Is Evolution a Religion?

[gluadys]

Because you would be saying God would take 4.5 billion years of death, suffering and misery to do something he said he could do in 6 days without suffering. So he would have to be a sadistic God according to you.

Just what does death, suffering and misery have to do with evolution?

Why do you think they enter into species change?



Note, I am not suggesting they don't exist. But as far as I can see the existence of death, suffering and misery are not factors in species change.

 

[shernren]

Emending your quote a bit notto:

Can you provide us with an example of
1)Something hailed by scientists as a 'breakthrough' that later turned out to be incorrect
2)This same something put in the creationist media and hyped by scientists.
3)This same thing quietly dropped after people start asking embarrassing questions.

(underline marks my emendation)

Of course!

1. "The 2nd law of thermodynamics forbids evolution."
2. Soft flesh found in T-Rex bones (hmm, I wonder why nobody talks about it anymore).
3. Practically all the human-footprints-next-to-dino-footprints stories.

Pot, meet kettle.

Because you would be saying God would take 4.5 billion years of death, suffering and misery to do something he said he could do in 6 days without suffering. So he would have to be a sadistic God according to you.

Mind you, there is nothing sadistic about animal death. Why would Jesus allow Himself to be compared to a lion if animal death is evil and cruel? Why did Adam name carnivores with names that connote bloodshed - even before the Fall?

You know what? I think a world without animal death would be even more sadistic than a world with. Imagine if God made a world that was pre-programmed to be deluged in rabbits a year after it was created.

 

[Gwenyfur]

Why? I don't think that's true.

Why would G-d say that He’d created us from the dirt, fashioned us with His own hands, and then instead let us “accidentally” evolve from goo…really that’s not scientific, and just as utterly preposterous to me as my views of a literal creation are to you.

Such things always evolve concurrently. I suggest reading up on modern evolutionary theory before making obviously leading questions like that (your answer is, undoubtedly "Neither, they were created"). If you'd like someone to explain it to you in more depth, any number of us would be happy to help.

How so? If evolution is natural selection at it’s best...how do you prove these things evolved concurrently. It’s never been documented, observed or tested. So, in reality it’s still just an idea…a theory. Not a fact.

I have a feeling you have some vitally important bit of information for this. The blood vessel claim isn't something that creationists (or anyone for that matter) come up with off the top of their heads, so my follow-up question would be: who has been providing you with your information?

National Geographic, Oceanic Institute. The differences between the human eye and the marine creature eye are interesting, and not completely explained by evolutionary theories.

Are you sure you've studied evolution? If you'd done any sort of thorough research, you'd know that the excess extremities prove physiologically inefficient. There are creatures who posses more or less than four limbs normally, but such creatures lie outside the kingdom of mammals. Again, who's been feeding you this stuff?

Excess extremities work pretty well for our primate “brothers”.

Haha, I certainly don't think that's true. On the whole, humanity seems to be doing rather well, survival-wise (which is, of course, what evolution is about). Our population has skyrocketed in the last couple centuries. It's almost to the point where we're doing too well. I think we could have afforded to get our stick handed to us a little shorter.

So you believe that the human population should be diminished due to overpopulation? What happened to be fruitful and multiply?

That they were. And not unmerited, either.

So nice to debate with someone who can remain civil, polite and courteous while proving his points with someone who doesn’t resort to cutting remarks and insults.

Then forgive us for passing judgment. You simply sound a lot like someone who's been brainwashed by fundamentalists.

I just sound like someone who knows where her faith lies; In the Living G-d of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; In His Son, Y’shua Messiah, and in His sacrifice and salvation on the cross at Calvary.

And you didn't trust any of these scientific magazines? Look, Gwenyfur - I've been here for a long time, and whenever a creationist says that they "studied and looked at all the evidence and in the end disagreed with it", they aren't always lying. Some did study, and continued to disagree with it. But they uniformly end up disagreeing with it because someone else - a creationist - decides to start feeding them lies, misinformation and questions designed to itch the part of your brain that tells you certain parts of evolution are counter-intuitive and thus can't be right.

Not when new discoveries took up pages and pages of proof and research and the retractions took up a teeny paragraph. Leaving those who truly with the truth to go digging online and through other journals to find out the truth. And forget the media. I ignore it. If I want news I find it through alternative sources. Mainstream media is too biased and ignorant for my tastes.

