As a Christian, how many of you believe in evolution?

[Speedwell]

I'm not dodging, but when you start playing with descriptives you own them.

OK, so explain how evolution is a "hoax" and who is behind it.

 

[pitabread]

I'm not dodging, but when you start playing with descriptives you own them.

You claimed there is hoax but you haven't been able to support it with anything. You haven't even been able to point to who is perpetuating this hoax.

Let's be honest here: it was a silly claim to begin with.

 

[Jon Osterman]

I find it rather bizarre that some posters are devaluing the word "evidence" in comparison to "proof". Proof only exists within logic systems. So if I make, for example, some mathematical axioms, I can then logically "prove" certain statements that follow from these axioms. But any observation about the universe is intrinsically uncertain, so proof (in this sense) does not apply - we have instead observational evidence. And the overwhelming preponderance of evidence suggests that life evolves via a mechanism of natural selection.

Now, we can argue all we like whether or not that observation is in violation with the Word of God via the Bible. I personally don't think it is. But if you do think it is in violation, then you are in a very difficult situation because you are denying God Himself. God has given us His wonderful natural revelation of the world around us. He has given us the faculties to observe the world and see evolution happening. Our scientific observations aren't separate from God - they are a gift from Him. Similarly, the Bible is a divine revelation and neither revelation should be thrown away. So as a Christian, you are beholden to understand how these apparently conflicting truths fit together in a way that they do not deny each other.

 

[DreamerOfTheHeart]

The Belief in Evolution: The Devil is in the Details

This thread is titled, 'do you *believe* in evolution', and no, I do not *believe* in evolution. I like this, because so often, I get, 'you believe, we know', and 'you don't have evidence for your beliefs, but I have evidence for mine'. Yet, pretty much what I bring to the table here, is exactly that.

I will get into that, but the arguments I am seeing here, are, as I often see: a bunch of very technical details in fields people probably do not even work in. Even if they do, this does not matter. Though, this is very rare that they do.

Dismissing that argument 'out of hand', only confirms that fact for me. The reason for this, really, is quite simple. I do work in multiple 'very technical fields', and do work in areas where we are constantly dealing with the far unknown, the 'I don't know what this is'.

Some 'guy on the internet' can tell me all day this is not true, and it does not matter. I get my paycheck from this. I have been doing this for decades. I have acted as a technical source for global media. I have spoken at technical, respected conferences. I have worked at major companies, laying groundwork for future advancements I saw come to pass. This is part of my reality. (The vast majority of 'my reality', however, is not public. It is secret.)

This does not mean I never come across atheists who understand this, who actually do, really, also have similar credentials, in that way. It is a tiny thing for me. My public work has been a tiny tip of a little iceberg. I do not state this to boast, but merely stating facts. I am not stating that it is without reason to merit one's own technical accomplishments. But, if you really are accomplished in a highly technical field, you also will have awareness of the possibility of error in these fields.

So, you have some awareness that there is a possibility that even the most accepted ideas, by the most prestigious of scientists, can be wrong. You have some awareness of the history of science, and how this has happened. But, usually, unless you really are deep into 'the unknown' and the 'very, very strange', you really are not going to deeply, very seriously, consider this factor.

It is more on the peripheral for you.

The reason for this is, as I repeat, because people do not like to challenge their view of reality.

Put, however, in this vein, most simply: when you are repeating "facts" of some technical nature, which required some degree of unusual effort on your own part, and some degree of intellectual skill - which certainly can be admirable - very often what your "facts" really are is simply "deep in the very daunting details" of matters which someone else has told you is accurate.

These statements of mine do make sense to those really doing cutting edge research. They do not make sense to those who do not. Atheist, Christian, whatever, does not matter.

These kinds of statements are, by design, presented to bypass those who believe 'other people's cutting edge research'. But, have never actually performed any cutting edge research of their own.

Because they think, because they believe other people's cutting edge research, that they join in with them. That they are equally as accomplished, and equally as smart. This is deceptive. But, it makes them feel good, as a person. They can get praise from their peers, for this. They get honor from this. But, it is all based on a lie.

To *memorize* very complicated details, you do have to have some understanding of the logic behind it. This aids the illusion. But, simply because there is logic behind the details, does not mean that the enormous confluence of memorized data is actually real. One gets lost in the details, in this way.

What can really hurt them, however, is that, a lot of 'cutting edge research', or very technical matters, is, in fact, accurate. There are are truly empirical facts arising from them. And they tend to know some of this. But, when I say "a lot", I do not mean "the majority". There is a difference, and it is a critical difference.

Now, something else one would notice, if they really have worked in a truly empirical field, one which does deal with extensive and highly technical details --well... let's stop, first, and look at that definition, of the word "empirical".

Empirical
'based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.'

If you can state that you work in a highly technical, empirical field, and you remember the meaning of the word, 'empirical', you can consider: is there any empirical field which is of sufficient complexity where theory is not important? Where theoretical considerations of sufficient complexity are not essential to the work?

Maybe. Kind of. If you are, for instance, not a researcher, but a practitioner, then you might get away with not being aware of the latest theoretical frameworks being presented. But, this tends to be pretty rare. Certainly, practitioners are nowhere near as engaged in research, where theoretical models can be the core focus of their work. But, they usually have to keep a distant eye on what is possibly 'coming up on the pipeline'. Especially in fields which change at a fast pace.

