Dinosaurs and man.

[SnowyWhiteTiger]

BWAHAHAHAHAHA that was awesome.

I havent had such a good giggle since the atheist flow chart thread.

-Q

You know, that is Holy Diver.

 

[SnowyWhiteTiger]

LOL . . . Okay, I'll stop being silly. I actually had to look up that last part about Frodo crossing into Mordor on some LOTR page online. I am a Tolkien geek, for truth, but not even I could have come up with that obscure info off the top of my head.

Funny thing is, I actually read Tolkien as religiously as some folks read the Bible. And SnowyWhiteTiger is right, or at least I agree, I find more reason to admire Tolkien's characters than many of the supposed 'heroes' in the Bible.

Silmarilion has a few similarities with Bible. But they are really tiny. And we are going pretty off-topic here.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

google it and see. google "what date was adam created". this debate is about when was adam created and did man exist before then. between theology and science. if you cant acknowledge the theological (biblical) side, then you cant possibly compare it with science.

epic fail

 

[McBell]

Every Christian that accepts the ToE is wanting to reconcile their faith with mainstream science. The same mainstream science that doesn't take into consideration the God that they believe in. They want to believe that the science is bullet proof which it isn't. They want to be considered "rational". They are misguided. How can it be rational to say that the Bible is wrong when that is the basis for their belief?

So basically you are saying that any Christian who believes differently than you are "misguided"?
What makes you so sure that they are the ones who are "misguided"?

 

[The Neo Nerd]

You know, that is Holy Diver.

No i didn't cool song none the less.

-Q

 

[Man of Faith]

So basically you are saying that any Christian who believes differently than you are "misguided"?
What makes you so sure that they are the ones who are "misguided"?

It's very simple, all Christians go by the Bible, or they wouldn't be a Christian. The Bible says that we, the world and everything in it was created in six days. There were no theistic evolutionists before Darwin, so we know the Bible doesn't give us evolution, it gives us creation. From that we can deduce that the Christians that gave up creation changed, the Bible didn't.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

It's very simple, all Christians go by the Bible, or they wouldn't be a Christian. The Bible says that we, the world and everything in it was created in six days. There were no theistic evolutionists before Darwin, so we know the Bible doesn't give us evolution, it gives us creation. From that we can deduce that the Christians that gave up creation changed, the Bible didn't.

Wow... it is as clear as the chicken-egg situation then.....

 

[tumbleweed41]

It's very simple, all Christians go by the Bible, or they wouldn't be a Christian. The Bible says that we, the world and everything in it was created in six days.

Or....
A Christian who is not a Bible idolater studies the teachings of Jesus and makes every attempt to apply those teachings to his or her life, without giving up their God given ability to reason and apply real-life knowledge to the universe God made.

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.
---Galileo Galilei

There were no theistic evolutionists before Darwin, so we know the Bible doesn't give us evolution, it gives us creation. From that we can deduce that the Christians that gave up creation changed, the Bible didn't.

"There is in fact a long history of theistic evolution. One of the early theories of evolution advanced before Darwin, proposed by Robert Chambers in 1844 (Vestiges in the Natural History of Creation), posited an evolutionary process that followed a plan set down by the Creator in the beginning of time. Plenty of other forms of "theistic evolution" were advanced after Darwin as well. Asa Gray, a Harvard professor of natural history, was a famous proponent of theistically guided evolution. These theories were generally unproductive in terms of research, and not testable, so they never became important to biological research, but there is no necessary conflict. They simply constitute distinct and different ways of understanding. As I see it, conflict arises only when one intrudes on the other's territory."
Douglas Baynton , professor of history at the University of Iowa

See, Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation , published before Darwin's The Origin of Species.

 

[Autodidact]

It's very simple, all Christians go by the Bible, or they wouldn't be a Christian. The Bible says that we, the world and everything in it was created in six days. There were no theistic evolutionists before Darwin, so we know the Bible doesn't give us evolution, it gives us creation. From that we can deduce that the Christians that gave up creation changed, the Bible didn't.

Here's the problem with this approach, theologically.
You are asserting that for Christianity to be true, the Theory of Evolution (as well as all of modern Geology, astronomy, cosmology, archeology, anthropology, paleontology and most of physics) must be false. We know that science works, and those things are in fact true. Therefore, using your approach, Christianity must be false.

Or, short version, the only way YEC can be true is if science doesn't work.
YEC, and your type of Christianity, is anti-science.

