Evolution credible?

[lucaspa]

Today at 02:42 AM chickenman said this in Post #13

you're the type of christian who turns people away from christianity

I obviously agree.  I have pointed out many times the danger of John's ideas to Christianity. There is no doubt of that. The issue in my mind is his motivation.  Is John so unable to see the consequences of his arguments that he is truly blind to the danger to Christianity? Or is he aware of the consequences and is actively seeking the destruction of Christianity?

 

[lucaspa]

Yesterday at 11:03 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #12

John, in your sidestep into semantics, you have managed to ignore the theology in my posts.  For instance, I stated what appear to be the theological motives of Biblical literalists like yourself for rejecting evolution:
"Let me submit this for you to think about.&nbsp; What you want&nbsp;is for there to be something <B>inherent</B> about humans so that they are special.&nbsp; Something internal and not dependent on anyone or any God from outside.&nbsp; Having humans specially created by&nbsp; God does that. What evolution does is mean that humans are special <B>only because God considers them so</B>.&nbsp; Otherwise they are "just" another animal.&nbsp; However, if you look at Exodus, you find that the Hebrews are not "special" in any way.&nbsp; In fact, they are slaves.&nbsp; They are special only because God <B>chose</B> to regard them as His Chosen People."

Now, theology is supposed to be your area of study.&nbsp; But you don't comment on the theology here.&nbsp; Instead, you run off an hide in semantics.

In post #10 I went into detail on how Christians integrate evolution into Christian theology.&nbsp; No comment on that, either. No attempt to show how this path is in any way inconsistent with Christian theology.

Instead, what do we get: an ad hominem attack trying to equate evolution with lying. Without, note, any documentation of how evolution is a lie.

Yes, John, you can run.&nbsp; But we are not going to let you run away from the issues.&nbsp; If you want to convince us you are truly interested in Christianity and have some expertise in theology, you are going to have to start addressing the theological issues we raise.

 

[nomad]

Two men went out and looked at my Peterbilt which is a semi truck and one said it was created the other said it evolved.

Which of the two men were correct?

Obviously the man who said it was created.&nbsp; It took intelligence and hands to create it.&nbsp; It didn't just all of a sudden appear one day by evolving from the unrefined minerals of the earth.

Now we don't know exactly how God created the heavens and earth or the plants and animals but we do know they didn't come about without a plan.

Neither did my Peterbilt.

&nbsp;

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 11:12 PM damnim said this in Post #23

Two men went out and looked at my Peterbilt which is a semi truck and one said it was created the other said it evolved.

Which of the two men were correct?

Obviously the man who said it was created.&nbsp; It took intelligence and hands to create it.&nbsp; It didn't just all of a sudden appear one day by evolving from the unrefined minerals of the earth.

Now we don't know exactly how God created the heavens and earth or the plants and animals but we do know they didn't come about without a plan.

Neither did my Peterbilt.&nbsp;&nbsp;

You concluded your Peterbuilt was manufactured because there are no processes in the environment that could have made it.&nbsp; Yes, there are no processes that will&nbsp;mine the&nbsp;ore from the ground, extract the metal, forge the metal, and work the metal into the shapes that make up the truck.&nbsp; Therefore you can infer that the Peterbuilt was manufactured by an intelligent entity.

Now, however, consider biological organisms.&nbsp; Physics will make the&nbsp;elements -- carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, etc. -- that make up molecules (those same processes made the&nbsp;elements in the&nbsp;Peterbuilt).&nbsp; Chemistry will combine those elements into the chemicals in living organisms.&nbsp;&nbsp;Chemistry will also bring those chemicals&nbsp;together and conduct the chemical reactions that we know as "life".

Natural selection will produce the designs we see in biological organisms.&nbsp; In fact, that's what natural (Darwinian) selection is: an algorithm to get design.&nbsp; The humans who made your truck used Darwinian selection to design it.&nbsp; However, in their case the Darwinian selection went on mostly in their minds as their imagination produce&nbsp;variations of designs and they mentally tested those designs&nbsp;against the environment and selected the variations that did the best.

