[_ Old Earth _] Can a Christian believe Darwin's biological evolutionism?

[Evointrinsic]

Precisely the point I was trying to make

I don't see any issue with God creating the first organisms and guiding evolution to create man, that makes a lot of sense in fact. But once again, you can't take the bible as 100% literal to accept that.

 

[caseagainstfaith]

On this subject, I'd like to recall an incident...

I see a neurologist occasionally. Truth be told, I had pretty much assumed she must be an atheist. Sure, I know that there are lots of theistic doctors. But she isn't just a general practitioner -- she's a neurologist. Surely neurologists would understand enough of the workings of the brain to know religion is false. Or so I thought.

So, anyway, she once made an off-the-cuff reference to Jesus. Nothing too significant, but, it did surprise me. So I actually said so -- I said I didn't believe in Jesus and, frankly, was surprised that she did. We talked a couple of minutes, but then she got annoyed and said that she "didn't want to put her immortal soul in danger" and didn't want to continue the conversation.

But, before she cut off the conversation, she did indicate that "of course evolution is a fact". I don't remember exactly what she said as far as how to reconcile evolution with Christianity. Something like a tool that God uses, I think, don't remember for sure.

So, just curious, is my neurologist a "true Christian"?

And, as an aside, if evolution is so absurd and stupid and without evidence, why is that almost everybody that studies biology, vast majority of doctors for example, accept it? They may not be atheists, like my neurologist. But, they do accept evolution -- the vast majority anyway. And if doctors are so "stupid" as to believe such "obviously preposterous" things like evolution, why would a Creationist even go to a doctor? If I thought my doctor was an idiot, I think I wouldn't go to my doctor.

 

[jasoncran]

On this subject, I'd like to recall an incident...

I see a neurologist occasionally. Truth be told, I had pretty much assumed she must be an atheist. Sure, I know that there are lots of theistic doctors. But she isn't just a general practitioner -- she's a neurologist. Surely neurologists would understand enough of the workings of the brain to know religion is false. Or so I thought.

So, anyway, she once made an off-the-cuff reference to Jesus. Nothing too significant, but, it did surprise me. So I actually said so -- I said I didn't believe in Jesus and, frankly, was surprised that she did. We talked a couple of minutes, but then she got annoyed and said that she "didn't want to put her immortal soul in danger" and didn't want to continue the conversation.

But, before she cut off the conversation, she did indicate that "of course evolution is a fact". I don't remember exactly what she said as far as how to reconcile evolution with Christianity. Something like a tool that God uses, I think, don't remember for sure.

So, just curious, is my neurologist a "true Christian"?

And, as an aside, if evolution is so absurd and stupid and without evidence, why is that almost everybody that studies biology, vast majority of doctors for example, accept it? They may not be atheists, like my neurologist. But, they do accept evolution -- the vast majority anyway. And if doctors are so "stupid" as to believe such "obviously preposterous" things like evolution, why would a Creationist even go to a doctor? If I thought my doctor was an idiot, I think I wouldn't go to my doctor.

ok first i would apreciate that you would watch this type of posts as this is a christian forum.

two one cant dissent in science? i know a biologist who used to teach yrs ago and he didnt believe in evolution on the macro school and was called an arceologist for doing just that. made fun of for his beliefs.

the problem here for the macro is that it doenst need god and God has a goal to his creation.

if evolution is going on then why not on accept calvinism as that has to be as adam and eve being a human and had souls and their cousins die being equally able to know the lord and understand him.

they die where are they? heaven or hell? if hell why? they didnt sin. if heaven why werent they offered the chance to sin and we weren told as all the lord had to do is eliminate adam and eve and use the others to make others men and women as they would know then not to sin.

but thats not the account.

 

[caseagainstfaith]

two one cant dissent in science? i know a biologist who used to teach yrs ago and he didnt believe in evolution on the macro school and was called an arceologist for doing just that. made fun of for his beliefs.

Well, yes, of course there can be dissent in science. On the other hand, on just about any subject that there is a scientific consensus on, there are some with opposing views that have valid qualifications. And yes, consensus can be wrong and the minority opinion can be right.

That said, consensus isn't useless either. I might could find a qualified historian that said George Washington was a myth, but, I would still be justified in accepting the consensus opinion.

As far as ridicule of those that do not follow the "party line", do not hold to the consensus opinion, in an ideal world, those who hold the minority opinion shouldn't be ridiculed. We don't live in an ideal world.

the problem here for the macro is that it doenst need god and God has a goal to his creation.

I happen to agree with this.

But, obviously not everyone agrees with me and you. If they don't agree with me and you, and are theistic evolutionists, are they not "true Christians"?

