Evolution is Not Atheistic

[fat wee robin]

Of course. And IF AND WHEN it becomes known, fine. My major belief stemming from my monotheism is that I look at the universe and I see that it is designed out of the infinite possible universes to bring forth sentient moral life. Whether this happens with the direct intervention of God, or whether God simply creates the laws of nature and lets them rock and roll, either way it is His doing.

Getting better .

 

[True Science]

[deleted]

 

[fat wee robin]

The evidence in the earth support the conclusion of an ancient earth. Do you think God created an earth with this deceiving evidence in it to contradict the idea of a young earth?

Lets not confuse questioning certain aspects of 'evolution ' with Young Earth Creationism.

 

[fat wee robin]

The real reason professed atheists were all about some evolution in the first place is because it moves against an elementary, literal reading of the scriptures. Like someone is going to say that all these audio book listening, World of Warcraft playing, instant coffee drinking bearded twenty year olds are all in it for a base fascination for evolution.

This might be a bit of a rant, but 16 year olds go and complain about churches being everywhere and how they are 'educating' people on 'God not existing'. That's the kind of influence on evolutionist super-atheists. They aren't making people smarter, they are just grooming others to be against Christianity, based on nothing- the Christian world has long been considering evidences all the way to when Darwin was around and have decided that Genesis is open to interpretation.

It's all in ,"The case for a Creator " by Lee Strobel There is no evidence for macro - evolution . None . However ,I believe God made creation to go in cycles of time until He decides on the last one .

 

[lasthero]

It's all in ,"The case for a Creator " by Lee Strobel There is no evidence for macro - evolution . None . However ,I believe God made creation to go in cycles of time until He decides on the last one .

What is 'macro-evolution'?

 

[PsychoSarah]

'The Ancient Giants who ruled America' has some good info about archaeological finds of giants. I'm sure there are hoaxes, but I doubt all of them are. I highly doubt it. Just like there are UFO hoaxes but not all of them are. Some have been blatantly shown right on camera on mainstream news. I have heard of rumors that certain scientists have apparently said they are "demonic" because they are pretending to be something they are not, visitors from other places in space, when they are trans or hyper (don't remember which one, maybe it's both) dimensional beings. Thus they are deceiving have ill intent. This is what I have heard has been observed by certain scientists. I would like to very this. But apparently they defy the laws of physics like going through solid matter and traveling up 6000 mph without sonic booms and then being able to quickly turn in an arc. It is my understanding that it probably has something to do with the fallen angels of old here to deceive the nations in these last days.

Trust me, you take some anatomy and biology, and it is easy to see why giants that were bipeds are biologically unstable and impossible. Their caloric requirements alone put them at such a disadvantage as to not allow them to develop and survive; especially not with humans around to compete with.

Also, forbid the giants being referred to were woolly mammoths or some other large animal that existed with early humans. I could not tell you why, because I am not an anthropologist, but for a long time humans in artworks liked to give animals human like traits, it's weird, but true. You can even see it in art as late as the 1500s, like drawings of whales with two blowholes like nostrils.

 

[Hoghead1]

It's all in ,"The case for a Creator " by Lee Strobel There is no evidence for macro - evolution . None . However ,I believe God made creation to go in cycles of time until He decides on the last one .

 

[Hoghead1]

Strobel is not exactly a solid authority to rely on. My view is that evolution is possible only because of God, since evolution involves a thrust into novelty and therefore a transcendent imagination behind it. Furthermore, I believe creation is God's own self-evolution from unconsciousness into self-consciousness and personality. Incidentally, this notion was represented by the Christian mystical tradition, for example, Jacob Boehme and Meister Eckhart. You say there is no evidence for macroevolution, OK, but what about the fossils? What about the fact we continually evolve moment to moment, each moment a brand-new self? If it is at work within a species, then, unless you want to draw an arbitrary stopping point, it also works between them as well. Furthermore, macroevolution has been observed more than once in the lab. I could send you a reference to a scientific paper you should read, if you are interested. Also, one could easily ask of you: If there is no hard evidence for evolution, why do you believe in God, since there is also no hard evidence for that, either? No one was on hand to witness the Big Bang firsthand, and it is also true no one was there to witness God doing it either.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Strobel is not exactly a solid authority to rely on. My view is that evolution is possible only because of God, since evolution involves a thrust into novelty and therefore a transcendent imagination behind it. Furthermore, I believe creation is God's own self-evolution from unconsciousness into self-consciousness and personality. Incidentally, this notion was represented by the Christian mystical tradition, for example, Jacob Boehme and Meister Eckhart. You say there is no evidence for macroevolution, OK, but what about the fossils? What about the fact we continually evolve moment to moment, each moment a brand-new self? If it is at work within a species, then, unless you want to draw an arbitrary stopping point, it also works between them as well. Furthermore, macroevolution has been observed more than once in the lab. I could send you a reference to a scientific paper you should read, if you are interested. Also, one could easily ask of you: If there is no hard evidence for evolution, why do you believe in God, since there is also no hard evidence for that, either? No one was on hand to witness the Big Bang firsthand, and it is also true no one was there to witness God doing it either.

