Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)
Comments
-
Lovethinking wrote: »Nobody seems to be interested in defining and discussing the actual conflicts between the NT and the theory of evolution....
The general concensus so far seems to be... "Evolution is fact", so if the NT contradicts it then the NT is wrong.
How do ye reconcile that with being christian? where did you learn about Christ?
Can we choose to believe in some of the things the NT says and then assume it's wrong if it contradicts something else that we believe... ? I think that might lead down a futile path.
Is there someone out there who wants to debate the conflicts... ?
While your opinions are welcome, I would much prefer a discussion based upon evidence and reason.
cheers
What makes you think the position that evolution is a fact is not based on evidence and reason? I think most of the Christians here are of the opinion that when a story in the bible is flatly contradicted by our observations of the world, then that suggests that the story is intended as an allegory of some sort, perhaps intended to explain events of a scientific or spiritual nature that would have defied simple literal explanation at the times the OT and NT were written.0 -
Lovethinking wrote: »Nobody seems to be interested in defining and discussing the actual conflicts between the NT and the theory of evolution....
The general concensus so far seems to be... "Evolution is fact", so if the NT contradicts it then the NT is wrong.
How do ye reconcile that with being christian? where did you learn about Christ?
Can we choose to believe in some of the things the NT says and then assume it's wrong if it contradicts something else that we believe... ? I think that might lead down a futile path.
Is there someone out there who wants to debate the conflicts... ?
While your opinions are welcome, I would much prefer a discussion based upon evidence and reason.
cheers
There is no conflict between Christianity and evolution.
Darwin asked the question "Why is there so much diversity of the species?". He answered, "evolution!".
The new testament asks "How is the issue of our impending death overcome? It answers "through Christ!".0 -
Yes, one can believe in both, as one can believe in God and that the negroes are not human and came from the moon (I knew a man who claimed to believe in both). But your question really asks if one can validly believe in both. The answer is NO.Lovethinking wrote: »Are these two beliefs mutually exclusive?
The Biblical account cannot be reconciled with evolution for several reasons, hermeneutical and theological. A major one is the necessity of suffering and death for evolution to occur, opposed to God's description of His finished creation as 'very good'. Another is how the account of our history and origin is presented; it is in historical narrative form, not metaphoric or poetic.
If that is not enough to make one think, then we have the use of the creation account by the Lord Jesus and the apostles as historical examples/standards for our behaviour.0 -
The Biblical account cannot be reconciled with evolution for several reasons, hermeneutical and theological. A major one is the necessity of suffering and death for evolution to occur, opposed to God's description of His finished creation as 'very good'. Another is how the account of our history and origin is presented; it is in historical narrative form, not metaphoric or poetic.
Firstly, your viewpoint is quite provocative; I'd never come across good arguments for creationism before.
You mention God's finished creation. I believe in a God outside of time. While we attribute a direction to our days based on the spinning of this planet or its orbit around the sun, God can see the whole universe as a completed object.
Just as our knowledge of God and His ways evolves/progresses/grows over time, so also does our knowledge of His natural world. However we cannot see the complete canvas, being part of it.
We say an argument is good or that reasoning is good if it leads to truth. As a good argument makes its way into our knowledge, it is mauled by our intellects until it stands polished and perfect. Think of embryonic arguments that are true but poorly formulated. There is an underlying beauty there but it takes time to reveal itself. With the creation of human life, can God not see the final product, the limit of this evolving process? And can He not call this 'very good'?
As for suffering and death... I'll pass the buck and say it's a mystery, but even Christ suffered and died.0 -
Evolution doesn't "require" suffering, it just requires that inheritable differences between reproducing things will alter their reproductive success. So the frequencies of their inheritable traits in the general pool of reproducing things will change relative to their reproductive success.
Death is only a necessity of evolution in an environment with limited resources. In that circumstance, an organism comes increasingly into competition for resources with its own progeny if it does not die. Death is also an outcome of failure to adapt, if evolution is occurring in an environment with lethal hazards (including but not restricted to limitations in resources). But generally, evolution itself does not require death, as changes in trait frequencies can still occur without it.0 -
Advertisement
-
Lovethinking wrote: »Are these two beliefs mutually exclusive?
