Author Topic: For the Darwinists (Read 9333 times)

Any Abrahmic religions that have Genesis like verses as does the bible, torah, koran cannot possibly accept evolution.

Total contradictions from man being a complete creation from a god, and man evolving via extremely slight modifications of an organism.

tonymctones · « **Reply #30 on:** July 06, 2008, 07:00:09 PM »

Quote from: Deicide on July 06, 2008, 03:34:13 AM

Please tell me how Genesis is compatible with evolution?

pls explain to me how it contradicts it.

Nordic Superman · « **Reply #31 on:** July 07, 2008, 12:48:21 AM »

Quote from: tonymctones on July 06, 2008, 07:00:09 PM

pls explain to me how it contradicts it.

God made man and all the beast individually in complete form.

wavelength · « **Reply #32 on:** July 07, 2008, 02:30:52 AM »

There is no contradiction. Only if you interpret spiritual scripture as scientific scripture, there is.

Nordic Superman · « **Reply #33 on:** July 07, 2008, 02:35:23 AM »

Quote from: wavelength on July 07, 2008, 02:30:52 AM

There is no contradiction. Only if you interpret spiritual scripture as scientific scripture, there is.

So the scientist has to play this on the level of a spiritualist? Sounds fair!

Wavelength, do you believe in a God? Do you believe this God is bound by the laws of the universe?

wavelength · « **Reply #34 on:** July 07, 2008, 02:49:30 AM »

Quote from: Nordic Superman on July 07, 2008, 02:35:23 AM

So the scientist has to play this on the level of a spiritualist? Sounds fair!

A scientist deals with science, it's just one role (or better one job) a human can pursue. As soon as a 'scientist' reads spiritual scripture, he has two option: stepping out of science to be able to understand the truth contained in the scripture, or (like scientific reductionists or creationists just as well) interpret e.g. the bible on a pure scientific basis. Unfortunally, the latter leads to imaginary conflicts instead of understanding.

Quote from: Nordic Superman on July 07, 2008, 02:35:23 AM

Wavelength, do you believe in a God? Do you believe this God is bound by the laws of the universe?

Yes I believe in God (although this statement alone does not say much nowadays). Regarding the 'laws of the universe', this depends on what you mean by that. If you mean the 'scientific laws of the universe', or better, what the current scientific theories imply they are, the answer is no. Simply because, the world is more than its scientific aspects and God is the origin of everthing there is.

Nordic Superman · « **Reply #35 on:** July 07, 2008, 03:00:49 AM »

Quote from: wavelength on July 07, 2008, 02:49:30 AM

A scientist deals with science, it's just one role (or better one job) a human can pursue. As soon as a 'scientist' reads spiritual scripture, he has two option: stepping out of science to be able to understand the truth contained in the scripture, or (like scientific reductionists or creationists just as well) interpret e.g. the bible on a pure scientific basis. Unfortunally, the latter leads to imaginary conflicts instead of understanding.

So again, we're working on the assumption that scripture is truth?

Are you saying a scientist applying their method of thought to the Bible is entirely fallible? So in essence, you must be a Christian to understand the Bible?

wavelength · « **Reply #36 on:** July 07, 2008, 03:11:08 AM »

Quote from: Nordic Superman on July 07, 2008, 03:00:49 AM

So again, we're working on the assumption that scripture is truth?

In essential spiritual scripture, there is essential truth. What you mean by 'truth' is probably again 'scientific truth'.

Quote from: Nordic Superman on July 07, 2008, 03:00:49 AM

Are you saying a scientist applying their method of thought to the Bible is entirely fallible? So in essence, you must be a Christian to understand the Bible?

It's possible and probably quite interesting to some people to investigate the bible in such a way. My point is that you won't find the essential truth this way.

In the end, the core truth contained in the bible goes beyond every method of thought. Simply because, the divine cannot be captured directly by the thinking mind. It even says in the bible that every image (thought-structure) of God is false.

You do not have to 'be a Christian'. Honestly, I don't even know what that means, 'being a Christian'. For most people it just means following a set of rules of the ideology they unfortunally have turned religion into.

Nordic Superman · « **Reply #37 on:** July 07, 2008, 03:35:20 AM »

Quote from: wavelength on July 07, 2008, 03:11:08 AM

In essential spiritual scripture, there is essential truth. What you mean by 'truth' is probably again 'scientific truth'.

It's possible and probably quite interesting to some people to investigate the bible in such a way. My point is that you won't find the essential truth this way.

In the end, the core truth contained in the bible goes beyond every method of thought. Simply because, the divine cannot be captured directly by the thinking mind. It even says in the bible that every image (thought-structure) of God is false.

You do not have to 'be a Christian'. Honestly, I don't even know what that means, 'being a Christian'. For most people it just means following a set of rules of the ideology they unfortunally have turned religion into.

Well I believe almost all of this to be false. The Bible isn't truth, and doesn't go beyond every method of thought.

I thought personal that being a Christian, means you accept Christ as the saviour that he died for our sins.

wavelength · « **Reply #38 on:** July 07, 2008, 03:41:35 AM »

Quote from: Nordic Superman on July 07, 2008, 03:35:20 AM

Well I believe almost all of this to be false. The Bible isn't truth, and doesn't go beyond every method of thought.

That's a possible point of view, no doubt. One you will most certainly come to if you only investigate it scientifically.