While I respect your sentiment, I do feel that I need to mention that individuals do not evolve, and that evolution works on populations across generations, not moment to moment really.

 

[Hoghead1]

Many are stuck on old-fashioned substance metaphysics, where the "really real," the real you is some permanent, changeless, underlying substratum. I'm into contemporary process thought and we reject all substance metaphysics. We are continually in a state of flux. We are a new person every moment. No thinker thinks twice.

 

[As I was saying]

Most Christians accept Evolution. Notice I say accept rather than believe. That is because unlike religion, where we take things on faith and then look for evidence, Evolution starts with evidence and then reaches conclusions.

Your first statement is totally unprovable as you do not know the views of 2.4 billion christians on the earth. My guess is that a large percentage of them in non westernised countries have never heard of evolution. Their faith in God is simple and that is probably why they experience the miracles and we don't.

In fact evolution starts with a humongous faith in something that is totally ridiculous that supersedes any that a christian might have. Its promoters then try and kid us that it is fact and then they get really upset when we are surprised and we say "you have got to be kidding."

 

[lasthero]

Your first statement is totally unprovable as you do not know the views of 2.4 billion christians on the earth.

Any of poll you can find will support it.

My guess is that a large percentage of them in non westernised countries have never heard of evolution.

Guess based on what? Which countries?

Their faith in God is simple and that is probably why they experience the miracles and we don't.

What about the ones who don't believe in God?

In fact evolution starts with a humongous faith in something that is totally ridiculous that supersedes any that a christian might have.

Not really.

 

[Rod Carty]

Most Christians accept Evolution. Notice I say accept rather than believe. That is because unlike religion, where we take things on faith and then look for evidence, Evolution starts with evidence and then reaches conclusions.

I am a Christian and I accept Punctuated Evolution, complete with genetic drift. Now I am a theistic evolutionist, which means that I have a hard time believing that Survival of the Species ALONE is enough to explain evolution. I think that evolution may be drivin by God. (This is not the same thing as intelligent design, which assumes that whole species appear intact.) However, this belief is red flagged because I MAY BE WRONG. The truth is that evolution may be completely NATURAL. But who is the author of the natural world and its laws? God! So even if Natural Selection and Genetic drift turn out to be the sufficient explanation for evolution, it doesn't rule out a Creator.

Evolution only explain life once it got here, and how it developed into the myriad of species that we see today. Evolution does NOT explain how life came from nonlife. We know you can get amino acids and peptides naturally, but there is a chasm between this and a living cell with DNA. It cannot be replicated in the lab, nor do we have any model for it. Science is completely clueless how it happened. A person is as free to speculate the God did it as they are to speculate that it happened as a result of as much an infinite set of accidents as random waves on the beach could produce "Amy loves Joe" in the sand. The point is one can believe in evolution yet still believe that God created life.

All this to say that there are MANY ways to believe in God yet also believe in evolution.

While I agree there are many ways to believe in [a] God and believe in evolution, one cannot consistently believe in evolution and believe in the God of the Bible. That is because evolution claims life and the whole universe came about through purely natural causes, while the Bible says God specifically and intentionally created. The two claims are mutually exclusive: only one can be true.

Likewise one cannot believe in long ages (which evolution requires) and believe in the Bible. Long ages puts death before sin, and that contradicts the first part of the central message of the whole OT, that death is a result of Adam's sin. The second part of the central message of the whole OT is that man cannot be reconciled to God through his own efforts; and the central message of the whole NT is an answer to the dilemma of the OT, namely that Jesus died for our sins so we can be reconciled to God. If God created some great length of time in the past, and man is only a recent addition to God's creation, then that means death was here from the beginning, not a result of man's sin. If death is not a result of sin, then death is normal, in fact, by evolution's position, required, then Jesus saving us from death is not required - it is not even welcome.