These rules apply to all fields that might be stated to be 'highly technical'. From computer sciences to medical sciences. I could have made this easy for the armchair intellectuals, and dropped right away into specifics. But, then, specifics are easy for armchair intellectuals. That is a surface level of understanding. Even if the 'surface' is quite deep.

If you want to make someone believe a lie: it is best to have them discover the lie on their own, so that they might confuse it with their own thoughts. They become incapable of distinguishing, then, 'what came about from my own thinking' versus 'what someone else spoonfed me'.

Hypnotized, lost in the details. Missing the 'forest for the trees'.

The trees, here, are empirical sciences. The forest is the very nature of reality.

Another principle is, if you want to make someone believe a lie: make them work for it. The more work they have to put into, the more strong the illusion will be for them. The more they have to search for "The Truth", the more likely they will settle on "the truth" they have found.

Even if that truth is, ultimately, a complete, and utter, lie.

Finally, on this topic, I like to mention "spoonfeeding" on this topic, because evolutionists get into this accepted *belief* that "Christians are spoonfed what they believe". As if they, also, are not spoonfed what they believe. By distinguishing their own selves apart from "Them" ('us vs them'), they highlight the difference in their own self, even if that difference is intrinsically delusion.

This is an easy target for these guys, because, as Paul says, of us 'nothings of this world', us (true) Christians, 'not many of you are wise in the world'. There is nothing wrong with this. After all, if you bother to try and independently think out 'the meaning of life' and do not come across the merit of 'being happy' -- well, you have never even really given that question any thought, now, have you, then?

And, being 'wise in the world', or 'rich', or 'famous', and being happy, are certainly not mutually inclusive matters.

 

[pitabread]

I find it rather bizarre that some posters are devaluing the word "evidence" in comparison to "proof". Proof only exists within logic systems. So if I make, for example, some mathematical axioms, I can then logically "prove" certain statements that follow from these axioms. But any observation about the universe is intrinsically uncertain, so proof (in this sense) does not apply - we have instead observational evidence. And the overwhelming preponderance of evidence suggests that life evolves via a mechanism of natural selection.

I have noticed that religious fundamentalists seem to struggle with uncertainty. The thinking seems to be purely black and white: something is either definitive or it's speculative.

The idea of relative certainty seems a difficult concept for some to grasp. Which is why I think you see a lot of creationists oscillate between referring to things as either proof or speculation, with no room for anything in between.

I'm not sure what drives that type of thinking, but I think it would be interesting to understand the psychology behind it. I suspect that it is also why people are driven to fundamentalist religious views in the first place. Because such views are about removing uncertainty.

 

[JCFantasy23]

ok. but this is just variation of the same kind of creature. the mouse or the crocodile stays as a mouse and a crocodile and didnt evolved into something else. we can find such variation among humans too, but i dont think that we will call it "evolution". another rproblem is some biological systems that cant evolve stepwise. for instance: a blood will by useless without blood vessels and vice versa. so one part depend on other part so it cant evolve stepwise.

I don't fully agree. It is the same creature that has evolved due to need -- it is not just a variation on the same creature. The crocodile started in a different form with a different diet, and keeps changing as it had to keep evolving and adapting to new needs and environment. The appearance changed, the internal structure changed, the diet changed. To me this is evolving/evolution.

 

[klutedavid]

Taking about proof and faith sounds like talking about two extremes. But there are a whole bunch of possibilities in between those two extremes.

Science is about trying to understand the natural world. We observe specific phenomena and come up with explanations for those phenomena. Then those explanations are tested, revised, and tested some more, to try to get as accurate an understanding as possible.

Those explanations will never be 100% perfect. The only 100% representation of reality is reality itself.

This is why explanations in science are never considered "proven". Rather they are considered supported by evidence and testing. And the process of gathering evidence and testing is continuously ongoing, as explanations continue to become progressively more robust and accurate (but still never 100% proven).

Your explanation seems a reasonable one but is the universe really an observable universe?

 

[inquiring mind]

OK, so explain how evolution is a "hoax" and who is behind it.

1) “Macro evolution” is the hoax. It’s a hoax because it is biologically untenable, yet promoted as the ‘educated’ truth, contrary to God’s word. There is only speculation to back it up, no undeniable evidence, not even a conclusive fossil record. Can I be any plainer?

2) It’s a hoax from a perspective of those who are duped from an early age, in our school systems, by speculation that is ‘passed off’ as the only truth, the educated truth... I hope you understand my meaning of perspective. Conspiracy is not my term, but who benefits from discrediting God, surely you can answer that for yourself. Sometimes I believe the system itself is as naïve as those who swallow such information hook, line, and sinker disregarding God’s word in the matter.

 

[pitabread]

There is only speculation to back it up, no undeniable evidence, not even a conclusive fossil record. Can I be any plainer?

How do you know this? Where are you getting this information?

 

[inquiring mind]

How do you know this? Where are you getting this information?

Trusting in God and His word.

 

[pitabread]

Trusting in God and His word.

That doesn't answer the question. You're claiming 'macro' evolution isn't backed up by evidence.

How do you know that? Have you studied biology? Are you familiar with the varying lines of evidence that are used to support it? Have you studied them?

You keep making a lot of bold claims but it doesn't sound like you've tried to investigate anything...

