Snap! (Deist, evolution, creation, genesis, atheist)

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by Real Sorceror

On a related note, I spent several hours last night debating with my Catholic friends. Using pure logic and reason, I was able to convince them that God created evolution, and that the world is much older than 6,000 years. Hooray! 3 points for Science! (1 point per friend)

1. Why would one need to convince a Catholic that "God created evolution"?
2. Why would convincing someone of such a thing constitute "3 points for Science"?
3. What possible "pure logic and reason" could one offer to validate such an unprovable assertion?

[nutshell]

I am not a literalist, but I see no reason why god can't create fowl before bugs. What's the big deal? We can do more and more as we discover the mysteries of science.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by nutshell

I am not a literalist, but I see no reason why god can't create fowl before bugs. What's the big deal? We can do more and more as we discover the mysteries of science.

What you see is not particularly relevant, nor, perhaps, even interesting. At issue is a clear conflict between the scientific and the biblical narrative. Someone who envisions fowl preceeding insects may accept evolution, but s/he certainly does not understand evolution.

[nutshell]

Originally Posted by Jayhawker Soule

What you see is not particularly relevant, nor, perhaps, even interesting. At issue is a clear conflict between the scientific and the biblical narrative. Someone who envisions fowl preceeding insects may accept evolution, but s/he certainly does not understand evolution.

And there is nothing particularly interesting about your opinion. In fact, you've demonstrated your ignorance of the varying interpretations of the Bible. The biblical narrative may be interpreted many different ways - there is no absolute interpretation. You describe a "clear conflict between the scientific and the biblical narrative," however, that conflict is based on your interpretation of the biblical narrative. Other interpretations do not have this conflict.

[Mick in England]

Only blinkered hardcore fundie christians take the Bible (and the Creation story) literally..
Much of the Bible's not really supposed be taken absolutely literally,as its a mix of metaphor,analogy,parables and eyewitness accounts all bundled in one package,and we have to sift it and compare and juggle things like a jigsaw to try to see a pattern or BIG PICTURE as best we can.
You know those "magic pictures" that look like jumbled wallpaper patterns that are supposed to spring into glorious 3D if we stare at them long enough? Some people can see the 3D image straight away,while others need time ,whereas some can never see the pic no matter how long they stare at it.
I've heard that the trick is NOT TO STARE TOO HARD,but to relax your eyes,which is a neat analogy for trying to "see" Christianity!
Likewise DON'T try to study and analyse every word and verse in the Bible,but try to take a more relaxed,DISTANCED overall view with child-like eyes.
YOU CANNOT UNDERSTAND THE BIBLE IF YOU VIEW IT THROUGH WORLDLY EYES!
Jesus said:- "I thank you Father for hiding these things from the wise and learned,and for revealing them to little children.." (Matt 11:25)

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by nutshell

And there is nothing particularly interesting about your opinion. In fact, you've demonstrated your ignorance of the varying interpretations of the Bible.

Really? Where? Or was the comment intended as nothing other than petty and baseless ad hominem?

Originally Posted by nutshell

You describe a "clear conflict between the scientific and the biblical narrative," however, that conflict is based on your interpretation of the biblical narrative. Other interpretations do not have this conflict.

Then you should have no difficulty showing that my interpretation is nonstandard. Nor should you have difficulty referencing the congruent interpretation(s).

[Halcyon]

Originally Posted by Jayhawker Soule

It wouldn't. Suggesting "a Deist sort of creation Jay - set it all up and let it run itself kind of thing, rather than the Genesis step-by-step Creation" suggests a Diest God.

I disagree.
Notice i said "a Deist sort of creation", by which i meant the form of creation that Deist's believe, obviously.
I don't think that accepting the Deist creation over the literal creation means we also must accept the entire Deist belief structure. We can apply the Deist creation to the Christian God, and take the beginning of Genesis for what it may well be - an early attempt at understanding nature.

[ChrisP]

Originally Posted by Halcyon

I don't think England has a bible belt.

Then what does the Archbishop use to hold up his pants?

[Real Sorceror]

Originally Posted by Jayhawker Soule

1. Why would one need to convince a Catholic that "God created evolution"?
2. Why would convincing someone of such a thing constitute "3 points for Science"?
3. What possible "pure logic and reason" could one offer to validate such an unprovable assertion?

1. Becuase they where taking the Bible literally and believing everything was created in six days. Also, since I'm not an athiest, I believe God created evolution. Is this a problem?
2. Becuase I was able to convince them that the world is not 6,000 years old, among other things. I got them to look critically at Biblical teachings.
3. Is there a problem with people believing in evolution? Or do you have a problem with people believing in God?