Fair call, Darwin Theory as originally presented had its problems, and it wasnt until almost 100 years later that the basic tenent was accepted as being backed up by solid evidence. There is little doubt that in an absolute sense it had its problems when first presented. Knowledge has moved on now via things like carbon dating (etc). Its stretching it too far to say Darwin Theory in itself destroys the seven day creation, it couldnt 100 years ago, but it did point out the road to go down in search of further facts, later provided by carbon dating (etc).

The literal seven day creation as described in the Bible cannot stack up against facts now known concerning the existence of mankind millions of years ago. The latter will continue to evolve and develop as new facts are found, but sufficient exists to provide the right Freeway, we are just searching for the correct exit ramp.

Really Darwin Theory is - in todays context - just the theory that started us down the road we are travelling now, allbeit we are a hell of a long way down that road. To deny evolutionary theory completely is illogical, sufficient evidence now exists to set evolution in concrete as a true concept. As you rightly point out though, there are gaps, but those gaps are not wide enough to destroy the basic concept.

Zydor posts:


Where are you getting these fairytales?

All educated persons of Columbus' day knew the earth was round. They knew if from reading Sacred Scripture for one. If KFC reads this, she'll be able to cite that.

The Venerable Bede c.673-735 taught that the world was round, as did Bishop VIrgilius of Salzburg 720-784, Hildegard of Bingen 1098-1179, and Thomas Aquinas 1224-1274. All four ended up Saints. Sphere was the title of the most popular medieval book on astronomy, written by the English scholastic, John of Sacrobosco, 1200-1256. It informed not only was the earth but all heavenly bodies are spherical.

You are anxious to claim there is a bitter warfare between religion and science. And this isn't surprising becasue it's been the primary polemical device used in the atheist attack on the faith. Same thing with the Hypostatic Union which I'll address later. Also, would you be more clear on your



when are you claiming the BIble was re-written? and I don't have a clue what the rest of this means.

Zydor,

When I asked:



I was referring to the last sentince in your post # 24. I didn't connect that as your reply to Adnauseum's last sentence in # 18.

thanks for explaining that...now it makes more sense.



Yes, I must admit that your comments are even-handed.

I've noticed that most supporters of Darwinism Evolution argue for it not by defending its tenets, rather by attacking the Church, the Faith, her doctrines as you with the Hypo. Union), Sacred Scripture, Christianity and even Christians themselves. It's been this way ever since Darwinism Evolution has become a worldview, an ideology.

Is it co-incidental that Adnauseum called Jesus Christ an ordinary man, and you are arguing the Hypostatic Union?

C'mon everyone of you Darwinism supporters, where's the defense... prove macro-Evolution...tell how you evolved from an ape..give all the details how that happened...show the scientific evidence..

How can any one, including Dawkins, objectively, impartially, and intellectually seriously prove Darwin macro-Evolution by attacking Christianity?

But then again proving Evolution Theory isn't what is important in the atheist crusade, attacking Christianity is.

Neat - hadnt heard of that one before   




Totally co-indidental- I hadnt even thought of that connection with that post. I am not arguing the hypostatic union, more the opposite I suppose, with a liberal dose of confusion and astonishment. The Chalcedon Council declared:

"...... that two natures, one human and one divine, are united in the one person of Christ. The Chalcedon Council further taught that each of these natures, the human and the divine, was distinct and complete"

In one breath it states two natures united in one person, and the next states each was distinct and complete - the latter being a different inference from the word "united". Here was the fudge that had to occur at the Council in order to align the four main strands of previous theological thinking at the time. In the end of course the Oriental Orthodox Churches pulled out in the Great Schism.

So we had "mortal man" deciding what the correct devine theological theory was 400 years after the death of Christ. When during that time totally different theories existed in the main christian religions when compared to each other, and the Bible had not yet been fully collated and approved. Conceptually I have a problem with "mortal man" deciding what devine theory is correct, that at the very least places mankind at the same level as god if we have the authority to decide who and what god actually is - particularly when previous "truths" were held up as immutable.

Thats not to say I am attacking anything, I promise you, its pure thought process on my part, nothing more. I cant get my head around the concept that mankind has the right to dictate the nature of a supreme deity. That Council meeting profoundly changed the nature of christ in theological thinking. From my understanding of it - and many others I have spoken to have the same issue - there was not easy agreement, a lot of horse trading went on over the final wording. I am not using it to prove that god does not exist (nothing can do that, you cant prove a negative), but it does provide a powerful mental block for anyone trying to get into the core of christianity. We are not gods and never will be - even the Pope is elected by Cardinals and Bishops - not devine intervention.


