Evolution credible?

[Jon]

oringaly posted by coujoe

I cant give you a straight answer but....

Yes, I believe that organisms do change over time from one generation to another whether that change is good or bad. I am speaking in the sense that dominant genes overpower recessive genes. For example... a bald gene for hair overpowering a recessive, non-bald gene.

No, I do not believe that humans evolved from monkeys. I believe that we were created by God as human beings. Nor do I believe that we have developed any extra abilities outside of Gods original creation of us.

I agree.

 

[Arikay]

Yep, I agree, thats why the bible shouldnt be taken literally. It was written for a different people and a different time. Its spiritual message still rings true, but we have grown beyond 2000 year old science. We know things that would have gotten us killed back them for practicing witchcraft.

Besides, there is plenty of room for god. Science could be considered a study of his creation and how it works.

Today at 03:35 PM nomad said this in Post #40 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=706477#post706477)



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

 

One thing I have learned about data or evidence is that it can be subjective.  I live in MN where the winters are cold, long and snowy.  I'll use snow as an example of data or evidence.  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.  But what if we lived in a period of history when we didn't know yet about the hydrogen and oxygen atoms.  We could not say something about what we don't yet know, only speculate and investigate.  Now if you and I travelled back in time to a period where they knew nothing 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.  So I, as probably you, speculate about the snow and enjoy it in our own way.

 

[nomad]

I read the Bible and translate it by what I am continually learning from the one who inspired it to be written in the first place.

I believe that man was created.  He didn't evolve from a monkey.

I believe the animals and plants were created and didn't evolve from a lower biological form.

I believe that creation was set up to be self sustaining on purpose.

I believe that creation was given the ability to adapt to it's surroundings.

I believe that creation was not just created and left on it's own but is monitored and maintained and even tweaked from time to time by its original creator being God of course.

Literal translation of the Bible should be done only with the aid of the one who inspired it in the first place.  That being said, the words written there are given their actual meaning by asking the author what was intended or what did you mean.

We can all read a sentance and get different ideas as to what it means and what the intent was for it to be written as it was.  But unless the author of the sentance is there to confirm those ideas or deny them then those ideas may or may not be correct in translation.

There is also the problem of not getting "the big picture".  If I read a sentance within a book I will not see the entire story.  There may even be one word in a sentance that if I don't look it up to find it's true meaning, may cause me to miss the entire point of the chapter or story.

While you have been reading this you are formulating ideas in your mind as to how to react and/or what my intent was in writing this passage.  You may be right, but you won't know for sure unless you ask me the author of this creation.  I may not tell you if I know you won't believe me.

 

[Jon]

It was written for a different people and a different time. Its spiritual message still rings true, but we have grown beyond 2000 year old science.

The History still stays the same.
The Bible says that a few thousand years ago God Created the Hevans and the Earth in 6days, that's history and it's still true.

 

[Arikay]

Do you have any evidence to support this?

Do you have any evidence to support that the literal bible is true?

Today at 08:16 PM Jon said this in Post #44 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=707160#post707160)


The History still stays the same.
The Bible says that a few thousand years ago God Created the Hevans and the Earth in 6days, that's history and it's still true.

 

[Cantuar]

I read the Bible and translate it by what I am continually learning from the one who inspired it to be written in the first place.

I believe that man was created._ He didn't evolve from a monkey.

I believe the animals and plants were created and didn't evolve from a lower biological form.

I believe that creation was set up to be self sustaining on purpose.

I believe that creation was given the ability to adapt to it's surroundings.

And scientists look at scientific evidence and conclude that the theory of evolution explains the diversity and relatedness of life. They conclude that the laws of thermodynamics and atomic theory can explain the way chemicals react. They conclude that the theory of orbits can explain the activity of the solar system. They conclude that germ theory can explain the transmission of infectious diseases. All of the above are scientific conclusions based on scientific observations, all of them deal with natural phenomena, and none of them say anything about religion, God, or values or ethics. They are all simply explanations for observed phenomena, and that's all they are.

