- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Human evolution: astounding new story of the origin of our species
Posted on 4/3/20 at 1:02 pm to bfniii
Posted on 4/3/20 at 1:02 pm to bfniii
quote:
should he not have done that?
According to both my subjective moral standard and the objective Christian moral standard (whose objectivity I'll accept for the sake of argument) no, God shouldn't have senselessly killed children (or anyone else for that matter).
quote:
based on what?
Based on the rest of that quote you purposefully neglected to post.
quote:
you can't even object to the point without appealing to an objective standard.
As I've stated no less than 3 or 4 times, I'm just borrowing yours.
1
Posted on 4/3/20 at 1:10 pm to bfniii
quote:I'm always open to criticism when it's legitimate. I've thought through most of my positions for a long time but I realize that I am not infallible; I am a sinner and just as capable of error as the next person. I just ask that when criticism is leveled against me for my religious views, that it is support by scripture.
i realize this is not going to be well received but, you are wrong.
quote:I know. There are plenty of biblical scholars that also think that Jesus didn't actually rise from the dead.
plenty of biblical scholars do not agree with you on this point.
quote:Perhaps these days you'd be right, given that that call of the Reformation to sola scriptura has been all but abandoned by so many Christians today. These days the scriptures are interpreted by everything else.
my objection to your perspective is that your claim is not a fortiori. it would be more reasonable to say "MY belief is that the Bible that teaches...."
For the sake of discussion, I'll amend my statement: the orthodox christian view of the scriptures contradicts the teachings of evolutionary origins.
quote:Would you care to address the theological issues that I brought up as to why evolutionary origins would contradict clear teachings of the scriptures about original sin, Christ being the second Adam (who taught as if Adam was a real person and Genesis was historical), and the historical teaching that death came in to the world through sin, which occurred first with Adam?
which is just a silly claim. i personally know of NO biblical scholars who make such a claim. i have never seen that claim defended in any peer reviewed biblical/theological journal. iow, it's just not sound exegesis/hermeneutics. i'm not saying there aren't yec's in academia. i'm saying your claim is not sound biblical interpretation
My concern here is that it seems that you're wanting to interpret the scriptures based on fallible human reasoning in the sciences (peer review) rather than using the scriptures to form the basis for how we are to interpret reality, including within the sciences. No one is neural; everyone has a worldview that they use to approach and interpret reality, and that goes for science as well as religion.
Posted on 4/3/20 at 1:18 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
You have no ultimate basis for rationality if you reject that God.
This is a "because I said so" claim, it belongs in the trash heap of bad Christian arguments right alongside "we get our morals from god." I could substitute any number of gods and ask you the same question, and your special pleading response isn't going to help your case.
Posted on 4/3/20 at 1:19 pm to FooManChoo
Or, the story of Adam and Eve is a parable meant to explain Man’s decision to move away from the relative freedom and innocense of the simple hunter-gatherer lifestyle and instead adopt agriculture and civilization and all of the good and bad consequences that come with it. It roughly mirrors similar creation myths like the Greeks with prOmethias bringing fire to the humans.
The belief in creation and a creator does not mean it must literally happen in 7 days as we understand days as 24 intervals. In fact, the order of creation is pretty much the order in which the earth was created and species evolved according to the scientific record.
Why cannot God act through nature? Did God not create nature? Did God not make the universe? Would he not have created laws of physics and nature through which he could create and maintain his creation? Can’t evolution and the natural sciences be the answers to how while scripture provides the answers to why?
The belief in creation and a creator does not mean it must literally happen in 7 days as we understand days as 24 intervals. In fact, the order of creation is pretty much the order in which the earth was created and species evolved according to the scientific record.
Why cannot God act through nature? Did God not create nature? Did God not make the universe? Would he not have created laws of physics and nature through which he could create and maintain his creation? Can’t evolution and the natural sciences be the answers to how while scripture provides the answers to why?
This post was edited on 4/3/20 at 1:22 pm
Posted on 4/3/20 at 1:20 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
It does seem to be the case, and I believe I'm correct because there is no rational basis for the reality we live in based on an atheistic view of the world. The best you can do is say "that's the nature of the universe" without provide a reason for why it must be that way. I can provide a coherent reason for why the universe is the way it is in my worldview, which requires the existence of God, and I've done so many times.
1.) You go beyond claiming that in an atheistic view of the world there is no basis for rationality and claim that the only way rationality exists is with the Christian God.
2.) That's certainly a strawman of the best I, or anyone else, can do. It's not that "that's the nature of the universe", it's "that's the only way this universe or any other universe could be." I've already gone over with you the three classic laws of thought and how they're inescapable and self evident. You can disagree, but pretending I have no coherent reason for rationality in a godless universe is dishonest.
