Questions for Evolutionists

[BigBallinStalin]

Sorry about the curse words directed at you Player. But please. You can't call BS when there is none.

Sure, she can. She does it all the time, and then fortifies her position with the empty sandbags of irrelevant arguments and long, winding trenches of tangents.

[AAFitz]

"God" is dis-proven because the Bible was "made" by "God", therefore it must be infallible.

Says who?

This is a complete circular reference, and as such the definition of illogical.

[tzor]

Evolution and creationism (what the Bible LITERALLY says) are in direct conflict. It is one or the other.

It is important to understand that the Catholic Church does not teach that the Bible is "Literally" true. The Bible is a collection of books that contain truth, but it is not word for word literally true.

This is especially true with the two creation stories of the Book of Genesis and especially true with the first chapter.

This is the commentary in the Roman Catholic New American Bible, Revised Edition on the first creation story in Genesis

* [1:1–2:3] This section, from the Priestly source, functions as an introduction, as ancient stories of the origin of the world (cosmogonies) often did. It introduces the primordial story (2:4–11:26), the stories of the ancestors (11:27–50:26), and indeed the whole Pentateuch. The chapter highlights the goodness of creation and the divine desire that human beings share in that goodness. God brings an orderly universe out of primordial chaos merely by uttering a word. In the literary structure of six days, the creation events in the first three days are related to those in the second three.
1. light (day)/darkness (night) = 4. sun/moon
2. arrangement of water = 5. fish + birds from waters
3. a) dry land = 6. a) animals
b) vegetation b) human beings: male/female
The seventh day, on which God rests, the climax of the account, falls outside the six-day structure.
Until modern times the first line was always translated, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Several comparable ancient cosmogonies, discovered in recent times, have a “when…then” construction, confirming the translation “when…then” here as well. “When” introduces the pre-creation state and “then” introduces the creative act affecting that state. The traditional translation, “In the beginning,” does not reflect the Hebrew syntax of the clause.

So what do we see here? Well we see a hierarchical order in the story, unlike the sequential order a literalist would insist on. This is why we have dry land before the sun and the moon. Forget "evolution" only the extreme literalist is going to insist that the dry land on the earth was formed before the sun. More over the entire story is linked with the notion that there is a metal dome between the waters below and above and that is where the stars, sun and moon are fixed.

As the old saying goes, the Bible tells us how to get to heaven, not how the heavens go.

Furthermore, once the Bible is proven wrong, "God" is dis-proven because the Bible was "made" by "God", therefore it must be infallible.

First of all the only "words" made by God are somewhere in a lost ark probably in Ethiopia. (And there are probably only ten words at most.) The Bible is "inspired" by God and contains the truth; but that truth is dependent on the writing styles of the authors in question. The Bible was never meant to be a physics book, or a chemistry book, or a biology book. It was meant to be a book on a covenant between God and His people.

EVOLUTION DEMOLISHES THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.

The foundation of the Torah is the law. Evolution does not demolish any foundation of the Torah.

How the f*ck is this not crystal clear, people?

It's clear you don't have a clue what mainstream Christianity and the Catholic Church actually teaches and believes.

[Maugena]

It's clear you don't have a clue what mainstream Christianity and the Catholic Church actually teaches and believes.

I'll concede to you on this one.
They can apparently believe in whatever the f*ck they want to believe whether or not they're being hypocritical or having contradicting views/interpretations.
It really puts into question the validity of the thing, entirely.
Making shit up as they go, really. Reformat your puzzle piece to fit in with an evolving society.
Adam and Eve is tru-errrr... A STORY!
Jesus is your savi-errrr.... FRIENDLY PROPHET!
One cannot simply pick and choose shit.
You're either in or out. There is no gray area. All gray area is as much as a falsehood as being out.

Anywho. I'm going to stop arguing because one cannot beat a brick wall with words and wisdom.

"God" is dis-proven because the Bible was "made" by "God", therefore it must be infallible.

Says who?

This is a complete circular reference, and as such the definition of illogical.

Sorry... you're right. I was making a logic leap there that wasn't backed up by anything. I was just seething with a rage so profound that mine eyes couldn't see the vision.

[_sabotage_]

You're either in or out.

Exactly, just like you can't be on a game site and not play games.

[Maugena]

You're either in or out.

Exactly, just like you can't be on a game site and not play games.

Hue. Touché.
Actually...

Therrad Derailment!

[tzor]

Adam and Eve is tru-errrr... A STORY!

