Understanding Evolution [moved from P&LS]

[miamited]

Good morning SZ,

God is good all the time.

Let's see, you responded:

Let's say you have two acquaintances. One tells the truth half of the time. He tells you that he just bought a new car. Odds are that with his history you are not going to believe him without some further evidence. The other lies all of the time, he too claims that he just bought a new car after hearing the claim of the other. Since this person has a notoriously bad reputation you will probably believe that he is lying. The Bible simply is not accurate enough to merit belief.

I doubt that you are able to discern this, but your little homily says nothing as to whether 'god' is the same as 'supreme being'. It addresses, in some convoluted way, belief, although I honestly can't see how it makes any makes any point in regard to the definitions that have been posted and what they say about belief. It does tell me that there is a difference in lying all the time and lying occasionally, although I knew that already. Then closes by telling me that you don't believe the bible accurate enough to merit belief, which isn't the issue being discussed. We are discussing what the word 'atheist' means.

This all started when I made the statement that I wasn't going to accept understanding of God from anyone who doesn't believe that God exists. You responded that no one was making such a claim. I pointed out that you identified as an atheist and that by definition you then didn't believe that God exists. You have argued, ad infinitum I might add, that's not what being an atheist is. I brought forth a number of dictionary definitions to show that it is the generally accepted definition of the word. You made a big deal that how the definitions use the words 'believe' and 'God' and 'supreme being', that my understanding of the definition is wrong. Now, you're telling me cute little homilies and making the claim that the bible can't be trusted to be true. Question: What does any of that have to do with whether or not someone who identifies themselves as an atheist does or doesn't believe that God exists?

Honestly, you seem confused and unable to stay on point. You chase through rabbit holes like Alice in wonderland and wind up at the end of nowhere. Then you expect me to believe that what you believe to be the truth, really is. Friend, I know the truth. That point isn't even arguable.

Then you responded:

That is fine. But your position on evolution has been shown to be wrong. So why do you still not accept it?

Well, that seems to be the point of the thread. No, my position on evolution has not been shown to be wrong. I have already explained, in fact it was the purpose of my first post, why I don't accept it. I don't think I need to write it all out again to someone who can't even understand that words do have fixed definitions. How will you ever understand anything? If you're really interested in the answer to your question as to why I still do not accept evolution as being the answer to how man got to January 2017, go back and read my initial post.

Then you make some silly, nonsensical rant about dictionaries often being wrong. That this one must have been written by an 'ignorant christian'. I will allow, however, that I likely wrote in error that I would not accept a 'definition' of christianity from a muslim. I really meant by that, that I wouldn't accept their understanding of being a christian or what christianity was all about. If the muslim pulled out a dictionary and read it and said that's what the definition of 'christian' is, I would accept that. Yes, you got me, I'm a hypocrite.

So what? Dictionaries are not perfect. They quite often have flaws. That is a terribly wrong definition. It was clearly written by an ignorant Christian. Again, would you let accept a definition from an ignorant Muslim on Christianity? Oh wait, you already said that you wouldn't. Now you have just shown your hypocrisy. People that do not share a belief are in no position to define it. You can see that when it affects you, but you can't see it when it affects others.

Finally, no, I don't hold the bible as an idol. I just believe that it contains the only truth about the origins of this realm. The only truth that I can know that I know about God and His purpose in creating this realm. Beyond that, they're just words printed on a page of paper. I don't have my bible on a special altar in my home. It just sits with several other books that I have. I have one or two really trashy looking ones that I've misused and abused through both neglect and use.

Anyway, I think we've likely beaten the last breath out of this horse. Suffice to say that I don't agree with you that evolution is how anything in this world, as far as living creatures, came to exist. Yes, automobiles have evolved from big clunky mammoths of steel and chrome to smaller and more stylish machines of plastic and steel.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Are you denying that Africans have larger noses?
Are you denying that Inuits tend to be chubby?
How about Penguins? Do you deny that they are uniquely adapted for their environment?
Adaptation is part of life and nobody denies it.
That doesn't prove we share ancestors with daffodils.

Adaption IS evolution, Einstein.
As a species/population, you either adapt and survive or you get outcompeted and extinct.

And in case you had already forgotten, I was responding to your claim that "beneficial increase of information" does not occur. Clearly, it does occur.

And no, that doesn't prove we share ancesotrs with daffodils. We have our collective genomes and the nested hierarchical pattern to prove that, though.

Wow! Magic? Last Thursdayism?
How about an original argument?

If you wish to receive more intelligent responses, you perhaps should first make more intelligent statements.

As a creationist, you indeed allow for magic to be within the realm of possibilities.
I merely responded with that in mind.... Yes, if you allow for the impossible to happen anyway, then literally anything you can imagine becomes "possible" - including the impossible....

You haven't said anything i haven't heard from a hundred evolutionists over the last 20 years.

Wow. Clearly you have learned nothing then, over those 20 years......

You DO realize that you're in a Christian forum where people actually do believe the word of God, right?

You DO realize that the vast majority of christians has no problems with the mainstream consensus of evolution theory, right?

God's miracles aren't magic

Using different words doesn't make its nature any different.
At bottom, these "supernatural miracles" are indistinguishable from "magic" in both their nature as well as by their very definition.

Magic: the violation or suspension of natural laws.
Supernatural miracles: the violation or suspension of natural laws.

Raising the dead isn't exactly a card trick

Yeah... I'm not talking about Penn & Teller "magic".
I'm talking about Harry Potter "magic".

You can disagree with the Bible all you want but teaching contrary to the Scripture is considered false teaching.

