How do some Christians justify belief in evolution?

[frogman2x]

>>Evolution and creation are not mutually exclusive. After creation evolution not only happened but probably happened on a scale and pace that would have scared Darwin to death. Evolution is a natural process while a miracle is God doing only what God can do. Evolution, as I understand it, needs certain functional molecular mechanisms to produce adaptive traits. Not random but very precise functional elements of the natural world that were formed at creation. <<

Evolution is biologically imp;ossib le and you can't provide even one example of one species evolving into a different one. They cannot even prove wht he first life fore was, let alone explalain how it originated for dead elements. They can't even explain how the elements came ino being.

k

 

[lesliedellow]

Evolution is biologically imp;ossib le

And when did you (or your pastor) get your biology PhD?

and you can't provide even one example of one species evolving into a different one. They cannot even prove wht he first life fore was, let alone explalain how it originated for dead elements.

The fact that scientists don't know everything there is to be known doesn't alter the fact that evolution is true.

They can't even explain how the elements came ino being.

Yes they can actually. They are the product of nuclear fusion at the centre of stars. Our sun is busy right now, turning hydrogen atoms into helium atoms, and the next stage after that is for carbon to be produced, and then oxygen.....

 

[Smidlee]

And when did you (or your pastor) get your biology PhD?

You don't need to PhD to know computer work. Just show us how a reptile grew boobs and hair. Show us how an eye evolved (not those cartoon videos).

The fact that scientists don't know everything there is to be known doesn't alter the fact that evolution is true.

if scientist are even having trouble understanding present day life I serious doubt they know so much about what happen millions of years ago.

Yes they can actually. They are the product of nuclear fusion at the centre of stars. Our sun is busy right now, turning hydrogen atoms into helium atoms, and the next stage after that is for carbon to be produced, and then oxygen.....

Mercury was not suppose to have any sulfur yet it has more sulfur than any other rocky planet. Maybe the scientist doesn't know as much as you are lead to believe. Again if they are found wrong so often about the present, which is where science works best, then how wrong are they are about the past ....origins.

 

[lesliedellow]

You don't need to PhD to know computer work.

No, but you need to know what an 8259A, or an HPET, is. In any case, what has that got to do with your qualifications for speaking on matters biological, and supposedly knowing better than people who do have PhDs in biology, and who have spent many years doing post doctoral research?


Just show us how a reptile grew boobs and hair. Show us how an eye evolved (not those cartoon videos).[/quote]

You are presumably unaware that you do not have to go back in time to find fish which are able to travel across land. They are still around today.

Mercury was not suppose to have any sulfur yet it has more sulfur than any other rocky planet. Maybe the scientist doesn't know as much as you are lead to believe. Again if they are found wrong so often about the present, which is where science works best, then how wrong are they are about the past ....origins.

What the amount of sulphur there is on Mercury has got to do with anything, I really don't know.

 

[Smidlee]

You are presumably unaware that you do not have to go back in time to find fish which are able to travel across land. They are still around today.

Fish are able to travel across land and man can swim in the ocean.

What the amount of sulphur there is on Mercury has got to do with anything, I really don't know.

If man's science has been wrong so many times by the things we can test in the present what makes you so sure they know what happen millions of years ago or millions of light years away. If man predictions about Mercury (as well as other planets) turn up false there a good chance they totally wrong in areas that we can't test.

 

[lesliedellow]

If man's science has been wrong so many times by the things we can test in the present what makes you so sure they know what happen millions of years ago or millions of light years away.

That science works by updating its theories in the light of new evidence is something creationists seem to have trouble getting their heads around. Update does not mean throw away, and it is very rare for a scientific theory to be discarded completely. In that case of evolution, too many people in too many fields would have to be too wrong about too many things for there to be any realistic chance that it is substantially wrong.

 

[Calminian]

That science works by updating its theories in the light of new evidence is something creationists seem to have trouble getting their heads around. Update does not mean throw away, and it is very rare for a scientific theory to be discarded completely. In that case of evolution, too many people in too many fields would have to be too wrong about too many things for there to be any realistic chance that it is substantially wrong.

Yes, but they can only be undated within a certain naturalistic framework. Science is objective only within strict parameters. It can never be objective toward miracles, and according to Genesis that's the causative force behind our origins.

 

[lesliedellow]

Yes, but they can only be undated within a certain naturalistic framework. Science is objective only within strict parameters. It can never be objective toward miracles, and according to Genesis that's the causative force behind our origins.

Science does not make up natural explanations where there are none to be had. It has nothing to say about miracles, one way or the other.

 

[Smidlee]

That science works by updating its theories in the light of new evidence is something creationists seem to have trouble getting their heads around. Update does not mean throw away, and it is very rare for a scientific theory to be discarded completely. In that case of evolution, too many people in too many fields would have to be too wrong about too many things for there to be any realistic chance that it is substantially wrong.

