PDA

View Full Version : How should Christians view the word 'evolution'?



Athanasius
Mar 3rd 2008, 06:11 AM
moved from another thread http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=117006

Not to start another debate in this thread when I say this. But as far as evolution goes... What is for God cannot turn someone against God. You have to think about that one because there are theistic evolutionists (people who believe in God and evolution) out there. They usually and eventually lose their faith.

(Not to debate. . . .)

Well, what do we mean by evolution? If I said, "I believe in evolution!"; what would be the first thing to pop into everyone's head? I think for the majority of us, we would automatically assume fish with legs, 'chimps evolving into man" or, apes evolving into man, as is mistakenly held. When the majority of us use the word evolution, what I really think we're saying is macro evolution--species 'X' turning into species 'Y' over hundreds of millions of years (time, chance, matter), and so forth. For the record, I don't agree with macro evolution.

But here is where I become controversial; I believe Darwin was a responsible biologist. I believe Richard Dawkins and Stephen J. Gould are (or were, in the latter case) brilliant scientists among many other brilliant scientists. I believe some parts of the evolutionary theory are true; micro evolution (adaptation), speciation, etc. I believe the theory of evolution has revealed fascinating aspects of God's creation.

And so, atheists, secularists, humanists. . . They don't treat Christianity fairly; in fact, they treat us like dogs, and I really mean that. But I think that we as Christians need to become more aware of what's going on (not saying that anyone here isn't). We can only deny an umbrella term-evolution-for so long. Personally (and I know this is not an indication) I haven't many any theistic evolutionists who abandoned their faith. They would otherwise be stuck with the famous question, "Why is there something, rather than nothing?"

ikester7579
Mar 3rd 2008, 05:21 PM
moved from another thread http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=117006

(Not to debate. . . .)

Well, what do we mean by evolution? If I said, "I believe in evolution!"; what would be the first thing to pop into everyone's head? I think for the majority of us, we would automatically assume fish with legs, 'chimps evolving into man" or, apes evolving into man, as is mistakenly held. When the majority of us use the word evolution, what I really think we're saying is macro evolution--species 'X' turning into species 'Y' over hundreds of millions of years (time, chance, matter), and so forth. For the record, I don't agree with macro evolution.

But here is where I become controversial; I believe Darwin was a responsible biologist. I believe Richard Dawkins and Stephen J. Gould are (or were, in the latter case) brilliant scientists among many other brilliant scientists. I believe some parts of the evolutionary theory are true; micro evolution (adaptation), speciation, etc. I believe the theory of evolution has revealed fascinating aspects of God's creation.

And so, atheists, secularists, humanists. . . They don't treat Christianity fairly; in fact, they treat us like dogs, and I really mean that. But I think that we as Christians need to become more aware of what's going on (not saying that anyone here isn't). We can only deny an umbrella term-evolution-for so long. Personally (and I know this is not an indication) I haven't many any theistic evolutionists who abandoned their faith. They would otherwise be stuck with the famous question, "Why is there something, rather than nothing?"

Evolution is the exact opposite of creation on every issue. So to believe in it plus God, requires one to make an excuse for why Genesis say what it does. What would be your answer for Genesis chapter one not lining up with God's word?

Don't believe evolution is the exact opposite?

What God's word says...................What evolution theory says.
1) Earth before sun................................1) Sun before earth.
2) Oceans before land.............................2) Land before oceans.
3) Light before sun.................................3) Sun before light.
4) Land plants first.................................4) Marine life first.
5) All life came from the water..................5) Life came from land and water.
6) Fish before insects..............................6) Insect before fish.
7) Plants before sun................................7) Sun before plants.
8) Bird before reptiles..............................8) Reptiles before birds.
9) God created man................................9) Man created God out of need.
10) Man has a soul.................................10) Man has no soul.

If evolution is so intertwined with God, why does it deny what is written about creation on every issue? According to God's word, the exact opposite of good is evil.

So you choices are:

1) If you believe that evolution is true. Then evolution is good and creation is evil because it is the opposite of what is considered good. Which makes the first chapter of the bble evil.

2) If you believe creation is true. Then creation is good and evolution is evil because it is the opposite of what is good.

The is so only because both are opposites of one another. So you have to choose which one you want to be good, and which one you want to be evil. Because which ever you choose automatically defaults the other to the opposite.

Also, in evolution, what did God create? And how could you prove it scientifically?

For evolution requires scientific evidence, correct? So how could you prove that anything in evolution was ever created by God?

The other side of believing in evolution and God is: Any verse that reconfirms what is claimed about what is said in Genesis 1 is also wrong.

Example: How does like exist when there is no sun?

1 John 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

So God was the light that existed on day one of creation. But if you believe in evolution this verse is wrong.

rev 21:23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.

This verse also reconfirms this as well. But if you believe in evolution. This verse is wrong also.

Etc...

This is why I prefer to be YEC. It denies nothing in God's word.

Studyin'2Show
Mar 3rd 2008, 05:50 PM
Not meaning to offend, Isaac, but I think you may be missing the point Xel'Naga is making. I don't believe he's saying he is a theistic evolutionist or that he believes in goo to you evolution. I was hoping the thread might focus on how we view the word 'evolution'. I'm sure you have heard the terms speciation and adaptation. These are considered micro-evolution by most creationists. So, in that case I believe in that form of evolution and it does not go against the creation account. ;)

As for theistic evolutionists, I was one when I was saved so I would have to say that when we come off as if we 'know' that theistic evolutionists have no faith, it can do more harm than good as far as informing them of the truth. People tend to become defensive, especially as a believer hearing someone else question their faith. We are much more effective if we simply share the truth without making any open judgment concerning the state of someone's faith.

I believe that if we properly define evolution so that intelligent people can see that when we deny darwinian evolution, we are not denying those facets that are evident (adaptation and speciation) which is what Darwin observed on the Galapagos Islands, they are more likely to listen to the truth we have to offer. Just my two cents.

God Bless!

Athanasius
Mar 3rd 2008, 06:24 PM
Evolution is the exact opposite of creation on every issue. So to believe in it plus God, requires one to make an excuse for why Genesis say what it does. What would be your answer for Genesis chapter one not lining up with God's word?

Don't believe evolution is the exact opposite?

What God's word says...................What evolution theory says.
1) Earth before sun................................1) Sun before earth.
2) Oceans before land.............................2) Land before oceans.
3) Light before sun.................................3) Sun before light.
4) Land plants first.................................4) Marine life first.
5) All life came from the water..................5) Life came from land and water.
6) Fish before insects..............................6) Insect before fish.
7) Plants before sun................................7) Sun before plants.
8) Bird before reptiles..............................8) Reptiles before birds.
9) God created man................................9) Man created God out of need.
10) Man has a soul.................................10) Man has no soul.

If evolution is so intertwined with God, why does it deny what is written about creation on every issue? According to God's word, the exact opposite of good is evil.

Well no, that's not what I'm trying to say. And please, don't take offense, I'm not trying to cause trouble or promote some sort of theistic evolutionary theory of creation. What I am trying to point out, however, is that when we as Christians go against evolution; and we say evolution, we are going not only against macro evolution; which I absolutely don't agree with. And we are going against micro evolution, which I, and many Creationists, do agree with. I think Darwin, when visiting the Galapagos islands discovered speciation in finches, uncovered a remarkable resiliency of God's creation. Darwin himself, on positing the theory of macro evolution of 'X' into 'Y' species, stated that if we cannot, within one hundred years, find any transitional forms, his theory of macro evolution had to be tossed out. It isn't Darwin's fault that subsequent scientists grasped onto his theory.

The other thing is that evolution is tied into, but doesn't deal with, the formation of the universe. On that I must also say that what modern scientists call the 'Big Bang', we might better define as when God initially created the heavens and the earth in an instant. And so we can on mutual grounds agree that the universe came into being like that. And we can then disagree on the time line following.

The issue, I think, and I don't want to accuse anyone here of this, is that Christianity, speaking in generals, is ignorant of evolution especially. I'm not advocating macro evolution as truth, but I do wish to bring an awareness of what exactly we're going up against when we generalize scientific theories like we do with evolution. I think we best next ask the question, "are theistic evolutionists saved?"; against scripture, do they meet the requirements of salvation? If they 'pass the test', then I would much rather see a saved theistic evolutionist, then an atheist who I tried to convince of a literal creation.

What I'm really getting at is if these people are saved, the Spirit will renew their minds.



So you choices are:

1) If you believe that evolution is true. Then evolution is good and creation is evil because it is the opposite of what is considered good. Which makes the first chapter of the bble evil.

2) If you believe creation is true. Then creation is good and evolution is evil because it is the opposite of what is good.

That's the thing; it isn't so black and white when you take the whole of the evolutionary theory. I believe creation occurred exactly as the Bible describes it. Going against many influential theologians, I naively believe (As British Theologian Colin Gunton would say) in a literal creation. I do believe, however, that creation continues and as such God has given his creation the ability to adapt to the world. I don't believe 'X' turns into 'Y', but I do believe that 'X' modifies itself according to extrinisic factors.



The is so only because both are opposites of one another. So you have to choose which one you want to be good, and which one you want to be evil. Because which ever you choose automatically defaults the other to the opposite.

Also, in evolution, what did God create? And how could you prove it scientifically?

For evolution requires scientific evidence, correct? So how could you prove that anything in evolution was ever created by God?

The other side of believing in evolution and God is: Any verse that reconfirms what is claimed about what is said in Genesis 1 is also wrong.

This is why I prefer to be YEC. It denies nothing in God's word.

I can't your first question; I'm not advocating theistic evolution. For your second question, there have been many studies of speciation and adaptation--finches, for one. Worms, RNA, dogs in Siberia. . .

You'll have to excuse my question, what does YEC stand for?

Free Indeed
Mar 3rd 2008, 06:29 PM
I think for the majority of us, we would automatically assume fish with legs, 'chimps evolving into man" or, apes evolving into man, as is mistakenly held.

I agree it's mistakenly held, but apparently only by folks on this forum. I've seen a lot of talk about apes and chimps evolving into people on this forum, which is a straw man argument. Evolution science says that humans and apes have evolved from a common ancestor, not that humans evolved from apes.

I belong to the Epsicopal Church, and am proud that it was one of the first Christian churches who officially stood up in behalf of evolution science. The Anglican Communion, of which we are a part, was also one of the first to defend the heliocentric theories of Galileo against religious abuse and sectarian pseudoscience.

Athanasius
Mar 3rd 2008, 06:47 PM
I think evolution for the majority of Christians today is much like the issue of food sanctified for Pagans, addressed by Paul in Romans 14 (verses 20-23, I believe). I think there are enough inferences (and I mean no disprect to anyone) for that to stand by itself.

moonglow
Mar 3rd 2008, 06:59 PM
moved from another thread http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=117006

(Not to debate. . . .)

Well, what do we mean by evolution? If I said, "I believe in evolution!"; what would be the first thing to pop into everyone's head? I think for the majority of us, we would automatically assume fish with legs, 'chimps evolving into man" or, apes evolving into man, as is mistakenly held. When the majority of us use the word evolution, what I really think we're saying is macro evolution--species 'X' turning into species 'Y' over hundreds of millions of years (time, chance, matter), and so forth. For the record, I don't agree with macro evolution.

But here is where I become controversial; I believe Darwin was a responsible biologist. I believe Richard Dawkins and Stephen J. Gould are (or were, in the latter case) brilliant scientists among many other brilliant scientists. I believe some parts of the evolutionary theory are true; micro evolution (adaptation), speciation, etc. I believe the theory of evolution has revealed fascinating aspects of God's creation.

And so, atheists, secularists, humanists. . . They don't treat Christianity fairly; in fact, they treat us like dogs, and I really mean that. But I think that we as Christians need to become more aware of what's going on (not saying that anyone here isn't). We can only deny an umbrella term-evolution-for so long. Personally (and I know this is not an indication) I haven't many any theistic evolutionists who abandoned their faith. They would otherwise be stuck with the famous question, "Why is there something, rather than nothing?"

I agree with your whole post here. Having had evolution in school and growing up thinking it was true...I actually had to turn my thoughts around in seeing how it conflicted with Genesis (though there are many Christians who do not see that conflict and believe evolution is how God did it and after years of these kinds of debates, I decided its not worth debating with them on...that it was causing separation instead of us remembering we both agree Jesus is our Lord and Savior). Having studied it more indepth I also discovered the lies (the leaps so to speak) on the macro evolution part of it.

Yet we cannot deny things like the thousands of different breeds of dogs...God didn't start out making thousands of different breeds of dogs. We manipulated in their breeding, they evolved...they are all still dogs..none can fly, nor can live in the sea, but they are all very different. This is micro evolution...small changes in an animal...though it seems like a big change, none of them have evolved into another animal all together...they are still dogs.

Anyway yes I agree...if a Christian is going to even discuss this with anyone they need to first know what they are talking about.

Oh YEC, means Young Earth Creation...that the earth is 7 thousands years old and not billions of years old (which frankly I is true because their way of dating is not reliable and that has been proven) I also think the Big Bang proves God is perfectly capable of creating everything...in an instant! So why would He need billions of years to create the stars, planets and the earth?

God bless

moonglow
Mar 3rd 2008, 07:09 PM
I agree it's mistakenly held, but apparently only by folks on this forum. I've seen a lot of talk about apes and chimps evolving into people on this forum, which is a straw man argument. Evolution science says that humans and apes have evolved from a common ancestor, not that humans evolved from apes.

I belong to the Epsicopal Church, and am proud that it was one of the first Christian churches who officially stood up in behalf of evolution science. The Anglican Communion, of which we are a part, was also one of the first to defend the heliocentric theories of Galileo against religious abuse and sectarian pseudoscience.

Yes I agree..the Catholic church actively killed those that were in the field of science that said anything they thought went against their beliefs hundreds of years ago ...and people today seem to think we would still like to burn alive those that hold a view that goes against the bible :rolleyes:...the thing is..science is just now catching up with God and all the early scientist were Christians...they came to many of their discoveries because of the written word of God.

I think in the end, provided this earth remains long enough..the science in the bible will be proven. Including creation.

As far as the public school debates on whether evolution should be taught or not...personally I think its wrong for us to expect a secular school system to teach creation...I think that is the parents job. When I learned about evolution in school...though some of it was simply not true ...I just thought this is how God did it...I didn't think twice about it. It never affected my views on the bible or on God..those that lose their faith because of evolution such as happened to Lee Stobel...I don't know...I guess I don't understand why they would lose their faith over it. But I know some do...:(

God bless

Athanasius
Mar 3rd 2008, 07:56 PM
Oh YEC, means Young Earth Creation...that the earth is 7 thousands years old and not billions of years old (which frankly I is true because their way of dating is not reliable and that has been proven) I also think the Big Bang proves God is perfectly capable of creating everything...in an instant! So why would He need billions of years to create the stars, planets and the earth?


