Why can't Christianity and Evolution get along?

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: fisher

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Because one is based in fact and the other is based in fantasy.

see that's the problem, they don't have to be mutually exclusive. but the people who don't believe (and no i'm not a fanatic, i'm quite agnostic) have to belittle the folks who do. intelligent creationists can believe in both. the flip side? no room for any leeway.

That's because a true scientist seeks the truth, while a true Christian already knows it.

Knows what? That they know nothing? We know how the universe was created...god created it so now there's no point in researching it further no matter what amazing things we might discover in the process. We might actually discover that there is no god. 😛

 

[NanoStuff]

Originally posted by: RedBeard

Originally posted by: NanoStuff

Originally posted by: RedBeard
So why can't evolution co-exist with christianity?

It can, with the intelligent christians that don't take the bible literally.

Well I think you can take the bible literally AND be intelligent.

Unfortunately, no, you can't. You'd have to be unintelligent to think so.

 

[tfcmasta97]

Originally posted by: RedBeard
I believe in a literal weeklong creation.

So therefore the earth and the universe was created with the appearance of age.
I believe Adam and Eve were also created as mature (physically). I don't think they started as babies.

So why can't evolution co-exist with christianity? Why couldn't evolution be a natural process? I understand the debate for/against evolution is mostly political (on both sides).

So if evolution was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt does that mean the bible is completely wrong? I don't think so. To say that God could not have used evolution as a tool limits him.

But at the end of the day I *REALLY* don't think this debate is worth all the time and effort that it currently receives from christians.

Well it's just a waste of time to argue against something when someone says "Any evidence that refutes god was created by god to appear as though god doesnt exist"

 

[Kev]

don't you people get bored arguing over the same old crap over and over again?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: RedBeard

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: RedBeard
I believe in a literal weeklong creation.

So therefore the earth and the universe was created with the appearance of age.
I believe Adam and Eve were also created as mature (physically). I don't think they started as babies.

You do realize this makes God out to be a liar, don't you? Moreover, you must also contend with the fact that your position can never be regarded as scientifc.

Why would God be a liar? I don't follow you there >>

An honest God would create things to appear as they really are. The earth would appear billions of years old because it really is billions of years old. Biological organisms would appear related by common anscestry because they really are related by common anscestry.

Only a deceptive god would create the false appearance of these things.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: fisher

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Because one is based in fact and the other is based in fantasy.

see that's the problem, they don't have to be mutually exclusive. but the people who don't believe (and no i'm not a fanatic, i'm quite agnostic) have to belittle the folks who do. intelligent creationists can believe in both. the flip side? no room for any leeway.

That's because a true scientist seeks the truth, while a true Christian already knows it.

Scientists don't seek truth. They seek facts and workable models.

That's not to mention the absolute folly of presuming to already have all the answers.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: fisher

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: fisher
because evolutionists can't let themselves believe that the two can coexist and therefore are constantly pushing to kill faith.

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: Redbeard
So why can't evolution co-exist with christianity?

It can.

Originally posted by: Nanostuff

Originally posted by: Redbeard
So why can't evolution co-exist with christianity?

It can.

Two immediate counterexamples to your claim.

how is that? are you an evolutionist who is willing to believe there might be something to religion? because you'd be the first one i've ever met.

I am an evolutionist that believes a Christian can accept the validity of evolution and I'm not trying to "kill faith" -- whatever that means.

You need to understand that Evolution =/= Atheism. There are literally millions of Christian evolutionists that stand in counterexample to your claim, as well.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Kev
don't you people get bored arguing over the same old crap over and over again?

When the Creationists cease to level absurd arguments against the validity of evolution, there will no longer be a debate. As long as they do, however, it is the responsibility of those that know better to contest and correct the errors of those that do not.

 

[RedBeard]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: RedBeard

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: RedBeard
I believe in a literal weeklong creation.

So therefore the earth and the universe was created with the appearance of age.
I believe Adam and Eve were also created as mature (physically). I don't think they started as babies.

You do realize this makes God out to be a liar, don't you? Moreover, you must also contend with the fact that your position can never be regarded as scientifc.

Why would God be a liar? I don't follow you there >>

An honest God would create things to appear as they really are. The earth would appear billions of years old because it really is billions of years old. Biological organisms would appear related by common anscestry because they really are related by common anscestry.

