[_ Old Earth _] 11,000 Clergymen Accept Evolution Theory

[Dunzo]

http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/religion_science_collaboration.htm

500 scientists? Pittance! They don't even hold a candle to my 11,000 clergymen.

 

[MrVersatile48]

Kinda begs the question..

"Can 11,000 clergymen be wrong?"


Answer?

When they clearly disagree with Jesus' quoting creation as fact, most definitely they are wrong!


DNA disproves macro (microbes to man) evolution

& shows each species Designer-made fit for purpose by the Most Brilliant Brain in the Universe


The fossil record disproves macro (microbes to man) evolution

& shows each species Designer-made fit for purpose by the Most Brilliant Brain in the Universe


Entropy disproves macro (microbes to man) evolution

& shows each species Designer-made fit for purpose by the Most Brilliant Brain in the Universe


Mutation disproves macro (microbes to man) evolution

& shows each species Designer-made fit for purpose by the Most Brilliant Brain in the Universe


Clear evidence of global flood depositing Earth's strata from heaviest rocks at the bottom to lightest soils at the top disproves macro (microbes to man) evolution & shows each species Designer-made fit for purpose by the Most Brilliant Brain in the Universe


More @ my blog - ondaball-offdawall-outasite-right - google bookmark each page & it's at the earliest page 2/4 that each of those points are expanded


See learned articles, mags, books, CDs, DVDs & MP3s @:-

http://www.discovery.org/csc

http://www.creationontheweb.net

http://www.AnswersInGenesis.org


Nutty Prof Richard (Dorky) Dawkins defined biology as the study of species that appear to have been designed for a purpose - as I quoted to him on http://www.bbc.co.uk/liverpool lunchtime phone-in, Jan '06, between his 2 blasphemous http://www.channel4.com docus calling for the destruction of all religion - which is the crime of inciting genocide

I challenged him, or any other evolutionist professor,to come to EU's biggest & best http://www.ChesterZoo.org.uk to point out he myriad missing links - vital transitional forms - @ every falsely supposed stage of the Darwin drivel evolutionary chain/ladder/tree

If Darwin were right, the differences between mooted adjacent steps would be as tiny as those between adjoining frames of a movie

The fact we can plainly tell, not only dog from fox from wolf, but even King Charles Spaniel from Cocker, again shows each species to be Designer-made by the Most Brilliant Brain in the Universe


'Dork' comes to Liverpool Uni for a blasphemous public 'culture' prog lecture @ 6.30 on Feb 25


All at http://www.loveyouruni.org.uk urgently urged to read "Truth, Lies & Science Education" by Dr Paul Taylor, MSc, MEd, '07 @ http://www.AnswersInGenesis.org - foreword by their brilliantly witty Scouse Prof Dr Monty White

See also their "Revised & Expanded Answers Book", by Dr Jonathan Sarfati

Feb's Elim Pentecostal 'Direction' mag, p31, offers 3rd edition revised & expanded colour A4 mag 28-page format "The Design Revolution: The Delusion of Evolution"

500 copies = 69p each

1000 copies = 59p each


Demand academic freedom of speech

Protest evil forcing kids to parrot lies & boycott plain truth to getwhat is therefore worthless 'qualifications'


Altogether now...123...

We don't need no thought control!


Expose on all media how it's purposely preparing the gullible for the worst global tyranny ever: the Beast/Antichrist of Revelation 13, etc


Must go

Ian

 

[Jayls5]

Mr Versatile, that was an enormous series of unsubstantiated claims there.


I stopped once I got to the section about thermodynamics, as the person who wrote it obviously has no idea what the law entails. Entropy applies to closed systems. Things will tend toward disorder if it does not have an outside source of energy. In our case, we have a nifty little star we call "the sun" which gives life to our planet and halts the tendency towards entropy.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Why would TOE have any relevance to the anti-christ? That is ridiculous. I can see the same people claiming Galileo was laying the foundation for the anti-christ.......

 

[Dunzo]

Why hasn't that guy been banned yet?

 

[freeway]

Just as it says in the bible, that in the last days man will throw away good doctrine for things that tickle there ears, or my take,, they'll want to go along with whats popular, and right now evolution is the in thing, for now.

 

[John]

Just as it says in the bible, that in the last days man will throw away good doctrine for things that tickle there ears, or my take,, they'll want to go along with whats popular, and right now evolution is the in thing, for now.

pretty cool how the Bible says all this will happen, (and it is) many things the Bible claims are happening right now, its funny even what we can clearly see in our lives about the Bible and people still deny it. the way i see it if the Bible is right now why can't it be right about everything ? because if its wrong then Gods a liar, God would not Have the Bible full of lies and half truths to deceive the people he wants to save.