However, for biological organisms, Darwinian selection takes&nbsp;place outside of a mind.&nbsp; Recombination and mutations produce the variations (designs), the environment sets the design problem, and the competition for scarce resources selects the best designs among the variations.&nbsp; Inheritance preserves those designs so new improvements can be made in the next generation.

Thus, there are processes in the environment that will design and manufacture biological organisms. Therefore, unlike the Peterbuilt, you cannot infer that they are manufactured by an intelligent entity.

Most Christians do know how God created.&nbsp; He created using the processes discovered by science.

 

[nomad]

Now, however, consider biological organisms. Physics will make the elements -- carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, etc. -- that make up molecules (those same processes made the elements in the Peterbuilt). Chemistry will combine those elements into the chemicals in living organisms. Chemistry will also bring those chemicals together and conduct the chemical reactions that we know as "life".

Good argument but not good enough.&nbsp;

I suppose then that the "elements" that you speak of and the electrons, protons and neutrons that make up the element just "evolved" as well?&nbsp; If so then how did they evolve.&nbsp; There had to be a beginning somewhere.

It's really illogical to think that the universe and all the wonders in it were not created by a loving Creator.&nbsp; There just is to much of Him in His own creation not to see that He did indeed create it.

I may never convince you that the heavens and earth were created by God and you will never convince me that the heavens, earth, plants, animals and Man just evolved.

I know that 1+1=2

I also know evolution is not how creation came to be.

But do you know what is really important?&nbsp; It is not how much you know, but what you know.&nbsp; Thats not good enough either unless you use what you know.

Now if what you know is wrong and you don't know that&nbsp;what you&nbsp;think you know is wrong&nbsp;then you will continue being wrong by your own choice.&nbsp; Therefore, by your choice, your mind will become dull because God will never be able to teach you anything new and exciting.&nbsp; I know you don't know more then He does!

Proverbs 15:12 A mocker resents correction; he will not consult the wise.

 

[Arikay]

In other words. You may have found holes in creationism, but that doesnt matter because its not really as important as its made out to be.

Just to point out, a lot of things that are used as evidence for evolution are also used to help other people. Like in the medical field.

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 12:03 AM damnim said this in Post #25

Good argument but not good enough.&nbsp;

Good enough to destroy the Peterbuilt argument and cause you to change claims.

I suppose then that the "elements" that you speak of and the electrons, protons and neutrons that make up the element just "evolved" as well?&nbsp; If so then how did they evolve.&nbsp; There had to be a beginning somewhere.

This is the shift in claims.&nbsp; Now you are at First Cause.&nbsp; The "beginning somewhere" where you have an Uncaused Cause kicking off the process that ends with biological organisms being produced by processes in the environment and not some godly factory.&nbsp; I told you how elements were formed.&nbsp; Even the processes that formed&nbsp;protons, neutrons, and electrons are known.&nbsp;&nbsp;What isn't known is the ultimate source of the matter/energy/spacetime that appeared at the Big Bang.&nbsp; That's First Cause.

It's really illogical to think that the universe and all the wonders in it were not created by a loving Creator.&nbsp; There just is to much of Him in His own creation not to see that He did indeed create it.

This is your&nbsp;belief and you are welcome to it.&nbsp; Yes, at least half the scientists in history have looked at the universe&nbsp;and seen the hand of a Creator, including Darwin.

However, the other half have looked at the same universe and not only not seen a Creator, but rather what they see as evidence that there never was&nbsp;a Creator.&nbsp; Richard Dawkins and Carl&nbsp;Sagan come to mind.

The conclusion here is that the Creator is in the eye of the beholder, not in the data of the universe.&nbsp;

If you go back to First Cause, there are 5 hypotheses that I am aware of for First Cause.&nbsp; God is one of them.&nbsp; However, right now there is insufficient data to scientifically say which hypothesis is right.

I may never convince you that the heavens and earth were created by God

Oh, you might convince me of that. What you won't convince me of is that God created them by a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-8.&nbsp; That God created by evolution is an easy sell.&nbsp; After all, all the data supports that one.

I also know evolution is not how creation came to be.

