Evolution the myth

[Stevil]

If she is new to forums, and honest about wanting to dialogue or debate, then I hope she is understanding that we would welcome it but have not seen it from her yet. We need more information, more detail, statements backed up by some reasoning or facts.
If she tells us we are wrong then she needs to make some effort in an attempt to explain why we are wrong.

[Gawen]

Honestly, the only thing I would add is...



Good grief...*shakin me head*

[Tank]

If HF is real I find her most interesting. She is completly oblivious to the details of the ToE, the scientific method, good manners and polite discussion.

[xSilverPhinx]

She could be a Poe, it's quite possible. Especially when dealing with rather extreme cases such as her...

[Tank]

She could be a Poe, it's quite possible. Especially when dealing with rather extreme cases such as her...

This is true, she could be a Poe, but I hope she's real and if so stays around and tries to learn rather than just make random unsupported theological assertions.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

Theists are often upset by Darwinian evolution because they think it challenges their faith.  There is nothing inherently inconsistent between Darwinian evolution and 1) the concept of a creator God; or 2) the historicity of Jesus, Moses, Mohammad or any other prophet/messiah.  There could have been a creator God who prescribed the original conditions, and then allowed the universe/world to develop according to the laws of nature. Then, once we arrived on the scene after 13.7 billion years, that creator God could have chosen to communicate with us through these prophets/messiahs.  The simple point here is that evolution and an old universe/earth do not negate the essential claims of at least the Abrahamic religions, unless one interprets the texts of those religions in a hyper-literalistic manner, which I contend is unwarranted and unnecessary. Theists often take an ill-advised stance against science, while hypocritically enjoying the benefits of science daily.

[Sandra Craft]

The simple point here is that evolution and an old universe/earth do not negate the essential claims of at least the Abrahamic religions, unless one interprets the texts of those religions in a hyper-literalistic manner, which I contend is unwarranted and unnecessary.

I've often thought that this hyper-literalism is the single biggest religious mistake that can be made.  I wouldn't be surprised if it was responsible for turning more believers into non-believers than vice versa.

[Tank]

Theists are often upset by Darwinian evolution because they think it challenges their faith.  There is nothing inherently inconsistent between Darwinian evolution and 1) the concept of a creator God; or 2) the historicity of Jesus, Moses, Mohammad or any other prophet/messiah.  There could have been a creator God who prescribed the original conditions, and then allowed the universe/world to develop according to the laws of nature. Then, once we arrived on the scene after 13.7 billion years, that creator God could have chosen to communicate with us through these prophets/messiahs.  The simple point here is that evolution and an old universe/earth do not negate the essential claims of at least the Abrahamic religions, unless one interprets the texts of those religions in a hyper-literalistic manner, which I contend is unwarranted and unnecessary. Theists often take an ill-advised stance against science, while hypocritically enjoying the benefits of science daily.

Agreed. The Catholic church has no problem with Darwinian Evolution at all and if you go to TheologyWeb (where I go by the name of Evolutionist) you'll find many Christian members who vehemently argue the cause of pure Darwinian Evolution and another group who simply believe that God 'tweaked' evolution to suit his own ends. These two groups swap broadsides with the literalists and YECs in a most vociferous manner!

[Too Few Lions]

Theists are often upset by Darwinian evolution because they think it challenges their faith.  There is nothing inherently inconsistent between Darwinian evolution and 1) the concept of a creator God; or 2) the historicity of Jesus, Moses, Mohammad or any other prophet/messiah.  There could have been a creator God who prescribed the original conditions, and then allowed the universe/world to develop according to the laws of nature. Then, once we arrived on the scene after 13.7 billion years, that creator God could have chosen to communicate with us through these prophets/messiahs.  The simple point here is that evolution and an old universe/earth do not negate the essential claims of at least the Abrahamic religions, unless one interprets the texts of those religions in a hyper-literalistic manner, which I contend is unwarranted and unnecessary. Theists often take an ill-advised stance against science, while hypocritically enjoying the benefits of science daily.

But by the same logic, the universe could also have been created by Zeus, Mithras, Ptah or the flying spaghetti monster. The claims of Islam, Judaism or Christianity are no more valid. Clearly the authors of the Tanakh, the New Testament and the Quran had no idea about the true age of the universe, the writers of all these boooks probably thought that the world was around 6-10,000 years old at most. Throughout most of their history their followers have also thought that it was created in six days. The writers of these books were also totally unaware of the true nature of the universe, the writers of the Tanakh and Quran thought that the Earth was flat, and probably also so did some of the writers of the NT. At best they thought that the Earth was at the centre of the universe and all the stars and planets rotated about it.

