Laodicean60
Well-Known Member
- Jul 2, 2023
- 5,112
- 2,469
- 65
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
When metabolic science evolves they will.Still no cure for it is there?...
Did evolution help find the cure for aids?
You need to provide two sentences that contradict. It will help you to think more precisely.Oh! I'm sorry! I misread what you said and answered a completely different question! I thought you were asking me why I believe what I believe not on what i think the origin of life is I apologize.
Proposition 1 would be that God created the universe and everything in it and that if
Evolution is true that it was in fact, God that started evolution and was not some random chance. Because one thing is definitely clear from scripture and that's that God created the universe and that explains the origin of life and why we are all here giving a definitive answer as to the origin of life and not a guess. This is where I think both of us agree. Beyond that, evolution is at best a guess as to how we came to be and tries to explain how we got here without a creator God. The universe and everything in it was created about six-ten thousand years ago in six literal days as the Jewish calander and imo the Bible proves when you have a literal interpretation of scripture and dont just take scripture verse by verse butnsee what the whole Bible has to say on the subject. I generally trust the Bible because it has been proven time and time again to be an accurate portrayal of Jewish/world history and has never been completely disproven as a whole or really, at all. In fact, every battle in the Old Testament is proven to have really happened like King Cyrus conquering Babylon in 539 BC. Every "problem" with scripture can be disproven by taking the Bible literally and as a whole vs just debating one verse that was originally in a different language than English and has translation mistakes because you cant get a 100% accurate English translation from Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic and the Bible should be debated by the original manuscripts and not by an English translation.
Two, like I stated above I generally don't believe in Evolution because there isn't enough Biblical or scientific evidence yet to prove the concept beyond any doubt. In fact, evolution contradicts the Biblical account of creation for several reasons beyond what i stated above and if in fact evolution is true it should match scripture not completely contradict it. A scientific fact like DNA or how we get sick as two examples should be believed because it can be replicated and has been proven beyond ANY doubt and is also proven to match scripture. But science that cannot be replicated should be treated with caution because it's generally a theory and not completely proven and honestly evolution cannot be replicated or EVER proven beyond any doubt so it should be treated in schools and by the world as a theory as to the origin of life and not scientific fact. I'm not saying that Creationism should be taught in schools (although i do believe that both should be taught in schools and both be treated as theories as to the origin of life because you cannot force people to believe the Bible) but merely that the world generally treats a theory as scientific fact
I just realized I could have shortened this by using chatgpt but I've already posted it and you've likely already read/skimmed through it.
I agree so why do it? Who did Cain marry in Nod and build a city, for whom? I see the bible as a story of Jesus and I believe that the story starts with Jesus's bloodline.Yes, a literal reading of Genesis and the theory of evolution are incompatible for a number of reasons.
First off, I acknowledge there's a dilemma in terms of our human understanding between scripture and what we at least perceive as scientific evidence. The OP I think understands the dilemma, thus this thread he created.I must not be making myself clear, since your responses here don't seem to have anything to do with what I've written. I'm not talking about the miracles described in the Bible. I'm talking about the countless things that would have had to be created, not to make a mature world, but a world with a false history. All of the layers of sedimentary rock that were never actually sediment, all of the fossils of creatures that never existed, all of the cooled lava from eruptions that never happened.
I'm assuming they were, in this scenario. What does that have to do with my point? You can't get current human genetic diversity from a single pair of recent ancestors.
Scientific arguments are generally the same regardless of the faith or lack thereof of the scientists making the arguments. It's one of the strengths of science that Christians, Jews, Buddhists, agnostics, and atheists all get the same answers.There are a number of people who post here like yourself who proclaim to be Christians who's arguments mirror those of the common Darwinian evolutionist
Not really. 'Darwinian', if its used at all, refers to a subset of evolution (adaptive evolution via natural selection) rather than all of evolution, and 'evolutionist' is used almost exclusively by opponents of evolution. What's your term for people who accept a spherical Earth? Sphericist? But this is of no importance -- I know what you mean.(is that an appropriate term?)
