PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Can an Evangelical Christian A

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Kikir

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Dennis Venema - Can an Evangelical Christian Accept Evolution?

Dennis Venema is a geneticist at Trinity Western University.

In this series of videos he discusses whether an evangelical Christian can accept evolution.

Part 1

 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 7:24 PM on February 25, 2010 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I didn't watch the whole thing, most of it appears to be teaching basic scientific terms and some of the evidence for evolution. The last two parts are the most relevant to the question of 'can an evangelical Christian accept evolution?' His answer is yes, and goes into some ideas and scholarship surrounding the idea of theistic evolution.

This is part 11 where I think he starts to talk about it Christianity and evolution around 2:50 and he continues on to part 12.

Good video Kikir, thanks for sharing. Here is a video by AAAS, a non-profit science society, that shows that evolution and Christianity are compatible and it is a shame that so many people try to prop up the false dichotomy to either destroy faith or science.


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 9:33 PM on February 25, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I think this issue has psychological relevance, but no factual relevance at all. Because Evolution remains a fact whether it's compatible with Christianity or not.

Christianity, on the other hand, isn't even compatible with itself.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 10:36 PM on February 25, 2010 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 10:36 PM on February 25, 2010 :
I think this issue has psychological relevance, but no factual relevance at all. Because Evolution remains a fact whether it's compatible with Christianity or not.

Christianity, on the other hand, isn't even compatible with itself.



I see your point and I disagree. Christianity, like Judaism, works off of several tenants, and outside of those tenants you can disagree while still being Christian or Jewish. All a Christan needs (in terms of belief), is a belief that everyone (including yourself) have sinned and that Jesus can save you from your sins through the resurrection and you profess as much.

That being said, Christianity comes from Judaism, which is ripe with multiple interpretations and most of them are contradictory. So it isn't surprising that Christianity has inherited this tradition. Christianity can't test to see which one is right the same way we test scientific hypotheses. But as a belief system, it is perfectly compatible with evolution because of the "fact" that you can have multiple interpretations of the same passage and doctrine. This clearly isn't a stretch as the majority of Biblical scholars (both Jewish and Christian) hold that the two are not antithetical to one another. And instead, the two quite harmonious.


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 12:11 AM on February 26, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I think this issue has psychological relevance, but no factual relevance at all. Because Evolution remains a fact whether it's compatible with Christianity or not.

Christianity, on the other hand, isn't even compatible with itself.
I see your point and I disagree.
Which one?
Christianity, like Judaism, works off of several tenants, and outside of those tenants you can disagree while still being Christian or Jewish.
It depends on the definition.
All a Christan needs (in terms of belief), is a belief that everyone (including yourself) have sinned and that Jesus can save you from your sins through the resurrection and you profess as much.
I don't buy it.

Lucifer must believe (know) that, and he's not a christian.

Lots and lots and lots and lots of christians think you're wrong, and belief isn't all there is to it. They postulate several ways to "deserve" being saved.
Believing is not enough (they believe).
That being said, Christianity comes from Judaism, which is ripe with multiple interpretations and most of them are contradictory. So it isn't surprising that Christianity has inherited this tradition.
And i go even further.

A single branch of Christianity with a single interpretation of each part of it is STILL incompatible with itself.

I was never talking about conflicting interpretations of different sects. I mean that if you take the most harmonious (with facts and with itself) branch of christianity, it will still be incompatible with some facts and with itself.
Christianity can't test to see which one is right the same way we test scientific hypotheses. But as a belief system, it is perfectly compatible with evolution because of the "fact" that you can have multiple interpretations of the same passage and doctrine.
My point was that this is quite irrelevant when you're trying to determine if Evolution is right or not.

A religious census of compatibility can only be useful as a quick way to dismiss religions.
This clearly isn't a stretch as the majority of Biblical scholars (both Jewish and Christian) hold that the two are not antithetical to one another. And instead, the two quite harmonious.
Yeah, they can say whatever they want. And what i say is that it's irrelevant.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 10:09 AM on February 26, 2010 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 6:09 PM on February 26, 2010 :
I don't buy it.

Lucifer must believe (know) that, and he's not a christian.

Lots and lots and lots and lots of christians think you're wrong, and belief isn't all there is to it. They postulate several ways to "deserve" being saved.
Believing is not enough (they believe).


I'm not saying belief is enough. That's why I put in "in terms of belief" that is what is required to be called a Christian. Yes Lucifer believes/knows God is God and so forth, but belief isn't everything.