Ahh, thought so. Well, I guess I would be included in young earth creationists. Thanks for the reply, moonglow!

moonglow
Mar 3rd 2008, 08:14 PM
Ahh, thought so. Well, I guess I would be included in young earth creationists. Thanks for the reply, moonglow!

Sure...as I said I used to get into this type of discussion alot. I agree so much with what you are saying that we need to know what we are talking about before even entering into such a discussion...at least know enough to know if its worth discussing (debating/arguing).. For me it just really depends on who it is and the motive behind it. I have burst the bubble on many would be debates by telling them many Christians do believe in evolution...I don't exactly example to them what kind of evolution though...as you said, people tend to view that word on way and that goes for nonbelievers too. It gives them little to attack our faith with if they are trying to use evolution as a reason to reject our faith. I still see us being accused of believing the earth in flat too! :B At least accuse us of things that are true!

You would think it would occur to them that they are making these accusations of us being cave dwelling backwards dense people WHILE engaging us on a computer!

(insert here a picture of cave man using computer, Ipod, cell phone, HD TV, etc, etc....:lol:)

but yet we are the dense ones...:rolleyes:

Athanasius
Mar 3rd 2008, 08:24 PM
Sure...as I said I used to get into this type of discussion alot. I agree so much with what you are saying that we need to know what we are talking about before even entering into such a discussion...at least know enough to know if its worth discussing (debating/arguing).. For me it just really depends on who it is and the motive behind it. I have burst the bubble on many would be debates by telling them many Christians do believe in evolution...I don't exactly example to them what kind of evolution though...as you said, people tend to view that word on way and that goes for nonbelievers too. It gives them little to attack our faith with if they are trying to use evolution as a reason to reject our faith. I still see us being accused of believing the earth in flat too! :B At least accuse us of things that are true!

There was actually a poster in the CA forum a few weeks ago that felt the need to ask, and point out, that the earth wasn't flat anymore--did we still believe so!? I agree completely with you; there are some debates which aren't worth getting int--well, many debates. And there are those few debates which God really uses. My experience has been the same as yours; what? Christians believe in evolution? Eh?! You're against religion too? For some reason, it still catches a lot of people off guard. I'm sure I'm not the first person to have said such things.



You would think it would occur to them that they are making these accusations of us being cave dwelling backwards dense people WHILE engaging us on a computer!

(insert here a picture of cave man using computer, Ipod, cell phone, HD TV, etc, etc....:lol:)

but yet we are the dense ones...:rolleyes:

Well, right now I've got my desk, monitor on top, tower underneath the desk. A wall to my left and bookshelves behind and to the right of me. That personal library of mine. . . Filled with many books; half of which, I would say, aren't written by Christians.

Free Indeed
Mar 3rd 2008, 08:41 PM
Yes I agree..the Catholic church actively killed those that were in the field of science that said anything they thought went against their beliefs hundreds of years ago

True, and unfortunate to say the least.


the thing is..science is just now catching up with God and all the early scientist were Christians...they came to many of their discoveries because of the written word of God.

I have to disagree because early science originated in pre-Christian times, especially with early scientists such as Aristotle and mathematicians such as Pythagoras.

In more modern times, both Newton and Darwin considered themselves Christians, but modern evangelical Christians would not consider them such because they were Unitarians. Einstein was raised Jewish, but rejected Judaism and religion in general.

I do agree that science is just now catching up with God. I just hope that we don't fail to see what God is telling us through nature due to our own personal biases and preconceived conceptions. Those who have studied physics, evolution, and astronomy often find themselves in complete awe, and this awe should properly be applied to the Creator. But when some well-intentioned theists tell them that the evidence before their very eyes is not real because a book says something different, they will dismiss the book as a fraud. This why I consider creationism not only bad science but a stumblingblock, at least in the sense that some evangelicals consider creationism not only historical fact, but a prerequisite to salvation.

moonglow
Mar 3rd 2008, 08:57 PM
True, and unfortunate to say the least.



I have to disagree because early science originated in pre-Christian times, especially with early scientists such as Aristotle and mathematicians such as Pythagoras.

Well no I wasn't thinking that far back!! :lol: I was thinking of when the Catholic church was reigning and actively persecuting some of these early star gazes...

In more modern times, both Newton and Darwin considered themselves Christians, but modern evangelical Christians would not consider them such because they were Unitarians. Einstein was raised Jewish, but rejected Judaism and religion in general.

I have been doing some reading on Einstein and I don't think he rejected God as much as people say. While he didn't follow his Jewish roots, so many comments he made in references to God really makes you wonder. He really seemed to think if he could just figure it all out (in relation to time/space, etc) he could know the 'mind of God'..I think is the quote. I really think he was looking for God...and hadn't rejected Him as much as some writings make it appear. Several scientist says they 'regret' how Einstein phrased things in refence to God...they think he didn't mean God as in the God we know but God as in the 'thing' that runs it all...if that makes any sense.

I do agree that science is just now catching up with God. I just hope that we don't fail to see what God is telling us through nature due to our own personal biases and preconceived conceptions. Those who have studied physics, evolution, and astronomy often find themselves in complete awe, and this awe should properly be applied to the Creator. But when some well-intentioned theists tell them that the evidence before their very eyes is not real because a book says something different, they will dismiss the book as a fraud. This why I consider creationism not only bad science but a stumblingblock, at least in the sense that some evangelicals consider creationism not only historical fact, but a prerequisite to salvation.

I have heard this argument before..that there is no science in creationism and it is a stumbling block...do you care to explain exactly what you mean by this? Thanks. I agree with the rest of your statement for sure. How one can look at this universe and not know their is a God...is beyond me. To think its all just a big accident makes no sense to me.

On another note I keep complaining to God about the terrible winds we have had lately and I tell my son their should be a 'law' against such high winds...you know a law of nature they can't go pass so many miles an hour...

And God reminded me there is a 'law'...that on some planets the winds reach hundreds of miles an hour...and even more! And those are light winds...:lol: So I guess I have to quit complaining about this now...:cool::lol:

God bless

moonglow
Mar 3rd 2008, 08:58 PM
There was actually a poster in the CA forum a few weeks ago that felt the need to ask, and point out, that the earth wasn't flat anymore--did we still believe so!? I agree completely with you; there are some debates which aren't worth getting int--well, many debates. And there are those few debates which God really uses. My experience has been the same as yours; what? Christians believe in evolution? Eh?! You're against religion too? For some reason, it still catches a lot of people off guard. I'm sure I'm not the first person to have said such things.



Well, right now I've got my desk, monitor on top, tower underneath the desk. A wall to my left and bookshelves behind and to the right of me. That personal library of mine. . . Filled with many books; half of which, I would say, aren't written by Christians.

you are still a backwards cave dweller!!! :rofl::rofl:

heh

Studyin'2Show
Mar 3rd 2008, 09:03 PM
I have to disagree because early science originated in pre-Christian times, especially with early scientists such as Aristotle and mathematicians such as Pythagoras.

In more modern times, both Newton and Darwin considered themselves Christians, but modern evangelical Christians would not consider them such because they were Unitarians. Einstein was raised Jewish, but rejected Judaism and religion in general.

I do agree that science is just now catching up with God. I just hope that we don't fail to see what God is telling us through nature due to our own personal biases and preconceived conceptions. Those who have studied physics, evolution, and astronomy often find themselves in complete awe, and this awe should properly be applied to the Creator. But when some well-intentioned theists tell them that the evidence before their very eyes is not real because a book says something different, they will dismiss the book as a fraud. This why I consider creationism not only bad science but a stumblingblock, at least in the sense that some evangelicals consider creationism not only historical fact, but a prerequisite to salvation.The Word of God existed before Messiah came in the flesh, so moonglow speaking of science catching up with the word of God, in no way limited the time to that after Messiah. Whether a particular group would consider a certain person a believer or not is something that would have no bearing on the discussion whether it could be posited or not. And I am almost certain that Einstein was a theist.

However, the topic of this thread is how believers view the WORD 'evolution'. I'm not sure if you are aware that there are many different forms of 'evolution' many of which even YECs accept because they are observable and verifiable. Whereas macro-evolution is something that must be accepted by faith. Either way, I am not one that believes that whatever camp a believer might come down on in some way relates to their relationship with God. When I came to faith in Yeshua I was a theistic evolutionist (much as you seem to be). I absolutely, positively know that I was saved at that point. Over the years since accepting Messiah, as I have seriously studied this issue scientifically, I have come to be a firm YEC. Most people are surprised finding out that I came from an Ivy League college with a physical sciences background and have ended up with the belief that I have....but, hey, I have! Do you recognize the different facets of evolution that separate, let's say probiotic soup to simple celled organism 'evolution' from the type of speciation Darwin observed amongst the Galapagos finches?

Duane Morse
Mar 3rd 2008, 09:05 PM
I believe some parts of the evolutionary theory are true; micro evolution (adaptation), speciation, etc. I believe the theory of evolution has revealed fascinating aspects of God's creation.

That part is hard to deny.
Here is an example:

'Six-legged 'hexapus' claimed as world first in Britain
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080303/sc_afp/sciencebritainanimalhexapusoffbeat (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080303/sc_afp/sciencebritainanimalhexapusoffbeat)

LONDON (AFP) - British marine experts have found what they claim is a world first -- a six-legged octopus, or "hexapus," whom they have christened Henry.

The unique sea creature, which has two limbs fewer than a normal octopus, is believed to be the result of a birth defect rather than an accident, say his keepers at the Blackpool Sea Life Centre in northwest England.'


If this creature were to reproduce and pass the trait to the offspring, it might become a viable new (sub?)species. It could even come to dominate over the eight-legged variety in several thousand years.

Athanasius
Mar 3rd 2008, 09:07 PM
I agree! I think the problem is that a lot of Christians group the part of evolution in with the rest.

moonglow
Mar 3rd 2008, 10:44 PM
The Word of God existed before Messiah came in the flesh, so moonglow speaking of science catching up with the word of God, in no way limited the time to that after Messiah. Whether a particular group would consider a certain person a believer or not is something that would have no bearing on the discussion whether it could be posited or not. And I am almost certain that Einstein was a theist.

However, the topic of this thread is how believers view the WORD 'evolution'. I'm not sure if you are aware that there are many different forms of 'evolution' many of which even YECs accept because they are observable and verifiable. Whereas macro-evolution is something that must be accepted by faith. Either way, I am not one that believes that whatever camp a believer might come down on in some way relates to their relationship with God. When I came to faith in Yeshua I was a theistic evolutionist (much as you seem to be). I absolutely, positively know that I was saved at that point. Over the years since accepting Messiah, as I have seriously studied this issue scientifically, I have come to be a firm YEC. Most people are surprised finding out that I came from an Ivy League college with a physical sciences background and have ended up with the belief that I have....but, hey, I have! Do you recognize the different facets of evolution that separate, let's say probiotic soup to simple celled organism 'evolution' from the type of speciation Darwin observed amongst the Galapagos finches?

So what you are wanting to do...use this thread to educate Christians this? (which I think is needed yes)..

Also ...just out of curiosity...how did you come to your YEC idea given your background?

Oh and no, you don't really sound like a backwards cave man...:lol: I hear all too often how 'we' (us evil ignorant Christians) want to take everyone back to the dark ages...ugh.


There was actually a poster in the CA forum a few weeks ago that felt the need to ask, and point out, that the earth wasn't flat anymore--did we still believe so!? I agree completely with you; there are some debates which aren't worth getting int--well, many debates. And there are those few debates which God really uses. My experience has been the same as yours; what? Christians believe in evolution? Eh?! You're against religion too? For some reason, it still catches a lot of people off guard. I'm sure I'm not the first person to have said such things.

I was in a rush before...had to go get my son from school so I didn't have time to really address this. So someone in CA really thought we still believed the earth was flat? All I can do is shake my head at that...but I have heard there is a flat earth society and found their website before. :hmm: They really believe the earth is flat! (or so they say..) Sadly many think we totally hate science..any kind of science. Much of what they hate us for...we don't even do or believe! Its like someone goes around saying weird things about us and they just 'blindly' believe it and don't bother to check it out for themselves...YET we are the ones that they say blindly believe and they hate us for 'not thinking'...uh? I truly wish I could get them to see what they are saying makes no sense much of the time. I turn it around and use the same language on them they use on us...in Intolerant, narrow minded, refusing to listen, not thinking and blindly believing. I am very careful in how I use these words...I don't go and single someone out and do it in an attacking manner. I generalize (like they tend to generalize us)...and rarely do they even notice or respond to what I said...maybe they think I am talking to another Christian...lol.

Sadly I do see Christians fearing science and I think alot of this does come from Darwin's evolution...I think the attacks and fights and for some, yes the 'fear' it all 'just happened'...causes them to avoid science (though in reality we engage in science all the time everyday!) but they avoid reading anything about it, watching anything having to do with science, etc, etc...and that really upsets me. With God we have nothing to fear. If we believe, we need to dive into this stuff we think might upset our beliefs and see what it really is...for all we know it might very well, strengthen our faith in Him and it usually does! My son started bringing home space books in first, second and third grade that were way over his reading level so I would read them too him. I have always enjoyed 'space stuff'...lol.

Yes they use language like...this is billions and trillion of years old...all the time..I just tell my son...we'll see about that. ;) When we watched anything having to do with the age of the earth..I just say, we'll see about that...lol. Anyway, I enjoy science very much and don't see any conflicts at all between it and God...I tell people God invented science...(I always use the wrong words here..He created science)...and gave us the ability to use it to learn about Him and His creations. :) That is my story and I am sticking too it. :D

God bless

Athanasius
Mar 3rd 2008, 11:47 PM
I was in a rush before...had to go get my son from school so I didn't have time to really address this. So someone in CA really thought we still believed the earth was flat? All I can do is shake my head at that...but I have heard there is a flat earth society and found their website before. :hmm: They really believe the earth is flat! (or so they say..) Sadly many think we totally hate science..any kind of science. Much of what they hate us for...we don't even do or believe! Its like someone goes around saying weird things about us and they just 'blindly' believe it and don't bother to check it out for themselves...YET we are the ones that they say blindly believe and they hate us for 'not thinking'...uh? I truly wish I could get them to see what they are saying makes no sense much of the time. I turn it around and use the same language on them they use on us...in Intolerant, narrow minded, refusing to listen, not thinking and blindly believing. I am very careful in how I use these words...I don't go and single someone out and do it in an attacking manner. I generalize (like they tend to generalize us)...and rarely do they even notice or respond to what I said...maybe they think I am talking to another Christian...lol.

