Conquer Club

PLAYER57832 wrote:That there actually has to be a debate, that the two thoughts are noncongruent.

(or to put it another way, that this is a debate about God versus no God, instead a debate about the nature of God within Chrsitianity)

A good point. I'll leave widow or carebian to respond.

Bavarian Raven wrote:

The huge majority of Christians accept evolution and it has not diminished their faith, why will creationists not simply do the same rather than continiously attempt to hinder scientific progress.

because they are stubborn...

The must be steadfast, or else the house of cards falls.

Backglass wrote:

Bavarian Raven wrote:

The huge majority of Christians accept evolution and it has not diminished their faith, why will creationists not simply do the same rather than continiously attempt to hinder scientific progress.

because they are stubborn...

The must be steadfast, or else the house of cards falls.

Fucking literalists.

unriggable wrote:

Backglass wrote:

Bavarian Raven wrote:

The huge majority of Christians accept evolution and it has not diminished their faith, why will creationists not simply do the same rather than continiously attempt to hinder scientific progress.

because they are stubborn...

The must be steadfast, or else the house of cards falls.

Fucking literalists.

yeah...fucking intolerant religious freaks

PLAYER57832: Just to start out, my name isn't caribbean, it's not the region SouthEast of the United States, it's Carebian, something entirely made up by me that happens to sound the same when pronounced.

I've said it already but I'll say it again, I don't disagree with evolution 100%. Natural Selection I agree with, however the inter-species evolution I do not. Mostly because of my belief that the world is not old enough. Given enough time I will admit maybe it would be possible for one species to change into another, however, I do not believe that is what happened on Earth. That is why I argue, not because I think science is retarded, contradicting an earlier statement of mine, but because I stand by my belief that God created humans as humans. Most evolutionists on this thread that I can remember have declared otherwise.

As far as God vs. no God, you have my answer.

Frigidus: Thank you for correcting me, your absolutely right.

Napoleon Ier wrote:

unriggable wrote:

Backglass wrote:

Bavarian Raven wrote:

The huge majority of Christians accept evolution and it has not diminished their faith, why will creationists not simply do the same rather than continiously attempt to hinder scientific progress.

because they are stubborn...

The must be steadfast, or else the house of cards falls.

Fucking literalists.

yeah...fucking intolerant religious freaks

Fucking good for nothing French

Carebian Knight wrote:PLAYER57832: Just to start out, my name isn't caribbean, it's not the region SouthEast of the United States, it's Carebian, something entirely made up by me that happens to sound the same when pronounced.

I've said it already but I'll say it again, I don't disagree with evolution 100%. Natural Selection I agree with, however the inter-species evolution I do not. Mostly because of my belief that the world is not old enough. Given enough time I will admit maybe it would be possible for one species to change into another, however, I do not believe that is what happened on Earth. That is why I argue, not because I think science is retarded, contradicting an earlier statement of mine, but because I stand by my belief that God created humans as humans. Most evolutionists on this thread that I can remember have declared otherwise.

As far as God vs. no God, you have my answer.

Frigidus: Thank you for correcting me, your absolutely right.

Would you not agree that evolution,and the way God created us physically, is fairly irrelevant in the wider sense, relative to the rest of Church Doctrine?

And that therefore by no means ought we oppose evolution, (which I personally believe in, though, as all science, I'm sure it will e a theory very much changed and revised in future) on religious grounds?

please, please, pease, someone close down ths thread.

Carebian Knight wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:

unriggable wrote:

Backglass wrote:

Bavarian Raven wrote:

The huge majority of Christians accept evolution and it has not diminished their faith, why will creationists not simply do the same rather than continiously attempt to hinder scientific progress.

because they are stubborn...

The must be steadfast, or else the house of cards falls.

Fucking literalists.

yeah...fucking intolerant religious freaks

Fucking good for nothing French

There was a certain degree of irony in the tone which perhaps the written word failed to convey.

Napoleon Ier wrote:Would you not agree that evolution,and the way God created us physically, is fairly irrelevant in the wider sense, relative to the rest of Church Doctrine?

You hit the nail right on the head there.

Snorri1234 wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:Would you not agree that evolution,and the way God created us physically, is fairly irrelevant in the wider sense, relative to the rest of Church Doctrine?

You hit the nail right on the head there.

I was a creationist once.

