Evolution & Creationism: Why can't people believe both?

iceaura said:
The odd thing is, the people most insistent on asserting that are almost the least apt to adopt him as their own role model.

I can't see Jesus having much interest in creationist vs evolutionist explanation for the origin of species, at any rate.
Click to expand...

I find it difficult to picture Jesus using a computer, but I can certainly see him debating.
 
Myles said:
I am aware that, in Greek, the bible is known as ta biblia which translates as the books. However, I have yet to her anyone say something like " i read in my bibles". Pedantry will get you no points.
Click to expand...

Pedantic?! It's common knowledge that Bible meens books, Myles. It's no great display education. If you know that it means books (plural) then why pray-tell would anyone say "I read my bibles?"

I don't need to consult Wiki to know that begging the question means to take for granted that which one is required to explain.
Click to expand...

Happy for you of course.

The essential point is that you start from the premise that the bible contains truth in some form. You then analyze the "books" to make some sense of them ; a bit like joining up the dots. You then find the proof you need by interpreting certain passages in ways which suit your needs and present your argument as if it has been shown to be true. That is not scholarship.
Click to expand...

We don't start from square one every time we cover a biblical issue, Miles that your particular hang you keep chasing. I never mentioned the first premise is to accept the bible as truth. You made that assumption so you could make your accusation. See why that's not my hang up?

You argument is circular. You use the bible to show that the bible is true. In simple terms your argument takes the form of: the bible is true because it is god's holy word and ,since god cannot be wrong, the bible must be true. As I have said, the whole of your argument is circular.
Click to expand...

You're lying.
I never said the bible is true because the bible is true.
You've conjured a non existent circular argument.
One can only surmize that since I have never said this and you will be completely unable to prove through any post of mine on this entire forum that -SaQ says "the Bible is true because it is god's holly word."
Thus Your entire argument is conjuring and essentially make believe. You still havent shown any explicit statement by me to prove your allegations. ( and you never will)


Lastly, why look elsewhere ? Because you may find that the bible is not all it is cracked up to be.
Click to expand...

You find the bible is not all that is cracked up to be.
I just find you cracked.
 
When evolution is turned into an all-encompassing theory explaining absolutely everything we believe, feel, and do as the product of natural selection, then we are not in area of science but of philosophy.

If evolution is elevated to the status of a world-view of the way things are, then there is a direct conflict with biblical faith. But if evolution remains at the level of scientific biological hypothesis, it would seem that there is little reason for conflict between the implications of Christian belief in the Creator and the scientific explorations of the way which - at the level of biology - God has gone about creating his processes.

Richard Dawkins argues that if you believe in evolution as a biological mechanism you must also believe in philosophical naturalism. But why? Research scientist Francis Collins heads the Human Genome Project, and he's a Christian. Here what Dawkins says can't exist. Someone with a firm belief in evolution as a biological mechanism, but who completely rejects philosophical naturalism.

And what about morality? How does evolution explain that?
 
davewhite04 said:
Aye.

Basically the world was pagan before Abraham.
Click to expand...

Pardon....I did not mean "was ignorant of a moral code" but...was NOT ignorant of a moral code."

I'm not sure if the entire world could be decribed as pagan. I think the relationship with God was differed but not vague either. There certainly wasn't much direct contact but Adam and Eve no doubt passed down they're understanding of God to their children. The more children the more distant that understanding. I think paganism according to the bible started off at the tower of babel.
 
davewhite04 said:
Okay, you didn't say "believe" but said something like "he is based on an actual figure", whatever that means.
Click to expand...

I said: "I believe that he is, at least in part, based on a actual figure".
That is not in any way saying that I believe that Jesus really existed.
 
Saquist said:
Pedantic?! It's common knowledge that Bible meens books, Myles. It's no great display education. If you know that it means books (plural) then why pray-tell would anyone say "I read my bibles?"



Happy for you of course.



We don't start from square one every time we cover a biblical issue, Miles that your particular hang you keep chasing. I never mentioned the first premise is to accept the bible as truth. You made that assumption so you could make your accusation. See why that's not my hang up?



You're lying.
I never said the bible is true because the bible is true.
You've conjured a non existent circular argument.
One can only surmize that since I have never said this and you will be completely unable to prove through any post of mine on this entire forum that -SaQ says "the Bible is true because it is god's holly word."
Thus Your entire argument is conjuring and essentially make believe. You still havent shown any explicit statement by me to prove your allegations. ( and you never will)




You find the bible is not all that is cracked up to be.
I just find you cracked.
Click to expand...