That's alright; I haven't been sleeping well the past few weeks and it seems like I've got a case of perpetual brain fog. Critically thinking seems to be an issue for me, lol. Tonight I'm going to catch on up sleep--I can't keep doing this. I've also apparently gotten into the habit of adding 't' to the ends of words. But anyway. . .

As for the flat earth poster--he was a copy and past poster. Two questions, the first was the flat earth, the second was something about scientific progress and once someone responded he replied with articles from who knows where.

I used to be an active poster on both the Richard Dawkins forums and IIDB (Infidels.org forum)--throwing a sheep to the wolves! There was once a time where I desired to have my faith challenged, I wanted to come across questions and views that forced me to investigate what it is that I believe. For a while, this worked wonderfully. But then you reach a point where you get sick of constantly being accused of lacking rationality; of abhorring empiricism as a method; of being this secretly hateful person that wants to install a Theocratic dictatorship in the Western world. Thank you, above all, Sam Harris. Aside from these people being spiritually blind, why do they do this? Why do they believe this? There's only so much libertarianism I can take. There's only so much unmitigated skepticism; taking the contrary position just to take the contrary position. I'm reminded of Monty Python's 'Argument Clinic' skit. So many of the things I used to do to challenge myself just seem silly, now.

I think it comes down to a matter of morality. The question then is how we get behind this front of rationalism and effect the moral reasoning behind the reluctance to accept Christian views. Oh, and before I forget, we also don't think for ourselves! It doesn't matter how deeply I go into philosophy. Or how deeply I go into science; they just don't get it. Modern philosophy, I might add, is a joke. It's an absolute joke; post modernism did its job.

I think to a certain extent they talk past us and we talk past them. But where we do meet there should be a meeting, and there isn't. And for all our experiences, there is still that segment of Christianity that is absolutely and foolishly opposed to evilution. (Ever notice Dawkins pretty much pronounces the word that way?).



Sadly I do see Christians fearing science and I think alot of this does come from Darwin's evolution...I think the attacks and fights and for some, yes the 'fear' it all 'just happened'...causes them to avoid science (though in reality we engage in science all the time everyday!) but they avoid reading anything about it, watching anything having to do with science, etc, etc...and that really upsets me. With God we have nothing to fear. If we believe, we need to dive into this stuff we think might upset our beliefs and see what it really is...for all we know it might very well, strengthen our faith in Him and it usually does! My son started bringing home space books in first, second and third grade that were way over his reading level so I would read them too him. I have always enjoyed 'space stuff'...lol.

Don't tell anyone, but I just ordered Dawkins' Unweaving the Rainbow (I'm also quite aware of the split opinions on the book)! Science, I believe, as I think many, many scientists used to believe, is how we learn about God's creation. I absolutely believe that Christianity and science are compatible--Christianity, after all, 'restarted' scientific inquiry. And then philosophy. . And rationality. . Amazing how the tables have turned. I mean, a have family that visit and they come to my room and see that I've got books on string theory, quantum mechanics, cosmology. . . The grandson who's supposed to be the pastor, how dare I! Written by evolutionary scientists?! Books about 'what if we weren't here?'

What happened to Christians and Christianity? Where did all our critical thinkers go? I think I've got an Isaiah complex in this regard.



Yes they use language like...this is billions and trillion of years old...all the time..I just tell my son...we'll see about that. ;) When we watched anything having to do with the age of the earth..I just say, we'll see about that...lol. Anyway, I enjoy science very much and don't see any conflicts at all between it and God...I tell people God invented science...(I always use the wrong words here..He created science)...and gave us the ability to use it to learn about Him and His creations. :) That is my story and I am sticking too it. :D
God bless

Well hey, if it turns out that the universe and earth really are that old, I don't think it's going to shake the faith. I haven't really thought about it, so this may be quite the cop out answer, but I have heard it said that God created things with age; why not the universe? Alternatively I know a few OT professors who feel the Hebrew of Genesis supports days of an indeterminate length.

Studyin'2Show
Mar 4th 2008, 02:13 AM
So what you are wanting to do...use this thread to educate Christians this? (which I think is needed yes)..

Also ...just out of curiosity...how did you come to your YEC idea given your background? I looked at Xel'Naga's post and it seemed like that's what it was doing; defining the word 'evolution' so we can use it properly. Seemed like it was a much better pursuit than just another debate. :D

That's an interesting story actually. I had been saved for about three years and hadn't considered challenging what I had been taught as fact. Evolution was just about as ingrained in me as 2+2 being 4. I was always an excellent student. Anyway, the church I was attending had what they called 'Creation Day'. It was simple enough, not confrontational at all. What it did was presented me with some options that I had never even known existed; made me aware of things I would never have considered. After that day, I was hungry. Much like I had been when I had first been saved and couldn't get enough of the Bible. I read anything I could find. I would read something with citations and go to the library to find the referenced sources. The more I researched, the more plausible things seemed. The more I read, the more real the creation account and the flood became. The deeper I dug, the more certain I became.

This is why I do not feel the need to beat anyone over the head with creation. It was a simple presentation of a different viewpoint that opened my eyes to the possibilities. So, that's what I do. I present the truth. Bottom line.

God Bless!

Athanasius
Mar 4th 2008, 03:09 AM
I agree with you Studyin'; but I'd also like to add in something I've generally noticed. . . 'Christians' (In the broadest, most general sense of the word possible) use the word evolution incorrectly [I'll call it what it is]--someone like myself comes along and says, 'no no, what you probably mean is...' And we get the proper definition set out for the next discussion. Next discussion comes and. . .

We're back to umbrella term. Almost like there's a refusal to actually care. Is that just me, or has anyone else noticed?

moonglow
Mar 4th 2008, 03:52 AM
That's alright; I haven't been sleeping well the past few weeks and it seems like I've got a case of perpetual brain fog. Critically thinking seems to be an issue for me, lol. Tonight I'm going to catch on up sleep--I can't keep doing this. I've also apparently gotten into the habit of adding 't' to the ends of words. But anyway. . .

As for the flat earth poster--he was a copy and past poster. Two questions, the first was the flat earth, the second was something about scientific progress and once someone responded he replied with articles from who knows where.

I used to be an active poster on both the Richard Dawkins forums and IIDB (Infidels.org forum)--throwing a sheep to the wolves! There was once a time where I desired to have my faith challenged, I wanted to come across questions and views that forced me to investigate what it is that I believe. For a while, this worked wonderfully. But then you reach a point where you get sick of constantly being accused of lacking rationality; of abhorring empiricism as a method; of being this secretly hateful person that wants to install a Theocratic dictatorship in the Western world. Thank you, above all, Sam Harris. Aside from these people being spiritually blind, why do they do this? Why do they believe this? There's only so much libertarianism I can take. There's only so much unmitigated skepticism; taking the contrary position just to take the contrary position. I'm reminded of Monty Python's 'Argument Clinic' skit. So many of the things I used to do to challenge myself just seem silly, now.

I think it comes down to a matter of morality. The question then is how we get behind this front of rationalism and effect the moral reasoning behind the reluctance to accept Christian views. Oh, and before I forget, we also don't think for ourselves! It doesn't matter how deeply I go into philosophy. Or how deeply I go into science; they just don't get it. Modern philosophy, I might add, is a joke. It's an absolute joke; post modernism did its job.

I think to a certain extent they talk past us and we talk past them. But where we do meet there should be a meeting, and there isn't. And for all our experiences, there is still that segment of Christianity that is absolutely and foolishly opposed to evilution. (Ever notice Dawkins pretty much pronounces the word that way?).



Don't tell anyone, but I just ordered Dawkins' Unweaving the Rainbow (I'm also quite aware of the split opinions on the book)! Science, I believe, as I think many, many scientists used to believe, is how we learn about God's creation. I absolutely believe that Christianity and science are compatible--Christianity, after all, 'restarted' scientific inquiry. And then philosophy. . And rationality. . Amazing how the tables have turned. I mean, a have family that visit and they come to my room and see that I've got books on string theory, quantum mechanics, cosmology. . . The grandson who's supposed to be the pastor, how dare I! Written by evolutionary scientists?! Books about 'what if we weren't here?'

What happened to Christians and Christianity? Where did all our critical thinkers go? I think I've got an Isaiah complex in this regard.



Well hey, if it turns out that the universe and earth really are that old, I don't think it's going to shake the faith. I haven't really thought about it, so this may be quite the cop out answer, but I have heard it said that God created things with age; why not the universe? Alternatively I know a few OT professors who feel the Hebrew of Genesis supports days of an indeterminate length.

On that last part..."Alternatively I know a few OT professors who feel the Hebrew of Genesis supports days of an indeterminate length."...yes that is a common theme in the debates with Christians who do believe this is how God did it...all the way on everything in evolutionary terms. And that is fine..I don't think its anything to get bent out of shape over, but I do see many Christians getting very bent out of shape over it..in fact just heard a preacher on the radio station going on about this one day saying if we cannot believe in Genesis as literally then we lose our ground in believing in anything else in the bible. I bought that argument for a long time too (after I was told sternly, that Darwins evolution and the bible could not go together by other Christians. And I have seen on here even, many years ago, people gang up on one fellow that did believe they went together. I still don't think we evolved though...I truly do believe God and most of the animals were created in an instant, whole and complete as we are now...though perfect..before sin came along.

Anyway sorry about your lack of sleep and sorry your family and friends don't understand you having those type of books around. While I do some dabbling in those same topics you mentioned, I don't think my brain could handle any big books on them...:lol: I have a 2004 Discovery special Einstein issue that I was re-reading and picked up a Astronomy magazine one day at the store. I do most of my reading on this type of stuff online. I go visit Stephen Hawkings site once in awhile...though I realize he doesn't believe in God, I find his work interesting. I also like watching the History channels Universe program....not sure how accurate they are, but they have some very interesting stuff...some things I look up on the net to find out more. As I said, I really don't see how this conflicts with scriptures at all.

As far as Dawkins is concerned I have been to his site and watched some videos on youtube about how he thinks he has us figured out (the God gene, I think its called)...personally reading this guy is for me like listening to someone scratch their nails on a chalkboard....grates on my nerves SO bad! I'll let you read his book and you can tell us how it turns out...;) Now on the other hand, Hawkings has a new book out I see: "George's Secret Key To The Universe" (http://www.hawking.org.uk/home/hindex.html)...it looks like it was written for children...:hmm:


Where did all our critical thinkers go?

Where indeed. Though I have to say that I do run into them and there are more out there then we realize...which is a good thing.

Oh on the looking for a challenge to your faith..debating atheist...I did that for years too...rarely do I now though because rarely do they come up with anything new. They just repeat each other. I just got this on one of my video's on youtube refuting the other videos saying the life of Jesus is just a copy of the pagan sun gods (which isn't true): "Face the plain truth, folks: theres no such thing as Jesus or any other religious crap out there. The bible is nothing but a fiction created by those who holds the power and control irrational lambs that follows the catholic and other churches. I hope that someday all religions will collapse."

In which I do my same reply over and over again (since I hear this so often): And exactly how do you know this? "Have you investaged it for yourself or are you just blindly repeating what other atheist have said? There is so much historical and archeology evidence for the bible it takes more faith to not believe."

Rarely do they answer back...my response is hopefully, to get them to 'think' and use their brains for a change instead of just repeating what others have said about our faith. :cool:

Anyway...you get some sleep!

God bless

moonglow
Mar 4th 2008, 03:54 AM
I looked at Xel'Naga's post and it seemed like that's what it was doing; defining the word 'evolution' so we can use it properly. Seemed like it was a much better pursuit than just another debate. :D

That's an interesting story actually. I had been saved for about three years and hadn't considered challenging what I had been taught as fact. Evolution was just about as ingrained in me as 2+2 being 4. I was always an excellent student. Anyway, the church I was attending had what they called 'Creation Day'. It was simple enough, not confrontational at all. What it did was presented me with some options that I had never even known existed; made me aware of things I would never have considered. After that day, I was hungry. Much like I had been when I had first been saved and couldn't get enough of the Bible. I read anything I could find. I would read something with citations and go to the library to find the referenced sources. The more I researched, the more plausible things seemed. The more I read, the more real the creation account and the flood became. The deeper I dug, the more certain I became.

This is why I do not feel the need to beat anyone over the head with creation. It was a simple presentation of a different viewpoint that opened my eyes to the possibilities. So, that's what I do. I present the truth. Bottom line.

God Bless!

That is neat...thanks for sharing that! Though it just makes me want to know more about what exactly was presented to you to cause you to dig in deeper...:)

God bless

moonglow
Mar 4th 2008, 03:58 AM
I agree with you Studyin'; but I'd also like to add in something I've generally noticed. . . 'Christians' (In the broadest, most general sense of the word possible) use the word evolution incorrectly [I'll call it what it is]--someone like myself comes along and says, 'no no, what you probably mean is...' And we get the proper definition set out for the next discussion. Next discussion comes and. . .

We're back to umbrella term. Almost like there's a refusal to actually care. Is that just me, or has anyone else noticed?

So what do you want them to say...use macro and micro instead?

Athanasius
Mar 4th 2008, 04:20 AM
So what do you want them to say...use macro and micro instead?

I'd just like them to stop vehemently denying the entire theory while grouping in cosmology, lol.

Athanasius
Mar 4th 2008, 04:29 AM
On that last part..."Alternatively I know a few OT professors who feel the Hebrew of Genesis supports days of an indeterminate length."...yes that is a common theme in the debates with Christians who do believe this is how God did it...all the way on everything in evolutionary terms. And that is fine..I don't think its anything to get bent out of shape over, but I do see many Christians getting very bent out of shape over it..in fact just heard a preacher on the radio station going on about this one day saying if we cannot believe in Genesis as literally then we lose our ground in believing in anything else in the bible. I bought that argument for a long time too (after I was told sternly, that Darwins evolution and the bible could not go together by other Christians. And I have seen on here even, many years ago, people gang up on one fellow that did believe they went together. I still don't think we evolved though...I truly do believe God and most of the animals were created in an instant, whole and complete as we are now...though perfect..before sin came along.

It's a view I held as well when I was younger, until I start looking into things more. I still try to argue it, but it never works out! But I agree with you; I don't think we evolved. But I do think we were created with an ability to adapt.



Anyway sorry about your lack of sleep and sorry your family and friends don't understand you having those type of books around. While I do some dabbling in those same topics you mentioned, I don't think my brain could handle any big books on them...:lol: I have a 2004 Discovery special Einstein issue that I was re-reading and picked up a Astronomy magazine one day at the store. I do most of my reading on this type of stuff online. I go visit Stephen Hawkings site once in awhile...though I realize he doesn't believe in God, I find his work interesting. I also like watching the History channels Universe program....not sure how accurate they are, but they have some very interesting stuff...some things I look up on the net to find out more. As I said, I really don't see how this conflicts with scriptures at all.

