Bible: Facts or Truths? (Split)

[Brewtus]

you are engaging in doublethink. the Bible and evolution are mutually exclusive.

Not according to Catholics. Here's an excerpt regarding the official Catholic position on evolution as presented by Pope John Paul II in his "Message to Pontifical Academy of Sciences" on October 22, 1996:

Today, almost half a century after the publication of the Encyclical, fresh knowledge has led to the recognition that evolution is more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favour of this theory. ​

What is the significance of such a theory? To address this question is to enter the field of epistemology. A theory is a metascientific elaboration, distinct from the results of observation but consistent with them. By means of it a series of independent data and facts can be related and interpreted in a unified explanation. A theory's validity depends on whether or not it can be verified, it is constantly tested against the facts; wherever it can no longer explain the latter, it shows its limitations and unsuitability. It must then be rethought. ​

Furthermore, while the formulation of a theory like that of evolution complies with the need for consistency with the observed data, it borrows certain notions from natural philosophy. And, to tell the truth, rather than the theory of evolution, we should speak of several theories of evolution. On the one hand, this plurality has to do with the different explanations advanced for the mechanism of evolution, and on the other, with the various philosophies on which it is based. Hence the existence of materialist, reductionist and spiritualist interpretations. What is to be decided here is the true role of philosophy and, beyond it, of theology.​

Apparently the Pope was able to reconcile the fact of evolution with the Bible and still have faith in his God. Why can't others?

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

I think you'll find LV is not going to be moved by appeals to Catholics.

 

[Muck]

I think you'll find LV is not going to be moved by appeals to Catholics.

...or Methodists, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Unitarians, Eastern Orthodox, *Presbyterians, *Church of Christ or the other various denominations that see no fundamental contradiction between the two.

FWIW Benedict XVI recently reiterated the Church's stance regarding evolution.


*Stick a "United" in front of both of those so as not to confuse them with other denominations with the same root name.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

...or Methodists, Lutherans, Episopalians, Unitarians, Eastern Orthodox, Presbyterians, Church of Christ or the other various denominations that see no fundamental contradiction between the two.

Those people don't know what they're talking about.

 

[lvbuckeye]

First of all I'd like to apologize for partially initiating this topic and then disappearing. That wasn't my intention but I had to go out of town on business unexpectedly at the last minute.

I think you've forgotten that for thousands of years nearly every living soul believed that the universe, the earth and mankind were created directly by God. There had been some evolutionary ideas proposed throughout this time, such as common descent and transmutation, but it wasn't until Darwin published On The Origin of Species that there was detailed support of the Theory of Evolution. The only reason why evolution was first proposed, and is so accepted today around the world, is because a theory was needed to explain what is observed in the fields of geology, biology, paleontology, archeology, etc. It's not that evil evolutionists were set on discrediting the Bible (Darwin actually studied to be a Clergyman) but that the observed evidence does not support the creation story in Genesis.

sorry. you fail. Darwin's theory was the brainchild of his grandfather Erasmus, who came up with the theory as an alternative religious philosophy. a quick read of Michael Ruse's editorial in the National Post in 2000, entitled "How Evolution Became a Religion" should help educate you in this area.

If you were really told in school to just accept evolution and were not shown the supporting evidence behind it, then your school(s) did a great disservice (and I hope one of them wasn't OSU). I had some great Paleoanthropology professors at OSU that would bring in casts of early hominid fossils so we could see first hand the similarities and differences between modern humans and apes. And I don't mean this as an insult, but what exactly has been your educational exposure to evolution related topics? What undergraduate or graduate courses have you taken in biology, geology, anthropology/paleontology and other related fields? I'm having a hard time understanding why you claim there is no evidence of evolutionary processes and especially that fossils and genetic evidence make more sense when viewed from a Biblical perspective and would like to know exactly what evidence has been presented to you. To the contrary the fossil and genetic evidence are what the Genesis story has the most difficulty explaining.

*wonders if all your great professors ever told you about the fact that recent studies have placed ALL australopithicans (or however you spell it) fossils in the APE family, and ALL hominid fossils in the HUMAN family. they are either one family or the other, and there are ZERO in between.*

the fossil record exists the way it does because of the way that matter settles in a solution. a look at your Italian salad dressing bottle before you shake it up confirms this. or perhaps you can go out west somewhere and participate in a little wild west gold panning. when you swirl the pan, the more dense matter settles to the bottom, and the less dense matter settles in layers above it. the fossil record is evidence of a massive global flood.

once again, you fail.

as for your church and priest arguments, i don't care what the pagan roman church or any of its pedophile priests says about evolution. i'm a protestant. i follow the Bible, not some false religion. the pope is the antichrist.

the reason that the Bible and evolution(ism) are mutually exclusive goes to the very foundation of the Bible: that is, with sin, death and suffering entered the world. if evolution is true, then Genesis is false, and death and suffering were present in the world before sin, therefore the entire Bible is false.

 

[Muck]

as for your church and priest arguments, i don't care what the pagan roman church or any of its pedophile priests says about evolution. i'm a protestant. i follow the Bible, ning were present in the world before sin, therefore the entire Bible is false.

Since you're so graciously offering us a picture of the real you....

Which sub cult do you belong to anyways?