No. Most people believe in God and evolution.your average atheist actually understands evolution and knows it has nothing to do with how the universe/world was created et al so they believe nothing of the sort.
I don't think that atheism confers a better understanding of evolution. I found a lot of humanist atheists who seem to view evolution as something that we can command. That is, if we all got together then we could "evolve enlightenment" for the moral improvement of the species, etc...
It's just a desire to materialise their teleology.0 -
AtomicHorror wrote: »Death is only a necessity of evolution in an environment with limited resources.
And, as Malthus and Darwin realised, limiting environments are what we see in the world, so competition and conflict over the resources for survival arise unavoidably. Death, then, becomes the great driver of evolution - often with attendant suffering. Partly for this reason, Wolfsbane sees creation through evolution as incompatible with his Christian faith:The Biblical account cannot be reconciled with evolution for several reasons, hermeneutical and theological. A major one is the necessity of suffering and death for evolution to occur, opposed to God's description of His finished creation as 'very good'.
I've never heard a Christian counter-argument. Is there one?0 -
darjeeling wrote: »I've never heard a Christian counter-argument. Is there one?
Yes. Animals and plants living and dying is part and parcel of life. A forest depends on organisms dying etc. and there is nothing in that which is not good. I don't see that the death of a tree, a wasp, or a chimpanzee is necessarily bad at all. Circle of life etc.
We see death as an evil because, as beings created to be eternal, we hate the thought of being snuffed out.
Think of a polar bear trying to catch a seal. If the polar bear is successful then the seal will die. If the seal is successful then the polar bear may die of starvation. We only conceive of this as evil because we project our feelings about death onto animals. I don't think the death of the seal or the polar bear has any moral, or immoral, value.0 -
The Discovery Institute rehash the usual. Fox News gives them a nice, unchallenged platform.
New Scientist really dropped the ball with that "Darwin Was Wrong" cover. We'll be hearing about that one for years to come.0 -
Yes. Animals and plants living and dying is part and parcel of life. A forest depends on organisms dying etc. and there is nothing in that which is not good. I don't see that the death of a tree, a wasp, or a chimpanzee is necessarily bad at all. Circle of life etc.
We see death as an evil because, as beings created to be eternal, we hate the thought of being snuffed out.
Think of a polar bear trying to catch a seal. If the polar bear is successful then the seal will die. If the seal is successful then the polar bear may die of starvation. We only conceive of this as evil because we project our feelings about death onto animals. I don't think the death of the seal or the polar bear has any moral, or immoral, value.
So would you agree with Wolfsbane's contention that the requirement for death in evolution (if it is a requirement) is some sort of argument against it?0 -
Advertisement
-
AtomicHorror wrote: »The Discovery Institute rehash the usual. Fox News gives them a nice, unchallenged platform.
New Scientist really dropped the ball with that "Darwin Was Wrong" cover. We'll be hearing about that one for years to come.
They've both got microphones - why are they shouting at each other?0 -
AtomicHorror wrote: »Since evolution doesn't deal with the origin of life, just the emergence of variety in life, it doesn't directly conflict with the beliefs of most mainstream Christian churches.
So god made monkeys, then a while later made humans?0 -
AtomicHorror wrote: »So would you agree with Wolfsbane's contention that the requirement for death in evolution (if it is a requirement) is some sort of argument against it?
No, not at all. I see neither plant death nor animal death as evil.0 -
Yes. Animals and plants living and dying is part and parcel of life. A forest depends on organisms dying etc. and there is nothing in that which is not good. I don't see that the death of a tree, a wasp, or a chimpanzee is necessarily bad at all. Circle of life etc.
We see death as an evil because, as beings created to be eternal, we hate the thought of being snuffed out.
Think of a polar bear trying to catch a seal. If the polar bear is successful then the seal will die. If the seal is successful then the polar bear may die of starvation. We only conceive of this as evil because we project our feelings about death onto animals. I don't think the death of the seal or the polar bear has any moral, or immoral, value.
