• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
  • We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

More proof Evolution is not true

Status
Not open for further replies.

Aeyamar

Ecumenist
Mar 28, 2007
493
38
New Jersey or Rhode Island
✟23,334.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Like other scientific experiments where fruit flies could be mutated over thousands of generations with not "Significant changes" Define your understanding of "Evolution" in the context of this discussion... Micro or Macro - evolution?

As I said before, micro and macro evolution are indistinguishable. In truth they are invented categories. IF enough small changes in the genetic code of an organism accumulate, it will become a different species.

Can you get a quadrapdeal hip Chimpanzee to change into a Bipedal hip Human?

No, because humans did not evolve from chimpanzees. Chimpanzees are modern animals. Humans and chimpanzees both evolved from some (now extinct) common ancestor that existed millions of years in the past. But one could not discount the possibility that millions of years from now a descendant of chimps could evolve to become bipedal, but the result of such evolution would not be a human.

Seriously man, you can't even get a horse and donkey's offspring to breed their own species. Nor Felix Sylvester and Felix Chaus but they can get a bipedal man from some lesser form of quadrapedal primate, such as a Chimp?

That's not even a counter argument, the thing that make two organisms different species is the inability to breed and create fertile offspring, so obviously the hybrid of a horse and donkey (a mule) would be unable to reproduce. Genetics fully explains the causes of problems with hybridization.

It is not correct for those who call evolution a 'Fact' because the 'theory' itself is constantly in flux and subject to change according to new data.. 'Truth' does not change. it is absolute and unchanging. Therefore 'evolution' is simply an interpretation of evidence based on a heavily biased set of parameters.. From the point of Darwin's original proposition, which he admitted was with fault, to "Punctuated Equilibrium", which Gould proposed to explain why the fossil record which does not support evolution as Darwin proposed.

It is an observable fact that the genetic makeup of various species changes over time. That change in genetic traits is evolution. There are many theories that the observations of evolution support (e.g. Traits are selected for by environmental stress, birds evolved from dinosaurs, homo sapiens evolved from homo erectus), but whether or not these specific claims are true, hav no bearing on whether or not evolution happens.

If you cannot demonstrate how one species, such as, lets' say a salamander can evlove a cat, or a Chimp can evolve into a Human, than I am very dubious of your claim... You see what difficulties are observable in Species level, even in the Subspecies, level, but evolution would have us believe that it must have taken place even on the Genus level.. come on..

I just told you of an experiment where a whole new species of bacteria evolved from another. These experiments, if they could be falsified would only disprove that cats came from salamanders and chimps came from humans (both of which are false claims anyway since again you're stating that modern animals came from each other when in instead the understanding of modern biology is that they share common ancestor species). Again as changes accumulate, it's not surprising that the gulfs between species become greater and greater two species that are separated by 100,000 genetic changes are obviously going to be way more different from each other than two species with only say 10,000 mutations. What's often amazing though is how few changes you need to separate species from one another. Humans and chimps, for example, share over 99.9% of our genetic code.

I am reminded of one point : "Nothing can pass on what it does not already possess.

There are many ways in which additional genetic data can be added where it does not already exist though mistake in the formation of reproductive cells. Including duplication of chromosomes, rearrangements of genetic sequences, additional genes latching on to the wrong chromosomes, etc...
 
Upvote 0

Joshua G.

Well-Known Member
Mar 5, 2009
3,288
419
U.S.A.
✟5,328.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Why do I get the feeling that despite my repeated claims, some are still hearing tht my problem is not with evolution or the possibility of it being true? I keep hearing arguments that I have no trouble with.

Aeymar, I agree with your idelic definiition of science (I tink I may have already given it myself) and you are right that it is NOT materialist, if it's real. My point is that when materialists do science, they can't do real science because their belief prohibits them from considering all possibilities including the possibility that science cannot now or ever answer a certain question. They are not scientists but dogmatic atheists that use science like BIble Belt Creationists use science, to prove their agenda.

And if you don't see that then that's fine. Just always take them at their word. But there will come a time when your notion of Theistic Evolution is wholly and outrightly rejected and ridiculed (if they are in a good mood) by the scientific establishment (the key holders) and you will be seen a silly as a Creationist and you will have to choose: do I just trust the "scientists" or consider that maybe they make a mockery of science.

Josh

Again, and I know this point will be ignored, I don't have a problem with the concept that we may have come from amoebas. It doesn't offend me. I never said it was impossible. I said much the opposite, but please keep trying to prove to me why I sholdn't be a fundamentalist creationist. and i will keep proving to you why you shouldn't be Muslim.
 
Upvote 0

Aeyamar

Ecumenist
Mar 28, 2007
493
38
New Jersey or Rhode Island
✟23,334.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Why do I get the feeling that despite my repeated claims, some are still hearing tht my problem is not with evolution or the possibility of it being true? I keep hearing arguments that I have no trouble with.

Aeymar, I agree with your idelic definiition of science (I tink I may have already given it myself) and you are right that it is NOT materialist, if it's real. My point is that when materialists do science, they can't do real science because their belief prohibits them from considering all possibilities including the possibility that science cannot now or ever answer a certain question. They are not scientists but dogmatic atheists that use science like BIble Belt Creationists use science, to prove their agenda.