If you read your Bible and come up with different answers for the presence of the solar system or the diversity of life or the behaviour of ice and water, those answers are not scientific ones. It's fine to say that reading the Bible and praying about it gives you those answers, but it is not fine to pass them off as scientific answers or to set them up in competition with genuine scientific answers. Scientists don't claim that germ theory of disease is somehow bound up with theology or with values; Biblical literalists shouldn't claim that their answers are science.

 

[Just]

Your argument in the first paragraph doesn't work because <B>each</B> of those entities named --&nbsp;computer, the different processors, glass, plastics, etc. -- is <B>a manufactured</B> 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;

Manafacturing by humans is a natural process.

Is a bird's nest or a termite mound not natural??

 

[Just]

The History still stays the same.
The Bible says that a few thousand years ago God Created the Hevans and the Earth in 6days, that's history and it's still true.

The thing is real because it says so in The Cat in the Hat.
That's history and it's still true.

&nbsp;

Your not the only one who can make absurd claims.

 

[nomad]

If you read your Bible and come up with different answers for the presence of the solar system or the diversity of life or the behaviour of ice and water, those answers are not scientific ones. It's fine to say that reading the Bible and praying about it gives you those answers, but it is not fine to pass them off as scientific answers or to set them up in competition with genuine scientific answers. Scientists don't claim that germ theory of disease is somehow bound up with theology or with values; Biblical literalists shouldn't claim that their answers are science.

Wasn't my intent to suggest that literal translation of the Bible is a form of Scientific proof as you understand it.

My intent was simply I know the person who inspired the writing of the Bible and If He says he created&nbsp;the heavens and earth in 6 days then it is as He says.

How He did it, only He really knows for sure.&nbsp; But later in Genesis He did give the command to man to figure out how He did it.&nbsp; He even has said that He will give certain people the ability to&nbsp;investigate and explore how&nbsp;He created the heavens and earth.

 

[lucaspa]

Yesterday at 04:53 PM nomad said this in Post #38

I have been reading through some of these posts with respect to Evolution vs Creation

It's not evolution vs Creation, but evolution vs creationism.&nbsp; For theistic evolutionists, evolution is simply the way God created.&nbsp;

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 submit that what you believe to be true is your interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis.&nbsp; However, what do you do with the different creation story in Genesis 2:4b to the end of Genesis 3?

I don't have to have proof that God created the heavens and earth and everything in them.&nbsp; This is just simple faith.

But what in evolution denies your first statement?

&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.

Because the two original Babylonian gods in the Enuma&nbsp;Elish were light and darkness.&nbsp;&nbsp;The gods for the sun and moon are 3rd generation gods and don't come until later.&nbsp;Genesis 1 is destroying the Babylonian gods in order by having them be created objects.&nbsp; It's also the reason plants are created before the sun.&nbsp; The chief god&nbsp;Marduk was god of agriculture and is older than his sister who is&nbsp;the sun goddess.&nbsp;&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;

As someone says, it's not simply.&nbsp;

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

That's because you haven't looked. See the following articles:
8.&nbsp; MD Hauser, Games primates play.&nbsp; Discover 19: 48-57, Sept. 1998. Discusses behavior among primates.&nbsp; Humans not so unique.
9.&nbsp; E Linden, Can animals think? Time 154: 57-60, Sept 6, 1999.
Origin and Evolution of Intelligence&nbsp;by Scheibel and Schopf.
11. CD Frith and U Frith, Interacting minds -- a biological basis, Science 286:1692-1695, Nov. 26, 1999.&nbsp; Describes studies locating ability to "mentalize" -- understand and manipulate other people's mental states. "These studies indicate that the ability to mentalize has evolved from a system for representing actions."
12. DS Woodruff and NG Jablonski and G Chaplin, Chimp cultural diversity. Science 285: 836-837, Aug. 6, 1999.&nbsp; Social tolerance evolved among hominids.
14.WH Calvin and D Bickerton, Lingua ex Machina, Reconciliing Darwin and Chomsky with the Human Brain.&nbsp; MIT Press, 2000.&nbsp; Human language ability arose from Darwinian conversion of function.

