Evolution?

[MournfulWatcher]

But -.- that is not what we are taught, they say mutation / natural selection is enough to make all life. So there is a conflict.

No, mutation/natural selection changes all life. Mutations can never create life. Natural selection is dependent on there being natural creatures in the first place. The need for a God to create is still there.

Schools do not teach that gravity was created by God. Schools don't teach that the earth's shifting plates were made by God. They simply teach the science of it. They legally can't say "God made it all" because not everyone agrees, meaning they also can't teach you that God didn't make these things, so they have to stay neutral. They are just teaching the naturally observable facts.

 

[NBB]

No, mutation/natural selection changes all life. Mutations can never create life. Natural selection is dependent on there being natural creatures in the first place. The need for a God to create is still there.

Schools do not teach that gravity was created by God. Schools don't teach that the earth's shifting plates were made by God. They simply teach the science of it. They legally can't say "God made it all" because not everyone agrees, meaning they also can't teach you that God didn't make these things, so they have to stay neutral. They are just teaching the naturally observable facts.

Lol, but evolution is not true as it is if God intervened in it. Again is design or theistic evolution.

What is the impression when you are taught evolution? that God is not needed. Natural selection/mutation is enough.

 

[MournfulWatcher]

Lol, but evolution is not true as it is if God intervened in it.

I don't see how. Again, evolution merely describes changes in species. It can't say whether or not God guides evolution.

 

[NBB]

I don't see how. Again, evolution merely describes changes in species. It can't say whether or not God guides evolution.

Why the need to invent theistic evolution then as separate?

 

[gideon123]

I cannot for the life of me ... understand why people say things like ... 'if you believe that God did not intervene'. Theistic Evolution says nothing of the sort.

Theistic Evolution says that evolution is "God's hand at work'. It is a part of the processes of the Universe, all of which were created by God.

The fact that this process for development and shaping of life seems to stretch over 4 billion years - instead of a supposed 10,000 years - seems deeply disturbing to a few people. As for myself, I cannot imagine why.

People who come here arguing against the Theory of Evolution ... havent got the slightest idea what the theory even says. Please pick up a science book, written by real biologists, and actually take time to review the theories and evidence. Please stop creating mythical ideas about evolution that don't even exist. Science has come a long way since Darwin.

 

[MournfulWatcher]

Why the need to invent theistic evolution then as separate?

Because it specifies the person's belief that evolution is from God's hands. We wouldn't need to specify it as theistic evolution if fundamentalist Christianity simply accepted evolution as fact, because then evolution would just be seen as a natural process created by God, the same as gravity or how seasons change. Instead, theistic evolutionists have to specify their theism because when they merely say that they are an evolutionist, an evangelical will usually find that to be synonymous with "atheist".

 

[NBB]

Because it specifies the person's belief that evolution is from God's hands. We wouldn't need to specify it as theistic evolution if fundamentalist Christianity simply accepted evolution as fact, because then evolution would just be seen as a natural process created by God, the same as gravity or how seasons change. Instead, theistic evolutionists have to specify their theism because when they merely say that they are an evolutionist, an evangelical will usually find that to be synonymous with "atheist".

Its not really about that one says nature did it alone, and the other that God did it?

 

[Colter]

Those still thinking about evolution need to update themselves on science because evolution is now (officially/scientifically) dead. Look up Stephen Meyer and his research on code containing blueprints in our DNA. With recent discoveries of code containing blueprints in our DNA, we now know that evolution is/was impossible. Code can mutate or degenerate, but it cannot spontaneously create, upgrade, and/or insert itself. A growing number of top former evolutionists are now saying aliens did it, which, as we Christians know, is a half truth.

But no one should have ever bought into evolution anyway...in over a century and a half, zero evidence has been found. Every original text book 'proof' has been thrown out and disproven. None have withstood the test of time. A fly mutating is not evidence for upwards evolution. A bone of an extinct creature is not evidence of upwards evolution because you cant prove that creature had kids, that it wasn't just a rare mutation...and why would you think animals back then could do something we haven't observed throughout 6000 years of recorded history...give birth to anything other than its own kind. Even evolutionists admitted that the fossil record showed a sudden explosion of life.

If you're waiting on the atheist hijacked mainstream educational or scientific communities to talk about this evolution destroying evidence, don't hold your breath. The fact that they've been firing and blacklisting anyone who disagrees with them should tell you they don't care about the truth...

God created the life forms that evolved. YEC and the Israelites exaggerated history is what died. in the real world.

 

[ChrisJ83]

I cannot for the life of me ... understand why people say things like ... 'if you believe that God did not intervene'. Theistic Evolution says nothing of the sort.

The fact that this process for development and shaping of life seems to stretch over 4 billion years - instead of a supposed 10,000 years - seems deeply disturbing to a few people. As for myself, I cannot imagine why.

Again...any age estimate of anything beyond human records or observation is pure speculation...an assumption built around a dozen other assumptions. Dating is not an exact science, not even close. Dating methods primarily rely on numerous assumptions that all things are constant...which we know not to be true. Furthermore, 'old earth' dating methods are constantly being disproven and reinvented. First it was carbon dating used in textbooks, now thrown out and used to actually show a young Earth. Then it was ice-cores, stalactites, and canyons, until numerous modern examples were found to show these methods as unreliable and inaccurate with formations changing rapidly under right conditions. Now it's uranium...but again, they rely on numerous assumptions of constants.