3.) Your "coherent reason" is simply the assertion that, ultimately, you need a higher power to provide rationality to the universe. Without God there'd be no rationality. I challenged you and said so without a God and apple wouldn't be an apple, to which you replied "no the apple wouldn't even exist". I then said even nothing equaling nothing adheres to the law of identity and you stopped responding.
quote:
Yes I can, and I've done so several times already on this board. I stopped responding to you due to getting involved in other threads and losing track, but I've rationalized my position many times already and am happy to do so again.
You have the floor. Why is rationality dependent on the Christian God?
quote:
Yes it was the case in both examples. All people are sinners and are guilty in their representative Adam. God, being just, requires justice for sin. If He decided to wipe out everyone, He would be just to do so because He is our creator, He is the law-giver, and He is the judge, and He has the moral authority to condemn us if He chooses.
How can you be "perfectly just" and selectively apply punishment? Justice is giving the proper amount of punishment for a misdeed. Being perfectly just is always giving the proper amount of punishment for a misdeed.
quote:
hat's not an accurate portrayal of God or His actions at all
If God can solve a problem without bloodshed, but chooses to solve it with bloodshed, how is that so different from steering a car into a crowd of people.
God needs to solve a problem (make a delivery). He can choose route A or route B. Route A has a parade of people marching down it, and route B is open to traffic. God chooses to go down route A, killing people, to make his delivery.
Even assuming the delivery is so important that it justifies loss of human life, route B was still an option.
What I said is spot on, God steered his car into a crowd of people and you worship him for it.
quote:
but even if it were, you'd have no basis for saying it's morally wrong without acknowledging that He exists and provides a moral standard to judge His actions by.
Fine, take the negative connotations out of it. I'm simply stating a fact.
You are worshiping a God who steered his car into a crowd of people. Take it as a compliment, and insult, however you want. But it's a good comparison.
Posted on 4/3/20 at 1:21 pm to bfniii
quote:
i am excited to hear about this new development that no one has ever heard of or responded to about a million zillion times!
I'm sure you'll claim to be open minded as well.
Posted on 4/3/20 at 1:27 pm to nematocyte
quote:You're wrong. No other worldview, religious or otherwise, provides a coherent basis for objective moral reasoning. If you provide another god or religious worldview, I'll then ask you to defend the incoherence within that belief system.
This is a "because I said so" claim, it belongs in the trash heap of bad Christian arguments right alongside "we get our morals from god." I could substitute any number of gods and ask you the same question, and your special pleading response isn't going to help your case.
Posted on 4/3/20 at 1:36 pm to Azkiger
I think the point is for man to solve their own problems. “God helps those who would help themselves” is a pretty repetitive theme in the Bible. The people who see the most success are not those who trust God blindly while waiting for God to improve things fully, nor are they people who ignore God thinking they can do everything themselves. God blesses those who decide to trust God AND themselves. Basically, those who are “luckiest” are the people who put themselves repeatedly in the best situations to get lucky. It’s also about not only worshipping God out of fear, or appearances, or status, or because you need something, it’s about gratitude and the idea that if you work hard to fix your problems, with faith, God will help you be right where you need to be at the end of the day. This is accomplished by not cheating, lying, stealing, killing, etc, keeping yourself physically healthy (dietary laws), and treating others like you wish to be treated.
For good or bad, that’s sorta the quick synopsis for why it’s been an enduring and worthwhile ethos for so many for so long.
For good or bad, that’s sorta the quick synopsis for why it’s been an enduring and worthwhile ethos for so many for so long.
Posted on 4/3/20 at 1:37 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
You're wrong. No other worldview, religious or otherwise, provides a coherent basis for objective moral reasoning. If you provide another god or religious worldview, I'll then ask you to defend the incoherence within that belief system.
Your justification for "objective moral reasoning" is essentially since nothing is eternal and something can't come from nothing, everything, even immaterial things (time, morality, rationality, etc.) must also come from something. I'm going to call that something the Christian God who sent his son to die on the cross to wash away sin and was resurrected three days later. Oh yea, and that rule I just made up, I'm going to break it because I need to, God is eternal so he doesn't need an explanation like I demand everything you postulate does.
Let's be honest here, you're selling a used Volvo not a Ferrari.
Posted on 4/3/20 at 1:41 pm to kingbob
quote:Because the writing isn't poetic and it doesn't have attributes of a parable. It's written as a historical account based on the language used.