Again, this isn't the kind of statement I'd expect from someone reading scientific magazines. This is the kind of statement I'd expect from someone who watches the news and picks up on a scientific scandal every now and then. Science is a human process and is vulnerable to human error just like any other process we use. That doesn't mean you shouldn't trust science, though. For every blown-out-of-proportion scandal you hear about, there are hundreds of worthwhile, innovative and enlightening scientific discoveries made, including regarding evolutionary theory. As to your claim of them being tested using faulty processes, this is a common creationist claim, leading me to further believe that someone has been feeding you these things. If you'd like to hear the refutation, just say the word and let us know which process you take issue with.

ermmm you like asking the same questions over and over …

Evolution is held together by a set of observed facts and a solid theory that is supported by these facts and, to date, has not been disproven. It is therefore a healthy theory, scientifically speaking, and has about as much controversy in the scientific community surrounding its validity (though finer points of the theory are always up for debate) as the theory of gravity does.

While I agree that micro evolution does happen, it’s the macro evolution that I completely deny. There is no fossil record that is not based on circular logic. There is no geologic column despite the supposed 26 that have been found on the planet. If you compare them to the fossil layers in the same areas…the two just don’t match. That leaves conflicting theories of the untested and unproven theories.

Well your first problem was placing the same faith you use for the Bible in evolutionary theory. Science doesn't require your faith, only your acceptance. Faith and skepticism don't mix. Science and skepticism do mix.

Isn’t acceptance faith? If you’re so willing to accept science of that of the G-d of your salvation, perhaps you should re-examine your faith.

And whether you believe it was divinely inspired or not, the Bible was inarguably penned by, translated, altered, cropped, amended and interpreted by men.

The original Hebrew of the Tanakh is still intact, thank you very much.

Why did you leave the Bible in the first place?

isn’t it usual when studying to go “to and fro” between source material for comparison?

And that reason would be...?

If G-d is able to send His Son, Y’shua Messiah, to come to earth as a man, give up His divinity and raise Himself from the dead…well then…that’s proof enough for me that G-d is G-d, all powerful, all knowing, and completely capable of speaking the universe into being.

Mmm, I don't think so. I prefer not to think of God as the deceitful type.

And yet you prefer to believe evolution over the word of G-d and His power to create, to keep His word Holy and True? Why then believe in G-d at all?

Then it's a real shame that we don't know anything about you, beyond that you are employing some very common creationist claims. Are you interested in learning more about these claims, or are you just here as a hit-n-run poster?

I’m answering you aren’t I?

Edit: Alright, Gwenyfur, after reading some of your previous posts in this thread it looks like you're worse off than I thought. You've been equating evolution with atheism, with immorality, with biogenesis and with a whole lot of other things that it isn't. What has made you think that any of these things are linked to the scientific theory of evolution? Evolutionists don't espouse any of these things. So who is it who has told you that they do?

I don’t know what you are reading into my posts, but really…at this point…get over it.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Because you would be saying God would take 4.5 billion years of death, suffering and misery to do something he said he could do in 6 days without suffering. So he would have to be a sadistic God according to you.

And why should God take six days to do something He could do with a snap of His fingers and a cry of "Abracadabra!"?

And as long as we're on the "Without suffering" part, need I remind you that the reason suffering came into this world according to the Bible is because of the punishment God Himself placed upon us... so what was that about sadism?

 

[Gwenyfur]

So your G-d is a liar then. Says one thing, means another...

No He doesn't, he left proof of what He created, of His power, and science is the one perverting it. Thus the wheat and tares of sorting the faithful from the unfaithful

My God, however, doesn't tell lies. What He reveals in the universe, He means. The Bible, however, is the words of men inspired by God, not the Word of God Himself (who is Christ.)

Please note I didnt' not diefy the word of G-d. little 'w'...only Y'shua is the Word. But G-d promised to keep His word, not neccessarily the languages it's translated into. Get a parallel Hebrew/Greek/English and see how clearly it reads then

How come, in most of your posts, you seem to have so little understanding of what the current theory of evolutuion is then, if you haven't been brainwashed by fundamentalist literature? Just because you've read a few books doesn't mean you've understood them.