Well a lot of my family also believe I'm going to Hell because I'm not Catholic, lol. I really only recently (I guess I mean a few years back) became interested in these fields of study. I think their fascinating. I'm also surprised to learn that Stephen Hawkings was married :O



As far as Dawkins is concerned I have been to his site and watched some videos on youtube about how he thinks he has us figured out (the God gene, I think its called)...personally reading this guy is for me like listening to someone scratch their nails on a chalkboard....grates on my nerves SO bad! I'll let you read his book and you can tell us how it turns out...;) Now on the other hand, Hawkings has a new book out I see: "George's Secret Key To The Universe" (http://www.hawking.org.uk/home/hindex.html)...it looks like it was written for children...:hmm:

Dawkins earlier books were alright (The Selfish Gene; The Blind Watchmaker), but his more recent stuff seems too angry.



Oh on the looking for a challenge to your faith..debating atheist...I did that for years too...rarely do I now though because rarely do they come up with anything new. They just repeat each other. I just got this on one of my video's on youtube refuting the other videos saying the life of Jesus is just a copy of the pagan sun gods (which isn't true): "Face the plain truth, folks: theres no such thing as Jesus or any other religious crap out there. The bible is nothing but a fiction created by those who holds the power and control irrational lambs that follows the catholic and other churches. I hope that someday all religions will collapse."

I wish I had a web cam. . . But honestly; I think Jesuzfreak777 and the other guy, VenomFangX? Have done enough by themselves. . .

Atheists, I agree, broken records. Heaven forbid they start arguing from the Da Vinci Code and now Zeitgeist. There were no resurrection cults, people. . .



In which I do my same reply over and over again (since I hear this so often): And exactly how do you know this? "Have you investaged it for yourself or are you just blindly repeating what other atheist have said? There is so much historical and archeology evidence for the bible it takes more faith to not believe."

Rarely do they answer back...my response is hopefully, to get them to 'think' and use their brains for a change instead of just repeating what others have said about our faith. :cool:

Anyway...you get some sleep!

God bless

I had to write a mid term on the work of the Spirit in the Old Testament. Actually, it was an entire text (250 pages) that we were only assigned one chapter to read out of--not too bad, but still leaves me wondering why I have a test on a text we barely read.

Studyin'2Show
Mar 4th 2008, 12:10 PM
Learning to properly define and separate the terms makes it a more productive discussion. Here's an example. Someone says, "I don't believe in evolution, I believe in creation and Noah's flood." Now, for the hearers they believe that this person is deny the clear speciation that has been observed amongst dogs during the last 200 years. They think this person believes that each and every species seen on the planet today plus all those which have gone extinct had at least 2 representatives on the ark. Yet, neither of those things is true.

Now, let's say the same person says, "I don't believe in macro-evolution (or darwinian evolution) but I am aware that micro-evolution occurs." That changes the dynamic of the conversation completely. You may even get a few people to ask what the difference is which would allow you to share the truth. ;)

Athanasius
Mar 4th 2008, 01:50 PM
Learning to properly define and separate the terms makes it a more productive discussion. Here's an example. Someone says, "I don't believe in evolution, I believe in creation and Noah's flood." Now, for the hearers they believe that this person is deny the clear speciation that has been observed amongst dogs during the last 200 years. They think this person believes that each and every species seen on the planet today plus all those which have gone extinct had at least 2 representatives on the ark. Yet, neither of those things is true.

Now, let's say the same person says, "I don't believe in macro-evolution (or darwinian evolution) but I am aware that micro-evolution occurs." That changes the dynamic of the conversation completely. You may even get a few people to ask what the difference is which would allow you to share the truth. ;)

Exactly! It's just too bad barely anyone is discussing this topic, lol.

moonglow
Mar 4th 2008, 03:40 PM
I'd just like them to stop vehemently denying the entire theory while grouping in cosmology, lol.

Oh...ok...I guess I don't view them as grouping it in with cosmology usually anyway. When I see someone denying evolution, I assume they mean the man from monkeys idea and yes I realize they misunderstand that part too as was explained in an earlier post...but that is generally what they are talking about. I don't see alot of Christians even studying the comos actually..not sure why..:hmm: Maybe they lump in the age of the earth with it? But as far as really saying much about the universe I don't see much discussed there among Christians..

teddyv
Mar 4th 2008, 04:00 PM
Just wanted to say I have enjoyed reading through this thread so far.:)

As a geologist I accept the premise of an old-earth. I don't really have strong opinions on macro-evolution since I don't have a lot of knowledge/experience in the science. Therefore I generally try to avoid getting into detailed discussions of evolution, but will happily engage in geological or astronomical (a hobby) matters.

moonglow
Mar 4th 2008, 04:09 PM
It's a view I held as well when I was younger, until I start looking into things more. I still try to argue it, but it never works out! But I agree with you; I don't think we evolved. But I do think we were created with an ability to adapt.

Yea we mutated...:lol: As the guy on the Genesis website like to say. All the varies breeds of dogs are mutations too...I wrote that wrong before in using them as an example of micro evolution... :rolleyes:


Well a lot of my family also believe I'm going to Hell because I'm not Catholic, lol. I really only recently (I guess I mean a few years back) became interested in these fields of study. I think their fascinating. I'm also surprised to learn that Stephen Hawkings was married :O

Yes Stephen Hawking got remarried. I saw someone a couple of years ago very upset that he had divorced and supposedly had an affair with this lady while still married to his other wife. Now considering how crippled up he is...its really hard for me to image him running around having an affair and doing all these things! Next they will have him leaping off of tall buildings! "its a bird! No its a plane! No its Hawking flying off to do bad things!" "And look! Its his trusty computer voice flying alone with him! And his wheelchair and his life support...and his nurses...":rolleyes: So who knows...

Dawkins earlier books were alright (The Selfish Gene; The Blind Watchmaker), but his more recent stuff seems too angry.

I always thought he sounded angry actually. I was really annoyed they are letting him write articles for Scientific American...I guess I am basis against him...and yea I know, I need to get over it..:rolleyes:

I wish I had a web cam. . . But honestly; I think Jesuzfreak777 and the other guy, VenomFangX? Have done enough by themselves. . .

I personally don't think much of either of these two. I don't like their attacking methods then say...oh but I am just trying to show people the love of Christ. Jesuzfreak had a video making amazingatheist sound like a pig...now how does that lead anyone to Christ? Of course I cannot stand AA, he is so extremely foul mouthed and vile...for folks like him I think its better to just ingore him..engaging him just gets him more attention!


Atheists, I agree, broken records. Heaven forbid they start arguing from the Da Vinci Code and now Zeitgeist. There were no resurrection cults, people. .

They already do! I fight against that stupid Zeitgeist movie...grrrrrrrr and show them the truth of it...and if you dig deep enough it all comes down to them implying Christians are dangerous...Christians (namely Bush and his supporters) caused 911 and their beliefs are based on old pagan god myths AND the whole point of this is to generate support for Ron Paul!! That is what its all about...to discredit Bush and push Ron Paul. Everyone has an agenda if you look hard enough you can usually find it. And the video's on youtube to promote the Zeitgeist are very manipulative. They titled it things like "Why doesn't Youtube want you to see this video?" And make false claims their video has been repeatedly removed from youtube. Which it hasn't cause if you look to the right on the related video's its right there! They make it sound as if youtube is Christian controlled (far from it!) and is trying to hide the truth from people AND infringing on this person's right to free speech. This kind of media manipulation gets a knee jerk reaction from the general public. They immediately side with the poor youtuber who is doing nothing but trying to get the 'truth' out there and having their rights stomped all over.

The video also encourages people do to their own research to see if what they are saying is true...so most people think...'gee it must be true otherwise they wouldn't say that as they would be discovered as lying and they wouldn't want to risk that"...so they assume its true and us terrible Christians are trying to control information on the net with youtube helping...:cool:

And they don't think it through! They swallow it hook, line and sinker! Just drives me crazy that they are this gullible. But if any Christians tries to point out none of this is true...we are doubted because we are the 'cause' of this terrible injustice to start with! ugh!



I had to write a mid term on the work of the Spirit in the Old Testament. Actually, it was an entire text (250 pages) that we were only assigned one chapter to read out of--not too bad, but still leaves me wondering why I have a test on a text we barely read.

Cause they had to assign you something to do! :lol:

moonglow
Mar 4th 2008, 04:16 PM
Learning to properly define and separate the terms makes it a more productive discussion. Here's an example. Someone says, "I don't believe in evolution, I believe in creation and Noah's flood." Now, for the hearers they believe that this person is deny the clear speciation that has been observed amongst dogs during the last 200 years. They think this person believes that each and every species seen on the planet today plus all those which have gone extinct had at least 2 representatives on the ark. Yet, neither of those things is true.

Now, let's say the same person says, "I don't believe in macro-evolution (or darwinian evolution) but I am aware that micro-evolution occurs." That changes the dynamic of the conversation completely. You may even get a few people to ask what the difference is which would allow you to share the truth. ;)

You know I have tried to do that in these types of conversations. A few years ago we had an atheist that was a long time member before they changed things around and had the CA only for them to post on and due to them knowing him personally and being a long time member they allowed him to post anywhere on the board he wanted too. Well they got into an evolution debate in bible chat one time and I mentioned the different types of evolution and he sent me an angry PM wanting to know why I didn't tell the others the differences. I told him I HAVE tried too in the past but no one was listening...they didn't care. My posts on it were ignored or not understood. They were zeroed in on what they believed to be ONE type of evolution and were so defensive, they couldn't even consider at this point, another kind. Any kind of evolution was seen as threatening! This wall was up against his views and they were not listening...I told him it wouldn't do any good..as they weren't listening...:( Its a bad frame of mind to be in for sure...

God bless

Athanasius
Mar 4th 2008, 04:38 PM
Oh...ok...I guess I don't view them as grouping it in with cosmology usually anyway. When I see someone denying evolution, I assume they mean the man from monkeys idea and yes I realize they misunderstand that part too as was explained in an earlier post...but that is generally what they are talking about. I don't see alot of Christians even studying the comos actually..not sure why..:hmm: Maybe they lump in the age of the earth with it? But as far as really saying much about the universe I don't see much discussed there among Christians..

Well, when Christians discuss evolution then move into the big bang, that's when they bring cosmology into it--evolution doesn't, to my knowledge, deal with the creation of the cosmos.

More dialog needed, I suppose.

KATA_LOUKAN
Mar 4th 2008, 04:39 PM
They were zeroed in on what they believed to be ONE type of evolution and were so defensive, they couldn't even consider at this point, another kind.

I've noticed this to be true in many cases. People reject evolution wholesale because they make the assumption that abiogenesis (or any other aspect of evolution) is equal to evolution.

moonglow
Mar 4th 2008, 04:57 PM
Well, when Christians discuss evolution then move into the big bang, that's when they bring cosmology into it--evolution doesn't, to my knowledge, deal with the creation of the cosmos.

More dialog needed, I suppose.

Oh yea..I forgot about the big bang...lol. As I said before though, I believe the Big Bang proves God! I think its great...they used to think the universe has always been here...no beginning, no end. (though these same people would not accept the idea that God has always been and didn't have a beginning..:cool:). The very idea that the Big Bang even happened causes one to think...what started it? What caused it? Something...all of this...literally came from nothing. Nothing cannot create itself...

They were talking the other day on the History channel about how they could see the beginning of time...the beginning of the big bang and were wondering if they could go back further and see before the big bang and the debates on that. If there is nothing there to see...no time, no light...how could you go back that far? And to see what? nothing...lol. They want to see the moment before the big bang...I guess that would be normal curiosity. But what do they think they will see? God in the moments before He created everything? I think the whole thing is just amazing and wonderful. :)

KATA_LOUKAN

Quote:

They were zeroed in on what they believed to be ONE type of evolution and were so defensive, they couldn't even consider at this point, another kind.
I've noticed this to be true in many cases. People reject evolution wholesale because they make the assumption that abiogenesis (or any other aspect of evolution) is equal to evolution.

I probably messed up the quoting on that...but yes I wish people would not be so fearful. We serve an awesome God and there is nothing out there that can disprove Him. Nothing for us to fear..and God does not give us the spirit of fear. To remain ignorant on this and defensive only causes seekers to really wonder what we have to be so afraid of when we say how strong our faith is, yet won't even discuss this issue...we cannot say one thing and do another...it makes for a poor witness.

God bless

Athanasius
Mar 4th 2008, 05:07 PM
Oh yea..I forgot about the big bang...lol. As I said before though, I believe the Big Bang proves God! I think its great...they used to think the universe has always been here...no beginning, no end. (though these same people would not accept the idea that God has always been and didn't have a beginning..:cool:). The very idea that the Big Bang even happened causes one to think...what started it? What caused it? Something...all of this...literally came from nothing. Nothing cannot create itself...

Absolutely; I've not problem with the Big Bang. I don't see why it can't be the moment God created everything. Even science agrees that if you regress enough you come to a singularity. It would be interested to see how the concept of such a singularity would play out in Christian circles.

It still amazes me, though, that people will try to argue an eternal universe. Infinite regressions might seem nice in philosophical thought and on paper; but in reality it's inapplicable. I guess we'll have to take the string theorists words for it that two string membranes collided and caused the big bang. But then you know what question that explanation raises. . .



They were talking the other day on the History channel about how they could see the beginning of time...the beginning of the big bang and were wondering if they could go back further and see before the big bang and the debates on that. If there is nothing there to see...no time, no light...how could you go back that far? And to see what? nothing...lol. They want to see the moment before the big bang...I guess that would be normal curiosity. But what do they think they will see? God in the moments before He created everything? I think the whole thing is just amazing and wonderful. :)

Well, science can only technically go as far back as one second after the big bang; the rest is left up to philosophers. It would be interesting, but I don't see how they could study something outside the laws of the known universe.

Studyin'2Show
Mar 4th 2008, 05:07 PM
I've noticed this to be true in many cases. People reject evolution wholesale because they make the assumption that abiogenesis (or any other aspect of evolution) is equal to evolution.Well, not considering abiogenesis, macro-evolution is not a tenet I accept. But using the proper terminology makes the discussion more effective.

Free Indeed
Mar 4th 2008, 05:15 PM
I have heard this argument before..that there is no science in creationism and it is a stumbling block...do you care to explain exactly what you mean by this?

