Getting creationists to accept evolution

[lrkun]

Greetings,

This is a argument to direct at a YEC.

If an atheist or mainstream Christian wishes to "put the question" to a YEC, that's how to do it - the YEC then has to choose between the Cosmos (which is indisputably - to Christians - the Direct Word of God) and the Bible (which is arguably the Indirect Word, as it comes to Christians through Man).

As I said earlier, if God exists, then the Cosmos is the Direct Word of God.

Kindest regards,

James

We do know that the Cosmos exists, but we are not certain that god does. Don't you think this argument can be classified as one which contemplates a god of the gaps argument. However, I do agree, assuming the other party is a Christian, he might conclude that the cosmos might serve as god's word.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

As the idea of this thread was to convince Creationists to accept evolution, it would be a logical place to start.

One has to start from their beliefs, rather than from the science end of the argument.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[lrkun]

Greetings,

As the idea of this thread was to convince Creationists to accept evolution, it would be a logical place to start.

One has to start from their beliefs, rather than from the science end of the argument.

Kindest regards,

James

True. But it still leaves the question unanswered as to the basis of whether the Cosmos is truly the word of god. Maybe if this question is answered, a creationist might find evolution easier to believe in.

 

[RigelKentaurusA]

The biggest problem is the Christian belief that God made man in his image.
...though after all the DNA defects from two incest sessions (Adam & Eve, and Noah's family after the flood), who knows how much our image approximates God's :lol: :roll:

 

[lrkun]

The biggest problem is the Christian belief that God made man in his image.
...though after all the DNA defects from two incest sessions (Adam & Eve, and Noah's family after the flood), who knows how much our image approximates God's :lol: :roll:

The biggest lie, assuming Jesus did exist is, he's a bastard son of a man who slept with Mary, and this guy was neither god nor joseph.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Greetings,

As the idea of this thread was to convince Creationists to accept evolution, it would be a logical place to start.

One has to start from their beliefs, rather than from the science end of the argument.

Kindest regards,

James

True. But it still leaves the question unanswered as to the basis of whether the Cosmos is truly the word of god. Maybe if this question is answered, a creationist might find evolution easier to believe in.

To a Creationist - as to a theist - this is a given.

The simplest solution in dealing with a YEC is to accept that as a starting point for the discussion - in this way, you're empathizing with the YEC.

The key here is to help the YEC to realize that the Cosmos and the Bible can't both be the Direct Word - only the first can be acknowledged as such.

In order to accomplish this, one might have to give examples of clear contradictions - as I've given above (Ussher and the meaning of "is as").

For example, the Gospels report Jesus' words at various points - some report the same stories but have Jesus using different words: which of these is correct? At best, only one of them - at worst, neither. Hence, the Bible cannot be 100% the Direct Word (even if He "inspired" it).

This is particularly important as there are a number of Creationists/Fundamentalists - not just YECs - who insist that the Bible is the "inerrant Word of God".

As I said earlier, you can point out that if they cleave to the - any - Indirect Word, they're in danger of "going astray" and of leading others (particularly children) astray.

Do you see?

Once you've forced them to acknowledge that the Bible can't be the Direct Word (alongside the Cosmos) - a huge concession on their part - you can then move forward with...

Scientists are studying the Cosmos - they use the Scientific Method to do so.

Think of it as a magnifying glass: a microscope for the microscopic, a telescope for the heavens - but a magnifying glass, at base.

If we allow it to become be-smudged with thumbprints, then it will be difficult to use it to examine anything - similarly, if we allow the Scientific Method to be sullied with (religious/preconceived) beliefs, then it will colour our understanding of the Cosmos (and of the Direct Word). Our "reading" must be as objective as possible.

The point being to try and move them away from the sophistry of "Creation Science" (and, perhaps, the Templeton Foundation's efforts to fund science which might prove the existence of God, Biblical events, etc).

You - and they - might object that scientists aren't studying the Cosmos to learn about God: yet, how else will they find out if there is one or not? Certainly not from reading any "holy" book! If, by some stretch of the imagination, they find evidence - in spite of not looking for it - then, so be it.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Abortion is a difficult issue - for many reasons. (I could write quite a piece on it - as I'm sure could many others here.)

I'm with Bill Clinton - "Safe, legal - and rare".

A interesting point to note about this issue in relation to stem-cell research, is that Leviticus 17:11 says that "the life of the flesh is in the blood".

Given that a fertilized egg has no blood supply of its own - from what I know, it doesn't start producing its own blood until around day 18 - can it be "alive"?

If not, there can't be any Christian objection to harvesting them for stem-cell research.

Interesting that I should have posted this - I've just come across this article on PhysOrg:
Reprogrammed Stem Cells Roadblock.

Kindest regards,

James