• 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.

Your Thoughts on Creation & Evolution

Status
Not open for further replies.

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟158,395.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
If you know you’ll disagree beforehand, it’s more a non-compromising statement than a question really... so I won’t even attempt to address it as such.

Why?
There are plenty of christians who consider evolution to be the process by which god creates species. More then there are "special creation" creationists.

They don't have to ignore or deny the evidence of reality, like "special creation" creationists have to do. They don't have to assume that reality is misleading. They don't have to ignore science based on religious beliefs.

Clearly, any stance where you can actually accept the evidence for what it is, will be more rational then any stance where you have to ignore/deny the evidence for no justifiable reason, right?


But, I’ll make a statement too, I’m not forced to ignore mainstream biology

If your beliefs require you to deny evolution, then that is exactly what that means... that you have to ignore/deny mainstream biology.


, and don’t entirely, that’s why I said in my opening post that I was puzzled because some could be “completely” sold on evolutional biology alone (a one in a gazillion chance – zero in my book) as the answer, and then consider creation by almighty God a fairy tale.

See? Exactly like I said....
You need to deny solid science.
And you have to do that, on the basis of a religious belief that isn't rationally justifiable (since it flies in the face of mainstream biology).

So..... yeah.

You are free to believe whatever you want off course. But surely you can see how this would not and could not be a rational position. Any position that demands one to ignore/deny the evidence of reality, is irrational by default.
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟158,395.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
its just variation, so why to call it evolution?

That is what evolution is.

Changes / variation which occur during reproduction and which are passed on to off spring.
Generation by generation, these changes accumulate.
1+1+1+1+1+1+.....+1 = large number.


Count on a creationist, to argue against scientific theories that they don't understand.
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,405
8,143
✟349,082.00
Faith
Atheist
its just variation, so why to call it evolution?
Biological evolution is a particular kind of population variation, i.e. changes in the heritable characteristics of biological populations. That is a modern definition of biological evolution.

Note that although it requires changes to the heritable characteristics of individuals, it applies to populations, not individuals.
 
Upvote 0

inquiring mind

and a discerning heart
Site Supporter
Dec 31, 2016
7,221
3,311
U.S.
✟697,694.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Why?
There are plenty of christians who consider evolution to be the process by which god creates species. More then there are "special creation" creationists.

They don't have to ignore or deny the evidence of reality, like "special creation" creationists have to do. They don't have to assume that reality is misleading. They don't have to ignore science based on religious beliefs.

Clearly, any stance where you can actually accept the evidence for what it is, will be more rational then any stance where you have to ignore/deny the evidence for no justifiable reason, right?

I think you are failing to note the word “alone” that I generally try to follow the words “evolution” and “biology” with in my comments, meaning I do not subscribe to the notion that they “alone” are the answer to why we are here. I do not deny some form of evolution or variation is part of that process, but it still puzzles me that anyone would consider such a means to have come about on its own without God, and the mysteries by which He accomplishes things.



If your beliefs require you to deny evolution, then that is exactly what that means... that you have to ignore/deny mainstream biology.




See? Exactly like I said....
You need to deny solid science.
And you have to do that, on the basis of a religious belief that isn't rationally justifiable (since it flies in the face of mainstream biology).

So..... yeah.

You are free to believe whatever you want off course. But surely you can see how this would not and could not be a rational position. Any position that demands one to ignore/deny the evidence of reality, is irrational by default.
 
Upvote 0

inquiring mind

and a discerning heart
Site Supporter
Dec 31, 2016
7,221
3,311
U.S.
✟697,694.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
There are plenty of christians who consider evolution to be the process by which god creates species. More then there are "special creation" creationists.

They don't have to ignore or deny the evidence of reality, like "special creation" creationists have to do. They don't have to assume that reality is misleading. They don't have to ignore science based on religious beliefs.

Clearly, any stance where you can actually accept the evidence for what it is, will be more rational then any stance where you have to ignore/deny the evidence for no justifiable reason, right?

I think you are failing to note the word “alone” that I generally try to follow the words “evolution” and “biology” with in my comments, meaning I do not subscribe to the notion that they “alone” are the answer to why we are here. I do not deny some form of evolution or variation is part of that process, but it still puzzles me that anyone would consider such a means to have come about on its own without God, and the mysteries by which He accomplishes things.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: mark kennedy
Upvote 0

xianghua

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2017
5,215
555
44
tel aviv
✟119,055.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Single
There's no contradiction. As I said, the original family of humans is Hominidae. All our descendants will be in that family.

but all mammals for instance evolved from an ancestral family. so by this definition human still belong to that family.
 
Upvote 0

xianghua

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2017
5,215
555
44
tel aviv
✟119,055.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Single
That is what evolution is.

Changes / variation which occur during reproduction and which are passed on to off spring.
Generation by generation, these changes accumulate.
1+1+1+1+1+1+.....+1 = large number.

so according to this logic: a grain of sand+another one+ another one+billions times the same we will get this?:

Fiesa-2018-1.jpg




image from FIESA Sand Sculpture Festival 2018 - Pêra, Algarve - Portugal Confidential
 
Upvote 0

xianghua

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2017
5,215
555
44
tel aviv
✟119,055.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Single
Biological evolution is a particular kind of population variation, i.e. changes in the heritable characteristics of biological populations. That is a modern definition of biological evolution.

Note that although it requires changes to the heritable characteristics of individuals, it applies to populations, not individuals.
so evolution is true even if the bible is true and even if common descent for all living things is false??
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,626
82
St Charles, IL
✟347,280.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
so evolution is true even if the bible is true and even if common descent for all living things is false??
Evolution is a well-evidenced theory of biological diversity.

