User Tag List

Page 44 of 96 FirstFirst ... 34414243444546475494 ... LastLast
Results 646 to 660 of 1432

Thread: If Evolution

  1. #646
    Over 5000 post club 6days's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    5,571
    Thanks
    992
    Thanked 3,351 Times in 2,034 Posts

    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1318576
    Quote Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post
    Show me that repeating a parable makes it a literal history. What have you got?
    Jesus: "If you really believed Moses, you would believe me"
    Without Genesis, absolutely nothing makes sense in all of Scripture.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to 6days For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (January 20th, 2018)

  3. #647
    Over 1000 post club
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Atlanta area
    Posts
    1,133
    Thanks
    105
    Thanked 184 Times in 150 Posts

    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    6575
    Quote Originally Posted by 6days View Post
    We thought you had no basis for further conversation?
    Scripture tells us that there were two categories of plants which did not yet exist when man was created. Skeptics and liberals try find contradictions in God's Word, but Genesis two compliments and is consistent with Genesis 1.

    BTW... You didn't answer which paraphrase you quoted from.
    You already disproved your claims about the differences in plants with your own quote of Young’s Literal Translation.

    Nevertheless, in the interest of coaxing you out of this error you have embraced, I will once again post the excellent translator notes from the NET Bible:

    tn Heb “Now every sprig of the field before it was.” The verb forms, although appearing to be imperfects, are technically preterites coming after the adverb טֶּרֶם (terem). The word order (conjunction + subject + predicate) indicates a disjunctive clause, which provides background information for the following narrative (as in 1:2). Two negative clauses are given (“before any sprig…”, and “before any cultivated grain” existed), followed by two causal clauses explaining them, and then a positive circumstantial clause is given – again dealing with water as in 1:2 (water would well up).

    14 tn The first term, שִׂיחַ (siakh), probably refers to the wild, uncultivated plants (see Gen 21:15; Job 30:4,7); whereas the second, עֵשֶׂב (’esev), refers to cultivated grains. It is a way of saying: “back before anything was growing.”

    15 tn The two causal clauses explain the first two disjunctive clauses: There was no uncultivated, general growth because there was no rain, and there were no grains because there was no man to cultivate the soil.


    I did not quote a paraphrase. Unless otherwise noted or unless I make a mistake, I always quote the excellent NRSV.

  4. #648
    Over 1000 post club
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Atlanta area
    Posts
    1,133
    Thanks
    105
    Thanked 184 Times in 150 Posts

    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    6575
    Quote Originally Posted by 6days View Post
    As you have been shown, God's Word has one creation account. Jesus thought you should believe it... Jesus: "If you really believed Moses, you would believe me"
    You confuse “believe” with “believe these two creation stories are literal history.”

    There is no record Jesus ever said anything like the statements you try to attribute to him.

    Fixing views on history was not His mission.

  5. #649
    Over 1000 post club
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Atlanta area
    Posts
    1,133
    Thanks
    105
    Thanked 184 Times in 150 Posts

    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    6575
    Quote Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post
    We both know it's the truth. Fact is, St. Augustine published his book on Genesis, which was widely read,(then as now, he is considered one of the most respected and knowledgeable theologians) and no one thought to argue with his conclusion. Yes, there were some theologians who dissented from the orthodox position. But they were, as you know, in the minority.



    Show me your numbers and the documentation of their opinions.

    Not one of the Apostles, for example, said that Genesis was a literal history.
    Thanks for mentioning Augustine. Here is a quote from more than 1600 years ago. Still so relevant!

    Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of the world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience.

    Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.

    The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.

    If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?

    Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books.

    For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion [quoting 1 Tim 1:7].


    The problem is not so much that such foolish opinions bring shame on those giving the opinion. The greater problem is that the foolish opinions can be seen as discrediting the gospel.

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to 2003cobra For Your Post:

    6days (January 20th, 2018)

  7. #650
    TOL Subscriber George Affleck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Markham, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    1,221
    Thanks
    673
    Thanked 699 Times in 391 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    470994
    Quote Originally Posted by 2003cobra View Post
    It is not a contradiction, unless one demands the stories be taken as literal history.

    Rather than attacking me, why not comment on the topic of the two creation stories?

    Was man formed or created when no plants had yet sprung up or after the earth had brought forth vegetation?
    Wasn't attacking you at all.
    Where did you get that idea?