Only a deceptive god would create the false appearance of these things.

Well if God used supernatural means then I hardly think that qualifies as dishonesty.

 

[RaiderJ]

People who interpret the Bible literally baffle me. How many languages has it been translated from? How can anyone think a Bible written in English is the literal word of God?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: RedBeard

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: RedBeard

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: RedBeard
I believe in a literal weeklong creation.

So therefore the earth and the universe was created with the appearance of age.
I believe Adam and Eve were also created as mature (physically). I don't think they started as babies.

You do realize this makes God out to be a liar, don't you? Moreover, you must also contend with the fact that your position can never be regarded as scientifc.

Why would God be a liar? I don't follow you there >>

An honest God would create things to appear as they really are. The earth would appear billions of years old because it really is billions of years old. Biological organisms would appear related by common anscestry because they really are related by common anscestry.

Only a deceptive god would create the false appearance of these things.

Well if God used supernatural means then I hardly think that qualifies as dishonesty.

WTF difference does that make? If I put on a perfectly convincing George Bush disguise and pretended to be the president of the united states, I would be dishonest, no matter what means I used to develop my disguise.

When God's alleged handiwork says that the Earth is billions of years old, we should be able to rely on that inference. Otherwise you have no means of knowing facts at all.

 

[mercanucaribe]

Originally posted by: RaiderJ
People who interpret the Bible literally baffle me. How many languages has it been translated from? How can anyone think a Bible written in English is the literal word of God?

Not only that, but it's not one document. It's an assemblage of a lot of different ones that can't be verified at all.


It really isn't right for anyone to believe in a literal 7 day creation in this day and age. It's mind boggling how many people do. Beliefs like that qualified by the unrefutable premise that God made things that way to fool us is very dangerous to humanity.

 

[RedBeard]

Originally posted by: Garth
When God's alleged handiwork says that the Earth is billions of years old, we should be able to rely on that inference. Otherwise you have no means of knowing facts at all.

Right, unless of course you have what you believe is the inspired word of God.

This thread was created more for chrisitans. It just seems that the christians who believe in literal interpretation of scripture think that evolution is herasy.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: RedBeard

Originally posted by: Garth
When God's alleged handiwork says that the Earth is billions of years old, we should be able to rely on that inference. Otherwise you have no means of knowing facts at all.

Right, unless of course you have what you believe is the inspired word of God.

Again, what difference does that make? If God's alleged word says one thing, and reality says another, they cannot both be simultaneously true. If we are to suppose that reality is as much the work of God as his word, then He is inconsistent and dishonest.

What you're talking about is a hypothetical world where our inferences are unreliable. You can't then claim ad hoc that you reliably inferred that some text is the written word of God. How do you know God didn't create the Bible with false appearances?

{snip}

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: RedBeard

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: RedBeard

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: RedBeard
I believe in a literal weeklong creation.

So therefore the earth and the universe was created with the appearance of age.
I believe Adam and Eve were also created as mature (physically). I don't think they started as babies.

You do realize this makes God out to be a liar, don't you? Moreover, you must also contend with the fact that your position can never be regarded as scientifc.

Why would God be a liar? I don't follow you there >>

An honest God would create things to appear as they really are. The earth would appear billions of years old because it really is billions of years old. Biological organisms would appear related by common anscestry because they really are related by common anscestry.

Only a deceptive god would create the false appearance of these things.

Well if God used supernatural means then I hardly think that qualifies as dishonesty.

WTF difference does that make? If I put on a perfectly convincing George Bush disguise and pretended to be the president of the united states, I would be dishonest, no matter what means I used to develop my disguise.

When God's alleged handiwork says that the Earth is billions of years old, we should be able to rely on that inference. Otherwise you have no means of knowing facts at all.

A funny take on that theme. Text

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: fisher

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Because one is based in fact and the other is based in fantasy.

see that's the problem, they don't have to be mutually exclusive. but the people who don't believe (and no i'm not a fanatic, i'm quite agnostic) have to belittle the folks who do. intelligent creationists can believe in both. the flip side? no room for any leeway.

That's because a true scientist seeks the truth, while a true Christian already knows it.