And if you don't see that then that's fine. Just always take them at their word. But there will come a time when your notion of Theistic Evolution is wholly and outrightly rejected and ridiculed (if they are in a good mood) by the scientific establishment (the key holders) and you will be seen a silly as a Creationist and you will have to choose: do I just trust the "scientists" or consider that maybe they make a mockery of science.

Josh


Sorry, I think I interpreted your concerns about the scientific community being atheistic as a reason to distrust evolutionary science.

I don't think I share the same concerns as you though, the fact that there are many atheistic scientists does not make me think that field could be used to undermine theistic claims. For the most part, the only testable claims the bible relies on are historical ones (i.e. that Jesus lived 2000 years ago, performed miracles, was killed, and rose again). In terms of what the physical laws the universe operates on (the things science is actually meant to find) I don't think they can ever be used to contradict God, because God invented those laws for creation and cannot be bound by them.

But I do understand your displeasure with the few scientists know who are agreeing with the fundamentalists that religion and science are indeed opposed and that atheistic science is the only logically defensible position. I strongly dislike that claim because it not only undermines the idea of real science, but also inspires reaction for fundamentalism creationists (the two sides attempting to pull God apart from His own creation). I don't think this will ever turn into the establishment rejecting people who have religious belief for a couple reasons though. One is that theists can do just as good science as anyone else, and two is that scientists generally never discuss religious belief in research, because whether or not a person believes God created a specific physical law or guides some process isn't relevant to the mechanics of various scientific theories.

Anyway, I think I better understand your position now, and gave you a response that wasn't talking past you.
 
Upvote 0

Joshua G.

Well-Known Member
Mar 5, 2009
3,288
419
U.S.A.
✟5,328.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
You're kind of getting my point.

My point is that theists can do better science, more honest science (regardless of their religion) because they do not believe that the scientific method is the end all to know. Materialists must believe this and therefore cannot use the scientific method responsibly.
 
Upvote 0

Aeyamar

Ecumenist
Mar 28, 2007
493
38
New Jersey or Rhode Island
✟23,334.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
You're kind of getting my point.

My point is that theists can do better science, more honest science (regardless of their religion) because they do not believe that the scientific method is the end all to know. Materialists must believe this and therefore cannot use the scientific method responsibly.

Ah, so you mean that a scientist with an atheistic agenda will attempt to use scientific claims to overreach into theological realms?
 
Upvote 0

Joshua G.

Well-Known Member
Mar 5, 2009
3,288
419
U.S.A.
✟5,328.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Materialism assumes that we can know nothing apart from that which is observable; observable in the tradition of the scientific model. It's a relatively recent philosophy (only 2 or 3 centuries).

Increasingly scientists (especially those on the forefront who represent the scientific community even if in reality MOST scientists are probably theists or at least agnostic --willing to accept that there may be a deity who could or could have been personal at some point in history) are outspoken materialists who assume that since God cannot be proven by the science (what they mean by that is the scientific method) he is as real as the spaghetti monster or a tea cup circling Saturn. He has no place in gaining knowledge.

Therefore, for these people, it is impossible at anytime to consider the possibility that God or the supernatural is the missing link to this or that theory. The missing link (used in a very general way) HAS to be of natural cause; it is only our lack of resources and scientific knowledge at this time that keeps us in the dark. And so a materialist has to push on 100% confident that the explanation must be natural and that it is there and it is most certainly not God.

A real scientist (who has all of the credentials in his or her area and respects the scientific model and theory) must always keep in mind that the actual answer might not be able to be found by the scientific model. The truth is not bound but what we today call science. Science is bound by It and science is smaller than the truth like the telescope is smaller than space. It would be absurd to suggest that that which our telelscope can't observe is therefore nonexistant and it is equally absurd that that which cannot be observed with our scientific method therefore is nonexistent... yet that's what increasinly more andmore of the scientists in control of the media (NOVA, Science Friday) and the purse strings (Journals, research grants) believe. They are not scientists but religious fanatics for the cause of Atheism who abuse the scientific method.

They are also the ones who have widely pushed for evolution to be brought forth as this endall theory that cannot and shall not be questioned by anyone.

Also, I agree with you that even if we don't have a PhD behind our name we should be able to discuss it. My point however is that it really isn't the point. The fact is that plenty of people who do have the apporopraiate PhD behind their name have brought up issues with evolution. They don't get heard because they don't generally get a platform within universities, journals or scientific media outlets respected by the public (i.e. PBS and NPR).

It should always concern us when honest debate is discouraged or censured adn it should concern us when scientists are abusing the scientific method and they get away with it.

It may be that evolution is real... in spite of these people. I just don't know if you and I can really know that when they aren't open to all truth.
 
Upvote 0

mathetes123

Newbie
Dec 26, 2011
2,469
54
✟25,644.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Joshua G. said:
Materialism assumes that we can know nothing apart from that which is observable; observable in the tradition of the scientific model. It's a relatively recent philosophy (only 2 or 3 centuries).

Increasingly scientists (especially those on the forefront who represent the scientific community even if in reality MOST scientists are probably theists or at least agnostic --willing to accept that there may be a deity who could or could have been personal at some point in history) are outspoken materialists who assume that since God cannot be proven by the science (what they mean by that is the scientific method) he is as real as the spaghetti monster or a tea cup circling Saturn. He has no place in gaining knowledge.

