Natural Theology?

[River Jordan]

Let's just be clear that evolving and evolution are not the same thing. The God-given ability for people, animals and plants to adapt, is not quite the same thing either.

What's the difference?

Indeed and we know all we need to know, in that he created them. I keep telling you the Bible is not a science book, but it is a historical account of how mankind came to be on this planet including its creator. It is also a biography of all those that came before us and a depiction of how God works with his people. It runs the gamut of Old Testament and New Testament. But it was finished over two thousand years ago and since that time mankind has learned a lot. The fact is that mankind would have learned a lot more had God not kicked Adam and Eve out of the garden. I don't live in a world of what if.

Many things are not mentioned in the Bible and again as I said they weren't meant to be. God gave mankind intelligence for a reason, then he left us to our own devices for a reason that did not preclude us continuing to walk in faith with him it just precluded that he didn't have to teach us much. Sadly man has made many bad decisions over the Millennia in terms of whether or not to walk with God and in terms of whether or not to believe what his written word tells us.

So we agree that the Bible doesn't "tell us all we need to know" about the world around us, and that God intends for us to use our gifts to learn and study. Good!

The point of this thread is to learn more about God through his creation not deviate from it.
Learning more about God through his creation will never teach us things that the word of God doesn't about God. Learning things through our own intelligence and understanding apart from the word of God will indeed lead mankind away from God as it always has. Your rationale here was faulty and predictably so as you structure it to support your own point of view. Fortunately most of us are not swayed but your type of logic. In contacts my comments are quite reasonable and on topic where is you continue to try to take this thread off topic.

The topic is natural theology, which is the notion that we can learn about God by studying His creation. That's what I do for a living, and one of the things we know for a fact through our studies is that populations evolve. So this is entirely on topic.

And that brings me back to the original point I made in the thread. Apparently some folks think we should study God's creation, but in doing so demand that all discoveries conform to their pre-held beliefs.

Well if you really believe that then you wouldn't be here arguing the contrary. Facetious comments like this don't really score points with anybody and just show your inability to express yourself in an acceptable fashion. How long have you been a Christian RJ and how long have you studied the Bible? Now on the opposite side of that, how much studying have you done about Evolution and how long have you done it? Do you have a degree? I think your answers will tell us a great deal about where your priorities are.

Looks like I'm not allowed to make certain types of comments, whereas you are. Interesting.

No, I have a pretty good idea how science works especially in the certain fields.

Your posts show otherwise.

The sad thing is all the Believers within the scientific community are eventually castigated and/or ostracized for their beliefs in God or even their beliefs in an intelligent designer. The reason is because the leaders of most of those scientific communities are unbelievers and would rather think that everything in nature was happenstance and coincidence. They would rather believe in mother nature than believe In Father God.

Your conspiracy theory is noted.

Again another example of what you don't accept or understand about Genesis 1 but in any event I've explained this count was time to not be afraid to go there to see my answers and stop trying to divert this thread.

Sorry, but that sentence doesn't make sense.

This is not about populations, this is about natural theology. What don't you understand about natural theology as explained by the OP? People evolving is not the same as what evolution teaches. Now please stick to the topic.

Again, The topic is natural theology, which is the notion that we can learn about God by studying His creation. That's what I do for a living, and one of the things we know for a fact through our studies is that populations evolve. So this is entirely on topic.

 

[StanJ]

What's the difference?

Adaptation is what God created us with. Evolution is a man made theory that excludes God.

So we agree that the Bible doesn't "tell us all we need to know" about the world around us, and that God intends for us to use our gifts to learn and study. Good!

Like I said that's not a science book or a book on geology.

The topic is natural theology, which is the notion that we can learn about God by studying His creation. That's what I do for a living, and one of the things we know for a fact through our studies is that populations evolve. So this is entirely on topic.

Your job is learning about God by studying his creation? What exactly is your job/what you do for a living?
How exactly do we learn about God by studying how population's evolve?