Quote from: Nordic Superman on July 07, 2008, 03:35:20 AM

I thought personal that being a Christian, means you accept Christ as the saviour that he died for our sins.

That's true of course, if understood.

Nordic Superman · « **Reply #39 on:** July 07, 2008, 03:45:46 AM »

Quote from: wavelength on July 07, 2008, 03:41:35 AM

That's a possible point of view, no doubt. One you will most certainly come to if you only investigate it scientifically.

That's true of course, if understood.

So on your ground I don't hold a valid position for my opinions, because I look religion and spirituality from a vantage point you don't accept.

wavelength · « **Reply #40 on:** July 07, 2008, 04:06:12 AM »

Quote from: Nordic Superman on July 07, 2008, 03:45:46 AM

So on your ground I don't hold a valid position for my opinions, because I look religion and spirituality from a vantage point you don't accept.

If you say that e.g. the world was not created in seven days, as a scientist, I would agree. So I completely accept that. My point is that this statement does not reveal anything substantial about Genesis. The Genesis is an attempt to describe the undescribable. Time e.g. is a human concept. It is also a part of the creation. There is no real timeline for creation. The seven days are a means to separate the essential parts of creation.

Nordic Superman · « **Reply #41 on:** July 07, 2008, 04:35:09 AM »

Quote from: wavelength on July 07, 2008, 04:06:12 AM

If you say that e.g. the world was not created in seven days, as a scientist, I would agree. So I completely accept that. My point is that this statement does not reveal anything substantial about Genesis. The Genesis is an attempt to describe the undescribable. Time e.g. is a human concept. It is also a part of the creation. There is no real timeline for creation. The seven days are a means to separate the essential parts of creation.

Yeah again, I don't agree.

How come Charles Darwin does an exceptional explanation the origin of mankind, whilst God struggles?

Isn't it the creators responsibility to be clear and not leave things to the whims of men?

wavelength · « **Reply #42 on:** July 07, 2008, 06:04:38 AM »

Quote from: Nordic Superman on July 07, 2008, 04:35:09 AM

Yeah again, I don't agree.
How come Charles Darwin does an exceptional explanation the origin of mankind, whilst God struggles?
Isn't it the creators responsibility to be clear and not leave things to the whims of men?

Charles Darwin has created a scientific theory about the biological aspects of life. Genesis talks about the origin of existence in general. That's just something different.

Clarity has nothing to do with scientific accurateness. Since the bible is not a scientific work, the goal is not scientific accurateness but revelation of truth. The truth is crystal clear, it just cannot be captured by words directly. This is not a flaw of the bible but an implicit restriction of human thought.

Nordic Superman · « **Reply #43 on:** July 07, 2008, 06:13:57 AM »

Quote from: wavelength on July 07, 2008, 06:04:38 AM

Charles Darwin has created a scientific theory about the biological aspects of life. Genesis talks about the origin of existence in general. That's just something different.

Clarity has nothing to do with scientific accurateness. Since the bible is not a scientific work, the goal is not scientific accurateness but revelation of truth. The truth is crystal clear, it just cannot be captured by words directly. This is not a flaw of the bible but an implicit restriction of human thought.

So the creation of man from dust, an woman from the rib of man doesn't explain the biological creation of humans?

God create his book knowing full well that humans would stumble because of implicit restriction of the human mind?

wavelength · « **Reply #44 on:** July 07, 2008, 06:28:43 AM »

Quote from: Nordic Superman on July 07, 2008, 06:13:57 AM

So the creation of man from dust, an woman from the rib of man doesn't explain the biological creation of humans?

The bible talks about the essential aspects of existence. The scientific aspects of existence (as created by human thought) are non-essential. Indirectly, the bible also explains the existence of scientific theories about the world, since those theories would have never arisen if human consciousness would not have been created in the first place.

Quote from: Nordic Superman on July 07, 2008, 06:13:57 AM

God create his book knowing full well that humans would stumble because of implicit restriction of the human mind?

Fully understanding the word of God and reaching salvation is one and the same. The potential of salvation implies that we are born with just the seed of it in us.

Hustle Man · « **Reply #45 on:** July 07, 2008, 07:20:52 AM »

Quote from: Deicide on July 03, 2008, 08:57:44 PM

Christians will post/write anything to justify their delusional fairytales.

That is not true!

Deicide · « **Reply #46 on:** July 07, 2008, 10:08:25 AM »

Quote from: Hustle Man on July 07, 2008, 07:20:52 AM

That is not true!

It definitely is.

Deicide · « **Reply #47 on:** July 07, 2008, 10:09:25 AM »

Arguing with Wavelength is a waste of time.

Believe me.

wavelength · « **Reply #48 on:** July 07, 2008, 10:31:44 AM »

Quote from: Deicide on July 07, 2008, 10:09:25 AM

Arguing with Wavelength is a waste of time.

Believe me.

And why is that?

Hustle Man · « **Reply #49 on:** July 07, 2008, 11:30:14 AM »

Quote from: wavelength on July 07, 2008, 06:28:43 AM

Fully understanding the word of God and reaching salvation is one and the same.

I disagree; intellectual assent does not guarantee salvation. The Pharasees fully understood God's word but Jesus openly rebuked many of them because of their self-righteousness.

Quote from: wavelength on July 07, 2008, 06:28:43 AM

The potential of salvation implies that we are born with just the seed of it in us.

No, after the fall of man we are all born spirtually dead and desperately wicked.

Rom 3:10-12
10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Ephesians 2 doth support the above.