 

[jasoncran]

Well, yes, of course there can be dissent in science. On the other hand, on just about any subject that there is a scientific consensus on, there are some with opposing views that have valid qualifications. And yes, consensus can be wrong and the minority opinion can be right.

That said, consensus isn't useless either. I might could find a qualified historian that said George Washington was a myth, but, I would still be justified in accepting the consensus opinion.

As far as ridicule of those that do not follow the "party line", do not hold to the consensus opinion, in an ideal world, those who hold the minority opinion shouldn't be ridiculed. We don't live in an ideal world.



I happen to agree with this.

But, obviously not everyone agrees with me and you. If they don't agree with me and you, and are theistic evolutionists, are they not "true Christians"?

as in not saved? no thiestic evolutionist are muched saved as another that believes in the lord and lives accordingly.

that is like saying that those who dont believe in end times of my or your doctrine arent saved.
i am saying that they are in err from a theoligical point nothing more.

 

[jasoncran]

Precisely the point I was trying to make

I don't see any issue with God creating the first organisms and guiding evolution to create man, that makes a lot of sense in fact. But once again, you can't take the bible as 100% literal to accept that.

the problem while not salvinical is this who was adam and eve? and what were they logically speaking and biblically speaking you would have to be intellectual honest say this
adam never lived and is a concept
same with eve
sin doenst cause death nor never did(hard to do this with the statement by paul in romans 6:23)
and also if they are real then you must believe God damns people for no reason and saves others for no reason.

 

[jasoncran]

natural selection cant be guided if it was then its not natural selection as you stated to me a while back that it has no intellegence.

its insulting to God who is beyond the timeline and and predicted the arrival of the christ and did it very specifically to assume that when he made men and other living organism that he didnt know how it would
be

for the sake of argument lets say you are going to build a house, as soon as you do , you can see istantly the end of that idea and first step.

God is ominscients and omnipresent and omnipotent

meaning that he knows all. so why would he use a very clumsly system to do that when he knows the end from the beggining??

he even states in romans that whom he FOREKNEW he predestinted unto Good works

how is that possible if he cant know the future?

 

[caseagainstfaith]

as in not saved? no thiestic evolutionist are muched saved as another that believes in the lord and lives accordingly.

Okay. However, there were some in this thread that said that you can't be a "true Christian" and also accept evolution. This was really my main point.

 

[jasoncran]

Okay. However, there were some in this thread that said that you can't be a "true Christian" and also accept evolution. This was really my main point.

if the idea of knowing how or the means that God created all that is around was required then no man could ever be saved as that would take longer then any man would ever have to learn.

 

[Deavonreye]

God is ominscients and omnipresent and omnipotent

meaning that he knows all. so why would he use a very clumsly system to do that when he knows the end from the beggining??

he even states in romans that whom he FOREKNEW he predestinted unto Good works

how is that possible if he cant know the future?

There is some indication that he never did. Regardless, there is a lot to be said about this topic and the idea of a "first man and woman, roughly 6,000 years ago". Evolutionary theory and the Genesis account [Genesis chapter 2, that is] do not equate with each other. However, there is a way around it . . . IF you must insist upon a strict literal meaning for "Adam and Eve". The story may have been alegory for the first two humans that a god chose to start a religion.

All that to say, one needn't abandon something just because a part once believe as "literal" was actually an "alegory".

 

[jasoncran]

There is some indication that he never did. Regardless, there is a lot to be said about this topic and the idea of a "first man and woman, roughly 6,000 years ago". Evolutionary theory and the Genesis account [Genesis chapter 2, that is] do not equate with each other. However, there is a way around it . . . IF you must insist upon a strict literal meaning for "Adam and Eve". The story may have been alegory for the first two humans that a god chose to start a religion.

All that to say, one needn't abandon something just because a part once believe as "literal" was actually an "alegory".

jesus refered to abel, who sired him as he was the son of adam and eve, and there would have to be real.
for by one man did sin enter the world
think about your way.
for by one man? a group. or concept.

one man as one man basic english, and or greek grammar. that doesnt allow them to be figures as they have to had existed, even barbarian a thiestic evolutionist believed that that adam was a real man.

and also not all creationists here you debate are yec.

crying rock wasnt , and i believe that the earth may be older then 6k yrs.

 

[Deavonreye]

jesus refered to abel, who sired him as he was the son of adam and eve, and there would have to be real.
for by one man did sin enter the world
think about your way.
for by one man? a group. or concept.

one man as one man basic english, and or greek grammar. that doesnt allow them to be figures as they have to had existed, even barbarian a thiestic evolutionist believed that that adam was a real man.

and also not all creationists here you debate are yec.

crying rock wasnt , and i believe that the earth may be older then 6k yrs.

We must first find evidence that the New Testament accounts were factual and then, that they were referencing the story the way the church believes. It may have been as simple as our own "boy who cried wolf". It tells a story to relay a common reference point to the hearer, perhaps that "man falls into sin".