 

[Orion]

Can you list these things that are currently happening?

 

[jwu]

the way i see it if the Bible is right now why can't it be right about everything ? because if its wrong then Gods a liar, God would not Have the Bible full of lies and half truths to deceive the people he wants to save.

Or not everything in the Bible was written by God, and normal men induced errors.

 

[Orion]

I small point of "correction", jwu. . . . . . it was ALL written by men. :wink:

Having said that, I believe that not all of it was inspired. I believe that not all of it was to be taken literal. I believe that a good amount of it is metaphorical/figurative/parable. I believe that, where man is involved, you WILL receive errors. . . .probably many.

 

[Free]

Having said that, I believe that not all of it was inspired. I believe that not all of it was to be taken literal. I believe that a good amount of it is metaphorical/figurative/parable.

Then:

1. How do you know which parts are inspired and which are not?
2. How do you know which parts to take literally and which not to take literally?

What criteria do you use and how did you come to determine to use those particular criteria?

 

[Jayls5]

Having said that, I believe that not all of it was inspired. I believe that not all of it was to be taken literal. I believe that a good amount of it is metaphorical/figurative/parable.

Then:

1. How do you know which parts are inspired and which are not?
2. How do you know which parts to take literally and which not to take literally?

What criteria do you use and how did you come to determine to use those particular criteria?

I imagine a Christian might respond with Romans 2:14-15.

 

[freeway]

Having said that, I believe that not all of it was inspired. I believe that not all of it was to be taken literal. I believe that a good amount of it is metaphorical/figurative/parable.

Then:

1. How do you know which parts are inspired and which are not?
2. How do you know which parts to take literally and which not to take literally?

What criteria do you use and how did you come to determine to use those particular criteria?

I imagine a Christian might respond with Romans 2:14-15.

how about: 2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

 

[Orion]

Having said that, I believe that not all of it was inspired. I believe that not all of it was to be taken literal. I believe that a good amount of it is metaphorical/figurative/parable.

Then:

1. How do you know which parts are inspired and which are not?
2. How do you know which parts to take literally and which not to take literally?

What criteria do you use and how did you come to determine to use those particular criteria?

~~If something is obviously non-literal, and the majority of the text seems to be, then it's a good possibility that any "fantastical language" is probably non-literal as well.
~~If something seems to defy evidence to the contrary, then it's probably going to be figurative. This may be the case of the text being metaphorical, or it may be the case that the writer wrote down things which can't happen, believing them TO BE ABLE to occur, based upon his general lack of scientific understanding.
~~If something SEEMS to be "less than moral", then it probably wasn't inspired.
~~If something obviously appears to be the words of a man, even though he is inspired by the character of God, they're probably still his own words.
~~If something seems to be what you'd expect from an "all loving God", then perhaps it was something, a characteristic, that the writer became inspired from and wrote about it.

how about: 2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

The only problem with this is that, when those particular words were written down on the media of choice, there WAS no Canon, as we know it. If fact, there were countless religious texts in various places. Sometime during the reign of Constantine, or after, a group of clergy decided upon which texts THEY thought were "inspired". They made a choice based upon what THEY liked. So, to say "all scripture", in 2 Timothy, you really need to ask what the writer of Timothy was talking about and WHICH texts, because perhaps the writer of Timothy had a completely differnt idea of what was actually "inspired scripture" and what was not . . . and this group of clergy would have had no idea what was and what wasn't.

I know that you'll say that "God wouldn't allow 'his word' to be anything other than what we have now", but I put much less faith in the opinions of early church clergy and their debates.

EVEN SO, . . . . a truly inspired piece of work FROM God would result in the one-ness of its message. . . and ALL Christians would state the same message. . . . . . .and there would be no denominations because the message would be SO true and SO obvious that there would be ONE focus and NO infighting.

 

[jwu]

I small point of "correction", jwu. . . . . . it was ALL written by men. :wink:

True...i wanted to take only one small step at a time though.

how about: 2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

Did Paul consider the very letter in which he wrote this line to be part of scripture? I don't think so - he most likely referred to what people generally considered scripture at that time, not including his own writings or any other recent (from his point of view) writing for that matter - and especially not those parts which today are considered scripture but which were not even written yet in Paul's days.

Moreover, that line is just Paul's personal opinion, and he may very well have been mistaken. After all, applying Paul's statement to himself is blatant circular reasoning.
And finally, "God-breathed" does not equal "written by God" of course.