I say it could be a stumblingblock because some of these people may otherwise believe were it not for some creationists who insist that their interpretation of Genesis must be held in order to attain salvation. Not all creationists hold that view, so when I call it a stumblingblock, I'm speaking only of those who preach a gospel of creationism alongside the gospel of the crucifiction.

I don't pretend to understand everything about Genesis, nor about science either. But I have reconciled in my own faith evolutionary development with my belief in Christ's atonement. I don't see them in conflict. About half of all biological scientists and physicists are also Christians, or at least theists, who have accepted evolution as the origin of the species.

I personally see the creation account (or possibly "accounts" as it has been argued there are two) in Genesis as a poetical expression by an ancient scribe recording the traditions of his people, rather than as a literal historical statement made by God Himself. The same thing can be said of those biblical verses describing the immovability and fixed nature of the earth, which got Galileo in trouble in the same manner that Genesis got Darwin in trouble.


But regardless of our own personal views on Genesis, I don't think it should be dealt with as a salvation issue. That is where I see the stumblingblock.

Free Indeed
Mar 4th 2008, 05:20 PM
Oh yea..I forgot about the big bang...lol. As I said before though, I believe the Big Bang proves God!

So do I. At the moment immediately preceding the Big Bang singularity, *something* was there acting on a force. This *something* is confusing to non-believers because before the Big Bang, there were no laws of physics, and no reason for anything to "act" in any way whatsoever.

Also, immediately following the Big Bang, the explosion should have produced equal amounts of matter and anti-matter. These should have cancelled each other out, leaving nothing.

But our universe is filled with matter, not anti-matter or nothingness. I'm sure there is an explanation per astrophysics that will eventually be found, but I'm also quite sure the Universe was meant to be that way for a reason.

Brother Mark
Mar 4th 2008, 05:25 PM
Absolutely; I've not problem with the Big Bang. I don't see why it can't be the moment God created everything. Even science agrees that if you regress enough you come to a singularity. It would be interested to see how the concept of such a singularity would play out in Christian circles.

Just after getting saved I was highly interested in apologetics. They greatly increased my faith. Anyway, a few of my co-workers were discussing the big bang and I was listening. After the conversation wound down, I asked the remaining individual "where did that singularity come from?" He responded "I don't like to think about that." It was a great lesson for me. I left his desk and wondered about the response. That day was when I began to understand what Peter meant when he said "they were willingly ignorant". Oh, and the study of evolution was prophesied in scripture and the reason for it.

2 Peter 3:3-7
3 Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, 4 and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation." 5 For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, 6 through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water. 7 But the present heavens and earth by His word are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.
NASB

A common mistake that we make as scientist is we assume that everything is happening right now, just as it has always happened. When we do this, we miss that God created the heavens. We also miss the flood. Why? Because of the underlying bias that things have always been "this way".


Well, science can only technically go as far back as one second after the big bang; the rest is left up to philosophers. It would be interesting, but I don't see how they could study something outside the laws of the known universe.

I remember sitting in a particle physics class when the professor pointed this out to us. A buddy of mine leaned over and said "they have come up with an entire theory that misses the most important part of the whole process." I laughed and never forgot what he said.

Studyin'2Show
Mar 4th 2008, 05:55 PM
Being able to discuss this issue without becoming confrontational is important. Remembering that the person that may disagree with our view is not the enemy makes it easier to share our interpretation.

moonglow
Mar 4th 2008, 06:10 PM
Being able to discuss this issue without becoming confrontational is important. Remembering that the person that may disagree with our view is not the enemy makes it easier to share our interpretation.

Amen on that! I so agree with this. This is why I finally decided to make it a non-issue in regards to whether other Christians believe in Darwin's idea of evolution or not. I saw the terrible division this was creating among Christians...dividing us in an awful, angry way and knew this was not right..I could list many scriptures showing how this division is wrong to the body of Christ. I realize for some Christians this is a passion of their's to refute Darwin's evolution and I say more power to them if they can do this without being hateful and attacking in doing so. A logical and calm approach can work wonders...an angry, defensive approach only turns people off from even listening...

Athanasius
Mar 4th 2008, 06:16 PM
I remember sitting in a particle physics class when the professor pointed this out to us. A buddy of mine leaned over and said "they have come up with an entire theory that misses the most important part of the whole process." I laughed and never forgot what he said.

I meet too many people who think science can answer this very fundamental question. It's almost harder for them to realize science can't answer the question than it is for them to admit the possibility of God.

moonglow
Mar 4th 2008, 06:23 PM
I say it could be a stumblingblock because some of these people may otherwise believe were it not for some creationists who insist that their interpretation of Genesis must be held in order to attain salvation. Not all creationists hold that view, so when I call it a stumblingblock, I'm speaking only of those who preach a gospel of creationism alongside the gospel of the crucifiction.

I don't pretend to understand everything about Genesis, nor about science either. But I have reconciled in my own faith evolutionary development with my belief in Christ's atonement. I don't see them in conflict. About half of all biological scientists and physicists are also Christians, or at least theists, who have accepted evolution as the origin of the species.

I personally see the creation account (or possibly "accounts" as it has been argued there are two) in Genesis as a poetical expression by an ancient scribe recording the traditions of his people, rather than as a literal historical statement made by God Himself. The same thing can be said of those biblical verses describing the immovability and fixed nature of the earth, which got Galileo in trouble in the same manner that Genesis got Darwin in trouble.


But regardless of our own personal views on Genesis, I don't think it should be dealt with as a salvation issue. That is where I see the stumblingblock.

I agree with you on this. I see many various views of how Genesis could be taken and I personally don't have a problem with that..maybe because I have been in those discussions before and explored other ideas... I just think if its that important that the Lord would show His people the truth in it...yet He hasn't and has allowed us to have varying views on it. Image if we agreed on everything in the bible...what would we have to talk about? :lol:


Knight Templar
Quote:

Originally Posted by moonglow
Oh yea..I forgot about the big bang...lol. As I said before though, I believe the Big Bang proves God!

So do I. At the moment immediately preceding the Big Bang singularity, *something* was there acting on a force. This *something* is confusing to non-believers because before the Big Bang, there were no laws of physics, and no reason for anything to "act" in any way whatsoever.

Also, immediately following the Big Bang, the explosion should have produced equal amounts of matter and anti-matter. These should have cancelled each other out, leaving nothing.

But our universe is filled with matter, not anti-matter or nothingness. I'm sure there is an explanation per astrophysics that will eventually be found, but I'm also quite sure the Universe was meant to be that way for a reason.


Yes. When I look at Jupiter for instance...a planet that is nothing but gas, you have to wonder how and why its even there. Gas can be seen floating around the universe yet this one came together as a big giant ball of gas. Sure they can say well this is going on and that, etc...but it doesn't answer the question, why is this and that going on in that certain spot in the whole universe to hold this big ball of gas together in the first place? Why do we even have any planets or stars or anything at all...why isn't it all in pieces just floating around? And why round planets...why not blob shaped planets? Like asteroids are?

I see the control there...the planned control and know something has moved these things to where they are and how they are. Its no accident by any means.

yes I know I sound very scientific here...:lol:

Brother Mark
Mar 4th 2008, 06:33 PM
But regardless of our own personal views on Genesis, I don't think it should be dealt with as a salvation issue. That is where I see the stumblingblock.


Depends on the nature of the discussion. Some few folks are led to Christ through creation science and genesis. Some are turned off by it. For this reason, I think we need to hear God on every person we witness to. Shoot, Jesus didn't approach each unbeliever in the same exact way, and neither should we.

moonglow
Mar 4th 2008, 06:38 PM
Absolutely; I've not problem with the Big Bang. I don't see why it can't be the moment God created everything. Even science agrees that if you regress enough you come to a singularity. It would be interested to see how the concept of such a singularity would play out in Christian circles.

It still amazes me, though, that people will try to argue an eternal universe. Infinite regressions might seem nice in philosophical thought and on paper; but in reality it's inapplicable. I guess we'll have to take the string theorists words for it that two string membranes collided and caused the big bang. But then you know what question that explanation raises. . .

You know the history channel had a show on this one time about how Einstein was the one that figured this all out..that we could see the light of the beginning of time...the big bang..but he didn't want to prove there was a beginning to the universe. As they said, he lost his nerve because his own theory showed there was a beginning and if there was a beginning...it meant something started that beginning and he didn't want to face that. Now that is how they portrayed his dealings with it all...and left the question hanging ...what started the big bang. But I don't know...after doing some reading on him, I am kind of surprised he would have this type of reaction to it.:hmm:


Well, science can only technically go as far back as one second after the big bang; the rest is left up to philosophers. It would be interesting, but I don't see how they could study something outside the laws of the known universe.

Speaking of the string theory...have you ever noticed the intriguing names they come up with? The string theory,(makes me think of string cheese) negative energy,(my son has alot of negative energy at times! lol) the big bang,(I do that alot when dealing with my son's NE..lol), the big rip,(only when I am really mad), the expanding universe (that will lead to the big rip) White Dwarfs,(eventually our sun will be one), black holes,(that suck everything into it like some family members do!) Gamma rays (this is what will get us one day and end it all ..so fast we won't even know it..;)) super nova's and the funnest one of all...'the theory of everything!' :lol:

I told Nate, my son, if he wanted to become famous like Einstein and be a house hold name forever he just needed to discover the 'theory of everything!'...then he would be! :lol:

heh

Athanasius
Mar 4th 2008, 06:42 PM
Speaking of the string theory...have you ever noticed the intriguing names they come up with? The string theory,(makes me think of string cheese) negative energy,(my son has alot of negative energy at times! lol) the big bang,(I do that alot when dealing with my son's NE..lol), the big rip,(only when I am really mad), the expanding universe (that will lead to the big rip) White Dwarfs,(eventually our sun will be one), black holes,(that suck everything into it like some family members do!) Gamma rays (this is what will get us one day and end it all ..so fast we won't even know it..;)) super nova's and the funnest one of all...'the theory of everything!' :lol:

I told Nate, my son, if he wanted to become famous like Einstein and be a house hold name forever he just needed to discover the 'theory of everything!'...then he would be! :lol:

heh

There are a lot of problems with a finite universe. I can see how a lot of scientists are scared, but Einstein? Wouldn't imagine him. . .

Haha, yeah, they come up with some weird names. . Quarks? Naming particles after a bartender in Star Trek DS9? Seems like they're reaching. Or jump back into the 1950's, the search for the graviton. But yeah, really weird names.

moonglow
Mar 4th 2008, 06:47 PM
Just after getting saved I was highly interested in apologetics. They greatly increased my faith. Anyway, a few of my co-workers were discussing the big bang and I was listening. After the conversation wound down, I asked the remaining individual "where did that singularity come from?" He responded "I don't like to think about that." It was a great lesson for me. I left his desk and wondered about the response. That day was when I began to understand what Peter meant when he said "they were willingly ignorant". Oh, and the study of evolution was prophesied in scripture and the reason for it.

2 Peter 3:3-7
3 Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, 4 and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation." 5 For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, 6 through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water. 7 But the present heavens and earth by His word are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.
NASB

A common mistake that we make as scientist is we assume that everything is happening right now, just as it has always happened. When we do this, we miss that God created the heavens. We also miss the flood. Why? Because of the underlying bias that things have always been "this way".



I remember sitting in a particle physics class when the professor pointed this out to us. A buddy of mine leaned over and said "they have come up with an entire theory that misses the most important part of the whole process." I laughed and never forgot what he said.

That was such a good post. Yes the bible does say their was a BEGINNING to creation and its proven...this must be why some want to hold onto the idea its always been there (while rejecting the idea God could always be there as I said before) they aren't happy with it either way at any rate. When I have had discussions with nonbelievers on the big bang, etc...when I ask them something they cannot answer they say, well we can't know it all yet and do admit ideas change along with new theories and we just have to believe it'll all work out. Very similar to what we hear Christians saying in we just have to believe on certain things...yet we get mocked for saying that. They have their 'faith' in science alone...this is what I see most in common with atheist...their religion is science. Though they know its always changing and in some cases cannot be relied on. Yet they refuse to turn to anything else. sigh.

I think ALL science points directly to God.

God bless

moonglow
Mar 4th 2008, 06:53 PM
There are a lot of problems with a finite universe. I can see how a lot of scientists are scared, but Einstein? Wouldn't imagine him. . .

Haha, yeah, they come up with some weird names. . Quarks? Naming particles after a bartender in Star Trek DS9? Seems like they're reaching. Or jump back into the 1950's, the search for the graviton. But yeah, really weird names.

:lol::lol: I haven't heard of those...wowie...I can't keep up with all of these names!!! lol. The good thing is they are such fun names it makes them easy to remember...lol. Though I totally hate it when they name stars by some odd numbers and letters that don't make any sense...:rolleyes: Those annoy me because they are so random no one can remember then unless you have a really good memory for numbers...which I don't.

Or names that are so lame like this one: "X Structure at Core of Whirlpool Galaxy" yea that tells you a lot! :cool: Then their description of what is it tells you even less! And you leave going...ok so ...exactly what is it? :hmm:

God bless

Brother Mark
Mar 4th 2008, 06:55 PM
That was such a good post. Yes the bible does say their was a BEGINNING to creation and its proven...this must be why some want to hold onto the idea its always been there (while rejecting the idea God could always be there as I said before) they aren't happy with it either way at any rate. When I have had discussions with nonbelievers on the big bang, etc...when I ask them something they cannot answer they say, well we can't know it all yet and do admit ideas change along with new theories and we just have to believe it'll all work out. Very similar to what we hear Christians saying in we just have to believe on certain things...yet we get mocked for saying that. They have their 'faith' in science alone...this is what I see most in common with atheist...their religion is science. Though they know its always changing and in some cases cannot be relied on. Yet they refuse to turn to anything else. sigh.

I think ALL science points directly to God.

God bless

I think science points to God as well. But, not many wise make it in. As Jesus said 'It is impossible for a rich man to be saved" but then he qualified it by saying "with God, all things are possible". While Jesus meant that concerning money, we find other verses that suggest those folks rich in anything the world values are less likely to believe whether it be intelligence, wisdom, wealth, or any number of other things.

watchinginawe
Mar 4th 2008, 07:14 PM
Well, what do we mean by evolution? If I said, "I believe in evolution!"; what would be the first thing to pop into everyone's head?:hmm: The first thing that would pop into my head would be that I don't think you "believe in evolution". Now that is a result of me assuming that you would be talking about the scientific theory of evolution or one of the other scientific names that "evolution" takes like "modern synthesis", etc.

