The Truth Surrounding the Theory of Evolution and its Rationale

Discussion about scientific issues as they relate to God and Christianity including archaeology, origins of life, the universe, intelligent design, evolution, etc.
User avatar
neo-x
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3334
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:13 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Contact:

Re: The Truth Surrounding the Theory of Evolution and its Rationale

Postby neo-x » Sat Dec 09, 2017 7:25 am

RickD wrote:
neo-x wrote:
RickD wrote:
neo-x wrote:
RickD wrote:Christ.

I see but we are talking about evolution from molecules to man which doesn't necessitate a miracle. Christ's birth doesn't fall under evolution. I think I have said it before, I think miracles can happen.



If God created Adam that would be a miracle too, right?

You said "all humans", and "no exceptions".

I'm not sure how you can be consistent if you allow for the miracle of Christ's conception, but won't allow for Adam's miraculous creation. On one hand, you say if God had to step in to miraculously create Adam, that shows God had to correct a mistake. Yet, on the other hand, you allow for God stepping in for Christ's miraculous conception.

It seems inconsistent.

Maybe to you but to me these are two very different things. In the case for Adam, he could have come about from molecules to man, as everyone else. ToE answers that. In the case of Christ he could not have since it needed a miracle. In the case for Adam it didn't.

What?

Then you just contradicted what you said here:
It specifically says that all humans share common ancestry, no exceptions, no miracles needed or are allowed.

Which was what I was trying to ask you about in the first place.

Edit:

And there's this inconsistency. Again, since the inconsistency is in your belief, I'm assuming for the sake of discussion, that molecules to man evolution is true. You said:
Taking your premise that molecules to man evolution were possible and happening - I think that it is certainly possible that God could make Adam and Eve as special creations. But I would ask why?

It seems futile. If molecules to man evolution were successful then why make one separate pair? There isn't any need for it.

Also, your premise assumes that since macroevolution was happening that God indeed willed it or designed it or was somehow in control of it or its intended outcomes?

This alone defeats the very purpose for special creation as it means that whatever had God intended through evolution wasn't happening so he had to intervene to fix things. The only problem is it makes God a poor planner. The only way you intervene in something is when things are not going as you want them to be. And since evolution is happening already as God's intended it to be, then there is no need to make a special case.
In this scenario, God is either inefficient and unintelligent and that is something we both agree on, that God isn't both.

On one hand, God has no need to make a special case with the miraculous creation of Adam, because it makes God a poor planner if He had to intervene to fix things. Yet on the other hand, God intervened to fix things by the miraculous conception of Jesus Christ.

Both miracles. Both intervening by God. Only one makes God inefficient and unintelligent.

That's inconsistent.

Again. Not at all.
You are mixing two very different things. In Christ's case God didn't intervene to fix things.
In the context of evolution, if molecules to man is true, then God's intervention is inefficient or unneeded.

Christ's birth is not part of the process of evolution as when you say molecules to man you mean exactly that from the time life started evolving to the time where it got to humans. Miracles can happen but in the case of evolution to take place are unnecessary.
People treat facts as relevant more when the facts tend to support their opinions. When the facts are against their opinions, they don't necessarily deny the facts, but they say the facts are less relevant or insignificant. This is ofcourse because believing things that make you feel comfortable, takes a priority. And I think that should not be the case if one is after truth.

http://johnadavid.wordpress.com

trulyenlightened
Established Member
Posts: 168
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2017 1:21 am
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Location: Qld. Australia

Re: The Truth Surrounding the Theory of Evolution and its Rationale

Postby trulyenlightened » Sat Dec 09, 2017 8:11 am

Philip wrote:
Truly: Philip, you do not know me at all! So please keep your self-serving psych evaluations to yourself.


Don, I'm only what seems obvious to me. But you're right, I don't know of your background or your life.

Truly: I have asked God to make his presence known to me many times, and in such a way that there could be no doubt.


Good - then you realize it's not a foolish quest, and that it's a natural thing for a person to wonder about.

Truly: In Viet Nam, the death of my first child, the death of my closest friends, the death of my father, etc. No one was there, but me. Considering the level of pestilence, wars, diseases, starvations, crimes, deaths, greed, hate, and apathy that we see in the world today, why would I want to seek someone, or "some thing", that would stand-by and allow these conditions to not only continue, but to flourish? I don't feel that, "life after death will be better", is an adequate explanation since we are all going to die anyway.


Christians don't like these many terrible things any more than you do. We all struggle to understand. But much of the suffering and evil comes at the hand of man, but not all. Many people find God, not in the midst of peace and prosperity, but that they sought Him hard in the midst of their sufferings. But we'll never perfectly understand this. But God does tell us our experience here has a purpose, and that it's certainly not all about THIS world. A book that might be helpful to you, is C.S. Lewis' "The Problem of Pain": https://www.amazon.com/Problem-Pain-C-S-Lewis/dp/0060652969 - perhaps it might offer you some valuable insights you'd not ever considered.

