The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread Part Three: The Return of the KOing!
- Thread starter Perfection
- Start date
- Status
Phlegmak said:
The annoying thing is that even though the doctrine of the church is more or less that evolution is correct, there are too many Creationist Mormons. Heck, they would have a heart attack if they heard my ideas on the matter.
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
I've run into a few creationists here in Sweden, two of whom were rather, well, "evangelical" about it.
My parents are Creationist, because they cannot reconcile belief in Jesus with not being Creationist.
El_Machinae said:
As (rare for this thread) both a Christian and an evolutionist (using the term loosely), I find this unfortunate. The theory of evolution teaches us so much about the wonder of nature and science, while Creationism requires basically ignoring large chunks of data and all sorts of special pleading. And quite frankly, it's not like Christianity and evolution actually contradict each other.
That's what I figure too. I don't see how Genesis being false changes the basic tenants of Jesus's message.
But they can't see away around their dilemma and choose faith. My dad's best friend is a Christian and a geology professor - so you think he'd be able to work him through it...
But they can't see away around their dilemma and choose faith. My dad's best friend is a Christian and a geology professor - so you think he'd be able to work him through it...
classical_hero
In whom I trust
Well if Genesis is false, then what makes Jesus' teaching true then?El_Machinae said:
Perfection
The Great Head.
Let's not get into this debate. This thread is about the scientific merits of evolution/creationism. Not the philosophical impacts of that they'd have.classical_hero said:
MrCynical
Deity
The truth or falsehood of Genesis is not really relevant. Each element of the Bible should be considered, is it
a)Factually right.
b)Morally sound.
In the case of Jesus' teachings there is minimal factual information that requires verification. Consideration should then move on to whether you consider following Jesus' teachings an appropriate and morally sound way to lead your life. If you conclude that the basic ideas and teachings of Jesus are morally correct then they are, in the sense I think you mean, true.
Jesus' teachings are guidance as to how a person should lead their life, and hence can be considered true if you agree with them (NB, they cannot be considered true empirically without due consideration). Genesis contains considerable information presented as factual history, specifically literal six day creationism, that logical analysis strongly indicates is false. It should therefore be considered false, but does not necessaily detract from those parts of the Bible that are not simply a presentation of facts, but a discussion of morality.
EDIT: crossposted with Perfection. Yes, this is rather off topic. Sorry about that.
classical_hero
In whom I trust
Where do you think we get the Idea of creaion from, so it is vitally important to be talking about this, since it affects the issue.
If isn't factually right, how can it be morally sound then?
If isn't factually right, how can it be morally sound then?
One can believe that the universe, and specifically the earth, was created, without denying the processes that science shows were used - like evolution by natural selection. I don't see any problem with those being the methods God used. Jesus came to redeem us, not teach science.
classical_hero
In whom I trust
It does not make much sence for God to say that he created us and then left it to chance. It does not seem that god is really all that powerful then. It also shows a god who is unloving because death is shown through out the fossil recod. We see a continual record of misery and destruction and a god who would allow that to happen, does not seem to a moral god at all.
Perfection
The Great Head.
Then change your religion to face known facts, not your perception of known facts to appeal to your religion.classical_hero said:
ironduck
Deity
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2002
- Messages
- 6,561
classical_hero said:
1) So the real reason you won't consider scientific data that collides with your dogma is that you're afraid of the light it puts your god in?
2) Death occurs every single day all over the world, not just in the fossil record. I fail to see why a moral god would allow this to happen but not death in the fossil record. Further, didn't god flood the entire earth according to you? How can that possibly be a moral god?
Perfection
The Great Head.
Let's not get into the morality of God. Morals can be twisted so anyone looks bad/good.ironduck said:
This is inspiring me to start a theistic evolution vs. Creationism thread, which can deal with the issue directly.
EDIT: Here it is.
EDIT: Here it is.
Perfection
The Great Head.
Do it, I'm sick of this thread turning into forays into philosophy and emotions and the nature of God and other garbage.
That's crap! I want to talk about science!
That's crap! I want to talk about science!
- Status