Therefore, for these people, it is impossible at anytime to consider the possibility that God or the supernatural is the missing link to this or that theory. The missing link (used in a very general way) HAS to be of natural cause; it is only our lack of resources and scientific knowledge at this time that keeps us in the dark. And so a materialist has to push on 100% confident that the explanation must be natural and that it is there and it is most certainly not God.

A real scientist (who has all of the credentials in his or her area and respects the scientific model and theory) must always keep in mind that the actual answer might not be able to be found by the scientific model. The truth is not bound but what we today call science. Science is bound by It and science is smaller than the truth like the telescope is smaller than space. It would be absurd to suggest that that which our telelscope can't observe is therefore nonexistant and it is equally absurd that that which cannot be observed with our scientific method therefore is nonexistent... yet that's what increasinly more andmore of the scientists in control of the media (NOVA, Science Friday) and the purse strings (Journals, research grants) believe. They are not scientists but religious fanatics for the cause of Atheism who abuse the scientific method.

They are also the ones who have widely pushed for evolution to be brought forth as this endall theory that cannot and shall not be questioned by anyone.

Also, I agree with you that even if we don't have a PhD behind our name we should be able to discuss it. My point however is that it really isn't the point. The fact is that plenty of people who do have the apporopraiate PhD behind their name have brought up issues with evolution. They don't get heard because they don't generally get a platform within universities, journals or scientific media outlets respected by the public (i.e. PBS and NPR).

It should always concern us when honest debate is discouraged or censured adn it should concern us when scientists are abusing the scientific method and they get away with it.

It may be that evolution is real... in spite of these people. I just don't know if you and I can really know that when they aren't open to all truth.

I agree. I think much of science is tainted by politics. Consider global warming for example. Scientists depend on grant money. Follow the money and you will understand where there might just be some bias involved in their conclusions. Consider that the overwhelming bias in our government schools is liberal. Those scientist who might otherwise come out in support of creation are intimidated and ostracized.
 
Upvote 0

MKJ

Contributor
Jul 6, 2009
12,260
776
East
✟38,894.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Greens
I am not sure how the Big Bang would seem to Christian or otherwise.

Again, I have no problem with Evolution itself. I do have a problem with announcing it as indisputable fact (that is, it happened and no one can deny it) that we came from amoebas. I have no issue with the idea that it MAY very well have happened.

I have explained several times that I am not talking about all scientists or necessarily even the majority of scientists. We should also keep in mind that most scientists do not study evolution. However, increasingly (since not very recently) scientists are self-described materialists, especially among those who study and purport the once only theory and not undisputed theory that we came from a one celled organism. That matters for once one is a materialist they are unable to use science properly becuase it is not the end all to knowledge (and once was not).

I don't knwo how else to explain it without repeating myself. but when you have other scientists who are Christians or at least not materialists in both groups (those who support the theory and those who do not) and the latter questioning evolution on scientific grounds having no agenda (that is, the theory doesn't offend them, they just are saying it isn't as "overwhelmingly" convincing as the establishment wants the public to believe it is only responsible for a non-scientist to reserve judgment).

It does seem that people are overlooking that I am not against evolution. I freely admit I am not a scientist. That's why it is a little silly (at the very least) for me to sit here and discuss science with other people who no doubtedly know more than I do, but also aren't evolutionists. You know what I mean? My main point is that those IN the field don't agree.. it's just the establishment who controls PR and by and large the purse strings do and the fact that most of the loudest are materialists with no one calling them out on that should be concerning to us when we trust their word. "Well, the scientists said so, so I guess it is as it is".

Josh

I guess the thing is, I know a number of Christian scientists, and Christian science related types, and none of them has these kinds of major issues with evolution that you are mentioning. And every scientist I've met is ok with the idea that like any theory, it has bits that are wrong or incomplete and it will be subject to revision over time, and they know it doesn't really say much one way or the other about the origins of life itself.

I haven\t actually seen much evidence that people in the field actually don't agree - the examples I've seen of scientists who are anti-evolution are simply not people I'd put any trust in.

As far as the Big Bang - before that was a theory, the dominant idea was similar to the pre-Christian pagans - that the universe had existed eternally and was largely static, and so in some sense self-existent (from a philosophic perspective.) There was a tendency for philosophically ignorant scientists to think that this left no room for God, which just tells us they hadn't read any pre-Christian philosophy.

The Big Bang theory suggests a universe with a beginning to time, and potentially an end as well, when there will be time no longer. Not only does this leave a nice star spot for God to start things off, it really is in many ways much more in line with a Christian worldview than the previous dominant model, and it very much asks the question where did it all come from.

The theory was also developed and proposed by a Catholic priest, so he was heavily criticized at the time for putting his religion into his science. As it turned out however, subsequent observations all supported his theory.
 
Upvote 0

MKJ

Contributor
Jul 6, 2009
12,260
776
East
✟38,894.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Greens
Materialism assumes that we can know nothing apart from that which is observable; observable in the tradition of the scientific model. It's a relatively recent philosophy (only 2 or 3 centuries).