Truly: Do you really think that most of mankind is sitting around pondering the meaning of life? It is a mental exercise for a mind that needs to create a perception of importance and enlightenment.


Well, vast millions obviously do. But many others are merely caught up in religion, as an extension of the expectations of friends, family and social network - as to leave it would be to be shunned and to lose many relationships. But that's religion - rather, man trying to please some supposed god so as to gain heaven or whatever post-mortal state. NO Christian is promised Heaven upon the basis of being "good." It's upon entering into a committed, loving relationship with God - one in which we're still gonna continuously screw up, even as He refines and changes us to what He desires.

Truly: It is pure mental masterbation, without the same results.


And yet massive numbers of people who have lived on this planet claim a very different experience and result. So just because you haven't experienced that, isn't it a bit arrogant to claim it's a pointless thing. And part of that pondering is, obviously, WHICH claimed deity is actually GOD

Truly: I asked you if you would be willing to subject Theism to scientific scrutiny? You side stepped this issue by saying that science can only point to the probability of things that you would consider as being unreasonable.


No, I merely agree with many of your statement that say that science cannot prove to us God - it's abilities end with what can be measured and observed. So, even if one sees the evidences, as many scientists have, that those evidences re-enforce their belief in God, they can't PROVE it. So why would one seek proof in human-designed processes that have not such ability? That seems rather obvious. And, of course, the seeking I speak of IS an experiment - and for many, it's an experiment that may take time - in God's time - as He reveals Himself to people. You can't know when the experiment has been proven a waste of time. But God also knows the person whose heart is closed to Him, who is insincere and truly doesn't want to know the truth - OR that only wants some truth defined as they assert it must be or desire it to be.

Truly: Therefore, I see no reason to search for an all-powerful intelligence, that has the power to make pigs fly.


And right there we see your cynical, sarcastically noted presupposition reveals your closed your mind.

Truly: Without evidence first, I don't see any purpose for this type of venture.


So, you want evidence before seeing evidence of God??? Weird strategy.

Truly: Unless, the goal is to keep looking until I eventually convince myself(confirmation bias).


No, Don, this is what the masses do - they convince themselves of non-existent gods of false, man-made religions - which people obviously do, sadly.

Truly: So without all the editorializing and excuse-making, you are just saying NO, you are not interested in subjecting Theism to any scientific method of scrutiny. Period!

Quite redundant. A) I've already known and experience God in amazing ways. B) I've patiently explained - and you've made statements that agree - that the scientific method cannot produce proof of God. Why keep asserting it can, when you, yourself, have admitted it cannot, that you "might be wrong?"

Truly: Since you do not KNOW every other Religion or every other Faith, you have no idea what they assert or think, please comment only on what you do know.


I've spent 40 years looking at what religions believe around the world. None are remotely compared to the faith and historic evidences of Christianity. They are ALL "works-based" ways at pleasing God. None have a figure like Jesus who claimed to be God and was resurrected - with many witnesses testifying to that - at the threat of death and resurrection, they claimed to see a risen Jesus. Not one lunatic, but many people - all of whom taught this risked a horrific death themselves. Then there is a lot of prophecy that can be examined. God sent many prophets and apostles - not just some lone guy who goes off in a room and says "God" communicated with them.

Truly: But just in case I am misjudging the obvious, what exactly would this experiment entail?


Sincerely, openly, and without presuppositions, seeking God to reveal Himself to you - making yourself truly open to an answer "if" an answer can be had. But God knows who wants to really know, and who just wants to self-justify their own continued unbelief - and He'll let them have their wish in that. Just be honest with Him - even in your unbelief, acknowledge that you can't believe without whatever it would take - and remember, you can't know what exactly YOU, individually, might need to have your eyes opened. Some, like you and my lawyer friend, require something really personally powerful and obvious. God will give you WHATEVER YOU personally need to come to belief in Him - and that "whatever" evidence comes in differing and often-unexpected ways to different people.

Truly: Would I need to read scripture for years, until cognitive dissonance convinces me that what I am reading is real?


No. Many in churches are only practicing religion, even reading their Bibles, but have never come to faith in Christ. Ritual and religion will never reveal God to a person.

Truly: Should I abandon critical thinking, and immerse myself into the possibility that alternative realities exist?


Absolutely NOT! God is the one who gave us our intellect, logic, free will, and often-insatiable curiosity. Which is why most of humanity at least wonders about God, or who or what they think he is, or might be.

Truly: Maybe you can explain why any experiment that must presuppose only one outcome is possible, and ignore any other? Hardly very scientific!