 

[ecco]

Just the opposite, evidence for a global flood is strong and irrefutable. Look it up

Oh, there it is in AnswersInGenesis. Or did you mean I should look it up in those atheistic science books like geology 101 where it where it is thoroughly refuted.

 

[lasthero]

That is because evolution claims life and the whole universe came about through purely natural causes, while the Bible says God specifically and intentionally created.

Evolution does not deal with the WHOLE universe, and it doesn't deal with how life came about. It deals with how life diversifies. There's nothing about the theory of evolution that says God couldn't have started the process through supernatural means.

Likewise one cannot believe in long ages (which evolution requires) and believe in the Bible. Long ages puts death before sin, and that contradicts the first part of the central message of the whole OT, that death is a result of Adam's sin. The second part of the central message of the whole OT is that man cannot be reconciled to God through his own efforts; and the central message of the whole NT is an answer to the dilemma of the OT, namely that Jesus died for our sins so we can be reconciled to God. If God created some great length of time in the past, and man is only a recent addition to God's creation, then that means death was here from the beginning, not a result of man's sin. If death is not a result of sin, then death is normal, in fact, by evolution's position, required, then Jesus saving us from death is not required - it is not even welcome.

Well, sorry. The universe IS old.

 

[Rod Carty]

LOL, you're right. That's completely contradictory. And irrational. Folks that believe the earth is 10,000 years old or less simply dismiss the evidence (unless they are really that ignorant).

It's not a matter of ignoring evidence, it's a matter of how the evidence is interpreted, and the difference in interpretation comes from different starting perspectives. YECs and others start with the same "mountains of evidence" so it's not that one side has 'mountains' and the other doesn't. As I said in my previous post, I believe Jesus died for my sins, to save me from death (the consequences of my sins). Thus I believe that Jesus saved me from the death that we see in the geologic record.

 

[lasthero]

It's not a matter of ignoring evidence, it's a matter of how the evidence is interpreted, and the difference in interpretation comes from different starting perspectives.

Evidence that can be interpreted any way you like isn't really evidence. The whole point of gathering evidence in the first place is to come a certain conclusion.

YECs and others start with the same "mountains of evidence" so it's not that one side has 'mountains' and the other doesn't.

What's the YEC interpretation for the abundance of meteor impacts we observe on Earth?

 

[ecco]

The real reason professed atheists...

Why do you find it necessary to use the word "professed" in front of the word atheist. Do you really find it so hard to believe that some people do not believe in any gods?

...were all about some evolution in the first place is because it moves against an elementary, literal reading of the scriptures.

If knowledge of science causes people to rethink the literal accuracy of parts of scripture, perhaps that is because parts of scripture are mythological.

the Christian world has long been considering evidences all the way to when Darwin was around and have decided that Genesis is open to interpretation.

Indeed. And probably long before that.

 

[Rod Carty]

Most Christians accept Evolution. Notice I say accept rather than believe. That is because unlike religion, where we take things on faith and then look for evidence, Evolution starts with evidence and then reaches conclusions.

I also want to comment on the title of this thread. I agree evolution is not atheistic, but I believe that evolution in some form is an inevitable conclusion of atheistic beliefs. If one does not believe a creator God exists then one cannot logically believe that such a being created anything. Thus one must conclude life and the whole universe came about through natural causes. Notice this conclusion is based in logic, not evidence, and begins with a belief (or in this case, lack of belief) contrary to the claim in the OP.

 

[ecco]

ecco said: ↑

You took the handle "True Science" and yet you base some of your beliefs on rumors that you have heard.

• You heard a rumor.
• The rumors make sense.
• You found nothing to say the rumor is false.
• You think that is what is happening.

Critical thinking at its finest.​

I have a lot of reasons to think prophecy is trustworthy. I also think the reason given in the rumor is very accurate of what is observed. I also have every reason to believe in conspiracies and that "they" are out to get us. The evidence, for say, 911 being an inside job is high. Many conspiracies that naysayers were speaking against have proven true. Look it up. I have no reason to trust the mainstream, the establishment, and what they indoctrinate us with in their facilities of mind control. They constantly want us to believe in aliens from outer space with their sci-fi entertainment. When it is clearly the same Nephilim of old spoken of in history. The rulers of this world worship the Devil I know this. They want to bring in his one world kingdom of ancient Babylon. They want unbelievers and lukewarm compromisers, but anything but true die hard followers of the way who discern truth from error and expose it from the rooftops and spread the Word of righteousness.

First you talk about a rumor you heard. Now you confuse science fiction with mind control.

Please do go shout it from the rooftops. Maybe someone will care.