    And why would I comment on two creation stories when there is only one and it's not a story, it's revelation?
    6days has given you more than you can handle already.
    Religion is man's attempt to make himself acceptable to God. Christianity is God making man acceptable to Himself.

  8. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to George Affleck For Your Post:

    6days (January 20th, 2018),glorydaz (January 20th, 2018),JudgeRightly (January 20th, 2018)

  9. #651
    Over 4000 post club JudgeRightly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    On the road
    Posts
    4,547
    Thanks
    13,154
    Thanked 3,715 Times in 2,376 Posts

    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    1568795
    Quote Originally Posted by 2003cobra View Post
    You confuse “believe” with “believe these two creation stories are literal history.”

    There is no record Jesus ever said anything like the statements you try to attribute to him.

    Fixing views on history was not His mission.
    Then He arose from there and came to the region of Judea by the other side of the Jordan. And multitudes gathered to Him again, and as He was accustomed, He taught them again. The Pharisees came and asked Him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” testing Him. And He answered and said to them, “What did Moses command you?” They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce, and to dismiss her.” And Jesus answered and said to them, “Because of the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’ ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife,and the two shall become one flesh’; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh.Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.” - Mark 10:1-9 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...9&version=NKJV

    Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; there is one who accuses you—Moses, in whom you trust. For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words? - John 5:45-47 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...7&version=NKJV

    For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it. - Exodus 20:11 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...1&version=NKJV

    But the ruler of the synagogue answered with indignation, because Jesus had healed on the Sabbath; and he said to the crowd, “There are six days on which men ought to work; therefore come and be healed on them, and not on the Sabbath day.” - Luke 13:14 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...4&version=NKJV

    https://answersingenesis.org/jesus-c...d-in-six-days/

  10. #652
    Over 2000 post club
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    By the sea
    Posts
    2,342
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 648 Times in 446 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    251117
    Quote Originally Posted by 6days View Post
    You KNOW that is dishonest. You have been shown numerous times that the majority of early church fathers trusted Moses as literal history.
    They were wrong then, you are wrong now

  11. #653
    Over 2000 post club
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    By the sea
    Posts
    2,342
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 648 Times in 446 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    251117
    Quote Originally Posted by JudgeRightly View Post
    Cobbled together?

    Lol, that claim hasn't worked for a long time, and it's the first time I've heard it in a while.

    There is evidence (yes, real world archaeological evidence) for almost everything in the Bible, from the price of a slave in Joseph's (son of Jacob) time, to the fact that Israel during their captivity in Egypt buried their loved ones' bodies under the floor in their houses (something the Egyptians did NOT do), from the walls of Jericho to the hanging gardens in Jerusalem, from the garden tomb to the sign in Greece that reads "To the Unknown God." The Bible is more than just a collection of stories, it's actual history.



    Now back up that claim with evidence.
    Oh my. You need to get our more if you are unaware of the evidence of the real age of the earth and universe as well as the evidence for biologic evolution.
    Find a local university. Go talk with a geology professor, with an astronomy professor and a real biologist. Report back.

    Genesis 1 is simply not accurate, it is not history. You are delusional

  12. #654
    Rookie 4string's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Queensland
    Posts
    48
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    114
    Quote Originally Posted by iouae View Post
    I gave you the "proof" under Ps. in the post which you quote.

    Here is my "proof" again...
    My Apologies, I did read that originally but my question was more along the lines of you yourself are implying that you don't believe this to be real "proof" more a suggested reasoning (if I'm understanding you correctly and please let me know if I've misunderstood the subtext), if you don't have a solid proof for this fact is it merely your presuppositions leading you to not accept taphonology?

    Could it be reasonable to assume that if only specific conditions created fossils that we would find more of one species fossilised than we would of another since some species might be more likely to be found in environments and have behaviours more conducive to ending up fossilised? if Geological strata were as we believed them to be then could it be possible that we just haven't found the right place to look yet?

    And if so and Taphonology were correct and accurate then what would we expect to see that we aren't seeing already?