Because it's an experiment not detected by scientific methodology.

Truly: So unless you can provide just one piece of objective evidence, or one fallacy-free reason for this experiment, I'm afraid I'm going to have to pass for now. But out of respect, I thank you for the invitation. Don


Don, it's really up to you. Just know that I am not your adversary and that God loves you. I've prayed that you do seek and will find Him. I know He wants you to know Him - but He'll never force anyone, anywhere, to seek Him. But not seeking, constant avoidance, permanent resistance - such things add up to rejection - the one reason why people will fail to enter Heaven. I think the stakes are more than worthy of the experiment.

Blessings to you, Don!


Philip, we are both born with a working brain. We are both born with the same instincts that is part of that working brain. These instincts are the basic tools we need for the survival of our species. One aspect of these tools is to ask questions, WITHOUT ATTACHING CONDITIONS. This is what independent and critical thinking is all about. Once we start to control how a person thinks, we can then control and predict what a person's actions will be. History is full of examples of this form of mass control, especially when used by religions and governments. Science is based only on the evidence and the data, not on ideas or beliefs. Because you don't know the difference between both general and special relativity, and quantum mechanics, how can you ever understand why the Universe may not of had a beginning? You could never understand why time can be imaginary, negative, or in Planck Time as we get closer to time zero. You can never accept the scientific explanation of the BB, as a result of quantum tunneling, created by a quantum flux, which led to a quantum vacuum and finally to a delayed expansion. Even though these ideas are based on evidence, mathematical modeling, and measurements that are all mathematically sound and consistent. Is it simply easier for you to manipulate metaphysical and philosophical ideas, to form the answers to justify your suppositions? Or, simply keep asking the standard default question, "Then WHO created that?". Science is not that malleable. It is science that has progressively and consistently ended the beliefs in Gods, Superstitions, Myths, and Fairy Tales. But, as long as there exist things that are unfalsifiable, there will always be an answer to worship or believe in.

The herding instinct is as powerful as cognitive dissonance. Cattle run together, birds flock together, bees swarm together, so why not the same for humans? This is an instinct we have inherited from our ancestors. When we study history, we find a succession of groups, assemble under one leader, that compete with one another for control and dominance over land and each other. We also find a succession of religions that compete with one another for ideological dominance. People who behave according to a "herding instinct", tend to engage in copycat behavior. Hence, billions of believers.

"Christians have historically demanded that everybody join the Christian movement and branded those who don’t join as “heathens”. Radical Muslims have recently demanded that everybody believe in their radical version of Islam, and those who don’t believe in their version are called “infidels.” Infidels must be punished, sometimes by being beheaded. Various sects of Hinduism have likewise assumed a superiority over other sects and in some way branded outsiders".

Another aspect of our herding instinct is that it emboldens people in the group. Since everyone in the group is doing it, then the consensus of belief will give permission for its members to keep doing it. Therefore, people within the group/herd will begin to look down at all those who are not part of the group/herd. They will soon find reasons to persecute anyone outside of the group/herd. It is a human tendency, a human narcissism, to find reasons to feel superior to others(exclusivity). As seen throughout history, as people feel more emboldened, the members of groups will begin to behave more callously and more viciously, and will always make-up reasons to justify their behavior(like in Nazi Germany, and lynchings). The group/herd mentality does not make any fine distinctions based on reality. People are either right or wrong, and there are no in-between. People belonging to the group/herd will use the actions of others as a guide to what is acceptable behavior, instead of seeking the best information about the consequences of their behavior. Or, simply being true to their own nature. Herding evolved to only benefit the individuals, not the group or the society. Those members of the herd that were pushed to the outside, were sacrificed to the predators, to protect the rest of the herd. Usually they were the ones that were weak, sick, old, or just couldn't keep up. Needless to say, in this day and age, I have no need to follow the herd. I find it more rewarding to ground my understanding in reality, and not in Belief. One encourages learning, and the other discourages it.

Anyway, we have very different ideologies. One restricts individuality, and the other develops and encourages it. I treasure my independency, including both my free will and my free won't. So, if I ask for evidence, and your best answer is that science is not capable of providing any, well then that's just not a good enough reason. Maybe you can provide some creation-specific metaphysical piece of evidence that is fallacy-free? I was also not asking how I should search, I was asking WHY I should search(please, no more cryptic answers)? If however, you ever wish to find answers to things/ideas that are not based entirely on the metaphysical, or is faith-based only, then I can certainly get you started. Don

trulyenlightened
Established Member
Posts: 168
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2017 1:21 am
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Location: Qld. Australia

Re: The Truth Surrounding the Theory of Evolution and its Rationale

Postby trulyenlightened » Sat Dec 09, 2017 8:22 am

abelcainsbrother wrote:
trulyenlightened wrote:
Philip wrote:
TrulyE: I was just wondering why Philip would choose someone so controversial, that even people of faith take issue with his Biblical interpretations.