 

[jasoncran]

We must first find evidence that the New Testament accounts were factual and then, that they were referencing the story the way the church believes. It may have been as simple as our own "boy who cried wolf". It tells a story to relay a common reference point to the hearer, perhaps that "man falls into sin".

so it boils down to the a bible must be errent debate, here

as you wish

romans 5:12
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

American King James

cant be anything else there as it read one man , meaning one man


other versions can be read here
Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned--

the rcc that some say has accepted the toe has said that the toe cant contradict the idea of original sin.

are they not meticulously on these ideas so that they dont contradict? they often do things by council, i dont agree with them on alot but we cant say the dont look.

 

[caseagainstfaith]

We must first find evidence that the New Testament accounts were factual and then, that they were referencing the story the way the church believes. It may have been as simple as our own "boy who cried wolf". It tells a story to relay a common reference point to the hearer, perhaps that "man falls into sin".

I might be interested in continuing this conversation, but, its hard to know for sure what would be deemed a violation of ToS or not. Jasoncran complained about one post of mine. Yours here could be deemed as being denigrating to Christianity, so it could be classified as a violation of ToS.

That's one of the difficult things of being on "the other guy's turf". Truth be told, some atheist forums are, in my opinion, too quick to find posts by Christians as violating the ToS of the forum. I fully acknowledge its tough going for Christians when they are on atheist turf.

In short, as your reference about "find evidence that the New Testament accounts were factual", well, I'm not sure what I can say that is within the ToS. I'll just say that overall, I don't think there is much, though of course I can acknowledge that some events here and there might be loosely based on some original factual nugget.

 

[Deavonreye]

"Loosely based" could be a close way to look at it, but yes, further discussion could be violation inducing.

jason, I don't think we need to get into an "errant/inerrant" debate. Neither of us could possibly produce evidence for or against it. ;)

 

[caseagainstfaith]

jason, I don't think we need to get into an "errant/inerrant" debate. Neither of us could possibly produce evidence for or against it. ;)

You have 666 posts, as of this writing, LOL. But, you could produce evidence, you could produce an error. You might get flagged for violation though...

 

[Deavonreye]

You have 666 posts, as of this writing, LOL. But, you could produce evidence, you could produce an error. You might get flagged for violation though...

hehehe, it was just a matter of time on the 666th post. The sad part is, I overlooked it and posted several posts so now I'm up into the 670's now. Oh well.

Yeah, some errors could be considered violations. From your user name, it would seem as though you have a few yourself. :yes

 

[jasoncran]

hehehe, it was just a matter of time on the 666th post. The sad part is, I overlooked it and posted several posts so now I'm up into the 670's now. Oh well.

Yeah, some errors could be considered violations. From your user name, it would seem as though you have a few yourself. :yes

in the days of phbb we used to take a screen shot and post in the general topic area.

 

[jasoncran]

I might be interested in continuing this conversation, but, its hard to know for sure what would be deemed a violation of ToS or not. Jasoncran complained about one post of mine. Yours here could be deemed as being denigrating to Christianity, so it could be classified as a violation of ToS.

That's one of the difficult things of being on "the other guy's turf". Truth be told, some atheist forums are, in my opinion, too quick to find posts by Christians as violating the ToS of the forum. I fully acknowledge its tough going for Christians when they are on atheist turf.

In short, as your reference about "find evidence that the New Testament accounts were factual", well, I'm not sure what I can say that is within the ToS. I'll just say that overall, I don't think there is much, though of course I can acknowledge that some events here and there might be loosely based on some original factual nugget.

that complaint wasnt merely to shut you up but to avoid some things in the past where athiest come here just to insult us and have nothing else better to do.

that is why of all the athiests here,lk has lasted, he has not done that to us.

that is why i did that, not because of witchhunting just asking for some respect. i would do no less to the athiest's forum if i found myself on one.

 

[caseagainstfaith]

that complaint wasnt merely to shut you up but to avoid some things in the past where athiest come here just to insult us and have nothing else better to do.

that is why of all the athiests here,lk has lasted, he has not done that to us.

that is why i did that, not because of witchhunting just asking for some respect. i would do no less to the athiest's forum if i found myself on one.

I don't know who lk is.

By the way, I'm a frequent poster on atheistforums dot com, but, I have on several occasions expressed the opinion that the site is too quick to ban theists. I'm afraid that if any of you theists haven't been there, I don't think I can recommend you do so. You will not be treated well.

For me, here, well, I'm not sure how long I will last. I confess I can get frustrated with theists and perhaps I'll break TOS and get banned. But, so far, I've been trying to live within the TOS. If I fail and you ban me, well, I guess I won't bother you anymore that.