 

[Free]

~~If something is obviously non-literal, and the majority of the text seems to be, then it's a good possibility that any "fantastical language" is probably non-literal as well.
~~If something seems to defy evidence to the contrary, then it's probably going to be figurative. This may be the case of the text being metaphorical, or it may be the case that the writer wrote down things which can't happen, believing them TO BE ABLE to occur, based upon his general lack of scientific understanding.
~~If something SEEMS to be "less than moral", then it probably wasn't inspired.
~~If something obviously appears to be the words of a man, even though he is inspired by the character of God, they're probably still his own words.
~~If something seems to be what you'd expect from an "all loving God", then perhaps it was something, a characteristic, that the writer became inspired from and wrote about it.

Interesting how all your criteria are very subjective--it's all what "seems" to be true or untrue. It clearly shows you have no idea as to proper biblical hermeneutics which is why you struggle so much with what the Bible says.

how about: 2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

The only problem with this is that, when those particular words were written down on the media of choice, there WAS no Canon, as we know it.

Irrelevant. At the very least that verse encompasses the whole of the Tanakh.

If fact, there were countless religious texts in various places. Sometime during the reign of Constantine, or after, a group of clergy decided upon which texts THEY thought were "inspired". They made a choice based upon what THEY liked.

You really need to learn some history and theology if you want to debate such things. There were very strict criteria in place to determine which books were most likely inspired.

So, to say "all scripture", in 2 Timothy, you really need to ask what the writer of Timothy was talking about and WHICH texts, because perhaps the writer of Timothy had a completely differnt idea of what was actually "inspired scripture" and what was not . . . and this group of clergy would have had no idea what was and what wasn't.

See above. They had quite a good idea of what was inspired and what wasn't.

EVEN SO, . . . . a truly inspired piece of work FROM God would result in the one-ness of its message. . . and ALL Christians would state the same message. . . . . . .and there would be no denominations because the message would be SO true and SO obvious that there would be ONE focus and NO infighting.

Completely false. I could probably use the same argument to show most, if not all, of evolution to be false. Disagreement has nothing to do with the veracity of truth claims.

And finally, "God-breathed" does not equal "written by God" of course.

It means that what was written was what God wanted written.

Edited to fix formatting.

 

[jwu]

There were very strict criteria in place to determine which books were most likely inspired.

[Emphasis mine]
And who determined these criteria? God or fallible men? "Most likely inspired"? You imply yourself that there is room for error.

Completely false. I could probably use the same argument to show most, if not all, of evolution to be false. Disagreement has nothing to do with the veracity of truth claims.

True, disagreement doesn't make a claim false - but that wasn't Orion's point in first instance. He argued that a text that is truly inspired by God would not be ambiguous and easy to misunderstand. That's an entirely different question.

It means that what was written was what God wanted written.

Or that God gave them the general ideas and they wrote it down with their own words.

 

[Orion]

First of all, I never stated myself as an evolutionist. I recognize that it happens and is necessary for a species to "evolve" or adapt to changing environmental conditions.

Second, what you said about "they knew which ones were inspired...." is based, again, on what MEN thought were inspired. If you have a group of men who have had this religious system for a few thousand years, . . . who's to say that the same "errors in judgement" or "misunderstandings of God" weren't just continually passed down from generation to generation, . . . the passing of error? If someone misunderstood, misrepresented, or concepted something all their own, and labeled it as "from God", and it continued to be represented as such as the religion progressed, . . . of course you will have these same ideologies represented in religious texts. That doesn't make the initial instance actually FROM God. Just stated so by some early Hebrew man. Even so, there are several manuscripts that never made it into the Bible. There are texts used by Catholics, Jews, and others under the label of Christianity, and even those of the Gnostics, that are not in the "66 books".

Lastly, . . . . regardless of all of this, . . . . . the facts are that we DO have a myriad of varying denominations who believe 100% that they are completely right, and the other denominations are misguided or even heretical, . . . all the while, that denomination is thinking the same about the former. Say what you will, . . . IF the Bible was completely infallible and inerrant, and above even that, completely and utterly inspired (all of it) from God, . . . . there would be ONLY one denomination of Christians united under the same focus and doctrine. Because this isn't the case, that is pretty much proof that the bible is not all inspired.

 

[Free]

And who determined these criteria? God or fallible men? "Most likely inspired"? You imply yourself that there is room for error.

It doesn't matter who determined these criteria. If you want to continue in that line of argument we'll be able to find many more examples outside of the Bible. My point is that there were disagreements about some of the books to include and exclude, some. But that is the whole point of setting criteria and then debating about what best fits those criteria.