Recall what prompted me to join this conversation. It was this statement from you: "I think Darwinian evolution is an unnecessary compromise. There's a certain amount of pressure to accept it if one wants to be considered a part of upper crest mainstream society." My point then and now is that scientists accept evolution because it works: it successfully explains and predicts an enormous range of data. Special creation does not. To the extent that special creation makes any predictions, they're grossly wrong. Now it is entirely possible to rescue this discordance by invoking as many miracles as necessary, where the effect of every miracle was to make the universe look exactly like evolution were true. If, for you, a belief that Genesis has to be an accurate, literal account of the history of Earth trumps everything else, then by all means believe that. But don't kid yourself that scientists accept evolution because of social pressure.A common theme (accusation) aimed at biblical creationists (or literal creationists) is that whatever apparent dilemma we can't answer, we take the easy route, and just write the problem off as a miracle, or the supernatural. And yes, I honestly don't have an issue with the same thing(s) you do.
I don't see any dilemma, since I read the first 11 chapters of Genesis as a theological reworking (actually two different reworkings with very different ends in mind) of then-contemporary mythic and legendary material. This reworking no doubt served multiple purposes, but I see no reason to thing that any of them included giving a scientific account of the origin of the Earth or of humans. This is has nothing to do with evolution being true -- that's what I understand the text to be based on reading the text.Forgive me where I may have misunderstood you, but your profession of being a Christian is why I've been asking about your views on bible miracles (whether off subject or not). Matching Darwinian evolution with scripture creates a dilemma. The idea conflicts with God placing first humans on earth for a specific reason as opposed to random. It conflicts with an obvious genealogy presented in scripture.
I don't try to rectify the two. I see Biblical exegesis as a distinct and separate discipline from "natural science," and don't really care which gives the true history of the universe. My faith begins with the resurrection, and I am willing to take the Biblical text at as much of face value as possible because of its theological value. I don't have the expertise to comment one way or the other on the nitty gritty of evolution, but I assume the people who study it have a pretty good grasp on the fossil record and the like to give a mechanistic history of the universe. How the Biblical story fits with natural history is beyond my ken, and exploring that aspect has little interest to me because I don't see how it would impact my life decisions.I agree so why do it? Who did Cain marry in Nod and build a city, for whom? I see the bible as a story of Jesus and I believe that the story starts with Jesus's bloodline.
Yes. Turns out, evolution works by pretty much the same universal laws as the rest of nature. As a biologist, I'm fascinated by the way engineers have been able to adapt evolutionary processes to solve complex engineering problems. When I was in graduate school, they called them "genetic algorithms", but maybe it's different in IT.I am a Christian and worked evolution. I used the evolution model to implement AI programs. They are called evolutionary algorithms. You don't have to believe in evolution to work with it. If you search US patents in the last ten years, you will find many applications of evolution models. The theory of evolution has practical values. The US economy benefits from it. You cannot deny its utility.
Principles of Population Genetics, Fourth Edition, is a thoroughly updated introduction to the field that is at last ascending to its rightful position of centrality to evolutionary genomics and human genetics. Rapid and inexpensive genotyping and sequencing have produced a profusion of data on genetic variation, along with a pressing need to inform students from many fields about the models that describe the underlying processes that give rise to observed patterns of genetic variation. This book provides a balanced presentation of theory and observation for students at the undergraduate and graduate levels as well as newcomers from fields like human genetics. The logical development of the models of population genetics encourages a deeper understanding of the principles, and the text has been rewritten with the goal to optimize its use as a teaching aid. It introduces the principles of genetics and statistics that are relevant to population studies, and examines the forces affecting genetic variation from the molecular to the organismic level. Integrated throughout the book are descriptions of molecular methods used to study variation in natural populations, as well as explanations of the relevant estimation theory using actual data.Unlike other branches of hard sciences, there is not as much mathematical justification for Evolution. Nevertheless, it is a useful paradigm.
