or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Talk Amongst Ourselves › Spirituality › Religious Studies › christians-evolution
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

christians-evolution - Page 5

post #81 of 118
Quote:
kids websites are way easier to understand than the adult creation websites...I am not particularly science brained
Clearly.


:


Good googelly moogelly

who knew
post #82 of 118
[QUOTE=Wolfmeis;10451869I teach my children that (for the simplicity of a message board post) God made the big bang and that evolution is part of his extremely way-cool design.

Honestly, as a Christian, I do not see a conflict between real science and faith.[/QUOTE]

Same here.
post #83 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Equuskia View Post
Have you thoroughly studied the mathematical and astronomical evidence in order to say that big bang is "just a guess"?

And as a pp mentioned, dinosaurs would not be compatible with a young earth unless you completely dismiss carbon and radiometric dating, to which then you are completely dismissing all the mathematics, physics and chemistry behind these dating methods.
We weren't there, so it is just a guess and some peoples ideas.

There are problems with dating as well, no standard.
post #84 of 118
Quote:
Creationists say that they take the words in the bible literally and at face value. I ask then, do they take Matthew 5:29-30 and Matthew 18:9-10 literally?
So if one takes part of a text literally, one must therefore take the entire text literally? That's ridiculous. Any text must be read using commonsense principles of interpretation. If a text is obviously intended to be taken as literal history, it should be read as such; if as allegorical poetry, it should be read as such; if parable, metaphor, simile, hyperbole, satire or irony, it should be read as such. And of course, many or all of these features frequently coexist in a single text. If you are reading a biography of Audrey Hepburn, which is clearly meant to be taken as historical narrative, and you come across the phrase 'she skyrocketed to fame', do you assume that because the majority of the text is literal, this means she actually achieved fame by skyrocketing? Of course not. You realise that a literary device has been employed. The inability of people to employ this very simple rule of common sense with the Bible perpetually amazes me.

Quote:
I was taught the importance of Bible stories to Christians ought not to be an illogical belief that everything it tells us happened literally, but that they each had a moral something to get out of them. Because which Bible is really the true one? The Orthodox? King James? The original Greek or Hebrew? They all tell it differently, but I think the moral stays the same. What about in Genesis, which creation story is real? The one where Adam and Even are created at the same time or the one where Eve comes later? I remember Jesus seemed to speak in parables a lot. Did those things really happen, or were they meant to be used to help people have a higher understanding? You can get caught up in being determined to believe in every sentence is fact and miss the whole point.
This is a very strange line of thinking. Why do you believe it is impossible to determine the merits of various translations? The redundancy and accuracy of the Biblical texts is remarkable; surely you have no problem believing, on far less textual and scholarly evidence, that it is possible to determine (say) which translation of the Kalevala or the Iliad is closest in spirit, style and accuracy to the original?

As for the 'conflicting' Genesis accounts, you are mistaken. There are not 'two versions'. The Genesis 1 account, an overview, simply says that Adam and Eve were both created on the sixth day. The Genesis 2 account, which focuses in on the human element, says nothing to contradict this. Eve was created after Adam on the sixth day... what's the problem here?

As for parables, see above regarding genre. The Bible is a mix of genres, and I have never seen any compelling textual evidence to indicate that Genesis is anything but what it appears to be--poeticised historical narrative. (I did have one guy at Uni try to convince me it was written in apocalyptic poetry, which just went to show he didn't know as much about apocalyptic poetry as the graphics on his T-shirts would seem to indicate). The only reason for reading the early chapters of Genesis as myth, or parable, or any other genre unsupported by the text, is because of a prior assumption of the truth of evolutionary theory. Which indicates, at best, a severely messed-up epistemology.
post #85 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smokering View Post
So if one takes part of a text literally, one must therefore take the entire text literally? That's ridiculous. Any text must be read using commonsense principles of interpretation. If a text is obviously intended to be taken as literal history, it should be read as such; if as allegorical poetry, it should be read as such; if parable, metaphor, simile, hyperbole, satire or irony, it should be read as such. And of course, many or all of these features frequently coexist in a single text. If you are reading a biography of Audrey Hepburn, which is clearly meant to be taken as historical narrative, and you come across the phrase 'she skyrocketed to fame', do you assume that because the majority of the text is literal, this means she actually achieved fame by skyrocketing? Of course not. You realise that a literary device has been employed. The inability of people to employ this very simple rule of common sense with the Bible perpetually amazes me.
So who determines what is literal history and what is poetry or a parable or a metaphor when it comes to the bible? Why is Genesis literal history, but what Jesus said in Matthew a metaphor? And yes, I know the Matthew verses are a metaphor. Why are the Psalms considered poetry, but Proverbs

