[_ Old Earth _] The fallacy of evolution

[dad]

Frost Giant casts Logic.
Dad resists!

You assume a creator exists. Science doesn't.

You assume a creator does not exist, science doesn't.

[quote:27897]Things break down when you try to make science fit your predetermined worldview.

I wouldn't know. I think science is fine. I just don't like beliefs that are science, falsely so called.

Maybe the laws of the universe were different back then. Who can change them? God can! Science doesn't assume God because, well, it isn't religion.

[/quote:27897]

No, and it doesn't assume no God either. It simply is a present based, physical only affair. Don't try to mentally project the present into the mystic. Into the unknown, where it doesn't belong.

 

[Ignatz]

I'm wondering if there are any other Christians out there that also believe in modern evolutionary theory and an old (over 6,000 years) Earth.

I keep getting the impression that many Christians on this forum do not understand the theory of evolution yet insist on trying to argue against it anyway. I see well-meaning Christians making incorrect yet (hopefully) innocent claims that the TOE says that a monkey gave birth to a human (it didn't), that evolution promotes racism and bestiality (it doesn't), and that the evolutionists sole motivation is a hate for God and the desire to scare children (it isn't).

I am Christian, most of my friends are Christians, and all of us believe in God and that God created the universe and everything in it. We believe this because Gods hand in the universe and in our lives is "evidenced " to us. As we seek a deeper relationship with Him through the blood of His son, Jesus Christ, Gods nature is "evidenced" to us in our daily spiritual life and reflected in our treatment of others and the environment. This "evidence" is spiritual, not scientific, and that's fine. It simply cannot be addressed scientifically, and it doesn't need to be.

Conversly, the TOE which states that populations of organisms change over time, through natural selection and the random mutation of individuals, CAN be addressed scientifically. Biology, geology, chemistry, physics, etc. all point to a past that differs from the pre-scientific language of Genesis. This theory describes what we see and is magnificently evidenced for in the natural, physical world. At present, the TOE is the is the best way to describe what we see in the history of life on this planet. It doesn't mean that God therefore does not exist.

 

[dad]

[quote="Quadeshet
Life does mean something: it's awesome that you exist.

True.

It's fabulous that your mind and body are so well adapted to its environment that we can sit around and ponder what it all means. Someday it will not be so.

It's even neater to realize we are an eternal creation of a very loving God.
We are not the pinnacle of a progression towards a human-centric world, but a population of genetic information that represents one bud on a family tree stretching back billions of years. This is the beauty of evolution

I find beautiful more something that is real. Info on a bud sounds more like a funny farm philosophy.

 

[Heidi]

I'm wondering if there are any other Christians out there that also believe in modern evolutionary theory and an old (over 6,000 years) Earth.

I keep getting the impression that many Christians on this forum do not understand the theory of evolution yet insist on trying to argue against it anyway. I see well-meaning Christians making incorrect yet (hopefully) innocent claims that the TOE says that a monkey gave birth to a human (it didn't), that evolution promotes racism and bestiality (it doesn't), and that the evolutionists sole motivation is a hate for God and the desire to scare children (it isn't).

I am Christian, most of my friends are Christians, and all of us believe in God and that God created the universe and everything in it. We believe this because Gods hand in the universe and in our lives is "evidenced " to us. As we seek a deeper relationship with Him through the blood of His son, Jesus Christ, Gods nature is "evidenced" to us in our daily spiritual life and reflected in our treatment of others and the environment. This "evidence" is spiritual, not scientific, and that's fine. It simply cannot be addressed scientifically, and it doesn't need to be.

Conversly, the TOE which states that populations of organisms change over time, through natural selection and the random mutation of individuals, CAN be addressed scientifically. Biology, geology, chemistry, physics, etc. all point to a past that differs from the pre-scientific language of Genesis. This theory describes what we see and is magnificently evidenced for in the natural, physical world. At present, the TOE is the is the best way to describe what we see in the history of life on this planet. It doesn't mean that God therefore does not exist.

