Why does "15 Questions for Evolutionists" brochure confuse the meaning of "evolution?
- Thread starter verysincere
- Start date
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,850,996
- 51,482
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
That's not even close to what he does; and I'll say this again:
If it bothers you, you can go to church and observe otherwise.
Upvote
0
CabVet
Question everything
- Dec 7, 2011
- 11,738
- 176
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
I do go to church, have been to many, and I will say this again, every pastor has his own version of creation, and they all present it as "the truth". And more often than not, the members of the church have slightly different versions, all (according to them) are "the truth".
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,850,996
- 51,482
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Incorrect.
My belief ... (at the risk of correcting you, which I've supposedly never done before) ... is that the original autographs from Genesis 1 to the Tower of Babel were written in English.
In other words, Adam wrote Genesis 1 & 2 in English; Seth wrote Genesis 3 & 4 in English; Noah wrote Genesis 5-9 in English; Shem wrote Genesis 10 in English; then Abraham wrote Genesis 11-25 in Hebrew.
Moses then edited the entire book of Genesis (into Hebrew), and that's why Genesis is titled, The First Book of Moses.
(Something like that.)
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,850,996
- 51,482
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
I rest my case.
Plus, AV thinks that there is no archival record when he goes back and edits his posts to remove the worst of his nonsense. But it is hardly necessary for him to make the effort. What he has freely admitted above is quite sufficient.
So my point is made and my work is done here.
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Sans-serif]
Operor non attero vestri vicis bellator a urine bellum obviam an formica hostilis.[/FONT]
Upvote
0
G
good brother
Guest
I really think the problem boils down to this:
"Evolutionists ALWAYS piggyback on the idea along the implicative lines that abiogenesis (what other option is there for those who do not subscribe to the idea of intelligence creating intelligence?) got the proverbial organic ball rolling. Therefore, the two have become paired whether evolutionists want to deal with that or not. The fact that evolutionists disavow any need to solve the problem of where life originated does not mean they do not have that problem.
Can any evolutionist tell me WHY answering the question of where we came from isn't of the utmost importance if one insists upon claiming that all the diversity of life came from that one mysterious ancestor?
Can any evolutionist tell me HOW that doesn't make a difference for the ToE of whether that question ever gets answered?
Upvote
0
46AND2
Forty six and two are just ahead of me...
- Sep 5, 2012
- 5,807
- 2,210
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Yes. Because evolution is only the science of how life diversifies after it already existed. It doesn't matter to evolution how it started, just that it DID. Yes, God could have started it. Some believe that he did start it, then used evolution to diversify it.
The fact that we don't know how life started has no bearing on whether evolution is true or not.
Creationists insist on latching abiogenesis onto evolution so that they have something they can point to which science can't explain, yet.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Perhaps this will help:
1) Does the Germ Theory of Disease have to explain where/when/how the first bacterium originated? Of course not.
2) Does the Theory of Photosynthesis have to explain where the first LIGHT came from and how?
3) Gravity is not yet well understood. Did Isaac Newton err in proposing the Laws of Motion and the the equations describing gravitational forces because he never explained the essence and origination of gravity?
Scientific theories are meant to EXPLAIN some phenomenon we observe. It addresses one question. In the case of the Theory of Evolution we observe changes and diversity in living things. The TOE addresses the WHY/HOW of those observations. It isn't meant to answer every other question you can think up!
Of course, there are LOTS of scientists who DO investigate questions of origins. Some of them have proposed various hypotheses but the research is ongoing. Nobody has proposed a theory that is as well advanced and attested (and has survived falsification procedures under the scientific method) as has the Theory of Evolution. Perhaps someday that will change. But just as mankind was unaware of the "answers" of relativity until around a century ago, science continues to head towards discovering answers for questions we haven't even asked yet!
I don't know why you appear to be frustrated that evolutionary biologists who focus on their individual areas of research don't drop their present research and focus ONLY on abiogenesis or some other origins question. But you can be sure that some scientists ARE actively investigating the question of the origins of life. Give it time and as more evidence is gathered, more discoveries are likely.
In the meantime, research into evolutionary processes continues. Indeed, with the publishing of genomic data, the evidence is absolutely exponentially multiplying. The evidence for those processes (and perhaps even new kinds of evolutionary processes previously unobserved) will continue to grow. Why not praise God for such an incredibly powerful and versatile set of evolutionary processes which so wonderfully adapts and diversifies life to new environments? A mere human has to continually tweak and guide what he builds, in order to keep it operating. Man's machines can't maintain themselves for all that long nor adapt and modify themselves to new conditions. But what we observe in God's created universe is these marvelous things we call living organisms which are somehow endowed with ever-adaptive and DIVERSIFYING capabilities. Now THAT is amazing "engineering"! (Yes, one of the major reasons I left the YEC movement was that I felt it blasphemous to limit God to such a petty engineer. I prefer to believe in the God of the Bible who is wise enough and powerful enough to create the universe I observe and living things which evolve to address changing environments! Think about it and ask yourself why you want to limit God to such a weak and bumbling "intelligent designer" when the reality of God's creation is far more incredible!)
Upvote
0
No. No. No. Not at all.
"Evolutionists" don't "always piggyback" abiogenesis with the theory of evolution. That is something creationists opposing evolution often say but you really need to start reading some scientific journal articles. Most focus on whatever evolutionary processes they are studying----and saying NOTHING AT ALL about the unrelated question of abiogenesis.
