|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Bible accepts evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: This is off-topic, so I won't do more than just point out that this doesn't address the points I made in those posts. I invite you or anyone else to dispute my claims in the appropriate threads. I have always preferred, as guides to human action, messy hypothetical imperatives like the Golden Rule, based on negotiation, compromise and general respect, to the Kantian categorical imperatives of absolute righteousness, in whose name we so often murder and maim until we decide that we had followed the wrong instantiation of the right generality. -- Stephen Jay Gould
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
4Pillars Inactive Member |
Dear Unbelievers,
Just so you know.... The title is Distorted - should be - Evolutionist Accept the Teachings of Genesis as Science. :-) The Scripture has been speaking of science and micro-evolution from the beginning -- as I have demonstrated on this thead alone -- Even BEFORE a single so called "scientist" / "evolutionist" learned how to cry (from birth), wipe their noses and whine about it. Therefore, nobody here is telling us anything that is new to us biblically speaking. TRY AGAIN? Edited by 4Pillars, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
4Pillars writes: The title is Distorted - should be - Evolutionist Accept the Teachings of Genesis as Science. That's like saying the title of Treasure Island should be The Wind in the Willows.The author gets to pick the title, not you. The Scripture has been speaking of science and micro-evolution from the beginning The topic is about the Bible and evolution - not "micro-evolution". The Bible may speak about "micro-evolution" but nobody has shown yet that the Bible speaks about evolution as science defines it. If you want to show that, we have a whole thread ahead of us. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
You seem to be forgetting your manners. I suggest you leave out the remarks (that I'm sure you think are soooo clever) about other people and just discuss the issues at hand.
Others have been patient and not responding in kind but that will only last so long so there won't be any more warnings. Edited by AdminNosy, : spelling (again)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
4Pillars Inactive Member |
quote: Of course, the Bible does not recognize evolutionism as "science" as defined by them. If you try to do that, then, you know the drill. :-)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
4Pillars writes: Of course, the Bible does not recognize evolutionism as "science" as defined by them. You're still being sloppy with terminology. We're not talking about "micro-evolution" and we're not talking about "evolutionism" - we're talking about evolution. Both science and Bible study require very precise use of words. Of course, the Bible does not recognize science at all - but the topic's premise is that the Bible does recognize evolution. The question here is not whether evolution is true or false. The question is whether or not the Bible authors knew about evolution and "acknowledged" it in their books. If you have comments on that question, please fire away. If not, we have lots of other topics for your viewing pleasure. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
4Pillars Inactive Member |
quote: WRONG assumption my friend. Just so you know, there's not one truth for Christians and another one for Science. When you find God' truth, they both agree exactly to the Scripture. That's why I seek the agreement of every other discovered Truth, to measure against God's Holy Word. There is Only 1 Truth, and every other discovered Truth MUST agree with God's Truth or we have Not found the 1 Truth. The fault is Not with God's Truth, but with man's ability to understand it, for His thoughts are far above man's thoughts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
4pillars writes: ... there's not one truth for Christians and another one for Science. You're still misunderstanding the topic. "Truth" has nothing to do with it. The question is: Did the authors of the Bible understand/acknowledge/mention evolution?It's like asking: Did the authors of the Bible know about France? It's not about whether France is "true" or not. There is Only 1 Truth, and every other discovered Truth MUST agree with God's Truth or we have Not found the 1 Truth. Since the topic is not about "truth", it makes no difference whether there is one truth or eleven. We are not trying to measure anything against anything else for its "truth" value. We're trying to understand what - if anything - the Bible authors had to say about evolution. Since this is Bible Study, we are not interested in what you think about evolution. You're welcome to discuss that in other threads. This thread is about what the Bible says about evolution. Your next post should quote the Bible. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
platypus Member (Idle past 5775 days) Posts: 139 Joined: |
The fault is Not with God's Truth, but with man's ability to understand it...
