• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Is denial of geology any way to spread Christianity?

SouthernDemocrat said:
Some people in this thread would greatly benefit from reading this:

The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution: Richard Dawkins: Amazon.com: Books

And this:
The Magic of Reality: How We Know What's Really True: Richard Dawkins: 9781451675047: Amazon.com: Books

Both absolutely fascinating books, and present a clear and concise explanation for how life originated and evolved, as well as answering many questions about the universe as well.
Click to expand...

Abiogenesis is only a hypothesis so I don't see how anyone can present a clear and concise explanation of how life started. Although I happen to think it is the best scientific explanation thus far.
Evolution does happen. Been seen to happen in the lab and in nature, including development of new species.
 
How does Matthew 24 refer to the account in Genesis?

SouthernDemocrat said:
Even if you assume that the 2 creation stories in Genesis are entirely allegorical, the story of Noah's Ark can't possibly be true, the Fall of Man cannot possibly be true, and the Tower of Babel cannot possibly be true. The only way to reasonably look at Genesis is to see it as entirely a collection of oral traditions and tribal myths passed down generation after generation until it was finally recorded by Jewish scribes.

There is a theological problem with seeing it all is simply allegorical in the light of modern science, and that is that in the Gospels, Jesus refers to the accounts in Genesis as though they were literal history. See Mark 10:6, Matthew 24. Not to mention, early historians such as Josephus were clear in their writings that early Christians and Jews believed Genesis to be literal, and the earth to be but a few thousand years old.
Click to expand...
 
Tim the plumber said:
Genesis says that the plants were created then the animals. That's wrong. Flowering plants must have had animals to fertilize them. For example.

No matter what interpretation you try to stretch the clear word "day" to will not explain that. Nor will the evidence for evolution fit with any sort of nice benefactor looking over us.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should just ignore them.
 
Morton said:
How does Matthew 24 refer to the account in Genesis?
Click to expand...

He references Noah and the Flood:

37
* q For as it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.
38
In [those] days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day that Noah entered the ark.
39
They did not know until the flood came and carried them all away. So will it be [also] at the coming of the Son of Man.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Why did they need "creation"? It is an evolutionary instinctual belief common to humanity that everything needs a creator. That is a limit in our usual perception / reasoning, not some immutable law of the universe.
Click to expand...

I see, it's your opinion.
 
American said:
You're assuming, and not answering the question.
Click to expand...

I am assuming nothing. I have left all options open.

Answering a malformed question would be a silly thing to do.
By assuming 'who' you have eliminated 'what', conveniently in your favor.
You can re-ask the question properly and it will get answered.
 
He could have been referring to it allegorically as many people do today. The same with Mark.

SouthernDemocrat said:
He references Noah and the Flood:

37
* q For as it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.
38
In [those] days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day that Noah entered the ark.
39
They did not know until the flood came and carried them all away. So will it be [also] at the coming of the Son of Man.
Click to expand...
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
It could be allegorical, although a lot of is poor allegory if that is the case. It could also simply be tribal stories and myth. The later being much more likely.



Of course not. In every religion there are various implausible myths that adherents believe to be literal events.



That is only believed by Mormons.
Click to expand...

Yes, the resurrected Jesus stated the following in the New Testament:
And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.-John 10:16

The Book of Mormon sheds more light on who these other followers of Christ were that were not among the Jerusalem fold that He would visit. The resurrected Jesus speaking to the 12 apostles in the New World:
11 And now it came to pass that when Jesus had spoken these words, he said unto those twelve whom he had chosen:
12 Ye are my disciples; and ye are a light unto this people, who are a remnant of the house of Joseph.
13 And behold, this is the land of your inheritance; and the Father hath given it unto you.
14 And not at any time hath the Father given me commandment that I should tell it unto your brethren at Jerusalem.
15 Neither at any time hath the Father given me commandment that I should tell unto them concerning the other tribes of the house of Israel, whom the Father hath led away out of the land.
16 This much did the Father command me, that I should tell unto them:
17 That other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.
18 And now, because of stiffneckednessand unbelief they understood not my word; therefore I was commanded to say no more of the Father concerning this thing unto them.
19 But, verily, I say unto you that the Father hath commanded me, and I tell it unto you, that ye were separated from among them because of their iniquity; therefore it is because of their iniquity that they know not of you.
20 And verily, I say unto you again that the other tribes hath the Father separated from them; and it is because of their iniquity that they know not of them.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
This is the more rational explanation: The Beginning of Time - Stephen Hawking
Click to expand...

Taken from Hawking's article:
"There is no dynamical reason why the motion of bodies in the solar system can not be extrapolated back in time, far beyond four thousand and four BC, the date for the creation of the universe, according to the book of Genesis. "

The Book of Genesis does not state the creation of the universe was 4004 b.c. It doesn't even speak about the universe, just the creation of this planet, and the 4004 b.c. is the genealogy back to Adam. Genesis text in its original language gives no time frame for the creation of this earth, only seven broad creation periods that can be of any duration of time. His jab at Genesis is meaningless, a straw man.