Do you believe that the bible is the Word of God, the Holy Spirit and Christ himself? If not, it says so in John 1:1-3. And the bible says that God formed man out of dust. But evolutionists claim this is not so and they know better than Christ or our Father in heaven how man was created. And that is why it is called the evolution theory versus the creation theory.

Evolutionists do not deny one bit that they disagree with God's account of creation. So where do you stand? :o Jesus said; "He who is not with me is against me." You cannot be both.

 

[Guest]

Do you believe that the bible is the Word of God, the Holy Spirit and Christ himself? If not, it says so in John 1:1-3. And the bible says that God formed man out of dust. But evolutionists claim this is not so and they know better than Christ or our Father in heaven how man was created. And that is why it is called the evolution theory versus the creation theory.

Evolutionists do not deny one bit that they disagree with God's account of creation. So where do you stand? :o Jesus said; "He who is not with me is against me." You cannot be both.

Does the Bible say "God created man from dust, directly and instantaneously, with no intervening steps whatsoever?"

 

[Heidi]

Do you believe that the bible is the Word of God, the Holy Spirit and Christ himself? If not, it says so in John 1:1-3. And the bible says that God formed man out of dust. But evolutionists claim this is not so and they know better than Christ or our Father in heaven how man was created. And that is why it is called the evolution theory versus the creation theory.

Evolutionists do not deny one bit that they disagree with God's account of creation. So where do you stand? :o Jesus said; "He who is not with me is against me." You cannot be both.

Does the Bible say "God created man from dust, directly and instantaneously, with no intervening steps whatsoever?"

It says exactly that. Genesis 2:7, "And God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and the man became a living being." It does not say man came from an airplane, aliens, trees, rocks, or animals. But the human imagination does!

Therefore, as our pastor said to us; "Refuse to speculate where the bible is silent." The devil has a hayday with people make up their own gospels. Paul tells us how to recognize them in 2 Co. 11: 4, "For if someone comes to you and preaches a different Jesus than the one we preached, or you receive a different gospel than the one you received or a different spirit than the one you received, you put up with it easily enough...For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen masquerading as angels of light...their end will be what their actions deserve."

 

[Ignatz]

"Refuse to speculate where the bible is silent."

yet you do speculate, You speculate that the pre-scientific language of Genesis is to be interpreted literally, even though the evidence we have points to a different conclusion; That it is allegorical. This is the only possible conclusion we can come to if we are to believe that God is not lying to us in the scriptures, and that He is not lying to us in His creation.

Saying that the Earth is over 6,000 years old is NOT speculation. We have EVIDENCE from all branches of the scientific community that the Earth is much older.

Do you believe that the bible is the Word of God, the Holy Spirit and Christ himself?

Yes, I do.
This does not mean that I believe that the Genesis account of creation is LITERAL.
any more than I believe that the stars will LITERALLY fall from the sky one day. The stars aren't in the sky, they are light-years away, and they will not "fall"; they can't.

This doesn't mean that the bible is wrong, or that it is not the inspired word of God. It means that God didn't concern himself with providing us with a complete encyclopedic account of the cosmological, geographical and biological history of the universe.

God gave us a fascinating world to explore, and endowed us as a species with the curiosity and intellect to probe the mysteries of creation. Besides that, the Bible isn't meant to be an encyclopedia. It has nothing to say about the red surface of mars, the northern lights, How tsunamis form, etc. yet we know things about these and other phenomenae because we can observe them.

The Bible is gods inspired word to us all, and Genesis shows Gods relationship with his creation from the beginning, but It's not a textbook.

Believing that the Genesis account of creation is allegorical instead if literal does not mean that one is against God. Moreover, a genuine, honest and rigorous search for truth does not set us against God.

 

[Solo]

"Refuse to speculate where the bible is silent."

yet you do speculate, You speculate that the pre-scientific language of Genesis is to be interpreted literally, even though the evidence we have points to a different conclusion; That it is allegorical. This is the only possible conclusion we can come to if we are to believe that God is not lying to us in the scriptures, and that He is not lying to us in His creation.

