Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Why don't you tell us how you square most of the Bible with your beliefs? Doesn't make sense to me. You're asking for others to 'answer' some question that you aren't answering yourself.
-
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!
If asked...
- Thread starter Parsimony
- Start date
Why don't you tell us how you square most of the Bible with your beliefs? Doesn't make sense to me. You're asking for others to 'answer' some question that you aren't answering yourself.
The creation account does not make up "most" of the Bible. At any rate, I think the creation account was most likely metaphorical because a literal interpretation doesn't match evolution. After my studies, I have come to accept that the evidence for evolution is too powerful to ignore. For that reason, I believe the Bible must be interpreted to match evidence and not the other way around. However, I do not hold to any one metaphorical interpretation. I'm flexible on that.
Where did I ask anyone how they interpret the Bible in light of evolution? That's not what this thread is about.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
I don't think anyone understands what this thread is a about.
Last edited:
I explained in post #74.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Nah still isn't clear. I don't think people understood your point at all.
I'm not sure how to make it any clearer than I already have. Doesn't seem anyone else has any problems understanding it (well, assuming their silence suggests that). Sorry, don't think I can help here.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
I'm not having problems understanding, there aren't any relevant replies to your thread, so I thought i'd help out and try to get you to be clearer about what you're trying to say, o.k. you don't seem to want that help, so adios.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Lol...Yes you can assume that if you want..
Call_of_the_Wild
Well-Known Member
The argument is based on inference. First off, I am an independent Christian and while there are things that the very VAST MAJORITY of all Christians believe in regarding the faith, there may be some differences and disagreements among us. I am a independent Christian...and I do not belong to any church but I do confess that I am am sinner and that I accept by faith that Jesus Christ died on the cross for my sins, and it is to him that I am thankful and give praise to.
Now, with that being said...I don't know what kind of evidence that a creationist can provide...but I also don't know what kind of evidence an evolutionists can provide either. My only point from the get-go is the fact that based on what humans have observed throughout the history of human-kind, dogs have always produce dogs, cats-cats, etc. And what I am saying is, there is no REASON to believe that long ago, when no one else was around to see it, that things were otherwise different. I just don't see any reason to believe it...and I will go out on a limb and say that to be honest, I don't even think it is scientifically possible for such large scale-changes to occur in the first place.
Second, my personal belief system is that during the creation account, God may have created many different "original-kinds". So there may have been an original "house-cat" kind and all the small house cats that we see alive today are branches from that original kind...and the same applies for other different types of animals.
I admit, I believe this by faith...I can't prove it...but I just don't see any reasons to believe that such large scale changes such as macro-evolution has ever occurred, and until I can get an observation to go along with the theory, then as far as I'm concerned, macroevolution is a blatant lie and any Christian who believes in it is in error.
Looncall
Well-Known Member
You are complaining about something that no-one claims happens. Your confident ignorance is letting you down.
What is observed is that minor changes accumulate through time. If part of a population is isolated, say by a river changing course or some such, the two populations can obviously accumulate different sets of further changes and eventually become quite different.
The biblical "kinds" guff has tainted many people's thinking, unfortunately.
Call_of_the_Wild
Well-Known Member
Right, and according to the theory, these minor changes will lead to major changes...that is the theory, but no one has ever observed this...it is an assumption that has been passed on as a brute fact when it isn't
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
But every single piece of evidence indicates that it is the case. That's why it is "passed on as a brute fact".
Gordian Knot
Being Deviant IS My Art.
CW said "...I just don't see any reasons to believe that such large scale changes such as macro-evolution has ever occurred, and until I can get an observation to go along with the theory..."
This sentence right here is what causes me personally to wonder if you have any genuine interest in understanding. Plenty of factual evidence has been given to you and your response is, for all intents and purposes, you see no reason to believe in any evidence that contradicts what you want to believe.
Now, obviously, I don't know you from Adam, so maybe you do not think that way at all. I'll leave it to you to correct me if my assumptions are wrong.
My problem with this way of thinking is that if the only proof that is acceptable is direct human observation, then you cannot believe in the Christian creation myth either. No human was there to see it happening.
If you are going to be consistent in what you say you believe, you have to agree with that last paragraph. If you do not, then it is hard not to conclude that you want to pick and choose your 'truths'. Which leaves you in a position that few people can accept that you have any credibility.
