I think that there was no Adam and Eve, that it is just a fable that someone came up with to convince people to not defy the Almighty
I think that there was no Adam and Eve, that it is just a fable that someone came up with to convince people to not defy the Almighty
KNOW THYSELF
That's the core of the battle between evolution and creation. Man doesn't want to acknowledge God and therefore people believe in evolution yet turn a blind eye to its fallacies. I can understand that to some, God seems like a needless complication to life but because He has saved me I know otherwise.
"The time has come," the Walrus said,
"To talk of many things:
Of shoes--and ships--and sealing-wax--
Of cabbages--and kings--
And why the sea is boiling hot--
And whether pigs have wings."
This is, I must say, a fairly useless comment. First of all, acceptance of the theory evolution does not entail atheism. Ken Miller, for example, is both a brilliant evolutionary biologist and a Roman Catholic. Second, atheism does not require acceptance of the theory of evolution (take a look at David Hume, for one, who died thirty years before Darwin was born). Third atheists are not people who don't "want to acknowledge God" or people to whom "God seems like a needless complication to life", they are people who don't believe in God.Originally Posted by andave
Seriously, we've got enough ad hominem arguments on this thread as it is.
What is the use of a violent kind of delightfulness if there is no pleasure in not getting tired of it.
- Gertrude Stein
A washerwoman with her basket; a rook; a red-hot poker; th purples and grey-greens of flowers: some common feeling which held the whole together.
- Virginia Woolf
I apologize for annoying you but I don't budge from what I say. Yes, you can believe that all the Bible is correct except Genesis and still be a Christian. But, if one doesn't believe the first book of the Bible is legit, what makes the other books true? The next logical step would be to say that the Resurrection is impossible. Then the entire purpose of God and Christianity would fall apart because Jesus' Resurrection is the core of my faith.
And furthermore, a nice sort of witness I'd be if I believed in both the Bible and in something contradictory to it.
I'm afraid I didn't clarify. I didn't mean that all atheists are evolutionists; rather, I've read accounts of atheists who disbelieve evolution because of a lack of proof but didn't believe in creation either.
I'm not qualified to talk about what atheists believe because I don't know any personally. I never even talked about atheists in my post! As you say, they don't believe in God because they refuse to acknowledge He exists. Does that make my stand a little more sharply defined?
"The time has come," the Walrus said,
"To talk of many things:
Of shoes--and ships--and sealing-wax--
Of cabbages--and kings--
And why the sea is boiling hot--
And whether pigs have wings."
Atheism doesn't require evolution, but evolution is the most powerful engine of atheism invented. It allows one to be an intellectual atheist, whereas the previous scientists were attempting to understand God.
One could interpret it as a metaphor. Or an alegory.
This would be an example of the slippery slope logical fallicy. Catholics still believed in the Resurrection last time I checked.
Well perhaps I was reading into it a bit too deeply, but that's who I thought you were refering to when you said that man refuses to acknowledge God.
No, that's not what I said. Refusal to acknowledge that God exists would require a) that God exists and b) a fairly large body of evidence of this fact that one might ignore. a is in question, and b simply isn't there. Refusal to acknowledge God's existence requires theism.
Because there were no intellectual atheists before Darwin.
Nope. They were attempting to understand nature. Previous philosophers were trying to understand God (or gods, depending on which philosphers), but natural philosophy (alias science) has never had much to do with God.
What is the use of a violent kind of delightfulness if there is no pleasure in not getting tired of it.
- Gertrude Stein
A washerwoman with her basket; a rook; a red-hot poker; th purples and grey-greens of flowers: some common feeling which held the whole together.
- Virginia Woolf
[QUOTE=Dyrwen;53370]Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. It only has to do with how life evolved over time to become what it is today. [QUOTE]
Well just to let you know evolution has everyhting to do with life because if it didn't then what are we doing here. really if you want my opinion i think you don't know what you believe in and that you are completely confused on the subject of life its self.
This would be an example of the slippery slope logical fallicy. Catholics still believed in the Resurrection last time I checked.
well actually cuppajoe_9 you are wrong because the whole point of the resurection is the fact that he broke the gap from humans to god. the whole popint of christ dying on the cross was so that we didn't have to go through a prest to talk to him and last time i checked the cathlics believed that they are not worthy enouph to talk to god himself so they pray to mary and all of the saints and they rely on them talking their prayers to god and taht is not what the resurection is about.
So they might believe that it happened but they don't actually belive in it the porpose of it.
No. The theory of evolution describes how animals speciate and adapt to their environment. The hypotheses of abiogenesis describe how life may have originated on earth. The two concepts are quite seperate.
What? I was raised Catholic, friend. They pray to God (and Jesus, and the saints). They believe in the literal truth of the resurrection of Jesus' body from the grave.