A single branch of Christianity with a single interpretation of each part of it is STILL incompatible with itself.

I was never talking about conflicting interpretations of different sects. I mean that if you take the most harmonious (with facts and with itself) branch of christianity, it will still be incompatible with some facts and with itself.


Can you give any examples?

My point was that this is quite irrelevant when you're trying to determine if Evolution is right or not.


I'm not saying that it is a good way to determine the legitimacy of evolution, but if such scientific findings are compatible with religious teachings; and the consensus is yes.


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 02:42 AM on March 5, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

All a Christan needs (in terms of belief), is a belief that everyone (including yourself) have sinned and that Jesus can save you from your sins through the resurrection and you profess as much.
I don't buy it.

Lucifer must believe (know) that, and he's not a christian.

Lots and lots and lots and lots of christians think you're wrong, and belief isn't all there is to it. They postulate several ways to "deserve" being saved.
Believing is not enough (they believe).
I'm not saying belief is enough. That's why I put in "in terms of belief" that is what is required to be called a Christian.
Oh... I didn't get that. I thought it was a tautology. "What they need, in terms of belief, is a belief."

I still don't get it.
Yes Lucifer believes/knows God is God and so forth, but belief isn't everything.
I assumed that was what you meant when you said "All a Christian needs (…) is a belief".

Perhaps what you meant was this: "All the belief a Christian needs is (…)".

It would be more clear, but i STILL wouldn't get it. Sorry.

I know you mean that's all the belief they need in order to be called "a christian", and not to "be saved".

And i STILL don't get it.

I guess what you're saying is that you need just that belief, and some actions (or avoiding some actions) in order to be saved.

But why would you do/avoid any of that if you didn't believe you should?




A single branch of Christianity with a single interpretation of each part of it is STILL incompatible with itself.

I was never talking about conflicting interpretations of different sects. I mean that if you take the most harmonious (with facts and with itself) branch of christianity, it will still be incompatible with some facts and with itself.
Can you give any examples?
Can you give me the most harmonious branch of christianity?

Because you could refute any example i give you just because it doesn't happen in one of the many, many, many christian sects.

Ok, here i go anyway: Prayer. Does it do anything? If you believe that your god has a minute plan, are you trying to screw with it?

Your answer should be something like: "But i don't pray", or "I pray for myself, not to change things", or perhaps you have some other runaway clause. I can't be ahead of everything, but i can refute it afterward. ^_^


My point was that this is quite irrelevant when you're trying to determine if Evolution is right or not.
I'm not saying that it is a good way to determine the legitimacy of evolution,
Or Creationism. Right?
but if such scientific findings are compatible with religious teachings; and the consensus is yes.
There is NO consensus. Please, stop talking about something that we all know that doesn't exist. May this forum serve you as the logical disproof.

In any case, it STILL doesn't matter, in a supposedly reasonable discussion about facts and Science.

What you're doing by mentioning this is trying to give creationists a "safe" runaway path that doesn't lead them away from God, so they can finally look at the evidence objectively (which most of them claim to be doing already).

I know it's the best strategy.

But i don't want strategies. I prefer radical honesty. The brute force of honesty and facts. Lots of them.

-But does that fossil conflict with my notion of God?
-I don't know, and i don't care. You work that out by yourself.  It's irrelevant when trying to determine the accuracy of a scientific theory. I'm showing you a fact, so focus.

I know more people will reject facts if i do that. I'm well aware. And that's too bad. But facts will keep coming. And if they poke holes in your faith, well that's too bad too.

Facts don't need for religions to be compatible with them. That's why i say this thread is objectively irrelevant (even if it's a good strategy to bring some subjects to the reasonable side of the discussion).


(Edited by wisp 3/5/2010 at 12:12 PM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 12:10 PM on March 5, 2010 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 12:10 PM on March 5, 2010 :
Oh... I didn't get that. I thought it was a tautology. "What they need, in terms of belief, is a belief."

I still don't get it...

I know you mean that's all the belief they need in order to be called "a christian", and not to "be saved".

And i STILL don't get it.


Maybe this one: All you need to believe to be a Christian is...

But if you don't submit to God (think actions) than you aren't a Christian, even if you believe, like Satan in the Bible.

Can you give me the most harmonious branch of christianity?

Because you could refute any example i give you just because it doesn't happen in one of the many, many, many christian sects.

Ok, here i go anyway: Prayer. Does it do anything? If you believe that your god has a minute plan, are you trying to screw with it?

