible, don't ever think about it. As to reading Theology, JW SDA are not reputable. Read Augustine, Boethius, Aquinus, Wesley, Hooker, Crammer, Wyclif, Luthor, and for some modern flavour try the last and current Popes, Rowan Willians and Alistair McGrath for starters.

Who's views did I censure? If I wasn't trying to learn I wouldn't have made a thread asking for other people to present their views. And on the original topic of evolution, I didnt' even argue against it, I just questioned if it could fit with the Bible! As for the thread on homosexuality... that is something I have always believed, that children should be raised by heterosexual parents. I'm not judging them, I'm not doing a Fred Phelps, I'm just saying that I don't think that such an environment would be good for a child. That's just what I think, a gut feeling, do I have to be an expert on stuff just to give an opinion?

It's your tone, not your content.

I'm a puritan with a small 'p'. Please don't go down that road of calling all non-Catholics/non-close-to-Catholics as non-Christian, its not very nice and I could do the same to Catholic views but it's not what this thread is for.



Is there any other kind of Puritan (if we're using capital P's)?

You look like a Puritan, not a puritan (what ywould hthat be anyway). As to the link with Calvinism, that is what the rest of Christianity finds disturbing, not your mode of worship.

[Tribesman]

3. People come of out nowhere in Genesis, why would they not be mentioned in Adam's bloodline if they are a part of it?

OMG I don't believe it

I don't think I'm making the Bible contradict itself.

Thats true , the bible contradicts itself without any input from you. What you are doing though is inventing stuff and saying its in the bible