95 Comments:

Haha!

By  Scotty, at 12:20 pm, August 04, 2005  

Gotta love that evolution. I was sick of being a monkey.

By  Dan, at 1:21 pm, August 04, 2005  

I assume nutritional information is required by law, just like every other food product. A stupid law because no human will eat catfood? Possibly, but this closes a loophole - you can't sell something without nutritional information, and then claim that it's intended for animals

To be fair, the statement probably was just intended to convey the meaning that it is the natural thing for cats to eat meat.

Evolution is not rubbish. I suspect the reason we keep telling each other this is because we're too scared to admit that it is actually a decent theory, and that it is has some merits. Are we scared that accepting evolution as a decent attempt to explain parts of the world means we have to say that evolution describes how things were created? It's the best non-supernatural theory out there, I think it does an ok job. The non-christian world aren't stupid.

I'm not saying I believe evolution is the reason we are here. I'm just saying its got its merits, and we should recognize this.

By  Anonymous, at 5:48 pm, August 04, 2005  

Nathan? What the??
You are scaring me Smart Brother. Evolution has it's merits!?!? What merits?

'Are we scared that accepting evolution as a decent attempt to explain parts of the world means we have to say that evolution describes how things were created'
What does this sentence mean? That we should accept evolution or accept that the most people think it is ok? As in congrats Non-Christian you have done an excellent job at explaining away God?

By  Anita, at 6:56 pm, August 04, 2005  

Yep nutritional info is required by law.

But sorry Nato - I'm with Anita here.

I think that the more one studies evolution the harder it becomes to believe it. It is an affront to man's intelligence! And this is why there are non-Christian scientists who are turning away from the theory - because they cannot believe something so incredible.

I think what your saying MAY have been true when the theory was in it's early stages but now I think it's a lot harder to believe.

By  Scotty, at 7:08 pm, August 04, 2005  

Hey Alana!! I love it too but apparently it looks a big bad on Firefox(?) but the lovely and helpful Dan Willis might look into it for me (grease grease)

By  Anita, at 7:25 pm, August 04, 2005  

Evolution requires creation of new information.
Scientific observation shows mixing of pre existing information or destruction of information (dna stuff).

Evolution therefore by scientific conclusion based on current evidence is impossible.

Not to mention what death and suffering existing before sin does to salvation and the curse.

By  Anonymous, at 6:16 am, August 05, 2005  

Ok, What I was saying is that evolution is a good theory, but that it is not the solution to the creation of the world.
By good theory, I mean that evolution can predict interesting stuff happening in the present. For instance, anti-biotic resistance.

It's much like in any argument, if you can't give people credit as having a decent point of view, then you will never have a decent argument, you will eventually have to resort to mud-slinging.

To use an example more close to home, there's a school of psychology, evolutionary psychology. Basically the idea of this is that humans are not adapted to the present environment, and that humans are geared towards survival, and the passing on of genes (both of these don't contradict the bible to my knowledge). Now, it would be counterproductive to dismiss this theory as wrong just because it has evolution in the name. Instead, you acknowledge that the theoy has a chance of being correct and look at it. You might find that some of it is correct (as I found with some of social & ecological implications), and that some of the evidence disagrees with it (as I found with some of the cognitive implications). So, I have found it useful to not dismiss anything and everything that sounds like evolution as rubbish. That's what I meant previously - we accept it here, but disagree with it as a theory to describe beginnings.

Allan, If DNA gets copied and mutated, how is this not new information?
Imagine you had a text file that you wanted to change without a keyboard. It would actually be possible, you could use the mouse to copy and paste letters into the appropriate place. In this case, you will be only mixing existing information and destroying information, and what results? the creation of new information. So it's improbable, not impossible.

Think about it - why do I currently have a cold? The reason I've currently got a head cold is because micro-evolution has occured, the virus has become more adaptive, and harder to kill.

By  Anonymous, at 10:32 am, August 05, 2005  

That is the difference between 'evolution' and 'natural selection'.

Typical 'Evolution' is something of one kind becoming something of a new kind.

Natural selection is something of one kind becoming a better something of the same kind.

Nathan's virus has, by natural selection, adpated to become an even stronger virus. But it is still, and always will be virus.

I guess you could say that natural selection is evolution within the boundaries of kind.

By  Dan, at 5:33 pm, August 05, 2005  

Nathan we live in a world perfectly created to suit our needs as humans. God made it to display his glory and to bless us with it's beauty and wonder. Humans are not geared for surival. We were created to live forever but sin changed that. Now we live to be brought to glory. Philippians 1:21
For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain. True we have God given instincts to preserve our lives and others but our ultimate goal is heaven.

We also don't have to children jto pass on our genes. The process of making and having children is far more complex and richly rewarding than just passing on our genes as if we were animals. We have children because they are a blessing from God and because it was commanded by Him to do so.


The problem with evolution is that it takes humans down to the level of animals when God has created us as an image of himself. Complex reflections of himself able to experience blessings.

Any theory about humans that does not include the God the Creator is wrong.

By  Anita, at 5:57 pm, August 05, 2005  

Drug resistant bacteria are not evidence of evolution. It's simply evidence that all the bacteria that died were susceptible to it. Those that survive do so by loosing whatever it was that had the problem with the drug. It's selection. Not evolution. And no new information occures.

As for mixing letters, that's one thing. But it's only a mixture of previous information. Not creation of extra.

1+4+3+4=12 just as
1+3+4+4=12 although they are expressed differently their total sum is the same.

Evolution requires a bigger and greater total sum. A new limb requires a huge amount of new data. Even changing short fur to long fur will require new genes if you don't already have the genes for long fur.

Selection within the same data is natural selection. Charles Darwin simly made the mistake by assuming these little changed added data and then assumed that adding the little changed would add up to the big changes required to jump species.

I Darwin proposed that in today's era of genetic knowledge, rather than his own era, everyone would just laugh at him. Instead they accepted his theory as truth and have since then manipulated data to fit their preconceptions. And the amount of their propaganda on tv and schools influences even creationists.

Most online Christians I ask about dinosaurs believe they died out long before man. Why? Because that's how they have been trained to think.

By  Anonymous, at 8:32 pm, August 05, 2005  

that's it... wheres my typing tutor...

By  Anonymous, at 8:34 pm, August 05, 2005  

I don't like to change definitions as such. If you ask a scientist for his definition of evolution, I think their definition will cover (a) 'natural selection' or 'micro-evolution', as well as (b) the gradual genetic drift of organisms, sometimes resulting in new species, and finally (c) the idea that this is how we got to where we are.

I'm suggesting that accepting (a) as dan, allan have done, and possibly even (b) as I have done, doesn't mean we have to accept (c). And if we accept (a) or (b), then we are really agreeing that, as evolution as scientists would define it has some merits, and is therefore not rubbish.