How do you know that? Why couldn't God have created by the material processes you lump together as evolution?&nbsp; Are you aware that most Christians have concluded that evolution is the method by which God works?

"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works."&nbsp; James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, The Religious Aspects of Evolution, 2d ed. 1890, pg 68.&nbsp;

It is not how much you know, but what you know.

OK. I know for certain that creationism is false. Creation, OTOH, could very well be true.

Now if what you know is wrong and you don't know that&nbsp;what you&nbsp;think you know is wrong&nbsp;then you will continue being wrong by your own choice.&nbsp;

My argument in the previous post must have been pretty good, because you have stopped trying to discuss why biological organisms are like Peterbuilts.&nbsp; Instead, now you are retreating to the claim that I must be wrong simply because you say so.&nbsp;

Therefore, by your choice, your mind will become dull because God will never be able to teach you anything new and exciting.&nbsp; I know you don't know more then He does!

Of course God knows more than I do (if&nbsp;He exists). That's why we study God's Creation, so God can tell us how He created.&nbsp; It's too bad you bury yourself in your literal&nbsp;interpretation of Genesis and don't let God teach&nbsp;you anything new and exciting.&nbsp;

Proverbs 15:12 A mocker resents correction; he will not consult the wise.

Your whole post fit this verse.&nbsp;

 

[Cantuar]

I would be interested in a list of the newest species.. What species is only 70 years old?

Here's a report about the new kid on the block, from last month.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-584528,00.html

I would also be interested in your views on how you believe Christianity and also the Evolutionary Theory simultanouesly (I assume you are Christian).

Here's a short piece written by the Anglican Bishop of Oxford (who I assume is a Christian) about evolution and Christianity:

http://www.oxford.anglican.org/docs/101618522743334.shtml

It includes the statements:

"...the theory of evolution, far from undermining faith, deepens it._ This was quickly seen by Frederick Temple, later Archbishop of Canterbury, who said that God doesn't just make the world, he does something even more wonderful, he makes the world make itself._ God has given creation a real independence and the miraculous fact is that working in relation to this independent life God has, as it were, woven creation from the bottom upwards: with matter giving rise to life and life giving rise to conscious reflective existence in the likes of you and me._ The fact that the universe probably began about 12 billion years ago with life beginning to evolve about 3 billion years ago simply underlines the extraordinary detailed, persistent, patience of the divine creator spirit."

"Science is a God-given activity._ Scientists are using their God-given minds and God-given creativity to explore and utilise God-given nature._ Sadly, biblical literalism brings not only the bible but Christianity itself into disrepute."

You might also be interested in these pages, written by evangelical protestants who are also theistic evolutionists:

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1993/PSCF9-93Miller.html
http://www.kcfs.org/kmiller.html
http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/EvolutionaryCreation.htm

and this page by Kenneth Miller, who lucaspa mentioned and who's a Catholic:

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/index.html

Creationists don't tend to like theistic evolutionists much; it gets in the way of their "evolution-equals-atheism" position.








_

 

[nomad]

It's funny how people react in a debate.&nbsp; You can really get to know them by debating or even arguing with them if you really listen to what they have to say.

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 12:30 AM damnim said this in Post #29

It's funny how people react in a debate.&nbsp; You can really get to know them by debating or even arguing with them if you really listen to what they have to say.

And you can tell when they stop discussing issues and retreat to innuendo on personalities.

Care to get back to the topics of First Cause, evolution as the means by which God creates, Darwinian selection as an algorithm to get design, and creation vs creationism?&nbsp;

Or would you prefer to try to instigate a flame war?

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 12:27 AM Cantuar said this in Post #28


Creationists don't tend to like theistic evolutionists much; it gets in the way of their "evolution-equals-atheism" position.&nbsp;

You are oh-so-right.&nbsp; Thank you so much for the more recent statments on theologians for evolution.&nbsp; It took only 25 years for the Anglican Church to go from Bishop Wilberforce to Arcbishop Temple's acceptance of evolution.&nbsp; That's&nbsp;faster than the scientific acceptance, since geneticists had trouble with natural selection up until Mendel's work was rediscovered.

