Zone1 For Christians who believe in Darwinian evolution, question

[ding]

Christians too are entitled to attempt presenting their theories on evolution, but they can't be permitted to promote creation and evolution together, when those are two competing and contradictory theories.

No, they aren't competing and contradictory theories. They are complimentary realities describing the same thing. Again... in it's simplest form the first two chapters of Genesis tells us in allegorical form that God created existence and that the world ancient men lived in was part of a process and not created all at once. And that man AROSE from that creation. That doesn't compete with the theory of evolution, it compliments the theory of evolution.

 

[ding]

Hardly any other Christians are allowing you that liberty, and neither do atheists. Clearly other Christians aren't permitting you to throw out the teaching of the entire bible, based on your defensive posturing of it not being the literal word of your god.

I don't see anyone other than you not allowing me that liberty. Again... in it's simplest form the first two chapters of Genesis tells us in allegorical form that God created existence and that the world ancient men lived in was part of a process and not created all at once. And that man AROSE from that creation. That doesn't compete with the theory of evolution, it compliments the theory of evolution.

 

[ding]

No, consciousness would most likely lead to Darwinian evolution being the next level.

That's just silly. Darwinian evolution is not a stage of evolution it's a theory about biological evolution, which is one of the five stages of the evolution of space and time.

 

[Donald H]

No, they aren't competing and contradictory theories. They are complimentary realities describing the same thing.

You're at least saying that evolution is no longer a theory, it's a reality.

I would prefer to stay with evolution being a theory that contradicts creation if it's taken literally However, in fairness to you, you don't accept creation theories to be the literal word of the god. Neither do I.

We've reached a satisfactory common ground unless you can find some disagreement in that?

 

[ding]

You're at least saying that evolution is no longer a theory, it's a reality.

I would prefer to stay with evolution being a theory that contradicts creation if it's taken literally However, in fairness to you, you don't accept creation theories to be the literal word of the god. Neither do I.

We've reached a satisfactory common ground unless you can find some disagreement in that?

Just like every other scientific theory the theory of evolution is still a theory. That doesn't mean we don't operate as if it isn't a fact. It means we operate as if it's a fact until something comes along to change. WRT the theory of evolution I believe it does a good job of explaining changes to species but doesn't do a good job explaining the origin of species.

You can prefer believing that evolution contradicts creation but the reality is that our universe was created. That's creation. What happened after that is the evolution of space and time. It's not limited to biological evolution. Biological evolution is just one of the five stages of the evolution of space and time.

 

[ding]

However, in fairness to you, you don't accept creation theories to be the literal word of the god. Neither do I.

Any truth that is spoken is the word of God as God is truth among other "things."

One must sift through the allegories and embellishments to find the intent of the authors. That intent is truth and therefore is the word of God just as all truths are the word of God.

 

[Donald H]

One must sift through the allegories and embellishments to find the intent of the authors.

Yes, I'm good with that, as long as nothing is presented by the Christian as the true and literal word of your god, that is an obvious embellishment or an allegory.

If that simple rule is adhered to then Christian beliefs pose no challenge to Darwinian evolution. We've reached agreement and are done, unless you have found some other issue to disagree with.

 

[ding]

Yes, I'm good with that, as long as nothing is presented by the Christian as the true and literal word of your god, that is an obvious embellishment or an allegory.

If that simple rule is adhered to then Christian beliefs pose no challenge to Darwinian evolution. We've reached agreement and are done, unless you have found some other issue to disagree with.

You don't get to control what others do or believe any more than they get to control what you do or believe. It's ridiculous that people who believe Christians are forcing their beliefs upon them are the first to force their beliefs on Christians.

I don't believe we will ever be in agreement as long as you read the Bible to confirm your biases.

 

[Donald H]

Just like every other scientific theory the theory of evolution is still a theory. That doesn't mean we don't operate as if it isn't a fact. It means we operate as if it's a fact until something comes along to change. WRT the theory of evolution I believe it does a good job of explaining changes to species but doesn't do a good job explaining the origin of species.

As I stated in my previous reply, I'm good with your theories as long as none of them contradict D. evolution.

You can prefer believing that evolution contradicts creation but the reality is that our universe was created. That's creation.

But I can't allow you that and you should know the reason why by now. I've told you. There is a theory that the universe wasn't created, but always was.

Physicists Debate Hawking’s Idea That the Universe Had No Beginning | Quanta Magazine

A recent challenge to Stephen Hawking’s biggest idea — about how the universe might have come from nothing — has cosmologists choosing sides.

www.quantamagazine.org

 

[Donald H]

You don't get to control what others do or believe any more than they get to control what you do or believe. It's ridiculous that people who believe Christians are forcing their beliefs upon them are the first to force their beliefs on Christians.