 

[JackRT]

Again...any age estimate of anything beyond human records or observation is pure speculation...an assumption built around a dozen other assumptions. Dating is not an exact science, not even close. Dating methods primarily rely on numerous assumptions that all things are constant...which we know not to be true. Furthermore, 'old earth' dating methods are constantly being disproven and reinvented. First it was carbon dating used in textbooks, now thrown out and used to actually show a young Earth. Then it was ice-cores, stalactites, and canyons, until numerous modern examples were found to show these methods as unreliable and inaccurate with formations changing rapidly under right conditions. Now it's uranium...but again, they rely on numerous assumptions of constants.

As a scientist I am unaware of these claims. Could it be that you are relying on inaccurate or extremely biased sources? Or are you just making it up as you go along?

 

[Job 33:6]

Its not really about that one says nature did it alone, and the other that God did it?

I view evolution almost as i do child birth. God created a mechanism by which life is created through birth. Just as God created a mechanism by which life changes, that is evolution.

God may not be directly visible in the creation of life through birth, but He created and his creation is beautiful and good.

 

[ChrisJ83]

As a scientist I am unaware of these claims. Could it be that you are relying on inaccurate or extremely biased sources? Or are you just making it up as you go along?

If you are truly unaware of these FACTS, maybe you're a scientist, but you're not a very well read one.

 

[ChrisJ83]

I view evolution almost as i do child birth. God created a mechanism by which life is created through birth. Just as God created a mechanism by which life changes, that is evolution.

Except that not one shred of evidence for evolution has ever been found...and it's been concretely destroyed through discovery of code containing blueprints in our DNA. The Bible is very clear, life was created in 6 days, not over a long period of time. The fossil record supports this, showing a sudden explosion of life, while no transition fossils exist (of which there would be billions, if life evolved over billions of years). You're confused because we do see change, re-arranging or loss of already existing code, but these changes are only ever sideways or downward mutations...never upwards. Considering we are built according to the blueprints in our DNA...we now know upwards evolving is impossible. If you want to believe code can spontaneously create and perfectly insert itself, you're welcome to believe whatever you want...but don't call it science.

 

[MournfulWatcher]

Its not really about that one says nature did it alone, and the other that God did it?

Evolution describes the natural process. It doesn't claim whether or not God did it, because that isn't science's job. God is a being that is supernatural, meaning He exists outside of nature and therefore cannot be studied and observed scientifically. Evolution is a natural process, and therefore can be studied scientifically. A Christian that accepts evolution obviously believes that God created it, however, and therefore are called theistic evolutionists. If you were to simply call yourself an evolutionist, it would be a neutral statement with no reflection on your beliefs on God. If you were to call yourself an atheistic evolutionist, you would specify that evolution occurred without a God.

The title "theistic evolutionism" is only necessary because a Christian that believes in evolution has to specify that they are a theistic evolutionist to other Christians, because it is so controversial among some denominations. The title shouldn't really be needed, since evolution is as scientifically acceptable as the theory of gravity or how precipitation works, and all Christians accept those things. If Christianity more widely accepted evolution, there wouldn't be as much need for theistic evolutionism as a title, because it would simply be assumed that, because you are a Christian, you believe that God created and used evolution in the same way as other natural processes.

 

[Job 33:6]

Except that not one shred of evidence for evolution has ever been found...and it's been concretely destroyed through discovery of code containing blueprints in our DNA. The Bible is very clear, life was created in 6 days, not over a long period of time. The fossil record supports this, showing a sudden explosion of life, while no transition fossils exist (of which there would be billions, if life evolved over billions of years). You're confused because we do see change, re-arranging or loss of already existing code, but these changes are only ever sideways or downward mutations...never upwards. Considering we are built according to the blueprints in our DNA...we now know upwards evolving is impossible. If you want to believe code can spontaneously create and perfectly insert itself, you're welcome to believe whatever you want...but don't call it science.

I dont think i ever asked for your opinion, but thanks anyway!

 

[expos4ever]

Except that not one shred of evidence for evolution has ever been found...

A monstrous, shameless untruth - you have no idea what you are talking about. Period.

 

[Gottservant]

I don't think you're going to like what I have to add, because it is basically calling an "impasse" and impasse.

The truth about Creation is very much like the road in the midst of the sea for the Israelites, anti-Creationists are simply going to be swamped.

The thing is there is no way to stand in the midst of the waters and say "Here comes the truth everyone, have a look at how much truth there is" - we will be on our way preaching the gospel of God to those who will hear it.

PS. I loved the comment by majj27 "point to the soul" - that is basically the bulwark, right there!

 

[Chinchilla]

Dinosaurs aren't lizards. Dinosaurs are dinosaurs.

-CryptoLutheran

Do you know that there was not once a full skeleton of Dinosaur found ? Some are reconstructed of one bone or one tooth .

 

[Colter]

Again...any age estimate of anything beyond human records or observation is pure speculation...an assumption built around a dozen other assumptions. Dating is not an exact science, not even close. Dating methods primarily rely on numerous assumptions that all things are constant...which we know not to be true. Furthermore, 'old earth' dating methods are constantly being disproven and reinvented. First it was carbon dating used in textbooks, now thrown out and used to actually show a young Earth. Then it was ice-cores, stalactites, and canyons, until numerous modern examples were found to show these methods as unreliable and inaccurate with formations changing rapidly under right conditions. Now it's uranium...but again, they rely on numerous assumptions of constants.

If radiometric dating isn't reliable then you wouldn't want to live anywhere near a nuclear power plant.

 

[JackRT]

Do you know that there was not once a full skeleton of Dinosaur found ? Some are reconstructed of one bone or one tooth .

Do you know that of the roughly 10,000 ancient Biblical manuscripts found to date, no two are identical. Some consist of a scrap with just a few words.