Evolution

The fact that you believe Christ is your lord and savior is retarded. Christcuck cunts get fucked.

It seems to fuck up the idea of original sin. Most interpretations of original sin within the context of evolution that I've seen describe it as a poetic tale regarding man's changing consciousness and understanding of right and wrong. But that's not really a "fall" made of free will. That's basically God's genetic determinism making us become "fallen" creatures through no fault of our own.

Gotta break a few eggs to make an omelette.

Christians didn't historically take to be a metaphor for a much bigger amount of time and I doubt the original authors did either.

Remember the whole Copernicus debacle. This whole issue in America basically the same thing. They believe it'll "compromise scripture" and "corrupt worldviews." The stuff they thought Galileo's discovery would do to the church is the same stuff they claim Johansen (and others)'s discovery will do.

What the fuck's up with Adam?

That son of a bitch has no right to be smiling about anything.

Has to be as appealing to children as possible.

Is this convincing to people? Whether a fact as negative implications doesn't have any effect on whether its true or false.

/thread

They've been taught since birth that this specific denomination's interpretation is true, and that all others lead to degeneracy and moral relativism: behavior that seems unclean and evil to them.

Well I was raised in a religion too, but that didn't stop me from recognizing basic logical fallacies

Remember, these people are most likely Baptists. Y'know, the people whose practices led to every negative Christian stereotype from the 50s onward.

I would have figured "no diety" would be a lot closer to the bottom.

Did I forget to mention that creationists tend to use this dated reconstruction of Lucy in their seminars?

>I'm an idiot and can understand that it could be a metaphor for a much bigger period of time...

Yeah, but it's not written as a metaphor.

Metaphors usually have specific kinds of language and not "In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth...", which is quite literal.

It is actually required that Christians believe in the Genesis creation narrative and the story of Adam and Eve as a literal truth, since these explain the origin of original sin and lay down the reasons for why Christ supposedly had to come down and sacrifice himself, and why it is necessary to 'accept' him.

If the Genesis is a metaphor, then it means Christcucks hold Jesus had to die for a metaphor.

It wouldn't affect it at all, except some american YEC fundies would get BTFO

>all Christians are Young Earth Creationists

American detected.

Not a Christfag, but you're conflating things though.

The creation story is false, and many Christians admit as much, but they can still claim that the metaphysical nature of the Adam and Eve story took place regardless.

The problem is when biblical teachings are in direct opposition to established scientific findings.

Remember, Hebrew is a very complex language where one word could have several different meanings in different contexts. Just look at "yom," a Hebrew word that could mean a number of things, ranging from "age" to "day."
Also, not a metaphor, a poem. It doesn't say "God made this, this and this at this moment," it says "God said 'let there be this,' and it was so and He saw that it was good."

Because it was supposed to be taken litterally.
Nothing in it suggests metaphor.
The interpretation had to change because the science game was too strong.

It only rarely means age. Age does not fit within the context of genesis.
youtu.be/dmr3AraLogw

evolution? no implications, since Christianity already accepted something similar, the seminal reasons

naturalistic evolution? a lot, but Christianity doesnt accept any naturalistic interpretation anyways

And neither should you

Moron

*tips*

What would you suggest then? I either take one or the other? That seems like a false dichotomy. I prefer a poetic interpretation rather than a literal gap.

>What would be some of the theological implications of evolution being true?

Easily rationalized by saying God created man using evolution, rather than just making him out of clay or whatever.
The only victim is the "molded in his image" thing, so we aren't godlike and divine by design, rather we are just meat. His favorite meat maybe, but still just meat.

Not that modern Christians are using the "in his image" thing much, its mostly used against him, to justify cloning and genetics as ethical, since we are only doing what God did, trying to create. He made us curious and he made us like himself, creators, so why not go and create?

I think some denominations interpret it to mean in His spiritual image, since God the Father has no true form, same for the Spirit, and Jesus was fully human and fully God.

>His favorite meat maybe, but still just meat.
Made me chuckle a bit.

