For me, it's either theistic evolution or nothing.

stevevw said:

The people who killed in the name of the bible were contradicting a written book from God. People have become aware that they misinterpreted the word of God and justified wrong motives in the name of God so this can be corrected and controlled. Other religions who do wrong in the name of God may be doing the same but as a Christian we would say that this is not the true word of God and therefore man made and its inevitable that it will lead to no good. In that sens its not religion but any ideal that is used by humans to justify a particular way to act like politics.

Evolution is suppose to be a process for how life adapts and is a biological influence rather than a moral one that will dictate life whether we believe it or not. I am just pondering the question that if it is a matter of survival of the fittest then even though some say that we are better off getting along to survive that may have been the view at that time.If things change and it comes down to a situation where there was not enough food or resources would it mean that some will be willing to kill others to ensure that they have a better chance of survival. Is this not happening now in some ways. Is this not the social aspect of evolution. Maybe it is a case of having a balance in life by including God as this will also bring in the divine nature which is willing to sacrifice self for others.

Click to expand...

And none of that has anything to do with evolution again, your feelings about it's implications don't decide wether or not it's true.

And people missusing evolution to set some sort of social goals isn't how evolution works either. Funny thing about the way humans often percieve evolution it's not really how it works.

A good example is, the entire concept of survival of the fittest, it's a description of the outcome, not a goal, or something you can quantify before anything that happens. Fittest in evolution, is what ever is most fit to survive a given enviorment, in a nuclear holocaust, or many other scenario's human's won't be the fittest. Evolution is a fact it happened, it's how life evolved, your personal beliefs or ideas of evolution don't matter. we have the evidence, we have the fossils, the DNA, everything points to evolution being real, you can get with science, or continue to reject it, and drive people from god when they realize people such as yourself unwittingly lie to them.

loveofourlord said:

And none of that has anything to do with evolution again, your feelings about it's implications don't decide wether or not it's true.

And people missusing evolution to set some sort of social goals isn't how evolution works either. Funny thing about the way humans often percieve evolution it's not really how it works.

A good example is, the entire concept of survival of the fittest, it's a description of the outcome, not a goal, or something you can quantify before anything that happens. Fittest in evolution, is what ever is most fit to survive a given enviorment, in a nuclear holocaust, or many other scenario's human's won't be the fittest. Evolution is a fact it happened, it's how life evolved, your personal beliefs or ideas of evolution don't matter. we have the evidence, we have the fossils, the DNA, everything points to evolution being real, you can get with science, or continue to reject it, and drive people from god when they realize people such as yourself unwittingly lie to them.

Click to expand...

I haven't said anything about whether I accept or reject evolution. I am merely asking questions and posing scenarios. You are assuming things. This is what happens in this evolution debate that people quickly take things to opposing points rather than be able to discuss the middle ground or even conflicting points without turning it into a one side verses the other. Most people agree and accept that evolution happens but its the degree and type of evolution that occurs that needs to be debated.

When you say that none of what I said has anything to do with evolution that is not necessarily true. if you listen to the many experts on evolution they will mention the very same things. They will use evolution theory to account for just about everything that happens and that included our cognitive processes, religious beliefs, our social behavior and emotional well-being and attribute all these things to reasons that will either benefit or not benefit our survival as human beings.

When you say evolution is accepted I don't know what you mean by evolution or what you are referring to. As far as the Darwinian theory is concerned some of its main tenets have been debated and disputed by many experts. One such view is the development of a new framework, termed the extended evolutionary synthesis. Other fundamental mechanisms that are non adaptive can have just as much and if not more influence that selection as far as the emergence of complexity and complex life.

Selection works on what has already been created and it is other forces that are more responsible for the creation of complex organisms. In that sense evolution is not a totally unguided process and there can be some bias towards particular paths and mechanisms which are more beneficial and suitable for the way in which life changes. Life itself can override the force of adaptive mechanisms and influence the outcomes of how it can survive. So everything doesn't come down to purely natural selection and random mutations as many people have believed. The emergence of life itself was more the result of non adaptive mechanisms rather than selection and in fact selection works against increased complexity.