Quote:
22:15 Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.
13:24 He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.
should be taken literally and should beat my child so they behave? Is Revelations literal, allegorical poetry? Who decides this stuff? And as for the inability to employ common sense with the interpretation of the bible? The exact same thing can be said for people who take Genesis at face value, never mind that most of the creation story, the great flood, etc, was already found in other cultures' literature long before the bible was written. But I guess they don't count. Darn heathens.
post #86 of 118
Are you serious? Nobody 'determines' the genre of a text, if you mean arbitrarily imposing a genre on one. The genres of the Bible are figured out in exactly the same way as any other text--by linguistic analysis. Who 'decides' whether Shakespeare is poetry or prose? It's obvious. Who 'decides' when he's using metaphor or hyperbole? It's obvious.

Quote:
The exact same thing can be said for people who take Genesis at face value, never mind that most of the creation story, the great flood, etc, was already found in other cultures' literature long before the bible was written. But I guess they don't count. Darn heathens.
What is your argument here, precisely? Anthropological evidence exists for the Flood and Creation... I hardly see how that strengthens your case. The fact that variations of the same stories appear is a corroboration of their truth rather than otherwise. Indeed, while Christians believe the Bible was divinely inspired, and therefore a true and uncorrupted version of the events it describes, we would expect to find similar concepts, events and themes in the history of other cultures, albeit distorted through time. The uncanny similarity of the Flood myths worldwide, indeed, is one I have never heard satisfactorily explained away.
post #87 of 118
Thread Starter 
First of all, in response to the questions of literalness, the book of Genesis doesnt say "The Earth is 6000 years old." Nor does it say "the earth is millions and millions of years old." I never based my opinions on the actual text stating it so clearly. If it was clearly stated, it wouldn't be a question for me.


I personally think there are questions to be answered that evolutionists don't have a good answer for like Why are there paintings on cave walls of men walking with dinosaurs? Do you think they were fantisizing about dinosaurs or something?

Ok, my kids are at it again, so thats all for now.
post #88 of 118
Quote:
I personally think there are questions to be answered that evolutionists don't have a good answer for like Why are there paintings on cave walls of men walking with dinosaurs?
How old are these paintings you are speaking of?
post #89 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smokering View Post
The uncanny similarity of the Flood myths worldwide, indeed, is one I have never heard satisfactorily explained away.
ummm...because floods happen all the time? Isn't that pretty obvious? There was a huge tsunami recently...I'm thinking that got written down. There is no evidence for a worldwide flood. NONE.


Quote:
Originally Posted by transformed View Post
I personally think there are questions to be answered that evolutionists don't have a good answer for like Why are there paintings on cave walls of men walking with dinosaurs? Do you think they were fantisizing about dinosaurs or something?
Oh for crying out loud...you just learned that from that Discovery Kids website, didn't you? http://www.discoverymagazine.com/act...ch/dino01.html
Please, for your kids, pick up a basic biology textbook.

And please, it's not "evolutionist" - it's "scientist" or "biologist". Nobody uses the word "evolutionist" except creationists.
post #90 of 118
Just found the website, No Answers in Genesis:

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/

And yes, there are standards to dating methods. Scientists don't assign dates on a lark. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dating
------------------------------------------------------------
As for the two Creation stories in Genesis, they were written at two different times in two different traditions. However, the first presents the first man and woman being created at the same time in God's image. The second has Eve being created after Adam, but with Adam's rib. There is an important theological distinction that is being made here that shows the difference between the two traditions about the status of women and men.

And who do Adam and Eve's descendents procreate with? Did Adam and Eve have daughters that their son(s) married?

