[_ Old Earth _] Evolutionism denies the fall.

[Jim Parker]

The most frustrating thing about the conflict between science and religion is how utterly unnecessary it is.

 

[Cygnus]

I don't think the Gospel is at all simple--at the heart of Christianity is a God who chooses to teach through parables, explicitly so that people will have difficulty understanding him.

It shows just how hardened your heart is towards God ideas. Even the simple parables you have difficulty understanding. It's like trying to explain to a blind man from birth what the color red looks like.

As the Bible says: And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.” John 6:65.
later you said:

The most frustrating thing about the conflict between science and religion is how utterly unnecessary it is. Does science have a decidedly atheistic bias?

Personally I couldn't make such a claim. I can see the fingerprint of God in a lot of scientific. The heavens declare His glory.
I can also see it on the microscopic level as the atheist...and even the theo-evo sect ...try to explain how process such as this can happen naturally.

 

[Silmarien]

It shows just how hardened your heart is towards God ideas. Even the simple parables you have difficulty understanding. It's like trying to explain to a blind man from birth what the color red looks like.

As the Bible says: And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.” John 6:65.
later you said:

Ooh, ad hominem. My favorite logical fallacy.

Pretty ironic use of it, though, all things considered.

Personally I couldn't make such a claim. I can see the fingerprint of God in a lot of scientific. The heavens declare His glory.
I can also see it on the microscopic level as the atheist...and even the theo-evo sect ...try to explain how process such as this can happen naturally.

The way science is approached has an atheistic bias, I meant. People assume naturalism and then write off any other worldview as unscientific. You can assert evolution and then not make assumptions about how it might work, but people with a strong anti-teleological bias will rush in and start screaming that natural selection is the only possibility. It's frustrating.

I think part of the problem is that you're making a distinction between natural and supernatural that theistic evolutionists do not make. We go back to the classic theism of Acts 17:28: "For in him we live, and move, and have our being." If you think that if God withdraws his grace, the entire universe ceases to exist, it no longer matters if speciation is a matter of special creation or not. That processes occur naturally does not mean that they occur independently of God--that is an incoherent position for any theist.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Ooh, ad hominem. My favorite logical fallacy.

1 Corinthians 2:14
1Co 2:14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.
Scripture is never a logical fallacy.

 

[Barbarian]

The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

It is, at least this time, ironic.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Did you have something to say?

 

[Silmarien]

1 Corinthians 2:14
1Co 2:14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.
Scripture is never a logical fallacy.

I could just as easily say that you guys are spiritually blind for not reading Genesis the way I think it should be read. It's not necessarily a logical fallacy to say that people are susceptible to spiritual blindness, but it is very much an ad hominem attack to use that particular passage to shut down discussion whenever you feel like it.

But by all means, keep the good Christian charity coming.

 

[civilwarbuff]

I could just as easily say that you guys are spiritually blind for not reading Genesis the way I think it should be read.

But that would not be from scripture; it would simply be your opinion. Now, if you have a scripture that says your POV is correct/mine is wrong then I need to listen.

It's not necessarily a logical fallacy to say that people are susceptible to spiritual blindness, but it is very much an ad hominem attack to use that particular passage to shut down discussion whenever you feel like it.

It is not designed to shut down discussion, it is a statement from 2000 years ago explaining why those without the Holy Spirit struggle to understand scripture and so frequently get it wrong.

 

[civilwarbuff]

This is probably better discussed in the Theology or Apologetics forum instead of Christianity/Science forum.....

 

[Cygnus]

Ooh, ad hominem. My favorite logical fallacy.

Pretty ironic use of it, though, all things considered.



The way science is approached has an atheistic bias, I meant. People assume naturalism and then write off any other worldview as unscientific. You can assert evolution and then not make assumptions about how it might work, but people with a strong anti-teleological bias will rush in and start screaming that natural selection is the only possibility. It's frustrating.

I think part of the problem is that you're making a distinction between natural and supernatural that theistic evolutionists do not make. We go back to the classic theism of Acts 17:28: "For in him we live, and move, and have our being." If you think that if God withdraws his grace, the entire universe ceases to exist, it no longer matters if speciation is a matter of special creation or not. That processes occur naturally does not mean that they occur independently of God--that is an incoherent position for any theist.

I would think the video I presented easily refuted you..before you even replied.

Perhaps as an atheist you'd like explain how the organelle evolved.

 

[Cygnus]

I could just as easily say that you guys are spiritually blind for not reading Genesis the way I think it should be read.

The bottom line is your interpretation is incorrect. If you would apply simple hermeneutics you would understand.

 

[Silmarien]

But that would not be from scripture; it would simply be your opinion. Now, if you have a scripture that says your POV is correct/mine is wrong then I need to listen.

I haven't yet seen a reasonable argument from Scripture that Genesis cannot be read allegorically, so all we're dealing with is opinions.