The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity
Evolutionary biology is treated unlike any science by both academics and the general public. For the average person, evolution is equivalent to natural selection, and because the concept of selection is easy to grasp, a reasonable understanding of comparative biology is often taken to be a license for evolutionary speculation. It has long been known that natural selection is just one of several mechanisms of evolutionary change, but the myth that all of evolution can be explained by adaptation continues to be perpetuated by our continued homage to Darwin's treatise (6) in the popular literature. For example, Dawkins' (7⇓–9) agenda to spread the word on the awesome power of natural selection has been quite successful, but it has come at the expense of reference to any other mechanisms, a view that is in some ways profoundly misleading.
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl_1/8597.full

What is in question is whether natural selection is a necessary or sufficient force to explain the emergence of the genomic and cellular features central to the building of complex organisms.
The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity

There is no consistent tendency of evolution towards increased genomic complexity, and when complexity increases, this appears to be a non-adaptive consequence of evolution under weak purifying selection rather than an adaptation. In other words (Natural selection) my emphasis.
Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics

Core values
The core of current evolutionary theory was forged in the 1930s and 1940s. It combined natural selection, genetics and other fields into a consensus about how evolution occurs. This ‘modern synthesis’ allowed the evolutionary process to be described mathematically as frequencies of genetic variants in a population change over time — as, for instance, in the spread of genetic resistance to the myxoma virus in rabbits.

In the decades since, evolutionary biology has incorporated developments consistent with the tenets of the modern synthesis. One such is ‘neutral theory’, which emphasizes random events in evolution. However, standard evolutionary theory (SET) largely retains the same assumptions as the original modern synthesis, which continues to channel how people think about evolution.

The story that SET tells is simple: new variation arises through random genetic mutation; inheritance occurs through DNA; and natural selection is the sole cause of adaptation, the process by which organisms become well-suited to their environments. In this view, the complexity of biological development — the changes that occur as an organism grows and ages — are of secondary, even minor, importance.

In our view, this ‘gene-centric’ focus fails to capture the full gamut of processes that direct evolution. Missing pieces include how physical development influences the generation of variation (developmental bias); how the environment directly shapes organisms’ traits (plasticity); how organisms modify environments (niche construction); and how organisms transmit more than genes across generations (extra-genetic inheritance). For SET, these phenomena are just outcomes of evolution. For the EES, they are also causes.
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

stevevw said:

Another aspect of evolution

Click to expand...

We can get to that, but I don't think we've finished the other discussion, and without do so it starts to look like a gish gallop.

I guess the main point of that could be addressed with a simple question -

Do you, Steve, think that by finding out all the chemical and physic mechanisms behind pregnancy - from egg to baby - that scientists have "taken God out of" pregnancy? So do you think that God has nothing to do with making each of us, and that the traditional Christian belief that God made each of us is simply wrong?

If so, why?

If not, why not?

In Christ -

Papias

Papias said:

We can get to that, but I don't think we've finished the other discussion, and without do so it starts to look like a gish gallop.

I guess the main point of that could be addressed with a simple question -

Do you, Steve, think that by finding out all the chemical and physic mechanisms behind pregnancy - from egg to baby - that scientists have "taken God out of" pregnancy? So do you think that God has nothing to do with making each of us, and that the traditional Christian belief that God made each of us is simply wrong?

Click to expand...

I would hope from my status as a Christian and my little quote under my reply pages that this wound show that I do believe God made each of us and that science can reveal God. I don't think science is about taking God out of the picture. In fact as the science discovers more it can bring God into the picture because it can reveal that Gods creation can go beyond scientific explanations.

Science is a way of explaining something and testing its validity according to the scientific method. But there are things that science cannot measure. Its not the science itself but the person behind the science and how they use those explanation. Therefore I think it comes down to belief. A non believer will only look for and consider answers that fall within the science parameters and be unwilling to even consider anything beyond that. I personally think this is an atheistic view and people will look for ways to explain things without God. Whereas a believer will see that the science not only explains the scientific way but also reveals Gods handy work.