Just as no one saw the Big Bang (sigh), no one saw the Earth being created in 6 days with God resting on the 7th. However, much research has given us plenty of evidence that the Big Bang is a far more likely scenario than Genesis.
post #91 of 118
Contrary to what some people think, many Christians have no problem reconciling science and faith.

I wish people would differentiate between fundamentalist Christians who take the bible literally rather than using the blanket term "Christian". There are many Christians who do not believe in a literal interpretation of the bible.

Like Lissa and others, I went to Catholic school and learned about evolution. I'm finishing a PhD in anthropology, so I find these discussions really interesting. I don't know how to argue that evolution exists with literalists, so I usually stay out of these discussions.
post #92 of 118
Quote:
ummm...because floods happen all the time? Isn't that pretty obvious? There was a huge tsunami recently...I'm thinking that got written down. There is no evidence for a worldwide flood. NONE.
Have you ever read the various Flood myths? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html mentions some of them. Note in particular the Lithuanian, Transylvanian Gypsy, Sumerian, Babylonian, Assyrian, Chaldean, Masai.... heck, note them all. 'Floods happen all the time' is an extremely poor attempt at ignoring the obvious similarities between the stories. A hero called Noa? Rainbows being 'given' to mankind after the Flood? The repeated references to an Ark containing birds and beasts, a dove (or some other bird) being released, the boat coming to rest on a mountain, the Flood being a punishment for human wickedness?

Interestingly, this is the only 'argument' I've ever heard presented by evolutionists to explain away the Flood myths. Never mind the vast body of textual evidence, or the fact that there's no anthropological evidence that the myths developed as a result of individual local floods (funny, individual local fires must have happened too, but world mythology doesn't contain hundreds of separate, suspiciously similar accounts of fires destroying the entire world).
post #93 of 118
Thread Starter 
I am done with the disrespectful tone of this discussion, you guys carry on.
post #94 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by witchygrrl View Post
Just found the website, No Answers in Genesis:

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/

And yes, there are standards to dating methods. Scientists don't assign dates on a lark. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dating
------------------------------------------------------------
As for the two Creation stories in Genesis, they were written at two different times in two different traditions. However, the first presents the first man and woman being created at the same time in God's image. The second has Eve being created after Adam, but with Adam's rib. There is an important theological distinction that is being made here that shows the difference between the two traditions about the status of women and men.

And who do Adam and Eve's descendents procreate with? Did Adam and Eve have daughters that their son(s) married?

Just as no one saw the Big Bang (sigh), no one saw the Earth being created in 6 days with God resting on the 7th. However, much research has given us plenty of evidence that the Big Bang is a far more likely scenario than Genesis.
Dating methods are proven wrong.

As a previous poster stated like an overview and then a detailed description.

Yes, sons and daughters married.

I believe that God create the earth, so He was an eyewitness account.

I do not interpret the evidence the same way you do as it being more likely.
post #95 of 118
There is no geological evidence that indicates there was a mass worldwide flood. Yes, there were floods in Mesopotamia, in the Black Sea, in the Great Lakes, floods that happened after the Ice Age, etc. But there is no indication that they happened at the same time around the world. And the world for a Sumerian, or a Greek, or a Native American, would have been pretty small. Or do you think Sumerians knew that the Americas or Australia existed and vice versa?

Man has always used gods and mythology to explain natural phenomenon. How many gods were there of thunder and lightening and weather throughout history? If Georges had happened in the year 1200, the Tainos would have considered it the god Juracan stirring the winds and bristling the waves from the Yunque (the sacred mountain where the good god Yukiyú lived). Which would make sense because the Yunque is the most eastern mountain in Puerto Rico, where there are rain forests, and hurricanes always travel through PR from east to west. Notos from Greek mythology was considered to bring the storm winds from the south during summer and autumn (which is when storms tend to hit in Greece). There are also African tribes with very similar gods to Juracán. Yet there was absolutely no Africans or Europeans on the island until the Spanish invasion. So how did the Tainos get their myth, which is similar to African and European myths and gods?

Hmm...probably went on a tangent there, but the point I'm trying to make is, there are many themes which will be the same or similar across cultures, such as a god shooting thunder from the sky, or man being perverse and the gods getting angry, etc. Plus, when one nation or people conquers another, the conquering culture dominates the vanquished one (like how many pagan religions disappeared under the rise of Christianity), or the vanquished one mixes with the dominating one (some Africans mixed their religion with Islam), or hides under it (like the Africans hide their Orisha under Catholic saint names in America).

