• 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.

Some questions for Christians who accept evolution

Status
Not open for further replies.

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,844
7,867
65
Massachusetts
✟394,573.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I've seen and read about so many problems with the theory that I just can't accept it as being a valid explanation for how things came to be. Unless I get satisfactory answers to questions like those I posed a few posts ago, it will remain a non-theory as far as I am concerned.
Now I'm confused. Are you competent to judge the scientific issues or not? There's really not a lot of point to answering your scientific questions, only to have the answers rejected because you aren't a scientist.
 
Upvote 0

Not_By_Chance

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
May 25, 2015
813
176
71
✟84,806.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Now I'm confused. Are you competent to judge the scientific issues or not? There's really not a lot of point to answering your scientific questions, only to have the answers rejected because you aren't a scientist.
Just put your answers in a way that anyone without specific training in the relevant discipline could understand.
 
Upvote 0

Not_By_Chance

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
May 25, 2015
813
176
71
✟84,806.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
specified complexity
As an example, a language has specified complexity. For instance I could write a sequence of letters like "ewhe daeahttrh tisot yo" and it wouldn't mean anything, but if I rearranged the letters to this, "the weather is hot today" it would have meaning to someone who understands English. The second sequence of letters convey information, but they are not part of it. I could have written the sequence of letters in chalk on a blackboard, but the message would only exist until I wiped the chalk off the board. The chalk would still exist but the message would be lost. Notice also that the message requires knowledge of the code, in this case English, to discipher it. Life contains this type of information and in vast quantities, so where did it come from, except from a mind like the Christian God?
 
Upvote 0

Not_By_Chance

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
May 25, 2015
813
176
71
✟84,806.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
they don't detect design
Maybe that's because they are blind to the obvious. It's interesting to note that if the SETI project had detected a miniscule fraction of the specified complexity of life in one of the radio waves from space, there would have been a huge publicity event declaring they had found evidence of intelligence in outer space and yet when scientists look down their microscopes at the massive complexity of living things they say that no intelligence was necesary to create it. Don't you find that rather odd? Perhaps that's what Jesus was alluding to when He uttered these words,
John 9:39 Jesus said, "For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind." or perhaps this other well-known verse, "Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."
 
Upvote 0

Not_By_Chance

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
May 25, 2015
813
176
71
✟84,806.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
If you have no way of relating to the details, how can you conclude evolution is not true?
Well, for every claim by scientists who propose that the evidence for evolution is everywhere and irrefutable, there are just as many claims by creation scientists that it's not. For instance:-

http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-2-chapter-8-argument-the-fossil-record-supports-evolution

https://creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter7.pdf

http://creation.com/search?q=transitional fossils

http://creation.com/search?q=common descent

Given that I am not a scientist and that I believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, it should be no surprise that I trust the judgements of the bible-believing scientists over those who wish to rule out any possibility of God being involved. In addition, in the absence of any plausible answers to the questions I posed, it's all just a matter of faith. My faith offers hope for the future and tells me that God made humans "in His image" and that we are very special to Him, as is His universe. What does your faith have to offer that mine doesn't?

Psa 147:4 He determines the number of the stars and calls them each by name.
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,792
✟254,941.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Well, for every claim by scientists who propose that the evidence for evolution is everywhere and irrefutable, there are just as many claims by creation scientists that it's not. For instance:-

http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-2-chapter-8-argument-the-fossil-record-supports-evolution

https://creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter7.pdf

http://creation.com/search?q=transitional fossils

http://creation.com/search?q=common descent

Given that I am not a scientist and that I believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, it should be no surprise that I trust the judgements of the bible-believing scientists over those who wish to rule out any possibility of God being involved. In addition, in the absence of any plausible answers to the questions I posed, it's all just a matter of faith. My faith offers hope for the future and tells me that God made humans "in His image" and that we are very special to Him, as is His universe. What does your faith have to offer that mine doesn't?

Psa 147:4 He determines the number of the stars and calls them each by name.

Correct, it is no surprise.
 
Upvote 0

Papias

Listening to TW4
Dec 22, 2005
3,967
988
59
✟64,806.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I don't have time to go into the technical stuff that scientists deal with, but I place my trust in those scientists who start from the standpoint that God did it now let's find out how, rather than those scientists that have decided that no god is necessary as everything got going and organised itself all on its own.