Let's just stick with Adam and Eve because this is an evolution thread. Adam, Eve, and Evolution

Pope Pius XII warned us, "What is the literal sense of a passage is not always as obvious in the speeches and writings of the ancient authors of the East, as it is in the works of our own time. For what they wished to express is not to be determined by the rules of grammar and philology alone, nor solely by the context; the interpreter must, as it were, go back wholly in spirit to those remote centuries of the East and with the aid of history, archaeology, ethnology, and other sciences, accurately determine what modes of writing, so to speak, the authors of that ancient period would be likely to use, and in fact did use. For the ancient peoples of the East, in order to express their ideas, did not always employ those forms or kinds of speech which we use today; but rather those used by the men of their times and countries. What those exactly were the commentator cannot determine as it were in advance, but only after a careful examination of the ancient literature of the East" (Divino Afflante Spiritu 35–36).

The Catechism explains that "Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine ‘work,’ concluded by the ‘rest’ of the seventh day" (CCC 337), but "nothing exists that does not owe its existence to God the Creator. The world began when God’s word drew it out of nothingness; all existent beings, all of nature, and all human history is rooted in this primordial event, the very genesis by which the world was constituted and time begun" (CCC 338).

In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: "When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own" (Humani Generis 37).

As the Catechism puts it, "Methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things the of the faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are" (CCC 159). The Catholic Church has no fear of science or scientific discovery.

[PLAYER57832]

With evolution being proven, we lose our "god-given divinity".

We lose our ... what?

How you and player do not understand this what-so-ever is beyond me.

I don't understand why I'm being argued against when I'm not incorrect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_C ... _evolution
Catholic Church accepted my ass.

From the wikki article linked above... the first part of that article, in fact

In the 1950 encyclical Humani generis, Pope Pius XII confirmed that there is no intrinsic conflict between Christianity and the theory of evolution, provided that Christians believe that the individual soul is a direct creation by God and not the product of purely material forces.[1] Today[update], the Church's unofficial position is an example of theistic evolution, also known as evolutionary creation,[2] stating that faith and scientific findings regarding human evolution are not in conflict

So, it seems that the Popes very much have and do disagree with your belief. Not that I follow the Pope, but you made reference to his church.

Evolution and creationism (what the Bible LITERALLY says) are in direct conflict. It is one or the other.

Explain how.

Furthermore, once the Bible is proven wrong, "God" is dis-proven because the Bible was "made" by "God", therefore it must be infallible. Since it isn't because of Evolution (and a long list of other things), CHRISTIANS have everything to lose because EVOLUTION DEMOLISHES THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
Therefore, having proven Evolution, the Bible is revealed to be false - the very thing Christianity is entirely founded on.

See, the thing about logic is that when you start with a false assumption, then everything else that follows is pure garbage.

You wish to think that the Bible refutes evolution. You are welcome to that belief, but don't confuse it with what Christians (or Jews or Muslims, for that matter) really believe.

With evolution being proven, we lose our "god-given divinity".
We think ourselves above animals, while, in fact, we ARE animinimals.
There's a lot more that can be speculated... but it's entirely obvious that the idea that we are animals doesn't sit well with bible-thumpers and that's why they're spreading their bullshit. Mostly trying to get young minds, mind you. You're most impressionable when you're a child, when you don't know any better than to believe there's a giant man in the sky.

Oh, BULL. This is no more true than the idea that Earth revolving around the sun is anti-Christian because humans are the center of the universe. And, the only ones trying to claim this is about Christianity versus science are the small (but sadly growing) group of evangelicals and some other splinter groups, like the Amish and some Mennonites (but it might interest you that not even all Mennonites subscribe to the young Earth ideas).

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... rsion=ESV;
#27 & #28
Yes, f*ck you and f*ck your bullshit, Player. Please argue something valid, plox.

How the f*ck is this not crystal clear, people?

Funny how you claim we are idiots but all you can do is throw out vulgarities.

You can believe whatever you want, but when you mistake your personal beliefs for that of others... you show yourself to be an idiot, not a thinker.

Sorry about the curse words directed at you Player. But please. You can't call BS when there is none.

Apology accepted, but you really should try reading a bit more. The Roman Catholic Church has never disputed Evolution and has, since about 1950 officially stated that it is not in conflict with Christianity. Other Christian denominations have gone even further in support of evolution.

The Bible says "God did it" it does not say exactly how God did it. Evolution is the most likely option for how.

Calling that BS puts you in the same category as the OP, as someone who believes they konw the facts without bothering to truly challenge their information and see if they are correct. Sorry, but it does

[PLAYER57832]

It's clear you don't have a clue what mainstream Christianity and the Catholic Church actually teaches and believes.

