Are there any Christians on this board that believe in evolution? - Page 2 - Religion, God, and Theology

Namely, there is a tendency on the one hand to appeal to the bible as an ultimate authority and base claims about what it allegedly says on, say, gay marriage, as a deep and inerrant truth. And on the other side, there is a tendency to explain things like genesis purely in allegorical terms. So there ought to be some way of trying to judge or differentiate which parts of the bible should be considered as true, which parts are allegorical, and the whole spectrum of what one might mean by a word like "true".

My observation suggests that the bits of the Bible that support one's personal beliefs tend to assume greater prominance and/or literal truth and the bits that are disproved by modern science or are unimportant to one's personal beliefs become allegorical or irrelevant.

Quote

09-02-2012 , 03:27 PM

#28

festeringZit

old hand

Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 1,442

Quote:

Originally Posted by asdfasdf32

Just to be clear, by literal, do you mean 6-literal days creation? (Six 24-hour periods)

Old earth creationists still take Genesis literally.

The Hebrew word "yom" which is translated into "day" in Genesis has
a wider meaning in Hebrew, and can mean an indefinite period of time.

I hope that answers your question.

Quote

09-02-2012 , 03:29 PM

#29

festeringZit

old hand

Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 1,442

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Beer

To clarify, when I said 'scientifically minded' I meant 'someone who understands science', which of course rules out a literal view of Genesis.

Not true at all, as I pointed out in post #28.

Quote

09-02-2012 , 03:31 PM

#30

festeringZit

old hand

Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 1,442

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hopey

You must not understand the meanings of the words "scientifically" and/or "literal".

I knew I could count on some ignorant donk responses like this one.

Quote

09-02-2012 , 03:37 PM

#31

uke_master

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 16,088

Quote:

Originally Posted by Original Position

No, I was saying that they don't believe that Jesus is/was God (this can be tricky--the conception of divinity or god held by these theologians is also not very orthodox).

I have no idea what percentage of theologians I'm describing. I am primarily thinking of the many prominent liberal and other non-orthodox theologians of the last couple centuries.

It also isn't an entirely uncommon view among lay people. There is a group that thinks that jesus might not literally have been born a virgin, he may have just been a good and moral historical figure but they still believe in god, might believe that jesus was "inspired" in some way, and will still call themselves Christians. I would suggest this is more common among more casual observers and perhaps starts to trend more towards deism than theism.

Quote

09-02-2012 , 03:40 PM

#32

asdfasdf32

True Facts

Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 13,155

Quote:

Originally Posted by festeringZit

Okay.

More in line with the thread's topic, how do you reconcile your literal interpretation of Adam/Eve in Genesis with evolution? I mean, creating humans from scratch and the idea of humans and apes having a common ancestor don't exactly go together.

Does your literal interpretation of Genesis include believing in things like a 900-year old man building an ark to save all of earth's creatures?

Last edited by asdfasdf32; 09-02-2012 at 03:48 PM.

Quote

09-02-2012 , 03:48 PM

#33

Hopey

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 12,004

Quote:

Originally Posted by asdfasdf32

And if so, how can he consider any of these views to be 'scientific'?

Quote

09-02-2012 , 03:50 PM

#34

uke_master

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 16,088

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hopey

And if so, how can he consider any of these views to be 'scientific'?

Generally this means that people like science and apply scientific reasoning in other aspects of their life and feel, if they know the words, that methodological naturalism is a good tool in understanding. They just don't use science for questions of faith and religion.

Quote

09-02-2012 , 03:54 PM

#35

festeringZit

old hand

Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 1,442

Quote:

Originally Posted by asdfasdf32

I think universal common descent is ludicrous.

Richard Dawkins admits in his book "The Greatest Show on Earth" that
there is 0 fossil evidence to show the link between the (so-called)
common ancestor between man and apes, and the modern ape.
Where did they all go?

I also believe that the Genesis flood account was a localized flood
(see local flood theory).

Quote

09-02-2012 , 03:56 PM

#36

festeringZit

old hand

Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 1,442

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hopey

And if so, how can he consider any of these views to be 'scientific'?

You act like being a scientist and a Christian (or any other religion) is
mutually exclusive.

Quote

09-02-2012 , 04:02 PM

#37

asdfasdf32

True Facts

Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 13,155

Quote:

Originally Posted by festeringZit

You realize we can prove common descent via genetics, right?

Quote:

I also believe that the Genesis flood account was a localized flood
(see local flood theory).

But that wouldn't be a literal interpretation, would it?

EDIT: http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...m/v17/n2/flood

Last edited by asdfasdf32; 09-02-2012 at 04:07 PM.

Quote

09-02-2012 , 04:03 PM

#38

zumby

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 4,277

Quote:

Originally Posted by festeringZit

Richard Dawkins admits in his book "The Greatest Show on Earth" that
there is 0 fossil evidence to show the link between the (so-called)
common ancestor between man and apes, and the modern ape.
Where did they all go?

The descendants of our common ancestor with modern apes (on the ape side) stayed in the forests, and forest animals don't tend to leave fossils. Do you think flatworms were created in the last few years just because we have no fossils of them or any of their ancestors?

Your "scientific" credentials are taking a huge hit with that misunderstanding of the fossilization process tbh.

Quote

09-02-2012 , 04:21 PM

#39

Hopey

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 12,004

Quote:

Originally Posted by festeringZit

You act like being a scientist and a Christian (or any other religion) is
mutually exclusive.

No, I'm acting like being a scientist and taking a literal view of Genesis are mutually exclusive.

Quote

09-02-2012 , 04:37 PM

#40

DucoGranger

adept

Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 762

I know evolution exists but I am not convinced that from one genus (sp) another one can form.

Take 80's hatchbacks for instance. For the most part they all pretty much look the same and have small little changes here and there. But things that are simular dont nesseraly have the same origins. We've been observing organisms for over 2000 years. Have been doing all sorts of things with dogs, fruitflies, and rats tailor-making thier genes to what we want them to be but still they are the same basic animals they were generations ago.

Sure you may say that it takes a bajillion years to for it to happen but that seems a little ad hock to me.

Quote

09-02-2012 , 04:44 PM

#41

ganstaman

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 10,904

Quote:

Originally Posted by festeringZit

Here is a post I made to you a year ago, and then linked to you at least once, and referenced at least one other time in response to you.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...5&postcount=37

Quote:

Originally Posted by ganstaman

Well, you are more than 6 years late, but so close to having been right.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture04008.html

Do you finally have a good response to this? (tbh, I don't know what the last year of research has shown on this, but it seems you just like to pretend this doesn't exist at all)

Quote

09-02-2012 , 04:45 PM

#42

ganstaman

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 10,904

Quote:

Originally Posted by DucoGranger

I know evolution exists but I am not convinced that from one genus (sp) another one can form.

I'm not sure you know what evolution is if you say this. Why do you think there's some magical wall at the genus level, which is really just a man-made distinction?

Quote

09-02-2012 , 05:07 PM

#43

festeringZit

old hand

Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 1,442

Quote:

Originally Posted by asdfasdf32

You realize we can prove common descent via genetics, right?

But that wouldn't be a literal interpretation, would it?

EDIT: http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...m/v17/n2/flood

Sure it would be a literal interpretation, explain why it wouldn't
*in your own words*.

"You realize we can prove common descent via genetics, right?"
Kind of like how they proved Nebraska man was a missing link from
the tooth of an extinct pig? I'm skeptical.

Quote

09-02-2012 , 05:09 PM

#44

festeringZit

old hand

Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 1,442

Quote:

Originally Posted by ganstaman

Here is a post I made to you a year ago, and then linked to you at least once, and referenced at least one other time in response to you.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...5&postcount=37

Do you finally have a good response to this? (tbh, I don't know what the last year of research has shown on this, but it seems you just like to pretend this doesn't exist at all)

It says I have to pay to read the article.

Quote

09-02-2012 , 05:17 PM

#45

uke_master

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 16,088

Quote:

Originally Posted by festeringZit

It says I have to pay to read the article.

So, the abstract tells you the key part. If you must, ask a friend in university to get it for you.

Quote

09-02-2012 , 05:31 PM

#46

Hopey

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 12,004

Quote:

Originally Posted by uke_master

So, the abstract tells you the key part. If you must, ask a friend in university to get it for you.

Do you honestly think this guy has any friends in university?

Quote

09-02-2012 , 05:37 PM

#47

DucoGranger

adept

Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 762

Quote:

Originally Posted by ganstaman

I'm not sure you know what evolution is if you say this. Why do you think there's some magical wall at the genus level, which is really just a man-made distinction?

I learned that evolution is a an animal's change in charicteristics over time and Id be an idiot to not acknoldge it. But I have problems with the thinking that that change is potentaly unlimited.

Quote

09-02-2012 , 05:38 PM

#48

Hopey

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 12,004

Quote:

Originally Posted by festeringZit

Please explain how genetics factored into them discovering that Nebraska man's tooth actually belonged to an extinct pig?

Hint: Unlike religion, science has progressed over the last 90 years.

Quote

09-02-2012 , 05:49 PM

#49

zumby

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 4,277

Quote:

Originally Posted by DucoGranger

I learned that evolution is a an animal's change in charicteristics over time and Id be an idiot to not acknoldge it. But I have problems with the thinking that that change is potentaly unlimited.

Hi

This video might help

Also the site talkorigins.org has answers for pretty much any question you have.

Quote

09-02-2012 , 05:51 PM

#50

ganstaman

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 10,904

Quote:

Originally Posted by DucoGranger

I learned that evolution is a an animal's change in charicteristics over time and Id be an idiot to not acknoldge it. But I have problems with the thinking that that change is potentaly unlimited.

Again, why is it that you think there is a magic wall at the arbitrarily chosen genus level that prevents a further change in characteristics?

Quote

Page 2 of 19

First

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12

Last

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 2 of 19

First

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12

Last