Universal common ancestry is a reasonable inference from that theory.

The Bible is irrelevant to the discussion.
 
Upvote 0

inquiring mind

and a discerning heart
Site Supporter
Dec 31, 2016
7,221
3,311
U.S.
✟697,694.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Evolution is a well-evidenced theory of biological diversity.

Universal common ancestry is a reasonable inference from that theory.

The Bible is irrelevant to the discussion.


Much of the Bible is well-evidenced in prophecy, including a lot of Genesis' history.

Isn’t universal common ancestry a reasonable inference (the account interpreted literally or not) from it as well?

How could it be completely irrelevant to the discussion?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: mark kennedy
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,626
82
St Charles, IL
✟347,280.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Much of the Bible is well-evidenced in prophecy, including a lot of Genesis' history.

Isn’t universal common ancestry a reasonable inference (the account interpreted literally or not) from it as well?

How could it be completely irrelevant to the discussion?
Because from a scientific perpsective it is nothing but an old book of stories, not scientific evidence relating to evolution.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jimmy D
Upvote 0

inquiring mind

and a discerning heart
Site Supporter
Dec 31, 2016
7,221
3,311
U.S.
✟697,694.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Because from a scientific perpsective it is nothing but an old book of stories, not scientific evidence relating to evolution.

Genesis history was most-likely passed on from Adam and his descendants to Moses, through oral then written accounts. Such recording, from eyewitness accounts to written stories through successive generations is common, lately used by Native Americans. Are they to be considered just old stories, to be disregarded completely and of no use to historians? Jesus regarded Genesis as real history. Is history disregarded completely by science?
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,626
82
St Charles, IL
✟347,280.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Genesis history was most-likely passed on from Adam and his descendants to Moses, through oral then written accounts.
In your opinion. Is there any way to test it?
Such recording, from eyewitness accounts to written stories through successive generations is common, lately used by Native Americans. Are they to be considered just old stories, to be disregarded completely and of no use to historians?
Historians? I thought we were talking about scientists.
Jesus regarded Genesis as real history.
In your opinion. Is there any way to verify what His thoughts were?
Is history disregarded completely by science?
Not it if can be empirically verified
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

inquiring mind

and a discerning heart
Site Supporter
Dec 31, 2016
7,221
3,311
U.S.
✟697,694.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
In your opinion. Is there any way to test it?
No, I guess not. Just projecting backward like evolutionist often do.

Historians? I thought we were talking about scientists.
You're right, just trying to broaden the discussion hoping to create some neutral ground.

In your opinion. Is there any way to verify what His thoughts were?
Certainly not, but He did seem to refer to Genesis 1:26-27 when He said in Mark 10:6, "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female." He said man was created "from the beginning of the creation," not after a period of evolution. Then in Mark 10:7 Jesus quotes directly from Genesis 2:24 when He said, "For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; and they twain shall be one flesh." He also spoke of Noah and the flood in Matthew 24:38-39. Just saying...

Not it if can be empirically verified
It all comes back to whether you believe the Bible or not, doesn't it.
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,626
82
St Charles, IL
✟347,280.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
No, I guess not. Just projecting backward like evolutionist often do.
Right. But "evolutionists" eventually have to come up with some empirical evidence supporting their projection before anyone will take it seriously.


You're right, just trying to broaden the discussion hoping to create some neutral ground.
the subject is not without interest, but keep in mind that science and history proceed with entirely different epistemological assumptions.


Certainly not, but He did seem to refer to Genesis 1:26-27 when He said in Mark 10:6, "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female." He said man was created "from the beginning of the creation," not after a period of evolution. Then in Mark 10:7 Jesus quotes directly from Genesis 2:24 when He said, "For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; and they twain shall be one flesh." He also spoke of Noah and the flood in Matthew 24:38-39. Just saying...
Just saying... He used those stories in exactly the same way as a liberal preacher would do who thought they were just stories.


It all comes back to whether you believe the Bible or not, doesn't it.
Something like that. In my personal opinion as a Christian, the authority of Scripture rests on its divine inspiration, not on its adherence to any particular literary genre. No essential doctrine requires that Genesis is 100% accurate literal history, only that it is divinely inspired.
 
Upvote 0

inquiring mind

and a discerning heart
Site Supporter
Dec 31, 2016
7,221
3,311
U.S.
✟697,694.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Just saying... He used those stories in exactly the same way as a liberal preacher would do who thought they were just stories.
In your opinion, is there any way to verify what His thoughts were?
 
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Site Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,976
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟1,005,212.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Have you actually read The Blind Watchmaker (the source of that quote)? Because if you had, you'd know that Dawkins entire argument is arguing that life is not the product of intelligent design, but rather natural forces.

Quote mining a single sentence from that book doesn't support your argument. Especially given that Dawkins never proposes a methodology for detecting design, and is using the term in a colloquial sense in the context of that quote.

But "natural forces" regarding biology are all actually supernatural forces. The 'natural ' state of the universe is the absence of life. Only planet earth is alive; the whole planet as a giant living organism. This incredible phenomenon is well beyond the reach of evolution.
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Site Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,030
7,265
62
Indianapolis, IN
✟594,630.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Genesis history was most-likely passed on from Adam and his descendants to Moses, through oral then written accounts. Such recording, from eyewitness accounts to written stories through successive generations is common, lately used by Native Americans. Are they to be considered just old stories, to be disregarded completely and of no use to historians? Jesus regarded Genesis as real history. Is history disregarded completely by science?
The native Americans have story tellers who memorize the histories they tell. Such an historical narrative is considered to be more accurate then a written account in cultures that maintain them.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.