I have more if you want to get more into the subject.&nbsp;


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

That comes from humans' technology. And that comes from the minor change to the ability to make tools to make other tools. From that small step from the ability to make tools comes our entire technology.

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.

You haven't looked at any chemistry or physics books?&nbsp; For ice floating, the crystalline structure of the water molecules takes up more space than the liquid phase. Therefore the ice displaces more water than it weighs and thus floats.&nbsp; Archimedes Principle.&nbsp; Orbits around the sun are gravity.

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;

Science doesn't have that ability.&nbsp; Methodological materialism prohibits that.&nbsp; So your most important objection doesn't exist.

Evolution hypothesis would be a good way encourage the belief that their is no God.&nbsp;

Only if you insist that God can't exist unless God created by your interpretation of Genesis.

You really aren't going to listen to any evidence that evolution isn't atheism, are you?

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;

You don't have to wait that long. Read the Book of Creation.&nbsp; After all, it's God's Creation, isn't it? Therefore God left the evidence in His Creation to tell us how He did it.

"To conclude, therefore, let no man out of a weak conceit of sobriety, or an ill-applied moderation, think or maintain, that a man can search too far or be too well studied in the book of God's word, or in the book of God's works; divinity or philosophy; but rather let men endeavour an endless progress or proficience in both."&nbsp; Bacon: Advancement of Learning

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 03:58 AM Just said this in Post #47

Manafacturing by humans is a natural process.

Is a bird's nest or a termite mound not natural??

So is manufacture by a deity.&nbsp; It just involves different manufacturing techniques than humans use.

This objection doesn't help you answer the Argument from Design. That argument says biological organisms are manufactured artifacts -- like the computer or Peterbuilt.&nbsp;&nbsp;A manufactured artifact requires an intelligent entity to do the manufacturing.

What you are doing here is admitting there is a deity and that it manufactured biological organisms.

 

[lucaspa]

Yesterday at 07:27 PM nomad said this in Post #43

I read the Bible and translate it by what I am continually learning from the one who inspired it to be written in the first place.

I believe that man was created.&nbsp; He didn't evolve from a monkey.

I believe the animals and plants were created and didn't evolve from a lower biological form.

By that you mean that God specially manufactured each species, right?

If so, then why do you contradict your own position below?

I believe that creation was set up to be self sustaining on purpose.

I believe that creation was given the ability to adapt to it's surroundings.

Adaptation is inevitably going to result in new species.&nbsp; Can't help it.&nbsp; And there you have the Origin of the Species.&nbsp; Sound familiar?

I believe that creation was not just created and left on it's own but is monitored and maintained and even tweaked from time to time by its original creator being God of course.

That's fine.&nbsp; Dennett and Dawkins (atheists both) have each found a different method by which&nbsp;God could do tweaking and not get caught. And since you said this as "I believe" you're fine.&nbsp;

Literal translation of the Bible should be done only with the aid of the one who inspired it in the first place.&nbsp; That being said, the words written there are given their actual meaning&nbsp;by asking the author what was intended or what did you mean.

Since the "author" can't verify to the rest of us what it said in answer to you, then how do you know your literal interpretation is right?&nbsp; I say compare your interpretation to God's other book: Creation.&nbsp; If the two contradict, your intepretation is wrong.

 

[Just]

So is manufacture by a deity.&nbsp; It just involves different manufacturing techniques than humans use.

Where have you seen manufacture by a deity? You must back your absurd claims up.