Oh dear, you do get upset when ypou are put on the back foot. Let's review the situation.

You pointed out to me that the bible consisted of more than one book. What was your point if , as you say. it is common knowledge. My reference to ta biblia was addressed to this non-point you made.

Happy for me, indeed. I bet you wish you were educated. You cannot even understnd what you read in Wiki which, by the way I have not bothered to check out.

You tried to counter me by saying that I had not refuted you by "begging the question", showing a complete lack of understanding on your part. Without knowing it you were suggesting that, because I had not used circularity to defeat your argument, I had somehow failed. Try not to talk about things you don't fully understand or you'll make an even bigger ass of yourself.


You use passages from genesis to explain about creation and, in so doing. declare that evolution is contrary to that teaching. To any reasonable person, there is an inplied premise ( see Wiki ) in your statements concerning the bible. I will withdraw this remark if you tell me that the bible cannot be shown to be true; that it's a matter of belief only.


I never said I was quoting you when I used the circularity of the god/bible argument. If you re-read what I said, I was using it to demonstrate the nature of your argument in a simplified form without distorting it. I felt you might be having a bit of trouble understanding why your argument is circular.


Then you add insult to injury by calling me a liar.

To show that your statements are untrue it would be necessary to persuade you to stop quoting one bit of the bible to support another part. That is not going to happen as you you have nothing to offer but quotations from the bible, which you interpretet to suit your meaning.

Finally I suuggest you re-read my previous post witha little more care, following which you should apologize for calling me a liar.
 
Last edited:
Myles said:
Oh dear, you do get upset when ypou are put on the back foot. Let's review the situation.
Click to expand...

hmmm.

You pointed out to me that the bible consisted of more than one book. What was your point if , as you say. it is common knowledge. My reference to ta biblia was addressed to this non-point you made.
Click to expand...

Acutually you made the "non point"
My point was that the support comes from many different sources.
Consider it case closed. You had no point in stating the obvious.

Happy for me, indeed. I bet you wish you were educated. You cannot even understnd what you read in Wiki which, by the way I have not bothered to check out.
Click to expand...

Why do I care, Miles.
Wait I don't.

You tried to counter me by saying that I had not refuted you by "begging the question", showing a complete lack of understanding on your part. Without knowing it you were suggesting that, because I had not used circularity to defeat your argument, I had somehow failed. Try not to talk about things you don't fully understand or you'll make an even bigger ass of yourself.
Click to expand...

Blattering and vague all at once.
You failed to asked the appopriate question
You failed to explicit out line any circle in my post.
You failed to prove your accustion.
Looks like You're the ass here.

You use passages from genesis to explain about creation and, in so doing. declare that evolution is contrary to that teaching. To any reasonable person, there is an inplied premise ( see Wiki ) in your statements concerning the bible. I will withdraw this remark if you tell me that the bible cannot be shown to be true; that it's a matter of belief only.
Click to expand...

I don really require you to do anything but be an ass.
And since you're excelling in that regard, my requirements of your are met.


I never said I was quoting you when I used the circularity of the god/bible argument. If you re-read what I said, I was using it to demonstrate the nature of your argument in a simplified form without distorting it. I felt you might be having a bit of trouble understanding why your argument is circular.
Click to expand...

You chose to restate or summarize my post...for all intents a quote or inference of my post. You were wrong and now you're back pedaliing as usual. You conjured an argument by going off topic...Like you allways go off topic. You'r stuck in your own feedback loop and everything leads back to that feed back loop which is the real circular argument you detected.


Then you add insult to injury by calling me a liar.
Click to expand...
A wise man once said. You IS whatyou IS.
You lie like a rug, hence You is a liar.
And You Lie badly.
 
Saquist said:
Pardon....I did not mean "was ignorant of a moral code" but...was NOT ignorant of a moral code."

I'm not sure if the entire world could be decribed as pagan. I think the relationship with God was differed but not vague either. There certainly wasn't much direct contact but Adam and Eve no doubt passed down they're understanding of God to their children. The more children the more distant that understanding. I think paganism according to the bible started off at the tower of babel.
Click to expand...

If they weren't ignorant of a moral code then why did God say this:

Genesis 6:5-6
5 The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. 6 The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain.

Do you believe that a global flood destroyed every human being apart from Noah and his family?