I like what Professor John Lennox says about explanations in a short video. The science and maths used to explain how life and the universe work don't cause anything to happen they just describe it. But some can use those explanations as the causes of how things happen.

If I may ask you a question. Do you think there is such a thing as sin or that humans can have a divine nature. Or do you support the evolutionary or biological theory that all human behavior traces back to evolutionary reasons.

stevevw said:

I would hope from my status as a Christian and my little quote under my reply pages that this wound show that I do believe God made each of us and that science can reveal God. I don't think science is about taking God out of the picture. In fact as the science discovers more it can bring God into the picture because it can reveal that Gods creation can go beyond scientific explanations.

Science is a way of explaining something and testing its validity according to the scientific method. But there are things that science cannot measure. Its not the science itself but the person behind the science and how they use those explanation. Therefore I think it comes down to belief. A non believer will only look for and consider answers that fall within the science parameters and be unwilling to even consider anything beyond that. I personally think this is an atheistic view and people will look for ways to explain things without God. Whereas a believer will see that the science not only explains the scientific way but also reveals Gods handy work.

Click to expand...

Yep, I agree with all of that. As you said, "I don't think science is about taking God out of the picture. ".

stevevw said:

If I may ask you a question. Do you think there is such a thing as sin or that humans can have a divine nature. Or do you support the evolutionary or biological theory that all human behavior traces back to evolutionary reasons.

Click to expand...

Yes you may. Here's my answer:
I do think there is such a thing as sin, and that humans have a divine nature.

stevevw said:

Or do you support the evolutionary or biological theory that all human behavior traces back to evolutionary reasons.

Click to expand...

How is that an "or"?? Biological theory suggests reasons for human behavior, but that doesn't eliminate God nor sin nor our divine nature. Science is not about taking God out of the picture - and science doesn't deny sin or our divine nature. It simply describes the physical world. A biologist can find out about human behavior, and that doesn't change the fact that some human behavior is sin. Indeed, that very same biologist may be a Christian who believes in sin.

Biology describing our human origins is no more "atheistic" than algebra, which adds numbers without ever stating whether there is or isn't a God. Right?

In Christ-

Papias

Papias said:

How is that an "or"?? Biological theory suggests reasons for human behavior, but that doesn't eliminate God nor sin nor our divine nature. Science is not about taking God out of the picture - and science doesn't deny sin or our divine nature. It simply describes the physical world. A biologist can find out about human behavior, and that doesn't change the fact that some human behavior is sin. Indeed, that very same biologist may be a Christian who believes in sin.

Biology describing our human origins is no more "atheistic" than algebra, which adds numbers without ever stating whether there is or isn't a God. Right?

Click to expand...

Yes I agree that biology can describe reasons for human behavior but I wonder if some of those reasons given are in conflict with what most believers think about our divine nature. For example many people say that religion or belief in a god itself is just part of an evolutionary process where humans have made up religious belief as a way to give meaning to life and the unknown. This can then explain why people have different religions or believe in ghosts or UFOs ect. God and sin then become just made up ideas and many supporters of evolution believe this is part of our evolutionary past.

So for example evolutionary theory may describe human behavior for sex as having its roots in evolution. Some animals may mate with several partners to improve their chances of survival by increasing their off springs. So behavior like this can be said to justify why humans may have a need or tendency to want to have several partners or move from one relationship to another as a evolutionary influence and not a moral one.

If anyone tried to say that these actions were a sin then someone who supported the idea of evolutionary behavior like this can just say the idea of sin and god and his laws are just something humans make up to add meaning and direction to their lives. This behavior is just a natural human behavior that stems from out evolutionary past which still influences us today. So you begin to see how the extension of evolutionary thought can begin to take God out of the picture when it is applied to human behavior.

As I stated before a natural extension of evolutionary thought is that many believe natural selection accounts for just about everything that happened in life and existence. This means that there is no sin and God, they were just made up to help humans survive by over coming fear of the unknown and helping people to get along better and have some control and order. Many who support this also support the idea that there is not objective morality. Therefore belief and sin are just beliefs and views that humans have. Your belief is no more valid than another belief in something different. There is no ultimate truth to any divinity, sin/morality and God.

loveofourlord said:

creationist do like their out of date information for some reason.