>I'm an idiot and can understand that it could be a metaphor for a much bigger period of time...
I literally figured it out when I was 12, it's hardly a stretch, I mean what is 1 day to God himself?

I figured it out early too, but then again it helps when you are being told about the bible at the same time as you are told fables about talking animals being used to describe human flaws, and after every tale you are told this represents that and so on.

I suggest nothing its false either way.
Any ibterpretation of yom as anything other than 24 hour days is wrong though.

You are an immature and rude individual.
There is no evidence that Jesus was married and therefore He did not have a wife who committed adultery.
Nor did he have a vagina.
Furthermore, there is no evidence that Jesus was a bottom.

Bump

>but they can still claim that the metaphysical nature of the Adam and Eve story took place regardless.

What does this actually mean though? At what point did we make a choice that damned us?

Perhaps our ancestors being given the gift of a higher intellect, but squandering it by living like the beasts.

God used evolution as a tool to create us. He provided the initial "spark".

What the dubs is your point?

Hey man there was only Adam and Eve to begin with, we are all inbred descendants of them.

What do you mean? The footprint to the far right resembles a primitive human foot, or a highly derived ape foot.

Humans are too complex, we don't start off as a sperm and egg inside a sac in your "mom". That is utter nonsense, those cells are too simple to form into an organism that has trillions of cells. We arrive as babies delivered by storks to the front door of our parents, it is only logical.

A little vague for me but ok, I wonder, if this is really the narrative, God was expecting from us?

Well Said.

The same thing the Catholic Church has already done, which is continuously alter their ideology to fit modern knowledge so their followers don't feel stupid but instead feel like their book predicts, in some obscure way, everything that has ever happened or will ever happen.

Also, the footprint on the far right is the actual Afarensis (Lucy's species) footprint. It's just more creationist nonsense.

Can you enlighten us on these scientific findings you speak of? And if I may ask, can you believe 100% in these scientific findings?

youtube.com/watch?v=S89IskZI740

For the Catholics it wouldn't matter.
For Creationists it presents a problem.

ITT: every one who believes in God is a six day creationist
Let it not be said that Fedorafags are not the most autistic people around.

Besides, Evolution is trash, the only thing it stands on in society is the atheists that justify the Dunning-Krueger effect.

There are plenty of real scientists that scoff at the theory.
Stop listening to talking heads like Richard Dawkins or Daniel Dennet

None, really. It means the story of Adam and Eve is a myth and not history, but most Christians already think that.

Perhaps complete and utter worship and servitude.

What about more credible scientists? What about the actual paleontologists, paleoanthropologists, and biologists?

>Intelligent design shill brutally assaults strawmen and insists that everyone outside of the field of biology can see how ridiculous evolution is for 37 minutes

Can you guys at least condense his central points so I don't have to regurgitate rebuttals verbatim but also don't have to watch another 23 minutes of his slow, self satisfied talking.

>I've personally counted how many changes it takes to turn a modern cow into a modern whale and I stopped at 50000
I'm going to go ahead and not believe that.

>Mangles homological criteria

Maybe I can stomach the rest of this.

>What would be some of the theological implications of evolution being true?
As in the evolution of Christianity?

Misclassified chimp bones do not constitute evidence for evolution.

...

>I don't understand the point of darwin's finches.
>mutations are always bad
Who is this Richard Lenski character? He did what now?
>life forms are like books or computer programs in the way that they are altered by mutations
Jesus fucking Christ
>Books being randomly copied and producing different books is equivalent to evolution
He just keeps going. Especially with the goal oriented evolution implication.
>Scientists do not self-criticize
The falsifiable hypothesis is falsifiable for a reason.
>People are forced to make bold claims to keep their funding so my opponent is wrong because he just won't admit it
>Some people fudge their data so all my opponents must be altering their results
>The intellectuals are peer pressuring people
>fucking marxism
>Insulting people makes them have better arguments. Constructive criticism is for nerds.
>I shouldn't need a reason to attack evolutionarytheory like actual evidence or anything. Maybe I don't even need armaments like a basic understanding of the state of evolutionary synthesis since Darwinism isn't the be all end all of Evolution.
>GET DEM NIGGERS TO SUPPORT INTELLIGENT DESIGN.

There.
I sat through it and tried to understand the points he was making of which there weren't many.
Basically all strawmen.

Fedora.jpg

>Christians didn't historically take to be a metaphor
Incorrect. I think it was Augustine, if I'm not mistaken, who said that Genesis was metaphor, and that was a thousand years ago.

patheos.com/blogs/hallq/2013/01/was-augustine-a-young-earth-creationist/

There was also Origen.

creationwiki.org/Human_evolution

evoanth.net/2013/04/15/lucy-the-knuckle-walker-answers-in-genesis-v-evoanth/

Answers in Genesis: multi-million dollar corporation.
Evoanth: some British blogger from Liverpool.

Can someone please translate Origen's "Ye Oldene daeyse" speak? Those run-on sentences are a bitch to comprehend.

"How would a day exist before the sun, moon or even sky appeared, and why would you have a literal tree that could screw your creations over just sitting in the middle of the garden?"

That's what I got from it, anyways.

>Whether a fact as negative implications doesn't have any effect on whether its true or false.
Not to a very large majority of the world.

...

No them not liking it dies not change the fact that it is a demonstrable fact.

You know hes a microbiologist, a respected author and mathematician?
He's not some run-o-the mill critic talking about something he doesn't understand.
I'd also like to point out that you didn't really refute or address anything, you just kind of assumed that everyone else thinks it's as ridiculous as you think it is.

David Berlinski is also the only to guy to beat Christoper Hitchens in a debate.

He is a biologist....
He works with biologists....
He is critical because he is more than a biologist, he is a philosopher and mathematician as well, published a few books too.

These are legitimate criticisms from someone who access to the same information as the people he is critiquing.

>self satisfied talking
That's one of his criticisms of Dawkins....
>I'm going to go ahead and not believe that
Okay, he is a biologist and a mathematician.....
He has written books listing his criticisms.

It is a decent critique and offers at least scientific criticism from an insider point of view, he ins't some guy preaching from the pulpit nor is he an armchair philosopher.
Berlinski put in the work.

He even said that he isn't doing it to advocate ID, he said he did it for money.
Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens etc all made money off of books about science, evolution, atheism, etc.
Berlinski said if he cant cash in on the one side he might as well cash in on the other.
So he joined the discovery institute and brought to light some of the more serious problems that only experienced biologists encounter when dealing with evolutionary theory and its ancillaries.
He is well qualified and has an honest motivation.
Call money dishonest but he isn't a sensationalist as you can tell.

The man gets to the facts and lists them openly and honestly, its something I think we all can respect to a degree.

>What about the actual paleontologists, paleoanthropologists, and biologists?

A note on these guys.
Don't trust anyone but the biologists.
The guys at the museums wont tell you where they dug up the arrows that are in between the fossil structures.

Consider that many of these guys go directly from pre-cambrian to post-cambrian.
For anyone studying the fossil record honestly this should shoot up red flags left, right, and center.

If there is serious evidence for Evolutionary theory its going to be found in biology, not in the ground.

Really there shouldn't even be a no deity step if the final destination is atheism, which means not having a deity. Whoever made that image is a moron.

>I don't understand why Christians take genesis so literally.
Because it's meant to be taken literally. Your retarded reinterpretation thousands of years after the fact to fit new knowledge is just that, retarded.

None, since evolution is true and Christianity is still rolling along.

I don't actually care about his qualifications, they don't lend significant credence to his arguments in this case from my perspective.
I made my points in memetext.

Darwin's finches are just dismissed out of hand and called speculatory. They show that variability can come from small mutations and they show the principles of selection when for instance a drought happens or something similiar.

Mutations aren't always bad. This is obvious, mutations can be good, bad or neutral. They aren't majorly deleterious but rather mostly neutral, silent mutations if anything. I don't need to refute it.

Books or programs being changed aren't like mutations happening to a biological organism. This is also obvious to anyone who knows how genetics works. I don't need to refute it.