Increasingly scientists (especially those on the forefront who represent the scientific community even if in reality MOST scientists are probably theists or at least agnostic --willing to accept that there may be a deity who could or could have been personal at some point in history) are outspoken materialists who assume that since God cannot be proven by the science (what they mean by that is the scientific method) he is as real as the spaghetti monster or a tea cup circling Saturn. He has no place in gaining knowledge.

Therefore, for these people, it is impossible at anytime to consider the possibility that God or the supernatural is the missing link to this or that theory. The missing link (used in a very general way) HAS to be of natural cause; it is only our lack of resources and scientific knowledge at this time that keeps us in the dark. And so a materialist has to push on 100% confident that the explanation must be natural and that it is there and it is most certainly not God.

A real scientist (who has all of the credentials in his or her area and respects the scientific model and theory) must always keep in mind that the actual answer might not be able to be found by the scientific model. The truth is not bound but what we today call science. Science is bound by It and science is smaller than the truth like the telescope is smaller than space. It would be absurd to suggest that that which our telelscope can't observe is therefore nonexistant and it is equally absurd that that which cannot be observed with our scientific method therefore is nonexistent... yet that's what increasinly more andmore of the scientists in control of the media (NOVA, Science Friday) and the purse strings (Journals, research grants) believe. They are not scientists but religious fanatics for the cause of Atheism who abuse the scientific method.

They are also the ones who have widely pushed for evolution to be brought forth as this endall theory that cannot and shall not be questioned by anyone.

Also, I agree with you that even if we don't have a PhD behind our name we should be able to discuss it. My point however is that it really isn't the point. The fact is that plenty of people who do have the apporopraiate PhD behind their name have brought up issues with evolution. They don't get heard because they don't generally get a platform within universities, journals or scientific media outlets respected by the public (i.e. PBS and NPR).

It should always concern us when honest debate is discouraged or censured adn it should concern us when scientists are abusing the scientific method and they get away with it.

It may be that evolution is real... in spite of these people. I just don't know if you and I can really know that when they aren't open to all truth.


I think there are a few things going on here:

One is that most scientists are essentially technicians, and that is all they are called to be - and I think that you are right, and matrialist scientist is not really going to be abe to understand the philosophy of science in any deep way, and is likely to make mistakes when called to make judgements about it.

But the vast majority of day to day scientific work has absoltly no call for that to happen. It involves some guy in a lab for a year trying to figure out ho to get bacteria to grow DNA from another species. And he might be really gifted at that whether or not he is a materialist.

There are really very few people called to understand and deal with the bits where science and metaphilosophy rub against each other, and that is not strictly speaking science.

Now, there is a rather vocal group like Dr Dawkins who wants to makes this simply ridiculous claims for science with regard to religion. And while I am sure he is a fine biologist, he has zero ability as a philosopher or historian, and he makes basic mistakes, and that is characteristic of that group for the reasons ou say.

But those people do not in fact represent science, and they are not even, IMO, that big a group. Most scientists of course have their own worldview vased on what they know and feel and experience, just like engineers, or secretaries, or bag-boys, but they don't have some kind of claim to special knowledge in that area and they know where their scientific view ends and moves into something that is beyond science.

We do, unfortunatly, have a population that is enamoured by science and also really misunderstands it, and is poorly educated generally. But I think you are giving to much power to these guys who are basically a fad. And i don't think it is right to say they somehow represent science any more than it is right to say that fundamentalists represent Christianity, despite their claims.
 
Upvote 0
Aeyamar

You mention the 'evoluiton' of bacteria... let me guess - was the final result still Bacteria, however changed it was?

THat is why I used the example of a salamander to cat. Look at the long, big picture. You can specify a poor examples, but you ignore and do not address the point I was making, that in the long run and big picture one organism can evolve into something completely different on a large scale, like human beings evolved from what was once a simple once celled organism originating in what amounts to pond scum. Darwin proposed the gradual change over long time, Gould proposed punctuated equalibrium because the fossil record does not bear evidence of evolution that Darwin proposed.

You can deflect and nitpick examples but you do not address the philisophical, nor scientific point in the long run. Bacteria evolving into a different kind of bacteria is exactly the the difference between micro and macro evolution.. Look at the genetic drift in Dogs - Canines, but can you ever get a canine to evolve into something completely different? or will it still just be a different type of canine? That's the question.

Darwin gave us examples of 'evolution' from differences within Finches, yet they were all STILL finches! You give examples of bacteria, but I am willing to bet the different species was still Bacteria. Then you make the jump there is no difference between micro- macro evolution, yet I ask you to prove this. Because what evolution proposes, that, basically man evolved out of once was a single cell in pond or ocean water.

When you get that bacteria to evlove into a much higher, infinitely more complex creature, or any thing more than what is essentially, "Bacteria" then evolutionists may have a stronger case..

I used the examples I did to highlight the unbreachable difference between to completely unrelated an vastly different life forms, I was speaking of the big picture, you were answering with the small picture.

Look at what the fossil picture shows, that 'evolution' promotes stasis within a species. We see these early life forms and how they went on for tens of millions of years unchanged , then suddenly, POW, a new life form appears in all it's glory in the fossil record and how vasrly different it is...

This is why Gould came up with "Punctuated equilibrium".... it was basically a description of the fossil record. Long perios of species stasis followed the sudden emergence of something completely different in morphology. Something completely different in shape, size and function - a whole new creature altogether.



