Evolution

treeoflife · Aug 18, 2008

(jeffhughes;57047)
I find it odd here that you say you would "try and mold God's Word around that understanding," and then you turn around and say this is an "error." Are you calling it an error because you don't believe it is true (in reality), or because you don't feel it is the correct thing to do (hypothetically)? Because your original answer is entirely reasonable. Calling this line of reasoning an error, if we remain within this hypothetical situation, is odd.
Jeff, I did say what I meant, albeit confusing. I was saying *hypothetically* what I would do. But, because I see this compromise as unacceptable, I was pointing out what I would be doing *in error* ahead of time. That is to say... in this hypothetical situation, it would be wrong to mold God's Word around my understanding. But I was saying that is what I would do if I had received the Theory of Evolution as true, hypothetically. I probably got ahead of myself.Anyways... my final statement is what I was trying to say all along. We should mold our understanding AROUND HIS WORD... not the other way around. We don't mold God's Word around our understanding. He is the potter, we are the clay. He sets the absolute, and our understanding needs to be formed around what He says is true. If, however, I accepted the Theory of Evolution as true... I would absolutely have to mold God around my understanding, which is an error to do.What I meant by, "Reasonable doubt is up to whatever we believe is reasonable. I believe that if what God has clearly told us cannot be true with any given proof... then that proof is not reasonable." is that if I have a "proof" and I have God's Word... and I want to believe both... I throw the proof out, not God's Word. Such is the case with the Theory of Evolution. Either the theory is true, or God's Word is true. They are like oil and water... the mixture can only last when you shake it real fast and don't take time to let all things settle into their rightful place. They don't mix. You must have one or the other. Though many try to mix them, they do so to their own eventual dismay... and sadly, the dismay of those they convince (God is sovereign).If for example I have A) Something God has clearly spoken to be true, and

Something that I believe is proven, yet contridicts what God has clearly spoken to be true... I throw whatever "B" is out. I choose not to find it reasonable, because it goes against what God has clearly said is true.You have made a compromise that a handful of *close* friends of mine have made in believing the Theory of Evolution, and I know you can't see it. I know that you think I can't see what you believe... but you have been trying to mold God's Word around the Theory of Evolution for a long time to make it fit. The Theory of Evolution, frankly, is a lie from the pit of hell, and it is leading people there.

waquinas · Aug 18, 2008

It is theory because it has not been proven a fact and presently there are many holes in that theory. There are things in the fossil record and present fauna that cannot be explained by evolution, and in some cases appear to contradict what evolution would predict.However, I personally see nothing wrong with saying God could use a natural process and also guide it to whatever end He desires. Use to feel strongly one way over the other, but any more I do not think it really matters for one to "know" exactly how God made it all, just that whatever one chooses to believe God's hand is seen it. To me it is only when one embraces evolution as a means to explain a universe that creates itself (no God or even an absentee God) that I would take issue with someone's understanding of how things came to be.

jeffhughes · Aug 18, 2008

(treeoflife;57053)
Jeff, I did say what I meant, albeit confusing. I was saying *hypothetically* what I would do. But, because I see this compromise as unacceptable, I was pointing out what I would be doing *in error* ahead of time. That is to say... in this hypothetical situation, it would be wrong to mold God's Word around my understanding. But I was saying that is what I would do if I had received the Theory of Evolution as true, hypothetically. I probably got ahead of myself.
Ahh, I see, thank you for the clarification.(treeoflife;57053)
Anyways... my final statement is what I was trying to say all along. We should mold our understanding AROUND HIS WORD... not the other way around. We don't mold God's Word around our understanding. He is the potter, we are the clay. He sets the absolute, and our understanding needs to be formed around what He says is true. If, however, I accepted the Theory of Evolution as true... I would absolutely have to mold God around my understanding, which is an error to do.
You have much more of a "blind faith" approach then I do, then. Had you lived in Galileo's time, you likely would have been one of those who condemned his theory as untrue, since it apparently "contradicted" God's Word. But of course, we know that they were right, because as you say, it is an error to "mold God around [our] understanding". Of course. Makes perfect sense...(treeoflife;57053)
What I meant by, "Reasonable doubt is up to whatever we believe is reasonable. I believe that if what God has clearly told us cannot be true with any given proof... then that proof is not reasonable." is that if I have a "proof" and I have God's Word... and I want to believe both... I throw the proof out, not God's Word. Such is the case with the Theory of Evolution. Either the theory is true, or God's Word is true. They are like oil and water... the mixture can only last when you shake it real fast and don't take time to let all things settle into their rightful place. They don't mix. You must have one or the other. Though many try to mix them, they do so to their own eventual dismay... and sadly, the dismay of those they convince (God is sovereign).
Again, you have created a false dichotomy. I do not believe that the either-or decision is justified. And I understand that you do. But I do not see a person who wakes up in the morning and denies the truth of what he sees in front of him, to be a reasonable man. When we deny the truth of physical evidence in favour of what we believe to be God's truth, we must at the very least be very careful. If the decision were truly as dichotomous as you indicate, then yes, you would be right. God knows more than we do. But at the same time, if the physical evidence is strong, and the interpretation of God's Word can be modified to accept it, I believe that to throw out the evidence is unjustified. Were this any other case (like the example I gave of Galileo and the earth going round the sun), I think you would agree with me. But once evolution gets brought up, suddenly the whole situation gets tense and everyone gets very touchy. I don't see the reason for it except for the negative connotations that creationists have put on evolution...(treeoflife;57053)
If for example I have A) Something God has clearly spoken to be true, and