What I am talking about it whether or not they believe it happened. The differences between Catholic and Protestant interpretations of the Resurrection are not strictly relevant to my point.
What is the use of a violent kind of delightfulness if there is no pleasure in not getting tired of it.
- Gertrude Stein
A washerwoman with her basket; a rook; a red-hot poker; th purples and grey-greens of flowers: some common feeling which held the whole together.
- Virginia Woolf
Yep - or one could take it litarally. We choose the latter.
Not necessarily. If you remove a foundational piece of a highly integrated work, it is possible to start an avalanche of sorts. andave_ya is speaking of the unity of the Bible. The Bible presents a unified picture - once you start pulling pieces out and discarding them or reinterpreting them to where they alter the picture of Who God Is, then all other miracles in the Bible are subject to such revision. It's hard for me to explain this in a clear way, because it involves the arc of the entire Bible - but it all links together.
This is because of the presuppositional natures of our two positions: yours is that God doesn't exist; ours is that He does; therefore, it is perfectly accurate to use the language andave_ya uses - because the Bible makes it clear that all humans have an internal "knowledge" or at least an awareness (of sorts) of God. From the Christian perspective, there is no framework that exists outside Him. To say He doesn't exist is to refuse to acknowledge what the Bible claims you know - even if only at a subconscious level.
At least after the Enlightenment. Before then they had a bit closer relationship. But the Enlightenment was when science decided that it no longer needed the knowledge gained through spirituality - which is why it will always lack part of the picture when it claims to have assessed exactly what "reality" is.
"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." - C.S. Lewis
You're quite welcome to. That isn't the issue, however. The point is that the theory of evolution does not necessarily demand that Genesis be untrue, just allegorical.
I suppose it's possible, but andave suggests that it is necessary.
This is not, I must say, very impressive reasoning.
1. Everybody knows, even if subconciously, that God exists.
2. We know this, because it says so in the Bible.
3. We know the Bible is reliable because it was inspired by God.
4. We know that God exists because everybody, even if subconciously, knows that God exists.
And we have now completed a playful circle. Anthropology, however, has a bone to pick with P1. Children raised in atheist families do not readily understand the concept of a God. A study of the wretchedly poor underclasses of Victorian England found that many children did not know who God is or what he does.
Show me the scientist who claims to "have assessed exactly what 'reality' is".
What is the use of a violent kind of delightfulness if there is no pleasure in not getting tired of it.
- Gertrude Stein
A washerwoman with her basket; a rook; a red-hot poker; th purples and grey-greens of flowers: some common feeling which held the whole together.
- Virginia Woolf
The same thing would hold then. If Genesis is a metaphor or an allegory, why wouldn't Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John be metaphors or allegories?One could interpret it as a metaphor. Or an alegory.
"The time has come," the Walrus said,
"To talk of many things:
Of shoes--and ships--and sealing-wax--
Of cabbages--and kings--
And why the sea is boiling hot--
And whether pigs have wings."
Because they have (allegedly) more historical support than Genesis, perhaps? It's still a slipperly slope fallicy. Catholics hold the concepts of an allegorical Genesis and a literal Luke in their heads quite comfortably.
What is the use of a violent kind of delightfulness if there is no pleasure in not getting tired of it.
- Gertrude Stein
A washerwoman with her basket; a rook; a red-hot poker; th purples and grey-greens of flowers: some common feeling which held the whole together.
- Virginia Woolf
Evolution is a hypothosis based on the theory of spontaneous generation,
which is contrary to a proven law of science. The law of biogenesis meaning
that living things can only come from other living things. Another is the
cell principle, which states that all living things are divided into cells and that
cells come only from preexisting cells. These are tried and proven laws and
principles accepted in the scientific world. Not anyones oppinion.So if you
believe the Bible or not isn't important, however, the fact that evolution
couldn't of even occured is.
No, evolution is a theory and it does not in any way depend on abiogenesis.
They are also arguments from ignorance:
1. It is not known how life can originate from non-life.
2. Therefore, life cannot originate from non-life.
1. All known examles of life are divided into cells.
2. Therefore, life cannot exist unless divided into cells.
Kind of an 'all rats have tails' problem.
But, again, you are talking about abiogenesis. Not evolution.
What is the use of a violent kind of delightfulness if there is no pleasure in not getting tired of it.
- Gertrude Stein
A washerwoman with her basket; a rook; a red-hot poker; th purples and grey-greens of flowers: some common feeling which held the whole together.
- Virginia Woolf
Evolution is based on abiogensis, and for it to be a theory it would have to stand the test of time and would be verified by experiment after experiment.
Evolution has never once been verified. It is therfore a hypothesis.
Posting Permissions