+
 
Upvote 0

WarriorAngel

I close my eyes and see you smile
Site Supporter
Apr 11, 2005
73,955
10,062
United States Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟598,343.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Bacteria - viruses are adaptable - they have to be. And strands evolve every year in instances of the flu.
Survival. Host. Adaptive.

But the bacteria -or- virus will never evolve into anything else - such as an animal or plant or rock.
 
Upvote 0

MKJ

Contributor
Jul 6, 2009
12,260
776
East
✟38,894.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Greens
Bacteria - viruses are adaptable - they have to be. And strands evolve every year in instances of the flu.
Survival. Host. Adaptive.

But the bacteria -or- virus will never evolve into anything else - such as an animal or plant or rock.

Well, the sure aren't going to evolve into a rock, you are right about that one.
 
Upvote 0

Joshua G.

Well-Known Member
Mar 5, 2009
3,288
419
U.S.A.
✟5,328.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
I guess this is my point in refusing to debate the actual science. All of us here are at best arm-chair evolutionary scientists (I'm not even that-- and I won't ever be, I don't think). So, i say one thing and then someone else says "yes, but I read" and then I say "ah, I've heard of that but then you have to consdider this.." and it goes back and forth ad nauseum yet no one with any kind of credentials that matter are stating anything worth while about the actual science because we lack the ability to know really what information is not being presented to us and if we are even interpreting correctly the science we've been given.

It's never ending. DO we implicitly trust the academic machine? It's a lot like the question of if we implicitly trust our government? Most of us here probably believe that there are things the government hides from us. I do. I will also say that I think in the end, if we were able to find out the truth (compared to what the gov tells us) we would find that most of the lies are pretty boring and that there aren't alien spaceships or some underground supergovernment that is really actually controlling all world events.

My point is that I'm conspiracy theorist. I am not prone to believing in fanstastical evil plans made behind our backs. But I do believe politics creates a lot of lies and coverup, and coverup means censuring people and when my bs-meter goes off I am prone to believe that there is bs somewhere near.

My insistence that there is political bs warping how evolution is presented to the public and how it is not is not borne of any belief that we must believe in a literal 6-day Creation to be good or accurate Christians. It is not born of my being offended by the idea that we came from one-celled organisms. I don't care in the least. In the end, while I will be curious to see what the real story is of our biological origins, I'm not anxious about nor am I assuming anything. I won't be surprised if it's a 6-day literal creation or a few billion years beginning with a big bang. They are both equally fantastical stories.

I mean that honestly, neither is less fairy tailish than the other, of that I truly am convinced, and I believe in angels and God, so I don't mean fairy tail in a condescending way... neither is more rational than the other. Just as much as a 6 day creation would take utter miracles, so would us (humans) coming from once-celled oragnisms in a matter of only a few billion years. That's unthinkable that that could ever happen so quickly by chance. That's why from a completely rational point of view I say with all confidence that an ATHEISTIC evolution as set forth so far is not fairy-tale-ish but utterly ridiculous and lack of all reason. THEISTIC Evoultion IS rational because it could be straight out of a fairy tale.

I pray that no matter what I will always make sure that my mind is not limited in anything by what we now call science. And I am not accusing any of you here of that. I really do respect theistic evolution. I think it does in some ways contradict what most of the Fathers say, and while that personally offers me pause, I don't think it necessarily contradicts the heart of the what they were inspired to say. I just hope that none of us ever assume that science can answer all questions. In the end, as Christians, we do have to believe that there was a time when there was nothing and when God actively decided that there should be something... that came out of nothing. Sooner or later, if it hasn't happened alreayd, the materialist will demand a question about origins from science that science can't deliver, but he or she will insist otherwise and make it crank out an answer anyway. Do we all have our bs meters going and ready to say "yeah, maybe, but maybe now is when they are finally just pulling stuff out of their you-know-what"? When does science hit its limit and how do we recognize that?
 
Upvote 0
Dec 8, 2011
289
11
Brisbane
✟30,493.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
source Science and the bible part 2 (read for some other great stuff on the page)


Now lets take a look at the bible and Geology.

The majority of scientist in this field clash with what the bible teaches because most of these scientist teach evolution. Geology involves the study of the history of the earths crust, rocks and strata. Strata simply means the different layers that are found within the earths crust.​

If you look in any biology or geology textbooks you will find diagram of a so-called geological Column. The geological column is suppose to represent 12 different geological ages of life forms that have formed over billions of years. The lowest level is suppose to contain the most simplex creatures and the further you move up the column the more complex they become. But let me let you in on a little secret, this geological column does not exist anywhere on this earth. It only exist in their own textbooks and imagination.

There is a major flaw with their geological column. For example if all the earths living creatures were stacked on top of each other that supposedly evolved over a time span of 2 billion years the depth would have to be 130miles. This is a major problem considering the earth crust is only 25 to 30 miles deep. So their hunch just doesn’t stack up.

Another major problem that they have to deal with is the true geological record that we have today. You see the lowest level of fossils that we have today is called the Cambrian level. This is an amazing level because there are great variety of organism found here which indicate that all these life forms existed together at once which exactly what the Bible teaches. The truth of the matter is that every major invertebrate animal group has been found in this layer. The simplex and the complex are found together which goes directly against what the evolutionist teach. They teach only the most simplex should be in this layer.