Some more moderate religious folk may have decided to try and adapt their religion to agree with the advancement of scientific knowledge, rather than vigorously oppose it as the Church used to, but it's not what the original writers of their religious books believed. If Jesus had ever lived (personally I don't think he ever did) he would not have known about evolution, the true age of the universe or even that the Earth rotated around the Sun!

[Stevil]

The simple point here is that evolution and an old universe/earth do not negate the essential claims of at least the Abrahamic religions, unless one interprets the texts of those religions in a hyper-literalistic manner, which I contend is unwarranted and unnecessary.

I've often thought that this hyper-literalism is the single biggest religious mistake that can be made.  I wouldn't be surprised if it was responsible for turning more believers into non-believers than vice versa.

I have issues both ways, when taken literally the bible makes no sense and contradicts what has been proven by science.
But if you don't take the bible literally then how can someone derive absolute meaning/knowledge from a book that requires interpretation? The person interpreting the book injects themselves into it. The message becomes more of the interpreter than of the author. God becomes a self image. Hence lots of differing views, different churches, different religions based on the same book OT.

[Sandra Craft]

The simple point here is that evolution and an old universe/earth do not negate the essential claims of at least the Abrahamic religions, unless one interprets the texts of those religions in a hyper-literalistic manner, which I contend is unwarranted and unnecessary.

I've often thought that this hyper-literalism is the single biggest religious mistake that can be made.  I wouldn't be surprised if it was responsible for turning more believers into non-believers than vice versa.

I have issues both ways, when taken literally the bible makes no sense and contradicts what has been proven by science.
But if you don't take the bible literally then how can someone derive absolute meaning/knowledge from a book that requires interpretation? The person interpreting the book injects themselves into it. The message becomes more of the interpreter than of the author. God becomes a self image. Hence lots of differing views, different churches, different religions based on the same book OT.

I don't think interpreting the bible hyper-literally helps to avoid that -- even among extreme literalists there are differences of opinion about what this, that and the other mean.

[OldGit]

I think it's a matter of feeling secure.  Some of the psychologically shakier faithheads dare not admit that the Bible is anything less than 100% literally true, because there lies insecurity: having to decide for oneself.
I once knew a grown woman with a good degree, intelligent in the sense of high IQ, a Vicar's wife, who told me that if the snake talked in Genesis, then snakes could talk in those days.  I think she simply dared not move off that firm ground.

[Too Few Lions]

II once knew a grown woman with a good degree, intelligent in the sense of high IQ, a Vicar's wife, who told me that if the snake talked in Genesis, then snakes could talk in those days.  I think she simply dared not move off that firm ground.

that's seriously ****ed up! I can't believe she was all that intelligent, I mean talking snakes, really???

[Stevil]

I think it's a matter of feeling secure.  Some of the psychologically shakier faithheads dare not admit that the Bible is anything less than 100% literally true, because there lies insecurity: having to decide for oneself.
I once knew a grown woman with a good degree, intelligent in the sense of high IQ, a Vicar's wife, who told me that if the snake talked in Genesis, then snakes could talk in those days.  I think she simply dared not move off that firm ground.

I understand her position. I book that requires interpretation is meaningless.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

But by the same logic, the universe could also have been created by Zeus, Mithras, Ptah or the flying spaghetti monster. The claims of Islam, Judaism or Christianity are no more valid. Clearly the authors of the Tanakh, the New Testament and the Quran had no idea about the true age of the universe, the writers of all these boooks probably thought that the world was around 6-10,000 years old at most. Throughout most of their history their followers have also thought that it was created in six days. The writers of these books were also totally unaware of the true nature of the universe, the writers of the Tanakh and Quran thought that the Earth was flat, and probably also so did some of the writers of the NT. At best they thought that the Earth was at the centre of the universe and all the stars and planets rotated about it.

I'm not aware of any claims in the "New Testament" about the age of the earth.  I also question whether the original authors of Genesis 1 and 2 really thought they were writing literal history. Genesis 1 is written in poetic, hymnic verse, and Genesis 2 seems more like a metaphor in its style.  I don't think you get into an actual attempt at history until about Genesis 12 (story of Abraham).  Even the story of Noah's flood can easily be understood as an embellished account of a very nasty local event, not literally a worldwide one. In any event, it doesn't matter what Paul or John thought about the age of the earth. The issue for a Christian is whether the account of Jesus is based in history, and the point of my post is that the age of the earth and Darwinian evolution don't impact that issue at all.