Alternatives?

[Resha Caner]

For those who do not accept evolution, if you became convinced God did not exist, would you still think evolution is wrong?

 

[miamited]

Hi RC,

If I were convinced that God did not exist, then I would accept that about anything man came up with as far as 'how we got here' was possible. However, God does exist and He has given us His testimony of 'how we got here'.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[AlephBet]

For those who do not accept evolution, if you became convinced God did not exist, would you still think evolution is wrong?

E in Latin means 'out of.' Volution means revolving around a center. In the Bible, creation is the whirlwind. Sin causes us to reap the whirlwind, which is the fall from rest (no volution). While it is true that the forms in nature are designed, the mind evolves. The process to refine the mind is the same as yeast (sin) making bread rise.

Baptism is immersion of seed (essence) into water. We are baptized for the purpose of rising to new life. Just like bread being a loaf of seed and water baking in an oven, so too is our own essence baking in an oven. At our essence, we are WORD (DNA).

Father in Hebrew is Aleph Bet (Letters). The Father's letters (Seed / DNA) enters the mother's cup of water (Womb).

FATHER in HEBREW

MOTHER in HEBREW

In Genesis, the Ruach Elohim (Spirit of God) hovered over the formless waters. The Son of God is the WORD that the Father created from letters. He is the letters entering the formless void (Womb of the Universe).

Son in Hebrew is Bet Nun, or House of Seed.

You come to the Father (Letters) through the Word (Son). He is the bread of life we participate in through baptism. The Mother (Feminine Spirit of God) is the Cup. We are ONE loaf.

1 Corinthians 10

14 Therefore, my dear friends, flee from idolatry. 15 I speak to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. 16 Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all share the one loaf.


The body we occupy is a vehicle. Its purpose is to allow the mind to rise to new life. E Volution. Out of volution. The Earth spins around a center. The Sun does the same. The galaxy does the same. You do the same when you go to work and return home. Even the toilet flushes the direction of the spin.


Related to the three members of the Trinity above is the Hebrew word Truth. Sin in Hebrew is Chet, meaning this: To miss the Mark.

The Hebrew word TRUTH is EMET (Aleph Mem Tav). Truth is the STRONG WATER MARK:

Missing the mark is missing the Cross. Hitting the mark is the Strong Water Mark that marks the believer. TRUTH in Hebrew can also be seen from the word LAMB.

In Hebrew (1st language of the Bible), TRUE is AMN (AMEN). In Greek (2nd language of the Bible), AMN is LAMB.

Like Language, the designs of creation are invariant. They do not evolve. TRUTH is always the same. What evolves?

The Mind (Spirit). God makes all things new through baptism. You must and will be born again. A new Robe (body) and mind (Crown) are the hope of every believer.

God designs a new set for each of us. Evolution of the mind is by our own choice. God can only give.

To answer your question, I cannot doubt evolution as a result. It's evident. Evolution as a cause is false. Life originated by design. TRUTH is invariant symmetry. What we do to break symmetry is translational to the letters (Father).

Light reveals what it hits. What it hits cannot produce light. Information is formed inside. Insight is sight within. Intellect is the same. In all cases, what is outside of us does not change, although it appears to constantly change in a state of flux. Only the inside can change. Reality is an image. Heaven is the archetype for the copy we occupy.

Hebrews 9

23 It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. The center we revolve around is in heaven, not the copy (image). We have never moved away from facing the Father.

Matthew 18

10 “See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven.

We are the child in the image. Above, we face God as our center.

 

[SkyWriting]

For those who do not accept evolution, if you became convinced God did not exist, would you still think evolution is wrong?

99.9% of evolution is testable.

There is a tiny fraction that deals with origins, which is all fiction
no matter what. All stories about the past are imagined from the
point of view of the writer. Unless you trust the writers to explain
history to you.

 

[Resha Caner]

If I were convinced that God did not exist, then I would accept that about anything man came up with as far as 'how we got here' was possible.

I see. Would you say the topic would be less important to you?

However, God does exist and He has given us His testimony of 'how we got here'.

Sure.

 

[miamited]

I see. Would you say the topic would be less important to you?

No, not less important. Just that the topic has already been researched and decided in my heart.



Sure.

Yes. I'm assuming that was a question and not a statement.