Militant atheists don't like theistic &nbsp;evolutionists much either.&nbsp; They get in the way of "Christians are only scientifically illiterate Biblical literalists" position.

When Abraham Lincoln appointed General Schofield military commander of Missouri in 1863 -- a slave state that stayed in the Union but now facing the Emancipation Proclamation -- he told him: "If neither side abuses you, or both, you will be about right."

Well, theistic evolutionists get abused by both sides.&nbsp; Lincoln would consider that a sign that they are about right.

 

[nomad]

No, I'm finished. Thanks for the challenge tho.

God Bless You.

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 12:03 AM damnim said this in Post #25


Now if what you know is wrong and you don't know that&nbsp;what you&nbsp;think you know is wrong&nbsp;then you will continue being wrong by your own choice.&nbsp; Therefore, by your choice, your mind will become dull because God will never be able to teach you anything new and exciting.&nbsp;&nbsp;

Looking at this again, I don't think I've seen many better descriptions of creationists.

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 12:57 AM damnim said this in Post #32

No, I'm finished. Thanks for the challenge tho.&nbsp;

It was an invite.&nbsp; Truth is not settled by debate.&nbsp; Debate only tells you who the better debator is. Truth is settled by data and logical arguments from the data.

Altho you are finished, I hope you learned something.

 

[Just]

I suppose then that the "elements" that you speak of and the electrons, protons and neutrons that make up the element just "evolved" as well?&nbsp; If so then how did they evolve.&nbsp; There had to be a beginning somewhere.

replace the highlighted words with 'God' or similar.

&nbsp;

Two men went out and looked at my Peterbilt which is a semi truck and one said it was created the other said it evolved.

Which of the two men were correct?

Obviously the man who said it was created.&nbsp; It took intelligence and hands to create it.&nbsp; It didn't just all of a sudden appear one day by evolving from the unrefined minerals of the earth.

Let's take&nbsp;my computer for example (I don't know what a peterbuilt is, sorry I'm aussie)
has&nbsp;my computer evolved or was it created?
Obviously some human did not suddenly create&nbsp;my computer without previously knowing some knowledge of computers. It did not appear suddenly did it?
People had to discover glass, magnetism, electricity, mining, robotics, plastics and alot more to make this computer. They had to make a 386 processor, then a 486, later a pentium 100, then a pentium II,&nbsp;and finally&nbsp;a pentium III 733mhz processor.
Tell me somone created any computer, let alone my computer without humans having done any of the above.
Similarly, each new&nbsp;life is similar to a new invention. It builds on the previous with improvements.... It evolves, intelligent or not it's evolution.

&nbsp;

The materials needed to build the computer were also naturally occoring.
Humans are naturally occuring aren't we?
Then what we do and make must also be.
The evolution brought about humans, humans brought about computers.
So,&nbsp;a computer is a result of the Evolution.



&nbsp;


If&nbsp;it is claimed that life cannot happen naturally.
Natural by definition means real or existant.
This means life cannot exist.
But life does exist, so therefore life must happen naturally.


&nbsp;

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 05:07 AM Just said this in Post #35


Let's take&nbsp;my computer for example (I don't know what a peterbuilt is, sorry I'm aussie)
has&nbsp;my computer evolved or was it created?
Obviously some human did not suddenly create&nbsp;my computer without previously knowing some knowledge of computers. It did not appear suddenly did it?
People had to discover glass, magnetism, electricity, mining, robotics, plastics and alot more to make this computer. They had to make a 386 processor, then a 486, later a pentium 100, then a pentium II,&nbsp;and finally&nbsp;a pentium III 733mhz processor.
Tell me somone created any computer, let alone my computer without humans having done any of the above.
Similarly, each new&nbsp;life is similar to a new invention. It builds on the previous with improvements.... It evolves, intelligent or not it's evolution.&nbsp;

&nbsp;
If&nbsp;it is claimed that life cannot happen naturally.
Natural by definition means real or existant.
This means life cannot exist.
But life does exist, so therefore life must happen naturally.&nbsp;&nbsp;

A Peterbuilt is brand of&nbsp;truck.