History is in the eye of the penholder.
post #96 of 118
It's ironic that as an evolutionist, who sees similarities between species as evidence of relation or a common ancestry, you will not do the same for similarities between stories--even such striking similarities as the Flood myths. Why not? Because in this case, interpreting the data according to the usual principles will cause a contradiction in your worldview. Instead, you change the principles of interpretation to fit with your current theory. Yet that is precisely the charge levelled at creationists, as evidence of 'bias' and 'selectiveness'.

The truth is, of course, that everyone is biased. This in itself is no bad thing. If scientists did not allow themselves to be influenced by prior scientific theories, every experiment would involve reinventing the wheel. Presuppositions are necessary to a cohesive worldview, and there is not necessarily intellectually dishonest about rejecting an interpretation of the data which conflicts with one's presuppositions.

The question then becomes, whose presuppositions are more accurate? If the presuppositions used to support a theory are fallacious, incomplete or self-refuting, the theory cannot be justified. I have already given, in brief, a summary of how secular science is unable to philosophically justify itself. Can you refute this? You have given no actual evidence, textual or anthropological, that the Flood myths developed as you claim; but that problem is minor compared to the fact that you have given no philosophical justification for secular science--that is, the logic and reliability of scientific evidence--at all. Until you can do this, debating evidentials is largely a waste of time.
post #97 of 118
I strongly believe in theistic evolution, so that's what I teach my kids. I see absolutely no contradiction between evolution and God. To take the creation story, a story that was *never* understood by the Hebrews as being literal, as being the literal truth is just absurd to me. Francis S. Collins (an evangelical Christian and head of the Human Genome Project) wrote a fantastic book called The Language of God that really sums up the science-religion connection for me.
post #98 of 118
Smokering, all your "anthropological evidence" shows is that floods happen. Big deal. As far as Noah's flood - there is NO geological evidence to support this, never mind the impossibility of it happening. (After all, how could all these people tell their flood tales if they'd been wiped out?)

You keep ignoring scientific data and focusing on stories and philosophy. You can't say "science is unreliable, so I'm not going to believe any of it that conflicts with my worldview". Well, you could. But it doesn't help your position any. Do you even realize how much evidence we have for common ancestry? It's not simply that we can see the similarities between animals. More and more species are having their whole genomes sequenced - we can see the whole history of evolution in their DNA, much like a paternity test. The DNA evidence would stand on its own, even without all the fossils. You would do well to learn some molecular biology.
post #99 of 118
Manny mythos have similar themes, while there are many that do not. Could be that the "Flood" was from the melting period of the last great Ice Age, around 8,000 years ago, which was fairly widespread. But this is all conjecture. Many floods did happen, and there are other stories of plagues and fires, and what not.

And here's another question. With all of the stories out there from various cultures throughout time, why is it that THIS story is the one put ahead of all others? What proof is there that Genesis is the one that is "inspired by God" and no others, other than what is believed to be the case? What not Native American stories? Egyptian stories? Babylonian stories (many of which influenced Biblical stories, not the other way around)? If you want to cite other stories as proof that the Flood happened or Creation happened in 6 days, why aren't they divinely inspired also? Or are they?