Thanks for once again resorting to insults. It's so nice of you to be so belittling

 

[Gwenyfur]

Another myth for which there is absolutely no physical evidence.

Hebrews 11:1
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

 

[artybloke]

Thanks for once again resorting to insults. It's so nice of you to be so belittling

OK, then, give me your definition of the theory of evolution, as currently taught by evolutionary scientists. Be precise.

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

So if I was to believe in fairies, that would be OK would it?

Christianity does not involve having to ignore the existence of evidence contrary to a very limited and frankly modernist-positivistic interpretation of Genesis.

 

[gluadys]

While I agree that micro evolution does happen, it’s the macro evolution that I completely deny.

OK, you are making claims here that you understand the science and disagree with it. Yet your posts indicate abysmal ignorance of the science.

So lets see how well you know the science. Lets see a simple description of how evolution works, in theory, from initial mutation to speciation.

Isn’t acceptance faith? If you’re so willing to accept science of that of the G-d of your salvation, perhaps you should re-examine your faith.

What TE has ever said they accept science as the God of our salvation? You certainly don't understand the TE perspective if you think this is our POV.

No, acceptance of science is not faith. Faith is defined for us as "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

Science, OTOH, is totally dependant on evidence which is seen. Acceptance of scientific conclusions is acceptance of this observed evidence.

 

[lismore]

Just what does death, suffering and misery have to do with evolution?
.

Well, you are digging up dead animals. Your TE theory says God used sin and death to create man. If God uses death/suffering to create something 'good' and then can call standing on the skeletons of millions of dead men and animals 'very good' then your God is a sadist.

Life is good, suffering and dying is not so good.

Romans 5
Death Through Adam, Life Through Christ

12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned— 13for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.........................................

18Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. 19For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.


Paul wrote about death coming through Adam's sin: 12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men.

No death before Adam; Theistic Evolution cannot exist.

 

[gluadys]

Well, you are digging up dead animals. Your TE theory says God used sin and death to create man.

No it doesn't. Where did you get that idea from?

And you haven't answered the question.

What do death, suffering and misery have to do with evolution? How does evolution depend on them?

 

[Willtor]

Well, you are digging up dead animals. Your TE theory says God used sin and death to create man. If God uses death/suffering to create something 'good' and then can call standing on the skeletons of millions of dead men and animals 'very good' then your God is a sadist.

Oh, hold on, now. Just what do you think sin is? Is it a sin to die? Is it a sin for God to kill (or at the very least to allow to die)?

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

Well, you are digging up dead animals. Your TE theory says God used sin and death to create man.

"sin"?

Romans 5:12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men.

No death before Adam; Theistic Evolution cannot exist.

Genesis 2:17 (New American Standard Bible)
New American Standard Bible (NASB) via gospelcom.net

17but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it (A)you will surely die."
​

Either God was lieing or he wasn't talking about physical death (or we don't understand what he was trying to get across).

 

[shernren]

Romans 5
Death Through Adam, Life Through Christ

12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned— 13for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.........................................

18Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. 19For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.


Paul wrote about death coming through Adam's sin: 12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men.

No death before Adam; Theistic Evolution cannot exist.

(underlines added)

Here's a question. Where in the passage does it say that death came to animals as a result of the sin of one man?

Assuming makes ...

Let's see, on the other hand, the "reward" God had for one good little boy.