They have to continually update their theory because they are wrong. That's a big problem when someone tries to use science to determine truth. Again they can't test anything millions light years away nor millions year ago so it's harder to correct their mistakes. Thus the scientist assumptions about what happen millions year ago will never be corrected ... like evolution and abiogenesis.
What we do know is what has been tested (the present) man has been wrong so often I would doubt any claim that can't ever be tested.
Truth doesn't change but man's science is ever changing.

 

[lesliedellow]

They have to continually update their theory because they are wrong.

Not so wrong that Newtonian mechanics couldn't get somebody to the moon and back. As I said earlier, theories are refined, but very seldom abandoned.

That's a big problem when someone tries to use science to determine truth.

It is one of the most reliable means of determining truth that fallible human beings have.

Again they can't test anything millions light years away nor millions year ago so it's harder to correct their mistakes.

They test things millions of light years away in the same way they test things ten foot away. By observing it. As for millions of years ago, have YECs got around to admitting that there were millions of years in the past, and not just 6,000?

Thus they scientist assumptions about what happen millions year ago will never be corrected ... like evolution and aboigenesis.

They are not assumptions. Their evolutionary history is very apparent in the genes of species alive today.

What we do know is what can be tested (the present) man has been wrong so often I would doubt any claim that can't be tested.

Like I also said earlier, there is a limit to just how wrong people can be. Scientists have evidence, creationists have bluster, and very little else.

 

[Smidlee]

Not so wrong that Newtonian mechanics couldn't get somebody to the moon and back. As I said earlier, theories are refined, but very seldom abandoned.

Sending someone to the moon is technology. They didn't risk people lives by sending them to the moon only on a theory.

It is one of the most reliable means of determining truth that fallible human beings have.

which as I pointed out not very reliable.

They test things millions of light years away in the same way they test things ten foot away. By observing it. As for millions of years ago, have YECs got around to admitting that there were millions of years in the past, and not just 6,000?

If that true then why do they send a satellite to Mercury. So it's not true we can't observed Mercury without sending satellites which proved man's theory wrong.
I think any YEC would believe eternity was in the past.

They are not assumptions. Their evolutionary history is very apparent in the genes of species alive today.

They have learned their idea about genes were wrong so it's very possible all their assumption about the past are wrong too.

Like I also said earlier, there is a limit to just how wrong people can be. Scientists have evidence, creationists have bluster, and very little else.

You do understand evidence can lead you down the wrong path right? All evidence still has to be interpreted and some times one missing fact can totally change the picture.

 

[lesliedellow]

Sending someone to the moon is technology. They didn't risk people lives by sending them to the moon only on a theory.
which as I pointed out not very reliable.

Technology is scientific theory applied to practical applications. If Newton's laws of motion and gravitation are not scientific theories, I would like to know what they are.

If that true then why do they send a satellite to Mercury. So it's not true we can't observed Mercury without sending satellites which proved man's theory wrong.

If they sent a spacecraft to Mercury (and if they did I don't know how it escaped being burned to a cinder) it would have been because they could observe more at close quarters. The surface temperature on Mercury, by the way, is around 800 degrees Fahrenheit - and that is no theory, being that close to the sun.

They have learned their idea about genes were wrong so it's very possible all their assumption about the past are wrong too.

Are you joking? New medicines are being developed on the basis of what they learned.

You do understand evidence can lead you down the wrong path right? All evidence still has to be interpreted and some times one missing fact can totally change the picture.

Like I said, scientific theories are revised, but very seldom abandoned.

 

[frogman2x]

Technology is scientific theory applied to practical applications. If Newton's laws of motion and gravitation are not scientific theories, I would like to know what they are.

You have answered your own quession. Once hey have been proven, they become laws, not theories.

If they sent a spacecraft to Mercury (and if they did I don't know how it escaped being burned to a cinder) it would have been because they could observe more at close quarters. The surface temperature on Mercury, by the way, is around 800 degrees Fahrenheit - and that is no theory, being that close to the sun.

How do yo u know it is not 750 or 850?

Are you joking? New medicines are being developed on the basis of what they learned.

Right, and then they are no longer theories/


[quote[Like I said, scientific theories are revised, but very seldom abandoned.

.

But some are and some need to be abandon. If evolution has not been proven in over 100 years, it never will be.

kermit

 

[Papias]

kermit wrote:

Once hey (scientific theories - my clarification) have been proven, they become laws, not theories.

Um, no. You are thinking of how people on the street use the word "theory". A scientific law is NOT a scientific theory that has been proven. A series of many proven observations make up a scientific law. A scientific theory is an overarching idea that explains and incorporates many scientific laws. Thus, a scientific theory can be thought of as "above" a scientific law, and is generally better proven than a law (because it is proven the all the proof going into all the laws that it explains). Examples are germ theory (that diseases can be caused by viruses and bacteria), atomic theory (that things are made up of atoms), evolutionary theory, etc.