Scientist, "Hmmmm this tissue seems to have some life to it still lets investigate it." after applying acids and treating it for days/weeks they get something resembling soft tissue, then work to find out why, and surprise surprise they do, and learn something.

Creationists, "It's soft tissue evolution is false!!!!." ignoring all subsequent information or facts that show them wrong or what really happned. I still see creationists claim we don't have full skeletons of animals we since have gotten, keep your informtion up to date.

Click to expand...

The soft tissue found in rock..CLAIMED...to be 65+ MY's old...PROVES..the rock isn't that old. This hurdle hasn't been overcome by the old earth Evos.

Speedwell said:

I think you would find Genesis more "profitable for teaching" if you could forget, even for a little while, using it primarily as a source of proof texts against evolution. Why do you care so much about evolution, anyway, that you have to strive so hard to make the Bible speak against it? It's only a scientific theory and in the end might not even be true.

Click to expand...

The T.o.E destroys Genesis....the garden, Adam, original sin, our sin nature, the reason for Jesus.

-57 said:

The soft tissue found in rock..CLAIMED...to be 65+ MY's old...PROVES..the rock isn't that old. This hurdle hasn't been overcome by the old earth Evos.

Click to expand...

uhuh....right ummm care to explain the science of how being wrong about a process means that everything else is wrong? Nonsequitor and typical bad logic by creationists.

loveofourlord said:

uhuh....right ummm care to explain the science of how being wrong about a process means that everything else is wrong? Nonsequitor and typical bad logic by creationists.

Click to expand...

You didn't answer my question..you dodged it. You also dodged it badly. If rock dated as 65 MY's old has been shown to have been misdated and it turns out to be 4 thousand years old....you have a serious problem. A very serious problem...so serious it cast a very dark shadow that everything pertaining to Old Earth and evolutionism is wrong.

-57 said:

You didn't answer my question..you dodged it. You also dodged it badly. If rock dated as 65 MY's old has been shown to have been misdated and it turns out to be 4 thousand years old....you have a serious problem. A very serious problem...so serious it cast a very dark shadow that everything pertaining to Old Earth and evolutionism is wrong.

Click to expand...

No I'm ignoring the nonsequitor stupidty of saying because something still has soft tissue that must mean it's thousands of years old, you do realize the bone was still 99.999% or so fossilized, wich generally takes a long time to fossilize, your logic fails sorry.

loveofourlord said:

No I'm ignoring the nonsequitor stupidty of saying because something still has soft tissue that must mean it's thousands of years old, you do realize the bone was still 99.999% or so fossilized, wich generally takes a long time to fossilize, your logic fails sorry.

Click to expand...

You know full well soft tissue can't survive for that long. But your faith in evolutionism is so strong you know "somehow" the tissue must have survived. After all the scientist have dated the rocks. Right? Perhaps there was some magic pixi-dust mixed in with the fossils that preserved the tissue.

-57 said:

You know full well soft tissue can't survive for that long. But your faith in evolutionism is so strong you know "somehow" the tissue must have survived. After all the scientist have dated the rocks. Right? Perhaps there was some magic pixi-dust mixed in with the fossils that preserved the tissue.

Click to expand...

and your a scientist with years of understanding of how iron and bones and other things interact so to know that it can't last that long right? Your just so hard wired to ignore reality in favour of keeping a untenable concept of the bible that you can't comprehend that your 4th grade understanding of science isn't something anyone that knows the subject is going to listen too.

loveofourlord said:

and your a scientist with years of understanding of how iron and bones and other things interact so to know that it can't last that long right? Your just so hard wired to ignore reality in favour of keeping a untenable concept of the bible that you can't comprehend that your 4th grade understanding of science isn't something anyone that knows the subject is going to listen too.

Click to expand...

But we know it lasted that long..right? wink wink.

-57 said:

But we know it lasted that long..right? wink wink.