Anita, If we weren't created to survive, then how would we have ever survived forever? Philippians 1:21 is one man saying this, after he has realized that now we have the oppurtunity to make it to heaven. Without Christ, no-one would say this.

Malachi 2:15 states that the the reason God desires for a husband and wife to be one is to produce godly off-spring. So, it's not just to simply pass on genes, it's to raise children in a Godly fashion. But, it is interesting that the purpose of marriage is for bringing up kids, which is exactly the same as the evolutionary theory of mate selection postulates. So it can't be complete rubbish can it?

If all theories that don't include God are wrong, then you shouldn't beat round the bush, and condemn everything that comes out of an atheists mouth as rubbish.

Allan... you haven't listened to me.
Think about actual DNA. Even taking a small enough sequence of DNA (that includes all four base pairs), one can form strands of DNA of any length, and any order, just with the operations of copying and deleting. I will start with just four base pairs, in alphabetical order, and create the name of a movie.
ACGT -> (GT)(GT)ACGT -> GT[G]TAC[GT] -> GTTAC -> G(A)TTAC(A) -> GATTACA

I haven't come up with any different base pairs, but that's because there are only four base pairs in DNA. This is because, if your argument is correct, the information in human DNA is roughly equal to 'ACGT', and what's more, the total informational value of this comment I'm writing is 'abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyx'.

You seem to be implying that 'information' is some sort of mythical entity that exists as its own right, somehow attached to DNA like your mind is attached to it's soul. It is far more scientific to believe that the information on DNA is encoded in the base pairs, therefore, in order to create more information, you just need to add more base pairs, which I've shown with a trivial example, is able to be done.

By  Anonymous, at 11:42 am, August 06, 2005  

Sorry, second paragraph:
"then we are really agreeing that, as evolution as scientists would define it has some merits, and is therefore not rubbish."

Should be:
"then we are really agreeing that, evolution, (as defined by scientists) has some merits, and is therefore not rubbish."

By  Anonymous, at 11:44 am, August 06, 2005  

Well I don't understand the issue now expect for:

Anita, If we weren't created to survive, then how would we have ever survived forever?

Nathan, we wouldn't have needed to fight or try to survive because there would have been no sin in the world.

'If all theories that don't include God are wrong, then you shouldn't beat round the bush, and condemn everything that comes out of an atheists mouth as rubbish.'

Also, I don't understand this sentence. I didn't say that everything an atheist said was rubbish. I just said the theory of evolution is rubbish.

Also, the purpose of marriage is not to bring up children. It is 'a' purpose but not 'the' purpose. The main purpose of marriage is that each spouse should be more sacfitied and Christlike through being married.

I am surprise at how keenly you are defending a theory which is a lie. A lie to cut God out of the creation of earth and His role in sustaining us and his world.

There may be tiny parts of the theory that can be seen in a biblical light as true. But whole framework evolution is wrong and evil- the big picture is not a biblical one. That is what is rubbish- the big picture of evolution.

By  Anita, at 2:42 pm, August 06, 2005  

A is correct, B is half correct. C is impossible.
With B, yes drift occures, but within species.

Your example of gattaca has added to the original ACGT.
I'm saying such lengthening of the contaner does not happen. ACGT could mutate to be AGTC by mixing up it's data, it's symbolic building blocks. But to add new building blocks to the stream requires altering the size of the contaner. And the container does not change capacity. You can't take monkey DNA and add a few hundred 4 letter combinations on the end of it.

That's the foundation of evolutionary theory - and by that I mean the theory that "given enough time one animal will evolve into another". If there is no allowance for additional data to be added - lengthening the original and adding say a few new sets of chromosones - then all you can get is changes within the original stream length.

I understood what you were saying, you however did not grasp in which manner I was limiting the change of information (read dna data).

It gets even more interresting when you remember that that same line of encoded dna is also the decoder for the data too. If God had intended mutations to be part of the perfect design then he wouldn't have created the dna spell checker which prevents most mutations in the first place. (simplified version of chemical blockers and blah blah :-)

Basicly, if you can't add new length to ACGT, no matter how many letters you swap out and mix around you will never get 7 letter words like Gattaca.

By  Anonymous, at 5:49 pm, August 06, 2005  

Clarification: Drift is probably not appropriate for what I'm describing. Drift implys movement away from what it already had.

DNA can be mixed with other DNA, but in that case the length is not increased and the replaced data is thrown out completly.
Aa Bb could recombine to form Ab but the result is a son/daughter without the aB codes. Further down the genetic line these may be brought back in by other doners (wife for example) but in doing so A or b would be removed.

It's not drift but rather mixing of pre existing data. Apart from degenerate mutations we have no new data other than was present in Adam and Eve. And this degenerate data only exists by replacing what was once good code.

By  Anonymous, at 6:00 pm, August 06, 2005  

Ah, Allan, your argument makes more sense now. Apologies.

Anita, you said, speaking of evolution, "...Any theory about humans that does not include the God the Creator is wrong." I merely extended this statement to its logical conclusion - that everything an atheist (who wouldn't include God in any theory) says about people is wrong, is rubbish.

I appreciate your surprise, but I do have my reasons arguing thus. :D

By  Anonymous, at 4:59 pm, August 07, 2005  

My bad for trying to cut back on the length of my posts by removing details hehe
I've filled 12+ pages before on the same topic.

By  Anonymous, at 8:41 am, August 08, 2005  

But Nathan I dont understand those reasons.... You have given reasons and they don't stack up.....

By  Anita, at 8:58 am, August 08, 2005  

In the court of law, even the guiltiest (sp?) of criminals has a right to a lawyer, and that lawyer has a responsibility to represent the case as best as he can, despite how wrong the case is. Otherwise justice would never be served.

Perhaps I will post on this to elaborate.

By  Nathan, at 11:56 am, August 08, 2005  

I think that is why most lawyers are not held in very high regard by society. Because they defend people and ideas that are wrong to defend.

By  Anita, at 1:40 pm, August 08, 2005  

The problem with evolution theory is that everything that it predicts will take millions of years to be proved wrong. From a statistical view relative to the lifespan of the human observers, it can't be considered a valid prediction. Combine this statistic with the ample evidence aganst evolution validity and the probability of the prediction being valid becomes all the more insignificant.

Although evolution may be used to make predictions and assumptions, the fact that evolution itself can be proved wrong and the assumptions cannot be validated, my position is that using evolution as a foundation for scientific work is nonsensical. Evolution itself is always an invalid and incorrect variable.

An evolutionist can make valid scientific conclusions, but not of evolution is a foundational factor in the problem. Both scientificaly and biblically evolution has been discredited and disproved.