My opinion is the opposite, but that's no more than two contradictinig opinions.

I don't believe we will ever be in agreement as long as you read the Bible to confirm your biases.

As above of course but I didn't consider that it needed to be said.

We can let it rest until you present some embellishment or allegorical statement that you expect others to accept as the literal truth from the bibles. I think you're wise enough to understand that is not to be done.

 

[ding]

As I stated in my previous reply, I'm good with your theories as long as none of them contradict D. evolution.

I don't need your approval.

But I can't allow you that and you should know the reason why by now. I've told you. There is a theory that the universe wasn't created, but always was.

I don't care what you can allow. You're arguing against mainstream science, not me.

Besides as I told you before that link doesn't mean what you think it means. I explained it all to you several pages back. You don't understand what you are reading or you didn't read your own link.

 

[ding]

My opinion is the opposite, but that's no more than two contradictinig opinions.

That doesn't even make sense. It's not your call what others believe. You have no authority over others. Worry about yourself.

 

[ding]

As above of course but I didn't consider that it needed to be said.

We can let it rest until you present some embellishment or allegorical statement that you expect others to accept as the literal truth from the bibles. I think you're wise enough to understand that is not to be done.

It did need to be said to correct your statement that we are in agreement which is why I made the statement to show you that you were wrong about that.

 

[ding]

We can let it rest until you present some embellishment or allegorical statement that you expect others to accept as the literal truth from the bibles. I think you're wise enough to understand that is not to be done.

Why would I need to do that? It's self evident. If you can't see it then I doubt you ever will because it contradicts your worldview.

 

[Donald H]

I don't need your approval.

I don't care what you can allow. You're arguing against mainstream science, not me.

No, in fact mainstream science accepts the theory that the universe always existed, along with theories that suggest otherwise. But those other theories aren't based on Christian expediency.

Present your contrary evidence in a civil manner for my consideration if you feel it can gain you some satisfaction.

Personally, I would prefer to just end the debate with us reaching agreement that your bibles must be interpreted as illiteral rhetoric. I have come to accept that They're worthy of pursing that cause at least, due to your convincing arguments.

 

[ding]

No, in fact mainstream science accepts the theory that the universe always existed

You don't have a clue what you are talking about. Atheists have always been uncomfortable with the universe beginning. You are no exception. It's funny how you are grasping for straws denying mainstream science.

 

[ding]

along with theories that suggest otherwise. But those other theories aren't based on Christian expediency.

The universe beginning is based upon red shift, cosmic background radiation and Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations. You reject mainstream science because of your religion.

 

[ding]

Present your contrary evidence in a civil manner for my consideration if you feel it can gain you some satisfaction.

Already did. Several times. But your religion is making you reject science.

The Big Bang | Exploratorium

www.exploratorium.edu

The Beginning of the Universe | Alexander Vilenkin | Inference

Despite the perplexing questions associated with the universe having a beginning, the BGV theorem shows it must have had one. Alexander Vilenkin describes the theory of quantum creation, and why it means that the universe both could have a beginning and be uncaused.

inference-review.com

What Happened Before the Big Bang?

An exploration with a mathematician about what precedes the Big Bang

now.tufts.edu

Borde–Guth–Vilenkin theorem - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Early Universe

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.1207.pdf

What is the cosmic microwave background?

The cosmic microwave background can help scientists piece together the history of the universe.

www.space.com

When was the first light in the universe?

The speed of light gives us an amazing tool for studying the universe. Because light only travels a mere 300,000 kilometers per second, when we see distant objects, we're looking back in time.

phys.org

Redshift - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[ding]

Personally, I would prefer to just end the debate with us reaching agreement that your bibles must be interpreted as illiteral rhetoric. I have come to accept that They're worthy of pursing that cause at least, due to your convincing arguments.

Can't. Literary style must be determined on a chapter by chapter basis. Illiterate rhetoric is an artifact of your bias and failure to understand what you are reading.

 

[Donald H]

Can't. Literary style must be determined on a chapter by chapter basis.

I've essentially agreed that it has to be examined chapter by chapter, verse by verse, and line by line. No claims can be made of anything being literally true until.

Illiterate rhetoric is an artifact of your bias and failure to understand what you are reading.

It's your claim that parts of your bibles are illiteral rhetoric and I haven't disagreed. Do we disagree on anything written in the bibles specifically? We certainly didn't disagree on the 'big fish' story!