Saying that the Earth is over 6,000 years old is NOT speculation. We have EVIDENCE from all branches of the scientific community that the Earth is much older.

[quote:26fe5]Do you believe that the bible is the Word of God, the Holy Spirit and Christ himself?

Yes, I do.
This does not mean that I believe that the Genesis account of creation is LITERAL.
any more than I believe that the stars will LITERALLY fall from the sky one day. The stars aren't in the sky, they are light-years away, and they will not "fall"; they can't.

This doesn't mean that the bible is wrong, or that it is not the inspired word of God. It means that God didn't concern himself with providing us with a complete encyclopedic account of the cosmological, geographical and biological history of the universe.

God gave us a fascinating world to explore, and endowed us as a species with the curiosity and intellect to probe the mysteries of creation. Besides that, the Bible isn't meant to be an encyclopedia. It has nothing to say about the red surface of mars, the northern lights, How tsunamis form, etc. yet we know things about these and other phenomenae because we can observe them.

The Bible is gods inspired word to us all, and Genesis shows Gods relationship with his creation from the beginning, but It's not a textbook.

Believing that the Genesis account of creation is allegorical instead if literal does not mean that one is against God. Moreover, a genuine, honest and rigorous search for truth does not set us against God.[/quote:26fe5]

Do you believe that Jesus is God and has created all things, including the sun, the stars, man, and all animals?

 

[Wertbag]

Yes atheists believe in an old earth as that is what every branch of science agrees and what the evidence shows.


Sorry you were misinformed. No evidence exists that says the future will be physical only at all. I call you on this. Put up, if you dare.

Sorry you've gone sideways again, please re-read my post. The belief in an old earth is that this planet is billions of years old, that in no way tells us anything about the future only about the past.
As to the future atheists do not believe in spiritual worlds, so there is no obvious alternative to believe that the world is physical, was physical and while the matter/energy may change form it will always exist in one way or another.

Same with creation, it matches the evidence.

That depends on which version of the creation story you believe in. Some Christians say God started life and used evolution as his method to guide life to his plan. Others say He created everything instantly out of nothing. Others say God did it, but we can't tell how because He hasn't made it clear.
The first form of belief agrees with science, but puts God in the backseat by saying everything is natural.
The second form doesn't agree with science, and doesn't agree with the fossil record, but is the main belief of YECs.
The third way is sitting on the fence.
I really think Christianity would be alot stronger if agreement could be reached as to exactly what the beliefs should be.

Not religion, no. Accept or reject Love, and His Son.

One of the hardest things in debates is to get a definition that people agree on. I always like to stick to the dictionary for my definitions, but I understand there are many people who perfer to make their own. I'll try again, what exactly is your definition of freewill? Its not the ability to do as you will, its not to pick from amongst the thousands of religions... so you are leaning towards freewill being solely to choice if you believe in the Christian God or not?

How many are killed in violent sports now, compared with Rome? How many in wars? How many babies are cut down in abortions? How many people are burned with bombs, terrorism, and womd? Beneath the veneer, the heart of man is the same, and worse.

As we are talking about whether or not man has built in good/evil knowledge from birth discussion of sport is irrelevant. No one goes into a car race intending to kill each other, and no one is goes to the race to see bloodshed. Quite different from watching two men with swords cut each other to pieces.
If we all had the same inbuilt good'ometer we would all accept the same things as good and evil, while what we see is people accept what society teaches them and are corrupted by those teachings if they are wrong.

Have you heard in Russia some are paid to fight to the death? I have heard from such a fighter. Was Abu gray, or whatever it was called in Iraq civilized? How about the Hiroshima bomb? A few gladiators pale in comparison.

You do realise that pit fighting, vale tudo or street fighting is illegal? (not to be confused with UFC or Pride which is only illegal in the majority of the world). Society now says that fighting to the death is evil, whereas 2000 years ago it didn't. Definately a swing in what society taught and therefore was was considered good and evil.

