Genesis v Evolution

  • Thread starter Thread starter edwest2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yeah, linguistic ambiguity is a hassle. Words like ‘proof’ and ‘theory’ get misconstrued so badly, ack. Proof is for mathematics and liquor, not empirical science. And theory is not ‘untrue’…it simply means ‘this isn’t math or booze – but this is what we have so far on the topic’. As in it isn’t necessarily the entire picture, just ‘this is what we have observed and it holds up really well.’ Not necessarily ‘true’, but it’s what we can demonstrate and act upon.

I don’t have ‘faith’ in evolution. I don’t have to…it’s more like saying ‘If I set my hair on fire, it will hurt or at least I’ll be bald.’ I can demonstrate that (although I’d rather not).
 
steveandersen said:
Well yes He made reference to it but that doesn’t prove that it actually happened.
It could be He was talking in terms his audience could understand using scriptural references that He could expect everyone to have read or heard.

Just as if I said that a certain task made me feel like Sisyphus pushing his rock up the hill or Atlas holding up the heavens doesn’t mean that I believe in the Greek gods or the events that resulted in those punishments.
Click to expand...
I believe He meant it Literally. Speaking very generally, I cannot accept the word of anyone on the internet as authoritative about the Scripture. It’s sort of like saying: "OK, God actually did this, but not this. Or, Christ said this particular thing and described an actual event or place but this time, He didn’t, as opposed to, whenever Christ spoke, He spoke the truth.

I believe, as God, He spoke the truth and clearly described parables and interpreted other things He said for the benefit of His disciples and us Christians.

God bless,
Ed
 
Jesus did make reference to the Flood, but I don’t remember Him speaking of it as global or world-wide. Is that right?
 
“Well yes He made reference to it but that doesn’t prove that it actually happened.
It could be He was talking in terms his audience could understand using scriptural references that He could expect everyone to have read or heard.”

Sort of like the Gospels’ reference to the Resurrection. Science tells us that the Resurrection is impossible. Obviously, scriptual referrence to the Resurrection must also be a myth.

Don’t we sound Protestant, the way we interpret the Bible to validate our own ideas?
 
I don’t have ‘faith’ in evolution. I don’t have to…it’s more like saying ‘If I set my hair on fire, it will hurt or at least I’ll be bald.’ I can demonstrate that (although I’d rather not).

You say that you don’t need to have faith in evolution. Then why do you believe it? If it were self evident, we would all believe it. If it were actually true, there wouldn’t be so many theories, and new theories would not constantly being presented and revised.

In truth, evolutionists don’t know what they believe. Evolution is a belief system. As true science indicates that one evolutionary “fact” is false, evolutionists revise their dogma. That’s why evolution is NOT science, at least, not what I consider science to be.

Theories that change with the wind are important to some people, just as reading their horoscope in the paper. I only deal in facts, not theories. I can invent theories too. I don’t think that I could be as creative as Charles Darwin, though. That’s a real stretch!
 
Sigh…again, you are misusing the word ‘theory.’

And evolution is not a belief system. It’s a testable, falsifiable construct. It works. It can be demonstrated, but yes, it does take some academic understanding to communicate.

‘Evolutionists’ (whatever that term means) don’t believe in evolution at all! That’s not what it’s for! It does involve a lot of study, and yes, shorthand terms get used…but it is NOT a ‘belief system,’ any more than is ‘Fire = hot!!’

Empirical inquiry certainly changes fast – the faster the better as evidence comes in! But, evolution is indeed how things work. We know this as surely as we know that the sun will rise tomorrow. See what I did there? Yes, the sun does not ‘rise’…the earth TURNS.
 
abu_kamoon said:
You say that you don’t need to have faith in evolution. Then why do you believe it? If it were self evident, we would all believe it.
Click to expand...
(a) I don’t “believe” in evolution; I accept evolution.
(b) Self-evident?? Then why is there a Flat Earth Society?:whacky:
If it were actually true, there wouldn’t be so many theories, and new theories would not constantly being presented and revised.
Click to expand...
We are not omniscient (an attribute of God).Without perfect knowledge of the truth, we are left to formulate approximations based on our best available understanding of the data at hand. New data can and does lead to regular (and sometimes irregular) revision of our understanding of ideas. This is a normal and expected part of science.
In truth, evolutionists don’t know what they believe. Evolution is a belief system.
Click to expand...
Huh???:whacky: :bounce: :whacky:
As true science indicates that one evolutionary “fact” is false, evolutionists revise their dogma. That’s why evolution is NOT science, at least, not what I consider science to be.
Click to expand...
Dude, new facts can lead to revision of concepts and theories. If you think this is not a normal part of science, then you do not know what science is.
 
Personally, since this subject does not have anything to do with salvation. only with devotion… this discussion should be dropped.

When/If we get to heaven (the heaven where God resides), then we can simply ask Him how it happened. Whatever He tells us will be the truth, because God is truth and cannot possibly lie or deceive.
 
Okay okay…but it still moves. 😛

You can believe whatever you like, and monkeys might just fly out of my ears too! But if you want to learn further, don’t be worried about your Faith. The pope says it’s a-okay.

