Did Jesus create evolution?

[All Becomes New]

It attempts to bring science into the picture, dealing mainly with everything BUT what transpired during the Creation Week.

God, as you pointed out, can be most anything.

QV please:

Q: How is ID like and unlike traditional creationism and creation science?

A: ID is the most recent incarnation of creationism. Unlike traditional forms of creationism, ID does not openly rely on a literal interpretation of the Bible. Nor does it take a stand on such issues as the age of the earth, in order to secure a broad base of support from creationists with differing views. Like traditional forms of creationism, it claims to have scientific evidence for the existence of design in the biological world; unlike them, it refrains from claiming that the designer can be ascertained to be God. Yet, although some proponents have suggested that the designer could be a space alien or a time-traveler from the future, such possibilities are not seriously entertained. In its scientifically unwarranted criticisms of evolution, ID's arguments are a subset of those used by traditional forms of creationism.

SOURCE

It is not a subset. It is completely different. The biggest difference is that most proponents of ID are theists and may not be Christians. It is thoroughly scientific and does not rely on a literal interpretation of Genesis. That part is correct.

The secular narrative likes to group these two things together because it suits their purposes. Because if they allow that ID is scientific, then there's not much left they can do.

 

[All Becomes New]

Even if evolution is true, atheists still don't have many places to go anymore. I say this because of Dr. Alvin Plantinga's EAAN argument.

 

[Kylie]

ID is not creationism. I know you atheists don't like that, but it's true.

Could you tell me what the difference is then?

 

[Kylie]

ID is not creationism.

ID is the most recent incarnation of creationism.

How about you guys get your story straight with each other before you try to convince us non-Christians that you've got it right.

 

[All Becomes New]

Could you tell me what the difference is then?

Creationists look to the Bible to interpret the laws of nature. ID doesn't rely on any premises that the Bible makes.

 

[All Becomes New]

How about you guys get your story straight with each other before you try to convince us non-Christians that you've got it right.

They "Agreed" with my post so I am not sure this is the win you think it is.

 

[Occams Barber]

Here's a source that discusses the Kitzmiller v Dover case. Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (M.D. Pa.)

Reading 'Kitzmiller vs Dover" was probably one of the things which eventually led me to CF. Basically, I could not understand how anyone could use Creationism or Intelligent Design as a way of interpreting the changes life has gone through since it came into existence.

Since joining CF ten years ago I have come to realise that, in most cases, Creationists/IDers do not understand the basics of evolution and totally confuse it with Big Bang and abiogenesis.

You don't need to be a genius to comprehend the basics of genes or DNA or mutation or natural selection. You do however need to make the attempt to get a little basic knowledge before launching into baseless criticism. If you are a Creationist or IDer I can almost guarantee that your knowledge is based on what you think Evolution isn't rather that what you understand it is.

The macro/micro evolution issue is one of the simpler concepts associated with Evolution/natural selection but if you don't understand Evolution/natural selection you are not even remotely qualified to offer an opinion.

The other attitude I see regularly is bloody-minded denialism -" I don't care what you say you're wrong". This is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your rears and singing loudly. Believe it or not there are very intelligent and well-informed people who have reached conclusions, based on facts, which are contrary to your ill -informed speculation.

You have every right to disagree providing you first make the effort to understand.

OB

 

[Kylie]

Creationists look to the Bible to interpret the laws of nature. ID doesn't rely on any premises that the Bible makes.

I dunno about that. Seems to me that they both claim that life on earth didn't arise by itself but was guided.

They "Agreed" with my post so I am not sure this is the win you think it is.

The literally disagreed with you, and you with them. It's definitely a fail for you.

 

[Kylie]

Reading 'Kitzmiller vs Dover" was probably one of the things which eventually led me to CF. Basically, I could not understand how anyone could use Creationism or Intelligent Design as a way of interpreting the changes life has gone through since it came into existence.

Since joining CF ten years ago I have come to realise that, in most cases, Creationists/IDers do not understand the basics of evolution and totally confuse it with Big Bang and abiogenesis.