And that brings me back to the original point I made in the thread. Apparently some folks think we should study God's creation, but in doing so demand that all discoveries conform to their pre-held beliefs.

So did you deliberately set out to go in circles or was it accidental? I'm not really interested in going in circles.

Looks like I'm not allowed to make certain types of comments, whereas you are. Interesting.

And all this comment is is avoiding the issue and my questions.

Your posts show otherwise.

Only to you.

Your conspiracy theory is noted.

Not a theory when it's been well documented in the press and online.

Sorry, but that sentence doesn't make sense.

Google Voice strikes again. What I said was I've addressed this in the applicable thread so go to that thread to see what I said. I don't want to take this thread off topic.

 

[KingJ]

River Jordan,

You are right about some closed minded people when studying Creation. God's Invisible attributes are stated as being clearly seen from creation. StanJ, I do not think that believing that God can use evolution for his Glory makes someone turn to the dark side.

I agree with Stan's statement only because of the history with RJ. At the same time though I guess we should always be optimistic.

 

[KingJ]

For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20

Since the word of God states that some of God's Attributes are Clearly seen in Creation is it right for us to practice natural theology? It is some amazing stuff and using Logic we can know with undeniable logic some of God's Amazing Attributes. I believe is shines light on some of the doxology in the bible. But it is not practiced must in my opinion in christian circles.

We are called to love God with our heart and mind. Thoughts?

Very interesting subject. I was just thinking the other day how we are all in sin and go to bed knowing we deserve death / punishment. But we all wake up to a bright and warm sun on our face. Laughter of children. Great tasting food etc etc. We are all aware of God's grace and free will / the insanity of mortal sins.

I like how David makes it clear that opposition to this default belief takes being a 1. wicked 2. fool Psalm 14:1.

 

[KingJ]

For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities- Romans 1:20 Thoughts?

A mosquito has taught us all how priceless peace is.

 

[River Jordan]

Adaptation is what God created us with. Evolution is a man made theory that excludes God.

Did you just make those definitions up yourself? And does this mean it's just the word "evolution" that bothers you, and not the process itself?

Your job is learning about God by studying his creation? What exactly is your job/what you do for a living?
How exactly do we learn about God by studying how population's evolve?

My job is to study life (biologist). By studying God's creation and seeing it evolve, we know that God created life that is capable of persisting and evolving on its own rather than life that needs constant maintenance and tinkering.

Not a theory when it's been well documented in the press and online.

Such as?

Google Voice strikes again. What I said was I've addressed this in the applicable thread so go to that thread to see what I said. I don't want to take this thread off topic.

Again, this is entirely on-topic.

 

[StanJ]

Did you just make those definitions up yourself? And does this mean it's just the word "evolution" that bothers you, and not the process itself?

What's wrong with the definitions? You don't agree with him? What bothers me about evolution is how it replaces God as creator and controller of our universe. He created all life with the ability to procreate. He created all life with the ability to adapt to their surroundings. What nature teaches me about God is that God didn't create a universe of puppets or pets, he created a universe where the main components, man, rebelled and caused it to plunge into chaos with no harmony in it whatsoever. He created and designed nature to be dominated by man but at the fall nature was no longer subject to man and ran on it's own. Mankind ended up defying nature which is where many Pagan religions came from. Today mankind speaks of nature as a personnage, i.e.; Mother Nature.
It has no more of a mind today than it did when God created it. It may be a living creation but it does not have a mind nor is it an entity. Sadly evolution has caused many to think that it does or is.

My job is to study life (biologist). By studying God's creation and seeing it evolve, we know that God created life that is capable of persisting and evolving on its own rather than life that needs constant maintenance and tinkering.

That's rather vague RJ. I think you should read my question again and respond accordingly, leaving aside the editorialization.

Such as?

I'm sure you're studious enough to find them on your own if you're really honest with yourself, but the following is one of I ran into several years ago that is more on a secular vein than anything else.
https://youtu.be/V5EPymcWp-g

Again, this is entirely on-topic.