Ahijah's Prophecy Against Jeroboam

At that time Abijah son of Jeroboam became ill, and Jeroboam said to his wife, "Go, disguise yourself, so you won't be recognized as the wife of Jeroboam. Then go to Shiloh. Ahijah the prophet is there--the one who told me I would be king over this people. Take ten loaves of bread with you, some cakes and a jar of honey, and go to him. He will tell you what will happen to the boy." So Jeroboam's wife did what he said and went to Ahijah's house in Shiloh.
Now Ahijah could not see; his sight was gone because of his age. But the LORD had told Ahijah, "Jeroboam's wife is coming to ask you about her son, for he is ill, and you are to give her such and such an answer. When she arrives, she will pretend to be someone else." So when Ahijah heard the sound of her footsteps at the door, he said, "Come in, wife of Jeroboam. Why this pretense? I have been sent to you with bad news. Go, tell Jeroboam that this is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: 'I raised you up from among the people and made you a leader over my people Israel. I tore the kingdom away from the house of David and gave it to you, but you have not been like my servant David, who kept my commands and followed me with all his heart, doing only what was right in my eyes. You have done more evil than all who lived before you. You have made for yourself other gods, idols made of metal; you have provoked me to anger and thrust me behind your back. " 'Because of this, I am going to bring disaster on the house of Jeroboam. I will cut off from Jeroboam every last male in Israel--slave or free. I will burn up the house of Jeroboam as one burns dung, until it is all gone. Dogs will eat those belonging to Jeroboam who die in the city, and the birds of the air will feed on those who die in the country. The LORD has spoken!' "As for you, go back home. When you set foot in your city, the boy will die. All Israel will mourn for him and bury him. He is the only one belonging to Jeroboam who will be buried, because he is the only one in the house of Jeroboam in whom the LORD, the God of Israel, has found anything good.
(1 Kings 14:1-13 NIV)

God's idea of a reward for good in this boy's life was a peaceful death and an undisturbed burial. So much for "Death is sadistic!" ... God doesn't seem to use death for His means. Just because God is love, doesn't mean God is cuddly.

 

[Dannager]

Why would G-d say that He’d created us from the dirt, fashioned us with His own hands, and then instead let us “accidentally” evolve from goo…really that’s not scientific, and just as utterly preposterous to me as my views of a literal creation are to you.

Again, this is something that someone who has been fed lies by creationists would say. There was nothing "accidental" about evolution, and to present it as such is disingenuous. And yes, it is scientific. God creating us spontaneously is not scientific, as it is unfalsifiable.

How so? If evolution is natural selection at it’s best...how do you prove these things evolved concurrently. It’s never been documented, observed or tested. So, in reality it’s still just an idea…a theory. Not a fact.

Evolution is both theory and fact. Please look up the definitions of both scientific concepts if you are unfamiliar with them. Evolution has been observed, documented and tested. In fact, as we debate there are hundreds of scientists testing bacterial evolution right now to devise new vaccines and treatments for mutating viruses and bacterial cultures.

National Geographic, Oceanic Institute. The differences between the human eye and the marine creature eye are interesting, and not completely explained by evolutionary theories.

Evolutionary theory will never explain everything. No theory ever does. But the theory stands, is strong and is well-respected because nothing better has come along. Biological evolution has been the best explanation given the data for centuries now.

Excess extremities work pretty well for our primate “brothers”.

A single excess extremity works well for certain primates that possess prehensile tails. This is explained by the fact that when primates began making use of tools, the utility of their tails' prehensile nature dropped dramatically. The tail's usefulness no longer justified the extra biological effort it took to maintain it, and so gradually it began to die off in branches of primates using tools. I'm quite sure National Geographic has discussed this a number of times. You should read it more often.

So you believe that the human population should be diminished due to overpopulation? What happened to be fruitful and multiply?

Of course I don't believe that! What I said was that humanity would have still done alright if we had been slightly less adapted to our environment, in my opinion. Please don't misconstrue my statements unnecessarily.

I just sound like someone who knows where her faith lies; In the Living G-d of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; In His Son, Y’shua Messiah, and in His sacrifice and salvation on the cross at

Calvary.

Er...no, you still sound like a creationist who's been told a lot of false things. You can tell me you sound like whatever you want, but that doesn't change what you sound like.

Not when new discoveries took up pages and pages of proof and research and the retractions took up a teeny paragraph. Leaving those who truly with the truth to go digging online and through other journals to find out the truth. And forget the media. I ignore it. If I want news I find it through alternative sources. Mainstream media is too biased and ignorant for my tastes.

I wouldn't ignore maintstream media if I were you. You don't need to trust it, but ignoring it isn't a bright idea. Identify the flaws with mainstream media, investigate them and discover the truth. Plugging your ears won't change anything. I can't understand the rest of that paragraph.

While I agree that micro evolution does happen, it’s the macro evolution that I completely deny.

Another reason I think you've been hanging around too many lie-telling creationists - microevolution and macroevolution are the same process. Never once anywhere ever has anyone identified any sort of biological barrier preventing mutations from accumulating to the point of speciation, and from speciation changes to even further changes. This barrier must be present in order to disprove macroevolution. Otherwise, the mutation/natural selection process will cause beneficial mutations to pile up and keep producing progressive changes, eventually resulting in two genetically incompatible populations (speciation).