So to assume a theory of evolution is wrong without first analysing the theory is logical. However that does not mean some obscure part of the equation that is not reliant on evolution may not still be correct.
That is the part of evolutionary science that I would consider valid: the part that has nothing to do with evolution.

If variable E is always False, then any equation requiring E to return True will fail.

I may have just painted myself into a corner with words :)

By  Anonymous, at 11:17 pm, August 08, 2005  

I was talking about the lawyer thing with with someone the other day - I can't remember who.

A lawyer can stil defend a guilty party, and ensure that he receives a fair trial (ie: justice) without postulating that his client is not guilty, or is even a good person.

To make it just, he just needs to make sure the prosecution don't take more than their pound of flesh.

Not that I envy his job, however.

By  Dan, at 8:18 am, August 09, 2005  

Dan -a lawyer can't in good conscience defend a person he knew was guilty because the advice should be plead 'guilty' and therefore go straight to sentencing avoiding a trial. If you are guilty then you should plead guilty The only reason for pleading 'not guilty' would be to hopefully get off the charge based on the lawyers skill argue the case.

By  Anita, at 8:54 am, August 09, 2005  

Anita, I have a respect for the lawyers who give fair representation to those who look guilty. The reason I have this respect is because I recognize that this is a required part of justice; the guilty having fair representation is not unjust, it is just. Having fair representation is part of the justice system.

Take this back one step, it's unrealistic to assume the lawyer knows his client is guilty - what if the client appears to be 99.99% likely of being guilty? Is he entitled to representation?

By  Anonymous, at 9:19 am, August 09, 2005  

In Dan's example the person was guilty. In yours he is 99.99%. I think it is unrealistic to think that lawyer would think his client was innocent. The lawyer would know full well that his client was guilty. What do you think a good lawyer is- someone to hire when you need to get off a charge. The more money you have the smarter lawyer you can buy. The guilty should plead guilty- it is unjust that they should have a fair trial. They should have no trial cause they are guilty!! Only in case where there is doubt should a lawyer defend.

How did we get from cat food to lawyers??:):)

By  Anita, at 9:46 am, August 09, 2005  

However, from the lawyers perspective, it is impossible for him/her to know whether or not the client is guilty. The client may just look guilty, but in fact be innocent. It is not the lawyers job to decide whether the client is guilty and tell the courts what (s)he thinks. The lawyers job is to represent the client to the court, and then the court decides whether (s)he is guilty.

By  Anonymous, at 11:50 am, August 09, 2005  

Anita, we got from cat-food to lawyers, via evolution. :)

Even if a lawyer knows for a fact that his client is 100% guilty, as a lawyer it is still his duty to see that his client receives at the least a just penalty, and that the prosecution don't give him twenty years imprisonment for failing to keep his dog's bowl clean.

By  Dan, at 8:04 am, August 10, 2005  

Sorry, I checked this out with a final year law student. If the lawyer knows for sure that the client is guilty they should stand down, however, the client can then get another lawyer, so in that way, get fair representation. If the lawyer thinks the client is guilty, it doesn't matter, and the lawyer should still give the client representation.

By  Anonymous, at 8:09 am, August 10, 2005  

Anyway, the point I was trying to make was that even the guiltiest of criminal has the right to representation. Every person has a right to a fair trial. Similarly I belive that every idea has a right to "a fair trial", which is what I was getting at. To me it often seems like evolution has not been given a fair trial in these circles - instead, we seem to come at it with a metaphorical lynch mob.

By  Anonymous, at 8:28 am, August 10, 2005  

Nathan I consider myself a fairly openminded person. Some people might disagree but I am open to considering new ideas.

You say that we should get evolution a fair trial but you have yet to convince me exactly why. Why should we give it a fair trial? It is a theory that seeks to deny the existence of God and remove Him from the creation of the world. It is pretty cut and dry to me.

By  Anita, at 8:54 am, August 10, 2005  

Anita,
A lot of Christians (myself included) believe that God ordained evolutionary processes to bring forth life. It's true that Darwin orginally invented the theory in order to explain life without resorting to God. But just because his motivations were bad, it doesn't forever taint the theory itself. "Evolution is anti-Christian" is not a valid argument: Lots of Christians believe it because the evidence appears to warrent believing it.

"We knew of old that God was so wise that He could make all things; but behold, He is so much wiser than that, that He can make all things make themselves." -Charles Kingsley

We learn from the Bible that God created the world. We learn from scientists some of the processes that occurred in its creation.

On my blog I posted here a reflection by one Christian as how he sees evolution in the wider context of God's plan for the world.

By  Andrew, at 1:00 pm, August 10, 2005  

We may learn from scientists that God used evolution to create the earth, but we learn from science itself that the theory of evolution is not able to be proved, and therefore is not a problem that science can categorically answer one way or the other.

By  Dan, at 2:00 pm, August 10, 2005  

Hmm, the link I posted doesn't seem to work. Let's try again.

If that still doesn't work, then it's at the following url:
http://theogeek.blogspot.com/2004/11/theistic-evolution.html

By  Andrew, at 2:20 pm, August 10, 2005  

A lot of Christians (myself included) believe that God ordained evolutionary processes to bring forth life.

Just curious as to what part of the bible supports this claim?...

Oh hang on!!! have we run into the same problem again? In your thinking the bible has no authority!

By  Jonathan, at 2:57 pm, August 10, 2005  

A lot of Christians believe a lot of rubbish, but that doesn't mean it isn't rubbish either.

By  Scotty, at 3:11 pm, August 10, 2005  

Andrew,

How can you favour a quote from an anonymous author over Scripture?

If you can find any Biblical support for evolution, I'm sure myself and others would love to see it. I know you much prefer Biblical conclusions to mere logical ones, since you have made that quite clear here in a comment responding to a post of yours.

By  Dan, at 3:26 pm, August 10, 2005  

My point was to Anita that evolution is not inherently anti-God, and that Christians can quite reasonably believe in evolution.

Why is finding Biblical support for evolution relevant? It's the sphere of science to model the biological processes involved. I don't look for biblical support on the subject of whether the earth goes round the sun or not. The fact that the earth goes round the sun and the process by which it does are scientific issues.

The Bible tells me God created the sun. It tells me God created life. I totally accept and believe that God is responsible for the creation of everything. But the Bible is about God and matters of theological interest, it's not interested in such things as the detailed mechanics of exactly how biological organisms work. In the Bible God orders the waters to bring forth life (Gen 1:20), he orders the earth to bring forth life (1:24), he brings man forth from the dust of the ground (2:7). Evolution deals with the processes by which the water brought forth life, the processes by which the earth brought forth life, the processes by which man ultimately came from mud. The Bible tells us WHY creation happened - ultimately because God willed it; evolution tells us HOW creation happened - it deals in detail with the processes that were used.