I'm also dubious of the phrase "I believe in" where it appliess to this topic. :hmm: I can't really quantify that, but only that everyone has to come to some sort of view of where they came from. So we may "believe in evolution" without really assessing what we "believe in". Evolution proposes to solve a huge mystery for us, worthy of "beliving in". The problem can be that adoption of "evolution" may become a cornerstone in our world view.

Often times "believing in evolution" means with certain qualifiers, like "God guided evolution", etc. These views are disqualified by scientific evolution. So we begin to see a huge umbrella of "evolution" as it applies personally and not scientifically.

Anyway, my first inclination is to distinguish the "believer in evolution" from those who really disagree with the scientific theory of evolution and start there. There is not a "big tent" scientific evolutionary view that is taught which encompasses peoples real "beliefs" regarding it.

God Bless!

Athanasius
Mar 4th 2008, 07:25 PM
:hmm: The first thing that would pop into my head would be that I don't think you "believe in evolution". Now that is a result of me assuming that you would be talking about the scientific theory of evolution or one of the other scientific names that "evolution" takes like "modern synthesis", etc.

I'm also dubious of the phrase "I believe in" where it appliess to this topic. :hmm: I can't really quantify that, but only that everyone has to come to some sort of view of where they came from. So we may "believe in evolution" without really assessing what we "believe in". Evolution proposes to solve a huge mystery for us, worthy of "beliving in". The problem can be that adoption of "evolution" may become a cornerstone in our world view.

Often times "believing in evolution" means with certain qualifiers, like "God guided evolution", etc. These views are disqualified by scientific evolution. So we begin to see a huge umbrella of "evolution" as it applies personally and not scientifically.

Anyway, my first inclination is to distinguish the "believer in evolution" from those who really disagree with the scientific theory of evolution and start there. There is not a "big tent" scientific evolutionary view that is taught which encompasses peoples real "beliefs" regarding it.

God Bless!

You said it better than I could have !

KATA_LOUKAN
Mar 4th 2008, 10:20 PM
The problem can be that adoption of "evolution" may become a cornerstone in our world view.

Why is this a problem?


These views are disqualified by scientific evolution.

Do you think science can disprove God?

watchinginawe
Mar 4th 2008, 11:36 PM
The problem can be that adoption of "evolution" may become a cornerstone in our world view.
Why is this a problem?Actually, I said it may be a problem. But generally, accepting for the moment that it is a problem with an individual's worldview, I say that because it is "believed in". In the absence of a belief in God, we may turn to science and "believe in it" to answer our innermost questions. Since evolution offers an explanation to man's existence exterior to God, and science offers explanations to our universe's existence exterior to God, one can "believe in" science and thus conclude that we exist exterior to God. A philosophical system (worldview) may be put in place that excludes God as creator.
Do you think science can disprove God?Of course not. Science can not even consider the question of God much less prove or disprove God. Science can't even consider creation. That is why science is left with theories which we all seem to modify by marveling about how wonderful God's creation is that science points to. If God created the universe and God created life, then science will never, ever, come to the truth of the matter. This must be realized as a limitiation of science. Or at least as science is employed currently, remembering that science is a man made philosophy.

God Bless!

KATA_LOUKAN
Mar 5th 2008, 11:56 AM
Of course not. Science can not even consider the question of God much less prove or disprove God. Science can't even consider creation. That is why science is left with theories which we all seem to modify by marveling about how wonderful God's creation is that science points to. If God created the universe and God created life, then science will never, ever, come to the truth of the matter. This must be realized as a limitiation of science. Or at least as science is employed currently, remembering that science is a man made philosophy.


Good stuff! If only more people thought like this!


Since evolution offers an explanation to man's existence exterior to God

Hmmmm. I really havent seen this. I've seen atheism used in a context that fits within the evolutionary framework, although evolution explains "how" not "why".

Studyin'2Show
Mar 5th 2008, 12:10 PM
So :hmm: are we solely talking 'darwinian evolution' now? :D

watchinginawe
Mar 5th 2008, 12:34 PM
Hmmmm. I really havent seen this. I've seen atheism used in a context that fits within the evolutionary framework, although evolution explains "how" not "why".I don't think it has to be this way, but it surely seems to have become that way. "Evolution" is inaminate and doesn't really "offer" anything (excuse my anthropomorphisms :blush:), but the presentation (teaching) of evolution does. That is why many want some kind of counterbalance offered when evolution is taught. Instead, evolution is offered in a "package deal" with abiogenesis and the human mind doesn't have to want to draw an end point to do so. But I agree with you that the framework is something an atheist crawls into rather than explicitly stating that atheism is a proper scientific view.

God Bless!

watchinginawe
Mar 5th 2008, 12:43 PM
So :hmm: are we solely talking 'darwinian evolution' now? :DSurely there are other topics of evolution than Darwinian evolution, but it is kind of like the topic of the "War in Iraq" for me, it doesn't need a lot of clarification. :)

Studyin'2Show
Mar 5th 2008, 02:53 PM
Surely there are other topics of evolution than Darwinian evolution, but it is kind of like the topic of the "War in Iraq" for me, it doesn't need a lot of clarification. :)So, how would you react if a believer properly uses the term 'micro evolution' to describe the speciation that has been observed within the canine population within the last 200 years to offer the scenario of why every species we see today did not need to be present as such on the ark? Isn't that, in essence, clarifying the term 'evolution' in this instance so that the darwinian evolutionist can not use this canine speciation, call it 'evolution' and imply to the masses that this observable occurrence somehow is an example of single-celled organisms to human 'macro evolution'? They do that ALL the time and for someone who is not aware of the differences in the terms it's almost like a bait and switch and many fall for it. This is my main reason to want to see the terms more properly defined within the body of believers. So, we can more properly discuss all the issues both biblically and scientifically and teach our children so they don't get caught up in the 'evolutionary' bait and switch. Which, unfortunately, far too many of our young people do. :( I'd appreciate your input on this aspect of the topic.

God Bless!

moonglow
Mar 5th 2008, 04:04 PM
So :hmm: are we solely talking 'darwinian evolution' now? :D

Maybe now we are! :lol:


So, how would you react if a believer properly uses the term 'micro evolution' to describe the speciation that has been observed within the canine population within the last 200 years to offer the scenario of why every species we see today did not need to be present as such on the ark? Isn't that, in essence, clarifying the term 'evolution' in this instance so that the darwinian evolutionist can not use this canine speciation, call it 'evolution' and imply to the masses that this observable occurrence somehow is an example of single-celled organisms to human 'macro evolution'? They do that ALL the time and for someone who is not aware of the differences in the terms it's almost like a bait and switch and many fall for it. This is my main reason to want to see the terms more properly defined with the body of believers. So, we can more properly discuss all the issues both biblically and scientifically and teach our children so they don't get caught up in the 'evolutionary' bait and switch. Which, unfortunately, far too many of our young people do. I'd appreciate your input on this aspect of the topic.

Ok I must be thick headed this morning cause I read this three times and still am not sure what you said...

This is what I think you might be saying...correct me if I am wrong:

One time I was in a discussion on evolution and the other side pointed out how viruses, germs, evolve, something I couldn't deny of course. They were trying to use this for evidence of macro evolution though....and back then before I knew the difference between the two, this really had me confused. Is this what you are saying? That first knowing the difference is extremely important so they cannot try to use micro evolution as proof of macro evolution?

A germ or virus still remains what they are, though they do change...evolve, (some say mutate), as for instance into different types of the flu viruses...but they are still just a virus... but its a far leap to go from being a germ to a bird as macro evolution would suggest...

Thanks.

God bless

Studyin'2Show
Mar 5th 2008, 04:14 PM
Ok I must be thick headed this morning cause I read this three times and still am not sure what you said...

This is what I think you might be saying...correct me if I am wrong:

One time I was in a discussion on evolution and the other side pointed out how viruses, germs, evolve, something I couldn't deny of course. They were trying to use this for evidence of macro evolution though....and back then before I knew the difference between the two, this really had me confused. Is this what you are saying? That first knowing the difference is extremely important so they cannot try to use micro evolution as proof of macro evolution?

A germ or virus still remains what they are, though they do change...evolve, (some say mutate), as for instance into different types of the flu viruses...but they are still just a virus... but its a far leap to go from being a germ to a bird as macro evolution would suggest...

Thanks.

God blessBINGO! :D Maybe I need to clarify my clarification. :lol:

moonglow
Mar 5th 2008, 06:20 PM
BINGO! :D Maybe I need to clarify my clarification. :lol:

lol...naw that is ok. Just wanted to make sure I was understanding you! As you can tell through this thread, I wasn't always understanding people! :rolleyes:

But in this case...since I got it..;).I have to agree with you...Christians need to know the differences...especially our young people. Evolution is something I have talked too about alot with my son, especially when he used to bring home alot of science books. He was so into factual books for years the school had a hard time getting him to read fiction at all. He had too though for their reading program. Finally one of the ladies found a sci fi book that got his attention and that is what he mostly reads now to meet their fiction requirements. Nearly all his science books he would bring home though brought up evolution in them...and knowing the school isn't going to provide other views or explain the differences...(especially in the early grades like he was in) I did. Plus I watch alot of programs on the Discovery channel and the history channel and so forth and he used to watch alot of Animal Planet and evolution is always brought up on these shows. If he is watching too, I make sure I say something on the parts I think need more clarifying...

I know when he gets in the upper grades and they really start studying evolution I am going to have to keep up with it and help him understand rather then just sit back and let the school tell him what is true in this area (and other areas too!)

God bless

KATA_LOUKAN
Mar 5th 2008, 07:09 PM
call it 'evolution' and imply to the masses that this observable occurrence somehow is an example of single-celled organisms to human 'macro evolution'?

Evolution, being gradual, consists of small changes over periods of time that amount to large changes in the end, which in turn results in speciation. Macro-evolution is essentially lots of micro-evolution.

According to genetic data, all living organisms share a a common ancestor. Although the jump from single celled organisms to humans is extreme, we still share quite a bit of DNA with the most primative of microbes.

Brother Mark
Mar 5th 2008, 08:11 PM
According to genetic data, all living organisms share a a common ancestor. Although the jump from single celled organisms to humans is extreme, we still share quite a bit of DNA with the most primative of microbes.

Or perhaps we share a common designer.

Studyin'2Show
Mar 5th 2008, 08:39 PM
Evolution, being gradual, consists of small changes over periods of time that amount to large changes in the end, which in turn results in speciation. Macro-evolution is essentially lots of micro-evolution.

According to genetic data, all living organisms share a a common ancestor. Although the jump from single celled organisms to humans is extreme, we still share quite a bit of DNA with the most primative of microbes.That is what is 'believed' to have happened by many, though the actual act of a single-celled organism producing a multi-celled organism (macro evolution), has never been observed. Single-celled organisms producing other single-celled organisms with varying traits (micro evolution) is what has been observed. What seems clear to those who see the distinction between these two processes, is that the one (micro evolution) in no way proves the other (macro evolution).

What I find quite interesting is that with the frequency of generations and with the diligence of study in the field of microbiology in the past 200+ years, there should be some evidence of cellular progression that just has not been seen.

KATA_LOUKAN
Mar 5th 2008, 10:24 PM
Or perhaps we share a common designer.

I think we share both!


That is what is 'believed' to have happened by many, though the actual act of a single-celled organism producing a multi-celled organism (macro evolution), has never been observed.

Considering it happened 500+ million years ago, I don't see how it could be. If you are referring to marco-evolution never being observed, it has been observed. Even if it hadnt, imagine a crime that was never observed, but all the evidence points towards it. Would you say the crime didnt happen because it wasnt observed?

Wikipedia even has a modest article about how single-celled organisms evolved into multicellular ones.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_multicellularity


What seems clear to those who see the distinction between these two processes, is that the one (micro evolution) in no way proves the other (macro evolution).


If I can prove that you took 5280 steps, would you believe that you walked a mile?

Microevolution is small changes in DNA. When it adds up, you have two groups that cannot breed. This is marcoevolution. Remember, populations evolve, not individuals.


What I find quite interesting is that with the frequency of generations and with the diligence of study in the field of microbiology in the past 200+ years, there should be some evidence of cellular progression that just has not been seen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanobe

There is some info in the other article too.

Studyin'2Show
Mar 5th 2008, 11:18 PM
No offense, Kata, really but you sent me to look at articles explaining more theories of how things MIGHT have happened? I already know the theory. What I have never seen is any proof of ANY of the steps. Just a bunch of theories. Theory heaped up upon theory. That is really the point of the thread in what I see as the need to clarify the WORD 'evolution' for us to be able to discuss this issue intelligently. As long as everything gets piled up together on one 'evolutionary' pile, it is easy for anyone, even the elect to get caught up in the bait and switch. And believe me, it's all bait and switch.

As to your mile analogy, science can't come up with PROOF of even one of the, in keeping with the analogy, 5280 steps. Here's the deal. They believe we were over there (5280 steps away) and now we are here so we must have traveled the 5280 steps or how else did we get to where we are now? You see, it's ALL based on the assumption that we were 5280 steps away. As long as it's a 5280 step blind leap, it's not synonymous with micro evolution which is part of true, observable, repeatable science. It is part of the fictitious realm of macro evolution. There MUST be clarity in the discussion for anyone to truly grasp what has actually been proven and what must be accepted by faith.

God Bless!

watchinginawe
Mar 6th 2008, 03:44 AM
Regarding the term evolution, I like Kent Hovind's (yes, Dr. Dino!) process of distinction. :hmm: I think it is something like this:

He claims 6 kinds of evolution.

Cosmic evolution (the production of the universe)

Elemental evolution (simple matter into the elements of the periodic table)

Celestial evolution (galaxies, stars, planets)

Organic evolution (matter evolving into life)

Macro evolution (speciation from one common ancestor)

Micro evolution (adaptation)


Kent claims that everything above micro evolution is claimed falsely on the observation of micro evolution in nature.

I don't think science uses a "bait and switch" though. I like (really like) what Phillip Johnson (author of Darwin on Trial and other such books) offers on the subject. He basically states that if Science is constrained to explain all of the observed universe in terms of natrual occurrances then something like evolution would have to be true. Strikingly, Johnson also suggests that many offer the same reasons for why evolution must be taught. It must be true! How else could it have happened?

God Bless!

Athanasius
Mar 6th 2008, 04:33 AM
Citing Hovind, risky :O

watchinginawe
Mar 6th 2008, 04:41 AM
:lol: Risky or not, I like his thoughts on this. Everything evolved! :lol:

Duane Morse
Mar 6th 2008, 08:41 AM
This thread is getting really boring.

I mean - REALLY! boring.

Since nothing can be proven either way.

It is an endless circle - not like the infinite Spiral of Life.

Studyin'2Show
Mar 6th 2008, 11:25 AM
This thread is getting really boring.