There is no fossil record that is not based on circular logic.

This is false. Who told you this?

There is no geologic column despite the supposed 26 that have been found on the planet.

This is false. Who told you this?
If you compare them to the fossil layers in the same areas…the two just don’t match.

This is false. Who told you this?

That leaves conflicting theories of the untested and unproven theories.

These theories are tested, though not proven (hint: no theory is ever proven). Who told you they were untested?

Isn’t acceptance faith?

No. If you define faith as acceptance, then your definition of faith is so broad as to include the fact that stop signs are red. I accept that stop signs are red. I do not have the same sort of faith in stop signs that I do in God. I have the same acceptance that stop signs are red as I do that evolutionary theory is the best explanation for the current level of biodiversity experienced.

If you’re so willing to accept science of that of the G-d of your salvation, perhaps you should re-examine your faith.

No, I don't think I should re-examine my faith. My faith in God is just fine, and has nothing to do with any discussion of evolution.

If G-d is able to send His Son, Y’shua Messiah, to come to earth as a man, give up His divinity and raise Himself from the dead…well then…that’s proof enough for me that G-d is G-d, all powerful, all knowing, and completely capable of speaking the universe into being.

And of course also capable of setting into motion the process of biological evolution. Any standpoint can argue from omnipotence. Arguments from omnipotence are worthless fallacies.

And yet you prefer to believe evolution over the word of G-d and His power to create, to keep His word Holy and True? Why then believe in G-d at all?

I prefer to accept evolution. I hold as truth God's power to create, and nowhere have I questioned the fact that God created the universe and, inevitably, earth and all life on it. I just don't believe that it happened in the space of a few 24-hour days. And if you think that the literal truth of the Genesis account is the cornerstone of Christian faith, I can do nothing to help you. It's quite plainly not, but someone who claims that has their blinders on a little too tightly to be dissuaded.

I don’t know what you are reading into my posts, but really…at this point…get over it.

You have set off dozens of red flags that say to me you've heard a few too many things from uneducated young-earth creationists. You yourself may be brilliant, but I don't think you investigated what you were being told closely enough. Look into everything, even what I'm telling you.

 

[Gwenyfur]

Again, this is something that someone who has been fed lies by creationists would say. There was nothing "accidental" about evolution, and to present it as such is disingenuous. And yes, it is scientific. God creating us spontaneously is not scientific, as it is unfalsifiable.

The Bible is a lie? How then did G-d send all the animals to Adam for him to name? How then was Adam put to sleep for Eve to be created? Let’s see here….basically you said everything in Genesis was a lie NOT allegorical, but a lie fed to me by creationists. Something for you to consider would be this: Science is MAN’S understanding of the universe, NOT G-d’s.

Evolution is both theory and fact. Please look up the definitions of both scientific concepts if you are unfamiliar with them. Evolution has been observed, documented and tested. In fact, as we debate there are hundreds of scientists testing bacterial evolution right now to devise new vaccines and treatments for mutating viruses and bacterial cultures.


Theory – unproven idea
Fact – proven theory
However there is nothing that says evolution is a fact. Using a comparison of bacteria to the evolution of sentient life (use biblical definition here) is like me comparing a diode to a Cray computer.

Evolutionary theory will never explain everything. No theory ever does. But the theory stands, is strong and is well-respected because nothing better has come along. Biological evolution has been the best explanation given the data for centuries now.
Did it ever dawn on you that the theory still stands because satan is the prince of this world right now, and he wants to take as many people to hell with him as he can? Why? Because we are created in the image of that which he hates most…G-d.

A single excess extremity works well for certain primates that possess prehensile tails. This is explained by the fact that when primates began making use of tools, the utility of their tails' prehensile nature dropped dramatically. The tail's usefulness no longer justified the extra biological effort it took to maintain it, and so gradually it began to die off in branches of primates using tools. I'm quite sure National Geographic has discussed this a number of times. You should read it more often.


I’ll pass; I’ve had enough forced into my home by that evolution filled, abortion endorsing, NOW promoting, and fantasy rag.