I believe the bible holds the real answer to this lower level containing so many different kinds of organism. The bible account of the flood in Gen 6:17 and Gen 7:23 is a more accurately account for these species being in this lower level. In order for something to become a fossil it has to be covered quickly before it decays because if it just left there it most likely will be eaten. Since there are so many different organism in one place the flood waters best fit why so many are preserved in one place and we need to keep in mind that these great graveyards can be found all over the world again indicating a world wide flood. The water would quickly bury these creatures give them the ideal condition to become fossils. Also, every mountain that we have on this earth show signs of being under water at one point which gives us more evidence of a world wide flood just as the Word of God states.

I also want to show you some evidence that shows that man and some of these other creatures that supposedly died out millions years before man both coexisted at one time.

First I want to show you an Inca burial stone.

“This stone was engraved by the Incas long before the discovery of dinosaurs in the mid 1800's. Engraved on this stone is a triceratops dinosaur which is accurately portrayed in detail with a human rider mounted on its back. It would appear that the Incas, or their ancestors, had seen living dinosaurs.”

Our next example is a fossil of sandal print and trilobite.

“The oldest fossil footprint yet found was discovered in June 1968 by William J. Meister on an expedition to Antelope Spring, 43 miles west of Delta, Utah, USA. He was accompanied by his wife and two daughters, and by Mr. and Mrs. Francis Shape and their two daughters. The party had already discovered several fossils of trilobites when Meister split open a two-inch-thick slab of rock with his hammer and discovered the print. The rock fell open 'like a book' revealing on one side the footprint of a human with trilobites right in the footprint itself. The other half of the rock slab showed an almost perfect mold of the footprint and fossils. Amazingly the human was wearing a sandal! The sandal that seems to have crushed a living trilobite was 10 1/4 inches long and 3 1/2 inches wide; the heel is indented slightly more than the sole, as a human shoe print would be." According to the "Theory of Evolution" humans and trilobites would not have been around at the same time, but as the photo shows, they were.”

My last example is what is known as the Coffee track.

“In 1934 Mr. A.M. Coffee of Stinnett, Texas, a pumper for the Gulf Oil Company, discovered a trail of nine “human-like footprints” in series on a rock ledge about four miles out of town. He worked one of the tracks loose and took it home. After he showed the artifact to a few friends including his boss, various interested persons took the rest of the tracks from the site. The discovery created an instant controversy among archaeologists, geologists and anthropologists, because the sedimentary rock system of the entire area is geologically assigned Permian (assumed to be 225 million years old). The general consensus was that the print had to be a carving made by Indians, or the like. The difficulties involved in drawing such conclusions were enhanced by the fact that the print was accompanied by eight other prints in the series, along with an adjacent child's print. Further controversy ensued when it was pointed out that the tracks were not “stylized” as other Indian carvings are.”

Now these foot prints have been analyzed by our latest technology and have been deemed authentic foot prints and not carved ones. So, once again we have another example that shows that man existed at the same times as the other animals that supposedly lived 225 million years ago.

Another interesting fact is that we have around 250,000 different species preserved in fossils today. Out of all of these fossils records we would assume that if the evolutionist were correct we would find some half formed creature during the evolution period. However, not 1 single fossil has been found with half formed features. There are so many holes in the evolution theory one wonders why the continue to teach it.

Scientist will never find their missing link because the bible makes it clear that things produce after their own kind as seen in,

Genesis 1:11 Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth"; and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

This means a tree will produce a tree and monkey will produce a monkey. We have never evolved from something else. We are not now in state of evolving into something better instead we are going through a processes of degeneration. So far this morning and this evening we have only talked about the field of Astronomy, Oceanography, Physics, and Geology. There are many more fields of science we could talk about and what the Bible say about them but we will stop here. Again, I stand amazed at how much scientific foreknowledge in found in the bible. I hope that you will be able to share some of these points I have made with those around you.

its hard to believe that in the 21st century there are still people so mentally challenged as to believe that evolution isn't real. I often hear critics of Christianity claim that Christians are an unenlightened bunch, often I dismiss it, but then I read posts like yours I feel ashamed and embarrassed for you.
people like you do nothing to bring people to Christ, you just confirm their suspicions about how unscientific and unenlightened elements of the christian religion can be.
what next??? shall we maintain the sun revolves around the earth cause the bible says so??? or believe there were 'giants' on the earth cause the bible says so....I take my hat off to the Vatican for its rejection of such nonsense and praise the papacy for it's non-literalist and scientific approach to both the creation story and evolutionary biology!
 
Upvote 0

FriendlyJosh

Newbie
Jan 12, 2011
2,037
123
✟26,056.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
what next??? shall we maintain the sun revolves around the earth cause the bible says so???

"The Bible doesn't say that, there are a few verses that some people have interpreted to mean that, like God laying the foundation of the earth... but that isn't exactly saying the same thing as saying the sun revolves around it.

There was also one passage where it speaks of the sun standing still in the sky so that Joshua could win a battle. That is no more a statement of the sun actually moving than it is when the newspaper gives the time of the sunrise. It is just a way of describing how things look to our perspective."
Does the bible state the sun revolves around the earth? - Yahoo! Answers

Maybe you should consider spending less time insulting people you don't know, and more time reading The Bible so that you don't post more misinformation. Just a thought.
 