Your argument in the first paragraph doesn't work because each of those entities named --&nbsp;computer, the different processors, glass, plastics, etc. -- is a manufactured entity, just like the Peterbuilt.&nbsp; There is no process in nature that will make them.&nbsp; All you are saying is that the manufactured&nbsp;artifacts didn't leap directly to a Pentium IV.&nbsp;

But deamim is restating the Argument from Design and you didn't touch it.&nbsp; See my response for a viable response to the Argument from Design.

Your argument about "natural" and the origin of life is merely circular semantics.&nbsp; There is an answer to the claim that life itself is a manufactured artifact.&nbsp; That answer lies in the work on protocells.&nbsp; Life from non-life.&nbsp; But this semantic dodge isn't going to cut it. All youy are doing is restating your belief in metaphysical naturalism.

 

[Freodin]

The major flaw I see in the "argument from design" is the leap from "Some things are designed" to "Everything is designed".

If you admit that there are natural processes - that is, processes not directly guided by an intelligent being - that can bring forth complex systems, than you have at least admitted the possibility of evolution.

If you deny that such processes exist, you have the precious "free will" argument overboard as well.

 

[nomad]

I have been reading through some of these posts with respect to Evolution vs Creation and must admit it has been rewarding.

For me the account of how the heavens and earth came to be as recorded in the first chapter of Genesis is what I believe to be true.&nbsp; I don't have to have proof that God created the heavens and earth and everything in them.&nbsp; This is just simple faith.

I do find myself curious as to how he went about creating it.&nbsp; When I read the account of the first 6 days I ask myself why were the two greater lights or the sun and moon created on the fourth day when on the&nbsp;first day light and darkness were created and called day and night.&nbsp;

Now to go even further, the earth was actually the very first object to be created before even the solar system or the universe full of all the stars and galaxies.&nbsp; If one looks at the Genesis account of creation&nbsp;carefully, it is very possible that the earth may have been around awhile before the actual creation began.

Now why do I completely disregard Evolution as a credible explanation to how all things came about.

First, It doesn't make any sense.&nbsp; I simply cannot find anything that could convince me that a human being with all it's biological and psychological wonder simply just evolved from a lower life form.&nbsp; I have seen nothing in the Evolutionist hypothesis that accounts for a humans ability to think, reason, and feel.&nbsp; I have never seen anything in the Evolutionists hypothesis that accounts for the fact that man dominates the earth.

Second, I have never seen anything in the Evolutionists hypothesis to account for the order of things in our universe.&nbsp; Simple things like ice floating on water and not sinking, the rotation of planets around a sun that creates a day and night for us to work and sleep.

Third and as a christian I believe to be the most important.&nbsp; The greatest problem with the hypothesis of Evolution is its ability to take God the Creator out of the picture and completely disregard His sovereignty.&nbsp; Since Satan will attempt to destroy anything that is Gods, then it is obvious to me that fueling an Evolution hypothesis would be a good way encourage the belief that their is no God.&nbsp; It also has potential to create divisions among people.

Perhaps when I get to heaven, God will give to me the knowledge and maybe even the ability to do what He did in the beginning.&nbsp; For now if He said He created it then it is as He says and for me that settles it.&nbsp;

It's not the most important thing we should be focusing on.&nbsp; There is a time and place for everything.

 

[Arikay]

Just a general reply
Now to go even further, the earth was actually the very first object to be created before even the solar system or the universe full of all the stars and galaxies.&nbsp; If one looks at the Genesis account of creation&nbsp;carefully, it is very possible that the earth may have been around awhile before the actual creation began.

The very first thing to be created was the heavens. This could translate into the cosmos or it could translate in the heaven place you go to when you die. Then the earth, which was all water.

First, It doesn't make any sense. I simply cannot find anything that could convince me that a human being with all it's biological and psychological wonder simply just evolved from a lower life form.

It wasnt too simple. It took millions and millions of years. You could compare it to an idea. The car didnt get like it is today by appearing. Ideas were either kept or thrown out based on if they were better or worse for the car. The car we see today is much different than older cars, or horse drawn buggies. The good ideas that fit the environment gathered over the course of a long time.