Click to expand...

well the bone lasted millions of years, so obviously it did, your refusal to accept reality isn't going to change the facts.

stevevw said:

Yes I agree that biology can describe reasons for human behavior but I wonder if some of those reasons given are in conflict with what most believers think about our divine nature. For example many people say that religion or belief in a god itself is just part of an evolutionary process where humans have made up religious belief as a way to give meaning to life and the unknown. This can then explain why people have different religions or believe in ghosts or UFOs ect. God and sin then become just made up ideas and many supporters of evolution believe this is part of our evolutionary past.

Click to expand...

So then your concern is not with biological evolution, but with cultural history. If so, then maybe start a thread on the ideas of cultural history, and if the historical development of religion means that religion is "just made up".

For instance, there are many different origin stories, and all of them are irrelevant for for cultural history. Whether zeus made humans out of metal, or Yahweh made them out of dirt, or they evolved under the direction of Ganesh, or the come from the planet Zenu, or if yahweh used evolution to make them, or if they formed from primordial yin/yang, or whatever - after that they may have made up the world's religions. Where they right in making up those world religions?

One could just as easily say that Yahweh made humans using evolution, and the humans later, wrongly, made up atheism.

stevevw said:

So for example evolutionary theory may describe human behavior for sex as having its roots in evolution. Some animals may mate with several partners to improve their chances of survival by increasing their off springs. So behavior like this can be said to justify why humans may have a need or tendency to want to have several partners or move from one relationship to another as a evolutionary influence and not a moral one.

Click to expand...

Evolution explains what happened, not what's moral now. In other words, any origin can be used to justify wrong behavior, and it's just as incorrect to do so.

For example - what if I said that "Christianity teaches that rape is OK. It says that we have a sin nature due to the fall, which of course isn't my fault, because I wasn't there. So you can't blame me for raping - it's not my fault, it's the devil's fault (or Adam's fault, or God's fault, or whatever)."

In the same way, one could say "Christianity teaches that stealing food is OK. It says that God made me so that I get hungry, which of course isn't my fault, because that's how God made me. So you can't blame me if, when I see someone eating a burger, that I punch him and take his burger - it's not my fault, it's the God's fault because that's how he made me."

Absurd? Of course they are - just like any other justification of sin based on "human nature", or "how we got here".

stevevw said:

So you begin to see how the extension of evolutionary thought can begin to take God out of the picture when it is applied to human behavior.

Click to expand...

I've of course heard that (and the Christian parallels above) before. All of them are equally unreasonable and incorrect.

stevevw said:

As I stated before a natural extension of evolutionary thought is that many believe natural selection accounts for just about everything that happened in life and existence.

Click to expand...

Why is that a problem? A natural extension of chemistry is that many believe chemistry accounts for just about everything that happened in life and existence. People being wrong doesn't change anything about morality, sin and God. It also doesn't mean we deny the reality of chemistry or oppose teaching it in schools.

stevevw said:

There is no ultimate truth to any divinity, sin/morality and God.

Click to expand...

The findings of biology and many other fields, which show that God created by using evolution, in no way show that "there is no ultimate truth to any divinity, sin/morality and God", any more than the the fact of gravity "disproves" all that by "contradicting" Genesis 1:17.

You didn't answer this:
Biology describing our human origins is no more "atheistic" than algebra, which adds numbers without ever stating whether there is or isn't a God. Right?

In Christ -

Papias

My thoughts on the matter and I'll start with this: "And God said let us make Man" . It doesn't say "In the beginning God took an existing Animal" For anyone who has clearly read Genesis it's clear as daylight that Humans where not a product of existing animals because Genesis goes completely in the opposite direction from Theistic Evolution. We know that Humans are a special creation from God because we where created in his Image. Not that he created hundreds and hundreds of millions of special creations.

Papias said:

So then your concern is not with biological evolution, but with cultural history.

Click to expand...

I think its more to do with the idea of selection whether it is biological or psychological rather than cultural. Both these fall into the idea of survival through selection. People choose certain forms of behaviour for survival because it allows them to get along so there is less conflict. The group that gets along will survive while the ones in conflict don't. This applies to religious thought in that people who have a belief in something beyond the terror of life and death may keep calmer and therefore have an advantage of not being stressed.