Today's winner.Scientific arguments are generally the same regardless of the faith or lack thereof of the scientists making the arguments. It's one of the strengths of science that Christians, Jews, Buddhists, agnostics, and atheists all get the same answers.
Well said. Are you familiar with Gerald Aardsma and his "virtual history" explanation of the evidence? Not that it matters to faith, as you seem to understand.I don't have the expertise to comment one way or the other on the nitty gritty of evolution, but I assume the people who study it have a pretty good grasp on the fossil record and the like to give a mechanistic history of the universe. How the Biblical story fits with natural history is beyond my ken, and exploring that aspect has little interest to me because I don't see how it would impact my life decisions.
For the most part. But it may divide at times when discussion of the divine steps in.Scientific arguments are generally the same regardless of the faith or lack thereof of the scientists making the arguments. It's one of the strengths of science that Christians, Jews, Buddhists, agnostics, and atheists all get the same answers.
Okay. I didn't want to mislabel anyone.Not really. 'Darwinian', if its used at all, refers to a subset of evolution (adaptive evolution via natural selection) rather than all of evolution, and 'evolutionist' is used almost exclusively by opponents of evolution. What's your term for people who accept a spherical Earth? Sphericist? But this is of no importance -- I know what you mean.
That's not what I meant.Recall what prompted me to join this conversation. It was this statement from you: "I think Darwinian evolution is an unnecessary compromise. There's a certain amount of pressure to accept it if one wants to be considered a part of upper crest mainstream society." My point then and now is that scientists accept evolution because it works: it successfully explains and predicts an enormous range of data. Special creation does not. To the extent that special creation makes any predictions, they're grossly wrong. Now it is entirely possible to rescue this discordance by invoking as many miracles as necessary, where the effect of every miracle was to make the universe look exactly like evolution were true. If, for you, a belief that Genesis has to be an accurate, literal account of the history of Earth trumps everything else, then by all means believe that. But don't kid yourself that scientists accept evolution because of social pressure.
I Would say it's true that Genesis is not a science book. What the Bible reveals along the way, from the O.T. to the N.T., is that there are what might be called a Kairos moment, where God makes a special intervention into a situation or event on Earth. A sort of extension of Heaven into/upon Earth. It can happen to an individual (like salvation), a small group of people (the Apostle Paul and his band along the road to Damascus), a large group of people (Joshua's longest day battle). Time might be, or seem to be altered in any of these instances, as God's timeless domain so to speak has intervened in our planet confined to time.I don't see any dilemma, since I read the first 11 chapters of Genesis as a theological reworking (actually two different reworkings with very different ends in mind) of then-contemporary mythic and legendary material. This reworking no doubt served multiple purposes, but I see no reason to thing that any of them included giving a scientific account of the origin of the Earth or of humans. This is has nothing to do with evolution being true -- that's what I understand the text to be based on reading the text.
I've never heard of that approach, and if I understand the gist of it from a brief google search it's very inventive but I'm not sure I see the value in such speculation since critics would simply see it as an unnecessary and unverifiable additional hypothesis. My personal approach is to ignore the Biblical story when looking at science, and to ignore any scientific theory that is unnecessary for understanding a particular text when practicing theology. I think there's far too much optimism in what we can discover using reason and sense data, as I see creation as an icon of the Creator and as such it will ultimately remain a mystery to be prodded at but never solved. So science is great because it is useful in developing tools to manipulate the universe, but it must be supplemented by philosophy or theology. And since philosophy usually involves just spinning our wheels, I prefer to limit it as much as possible. Where I run into issues with modernity and post-modernity is I'm still holding to theology as foundational, with philosophy branching from it and science from philosophy.Well said. Are you familiar with Gerald Aardsma and his "virtual history" explanation of the evidence? Not that it matters to faith, as you seem to understand.
