[_ Old Earth _] DeMything Evolution

[paxigoth7]

Quote:
Fundamentalism is a victim of the modern worldview. Somehow, the debates always seem to end up with whether or not we can 'prove' creationism, god, the resurrection. The issue I have is not really with whatever way the evidence may slant, whether or not creationism or evolution or theory X seems to be more accurate. The disagreement seems to be over what has more meaning: the knowledge of men (epistemology of sin) or the knowledge of God (epistemology of love). Both are knowledge, both are real, and we can (and do) study both. The disagreement isn't over whether or not evolution may be literally true, maybe it is.

Incorrect, fundamentalism IS a modern worldview(modern as in younger than 500 years old). It's a reaction to more liberal humanist ethics and by extention all liberal issues, including sound science that is contrary to literal interpretation of their scripture.

Ok, I think your understanding of fundamentalism is a clearer way of stating what I was trying to say about it. BTW, I'm not a fundamentalist.

 

[paxigoth7]

Now, again you call these concepts you have epistemology of sin and love, knowledge of man and god, you are still not being in ANY WAY CLEAR. Are you saying that the knowledge that humans gain by studying the world is sinful? That 'knowledge' gained by studying scripture is worthy as real knowledge?
And you also call them both "real," do you mean that two contradictory ideas can be considered correct at once?

Ok, your right, I should define my terms before using them.
'sin' means less than imperfect, it is the state of less-than-being. I wouldn't define 'sin' as evil acts we do (though evil acts are less than perfect). 'love' and 'god' are the same. Jesus is the incarnation of both. Here's what I'm doing with this whole thing with epistemology, I'm redefining concepts. I'm redefining them around Jesus. It isn't merely about the existence of a 'fact' it is what we do with that fact...

For example. Let's assume that the earth is 23 billion yrs old. Assuming that it was factual, how would we interpret this fact? If I were to say that that reflects the beauty of God's creation, that it took millions of years to carve out canyons, etc. etc. I would be saying that this 'fact' should point us to God. That would be an epistemology of love, what we have done with our epistemology, the next level we take it to. If we were to leave it as a mere fact that would be 'epistemology of sin'. In either case, we haven't denied the assumed fact. The relevance isn't found in the factual, it is found in the interpretation. Now let's assume that the earth was made in 6 days. Assuming this as fact, the relevance is (again) in the interpretation.

If a literalist insists that Genesis really happened, and by that, they mean that creation is initially from God, is initially good, etc. and we ruined it, then I agree. If a theistic evolutionist insists that God used evolution and comes to the same theological conclusions, then, once again, I agree.

 

[Guest]

"Bugger off" means go away, but not quite so polite.

I don't think SyntaxVorlon's cranium is damaged badly enough to debate you with your own level of intellect. It would be like watching lion fight rabbit.

:wink: You think? So you have made yourself his watch dog?
You cannot win so you have to resort to these cheap shots,but
what you don't realize is that the Lion of Judah is with me,not
you. You are the only one here that I have a major issue with
anyway. I am not sore at Syntax. He may be sore at me,but
I'm use to it.

Now I know what blue's been smoking.

:wink: Is this why you wanted to debate with me so badly?
What a waste!