09 Feb 10
This is a continuation of our conversation we started today, but instead of hijacking the thread again i feel a new one would be better.
I was thinking today about your comments with regard to the theory of evolution, and how you keep stating your view that evolution projects a materilaistic view of the world devoid of an intelligent creator. But then it struck me that you are looking at this issue in very simplistic terms. You seem to be equating atheism with evolution which is erroneous. The Church of England and the Catholic Chruch both accept the theory of evolution and believe it is compatible with scripture, and i doubt they deny the existence of a creator.
So your assertion that evolution depicts a materialistic world devoid of a creator is simply not true.
09 Feb 10
Originally posted by Proper KnobThese scriptures are describing what has happened to most religions as in the two your mentioning here. 2Tim 2: 16-18. 2John 9, 10. Rom16: 17, 18. 2Pet 2:1.
This is a continuation of our conversation we started today, but instead of hijacking the thread again i feel a new one would be better.
I was thinking today about your comments with regard to the theory of evolution, and how you keep stating your view that evolution projects a materilaistic view of the world devoid of an intelligent creator. But then ...[text shortened]... r assertion that evolution depicts a materialistic world devoid of a creator is simply not true.
Obviously they are not refering to evolution, but they are referring to any false teachings that they now have or will finally accept.
09 Feb 10
5 edits
Originally posted by Proper Knobwhile I am flattered in your interest dear Noobster whether the church of England or the Catholic church or any other so called Christian organisation accepts the theory of evolution is neither here not there for they accept many non scriptural ideas and practices. The fact of the matter is, and we have been through this before, God knows we have been through it, it cannot be substantiated scripturally and quite clearly it is diametrically opposed to what Christ taught and what is recorded in the bible. What they have attempted is nothing more than a watering down of the teachings of Christ resulting in an adulteration of his teachings.
This is a continuation of our conversation we started today, but instead of hijacking the thread again i feel a new one would be better.
I was thinking today about your comments with regard to the theory of evolution, and how you keep stating your view that evolution projects a materilaistic view of the world devoid of an intelligent creator. But then ...[text shortened]... r assertion that evolution depicts a materialistic world devoid of a creator is simply not true.
when i refer to evolution as being purely materialistic i am referring not to the basterdisation of scripture at the hands of the church of England and others but to the contemporary scientific view of the emergence of life from non living matter (abiogenesis) and its diversification (evolutionary hypothesis). If you want to know how others assert that the two are compatible you need to ask infidels like Zapansy who profess that God has used evolution (an assertion for which there is no scriptural basis nor scientific basis (that is why they vehemently deny the flood, the creation of humans and assert that everyone who does not share their views are ignorant) even though these things were taught by Christ). What they have in fact done is abandon the teachings of Christ and have supplanted it with a materialistic view of the emergence of life, whether they accept this or not, that is what they have done.
I shall repeat this once more, there is no scriptural nor scientific evidence that God has used the theory of evolution to create and diversify the many varied forms of life that we see today.
when you press them for evidence of this, they are in a quandry, for they either must deny the teachings of Christ and the bible (you get the usual assertions, created does not really mean created , its an analogy, its used in some other context, its metaphorical, it does not presume a creator , you know the usual tosh and watering down), or they must accept contemporary scientific thought, you know the stuff , pre biotic soup, primitive atmosphere, amino acids, proteins, building blocks of life, cells blah de blah. or you get others like our Fabian who is at the very early stages of his spiritual development and would dearly like to believe in science and God and that God used science, a matter for which he has not the slightest piece of evidence except wishful thinking.
Just for emphasis and so there is no mistake, there is no scriptural nor scientific evidence that God has used the theory of evolution to create and diversify the many varied forms of life that we see today.
09 Feb 10
Originally posted by Proper KnobI would view science as a pursuit of the study of materialistic phenomenon. Would you disagree with this ascertion? In fact, would Robbie agree?
This is a continuation of our conversation we started today, but instead of hijacking the thread again i feel a new one would be better.
I was thinking today about your comments with regard to the theory of evolution, and how you keep stating your view that evolution projects a materilaistic view of the world devoid of an intelligent creator. But then ...[text shortened]... r assertion that evolution depicts a materialistic world devoid of a creator is simply not true.
09 Feb 10
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyno i am of the opinion that the observance of the natural world is an insight into the qualities of a creator, i.e design and functionality, harmony, power, the application of knowledge, co operation and the interaction of different and unrelated species, inherent wisdom etc etc, this is based on this famous scripture.
I would view science as a pursuit of the study of materialistic phenomenon. Would you disagree with this ascertion? In fact, would Robbie agree?
(Romans 1:20) . . .For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship,
thus there are many excellent and practical lessons to be drawn from an observation of the natural world. i think this goes a little beyond a purely materialistic approach.
09 Feb 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHere is an interesting passage:
while I am flattered in your interest dear Noobster whether the church of England or the Catholic church or any other so called Christian organisation accepts the theory of evolution is neither here not there for they accept many non scriptural ideas and practices. The fact of the matter is, and we have been through this before, God knows we have be ...[text shortened]... theory of evolution to create and diversify the many varied forms of life that we see today.[/b]
Job 36:27-29
For He draws up drops of water,
Which distill as rain from the mist,
Which the clouds drop down
And pour abundantly on man.
Indeed, can anyone understand the spreading of clouds,
The thunder from His canopy?