OK. Aside from the fragment I've coloured blue, there's nothing uniquely Christian in this - I could say pretty much the same myself. I wonder if the creationists will be convinced.
One thing I would say is that the clean-cut distinction you make between animals and humans doesn't apply as far as evolution is concerned. Red-in-tooth-and-claw natural selection was operating on our ancestors too, shaping who we are today.
There's also my earlier comments on evolution working to ensure its creatures are bent on serving the interests of their genes. In trying to show the sort of unqualified altruism and compassion that seem to me (perhaps naively) to be the Christian ideal, we still struggle with our evolutionary legacy. You could almost see it as sinfulness being foisted on us as part of the evolutionary process.0 -
postcynical said:
Thank you. But you will find many other believers who have articulated the theological and hermeneutic arguments on the creationist sites.Firstly, your viewpoint is quite provocative; I'd never come across good arguments for creationism before.
Yes, but His 'very good' appraisal comment related to the completion on Day 6, not on how it will all work out in the end:You mention God's finished creation. I believe in a God outside of time. While we attribute a direction to our days based on the spinning of this planet or its orbit around the sun, God can see the whole universe as a completed object.
Just as our knowledge of God and His ways evolves/progresses/grows over time, so also does our knowledge of His natural world. However we cannot see the complete canvas, being part of it.
We say an argument is good or that reasoning is good if it leads to truth. As a good argument makes its way into our knowledge, it is mauled by our intellects until it stands polished and perfect. Think of embryonic arguments that are true but poorly formulated. There is an underlying beauty there but it takes time to reveal itself. With the creation of human life, can God not see the final product, the limit of this evolving process? And can He not call this 'very good'?
Genesis 1:31 Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
He did indeed - and it was an evil act/series of actions. Betrayal, denial, perjury, condemnation of the innocent, mocking, scourging, execution.As for suffering and death... I'll pass the buck and say it's a mystery, but even Christ suffered and died.
Suffering and death are not part of God's perfect creation. They are the results of Adam's fall into sin; not only did he begin to die, he brought the whole creation into suffering with him:
Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned—
Romans 8:20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; 21 because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now.0 -
Yes, in a hypothetical world with infinite room and resouces, I could see how evolution need not have death as a mechanism of selection. But in the real world, it must.AtomicHorror wrote: »Evolution doesn't "require" suffering, it just requires that inheritable differences between reproducing things will alter their reproductive success. So the frequencies of their inheritable traits in the general pool of reproducing things will change relative to their reproductive success.
Death is only a necessity of evolution in an environment with limited resources. In that circumstance, an organism comes increasingly into competition for resources with its own progeny if it does not die. Death is also an outcome of failure to adapt, if evolution is occurring in an environment with lethal hazards (including but not restricted to limitations in resources). But generally, evolution itself does not require death, as changes in trait frequencies can still occur without it.0 -
I'm glad you state your case plainly. That's a good place to start.Yes. Animals and plants living and dying is part and parcel of life. A forest depends on organisms dying etc. and there is nothing in that which is not good. I don't see that the death of a tree, a wasp, or a chimpanzee is necessarily bad at all. Circle of life etc.
We see death as an evil because, as beings created to be eternal, we hate the thought of being snuffed out.
Think of a polar bear trying to catch a seal. If the polar bear is successful then the seal will die. If the seal is successful then the polar bear may die of starvation. We only conceive of this as evil because we project our feelings about death onto animals. I don't think the death of the seal or the polar bear has any moral, or immoral, value.
I find real-life nature impossible to understand as being God's 'very good'. I find cruelty to animals an abomination, not just bringing a 'very good' experience to them. If suffering and death in animals is very good, it cannot be wrong to torture animals in sport, or kill them without reason.
It just doesn't seem the thing Christians could feel indifferent about. Should we really be indifferent to animals dying without food or water, or of disease? Indeed, when we have to kill animals - for food or to prevent suffering - ought we not to do so in the most humane fashion?