To say "find me proof of evolution in the Bible otherwise I won't believe it" is like saying "find me proof of electricity in the Bible otherwise I won't believe it". The Bible simply isn't interested in things like electricity or evolution.

By  Andrew, at 3:59 pm, August 10, 2005  

Yes Anita, I have noticed in the past been prepared to argue against the 'anything labour does is anti-christian' stance in the past, it does you credit. Unfortunatly you seem rather closedminded on this issue. This could be because I'm asking the wrong question.

We have two questions here; whether evolution is correct, and whether evolution is anti-God. Perhaps we could move to the second issue, rather than the first, as it is more important? If one has come to the conclusion that it is anti-God, might cause and possibly even justify(?) a degree of closedmindedness related to it's correctness.

Again, I re-iterate, the reason I think evolution should get a fair trial is because any idea should get a fair trial (And especially so if half the western world, including christians believe it).

By  Anonymous, at 4:03 pm, August 10, 2005  

Evolution in six days?

After all the Bible does certainly give a timeframe for creation.

Why we don't see new stuff evolving nowdays over a period of six days?

By  Dan, at 4:19 pm, August 10, 2005  

Nathan- I am not at all closed-minded on the subject. I am just trying to engage you in meaningful debate and get to the heart of why exactly you feel evolution has it's merits. If I was closedminded then why would I ask you to explain it to me? I told you that is cut and dry to me because I am waiting for someone to convince me otherwise. To convince me you need sound biblical (stress on the biblical) reasons. You have yet to come up with those.

It seems to me that Andrew has done a better job of explaining the issue, from his perspective. I am thinking that you are not sure of what you believe because you actually haven't said. Are you playing Devils advocate or do you just not know?

By  Anita, at 4:27 pm, August 10, 2005  

I agree that any idea should get a fair trial- but you won't catch me being the lawyer for Evolution, gay marriage, prostitution etc etc. Why cause I don't believe in it. To argue for something you need to believe in it.

Don't choose to be wrong for the sake of being different- Lord Samuel

By  Anita, at 4:32 pm, August 10, 2005  

My point was to Anita that evolution is not inherently anti-God, and that Christians can quite reasonably believe in evolution.

Christians can believe in evolution yes. But that does not 1) make evolution right, nor 2) does it mean that evolution is not anti-God.

I don't look for biblical support on the subject of whether the earth goes round the sun or not. The fact that the earth goes round the sun and the process by which it does are scientific issues.

The question here maybe is not finding support for something in the bible, but more is it contradicted in the bible. There is no contradiction regarding the earth going around the sun... no is there no contradiction of electricity!

however... There is a contradiction with evolution.

Evolutions say everything came from nothing. The Bible says God created everythihng. Evolution says millions of years. The bible says 6 days. Evolution say man developed over millions of years from nothing. The Bible says God formed man in less than one day from the dust.

By  Jonathan, at 4:33 pm, August 10, 2005  

that was supposed to read
nor is there contradiction of electricity!

If you believe that the creation account is literal. Then evolution most definately contradicts scripture and is anti-scripture and is therefore anti-God.

however if you believe that the creation account is not literal and it's not six days and when it says that god created something what it actually means is that he set in place an evolutionary process to create that certain thing then I guess there are aspects of evolution which are not contradictory.

But personally I don't see how you can believe that the creation account is not literal.

By  Jonathan, at 4:40 pm, August 10, 2005  

I indeed think that the 6-day creation story isn't literal. I think it's a poem. God is depicted like a master craftsman, working for a week, each day fashioning a different part of his handiwork. I don't think that God really took 7 days any more than the other poetic imagery in the Bible makes me think that God is a shield or a rock or that God has wings.

There is no contradiction regarding the earth going around the sun...
A lot of Christians once thought there was.

however... There is a contradiction with evolution.
A lot of Christians currently think there is.

By  Andrew, at 4:59 pm, August 10, 2005  

The reason I am probably unclear of my position is because I am awkwardly trying to advocate that evolution is not anti-God, all the while trying to avoid getting into debate over whether it is correct or not. I'm probably not succeeding as well as I'd like, but I'll keep trying...

I will take your suggestion, and outline why I don't think evolution isn't anti-God. You have asked me to provide sound biblical reasons (with emphasis on the later, but not the fomer? :P), on this. I don't actually cite verses, but rely on biblical concepts you will hopefully already know.

The problem is I don't see any verse in the bible that says 'Evolution is anti-God'. The closest reference to anti-God is to the anti-Christ, so I'll use this, hopefully you'll all be famaliar with the biblical concept.

Who is an anti-christ? Someone who is against Christ. Someone who denies the work of Christ. Christ is, of course at the heart of christianity, so attacks at that, attacks the core of our christianity. Does evolution attack christ? No. At least not directly. Therefore, not anti-christ. If it was a deliberate attack on christianity, it would be a pretty sucky one - if they managed to prove it, we'd all just become theistic evolutionists, like Andrew, and remain christians.

That is why I believe evolution is not directly anti-God. It doesn't directly attack our faith.

In fact, I'm beginning to think that anti-evolutionism can be more anti-God than evolution. By being excessively anti-evolution, we can be in danger of not keeping christianity about christ, but making it about creationism.

Yeah, take that with a grain of salt, but, the point is, our faith revolves around Jesus Christ, and not that the world is 6000 years old. For salvation, we need to 'have faith' in Christ, not in creationism, and that is enough. I see little mention of 7day creationism in the new testament, and conclude it is not a fundamental to our faith. God created the world, that is enough, how he created the world is a peripheral issue.

By  Anonymous, at 6:31 pm, August 10, 2005  

You are sounding a tiny bit patronising there Nathan- yes I am familiar with one or two biblical concepts.

I agree with you when you say that we can become to hung up on creation. But I don’t agree with you when you say that evolution isn’t anti-God. You can’t take Anti-God and make it Anti-Christ. If the Bible says that God created the world and someone else comes up with the idea that God didn’t but something else did then that directly attacks God and our faith that he created the world. Anything theory or idea that denies God did something or is something or said something attacks our faith. Then what do we stand for and why bother fight it? Why bother teaching our children that God created the world and we didn’t come from monkeys etc etc- it doesn’t attack our faith so why bother……

Also- the whole bible is fundamental to our faith not just the new testament. And in the whole wide world would God do a half-baked job at creating the world and go 'hey you -finish it off' God created from the begining everything completed. Of course the Bible is interested in details because God is- Matthew 10:29 (NIV) 29Are not two sparrows sold for a penny[a]? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father.


Where is Scott BTW?? He has been rather quiet…….?

By  Anita, at 10:00 pm, August 10, 2005  

raaaaa!
* yells at computer monitor for a few seconds shaking fists *
You have the scriptures! How is this not easy for you?