The vast majority of christians doesn't consider scripture to be teaching YECism.
So they'ld say you are the one engaging in the "false teachings".

You might want to learn something about the Lord before you continue disparaging His creation and His word.

Regardless of my efforts or lack thereof to burry myself in a bronze age religion, the facts of reality are what they are - and they trump bronze age stories any day of the week.

 

[expos4ever]

While I respect the time and effort that some here have put into defending the theory of evolution, I wish to express the view that I think you will never make any progress with the "true believers" - those whose very sense of personal identity is inextricably bound up with denying evolution. As respected academic Steven Pinker, and many others no doubt, have pointed out, the issue here is not scientific literacy or a legitimate disagreement over the content of the theory; it is instead "tribal identity" - those who deny evolution are invariably religious fundamentalists who see themselves as part of a "tribe" whose membership is marked out, among other things, by denying evolution.

And human beings - all of us - will go to extravagant, and often wildly irrational, ends to preserve our tribal memberships.

So I think a strategy is needed that enables the evolution-denier to walk toward the light without feeling like they have lost their sense of "who I am".

On a personal note: about 35 years, I, as a new Christian felt the lure of adopting the standard creationist position, even though I was (am) possessed of a strong respect for the scientific method and had benefited from a top-notch education. How could I be a member of my "tribe" (evangelical Christian) without adopting one of the standard identity markers - young earth creationism / denial of evolution?

In the end, I chose very deliberately to become aware of, and resist, the powerfully seductive siren song of tribalism. And so I now accept the scientific consensus on this matter.

A little qualification: I really never fully freed myself from the shackles of tribalism - I think that is basically impossible. Instead, and this is perhaps my most important point, I chose to join the "tribe" whose identity marker is rational, clear, evidence-based thinking. And I found what I consider to be an intellectually defensible way to claim membership in the "Christian" tribe as well.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

False.
cre·a·tion sci·ence
noun

1. the interpretation of scientific knowledge in accord with belief in the literal truth of the Bible, especially regarding the creation of matter, life, and humankind in six days.

The bolded part is what makes it unscientific.

Not at all.
Angels and demons exist in the real world. The Bible does a pretty good job explaining them.
Sometimes spirits of the dead are brought into the "real world" (ie Samuel) and Creationism does a pretty good job of explaining why.
Humans instinctively know good from evil. They have a conscience. Scripture tells us that it's because of Adam's sin that we know good from evil and are responsible for our choices.

Repeating claims does not make them true.

With evolution there is no good or evil, only survival of the most fit.

Evolution theory is only an explanation for the diversity of living things. It has nothing to do with how to organize a society.

The Scriptures do a very good job of why we still see miracles happen today.

What miracles?

The physical sciences cannot account for miracles whatever.

They can't account for undetectable unicorns either, nore do they need to.

The reality is that nothing in biology would be any different using the model of rapid adaptation post-flood that claiming molecules-to-man

LOL!

Evolution takes what is known and pushes it to an unprovable theory of origins which, like any other false religion, leads people to dismiss the word of God and embrace the theories of man.

Ken Miller and Francis Collins, 2 christian biologists, disagree with you. And along with them thousands of others.

Why is it that so many of you make the same lame argument that disagreeing with evolution means disagreeing with all of science?

Ow that's an easy one... it's not what people say. You've been engaging in selective reading again.

It's not the mere rejection of evolution that means you should be disagreeing with all of science. The reason why you should reject all of science (if you wish to be consistent, that is), is because of the underlying reasons you give for rejecting evolution.

The objections YECs tend to give for why the reject mainstream biology, are objections that would apply, completely unchanged, to any theory in science.

Because the typical objection to evolution is not about the model itself, it's about the method by which the model was concluded and the method by which it can be tested.

And that same method is used to develop all theories of the natural sciences.

It makes your argument look foolish.

Only because you don't seem to comprehend it.

 

[miamited]

Hi dave,

You responded to me:

however, your statement "he merely spoke and things that were not, became" for the atheist this is just ludicrous.

I do appreciate and understand that. However, something sounding ludicrous to someone, while I'd certainly say whatever it is deserves more careful looking into, doesn't have any bearing on the truth. As I have pointed out, and yes, I know that you aren't going to agree because of the source material, but God's word has already warned me that the things of God are foolishness to those who are perishing. So, hopefully you can also appreciate and understand my position.

As I explained to others previously, I was once much like you, although I've always made a claim to 'be' a christian, I wasn't born again and, therefore, did not have access to the one who convicts an individual of the truth. I believed that mankind evolved and likely pretty much the way science explains to us that man has. But then I was born again. My entire worldview changed. My understanding of God and who He is and what He has done and His purpose in creating this realm all changed.

So, I understand what it's like to not believe the truth of the Scriptures. I also understand that, according to Jesus, most people aren't ever going to understand the things of God aright. I understand that because I believe that Jesus is the Son of the living God and that he came to us for the purpose of giving testimony to who God, his Father, is. As a part of that testimony he spoke of there being only two paths that each individual can take through this life. One is broad and many take that way. They live the life that their Creator has given them and they squander it just as the parable of the wayward son explains that he did. Oh, they don't know that they're squandering it. Just as the wayward son, they are living good in the neighborhood. Got good jobs and make good money and are honestly pretty satisfied with their lives on the whole. Have some friends and begin a family and are satisfied with these things. They aren't wicked, mean, spiteful people at all. They're just people living life. Enjoying all that life has to offer them.