One final thing...we are talking about Scripture that first and foremost belongs to the Jews. I would think they would have the final say since they actually do read it in the original language, and all Jews accept evolution, though they attribute God's Hand behind it all, similarly to some Christians here.
post #100 of 118
Quote:
Smokering, all your "anthropological evidence" shows is that floods happen. Big deal. As far as Noah's flood - there is NO geological evidence to support this, never mind the impossibility of it happening. (After all, how could all these people tell their flood tales if they'd been wiped out?)
Have you read the Flood myths? They don't just say that 'floods happen'. The similarities are far too great and striking to be coincidental. The Creationist answer to your bolded passage is that all current races are descendants of Noah, so they would have taken the story with them as they spread across the globe.
Quote:
You keep ignoring scientific data and focusing on stories and philosophy. You can't say "science is unreliable, so I'm not going to believe any of it that conflicts with my worldview". Well, you could. But it doesn't help your position any. Do you even realize how much evidence we have for common ancestry? It's not simply that we can see the similarities between animals. More and more species are having their whole genomes sequenced - we can see the whole history of evolution in their DNA, much like a paternity test. The DNA evidence would stand on its own, even without all the fossils. You would do well to learn some molecular biology.
Science stands or falls on philosophy. If I'm ignoring or rejecting evidence, that is because evidence is simply data interpreted according to presuppositions. If the presuppositions are wrong, the evidence cannot be seen as reliable. If you found that a famous doctor was treating patients based on the throwing of dice, no matter if he had a pretty good success rate and a great reputation, would you take your child to him to be cured? Would you accept his findings as valid? Of course not (at least, I hope not!). Given that secular science is philosophically fundamentally flawed and illogical, I cannot trust the results it produces. I'm interested to note on this thread that nobody has even attempted to defend science on a philosophical level--in my experience, that's common in discussions of this kind. Because the philosophy of science is rarely taught (I have a friend with a Master's in biology who doesn't know the first thing about it, which is a tad scary), proponents of secular science prefer to ignore the issues, label the philosophy of science as irrelevant, or ignore the obvious logical problems with the method by saying 'Well, it works anyway'--which of course is begging the question.

You may also be interested to know that even literal, young-earth, 6-day creationists accept common ancestry up to a point. The problem with the word 'evolution' is that it implies the molecules-to-man theory which contradicts Scripture, while also being used to describe observable phenomena like contemporary natural selection with which Christians have no problem. Saying 'I don't believe in evolution' usually means rejecting the former theory, not the latter, although of course this will differ between Christians. There are also Christians who claim that 'micro-evolution' is a misnomer, but that's another story.

In any case, see what you're saying. Similarities between genetic codes is not 'evidence'; it is 'data'. Slipping weasel words into the description such as 'development' and 'progression' merely indicate your commitment to the evolutionary worldview. Because of this worldview you interpret the genetic codes as sequential and developmental, thus creating 'evidence' (remember, data interpreted according to presuppositions). However, the genetic codes themselves are not 'evidence' of evolution or of anything. They are simply data. It's a little like saying 'Here's a pancake, a sponge cake and a gateau--they all have similar features, and if we line them up so we can see a clear progression, so we can theorise that pancakes evolved into sponge cakes, and sponge cakes evolved into gateaux'. (Slight mooshing of evolutionary theory there, but you get my point). Whereas of course, somebody else might look at the cakes and say 'They share common elements, they must have been made by the same baker'. Or whatever. The point is, the cakes themselves are not 'evidence'; they are 'data'. So be careful how you use terminology.
Quote:
And here's another question. With all of the stories out there from various cultures throughout time, why is it that THIS story is the one put ahead of all others? What proof is there that Genesis is the one that is "inspired by God" and no others, other than what is believed to be the case? What not Native American stories? Egyptian stories? Babylonian stories (many of which influenced Biblical stories, not the other way around)? If you want to cite other stories as proof that the Flood happened or Creation happened in 6 days, why aren't they divinely inspired also? Or are they?
I suggest you look up Biblical presuppositionalism. But of course, something can be right, or close to right, without being divinely inspired. I don't believe Gone with the Wind was divinely inspired (or even a particularly accurate representation of events), but I do believe it fits in with a vast body of textual evidence that the Civil War occured. And I don't believe that the stories of the ancient Finnish gods were true, but I do believe that the striking similarities between Finnish gods and Greco-Roman gods indicate some early interaction between the two cultures. When two cultures share eerily similar mythologies, histories or stories, linguists and anthropologists are nearly always keen to hunt for a connection. Look at the attempts to find Arthurian legend, on very slim textual evidence, in obscure Celtic myths and folk tales. Someone accused me of focussing on stories--well, I studied English at Uni, I like stories. (I'd also be interested to hear how she philosophically considers anthropology a less reliable branch of science to molecular biology). But stories do have their own, rather developed, discipline; and I repeat, I have never heard any explanation which has adequately explained away the striking, repeated and detailed similarities between worldwide Flood myths.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Religious Studies
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Talk Amongst Ourselves › Spirituality › Religious Studies › christians-evolution