Theistic evolution

  • Thread starter Thread starter 6glargento
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
"Atheism is science’s natural ally. Atheism is the philosophy, both moral and ethical, most perfectly suited for a scientific civilization. If we work for the American Atheists today, Atheism will be ready to fill the void of Christianity’s demise when science and evolution triumph. Without a doubt humans and civilization are in sore need of the intellectual cleanness and mental health of atheism.”

“Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god. Take away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing!”

Bozarth, G. Richard, “The Meaning of Evolution,” American Atheist (February 1978), page 30.
 
pedja said:
"Atheism is science’s natural ally. Atheism is the philosophy, both moral and ethical, most perfectly suited for a scientific civilization. If we work for the American Atheists today, Atheism will be ready to fill the void of Christianity’s demise when science and evolution triumph. Without a doubt humans and civilization are in sore need of the intellectual cleanness and mental health of atheism.”

“Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god. Take away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing!”

Bozarth, G. Richard, “The Meaning of Evolution,” American Atheist (February 1978), page 30.
Click to expand...
See? Imagine how much power you could take away from these people if you discontinue the policy of dichotomizing the debate into evolution/atheism vs. fundamentalism/Christianity
 
faelpsanfeel said:
See? Imagine how much power you could take away from these people if you discontinue the policy of dichotomizing the debate into evolution/atheism vs. fundamentalism/Christianity
Click to expand...
Richard Dawkins, the poster-boy of neo-Darwinism says that religion is so dangerous that parents who are religious should have their kids taken from them - because instilling religion into them is abuse
 
faelpsanfeel said:
See? Imagine how much power you could take away from these people if you discontinue the policy of dichotomizing the debate into evolution/atheism vs. fundamentalism/Christianity
Click to expand...
Bozarth is absolutely right with what he`s saying. This is exactly why Christians should back off the evolutionary theory completely and proclaim the truth of the Bible from cover to cover (because the evolution-theory is unscientific and because the Bible teaches differently).
 
Montalban said:
Yes it is. He’s subsequently answered, but only that it was in a ‘bible commentary’. I don’t know which bible edition, nor who’s the commentator.
Click to expand...
Oops, sorry. I suppose I could give you the same sort of “answer” you gave me:

Which Bible edition?

Answer: Some editions.

Which commentator?

Answer: Some commentators.😛

ONCE MORE INTO THE BREACH: Could anyone out there give me a straight answer to this question: True science would, I suppose, be accessible both to Christians and to non-Christians. Can anyone tell me the name of a NON-CHRISTIAN scientist who thinks the world, universe, or human race is only about 6,000 years old? (The reason I specify non-Christian is not because Christian scientists are unreliable. The reason is that the Christian scientists Montalban and Pedja would quote from would be people who started off with the presupposition that the universe is 6,000 years old and then tried to find “evidence.” THOSE scientists would be unreliable.)

Of course, since the 6,000-year-old Earth is the only “true” view, it should be easy to list dozens or hundreds of non-Christian scientists who accept it. Names, anyone?
 
Montalban said:
Richard Dawkins, the poster-boy of neo-Darwinism says that religion is so dangerous that parents who are religious should have their kids taken from them - because instilling religion into them is abuse
Click to expand...
Excellent review of “The God Delusion” by Terry Eagleton:

“Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology. Card-carrying rationalists like Dawkins, who is the nearest thing to a professional atheist we have had since Bertrand Russell, are in one sense the least well-equipped to understand what they castigate, since they don’t believe there is anything there to be understood, or at least anything worth understanding. This is why they invariably come up with vulgar caricatures of religious faith that would make a first-year theology student wince. The more they detest religion, the more ill-informed their criticisms of it tend to be. If they were asked to pass judgment on phenomenology or the geopolitics of South Asia, they would no doubt bone up on the question as assiduously as they could. When it comes to theology, however, any shoddy old travesty will pass muster. These days, theology is the queen of the sciences in a rather less august sense of the word than in its medieval heyday.”

FULL TEXT on:

lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/eagl01_.html

Dawkings is a clown.
 
cpayne said:
Oops, sorry. I suppose I could give you the same sort of “answer” you gave me:
Click to expand...
Except your ‘proof’ was regarding a specific reference. Ooops indeed!
cpayne said:
ONCE MORE INTO THE BREACH: Could anyone out there give me a straight answer to this question: True science would, I suppose, be accessible both to Christians and to non-Christians. Can anyone tell me the name of a NON-CHRISTIAN scientist who thinks the world, universe, or human race is only about 6,000 years old?
Click to expand...
This is a different question. Before you basically asked “Could there be evidence of this”
And, yes, there could.

Now you disregard scientists just because they’re Christian.

IF not for this you should check out answersingenesis.org that offers lots of scientists saying such things
cpayne said:
Of course, since the 6,000-year-old Earth is the only “true” view, it should be easy to list dozens or hundreds of non-Christian scientists who accept it. Names, anyone?
Click to expand...
And ‘of course your view is the only “true” view’. An appeal to incredulity doesn’t help your case
 
cpayne said:
(The reason I specify non-Christian is not because Christian scientists are unreliable. The reason is that the Christian scientists Montalban and Pedja would quote from would be people who started off with the presupposition that the universe is 6,000 years old and then tried to find “evidence.” THOSE scientists would be unreliable.)

Of course, since the 6,000-year-old Earth is the only “true” view, it should be easy to list dozens or hundreds of non-Christian scientists who accept it. Names, anyone?
Click to expand...
Montalban’s paraphrase of this statement: “Now you disregard scientists just because they’re Christian.”

Anyone who is (still!) reading in this thread should recognize the intellectual dishonesty.

Also: “You should check out answersingenesis.org where there are lots of scientists saying such things.”

Yes, I’m very familiar with Ken Ham and this website. All of these scientists are Christians who are trying to “prove” the 6,000-year age of the Earth. By now they should have proven it, shouldn’t they? So my original question still stands: A non-Christian scientist who accepts their conclusions? Just one name?

This is my last post on this thread. Thanks to all who honestly tried.
 
cpayne said:
Montalban’s paraphrase of this statement: “Now you disregard scientists just because they’re Christian.”

Anyone who is (still!) reading in this thread should recognize the intellectual dishonesty.
Click to expand...
The dishonesty is you shifting the goal posts because of your own poorly worded six questions. I answered these, and you assumed your poorly worded answer to my question is therefore on par. I asked for specifics about which Bible commentators, and you’ve yet to give a detailed answer.

I too, am familiar with Mr. Han. I’ve already stated that I don’t believe in a ‘literal’ creation as he does, but you’re not interested in that.

Bye! 👋 have fun on other threads
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top