The other way is narrow, and according to Jesus, few there be that find it. It is a life of love and adoration and understanding of what really matters in this life. Understanding that a loving Creator made all of this and desires to know each one of us and live with us for all eternity. Understanding that it is because He exists that we exist. That this existence didn't come about by a bunch of possible connections of the natural properties of the elements of this realm. They understand that this realm exists because of the careful planning and detail of one who created it all and will someday call each one of us to account.

For the first group of people. Well, they just go on living their lives and enjoying the bounty of the earth until one day... They don't even have a clue that such a day is coming. Most of them consider themselves to be biological entities which upon death cease to exist forever and that will be the end of it. But the Scriptures detail a very different future for all mankind. That all men will be raised up from death and face the judgment of their Creator. They will then be rewarded with an eternal existence commiserate with what they worked for in this life.

For me, this wake up call from God came about when I began to investigate the many prophecies of the Scriptures. Unlike some who find that they were not always precisely fulfilled, I found the opposite. I found that not only were they fulfilled pretty much exactly as the Scriptures foretold that they would be, but that some of them were most amazing in the amount of time that passed between the giving of the prophecy and the fulfilling of the prophecy that absolutely convinced me that there is a God and He does know the end from the beginning.

Specifically the prophecy found in the writings of Daniel chapter 9. For me, that prophecy is amazing in it's detail and in the fact that Daniel had no idea that any of the things foretold would ever come to pass. He didn't even know that there would be the event that started the clock ticking on the prophecy. It was yet another 50-100 years before the decree would be issued to rebuild and restore Jerusalem. Friend, that would be like you being told in 1940 that in 2017 a man by the name of Donald Trump would be elected President of the United States. Then, from the starting of that ticking clock, Daniel was given insight into a very specific period of time in which a couple of things would happen. The entire fulfillment of that prophecy was to take several hundred years, but precisely as everything was laid out to Daniel, everything came to be. For me, no man has that ability of prophecy. Only a God who loves what He has created would be able to tell the times of unfolding events so precisely and of things that are so important to what man needs to understand about this life that we have been given to live.
For me, only a Creator who made all things to be and cares about mankind that He has made, would be able to tell someone so accurately of unfolding events in the future.

From there, I was on my knees beseeching God to forgive me, just as the prodigal son pleaded to his father to forgive him for squandering away the precious life that he had been given. Asking Him to take me in. I then spent a number of hours in prayer over the next few weeks and months continually asking that God would give me wisdom and discernment of the truth through His Holy Spirit. The one who Jesus promised would lead those who were born again into all truth. God has answered that prayer.

Now, I fully understand that you don't believe that or agree with my source of truth. All I can tell you is that such a position is not unexpected and is, according to the Scriptures, the default position of mankind overall. But it doesn't have to be.

When God gave unto Israel the law, He said to them, "Heaven and earth are witnesses to you that I have set before you this day the way of life and the way of death...choose life! God has done the same thing for each of us. He has set forth, through His Scriptures, the way of life and the way of death. Each one is free to choose which way he wants to go.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

 

[KWCrazy]

Creation science does not exist.

Wow! Somebody needs to alert them. They may not know themselves.

I know this because I've been trying to get creationists, including professional creationist organizations, to explain genetic data for the last fifteen years.

I know the feeling. I've tried to get TE's to validate their claims with Scripture for 20 years.
True or false; two animals that looked identical and lived in similar climates would be expected to have similar DNA.
Since DNA codes physical characteristics, there should be genetic commonalities between the two; maybe not a perfect match, but at least close. So you can see a relationship between them that indicates common ancestry. If their common ancestor was in an ark 4,500 years ago or at an oyster bar in Tahiti 4,500 years ago, there wouldn't be a significant difference. There is where science and belief in creation split.
This earth was created as a temporary home for man. Like any living environment, it had to provide for the basic needs of life from the beginning, which is why it was made as a mature planet. God in His great wisdom even created resources like oil, which man would need centuries later. If you can't accept that, then you will never understand creation.

As for data, depending on how you are trained/ taught/ indoctrinated you will look at the same things differently. That doesn't change the data, it changes the conclusion.

I have never seen anyone make that "lame argument". I certainly haven't made it.

Oh, I'm sure you wouldn't have to look very hard to see someone claiming that if you reject evolution you shouldn't be using a computer etc. It's a common reduction to the ridiculous. Belief in evolution didn't get us to the moon. Understanding physics did.

 

[TBDude65]

Hi dude,

No, my understanding of the scientific theory of evolution is from the works of science. What I believe to be the truth is God's word.

Those who belong to the Lord can make bold claims. They know the truth.

You claim to be an atheist. Friend, God's word says that it is a fool who says in his heart that there is no God. Now, you can believe that or not, but that is what God says about you. You are a fool according to God. Now, you want to carry on a discussion about evolution, but I agree with God.

So, let's start this discussion with you understanding that I believe that God has told me the truth about you.

Have you ever studied the Scriptures? I was once like you. I believed in evolution. It's what most school districts teach these days so it's hard to get out of high school without having some knowledge about the science. However, at the age of forty, I was born again. Born of the Spirit of the living God. My entire worldview changed. Yes, I've kept abreast of a lot of the 'new and improved' scientific findings regarding evolution, but unfortunately, God already has my heart and has given me some of the wisdom, knowledge and discernment that is his to give.

Jesus said that it is the Holy Spirits job to lead those who are his into 'all' truth. You believe that you know the truth without the aid of the Holy Spirit.

Friend, if you ever decide to really study the Scriptures, you'll find out some very amazing things about God and what He has created and His purpose in creating.