Something that I believe is proven, yet contridicts what God has clearly spoken to be true... I throw whatever "B" is out. I choose not to find it reasonable, because it goes against what God has clearly said is true.
I choose option C - read the account again and re-evaluate just how "clear" the Genesis account is...(treeoflife;57053)
You have made a compromise that a handful of *close* friends of mine have made in believing the Theory of Evolution, and I know you can't see it. I know that you think I can't see what you believe... but you have been trying to mold God's Word around the Theory of Evolution for a long time to make it fit. The Theory of Evolution, frankly, is a lie from the pit of hell, and it is leading people there.
No no, you are assuming wrongly. I do see it, and I do believe that you understand what I believe. You simply have a very literal understanding of Genesis that you are unwilling to change, and I am willing to take a more moderate approach on the issue to incorporate what I feel to be very strong evidence for a natural phenomenon. If the theory of evolution is a lie from the pit of hell, it's sure a lie with a whole lot of evidence in favour of it, and Satan must have been working overtime to rearrange all those fossils and form all those geological strata to make it work. Frankly, I don't see this as a rational conclusion either - if evolution is wrong, it is simply a failed scientific theory, and nothing else.(waquinas;57065)
It is theory because it has not been proven a fact and presently there are many holes in that theory. There are things in the fossil record and present fauna that cannot be explained by evolution, and in some cases appear to contradict what evolution would predict.
In the colloquial usage of the terms "theory" and "fact," yes, you are right in what you say. However, if you look up the word "theory" from a scientific perspective, you get a very different impression. A scientific theory is more of a framework for creating hypotheses or making predictions, rather than a "guess" or "conjecture" like we non-scientists would use it. As for the holes in the theory, well - I'd call them more "gaps" than holes, really. You see holes because science has not filled in all the details. Darwin gave them the rough sketch, and for the last 150 years now, they've been filling in more of the drawing. But of course, it's not complete. Fossils aren't just laying around for us to find. But as for things in the fossil record that can't be explained or that seem to contradict evolution - well, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find one. This is what the creationists will tell you, but a lot of times it is either misinterpretation, misinformation, or misdirection. They point to the gaps that still haven't been filled in order to discredit the massive sections that already have been filled. This is, quite frankly, a naive way to look at scientific theories.(waquinas;57065)
However, I personally see nothing wrong with saying God could use a natural process and also guide it to whatever end He desires. Use to feel strongly one way over the other, but any more I do not think it really matters for one to "know" exactly how God made it all, just that whatever one chooses to believe God's hand is seen it.
I would agree with you here. I don't see it as a big issue, except that a group of largely uneducated (in science anyway) individuals are attempting to block the pursuit of real science in favour of their unsubstantiated and unprovable hypotheses based on one very unflinching interpretation of the Bible. As I personally see the benefit of science, I do not wish this pursuit to be blocked or impeded in any way, and so I argue in favour of a compromise of sorts.(waquinas;57065)
To me it is only when one embraces evolution as a means to explain a universe that creates itself (no God or even an absentee God) that I would take issue with someone's understanding of how things came to be.
Noted, and I don't think anyone here would disagree with that. Thank you for your input.