You don't need to be a genius to comprehend the basics of genes or DNA or mutation or natural selection. You do however need to make the attempt to get a little basic knowledge before launching into baseless criticism. If you are a Creationist or IDer I can almost guarantee that your knowledge is based on what you think Evolution isn't rather that what you understand it is.

The macro/micro evolution issue is one of the simpler concepts associated with Evolution/natural selection but if you don't understand Evolution/natural selection you are not even remotely qualified to offer an opinion.

The other attitude I see regularly is bloody-minded denialism -" I don't care what you say you're wrong". This is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your rears and singing loudly. Believe it or not there are very intelligent and well-informed people who have reached conclusions, based on facts, which are contrary to your ill -informed speculation.

You have every right to disagree providing you first make the effort to understand.

OB

Uh, I hope you understand that I am on the pro-evolution side of things. I most certainly do NOT think that ID or creationism is valid.

 

[Occams Barber]

Uh, I hope you understand that I am on the pro-evolution side of things. I most certainly do NOT think that ID or creationism is valid.

Sorry Kylie. My little outburst wasn't aimed at you. After several years reading your posts I'm well aware of where you stand on the Creation/Evolution issue.

I piggybacked on your post because you brought up the Kitzmiller vs Dover trial.

OB

 

[Kylie]

Sorry Kylie. My little outburst wasn't aimed at you. After several years reading your posts I'm well aware of where you stand on the Creation/Evolution issue.

I piggybacked on your post because you brought up the Kitzmiller vs Dover trial.

OB

Ah, no worries. All good.

 

[YahuahSaves]

ID, in my opinion, is disrespectful to creationism.

@AV1611VET check video I posted #97

It's like your perfect creationism argument. It answers every question the secular world has on scientific evidence and clearly addresses them. I just watched it in full and even I learned something about rock formation I didn't know.

 

[YahuahSaves]

Creationists look to the Bible to interpret the laws of nature. ID doesn't rely on any premises that the Bible makes.

I personally was only looking at it from the perspective that science cannot prove or disprove the origin of the universe (as my OP is referring to).

 

[YahuahSaves]

Reading 'Kitzmiller vs Dover" was probably one of the things which eventually led me to CF. Basically, I could not understand how anyone could use Creationism or Intelligent Design as a way of interpreting the changes life has gone through since it came into existence.

Since joining CF ten years ago I have come to realise that, in most cases, Creationists/IDers do not understand the basics of evolution and totally confuse it with Big Bang and abiogenesis.

You don't need to be a genius to comprehend the basics of genes or DNA or mutation or natural selection. You do however need to make the attempt to get a little basic knowledge before launching into baseless criticism. If you are a Creationist or IDer I can almost guarantee that your knowledge is based on what you think Evolution isn't rather that what you understand it is.

The macro/micro evolution issue is one of the simpler concepts associated with Evolution/natural selection but if you don't understand Evolution/natural selection you are not even remotely qualified to offer an opinion.

The other attitude I see regularly is bloody-minded denialism -" I don't care what you say you're wrong". This is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your rears and singing loudly. Believe it or not there are very intelligent and well-informed people who have reached conclusions, based on facts, which are contrary to your ill -informed speculation.

You have every right to disagree providing you first make the effort to understand.

OB

You should perhaps watch video I posted at #97 it talks about DNA and gene mutation plus a lot of other questions people ask. It's quite interesting.

The thing about atheism is the blind faith they have that no creator exists. That's what I would call "denialism" at its finest. If proof is what one needs and there lacks a sufficient amount of it on both sides, then why not agnosticism? Would be at least a bit more open-minded IMO.

 

[Kylie]

I personally was only looking at it from the perspective that science cannot prove or disprove the origin of the universe (as my OP is referring to).

The theory of evolution doesn't talk about the way the universe started.

Evolution is about how living organisms change over many generations. That's it.

It is used as a colloquial term to talk about change in general - the evolution of automobile design, for example - but when used like this, it is not being used in a scientific manner.