Believe it or not, I actually agree with Anita on this one.

If science can be seen to disprove evolution, does it then become an incorrect theory?
Obviously the answer is yes.

Right! Now pick an aspect of evolution and I'll give you the data.
I'm not saying that to be arrogant, I'm saying it because I am sure of the conclusion because I have seen the data. This is a very simple matter and I'm surprised, and quite frankly annoyed, at how complex you are all making it.

Either God and science allow evolution, or they do not. A yes/no answer.

Facts:
* The Hebrew word for Day, used in Genesis 1, is the same word used for Day in Exodus where we are commanded to keep the sabbath day. Yom.
In the Old Testament, outside Genesis 1 and 2, every time the word Day appears with number and/or the phrase evening and morning it always means a literal 24 hour period. Our 7 Yom week is 7x24 hour periods. If it Yom meant millions of years just imagine the problem you'd have with the weekend. “Sorry, I can't come to work today, I'm observing my million year sabbath”.

Is there any grammatical reason why Genesis 1 and 2 are different from the language in the rest of the Hebrew texts? Answer: No. Is there any linguistic evidence that Genesis 1-11 is myth or poetic? No! A thousand times no! It is consistent with the rest of the literal events of the Old Testament such as accounts of Abraham, Moses and David - which the New Testament takes literally.

While I'm at it, Jesus himself referenced Genesis 1 and 2 together as literal history when he spoke of marriage in Matt 19:5. If Jesus believed it was literal then I make no apology for doing likewise.


* The basis for evolution is suffering and death. Survival of the fittest. To use death as a natural part of creation God would have to have let many thousands or hundreds of thousands of humans die.
Yet death started with Adam's sin. In the rest of scripture death is associated with sin. As unnatural. As something imperfect. But creation was perfect. Here we have a contradiction. If death is part of creation then creation was not perfect. And if creation was perfect and death was not a natural part of it, then the requirements of millions of years of evolution are not met. One of them is wrong.

One scholarly fool has suggested that Neanderthal was evidence of pre-adimite races. Problem: His DNA is human. Not to mention, scripture states that the flood wiped all traces of humanity off the earth so Neanderthal must have lived after Genesis 9. Either the fool's wrong or the Bible is wrong.


We have two questions here; whether evolution is correct, and whether evolution is anti-God.
I have now answered the first. Now on to the second:

This one's really simple. If, as I showed in the above, God said creation was 6 days, if God said we base our 7 day week on the creation week, if God says death was not part of his perfect creation, if God created the laws of physics and maintains them in the creation (obviously), if God cannot lie.... then anything contradicting Him must be anti-God. Until evolution theory stops contradicting scripture it must be held anti-God.

Evolution does get a fair trial. It's been tried, found guilty and sentenced already. All appeals must introduce data which contradict the original defense in order to be scientifically logical.
But any data that contradicts the foundation of evolution - death and suffering, increase of information from nowhere - kills the theory.
Evolution is in a loose loose situation. But bad science is winning out against responsibility to a scientifically sound Biblical creator in the public opinion. And public opinion always dictates accepted fact regardless of demonstrable evidence.


You can argue the trivial points about new evolutionary theories, but if they are still based on the same foundation they are already proved wrong. Yep. Wrong. No other option. You can't get more wronger than disproved by science and God's word.

It's the same thing that's been debated for thousands of years. Evolution did not start with Darwin. He simply popularized a particular spin on it. Evolution IS shown in scripture because it was believed by some pagans in Biblical times. (sorry, no references but I'm sure someone will remember some examples of it).
It's the authority of the Word of God vs Man's Preferred Opinion.

Now... am I wrong? Why?

By  Anonymous, at 12:28 am, August 11, 2005  

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

By  Dan, at 8:31 am, August 11, 2005  

[Sorry - I found some spelling errors in the initial comment, so chose to re-post it, for your viewing pleasure]

I think I understand when Nato is coming from when he says that that evolution is not anti-God.

Just as, in the same way, there is nothing anti-God in an apparatus designed for torture. And, in the same way, it is not

guns that kill people.

It is how these things are used that is anti-God, and not the things themselves.

But I believe this is approach is unnecessarily pedantic for the sake of this argument, since I think it is fairly safe to

assume that we're not taking about the concept of evolution here, but rather we are talking about an evolutionary (or

otherwise) understanding of how the world and life itself came about.

Evolution is not the subject; the subject is an evolutionary account of the creation of earth and the life forms on it.

Furthermore, I believe that an evolutionary account of creation is anti-God. How can every aspect of the Genesis account

of creation can be taken literally - i.e.: He did actually create an Earth, with actual life forms, and an actual day,

etc, - but for the timeframe, which is assumed not literal?

If it were a poem, surely there would be more poetic imagery than just the timeframe?

It's so easy to interpret Scripture by what we believe, or by what we want to believe.

But what we want and what we are are fallen, anti-God-minded creatures.

That is what makes the interpretation of Scripture so incredibly tricky.

By  Dan, at 8:39 am, August 11, 2005  

Oh bother ... pardon the annoying formatting above.

By  Dan, at 8:40 am, August 11, 2005  

Sorry Anita, the reason I used the phrase 'you will be familiar with...' was because I was trying to respect your request for biblical references, which I didn't provide. So I was covering my back, not trying to be patronizing :). While I'm clarifying such things, note that I have attempted to not call anyone closedminded. I've attempted to use the word 'seem' a lot. Anyways...

Theistic evolution doesn't say that God didn't create the world. It says that he created the world in a different way than 6-day creationists claim. So, it's not cutting God out of the picture. Are Theistic Evolutionists Anti-God? Do theistic evolutionists attack the christian faith?

Or, more generally, if anyone disagrees with your interpretation, of any passage, is that interpretation anti-God?
That is effectively been saying. "Genesis 1 says this. Therefore any view that is different from it is anti-God". So, is Postmillenialism anti-God? Is adult baptism anti-God?

By  Anonymous, at 9:21 am, August 11, 2005  

Oops.. Last paragraph:

Or, more generally, if anyone disagrees with your interpretation, of any passage, is that interpretation anti-God?
That is effectively what you have been saying. 'Genesis 1 says this. Any view that is different from my view denies God's word and is thus anti-God'. So, is Postmillenialism anti-God? Is adult baptism anti-God?

By  Anonymous, at 9:22 am, August 11, 2005  

Nato,

I see what you're getting at Nato. But don't know why you're persisting with a line of arguement which is not nessecary.

You are right in saying that Chirst is all that matters for salvation. So it is possible to be an evolutionist and believe in Christ repent and be saved. It's also possible to not believe that David and Solomon did not exist and still believe in Christ. You can also discount Pauls writings and Believe in Christ.