Or, the story of Adam and Eve is a parable meant to explain Man’s decision to move away from the relative freedom and innocense of the simple hunter-gatherer lifestyle and instead adopt agriculture and civilization and all of the good and bad consequences that come with it. It roughly mirrors similar creation myths like the Greeks with prOmethias bringing fire to the humans.
quote:The text of the Bible describes a historical account in Gensis. The 4th commandment even uses creation as a basis for a day of rest. The Bible also uses several key words or phrases to denote a 24-hour period versus an age, or general time period. The markers in Genesis 1 indicate that the author was trying to relay a 24-hour period of time. The only reason to justify a different timing would be to try to interpret the Bible based on something else, such as evolutionary thinking.
The belief in creation and a creator does not mean it must literally happen in 7 days as we understand days as 24 intervals. In fact, the order of creation is pretty much the order in which the earth was created and species evolved according to the scientific record.
quote:No, evolution can't be the answer because it would contradict other important concepts and doctrines also taught by scripture.
Why cannot God act through nature? Did God not create nature? Did God not make the universe? Would he not have created laws of physics and nature through which he could create and maintain his creation? Can’t evolution and the natural sciences be the answers to how while scripture provides the answers to why?
Posted on 4/3/20 at 1:49 pm to 1BamaRTR
quote:
We hit 1B people around 1800, we are nearing 8B less than 200 years later.
Not really surprising. Have you gotten a look at what some of those Neanderthal babes looked like?? Now imagine what the smelled like!
This post was edited on 4/3/20 at 1:53 pm
Posted on 4/3/20 at 1:51 pm to FooManChoo
You seem to have a very narrow view of interpreting scriptures translated into the vernacular about 50 different times between Moses and now, with Genesis basically being a compilation of oral traditions. We all know that stories told orally never change over time as they are shared between different authors. It is definitely possible to ascertain with certainty the intent of Moses by reading the language of the King James Bible. That’s not a stretch in any sense of the word.
Posted on 4/3/20 at 1:58 pm to Eli Goldfinger
quote:
Nothing about evolution disputes Christ’s divinity.
nobody is denying micro evolution. that is what is laid out above. macro evolution aka neo darwinism has more holes than swiss cheese. laws of thermodynamics and law of conservation of angular momentum actually are evidence that the big bang never happened. the big bang is attached to the hip of neo darwinism.
Posted on 4/3/20 at 2:00 pm to Fat Bastard
Yet the idea of a big bang is pretty much creationism
Posted on 4/3/20 at 2:02 pm to Fat Bastard
quote:
nobody is denying micro evolution. that is what is laid out above. macro evolution aka neo darwinism has more holes than swiss cheese. laws of thermodynamics and law of conservation of angular momentum
Holy shite
Wait.
HAHAHAHAHA
Posted on 4/3/20 at 2:20 pm to kingbob
quote:
Yet the idea of a big bang is pretty much creationism
Pretty much.
Posted on 4/3/20 at 2:29 pm to Dale51
quote:
Yet the idea of a big bang is pretty much creationism
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ttCwL23ax1o
quote:
Give Us One Free Miracle
791 views 17 0 Share Save Report Famcore 68 subscribers SUBSCRIBE
Published on Jun 27, 2017
“As my friend Terence McKenna used to say, that modern science is based on the principle, 'Give us one free miracle, and we'll explain the rest'. And the one free miracle is the appearance of all the matter and energy in the universe, and all the laws that govern it, from nothing, in a single instant." - Rupert Sheldrake
Going for the foundational, not the sensational. LINK More videos and courses to strengthen your core. Audio- Rupert Sheldrake TEDX talk titled "The Science Delusion"
A miracle indeed...
This post was edited on 4/3/20 at 2:31 pm
Posted on 4/3/20 at 2:39 pm to Eli Goldfinger
quote:
Nothing about evolution disputes Christ’s divinity
If it is the explanation for the origin of man, then it absolutely does.
If the Bible lied about God creating man, you can't believe it about anything else, including Jesus.
This is a pass/fail position. You either believe God's explanation or you believe that man evolved from lesser organisms. There is no gray area there.
Posted on 4/3/20 at 2:43 pm to Dawgwithnoname
Evolution doesn’t say god didn’t create man, it explains HOW God created man. God made the lesser organisms so he could make man. God blessed man and man alone with consciousness to question the reason of his existence.
Jesus’s birth had nothing to do with evolution anyways, because the source of his divinity was the Immaculate Conception, i.e. God acting directly and impregnating Mary.
Jesus’s birth had nothing to do with evolution anyways, because the source of his divinity was the Immaculate Conception, i.e. God acting directly and impregnating Mary.
This post was edited on 4/3/20 at 2:45 pm
Posted on 4/3/20 at 3:02 pm to ThinePreparedAni
Graham Hancock has been saying this forever. He is a great follow on this topic. “Stuff keeps getting older”
Page 7 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News