Scientists don't seek truth. They seek facts and workable models.

That's not to mention the absolute folly of presuming to already have all the answers.

There's the most compelling reason to continue scientific study and advancement right there. :thumbsup:

 

[dennilfloss]

Originally posted by: Aikouka
It did, and they had a bastardized baby called Theistic Evolution.

I am a paleontologist and a Catholic theistic evolutionist. Theistic evolutionists just see evolution as one of God's tools. Some people who use that name believe that God is directing and micromanaging the process but the vast majority of theistic evolutionists only believe that God started the process with some initial conditions and 'rules' and lets it happen on its own. In that sense, we are way different from those who advocate what they commonly call Intelligent Design.

http://www.meta-library.net/evo-brf/evo-brf-print.html

 

[1prophet]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: RedBeard

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: RedBeard
I believe in a literal weeklong creation.

So therefore the earth and the universe was created with the appearance of age.
I believe Adam and Eve were also created as mature (physically). I don't think they started as babies.

You do realize this makes God out to be a liar, don't you? Moreover, you must also contend with the fact that your position can never be regarded as scientifc.

Why would God be a liar? I don't follow you there >>

An honest God would create things to appear as they really are. The earth would appear billions of years old because it really is billions of years old. Biological organisms would appear related by common anscestry because they really are related by common anscestry.

Only a deceptive god would create the false appearance of these things.

I guess this God here isn't too honest then, according to your definition?

Isaiah 66:4
I also will choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them; because when I called, none did answer; when I spake, they did not hear: but they did evil before mine eyes, and chose that in which I delighted not.


2 Thessalonians 2
10And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: 1prophet

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: RedBeard

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: RedBeard
I believe in a literal weeklong creation.

So therefore the earth and the universe was created with the appearance of age.
I believe Adam and Eve were also created as mature (physically). I don't think they started as babies.

You do realize this makes God out to be a liar, don't you? Moreover, you must also contend with the fact that your position can never be regarded as scientifc.

Why would God be a liar? I don't follow you there >>

An honest God would create things to appear as they really are. The earth would appear billions of years old because it really is billions of years old. Biological organisms would appear related by common anscestry because they really are related by common anscestry.

Only a deceptive god would create the false appearance of these things.

I guess this God here isn't too honest then, according to your definition?

Isaiah 66:4
I also will choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them; because when I called, none did answer; when I spake, they did not hear: but they did evil before mine eyes, and chose that in which I delighted not.


2 Thessalonians 2
10And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Oh joy...bible quotes. :roll:

Thy thread is doomed.

 

[Fritzo]

Not another one of these threads....is it Friday already?

 

[Kirby]

Originally posted by: Fritzo
Not another one of these threads....is it Friday already?

Agreed. Take this sh|t to P&N.

 

[SampSon]

You believe that there was a week long creation and take the bible literally, who cares what you think? 😉 😀
Evolution has been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. Evolution is the base for all studies of disease and virses (sic). There is simply no arguing that it doesn't exist.

 

[Kadarin]

The more we understand about our world and how it works, the more we are able to see that Man is just another aspect of nature. As such, there is less need for "God".

 

[RedBeard]

Originally posted by: Garth
Again, what difference does that make? If God's alleged word says one thing, and reality says another, they cannot both be simultaneously true. If we are to suppose that reality is as much the work of God as his word, then He is inconsistent and dishonest.

What you're talking about is a hypothetical world where our inferences are unreliable. You can't then claim ad hoc that you reliably inferred that some text is the written word of God. How do you know God didn't create the Bible with false appearances?

{snip}

I believe that God could have created the world complete and with the appearanceof age. I don't claim to have a solid absolute understanding of all things, I only know what I believe to be true up to this point. As new evidence presents itself then my views may change. But I ultimately, it doesn't matter. The larger point of this thread ask why does this present such a large hang-up for some christians. Wouldn't time spent on trying to convince people that evolution is false be better spent reaching out?

Self Quote:
This thread was created more for chrisitans. It just seems that the christians who believe in literal interpretation of scripture think that evolution is heresy.

 

[Platypus]

I understand the debate for/against evolution is mostly political (on both sides).

You know.. there IS a forum for this drivel 😉