Upvote 0

MKJ

Contributor
Jul 6, 2009
12,260
776
East
✟38,894.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Greens
I guess this is my point in refusing to debate the actual science. All of us here are at best arm-chair evolutionary scientists (I'm not even that-- and I won't ever be, I don't think). So, i say one thing and then someone else says "yes, but I read" and then I say "ah, I've heard of that but then you have to consdider this.." and it goes back and forth ad nauseum yet no one with any kind of credentials that matter are stating anything worth while about the actual science because we lack the ability to know really what information is not being presented to us and if we are even interpreting correctly the science we've been given.

It's never ending. DO we implicitly trust the academic machine? It's a lot like the question of if we implicitly trust our government? Most of us here probably believe that there are things the government hides from us. I do. I will also say that I think in the end, if we were able to find out the truth (compared to what the gov tells us) we would find that most of the lies are pretty boring and that there aren't alien spaceships or some underground supergovernment that is really actually controlling all world events.

My point is that I'm conspiracy theorist. I am not prone to believing in fanstastical evil plans made behind our backs. But I do believe politics creates a lot of lies and coverup, and coverup means censuring people and when my bs-meter goes off I am prone to believe that there is bs somewhere near.

My insistence that there is political bs warping how evolution is presented to the public and how it is not is not borne of any belief that we must believe in a literal 6-day Creation to be good or accurate Christians. It is not born of my being offended by the idea that we came from one-celled organisms. I don't care in the least. In the end, while I will be curious to see what the real story is of our biological origins, I'm not anxious about nor am I assuming anything. I won't be surprised if it's a 6-day literal creation or a few billion years beginning with a big bang. They are both equally fantastical stories.

I mean that honestly, neither is less fairy tailish than the other, of that I truly am convinced, and I believe in angels and God, so I don't mean fairy tail in a condescending way... neither is more rational than the other. Just as much as a 6 day creation would take utter miracles, so would us (humans) coming from once-celled oragnisms in a matter of only a few billion years. That's unthinkable that that could ever happen so quickly by chance. That's why from a completely rational point of view I say with all confidence that an ATHEISTIC evolution as set forth so far is not fairy-tale-ish but utterly ridiculous and lack of all reason. THEISTIC Evoultion IS rational because it could be straight out of a fairy tale.

I pray that no matter what I will always make sure that my mind is not limited in anything by what we now call science. And I am not accusing any of you here of that. I really do respect theistic evolution. I think it does in some ways contradict what most of the Fathers say, and while that personally offers me pause, I don't think it necessarily contradicts the heart of the what they were inspired to say. I just hope that none of us ever assume that science can answer all questions. In the end, as Christians, we do have to believe that there was a time when there was nothing and when God actively decided that there should be something... that came out of nothing. Sooner or later, if it hasn't happened alreayd, the materialist will demand a question about origins from science that science can't deliver, but he or she will insist otherwise and make it crank out an answer anyway. Do we all have our bs meters going and ready to say "yeah, maybe, but maybe now is when they are finally just pulling stuff out of their you-know-what"? When does science hit its limit and how do we recognize that?


You know, I guess I just don't find this terribly worriesom, even compared to, say, poliitical enteties or corporate entities having under-lying motives to hide or twist truth.

Not that I think scientists don't do that, on purpose and unconciously. I think thosugh that there is actually more transparency in the scientific world. Not total transparency - but that doesn't exist anywhere, including among historians or the Church, patristics scholars, translators, and all those groups who inform our Christian perspective.

I mean, the kind of skepticism you are talking about here is very similar to the kind of skepticism that rejects the idea of the Church because we cannot have the kind of trust we need in Scripture, the early church, priests, historians.... these groups have also all been accused of being in conspiracies, or seeing things only from the side of the "winners' and so misinterpreting things, or from working from assumptions that blind them to an important part of history.

Now, I have some background academically that gives me a little facility in some of those areas, but it is pretty limited. I have an fair interest as an amateur in science and the philosophy of science. But in neither aspect am I amble to get down into the nitty gritty academic issues and suss out the absolute truth. And in the end i don't think the greatest academics can either, though they can weed out a lot of bunk.

And yet I make decisions about the Church, what and where it is, what it is supposed to look like, how I am to relate to it, which factions are reliable and which are not. And I make decisions about what to do about science, whether i should vaccinate my kids or be worried about particular mining practices, or GM products, and whether overall I can trust this faction of scientists or that one, or none of them.

And I don't really see that I am less qualified to make the decision in one case than the other, and more, it seems that I am simply required to make a decision in both cases, because there are decisions that need making. So if I don't have enough information to make decisions, I need to find someone I trust who does, or I need to find out more myself. And in the case of science those groups who have rejected outright the possibility of scientific knowledge and especially evolution, I find non-credible. (Similarly, I reject some scientific voices for similar reasons. I can't take, say, Seraphim Rose all that seriously in the same way i can't take Richard Dawkins, seriously, within their own areas of expertise or out of them, because they have an untrustworthy paradigm IMO.)