The Scriptures start out explaining that God created this realm. He merely spoke and things that were not, became. Now, let me encourage you, if you are so inclined to really know the truth or would even just entertain ideas that oppose your own, to read Chapter one in Genesis and then turn all the way to the back of the Scriptures to chapter 21 in the Revelation. Merely ten minutes of reading for most people. Surely you wouldn't begrudge an old man ten minutes of your precious lifetime.

Genesis 1 tells us that God created all things in this realm and Revelation 21 tells us why God created all things in this realm. Between those two pieces of Scripture is life upon the earth and all that God has done to make Himself known to you so that you will be a part of God's ultimate purpose.

The Scriptures tell us that God raised up a man by the name of Abraham, through whom He would raise up a nation of people who would do His bidding upon the earth. Yes, they failed miserably and often, but they were mere humans in the hand of a loving God and despite their often failing, they did accomplish God's task for them. They brought into the world the Scriptures. Paul confirms this for us in his letter to the Romans. He begins chapter 3 in telling us that the greatest value in being a Jew was that they were entrusted with the very words of God.

Throughout those same Scriptures can be found a plethora of prophecies, but the most important are the ones that speak about a Savior or Messiah to come. Someone that God is going to send, whose death would atone for our personal sins. The first and greatest law that we all break is the one about loving God with all that we are.

You, friend, have broken that law. I have also. However, God's justice says that if we will repent of our sin and turn back to Him, then we can be a part of those who God is speaking to in Revelation chapter 21.

However, God has also been quite clear that the things of God are foolishness to those who are perishing. How does all that I've written above sound to you?

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

"No, my understanding of the scientific theory of evolution is from the works of science."

Then perhaps my question about sources were unclear. What "works of science" are you drawing from for your understanding of evolution?

"What I believe to be the truth is God's word."

I believe you believe that, but I wonder why some christians accept evolution (and other scientific ideas) along with "god's word" but others don't. It appears that for some, evolution is incompatible with their religion but for others there is essentially no conflict between their religious worldview and the science.

"You claim to be an atheist."

I am an atheist. You can take my word for it instead of assuming it is simply a claim.

"Friend, God's word says that it is a fool who says in his heart that there is no God. Now, you can believe that or not, but that is what God says about you. You are a fool according to God. Now, you want to carry on a discussion about evolution, but I agree with God."

I am a former christian, so I have a pretty good idea about what the bible says. But I do wonder, did god write the bible or did man? Considering that it is the latter, how do you know that the word's within it are an accurate reflection of god's will and not of man's will?

What I am getting at is that when you say that you "agree with god," I don't know what you really mean. Do you agree with the bible (written by man)? Do you agree with what you think god is telling you inside your own head? Both? How does one determine that the "truth" they are agreeing with from the bible or their own internal dialogue is accurate?

This ultimately gets at this statement you made: "Those who belong to the Lord can make bold claims. They know the truth." You make bold claims but the only way you've back them up so far is to say that you "know" they are correct. But how do you know that? How have you attained this knowledge of absolute truth? How do you know it is true?

"Have you ever studied the Scriptures? I was once like you. I believed in evolution. It's what most school districts teach these days so it's hard to get out of high school without having some knowledge about the science."

Couple of things before we go further:
1) I am a former christian and was once like you, but I don't imagine that provides any qualification to my arguments nor does it add any qualification to yours that you once "believed in evolution" because I don't know if that means that you accurately understood it or if you did not.
2) Not all schools at the K-12 level teach evolution. In fact, growing up in Tennessee I didn't learn about evolution until college. A lot of rural schools probably don't teach evolution or only minimally at a passing glance.

"However, at the age of forty, I was born again. Born of the Spirit of the living God. My entire worldview changed. Yes, I've kept abreast of a lot of the 'new and improved' scientific findings regarding evolution, but unfortunately, God already has my heart and has given me some of the wisdom, knowledge and discernment that is his to give."

So you believe your knowledge to be an infallible gift from your god?

"Jesus said that it is the Holy Spirits job to lead those who are his into 'all' truth. You believe that you know the truth without the aid of the Holy Spirit."

You're making a very broad assumption about me. I have not made claims to know absolute truths about the universe, you have. What I know to be true are things I can independently verify for myself through a study of the natural world around me. I try not to assume truths based on what I want to be true or not be true. I always assume I could be wrong, but I will ask how and why I am wrong in order to learn and adapt.

"Friend, if you ever decide to really study the Scriptures, you'll find out some very amazing things about God and what He has created and His purpose in creating."

Once again you make an assumption and your assumption isn't true. I have studied the scriptures as a christian. Try and stick with what you know about me instead of making broad generalizations, or stick to the subject of the thread.

"The Scriptures start out explaining that God created this realm."

Actually, I am going to leave the rest of your post alone because it's not really of interest to me. I know what religious people believe with respect to the religion (been there, done that), what I am interested in are the intersections between science and what the religious see as contradictions (and/or incompatibilities) between their religion and science.

 

[TBDude65]

#1 Understand and believe the entire thing. It does not conflict with God as a Creator, because evolution only tells us the "how" God works a few of His wonders. Even then, our understanding of it extremely poor.

#2 Scientific peer reviewed journals. This is the current top-notch scientific understanding, which has much still to learn (which is acknowledged in journals).

The theory of evolution does indeed not deal with the origin of life, but it also does not invoke supernature as a guiding process (you didn't explicitly say it does, I am just stating another component). I am always happy to see religious people who can accept science instead of rejecting it because they don't see it as compatible with their religion.

