Getting over our love for Darwin

I should also add that I have no problems if you...
...say that evolution is agnostic about God
...believe evolution is wrong
...attempt to show me why quotes from Darwin and proponents of evolution that contradict your claim are not the "ultimate sense" of evolution

As I said earlier, I'm not calling you a liar.

 

Evolution in its ultimate sense is not simply Darwin's Origin of the Species, it includes the beginning of the universe

 

Not many evolutionists to-day are Darwinian! That's a fact.

Evolution does not profess to have all te answers, but neither does the Bible provide all the facts of earthly existence. This does not make the Bible or evolution false, and does not require an evolutionist to deny God.

In some areas there is no need for absolutism on either side.

Cheers,

Jim

 

This would make the Genesis account false, since the order in evolution does not follow the development in the 6 days in the Genesis account. Also, come to think of it, maybe this is why God created the sun on the 4th day, because this for sure contradicts evolution.

 

Sometimes I wonder what the Lord thinks as he sees Darwin type people act out their lives. God created Darwin, and God created the universe and anything else there is. Then, God watches Darwin as he proclaims how the universe started. I can only imagine what thoughts go through His mind.

Common sense demands a Creator. Even if I had no belief in the Gospel, Christ, or salvation, I would still believe in a god as a creator. People like Darwin that come up with all these wild theories leave out one thing. They cannot explain what force started the universe. They can take you back to the origin (in their minds), but cannot explain the catalyst that started it all. It takes no faith to believe in a creator. It takes an idiot to believe this all started on its own in auto pilot. None of them can explain "in the beginning."

One would think of all people on this earth, those who study science would be the first to proclaim a creator. How could one not see the order in life cycles, food chains, atoms, objects in the universe, the elements that give us life and not believe in a creator.

 

Darwin and proponents of evolution agree with you about the possibility of a creator. Refer to my quotes in post #54.

 

If you are referring to the Big Bang theory, I have also stated multiple times on this thread that it was created by Georges Lemaitre, a Roman Catholic priest and a theist. Proponents of the Big Bang theory are also agnostic to the existence of God.

I don't see how your statement actually helps your argument.

Also, you are welcome to make words mean whatever you want. For instance, I could say that the term alcohol includes orange juice and use the term alcohol that way in my every day speech. But then I wouldn't be communicating well and wouldn't be taken seriously.

If you are saying that your use of the term evolution includes the Big Bang and that the Big Bang is ultimately atheistic, I have also shown that to be incorrect.

Do you want to address the quotes I have in post #54 about how the creators, proponents and adherents of both the big bang and evolution are open to theistic explanations?

 

My post did not say the "possibility of a creator." It said, common sense demands a Creator. There is no possibility about it. It is a fact.

 

That is fine that you and I believe that. But obviously not everyone in the world believes that what they see in the natural world demands a Creator or else there wouldn't be atheists.

But I'm glad you appear to acknowledge that evolution is open to the possibility of a creator. I can agree with you that evolution does not demand a Creator. It is agnostic about the presence of a Creator.

 

This is the way I will answer you. Believing in a Creator takes no faith. It is common sense. Anything beyond that is a matter of either Godly faith, or belief in one system or another. Personally, I believe in the six day Creation, and believe in changes only within a species.

Having said that, at least I could debate with someone who disagrees with me about the time of creation or evolution, since it is a matter of faith, and not everyone has it. I could not debate someone who is so brain dead they do not acknowledge a Creator.

 

I think that would make for a much more interesting and useful debate if done in a friendly manner. I think there are many valid ways scripturally critique theistic evolution and scientifically critique evolution. But I don't understand why critics have to focus on false claims that evolution or the big bang demand atheism. It just hurts their argument.

 

One thing you know for sure, the rest is a matter of faith, that there is a Creator. Therefore, if there was a "big bang" God directed its course. If there was evolution (which I do not believe) then it would be driven by laws that God created.

If there are green men on Mars with yellow polka dots, God created them.

 

Amen to that!

But I'm sure we can argue about the colour of the polka dots since we are Baptist.

 

Emphasis mine

The following quote explains to a very large extent why many (most, all??) refuse to believe in God. (Bolded mine)



Aldous Huxley: "I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; and consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics. He is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do. For myself, as no doubt for most of my friends, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom. The supporters of this system claimed that it embodied the meaning--the Christian meaning, they insisted--of the world. There was one admirably simple method of confuting these people and justifying ourselves in our erotic revolt: we would deny that the world had any meaning whatever."


Does this not ring true for today's society????????

 

I do not recall reading the remarks by Huxley. I believe he was called Darwin's bulldog. However, he admits what most people prefer to be ambivalent about. They reject God because that means accountability.

Now if one rejects God how do they account for existence. Could it be evolution? The attitude of many scientists??? verbalized by Huxley is the reason I contend that: Evolution in its ultimate sense is atheistic!

 

Of course, because since the '60's this is what was exclusively taught to school kids.

 

But are they "born again Christians", or are they just attaching the word "Christian" to themselves with no concept of what a Christian really is? There is absolutely NO truth to the devil's lie that we evolved. Everything was spoken into existence by God and is also sustained by His omnipotent power.

A woman once told me she was a Christian because she was an American. After all, this is a "Christian" nation isn't it? :laugh:

 

So, if a person doesn't accept a 6x6 literal creation model, they're not Christian?

 

Well, let me ask you, if you do not believe the six day creation account in Genesis, how do you determine which parts of scripture are true, and which are false?

If the creation account is not true, then how do we know the account of Jesus being the Son of God and dying for our sins is true?

And this is the ultimate goal of evolution, to destroy man's faith in the scriptures.

 

Well, for the record, I accept the Genesis account as scripturally true.

But to your question, whether it's Genesis, or any other book in scripture, all of scripture is true. But whether a passage was intended to be literal, figurative, allegorical, etc, depends on context. For example, in Song of Soloman, the author says that his lover is the most beautiful of all woman. That's obviously incorrect. Everyone knows that my wife is the most beautiful of all women. :wavey:

My point is that we can argue whether Genesis is literally true or not, but when a person accuses someone who doesn't accept a 6x24 literal creation model of not being a Christian, it speaks more of the accuser's faith than it does the accused.