It is not designed to shut down discussion, it is a statement from 2000 years ago explaining why those without the Holy Spirit struggle to understand scripture and so frequently get it wrong.

This is ridiculous. Paul was quite explicitly talking about people who look at Scripture, decide it's nonsense, and then discard it as such. You'll see plenty of that if you venture into the parts of the internet where atheists tend to congregate. In that case, I'd agree that they don't know what they're talking about, but I don't think I'd start quoting Paul at them because of it.

I would think the video I presented easily refuted you..before you even replied.

Perhaps as an atheist you'd like explain how the organelle evolved.

How does it refute anything? The difference between you and me is that you think God created life and I think that God used evolution as a process to create life. I am fine with the idea that evolution doesn't explain everything; you seem uncomfortable with the idea that evolution explains anything. Would you like to explain exactly how you think God brought the organelle into existence?

I seriously worry about the interpretative methods of anyone who would look at the way I've approached this thread and conclude that I'm an atheist, though. If you're trying to sabotage your own argument by showcasing poor reading comprehension skills, congratulations.

 

[civilwarbuff]

I haven't yet seen a reasonable argument from Scripture that Genesis cannot be read allegorically, so all we're dealing with is opinions.

What, in scripture, would lead you to believe it should be read allegorically and not literally? Certainly not the lineage of Jesus traced back to Adam.

This is ridiculous. Paul was quite explicitly talking about people who look at Scripture, decide it's nonsense, and then discard it as such. You'll see plenty of that if you venture into the parts of the internet where atheists tend to congregate. In that case, I'd agree that they don't know what they're talking about, but I don't think I'd start quoting Paul at them because of it.

No, Paul was quite clear in stating that the 'natural man' (kjv) cannot understand scripture because it is spiritually discerned. That spirit is the Holy Spirit.

 

[Cygnus]

I haven't yet seen a reasonable argument from Scripture that Genesis cannot be read allegorically, so all we're dealing with is opinions.

I love dropping this on the nay sayers such as you. You see, Paul wrote a letter to Timothy. In that letter Paul instructed the women on how to act in church. So, one might ask....just what did Paul base this rule upon? The answer is a literal reading of Genesis. Why would Paul base a rule on an allegorical story? That makes no sense. So, as you see there is an extremely reasonable argument from scripture that shows Genesis can't be read as allegorical.

 

[Cygnus]

If you're trying to sabotage your own argument by showcasing poor reading comprehension skills, congratulations.

Oh my....now you feel the need to switch to an ad-hom style of argument?

 

[civilwarbuff]

Realizing I am in a non-debate forum I believe I will close out so some one () does not take me to task for it. ft anyone is interested, I will set up a thread elsewhere so the debate may continue. Let me know.....

 

[Cygnus]

Would you like to explain exactly how you think God brought the organelle into existence?

Through intelligent design...that's pretty obvious.
It becomes instantly obvious that a process of random chance mutations.....where very, very, few mutations would be considered to enhance the fitness of the organelle would be impossible.
As an atheist even you should be ale to recognize the extreme complexity of what happens in a cell.
You can watch this amazing 7 min video.

 

[Silmarien]

I love dropping this on the nay sayers such as you. You see, Paul wrote a letter to Timothy. In that letter Paul instructed the women on how to act in church. So, one might ask....just what did Paul base this rule upon? The answer is a literal reading of Genesis. Why would Paul base a rule on an allegorical story? That makes no sense. So, as you see there is an extremely reasonable argument from scripture that shows Genesis can't be read as allegorical.

We're going around in circles, because I have and will continue to maintain that Paul absolutely would base a rule on an allegorical story, and in fact did so in Galatians 4:24.

Oh my....now you feel the need to switch to an ad-hom style of argument?

Very well. If your problem isn't reading comprehension, it's deliberate malice, as I've now told you twice that I'm not an atheist and you continue to refer to me as one. Your pick which is the bigger problem.

 

[civilwarbuff]

We're going around in circles, because I have and will continue to maintain that Paul absolutely would base a rule on an allegorical story, and in fact did so in Galatians 4:24.

Yeah, I had to come back in.....especially after your claim. You just demonstrated 1 Cor 2:14. It appears you believe Paul is calling the birht of Issac and Ishmael allegories but you are not specifying how they are allegorical. If you could understand scripture you would understand what Paul was saying. Are you willing to take a crack at what he meant or would you rather someone here tell you?

 

[Cygnus]

We're going around in circles, because I have and will continue to maintain that Paul absolutely would base a rule on an allegorical story, and in fact did so in Galatians 4:24.

One thing I really wish is this...you who tend to distort the Bible would read around the verse...apply proper hermeneutics...and present it in the correct context.
For you Silmarien I post the complete text. This way you can read it and see your mistake.

21Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not listen to the law? 22For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman. 23But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise.24Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants.

One should notice that which is mentioned as allegorical...is based upon an event that was literal and historical. This kinda blows your reply out of the water.
If you discover an actual example, please post it. I'd like to read it.