If yes, then you are incorrect in saying that Adam and Eve would have taught their children about moral code.

If we look at your theory about paganism.

Genesis 11

Talks about the confusion of languages.

Genesis 12

God introduces Himself to Abraham.

There wasn't much time for paganism to develop was there? Unless there was a huge gap in time between chapters, but it doesn't read like that at all.

Ultimately why did God decide to contact Abraham?

Finally, I did actually say that paganism came before Abraham, which is what you think too I think.
 
Dave,

I still don't think I've found the 'messiah' who I was looking for, but here's a short list of jewish messiahs who lived in the time of jesus:

Simon Magus
Athronges
Theudas
 
Saquist said:
hmmm.



Acutually you made the "non point"
My point was that the support comes from many different sources.
Consider it case closed. You had no point in stating the obvious.



Why do I care, Miles.
Wait I don't.



Blattering and vague all at once.
You failed to asked the appopriate question
You failed to explicit out line any circle in my post.
You failed to prove your accustion.
Looks like You're the ass here.



I don really require you to do anything but be an ass.
And since you're excelling in that regard, my requirements of your are met.




You chose to restate or summarize my post...for all intents a quote or inference of my post. You were wrong and now you're back pedaliing as usual. You conjured an argument by going off topic...Like you allways go off topic. You'r stuck in your own feedback loop and everything leads back to that feed back loop which is the real circular argument you detected.



A wise man once said. You IS whatyou IS.
You lie like a rug, hence You is a liar.
And You Lie badly.
Click to expand...

Well, if that's the best you can manage you are projecting an image of a redneck bible-puncher , which is what I conclude.

I summarized your response accurately and, despite my having given you a simple example, you are still unable to see that you argue in a circle. When are you going to publish Saquist's Rules of Irrational Debate. A Guide for Bible Students.

You are clearly accustomed to confusing ignoramuses with you nonsense but do not expect to find the same level of ignorance on this site.

However much you bluster, you make it clear that you cannot understand a Wiki explanation of " begging the question". Philosophy students learn that in the first few weeks of their course. My advice is that you stick to the bible as you seem incapable of rational thought; rote learning and shallow thinking are more your forte.

I will leave you for now but expect to see me back whenever you leave your spaceship to make stupid pronouncements. Young and vulnerable people deserve to be protected from your plausible nonsense.

I am not interested in talking to you any more on this thread but you might impress a few people by explaining why they shoul believe the bible; avoiding circularity if you can.
 
ggazoo said:
When evolution is turned into an all-encompassing theory explaining absolutely everything we believe, feel, and do as the product of natural selection, then we are not in area of science but of philosophy.

If evolution is elevated to the status of a world-view of the way things are, then there is a direct conflict with biblical faith. But if evolution remains at the level of scientific biological hypothesis, it would seem that there is little reason for conflict between the implications of Christian belief in the Creator and the scientific explorations of the way which - at the level of biology - God has gone about creating his processes.

Richard Dawkins argues that if you believe in evolution as a biological mechanism you must also believe in philosophical naturalism. But why? Research scientist Francis Collins heads the Human Genome Project, and he's a Christian. Here what Dawkins says can't exist. Someone with a firm belief in evolution as a biological mechanism, but who completely rejects philosophical naturalism.

And what about morality? How does evolution explain that?
Click to expand...

Evolution is no scientific hypothesis, it is a fact. Important difference.

As for morality, evolution guides this too. Ever notice that most of the things we call 'immoral' are things which are not helpful for the survival of our genes? Homosexuality, suicide, beastiality, contraception, fucking old people, incest, paedophilia, murder etc.

For animals which invest a lot of time in low amounts of eggs and offspring, it's important to have attributes which make a parent have children, and ensure it's survival.

Certainly I think this is a better explanation any religion can give for morals.
 
KennyJC said:
As for morality, evolution guides this too. Ever notice that most of the things we call 'immoral' are things which are not helpful for the survival of our genes? Homosexuality, suicide, beastiality, contraception, fucking old people, incest, paedophilia, murder etc.
Click to expand...
This seems a gross oversimplification.
 
redwards said:
Dave,

I still don't think I've found the 'messiah' who I was looking for, but here's a short list of jewish messiahs who lived in the time of jesus:

Simon Magus
Athronges
Theudas
Click to expand...

Thanks for taking the time to dig this up.

Let's assume they all existed, where is the evidence that any of them claimed to be the messiah before Jesus?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top