That argument says biological organisms are manufactured artifacts -- like the computer or Peterbuilt.&nbsp;&nbsp;A manufactured artifact requires an intelligent entity to do the manufacturing.

Since there is no evidence for an intelligent creator that has been provided,&nbsp;I have nothing to argue against.
A metaphor was used - a product was created and not evolved - a peterbuilt.


I said that it could not be created suddenly as it requires different parts and components. What's more we cannot create anything, merely re-arrange the order of things as we have done to produce the Peterbuilt.
Does this mean a Deity can only manufacture things this way (only out of existing things)? Thats what the word manufacture stipulates.

What you are doing here is admitting there is a deity and that it manufactured biological organisms.

I said: "Manafacturing by humans is a natural process.

Is a bird's nest or a termite mound not natural??"

How do you come to this conclusion?&nbsp;


I merely said that it is a natural process (which everything real is). The previous arguement was based on the fact that something like this could not be naturally occuring - which it is.

I could conclude anything given your comments above. I'll give you an example: 'You obviously are anally retentive and enjoy ******* young&nbsp; children and then killing them and then cooking them and eating them.'
But would it be correct?

 

[JohnR7]

11th March 2003 at 06:53 PM Arikay said this in Post #42&nbsp; We know things that would have gotten us killed back them for practicing witchcraft.&nbsp;

I think you better think this through a little bit more. If you look at the weapons we have now, compared to the weapons they had back then, just how do you propose they would kill us?

The main defence of the Greeks and the Romans was their shield and their formation. They became like a turtle so that a bow and arrow was not effective against them. A sub machine gun would have gone right though their shields. They of couse could not fire back with a bow and arrow themselves. But they had a long spear that stuck out from the protection of their shield.

 

[nomad]

You really aren't going to listen to any evidence that evolution isn't atheism, are you?

Actually if you knew me better you would know this statement to be untrue.&nbsp; I have looked at things that most will never look at or even see.&nbsp; When I say "see" I mean understand.&nbsp; I approach things with an open mind to the extent that "all things are from God and all things will go back to him".

As to evolution, there may be truths within the hypothesis of how things came about.&nbsp; I have learned their is truth in all things.

I am not easily convinced of a said fact, but at the same time I don't entirely discount a given idea.&nbsp; To prejudge a concept as&nbsp;being this or that&nbsp;without knowing all the facts in my view is unwise.&nbsp;

There are concepts I have come to know as being what they are as they are said without the need for further investigation.&nbsp; To further explain what I mean by this take this example.&nbsp; I was taught what a tree was.&nbsp; I simply accept that as being what it is without the need to investigate it's origin or makeup.&nbsp; I simply accept that the Blue Spruce along side my house is a descendant of a tree that God created as stated in the Book of Genesis.

Since I am naturally a curious person I tend to look, ask and investigate in my own way.&nbsp; I don't allow anyone to persuade me that "x" is a given value.&nbsp; The value of "x" comes when I have seen the rest of the equation.&nbsp; Even then it still may not hold an exact value but only lead to another sum of "xy".

 

[Arikay]

May I suggest really reading about evolution. Prefferably from science sites and not creationist sites. Its not a hypothesis but a scientific theory.

Today at 10:19 AM nomad said this in Post #55



Actually if you knew me better you would know this statement to be untrue.&nbsp; I have looked at things that most will never look at or even see.&nbsp; When I say "see" I mean understand.&nbsp; I approach things with an open mind to the extent that "all things are from God and all things will go back to him".

As to evolution, there may be truths within the hypothesis of how things came about.&nbsp; I have learned their is truth in all things.

I am not easily convinced of a said fact, but at the same time I don't entirely discount a given idea.&nbsp; To prejudge a concept as&nbsp;being this or that&nbsp;without knowing all the facts in my view is unwise.&nbsp;

There are concepts I have come to know as being what they are as they are said without the need for further investigation.&nbsp; To further explain what I mean by this take this example.&nbsp; I was taught what a tree was.&nbsp; I simply accept that as being what it is without the need to investigate it's origin or makeup.&nbsp; I simply accept that the Blue Spruce along side my house is a descendant of a tree that God created as stated in the Book of Genesis.