Well that will be up to the OP/Administrator now won't it.

 

[River Jordan]

What's wrong with the definitions? You don't agree with him?

Typically in a conversation the participants use words as they're commonly defined. When one participant starts making up their own definitions off the top of their head, it makes things quite difficult. And no, I certainly don't agree with your made-up definitions.

What bothers me about evolution is how it replaces God as creator and controller of our universe.

You know, I've read a lot of papers in evolutionary biology, taken quite a few higher-level courses in it, attended several conferences....and I can honestly say I've not once seen anyone describe evolution as "replacing God". Where did you get the impression that evolution = atheism? And do you apply this reasoning to other natural processes? Like, do you also believe that since plate tectonics and volcanism provide natural mechanisms for mountain formation, they too seek to "replace God"?

He created all life with the ability to procreate. He created all life with the ability to adapt to their surroundings.

Um...procreation with variation is evolution.

What nature teaches me about God is that God didn't create a universe of puppets or pets, he created a universe where the main components, man, rebelled and caused it to plunge into chaos with no harmony in it whatsoever. He created and designed nature to be dominated by man but at the fall nature was no longer subject to man and ran on it's own. Mankind ended up defying nature which is where many Pagan religions came from. Today mankind speaks of nature as a personnage, i.e.; Mother Nature.
It has no more of a mind today than it did when God created it. It may be a living creation but it does not have a mind nor is it an entity. Sadly evolution has caused many to think that it does or is.

That makes me wonder just where you get your impression of evolutionary biology from. Do you read anything from actual evolutionary biologists, or do you mostly let creationist organizations tell you what evolutionary biology is about?

That's rather vague RJ. I think you should read my question again and respond accordingly, leaving aside the editorialization.

Can't help you there....sorry.

I'm sure you're studious enough to find them on your own if you're really honest with yourself, but the following is one of I ran into several years ago that is more on a secular vein than anything else.
https://youtu.be/V5EPymcWp-g

I'm quite familiar with the movie and it's claims. Is there a specific case that you find particularly compelling that we can look into?

 

[StanJ]

Typically in a conversation the participants use words as they're commonly defined. When one participant starts making up their own definitions off the top of their head, it makes things quite difficult. And no, I certainly don't agree with your made-up definitions.

Typically in a conversation it happens face to face not anonymously over the internet. I wouldn't call these discussions typical. In any event,
you're talking about connotations, not as they're commonly defined. Not many words have one single connotation. You're the one that asked me what the difference was and I told you. You don't like my explanation that's one thing but they're not made up definitions.

You know, I've read a lot of papers in evolutionary biology, taken quite a few higher-level courses in it, attended several conferences....and I can honestly say I've not once seen anyone describe evolution as "replacing God". Where did you get the impression that evolution = atheism? And do you apply this reasoning to other natural processes? Like, do you also believe that since plate tectonics and volcanism provide natural mechanisms for mountain formation, they too seek to "replace God"?

Quite frankly if you haven't bothered to qualify or quantify exactly what your education is or what the job is that you do none of this means anything to me. The fact is I've been discussing Evolution with non-believers for years now and consistently they don't believe in God. Now in my opinion it's because they just use Evolution to replace God which is something that all human beings have a desire to know.

Um...procreation with variation is evolution.

Procreation is procreation. You're so inculcated into Evolution you see it everywhere.

That makes me wonder just where you get your impression of evolutionary biology from. Do you read anything from actual evolutionary biologists, or do you mostly let creationist organizations tell you what evolutionary biology is about?

Well as I've asked you the same thing and you're very vague and not very forthcoming about it, I feel no compunction to list all the stuff I have read on the subject. It does make me wonder though where you get your impression of God. Is it only from Evolution or do you actually read the Bible?

Can't help you there....sorry.

You mean won't.

I'm quite familiar with the movie and it's claims. Is there a specific case that you find particularly compelling that we can look into?