 

[inquiring mind]

That doesn't answer the question. You're claiming 'macro' evolution isn't backed up by evidence.

There you go... I said undeniable evidence.

How do you know that? Have you studied biology? Are you familiar with the varying lines of evidence that are used to support it? Have you studied them?

What do you think... I've been here for months discussing these things with you.

You keep making a lot of bold claims but it doesn't sound like you've tried to investigate anything...

Really... have you investigated scripture?

 

[DreamerOfTheHeart]

Evolution and the Problem of Private & Secret Evidence in Sciences

As noted, my initial response, and frequently repeated refrain here, is 'the very nature of reality its' self is not understood'. And this is where we get into this matter, and really, where (true) Christians are coming from. It is also a primary area which evolutionists like to attack, because it is one they are used to having success with.

(True) Christians believe based on evidence, primarily, foremost, which is private. Being private, it certainly can be said to be secret. Being secret, yet shared, it certainly can be said to be a sort of conspiracy. In fact, I often wonder at the proliferation of obviously fake conspiracy theories out there these days, because nothing even begins to rival the real "conspiracy" which true Christians have. (We do deal, however, with a true rival conspiracy of a similar daunting nature, of which human beings are merely pawns, but that is an entirely different matter.)

In short, our belief system is entirely and very far, alien to this world. We are who we are, because we have the Spirit of Jesus in us. Jesus comes from 'up there', Heaven, and through his Spirit, we are being made, and are, new creatures entirely. Yet, we live among you.

So, we can call it a 'belief system'. But, this is deceptive, isn't it? Especially in an environment where it is often argued to us that evolutionists 'do not believe, nor have a belief system, but know'. Especially in an environment where it is often argued to us, 'we believe based on fact, you do not'.

This is not seen a the 'height of arrogance', nor the 'height of vanity', because it is a tactic that tends to work well for evolutionists. So, they use it.

But it is a road which seems to take them somewhere, but, in reality, takes them nowhere. Merely because this can be difficult for Christians to answer, does not make it untrue. Merely because many of us are 'not wise in the wisdom of the world', enhances this delusion of success.

The underlining principle, however, is quite simple: believing a consensus of experts who are well approved in the world, is not the same as truth. And, just because a truth is secret, or private, does not mean it is not a proof. Further, just because a truth won't, or can't, be presented to the world, or even to a panel of worldly approved experts for examination and verification, also does not mean it is not a truth.

I used the term 'a truth' here, instead of 'evidence', because there can be evidence for a lie. There can be substantial evidence for a lie. The evidence can be very true, but misunderstood. And so, the conclusion reached by that evidence is the lie, because the evidence is misunderstood.

Most of the evidence we share is private, and secret. But, we have evidence which we do, and can share, with others of our kind. Because these are shared secrets. They have the Spirit, we have the Spirit.

Evolutionists pretend to not be able to comprehend these basic principles, but they are not idiots. Many of them are very smart.

Significant circumstantial evidence of our truths are presented. This is, usually, all which is left to evolutionists and atheists. But, there is a difference between significant 'circumstantial evidence', and insignificant 'circumstantial evidence'.

Circumstantial evidence is often presented in current society as something which is not true. That is the phrase its' self. This is due to the proliferation and popularity of crime shows. But, real evidence always leaves a trail of circumstantial evidence, like Godzilla making a wake in the ocean as he walks. Or King Kong maybe not being seen, quite yet, but you can hear his thundering footsteps from afar.

Further, circumstantial evidence is what is one sees in wakes and echoes of significant truths. You know a big storm is coming, because it was deep red, at dawn. And some strong winds are blowing.

There is a lot of very interesting fiction in movies and television out there, and there is an enormous amount of every sort of conspiracy theory running around. Fiction, is fiction, and conspiracy theories are theories. Most of it bad, and certainly far from the truth. But, there may be some kind of truth hidden behind all the distortion.

In the radio field, there is the 'signal over noise' phrase. You have to tune out the noise, to hear the signal. Before doing so, the signal is distorted. It often is so distorted, it is as if there is no signal, at all. But, the signal is the reason for the noise. The noise comes from interference as the signal goes through the air.

(Not always, but that is irrelevant to the subject.)

As an example of our circumstantial evidence, we might point people to Scripture. That is, Scripture is true, but atheists will not believe this. However, even if they do not believe this, we can attempt to point out the complexity and beauty of it, and contrast it against other writings while doing so. We can point out the proliferation and influence of it, globally, and historically. Good and bad.

Circumstantial evidence we often put out is our resilience in our beliefs, which atheists test. They can not understand what we are saying, as we often do not speak the same language. But, they see that, despite this, we have something. Problem is, for them, contrasting that 'something', with the 'something' others have. Still, on a deeper level of perception, then what the 'conscious mind' allows, they get that there is something there. And they perceive it as something which is a threat to their ways of looking at reality.

I often have atheists literally put to me, in indirect ways, that 'something is not possible to be real if it is not well known and put forth by worldly accepted experts in a related field'. This has to be put indirectly, because directly, it is patently absurd, even moronic.

For instance, "Roswell". Many conspiracy stories involving aliens have arisen over a military base called "Roswell". These conspiracy theories were allowed to persist, because it is a real military base, where secret work was being done. Maybe even these conspiracy theories were encouraged and added to, to enhance the security of the secrecy of the real work being down there. Increasing the size of the haystack is one way of hiding the needle better.