What do you make of this? This seems like an explanation of some meteorological phenomena. Just the sort of phenomena that science is in the business of explaining mechanistically. Here, however, the explanation seems to essentially involve God's agency. So, a couple questions: First, are you prepared to reject meteorology because it explains evaporation, condensation and lightning and thunder without reference to God's power? Second, if you claim that God exerts agency here indirectly, by creating physical laws and properties which themselves explain these phenomena, then isn't that just the strategy of accommodation you are rejecting in the case of evolution? I'm not here particularly interested in your views about evolution. I am interested in how you interpret Scripture when it makes claims about the physical world. Do you sometimes interpret it literally (as you seem wont to do with regard to creation/evolution) and sometimes interpret it non-literally (as I predict you will want to do with regard to these meteorological phenomena)? If so, what considerations determine which strategy you should use in any particular case? I am honestly curious here.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
09 Feb 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieActually, we have been here before, and it is quite clear that Jesus does not teach against evolution. You take his teaching on marriage and twist it around to be a scientific statement about creation.
while I am flattered in your interest dear Noobster whether the church of England or the Catholic church or any other so called Christian organisation accepts the theory of evolution is neither here not there for they accept many non scriptural ideas and practices. The fact of the matter is, and we have been through this before, God knows we have be ...[text shortened]... theory of evolution to create and diversify the many varied forms of life that we see today.[/b]
10 Feb 10
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOf course, because god is not a scientific entity to begin with. To scientifically evaluate anything about your god is futile.
there is no scriptural nor scientific evidence that God has used the theory of evolution
Have I said it before? Science and religion never mix!
10 Feb 10
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrHi, yes, its vewy vewy intwesting Mr.Barr, what he is referring to is the water cycle or as you so accurately describe it, 'meteorological phenomena'.
Here is an interesting passage:
Job 36:27-29
For He draws up drops of water,
Which distill as rain from the mist,
Which the clouds drop down
And pour abundantly on man.
Indeed, can anyone understand the spreading of clouds,
The thunder from His canopy?
What do you make of this? This seems like an explanation of some meteorological phenomena. Just determine which strategy you should use in any particular case? I am honestly curious here.
This like other cycles, the nitrogen cycle for example are mechanisms put in place by God for the healthy functioning of the planet. These are rather amazing self perpetuating mechanisms which rather brilliantly display the superlative wisdom of God.
Take for example the process for dealing with air borne pollutants, too small to fall to earth and which remain in suspension in the atmosphere. Carried out to sea by winds, they combine with the salt spray from the ocean making them heavy enough to fall into the ocean, where over time they are absorbed into the ocean floor through huge ocean vents and vitrified in the molten magma, the cleansed water is then filtered out. it is nothing short of a huge ocean filtration system and an utterly amazing, if i may borrow your phrase, 'phenomena'.
Is it not self evident that the laws which govern these great cycles are given by a loving and beneficent God, making many of the most wonderful aspects of our world possible? huge waterfalls which appeal to our sense of aesthetics, the growing of different foodstuff for our enjoyment, different seasons, cleansing the planet of pollutants etc etc.
10 Feb 10
Originally posted by Conrau Kyes as i said Noobster trying the old, 'its in a different context trick', sorry Conrau, it does not wash, whether it was about marriage or divorce is irrelevant, Christ upheld, believed in, quoted directly from the creative account of Genesis and appealed to others on the basis of its validity, the mere fact that it was in a different context does not negate this, as those who deny his teaching would have us believe.
Actually, we have been here before, and it is quite clear that Jesus does not teach against evolution. You take his teaching on marriage and twist it around to be a scientific statement about creation.
10 Feb 10
1 edit
Originally posted by menace71Because they deal with different matters.
Science and religion never mix!
Why?
Science deal with the laws of nature. Religion deals with supernaturals fenomena.
If religion was science, then why is not god proven? (The short answer.)
If you feel different: Tell me an area where science and religion really mix? I've asked it before, but I've never got a good answer.
10 Feb 10
Originally posted by FabianFnasits like cider and beer, if Fabian mixes them and then drinks the concoction, it blows his mind. Its the same with religion and science, when he mixes them, it blows his mind to think of such wonderful cycles being put in place by a beneficent God.
Because they deal with different matters.
Science deal with the laws of nature. Religion deals with supernaturals fenomena.
If religion was science, then why is not god proven? (The short answer.)
If you feel different: Tell me an area where science and religion really mix? I've asked it before, but I've never got a good answer.
10 Feb 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSince, by and large, you've ignored the substance of my post, I'll just post it again:
Hi, yes, its vewy vewy intwesting Mr.Barr, what he is referring to is the water cycle or as you so accurately describe it, 'meteorological phenomena'.
This like other cycles, the nitrogen cycle for example are mechanisms put in place by God for the healthy functioning of the planet. These are rather amazing self perpetuating mechanisms which ra ...[text shortened]... foodstuff for our enjoyment, different seasons, cleansing the planet of pollutants etc etc.
Second, if you claim that God exerts agency here indirectly, by creating physical laws and properties which themselves explain these phenomena, then isn't that just the strategy of accommodation you are rejecting in the case of evolution? I'm not here particularly interested in your views about evolution. I am interested in how you interpret Scripture when it makes claims about the physical world. Do you sometimes interpret it literally (as you seem wont to do with regard to creation/evolution) and sometimes interpret it non-literally (as I predict you will want to do with regard to these meteorological phenomena)? If so, what considerations determine which strategy you should use in any particular case? I am honestly curious here.
10 Feb 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt has nothing to do with cider and beer. If you simplify this much, you'll never be able to understand. And that's perhaps the reason of your current understanding to science. You simplify too much.
its like cider and beer, if Fabian mixes them and then drinks the concoction, it blows his mind. Its the same with religion and science, when he mixes them, it blows his mind to think of such wonderful cycles being put in place by a beneficent God.