Your answer should be something like: "But i don't pray", or "I pray for myself, not to change things", or perhaps you have some other runaway clause. I can't be ahead of everything, but i can refute it afterward. ^_^


Prayer, most believe that God hears and answers prayers, perhaps how God's plans are ultimately achieved constantly changes, but not the plan itself (?).

I'm not saying that it is a good way to determine the legitimacy of evolution,
Or Creationism. Right?


When I see creationism I can think either theology, in which I do think scripture/theology can refute. Or on a scientific level, in which case I'll agree.

There is NO consensus. Please, stop talking about something that we all know that doesn't exist. May this forum serve you as the logical disproof.


Creationism is a minority among Christianity and Judaism, and nearly non-existent among clergy; but the minority surely has a loud voice. While I wouldn't say it is a 100% consensus, among learned Christians/Jews I'd say it's pretty damn close.  

In any case, it STILL doesn't matter, in a supposedly reasonable discussion about facts and Science.


But the question posed is can a Christian accept evolution; I'd say it most certainly includes facts regarding interpretation of scripture and doctrine. For example, the traditional Jewish interpretation of the creation account in Genesis is metaphorical and not literal. Just like in science, a piece of evidence can support an idea. In this case it supports the idea that evolution can be reconciled with scripture, and the main scripture used to deny evolution at that.

What you're doing by mentioning this is trying to give creationists a "safe" runaway path that doesn't lead them away from God, so they can finally look at the evidence objectively (which most of them claim to be doing already).

I know it's the best strategy.

But i don't want strategies. I prefer radical honesty. The brute force of honesty and facts. Lots of them.


Indeed, and the brute force of honesty declares that the Judeo-Christian sects are compatible with evolution. While it may be the best strategy for getting to creationists (I have my reservations about such statements), I believe it to be the honest truth.

-But does that fossil conflict with my notion of God?
-I don't know, and i don't care. You work that out by yourself.  It's irrelevant when trying to determine the accuracy of a scientific theory. I'm showing you a fact, so focus.


If I was in your position I would agree, and in many ways I do; but I am not unsympathetic to such questions. I think in forums like these you need both to have the best chance to sway creationists.

I know more people will reject facts if i do that. I'm well aware. And that's too bad. But facts will keep coming. And if they poke holes in your faith, well that's too bad too.


I'm not sure, if you can get a creationist to look at the facts, I think your approach might be more effective than mine (some think TEs are supper spawns of Satan and are worse than atheists). Although they would most likely come out as atheists under your system.

(Edited by Fencer27 3/5/2010 at 4:52 PM).

(Edited by Fencer27 3/5/2010 at 4:53 PM).


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 4:51 PM on March 5, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Oh... I didn't get that. I thought it was a tautology. "What they need, in terms of belief, is a belief."

I still don't get it...

I know you mean that's all the belief they need in order to be called "a christian", and not to "be saved".

And i STILL don't get it.
Maybe this one: All you need to believe to be a Christian is...
Still no sense.

At least i don't see it.

Each "Christian" needs something different to believe to be a Christian.
But if you don't submit to God (think actions) than
*Then!
you aren't a Christian, even if you believe, like Satan in the Bible.
Er... Says who?
And who gets to decide if someone is submitting to God or not?
And what does this have to do with my first post, whence all this curiously stemmed?

Can you give me the most harmonious branch of christianity?

Because you could refute any example i give you just because it doesn't happen in one of the many, many, many christian sects.

Ok, here i go anyway: Prayer. Does it do anything? If you believe that your god has a minute plan, are you trying to screw with it?

Your answer should be something like: "But i don't pray", or "I pray for myself, not to change things", or perhaps you have some other runaway clause. I can't be ahead of everything, but i can refute it afterward. ^_^
Prayer, most believe that God hears and answers prayers, perhaps how God's plans are ultimately achieved constantly changes, but not the plan itself (?).
Most believe?

You see why i wanted for you to give me the most harmonious branch of Christianity?

If YOU believe it, then you would feel touched when i easily debunk it.

Do you agree with "most"?

And what can Yahweh's answers be, according to most?

Yes/No/wait?

Because i have a magical stone that has the same awesome powers.

Some say Yahweh only answers if what you ask from him is in accordance with his will (claim that is supported by the Bible).

Again, my stone has the same power.

When i ask it to make it rain, it sometimes agrees and does make it rain.

Your hypothesis about Yahweh's plan looks like it's not a minute well thought plan.