Exactly, it is how man understands the Bible which is at fault. Man once understood the Bible to mean that the earth was at the center of the universe. Whether the Bible actually says such a thing or not is beside the point, men had wrongly understood the Bible to mean such a thing. Scientific findings produced an opposite conclusion, and ended up being correct. Thus man's interpretation of the Bible changed. The same thing seems to be happening for evolution. Some time not too long ago, creationists believed that all of evolution was wrong, including speciation and natural selection. They believed that this assertion was supported by the Bible. Now creationists believe that speciation and natural selection do occur, probably in light of convincing scientific evidence and common sense. This thread points to some Biblical passages that can be interpreted to support such an assertion. Creationists still do not accept "macroevolution," as if it is some unique concept. Dr. Roughgarden voices the opinion in her book that nothing in the Bible actually contradicts the scientific meaning of evolution, and that a few passages even support elements of evolution. Or in other words, there are ways in which the Bible can be UNDERSTOOD which are not in conflict with evolution. In other words, science does not argue against the Bible, its simply calls for a new interpretation of the Bible, as have other scientific theories in the past. If you're looking for the one truth I suggest allowing for an interplay between science and religion, as has been suggested by Pope John Paul II Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes. You are simply trying to force science into preconcieved religion notions, instead of opening your mind to the insight science can offer to religion, and to new understanding of the Bible. Perhaps the Bible is always correct, but we have misunderstood it. The solution is not to reject science, but to rexamine out understanding of the Bible and look for misinterpretations. BTW- I am not sexist, please substitute "human" for "man" if you are so inclined. I was responding using the language Pillars had offered. You hear evolutionist says we are descedant from apes and monkees. Sure, but that's not the point. All of life is related, not just human's with monkees. If you hug a tree, you're hugging a relative, a very distant relative, but a relative nonetheless." Dr. Joan Roughgarden in Evolution and Christian Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
platypus Member (Idle past 5775 days) Posts: 139 Joined: |
[qs] The title is Distorted - should be - Evolutionist Accept the Teachings of Genesis as Science. :-) /qs
If that was the title, it would imply that evolutionists accept evolution because it was shown to be true in Genesis. That is simply not true, evolutionists accept evolution because it is supported by scientific evidence. This thread attempts to make evolution easier to swallow for creationists- that was Dr. Roughgarden's intent in her book and I wished to hear some feedback on what people thought of her attempt. You hear evolutionist says we are descedant from apes and monkees. Sure, but that's not the point. All of life is related, not just human's with monkees. If you hug a tree, you're hugging a relative, a very distant relative, but a relative nonetheless." Dr. Joan Roughgarden in Evolution and Christian Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
4Pillars Inactive Member |
Ringo wrote:
quote: 4Pillars Responded:
quote: Ringo’ Rebuttal:
quote: But clearly, the above response by your truly was intended to refute your ignoramous statement about “the Bible does not recognize science at all . .. “ and has nothing to do with your latest strawman’ argument. Nice twist. ha ha ha As I have told you before, don’t speak of anything in the Scripture that you have no knowledge or ignorant about - it will only come back and embarrass you, again and again..... :-) Edited by 4Pillars, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
4Pillars writes: ... don’t speak of anything in the Scripture that you have no knowledge or ignorant about - it will only come back and embarrass you, again and again..... Fine words from somebody who hasn't used the Bible at all to back up his assertions. (By the way, I didn't make any argument, "strawman" or otherwise. I'm just trying to help you understand what we're discussing here. Platypus has clarified what he wants to discuss, so let's lean in that direction, shall we?) How about dusting off your Bible and addressing the topic? Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
platypus Member (Idle past 5775 days) Posts: 139 Joined: |
Actually, Ringo, my first example only addressed natural selection. I'd be quite interested in knowing if the Bible showed any support for other aspects of evolution, or for evolution in general, which was where your discussion was headed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
4Pillars Inactive Member |
quote: First of all, I don't think Old Creationist have problem with true science. In fact, many of us believe that the Bible or Genesis can be reconcilled with any discovery or proven science. Therefore, Creationist has no problems accepting the adaptations and micro-evolution which we consider to be Biblical and proven science - observable and repeatable. On the other hand, it's this BLIND LEAP in logic that says MACRO is just an extrapolation of MICRO that we don't accept because 1) there is no evidence for it and 2) there are irrefutable evidence against such a notion particularly in modern genetics -- thus it is not Biblical. But maybe you've never heard of the General Theory of Evolution (a.k.a. macro-evolution)... "There is a theory which states that many living animals can be observed over the course of time to undergo changes so that new species are formed. This can be called the "Special Theory of Evolution " [note: micro-evolution] and can be demonstrated in certain cases by experiments. On the other hand there is the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. This theory can be called the "General Theory of Evolution" [note: macro-evolution] and the evidence that supports it is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis. It is not clear whether the changes that bring about speciation are of the same nature as those that brought about the development of new phyla. The answer will be found by future experimental work and not by dogmatic assertions that the General Theory of Evolution must be correct because there is nothing else that will satisfactorily take its place." (Kerkut G.A., "Implications of Evolution," in Kerkut G.A., ed. "International Series of Monographs on Pure and Applied Biology, Division: Zoology," Volume 4, Pergamon Press: New York NY, 1960, p.157). Edited by 4Pillars, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Platypus writes: ... which was where your discussion was headed. Uhhh.... I discuss a lotta things. Can you be more specific? Do you mean, "Does the Bible mention/acknowledge evolution?" or something waaaaay back that I've already forgotten? Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024