That I regret to say is very true of many zealot atheists, which is sad, debate should be about understanding elements of the dilema, not demonstrate "right and wrong". The nature of this dilema means ultimately there has to be a leap of Faith else you will not get there, because no matter where you come at it from, there is no substantiated so called "evidence".

Ultimately the whole thing needs that final leap of Faith, and at the end of the day is that not what Christianity is about? Having Faith? If one does, then that individual should be inwardly content, and not be riled by zealots. If one doesnt, well thats their problem, but for their part they should leave it there, you never know, one day something may change their mind.....

Very admirable of you to search and question, just dont restrict that to one book. Read and explore what is available out there.

You mean the Bible? Why not, isnt that what I am trying to wrap my head around ? Or did I miss the point you made ..

You certainly did. The Bible is NOT the only book around. Have you read #33?

This post was meant to spark a debate on the relevance of the Bible and whether Dawkins (and Darwin , for that matter), were right or wrong in their assumptions or theories. We may want to divorce their works from what we believe but at the same time, realise, that we all have the right to question age-old thinking--as long as we believe there is a God in our lives. If there is no God in our lives that is for another debate.

Please continue to debate and thank you for taking part.

I'll give it a whirl - keep the the Faith   

ThinkAloud,

And I'll insist upon it one more time, for it never tires me to remind you that every word in the Old and New Testaments is the revealed Word of God. Through the Holy Ghost, every single writer from Moses in Genesis through St.John in The Apocalypse was inspired to write down only what God wanted written.

And you in turn keep insisting that every word of Muhammad's Qur'an is of Divine origin.

you are absolutely right in that. All I wanted to say is this: Dont blame God for the confusion you are in because of what you read in the Bible. If my experience is in any way useful, here it is: If it doesnt make sense, it is not from God. Period. HE is very logical and practical. Most of all Just, never cruel and most forgiving.

Keep that in mind. Anything, anything that contradicts that i, personally, say is not from god since HE also never contradicts Himself i.e. HE is consistent.

it is not me who say that. It is the text itself. and i always point out that let's take the texts at their own words, be it the Bible or the Qura'an. The Bible ITSELF say that it is a collection of documents by several writers. some of their writings turned out to be incorrect, the Bible itself say that. Qura'an say it is the actual words of God and nothing else. never revised never changed even in one letter. take the texts at their words lula. that is all i am saying. i am not siding for one against the other. i am just pointing out what both texts say about themselves.

why argue with them? why inject our own words in texts that are considered sacred by billions of people. specially if the scientific evidence contardicts what we inject in the text.

After Scripture and faith comes reason which tells me the time frame is short, say 6,000-10,000 years, and not millions of years.

A prerequisite for being a “young earther” is you have to believe that the natural laws and everything we can observe are simple an illusion. The only use they have for science is to fight against its findings. You demand absolute proof of evolution without a single gap because that’s where God exists, He exist in the gaps in human understanding. It has always been that way and there has been and is now many gaps for him to flourish in. We to this day cannot explain, without gaps, what glass is. We obviously know how to make it but we can’t explain what occurs in the process, or if it’s it a liquid or a solid. Our best guess is it’s a very viscose liquid. Does that mean we will never understand it because it’s a miracle of God? No we’re just getting started, by the Age of Aquarius, less than 150 years from now we will be as far ahead of present humans as present humans are ahead the Romans. The explosion of knowledge in the last century will grow exponentially.

Creationist take any finding that appears contradict the established age of the earth or not supporting evolution and hang onto it even if it’s latter proven to be incorrect. I’ve seen them quote data that has been known to be incorrect for 50+ years. The reason the even have this data is because real scientists don’t ignore data that goes against what they believe to be true. You cannot start a journey of discovery thinking you already know the answer.

There’s no credible evidence that supports a young earth, none. There is no evidence that we have a soul or that anything lies beyond death. There’s no way to prove or disprove anything in the Bible. Maybe someday science will find a way to see the soul or peer into the afterlife but now there’s no experiment and no observation that can be made to reveal such clams so they must remain outside the ream of science. Extraordinary clams require extraordinary evidence and for now we have only a belief. Science and religion do not have be at odds. There is an excellent by Dr. Lorence Collins that shows this quite clearly.

Link