HOME | DD

JamesTu In reply to saint-miykael [2007-05-30 17:42:57 +0000 UTC]

From what I have researched so far there are large gaps in the theory of evolution. It is far from being an applicable method for the development of life and it certainly does not account for the early substances binding together to form protiens and even further from showing how DNA arises. However, I do not think gaps in our knowledge are a reason to discount or, worse, stop researching it. Nor do I think that if evolution were fact, that God would be out of the picture. I have no problem picturing genesis as metaphorical. If it is meant to be literal then I think the language needs a lot more analysis than simply taking the it at face value (God created the world in 7 days). For me, creationism and naturalistic methods or one and the same for the theist.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

saint-miykael In reply to JamesTu [2007-05-30 18:39:56 +0000 UTC]

Ah, well from a logical basis the God of theistic evolution certainly cannot be the God of the bible. The God of evolution is arbitrarily wasteful, ambiguous, indecisive, careless, cruel, impersonal, and worst of all, terrifyingly unjust. Polar opposite to the God of the bible. I come to the conclusion that it's unjust based upon 3 things.

The first of which is my conscience. I believe that the conscience is a divine gift from God that allows us to know right from wrong. The conscience never speaks of anything except morality. The bible teaches that the law of God is written on our hearts, IE our conscience. My conscience testifies that creating new forms of life by crushing the weak is wrong, and hateful at that.

The second of which is the bible. Countless amounts of scripture testify against the concepts of evolution and spontaneous generation. As you can see I've already pointed out a few, and I'm sure you can think of a few yourself. Even some people who know nothing about the bible can probably think of a few verses or concepts. That aside, my brother-in-law is a theistic evolutionist and the only way he can believe both, and these are his own words, is if he picks and chooses what he wishes to believe from the bible, and that he doesn't believe most of it. Unfortunately he simply can't believe that God could make the world that fast, no matter what sort of evidence I give him.

The third of which is my God himself. The God that I know would never ever use such a horrible system as that, nor would he ever lie to me. The God that I share my life with is the exact opposite of the God of evolution. My very relationship with him is enough to convince me that evolution is incorrect.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

JamesTu In reply to saint-miykael [2007-05-30 21:54:18 +0000 UTC]

"The God of evolution is arbitrarily wasteful, ambiguous, indecisive, careless, cruel, impersonal, and worst of all, terrifyingly unjust", have you read the old testemant? There are many examples of appearingly unjust and terrible things ordered by God. Examples include God ordering the Israelites to kill all the males and children of a nation but to keep the woman for there own. Others include brutal massacres and cruelty on a level thats difficult to comprehend.

As far as forms of life crushing the weak being wrong and hateful, look at the world; it happens every day. In both human and animal kingdoms. Does that mean God does not exist? The entrance of sin into the world may account for human kinds cruelty. However what about animals? To me, they still appear to have the innocence of those have not been corrupted by original sin.

Apart from what the bible says what do you have that backs up this statement?

"Unfortunately he simply can't believe that God could make the world that fast, no matter what sort of evidence I give him."

I know science is pointing to creation of everything at the start of the big bang but I havn't seen any break throughs that point toward everything being created in 7 days. In fact, everything I have seen indicates that the world took an extremely long time to form. I do not have a problem imaging an all powerful God creating anything in 7 days, infact more realistic would be an instant creation. However when science contradicts the bible so completely you have to wonder; which can I trust? An 8000 year old body of text written and past down by men or the latest scientific discoveries?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

saint-miykael In reply to JamesTu [2007-05-31 04:13:24 +0000 UTC]

You'll have to forgive me, but I can't find the determination to debate a non-Christian person on this right now. I've had far too many debates on the issue lately, and I'm burnt out for the moment. However, I will give you this thought to chew on...

Your needing to question both the bible and evolution is valid and questioning is good. The question obviously is, "Which is more reliable and reflects reality?" For me, it's the bible hands down, because every time something comes up, the bible has always been correct to the best of my knowledge. There are obviously some things that simply aren't verifiable as far as definitiveness is concerned, and that's okay. But for me, the parts that have been verifiable have been proven true, and that's good enough for me. For you, it clearly seems to be secular human knowledge. So in that respects the question then becomes, who are you trusting and what are their motives?

So you should probably ask yourself something; is what I'm reading actually science, or merely wishful thinking on the part of the researcher? Quite frankly there is no possible way that any normal human being could know for sure that the big bang was correct or the age of the earth. My studies have lead me to the conclusion that evolution is a religion, IE it's something that you have to believe in because there is no real proof for it. The same goes for atheism. There is no proof that there isn't a God, (and in fact much for it) it's something that you have to believe in. Allow me to use a quotation from a certain atheist "Sophie" I recently spoke to on the subject;

"Now back to what you asked. How do I know there is no god?
Well to be truthful, I don’t. No one really knows if there is or isn’t. I just know that I don’t need to follow some higher being that I have no idea if it’s really there or not. I don’t need that being to tell me what I should or shouldn’t do, what is right or wrong. When in my heart I already know the difference between the two, and don’t need to be told."

And here is another quote from a certain "HK":

"Unless God proves to me he exists, I have no reason to believe
He may not be a person, or a spirit or whatever...but I want to see the right way
I make decisions on my own and choose what's right and wrong
Even if I do wrong, I know its bad what I'm doing in my mind...doesnt mean I want forgiveness because I have committed a crime
I did the crime...I will pay the price"

That is the mind of an atheist; two of them actually. The majority of modern scientists are atheists, although we have a strong percentage of them that are creationists or at least supporters of intelligent design. This is who develops the evolution theories of all genres, people who don't want God to exist. Today in America if you're a teacher, professor, scientist, or just researcher in general, and you denounce evolution for creation or intelligent design, you'll lose your job. I've seen it happen. People are afraid to speak out against it because they'll lose their paycheck, and some of these people have families to support. If you truly are a theist of any persuasion, on the basis of truth I would strongly advise you to question the ideas that these people churn out, because they are coming up with theories based upon the objective viewpoint that there is/are no god(s), and that any form of divine input is just silly.

To sum that up in one simple concept... A Chinese scientist and an American scientist were excavating in the mountains in India, and the Chinese scientist laughs and says to the American scientist, "You know, it's funny. In China, we can't question our president, but we can question Darwin, but in America, you can question your president, but you CAN'T question Darwin."

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

JamesTu In reply to saint-miykael [2007-05-31 12:49:25 +0000 UTC]

I am very aware of the failings of science and of scienctists. Also, dispite what I said in my last sentence of the previous reply, I do think the bible is fairly accurate and reliable (New tesament mainly, havn't done enough research into the old tesament). Needless to say, I am trying to keep objective about these subjects as it is all to easy to put what you want ahead of whats true.

I have been reading a fair few interviews with notable Christian scientists who strongly believe in events such as the big bang and the age of the universe in millions not thousands. Ask yourself, what are thier motives? They are certainly not trying to discredit Christianity for sure.

My point is, which I think you may have missed. I am not looking at science and coming to the conclusion that is disproving God. Then again I am not jumping (sorry for using that word) straight into; 'therefore there is a creator because I can't think up an alternative reason'.

I guess our discussion is more along the lines of whether the bible should be taken literally or should some areas be taken metaphorically. And also, whether if you take some things as metaphoric can it be justified, or are you just picking and choosing the bits you want to believe?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

saint-miykael In reply to JamesTu [2007-05-31 14:34:16 +0000 UTC]

Well if you want to put it that way, then I suppose I can settle this right here with simple logic for the most part. As I've thought about it, I've come to the conclusion that the age of the earth is pretty important. The potential validity of the book of Genesis is at stake here, and consequently, the very validity of Yeshua himself. Jesus quoted the book of Genesis about 25 times in the new testament, so I'd say it's safe to believe that he believed it was true. Call me crazy, but if he really were Emmanuel, I think he might know a thing or two about how the world began, what with being the creator of the world and all. So in essence a metaphorical Genesis would quite possibly make Jesus either ignorant or a liar. Considering that Jesus no doubt knew more about the scriptures than any man that has ever lived, I don't think it would be wise to claim that he was ignorant. So there you create a heresy because that leaves the only possible answer being that Jesus was a liar, which I'm going to go ahead and say that that most certainly isn't the case.

But the bible, in and of itself, is very intricate, and to deny the validity of almost any book causes serious problems. If you want a good OT book to research, I would highly recommend the book of Daniel. Scholars and historians have claimed that this book is so prophetically accurate that there was no possible way that it could be the real book of Daniel, because it's so accurate that it would require a miracle and secular minds can't accept a miracle as possible obviously. However, all Jewish sources and all historical sources point to the book being the real deal. Quite frankly it's one of my favorite OT books. I swear, I have the words mene, mene, tekel, upharsin burnt into my brain. But yeah... That's something to ponder.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0