I have seen nothing in the Evolutionist hypothesis that accounts for a humans ability to think, reason, and feel

Well, I dont think there would be, however the ability to think makes sense to me. Look at us, we are horrible at defending ourselves. The humans that survived learned how to use tools and protect themselves. So those with knowledge survived and those that lacked it, didnt. survival of the fittest.

I have never seen anything in the Evolutionists hypothesis that accounts for the fact that man dominates the earth.

That would probably be a seperate study from evolution. However, man dominated the earth, partly because of his inteligence. It seems to have started when Man figured out agriculture. That you dont need to spend the time gathering food, when you can grow it. This stepped man out of the basic Animal strugle. Instead of dieing off when winter came, the ability to grow and store food, allowed man to be strong when all the other animals were weak. Giving man a leg up over other animals. These small groups developed into larger groups and towns and cities.

Second, I have never seen anything in the Evolutionists hypothesis to account for the order of things in our universe.&nbsp; Simple things like ice floating on water and not sinking, the rotation of planets around a sun that creates a day and night for us to work and sleep.

Thats because evolution doesnt have to do with any of these things. Evolution is specifically about how animals and plants have changed, and evolved over time. Really nothing more. There are seperate theories to deal with all of these things.

Third and as a christian I believe to be the most important.&nbsp; The greatest problem with the hypothesis of Evolution is its ability to take God the Creator out of the picture and completely disregard His sovereignty.

That hasnt happend. Evolution is only about the evolution of animals. Its not even about the creation of the first living thing, or of the universe. There are other theories about those things.
The current big bang theory says that we Cannot observe anything before the big bang. So god could have been doing whatever he wanted before the big bang, and we could never prove it, nor could we disprove it.

Satan

People also used to believe Demons made people sick and that the only way to get better was to clense the person with the power of the lord and expel the demon. Quite often the person died from the proccess or from the lack of care, than the "demon"


A literal interpretation of the bible seems to be like disregarding god more than evolution. If god created the earth only 6000 years ago, and evolution doesnt exist. Why did he leave behind all this evidence? Why is he trying to lie to people? If evolution is not true, then god is trying to decieve everyone using his creation.

So, do you believe god would lie to you?

Today at 01:53 PM nomad said this in Post #38 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=706258#post706258)

I have been reading through some of these posts with respect to Evolution vs Creation and must admit it has been rewarding.

 

[nomad]

People also used to believe Demons made people sick and that the only way to get better was to clense the person with the power of the lord and expel the demon. Quite often the person died from the proccess or from the lack of care, than the "demon"

The "demon" of mans ignorance is something I wish none of us had.&nbsp; Even Jesus stated to the Pharisees "you go about keeping the laws without knowing the reason for them".&nbsp; I summarized that.&nbsp; One of the first lessons of staying healthy was the washing of hands in the Old Testement.

&nbsp;

A literal interpretation of the bible seems to be like disregarding god more than evolution. If god created the earth only 6000 years ago, and evolution doesnt exist. Why did he leave behind all this evidence? Why is he trying to lie to people? If evolution is not true, then god is trying to decieve everyone using his creation.

One thing I have learned about data or evidence is that it can be subjective.&nbsp; I live in MN where the winters are cold, long and snowy.&nbsp; I'll use snow as an example of data or evidence.&nbsp; To some snow is cold, others it is beautiful and the logical person will break it down to frozen water crystals.

Most of us know that all of the above is true.&nbsp; But what if we lived in a period of history when we didn't know yet about the hydrogen and oxygen atoms.&nbsp; We could not say something about what we don't yet know, only speculate and investigate.&nbsp; Now if you and I travelled back in time to a period where they knew nothing&nbsp;of atoms and molecules and we presented this imformation to them they more than likely would oust us or burn us at the stake.

When I look at the account of Creation in Genesis, I believe there are molecules and atoms there that we don't know about yet and are not ready to recieve.&nbsp; So I, as probably you, speculate about the snow and enjoy it in our own way.