Creationism and Evolution. Conflict or reconciliation.

[McBell]

Well, you are right. So you win again. I have an issue with that, but you are so normal, that you are special in effect.
So you get the next post and you can choose to go for the win or not.

Low hanging fruit is low hanging.
Why you go to such great lengths to lower it even further is any ones guess.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Spoiler: Unpopular opinion

To be completely honest, It is my opinion that the majority of Christians are rational.
At least for the most part.

The problem, as I see it, is that it is the irrational nut job Christians who make the most noise, so they are the ones heard from the most.
Which makes it appear that the majority of Christians are irrational nut jobs.

I agree 100%,

 

[Valjean]

Common use is exactly where definitions come from, and are why language evolves and dictionaries have to update often. Regardless, if I want to know the current definition of a word, I go to a dictionary. I don't make up my own private meaning.

But specialized disciplines traditionally agree on and use 'proper', technical definitions with specific meanings, to avoid misunderstanding, interpretation or nuance. There are technical dictionaries with specific definitions that often differ from Webster's.

I often hear creationists criticizing evolution as "only a theory," for example. Not understanding or using technical definitions in technical discussions can lead to misunderstandings.

 

[firedragon]

I don't know of any time where scientists have tried to prove that God doesn't exist.

So who claimed that? Red Herring.

This is an incomplete sentence. Richard Dawkins affirms that WHO being such a strong evangellist means WHAT?

I think you should read that post again.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The image that Genesis is talking about is a mental image. Our minds reason in a similar way that God's mind reasons. There is no seeing of an invisible being. God has no physical form so we cannot be made in a physical image of God. But God has a mental image. And we can be made in that.

You're playing the role of the rational Christian, so I will address you as if you held those beliefs. We can't know what the Bible writers meant precisely by "God created man in his own image," but whatever it means, suggests to me that there was a factor involved in evolution besides those presently identified - an element of artificial selection - which could be added to the theory if there were a reason to do so, but that would need to be done to reconcile the difference between the modern theory and supernaturalism.

There are clear errors in the Bible. That is why it is an error to demand that all of it is literally true. But there is a deeper underlying truth to it. I do not know of any Christian that follows the old laws of slavery. Of what to do with adulterers. Of what to do with people with different religious views living in one's neighborhood. One simply cannot interpret the Bible literally and still be a "Christian".

To the rational Christian again: If you agree the Bible contains errors, why do you believe it came from an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent deity? Such a revelation ought to be perfect. From R. G. Ingersoll on the subject of what a such a book of divine origin would be like:

It should be a book that no man -- no number of men -- could produce.

It should contain the perfection of philosophy.

It should perfectly accord with every fact in nature.

There should be no mistakes in astronomy, geology, or as to any subject or science.

Its morality should be the highest, the purest.

Its laws and regulations for the control of conduct should be just, wise, perfect, and perfectly

adapted to the accomplishment of the ends desired.

It should contain nothing calculated to make man cruel, revengeful, vindictive or infamous.

It should be filled with intelligence, justice, purity, honesty, mercy and the spirit of liberty.

It should be opposed to strife and war, to slavery and lust, to ignorance, credulity and superstition.

It should develop the brain and civilize the heart.

It should satisfy the heart and brain of the best and wisest.​

Once again, rational Christian, why do you think the Bible, which you agree contains errors, comes from a deity? Why do you take ancient life advice from it?

Just to clarify, popular dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive. They report the current popular -- as opposed to 'proper' -- usage of words.
Many of the discussions here on RF are of a technical nature and, as such, would benefit from the specific, agreed-upon definitions of technicians or practitioners involved in the fields under discussion. These "technical" terms used often differ from their meanings in common parlance ... But specialized disciplines traditionally agree on and use 'proper', technical definitions with specific meanings, to avoid misunderstanding, interpretation or nuance. There are technical dictionaries with specific definitions that often differ from Webster's. I often hear creationists criticizing evolution as "only a theory," for example. Not understanding or using technical definitions in technical discussions can lead to misunderstandings.

Agree with all of the above, but you're not including creationism in that basket of terms with specialized, technical meanings, are you?

On one side one has a theory developed by the flawed thinking of men and on the other side one has the Word of God who knows all things.

That men's thinking is often flawed doesn't make the theory flawed. The theory is correct beyond reasonable doubt notwithstanding the objections of creationists, whose doubt is based in faith, not reason.

And if you read the words above these, we've been discussing the flawed thinking in scripture, which you have no problem with and likely can't identify. If you'd like a good understanding of how the world works, look to empiricism, not revelation. And humanists have updated biblical morality, which is inadequate for today's world, where we have democracies in place of kings and slavery is outlawed.

There's a Ten Commandments thread going now as well where those deficiencies are discussed in the context of hanging the document in Louisiana public schools.

I have always wondered how mutation would survive. To survive it needs to replicate but since it is new it does not have a mate.

Good question - how does a mutation get passed on to the next generation? It must be a mutation in a gamete (sperm cell or egg).