There is truth behind Roswell. They were really working on experimental aircraft which they wanted to keep secret. Just because they kept this secret, did not mean that they were not really working on experimental aircraft.

Everybody has truths, everyday, which are not shared. Which are private, secret. That others do not know these things do not mean they are not truths.

In fact, these tend to the the truths people have the most evidence for, being true, isn't it? That the vast majority of the truths of their very existence are unknown to others, does not mean they are not truths. In fact, this is the very substance of their "real" reality. The very vast details of most of their reality is simply too mundane and common to share. Nobody cares.

That most of the truths of people's everyday lives are secret and private, does not mean they are difficult to believe. As they do tend to be mundane, and highly common. So, they are quite easy to believe.

For instance, you do not want to televise yourself using the bathroom. That is private. It is secret. It is certainly something you believe you do -- and you have a lot of evidence for it. It is very easy for others to believe you do, if you actually want to share that with anybody else.

But, then, what we are really talking about, here, with Christianity, is secrets that are not just highly improbable, according to 'the world', but on the level of improbability that makes it 'impossible'. 'Impossible', according to 'the world', does not mean, however, that it does not happen. It simply means it is 'beyond the comprehension of the world'.

In terms of evolution and creationists, this is a core matter at play.

Creationists are asserting that 'it does not matter how well respected and prevalent a belief about reality is'.

I am not stating that I, personally, believe 'evolution' and 'creation' are *necessarily* exclusive. I can think of many ways, which it is not. That is not relevant to what I am saying, however.

I am stating that Christians are 'of another world'. What we call 'the Kingdom of God', or 'the Kingdom of Heaven'. The Kingdom of Heaven is not perceived, but inwardly, though it is also in the midst of the world (already). You have to be able to, as if, have a radio or television, to see what it is. It is unseen. Without such a device to perceive what is hidden in the air, you simply can not perceive it.

In today's "secular" terms, the word "Heaven" remains pretty well understood. But, we are talking about what people might call, "outer space". I am not stating, something as simple as, "Jesus is an alien from outerspace", as the entire universe and what we perceive of it, should be called into question. Nevermind that current concepts of "aliens from outerspace" are absurd and painfully primitive. (In most cases, where it is currently envisioned.)

Point being is, we are already just inside the door. We are already 'on the other side'. The vast majority of [human] Christians are not, down the Rabbit Hole. But, they are in the Rabbit Hole, already. So, they have already stepped into this other world.

The Rabbit Hole of which I speak is narrow, but deep. It is hard to find. Not many do, but are on the wide road of the mainstream, which ends, inevitably, in death. Immortality, however, can be found, in the Wonderland at the end of the tunnel.

So, we are talking about acquaintance with secrets that everybody actually does want to know. Acquaintance with evidence that we do really want to share. Because we have, within us, true evidence of immortality. As with the Spirit comes the perception of immortality, the infinite.

But, how can one describe or explain this, to someone who does not have this sense. It is missing entirely.

Ironically, and painfully so, if they could listen to the 'circumstantial evidence' which trails from us, and they were bothered enough to try and dig into the truth behind it -- they really could find, not just immortality. But, the true very Kingdom of Heaven.

There is another painfully ironic point about this: when you actually reach Wonderland, which we are told would happen in the last days, and, indeed, is happening... the wonders there one beholds are deep and wide. But, they are alien on a level which defies description.

Heaven, you see, is so far away, and therefore, so alien, there is not yet the language, on earth, to adequately be able to build a bridge of communication. We have been, over the millenia, largely forced to speak about it in layers of metaphor.

Today, we have metaphoric frameworks given to us which enable to enhance and expand on the metaphors that were available to our predecessors. But, still, you are dealing with only extensive metaphors, until the Kingdom is finally revealed.

For instance, in Scripture, the concept of 'alien' was used in describing the work Jesus did. But, that word could only really be considered in terms of 'alien' as if, from an alien nation.

Today, this concept is able to be more expanded upon, because people are able to consider an alien which is from much further away, even from that which is not earth. Not that Scripture did not present the alien, in the first place. Though, apart from some books, and some visions, most of the book was designed to be as relatable to 'earth people' as much as possible.

Which is the last part about 'evidence' and why it is not, and can not (yet), be shared:

Because even if shared, it can not be understood to the degree, that it is impossible to be believed.

This is a very huge, looming issue with what we are talking about when we discuss our belief set.

'Impossible to believe' is quite different from 'too complex to understand', though they are related.

If, for instance, you were to somehow purloin blueprints and other technical data behind some super secret, experimental aircraft at Roswell... it would be 'too complex to understand', if you were not working in such a field.

If a spy were to do this, say, online, they might give the information to their government, for examination. Nobody, of course, would believe it is real. Because, part of their business is spying against complex, secret organizations who provide foreign spies with false information. Though, if they had scientists who could understand enough of the details to ascertain - in their expertise - that it does, in fact, 'appear to be authentic', then more confidence would be placed in it.

But, it is also 'par for that course', that this may have been by design. That, if there was sufficient evidence in the blueprints, and was not of sufficient enough distance in technology to what they were accustomed to... they might be able to start to try and build one of these super secret aircraft. And it might have an intentional design flaw in it, so it would blow up in their faces.