God bless you,
In Christ, Ted

 

[ChetSinger]

For those who do not accept evolution, if you became convinced God did not exist, would you still think evolution is wrong?

I think the origin of life would remain a conundrum for me. For I see no way that life could have originated without outside help. Moving that outside help to the stars, as in the movie Prometheus, begs the question of how they themselves originated.

So I think the only solution is extra-dimensional and timeless, which leads to religion. In other words, I think the creation itself leads us to God, as Paul wrote in Romans 1.

I think an example of a determined attempt to solve the origin-of-life problem without religion is Dr. Eugene Koonin. He has turned to the multiverse where he says everything possible will eventually happen. I admire his open criticism of current abiogenesis hypotheses. Nevertheless, the multiverse solution strikes me as the ultimate in goalpost-moving.

 

[SkyWriting]

I think the origin of life would remain a conundrum for me. For I see no way that life could have originated without outside help.

I have no problem believing that it could.
I just don't hear any scientific reasons why it would.
What are the benefits for life to form?

We are on the only planet teeming with life so
the answer should be obvious.

 

[Resha Caner]

Sometimes it takes me awhile to determine how I want to formulate my question. This might be such a case. I suppose I was wondering what would motivate someone to seek a scientific alternative to evolution. I'm beginning to think there isn't much motivation from either side of the question.

 

[miamited]

Sometimes it takes me awhile to determine how I want to formulate my question. This might be such a case. I suppose I was wondering what would motivate someone to seek a scientific alternative to evolution. I'm beginning to think there isn't much motivation from either side of the question.

Hi RC,

The problem with trying to find such solutions is that they don't exist. Miracles, by definition, are things that happen outside of the realm of what we know to be possible. We, of course, don't always define them that way. Many believe that miracles are things that have an extremely low percentage of possibility, but are still possible. Like someone winning the lottery saying, "Oh, it's a miracle."

Well, no it's not. A random set of numbers is drawn and anyone having that set of numbers wins. There's a story told about a soldier during the civil war engaged in battle and some couple of hundred yards down range a woman was out in front of her home. Probably watching the battle and thinking that she was a safe distance away. The young soldier is hit and the ball passes through his scrotum and lodges in the woman's womb. She gets pregnant.

Some would say that such an eventuality is a miracle, but it really isn't. As the musket ball passed through his scrotum some sperm was collected on the roughness of the ball and within a second that sperm was inside the woman's womb. Basic medical science tells us that if sperm is introduced into a woman's womb at the right time, there is a very high likelihood that the woman will become pregnant. That's what happened. Of course, the fact that the sperm was delivered by a one in a million shot causes one to consider the impregnation a miracle, but it's really all pretty basic except for the way the sperm was introduced into the woman's womb. But even that, if the points are lined up properly is a given. Yes, all the conditions that had to be set up are certainly difficult, but it can be done and it can be repeated and it can be proven.

When God works in this realm of His creation, there are no scientific explanations that can be found for the things that He causes to happen. We cannot 'scientifically' raise anyone from the dead. We cannot explain it. We cannot understand it. We cannot repeat it to prove it can happen.

When the Israelites passed through the sea we are told that a wall of water stood on their right hand and on their left. We cannot 'scientifically' cause water to stand as a wall without something to hold it in place. We cannot explain it. We cannot understand it. We cannot repeat it to prove it can happen.

Science cannot prove the things that God does. So, for a believer to be looking for some 'scientific proof' of the things that God does is a work of futility. We csoan, of course, claim to disprove such things by relying on science. We can say to ourselves that science has proven that water will not stand on its own as a wall. We can say that science has proven that it is impossible for the sun to go backward in its course. We can say that science has proven that the sun cannot stand still in the sky. We can say that science has proven that the dead cannot come back to life after three days of that person being dead. We can say that science has proven that a woman who has never had sperm introduced into her womb can become pregnant. However, in that last matter, yes, we can take an already fertilized egg these days and implant it in a woman to host the remaining gestation of the zygot, but sperm still had to be used to create the fertilized egg.

So, science is very good if one wants to work to disprove the things that God does, but not so much for proving such things. I choose to believe on faith that God has done all the things that Scriptures claim He has done and leave science out of it.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Resha Caner]

Science cannot prove the things that God does. So, for a believer to be looking for some 'scientific proof' of the things that God does is a work of futility.

I think you're just confirming what I said that you're not motivated to look for an alternative.