  13. #655
    Over 5000 post club 6days's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    5,571
    Thanks
    992
    Thanked 3,351 Times in 2,034 Posts

    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1318576
    Quote Originally Posted by Barbarian
    Quote Originally Posted by 6days
    the majority of early church fathers trusted Moses as literal history.
    Fact is, St. Augustine published his book on Genesis...
    As you have been shown before with quotes and references..... the early church fathers trusted Moses as literal history. (Victorinus, Lactanius, Ephrem, Basil of Caesarea, etc). Also as you were shown before... Augustine made a mistake using his latin translation, believing creation might have been instantaneous. But even Augustine, trusted Genesis as history saying "...reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6,000 years have passed." Augustine did believe the literal history of Genesis claiming there was no death before humans sinned; and,there was a global flood.
    Without Genesis, absolutely nothing makes sense in all of Scripture.

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to 6days For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (January 20th, 2018)

  15. #656
    Over 4000 post club JudgeRightly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    On the road
    Posts
    4,547
    Thanks
    13,154
    Thanked 3,715 Times in 2,376 Posts

    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    1568795
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonahdog View Post
    Oh my. You need to get our more if you are unaware of the evidence of the real age of the earth and universe as well as the evidence for biologic evolution.
    Find a local university. Go talk with a geology professor, with an astronomy professor and a real biologist. Report back.

    Genesis 1 is simply not accurate, it is not history. You are delusional
    Onus Probandi, Jonah.

    You made the claim that the universe is billions of years old, now give evidence that supports your assertion. That's how discussion works, Jonah, especially on TOL.

    If you can't do that, then you shouldn't be on this forum.

    Jonah, you said:

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonahdog View Post
    The Bible is not evidence of origins.
    You have to show that it is not evidence of origins, even though it gives a fairly detailed history of the origin of the universe.

    It is a cobbled together collection of stories.
    Please provide evidence of this claim.

    The real world evidence supports biologic evolution, an earth billions of years old, a universe even older, and no need for a deity.
    Please provide this "real world evidence" that you say supports each of your claims of "biologic evolution," "an earth billions of years old," "a universe even older," and "no need for a deity." In other words, provide evidence for each of those claims.

    My issue is not with specific translations, it is a question of why your deity does not make sure that his message is crystal clear.
    Just because it isn't clear to you doesn't mean that it's not clear at all.

    When is the last time you read the Bible, cover to cover?

    I can sum up in four words the entirety of the plot of the Bible.

    Creation, Rebellion, Reconciliation, Reward.

    Also, are you claiming that an all powerful God could not hide things for His creation to find, to discover, to learn?

    Surely he could do that if he existed and if he wished to do so. Perhaps he does exist but he does not wish to speak clearly to us. That raises a number of other issues.
    Richard Dawkins, in an interview with Ben Stein, was asked if he were to meet God, face to face, what would he say to Him. Here's excerpt, from "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed":


    Ben Stein: What if after you died you ran into God, and he says, what have you been doing, Richard? I mean what have you been doing? I've been trying to be nice to you. I gave you a multi-million dollar paycheck, over and over again with your book, and look what you did.

    Richard Dawkins: Bertrand Russell had that point put to him, and he said something like: sir, why did you take such pains to hide yourself?

    Ben Stein: [voice over] But, if the Intelligent Design people are right, he isn't hidden. We may even be able to encounter God through science, if we have the freedom to go there. What could be more intriguing than that?



    I imagine God's response to Bertrand's question to Him would be something like this:

    "The heavens declare My Glory; And the firmament shows My handiwork. Day unto day utters speech, And night unto night reveals knowledge.There is no speech nor language Where their voice is not heard. Their line has gone out through all the earth, And their words to the end of the world. In them I have set a tabernacle for the sun, Which is like a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, And rejoices like a strong man to run its race. Its rising is from one end of heaven, And its circuit to the other end; And there is nothing hidden from its heat."

    Or maybe something like this:

    "I have searched you and known you, I know your sitting down and your rising up; I understand your thought afar off. I comprehend your path and your lying down, And I am acquainted with all your ways. For there is not a word on your tongue, But behold I, YHWH, know it altogether. I have hedged you behind and before, And laid My hand upon you. Such knowledge is too wonderful for you; It is high, you cannot attain it. Where can you go from My Spirit? Or where can you flee from My presence? If you ascend into heaven, I am there; If you make your bed in hell, behold, I am there. If you take the wings of the morning, And dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, Even there My hand shall lead you, And My right hand shall hold you. If you say, “Surely the darkness shall fall on me,” Even the night shall be light about you; Indeed, the darkness shall not hide from Me, But the night shines as the day; The darkness and the light are both alike to Me. I formed your inward parts; I covered you in your mother’s womb. You were fearfully and wonderfully made; Marvelous are My works, And that your soul knows very well. Your frame was not hidden from Me, When you were made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. My eyes saw your substance, being yet unformed. And in My book they all were written, The days fashioned for you, When as yet there were none of them."