 

[miamited]

Hello again Dave,

If I may also take a moment to address another part of your response to me. You responded:

Many Christians believe in God and accept evolution, I personally know of at least three Christians who accept evolution and believe the bible is not to be taken literally, it's a guide as to how a relationship with God should work but is not the story of creation.

Yes, you're right about there being many 'christians' who believe in God and accept evolution. However, I think the Scriptures are clear that just believing in God isn't of much value as regards the salvation that He holds out to mankind. The Scriptures tell us that even Satan believes 'in' God. He knows that God exists. He has stood before God face to face so to speak. Even Satan would haughtily laugh at your belief that there is no God, but he supports your understanding completely.

Our battle is not against flesh and blood. Even though you don't agree with me, your battle isn't really with me. It's actually against unseen forces and principalities. Creatures that you can't even begin to comprehend as to their whereabouts and power over you. Just for a good laugh, I'd encourage you to read 'This Present Darkness' or 'This Piercing Darkness'. They are both written by Frank Peretti. Now, I'm not going to say that he's right about all that he understands, but his picture of how the realm of God in which the angels live and our realm being overlapped does seem to be in line with what the Scriptures teach. These two books show us a possible way in which the spiritual forces of darkness and the spiritual forces of righteousness interact with one another seemingly all around us all the time, but we can't see it. Just as you and I can't actually see the force of gravity, we know it's there. You don't see it and you don't know that it's happening, but the Scriptures describe to us that it is here and it is happening.

Satan, one of the most powerful and beautiful angels that God created when He created the angelic realm, also turned against God, and, according to the Scriptures, is prowling around like a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour. But we can't any of us see this actually going on around us. The Scriptures tell us that Satan has been cast down to the earth. The Scriptures tell us that he does have dominion over the earth. At one point Jesus spoke to a gathering of Jews and explained to them that their father was Satan.

Now, yes, I fully understand that you're not going to agree with any of this and I don't blame you. Most people don't. Most people believe that man is the top of the pinnacle of evolutionary biology and that the only wisdom to be known is the wisdom of man. And Satan laughs all the way to the bank.

But, Jesus said that there would be a few who would find their way around and through what 'most' people believe and who 'most' people follow. You and I simply live with different understandings of the universe and its cause and purpose.

However, the point for which I wanted to address your post that there are many 'christians' who believe that there is a God and believe in the idea of evolutionary thought as to the answer for how we got to January 2017 is what Jesus said to his disciples in one of his last discussions with them. He told them that on the day of his Father's judgment, there would be many who would come forth crying out, "Lord. Lord. Did we not do great things in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name and in your name perform great miracles?" Jesus says that he is going to turn to them and command that they depart from him, you workers of iniquity.

'Workers of iniquity'. These people are obviously people that we upon the earth called 'christians' as they lived out their lives among us. They obviously thought of themselves as 'christians'. After all, I doubt that you could name me one person alive today or throughout all of history that did such things as Jesus describes to us, in the name of Jesus, that wasn't believed to be a 'christian'. They obviously then, by definition, believed in Jesus and God. They obviously had read the Scriptures and thought that they understood them. However, Jesus calls them 'workers' of iniquity.

It would seem that while knowing all that they knew and identifying themselves as 'christians', their work was iniquity to God. Let's suppose, just for the sake of argument for a moment, that the 'how' and 'when' of God creating this realm is really exactly 'how' and 'when' God did it. Wouldn't those who claim to be His, but teach against what God has said, be workers of iniquity? Just something to ponder if you are so inclined.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

 

[Subduction Zone]

Good morning SZ,

God is good all the time.

Let's see, you responded:


I doubt that you are able to discern this, but your little homily says nothing as to whether 'god' is the same as 'supreme being'. It addresses, in some convoluted way, belief, although I honestly can't see how it makes any makes any point in regard to the definitions that have been posted and what they say about belief. It does tell me that there is a difference in lying all the time and lying occasionally, although I knew that already. Then closes by telling me that you don't believe the bible accurate enough to merit belief, which isn't the issue being discussed. We are discussing what the word 'atheist' means.

First, you really should not use words that you do not understand. There was nothing religious about my post. I was trying to avoid the pitfalls of religion by using the most generic term possible. Yes, I did not specifically use "God" because there are many types of gods, I lack a belief in all of them. We are rather similar in that regard. You lack a belief in all but one of them, or if I were a Muslim, you lack a belief in all but three of them. I was trying to educate you on what sort of atheist I am. Now there those atheists that will declare positively that there are no gods and cannot be any gods. I don't go that far. In fact I am open to being convinced. All it takes is evidence. Sadly that is another concept that no creationist that I have ever met understands. Evidence are not just facts, they are a special category of facts. Evidence supports only one side of an argument. If a fact can be used to argue that a person is both innocent and guilty then in a court of law that is not "evidence" nor is it anywhere else. But to get back on track your source that you did not seem to understand listed two types of atheists. Those that simply lacked a belief. Just as you would lack a belief in your neighbor that was at least sometimes honest, until he drove up in his new car. And a belief that a person is wrong, as your other neighbor that lies all the time.

It was a simple analogy. But then I keep forgetting that creationists do not understand analogies.

This all started when I made the statement that I wasn't going to accept understanding of God from anyone who doesn't believe that God exists. You responded that no one was making such a claim. I pointed out that you identified as an atheist and that by definition you then didn't believe that God exists. You have argued, ad infinitum I might add, that's not what being an atheist is. I brought forth a number of dictionary definitions to show that it is the generally accepted definition of the word. You made a big deal that how the definitions use the words 'believe' and 'God' and 'supreme being', that my understanding of the definition is wrong. Now, you're telling me cute little homilies and making the claim that the bible can't be trusted to be true. Question: What does any of that have to do with whether or not someone who identifies themselves as an atheist does or doesn't believe that God exists?