And the bible says that God formed man out of dust. But evolutionists claim this is not so

Just to clarify, it is an often mis-quoted idea that evolution says where life came from, it does not. Evolution requires life to exist, then explains how that life can change. There is a seperate field of research called abiogenesis which looks at the creation of life.
The trick is you can believe that God created life to evolve to his design, which would make you believe in evolution but not abiogenesis. Or you can believe the creation of life is natural and evolution exists in which case you follow both theories.
Basically you can take either or both of the theories, but a discussion about one or the other doesn't necassarily involve both theories.

 

[dad]

Sorry you've gone sideways again, please re-read my post. The belief in an old earth is that this planet is billions of years old, that in no way tells us anything about the future only about the past.

It tells us nothing about the past any more than old agers claiming the sun will burn out, as they do, tells us anything about the future. It tells us there is decay in the present, that is all it tells us, the rest is pure belief. Sorry to be the one to break it to you, but that is the facts. Because some present processes happen now, they simply assume they always will, and always have. All without reason whatsoever, except this is how it now works. I know thats how it now works. Who cares, it bears no relation to the unknown future and past.


[quote:1f46d]As to the future atheists do not believe in spiritual worlds, so there is no obvious alternative to believe that the world is physical, was physical and while the matter/energy may change form it will always exist in one way or another.

Assuming present only processes, and a PO universe ad infinitum, that would be the result, yes. This is not the case, and you can't prove it is. Or evidence it.

That depends on which version of the creation story you believe in. Some Christians say God started life and used evolution as his method to guide life to his plan.

Not the evidence I mean that it matches. The compromise theories were dreamed up to try to make the bible conform to science. Before science came to the fore, no such twistings existed. Their raison d'etre is being conformed to the science of this world.

Others say He created everything instantly out of nothing. Others say God did it, but we can't tell how because He hasn't made it clear.

Confusing the issue aside, bible believers see it as being made some 6000 years ago. (Nominal bible believe only believe whatever bits they believe for whatever reason)

The first form of belief agrees with science, but puts God in the backseat by saying everything is natural.
The second form doesn't agree with science, and doesn't agree with the fossil record, but is the main belief of YECs.
The third way is sitting on the fence.
I really think Christianity would be alot stronger if agreement could be reached as to exactly what the beliefs should be.

That would be nice. My suggestion would be belive God's word.

what exactly is your definition of freewill? Its not the ability to do as you will, its not to pick from amongst the thousands of religions... so you are leaning towards freewill being solely to choice if you believe in the Christian God or not?

There's a lot to it, and a lot involved in it. I think the important thing is to be able to choose good, or evil, to listen to God's voice, or our own, and the devil's. I don't think any other creature on earth has the kind of free will we do, or extent.

As we are talking about whether or not man has built in good/evil knowledge from birth discussion of sport is irrelevant. No one goes into a car race intending to kill each other, and no one is goes to the race to see bloodshed. Quite different from watching two men with swords cut each other to pieces.

Take away the killing, maiming, and violence from sports, and the bleechers would be empty, who are you trying to kid? Same 'beast' dressed up in more respectable clothes.

If we all had the same inbuilt good'ometer we would all accept the same things as good and evil, while what we see is people accept what society teaches them and are corrupted by those teachings if they are wrong.

Most people do accept similar things as wrong. Murder, for example. We aren't talking programmed robots here, but a concience in man.

You do realise that pit fighting, vale tudo or street fighting is illegal? (not to be confused with UFC or Pride which is only illegal in the majority of the world). Society now says that fighting to the death is evil, whereas 2000 years ago it didn't. Definately a swing in what society taught and therefore was was considered good and evil.

Homosexuality was illegal in a lot of places some decades ago as well.

Just to clarify, it is an often mis-quoted idea that evolution says where life came from, it does not. Evolution requires life to exist, then explains how that life can change. There is a seperate field of research called abiogenesis which looks at the creation of life.

I understand the old age sisters each have their own tales. But the theory boils down to Granny. Everything else is build up from there. If Granny isn't real, none of it is!