True, disagreement doesn't make a claim false - but that wasn't Orion's point in first instance.

"a truly inspired piece of work FROM God would result in the one-ness of its message"

It was certainly implied.

He argued that a text that is truly inspired by God would not be ambiguous and easy to misunderstand. That's an entirely different question.

Not entirely different but just as false. It's an overly simplified view of Scripture and God's interaction with man and Creation.

Or that God gave them the general ideas and they wrote it down with their own words.

To say that "All Scripture is God-breathed", is to say literally "every passage of Scripture is divinely inspired." The inspiration proceeds from God for every passage of Scripture. It means nothing more beyond that.

I recognize that it happens and is necessary for a species to "evolve" or adapt to changing environmental conditions.

Of course, but within limits.

Second, what you said about "they knew which ones were inspired...." is based, again, on what MEN thought were inspired.

I said that "there were very strict criteria in place to determine which books were most likely inspired" which gave them "quite a good idea of what was inspired and what wasn't".

who's to say that the same "errors in judgement" or "misunderstandings of God" weren't just continually passed down from generation to generation, . . . the passing of error?

On what basis does one approach the biblical text, or any text for that matter, with such assumptions? To my knowledge, that is not how any text of antiquity is approached.

If someone misunderstood, misrepresented, or concepted something all their own, and labeled it as "from God", and it continued to be represented as such as the religion progressed, . . . of course you will have these same ideologies represented in religious texts. That doesn't make the initial instance actually FROM God.

No, of course it wouldn't. But that is a huge "if", and one without basis.

There are texts used by Catholics, Jews, and others under the label of Christianity, and even those of the Gnostics, that are not in the "66 books".

The Protestant OT is nearly identical to the Jewish Tanakh. The Catholics accept the deuterocanonical books, or the Apocrypha as it is known to Protestants. The reason Protestants disregard those books is because the Jews didn't accept them either. This is a very complex issue for which there are no easy answers. This argument too is overly simplified.

The Gnostic books are not included in any canon for very good reasons. Let me know if you want me to explain.

the facts are that we DO have a myriad of varying denominations who believe 100% that they are completely right, and the other denominations are misguided or even heretical,

Yeah, some do believe they are 100% completely right, but they ought not believe that. There is nothing wrong with striving for the truth but it is wrong to think that one is 100% correct in all of their beliefs.

Having said that, the Bible gives true Christians the prerogative to determine just who is a true Christian and who is not. This is why there are those who are Christian in name only and therefore are indeed heretical (Mormons and JW's are the two most common).

IF the Bible was completely infallible and inerrant, and above even that, completely and utterly inspired (all of it) from God, . . . . there would be ONLY one denomination of Christians united under the same focus and doctrine. Because this isn't the case, that is pretty much proof that the bible is not all inspired.

That is a fallacious argument. Once again, it is a vastly over-simplified view of Scripture, inspiration, humanity, and God's interaction with Creation.

I find it hypocritical that on the one hand you use your own subjective criteria to determine what is true or false in the Bible, but cannot extend that same privilege to the many who have been involved in doing that same thing. Their criteria at least had merit and were more objective.

 

[Orion]

Perhaps you are trying to make it overly complicated when it isn't. :-?

I stand behind my main point. There is no reason why we have various denominations who have different core doctines except that the Bible is WAY too ambiguous in the way it is seen by these groups. I keep hearing, over and over (not necessarily in this thread), about how God "inspired those who made this Canon into the 66 books in order to make sure God's words would be established". . . . . . IF every Christian person, from the Catholic to the most "liberal Christian church" had the exact SAME core doctrines of their faith, . . . . then I would believe what is being said about the inspiration. It is obviously not the case, . . . and far from it. I don't mean to pick on you, Free, but you even made my point when you said, "some do believe they are 100% completely right, but they ought not believe that." If the bible was TRULY inspired, then we (everyone of us) would KNOW that we were 100% right in our belief.

As for the evolutionary side of the topic (which is the main topic, actually), I won't be on the side of those who are the "far left of the scientific scale", but yes, evolution/adaption would be a necessary characteristic to give to a design. It would be negligent of a designer to create a design that wouldn't be able to adapt to changing surroundings (if that designed creation was known to eventually find itself in such a situation).

When I say "far left of the scientific scale", . . . .I'm refering to such things as "one certain creature, living in the oceans, devoloping the ability to breath air, making it's way onto dry land, developing a leg structure, eventually returning to the oceans, where it (again) evolved fins again, . . . and those were the ancestors of today's dolphins. I have really seen this type of thing promoted before and I find it to be extremely ridiculous.