F*ck I was dumb.

Snorri1234 wrote:
Napoleon Ier wrote:

Would you not agree that evolution,and the way God created us physically, is fairly irrelevant in the wider sense, relative to the rest of Church Doctrine?

You hit the nail right on the head there.


I was a creationist once.

F*ck I was dumb.

what changed u???

Napoleon Ier wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:Would you not agree that evolution,and the way God created us physically, is fairly irrelevant in the wider sense, relative to the rest of Church Doctrine?

You hit the nail right on the head there.

I was a creationist once.

F*ck I was dumb.

No you had simply lacked the information before to make an informed decision, unlike others your faith is strong enough to accept
the obvious without denting your spiritual belief.

Napoleon Ier wrote:Would you not agree that evolution,and the way God created us physically, is fairly irrelevant in the wider sense, relative to the rest of Church Doctrine?

Actually that is not true.

I n Genesis, it says God created everything and it was good. That we were created from the dust of the ground and he breathed life into Adam. And everything was good. If everything was good, how could there be millions of years of death and killing if everything was good.

That is the problem with theistic evolution. If you say that Genesis is not to be taken literally, how much more of the Bible is not to be taken literally?

This thread was never designed to discuss the issue for theistic evolution (God made universe and let evolution take place). It was designed to look at the issue of NO Creator (the universe happened by chance and there is no purpose other than natural random happenings) vs GOD (designed purpose for everything.

SO while I would be happy to discuss the reasons why theistic evolution is not correct (according to how/ why the Bible says so) this is not the place to do it.

Please if anyone wants to speak on this topic please start a thread and I will try to respond. I do however have a lot to respond to here (I have not forgotten your first post Neoteny )

I am in the process of answering several of the previous issues that have been brought up (information, mutations, natural selection, big bang, planetary/stellar formation, rock layer dating)

Please try to keep to the topic. And if you only want to come here and say how stupid I am, please don't even if I am wrong it does not add to the purpose of the conversation and only starts spam wars.

WM

WidowMakers wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:Would you not agree that evolution,and the way God created us physically, is fairly irrelevant in the wider sense, relative to the rest of Church Doctrine?

Actually that is not true.

I n Genesis, it says God created everything and it was good. That we were created from the dust of the ground and he breathed life into Adam. And everything was good. If everything was good, how could there be millions of years of death and killing if everything was good.

That is the problem with theistic evolution. If you say that Genesis is not to be taken literally, how much more of the Bible is not to be taken literally?

This thread was never designed to discuss the issue for theistic evolution (God made universe and let evolution take place). It was designed to look at the issue of NO Creator (the universe happened by chance and there is no purpose other than natural random happenings) vs GOD (designed purpose for everything.

SO while I would be happy to discuss the reasons why theistic evolution is not correct (according to how/ why the Bible says so) this is not the place to do it.

Please if anyone wants to speak on this topic please start a thread and I will try to respond. I do however have a lot to respond to here (I have not forgotten your first post Neoteny )

I am in the process of answering several of the previous issues that have been brought up (information, mutations, natural selection, big bang, planetary/stellar formation, rock layer dating)

Please try to keep to the topic. And if you only want to come here and say how stupid I am, please don't even if I am wrong it does not add to the purpose of the conversation and only starts spam wars.

WM

Just making sure.

Neoteny wrote: Just making sure.

Thanks for being patient. I appreciate it.

With all the stuff I have to do (foundry maps, updating the CC shop with some new merchandise, discussing this thread, work, family, friends) I have to stay up late just to try and get everything done.

WM

WidowMakers

The average person today is rather more learned than those that the Old Testament was designed for, consequently only a small minority of Christians today would take large parts of it as literal. Frankly I fail to see that it matters if everything is correct,surely its the overall package that
attracts. As I said before millions seem able to reconcile their faith with the concept of evolution,does this mean they are not true Christians?

Carebian Knight wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:

unriggable wrote:

Backglass wrote:

Bavarian Raven wrote:

The huge majority of Christians accept evolution and it has not diminished their faith, why will creationists not simply do the same rather than continiously attempt to hinder scientific progress.

because they are stubborn...

The must be steadfast, or else the house of cards falls.

