• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Creationist objections to plant evolution?

Agnostic75

Well-Known Member
sandy whitelinger said:
Believing in evolution skews their interpretation of the Bible.

Are you saying that creationism is true, and that theistic evolution is false?

Do you believe that a global flood occured?
 

Agnostic75

Well-Known Member
sandy whitelinger said:
I'm saying that the Biblical world and the natural world do not seem to coincide. And, no, I do not believe the Bible speaks of a world-wide flood.

Do you accept creationism, or theistic evolution?
 

Agnostic75

Well-Known Member
sandy whitelinger said:
You seem to miss my point but I'll answer your question as both.

Let me state it differently. Do you believe that humans and chimps share a common ancestor, also referred to as an example of macro evolution? Or, stated yet another way, do you believe that Adam and Eve were the first modern humans, and had no genetic predecessors?
 
Last edited:

sandy whitelinger

Veteran Member
Since you answered my question about the global flood directly, and refused to do so regarding creationism, I will interpret your response as that you accept creationism, and the story of Adam and Eve.
That was part of my answer. I answer both questions directly. You refused the answer.
 

dust1n

Zindīq
Every one seems to cling to some cherished preconcieved notion. "Rose tints my world and keeps me safe from my trouble and pain." -The Rocky Horror Picture Show

Ah, reasonable peoples make me happy. I don't mind cherished notions, we all have rose tints. What I do mind is the completely black tint some seem to possess.
 

sandy whitelinger

Veteran Member
Agnostic... I suggest you look up Gould's concept of "non-overlapping magisteria".

Non-overlapping magisteria - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It should help you figure out what Sandy is telling you.

Essentially the truth of the natural world and the truth of the spiritual world are not always going to be the same. A person who is secure in their faith isn't really bothered by that.

wa:do
Wow, someone not only thought of this before me but it has a really funky name. That generally sums up my position in that I will not discount either version.
 

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
Wow, someone not only thought of this before me but it has a really funky name. That generally sums up my position in that I will not discount either version.
Now you have a funky official sounding answer you can toss out when people push you on the subject. :D

It essentially sums up my position on the science/faith issue as well.

wa:do
 

sandy whitelinger

Veteran Member
Now you have a funky official sounding answer you can toss out when people push you on the subject. :D

It essentially sums up my position on the science/faith issue as well.

wa:do
I seem to prefer screwing with their heads and watching them flounder since they just can't wrap their mind around the concept of accepting the validity of both. I should probably get out more.
 

dust1n

Zindīq
Ah, like a non-exclusivity clause. I don't blame anyone for wanting to make a term to distinguish the mindset from others.
 

Enai de a lukal

Well-Known Member
I'm saying that the Biblical world and the natural world do not seem to coincide. And, no, I do not believe the Bible speaks of a world-wide flood.

Hmm, we can remedy that right quick-

"Noah was six hundred years old when the floodwaters came on the earth. And Noah and his sons and his wife and his sons’ wives entered the ark to escape the waters of the flood... And after the seven days the floodwaters came on the earth...the floodgates of the heavens were opened. And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights...

For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits. Every living thing that moved on land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark." (Gen 7:6-24)
 

Enai de a lukal

Well-Known Member
Agnostic... I suggest you look up Gould's concept of "non-overlapping magisteria".

Non-overlapping magisteria - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It should help you figure out what Sandy is telling you.

Essentially the truth of the natural world and the truth of the spiritual world are not always going to be the same. A person who is secure in their faith isn't really bothered by that.

Unfortunately, Gould's non-overlapping thesis is, considerated as a descriptive account, patently false- religion, particularly Christianity, frequently makes claims about the natural world, the domain of science. As a normative thesis, it is not false, but is actually probably a good idea, but whether it is achievable is less obvious. The fact is that virtually every religion includes truth-claims about the natural world (including eastern religions), and for many faiths, reinterpreting these claims amounts to, more or less, a rejection of the faith itself.

And Gould's idea has been more or less systematically abused by theists who want to have their cake and to eat it too; whenever a religious truth0claim turns out to be false, one claims it pertains to "the spirit world", or whatever- just as people did when it was fashionable to regard scripture as primarily a matter of analogy, metaphor, or demythologization.
 

mycorrhiza

Well-Known Member
Come on! If evolution is so obviously false there must be some evidence that there is no evolution in plants. I'm still waiting for examples...
 
Top