What would be immediately impressible in terms of belief, in these terms? To have an actual vehicle stolen. To have it in their hands. To be able to see it do what it does. Then, they would believe. If the controls, anyway, were understandable.

'Impossible to believe', however, is on a completely different level.

As a good example of, most people have some knowledge of, 'the dread machine of Ezekiel'.

What Ezekiel described there, he really saw. But, it was a metaphor. It was not a picture in his head. Heavenly beings can manipulate reality as if it were the substance of a dream.

A lot of modern pundits consider it may have been a description of an alien spaceship. They are, actually, mostly incorrect in that.

What it actually is, is a metaphoric description of what Jesus called, 'the angels ascending and descending upon the Son of Man'. Or, what Jacob saw in his vision, presented in a very different, and more *seemingly* explicit way, with 'angels' literally ascending and descending from Heaven, on a ladder.

In both cases, Ezekiel and Jacob were deeply prepared for what they came to see. They were familiar with the concepts, the 'not of this world', enough to be able to see it, and not, for instance, to pass out from shock (or die from it).

Christians, having the Spirit, and all the everyday evidence the Spirit provides them, are able to read these accounts and have no problem believing the accounts. They do not have a problem believing that Ezekiel and Jacob really saw these things. But, if their next door neighbor described such a thing, that they would have a problem believing.

This, hits at the heart of the matter.

Jesus indicated this principle that 'a prophet is not without honor, except in his own country, and own house', and pointed out, multiple times, how he found greater faith in those not from Israel, then what he found in Israel.

There is the problem there of familiarity.

It has nothing to do, really, with 'whether one has the Spirit' or not. Because the problem of familiarity persists.

As a 'for instance', you can certainly believe that deep cover spies from foreign nations really exist. But, you would have extraordinary problems believing that your next door neighbor was one, or someone you meet at the local bar. Because the probability of that is so high.

What is the chance of you, living such a normal, simple, uncomplicated life where nothing truly impossible happens would ever actually meet someone like that?

Conversely, for true Christians, this is why we have little problem dismissing all and every evidence of what is popularly accepted in the world, if that evidence appears to contradict what we know to be true.

Whether it is true or not, is not even relevant, but that is another matter. After all, it does not effect our lives, in any way.

The reason this is, is because, whether we have seriously questioned the 'nature of reality' or not, consciously, we have a reality and perceive a different nature of reality, then what the world promotes, already.

In fact, it is entirely possible for us to believe that Jacob's ladder and Ezekiel's wheel are one and the very same thing, and that these were presented to these men, not as mere visions in their head, but in reality, from the very substance of which reality is composed of. Point there being, we are highly aware that 'reality is not as people think it is'.

So, we also have no problems believing in the rest of the miracles described in the Bible.

But, when people try and tell us, that something is, that it is observed in nature, in reality, by multiple witnesses, this means something very, very different to us, then it means to those who only take reality at face value.

Finally, on this note, people can say, 'oh doubt reality all that you want, it can confirm its' self to you, at any time'. But, the problem with this, for us, is that God has put us in circumstances where 'our reality', 'our world', is not 'here'. Not yet, anyway. The world is a miserable place for us (though this is getting better).

This is why we believe the message. Because it conforms to our preferences. Bias, by all means. But, bias which God, not man, has set. For God controls all things.

That is, even before someone comes to the faith, they are already 'not of this world', as they are a 'nothing of this world'. This is their design. They are not yet, literally, 'not of this world', yet, in a sense, they surely are. So, they seek this Kingdom, this Wonderland, Oz, Narnia, this Other, Better place. A better world.

 

[pitabread]

There you go... I said undeniable evidence.

What does that mean? Are you thinking in purely absolutist terms?

What do you think... I've been here for months discussing these things with you.

People on generally on this forum to argue, not learn.

Where have you studied biology? Have you ever investigated the evidence that supports common descent? What sources have you researched?

Really... have you investigated scripture?

Of course. It's a collection of culturally relevant works.

 

[inquiring mind]

What does that mean? Are you thinking in purely absolutist terms?

If by faith only we know the Creator... how can you be absolute about anything else?

People on generally on this forum to argue, not learn.
Where have you studied biology? Have you ever investigated the evidence that supports common descent

This discussion isn't about me.

Of course. It's a collection of culturally relevant works.

Then you have missed it for what it is... communication.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

Now see here's the problem. An extant taxon evolving into another extant taxon would not be evidence of evolution, but would falsify it. Existing things, like rhinos, don't evolve other existing things, like rabbits. Evolution is a one way street and every branch is a different and separate route. So, "macro" would be changes above the species level where an ancestral population splits into one or more species over time.

so an ape doesn't evolve a human?

This is false. I'm going to bet that you're conflating direct observation with evidence, but that still isn't true. We have observed speciation occur numerous times. Some examples would be Italian Wall Lizards, Apple Maggot Flies and Faroe Island House Mice. And direct, real time observation is not the only way to gather evidence. There are numerous lines of evidence for common descent found in biogeography, anatomical and molecular vestiges, atavisms, anatomical homology, genetic similarity, etc.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

isn't the biggest argument against the existence of God that we've never seen Him?

so what did these mice evolve into where they were no longer mice? and these lizards and flies evolve into that they were no longer flies or lizards.

