Posted on 09/18/2006 1:51:27 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
Now the liberal evos are trying to tell Christians how to abandon or doubt their faith and accept Darwinism. How crass of them. Let me explain to them how they can reject Darwinism and accept creationism. Read Genesis Chapter 1.
As a supporter of the theory, I would suppose the burden of proof is on you. I asked for specific, demonstrable info about transitional forms. With the vast wealth of fossils that have been discovered, there should be an easily demonstrable "path" of change over millions of years, say from a dog or cat. You choose the mammal, and let us know where it came from according to the fossil record.
You wrote:
"So, your god is a book? On the one hand you have a book that claims to be the Word of God, but is demonstrably false, and on the other you have verifiable evidence and observation.
Proof positive, ladies and gentlemen, that some Christians actually worship the Bible and not God."
Please demonstrate where the Bible is false, according to your assertion.
No, I don't worship the book, but Jesus said the Scriptures cannot be broken (John 10:35).
He also said: "If ye believe not Moses' writings, how shall ye believe my words?"(John 5:47)
If we reject Moses' writings, let us at least be consistent and reject Christ's too. If we believe in Christ, let us give those Holy Writings he endorses our full assurance of faith.
Dimensio,
Enjoy your faith. I doubt it will take you where you want to be on Judgment Day.
I will also enjoy what is, admittedly, my faith. Jesus Christ has changed my life for the better, and I look forward to spending eternity with Him.
Thanks for the discussion.
Steve Weaver
I am sorry to see that you have divorced belief from rationality. However, it is a very modern position.
For the life of me I can not understand why polls and political/theological arguments are relevant. Evolution fit the geological, biological and genetic scientific findings quite well. I offers a plausible explanation for our observations (Yes, I know I will get "shot" for that assertion but I will ignore it). Cause / effect has likely spurred impassioned debate ever since Grog "discovered" fire. Or, perhaps fire discovered Grog (and he tasted good)?
http://www.salon.com/books/int/2006/08/23/shermer/index_np.html
Sure he is a Christian, because Christians write these articles on a daily basis. This guy is the founder of skeptic magazine, why would any faith believing person listen to a guy that agressively goes out to destroy peoples faith? Always do your research.
Evolutionism implies biological determinism.
_______________
From the perspective of the human body, so does Christianity. The body lives, the body dies.
The soul is not a biological entity.
srweaver what is the prototype mammal, from which all others descended?
dim: Why do you expect there to be a determined answer to these questions?
Because that's what science is supposed to be about. That's what you guys claim to have.
What? Can't the ToE answer those questions?
So, can't the ToE answer those questions?
No where did I imply it was irrational to have religious belief.
Judging from your other posts, I think it is unlikely that we will have a productive conversation.
Though I sometimes enjoy reading the discussion on breaks away from those bigger fish, I agree with you.
Ethics is illusory inasmuch as it persuades us that it has an objective reference. This is the crux of the biological position. Once it is grasped, everything falls into place.
Michael Ruse and E. O. Wilson, The Evolution of Ethics, in Religion and the Natural Sciences: The Range of Engagement, ed. J. E. Hutchingson (Orlando, Fl.: Harcourt and Brace, 1991).
5. Evolution accounts for specific Christian moral precepts. Much of Christian morality has to do with human relationships, most notably truth telling and marital fidelity, because the violation of these principles causes a severe breakdown in trust, which is the foundation of family and community. Evolution describes how we developed into pair-bonded primates and how adultery violates trust. Likewise, truth telling is vital for trust in our society, so lying is a sin.
This post has my vote for both the most stupid and ironic post of the day. The FR atheists and ACLU Republicans advocating this post enjoy
"the CHRISTIAN veiw of this 'creator' is quite different than the one Evolution allows one to believe in."
I'll grant you that the atheistic version of evolution is different from the Biblical version of creation, but to suggest that there are no Christians who believe in evolution is, I think, incorrect.
There is a recently published book, "The Language of God." It's on the NYT best seller list. I don't agree with everything the author says, but he illustrates, I think, that you don't have to believe in the "traditional" interpretation of Genesis in order to be a Christian. And frankly, I don't know any Christian denomination that claims that you've got to ascribe to a particular interpretation of Genesis in order to be saved. There are some that will make you feel uncomfortable if you don't, but that's not quite the same thing.
I read an article not too long ago that claimed that the majority of doctors believe in God. Most doctors would probably also confide that they believe in evolution, I think.
It's a mistake to insist that any aspect of science that does not completely parallel the traditional interpretations of the various parts of the Bible must be wrong. Throughout history, the Church has lost that battle over and over. The world is not flat. The sun does not orbit the earth...
Why would we insist on fighting an unnecessary war, using the excuse that if one scientific claim is true, then the Bible is a lie? Particularly when there's a good chance that we will lose it in the end, and the logic does not follow anyway?
Your post is much appreciated. Thank you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.