treeoflife · Aug 19, 2008

You have much more of a "blind faith" approach then I do, then. Had you lived in Galileo's time, you likely would have been one of those who condemned his theory as untrue, since it apparently "contradicted" God's Word. But of course, we know that they were right, because as you say, it is an error to "mold God around [our] understanding". Of course. Makes perfect sense...
Jeff, the problem is that there is nothing in God's Word the contridicts what Galileo taught. In order to believe the Theory of Evolution, however, you have to take a HUGE portion of God's specific and detailed Word as a "metephore", in order to make it fit... which more or less means it can just be thrown out. God might as well have just has Moses write, "God created everything, thus concludes the creation event," but He didn't... the detail exists for a reason... because that is what happened. If God wanted us to speculate endlessly on the detail of creation and come up with our own conclusions He wouldn't have told us all that He did, detailing each day, and the creation of Adam and Eve (the first humans, made fully formed). But, I know that it really doesn't matter to you how He tells us that He did it--you believe the Theory of Evolution, and you direct all through around that one thing. Rather than form your opinions and theories around God's Word, you have chosen to mold God's Word aroudn your theory. This will fail. I hope you experience this failure in this life before the next. To you, the Theory of Evolution is how God did it regardless of what is written in the book of Genesis or anywhere else in His Word. God's time and attention to detail are meaningless to you. You prefer the details that men give from their vain imaginations about the Theory of Evolution.Anyhow, given the fact that Galileo said nothing against the Word of God, unlike you and countless other Evolutionists, and what Galileo believed was obviously reasonable, I would have been siding with him.It is an error to mold God around our understanding. He sets the bar, He makes the rules. He says things that are at times hard to believe, and most all of the time requires faith. Without faith, it is IMPOSSIBLE to please Him, Hebrews 11:6. God says through Moses' writings that He made a woman from Adam's rib, fully formed, and her name was Eve because she would be the mother of all who live. Genesis 3:20. Will you please God or displease Him? The choice is yours. Believe in the Theory of Evolution if you wish to displease Him, because I say without the slightest fear of contridiction... that is exactly what you will do.

jeffhughes · Aug 19, 2008

(treeoflife;57087)
Jeff, the problem is that there is nothing in God's Word the contridicts what Galileo taught.
Of course not - you and I both know that. But the people back then sure thought it did. Just like the people now think that evolution does...(treeoflife;57087)
In order to believe the Theory of Evolution you have to take a HUGE portion of God's specific and detailed Word as a "metephore", in order to make it fit... which more or less means it can just be thrown out all together, and allow us room to speculate.
a) How do you know that the Genesis account is meant to be "specific and detailed"? It really doesn't seem to be all that detailed to me. It doesn't mention things like insects. Or bacteria. Or even coral - it only mentions moving things that were created in the water. I mean, you may say this is semantics, but it's clearly glossing over at least some of the details. I would say that it indicates more of a summary story more than a "specific and detailed", step-by-step account.

Taking something as a metaphor doesn't mean it can be thrown out altogether. All Scripture is still useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness. Hmm. Funny it doesn't say "scientific exploration" in there. Oh well.c) There is room to speculate all throughout the Bible. Why did Jesus have to spit on a man's eyes to heal him? Why did Jesus wait for 3 days before going to raise Lazarus? What does Revelation truly mean? I could go on, but I think you get the picture. If you don't think there's room to speculate, just talk about eschatology to people from five different denominations, and you'll prove yourself wrong.(treeoflife;57087)
God might as well have just has Moses write, "God created everything, thus concludes the creation event."
Sure, He could have. He could have also just had him write, "Several thousand years from now, some guy named Jesus is going to fix everything. Just believe me and you'll be fine." But He didn't. Obviously there is more to the Bible than just plain old facts and history accounts.(treeoflife;57087)
It really doesn't matter to you how He did it, because you believe the Theory of Evolution. The Theory of Evolution is how God did it regardless of what is written in the book of Genesis or anywhere else in His Word. God's time and attention to detail are meaningless to you. You prefer the details that men give from their vain imaginations about the Theory of Evolution.
I don't think that ultimately it does matter how He did it. What matters is that He did it - somehow - and now we're here. From a theological perspective, I don't see that it really means much whether He created the world in six days, six years, or six million years. What I do see is the value of believing He did it through evolution, because evolution is a gigantic leap forward for science, and has helped us understand many things about the world we live in. There is much value in understanding how God created the world from a scientific viewpoint, because when we learn how the world operates, we learn how to better control it and direct ourselves toward sustaining it.(treeoflife;57087)
Given the fact that Galileo said nothing against the Word of God, but only the vain traditions of men, and what he believed was obviously reasonable, I would have been siding with him.
Great then! You understand why I believe in evolution! Alright, well, maybe not, but change "Galileo" to "Darwin" and you have a statement which could have come out of my own mouth. Let's see...nothing against the word of God. Check. Only against the vain traditions of men. Check. Obviously reasonable. Check. Great. Evolution fits the bill!(treeoflife;57087)
It is an error to mold God around our understanding. He sets the bar, He makes the rules. He says things that are at times hard to believe, and most all of the time requires faith. Without faith, it is IMPOSSIBLE to please Him, Hebrews 11:6. God says through Moses' writings that He made a woman from Adam's rib, fully formed, and her name was Eve because she would be the mother of all who live. Genesis 3:20. Will you please God or displease Him?
Right. Well, I don't believe in having faith where none is needed. I have faith that God will provide for my needs, but that does not mean that I quit my job and wait for the money to roll in. God expects us to have faith, but He also expects us to use our reason to come to reasonable conclusions about us, Him, and the world around us. Sure, I could quit my job, sell all I own, and live on the street waiting for God to provide for me. And maybe He would. But that's not having faith, that's just being stupid. I could refuse to take medication when I get sick because I have faith that God would heal me. But again, that's stupid. Most Christians would tell you that you should take the medication, because God could heal you through the doctors and the medication. In other words, God doesn't want us to have blind faith, but rather reasoned faith. And when I look and see physical evidence of evolution, that is my reason telling me that it is a reasonable belief. Denying this in favour of "faith" is not faith at all.