There is nothing in Hawking's scientific theories about the universe that contradicts the Bible or that negates the need for a Creator, simply because the Bible does not tell us anything about the how, and there is no way to test and prove Hawking's faith in the universe by chance. He could be 100% correct on the science, but be wrong in his faith that there is no Creator. And there are lots of smart people who agree with a lot of his scientific ideas but oppose his faith aspect of his beliefs that there is no Creator, believing the opposing view that the order and beauty found in the universe could not happen by chance and requires a very elegant and intelligent Creator. Sal Khan from the silicon valley not for profit Khan Academy gives this view in the following video, where evolution and natural selection can be seen as signs of not ultimately random chance but of a very elegant Creator.

 
laska said:
Taken from Hawking's article:
"There is no dynamical reason why the motion of bodies in the solar system can not be extrapolated back in time, far beyond four thousand and four BC, the date for the creation of the universe, according to the book of Genesis. "

The Book of Genesis does not state the creation of the universe was 4004 b.c. It doesn't even speak about the universe, just the creation of this planet, and the 4004 b.c. is the genealogy back to Adam. Genesis text in its original language gives no time frame for the creation of this earth, only seven broad creation periods that can be of any duration of time. His jab at Genesis is meaningless, a straw man.

There is nothing in Hawking's scientific theories about the universe that contradicts the Bible or that negates the need for a Creator, simply because the Bible does not tell us anything about the how, and there is no way to test and prove Hawking's faith in the universe by chance. He could be 100% correct on the science, but be wrong in his faith that there is no Creator. And there are lots of smart people who agree with a lot of his scientific ideas but oppose his faith aspect of his beliefs that there is no Creator, believing the opposing view that the order and beauty found in the universe could not happen by chance and requires a very elegant and intelligent Creator. Sal Khan from the silicon valley not for profit Khan Academy gives this view in the following video, where evolution and natural selection can be seen as signs of not ultimately random chance but of a very elegant Creator.

Click to expand...


The summary of the video:

Arguments from ignorance.
'hard to believe'
'irreducible complexity'

An important objection to Design Arguments focuses on the premise that the existence of order and/or complexity presupposes the existence of conscious design. It is invalid to automatically infer the existence of a designer from the mere fact of order and regularity in nature — it's just a connection that has been arbitrarily made. In fact, order appears to be an inherent characteristic of the universe itself.
Click to expand...
 
Tim the plumber said:
This applies to all the other religions as well.

When I step over my front door step I see the stone for what it is. It is a rock which was formed by the slow deposition of sand and silt over many deposition events leaving layers of slightly differing coloured and differingly sized grains which has then been hardened by pressure over a very long time before being dug up and shaped into a door step.

It, and all other sedimentary rocks, are proof absolute that Genesis is wrong.

The same is true of any understanding of astronomy.

Do the idiots who stand around the city centre want to make Christianity a laughing stock or what?
Click to expand...

:roll:

You are looking through a very narrow vision if you think that geology is incompatible with Genesis!
 
Tim the plumber said:
Genesis says that the plants were created then the animals. That's wrong. Flowering plants must have had animals to fertilize them. For example.

No matter what interpretation you try to stretch the clear word "day" to will not explain that. Nor will the evidence for evolution fit with any sort of nice benefactor looking over us.
Click to expand...



Why do you think the Bible depicted mature seed-bearing plants being created?



Genesis 1
11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.
 
Last edited:
Tim the plumber said:
Genesis says that the plants were created then the animals. That's wrong. Flowering plants must have had animals to fertilize them. For example.
Click to expand...


:lamo

How could've the animals survived if there were no plants?
 
Tim the plumber said:
The quest that is science is the quest to understand the universe.
Click to expand...
Science happens to be supporting the Bible in so many ways.



To say that there is some stuff which will be forever inexplicable is to abandon that quest.
Click to expand...
Perhaps not forever. Who knows.....

Just look how much we understand now compared to 50 years ago.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Most Christians in the town centre out looking for victims/converts. Most Christians on the internet.
There's lots of threads here about evolution etc.
Click to expand...
:roll:

What's conversion's got to do with geology?

If you happen to meet a tribe that's ignorant about the world....wouldn't you try explain to them about that knowledge?
Wouldn't you teach them about sanitation....at least?


If this lost tribe practice something that's been scientifically found harmful - wouldn't you try to correct them?
 
Last edited:
Tim the plumber said:

I disagree again. There are people working on that problem as we speak.

We know a lot about the early universe without the need to break the laws of causality.
Click to expand...

A lot are mere speculations! Theories.

Where did the first life on earth come from?
 
Tim the plumber said:

Plants and animals evolved together.

Figs need to be fertilised by fruit flies. The female fruit fly enters the half formed fruit and in doing so transfers some pollen to the fruit. The fly then lays eggs in the fruit which will only ripen if this takes place then when the eggs have hatched the flies leave, or at least the females, after the males have fertilised those they can reach with their long penises.

No fruit flies no figs. No new fig trees.
Click to expand...

Let's start from the very beginning....a very good place to start.....

Where did it all begin?
 
tosca1 said:

Science happens to be supporting the Bible in so many ways.

Perhaps not forever. Who knows.....

Just look how much we understand now compared to 50 years ago.
Click to expand...
1 Science has done more to disprove the Bible than support it.

2 "Just look how much we understand now compared to 50 years ago" That's my point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom