To the darwinists

[CSLewis]

How can Darwinism shape your theology? I contend it has no bearing on theology !

If a Christian holds Darwinism (and by 'Darwinism', I mean 'evolution' in general), then that has bearings on how they understand the Creation narrative, and the Fall (depending upon how far they understand evolution to have occurred in the development of humanity).

In my own case, I understand Genesis 1-11 to be metaphorical. Thus, I've needed to figure out things that are quite easily explained in a literal interpretation: What is the Fall? What is the imago dei? What is salvation?

The matter is actually quite cutting, depending on how far you take Darwinism. If you just understand that God may have used it to bring about animals, and that the divine creation of humanity actually happened (which seems a bit 'choppy', considering the legato nature of the Creation account), then it's pretty simple. But not so if you take Darwinism farther.

How does this have any effect on salvation just curious

[CSLewis]

I care about Darwinism because it is true...................

...................and I know that Darwinism is true because I believe in it.

It is this type of circular reasoning that gives you guys a severe lack of credibility.

Since we are talking about credibility - where did the second part of that quote come from?

Who is it ascribed to? N one? Then it was put there for effect.

If Darwinists cared about Darwinism because it was true, they would have no problem answering the challenge given by horizoneast. But as they all just keep dancing around it, I must conclude it is more a matter of belief than actual scientific proof.

ok so you take the first part of a quote from someone then add the next part out of thin air so that it created a circular argument so that you could call it a circular argument and question the credibility of evolutionists - and this is why I have a hard time believing literalists.

[leoxiii]

How does this have any effect on salvation just curious

According to general, 'orthodox' forms of Christianity, Jesus' sacrifice was to remove from us the effects of the Fall. Many understand this as the entanglement of sin in our natures, which must be removed for us to be reconciled with God.

If there was no literal point at which the first Man and Woman sinned, which permanently imprinted sin on their lives, then we must come up with a reason why all of humanity is 'sinful' that is consistent with Darwinism (or rethink what Jesus' salvation means).

No Adam = no Jesus.

That is how Darwinism effects our theology.

[CSLewis]

How does this have any effect on salvation just curious

According to general, 'orthodox' forms of Christianity, Jesus' sacrifice was to remove from us the effects of the Fall. Many understand this as the entanglement of sin in our natures, which must be removed for us to be reconciled with God.

If there was no literal point at which the first Man and Woman sinned, which permanently imprinted sin on their lives, then we must come up with a reason why all of humanity is 'sinful' that is consistent with Darwinism (or rethink what Jesus' salvation means).

Whether you believe the fall was literal or figuative the imprint of sin on humanity happened - whether or not original sin is imprinted on you at birth or that human depravity entered in the world bcause of sin is a Wesley/Calvin debate on soterology and the point is this all have sinned if I was in that garden I would have picked that tree clean and asked God "what apples?" and the need for Christ's salvation is still relevant regardless so I believe orthodoxy is not compromised by a non literal interpretation of genesis.

[CSLewis]

How does this have any effect on salvation just curious

According to general, 'orthodox' forms of Christianity, Jesus' sacrifice was to remove from us the effects of the Fall. Many understand this as the entanglement of sin in our natures, which must be removed for us to be reconciled with God.

If there was no literal point at which the first Man and Woman sinned, which permanently imprinted sin on their lives, then we must come up with a reason why all of humanity is 'sinful' that is consistent with Darwinism (or rethink what Jesus' salvation means).

No Adam = no Jesus.

That is how Darwinism effects our theology.

Tell that to the pope.

[leoxiii]

How does this have any effect on salvation just curious

According to general, 'orthodox' forms of Christianity, Jesus' sacrifice was to remove from us the effects of the Fall. Many understand this as the entanglement of sin in our natures, which must be removed for us to be reconciled with God.

If there was no literal point at which the first Man and Woman sinned, which permanently imprinted sin on their lives, then we must come up with a reason why all of humanity is 'sinful' that is consistent with Darwinism (or rethink what Jesus' salvation means).

No Adam = no Jesus.

That is how Darwinism effects our theology.

Tell that to the pope.

37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]

Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis

[MorningGlory]

You know, saying the same thing over and over with your fingers in your ears doesn't make what you are saying true. It just makes you look stubborn and less than intelligent.

Then WHY do you keep doing it?

Because you have NO evidence. Because your "theories" can't be verified or proven false or tested. Because you are going against what is generally accepted and taught with NO alternative that even makes sense or would help the way the theories now do. Because you have nothing.

I have God, I have eternal life through the Messiah and I have rock solid faith in my future. It is you who has nothing, Christopher. But it doesn't have to be that way. Btw, you admitted that you 'keep doing it'.

[MorningGlory]

Now let's all think for a minute - Assuming we all believe in dinosaurs (huge assumption I know) - they obviously had to eat some were herbivours and ate vegetation some are carnivours and ate flesh - the result is feces and lots of it- this scat when fossilized is called coprolite which can be analyzed - human coprolite can tell us a lot about the diet of a civilization long gone - but if a dinosaur were to eat a seed bearing plant or fruit or a carnivorous dinosaur were to eat and ingest a bone of a mammal - which should have happened quite alot would disprove evolutionary timeline- so find that coprolite !!! But none has been found.

I wonder why? We ALL know that dinosaurs existed.

[CSLewis]

I am refering to the present one not your favorite pope Leo

"They are presented as alternatives that exclude each other," the pope said. "This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such."

bishop of Rome pope Benedict xvi(?)

[CSLewis]

Now let's all think for a minute - Assuming we all believe in dinosaurs (huge assumption I know) - they obviously had to eat some were herbivours and ate vegetation some are carnivours and ate flesh - the result is feces and lots of it- this scat when fossilized is called coprolite which can be analyzed - human coprolite can tell us a lot about the diet of a civilization long gone - but if a dinosaur were to eat a seed bearing plant or fruit or a carnivorous dinosaur were to eat and ingest a bone of a mammal - which should have happened quite alot would disprove evolutionary timeline- so find that coprolite !!! But none has been found.

I wonder why? We ALL know that dinosaurs existed.

There are those who don't believe that they ever existed.