This sentence right here is what causes me personally to wonder if you have any genuine interest in understanding. Plenty of factual evidence has been given to you and your response is, for all intents and purposes, you see no reason to believe in any evidence that contradicts what you want to believe.
Now, obviously, I don't know you from Adam, so maybe you do not think that way at all. I'll leave it to you to correct me if my assumptions are wrong.
My problem with this way of thinking is that if the only proof that is acceptable is direct human observation, then you cannot believe in the Christian creation myth either. No human was there to see it happening.
If you are going to be consistent in what you say you believe, you have to agree with that last paragraph. If you do not, then it is hard not to conclude that you want to pick and choose your 'truths'. Which leaves you in a position that few people can accept that you have any credibility.
Call_of_the_Wild
Well-Known Member
Not at all. The only thing we observe is changes within the kind. Why should I believe that long before I got here and long after I am gone, animals will be able to do things that I dont observe them doing while I am here?
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Then please present evidence which does not support evolution.
As I have explained to you in painstaking detail on dozens of occasions, that doesn't contradict evolution. Speciation doesn't require an organism to reproduce something other than what it is; it only requires an organism to reproduce a variation of what it is. Everything that reproduces reproduces a copy of itself with variation, and speciation occurs when this variation builds to the extend that a population of organisms divides into two populations that can no longer interbreed. Both populations still belong to the family of organisms they are born from, but both are variations within that taxonomic rank. This is how evolution works, and how it has always worked. If you understood evolution theory, you would already know this.
They don't. That's the whole point, and the fact that you still don't understand this when it has been so clearly explained to you so many times is testament to your inability to accept this simple information.
AndromedaRXJ
Active Member
I've explained this to him a dozen times too already. He blatantly ignored what I said about this in one thread and continued on saying "kinds stay within kinds" as if that's an argument against Evolution. That's his main method of argument against Evolution. By insisting over and over that the Theory of Evolution makes a certain claim when it doesn't, followed by refuting the claim over and over.
@Call_of_the_Wild.
Your Bible is wrong because it can't prove Poseidon exists, who is a Greek god. Does that sound reasonable to you on my part? Understand that you can take any two organisms and they'll always share some degree of kinship. A cat and a monkey are both placental mammals. Just like your example of an "original cat kind" there was an original placental mammal kind that wasn't any special variation we see today. A cat and a bird are both amniote vertebrate. Same thing above applies there too.
Last edited:
Call_of_the_Wild
Well-Known Member
I can't present evidence that doesn't support theistic evolution, but I can present evidence that doesn't support naturalist evolution. I've said this a dozen times already, my argument is against naturalistic evolution, and based on this, evolution is impossible, because in order for any life to evovle, life must first exist (obviously). But science has yet to prove that it is even possible for life to come from nonlife..and not only life, but conscious life. Science cannot be used to explain the origin of consciousness. So since science cannot do this, naturalism is a irrational position and therefore naturalistic evolution could NEVER have occurred, not to mention the fact that the theory itself is unscientific anyway.
Look, without the bio-babble, in a nut shell..it is quite simple. Go back in time before there was any living, breathing organisms. Now fast foward to the very first living and breathing organism (whatever that is). Now keep in mind I said "the very first" living and breathing organism. That specific organism looks very different than an elephant, right? So if we share a common ancestor with that first living and breathing organism, then obviously, animals were producing different kinds of animals..otherwise, there is just no way to explain the different kinds of species that we see. So how do you get from the very first organism to the modern day elephant? Some voodoo stuff was going on there, that's how.
Now you can deny it all you want, but that is what the theory is, in a nut shell.
Call_of_the_Wild
Well-Known Member
Again, as I just told him...if you go back in time to when the very first organism began to exist (however that happened), that organism looks vastly different than an elephant...so the only way to explain any species leading up to an elephant is for an elephant to come from a non-elephant.
Triumphant_Loser
Libertarian Egalitarian
Jeee-zus!
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Wrong. You are clearly unaware of the most basic concept behind evolution - change over time. At no point from the evolution of the first cell to an elephant did any critter give birth to an offspring of a different species.
Evolution does not suggest that an elephant could ever give birth to a non elephant, and if such an event did occur it would be evidemce AGAINST macro evolution, not for it.