Wouldn't it be better to adhere to a Christianity that accepts that science does work?

For example, you challenge radiometric dating on the basis that it is based on "assumptions." But those assumptions are simply that science works. In other words, your challenge again boils down to "science doesn't work."

It seems to me that if a person really had faith in Jesus Christ, and agreed that science works, they wouldn't be afraid of science, because they would have faith that science would support their belief.

Your fear of science strikes me as a lack of faith--you're afraid to subject your belief to scientific scrutiny.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

It's very simple, all Christians go by the Bible, or they wouldn't be a Christian. The Bible says that we, the world and everything in it was created in six days. There were no theistic evolutionists before Darwin, so we know the Bible doesn't give us evolution, it gives us creation. From that we can deduce that the Christians that gave up creation changed, the Bible didn't.

How do you know this?

I think that you are completely wrong here. The theory of evolution did not spring from Darwin's leg fully formed. His work built on other scientists of his time and before, and I suspect that many of them were theists.

The father of evolution, Jean-Baptiste Lamark, used the theory to explain what God has done.

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/20556/20556-h/20556-h.htm page 377

 

[tumbleweed41]

Your fear of science strikes me as a lack of faith--you're afraid to subject your belief to scientific scrutiny.

Exactly Auto! I have always said that the more you reject reality for faith, the weaker your faith is.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Exactly Auto! I have always said that the more you reject reality for faith, the weaker your faith is.

Let's not confuse "weak" with "misplaced."

 

[tumbleweed41]

Let's not confuse "weak" with "misplaced."

Not so sure. The way I see it, if one is afraid that tested and confirmed scientific realities will undermine what they believe, then it shows a weakness in their conviction.
It is the either/or mentality of many creationists. Confirmed once by one of our own creationist members who said that if the literal creation and flood did not occur, then he would be compelled to dismiss the entire Bible.
Yes, his misguided idolatry of the Bible showed a strong, yet misguided faith. But his faith in God and Christ was pathetically weak.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Yes, his misguided idolatry of the Bible showed a strong, yet misguided faith. But his faith in God and Christ was pathetically weak.

Yet you're making a sweeping judgment based on one insignificant point.

It's aggrevating that some Christians reject evolution, but that's not the end of the world. It does become a problem when folks try to get creationism and/or ID into schools, but MoF is not doing that.

 

[Gunfingers]

Yet you're making a sweeping judgment based on one insignificant point.

It's aggrevating that some Christians reject evolution, but that's not the end of the world. It does become a problem when folks try to get creationism and/or ID into schools, but MoF is not doing that.

Actually from what i've seen he appears to be part of the "teach the controversy" crowd, who are trying to get creationism and/or ID into schools.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Actually from what i've seen he appears to be part of the "teach the controversy" crowd, who are trying to get creationism and/or ID into schools.

Well, yikes.

 

[Agnostic75]

Millions of American Christians believe that the earth is young.

Beliefs of the U.S. public about evolution and creation

The article also shows that in the U.S., over 99% of scientists who study the earth and its lifeforms accept naturalistic or theistic evolution, and that some of the most likely people to accept creationism are female (no harm intended, ladies), did not graduate from high school, and make less than $20,000 a year.

Two of the best-known Christian organizations that support the young earth theory are the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), and Answers in Genesis (AIG).

Typically, young earth creationists are inerrantists. Inerrantists who appeal to science only use science as a convenience when they believe that it agrees with the Bible. That is intellectually dishonest, and it makes a mockery out of scientific research.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Thus demonstrating the need for an upgrade in the American educational system.

 

[Autodidact]

Exactly Auto! I have always said that the more you reject reality for faith, the weaker your faith is.

And the more vulnerable. If your faith requires rejecting reality, you're gonna be in real trouble when you bump up against it.

Reality is something that when you kick it, it kicks back.

 

[Autodidact]

Yet you're making a sweeping judgment based on one insignificant point.

It's aggrevating that some Christians reject evolution, but that's not the end of the world. It does become a problem when folks try to get creationism and/or ID into schools, but MoF is not doing that.

I think it's more dangerous than that. Once you start down the road of believing any crazy %$@#! regardless of the evidence, it leads to many bad and unforeseen consequences. Basically, for a person or society to function successfully, they have to start with accepting reality. We have a general term for refusing to accept reality. It's "crazy." And once you accept crazy, you're in big trouble.