Yahweh: So, here's how I'll do this... First I will give this person cancer, and some unclear amount of time afterward I will save the Earth. Oh, wait... I'm receiving a prayer... OK, change of plans. Saving the Earth is still up, but no cancer.

Something like that?

So basically praying people think they know better than their god. Wouldn't you think?

Anyway, you're confusing "plan" with "goal". Plans do change, even in your hypothesis.

You said "
perhaps how God's plans are ultimately achieved constantly changes, but not the plan itself (?)."
How the goal is achieved is called "a plan".


There is NO consensus. Please, stop talking about something that we all know that doesn't exist. May this forum serve you as the logical disproof.
Creationism is a minority among Christianity and Judaism,
Ergo, no consensus.
and nearly non-existent among clergy;
The clergy is not the subject in itself.
but the minority surely has a loud voice.
In your country it does.
While I wouldn't say it is a 100% consensus, among learned Christians/Jews I'd say it's pretty damn close.  
Learned Christians/Jews?
You just moved the goalpost a little bit. ^_^

OK, i'll let it pass. Not very important. But you need to clarify when the consensus you talk about is among "learned" people (something about which there can obviously be no consensus, as Lester can demonstrate).


In any case, it STILL doesn't matter, in a supposedly reasonable discussion about facts and Science.
But the question posed is can a Christian accept evolution;
Exactly.

And it's exactly the question whose relevance i questioned.

That's my whole point.

It's irrelevant.

It's politically relevant, yes, but it's not politics what this forum is about. At least in the papers.

I'd say it most certainly includes facts regarding interpretation of scripture and doctrine.
Facts regarding interpretation?

Most certainly. ؟

No plain good old facts? I mean the kind that are useful for making scientific theories and stuff.

For example, the traditional Jewish interpretation of the creation account in Genesis is metaphorical and not literal. Just like in science, a piece of evidence can support an idea.
Yes! Just like in Science (i.e. just like in the really relevant issue).

In this case it supports the idea that evolution can be reconciled with scripture,
Which is irrelevant to Science.
and the main scripture used to deny evolution at that.
Didn't get that bit.


What you're doing by mentioning this is trying to give creationists a "safe" runaway path that doesn't lead them away from God, so they can finally look at the evidence objectively (which most of them claim to be doing already).

I know it's the best strategy.

But i don't want strategies. I prefer radical honesty. The brute force of honesty and facts. Lots of them.
Indeed, and the brute force of honesty declares that the Judeo-Christian sects are compatible with evolution.
And that Obama is not entirely black.

Both of which bear no relevance to the issue at hand: Is Evolution factually right? Is Creationism factually right?

Again, the kind of facts i'm talking about is scientific facts.
While it may be the best strategy for getting to creationists (I have my reservations about such statements), I believe it to be the honest truth.
Truthfulness is not the issue. Relevance is.


-But does that fossil conflict with my notion of God?
-I don't know, and i don't care. You work that out by yourself.  It's irrelevant when trying to determine the accuracy of a scientific theory. I'm showing you a fact, so focus.
If I was in your position
Caring about facts?
I would agree, and in many ways I do; but I am not unsympathetic to such questions.
Neither am i.

I'm not unsympathetic to questions regarding the political consequences of the Theory of Evolution either.

And it's still completely irrelevant when trying to decide whether it's a valid scientific theory or not.

I think in forums like these you need both to have the best chance to sway creationists.
I know.

In my case it would involve lying. Because, even if Science doesn't preclude it entirely, it has effectively shrunk the notion of a supernatural creator, or even a supernatural interventor.
Evolution, specifically, is responsible for an important part of that shrinkage.

I know more people will reject facts if i do that. I'm well aware. And that's too bad. But facts will keep coming. And if they poke holes in your faith, well that's too bad too.
I'm not sure, if you can get a creationist to look at the facts,
I think you can.

You can't make them look at facts objectively, but you can make them see.
When you see them purposefully avoiding and circumventing a point, the intellectual dishonesty is a good hint that they've looked and that they saw something they didn't like.

When dishonesty is all they have left (as is the case with Lester) it's pretty much over. They made their choice.

You can almost force them to see facts, but you can never force them to be honest about them.

I think your approach might be more effective than mine (some think TEs are supper spawns of Satan and are worse than atheists).
Does "TEs" stand for "Evolutionists" or something like that?
Although they would most likely come out as atheists under your system.
I've never consider myself an atheist since i was a teenager... But i guess all deists are, since they're not theists.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 8:27 PM on March 5, 2010 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.