These are the only points in that post.
The rest I just greentexted because they are the only points he makes from that point on.
He strawmans his opponents heavily without actually addressing the underlying arguments they make.

The other two arguments I could sample are in my other post.
The one where he counts the 50000+ changes it would need to turn a cow into a whale for instance.
This is already a strawman. A modern cow doesn't turn into a modern whale.
But I just doubt he's actually gone through 50000 changes since there's only his word to go on it and it would take days of nonstop work just to satisfy that ridiculous strawman.

He kind of mangles homological critieria as well.
He mentions:
Similarity in embryology
Similarity in function
Similarity in morphological form

The second one is kind of obviously the odd one out since it would refer to a homoplasie as well.
As far as I know there's the:
Criteria of provable transition states, such as through embryology
Criteria of specific quality and structure
Criteria of location

And then he kind of accuses this as being a circular matter of definition in regards to common descent when really questioning homology came before evolution.

>came to a conclusion on how a text could be interpreted
>"figured it out"

There are no implications with this, because evolution is already here, they just can't see it.

It's more fun to wonder about the theological implications of finding intelligent life in the universe.

But I think they would just "invite" the aliens to the church.

Christianity has always adapted to human's current necessities and knowledge, it's not something I would trust.
People living in modern society who actually goes to church every sunday are so full of themselves, they can't even conciebe the existence of other forms of life and other beliefs.
It's like they are in a completely different state of mind, like they are high on Jesus.
I understand them and respect them the same way as I respect tribes living in the jungle isolated with their own culture.
The only problem is that there will always appear that christian trying to convince me of joining their beliefs.

However, I feel sad for all those people noticing somehow that they believed and put their energy in something that just made them waste a part of their lifetime. So I don't usually debate them.

>These are legitimate criticisms from someone who access to the same information as the people he is critiquing.
I'd argue he only hypothetically has access to the same information.
He shows that he's not quite on the level in regards to a few things.

>That's one of his criticisms of Dawkins....
I've also never felt the compulsive need to listen to or read Dawkins work. I've never read anything he's written except for quotes and I've only heard several minutes of him talking on the rare occasions anyone on Veeky Forums links to him.
I don't see why my point can be dismissed in this manner.
Just condense the central ideas posited in the video instead.
Don't do it now since I've already gone through all 37 minutes though obviously.
I'm fundamentally uninterested in reading his books in addition to this.

>Okay, he is a biologist and a mathematician.....
I only don't believe that he's compiled a list of the changes needed to go from cow to whale for his strawman argument.

>He even said that he isn't doing it to advocate ID, he said he did it for money.
Pretty sure it's not just a surface level thing as he has shown involvement with them.

>The man gets to the facts and lists them openly and honestly, its something I think we all can respect to a degree.
Not from what I can tell from the video.
He easily spends a good portion of it calling his opposition peer pressured, opposed to criticism, insists that they alter their data and make bold claims just so that they can keep their funding.

I go a bit more into the problems I found with the video in this post

Original sin is the establishment of an identity as separate from god. Literally being born into a body places limits and differentiates you from all other life, and since god is all life simultaneously, it is the source of all suffering and sin. The fruit of knowledge in Genesis is the instantiation of self-awareness, metaphorically described as realization of one's nakedness and literally the realization of one's own body. Arguably, in terms of neurological development, such self-awareness does not occur until roughly four months, when the spindle-cells develop. Each life is a biochemical record of the process of self-awareness, progressing through stages of separation from god until ego-death occurs and a being finds union with all things. At least that's the best way I can describe it. Sounds sorta pompous and ass-hatted, but language is inherently limited in describing this sort of stuff.

Placing evolution in the framework of something that is "true" or "false" limits its utility as a metaphor for the process of life. This also goes for Christianity.

"Eden to the East" is also relevant, because even in Origen's day (and obviously at the time when Genesis was written as well) the territory immediately east of Caanan/Israel's chunk of the Levant was completely inhospitable desert. Anyone who refers to a magnificent and lush garden where that desert is would clearly be referring to an unreal place, as we might say "cloud-cuckoo land". It is entirely unlikely that someone native to the region would take the garden of Eden as a literal place.