The trick is you can believe that God created life to evolve to his design, which would make you believe in evolution but not abiogenesis.

You could believe a stork dropped Granny if you want. But we're talking the bible here, where we were formed out of the dust of the ground, in creation week!

Or you can believe the creation of life is natural and evolution exists in which case you follow both theories.

I think God is natural, and His creation is natural. I know evolution is without merit.

Basically you can take either or both of the theories, but a discussion about one or the other doesn't necassarily involve both theories.

[/quote:1f46d]

Let's get real here. If God made the universe in a week, and the flood was real, as Jesus even refered to, as well as referring to the time of eden, then there are no old ages, and no evolution.

 

[Ignatz]

Solo wrote:

Do you believe that Jesus is God and has created all things, including the sun, the stars, man, and all animals?

Yes. And most likely lots of things we haven't discovered yet.
God allows all things.

Do you believe that God desires a deeper relationship with us as we desire a deeper relationship with Him?

 

[Barbarian]

Let's get real here. If God made the universe in a week, and the flood was real, as Jesus even refered to, as well as referring to the time of eden, then there are no old ages, and no evolution.

I'd certainly like to see where Jesus said that Genesis was entirely literal, or specifically where He said the flood was literal.

That one doesn't show up in my KJV, or any of the other versions I own.

 

[Heidi]

Let's get real here. If God made the universe in a week, and the flood was real, as Jesus even refered to, as well as referring to the time of eden, then there are no old ages, and no evolution.

I'd certainly like to see where Jesus said that Genesis was entirely literal, or specifically where He said the flood was literal.

That one doesn't show up in my KJV, or any of the other versions I own.

What doesn't show up in the bible? :o

So when the Word of God says there was a flood and that He created man out of dust, we're supposed to believe that those things never happened. Is that what you're saying? :o Sorry, but your question sounds like a case of unbelief to me. :wink:

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Let's get real here. If God made the universe in a week, and the flood was real, as Jesus even refered to, as well as referring to the time of eden, then there are no old ages, and no evolution.

I'd certainly like to see where Jesus said that Genesis was entirely literal, or specifically where He said the flood was literal.

That one doesn't show up in my KJV, or any of the other versions I own.

What doesn't show up in the bible? :o

So when the Word of God says there was a flood and that He created man out of dust, we're supposed to believe that those things never happened. Is that what you're saying? :o Sorry, but your question sounds like a case of unbelief to me. :wink:

Since the bible was written by people who didn't know anything about the world except the crop cycle, how to craft useful and effective tools and weapons, and how to live in the desert, then yes taking the bible as literal scientific truth is silly and is ignorant of the context in which it was written.

 

[Solo]

Let's get real here. If God made the universe in a week, and the flood was real, as Jesus even refered to, as well as referring to the time of eden, then there are no old ages, and no evolution.

I'd certainly like to see where Jesus said that Genesis was entirely literal, or specifically where He said the flood was literal.

That one doesn't show up in my KJV, or any of the other versions I own.

You wouldn't believe it, even if Jesus was telling you face to face in your own living room. You are like the rich young man that would have to sell all that he had and follow Jesus; you would lose too much in your temporal existance to believe the Word of God in its entirety.

 

[dad]

I'd certainly like to see where Jesus said that Genesis was entirely literal, or specifically where He said the flood was literal.

That one doesn't show up in my KJV, or any of the other versions I own.

Something that wasn't real could not sweep people away. Here's Jesus' Own words on the topic
". 37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, 39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away;
Now in case you get some notion He was out to lunch and it was some mistake, we can look elsewhere, like these verses.
"Heb 11:7 - By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith"
"1Pe 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. "
And as for the time of the garden, that that was real. same deal.
"1Ti 2:13 - For Adam was first formed, then Eve. "
Mat 19:4 4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female.."


2Co 11:3 - But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
So, it is all quite real.