  16. #657
    Over 2500 post club iouae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    2,591
    Thanks
    96
    Thanked 206 Times in 177 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    110071
    Quote Originally Posted by 4string View Post
    My Apologies, I did read that originally but my question was more along the lines of you yourself are implying that you don't believe this to be real "proof" more a suggested reasoning (if I'm understanding you correctly and please let me know if I've misunderstood the subtext), if you don't have a solid proof for this fact is it merely your presuppositions leading you to not accept taphonology?

    Could it be reasonable to assume that if only specific conditions created fossils that we would find more of one species fossilised than we would of another since some species might be more likely to be found in environments and have behaviours more conducive to ending up fossilised? if Geological strata were as we believed them to be then could it be possible that we just haven't found the right place to look yet?

    And if so and Taphonology were correct and accurate then what would we expect to see that we aren't seeing already?
    Hi 4string. Here is the strongest evidence I can find so far.

    From http://potiphar.jongarvey.co.uk/2014...fossil-record/

    3 – Historical tests of the completeness of the fossil record

    In natural history fieldwork, the “collector curve” is often used to indicate how close to complete ones work is, as new discoveries will begin to tail off. ....
    .... Benton gives similar graphs on dinosaur discoveries:


    Fig09.jpegOne can see that in the old European collecting grounds, the graph is near saturation, whereas in the less-studied Chinese beds, there is still a steep curve, with a levelling of uncertain significance only in the last decade or two. It is fair, though, to predict that some time in this century the Chinese graph will match the European, and that other areas will follow suit (presumably Antarctica being the last to yield its unique species).

    This means that we can be pretty certain that we are now aware of most European dinosaur species that have left fossils.

    It is my opinion that the strongest evidence against evolution is encapsulated in graphs such as the above.

    What we see with fossil hunting is that at first finds are slow, then they pick up pace, then the curve flattens out as no new dinosaur fossil species are found.

    That last sentence in italics above shows that we have [nearly] the complete fossil record of European dinosaurs. And do European dinosaurs have most missing links filled in? Absolutely not. The graph is SHOUTING at us that the chances of further missing links being found is nearly zero. We have almost all we are going to have.

    This being the case, are we satisfied that evolution occurred, since dinosaurs occur as different animals, with NOT ONE SINGLE DINOSAUR HAVING ALL ITS MISSING LINKS. Most of the dinosaur record is ghost lineages. And the graph is telling us it will stay that way.

    And the same applies to all fossils. The Chinese dinosaur record is rapidly becoming the same as the European one with the flattened top of the "S" shaped curve appearing.

    All fossil records follow the same curve.

    This is strong evidence that these dinosaurs were created as individual species.
    Stop the culling of Cape Town's baboons!

  17. #658
    Over 2000 post club
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    By the sea
    Posts
    2,342
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 648 Times in 446 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    251117
    Quote Originally Posted by JudgeRightly View Post
    Onus Probandi, Jonah.

    You made the claim that the universe is billions of years old, now give evidence that supports your assertion. That's how discussion works, Jonah, especially on TOL.

    If you can't do that, then you shouldn't be on this forum.

    Jonah, you said:



    You have to show that it is not evidence of origins, even though it gives a fairly detailed history of the origin of the universe.



    Please provide evidence of this claim.



    Please provide this "real world evidence" that you say supports each of your claims of "biologic evolution," "an earth billions of years old," "a universe even older," and "no need for a deity." In other words, provide evidence for each of those claims.



    Just because it isn't clear to you doesn't mean that it's not clear at all.

    When is the last time you read the Bible, cover to cover?

    I can sum up in four words the entirety of the plot of the Bible.

    Creation, Rebellion, Reconciliation, Reward.

    Also, are you claiming that an all powerful God could not hide things for His creation to find, to discover, to learn?