As far as how do we know when they have crossed a line - I suppose it depends on the line you are thinking of. It is fairly simple to see when they have gone outside of the bounds of science and are making claims that are simply unjustified - although it is often required to be careful about media discussions of science which can be inaccurate. But a real, solid scientific claim that seemed to be contradictory to Christianity? i actually find it hard to imagine what that would look like. Proof that we have no soul? I remembering fiirst hearing the theory of alternate realities and wondering if that would be anti-Christian implicitly. I came to the conclusion even if true, it wouldn't be necessarily, because the very basis of our religious belief is that God and his ways are beyond knowing, and we can't exclude the possibility that he put things together in a way that is totally beyond our comprehension.

An historical discovery - say that showed the basic events in the Gospel accounts were somehow impossible or that the way we understand the Church to have functioned was a big lie - would be much more likely to cause problems of that type IMO.

In any case, in actual experience I can't say I have found that to be particularly difficult. When Stephen Hawking says a particular scientific theory leaves no need for God, I find it pretty clear that while his science may be bang on, his theology is shallow and ill-informed.
 
Upvote 0

MKJ

Contributor
Jul 6, 2009
12,260
776
East
✟38,894.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Greens
"The Bible doesn't say that, there are a few verses that some people have interpreted to mean that, like God laying the foundation of the earth... but that isn't exactly saying the same thing as saying the sun revolves around it.

There was also one passage where it speaks of the sun standing still in the sky so that Joshua could win a battle. That is no more a statement of the sun actually moving than it is when the newspaper gives the time of the sunrise. It is just a way of describing how things look to our perspective."
Does the bible state the sun revolves around the earth? - Yahoo! Answers

Maybe you should consider spending less time insulting people you don't know, and more time reading The Bible so that you don't post more misinformation. Just a thought.


Many Church Fathers wrote about a heliocentric universe and it was a factor in their world-view. From a Catholic POV, the writings of the Fathers on such thing have authority, not just Scripture.
 
Upvote 0

Joshua G.

Well-Known Member
Mar 5, 2009
3,288
419
U.S.A.
✟5,328.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
MKJ:

I can see what you are saying. I really do.

I think the scientific community has overstepped their bounds, when they say that evolution of man from a completely different species is indisputable. When I realized that the Scientific Community no longer had room for varying ideas of something that supposedly happened billions of years ago, I realized that something was amiss and I freed myself from them before they could put such shackles on my intellect. I cannot, for the life of me, think of any other motive to press evolution on our minds with such absurd certainty than one that is either of ignorance/carelessness (like when a student turns in an assignment just to have it done so they can move on but didn't bother to look it over) or something more sinister (without the evil laugh or even planned conspiracy).

But, I understand that for the materialist, it makes sense because for them all questions must have a natural answer and the absence of a Supernatural Power would seem to demand a common origin of life or some other purely natural theory for which science has not offered any clue, nor has the 'imagination' of the limited naturalist. They don't have any other choice. To question evolution is to threaten materialism (NOT like questioning creationism which does not threaten the Faith). So, the materialist MUST state that evolution is unquestionable, indisputable and by that they mean that there is no other alternative if one assumes that there is no supernatural cause of life.

Imagine I had a complex connect the dots that you have to connect in order to complete the picture. Next to it you see a bone, a little pet house that says fido. You may very well (and very logically) suspect that somehow those dots are going to form a dog. and so you create a pretty nice looking dog with a funky ear. There's a dot left over and kind of a wide distance between some of the dots but over all it looks like a very logical picture. What if in the end it is actually several images of a lion eating a dog and the bone is from the dog.

Now, that's a terrible picture. But my point is that we come into this puzzle with assumptions built on our logic and our preferences/philosophies. To the evolutionist (theist or atheist), the picture painted by all of this data (dots) is obvious. But what if it is something completely outside of our realm. Remember, this is about the origin of life, which means that the answer does not have to be contained within nature.

It worries me not when I see Catholics or other Christians state that evolution makes the most sense to them. It worries me when they fight almost fervently for it being recognized as an indisptuable fact because it shows an unfounded faith in the Scientific Community. It's fact because science said so? Something that happened supposedly billions of years ago is no known fact? yet many who push this do so because they start with the premise that you and I have been trained to start with... that everything has a natural explanation. But what if it doesn't? They have put the dots together in the BEST way they could to create a dog. It's the best of the best... IF it's a dog. But if what if it's not? Oh, that's right, I wouldn't be using any logic if I denied it because there is a doghouse and bone and collar that says fido... a nd the extra dot? Well, we didnt' claim the picture is FLAWLESS, but we know it's a dog. The Scientiifc Community is not claiming the leading evolutionary philosophy to be flawless, but we know it's evolution.

And in that case, even when a perfect illustration of a lion eating a dog (with no extra dots) is given, people will still insist it's just a dog.

All I am saying is be careful with limiting yourself by what modern science preaches because MODERN science (not real science) can limit our brains from God if it we are convinced it is the end all to knowledge.
 
Upvote 0

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Site Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,909
3,645
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟399,065.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
There is no problem believing Evolution as a theory, as long as we don't exclude God. God could have done it any way he wanted to. I think he breathed a soul into the first man, which is what made him human. None of the rest really matters. He could have chosen two hominoids, given them souls, and moved forward from there.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.