Then too you present a strange scenario for the first man. His mum and dad are not human, just animals. Suffering and death are very good for them. But now Adam and Eve have souls, with no suffering and death for them. If they don't sin, they will happily live forever - as they watch their parents suffer and die. And all the animals.
It just doesn't ring true. Especially when the plain interpretation of the Bible makes much more sense of the term 'very good'.0 -
but we already know from the Bible that life forms died. Adam tended to Eden. Snapping a rose bush kills thousand of bacteria on the stem. Eating a piece of food kills millions of bacteria in your stomach.
It is very hard to imagine a world where nothing dies. How do Creationists reconcile this?0 -
can you believe in God AND evolution?
quick answer ...
NO!
though i believe personally that Satan seeded and planted all the 'fossils' himself (with the help of demons) as prince of this world, to make it (the world) seem older.
There are many theories out there, kent hovind,flood, gap theory etc.
ultimately , the bible must be right , it is the infallible , inerrant word of the living god.
Millions of years and 'natural processes' forget about it
In order to be a Christian you have to believe in the divinity of god, Jesus, and the bible0 -
The Mad Hatter wrote: »They've both got microphones - why are they shouting at each other?
EXCITEMENT
I think. :pac:0 -
Advertisement
-
I appreciate your courageous stand on this, but why do you believe that you must discredit the fossil record in order to overturn evolution?Underbadger wrote: »can you believe in God AND evolution?
quick answer ...
NO!
though i believe personally that Satan seeded and planted all the 'fossils' himself (with the help of demons) as prince of this world, to make it (the world) seem older.
There are many theories out there, kent hovind,flood, gap theory etc.
ultimately , the bible must be right , it is the infallible , inerrant word of the living god.
Millions of years and 'natural processes' forget about it
In order to be a Christian you have to believe in the divinity of god, Jesus, and the bible
Evolution is still an unproven theory which is yet awaiting the "missing links" in the fossil record to prove it.
There have been some pretty amazing discoveries made by many scientists in the past 100 years regarding the creatures that have walked this earth in the past. Indeed, they can prove that the earth was not created in six literal days... but, does that make the bible wrong or does it make the extremists who believe in "six literal days" wrong?
The majority of people who believe themselves to be intelligent lean towards supporting "scientists" without making themselves fully aware of all of the facts... a "blind faith" you might say.
I have never yet come across anyone or any book that could establish evolution as a "fact" without resorting to "leaps of faith" to account for the giant gaps in the fossil record. Many of the changes that were required to take place in order for one creature to evolve into another are recognised as being statistically improbable, but this hurdle was "overcome" by increasing the time element in the statistical equation.
i.e. when faced with a statistically improbable (or indeed impossible) change required, you will see this gap filled with the phrase "It took millions of years".... a leap of faith... by no means scientific.
The main point is that despite what the layman has been led to believe, there is merely a "consensus" amongst many in the scientific (not all) world of belief in evolution.... it has not been proven.
Unfortunately, using the words "perhaps", "probably" or "maybe" doesn't inspire confidence in the public, so they, all too often, omit these words in favour of inspiring faith in their work.
I much prefer to be the child in the crowd who says "Hey! Look! the King is in his altogether!"0 -
Lovethinking wrote: »
I much prefer to be the child in the crowd who says "Hey! Look! the King is in his altogether!"
I'm getting my popcorn for this thread now;):)0 -
Lovethinking wrote: »I appreciate your courageous stand on this, but why do you believe that you must discredit the fossil record in order to overturn evolution?
Evolution is still an unproven theory which is yet awaiting the "missing links" in the fossil record to prove it. [...]
If you want to pursue this line, then there's a thread in this forum (here) running to thousands of posts dealing with scientific evidence for evolution.0 -
Fighting Irish wrote: »So god made monkeys, then a while later made humans?
Not what I'm saying at all. I said that the origin of life is not within the remit of the theory of evolution. I did not say that the evolution of humans is outside of that theory.0 -
Underbadger wrote: »can you believe in God AND evolution?
quick answer ...
NO!
Quick reply.