 

[Kylie]

The video from my perspective questions the rationale of "nothing" being behind the universe with its very balanced, and precise order.

Here's another video to consider.

This video is almost an hour long. Could you provide a few points to summarize the main things covered in this video?

 

[YahuahSaves]

The theory of evolution doesn't talk about the way the universe started.

Evolution is about how living organisms change over many generations. That's it.

It is used as a colloquial term to talk about change in general - the evolution of automobile design, for example - but when used like this, it is not being used in a scientific manner.

If you refer back to my post #77 I cleared up what my OP meant by evolution. Since there are different definitions depending on the context you use the term. I was relating the idea that God (through the word) still has a hand in the continuation of the universe and he didn't just "set a clock" and let it tick out by itself. Although some would say he did, because he has already predetermined the end.

 

[YahuahSaves]

This video is almost an hour long. Could you provide a few points to summarize the main things covered in this video?

Refer to post #97 all the answers you ever wanted to know scientifically are in that video. Including biological evolution (DNA and gene mutation) starting at around 20 minutes in.

 

[Kylie]

If you refer back to my post #77 I cleared up what my OP meant by evolution. Since there are different definitions depending on the context you use the term. I was relating the idea that God (through the word) still has a hand in the continuation of the universe and he didn't just "set a clock" and let it tick out by itself. Although some would say he did, because he has already predetermined the end.

So you are not interested in using "evolution" to mean just biological evolution, but rather to mean change in general?

So you are asking if Jesus created change in general?

Refer to post #97 all the answers you ever wanted to know scientifically are in that video. Including biological evolution (DNA and gene mutation) starting at around 20 minutes in.

Huh?

I ask you for a short summary of the main points of the video, and you direct me back to the video.

The video is not a summary of itself.

 

[Kenneth Darling]

Evidence. Observation. Reality. That Evolution had been happening on this planet ~4 billion years before the Bible was written. That people who wrote the Bible had little to no understanding about the natural world and were steeped in superstition and religion and magical thinking.

Evidence... I have yet to see the evidence for "evolution" on the scale that most people understand this term.
Observation... This one is the most convenient argument for those who believe in evolution. As long as they can keep adding "time" to these occurrences of evolution it's more and more acceptable. The very minimum amount of time the theory of evolution has to have to maintain its magic is just over the average lifespan of a average humanbeing. Evolution has Never been observed by a single humanbeing in a single span of a lifetime... So why wouldn't the evolutionist just keep adding time on top of time in order to fit in all these changes to species.
Reality... Ahh the good ole reality arguement. "those old folks from waaaaay back in the day had no grasp on reality, because they were from waaay back in the day when humanbeings didn't yet take advantage of their "evolved" brains and certainly didn't use them to think critically about anything more then hitting rocks, eating and staring at the sky. "
It humors me when people look back on those from any time in the past with the same arrogance as they view people today.
"steeped in superstition and religion and magical thinking" - I would argue these terms best sum up the theory of Evolution far better then anything found in the Bible.
Without superstition the Evolutionists could not maintain their grip upon our modern educational system..
The belief in evolution is in complete contrast to the belief in the Bible, nevertheless it's still just a belief. The theory of evolution has yet to produce a single shred of evidence (other then using the excuse of time) leaving those who prescribe to evolution Must use faith to hold onto it.
Magical thinking... This one is the best one of all. "I'm a evolutionist, I believe in faith that a humanbeing shares a common ancestor with the fish, or the reptile, or the mosquito, or the blue whale, or the, or the, or the Everything..." if this isn't magical thinking I don't know what it is...

But have patience my fellow Bible believing Christians, the theory of evolution is slowly but surely dieing. It will no doubt crawl back in its dark back alley from which it was conjured from. Hey who knows maybe in a 100 years our descendants will look back and have a good laugh on the theory of evolution. Or maybe in 100 million years our new humanoid species descendants with all 32 heads and 46 brains will look back and snicker in some ultra realistic and smart language at the ignorance of evolution... I'm guessing not though.