Since I am naturally a curious person I tend to look, ask and investigate in my own way.&nbsp; I don't allow anyone to persuade me that "x" is a given value.&nbsp; The value of "x" comes when I have seen the rest of the equation.&nbsp; Even then it still may not hold an exact value but only lead to another sum of "xy".

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 01:19 PM nomad said this in Post #55

[lucaspa] You really aren't going to listen to any evidence that evolution isn't atheism, are you?

Actually if you knew me better you would know this statement to be untrue.&nbsp; I have looked at things that most will never look at or even see.&nbsp; When I say "see" I mean understand.&nbsp; I approach things with an open mind to the extent that "all things are from God and all things will go back to him".

As to evolution, there may be truths within the hypothesis of how things came about.&nbsp; I have learned their is truth in all things.

Nomad, you danced all around the question but never gave a straight answer.&nbsp; The issue we are talking about is very specific:

1. You have equated evolution with rejection of Creation and with atheism.
2. Evolution doesn't reject Creation and isn't atheism.

Therefore, are you going to accept the evidence for statement #2?&nbsp; It appears to me that no matter what we post from Christians who accept evolution or about the nature of science itself, you will a never give up statement #1.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Today at 01:19 PM nomad said this in Post #55

I approach things with an open mind to the extent that "all things are from God and all things will go back to him".

In other words, that isn't a very open-minded approach at all when your conclusion must be fixed and respectful of your religious beliefs.

As to evolution, there may be truths within the hypothesis of how things came about.&nbsp; I have learned their is truth in all things.

It is not "the hypothesis of evolution" it is "the theory of evolution" as there is much evidence in its support.

To prejudge a concept as&nbsp;being this or that&nbsp;without knowing all the facts in my view is unwise.&nbsp;

Isn't that exactly what you're doing? And a good example is:

I simply accept that as being what it is without the need to investigate it's origin or makeup.&nbsp; I simply accept that the Blue Spruce along side my house is a descendant of a tree that God created as stated in the Book of Genesis.

You simply accept that explanation as&nbsp;true by prejudging without knowing all the facts, nor is there substantiating evidence for that explanation.

 

[nomad]

Evolution; the development of a species, organism, or organ from its original or primitive state to its present or specialized state.

I don't believe this to be true.&nbsp; I believe each species, family, phylum and so on were uniquely created with purpose and intent.

&nbsp;

It is not "the hypothesis of evolution" it is "the theory of evolution" as there is much evidence in its support.

I have refered to evolution as a hypothesis on purpose knowing the difference between theory and hypothesis.

The bottom line is this.&nbsp; God has inspired it to be written that He created the Heavens and Earth.&nbsp; He says He did it in 6 days and on the seventh rested.&nbsp; He specifically states that He created each species individually.&nbsp; No where does it state anything to the contrary therefore it is as it is.&nbsp; I don't need evidence to accept this as a fact.&nbsp; I don't need evidence to accept the Blue Spruce outside my house is a Blue Spruce, tho you may call it something else and even say it came from somewhere that it didn't.&nbsp; I don't have to prove anything to you.&nbsp; You can accept or reject what I say as you choose.

You can give your evidence, and I have looked at it with interest in ways you may or may not understand.&nbsp; I will, however, never be swayed from what I have stated as how creation came to be.

 

[Tau]

Today at 09:55 PM nomad said this in Post #59
He specifically states that He created each species individually.&nbsp; No where does it state anything to the contrary therefore it is as it is.&nbsp; I don't need evidence to accept this as a fact.

You know, the same argument was used five hundred years ago when Galileo Galilei claimed that the Earth moves around the sun, and not vice versa.