Actually your statement was something on the order of "someone that avows that God does not exist". Again you need to be accurate. You implied a belief that was not true. And then you did make the mistake of using dictionaries and using them sometimes dishonestly by editing the definition, at least in one case, that showed your claim to be wrong. Now if you did not understand the proper thing to do is to ask questions politely. Not to plow on as if you had made some point that you had not.

Would you care to try again?

Honestly, you seem confused and unable to stay on point. You chase through rabbit holes like Alice in wonderland and wind up at the end of nowhere. Then you expect me to believe that what you believe to be the truth, really is. Friend, I know the truth. That point isn't even arguable.

Don't blame me, I am merely following you wherever you go. And no, you don't "know the truth". You don't even seem to understand what the word "know" means. All that you have is belief. Knowledge is demonstrable and you cannot demonstrate that your God is real. You can state over and over again what you believe, but if you can't support your belief with reliable verifiable evidence all that have is belief.

Then you responded:


Well, that seems to be the point of the thread. No, my position on evolution has not been shown to be wrong. I have already explained, in fact it was the purpose of my first post, why I don't accept it. I don't think I need to write it all out again to someone who can't even understand that words do have fixed definitions. How will you ever understand anything? If you're really interested in the answer to your question as to why I still do not accept evolution as being the answer to how man got to January 2017, go back and read my initial post.

Of course it has. You merely did not understand. Why not bring up your points one at a time so that we can go over them in depth. These long posts that you tend to write go all over the place.

Then you make some silly, nonsensical rant about dictionaries often being wrong. That this one must have been written by an 'ignorant christian'. I will allow, however, that I likely wrote in error that I would not accept a 'definition' of christianity from a muslim. I really meant by that, that I wouldn't accept their understanding of being a christian or what christianity was all about. If the muslim pulled out a dictionary and read it and said that's what the definition of 'christian' is, I would accept that. Yes, you got me, I'm a hypocrite.

You can't be this ignorant. Dictionaries are often wrong, or to be more precise, they are often used incorrectly. For example the dictionary definition of "theory" is simply wrong to use in a debate on science. When scientists use the word "theory" they are speaking of an idea that explains a wide variety of events that is well supported by evidence and has been tested and confirmed many times. And yes, the one definition that you sited was plain wrong. It only described one sort of atheist. Here is an analogy again, in your religion there are many sects. If someone wrote a dictionary definition based upon the beliefs of the Seventh Day Adventists and said "that is what a Christian is" would you agree to that? Does that mean that you have to observe Saturday as the Sabbath starting at sundown on Friday and going to sundown on Saturday? That is what the one definition did. Atheism is a broad category, just as Christianity is a broad category. It is wrong to define either one by only a small segment of those categories.

My objection to your error was hardly silly or nonsensical when you ended up admitting that you would not let a Muslim do the same thing.

Finally, no, I don't hold the bible as an idol. I just believe that it contains the only truth about the origins of this realm. The only truth that I can know that I know about God and His purpose in creating this realm. Beyond that, they're just words printed on a page of paper. I don't have my bible on a special altar in my home. It just sits with several other books that I have. I have one or two really trashy looking ones that I've misused and abused through both neglect and use.

You just contradicted yourself by claiming it has the only "truth about the origins of this realm". When it is shown to be wrong in some of the stories it tells you stick blindly to it. That is giving the Bible authority that it does not have. That is treating it as a false idol.

Anyway, I think we've likely beaten the last breath out of this horse. Suffice to say that I don't agree with you that evolution is how anything in this world, as far as living creatures, came to exist. Yes, automobiles have evolved from big clunky mammoths of steel and chrome to smaller and more stylish machines of plastic and steel.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

Cars did not evolve in the same sense that life did at all. That is a poor analogy. Cars do not have the nested hierarchy that life has. That you do not understand evolution is obvious. Whether your lack of understanding is due to a lack of education or whether it is due to a defense mechanism to protect your biblical beliefs I can't really tell. If you tried you could learn why we know, and don't merely believe, that life is the product of evolution. In fact the evidence for it is so strong that as a Christian you are left with believing in evolution or believing in a God that lied to you as a result. Please note, the fact that life is the product of evolution and not some magical creation does not mean that the Christian God does not exist. There are many Christians that accept the fact of evolution. Perhaps most of them do in the world as a whole.

 

[TBDude65]

While I respect the time and effort that some here have put into defending the theory of evolution, I wish to express the view that I think you will never make any progress with the "true believers" - those whose very sense of personal identity is inextricably bound up with denying evolution. As respected academic Steven Pinker, and many others no doubt, have pointed out, the issue here is not scientific literacy or a legitimate disagreement over the content of the theory; it is instead "tribal identity" - those who deny evolution are invariably religious fundamentalists who see themselves as part of a "tribe" whose membership is marked out, among other things, by denying evolution.

And human beings - all of us - will go to extravagant, and often wildly irrational, ends to preserve our tribal memberships.

So I think a strategy is needed that enables the evolution-denier to walk toward the light without feeling like they have lost their sense of "who I am".

On a personal note: about 35 years, I, as a new Christian felt the lure of adopting the standard creationist position, even though I was (am) possessed of a strong respect for the scientific method and had benefited from a top-notch education. How could I be a member of my "tribe" (evangelical Christian) without adopting one of the standard identity markers - young earth creationism / denial of evolution?