Fucking literalists.

yeah...fucking intolerant religious freaks

Fucking good for nothing French

I'll ne connais pas la verite.

comic boy wrote:WidowMakers

The average person today is rather more learned than those that the Old Testament was designed for, consequently only a small minority of Christians today would take large parts of it as literal. Frankly I fail to see that it matters if everything is correct,surely its the overall package that
attracts. As I said before millions seem able to reconcile their faith with the concept of evolution,does this mean they are not true Christians?

I am not saying they are not true Christians, I am just saying that there are contradictions to scripture when believing the earth is millions of years old and that we evolved. I will keep this short.

To be a Christian one has to believe they are a sinner and that there is nothing that they can do to free themselves of their sin, other than 100% acceptance that Jesus Christ died for them and paid the price to God the Father for their sins, past, present and future.

No where does this say that they also have to believe in a young earth. But there are inconsistencies in believing both evolution and the Bible.
Here are a couple of places that describe this.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... eation.asp
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encycloped ... _ev_30.htm
http://faithfacts.gospelcom.net/ev_theistic.html

If anyone would like more info or to discuss this further please PM me or start a thread. I know there are several other people her who can do a good job explaining the issues with theistic evolution as well. Plus like I said I don't really want to talk about this in this thread. Thanks

WM

If accepting Jesus as ones saviour is the only thing that really counts, most of the bible could be discarded.

WidowMakers wrote:No where does this say that they also have to believe in a young earth. But there are inconsistencies in believing both evolution and the Bible.
Here are a couple of places that describe this.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... eation.asp
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encycloped ... _ev_30.htm
http://faithfacts.gospelcom.net/ev_theistic.html

Nice.

Narrowing the thread is fine. Just be aware that there are very few who believe EITHER extreme. (Few scientists who truly exclude entirely the idea of God and any influence at all and, relatively few Christians who believe the strict interpretation you are arguing -- that is, I am sure you know a great many individuals who think as you --I do, but the percentage of total Christian population is small. )

In fact, current evolutionary theory itself does NOT state that these events are entirely random. They are partly chaotic (which is a whole realm of mathematical prediction, NOT random), partly shaped by various influences (limitations of chemical properties, for example) and partly -- the unkown, which might or might not (according to science, that is) include God.

Which leads me back to a point I made earlier. You have to look at current literature, do a more complete search of the issues before you try to argue against them. Otherwise, you will be viewed by serious scientists not much differently than mods view all those CC newbies who keep posting the same "original" idea without first checking Lack's to-do/rejected ideas lists.

And on that note, I will "leave" this thread. I don't agree with either view. Neither is truly based on science.

I have said enough. Either you agree or do not... I look forward to meeting you on the CC boards.. : )


PS "chaos" theory is essentially a way of calculating the total of all kinds of very small influences .. such as why smoke goes up the way it does.

WidowMakers wrote:

comic boy wrote:WidowMakers

The average person today is rather more learned than those that the Old Testament was designed for, consequently only a small minority of Christians today would take large parts of it as literal. Frankly I fail to see that it matters if everything is correct,surely its the overall package that
attracts. As I said before millions seem able to reconcile their faith with the concept of evolution,does this mean they are not true Christians?

I am not saying they are not true Christians, I am just saying that there are contradictions to scripture when believing the earth is millions of years old and that we evolved. I will keep this short.

To be a Christian one has to believe they are a sinner and that there is nothing that they can do to free themselves of their sin, other than 100% acceptance that Jesus Christ died for them and paid the price to God the Father for their sins, past, present and future.

No where does this say that they also have to believe in a young earth. But there are inconsistencies in believing both evolution and the Bible.
Here are a couple of places that describe this.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... eation.asp
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encycloped ... _ev_30.htm
http://faithfacts.gospelcom.net/ev_theistic.html

If anyone would like more info or to discuss this further please PM me or start a thread. I know there are several other people her who can do a good job explaining the issues with theistic evolution as well. Plus like I said I don't really want to talk about this in this thread. Thanks

WM

I got half way through the first link and despaired,it was simple propoganda. An individuals biased interpretation of somehing written 3000 years ago is utterly worthless in terms of evidence im afraid. Im sorry but the idea that the World all came together in 6 days is ludicrous given that it goes against all our aquired knowledge of the geology of the earth.

how long is a biblical day?

Bavarian Raven wrote:how long is a biblical day?

Before day three in the bible there weren't days. Go figure.