But Eden was in Mesopotamia, not the desert. the Tigris and Euphrates go through it

>implying the jews thought eden was a physical location

why wouldn't they? they even named the tower of babel after babylon and a descendant of Cain founds Uruk. pretty obvious they thought a lot of their myths took place in mesopotamia, even thought they were themselves mesopotamians from Ur

>If the Genesis is a metaphor, then it means Christcucks hold Jesus had to die for a metaphor.
That's what the Ded Sea Scrolls say I believe

The thing is, wouldn't using days as a metric of time imply that these time periods (days) are of about the same length? I wouldn't mind if it was meants as era/eons, but since it's written as days it seems like really poor vocabulary choice to make in that case.

it would suggest that we are a part of nature in our current form and that religion has been a natural evolution of the human psyche

>Christians

Ahem, no
>American Protestants in the US South

>American Baptists in the US South
FTFY

>I don't actually care about his qualifications, they don't lend significant credence to his arguments in this case from my perspective.
This directly conflicts with >I'd argue he only hypothetically has access to the same information.
>He shows that he's not quite on the level in regards to a few things.
this

His qualifications carry the weight of a biologist, he is not as easily dismissed as a common layman.
Tell me you wouldn't dismiss a pastor at first glance when he spoke about quantum mechanics.
Darwins finches are irrelevant in Evolutionary theory, they don't matter, things change, however he goes into another point about the species barriers which negates the changes in the finches being called "evidence" in support of the theory.

He never said mutations are always bad...

Why isn't his analogy about books legitimate?
"I don't need to refute it." yes you certainly do.
"this is obvious to anyone who knows how genetics work"
You're a biologist?
Come on now, credentials are what prevents people like you from dismissing something from the point of personal incredulity.
>strawmans
No he doesn't, he posits what they're thinking but he doesn't outright call them liars.
He expresses reservations about them and gives reasons for it.
Prove that its a strawman, I don't think you can call a critique a strawman though so I think you're misusing the term.
A modern cow doesn't turn into a whale, correct. But if we knew evolution sufficiently then we should know what it would take to turn a cow into a whale.
he is not criticizing on the basis of a cow becoming a whale, he criticizing the lack of knowledge around it.
If we know evolution so well then we should know how many changes are necessary in order to make a cow into a whale.
You completely missed the point here.

>days of non-stop work
He does a make living criticizing Darwin....
Not to mention he'd be the most qualified, being a mathematician and a philosopher in addition to being a biologist.
>I actually doubt
I don't care.
It's there whether you doubt it or not.
You sound like your orthodoxy is being challenged.

He is critiquing it because its a tautology.
Its a philosophical problem and demonstrates a lack of scientific knowledge or at least in organization of the information.

Oh please.

It's something like 50% of Americans in total that don't believe in evolution and take the bible literally.

It depends upon what you mean by "evolution".

He does have access to the information.
I doubt he is on the cutting edge, but that's kind of irrelevant since there is already a plentiful description of Darwianian theory and Evolutionary Theory.

Your point is being dismissed because its not an intellectual point.
He even points out in the video that his polemical attacks nor the ones of his opponents should be taken to seriously.
>I'm fundamentally uninterested in....
Thanks for the blog post.

>ID
Of course he's shown involvement with them.
He mentions that its like a gang in New York and another gang comes on the block you want to reevaluate who your friends are, even if you don't share their same views.
His words "It's a large tent, I expect I will be welcome."

>critiquing the motivations of the opposition somehow discredits the information put forth

He gave his opinion, he isn't trying to persuade anyone to anything other than the facts.
Notice how he kept his opinion only on the motives of his peers, didn't present it as fact or anything that should be taken seriously, as he said before polemics are just to provoke a more intellectual response.

You sound like you've already got a judgment on the guy and anything else he says you'll take it with a negative connotation....

[citation needed]