Notice that the mutation doesn't generally affect the host unless it leads to a malignancy or causes other disease. It's first realization in the phenotype (physical appearance and function of an individual organism) is in the offspring.

Evolution could never prove the non-existence of God

If by "God" you mean the god of Abraham, that deity has already been ruled out. There were no six days of creation or first two humans.

If a god was involved, it acted in a way consistent with our science. It would have to be something like the deist god, who is said to have created the seed of the universe and left it to unfold naturalistically into the world we find today (old earth creationism). Or a trickster god who enjoys creating last Thursdayism universes. But what it's not the YEC's god they call "God," because the things that that god is said to have done never happened.

You likely disagree. In the past including once quite recently with me, when you have been disagreed with, you have resorted to emotional, dismissive posting. Hopefully, if you choose to respond, you can do so as politely and dispassionately as I have answered you.

Let me give you a slightly better source than "a dictionary".

Nobody posting here seems to need one. We know what the word means and use it correctly.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You're playing the role of the rational Christian, so I will address you as if you held those beliefs. We can't know what the Bible writers meant precisely by "God created man in his own image," but whatever it means, suggests to me that there was a factor involved in evolution besides those presently identified - an element of artificial selection - which could be added to the theory if there were a reason to do so, but that would need to be done to reconcile the difference between the modern theory and supernaturalism.

Okay, I am game. I agree with many Jews that the scriptures are a living work. That means that one will always be finding more meanings to them. As we learn there are concepts that we can throw out, but there are also areas where we must strive for a deeper understanding. So my response will be an honest, I do not know how the Bible relates to the formation of man. I tend to leave science to the scientists.

To the rational Christian again: If you agree the Bible contains errors, why do you believe it came from an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent deity? Such a revelation ought to be perfect. From R. G. Ingersoll on the subject of what a such a book of divine origin would be like:

It should be a book that no man -- no number of men -- could produce.​

​

It should contain the perfection of philosophy.​

​

It should perfectly accord with every fact in nature.​

​

There should be no mistakes in astronomy, geology, or as to any subject or science.​

​

Its morality should be the highest, the purest.​

​

Its laws and regulations for the control of conduct should be just, wise, perfect, and perfectly​

​

adapted to the accomplishment of the ends desired.​

​

It should contain nothing calculated to make man cruel, revengeful, vindictive or infamous.​

​

It should be filled with intelligence, justice, purity, honesty, mercy and the spirit of liberty.​

​

It should be opposed to strife and war, to slavery and lust, to ignorance, credulity and superstition.​

​

It should develop the brain and civilize the heart.​

​

It should satisfy the heart and brain of the best and wisest.​

Once again, rational Christian, why do you think the Bible, which you agree contains errors, comes from a deity? Why do you take ancient life advice from it?

Now I am going to have to be a little bit less rational and admit that the Bible is none of these. But again we can see a deeper truth to it. When we read some of the teachings of Jesus it is easy to see that there is an inner truth to them such as the Golden Rule. There are more difficult passages such as the one about how people that lust after others have committed adultery in their mind. I do not think that was a condemnation. That is something that we all do. Something that we cannot help but do. That verse is more about warning people not to judge others for their private actions. It is easily misinterpreted.

God has to work through imperfect man. The results will be imperfect too.

Agree with all of the above, but you're not including creationism in that basket of terms with specialized, technical meanings, are you?

A literal interpretation of Genesis leads to beliefs that are so wrong that a rational person can see that the book was never meant to be read that way. It is more like a collection of tales about faith and trust for children. Seriously, have you ever seen a story that is aimed more at children than Noah's Ark? We have the same sorts of tales today. Curious George is one such collection from my childhood. I do not take it literally either, but they are not without value.

That men's thinking is often flawed doesn't make the theory flawed. The theory is correct beyond reasonable doubt notwithstanding the objections of creationists, whose doubt is based in faith, not reason.

I agree. Faith is a tool that needs to be used carefully. Not abused wantonly.

And if you read the words above these, we've been discussing the flawed thinking in scripture, which you have no problem with and likely can't identify. If you'd like a good understanding of how the world works, look to empiricism, not revelation. And humanists have updated biblical morality, which is inadequate for today's world, where we have democracies in place of kings and slavery is outlawed.

Some of the works of the Bible were clearly for a limited time. One of the flaws of the Bible is that there is no expiration date on some instructions, like the laws of slavery in the Bible. They offered slaves some protections but not enough. God is not the magical genie of fundamentalists. He will not bail a country out of trouble if it follows God's laws or not. God's laws are about how people should get along with each other. Giving slaves some protection was better than none. Sorry, God had to let us make our own mistakes and slowly learn from them.

There's a Ten Commandments thread going now as well where those deficiencies are discussed in the context of hanging the document in Louisiana public schools.

Ironically the people trying to place the Ten Commandments in schools are breaking the First Commandment. They are making an idol of the Ten Commandments and are trying to force others to agree with them.

Good question - how does a mutation get passed on to the next generation? It must be a mutation in a gamete (sperm cell or egg).