 

[Speedwell]

1) “Macro evolution” is the hoax. It’s a hoax because it is biologically untenable, yet promoted as the ‘educated’ truth, contrary to God’s word. There is only speculation to back it up, no undeniable evidence, not even a conclusive fossil record. Can I be any plainer?

1. It's not promoted as "contrary to God's word." It happens to be contrary to a Fundamentalist interpretation of scripture, but it is not promoted as such.
2. It is not promoted as absolute truth, but only as a scientific theory. Scientific theories are never considered to be absolute truth, but only held as provisional, pending new evidence.
3. You can deny any evidence you want, but your case would be stronger if you understood what it was before denying it.

2) It’s a hoax from a perspective of those who are duped from an early age, in our school systems, by speculation that is ‘passed off’ as the only truth, the educated truth... I hope you understand my meaning of perspective. Conspiracy is not my term, but who benefits from discrediting God, surely you can answer that for yourself. Sometimes I believe the system itself is as naïve as those who swallow such information hook, line, and sinker disregarding God’s word in the matter.

No one is discrediting God, only dismissing a Fundamentalist interpretation of scripture. For my part, as a Christian, I think the Fundamentalist interpretation of scripture is shallow and theologically inadequate and would have nothing to do with it even if there were no theory of evolution.

 

[Speedwell]

so an ape doesn't evolve a human?

"Ape" in this case is a taxonomic classification from which modern, presently existing apes (including humans) evolved. No one is saying that humans evolved from modern apes. If your name is, say, Smith, then somewhere in the past you had a great grandfather also named Smith. That does not mean you are descended from your cousins who are also named Smith, only that you all had a common ancestor who was named Smith.

 

[inquiring mind]

1. It's not promoted as "contrary to God's word." It happens to be contrary to a Fundamentalist interpretation of scripture, but it is not promoted as such.

Do you really believe that?

2. It is not promoted as absolute truth, but only as a scientific theory. Scientific theories are never considered to be absolute truth, but only held as provisional, pending new evidence.

Sure... I hear you. Macro Evolution, not micro evolution, concepts piggy-back science for the very reason of being accepted as truth.

3. You can deny any evidence you want, but your case would be stronger if you understood what it was before denying it.

By understanding, you mean accepting it of course.

 

[DreamerOfTheHeart]

Evolution and Creationism are Not, Necessarily, Mutually Exclusive -- But the Explanation Has to Be Very Strange

Dawkins, and many evolutionists, argue that creationism and evolution are mutually exclusive. They dismiss those who say otherwise, stating 'they do not know what they are talking about'. They point out that the very observed principles of evolution are such that they operate entirely by random chance. The forms which come from this confluence of chaotic forces produce forms that we perceive as meaningful, because of the expansive and difficult to comprehend levels of time engaged.

Someone may take issue with my term, there, "creationism", instead, of saying, "God and evolution" are not, necessarily, mutually exclusive. Semantics.

None of this means that Dawkins and his ilk are necessarily correct. Perhaps, as Christian evolutionists sometimes believe, 'the dice are simply loaded'.

A much bigger problem still exists: Angels. Miracles. The very life of a true Christian is, its' self, then difficult to explain, or consciously grasp. After all, the substance of our beliefs is not based on words, even, but on Spirit.

Not a problem for many who see no difficulty believing in both God and evolution, as many who follow the Christian faith do not believe the miracles described in it ever really happened. These are not, however, considered 'true Christians', because this means they do not believe Jesus actually rose from the dead.

Of course, it is possible, they just have not thought this out, to that point... somehow not believing in the miracles of the bible as having really happened... yet believing Jesus, did, in fact, rise from the dead.

Whatever the case - never discussed how such people perceive things - but, it is possible to throw in evolution and belief in God.

I am not stating that this is fact. I will present 'how this could be'. Which should be considered more of an 'aid for consideration', for 'those who can not disbelieve evolution', but thereby, see evolution as a stumbling block for believing The Message.

After all, as I have argued, for us Christians, the very nature of reality is seen as something which can be manipulated, by God, through heavenly beings, as if it were the substance of dream.

(For science fiction aficionados, this is not such a problem, using the current metaphoric framework of 'nanotechnology', but I would point out, while, that too, can be an useful theory, to help someone to the truth - a band-aid, a temporary framework for construction - it is patently absurd to think a being of sufficient technology to reach planet earth would have the necessity to use modern concepts of 'nanotechnology'. Think more in terms of 'Dark City', if not 'the Matrix', or 'Inception'.)

To begin with, one major 'what if' problem at play here, is how earth came to be able to be an environment in which we could subsist. This normally comes later, if one ever bothered to think out these matters, but is good to put on the table, right at the beginning.

In Science Fiction terms, earth would have either been terraformed, or life on earth would have been discovered, and from there, watched.

Either case is actually palatable. After all, we know some of the account of the creation story is metaphoric, as 'the snake', was not a literal snake.

1. Could be the 'earth' spoken of is the original earth. (More on that later.)
2. Could be the language is so metaphoric, that the 'six days of creation' is spoken of in metaphoric terms, as time is used in symbolic terms, in other junctures of Scripture.

One problem with this, is that the seven days of creation ties into the earth's rotation, and is used as a symbolic, signature number, therefore. Could be that this number is endemic to any world which is inhabitable, however. Seems very unlikely.