But, then is not your view of Christ, while it still possibly bringing you salvation, a distorted or shallow one. Is not the Bible here to tell us of the whole plan of the world. Of creation through the fall to the salvation of creation.

If we believe in the salvation aspect, sure that is a great and good thing. But is not the full picture of God's grace and glory much better?

Andrew,

As Scott said earlier saying "alot of christians" is not a valid arguement.

This is why you need absolute truth! If you don't beleive the Bible to be absolutely true, the inspired Word of God, then the whole of life is open to personal interpretation. You can use any writing, any phylosophy to jusify your beliefs, and who am I to tell you you're wrong? and who are you to tell me I'm wrong?

The Bible is the ultimate Standard! it is true in everyway. Sure there maybe differing interpretations, even contradictory interpretations but that doesn't change the fact.

In regards to you view of the 6 days not being literal.
The first 5 books of the Bible are books of history! These are not books of poetry!

By  Jonathan, at 9:45 am, August 11, 2005  

I managed to tack a double negative in there. Should have read -

It's also possible to believe that David and Solomon did not exist and still believe in Christ.

By  Jonathan, at 9:49 am, August 11, 2005  

Allan,
Yes, "yom" is the word for "day". So what? We use the English word for day in our poetry and it doesn't make it any less poetic when its being used in poetry.

On the subject of a long yom, the author of Hebrews makes use of the fact that Genesis 1 doesn't say that the 7th day of creation ended. He uses a metaphor in Hebrews 4, suggesting that God's day of rest has continued to this day, and that God invites us to join him in it. So there you have an example of one of the Genesis 1 yoms being explicitly interpreted as a 6000+ year period in biblical metaphorical imagery. And, according to the author of Hebrews here, that is exactly why us Christians ought to do the metaphorical equivalent of "Sorry, I can't come to work today, I'm observing my million year sabbath" (to quote you) because the Sabbath remains for us forever (Heb 4).

Yes, there are grammatical reasons for suspecting poetry in the Genesis 1 account. Firstly, I wish to note that it is widely recognised that the genre of Genesis 1-11 is different from that of ch 12 onwards. (ie Abraham, Moses, and David are intended far more literally than what comes in Genesis 11 and before) There are significant differences in narrative detail, in the stories having morals etc. I'm not saying Genesis 1-11 is all poetry, it looks closest in genre to Jesus' parables and the stories of Jonah and Job. Like with Jesus' parables - to take it too literally is to miss the point, the point the writer is making lies in what the story teaches us not the story itself. Genesis 1 however is actually particularly poetry/a hymn in structure. It utilises repetition in a way typical of poetry/hymns with God seeing it was good at regular intervals and the evening and morning day counting, breaking it up into stanzas in a similar way as may be found in many of the psalms in the bible. Also it cyclically repeats through the three parts of creation – God first creating the heavens, then sky/sea, then land on the sequential days, and then repeating through the list in the same order with the bringing of animate life to each on sequential days. This use of cycles is another typical indication of poetic/hymnal/non-literal genres – the author is concerned with symmetry and patterns. Also, the fitting of the story within a pattern of a 7 day week with God resting on the last is indicative of a metaphor of a craftsman who works 6 days on his creation and then rests on the Sabbath. Furthermore the present of several “day”s and nights prior to the creation of the sun (whose purpose we are told is “to separate the day from night”) is highly suggestive of the fact that the author was not taking the notion of days particular literally in the writing of this passage, and that they are meant poetically only. Christians at least as far back as Augustine have been taking Genesis 1 non-literally, Augustine for example decided that since God can create something instantaneously by sheer act of will, creation must have come into being instantaneously and thus the seven days are merely poetic.

Jesus’ reference in Mat 19:5 is simply a reference, it doesn’t say anything whatsoever about the literalness of the genre of the referenced passage.

Who says creation was perfect? You? God simply called it “good”. God was pleased that what he had made was a step up on the chaos that had existed beforehand. The point of Christian theology is effectively evolutionary: ie that God has continued to work in the world throughout history with the eventual goal of achieving his ultimate purposes of an indestructible and incorruptible world filled with Christ-like people. It is made clear in the Bible that man’s sin works against that goal, and that death is part of the imperfection of creation that will eventually be overcome. Christian theologians as far back as the fourth century AD were debating as to whether Adam would have died if he had not sinned and had not eaten from the tree of life… many believed he would have because they took it for granted that corruption and death had been inherent in the world since the beginning. The idea of a complete lack of corruption and death prior to the fall has never been universally accepted Christian doctrine.


Dan,
You say “It's so easy to interpret Scripture by what we believe, or by what we want to believe.” Yet I have to wonder whether that isn’t exactly what you’re doing here. You’ve been taught to take scripture literally at the expense of paying careful attention to the fact that non/semi-literal genres are a standard part of life, and you’ve been taught that Creationism is the Truth and that evolution is anti-God. I can sympathise, I was brought up in a strongly evangelical church, and I read plenty of apologetics books which had me convinced that evolutionists ignored the facts, and that even moderate liberals were betrayers of Christianity.

But the point remains, as Nato said, that Christians have been arguing over interpretations of different passages in the Bible for millennia. Different Christians think the Bible says different things about the rapture, or about whether hell involves annihilation. Clearly some people are right and others wrong, but that doesn’t make their views anti-God or anything. I have a different view to you guys about what is going on in Genesis 1. I think I’m right, you think you’re right, either of us could be right, God knows. We could potentially argue for days on end about exactly who is right (I’m not going to), but what it effectively comes down to is that I’m a Christian, you’re a Christian, we both believe in God, neither of us is anti-God, and I think God used evolutionary processes to create life, and you think he didn’t. Especially given that it all happened 6000+ years ago, I’m not entirely convinced that it’s relevant to us today. The only important issue for us (I feel), is that too much emphasis on creationism puts unnecessary barriers in the path of the gospel. One can be a Christian and believe in evolution just as one can be a Christian and believe in adult baptism, and that’s about all there is to it as far as I’m concerned.


Jono,
I’m kinda worried that you think that faith just falls apart if you allow the slightest bit of lack of absolute certainty into the works. Let me assure you that it doesn’t.

By  Andrew, at 11:16 am, August 11, 2005  

Yep! That 7th day is definitely poetic - which is why in the 4th commandment it's referred back to. This is not so that the Israelites will rest on one day, but be poetically reminded of the fact that God did rest after he finished creation.

Yep good stuff.

By  Scotty, at 11:56 am, August 11, 2005  

Andrew

I'm kinda worried that you think that faith just falls apart if you allow the slightest bit of lack of absolute certainty into the works. Let me assure you that it doesn't.

I don't know what givens you that idea??? I never said absolute certainty.... I said absolute truth. There are many uncertainties in the Christian faith. As you have said there are different translations. different views and idea on Hell, etc. There are many many uncertainties.