YOU'RE WRONG!0 -
I started trying to read that thread last week but it seems that it had descended into Star Trek territory at it's early stages.darjeeling wrote: »If you want to pursue this line, then there's a thread in this forum (here) running to thousands of posts dealing with scientific evidence for evolution.
I prefer to stick to the scientifically established facts rather than speculate.
I am also aware of the move towards redefining the word "proof" within the scientific community to something more like "agreed upon" so as to ease the "burden of proof".
While there have been great advances in the establishment of a progressively more accurate fossil record both physically and temporally as well as a much better understanding of genetics, sometimes while on the quest for the missing links, we have not found those missing links yet.
Certainly, it is fascinating to see "survival of the fittest" in action and keeping the gene pool of the animal kingdom strong, as well as other scientifically verifiable facts which are used in the building of the evolutionary argument.... but the evolutionary argument is far from being at it's conclusive stage.
It is important not to confuse "consensus" with "fact".
So, in short, NO, I do not wish to take your redirection into the other thread.
Certainly, if anyone out there is aware of the missing links being filled and the theory being proven as true fact I welcome your input.... but not in the form of "just read this book or that one"... I recognise that there are some books out there which deliver some very intriguing and sometimes useful facts, but I am talking about real proof.
Nevertheless, this thread is focussed upon the conflicts (or not) between evolution and Christianity..... I do accept that you may have to define your understanding of evolution or Christianity while giving your answer.0 -
Lovethinking wrote: »I started trying to read that thread last week but it seems that it had descended into Star Trek territory at it's early stages.
I prefer to stick to the scientifically established facts rather than speculate.
I am also aware of the move towards redefining the word "proof" within the scientific community to something more like "agreed upon" so as to ease the "burden of proof".
While there have been great advances in the establishment of a progressively more accurate fossil record both physically and temporally as well as a much better understanding of genetics, sometimes while on the quest for the missing links, we have not found those missing links yet.
Certainly, it is fascinating to see "survival of the fittest" in action and keeping the gene pool of the animal kingdom strong, as well as other scientifically verifiable facts which are used in the building of the evolutionary argument.... but the evolutionary argument is far from being at it's conclusive stage.
It is important not to confuse "consensus" with "fact".
So, in short, NO, I do not wish to take your redirection into the other thread.
Certainly, if anyone out there is aware of the missing links being filled and the theory being proven as true fact I welcome your input.... but not in the form of "just read this book or that one"... I recognise that there are some books out there which deliver some very intriguing and sometimes useful facts, but I am talking about real proof.
You started this thread asking whether there was any conflict between Christian teaching and evolution. Now you're switching to asking whether evolution is scientifically valid. Those are two quite different questions, and the second has been done to death.0 -
Lovethinking wrote: »I appreciate your courageous stand on this, but why do you believe that you must discredit the fossil record in order to overturn evolution?
Evolution is still an unproven theory which is yet awaiting the "missing links" in the fossil record to prove it.
First off, "theory" doesn't mean what you think it does. In scientific terms it is not equivalent to a conjecture, speculation or hypothesis. It is a model that explains all available facts and predicts new ones. Theory is the highest status to which a model may ascend within science. Second, theories are not "proven", ever. They are falsified or they are upheld. Evolution as a theory has been upheld for 150 years.Lovethinking wrote: »The majority of people who believe themselves to be intelligent lean towards supporting "scientists" without making themselves fully aware of all of the facts... a "blind faith" you might say.
That is certainly not a wise course of action, however the evidence for evolution is rather self explanatory and simple to understand if you examine it.Lovethinking wrote: »I have never yet come across anyone or any book that could establish evolution as a "fact" without resorting to "leaps of faith" to account for the giant gaps in the fossil record.
Gaps in the fossil record are a problem for models of specific paths through the evolutionary history. They do not falsify or call into question evolution itself.Lovethinking wrote: »Many of the changes that were required to take place in order for one creature to evolve into another are recognised as being statistically improbable, but this hurdle was "overcome" by increasing the time element in the statistical equation.
i.e. when faced with a statistically improbable (or indeed impossible) change required, you will see this gap filled with the phrase "It took millions of years".... a leap of faith... by no means scientific.