You may be describing the term 'hypothesis'.

A review of the basics of science is useful. Here is one:

An Introduction to Science

This is also usually covered at the start of most high school and college science classes.

Papias

 

[SkyWriting]

You have answered your own question. Once hey have been proven, they become laws, not theories.

They are considered laws if they hold up a long time. Newtons "laws" apply down to the quantum level then are useless. Similarly the expansion of the universe seems to be speeding up. Again, Newtons laws are not valid to explain the phenomena of negative gravity.

 

[Neogaia777]

See my latest post in Theistic evolution: "not even a local flood" and it might help

 

[Neogaia777]

Moses wrote the first five books of the bible... I suggest to you that there is absolutely no way whatsoever, nor is their any reason at all, for him to "make it up" even considering "if" he could possibly have "made it up. So this leaves only one possibility, and that is these "stories" were designed and "told" to us for a Divine, or possibly "alien" (if you want to use that term) "purpose" and design... "It", these "stories" were designed and told to us by a "higher" "intelligence" for a specific "reason" and a "purpose"...

Now, I believe it is our "Job" as "truth seekers" to "seek out" what these "reasons" and "purposes" were/are, whether the "stories" are "literally" true, or maybe just "subjectively" true, which is what I believe, (that they are "subjectively" true) that they (these stories) alude to some kind of "higher purpose" of maybe (perhaps) unique revelations and deep understandings of our own human behavior (psychology) human nature, and to (I believe) give us a fighting chance of "becoming" something "more" than just "primates" or animals.

Anyways, that's what I believe, you can and are free to "choose" whatever you want to choose to believe...

In the popular movie the Matrix series the commander of the armies says to Morpheous, "Morpheous, not everyone believes what you believe" and Morpheous response is "My beliefs do not require them to" and that's exactly how I feel, so believe (or don't) whatever you want, but I know what I believe and I do not "require" you to agree with me in order to believe it.

I'm Just saying that there are just so, so many "open" Possibilities and I am only suggesting to you only a few that I can think of, that I just wish people would retain an "open" (and not closed) mind about things especially when it comes to God, or things that were obviously "presented" to or "infused" into our culture by a "higher" intelligence and "ponder" the reasons why...

You see, "proof" doesn't even matter at this point either way, because these stories have predestined the way in which our society would go, "evolve" for ages, and even if you, for example could somehow "prove" (And I don't believe you can, but one can most certainly "try") Somehow, "Prove" that these stories were "made-up" somehow, (And, I gaurantee that if they were, it was not by men), but my point is these stories, are a bit like "seed" codes in our DNA, that have directed when and where our society would "be" up to this point, the real question we should be asking ourselves is "why"? Why have we been brought to this "point"

I'm Going to use a Matrix analogy again, In the Movie "Matrix" the Oracle has a conversation with Neo, and she says to him, (at one point in their conversation) "Oh, and don't worry about the vase" and then Neo turns and starts to say something like "What vase?" but as he's turning around and about to finish saying it, he knocks over the vase and it falls to the floor and breaks, and He (Neo) starts to say something like "I'm sorry" but/and she tells him "I said, don't worry about it" and then she says something very relevant to our conversation here, she says "What's really going to "boggle" your noodle later on is, would you still have broken it if I hadn't said anything"

And that's kinda the way it is with us, everything that's been said (in the bible for example) has directed us (to a certain degree) to this point in our history, and it's the "now" and "why" and "how" that we should "concern" ourselves with, nothing else (really) matters

My Prayers be with you all, thanks for listening, Jay.

 

[SkyWriting]

Moses wrote the first five books of the bible... I suggest to you that there is absolutely no way whatsoever, nor is their any reason at all, for him to "make it up" even considering "if" he could possibly have "made it up.

There are Creation stories that predate Moses. The book of Adam may indeed be the one that Moses used. But others already existed at the time of his writing. So yes, he could have just modified another existing story or used the book of Adam as his source. There is no benefit to claiming knowledge you don't possess.

 

[KWCrazy]

There are Creation stories that predate Moses.

Irrelevant.
Moses wasn't the first person to write about the creation.
He was only the first person to get the story directly from God and record it.
The other accounts aren't God inspired, which is why they have flaws.
Presuming that the stories would have been handed down orally, everyone could have known the story of creation prior to Moses writing the Torah.

 

[SkyWriting]

Irrelevant.
Moses wasn't the first person to write about the creation.
He was only the first person to get the story directly from God and record it.

That's one possible scenario. I prefer the idea he was editing and compiling from the book of Adam as Adam wrote it.
Or perhaps copies of Adams handwritten book. There is no way to know for sure.