A rather sensible approach, I think.My personal approach is to ignore the Biblical story when looking at science, and to ignore any scientific theory that is unnecessary for understanding a particular text when practicing theology.
Yes. Sometimes, people don't get this, and try to extend those ways of knowing inappropriately.I think there's far too much optimism in what we can discover using reason and sense data, as I see creation as an icon of the Creator and as such it will ultimately remain a mystery to be prodded at but never solved. So science is great because it is useful in developing tools to manipulate the universe, but it must be supplemented by philosophy or theology.
Science comes from practice and failure, and learning from it. No philosopher figured out how to make a steam engine. But a follower of Archimedes, Heron of Alexandria did it. It's possible to have a rather advanced technology with little or not recourse to theology, but the closer we get to the details, the more theological (and the more uncertain) it seems to get.Where I run into issues with modernity and post-modernity is I'm still holding to theology as foundational, with philosophy branching from it and science from philosophy.
We should note that this is done not because God was unable to create things so that they would serve His purposes, but in order to teach us something. He doesn't need to tinker with nature to make it work. The tipping point could be a great battle, or it could just be a large number of people who had to be fed somehow. But there's always a lesson for us.I Would say it's true that Genesis is not a science book. What the Bible reveals along the way, from the O.T. to the N.T., is that there are what might be called a Kairos moment, where God makes a special intervention into a situation or event on Earth.
Have you never heard of the 7-day temple inauguration view of old earthers?
You need to provide two sentences that contradict. It will help you to think more precisely.
True, according to witnessed-time.Yeah that's hard for me because like you probably have guessed I like to talk.
Ok.
1. God created the universe and everything in it in six literal days approximately 6000-10000 years ago.
Scientific evidence relies on space-time, not witnessed-time.2. There isn't enough scientific evidence yet to prove this concept beyond any doubt like other replicable and proven science.
Discussion of the divine doesn't step into scientific results.For the most part. But it may divide at times when discussion of the divine steps in.
The Bible does not work for doing science. At all. (Also, note that treating the Bible as equivalent to the word of God is unbiblical. In the Bible, the word of God is a message, like a prophetic message, from God or the gospel, not a canonical written text.)For starters, concerning the underlined portion, scripture works! Or, the Word of God works.
Great!Reading and applying scripture, along with prayer and divine guidance, and applying faith is and has been the avenue which lead many believers into their field of work and/or ministry. The avenue which forced me out of a form of drug addiction.
Have you done a controlled test with other religious traditions and the application of their scriptures?Can we say applying scripture is a form of science?
That's the key. No matter how He did it, He created the universe. And that's what matters.Like I said, DNA im on board and every other replicatable and proven method of science that also aligns with the Bible I 100% agree is proven fact. But this? Not so much. But Christians will always debate about this topic and neither side will probably never be fully proven until Jesus returns. Until then we should all admit that God created the universe whether through the big bang or through the creationist view, it was God who caused it to happen. If you deny this I can't see how you can carry the legitimate label of Christian.
If we limit science to a descriptive and technological art, I'd be inclined to agree with you. But when it transitions from descriptions to explanations there are theological and philosophical issues that must be dealt with prior to our sense observations. When these questions and presuppositions are ignored it doesn't make them go away, it just means that a position is adopted without criticism.Science comes from practice and failure, and learning from it. No philosopher figured out how to make a steam engine. But a follower of Archimedes, Heron of Alexandria did it. It's possible to have a rather advanced technology with little or not recourse to theology, but the closer we get to the details, the more theological (and the more uncertain) it seems to get.
Depends on how deep the explanations run. For example, the Constructal law explains how rivers, crowds, evolution, trees, etc form and change. No philosophical or theological explanations needed. But if you ask "why are the physical laws of this universe established in such a way as to make all this wonder and complexity happen by natural processes?", then one must look to theological explanations.If we limit science to a descriptive and technological art, I'd be inclined to agree with you. But when it transitions from descriptions to explanations there are theological and philosophical issues that must be dealt with prior to our sense observations.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?