Not sure why we would ask that if you are 'quite familiar with the movie and its claims'? I gave you an example as you requested and I'm not going to take this thread anymore off topic to pursue this one example.

 

[River Jordan]

In any event, you're talking about connotations, not as they're commonly defined. Not many words have one single connotation.

No, I'm talking about the common definition of the words "evolution" and "adaptation".

You're the one that asked me what the difference was and I told you. You don't like my explanation that's one thing but they're not made up definitions.

Um, yes they are made-up definitions....you made them up. If not, then where did you get them from?

Quite frankly if you haven't bothered to qualify or quantify exactly what your education is or what the job is that you do none of this means anything to me.

???????? So if I don't post my personal information to an anonymous person on an internet message board, you can't answer any questions? How does that work? :wacko:

The fact is I've been discussing Evolution with non-believers for years now and consistently they don't believe in God. Now in my opinion it's because they just use Evolution to replace God which is something that all human beings have a desire to know.

That's called sampling bias, and is no different than a person talking to only atheists about the Bible and using those conversations to conclude that the Bible is complete fiction.

Also, right now you're talking to a person who recognizes the reality of evolution and believes in God (and you've discussed it with other Christian "evolutionists" here as well). Why then do you allow atheists to dictate how you see things, rather than take a broader view?

Procreation is procreation. You're so inculcated into Evolution you see it everywhere.

Again, you don't get to just make up definitions to words and demand everyone else use them.

Well as I've asked you the same thing and you're very vague and not very forthcoming about it, I feel no compunction to list all the stuff I have read on the subject.

What are you talking about? I can tell you I have a BS and MS in biology, and I work as a biologist. And as you describe above, your impressions of evolutionary biology comes mostly from discussions with atheists, which is an obviously biased way of going about things.

It does make me wonder though where you get your impression of God. Is it only from Evolution or do you actually read the Bible?

You know that we've been over this before. Just because I interpret scripture differently than you doesn't mean I've never read it.

You mean won't.

No, it means I don't know what you're talking about so I can't help you.

Not sure why we would ask that if you are 'quite familiar with the movie and its claims'? I gave you an example as you requested and I'm not going to take this thread anymore off topic to pursue this one example.

Yeah, this is what usually happens....a creationist will claim there's an anti-God conspiracy in the sciences, I'll ask for evidence, the creationist will make a vague reference to the movie "Expelled", I'll ask which case they'd like to talk about, and the creationist runs away.

Kinda shows that you're not really all that confident in the accuracy of what's in the movie.

 

[StanJ]

No, I'm talking about the common definition of the words "evolution" and "adaptation".

Only as far as you use it, is it a common but not as far as the English language is concerned. The following is just one connotation of the word;
the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form.
"the forms of written languages undergo constant evolution"
synonyms:development, advancement, growth, rise, progress, expansion, unfolding;

Um, yes they are made-up definitions....you made them up. If not, then where did you get them from?

From my knowledge of the English language which I didn't make up.

So if I don't post my personal information to an anonymous person on an internet message board, you can't answer any questions? How does that work?

It works quite well if one wants to have any credulity. You'll notice my profile is quite forthcoming about who I am including my picture, where I live, how old I am, etc....
From experience I find the only people that use your rationale are those that really don't want to be known for who they really are. Not sure why you would be apposed to do that on a Christian forum, but of course that is your privilege. Just don't expect to receive a whole lot of credulity at the same time.

That's called sampling bias, and is no different than a person talking to only atheists about the Bible and using those conversations to conclude that the Bible is complete fiction.
Also, right now you're talking to a person who recognizes the reality of evolution and believes in God (and you've discussed it with other Christian "evolutionists" here as well). Why then do you allow atheists to dictate how you see things, rather than take a broader view?