We do mean well, you know, Oro, rossum, cheddarsox - so many here --theist and nontheist, working together. Why do we do it? Well (shy ground kicking), because we love you and love learning. Let us show you around some, without presuppositions or fears.
 
“When/If we get to heaven (the heaven where God resides), then we can simply ask Him how it happened. Whatever He tells us will be the truth, because God is truth and cannot possibly lie or deceive.”

He already told us. Read Genesis. As you say, what He tells us (or told us) is the truth. God is truth and cannot possibly lie or deceive. It is humans in their pride and arrogance who are unreliable.
 
edwest2 said:
I believe He meant it Literally. Speaking very generally, I cannot accept the word of anyone on the internet as authoritative about the Scripture. It’s sort of like saying: "OK, God actually did this, but not this. Or, Christ said this particular thing and described an actual event or place but this time, He didn’t, as opposed to, whenever Christ spoke, He spoke the truth.

I believe, as God, He spoke the truth and clearly described parables and interpreted other things He said for the benefit of His disciples and us Christians.

God bless,
Ed
Click to expand...
Yes when Christ spoke He always spoke the Truth for our benefit

But he clearly often used metaphor and analogy
Or do you hold that the parables are literally true and that there really was once a man who had 3 servants etc?

Would it matter to your faith one iota if there were or weren’t?

To me it is the same with evolution; a vast complex process spanning unimaginable eons that to the Creator was as simple as molding clay.

Despite your protests to the contrary it heightens my faith does not detract from it.

Your mileage may vary and that is your right.
But please don’t tell fellow Christians (or worse yet unbelievers) that it is your way or nothing. I don’t think that is good apologetics.
:twocents:
 
abu_kamoon said:
“Well yes He made reference to it but that doesn’t prove that it actually happened.
It could be He was talking in terms his audience could understand using scriptural references that He could expect everyone to have read or heard.”

Sort of like the Gospels’ reference to the Resurrection. Science tells us that the Resurrection is impossible. Obviously, scriptual referrence to the Resurrection must also be a myth.
Click to expand...
No. My analogy was that He was making a reference to a story that everyone already knew and understood.
When the Apostles proclaimed the Resurrection they were preaching something quite new.

Resurection might have been kinda like emerging after 40 days on an Ark or 40 years in the desert or the lions’ den or the belly of the whale…… but not quite.
abu_kamoon said:
Don’t we sound Protestant, the way we interpret the Bible to validate our own ideas?
Click to expand...
Well… since the Vatican has said that science can teach us many useful things about the natural world and that there is no conflict between certain scientific theories and the faith then… NO
Not Protestant in the least.

IIRC it is the Protestants that lead the charge on literal interpretations of Genesis and YEC. (that is if “leading the charge” is an apt analogy for “digging in their heels”)

We’re Catholics. We’re the people who gave the world the Renaissance after all. We know there can be no conflict between faith and reason.
 
40.png
steveandersen:
We’re the people who gave the world the Renaissance after all. We know there can be no conflict between faith and reason.
Click to expand...
That dog won’t hunt and you know it. The Renaissance was hard-won, Church or no Church, not given by anyone to anyone, though we all reap the results now - Church or no Church. And you know there is no conflict between faith and reason? No kidding?

Mm, okay, let’s not go there…another thread, another time.
 
Nepenthe said:
That dog won’t hunt and you know it. The Renaissance was hard-won, Church or no Church, not given by anyone to anyone, though we all reap the results now - Church or no Church.
Click to expand...
It hunts quite well actually
It was a product of the culture it came from

Other areas of the globe were as advanced if not more so than Christian Europe but IMHO the philosophies of Christianity allowed the Renaissance to happen

It didn’t happen in a vacuum after all, the intellectual table had to be set first
Nepenthe said:
And you know there is no conflict between faith and reason? No kidding?

Mm, okay, let’s not go there…another thread, another time.
Click to expand...
cpayne already beat me to it, Fides et Ratio
 
The ‘intellectual table’ got set by the rise of the mercantile class, and the Spanish Jewish and Muslim scholars, at least in terms of kicking off the Renaissance.

I am aware of the documents cpayne has provided, and have read On the Unity and The Idea of the University in toto, though admittedly long ago.

I do not discount the RCC’s role in this flowering - far from it! I praise and admire the brilliance and sheer labor that kept that candle lit through the long centuries, and the willingness and innovation that sparked and shone. But surely the wakening did not occur in a vacuum.
 
The Renaissance was already happening before what we call the Renaissance happened. In late medieval Christianity, the 1200s saw Chartres Cathedral, Aquinas, the birth of Dante, just to name three—but then bam, bam, bam. The Black Death arrived in the mid-1300s; the 100-Years War was fought entirely in France; the second Great Schism occurred within the CC. If not for these drastic interruptions, which delayed development in Europe for a good while, the Renaissance would be seen today as primarily a religious phenomenon, rather than as the “secularist” phenomenon portrayed in many histories.

Should I mention that this is my opinion? But I do think it’s right. Just looking it up on amazon.com, I counted over ten books with the words “The Twelfth-Century Renaissance” in the title.
 
Oops, I just noticed the title of the thread again. Talk about de-railing a discussion! My apologies.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top