What you seem to claim is that noting is certain! if nothing is certain. why do you hold any views at all? why do you believe in God? why do you believe in Christ? If all was uncertain I would be be off doing as much as i can to make this life here as comfortable as I could for me! flag Church, flag Charity.

But there is one thing certain! God exists and the Bible is His inspired word. If my faith just falls apart at the sight of uncertainty I would not be here in this discussion.

By  Jonathan, at 12:04 pm, August 11, 2005  

Isn't faith being certain of what we hope for?

By  Scotty, at 12:05 pm, August 11, 2005  

Good point!

By  Jonathan, at 12:06 pm, August 11, 2005  

What is it that we hope for?

Are you saying those with true faith will be certain that evolution is wrong?

By  Anonymous, at 12:50 pm, August 11, 2005  

Scotty, I think the writer wanted to emphasise the importance of Sabbath observance.

Faith only means "being certain of what you hope" for if you're working with a misundering of Heb 11:1. The word for faith means loyalty / faithfulness / devotion. The point of Heb 11:1 is that our faithfulness to God ensures that we will receive the things we hope for, "for by [their faithfulness] the men of old received divine approval" (Heb 11:2). As the rest of the chapter recounts, those in the Old Testament who were loyal and faithful to God despite the problems that faced them, received God's approval and God's help in acheiving the things they were hoping to achieve. So too us, if we follow the example of faithfulness set for us by Christ and all these OT figures (12:1-4) we can obtain God's approval (12:15).

By  Andrew, at 2:01 pm, August 11, 2005  

Nato... could you be more specific!

Are you saying those with true faith will be certain that evolution is wrong?

Both "true faith" and "evolution" could be up for debate! so it's difficult to answer that question. But i'll try

If you are talking about the theory of evolution which believe thats there was nothing and then there just happened to be an explosion and then over millions and millions of years the world has evolved to what we have now. This is wrong! Faith or no faith, it's wrong.

Whether someone with "true faith" is certain of this or not is up to that person.

I don't think anyone here is implying that if you believe in evolution you can't have "true faith".

So in that sense evolution is not Anti-God. If that's what you're trying to get at with your question Nato I think we've covered that already.

By  Jonathan, at 2:08 pm, August 11, 2005  

Scotty, I think the writer wanted to emphasise the importance of Sabbath observance.

What is the importance of Sabbath observance?

By  Jonathan, at 2:12 pm, August 11, 2005  

What is it that we hope for?

Are you saying those with true faith will be certain that evolution is wrong?

Nato, sorry that wasn't what I was meaning. Maybe I didn't make it clear.

By  Scotty, at 2:20 pm, August 11, 2005  

Scotty: didn't think you meant that :) - just wondered what you did mean.
Jono: My lack of specificity was because I wanted to see if scotty was arguing that God gives people faith, which enables them (among other things) to miraclously know that evolution is wrong.
However, I've realized that his comment was in response to the immediately previous one, which I wasn't following that closely, so in a typical self-centered fashion, I assumed that any comment was addressed to me.

All: So anyway, I feel I may have lost touch with what I originally wanted to argue. I feel like I've wasted a lot of time here. Sorry about that.

So, if you will, I'm just gonna leave a closing statement, and call it a day (If you willn't*, feel free to tell me).
I think evolution is a valid point of view, and one can believe it as a valid interpretation of scripture, so therefore it is not rubbish, nor anti-God.

(*word may not actually exist)

By  Anonymous, at 3:56 pm, August 11, 2005  

It exists now!

Even though you've made a closing statement could I ask a question?

Is it a valid interpretation of scripture which you believe in? or is it valid from the perspective that you can see how someone could interpret it that way?

By  Jonathan, at 4:15 pm, August 11, 2005  

"One can be a Christian and believe in evolution just as one can be a Christian and believe in adult baptism, and that’s about all there is to it as far as I’m concerned."

One can be a Christian and be a murderer. Don't misconstrue my point.
And don't for one second assume that because I disagree with you in some areas that I think, assume or am implying that I you're not a Christian.

"There are significant differences in narrative detail, in the stories having morals etc. "

Of course there are. Did you expect just Noah and his family to remember enough detail to flesh out the earlier chapters? The post-flood accounts will draw on a far greater information base, and hence be more detailed.

That's not reason to assume that arbitrary sections are poetic.

I've got more to say, but I don't have the time now - I'll try and get back soon.

By  Dan, at 4:31 pm, August 11, 2005  

Ha - specified some good old character encoding to fix the crazy punctuation!

By  Dan, at 8:11 am, August 12, 2005  

The later I think.

By  Anonymous, at 8:34 am, August 12, 2005  

And you thought I was being patronizing...

Vanda Magro, Anita is not profoundly ignorant. Nor would such a thing be laughable. Making such a statement might come across as a little insulting, and perhaps lacking in tact? (Not that I'm in any way perfect in this regard)

By  Anonymous, at 10:45 am, August 12, 2005  

Vanda - What on earth did you hope to prove by your last statement?

By gainsaying Anita without providing any evidence for your claim you have made yourself look like the ignorant one.

By  Scotty, at 12:04 pm, August 12, 2005  

If you are concerned about your cats health then you wouldn't be feeding them supermarket cat food. I know a few things about cats but I most importantly know how to be polite. Thanks Scott and Nathan.

By  Anita, at 1:54 pm, August 12, 2005  

PS: Anita, your blog is no longer "fatally flawed"

The markup is now valid XHTML 1.0 Strict.
Looks splendid in both IE and Firefox.

The CSS would also be valid if it weren't for the transparency effect on the header, and the colored scroll bars in IE; I kept those in.

By  Dan, at 2:00 pm, August 12, 2005  

Mad site mate ..

By  london cokehead, at 2:29 pm, August 12, 2005  

Thanks so much Dan!!! Really appreciate it

By  Anita, at 3:17 pm, August 12, 2005  

If Genesis 1-11 is ficticious, and Jonah and Job are merely poetic, and Matthew 1 certainly can't be trusted because it has similar poetic/hymn style to Genesis 1 (it even had rythmic beat), then how on earth can you believe any portion of scripture is true at all?

Are we to ignore all reference to the Hoyl Spirit because it sounds too mythical? Do we deny the resurrection like Geering because we deem it unimportant and impossible? Do we deny Jesus was God because "the language" never clearly states so?

I'm just going to use Biblical language to conclude.
You are a fool.
But then perhaps that was poetic also.


re cat food. PurnaOne is the answer. It's the highest quality supermarket cat food (although the ones sold at the vet might be slightly higher). Careful not to buy other Purina products, as they have taken over two or three brands and given their lable to it - it's the one where the itten formula comes in the big green plastic container. That one should be fine for cats through age 2 or more. Little expensive tho.