However, it also seems you frequently make assumptions about the motives of others. I'm not looking for scientific proof of the things God does.

So, science is very good if one wants to work to disprove the things that God does, but not so much for proving such things. I choose to believe on faith that God has done all the things that Scriptures claim He has done and leave science out of it.

Of course faith is needed. I've just never found it very productive to witness to others by trying to shut down their questions, by showing a lack of interest or care in what is important to them, or by being unable to communicate with them because I don't understand them.

Everyone witnesses in a different way, and God will use us as he will. I just know the approach you appear to be suggesting would have turned me away. Those who witnessed to me did it differently.

The problem with trying to find such solutions is that they don't exist. Miracles, by definition, are things that happen outside of the realm of what we know to be possible.

A few questions:
1) On what Biblical passages are you basing your definition of miracle?
2) Is everything God does a miracle?
3) If not, how do you tell the difference?

 

[miamited]

A few questions:
1) On what Biblical passages are you basing your definition of miracle?
2) Is everything God does a miracle?
3) If not, how do you tell the difference?

Hi RC,

Well, the Scriptures are not a dictionary so I think there are a lot of words in it that we have to know what the standard definition of the world is to understand what God is saying. In the Exodus we read of Moses having a staff but the Scriptures never describe what a staff is. We just have to know. However, I base my definition of 'miracle', as used in the Scriptures on my knowledge of things He says He has done.

Take turning back the course of the sun. Or Mary being pregnant. Or the water standing as wall a in the Exodus account. All of these things, according to the natural properties of the world, are impossible to do, prove, or repeat.

Yes, I believe that everything that God actually does, as in making physical objects on the earth or the universe to act, is a miracle.

Therefore, number 3 is moot.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Resha Caner]

Well, the Scriptures are not a dictionary so I think there are a lot of words in it that we have to know what the standard definition of the world is to understand what God is saying.

Except that the definition I use is different from yours ... and it's not a definition I made up, but one that quite a few Christians use.

Take turning back the course of the sun. Or Mary being pregnant. Or the water standing as wall a in the Exodus account. All of these things, according to the natural properties of the world, are impossible to do, prove, or repeat.

I don't know why you keep repeating these same examples. We've had this discussion before. For example, it's not impossible for a virgin to give birth. It's called parthenogenesis, and it's been observed.

I view the virgin birth of Jesus as a miracle, just as you do. But apparently that means different things to you and me.

Yes, I believe that everything that God actually does, as in making physical objects on the earth or the universe to act, is a miracle.

So, when Jesus spoke to the disciples that was a miracle? When he ate and slept that was a miracle?

 

[SkyWriting]

Sometimes it takes me awhile to determine how I want to formulate my question. This might be such a case. I suppose I was wondering what would motivate someone to seek a scientific alternative to evolution. I'm beginning to think there isn't much motivation from either side of the question.

To answer that, "Creation Scientists" do seek scientific alternative
explanations for the existence of species, why and how much they change,
why they would change at all, and what the Origins of the species man
are likely to be.

They do this because they have "bought into" the deception that the
past can be scientifically examined.

The past, or past events, can be imagined using evidence obtained
in the most scientific and repeatable manner possible, but evidence
is never proof of the past.

Some people falsify evidence all the time, and everyone else makes
judgments calls as they interpret evidence. But no one can truly see
the past.

Ask your parents today if you were adopted or if they are both your real
parents. If enough readers do this, some of them will discover
what I am saying is true.

 

[Resha Caner]

The past, or past events, can be imagined using evidence obtained
in the most scientific and repeatable manner possible, but evidence
is never proof of the past.

I don't disagree with you, and if one realizes this I don't see how it's a deception. Some may be seeking proof, but as I've said, I am not. Science doesn't always mean seeking proof. If you hold an instrumentalist view as I do, it never means that.

For me exploring God's creation is an amazing and beautiful experience. Discovery is probably one of my purest joys, and I've yet to be shown Scripture that would say discovery is a sin.

There are roughly 4 views with respect to my question here. It has never been a surprise that the first view - atheism - has no reason to seek an alternative to evolution. In evolution they have what they want. Nor does the second view - theistic evolutionists. They've made their peace with the claims of evolution. The third view, which IMO lacks a good label, might be called the horizon creationists. These are the ones who think there is an event horizon beyond which we cannot see. I don't disagree that such a thing might exist. It's just that I don't think we know where that horizon lies. Regardless, this third view has no motivation to look for an alternative because they don't think it can be found.

