Ice Age 2

Originally posted by 7ate9
Christian views from athiesm. still funny!

Christian views from athiesm[sic].

😕

Ah... the Noah's Ark-esque boat?

Originally posted by 7ate9
that little critter trying to get the acorns had me cracking up.

I completely forgot about the acorn-heaven. Funny.

Originally posted by 7ate9
Christian views from athiesm. still funny!

I don't know where you are getting atheism from (I'm guessing you're making the mistake of equating evolution and atheism).

My wife and I watched the movie with our daughter. While we thought the movie was okay (not as good as the first one), we both had the impression that the writers or producers (or somebody) were trying to please everyone, but were instead pleasing no one. The whole premise of the story in closely tied up with evolution (yes, you could think up a creationist account, but, honestly, what can't you make consistent with creationism?), however a significant portion of it's American audience is young-earth anit-evolutionist types who may be offended by the material.

So to appease the fundies they make gestures toward the general Flood Myth (not just the one in Genesis), but they leave the it vague (just enough!) that it doesn't come off as a preachy load of bull. The problem is that they plainly are out of touch with the YEC crowd. They should realize that by definition you can't appease fundamentalists without a literalist interpretation of the Genesis Flood. To them, anything else is a distortion of God's truth.

In the end, secular people raise their eyebrows and whistle at the film's cowing to evangelicals. (I personally didn't care much. As it was in the film, it can be interpreted as a nod to the broad class of Middle Eastern Flood mythologies.) The fundamentalist evangelicals get upset because it's "watering down" the Word of God. Probably the only people who like the awkward mix are the Christians that understand and accept that evolution happened.

I think the writers should have left the whole Ark thing out of it. Then everybody would get what they expected.

Why would Christians even think of believing that evolution happened
if they've read the Bible?
No, I didn't see the movie yet. However, what you said about Christians believing in
evolution struck me odd.

Originally posted by Nosrac
Why would Christians even think of believing that evolution happened
if they've read the Bible?
No, I didn't see the movie yet. However, what you said about Christians believing in
evolution struck me odd.

I'm waiting for the prequel, I sage 1.....

Originally posted by Nosrac
Why would Christians even think of believing that evolution happened
if they've read the Bible?
No, I didn't see the movie yet. However, what you said about Christians believing in
evolution struck me odd.

A great many xians accept the empirical evidence for evolution. Nearly as many accept that the current scientific theory of how evolution occurred is correct.

Many of these individuals read the opening chapters of Genesis as a symbolic representation of God creating life via evolution. Others believe that many of the Old Testament stories are myths (with varying degrees of historical fact behind them). In America today, it is a very vocal (and large) minority of xians that reads the Genesis account literally. For these believers, all empirical observation must come under "the infallible Word of God." Thus, all naturalistic interpretations of the evidence, no matter how convincing otherwise, must be rejected if they are perceived to threaten ones literal reading of scripture.

When asked to reconcile their ex-evidence historical claims with what appear to be many and mounting critical inconsistencies, some of these literalist xians will wisely throw up there arms and reply, "God did it!" While not satisfactory for anyone who is not already strongly indoctrinated in that religious dogma, it is at least tenable on the surface. Surely, if such an amazing being exists, that being can alter and manipulate nature to such a degree that any observation of nature's state can be made consistent with any other state of nature in the past.

The group that gets into trouble is the one that offer naturalistic hypotheses for how this events could take place. Groups like Answers In Genesis (AIG), the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), and the Discovery Institute (DI), as well as charlatans like Kent Hovind (AKA "Dr." Dino), fall into this category. They make gobs of money peddling anti-evolution propaganda and, what seems to their lay audience, scientific models of xian creationism. The problem for these groups is that while one may evade a single particular inconsistency with an appeal to odd natural events, those appeals bring with them further inconsistencies with other data. In the end, this group only looks extremely foolish (albeit wealthy) as evidenced when brought before the US courts.

So simply put, a xian can read the entire Bible and still accept both that evolution has occurred and that the current theory for how it occurred is to date the best explaination. They may not be able to make such a position consistent with a completely literal interpretation of Genesis, but there is no reason to restrict interpretations of scripture to be literal. Many passages in the Bible are clearly not meant to be read in such a manner. Given that literal interpretations of Genesis are at such incredible odds with natural evidence, it seems reasonable (and if God gave you brain why not be reasonable with it?) to read Genesis as a figurative account.

Final question for you: Do you believe that Catholics are generally xians?

Originally posted by Nosrac
Why would Christians even think of believing that evolution happened
if they've read the Bible?
No, I didn't see the movie yet. However, what you said about Christians believing in
evolution struck me odd.

Carson I think you'll find that most christians believe evolution. Why wouldn't they? There's no issue with evolution and religion - only what you and your fellow crackpots try to make up.

The bible is not a literal truth.
How could it be? There are so many errors and inconsistencies.
This isn't an issue for normal christians - I know because I live and work with many.
What's so important to you about the literal nature of the bible? What have you got so invested in it that you can't see the forest for the trees?

Originally posted by amannion
Carson I think you'll find that most christians believe evolution. Why wouldn't they? There's no issue with evolution and religion - only what you and your fellow crackpots try to make up.

The bible is not a literal truth.
How could it be? There are so many errors and inconsistencies.
This isn't an issue for normal christians - I know because I live an ...[text shortened]... he bible? What have you got so invested in it that you can't see the forest for the trees?

Well, one very good reason is that man was made in the image of God...That is why they dont believe in evolution.

I have never met one Christian that believes in evolution, surely he is the crackpot you are referring to?

Do you have enough prove to argu that the Bible is not the "literal" truth for Christians? Are you a Christian and studied the Bible thoroughly? If not, how can you make this statement? Oh, sorry, you can make it because you dont believe in it?

Atheism also is not true you know. What have you got so invested in it that you can't see the Light in your heart?

Originally posted by Nicksten
Atheism also is not true you know.

Please explain how you can prove this?

Originally posted by Nicksten
Well, one very good reason is that man was made in the image of God...That is why they dont believe in evolution.

I have never met one Christian that believes in evolution, surely he is the crackpot you are referring to?

Do you have enough prove to argu that the Bible is not the "literal" truth for Christians? Are you a Christian and studied the Bible ...[text shortened]... rue you know. What have you got so invested in it that you can't see the Light in your heart?

Great . . . another juvenile pest.

If you haven't met a xian that accepts evolution, then you need to get out more. You say that evolution cannot have occurred because your idol made man in his image? I don't see why such a super-duper character couldn't use evolution to make man in his image. You really limit your idol's power. By "made in his image" do you mean in the morphological sense? If so, then I wonder what did your idol do with his two legs? Did he walk around the Void with them? How about those fingernails? Did he get an itch? Maybe . . . "down there"? Does he have a "down there"? If so, then why?

Finally, since you either didn't read or didn't comprehend my last post, allow me to repeat a question from it. Do you believe that Catholics are generally xians?

It's always so cute when the experts chime in with their "most Christians" and "only a vocal minority" assertions. Despite rejecting it wholesale, they are keenly aware of its adherents' beliefs. How quaint.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
It's always so cute when the experts chime in with their "most Christians" and "only a vocal minority" assertions. Despite rejecting it wholesale, they are keenly aware of its adherents' beliefs. How quaint.

You're of enduring anthropological interest, Freaky.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
You're of enduring anthropological interest, Freaky.

Nutty, ain't I?