It's called reality. They do you want to miss represent what I say by showing something else is not unusual but it's not acceptable either. Sorry but in my opinion, 'Christian evolutionist' is an oxymoron. One is really a Christian then they believe the Bible and its account of creation. Evolution does not pass scrutiny under the biblical depiction of creation.

Again, you don't get to just make up definitions to words and demand everyone else use them.

But evolution is due? You may have studied Evolution but apparently that didn't include the English language.

What are you talking about? I can tell you I have a BS and MS in biology, and I work as a biologist. And as you describe above, your impressions of evolutionary biology comes mostly from discussions with atheists, which is an obviously biased way of going about things.

This is nothing but deflection and mis-representation as to what I said but you seem pretty adept at doing this, as I watch your conversations with Barrd. You use excuses to not defend yourself and you use excuses in defending yourself, but you offer no facts or evidence.

You know that we've been over this before. Just because I interpret scripture differently than you doesn't mean I've never read it.

I agree and from what I've encountered so far your problem is not reading ability but comprehension. You do it with both the English language and the Bible.

No, it means I don't know what you're talking about so I can't help you.

So basic rationale in English you have a problem with but scientific complexities not so much? Awefully convenient for you isn't it.

Yeah, this is what usually happens....a creationist will claim there's an anti-God conspiracy in the sciences,I'll ask for evidence, the creationist will make a vague reference to the movie "Expelled", I'll ask which case they'd like to talk about, and the creationist runs away.

I never claimed a conspiracy, what I said was the anti-God sentiment is held in high esteem whereas those who believe in creationism are publicly vilified in a very condescending way. Dawkins is a great example.
If you're really don't want example then don't ask for them. All that demonstrates is that you have no desire whatsoever to change your opinion despite relevant evidence to the contrary.

Kinda shows that you're not really all that confident in the accuracy of what's in the movie.

Was at the time when it was released seven or eight years ago butt I have forgotten a great deal of it just asI'm sure you have forgotten about a lot of stuff you learned seven or eight years ago. If you really want to know then watch the documentary, make a list of what you don't agree with, start of thread with your refutations. Not trying to convince you I'm just responding to your requests, even though you fail to reciprocate.
I'm never extremely confident about the Endeavors of men when it comes to knowledge and understanding, but by the same token I recognize truth when I see it.

 

[River Jordan]

Only as far as you use it, is it a common but not as far as the English language is concerned. The following is just one connotation of the word;
the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form.
"the forms of written languages undergo constant evolution"
synonyms:development, advancement, growth, rise, progress, expansion, unfolding;

Now let's compare that with how you defined things...

"Adaptation is what God created us with. Evolution is a man made theory that excludes God."

Notice the difference? Your made-up definition doesn't match up at all with the actual real-world definition. So where did you get the idea that evolution "excludes God"?

From my knowledge of the English language which I didn't make up.

As we can see above, you sure did.

It works quite well if one wants to have any credulity. You'll notice my profile is quite forthcoming about who I am including my picture, where I live, how old I am, etc....
From experience I find the only people that use your rationale are those that really don't want to be known for who they really are. Not sure why you would be apposed to do that on a Christian forum, but of course that is your privilege. Just don't expect to receive a whole lot of credulity at the same time.

Do you apply that standard to everyone equally, or just those with whom you disagree?

It's called reality.

No, it's called sampling bias, and you illustrated it quite well when after I noted that in all my professional experience I'd never seen evolution described as "replacing God" (as you claimed), you said "The fact is I've been discussing Evolution with non-believers for years now and consistently they don't believe in God. Now in my opinion it's because they just use Evolution to replace God which is something that all human beings have a desire to know."

If that's not sampling bias, what is it?

Sorry but in my opinion, 'Christian evolutionist' is an oxymoron. One is really a Christian then they believe the Bible and its account of creation. Evolution does not pass scrutiny under the biblical depiction of creation.

So all Christians who are also "evolutionists" are not really Christians?

This is nothing but deflection and mis-representation as to what I said

No it's not. See above, where after I asked how you got the idea that evolution replaces God, you cited your conversations with atheists.

I agree and from what I've encountered so far your problem is not reading ability but comprehension. You do it with both the English language and the Bible.

It's funny how you're the one who was so offended that you put me on ignore, yet you're the one who consistently throws around personal insults like this. Well....maybe not funny as much as hypocritical.

I will continue to ignore your insults and focus only on the topic.

I never claimed a conspiracy, what I said was the anti-God sentiment is held in high esteem

As evidenced by.......?

whereas those who believe in creationism are publicly vilified in a very condescending way.

If your'e talking about young-earth creationism and/or ID creationism, then yeah they are....and they deserve it too. The extensive history of the incredibly dishonest creationist tactic of quote-mining alone is enough to discredit them, never mind the fact that both are laughably wrong from a scientific perspective. Add in their consistent efforts to undermine science education and the fact that they are vilified makes sense.

Dawkins is a great example.

How do you deal with Christian scientists like Francis Collins?

If you're really don't want example then don't ask for them. All that demonstrates is that you have no desire whatsoever to change your opinion despite relevant evidence to the contrary.

You didn't give an example, you just linked to a movie. And like I said, I've seen the movie and am very familiar with its claims, so your objection is without merit.

If you really want to know then watch the documentary, make a list of what you don't agree with, start of thread with your refutations. Not trying to convince you I'm just responding to your requests, even though you fail to reciprocate.

If I do, will you defend the contents of the movie?

I'm never extremely confident about the Endeavors of men when it comes to knowledge and understanding, but by the same token I recognize truth when I see it.

And what do you do when it's clear that you've been lied to?

 

[StanJ]

Notice the difference? Your made-up definition doesn't match up at all with the actual real-world definition. So where did you get the idea that evolution "excludes God"?

Did any of your teaching that you received about Evolution include the God Factor? Is he included in any of the high school curriculum that you know of?

As we can see above, you sure did.

I'm pretty sure you won't find one person on this thread that agrees with this. Your perception is obviously biased and so you wouldn't ADMIT to my definition to being accurate whatever the case. You simply argue semantics and not facts and as we see you here you make this thread bug down and become very unproductive.

Do you apply that standard to everyone equally, or just those with whom you disagree?

It's not a standard it's a recognition of the reality of how you discuss. At this point I'm only really responding to you and all your facetious comments. Denial seems to be your one-and-only MO.

No, it's called sampling bias, and you illustrated it quite well when after I noted that in all my professional experience I'd never seen evolution described as "replacing God" (as you claimed), you said "The fact is I've been discussing Evolution with non-believers for years now and consistently they don't believe in God. Now in my opinion it's because they just use Evolution to replace God which is something that all human beings have a desire to know."
If that's not sampling bias, what is it?

Well again it's your opinion which I've already refuted and which you continue to try to assert with no validity whatsoever. Your professional experience hasn't been evidenced here, and based on your own statement that you do not wish to reveal your true self, there is no reason to believe you. So we really have no way of knowing what credentials you have if any.

So all Christians who are also "evolutionists" are not really Christians?

Pretty sure you understood my statement so why do you ask again? It is really unproductive in discussing things with you as other people have also observed.

No it's not. See above, where after I asked how you got the idea that evolution replaces God, you cited your conversations with atheists.

It definitely is because you didn't answer anything but just deflected and obfuscated. You're going in circles is completely unproductive.

It's funny how you're the one who was so offended that you put me on ignore, yet you're the one who consistently throws around personal insults like this. Well....maybe not funny as much as hypocritical.
I will continue to ignore your insults and focus only on the topic.

I put you on ignore because of this type of repetitious non answering and the lack of any productivity in threads you're involved with. Not much has changed. You continue to focus on minutiae instead of dealing with the the actual issue of the thread. It's more about me not wanting to waste my time.

As evidenced by.......?

What you refuse to accept.

If your'e talking about young-earth creationism and/or ID creationism, then yeah they are....and they deserve it too. The extensive history of the incredibly dishonest creationist tactic of quote-mining alone is enough to discredit them, never mind the fact that both are laughably wrong from a scientific perspective. Add in their consistent efforts to undermine science education and the fact that they are vilified makes sense.

Which just shows your inculcation not that they're wrong. I'm not against education well at least I'm not against Real education. Inculcation is another thing altogether. Again off topic.

How do you deal with Christian scientists.

I don't I only deal with people that come on here and postulate or misrepresent reality.

You didn't give an example, you just linked to a movie. And like I said, I've seen the movie and am very familiar with its claims, so your objection is without merit.

So you deny it is factual in any way shape or form? Then I guess whatever I resent you would do the same thing with as you do with everybody else that brings up these issues? So exactly how are you being productive or even staying on topic?

If I do, will you defend the contents of the movie?

As long as you don't bring them to this thread, yes.

And what do you do when it's clear that you've been lied to?

How you claiming that the Bible lies to us? Why you even here if you don't believe that the Bible is true and what it conveys is true?

 

[River Jordan]

Did any of your teaching that you received about Evolution include the God Factor? Is he included in any of the high school curriculum that you know of?

Of course not, just like God isn't included in chemistry, geology, genetics, engineering, physics, or just about any other course that isn't specifically about religion. So it looks like your reasoning here is something like "If God isn't specifically mentioned while teaching a subject, that subject is therefore anti-God".

Makes me wonder how you can bring yourself to use a computer, given that courses related to the IT field also don't mention God.

I'm pretty sure you won't find one person on this thread that agrees with this. Your perception is obviously biased and so you wouldn't ADMIT to my definition to being accurate whatever the case.

The facts are there for all to see. You said, "Adaptation is what God created us with. Evolution is a man made theory that excludes God", and when I asked where you got those definitions from, you couldn't say. We also know that they aren't at all consistent with the dictionary definitions of either term. Thus the only logical conclusion is that you made those definitions up. If you're going to claim you didn't, then you need to show where they came from.

It's not a standard it's a recognition of the reality of how you discuss.

So I'm the only person here who has to post all their personal information to you to gain credibility?

Well again it's your opinion

No, it's a matter of the facts evident in this thread. After I'd wondered where you got the idea that evolution "replaces God" from, you cited your discussions with atheists and that they "use evolution to replace God". That's the very definition of sampling bias, no different than someone citing their discussions with atheists as justification for concluding that the Bible is a work of fiction.

based on your own statement that you do not wish to reveal your true self, there is no reason to believe you. So we really have no way of knowing what credentials you have if any.

A standard that you only hold me to, which makes it look more like an excuse to avoid the facts than anything else.

Pretty sure you understood my statement so why do you ask again?

So we're clear then....your view is that one cannot be a Christian and also accept the reality of evolution.

You continue to focus on minutiae instead of dealing with the the actual issue of the thread.

And as we've seen, my first post on this topic was spot-on. Some, like you, demand that everything we learn from studying God's creation must conform to your beliefs.

What you refuse to accept.

Your evasive non-answer is noted.

Which just shows your inculcation not that they're wrong.

No, they're just wrong, as well as massively dishonest. I can't tell you how many people at our church, who after I've shown them a scientist's original work and then compared it to the way a creationist organization has selectively edited it, are absolutely appalled that someone claiming to be a Christian could be so blatantly and obviously dishonest.

I mean....I really can't think of any justification for this common creationist practice. Can you?

I don't

So you go around claiming that evolution is anti-God, that science has an anti-God bias, and that Christianity and evolution are mutually exclusive....but when it comes to scientists who are Christians and work in evolutionary biology, your approach is to just not think about it?

So in addition to selection bias, we can add confirmation bias to your list.

So you deny it is factual in any way shape or form?

It's a very dishonest piece of work.

Then I guess whatever I resent you would do the same thing with as you do with everybody else that brings up these issues? So exactly how are you being productive or even staying on topic?

What do you mean "the same thing"? Ask that you specify and defend your statements? How terrible!!

As long as you don't bring them to this thread, yes.

Ok then, let's do that. I'll start a thread in the science board.

How you claiming that the Bible lies to us? Why you even here if you don't believe that the Bible is true and what it conveys is true?

?????????? I've never said anything like that at all. Ever. :wacko:

My question is what will you do if it becomes evident that those you rely on to tell you about science (e.g., the makers of Expelled) have been lying to you?

 

[TravisT]

This is getting way off topic. Lets bring it back to more of the classical ways to see God's existence and Attributes. StanJ and River Jordan lets stop this talk about your different views on evolution.

 

[River Jordan]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the topic of the OP is whether natural theology is something we should practice. Since natural theology is a means to learn more about God by studying the natural world around us that He created, that brings us back to the point I made in my first post in this thread....

Is natural theology only valid as long as it leads you to conclusions about God that you already had? I'd say if that's the case, then it's pretty pointless. The only time such an approach would be useful is if it led you to learn things about God that you didn't already know.

The Galileo affair is a good example of this. The Catholic Church was quite convinced that scripture taught a stationary-earth geocentric model of the universe, and from that they concluded that all studies must conform to those beliefs. But by actually looking and studying the earth and the solar system, Galileo demonstrated that God had actually created a moving earth that orbits the sun like the other planets.

That tells me that we shouldn't think we know everything about God or that what we think we know from scripture can't ever be wrong. God continues to surprise us, and always will. :)

 

[StanJ]

This is getting way off topic. Lets bring it back to more of the classical ways to see God's existence and Attributes. StanJ and River Jordan lets stop this talk about your different views on evolution.

I've tried from the very beginning but she/he seems to not want to comply 2 Common rules at CB

 

[TravisT]

I do wish you would give credit for this to Pat Zukeran. When you present it without giving credit, it amounts to plagiarism.

I found this on a website and not in a book nor was a claiming it as my own but thanks for pointing it out.

 

[TravisT]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the topic of the OP is whether natural theology is something we should practice. Since natural theology is a means to learn more about God by studying the natural world around us that He created, that brings us back to the point I made in my first post in this thread....

Is natural theology only valid as long as it leads you to conclusions about God that you already had? I'd say if that's the case, then it's pretty pointless. The only time such an approach would be useful is if it led you to learn things about God that you didn't already know.

The Galileo affair is a good example of this. The Catholic Church was quite convinced that scripture taught a stationary-earth geocentric model of the universe, and from that they concluded that all studies must conform to those beliefs. But by actually looking and studying the earth and the solar system, Galileo demonstrated that God had actually created a moving earth that orbits the sun like the other planets.

That tells me that we shouldn't think we know everything about God or that what we think we know from scripture can't ever be wrong. God continues to surprise us, and always will. :)

Natural theology and Natural Science are to different topics of study.

Natural Theology uses things like first principles of logic/being to help establish a rational defense of Theism. Natural Science studies nature and comes up with explanations. Religion and Science get along great when it is done right but when science contradicts the bible then we as Christians know that the scientists that created the theory must be wrong and we must look for another explanation to account for what we see.

 

[River Jordan]

Natural theology and Natural Science are to different topics of study.

The natural sciences can inform natural theology.

Natural Theology uses things like first principles of logic/being to help establish a rational defense of Theism. Natural Science studies nature and comes up with explanations.

And the results of natural science can feed into the process.

Religion and Science get along great when it is done right but when science contradicts the bible then we as Christians know that the scientists that created the theory must be wrong and we must look for another explanation to account for what we see.

What you describe is the same thing that led to the Galileo embarrassment. The Church was sure that scripture described a stationary-earth geocentric model of the universe, which led them to denounce and suppress any and all science that contradicted their interpretation. But as we all know, in the end it was the Church's interpretations that were wrong, not the science.

We should avoid repeating that same mistake.