I mean - REALLY! boring.

Since nothing can be proven either way.

It is an endless circle - not like the infinite Spiral of Life.Not discussing the process, Duane. So nothing needs to be proven either way. The discussion is regarding the term 'evolution' itself and how it should best be discussed. If it's too boring for you, may I suggest the 'New Posts' link where you just may be able to find something more exciting. :D

God Bless!

Studyin'2Show
Mar 6th 2008, 11:33 AM
Regarding the term evolution, I like Kent Hovind's (yes, Dr. Dino!) process of distinction. :hmm: I think it is something like this:

Kent claims that everything above micro evolution is claimed falsely on the observation of micro evolution in nature.

I don't think science uses a "bait and switch" though. I like (really like) what Phillip Johnson (author of Darwin on Trial and other such books) offers on the subject. He basically states that if Science is constrained to explain all of the observed universe in terms of natrual occurrances then something like evolution would have to be true. Strikingly, Johnson also suggests that many offer the same reasons for why evolution must be taught. It must be true! How else could it have happened?

God Bless!I agree that Hovind is quite an interesting dude. I like much of what he says regarding darwinian (macro) evolution and the distinction between the six he mentions. I don't agree, however, that there is not a bait and switch. It seems to me to be the very definition of the term. A science teacher cites several observed instances of micro evolution, like moths, bacteria, or even Darwin's finches, and then tells the class that these things prove 'evolution'. They do not mention that it is a COMPLETELY different type of 'evolution' that has nothing to do with the whole 'goo to you' type of 'evolution' they are implying that it proves. :rolleyes:

KATA_LOUKAN
Mar 6th 2008, 12:26 PM
No offense, Kata, really

None taken. You cant offend me with honest intellectual insight (or anything else for that matter).


I have never seen is any proof of ANY of the steps.

What would constitute proof? Are you familiar with the rapid change in the genome of the AIDS virus? Are you familiar with the pesticide application effectiveness problem?


And believe me, it's all bait and switch.


Evolution is an unbrella theory. There are lots of types (like cultural evolution, for instance).

If you are looking for an actual instance of macroevolution, there have been several examples observed in modern times. When populations become isolated, their gene pool slowly changes (microevolution) so that eventually they cannot interbreed anymore (speciation) this is macroevolution. The mile analogy is to illustrate that the accumulation of small changes over a long period of time eventually end up with a big change in the end.

Lets establish some definnitions first.

Microevolution is defined as the change of allele frequencies (that is, genetic variation due to processes such as selection, mutation, genetic drift, or even migration) within a population.

Macroevolution is the change at species level.

Ok?

Here are some examples of new species.

Helacyton gartleri - HeLa cells, evolved from human cancer in the 1950s.

Primula kewensis - a species of plant that evolved via polyploidy.

There are also examples of incipient speciation (already starting)

The London Underground Mosquito - a new species of mosquito.
Rhagoletis pomonella - a fly
Anopheles gambiae - another mosquito

The list goes on. A thing to note is that speciation takes a long time. We have only been really observing species for the last 200 years or so.

Studyin'2Show
Mar 6th 2008, 12:41 PM
No, we are not seeing the same thing as far as the definition of macro evolution. A new species of mosquito is still micro evolution. It seems you are labeling adaptation as micro and speciation as macro when I see both adaptation and speciation as micro. Let me put it this way. A mosquito producing a mosquito (different species or not) is not evidence of macro evolution. A fly producing a fly, a virus producing a virus; is not the level of change that proves any possibility of single to multi cellular change that would be required for any level of darwinian evolution (macro) to be factual. Yet if any level of macro evolution were factual, even considering the long periods of time required for such changes, there should be some of it still going on somewhere on the planet. Show a fly producing a non-fly or a mosquito producing a non-mosquito or a dog producing a non-dog. That would be macro evolution.

God Bless!

watchinginawe
Mar 6th 2008, 02:04 PM
I agree that Hovind is quite an interesting dude. I like much of what he says regarding darwinian (macro) evolution and the distinction between the six he mentions. I don't agree, however, that there is not a bait and switch. It seems to me to be the very definition of the term. A science teacher cites several observed instances of micro evolution, like moths, bacteria, or even Darwin's finches, and then tells the class that these things prove 'evolution'. They do not mention that it is a COMPLETELY different type of 'evolution' that has nothing to do with the whole 'goo to you' type of 'evolution' they are implying that it proves. :rolleyes:A bait and switch is an intended swindle. But the teacher citing micro evolution in a discussion about "evolution" intends no deceit. That is my point really. :hmm: But it is deceptive. As I mentioned before, when presented with the Stanley Miller experiment and the discussion of abiogenesis, the whole "package deal" is presented and is very compelling.

I believe some scientists really believe all aspects of this though. For example, the extrapolation of liquid water to presence of life is all but accepted now. If there was water on Mars, then there must have been life. :dunno:

God Bless!

Studyin'2Show
Mar 6th 2008, 02:35 PM
A bait and switch is an intended swindle. But the teacher citing micro evolution in a discussion about "evolution" intends no deceit. That is my point really. :hmm: But it is deceptive. As I mentioned before, when presented with the Stanley Miller experiment and the discussion of abiogenesis, the whole "package deal" is presented and is very compelling.

I believe some scientists really believe all aspects of this though. For example, the extrapolation of liquid water to presence of life is all but accepted now. If there was water on Mars, then there must have been life. :dunno:

God Bless!I agree that, for the most part, I see no desire to swindle. I believe those who are teaching genuinely believe what they have been taught. I know I did. I guess I don't really see bait and switch as a swindle, though I guess it could be in certain circumstances. I was in sales for many years so I see the 'bait and switch' as a sales tactic. The bait is to get them in with a great offer and the switch is that once they get there you explain that offer is all gone and sell them on something else. So, really no one gets swindled but you just don't get what you expected. :o

This is why I used it as an example of what I see done in the teaching of darwinian evolution. They show the evidence of micro evolution (adaptation and speciation), that's the bait. Of course most are going to take the bait and say, "Yes, I see the changes". Then comes the switch with macro evolution being switched for the micro evolution they have shown. The teacher then says, "See, this proves evolution so you can be certain that your ancestor (by millions and billions of years) was a one-celled organism. See, in essence, you don't really go home with the 'proof' you thought you had.

moonglow
Mar 6th 2008, 03:13 PM
Ok I have been sitting here quietly reading for a couple of days...it seems we cannot even agree on the different types of evolution...:( I guess that needs to be worked out before anything else can be done. For those that have really studied this stuff which is most posting on here...the finer details are important only to us. If the whole point of this thread is to teach the basic ideas to those that know little to nothing about it, I think we need to keep it simple. You know what I mean? This can get extremely complicated otherwise and most will get so confused and lost they won't even bother...which is why we are in the state we are now with many Christians.

Some of us agreed in the beginning of this thread that it had been our experience the word, 'evolution' seems to send fear into many Christians (to the point I have even seen people deny their were Dinosaur fossils..or that they were planted by the devil):cool:...and to combat that and we wanted to explain the simple difference between micro evolution compared to macro evolution to them so when they are faced with, for instance, the viruses idea of them evolving their faith won't take a beating. Knowledge is good! And they can teach their children too because in most cases no one else will.

For me no matter how much something changes, an animal, a germ, whatever..if its STILL what it started out to be (even with big changes) that is micro evolution..NOT macro evolution where something goes from being one thing to something completely different. When a bird becomes a pig...then that is macro evolution...at least that is my understanding of what Darwin was saying.... agreed or not?

I think for the sakes of most, we need to keep it as simple as possible...agreed?

edited...I forgot to add...I am one of those that knows a 'little' about the different types of evolution...I am not as knowledgeable as many of you posting on here because frankly I get lost too! But what I do know has proven to help me in regards to my faith greatly and helped me guide my son as he is bombarded with Darwin's evolution daily on TV, in books, etc...


God bless

Studyin'2Show
Mar 6th 2008, 05:13 PM
For me no matter how much something changes, an animal, a germ, whatever..if its STILL what it started out to be (even with big changes) that is micro evolution..NOT macro evolution where something goes from being one thing to something completely different. When a bird becomes a pig...then that is macro evolution...at least that is my understanding of what Darwin was saying.... agreed or not?Agreed! :D

I will say, however, though clarity most definitely helps us, for example. teach our children how to think critically so they don't fall for the switch and can tell the difference. Though I do see it also helping in our discussions with those who have accepted darwinian (macro) evolution and ARE knowledgeable as to the science involved.

Athanasius
Mar 6th 2008, 05:19 PM
Agreed with you both; there are too many non-critical people eating this stuff up!

moonglow
Mar 6th 2008, 07:07 PM
Agreed! :D

I will say, however, though clarity most definitely helps us, for example. teach our children how to think critically so they don't fall for the switch and can tell the difference. Though I do see it also helping in our discussions with those who have accepted darwinian (macro) evolution and ARE knowledgeable as to the science involved.

True...when you run into them (which yes I realize there are more and more with this view)...I am thinking more about those that don't know a thing and are fearful to know anything about this. For them, we need to keep it simple. For the others...feel free to dive in! :lol: I'll let ya! lol.

I just keep thinking about that mom that posted on here one time afraid to let her young son read anything about dinosaurs or even have his room decorated with dinosaurs...she was that fearful it would somehow ruin him in having any faith in God as he grew older. Little boys LOVE dinosaurs stuff though! You can't keep them from it! Nate was the same way too.

Just recently I saw on Youtube a Christian saying satan went around planting the dinosaur bones to trick man...or maybe I read it on here...forget which. oh well...you get my point anyway...

So maybe what we have here are two areas that desperately need intervention in...not just one...:hmm: Those you pointed out and those that are too fearful to want to know anything. That totally changes the approach then...we have to see where they are at, then deal with it accordingly. For me, I can do the simple approach...and those more knowledgeable can tackle the others...how is that?

God bless

moonglow
Mar 6th 2008, 07:08 PM
Agreed with you both; there are too many non-critical people eating this stuff up!

Non-critical? what do you mean?

KATA_LOUKAN
Mar 6th 2008, 07:51 PM
, we are not seeing the same thing as far as the definition of macro evolution. A new species of mosquito is still micro evolution. It seems you are labeling adaptation as micro and speciation as macro when I see both adaptation and speciation as micro.This is your view only. The definition of macroevolution is change at the species level and above. You agree that speciation occurs. You agree microevolution occurs. Ergo, you agree macroevolution occurs.


A mosquito producing a mosquito (different species or not) is not evidence of macro evolution.A mosquito does not produce a new species of mosquito. If this were the case, it would die out instantly, because it would have no mate.

Please remember that according to evolution, individuals dont evolve. Populations evolve. Two groups of mosquitos evolved into two species over time.

You seem to believe that evolution states that flies give birth to mosquitos. This is not the case.


Show a fly producing a non-fly or a mosquito producing a non-mosquito or a dog producing a non-dog. That would be macro evolution.No, that would be impossible. Evolution is gradual.

Athanasius
Mar 6th 2008, 07:56 PM
Non-critical? what do you mean?

People who read books and listen to lectures and attend courses and never question what it is they are being taught. I'd also include people who believe that where we are at this point in time is the best possible point in time. Everything forward is good, everything behind us is old and outdated.

Studyin'2Show
Mar 6th 2008, 11:12 PM
This is your view only. The definition of macroevolution is change at the species level and above. You agree that speciation occurs. You agree microevolution occurs. Ergo, you agree macroevolution occurs.

A mosquito does not produce a new species of mosquito. If this were the case, it would die out instantly, because it would have no mate.

Please remember that according to evolution, individuals dont evolve. Populations evolve. Two groups of mosquitos evolved into two species over time.

You seem to believe that evolution states that flies give birth to mosquitos. This is not the case.

No, that would be impossible. Evolution is gradual.
www.dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/macroevolution)
mac·ro·ev·o·lu·tion http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/premium.gif http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif (https://secure.reference.com/premium/login.html?rd=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fbrowse%2 Fmacroevolution) (māk'rō-ěv'ə-lōō'shən, -ē'və-) Pronunciation Key (http://cache.lexico.com/help/ahd4/pronkey.html)
n. Large-scale evolution occurring over geologic time that results in the formation of new taxonomic groups. Due to the fact that within the definition of macro evolution we see that these 'large-scale' changes occur over geological time periods and thus by definition would not be possible to see in merely a lifetime. Maybe that's the trouble with the definition or rather the lack the proper terminology required to truly dissect this topic intelligently. There would have to be changes well beyond the level of species to even begin to 'prove' the level of evolutionary change required to go from single-celled organisms to multi-celled organisms, which the darwinian evolutionist must accept, by faith, because they can, as you say, never be seen. :hmm:

I have to disagree. A mosquito WOULD produce a different type of mosquito. Those changes would only be observed, however, within the population of mosquitos. ;)

Neither have I said that a fly produces a mosquito. I will show nothing but respect for you, so I would appreciate the same in return. Let's stick to responding to what has actually been said, okay? :)

I believe it's impossible because, well, it is impossible :D not simply because darwinian evolution is theorized to be gradual.

God Bless!

Athanasius
Mar 7th 2008, 02:24 AM
Macro evolution can be rather nebulous term -.-

moonglow
Mar 7th 2008, 02:32 AM
People who read books and listen to lectures and attend courses and never question what it is they are being taught. I'd also include people who believe that where we are at this point in time is the best possible point in time. Everything forward is good, everything behind us is old and outdated.

Ok that is what I thought you might mean...but I wanted to make sure. I am not used to the way you express yourself yet. Some people are a little harder to know what they mean in their written words on here then others. And some I never understand what they are saying. :rolleyes: But yes, critical thinking is extremely important...something I also notice many atheist lacking greatly in. They also (as do 'some' Christians) lack any logic, while claiming they are so much more intelligent then we are, who are supposedly, blindly following..:B

I think it comes down to just dealing with people regardless what their beliefs are..people that want to blindly believe and follow CAN be atheist, CAN be Christians, CAN be of any religion, political beliefs and so on. And of course there are many that blindly believe in science...to the point they do not see any errors no matter how much evidence is shown to them. Its kind of weird seeing this in so many regardless of what their core beliefs are...but I figure even those that blindly believe in God at least have an edge.