By  Anonymous, at 4:05 pm, August 12, 2005  

* PurinaOne

By  Anonymous, at 4:06 pm, August 12, 2005  

Anyway, who said that literalty and poetry were mutually exclusive?

By  Dan, at 4:14 pm, August 12, 2005  

Mad, the whole lot of you!

By  Anonymous, at 10:06 pm, August 12, 2005  

Allan,
Non literal genres aren't the same thing as false or untrue, or "can't be trusted". Jesus' parables weren't literal prose, but they certainly weren't false. You wouldn't say that they can't be trusted simply because they are a non-literal genre! You'd hopefully agree that the Psalms are poetic, yet you would never rant about how we can't believe or trust the Psalms simply because they are a non-literal genre.

I'm just going to use Biblical language to conclude.
You are a fool.
And I'll use a Bible verse to conclude: Matthew 5:22

By  Andrew, at 12:15 am, August 13, 2005  

Interresting definition of anger.
I'm not angry.
Disappointed and bewildered perhaps, but not angry.
I've had this conversation so many times with several hundreds of different people already over the last 10 years. It's pointless getting angry. It only serves to turn a rational debate into an irrational argument.

In this case, I have simply made the "eyes but do not see" conclusion. I'm applying the "leave and shake the dust off your feet" approach.

We preach. We don't change the facts to fit the hearers. We don't alter scripture to suit the masses. And if they decide not to accept it, we move on.


I have other discussions to attend to - such as the antibilical nature of teh roman catholic system, and the necromancy of benny hinn the false teacher. I'll spend my time where it does the most good.


ps. Don't interpret my lack of "nicer than Jesus" attitude as anger. I just don't sugarcoat things.


(hey anita. you trying to beat Nato's record? lol)

By  Anonymous, at 4:52 am, August 13, 2005  

Interresting definition of anger.
I was referring to the "he who calls his brother a fool" part of the verse, not the angry part.

I have other discussions to attend to - such as the antibilical nature of the roman catholic system, and the necromancy of benny hinn the false teacher.
And after that you'll be off to prove Harry Potter is evil and that the earth is flat I suppose? Y'know, all the Christians I've talked to who read these blogs think you're a crazy extremist (and they're not all liberals like me), perhaps a good way of not coming across to other Christians as an irrational raving fundamentalist might be to stop acting like one?

By  Andrew, at 9:35 am, August 13, 2005  

Don't need to. The Bible bans witchcraft and gave evidence of the earth being hung as a ball. That however appears in one of those "poetic" books.

Fundamentalist. Of course I'm a foundamentalist. The Bible is fundamental to the Christian faith.
To think it wasn't fundamental to Christianity would be irrational.

As for my usage of the term fool, was not using the term rhaka but rather aphro?n (Luk12:20)

Rhaka has meaning of insult such as "o worthless one".
Aphro?n carries meaning of ignorant unbelief as in the Luke example where the fool pleased his own desires and disreguarded the greater things of God.

By  Anonymous, at 10:21 am, August 13, 2005  

Y'know, all the Christians I've talked to who read these blogs think you're a crazy extremist

Hey Andrew, much as I respect your opinion in general, please don't claim to speak for others when insulting someone.

Interesting discussion everyone. Hopefully not too much love lost in the process... I shall say no more, lest I too fall to sarcasm. God bless :)

-Katherine (one of that Chch bunch)

By  Kat, at 12:45 pm, August 13, 2005  

Allan - I do not think that calling Andrew a fool was a particularly Christ-like display.

Andrew - To provoke Allan with comments like supposing he believes the earth is flat is also not helpful.

Perhaps we could all try to disagree in a manner which we show Christ's love to the other person. We do not need to run each other down. Let's just argue in a way that respects the other person.

If we are inclined to get hot under the collar - maybe wait until later to comment. Calling people names or mocking their position is unlikely to win a debate.

By  Scotty, at 12:55 pm, August 13, 2005  

Scotty,
Who cares about "winning" any debates? It doesn't matter particularly to me one way or the other about whether I actually convince anyone - my beliefs have no need of anyone here's approval, and neither does it particularly matter to me what people I have never met believe on obscure issues such as this. I am far more interested in helping people with the actual problems that they have, in this case an inability to open their minds to the possibility of ideas different to the ones they fanatically believe in. To that end I discuss, argue, and even tell people what others think of them in order to help them open their minds, and reconsider their attitudes. It would be no gain to me if I convinced everyone here evolution was true and they simply switched to believing evolution with the same fanatical close-mindedness.

By  Andrew, at 2:18 pm, August 13, 2005  

I know we each think our beliefs are right. But your presumption that others have an inabilty to open their minds is decided patronising, and is insulting, at least.

By  Dan, at 4:49 pm, August 13, 2005  

nutritional information is there for the owner of the pet to make informed decisions about what they want going into their animals body...and yes cat's did evolve just like every other organism.

Who are the scientests who don't accept evolutionary theory. All science is theory based, that is it's nature, it's not a defect but a strength.The road to knowledge is an ongoing process. I know many Christians hate uncertainty and ambiguity but God gave us the ability to reason and analyze.

By  Shamus, at 11:09 am, August 14, 2005  

Just randomly thinking about the subject of being Christ-like when arguing... what exactly was Christ like when arguing? (I say this merely as a thought of interest, not trying to prove any point)

By  Andrew, at 2:30 pm, August 14, 2005  

"disagree in a manner which shows Christ's love to the other person"
I deliberately used a noun that Christ himself had used.

A scientific theory requires it to be observable, demonstratable, and able to be used to make valid prediction. None of which can be done with evolution given it's time requirements. No one was there to observe evolution happening and to record it.

And if you really want an answer, I can get you names of several creationist scientists. answersingenesis.org has many.

And I don't think Christ argued. To me an argument is an illogical slagging off match. What He did would be more properly termed debating. Or perhaps correcting.

By  Anonymous, at 8:56 pm, August 14, 2005  

Andrew - Perhaps looking at Phillipians 2. I don't know, but I think that sometimes your tone (and Allan's) does not seem particularly humble. This seemed the case when you ridiculed Allan before.

There are better ways of helping people with the actual problems that they have than ramming them into the ground with speech.

By  Scotty, at 10:06 am, August 15, 2005  

I intended to share Christ's view of practicing bad theology. Not to show his love for all men.

Because I state one truth does not mean in my heart I neglect the other truth. It merely means I don't end all statements with a discourse of Christ's love for all.

By  Anonymous, at 10:51 am, August 15, 2005  

I thought I had picked a word specific to the character of the theology not of the person. One of the strong's definitions for the word is "unbelieving".

By  Anonymous, at 10:53 am, August 15, 2005  

Post a Comment