It might also be numbered, that we have seven digit numbers used in local numbers, because it was found that 'seven' was, give or take', just about how many numbers people could easily remember.

But, still, the confluence of symbols of seven, twelve, four, is found through out scripture, and presented in a meaningful fashion. Which both highlights the positioning of the earth, and its' rotations, as well as being numbers which would probably not be as nicely fitting as other numbers, applying to other rotational systems.

3. Could be the earth was discovered. And, as noted, in point 2, planets that are actually inhabitable tend to have a similar rotational structure as we have, whether this has been discerned by current science, or not. That it seems to not fit into any current scientific understanding, is of course, not meaningful here. As we are going to be talking, like evolution is talked about, on significantly vast timescales, which means all current scientific understandings should be considered as such from the most primitive of societies.

Even if it has been secretly helped by above. Remember, God does manipulate atheist, christian, and everyone, alike.

If discovered, a problem arises, 'when did the angels arrive'.

This is an important problem, in this paper.

Here, we do have to consider 'vast timescales', folks familiar with the inner workings of the theory of evolution are well acquainted to.

So, as humans, we do not have too much of a problem raising our children, for twenty some odd years. They are our children. Our own life spans do factor in here. We live around seventy years, give or take. Point being, that is a good factor of our lives we may put into raising our children.

Another metaphor to consider here is: we have some, marginal, degrees of patience, which can be said to be tied to our lifespans.

While the capacity for patience can be accelerated, according to the adversity we deal with, still, in general - not factoring in Spirit filled humans here, exactly - our tolerance of patience is relative to our age, and our perceived longetivity.

So, 'found & watched', or terraformed, we should consider while this seems extremely difficult to understand, for our own very short lifespans, if we consider that angels could be individuals who are billions of years old, with no sense of limited longetivity, whatsoever, then really: they would have little difficulty coming and staying, at almost any stage.

If you stretch their age far past billions, (which is currently considered impossible in this universe), then they really would not have had issue with coming at any stage.

Of course, one can easily factor in here the principle of 'how did they get here', and we can suggest 'instantaneously', so they could be operating somewhere else, while also able to keep their eyes on earth, at the same time.


So, this immediately leads us into the problem of 'angels':

This term came about in a time where there were "angels" or "messengers" who operated *kind of* as diplomats and spies operate today. Difference being pretty vast, however, as this was long before the age of mass communication, systems of modern transportation, and postal systems.

This is also where the concept of 'thus sayeth the Lord' comes from.

Therefore, apart from the modern understanding of the term 'angel', there is this much older understanding of the term, and where the word was derived from.


An 'angel', here, of course, would be a 'being from another world'. As their substance is 'immaterial', they would have had to advance, in evolution, from material matter, to immaterial matter. And immaterial matter of such a type, which could be able to manipulate reality with 'as if their mind'.

The true scope of the alienness of angels is rarely shown in mainstream culture, and rarely perceived even in mainstream Christianity. Typically, of course, like everything, people anthropomorphize them, or present them as 'what they are used to'. 'Like us'.

The reality is, angels are shown to be far, far stranger in Scripture, then how we may easily ascertain. As Scripture does not elaborate on many very strange details.

Michael, the archangel, for instance, was able to change the rotation of the earth, so as to increase the day by one hour. A task he stated that would be 'very hard to do'. Another, similar miracle, which was seemingly small, was to make a shadow that advanced go backwards.

Presumably, that last bit could have been shortcut in a number of ways.

We have some instances where, we see more unusual depictions of angels, then what we normally come across. Such as with 'Ezekiel's dread machine'. Or, with some depictions in Revelation. In the time of King Ahab, one angel went and possessed four hundred prophets at a single time. So, a single angel can be in more then one place at the same time. There are other instances of their capability, in these ways.

In essence, then, an angel is as we are as children: playing with toys. They are not the toys, nor the play environment of the toys, but are above it. And, their hands are unseen.

Using modern 'virtual world' concepts, they can be seen as being able to be in the game, or virtual world, but also control it as they please. To the point of creating automated constructs. As many, and of any kind, that they wish.

Whenever they wish to do so.

Angels appearing in disguise as ordinary humans, is a more complicated capacity then it may, at first appear. Some factors here to consider, are, how long they are going to communicate with people on earth, in this disguise. As they will not only need to be able to speak the language, in such a case, but also have some manner of plausible background, with which to speak to them using. As background is a necessary component of language, though this may not seem readily apparent.

They would also need to be able to fit in seamlessly, so as to conjure up clothes and a physical appearance which fits their environment. 'Torn jeans and all'.


How could such a being have evolved? It is certainly possible to speculate that they evolved, much as we would have, and at some juncture would probably have been able to alter their body form. Such a transition would probably have gone, much as we imagine today: being able to transfer one's consciousness to a far less vulnerable form. Flesh is about as vulnerable as tissue paper, in terms of form, after all.

If transfering consciousness was inadequate, then they would have had to come up with the technology to alter their bodies.

Buying themselves more time, in this way, they would eventually have to be able to evolve their form to a level that it was as if - or even actually - immaterial.

In Scripture, they are not presented as entirely immaterial, but are said to be of substance as 'wind and fire'.