 

[Brewtus]

*wonders if all your great professors ever told you about the fact that recent studies have placed ALL australopithicans (or however you spell it) fossils in the APE family, and ALL hominid fossils in the HUMAN family. they are either one family or the other, and there are ZERO in between.*

What exactly are you talking about?!? You mentioned "family" and they're all in the same family. Did you mean genus? Yes, Homo and Australopithecines are in different genera (but so are apes). Please cite a reference so I have something to go off of.

the fossil record exists the way it does because of the way that matter settles in a solution. a look at your Italian salad dressing bottle before you shake it up confirms this. or perhaps you can go out west somewhere and participate in a little wild west gold panning. when you swirl the pan, the more dense matter settles to the bottom, and the less dense matter settles in layers above it. the fossil record is evidence of a massive global flood.

once again, you fail.

We've discussed this before and I still don't know what you mean by "dense matter settles to the bottom". What fossil is more dense: a trilobite, a dinosaur vertebra or a femur from Homo Erectus? Once again please cite a reference showing the density of various fossils remains of extinct animals so I can see a pattern that would fit a Biblical global flood?

as for your church and priest arguments, i don't care what the pagan roman church or any of its pedophile priests says about evolution. i'm a protestant. i follow the Bible, not some false religion. the pope is the antichrist.

the reason that the Bible and evolution(ism) are mutually exclusive goes to the very foundation of the Bible: that is, with sin, death and suffering
entered the world. if evolution is true, then Genesis is false, and death and suffering were present in the world before sin, therefore the entire Bible is false.

I know you have about as much respect for Catholicism as you to for atheism, but my intent was to show that there are millions of people who believe in God and the Bible and also accept evolution.

 

[lvbuckeye]

...or Methodists, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Unitarians, Eastern Orthodox, *Presbyterians, *Church of Christ or the other various denominations that see no fundamental contradiction between the two.

FWIW Benedict XVI recently reiterated the Church's stance regarding evolution.


*Stick a "United" in front of both of those so as not to confuse them with other denominations with the same root name.

if they can't see the fundamental contradiction between the two, then i would have severe doubts regarding the veracity of their faith.

 

[lvbuckeye]

Since you're so graciously offering us a picture of the real you....

Which sub cult do you belong to anyways?

none of them. i follow the Word of God, not the words of people.

 

[MaxBuck]

if they can't see the fundamental contradiction between the two, then i would have severe doubts regarding the veracity of their faith.

Your doubts notwithstanding, there is no contradiction whatever. I am a born-again Christian who has full confidence that evolution is God's methodology to bring life to our planet. Your discussion of Erasmus Darwin is nothing but a red herring.

As the title of this thread points out, I have (as do most thoughtful Christians) a huge disconnect with those whose primary view of the Bible is as a Fact Book rather than a Truth Book. Sorry that point has been lost on several people.

 

[lvbuckeye]

Max, you might want to revisit Genesis chapter 3, then take a peek at Romans 6:23, and contemplate what the truth of the concept that death is the result of sin is versus idea that death and suffering were present in this world before man.

Brewtus. i will address your post.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

So... let me get this straight....

God's going about his business, creating things and so on. He plants the Tree of Knowledge of God and Evil... thinking... what, we're left to wonder.

Tells man "Don't eat of this tree" which indicates that God would jolly well prefer if man knows not good and evil... that Man stays " beast" (that is to say, a lion is not being evil, for example, when he kills) in regard to good and evil....

But... man, being created as susceptible to temptation eats from it anyway on the serpents coaxing (through Eve's coaxing too, I suppose) and God gets all mad and declares that man shall suffer pain, and have to toil and so on and so forth.

Odd. Very odd indeed. All knowing God leaves the very temptation at man's (and the serpent's) finger tips. Unwittingly double-crossed thinking man would obey, or absolute idiot for not seeing that man would eat at the serpent's coaxing and for even planting the friggin thing in the first place. I know that when I want, for example, my kids to not play with knives, I am sure to surround them with knives...

Or... maybe this story is just that.. a story. Maybe, if one is inclined to believe in any wisdom in the Bible, it stands for a metaphorical description of when the "monkey grew up to man" as it were... became self aware.. became conscious of himself... (saw he was naked and was ashamed, or whatever) Precisely as evolutionary theory suggests happened.

Of course, it's me with the closed mind, so...

 

[MaxBuck]

Max, you might want to revisit Genesis chapter 3, then take a peek at Romans 6:23, and contemplate what the truth of the concept that death is the result of sin is versus idea that death and suffering were present in this world before man.

This has f-a to do with evolution.

 

[jwinslow]

I do not believe in evolution, and agree with many of lv's refutations. However, I do not believe those verses stand as refutation.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

This has f-a to do with evolution.

Well, you tell me how 3 Billion year old bacteria could have died without sin. Impossible. Explain to me how in the hell Dino's could have died without sin? The Saber Toothed Tiger...

You can't.

Obviously, these creatures are virtually the same age as humans, and they're bones are lower in various deposits because they weigh more.


Of course, never mind the fact that some dino's and Jurassic incects weigh less than humans (even really old time humans like Adam and Eve and their incestuous offspring) and are still found in lower strata. Shake up some salad dressing. You'll see.