treeoflife · Aug 19, 2008

(jeffhughes;57088)
Of course not - you and I both know that. But the people back then sure thought it did. Just like the people now think that evolution does...
Just because people *thought* something and you *think* this is the same thing... they aren't. The THEORY OF EVOLUTION and what people did then to Galileo don't follow... They are apples and oranges. Please find me something in God's Word that contridicts what Galileo taught, or that it must be taken as a metephore. Personally I don't care what motives people had, because whatever they were they weren't basing them in what God has told us about the universe. The Theory of Evolution, on the other hand, is contridicted many places, front to back (mostly in the front). The reason all sane people (including Christians) accept what Galileo understood is because is because it is both reasonable and isn't contridicted anywhere in God's Word, unlike the Theory of Evolution.
a) How do you know that the Genesis account is meant to be "specific and detailed"? It really doesn't seem to be all that detailed to me. It doesn't mention things like insects. Or bacteria. Or even coral - it only mentions moving things that were created in the water. I mean, you may say this is semantics, but it's clearly glossing over at least some of the details. I would say that it indicates more of a summary story more than a "specific and detailed", step-by-step account.
He also didn't talk about atoms and molecules. He didn't talk about proton, neutrons, or electrons. He didn't talk about lots of things that could not be seen by the naked eye. However, the difference is that their existence doesn't contridict what God has said. God didn't go into the minute detail and give us a infinitely long dialog about the complexity of what was made. However, what He did tell us isn't contridicted by what we believe (or it shouldn't be). The Theory of Evolution completely contridicts and goes against what God said and did when He created us. The existance of small parts of something, does not. If God says he made a building, he doesn't have to tell me that it has bricks in it. He made the building. Now if you come along and say, "But he didn't tell us about the bricks... so isn't it possible the building grew our of the ground after millions of years?" I will say no, you don't know His Word or the power of God. You are wrong.

Taking something as a metaphor doesn't mean it can be thrown out altogether. All Scripture is still useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness. Hmm. Funny it doesn't say "scientific exploration" in there. Oh well.
In this case it absolutely does. You don't need to beleive how God did it, becuase you already have a perfectly reasonable answer. Well, I have that too. I have the perfectly reasonable answer of God's clearly spoken Word, and you do not. You have the Theory of Evolution, which contridicts it. If you don't want it to contridict it, you have to throw it out by turning into a metephore (making it completely worthless).
c) There is room to speculate all throughout the Bible. Why did Jesus have to spit on a man's eyes to heal him? Why did Jesus wait for 3 days before going to raise Lazarus? What does Revelation truly mean? I could go on, but I think you get the picture. If you don't think there's room to speculate, just talk about eschatology to people from five different denominations, and you'll prove yourself wrong.
Good questions. Why did Jesus spit in the mans eye? Why did He do it different ways? Perhaps we can talk about these things when they apply to the conversation. For now, you need to understand that the Theory of Evolution is a lie and stop going against God's Word.
I don't think that ultimately it does matter how He did it. What matters is that He did it - somehow - and now we're here. From a theological perspective, I don't see that it really means much whether He created the world in six days, six years, or six million years. What I do see is the value of believing He did it through evolution, because evolution is a gigantic leap forward for science, and has helped us understand many things about the world we live in. There is much value in understanding how God created the world from a scientific viewpoint, because when we learn how the world operates, we learn how to better control it and direct ourselves toward sustaining it.
You confirm what I told you. You don't think it matters. You make what God said of no effect. You just proved it, by your own words. You don't care that God did it, or how He says He did it... just as I said to you. In order for you to believe the Theory of Evolution you have to throw all of it out and make it inconsequential. God might as well have had Moses write, "God created everything, thus concludes the creation event." The details don't matter to you... because the details CONTRIDICT WHAT YOU BELIEVE. You don't care about God's Word, you care about upholding a vain theory that contridicts it.
Great then! You understand why I believe in evolution! Alright, well, maybe not, but change "Galileo" to "Darwin" and you have a statement which could have come out of my own mouth. Let's see...nothing against the word of God. Check. Only against the vain traditions of men. Check. Obviously reasonable. Check. Great. Evolution fits the bill!
I understand yes, and it is because you like to go against the Word of God. You enjoy upholding the vain teachings of men that contridict His Word. You like siding with the spirit of the anti-christ which is in the world and goes against Christ. Yes, I understand. Galileo has nothing to do with it. I would say this, you don't believe God, and therefore you wouldn't have believed Galileo. You would have condemned Galileo, just as you condemn the Word of God we are given in Genesis, just as those who condemned Galileo did when Galileo upheld his scientific views that didn't contridict the Word of God. You would have condemned Galileo, because you don't attain your views frrom the Word of God first, and observation second, as Galileo did.So, you can stop grouping the condemnation of Galileo by some nutjobs along with the condmenation of Darwin's theory as the same thing, because they are not. The tables can easily be turned, and in fact should be.
Right. Well, I don't believe in having faith where none is needed. I have faith that God will provide for my needs, but that does not mean that I quit my job and wait for the money to roll in. God expects us to have faith, but He also expects us to use our reason to come to reasonable conclusions about us, Him, and the world around us. Sure, I could quit my job, sell all I own, and live on the street waiting for God to provide for me. And maybe He would. But that's not having faith, that's just being stupid. I could refuse to take medication when I get sick because I have faith that God would heal me. But again, that's stupid. Most Christians would tell you that you should take the medication, because God could heal you through the doctors and the medication. In other words, God doesn't want us to have blind faith, but rather reasoned faith. And when I look and see physical evidence of evolution, that is my reason telling me that it is a reasonable belief. Denying this in favour of "faith" is not faith at all.
Like I said, you choose not to please God. You believe the Theory of Evolution is better.

jeffhughes · Aug 19, 2008

treeoflife;57089]Just because people *thought* something and you *think* this is the same thing... they aren said:
firmly established[/u],It shall not be moved;He shall judge the peoples righteously.'"1 Chronicles 16:30"Tremble before Him, all the earth.The world also is firmly established,It shall not be moved."Psalm 104:5"You who laid the foundations of the earth,So that it should not be moved forever..."Ecclesiastes 1:5"The sun also rises, and the sun goes down,And hastens to the place where it arose."While of course we would all take these today as a metaphor, or as a "matter of perspective" perhaps, I think that it can be shown that from a clear, normal reading of the Bible, that the geocentric model (everything revolving around the earth) is favoured in the Bible. Now are you willing to recant the evil theory of heliocentrism?

treeoflife;57089]Personally I don said:

But God has clearly told us from the Bible that the earth shall not be moved! This is not about motives or about interpretations. This is as clear as water!

treeoflife;57089]The Theory of Evolution said:

Then using your same reasoning, so is heliocentrism.

treeoflife;57089]The reason all sane people (including Christians) accept what Galileo understood is because is because it is both reasonable and isn said:

Contradicted? No. But we must take certain passages as metaphors in order to reconcile it. Reasonable? Yes. But that is because we have physical evidence for it - which, of course, we also have with evolution.

treeoflife;57089]He also didn said:

Your analogy holds, but your reasoning is flawed. If God says He made a building, then we should not question that. But if God does not specify the method he used to make the building, then it is simply not specified. Did He contract a construction crew to make it for Him? Did He just think it and Poof! it appeared? Or did He, as you mentioned, make it grow out of the ground after millions of years? We simply don't know, and we aren't told. If all we are told is "God made a building," we must look elsewhere if we want to know how He made it. Similar to people who say "God healed me," we aren't told how He did so, and from various people we get various ways of doing it. Some people seem to be healed instantly. Some people are progressively healed over hours, days, or months. Some people say they are healed by God working through the doctors, surgeons, or medicine. But when they say "God healed me," none of those are implied or more correct. We must look at the context and the evidence surrounding it to find out the method He used. In the same way, if we are not told the method that God used to create everything, we look to the context and the physical evidence to determine it.

treeoflife;57089]In this case it absolutely does. You don said:

are[/i] familiar with so they can make the connection.We can easily see the importance and usefulness of metaphors in the Genesis account. How do you describe something that no one has ever observed before and no one can replicate? You compare it to things that they are already familiar with. Spoken words. Days to correspond with massive amounts of time. Simple, structural language that conveys spiritual truths. We don't fault Jesus' parables as being useless, though they were metaphorical too (using known things to understand unknown things). Metaphors do not in any way diminish the importance of the passage.

treeoflife;57089]Good questions. Why did Jesus spit in the mans eye? Why did He do it different ways? Perhaps we can talk about these things when they apply to the conversation. For now said:

why[/i] exactly Jesus chose to spit in the man's eye instead of just saying he was healed. So we speculate. Thus, there is room for speculation in the Bible. That is all I was saying.

treeoflife;57089]You confirm what I told you. You don said:

You misconstrue what I said, and whether that was intentional or not, I will refrain from guessing. If it was intentional, you are setting up a straw man mixed with just a tad of ad hominem. If it was a simple misunderstanding of what I said, then I will elaborate. I did not mean to say that it does not matter at all how God created the earth. In fact, I went on to say that it is very useful from a scientific perspective. But as a matter of salvation, it does not matter. As a matter of believing God is sovereign, it does not matter. Though many, when we get to heaven, may ask God which one was correct, the disagreement will be settled, and that will be that. It does not matter in terms of whether we get to heaven in the first place, only a matter of academic interest, really.I most certainly do care that God did it, and though I do not believe that the Genesis account is literal, that does not mean I do not believe it to be true. Therefore, I do also care how He says He did it.

treeoflife;57089]In order for you to believe the Theory of Evolution you have to throw all of it out and make it inconsequential. God might as well have had Moses write said:

billions upon billions[/i] of stars, planets, nebulae, galaxies, black holes, and whatever else might be out there, is summed up in the word "heavens." One word is given to describe the creation of 99.9999999% of all of existence, and you say that is a detailed account? The account is clearly a summary, dealing primarily with what is most relevant to mankind, in order that we may come to an understanding of who God is and how He relates to us, not how He created the universe. I look to science for how He did it. I look the the Bible to understand why.

treeoflife;57089]I understand yes said:

Again, misconstruing my words, and indeed attacking me instead of the arguments. This is primarily what you have been doing the whole time, but I have attempted to answer your objections all the same. I do not "like to go against the Word of God." I do not "enjoy upholding the vain teachings of men." You are calling me a liar and a deceiver here, and that is simply uncalled for. This whole time I have been attempting to uphold God's Word, not go against it. You may argue with me that I have not been doing so adequately, but do not argue my intentions behind it. I have not claimed that you are arguing with me just to uphold a vain pretension that you are right and all else are wrong. To do so would be an injustice to you. I understand that you believe you are arguing for the truth, and that you believe I am unjustified in "reinterpreting" the Bible. I get that. So why do you not understand that I am simply arguing for the truth also? I respect your reasons for debate, so why will you not do the decency of respecting mine? If I am wrong, it is because I have been deceived by a lie, not because I enjoy spreading lies. So do me the favour of not judging me and assuming that it is because I am somehow knowingly trying to delude people into some wrong way of thinking.

treeoflife;57089]Yes said:

Apparently you don't.

treeoflife;57089]Galileo has nothing to do with it. I would say this said:

This makes absolutely no sense. Somehow, because I am arguing for the power of science to attain some small bit of knowledge in the world, therefore I would have condemned Galileo, a scientist? It was the church who condemned Galileo, based on their interpretation of Scriptures which we now know is obviously metaphorical in nature. It is obvious to us not because we have received some new divine revelation from God, but rather because we looked outside our proverbial windows and saw, "Hey, the earth revolves around the sun! Fancy that!" Then we went back and looked at the verses that seem to indicate otherwise and reinterpreted them to suit the new evidence we received. If you say I am wrong for doing this with evolution, then you condemn Galileo. Who, incidentally, did not "attain his views from the Word of God first, and observation second," as you say. I know that he was a devout Christian, as was practically everyone in those days. But if he had done that, he would have come to the same conclusion as the rest of the church in that time period - that the sun revolves around the earth. If he took observation second to that, then he would have thrown out any evidence for geocentrism that he received. Instead, he challenged the interpretation of Scripture.

treeoflife;57089]So said:

Like I said' date=' you choose not to please God. You believe the Theory of Evolution is better.[/QUOTE']I choose to please God by using the reason and intellect that He gave me to find out more about Him and what He has done. On the topic of Galileo, he once said something that I find to be a true statement. "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." I completely agree with him on this matter.And in searching for this quote, I found one that perhaps relates even more to the discussion at hand: "I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the Scriptures, but with experiments, and demonstrations." View from the Word of God first, then observation second, you say? Well, not by his own admission...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

tomwebster · Aug 19, 2008

I think this post has gone as far as it needs to go, but I'm not in charge.

tomwebster · Aug 19, 2008

How long are we going to beat this topic?

treeoflife · Aug 19, 2008

(tomwebster;57110)
How long are we going to beat this topic?
Probably till the Lord comes again

treeoflife · Aug 19, 2008

I choose to please God by using the reason and intellect
You have chosen unwisely. God has plenty of reason and intellect.It is impossible to please God without faith. Then again, maybe that too is just a metephore...

waquinas · Aug 19, 2008

(jeffhughs)
In the colloquial usage of the terms "theory" and "fact," yes, you are right in what you say. However, if you look up the word "theory" from a scientific perspective, you get a very different impression. A scientific theory is more of a framework for creating hypotheses or making predictions, rather than a "guess" or "conjecture" like we non-scientists would use it. As for the holes in the theory, well - I'd call them more "gaps" than holes, really. You see holes because science has not filled in all the details. Darwin gave them the rough sketch, and for the last 150 years now, they've been filling in more of the drawing. But of course, it's not complete. Fossils aren't just laying around for us to find. But as for things in the fossil record that can't be explained or that seem to contradict evolution - well, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find one. This is what the creationists will tell you, but a lot of times it is either misinterpretation, misinformation, or misdirection. They point to the gaps that still haven't been filled in order to discredit the massive sections that already have been filled. This is, quite frankly, a naive way to look at scientific theories
Am certainly no scientist but understand theory pretty well from my math/engineering background. A theory remains such until it can be proven, and it is a theory (evolution that is) because it has not been proven yet. I do not think it naive or disinformation to point that out. And the people that want to say evolution will one day explain everything tend to minimalize the difficulties with the theory of evolution. In fact as most of children are taught in public school today, this theory is presented to them as fact and they are not told the difference.It is not a case of the fossil record just being incomplete and we just need more time to fill it in, though that is a popular notion. There are problems with the records we do have. For instance, entire fully developed species suddenly appear seemingly from no where with complete records of other organisms from the same periods before, after and during the line which has no predesesor or follow on species. Darwins theory does not handle such descrepancies. According to the theory every line would be a branch from a prior line, branches could end abruptly but entirely new, unique/very different species would not just suddenly appear then disappear with no record of development (we are not talking mutations). So it is not a matter of just finding all the "missing" links, some lines have no possible links at all.Is the theory useful in explaining anything? I think it is. Many theories become the basis for other theories, which might be proven (or disproven) independent of the original theory.Does this theory explain it all or can we realistically expect that it ever would? I don't think so and I think we are seeing a turning point amoung some scientist (biologist and DNA specialist come to mind) and even a few that would say the strict belief in the theory being able to explain all life here is embarassing to them. Again am no scientist but have read that there those saying this today.

jeffhughes · Aug 19, 2008

(tomwebster;57110)
How long are we going to beat this topic?
Heh, well, I don't think I am going to do it much longer. I think I've said all I need to say, and I now have other things to do now that summer is drawing to a close (unfortunately)...as for how long the issue itself is going to be beaten, well, yeah I think treeoflife is right. Probably until the second coming

(treeoflife;57112)
You have chosen unwisely. God has plenty of reason and intellect.It is impossible to please God without faith. Then again, maybe that too is just a metephore...
There are some things that cannot be found through reason. I accept those on faith. I don't, however, accept things on faith needlessly, when reason provides, well, a reasonable solution.(waquinas;57123)
Am certainly no scientist but understand theory pretty well from my math/engineering background. A theory remains such until it can be proven, and it is a theory (evolution that is) because it has not been proven yet. I do not think it naive or disinformation to point that out.
My mistake - I'm just used to hearing people say "It's only a theory!" as some way to discredit it. You are right in some sense. It's certainly not a mathematical proof, nor will it ever be. However, things in the sciences do not always take the process of hypothesis -> theory -> fact/law. I mean, the theory of gravitation is still sitting as just that - a "theory." But in reality, the theory of gravitation is a theory used to explain the fact of gravity. So it's not necessarily that once a theory is "proven," therefore it will become something better or whatever. I actually had a thought the other day about how scientific theories kind of use a sort of "natural selection" process. New theories get thought up, and then as they are tested, the "best" ones survive while the "weaker" ones get weeded out. I think it works pretty well. Survival of the fittest. At any rate, I see what you're saying, but I think that most scientists would say that, at the very least, most aspects of evolution have been "proven" - just not perhaps the whole big picture. I mean, we've observed adaptation, we've produced speciation, the evolutionary tree isn't complete, but it's getting there, and while there are difficulties and inconsistencies, I think most scientists are fairly certain that they'll clear themselves up.(waquinas;57123)
And the people that want to say evolution will one day explain everything tend to minimalize the difficulties with the theory of evolution. In fact as most of children are taught in public school today, this theory is presented to them as fact and they are not told the difference.
That's very true. Of course, I myself was taught in school that it was just plain wrong, but I guess that's cause I went to a Christian high school

I think the people that try to say evolution will one day "explain everything" are trying to take it and apply it to things that it doesn't apply to. It's a very useful theory, but it doesn't apply to everything, because like every theory, it has limitations. But those people are just stupid, so don't listen to them

(waquinas;57123)
It is not a case of the fossil record just being incomplete and we just need more time to fill it in, though that is a popular notion. There are problems with the records we do have. For instance, entire fully developed species suddenly appear seemingly from no where with complete records of other organisms from the same periods before, after and during the line which has no predesesor or follow on species. Darwins theory does not handle such descrepancies. According to the theory every line would be a branch from a prior line, branches could end abruptly but entirely new, unique/very different species would not just suddenly appear then disappear with no record of development (we are not talking mutations). So it is not a matter of just finding all the "missing" links, some lines have no possible links at all.
I would still say that this points to gaps in the fossil record. Just because we don't know where an organism fits in, doesn't mean it doesn't at all. Just means that our tree is incomplete, and that we need to wait for more evidence to link the organism somewhere. It's kind of like a jigsaw puzzle, only we have to dig up all the pieces and some of them are worn out or missing. However, it's a gigantic puzzle, so there are enough pieces for us to get a general idea of what the picture is.(waquinas;57123)
Is the theory useful in explaining anything? I think it is. Many theories become the basis for other theories, which might be proven (or disproven) independent of the original theory.Does this theory explain it all or can we realistically expect that it ever would? I don't think so and I think we are seeing a turning point amoung some scientist (biologist and DNA specialist come to mind) and even a few that would say the strict belief in the theory being able to explain all life here is embarassing to them. Again am no scientist but have read that there those saying this today.
You are right, and perhaps there are other factors involved that we just simply haven't figured out yet. But as of right now, I think it's safe to say that evolution stands alone in the amount of evidence going for it as opposed to any competing theory. It might not be as well established as gravity, but it's still pretty well established nonetheless...

treeoflife · Aug 20, 2008

Jeff, you have chosen to ignore all sound reason against the Theory of Evolution. God knows why that is. If you want "evidence" there is plenty out there, but what you lack is faith. If you had it, you wouldn't be in this possision. That is just the way it is. God will lead you to the reason you need on this matter if you want it. I'm not going to have a science debate with you. You can find it on your own, God knows I have, but you need to have faith.

jeffhughes · Aug 20, 2008

(treeoflife;57147)
Jeff, you have chosen to ignore all sound reason against the Theory of Evolution.
On the contrary. You are telling me to abandon sound reason in order to have "faith." I am giving sound reason that the Genesis account can be harmonized with evolution, and you are telling me that on faith, I must choose one or the other.(treeoflife;57147)
God knows why that is. If you want "evidence" there is plenty out there, but what you lack is faith. If you had it, you wouldn't be in this possision. That is just the way it is. God will lead you to the reason you need on this matter if you want it.
I want the truth, and I am willing to go to any length to get it. I am fully open to faith, as well as open to sound reasoning. But evidence is evidence, and denial of that is denial of sound reasoning. If God wants me to give up my reasoning and logical analysis, then He will have to tell me to do so Himself. Which, as of yet, He has not done...(treeoflife;57147)
I'm not going to have a science debate with you.
Why, because the evidence in favour of evolution is clear? Yeah, thought as much.(treeoflife;57147)
You can find it on your own, God knows I have, but you need to have faith.
I have faith that the Holy Spirit will lead me to the correct conclusion.And speaking of conclusion, I think that this will be my last post. You sound like you are winding up with what you have to say, and so am I. I now have to get busy packing, etc., so.....it's been good. God bless, and have have a good one!

treeoflife · Aug 20, 2008

Well, God bless you on your travels. Physical and spiritual.

Jordan · Aug 20, 2008

Romans 10:17 - So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.I don't see Evolution is hearing of faith. All I see and all it is gives hearing of itching ears. And I know what the bible says about itching ears.II Timothy 4:3 - For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

Carico · Aug 28, 2008

(Wakka;56651)
No, he created all creatures as they are. However, He did give us the ability to adapt. That is why we have one species, but different breeds.Different dogs, different cats, different humans (races). That is because they all adapted to their surroundings. This is called adaptation (or micro evolution by some).We did NOT come from primates (macro evolution). One word of advice, don't let yourself be forced to believe in evolution. There IS an alternative, and it's called intelligent design. I advise that you look into it, as it is a field of study.
Only animals who can breed together can produce different breeds. But even the bible tells us not to mate different kinds of animals. But since apes or monkeys can't breed with humans then we cannot be any form of ape or monkey, period. That is a lie of Satan tp try to deny the bible and a perverse one at that.

Vindicated · Aug 28, 2008

1 Timothy 6:20O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

Jordan · Aug 28, 2008

(Vindicated;57653)
1 Timothy 6:20O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

Evolution

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Active Member

New Member

New Member

Active Member

Similar threads