Of course, there are two other possibilities here:
-> they could have evolved from an entirely different process then we would have evolved, including not evolving even on a planet at all. After all, just because it is believed that humans have evolved in one manner, does not preclude the possibility of other paths to evolution to sentience.
-> Humans, or beings not unlike our own selves, could have created, what we have already created. Machines, computers, robots. These creations of theirs, as we can already imagine, could have taken on an entirely pathway of evolution from there. (Probably the best depiction of this I have found, so far, in science fiction, is either in the construction of virtual world constructs which are able to exist separately from earth, or in the movie "AI", where shows beings of a similar nature as angels who self-evolved themselves across many centuries.)


If either case were true, it has to be questioned, 'why would they create us'. In the case, for instance, of the earth being terraformed.

I can point out, here, that there is something of very valuable nature to our inherently weak condition. And that is our capacity to surpass our weak condition, through our capacity to have love, and from love, faith.

After all, it is stated, 'love is stronger then the grave'. And, if there is no risk - of which we face all the time, in many ways - then there is no grow of faith. Even humans with the Spirit have some degree of faith and hope. These immaterial components are intrinsic to our immaterial Self.

There is good basis to argue that 'faith' is required for miracles. Confidence, trust, faith, same thing. Confidence is required even to perform material tasks, especially very daunting ones. But, we can find principles of faith, as well, in our very concept and perception of reality. For instance, it has been scientifically proven that we have the capacity to create our own virtual worlds and alter reality as we see fit -- perceptually. In 'hypnosis'. Someone can state, this is not faith, but the principles of faith here, do apply. The person has to have confidence in the person guiding their 'trance state', and this confidence is elicited in varying ways. They also have to confidence in the very possibility of the practice.

While it can be observed 'trickery' can be used in this, it has been shown that there does need to be trust deeply established between the guide and the 'hypnotic subject', or their 'unconscious mind', will rebel.

Normally, the 'trickery' engaged is simply shortcutting expectations and confidence, through a wide range of reasonable methodologies.

Far gap, of course, between 'that' and 'being able to manipulate reality through faith', but the principle of faith is not that a person manipulates reality, but that they can believe a higher being can manipulate reality. Which is an exactly similar principle to what we have found in 'hypnosis'.


All of these speculations are fine, but core to Christianity is the principle of 'life after death', even immortality without death. Core to Christianity is the principle of 'exchanging the perishable body with the imperishable'.

Core to Christianity, further, is the concept of the Spirit of God inhabiting a person permamently, forming in them a new self, and the fetal or worm in a cocoon state of that new body. This Spirit is from a singular source, Jesus, and yet has been able to engage countless people.

So, we are really talking about something far more strange, then what conventional lines of thinking might take us to.


Three other major issues exist:
-> Angels, aside, where does God come into the picture
-> The current estimated age of the universe is 'only' 13.7 billion years old. There are also other factors, at play here, if evolution is not relying on terraforming.
-> If terraformed, then why all of the evidence of evolution?


1. However we came to be, the concept of God is, actually, integral to our very being. We play God with our toys, as little children. Every night, we dream, and in our dreams we operate as gods. In our dreams, we construct our own worlds, maintain them, and like Jesus, we go down into these worlds of our own making.

"Playing God" can be seen in many other human activities, but on a more specific level, as I just illustrated, we do this not just in our dreams, but also in our fiction writing, and today, in our creation of relatively autonomous virtual worlds, such as in expansive video game worlds.

Even jellyfish have been observed to sleep, and animals of a wide variety have been proven to dream.

It is, therefore, likely, that sentience and the necessity of dreaming go hand in hand.

Aside from possibilities that God is simply the first being in existence, possibly even from a layered and vast set of never ending multiverses, more likely, God is truly inherent in all of the Universe.

That is, the very Universe its' self, is intrinsically sentient.

2. 13.7 billion year old universe. Could be wrong. Could be places of the universe simply beyond our current observation. Could be something far strange, such as endless sets of universes, or could be that universes are created specifically to create life. This can mean that this was an inherent attribute of universes, this could mean that the chaotic forces of destruction of the universe are not as chaotic as they appear to be.

Could be that the universe does exist in the mind of God (which I do certainly believe it does), and that God did not actually come from anywhere. Or, could be God even came from an universe quite like ours (less plausible), or an entirely different type of universe, one well beyond our own imagining.

Just because we have concepts of time, of death, does not by necessity indicate that there are not concepts well beyond our own capacity of observation, or comprehension.

Could be, 'no dice at all', God certainly does set up very sophisticated systems, and systems of probability and what appears to us a chaos, are parts of those systems. We can certainly observe that, in many matters, God does not seem to intervene. Just because the processes of life appear to be savage, and far beneath the conscious notice of God, does not mean that God views these things in the same way.

Timescale, here, certainly does come into play.


3. Terraformed, why the evidence of evolution. Could be that life was found on earth, and some manner of accelerant was used. That is the chain was interrupted at some point, and in was dropped a more advanced form of life, which could be assured to evolve into what we are today. Could even be that man was that advanced form of life, and with man was provided the animals. Could be any point in the chain. Could be the forces that kickstarted life were introduced.

But, it also could be that evidence of evolution was provided for us, in a manner which was realistic. This can seem immoral, and impossible to people, but consider how we create natural environments for pets and zoo animals.


There are other ins and outs, in all of this, and other factors to consider, but this is sufficient for a good introduction of how things could have come to be, which are also inline with Scripture.