In the end, I chose very deliberately to become aware of, and resist, the powerfully seductive siren song of tribalism. And so I now accept the scientific consensus on this matter.

A little qualification: I really never fully freed myself from the shackles of tribalism - I think that is basically impossible. Instead, and this is perhaps my most important point, I chose to join the "tribe" whose identity marker is rational, clear, evidence-based thinking. And I found what I consider to be an intellectually defensible way to claim membership in the "Christian" tribe as well.

"I wish to express the view that I think you will never make any progress with the "true believers""

Depends on your definition of progress. If by progress you mean to change their mind so that they accept evolution, then you are probably correct and the effort put in is probably in vain. But I consider it to be progress to better understand why people reject certain scientific ideas and how they justify it to themselves and others. It helps give me a different perspective and provides me with new insight that I can use to better teach it in my classes.

 

[miamited]

Hi dude,

You asked, or rather clarified you OP as such:

Then perhaps my question about sources were unclear. What "works of science" are you drawing from for your understanding of evolution?

Well, now if you're going to set up the targets and load the barrel of the firearm that way, then I'd have to say that my understanding of evolution likely comes from pretty much the same sources that you use. Unlike you, I just don't believe that such great and wise scientists have correctly discerned the evidence and the results gleaned from said evidence.

I've seen the pictures of various physical forms of differing creatures being alike and the claim that over billions of years one changed into another, but there are still these physical remnants that identify that they came from some other creature. For example, the supposed 'tail' that man still has a remnant of. I just don't agree that these forms are vestiges left over from some evolutionary process. I believe that God made each creature and that similar creatures do have a lot of similar structure. That these small parts that remain that are claimed to be vestiges of some previous life form aren't that at all, but are merely the way God made them to be when He created them.

I've seen the 'evidence' that supposes that DNA and other building blocks of life being so similar from one creature to another, means that they evolved from one another. I just don't agree. I understand that DNA is what makes the cells in particular life forms to grow and produce in a particular way and that similar DNA just means that they were each created to grow and produce with many similarities of one to the other. A man has an arm and a monkey has an arm. Therefore, they will both have fairly closely matching DNA that commands cells in each body to produce an arm. A man has hair and a monkey has hair. Therefore, they will both have DNA that commands cells to produce hair. While we do understand that DNA is the blueprint for how a creature will be built, we don't really understand the more nuanced intricacies of how DNA is actually used as it produces that body. What tells the 'hair' DNA to grow millions of hair follicles that produce hair and what tells the 'hair' DNA to grow only a few thousand hair follicles to produce hair?

I will, however, readily admit that my knowledge of all that has been discovered concerning DNA is certainly no where near that of someone whose life's work is to study DNA. But, suffice to say that I don't really see the positive connection between some of the things that are claimed about DNA to necessarily 'prove' evolution. They may possibly 'infer' such connections, but not prove them.

You then responded:

I believe you believe that, but I wonder why some christians accept evolution (and other scientific ideas) along with "god's word" but others don't.

Perhaps reading my explanation above to Dave might help you with that.

You then responded:

I am an atheist. You can take my word for it instead of assuming it is simply a claim.

Well, there seems to be some question as to what that actually means about the person it describes. So, before we get to chasing through some of the same rabbit holes I've already been dragged through, what does it mean that you are a confessed atheist?

You then ask:

But I do wonder, did god write the bible or did man?

Fair question. God has proven to me, through the discernment of the Holy Spirit, the testimony of Jesus and many of those who wrote the Scriptures, the amazing prophetic nature of the Scriptures, that God is the author of the Scriptures. Obviously, you haven't been confirmed of that and I can't speak as to the 'how' and 'why' we see the Scriptures so differently beyond the explanation I've just given. Pilate asked of Jesus, "What is truth?" That's a very telling question. What is truth? Is it just what we believe and have been convinced of others is the truth? Or, is it more than that? Is it the reality of what has actually happened in real time and real life upon the earth and, in fact, throughout the universe, despite what the wisdom of man may desire that we believe and may have even produced a certain line of facts with which to prove it?

For me, yes, God has provided ample evidences and conviction that the only truth I can be assured is true, especially as regards the creation and God's purpose and work within it, is what He has revealed to me through His Scriptures. Paul confirms that at least the earliest believers did believe that the very most valuable consideration for there ever having even been a nation of Israel, is that they were entrusted with the words of God. To be written down and delivered to mankind. I stand with Paul in that understanding of the Scriptures.

You asked:

So you believe your knowledge to be an infallible gift from your god?

Well, I don't want this to sound or come off as some holier-than-thou explanation, so let me weigh my words carefully here. Jesus said that it was the job of the Holy Spirit to lead those who are God's children into all truth. Yes, I do believe that there came a time in my life when I repented of sin and turned to God and was at that time given the indwelling Holy Spirit that Paul wrote about. I believe, based on these claims of the Scriptures, that having that indwelling Holy Spirit has led me to understand the truth of the things of God. I do believe, as Paul also said, that this indwelling of the Holy Spirit and the truth which he leads me to, is a gift from God. I wouldn't have it, except that God gave it to me. You are free to parse that explanation any way that you'd like.

You also responded:

Once again you make an assumption and your assumption isn't true. I have studied the scriptures as a christian. Try and stick with what you know about me instead of making broad generalizations, or stick to the subject of the thread.