I'll concede to you on this one.
They can apparently believe in whatever the f*ck they want to believe whether or not they're being hypocritical or having contradicting views/interpretations.

Uh, to consider Genesis disputing evolution requires demanding that the Biblical reference to days refers to rotations of the Earth, but those words, in English and in the ancient languages in the Bible can be used in various ways. If I say "in my day and age" or "in the days of old".. etc, etc, its not a specific time reference, but a general one.

I am not going to bother correcting your understanding further, but you made the statement above as if you thought that the Roman Catholic Church and most other Christian Churches disputed evolution when they do not. Whether you agree with the church or not is another issue entirely. Tzor and I are simply saying that when you start arguing... argue a position people actually hold. Some of the newer evanglical churches might (do) argue such as you have, but not the Roman Catholic Church and not the mainline Protestant churches

[Viceroy63]

"And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day."
-Genesis 1:5

While I would agree with the fact that the Bible uses the word "Day" in reference to an indefinite period of time as "in the day when they were created," (the TIME when they were created... Genesis 2:4) the above verse and those of the first six days of creation can not and are not used in any other way except to describe a 24hour period of day and night. There is simply no other way to use the phrase "Evening and Morning."

I would also add that just because the seventh day had no "Evening and Morning" does not take away from the text. The Creation of the Sabbath "Day" was a separate creation. And while it too was also a day as well, one of the seven days of the week, the fact that no "Evening and Mornings" are mention for that day only notes that this rest has higher meanings and functions than simply just a day.

[PLAYER57832]

"And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day."
-Genesis 1:5

While I would agree with the fact that the Bible uses the word "Day" in reference to an indefinite period of time as "in the day when they were created," (the TIME when they were created... Genesis 2:4) the above verse and those of the first six days of creation can not and are not used in any other way except to describe a 24hour period of day and night. There is simply no other way to use the phrase "Evening and Morning."

I see, and your basis for this interpretation is what, exactly? Because, again, generations of Jewish and Christian scholars have seriously disagreed with your ideas.
In particular, the concepts of evening and morning have various meanings in Hebrew, just like in English. (The "dawn of an age", "the morning of our youth", etc.)

You are not entitled to decide that your own ideas are the words of the Bible. The Bible says what it says, not what you claim it says.

I would also add that just because the seventh day had no "Evening and Morning" does not take away from the text. The Creation of the Sabbath "Day" was a separate creation. And while it too was also a day as well, one of the seven days of the week, the fact that no "Evening and Mornings" are mention for that day only notes that this rest has higher meanings and functions than simply just a day.

This, again, is something someone has told you to add in. It is not what the Bible itself says.

The Bible is simple. It is easy to understand. There are no perabulations needed to justify its words, the words are there for all to see. The words say, plain and simply, that God created the Earth in 6 segments of HIS time. They also say that the order in which animals were created matches that of evolutionary theories.

To make your claims valid requires adding in a lot of information that is not just not specified, its also contradicted by evidence.

If you try to claim that Noah's flood killed the dinosaurs, then you directly contradict the Bible anyway. The Bible says that ALL animals were saved, not all but these...

[tzor]

It is important to understand that the Genesis creation story uses "evening and morning" in order to map the elements of creation into the notion of the seven day week and the seventh day rest (Sabbath). It is important to note that the notion of the seven day week didn't come from Moses out of thin air.

Counting from the new moon, the Babylonians celebrated the 7th, 14th, 21st, and 28th as "holy-days", also called "evil days" (meaning "unsuitable" for prohibited activities). On these days officials were prohibited from various activities and common men were forbidden to "make a wish", and at least the 28th was known as a "rest-day". On each of them, offerings were made to a different god and goddess. Tablets from the 6th-century BC reigns of Cyrus the Great and Cambyses indicate these dates were sometimes approximate.

The story does more than merely promote the notion of a seven day week, dividing the "work days" into two groups of three, with the second set giving the proper "rulers" to the first set.

Thus the story is more complex than an episode of "this old house" and a literal liner reading of the story does it a great injustice.

[PLAYER57832]

....at you Player. But please. You can't call BS when there is none.

Sure, she can. She does it all the time, and then fortifies her position with the empty sandbags of irrelevant arguments and long, winding trenches of tangents.

And yet, you counter with mere insults, when if you actually had validity, you would put forward your lauded facts.

[BigBallinStalin]

....at you Player. But please. You can't call BS when there is none.

Sure, she can. She does it all the time, and then fortifies her position with the empty sandbags of irrelevant arguments and long, winding trenches of tangents.

And yet, you counter with mere insults, when if you actually had validity, you would put forward your lauded facts.

[AndyDufresne]

Watch out from above!




--Andy