Of course I don't believe that! What I said was that humanity would have still done alright if we had been slightly less adapted to our environment, in my opinion. Please don't misconstrue my statements unnecessarily.
So, in your expert opinion we are optimally evolved for our environments? Ironic when you consider that only 3% of the world’s surface is compatible with human life.

Er...no, you still sound like a creationist who's been told a lot of false things. You can tell me you sound like whatever you want, but that doesn't change what you sound like.
Amazing that I sound like someone who believes that G-d is not a liar, G-d is capable of doing exactly what He had recorded of His works, and I don’t need man’s understand of Him to tell me something different? Hrmmm…okay….I call it faith, you call it stupidity…whatever


I wouldn't ignore mainstream media if I were you. You don't need to trust it, but ignoring it isn't a bright idea. Identify the flaws with mainstream media, investigate them and discover the truth. Plugging your ears won't change anything. I can't understand the rest of that paragraph.
Never said I plug my ears, just said I use alternative sources for getting my news. I use sources that aren’t liberally biased toward abortion, inappropriate contentography, adultery and ridiculing Christianity. Is that more understandable?

Another reason I think you've been hanging around too many lie-telling creationists - microevolution and macroevolution are the same process. Never once anywhere ever has anyone identified any sort of biological barrier preventing mutations from accumulating to the point of speciation, and from speciation changes to even further changes. This barrier must be present in order to disprove macroevolution. Otherwise, the mutation/natural selection process will cause beneficial mutations to pile up and keep producing progressive changes, eventually resulting in two genetically incompatible populations (speciation).
Micro – adaptations within the species for survival suited to its environment. Kinds can always reproduce…dog n dog begat dog etc…
Macro- Leaps of mutation resulting in speciation. Dog n dog begat cat etc…

This is false. Who told you this?
How do you date the geologic layers? By the fossils found in them.
How do you date the fossils? By the layers they’re found in.
Sounds rather circular to me…

This is false. Who told you this?
If you compare them to the fossil layers in the same areas…the two just don’t match.

Compare your precious National Geographic to Geology Today. 2 Different studies both ironically by evolutionists, with conflicting dates and ages. Doesn’t sound like real proof to me. Either they’re working off separate theories, or the geologic column is not a good mean to be using to measure time
These theories are tested, though not proven (hint: no theory is ever proven). Who told you they were untested?
My point is against what are they tested. There’s not one ounce of documented speciation. Again, bacteria are not good examples of sentience so please refrain from that argument.

No. If you define faith as acceptance, then your definition of faith is so broad as to include the fact that stop signs are red. I accept that stop signs are red. I do not have the same sort of faith in stop signs that I do in God. I have the same acceptance that stop signs are red as I do that evolutionary theory is the best explanation for the current level of biodiversity experienced.
I use the biblical definition of faith – the essence of things hoped for the evidence of things not seen. We don’t have to see creation to understand it; we don’t have to see it. We just have to accept it. Just as you are accepting evolution.
No, I don't think I should re-examine my faith. My faith in God is just fine, and has nothing to do with any discussion of evolution.
Faith and belief in the power of G-d to do as He recorded in His word is at the crux of faith in Him. It has everything to do with G-d. Your faith, creation, the history of Israel, the death and resurrection of Y’shua Messiah, is ALL tied to your faith in Him.

And of course also capable of setting into motion the process of biological evolution. Any standpoint can argue from omnipotence. Arguments from omnipotence are worthless fallacies.
He doesn’t lie J therefore, if G-d says He created the world and everything in it then He did.

I prefer to accept evolution. I hold as truth God's power to create, and nowhere have I questioned the fact that God created the universe and, inevitably, earth and all life on it. I just don't believe that it happened in the space of a few 24-hour days. And if you think that the literal truth of the Genesis account is the cornerstone of Christian faith, I can do nothing to help you. It's quite plainly not, but someone who claims that has their blinders on a little too tightly to be dissuaded.
Keep your acceptance, just remember that’s faith with all that evolution hasn’t seen, tested or proved

You have set off dozens of red flags that say to me you've heard a few too many things from uneducated young-earth creationists. You yourself may be brilliant, but I don't think you investigated what you were being told closely enough. Look into everything, even what I'm telling you.
Maybe those red flags are G-d’s way of telling you that man’s knowledge shouldn’t be more important to you than He…

Shalom

 

[Numenor]

Theory – unproven idea
Fact – proven theory

No wonder you have no idea what you're talking about. A theory gives an explanation to observed facts. A theory in the scientific sense is far far more than just an 'idea'.