As far as past history, past evidence, etc, that you mentioned, that can be invaluable for sure! (and this comes from someone that used to hate history..lol)

God bless

Athanasius
Mar 7th 2008, 03:52 AM
Ok that is what I thought you might mean...but I wanted to make sure. I am not used to the way you express yourself yet. Some people are a little harder to know what they mean in their written words on here then others. And some I never understand what they are saying. :rolleyes: But yes, critical thinking is extremely important...something I also notice many atheist lacking greatly in. They also (as do 'some' Christians) lack any logic, while claiming they are so much more intelligent then we are, who are supposedly, blindly following..:B

I think it comes down to just dealing with people regardless what their beliefs are..people that want to blindly believe and follow CAN be atheist, CAN be Christians, CAN be of any religion, political beliefs and so on. And of course there are many that blindly believe in science...to the point they do not see any errors no matter how much evidence is shown to them. Its kind of weird seeing this in so many regardless of what their core beliefs are...but I figure even those that blindly believe in God at least have an edge.

As far as past history, past evidence, etc, that you mentioned, that can be invaluable for sure! (and this comes from someone that used to hate history..lol)

God bless

I agree; some atheists (and Christians, for some odd reason) seem to believe that by calling themselves atheists their IQ some how rockets past 79 and settles at a nice 90.

Guess I'll have to clear up my written word replys :P

KATA_LOUKAN
Mar 7th 2008, 01:01 PM
n. Large-scale evolution occurring over geologic time that results in the formation of new taxonomic groups.

tax·on http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/premium.gif http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pnghttp://cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif (https://secure.reference.com/premium/login.html?rd=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fbrowse%2 Ftaxon)/ˈtækhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngsɒn/Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[tak-son]Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural tax·a http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/premium.gif http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pnghttp://cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif (https://secure.reference.com/premium/login.html?rd=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fbrowse%2 Ftaxon)/ˈtækhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngsə/Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[tak-suh]Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation. a taxonomic category, as a species or genus.


Formation of new taxons = formation of new species = formation of new genus, etc.


, there should be some of it still going on somewhere on the planet. Show a fly producing a non-fly or a mosquito producing a non-mosquito or a dog producing a non-dog.

I wasnt disrespecting your viewpoint, although this statement led me to believe that you believe that macroevolution would demand such things.


I have to disagree. A mosquito WOULD produce a different type of mosquito. Those changes would only be observed, however, within the population of mosquitos. ;)


Let's be more specific. The changes would be under the same genus. There would be a change at the species level (i.e. they cannot breed). So if we have observed speciation, and it continues, lets say, several hundred times over the course of millions of years, then we have new taxonomic groups at a higher taxonomic level.

It's true that it hasnt been observed. But I bring up the criminal analogy. If you didnt see the crime and all evidence points toward the criminal being guilty, would you acquit on the basis of "Nobody saw the crime"?

We know that the first animals on the earth were single celled. We know that there are multicelled organisms. So why not have faith that all the evidence we have will lead us to the right conclusion?

That's what people said about the transition from fish to amphibian. In 2004, we finally discovered the "missing link" between the fish and the amphibians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik

Studyin'2Show
Mar 7th 2008, 01:38 PM
Let's be more specific. The changes would be under the same genus. There would be a change at the species level (i.e. they cannot breed). So if we have observed speciation, and it continues, lets say, several hundred times over the course of millions of years, then we have new taxonomic groups at a higher taxonomic level.

It's true that it hasnt been observed. But I bring up the criminal analogy. If you didnt see the crime and all evidence points toward the criminal being guilty, would you acquit on the basis of "Nobody saw the crime"?

We know that the first animals on the earth were single celled. We know that there are multicelled organisms. So why not have faith that all the evidence we have will lead us to the right conclusion?

That's what people said about the transition from fish to amphibian. In 2004, we finally discovered the "missing link" between the fish and the amphibians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TiktaalikYour posts are completely proving my point. In the criminal analogy, do you know how many people HAVE been convicted without witness on the basis of overwhelming evidence, only to be found later as innocent? Lots! Do you know how hard it is to PROVE that something didn't happen (without witness)? Extremely! Which makes me wonder how many were never exonerated. :hmm: So, even overwhelming evidence, without witness, is quite fallible. Add to that the fact that what you perceive as overwhelming evidence is really, at best, circumstantial evidence. Let's take, for example, the newest in the long line of potential 'missing links'. Truthfully, the only thing the fossil tells us for certain is that it died. Unfortunately, during my lifetime alone (40 years) many animals have become extinct. If someone digs them up 1000 years from now, should they automatically assume they (their population) were transitioning into something else? :hmm: I live in South Florida and have seen fish that can come out of the water and 'walk' on their fins for short periods. Because a fossil was found that has another joint or bone, shows nothing overwhelmingly. Darwin predicted that within 100 years millions of transitional fossil showing ALL stages of development would be found. Millions have been spent over more time than his estimate and the flood of fossils has not been found. It is my theory this is because they never existed. ;)

God Bless!

moonglow
Mar 7th 2008, 06:42 PM
I agree; some atheists (and Christians, for some odd reason) seem to believe that by calling themselves atheists their IQ some how rockets past 79 and settles at a nice 90.

Guess I'll have to clear up my written word replys :P

No..you are fine! Its me. A message board is just extremely limited in how things come across...they say 90% of our communication is through body language, facial expressions and tone of voice. Something we cannot do on here. If I could have seen you say what you did, I am sure I would have no doubt what you meant by it.

I agree...I have seen people that claim to be atheist is seems solely on the idea they want to be in the intelligent group and not with those unthinking, mindless, dumb Christians. (which they are told by other atheists and believe!) They even thrown out studies showing many who attend church have lower IQ's, less education, etc. Yet half of these atheist cannot spell or even write a complete sentence! Or have any original thoughts of their own, but simply repeat what they read on some atheist site without thinking it through. Of course I cannot spell either...but I know enough to cheat and use an online dictionary and have a new thing on here that underlines all my mis-spelled words in which I can find the correct one..unless I messed it up too badly! :lol:

So I do realize spelling and not being able to write a good sentence doesn't necessarily mean that person has a low IQ...BUT what I usually see in the leaders in the atheist groups is that they are using very large vocabularies and speaking very well and seem very confident and self assured...so these other people look up to them, admire them, think, gee they are so smart they must be right and just literally blindly follow them. :cool:

But we know what the bible says about that...

Romans 1

21 Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn't worship him as God or even give him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. The result was that their minds became dark and confused. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became utter fools instead.

1 Corinthians 1
The Wisdom of God

18 The message of the cross is foolish to those who are headed for destruction! But we who are being saved know it is the very power of God. 19 As the Scriptures say,

“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise
and discard the intelligence of the intelligent.”

20 So where does this leave the philosophers, the scholars, and the world’s brilliant debaters? God has made the wisdom of this world look foolish. 21 Since God in his wisdom saw to it that the world would never know him through human wisdom, he has used our foolish preaching to save those who believe. 22 It is foolish to the Jews, who ask for signs from heaven. And it is foolish to the Greeks, who seek human wisdom. 23 So when we preach that Christ was crucified, the Jews are offended and the Gentiles say it’s all nonsense.

24 But to those called by God to salvation, both Jews and Gentiles, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 This foolish plan of God is wiser than the wisest of human plans, and God’s weakness is stronger than the greatest of human strength.

26 Remember, dear brothers and sisters, that few of you were wise in the world’s eyes or powerful or wealthy when God called you. 27 Instead, God chose things the world considers foolish in order to shame those who think they are wise. And he chose things that are powerless to shame those who are powerful. 28 God chose things despised by the world, things counted as nothing at all, and used them to bring to nothing what the world considers important. 29 As a result, no one can ever boast in the presence of God.

Of course you know all of this already...I am just rambling again. :rolleyes: Its just so frustrating trying to talk to someone that IS blind while they are looking are us thinking the same thing! That we are blind and unthinking...its like two blind and deaf people trying to have a discussion...lol. Except one really isn't blind...just seen as that way. Anyway I finally realized...duh...that the bible tells us these blind people are suppose to be this way!

2 Corinthians 4:3-7

3 But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, 4 whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them. 5 For we do not preach ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord, and ourselves your bondservants for Jesus’ sake. 6 For it is the God who commanded light to shine out of darkness, who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

Its up to Him when they can see..not us, so now I try to avoid those type of debates because they really go no where and nothing gets done either way. It really is like trying to get a blind person to see the sun.


God bless

teddyv
Mar 7th 2008, 07:04 PM
So I do realize spelling and not being able to write a good sentence doesn't necessarily mean that person has a low IQ...BUT what I usually see in the leaders in the atheist groups is that they are using very large vocabularies and speaking very well and seem very confident and self assured...so these other people look up to them, admire them, think, gee they are so smart they must be right and just literally blindly follow them. :cool:

This paragraph could be easily written about some Christian leaders.:)

moonglow
Mar 7th 2008, 07:06 PM
This paragraph could be easily written about some Christian leaders.:)

Oh yes, I know...hate to say this but with 'some' people there isn't alot of difference between them...expect for their beliefs!

KATA_LOUKAN
Mar 8th 2008, 06:53 PM
So, even overwhelming evidence, without witness, is quite fallible.

What's the alternative? How can we explain the thousands of fossils we have found?

Evolution does not claim to answer all the questions. But if all we have to work with is the evidence, should we make decisions based on what evidence we have, or not?


If someone digs them up 1000 years from now, should they automatically assume they (their population) were transitioning into something else?

I don't see why not.


Because a fossil was found that has another joint or bone, shows nothing overwhelmingly.

Nothing? I think you underestimate the fossil record!


Darwin predicted that within 100 years millions of transitional fossil showing ALL stages of development would be found.

Darwin's hypothesis is becoming more and more evident as we progress. But Charles Darwin is not infallible. Everything the man said is not gospel truth.


Millions have been spent over more time than his estimate and the flood of fossils has not been found.

Just because Darwin said it does not mean that it must come true. It was just a guess. But a lot of fossils HAVE been found.


It is my theory this is because they never existed.

Before 2004, did you believe that the tiktaalik existed?

Athanasius
Mar 8th 2008, 07:53 PM
No..you are fine! Its me. A message board is just extremely limited in how things come across...they say 90% of our communication is through body language, facial expressions and tone of voice. Something we cannot do on here. If I could have seen you say what you did, I am sure I would have no doubt what you meant by it.

I agree...I have seen people that claim to be atheist is seems solely on the idea they want to be in the intelligent group and not with those unthinking, mindless, dumb Christians. (which they are told by other atheists and believe!) They even thrown out studies showing many who attend church have lower IQ's, less education, etc. Yet half of these atheist cannot spell or even write a complete sentence! Or have any original thoughts of their own, but simply repeat what they read on some atheist site without thinking it through. Of course I cannot spell either...but I know enough to cheat and use an online dictionary and have a new thing on here that underlines all my mis-spelled words in which I can find the correct one..unless I messed it up too badly! :lol:

So I do realize spelling and not being able to write a good sentence doesn't necessarily mean that person has a low IQ...BUT what I usually see in the leaders in the atheist groups is that they are using very large vocabularies and speaking very well and seem very confident and self assured...so these other people look up to them, admire them, think, gee they are so smart they must be right and just literally blindly follow them. :cool:

But we know what the bible says about that...

I agree completely. I mean, I can throw around epistemological arguments, supplemented by a necessarily esoteric lexicon. But, what's the point? I mean I'd love to be considered as highly intelligent. But I think I'd like to be understood far more, lol.

Studyin'2Show
Mar 8th 2008, 08:42 PM
Kata,

I can't stand the long broken up posts so I'll address one thing at a time. :) How do I explain 1000's of fossils? There are lots of animals that have gone extinct in the course of almost 6,000 years. I'm not sure why that would be a problem. :hmm: I'm sure you are aware that, unfortunately, more animals go extinct every year. During the course of almost 6,000 years many, many thousands of animals would have gone extinct. Likely some would have gone extinct before the flood, never making it on the ark because they were already gone. :cry:

You don't see why those in 1000 years shouldn't assume animals that went extinct during our lifetime, simply evolved into something else? How about because they didn't. They died out and we know that because we witnessed their demise.

I'm not sure of your point concerning underestimating the fossil record. :hmm:

Yes, you are quite correct about Darwin being fallible. :thumbsup:

Yes, lots of fossils have been found because lots of things can die in the course of almost 6,000 years. :)

Before 2004 I knew that lots of things had gone extinct during my lifetime (40 years). Because of this fact, it is quite evident that many, many 1000s of animals have gone extinct before I was born. Thus I can safely hypothesize that there are 1000s of species that have existed on earth that I have never seen. ;)

I feel, however, that we are beginning to take this thread off course into another creation/evolution debate which was not the point of the OP.

God Bless!

KATA_LOUKAN
Mar 9th 2008, 09:55 AM
I feel, however, that we are beginning to take this thread off course into another creation/evolution debate which was not the point of the OP.


Point taken. Let's save this for another time.

In the mean time, what is a good place to read up on how we should interpret the fossil record?

Studyin'2Show
Mar 9th 2008, 12:00 PM
Point taken. Let's save this for another time.

In the mean time, what is a good place to read up on how we should interpret the fossil record?Well, I have studied what I can safely call 'traditional' science and the accepted view scientifically. I would suggest a good creationist website that is looking at the science but with a different hypothesis than the traditional view. Go into it as just attempting to understand the WHY of how intelligent people can deny what you feel is the obvious truth. Believe me, it goes way beyond simply saying well God said so. Though that is a good reason, it's not the only reason. ;)

Here's a good article to start with. http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i1/fossil.asp It's simply a matter of perception. I completely understand why you believe what you believe. I think it would be good for you to understand why I believe what I believe. And to be sure, it wasn't simply because of scripture as I had felt completely comfortable interpreting scripture as you seem to. For me it was more that I saw some things I had never considered; had never even been presented. Once I considered those things, they seemed much more plausible. Then in looking back at scripture, things just started falling neatly into place.

God Bless!

watchinginawe
Mar 9th 2008, 01:52 PM
In the mean time, what is a good place to read up on how we should interpret the fossil record?You can search out some views from "science" on this as well. The fossil record doesn't really indicate the kind of "step by step" journey from the single cell to man. Instead, fossils generally show long periods of stasis followed by extinction. Generally, new species just show up fully formed in the fossil record where there would be expected literally 100's of thousands of transitional fossils if gradual evolution were true. If entire populations evolved, there would even be a better record of the later populations because they (theoretically) would have been larger in number as they "suceeded".

Also, the record shows generally short periods of time (geologically) where a virtual explosion of new animals are found. Most of the research regarding this revolves around trying to explain the "Cambrian Explosion" where several new species just seem to appear suddenly without the necessary geologic time necessary for evolution. A theory has been put forth by Steven J. Gould and Niles Eldredge called Puntuated Equilibria that states evolution proceeds in sudden bursts followed by long periods of stasis and extinction. Basically, they come to this theory by interpreting the fossil record as we have it without the influence of how we might expect it. Some interesting comments are offered from them about the current interpretation of the record.

God Bless!