 

[Wertbag]

It tells us nothing about the past any more than old agers claiming the sun will burn out, as they do, tells us anything about the future. It tells us there is decay in the present, that is all it tells us, the rest is pure belief. Sorry to be the one to break it to you, but that is the facts. Because some present processes happen now, they simply assume they always will, and always have. All without reason whatsoever, except this is how it now works. I know thats how it now works. Who cares, it bears no relation to the unknown future and past.

Yes I do know people with similar ideas to you, the thought that it is impossible to know anything, therefore anything you can't point to and say there it is is completely invalid.
I know theres nothing I can say that would change your mind, so I won't bother trying. I am willing to accept some ideas with the evidence given, such as the sun having x amount of fuel, burning at y rate, therefore will run out in z years. Can I say for sure this is true? No. Does it really matter? No.

Assuming present only processes, and a PO universe ad infinitum, that would be the result, yes. This is not the case, and you can't prove it is. Or evidence it.

There are ways to disprove the spirital, but only by either disproving the physical interaction with our world (eg disproving psychics, tarot, astrology, crystals etc) or by disproving the beliefs they are based on (eg if you can show that scientology is garbage, then the related spiritual beliefs are automatically redundant).

Confusing the issue aside, bible believers see it as being made some 6000 years ago. (Nominal bible believe only believe whatever bits they believe for whatever reason)

YEC's believe in 6000 years, but may Christians do not. Belief in a young earth is not a requirement to believe in the God of the Bible. Between the numerous versions of the Bible, the numerous churches and sects, its definately not as clear cut as you would like to believe.

Take away the killing, maiming, and violence from sports, and the bleechers would be empty, who are you trying to kid? Same 'beast' dressed up in more respectable clothes.

Garbage. People can certainly enjoy sport for the competition and the display of physical powers. People who like cars don't watch to see them crash, and people who like rugby don't watch to see the injuries.

 

[dad]

Yes I do know people with similar ideas to you, the thought that it is impossible to know anything, therefore anything you can't point to and say there it is is completely invalid.

You completely misunderstand. I say there is a natutal universe, and agree with science in all observations of the present. I deny no reality whatsoever, or evidence. WE certainly can and do know a lot of things.
Of all these things we do know, the future being a temporal, physical only one, or far past for that matter, is not among them! That is nothing more than yhe belief of some old agers, without basis in any evidence whatsoever.

[quote:3ac7b]I know theres nothing I can say that would change your mind, so I won't bother trying. I am willing to accept some ideas with the evidence given, such as the sun having x amount of fuel, burning at y rate, therefore will run out in z years. Can I say for sure this is true? No. Does it really matter? No.

Anyone in their right mind accepts decay in this present universe, no on questions that. What is overthrown is your claim if you have one, that the future will be only physical only as well, and subject to present processes, etc. This you cannot demonstrate and never will be able to, as it isn't true, and can exist only as your imagination.

There are ways to disprove the spirital, but only by either disproving the physical interaction with our world (eg disproving psychics, tarot, astrology, crystals etc) or by disproving the beliefs they are based on (eg if you can show that scientology is garbage, then the related spiritual beliefs are automatically redundant).

You can never begin to disprove the spiritual. For stsrters, you can't even find it!

YEC's believe in 6000 years, but may Christians do not. Belief in a young earth is not a requirement to believe in the God of the Bible.

Of course not, just to be a bible believer.

Between the numerous versions of the Bible, the numerous churches and sects, its definately not as clear cut as you would like to believe.

The bible is clearcut on orgins, despite you trying to cloud the issue with the rifts of men.

Garbage. People can certainly enjoy sport for the competition and the display of physical powers. People who like cars don't watch to see them crash, and people who like rugby don't watch to see the injuries.

[/quote:3ac7b]
Then if we use soft plastic pucks in hockey, and eliminate all assaults, and make football tag only, no tackle, and rev down racing cars to 30 miles per hour maximum speed, the numbers would not be affected in your book of how the world is.
Don't think so! The world was violent in Noah's day, and we are told it will be as in Noah's days, before Jesus returns. It is, and getting worse as the love of many wax cold. You don't have the discernment to realize it. I would suggest getting saved, asking Jesus into your heart, that will fix the problem.