The basic psychological states are what give survival and then the culture will be a result of that basic survival frame of mind to look for meaning beyond our material world that we may not be able to cope with. This brings everything down to an evolutionary process whether it be mind/psychological or physical/biological. That is how evolution thinks and even culture is a product of evolutionary processes. This is what I am saying that most supporters of evolution attribute just about everything to selection whether it be biological, psychological, cultural, spiritual it doesn't matter because there is no other existence besides our evolved states.

If so, then maybe start a thread on the ideas of cultural history, and if the historical development of religion means that religion is "just made up".
For instance, there are many different origin stories, and all of them are irrelevant for cultural history. Whether zeus made humans out of metal, or Yahweh made them out of dirt, or they evolved under the direction of Ganesh, or the come from the planet Zenu, or if yahweh used evolution to make them, or if they formed from primordial yin/yang, or whatever - after that they may have made up the world's religions. Where they right in making up those world religions?

One could just as easily say that Yahweh made humans using evolution, and the humans later, wrongly, made up atheism.

Click to expand...

My point was if we want to use theistic evolution to fit in with the evolution theory that non religious people have then we have to consider the full implications of what the theory entails. It doesn't just include the biological, it also includes the brain and thought about how humans for example used tools and then as the brain evolved humans became smarter and gained a sense of self and their surroundings. Formed groups, had to get along and hence formed religious, spiritual ideas as part of survival and nothing more. You can't support one part of evolution and reject the rest.

Evolution explains what happened, not what's moral now. In other words, any origin can be used to justify wrong behaviour, and it's just as incorrect to do so.
For example - what if I said that "Christianity teaches that rape is OK. It says that we have a sin nature due to the fall, which of course isn't my fault, because I wasn't there. So you can't blame me for raping - it's not my fault, it's the devil's fault (or Adam's fault, or God's fault, or whatever)."

Click to expand...

Evolution is supposed to not just explain what happened in the past but why things happen which give reasons to why we behave in certain ways today. Scientists are always analysing human behaviour and then trying to attribute that behaviour to an evolutionary reason.ie men are the workers and women are the homemakers and this traces back to men were the hunters and women looked after the camp and children. People lived in groups because it was safer and then they learrnt to get along becuase it was easier to survive by not stealing from each other and attacking each other.

In the same way, one could say "Christianity teaches that stealing food is OK. It says that God made me so that I get hungry, which of course isn't my fault, because that's how God made me. So you can't blame me if, when I see someone eating a burger, that I punch him and take his burger - it's not my fault, it's the God's fault because that's how he made me."

Click to expand...

But Christianity doesn't say that and that would be reading stuff into it like some of the extremists do. In fact it says the opposite instead of taking their burger if you are hungry they should share the burger.

Absurd? Of course they are - just like any other justification of sin based on "human nature", or "how we got here".

Click to expand...

My point is that you cannot take a part of the evolutionary theory such as the biological part and leave the rest which is just as important the mental and psychological part or the evolution of the brain and human thought. A big part of evolution is that humans became destinct from the rest of the animals because of our larger brains and higher thought. That higher thought is said to create things like religious thought, abstract thought as part of the evolutionary process.

I've of course heard that (and the Christian parallels above) before. All of them are equally unreasonable and incorrect.

Click to expand...

But then you are beginning to pick and choose what part of evolutionary theory you want to support. If someone supports theistic evolution which is basically saying they support evolution theory which is what the mainstream scientists support then you have to also support the rest of it which is the evolution of thought as this is an integral part of the theory. Without the evolution of the brain and higher thought humans would just be animals like an ape. So the use of tools, social development, religious thought is, all part of evolution. Evolution is used to explain everything about humans whether it be body, mind or spirit. Of course, to evolution, there is no spiritual and this is just an abstract thought that only humans are capable of.

Why is that a problem? A natural extension of chemistry is that many believe chemistry accounts for just about everything that happened in life and existence. People being wrong doesn't change anything about morality, sin and God. It also doesn't mean we deny the reality of chemistry or oppose teaching it in schools.