    Richard Dawkins, in an interview with Ben Stein, was asked if he were to meet God, face to face, what would he say to Him. Here's excerpt, from "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed":


    Ben Stein: What if after you died you ran into God, and he says, what have you been doing, Richard? I mean what have you been doing? I've been trying to be nice to you. I gave you a multi-million dollar paycheck, over and over again with your book, and look what you did.

    Richard Dawkins: Bertrand Russell had that point put to him, and he said something like: sir, why did you take such pains to hide yourself?

    Ben Stein: [voice over] But, if the Intelligent Design people are right, he isn't hidden. We may even be able to encounter God through science, if we have the freedom to go there. What could be more intriguing than that?



    I imagine God's response to Bertrand's question to Him would be something like this:

    "The heavens declare My Glory; And the firmament shows My handiwork. Day unto day utters speech, And night unto night reveals knowledge.There is no speech nor language Where their voice is not heard. Their line has gone out through all the earth, And their words to the end of the world. In them I have set a tabernacle for the sun, Which is like a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, And rejoices like a strong man to run its race. Its rising is from one end of heaven, And its circuit to the other end; And there is nothing hidden from its heat."

    Or maybe something like this:

    "I have searched you and known you, I know your sitting down and your rising up; I understand your thought afar off. I comprehend your path and your lying down, And I am acquainted with all your ways. For there is not a word on your tongue, But behold I, YHWH, know it altogether. I have hedged you behind and before, And laid My hand upon you. Such knowledge is too wonderful for you; It is high, you cannot attain it. Where can you go from My Spirit? Or where can you flee from My presence? If you ascend into heaven, I am there; If you make your bed in hell, behold, I am there. If you take the wings of the morning, And dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, Even there My hand shall lead you, And My right hand shall hold you. If you say, “Surely the darkness shall fall on me,” Even the night shall be light about you; Indeed, the darkness shall not hide from Me, But the night shines as the day; The darkness and the light are both alike to Me. I formed your inward parts; I covered you in your mother’s womb. You were fearfully and wonderfully made; Marvelous are My works, And that your soul knows very well. Your frame was not hidden from Me, When you were made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. My eyes saw your substance, being yet unformed. And in My book they all were written, The days fashioned for you, When as yet there were none of them."
    You have been on this site for 4+ years and you are unaware of the evidence for billions of years?
    You cannot be that ignorant.
    Last edited by Jonahdog; January 20th, 2018 at 04:47 PM.

  18. #659
    TOL Legend The Barbarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    7,309
    Thanks
    91
    Thanked 1,573 Times in 1,097 Posts

    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    275865
    Also as you were shown before... Augustine made a mistake using his latin translation, believing creation might have been instantaneous.
    Looks pretty good from here. We now know our present universe began in an instant and (as Augustine noted) developed from there as God intended.

    But even Augustine, trusted Genesis as history saying "...reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6,000 years have passed."
    The science of his time had no evidence otherwise. Augustine was at that time, confronting the pagan idea of an eternal universe. But he also said that we should be very careful about projecting such things, and be willing to change our views to fit new knowledge.

    This is why creationism is slowly dying. As we learn more and more, so many of their new doctrines are clearly wrong.

    Augustine did believe the literal history of Genesis
    He pointed out that there is no logical way to reinterpret the "days" of Genesis as literal ones. You know this.

    claiming there was no death before humans sinned;
    God himself says that the death he meant in Genesis was a spiritual one. He warned Adam that he would die the day he ate from the tree. And yet Adam does so, and lives on physically for many years after. Indeed, if Jesus came to save us from physical death, He failed. We will all die someday. But He saved us from the spiritual death that happened in the fall.

    In our time, some religious folks have chosen a distinctly anti-intellectualist route. Creationists, “intelligent-designers,” and Biblical literalists seem hell-bent on wearing ignorance as a badge of piety. History repeats itself. In Augustine’s time, the great issue was not religion and science or religion and evolution, but Christianity and the corpus of classical learning. With the Roman Empire crumbling, increasingly it was left to the Christian Church to either incorporate or abandon the great Classical intellectual tradition. Centuries before Augustine, some church fathers had already chosen ignorance. Tertullian famously proclaimed: “What has Athens to do with Jerusalem, the Academy with the Church? ... We have no need for curiosity since Jesus Christ, nor for inquiry since the Evangel.”