Where did you get that idea? The time element was never changed as a function of the probability the emergence of any trait. As for those probability calculations- I have generally seen such calculations performed by creationists and intelligent design proponents. They invariably display a very serious misunderstanding of both probability (particularly the relevance of specification) and the emergence of variation (particularly the relevance of reproduction and mutations in mass parallel).
We can't simply take the emergence of a given trait as seen in the fossil record and then apply some arbitrary time that suits its probability. We're bound by what we know from the record. If the trait is not present at time X and is present at some time X+1million, we can't just wave our hands and say the trait took 10 million years to emerge.Lovethinking wrote: »The main point is that despite what the layman has been led to believe, there is merely a "consensus" amongst many in the scientific (not all) world of belief in evolution.... it has not been proven.
In as much as a scientific theory can be "proven" (proof is actually a term used only in mathematics and law), evolution has been proven. The theory has predicted the existence of countless unknown species which have since been found. It also rules out the existence of an enormous number of organisms based what we know of how evolution works. And guess what? We haven't found any of these forbidden combinations in 150 years of looking high and low.
As for the consensus, science is not a numbers game nor an authority system but since you mention it, the estimated number of qualified scientists across all fields accepting evolution is on the order of 10 million worldwide. Although there are a sizeable number of atheists amongst that number, they also comprise a mixture of people of all faiths. The number of qualified scientists in all fields disputing evolution is approximately 1000 worldwide. These consist almost exclusively of religious fundamentalists, primarily Christians but also including followers of Islam and Judaism. I am not aware of any moderates nor atheists amongst that number.
That is a consensus of about 99.99%. There are pseudoscientific movements with stronger scientific followings, and even theories that we'd consider "fringe science" would tend to have followings on the order of 1%. Actual theories in genuine scientific dispute would tend to be challenged by no less than 10% of the community, and even these would be considered unlikely to ever gain consensus.
The only arena in which the denial of evolution is gaining any ground is amongst the general public.Lovethinking wrote: »Unfortunately, using the words "perhaps", "probably" or "maybe" doesn't inspire confidence in the public, so they, all too often, omit these words in favour of inspiring faith in their work.
I much prefer to be the child in the crowd who says "Hey! Look! the King is in his altogether!"
I wrote a response to similar comments to these posted by you over on the Creationism thread. Have you read that at all?
I'll echo darjeeling on this. This thread was supposed to be about the existence of a conflict, and its nature if present. You've now started to stray into territory better dealt with by the other thread.0 -
I am not "asking" if evolution is scientifically valid.darjeeling wrote: »You started this thread asking whether there was any conflict between Christian teaching and evolution. Now you're switching to asking whether evolution is scientifically valid. Those are two quite different questions, and the second has been done to death.
As an answer to another poster, I appropriately brought attention to the "fact" that evolution is still a "theory" not a fact.
If this upsets your belief structure then join the debate and make your argument. Otherwise, you are just appointing yourself as a moderator.0 -
Advertisement
-
Lovethinking wrote: »I am not "asking" if evolution is scientifically valid.
As an answer to another poster, I appropriately brought attention to the "fact" that evolution is still a "theory" not a fact.
Lovethinking, I think we can all appreciate that you have a great interest in this topic, but if you're not aware of how fact and theory are defined in science and how they relate to evolution then you are very far from being able to meaningfully debate about evolution.
Theories explain facts. They connect facts together via laws and predict new facts. Theory in science does not mean what Joe Soap means when he says "I've got a theory". That is what scientists call speculation, conjecture or hypothesis.Lovethinking wrote: »If this upsets your belief structure then join the debate and make your argument. Otherwise, you are just appointing yourself as a moderator.
He's not appointing himself moderator, he's well aware of how the mods are going to react to this change in topic. The moderators here have previously closed threads for entering into this debate because we already have a huge thread on the evolution debate. Your thread will probably be closed, split or merged unless you stick to the original topic.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement