Do the ideas of natural selection and so called "evolution" conflict with God and creation?

[Selene]

The flip side of that coin is that you are using a Christian standard to judge the logic I am using as a non-believer.

There is a difference between wanting to learn more and rolling over on my own beliefs. I will use my logic as a measure of the things I am learning because I refuse to dump all reason in order to know more about faith.

In the first place, we are not the ones wanting to learn about atheism. We never stated that we wanted to even learn about atheism. YOU were the one who kept saying that you wanted to understand Christianity, and this is a Christian board. So, if you really want to understand Christianity, you should not be using science as a measurement on Christians. Instead, you should listen to what we have to say, and cease thinking that your idea of evidence is exactly the same as ours.

 

[Lux Veritatis]

In the first place, we are not the ones wanting to learn about atheism. We never stated that we wanted to even learn about atheism. YOU were the one who kept saying that you wanted to understand Christianity, and this is a Christian board. So, if you really want to understand Christianity, you should not be using science as a measurement on Christians.

So what do you propose? I dump all reason and just blindly accept what you say? You speak of reason and science as if they are bad things. You seem to forget how often in a day you rely on them. I hardly think that God would create you in his image, reason and all, and then insist you banish it. Either he created you in his image or he didn't. Which is it? Being logical or blindly following?

 

[Selene]

So what do you propose? I dump all reason and just blindly accept what you say? You speak of reason and science as if they are bad things. You seem to forget how often in a day you rely on them. I hardly think that God would create you in his image, reason and all, and then insist you banish it. Either he created you in his image or he didn't. Which is it? Being logical or blindly following?

I am not asking you to dump anything. As I said, if you really want to understand Christianity as you kept saying......then you listen to what Christians have to say and stop judging us according to your own atheist standard. A person who wants to understand another person's belief will simply listen to their side. It does not mean that you have to agree to it. Remember....you're the one who kept saying that you want to understand Christianity.

 

[aspen]

The mark of an effective scientist is the ability to separate himself/herself from making judgments about what they are studying. Do you really believe an anthropologist's personal view on the correct role of children in society can do anything But harm his/her study of a native culture under observation.

Also you are assuming that people of faith reject all reason. This is both a low and inaccurate view of the subjects you are attempting to understand.

Finally, you are not giving yourself a very high opinion regarding your ability to hang on to your own worldview while considering another at the same time. Are you insecure about your own worldview?

 

[Lux Veritatis]

I am not asking you to dump anything. As I said, if you really want to understand Christianity as you kept saying......then you listen to what Christians have to say and stop judging us according to your own atheist standard. A person who wants to understand another person's belief will simply listen to their side. It does not mean that you have to agree to it. Remember....you're the one who kept saying that you want to understand Christianity.

I ask questions and weed out the illogical stuff, that's my duty as a human being.

The mark of an effective scientist is the ability to separate himself/herself from making judgments about what they are studying. Do you really believe an anthropologist's personal view on the correct role of children in society can do anything But harm his/her study of a native culture under observation.

Also you are assuming that people of faith reject all reason. This is both a low and inaccurate view of the subjects you are attempting to understand.

Finally, you are not giving yourself a very high opinion regarding your ability to hang on to your own worldview while considering another at the same time. Are you insecure about your own worldview?

I appreciate the insight and will take it to heart.

 

[Selene]

The mark of an effective scientist is the ability to separate himself/herself from making judgments about what they are studying. Do you really believe an anthropologist's personal view on the correct role of children in society can do anything But harm his/her study of a native culture under observation.

Also you are assuming that people of faith reject all reason. This is both a low and inaccurate view of the subjects you are attempting to understand.

Finally, you are not giving yourself a very high opinion regarding your ability to hang on to your own worldview while considering another at the same time. Are you insecure about your own worldview?

Exactly. As a social scientist I seek to understand other people's culture according to their perspective...not according to my own perspective and cultural standard.

 

[aspen]

thank you, Lux

I hope you are able to find what you are looking for.

 

[Selene]

I ask questions and weed out the illogical stuff, that's my duty as a human being.

And by whose standard do you go by that even in science there are more than one school of thought, and each disagree with each other. Is your reasoning even valid or not? And why do you make it your human duty to weed out the illogical things. My duty as a human being is to love my neighbor.

When you criticize Christians by telling us that we believe in fairy tales and that we have a "magical" view of the universe, you don't even realize that "magic" and "religion" are actually two very opposite things. To say that Christianity represents a "magical" view of the universe is confusing. Why? Because for many centuries, magic is believed to be an attempt to exert power over nature by means of words, ceremonies, mixtures of materials, etc. It was essentially an attempt of a sort of technology, an attempt to master forces that would give men power, wealth, and secret knowledge. Insofar as it was an attempt to satisfy curiosity and give power over nature, "magic" was the ancestor of science rather than of religion.

Christianity, on the other hand, believes that certain wonderful events have occurred, sometimes as an answer to prayer. But these events were the result of the will of the Person who created nature and its laws and could not be predicted, demanded, or forced. The effects of these events may sometimes be beneficial to men, but their purpose is to reveal something about God or to authenticate such a revelation. Thus, the whole attitude and atmosphere of magic and of Christianity are poles apart.

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

I didn't try to bring it to this level, I was genuinely curious. I see things differently as a biologist and I wanted to know where he was coming from. I apologize for dragging it down, intelligence is not proof of anything.

i understood where you are coming from Lux ...... No problem
In debates like this I am often asked about my academic credentials (I have none)
Then the next thing somebody does is hold up their university or college diploma as though somehow it proves them correct.

My upbringing did not allow me to go on to higher education ..... so for that reason i am an autodidact (self taught) and because I have a high IQ it enables me to do so.

I agree that being intelligent is not proof of anything
I also agree that having a biology degree is not proof of anything.
If I chose to I could attain a masters degree in biology
But I chose not to for many reasons
One of which is that i would have to tow the professors line and agree with his theory of evolution ..... otherwise I would be stripped of funding and professorship

I immediately recognize this would be a waste of my time and money

Guys like me cause friction in academia ...... because every time a professor challenges me for my lack of diplomas or credentials i challenge him to sit down one on one and have a heads up competition as to who has the highest IQ.

I even go so far as to be willing to wager a $10k bet on the outcome being in my favor.

They never take me up on my challenge

Earlier you said ....... I ask questions and weed out the illogical stuff, that's my duty as a human being.

I feel that is a good approach and I endorse it. I wish some of our professors would also

If we kiss a frog it will not turn into a handsome Prince.
Even if we wait for 43 million years

But let us assume for a minute that a squid could evolve into a human
That alone would not be sufficient
Parallel to that ..... and at exactly the same place and at exactly the same time
you would also require the female version to evolve as well

And it would actually have to be done worldwide and all at the same time (there goes the 43 million years theory)

Otherwise the world would still be full of all the intermediate models
And we all know that is not the case.

The evolutionist professor will agree that all of nature has to be in place at one time in order for it to function

But in the next breath he says all of nature evolved in bits and pieces over millions of years.

I am thankful I do not have a diploma from him.

The theory of evolution is well accepted for one single reason.
It keeps The Creator out of the equation
And that is the whole objective.
It certainly is not based on logic or science.

Did you know that the origins of scientific study was done by creationists who were trying to figure out how The creator did it ?

did you know that most of our colleges and universities were started and funded by Christians and at one time many of them were known as bible colleges with additional courses in things such as higher mathematics , engineering & the sciences etc ?

Do you know why there is no longer any teaching about creation or bible in most universities ?

It comes down to an initial handful of immensely wealthy atheist men such as Andrew Carnegie , Rockefeller etc who offred funding grants to universities on one condition ........ they drop all religious content.

it took quite a few years but the strategy worked.

I do not expect to meet Carnegie or Rockefeller in heaven

But I hope to meet you there.

Chose your professors wisely my friend

Best wishes

 

[Lux Veritatis]

i understood where you are coming from Lux ...... No problem
In debates like this I am often asked about my academic credentials (I have none)
Then the next thing somebody does is hold up their university or college diploma as though somehow it proves them correct.

My upbringing did not allow me to go on to higher education ..... so for that reason i am an autodidact (self taught) and because I have a high IQ it enables me to do so.

I agree that being intelligent is not proof of anything
I also agree that having a biology degree is not proof of anything.
If I chose to I could attain a masters degree in biology
But I chose not to for many reasons
One of which is that i would have to tow the professors line and agree with his theory of evolution ..... otherwise I would be stripped of funding and professorship

I immediately recognize this would be a waste of my time and money

Guys like me cause friction in academia ...... because every time a professor challenges me for my lack of diplomas or credentials i challenge him to sit down one on one and have a heads up competition as to who has the highest IQ.

I even go so far as to be willing to wager a $10k bet on the outcome being in my favor.

They never take me up on my challenge

Earlier you said ....... I ask questions and weed out the illogical stuff, that's my duty as a human being.

I feel that is a good approach and I endorse it. I wish some of our professors would also

If we kiss a frog it will not turn into a handsome Prince.
Even if we wait for 43 million years

But let us assume for a minute that a squid could evolve into a human
That alone would not be sufficient
Parallel to that ..... and at exactly the same place and at exactly the same time
you would also require the female version to evolve as well

And it would actually have to be done worldwide and all at the same time (there goes the 43 million years theory)

Otherwise the world would still be full of all the intermediate models
And we all know that is not the case.

The evolutionist professor will agree that all of nature has to be in place at one time in order for it to function

But in the next breath he says all of nature evolved in bits and pieces over millions of years.

I am thankful I do not have a diploma from him.

The theory of evolution is well accepted for one single reason.
It keeps The Creator out of the equation
And that is the whole objective.
It certainly is not based on logic or science.

Did you know that the origins of scientific study was done by creationists who were trying to figure out how The creator did it ?

did you know that most of our colleges and universities were started and funded by Christians and at one time many of them were known as bible colleges with additional courses in things such as higher mathematics , engineering & the sciences etc ?

Do you know why there is no longer any teaching about creation or bible in most universities ?

It comes down to an initial handful of immensely wealthy atheist men such as Andrew Carnegie , Rockefeller etc who offred funding grants to universities on one condition ........ they drop all religious content.

it took quite a few years but the strategy worked.

I do not expect to meet Carnegie or Rockefeller in heaven

But I hope to meet you there.

Chose your professors wisely my friend

Best wishes

I respect your opinion and honesty, and I do offer my sincere apologies if I came off as a snob. I have spent a lot of time learning and studying this stuff so sometimes I get defensive.

I will take some time to read over what you have presented and get back to you with further questions and possible criticisms.

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

I respect your opinion and honesty, and I do offer my sincere apologies if I came off as a snob. I have spent a lot of time learning and studying this stuff so sometimes I get defensive.

I will take some time to read over what you have presented and get back to you with further questions and possible criticisms.

I never have ever felt that way about you LUX ..... as a matter of fact i find you ask good questions and put a lot of thought into them .... I have a great deal of respect for you . I find that discussions with you are very refreshing compared to so many so-called Christians who base everything on their feelings and emotions.

If it means anything to you , God prefers people who are careful like you and do not buy into every religion blowing by.

Talk later and thanks again

Arnie

 

[Lux Veritatis]

If we kiss a frog it will not turn into a handsome Prince.
Even if we wait for 43 million years

This is a true statement. However, this is also not something evolution would say is going to happen.

But let us assume for a minute that a squid could evolve into a human
That alone would not be sufficient
Parallel to that ..... and at exactly the same place and at exactly the same time
you would also require the female version to evolve as well

I won't specifically argue against what you have provided. Rather, let me give you my overview and understanding of how evolution functions. Evolution is a change in a gene pool over time. Because genes are continually passed from generation to generation, any changes that occurs from mutation or any number of things that can affect the actual genetic material will appear in future generations. The idea is that if some advantage occurs by way of a gene that was inherited, it may give the organism a slightly better chance of survival. The longer they survive, the more likely they are to reproduce. When they do reproduce, they will pass their genetic material to the next generation and so on. Disadvantageous adaptation will eventually disappear because the organisms displaying them will not survive over the course of history.

A good example of this is seen with the war we wage on bacteria in this day and age. When we douse them with antibiotics, 99% of them will be neutralized by it. However, because bacterial genetic material can be so varied, 1% of the bacteria will have some form of resistance to the antibiotic. Because they don't die, they live to reproduce, creating a new generation of bacteria who are resistant to the antibiotic. As time goes on and they reproduce without being affected by the antibiotic, the whole population eventually becomes unaffected and a new antibiotic needs to be used, one which they are not resistant to.

That's it. Nothing about creation from the non living, nothing about God having to not exist. The rest of the stuff that "removed the creator" is separate from evolution.

I should add, however, that there are other ways populations can change over time, such as being isolated from others, major extinction events, and many other things. But the basic idea is based on change in gene frequency.

The theory of evolution is well accepted for one single reason.
It keeps The Creator out of the equation
And that is the whole objective.
It certainly is not based on logic or science.

As for me personally, I do not hold evolution to be true in order to remove a creator. Evolution and abiogenesis are two different things. I believe evolution does not take away any power from God, it only explains how it's possible we have so much diversity in our world.

Did you know that the origins of scientific study was done by creationists who were trying to figure out how The creator did it ?

Indeed I did, and I am very glad they did.

did you know that most of our colleges and universities were started and funded by Christians and at one time many of them were known as bible colleges with additional courses in things such as higher mathematics , engineering & the sciences etc ?

Somewhat true. Not all universities were founded by Christians, especially ones founded in the last hundred years. My university was not. It was founded to train public school teachers at the beginning of the 1900s. However, the original concept of the university and their subsequent founding was indeed religious in nature. And again, I am glad it happened and allowed us to have ways to learn about the world around us.

Do you know why there is no longer any teaching about creation or bible in most universities ?

In the science departments, no. However, it is talked about and discussed in other areas such as philosophy, anthropology and religion courses.

It comes down to an initial handful of immensely wealthy atheist men such as Andrew Carnegie , Rockefeller etc who offred funding grants to universities on one condition ........ they drop all religious content.

Which is unfortunate.

it took quite a few years but the strategy worked.

I do not expect to meet Carnegie or Rockefeller in heaven

But I hope to meet you there.

Chose your professors wisely my friend

Question — which parts of evolution in particular do you find most conflicting with your faith? Do you think there can be a way that modern scientific understanding of the world can coexist with the God of Christianity?

Pax Vobiscum

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

Obviously my Christianity makes me biased toward creationism ..... but that is not the reason I refute the theory of evolution.

I do not accept Darwinism because it does not stand up to scientific scrutiny.

I normally dont like to use other peoples work to bolster my own opinion ...... but in this case it may be appropriate.

Without using religion Dr. David Berlinski shows the obvious flaws in Darwinian theory .





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5r5cRlctLM


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwHzUEWtKq4


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnjnIwDkN0o

 

[Dumparoo]

Well the general truth is that we have to follow whats in front of us right now. Eat as best as we can, and live as healthily as we can. What I like to do alot is go outside and look at all the wonderful plants in the forest. Looking up at the night sky is also a really nice thing to do. Just wondering about them, looking at all their geometrical shapes and thinking about the radius of their impact on the surrounding land. You always wonder to yourself when your out there about the animals that dwell there, making the trees and the ground their homes. Yes the land goes back a long time, but, I mean, lol theres a lot of fun in imagining (it can be very inspiring). I like to forget about all that complicated stuff most of the time and just think about the beauty of everything.