You apparently didn't take the truths that you read of in the Scriptures to heart. There is a time in Jesus' ministry when he gave a hard teaching and many of his followers turned back. Jesus looked at his disciples and asked ifj they, too, would turn back. Peter replied to him, "Lord, where else would we go. Only you have the words of truth." You obviously didn't build that kind of faith. I have no idea what kind of faith you believed that you had when 'you were a christian', but it wasn't the kind of faith that believes that there is no other way to go.

Jesus also spoke of a farmer sowing seed. He described the four types of soil that the scattered seed would fall upon. The first describes people who just dismiss the truth out of hand. "No, there is no God and I don't want to hear about it." The second describes people who would entertain the idea that the Scriptures are true, but would quickly fall away because they had no roots, no solid foundation on which they might grow and prosper. The third describes people who would also immediately entertain the idea of the truth of the Scriptures, but as they journeyed through life, the weeds and the thickets choked them and prevented their growth. Only the fourth ground described was the fertile ground in which the plant's roots could grow and take a strong purchase against the wind and the torrential rains and the hot sun beating down on it all day long. Only the fourth soil type was clear of the obstructions of weeds and thickets surrounding the seed to choke it out even after the plant had established its roots and begun to grow.

Now, friend, you are one of those soil types. Which one? The seed of the word of God has been given to you and you apparently, based on your own testimony, did initially entertain the idea that the Scriptures were true.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

 

[miamited]

Hi SZ,

here are many Christians that accept the fact of evolution. Perhaps most of them do in the world as a whole.

This argument has now come up in just about everyone's posts. Please read what I have already explained.

I'm agreeable to just shaking the dust off at this point.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hi SZ,



This argument has now come up in just about everyone's posts. Please read what I have already explained.

I'm agreeable to just shaking the dust off at this point.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

I read it. I will try to keep this short. The evidence for the theory of evolution is more than conclusive. That is why scientists as a whole agree that evolution is both a theory and a fact, just as gravity is. Though you may not realize it believing the creation story requires a belief in a lying God. Even when I was a Christian I did not believe that God lied.

 

[expos4ever]

But I consider it to be progress to better understand why people reject certain scientific ideas and how they justify it to themselves and others. It helps give me a different perspective and provides me with new insight that I can use to better teach it in my classes.

But the point I was making is that people reject evolution for reasons that have nothing to do with the science - they reject it because evolution-denial is part of what defines them as members of a particular "tribe". I think it is highly likely that such "tribal" thinking is at the heart of evolution-denial.

 

[AV1611VET]

I think it is highly likely that such "tribal" thinking is at the heart of evolution-denial.

Does it bother you that some people have the mindset that, unless you give science the same kind of respect they do, you have no right to use a computer or go to the doctor?

 

[Speedwell]

Hi SZ,



This argument has now come up in just about everyone's posts. Please read what I have already explained.

I'm agreeable to just shaking the dust off at this point.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

I'm not sure I understand your explanation. Do you have any idea of how Christians can love and believe the Bible, can accept the truth of the Gospels and have faith in their salvation in Christ without necessarily believing that the Genesis stories are literal accurate history? Or do you just dismiss them as not "real" Christians?

 

[expos4ever]

Unlike you, I just don't believe that such great and wise scientists have correctly discerned the evidence and the results gleaned from said evidence.

Why not? Are you trained to make such judgements about such a specialized field? Do you reject the findings of science in other areas? Do you challenge any of the following?

1. Smoking is associated with a substantially increased risk of cancer;
2. Wearing seatbelts reduces the risk of death or serious injury;
3. Antibiotics effectively combat certain bacterial infections;
4. There are 103 (or whatever) elements and they have properties as expressed in the periodic table of elements;
5. The earth is heating up due to the activities of humankind.

I will bet you accept them all except maybe number 5. But you tell me - which ones do you accept?

If you accept them all except 5, and since you also reject evolution, I suggest there is a compelling case that you are allowing a form of "peer pressure" to influence your judgment.

Here is why. The scientific evidence for all 5 is very strong. As is the case for evolution. It is also arguably the case that rejection of evolution is a badge of membership in the group we call "fundamentalist Christians". So you choose to deny the findings science - which you otherwise accept since you accept 1 through 4 - in order to cement your status as a member of the "Christian fundamentalist" tribe.

Many Christians also reject another well-established scientific finding - the claim that global warming is human-caused. Why do they reject this? It cannot be because of the science since the science is too complex for almost all of us to adequately understand. It is almost certain, I think, that Christians reject global warming because, for a number of reasons, it is a belief that Christians see as belonging to "the left". And tribal solidarity for fundamentalist Christians is strengthened by planting stakes in the ground that distinguish them from "the lefties".

 

[TBDude65]

But the point I was making is that people reject evolution for reasons that have nothing to do with the science - they reject it because evolution-denial is part of what defines them as members of a particular "tribe". I think it is highly likely that such "tribal" thinking is at the heart of evolution-denial.

Sure, I got that. I wasn't disputing the "tribal" effect. What I am saying is that it isn't futile effort to try and make progress in understanding people when they reject it. I want to hear their reasons they commonly express.

 

[Chriliman]

Hey, newsflash, the origins of life aren't within the scope of explanation of evolution theory.

I agree, which is why I said that I know evolution is not a cause of life, but rather an effect. How extensive that effect is, is yet to be fully revealed.

The Bible even says:

Genesis 1:24
"And God saith, 'Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after its kind:' and it is so."

How long did it take for the earth to bring forth these living creatures and what did that process look like? I don't know for sure, but I know it did take time and I'm sure the process was fascinating.