So, then if we look only at the scientists who are Christian, and ignore those who are atheists, Islamic, Hindu, Taoist, etc, and if they overwhelmingly agree on one way that God created, you go with their expert, Christian, position, right?

In His name-

Papias
 
Upvote 0

Givemeareason

Well-Known Member
May 21, 2015
912
94
✟24,148.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
So, then if we look only at the scientists who are Christian, and ignore those who are atheists, Islamic, Hindu, Taoist, etc, and if they overwhelmingly agree on one way that God created, you go with their expert, Christian, position, right?

In His name-

Papias

Thats right. Why even be concerned with the truth? That's called faith.
 
Upvote 0

justlookinla

Regular Member
Mar 31, 2014
11,767
199
✟35,675.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I believe that God was the creator. So do lots of scientists, including evolutionary biologists. I don't see what that has to do with anything. In particular, I don't see what it has to do with the evidence for evolution.

Am I to understand you disagree with those scientists who promote the view that humanity isn't the result of a plan or purpose but is rather simply another randomly created life form?
 
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,844
7,867
65
Massachusetts
✟394,573.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Am I to understand you disagree with those scientists who promote the view that humanity isn't the result of a plan or purpose but is rather simply another randomly created life form?
I believe that God is ultimately in control of the processes that led to humanity. Whether that involved a specific plan to produce humans, and whether it involved randomness, are questions beyond my ken.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bhsmte
Upvote 0

justlookinla

Regular Member
Mar 31, 2014
11,767
199
✟35,675.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I believe that God is ultimately in control of the processes that led to humanity. Whether that involved a specific plan to produce humans, and whether it involved randomness, are questions beyond my ken.

When scripture indicates that man was created in His image, would this not suggest a preconceived plan, prior thought, on the part of God?
 
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,844
7,867
65
Massachusetts
✟394,573.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
When scripture indicates that man was created in His image, would this not suggest a preconceived plan, prior thought, on the part of God?
It might suggest a goal of some sort, but not necessarily one directed specifically at humans.
 
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,844
7,867
65
Massachusetts
✟394,573.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Just put your answers in a way that anyone without specific training in the relevant discipline could understand.
That's exactly what I did in the post about genetic evidence for common descent. You blew it off, saying you weren't a scientist and weren't concerned with the fine details. Either you care about the evidence or you don't. Which is it?
 
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,844
7,867
65
Massachusetts
✟394,573.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
As an example, a language has specified complexity. For instance I could write a sequence of letters like "ewhe daeahttrh tisot yo" and it wouldn't mean anything, but if I rearranged the letters to this, "the weather is hot today" it would have meaning to someone who understands English. The second sequence of letters convey information, but they are not part of it. I could have written the sequence of letters in chalk on a blackboard, but the message would only exist until I wiped the chalk off the board. The chalk would still exist but the message would be lost. Notice also that the message requires knowledge of the code, in this case English, to discipher it. Life contains this type of information and in vast quantities, so where did it come from, except from a mind like the Christian God?
If that's what you mean by specified complexity, then there is none in DNA. There is meaning to DNA sequences and no interpreter -- just chemistry. There is no message that exists apart from the physical molecules.
 
Upvote 0

Not_By_Chance

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
May 25, 2015
813
176
71
✟84,806.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
It might suggest a goal of some sort, but not necessarily one directed specifically at humans.
I think you will find that there is more to it that that, much more.

Look at this verse in Genesis, "
Genesis 1:26 Then God said, "Let us make human beings in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

Notice that God is saying in "our" image. Who is God talking to? Let's have a look at what a world-renowned Bible Scholar Henry Morris has to say about this.

"A most intriguing picture appears in the opening verse of this section. Whereas previous acts of God have followed immediately the phrase 'And God said, Let there be...,' in this verse God speaks, as it were, to Himself: 'And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.'

He was not speaking to the angels, because man was not going to be made in likeness of angels but in the likeness of God. Thus God could only have been speaking to Himself; one member of the uni-plural Godhead was addressing another member or members.