    Augustine would have none of this. With fist-pounding certainty he argued that reason was as critical to faith as revelation. Alarmed by his stance, a fellow Bishop, Consentius, wrote to remind Augustine that “God is not to be sought after by reason but followed through authority.” Setting collegiality aside, Augustine’s response was unusually blunt:

    You say that truth is to be grasped more by faith than by reason ... Heaven forbid that God should hate in us that by which he made us superior to the animals! Heaven forbid that we should believe in such a way as not to accept or seek reasons, since we could not believe if we did not have rational souls.

    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-..._b_659195.html

    and,there was a global flood.
    Nope:

    From The City of God 16.7:
    There is a question raised about all those kinds of beasts which are not domesticated, nor are produced like frogs from the earth, but are propagated by male and female parents, such as wolves and animals of that kind; and it is asked how they could be found in the islands after the deluge, in which all the animals not in the ark perished, unless the breed was restored from those which were preserved in pairs in the ark. It might, indeed, be said that they crossed to the islands by swimming, but this could only be true of those very near the mainland; whereas there are some so distant, that we fancy no animal could swim to them. But if men caught them and took them across with themselves, and thus propagated these breeds in their new abodes, this would not imply an incredible fondness for the chase. At the same time, it cannot be denied that by the intervention of angels they might be transferred by God's order or permission. If, however, they were produced out of the earth as at their first creation, when God said, "Let the earth bring forth the living creature," Genesis 1:24 this makes it more evident that all kinds of animals were preserved in the ark, not so much for the sake of renewing the stock, as of prefiguring the various nations which were to be saved in the church; this, I say, is more evident, if the earth brought forth many animals in islands to which they could not cross over.

    So no way to have some animals survive living on distant islands, if there was a global flood, which St. Augustine never accepted. You've never read Augustine, have you? His works are still available in English translation from Penguin or Canto, or publishers like that.

    You could learn about Christian belief.
    Let's say that I suffer from a delusion. I will call this delusion "Fact-check Syndrome." I respond by citing facts.

    Most people online don't want to be corrected. They do not care about anything that does not agree with them.

  19. #660
    TOL Legend The Barbarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    7,309
    Thanks
    91
    Thanked 1,573 Times in 1,097 Posts

    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    275865
    Creationism support is at a new low. The reason should give us hope.
    Fundamentalists are vowing to make a last stand for God in Dayton, Tenn., on Friday (July 14) when a new statue will be installed on the courthouse lawn. Going up alongside a likeness of William Jennings Bryan is a depiction of Clarence Darrow, Bryan’s pro-evolution adversary in Dayton’s historic Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925.

    The creationist organizing the protests is threatening to bring in a militia to thwart installation of the Darrow statue, which she calls an insult to God and Christians. It will take a lot more than that, though, to stop Americans’ growing acceptance of evolution and apparent shift away from the strict creationist view of the origin of the species.

    New polling data show that for the first time in a long time there’s a notable decline in the percentage of Americans — including Christians — who hold to the “young Earth” creationist view that humankind was created in its present form in the past 10,000 years, evolution playing no part.

    According to a Gallup Poll conducted in May, the portion of the American public taking this position now stands at 38 percent, a new low in Gallup’s periodic surveys. Fifty-seven percent accept the validity of the scientific consensus that human beings evolved from less advanced forms of life over millions of years.

    Has atheism taken over so thoroughly? No, and that’s why this apparent break in the creationism-vs.-evolution stalemate is significant and even instructive to those in search of creative solutions to our other intractable public arguments.

    As the new poll reveals, the biggest factor in the shift is a jump in the number of Christians who are reconciling faith and evolution. They are coming to see evolution as their God’s way of creating life on Earth and continuing to shape it today.

    “Science doesn’t have to drive people away from faith,” says Deborah Haarsma, president of an organization called BioLogos that promotes harmony between science and Christian faith.

    http://religionnews.com/2017/07/13/c...-give-us-hope/

    In the 22nd century, YE creationists will be viewed the way we now look at the flagellants who sought to avoid bubonic plague by whipping each other.
    Let's say that I suffer from a delusion. I will call this delusion "Fact-check Syndrome." I respond by citing facts.

    Most people online don't want to be corrected. They do not care about anything that does not agree with them.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us