Click to expand...

The problem is if you want to support evolution in theistic evolution then you need to support natural selection not just in the biological aspect of evolution but in the psychological and mental or thought side of evolution. This then attributes religion, morality, sin, God and everything like that as higher level thoughts of humans made up as part of their survival and intelligent thought and nothing else. If you want to only support the biological aspect of evolution then you are taking apart the theory and changing it.

The findings of biology and many other fields, which show that God created by using evolution, in no way show that "there is no ultimate truth to any divinity, sin/morality and God", any more than the the fact of gravity "disproves" all that by "contradicting" Genesis 1:17.

Click to expand...

According to evolutionary processes ultimate truth, divinity ect are just part of the evolution of the human mind into aa higher level of thought and nothing more. That is according to most supporters of evolution. Otherwise they have just lost a big part of the theory that explains how and why an animal brain evolved to a higher level to use tools, socialise, for rituals such as burials and eventually create the religion.

You didn't answer this:
Biology describing our human origins is no more "atheistic" than algebra, which adds numbers without ever stating whether there is or isn't a God. Right?

Click to expand...

That's why I am making the point about the other part of evolution that you are forgetting. The evolution of the human mind itself. This then attributes all things like sin, God, religion ect to evolution and therefore takes God out of the picture. You cannot have evolution without the evolution of the brain and all the thought processes that go along with the biological evolution of humans.

That is why the scientists are continually explaining how our development physically coincided with certain behaviour and thoughts such as how they explain a burial site they may dig up as evidence of how the Neandathals had started to evolve more meaning to death when they discover a grave which shows they buried their dead. They don't say this proves there was a God, They explain it as part of the evolution theory of the human brain. It all goes hand in hand with the theory and you can't have one aspect without the other.

IE
The evolution of human intelligence is closely tied to the evolution of the human brain and to the origin of language.
Many traits of human intelligence, such as empathy, theory of mind, mourning, ritual, and the use of symbols and tools, are apparent in great apes although in less sophisticated forms than found in humans, such as great ape language.
Evolution of human intelligence - Wikipedia
Increased brain size
In this set of theories, the religious mind is one consequence of a brain that is large enough to formulate religious and philosophical ideas. During human evolution, the hominid brain tripled in size, peaking 500,000 years ago. Much of the brain's expansion took place in the neocortex. This part of the brain is involved in processing higher order cognitive functions that are connected with human religiosity. The neocortex is associated with self-consciousness, language and emotion.
Evolutionary origin of religions - Wikipedia

Hi Ryukil.

The Bible says the Universe started as a vast, shapless, Universal "ocean" over which God's Spirit hovered before He said "Let there be light."

My question for you is this:
If all the energy in the Universe, in the form of light, instantly exploded, striking a Universal body of water, how long would it take for the superheated Hydrogen gas (H2) and Oxygen (O), produced by the subsequent light-based "water-splitting" reaction, to form into the stars and galaxies we see today?

If you can find the answer to this, I think you too will find out the true timeframe it took the expanse of the heavens to come into being....You will have found the correct length of time used by God to create all the sun, moon, and stars, where they are today (roughly), which we read about in Genesis1-2 of the Word of God.

Jonathan Mathews said:

Hi Ryukil.

The Bible says the Universe started as a vast, shapless, Universal "ocean" over which God's Spirit hovered before He said "Let there be light."

My question for you is this:
If all the energy in the Universe, in the form of light, instantly exploded, striking a Universal body of water, how long would it take for the superheated Hydrogen gas (H2) and Oxygen (O), produced by the subsequent light-based "water-splitting" reaction, to form into the stars and galaxies we see today?

If you can find the answer to this, I think you too will find out the true timeframe it took the expanse of the heavens to come into being....You will have found the correct length of time used by God to create all the sun, moon, and stars, where they are today (roughly), which we read about in Genesis1-2 of the Word of God.

Click to expand...

Why worry about the exact details? God told us on which day He created these things and it must have been less than 24 hours (probably instantaneous) as otherwise it would have merged into the next day.