 

[Wertbag]

There are ways to disprove the spirital, but only by either disproving the physical interaction with our world (eg disproving psychics, tarot, astrology, crystals etc) or by disproving the beliefs they are based on (eg if you can show that scientology is garbage, then the related spiritual beliefs are automatically redundant).


You can never begin to disprove the spiritual. For stsrters, you can't even find it!

Of course you can for the exact reasons I stated. If the spiritual world doesn't effect our physical world then it is true you cannot test for it, but the claims are always that there is interaction between our world and other planes of existance. This interaction can be tested, can be proven or disproven as the case maybe.

The bible is clearcut on orgins, despite you trying to cloud the issue with the rifts of men.

It is not me who has clouded the issue. If it was as clearcut as you believe there would be no debate between Christians, no disagreement between churches and simply one Christian church. It obviously is not clear.

Then if we use soft plastic pucks in hockey, and eliminate all assaults, and make football tag only, no tackle, and rev down racing cars to 30 miles per hour maximum speed, the numbers would not be affected in your book of how the world is.
Don't think so! The world was violent in Noah's day, and we are told it will be as in Noah's days, before Jesus returns.

And we could wear crash helmets and knee pads while walking down the street. Its not the threat or likelyhood of violence or injury that pull true fans to any sport. You watch the cars racing at high speeds cos it shows the skill of the driver, the technology behind the vechicle and the lightning reflexes. You watch football to see if your team can overcome their opponent, are more skilled, have better tactics and basically can score more points. Any fighting in sports is quickly stopped and people sin binned.
There is still no link between the evil of a bloody gladitorial fight, and a good clean skillful game of footy. Times have definately changed.

 

[dad]

..
Of course you can for the exact reasons I stated. If the spiritual world doesn't effect our physical world then it is true you cannot test for it, but the claims are always that there is interaction between our world and other planes of existance. This interaction can be tested, can be proven or disproven as the case maybe.

Oh really?! So you think you are a ghostbuster? You wouldn't see an angel if it didn't want you to see it! If you did see one, you likely wouldn't recognize it! You couldn't test your way out of a paper bag! (When it comes to the spiritual)


[quote:f4be1]It is not me who has clouded the issue. If it was as clearcut as you believe there would be no debate between Christians, no disagreement between churches and simply one Christian church. It obviously is not clear.

The issue of creation according to the bible, and it's timetable is not the central issue in being a christian. If religious people were perfect and harmonious, they would not have killed Jesus. I have a simple faith in the bible, and God, not a simple faith in religions. Where they miss the simple creation story, or do or don't believe it is not my concern. But it is clearcut.

And we could wear crash helmets and knee pads while walking down the street. Its not the threat or likelyhood of violence or injury that pull true fans to any sport.

Be honest, who would watch a high wire act that was only 6 inches off the ground? Who would go to races, where the cars were regulated to a max of 30 kph? Who would go to touch football, that started and ended with a group hug? Who would go to a wrestling match, that involved laying on the mat, and just armwrestling, and giving the cup to the loser for good measure, instead of the loser? Who would go to a hockey game with no body contact, no checking, and a hollow plastic puck that was nice and soft? And where the proceeds were donated to missionaries?

Any fighting in sports is quickly stopped and people sin binned.

Oh, I see, i missed the rule changes there for martial arts contests, boxing, wrestling, ans kickboxing, etc!

There is still no link between the evil of a bloody gladitorial fight, and a good clean skillful game of footy. Times have definately changed.

[/quote:f4be1]
More people die in present sports I would guess, than in the Greek or Roman ones. I don't think abortion was considered all that sporting then either? You could say the ancient Egyptians were bad for throwing maybe hundreds of babies to crocodiles. I say, the clean, modern abortion clinics that have killed millions of babies are far more evil.
You can say ancient warfare was barbaric, and cruel. I say dropping atom bombs killing millions are much worse. Yes, times have changed.