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

[Tom 1]

One of the many reasons I think he's a Poe. A remarkably dedicated one, to be sure.

There are a lot of 'teachings' and ideas pushed by authority figures in a lot of churches that people rarely check out, inlcuding a great many church leaders who are entirely sincere in their own views but haven't really considered ideas outside of their own denomination or group. It takes a lot of time to develop a more grounded understanding of the bible, it's the same as any other area of human activity, with the same issues of fixed paradigms and groupthink etc.

 

[Jimmy D]

I don't think it would matter what sources I reference, you would not agree with them, so I don't see the point. As long as science refuses to allow the Divine a foot in the door concerning the origin of the universe, then we are not going to get anywhere.

What have ancient foot prints, genuine or not, got to do with the "divine"?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

What have ancient foot prints, genuine or not, got to do with the "divine"?

Because the only truth about the origin of the universe is that it was divinely created and not through evolution.

 

[VirOptimus]

Because the only truth about the origin of the universe is that it was divinely created and not through evolution.

The ToE has nothing to do with the origin of the universe.

Your post is severly confused.

 

[Jimmy D]

Because the only truth about the origin of the universe is that it was divinely created and not through evolution.

Why are ancient foot prints evidence for divine creation though?

Besides, I'm sure that you don't accept the dating of the strata these footprints were "discovered" in anyway do you?

 

[xianghua]

A

A penguin is not a self-replicating robot.

why not?

A robot made by design is not an "instant creation." The creation of a robot requires a process: concept, design and manufacture. Robots do not just pop into existence from nothing fully formed.

sure it take some time but not millions of years. and this is why i call it "instant creation".

 

[xianghua]

If you mean creationism, as in the attempts to apply biblical passages to the practice of science, I don't think that has the same solid basis in science. Trying to use science to pose the question 'how did God do it' is a bit of a non-starter I think, in that it's never going to be as effective as focusing on how things work, which to my mind anyway is what science is basically for, i.e. how things work and how can we use that to our advantage. I think perspective is important - knowing something about the bible doesn't give anyone the ability to figure out whether this or that scientific theory is accurate or not. Nothing in the bible attempts to provide an explanation relevant to how we now, in the modern era, think about 'creation' in the sense of what it's made of, how it works etc. Genesis provides a narrative to illustrate the order of things, and the nature of mankind, God, and a whole load of other lessons that are useful for living but have nothing to do with the functioning of the natural world. To understand the creation narrative it is necessary first to understand the overall worldview of the time and place in which it was written, what their preoccupations were, what they understood by the concept of creation, and so on. Without that context you end up just pulling random ideas out of a hat.

i actually refer to design in general (the question if designer exist or not). without any connection to what the bible says. do you think that the design scenario can be back up by scientific evidence?

 

[xianghua]

Yes, and humans are still apes.

no. they are different from apes. they can talk for instance. apes cant.

 

[Speedwell]

why not?

Because a robot is a man-made automaton.

sure it take some time but not millions of years. and this is why i call it "instant creation".

So these species which you claim popped into existence from nothing took some time to form?

 

[xianghua]

Do you still not understand the difference between the way that designed objects are made and the way that living things are made? Take whales as an example. No fossil whales have been found in Mesozoic rocks. Do you infer from this fact that the first whales that are preserved as fossils in Cenozoic rocks came into existence by spontaneous generation from water, that they were made in a 'whale factory' after the end of the Mesozoic era and put into the oceans, that they were descended from Mesozoic animals that were not whales, or that fossil whales are not the remains of living animals at all but were put in the rocks during the days of creation when the Earth was formed?

lets check your possibilities. say that the first car appeared about 50 million years ago as a "car fossil" in a world where cars were self replicating (like a living thing). what do you think is the best scenario in that case: that car just evolved from other kinds of vehicles or that car was created by a designer?

 

[Speedwell]

no. they are different from apes. they can talk for instance. apes cant.

Let me correct you a little: other modern apes can't talk. But we are not descended from any of these modern apes so it doesn't matter. We are just different in various ways from these other modern apes. So what? They are different from each other as well as from us. How does that show that we all don't have a common ancestor?

 

[Speedwell]

lets check your possibilities. say that the first car appeared about 50 million years ago as a "car fossil" in a world where cars were self replicating (like a living thing). what do you think is the best scenario in that case: that car just evolved from other kinds of vehicles or that car was created...

It would depend on whether there was a sequence of earlier fossils gradually becoming more car-like.

...by a designer?

Leave off that "by a designer." It makes your entire argument dishonest by intentionally obscuring the possibility that the whole process of evolution is the product of a designer, not just its individual products, and that consequently evolution rules out a designer.

 

[xianghua]

Because a robot is a man-made automaton.

so if something that looks like a robot is made by a natural process- we cant call it a robot?

So these species which you claim popped into existence from nothing took some time to form?

maybe. but not millions of years.

 

[Tom 1]

i actually refer to design in general (the question if designer exist or not). without any connection to what the bible says. do you think that the design scenario can be back up by scientific evidence?

I don’t see how, even a complete knowledge of how the whole physical universe works wouldn’t prove whether or not it initially came about through God’s command. I think the whole question is an attempt to bring it all down to our level, as if God designed the universe like one of us might make something in the garden shed. If God does simply bring things into existence that is just something that is beyond what we can reduce down to a process we can describe. Knowing how it works just tells you how it works.

 

[Speedwell]

so if something that looks like a robot is made by a natural process- we cant call it a robot?

You can call it whatever you want, but "looks like" is not much of a basis for it.

maybe. but not millions of years.

Why not?

 

[xianghua]

You can call it whatever you want, but "looks like" is not much of a basis for it.

and what if its looks and act the same?

 

[Speedwell]

and what if its looks and act the same?

It doesn't matter. Superficial form and function have nothing to do with demonstrating the presence of design.

 

[xianghua]

I don’t see how, even a complete knowledge of how the whole physical universe works wouldn’t prove whether or not it initially came about through God’s command. I think the whole question is an attempt to bring it all down to our level, as if God designed the universe like one of us might make something in the garden shed. If God does simply bring things into existence that is just something that is beyond what we can reduce down to a process we can describe. Knowing how it works just tells you how it works.

so take a look at these images. the first is a spinning motor and the second is a gear:

(images from Figure 1 The Bacterial Flagellum and This Insect Has The Only Mechanical Gears Ever Found in Nature | Science | Smithsonian)

dont you think that a spinning motor is evidence for design and not for a natural process?

 

[Speedwell]

so take a look at these images. the first is a spinning motor and the second is a gear:

(images from Figure 1 The Bacterial Flagellum and This Insect Has The Only Mechanical Gears Ever Found in Nature | Science | Smithsonian)

dont you think that a spinning motor is evidence for design and not for a natural process?

No. Form and function are not evidence of design.

 

[Tom 1]

so take a look at these images. the first is a spinning motor and the second is a gear:

(images from Figure 1 The Bacterial Flagellum and This Insect Has The Only Mechanical Gears Ever Found in Nature | Science | Smithsonian)

dont you think that a spinning motor is evidence for design and not for a natural process?

On what basis though? You could only determine that it was designed if you could actually prove that it was the impossible for it to have evolved. To do that you would need a complete understanding of evolutionary processes and how to falsify them in this instance. What it looks like isn’t proof.