What is a recent surprise to me is that even the fourth view - people like me - don't really have a good reason to seek an alternative ... except possibly due to curiosity - the challenge of it - the joy of discovery. Yet what has happened is that science has been manipulated into a form whereby no alternative would be accepted unless it could be posited in a testable, repeatable form. That makes it mechanistic ... godless. As such, even if it could be found, an atheist could easily accept the alternative without any impact to his philosophy - except possibly the shock of having so dogmatically defended evolution for so long only to see it overturned. It's a rather deflating realization on my part.

I mean, I abandoned my scientific realism a good 15 years ago. So it's not as if I thought science could find, prove, or in any meaningful way approach God. But the realization that even defeating an evolutionist on his own turf would only be a Pyrrhic Victory is disheartening.

Oh well. Moving on ...

 

[miamited]

Except that the definition I use is different from yours ... and it's not a definition I made up, but one that quite a few Christians use.



I don't know why you keep repeating these same examples. We've had this discussion before. For example, it's not impossible for a virgin to give birth. It's called parthenogenesis, and it's been observed.

Could you forward me the evidence and give me the name of the child that was so born? Why did you stop with just that one example? Do you also have examples of water standing as a wall several dozen feet tall or the sun turning back?

I view the virgin birth of Jesus as a miracle, just as you do. But apparently that means different things to you and me.



So, when Jesus spoke to the disciples that was a miracle? When he ate and slept that was a miracle?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Resha Caner]

Could you forward me the evidence and give me the name of the child that was so born? Why did you stop with just that one example? Do you also have examples of water standing as a wall several dozen feet tall or the sun turning back?

As soon as you answer my question, I'll reply.

 

[miamited]

As soon as you answer my question, I'll reply.

No. What I said was that when God acts upon the physical processes of the earth it is a miracle. Jesus being conceived was such a process. The day to day life of Jesus then living upon the earth was not. It was not God acting upon the physical processes of the earth. It was merely the Son of God living upon the earth. Jesus resurrection was God's hand acting on the earth. Just as Jesus said that his Father would raise him up. That was an act of God acting upon the earth.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Resha Caner]

No. What I said was that when God acts upon the physical processes of the earth it is a miracle. Jesus being conceived was such a process. The day to day life of Jesus then living upon the earth was not. It was not God acting upon the physical processes of the earth. It was merely the Son of God living upon the earth. Jesus resurrection was God's hand acting on the earth. Just as Jesus said that his Father would raise him up. That was an act of God acting upon the earth.

Thank you for replying. I must say, though, that I find your criteria a bit nebulous. Jesus is God, and digesting food is a process, so when Jesus ate it would seem to me God is acting upon the physical processes of the earth.

But I'll let it go.

Could you forward me the evidence and give me the name of the child that was so born? Why did you stop with just that one example? Do you also have examples of water standing as a wall several dozen feet tall or the sun turning back?

Did you miss the part where I said I also consider these miracles? It's just that to me "miracle" does not mean "beyond comprehension". With respect to parting the Red Sea, the text actually tells us how God did it. He sent a strong East wind (Exodus 14:21). Later God also parts the Jordan River, and the interesting thing is that very event has also been observed and documented in modern times. It doesn't make it any less of a miracle.

With respect to the sun turning back, I don't have an explanation. I've never said I can explain every miracle in the Bible. But again, even though I don't know how God did it, the basic mechanics aren't incomprehensible. It's simply that no one other than God could do such a thing.

Finally, with respect to pathenogenesis, I'm not aware that it's ever led to a live birth in humans (animals yes, humans no), but the process does happen in humans:

Is it possible for a virgin to give birth?

The cool part is that all documented cases of parthenogenesis I'm aware of only produce females. So, both the fact that Jesus was delivered alive and that he was male are ... miracles. I've never tried to deny that. All I was saying is that biology is aware of processes that cause virgin births.

There's no sin in exploring God's creation, and his creation includes some miraculous things.

 

[Smidlee]

If God doesn't exist there is no reason to believe in evolution or even the universe existence. God created man with a inward knowledge of God and his creation. This inward desire is what causes us to explore the universe the start with. "Through faith we understand that the world were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."
This still whole true.