This fascinating type of exchange within the Godhead appears in a number of other places in the Old Testament (e.g., Psalm 2:7; Isaiah 48:16; Psalm 45:7; Psalm 110:1). Similarly, in the New Testament, such fellowship between Christ (before His human birth) and the Father is noted in such passages as Matthew 11:27; John 8:42; John 17:24 and others).

The divine councils centering on man had first taken place long before the beginning of time (whatever is involved in the concept of 'before time'). The Lamb had, in the determination of these councils, been slain before the foundation of the world; the names of the redeemed had been written in His book of life before the foundation of the world; and God had called those who were to be saved by His grace, before the world began (1 Peter 1:20; Revelation 17:8; II Timothy 1:9).

On this sixth day, another such council took place and the ancient plan was now formally anounced, recorded and impemented. The highest, most complex of all creatures was to be made by God and then was to be given dominion over all the rest - all the animals of the sea, air and land. Man's body would be formed in the same way as the bodies of the animals had been formed (Genesis 1:24; 2:7). Similarly, man would have the 'breath of life' like animals (Genesis 2:7 ; 7:22) and even have the 'living soul' like animals (Genesis 1:24; 2:7). Thus, though man's structure, both physical and mental, would be far more complex than that of the animals, it would be of the same basic essence; therefore God proposed to "make [Hebrew asah] man in our image."

And yet man was to be more than simply a very complex and highly-organized animal. There was to be something in man which was not only quantitively greater, but qualitively distinctive, something not possessed in any degree by the animals.

Man was to be in the image and likeness of God Himself. Therefore he was also 'created' (bara) in God's image. He was both made and created in the image of God.

This is a profound and mysterious truth, impossible to fully comprehend; therefore it is not surprising that there has been much difference of opinion over its meaning."

More on this later.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Chriliman
Upvote 0

Not_By_Chance

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
May 25, 2015
813
176
71
✟84,806.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
If that's what you mean by specified complexity, then there is none in DNA. There is meaning to DNA sequences and no interpreter -- just chemistry. There is no message that exists apart from the physical molecules.
That's not what I've been told!
 
Upvote 0

Not_By_Chance

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
May 25, 2015
813
176
71
✟84,806.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
That's exactly what I did in the post about genetic evidence for common descent. You blew it off, saying you weren't a scientist and weren't concerned with the fine details. Either you care about the evidence or you don't. Which is it?
I've already provided links to show that there is just as much difference of opinion about your common descent thingy i.e., whether it's real or imagined (depending on whether you take evolution or special creation as your starting point). So no answers to my questions - that's what I thought.
 
Upvote 0

Chriliman

Everything I need to be joyful is right here
May 22, 2015
5,895
569
✟173,201.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
The answer to the debate regarding evolution and creation can be answered with a simple thought experiment based on whether or not science has created artificial life. So how many of you believe science has created artificial life?

Source
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...tional-designer-chromosome-synthetic-biology/

For the sake of this thought experiment lets say its true that science has created artificial life:

If this is true, then given enough time(billions of years) this artificial life would evolve into self aware beings. If we imagine humans still being around when they do, we can imagine humans would want to demonstrate the truth that humans created these beings.

The beings would still have to "believe" that humans created them. The only way they wouldn't have to believe this is if they experienced their creation, thus knowing the truth about their creation. Since they didn't experience their creation, some of these beings could still choose to believe they were not created, but rather exist from purely random unexplainable natural events. So we would have beings that believe they were created and beings that believe they were not created, of the two, which would be closer to the truth?

So two possible unalterable truths come from this thought experiment:

1. This artificial life that science has created will never evolve to become self aware.

2. Life in general did not evolve to become self aware, but rather was created to "evolve" and become self aware. Self awareness being the purpose of creation.

Of the two unalterable truths, which do you believe?

I believe both to be true.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,844
7,867
65
Massachusetts
✟394,573.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I think you will find that there is more to it that that, much more.

Look at this verse in Genesis, "
Genesis 1:26 Then God said, "Let us make human beings in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

Notice that God is saying in "our" image. Who is God talking to? Let's have a look at what a world-renowned Bible Scholar Henry Morris
Sorry, but I stopped reading at this point. Henry Morris, Bible scholar? Seriously?
 
  • Like
Reactions: HitchSlap
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.