Yes, there are SOME scientists who happen to focus on abiogenesis as their field of study. So what? What's your problem with that?
The ONLY people who try to combine the TOE with the separate yet-to-be-explained issues of the first origins of life AND PRETEND THAT THEY CONSTITUTE ONE THEORY OF EVOLUTION are creationists.
Now, if you are typical of those people, you will find a quotation from some scientists who happens to mention the theory of evolution and abiogenesis in the same sentence---and then try to convince us that that proves something. I can talk about photosynthesis and relativity in the same sentence; does that make them the same theory just because both talk about light? Get real!
This stuff is extremely elementary. If you wish to deny the theory of evolution, why not deal with the evidence and cogent arguments---instead of silly games of trying to redefine a long establish theory to include some other idea which it never has?! (It certainly isn't winning any respect from individuals who know something about the topic. But it does explain why I feel embarrassed that I was a "creation science" speaker long ago.)
P.S. Here's another tip: I'm surprised that you didn't learn somewhere along the way that "ALWAYS!" statements have a high probability of making foolish claims. You make it very easy for your opponent because by saying something that ridiculous, all that they have to do is show just ONE example to render your claim totally false. You are making things extremely easy for those chuckling at your claims.
Upvote
0
KWCrazy
Newbie
- Apr 13, 2009
- 7,229
- 1,993
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
In other words, when faced with a problem which we can't answer, we limit the range of questioning. We invent a version of God that doesn't appear anywhere else other than in our desperate attempt at validity and say that particular god started things in motion then went golfing for the next five billion years while everything developed on its on. And then they say we make stuff up.
Hey, it's your lie, you tell it.
You don't believe in God. You're an atheist. That means you have NO explanation for the origination of anything, much less everything.
Some believe the moon is made of green cheese, but that doesn't comprise a scientific theory.
Actually it goes to the central theme of our existence. Science has proven that everything can't come from nothing. Science has proved that life cannot come from no life. Science has never documented a mutation inventing new genetic material and encoding it into the reproductive systems. The so-called driving forces of evolution aren't common, but in fact are so rare they can't even be studied. In short, evolution falls short as a scientific theory, and is more of a religion.
Atheists latch on to evolution so that they have something to point to when they deny the overwhelming evidence of God.
Upvote
0
Poe.
(Who "limited the range of questioning"? Nobody. He reminds me of the guy who would claim that just because somebody says that a cow is not a duck, that means that they deny the existence of ducks.)
Upvote
0
46AND2
Forty six and two are just ahead of me...
- Sep 5, 2012
- 5,807
- 2,210
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
No, we don't limit our questioning. We are looking into both questions. That is the point, they are two separate questions. Evolution is the question of how life diversifies. Abiogenesis asks how life started. But the answer to one is not dependent on the other.
Evolution does rely on the FACT that life started, of course. But we don't need to explain HOW life started to question how it diversifies. It's really rather obvious that life started one way or another. So now we can ask the question, how does it diversify? That is evolution.
I really don't understand why this is so hard for some people to grasp.
Classy. Well done.
So what? It's okay to say "I don't know."
I never said theistic evolution was a scientific theory.
You have been corrected on all of these claims repeatedly. Clearly it was a waste of those posters' time.
I've told you once before that evolution has nothing to do with whether or not I believe in God.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Wrong and nonsensical. Every scientific theory only explains a limited amount of the world. Nobody ranges the limit of questioning, it is only that each answer is limited to a single process.
Well, given that your first statement was nonsense, you do make stuff up. You could try getting things right, but hey, that's just me.
It is not a lie.
Not knowing something is fine. There is no use in pretending you know something when you do not. That only breeds ignorance.
Nobody said that believing God started evolution is a scientific theory. The theory of evolution is a scientific theory though, regardless of the starting point.
You were already corrected on these assertions, yet you keep repeating them. Why do you not learn?
[/quote]
No, atheists are atheists because of the lack of evidence of God. If evolution were not true, this wouldn't suddenly validate the existence of God.
Upvote
0
But that's just because the black helicopters will come if we don't answer in unison
Anyway, a job well done, brownie points with the atheist hive mind. Now I only have to catch a kitten for breakfast tomorrow morning and I'm done for the day.
Upvote
0
But that's just because the black helicopters will come if we don't answer in unison
Anyway, a job well done, brownie points with the atheist hive mind. Now I only have to catch a kitten for breakfast tomorrow morning and I'm done for the day.
As a Bible-affirming Christ-follower, I'm continually embarrassed by the fact that so many of the atheists I deal with (both professionally and non-professionally) are so much more HONEST than so many of the young earth creationist leaders (and far too many of their followers.) It is a disgrace that "Lying for Jesus" has become such a common theme that it brings up something like 380,000 hits on Google.
My Christian brethren: dishonesty does NOT help your cause. Nobody is fooled when someone lies about basic definitions and the evidence (both scientific and scriptural.)
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
46AND2
Forty six and two are just ahead of me...
- Sep 5, 2012
- 5,807
- 2,210
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Indeed, one would think that a more effective approach would be to ACCEPT our definitions, and work within those confines, rather than continuously obfuscating the claims.
It's as if they think that manufacturing confusion which isn't there is a good argument. It's one huge strawman.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Similar threads