 

[lismore]

"sin"?

Paul seemed to say sin and death were consequential. In TE, if death came before people, then did a trilobite or something sin? or has sin always been there? Do you believe there is sin at all?

 

[Dannager]

Theory – unproven idea
Fact – proven theory

WOAH! Okay, I'm going to stop you right there. Immediately go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory. You need to read atleast the entire section labeled "Science", and I would suggest taking a look at more than that. A theory is far more that just an unproven idea, and a fact is absolutely not a proven theory. Theories do not become facts, and facts were never theories. They are two completely different concepts used to support scientific discoveries.

Once you've had a chance to review what a theory means and how it relates to facts, let me know. Then I'll tackle the rest of your post.

 

[gluadys]

The Bible is a lie?

That is your conclusion, not what was said. Don't twist a person's words.

Science is MAN’S understanding of the universe, NOT G-d’s.

Just as each person's understanding of scripture is a HUMAN understanding, not God's.

Theory – unproven idea
Fact – proven theory

Nothing says more clearly that you have no idea what you are talking about than these incorrect definitions.

Now how about doing as was suggested and looking up the correct definitions, especially the scientific use of the word "theory".

However there is nothing that says evolution is a fact. Using a comparison of bacteria to the evolution of sentient life (use biblical definition here) is like me comparing a diode to a Cray computer.

So, you don't know much about bacteria either. Bacteria evolve just like any other life-form, and the kingdom of bacteria is just as diverse as the animal kingodm.

Did it ever dawn on you that the theory still stands because satan is the prince of this world right now, and he wants to take as many people to hell with him as he can?

Truth does not come from Satan, and evolution is true.

So, in your expert opinion we are optimally evolved for our environments? Ironic when you consider that only 3% of the world’s surface is compatible with human life.

Probably even less without technology. But that is still a lot more than for many other species.

Micro – adaptations within the species for survival suited to its environment. Kinds can always reproduce…dog n dog begat dog etc
Macro- Leaps of mutation resulting in speciation. Dog n dog begat cat etc…

Again, an incorrect definition invented by creationists. The theory of evolution does not predict anything like dogs becoming cats. Nor does it predict that speciation requires leaps of mutation.

Speciation has been directly observed in nature and in laboratory experiments. It is a fact.

How do you date the geologic layers? By the fossils found in them.

False. All the principal geologic layers were dated relative to each other before the principle of faunal succession was discovered. Absolute dating is never done on fossiliferous layers as they are unsuited to such dating methods. Geologic layers can be dated and are dated without reference to fossils. The existence of fossils can be a guide to dating, and can corroborate a date, but are far from necessary to dating.

My point is against what are they tested.

Against observed reality.

Of course, maybe you don't believe God made a real world that our observations can accord with.

There’s not one ounce of documented speciation. Again, bacteria are not good examples of sentience so please refrain from that argument.

There is plenty of evidence of speciation and not just among bacteria. I don't know how you are defining sentience, but if it means "alive" then bacteria are just as sentient as you. The fact that you want to separate them out just indicates that you will refuse legitimate evidence. Once you establish the precedent that bacteria are not "sentient", what comes next?

I use the biblical definition of faith – the essence of things hoped for the evidence of things not seen. We don’t have to see creation to understand it; we don’t have to see it. We just have to accept it. Just as you are accepting evolution.

On the contrary. You are right to say faith is "the evidence of things not seen". But evolution, like all of science, is based on evidence that is seen. And only on evidence that is seen. Just the opposite of faith.

He doesn’t lie

No one is accusing God of lying except yourself. Are you so filled with pride that you can say "If my interpretation of scripture is wrong, then God is a liar."?

therefore, if G-d says He created the world and everything in it then He did.

Every TE here affirms that as truth.

 

[notto]

Dog n dog begat cat etc…

The theory of evolution never says that when any organism breeds that it will have offspring of anything other than their own species.

Whatever it is you are talking about, it is not the theory of evolution.

You are railing against something that you clearly do not fully understand.