Notice that the mutation doesn't generally affect the host unless it leads to a malignancy or causes other disease. It's first realization in the phenotype (physical appearance and function of an individual organism) is in the offspring.

If by "God" you mean the god of Abraham, that deity has already been ruled out. There were no six days of creation or first two humans.

Once again, Genesis is clearly not history. It works as a series of morality tales.

If a god was involved, it acted in a way consistent with our science. It would have to be something like the deist god, who is said to have created the seed of the universe and left it to unfold naturalistically into the world we find today (old earth creationism). Or a trickster god who enjoys creating last Thursdayism universes. But what it's not the YEC's god they call "God," because the things that that god is said to have done never happened.

An that is why we can see that we cannot read that book literally. The parables are not literal accounts either, though that has not stopped some sects from insisting that they are.

You likely disagree. In the past including once quite recently with me, when you have been disagreed with, you have resorted to emotional, dismissive posting. Hopefully, if you choose to respond, you can do so as politely and dispassionately as I have answered you.

What? Where did that come from? No fair making up your won past history.

Nobody posting here seems to need one. We know what the word means and use it correctly.

Oh POOP! I hate scrolling up and down and assumed that whole post was aimed at me so I tried to keep in character. Oh well, I will leave my posts and I am done trying to think as a rational Christian because I will not be able to defend the crucifixion and the idea of being "saved".

 

[McBell]

You're playing the role of the rational Christian, so I will address you as if you held those beliefs. We can't know what the Bible writers meant precisely by "God created man in his own image," but whatever it means, suggests to me that there was a factor involved in evolution besides those presently identified - an element of artificial selection - which could be added to the theory if there were a reason to do so, but that would need to be done to reconcile the difference between the modern theory and supernaturalism.

To the rational Christian again: If you agree the Bible contains errors, why do you believe it came from an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent deity? Such a revelation ought to be perfect. From R. G. Ingersoll on the subject of what a such a book of divine origin would be like:

It should be a book that no man -- no number of men -- could produce.​

​

It should contain the perfection of philosophy.​

​

It should perfectly accord with every fact in nature.​

​

There should be no mistakes in astronomy, geology, or as to any subject or science.​

​

Its morality should be the highest, the purest.​

​

Its laws and regulations for the control of conduct should be just, wise, perfect, and perfectly​

​

adapted to the accomplishment of the ends desired.​

​

It should contain nothing calculated to make man cruel, revengeful, vindictive or infamous.​

​

It should be filled with intelligence, justice, purity, honesty, mercy and the spirit of liberty.​

​

It should be opposed to strife and war, to slavery and lust, to ignorance, credulity and superstition.​

​

It should develop the brain and civilize the heart.​

​

It should satisfy the heart and brain of the best and wisest.​

Once again, rational Christian, why do you think the Bible, which you agree contains errors, comes from a deity? Why do you take ancient life advice from it?

Agree with all of the above, but you're not including creationism in that basket of terms with specialized, technical meanings, are you?

That men's thinking is often flawed doesn't make the theory flawed. The theory is correct beyond reasonable doubt notwithstanding the objections of creationists, whose doubt is based in faith, not reason.

And if you read the words above these, we've been discussing the flawed thinking in scripture, which you have no problem with and likely can't identify. If you'd like a good understanding of how the world works, look to empiricism, not revelation. And humanists have updated biblical morality, which is inadequate for today's world, where we have democracies in place of kings and slavery is outlawed.

There's a Ten Commandments thread going now as well where those deficiencies are discussed in the context of hanging the document in Louisiana public schools.

Good question - how does a mutation get passed on to the next generation? It must be a mutation in a gamete (sperm cell or egg).

Notice that the mutation doesn't generally affect the host unless it leads to a malignancy or causes other disease. It's first realization in the phenotype (physical appearance and function of an individual organism) is in the offspring.

If by "God" you mean the god of Abraham, that deity has already been ruled out. There were no six days of creation or first two humans.

If a god was involved, it acted in a way consistent with our science. It would have to be something like the deist god, who is said to have created the seed of the universe and left it to unfold naturalistically into the world we find today (old earth creationism). Or a trickster god who enjoys creating last Thursdayism universes. But what it's not the YEC's god they call "God," because the things that that god is said to have done never happened.

You likely disagree. In the past including once quite recently with me, when you have been disagreed with, you have resorted to emotional, dismissive posting. Hopefully, if you choose to respond, you can do so as politely and dispassionately as I have answered you.

Nobody posting here seems to need one. We know what the word means and use it correctly.

Do you want it perfect or where the ones it is revealed to will understand?
More to the point, does God want it perfect or where those it is revealed to can understand?

Seems you want it both ways.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

So who claimed that? Red Herring.

You said,

Evolution could never prove the non-existence of God.

My reply is simply that it does not attempt this, doesn't even consider this the purview of science. So why would you even make that remark?

 

[firedragon]

My reply is simply that it does not attempt this

Very good. Thanks.