Citing AIG just further shows me your ignorance of how you think most Christians must view issues of Creationism. AIG has repeatedly asserted things proven to be wrong. They've said things like the distance and age of stars are illusions.

First place, those in Hugh Ross' organization have impeccable scientific backgrounds - no, they didn't throw away their scientific integrity or confidence in the scientific method to support their Christian beliefs. AIG and YECs, however, interpret some science far differently, and actually dismiss certain widely held consensus of studies showing great age of the universe and the earth - Ross and co. accept these dates, but they do not accept that evolution - molecules to men. But they accept the data being sifted as factual. Both YECs / AIG and OECs agree on one thing: A Creator God. My point is that well-qualified scientists CAN and DO believe in God - and not all such scientists are Christians - some, like Einstein, embraced some type of Deist creator - not the God of the Bible.

TrulyE: It seems almost self-defeating to me, to choose this Christian scientist to champion his Belief-related points.


If scientific evidences point to some probability that some God-like Entity MUST exist, then is it any wonder that so many of the world's great scientist have believed in God? Many of these people concluded this FIRST from what they've learned from science. The problem for you is that you believe that only blind faith and religious beliefs inform us of God. But no thinking Christian believes this - we see tremendous evidences in what science has informed us on.

TrulyE: The problem with using any site as a resource, is that if you don't have the proper grounding, how could you determine if the information is right or wrong?


Concepts can be broken down into analogies and descriptive, dependent meanings. I don't need to know how to fly a passenger jet to understand the basic principles of airflow and flight. Does a physicist understand chemistry? Does a chemist understand microbiology. Do any of them have a geologist's or paleontologist's knowledge level? Course not. But they can understand things broken down to their wide consensus and conclusions. And we all can sift the basic concepts and descriptions of what they are based upon. And we can also see where, in their descriptions, various people have jumped an enormous, inexplicable gap, where they've connected things in their explanations that there was no bridge to beyond speculation. Truly, you've spoken of many things you yourself can't have expertise in. So, that's really not a valid claim.

How would you know what to look for? If you can't maintain impartiality, you will only see what you want to see, believe what you want to believe, and confirm what you want to confirm. In other words, NOT being impartial or objective.


First place, it's ridiculous to say one can't be impartial in their quest for knowledge. Yes, we ALL have presuppositions and biases, but the truly objective person has confidence that A) there is a truth and B) that if they come across something that challenges their presuppositions, that either the info is wrong, or their presupposition was.

TrulyE: Therefore, being scientific includes being objective and impartial. Therefore being exclusive and selective is not being scientific.


Which is why all scientists agree on virtually everything? Else, if they were all truly objective and impartial, they'd all come to the same conclusions, right? But great scientists often have highly exclusive and selective views that differ from those of their colleagues. Such circular reasoning you have.


I never claimed that Scientists can't believe in a God. I never stated that Dr. Ross and Co. did not have impeccable credentials. So please, no more straw man. I merely stated from a scientific perspective, that there is no such thing as a Christian scientist, there is only a scientist. If scientific evidence pointed to the probability that a God-like entity existed, what does that have to do with the world's greatest scientists believing in God? Are saying that because of their belief in a deity, that this somehow increases the probability of the existence of God? There is no such correlation! The great scientist that I listed, were certainly not theists(including Einstein). Most were Agnostics. Why do you simply ignore this information, and keep parroting nonsense? What metaphysical or Theological discoveries have been discovered in the last 1000 years? Name one new discovery!

"Does a physicist understand chemistry? Does a chemist understand microbiology"? Venkatraman Ramakrishnan, won the 2009 Nobel Prize in Chemistry. What do you think is his area of expertise is? He is a Physicists and Microbiologists. There are many scientist that are multidisciplined. What is relevant, is the level of scrutiny that scientists would apply to an explanation. After, "Of course not, I have no idea what you are trying to say.

A scientist will understand the fine-tuning as well as the design. The novice or non-scientist will understand the design but rarely the fine-tuning. If there is disagreement on a scientific issue, it will be in the fine-tuning, not the design. It is very true that many great scientist have disagreements among their colleagues. That is why objective evidence is so important in resolving these disagreements. In science it is irrelevant how impartial you are. All that matters is how impartial your data and your evidence is. Science has a way of regulating itself. The greatest dream of most scientists, is to disprove someone else's work. You must convince members of your peers that your ideas are correct. There are no such vetting occurring in non-academia. You can believe in anything you want, until you decide to submit your belief to peer review. Most scientist believe in most things, but no two people will believe in everything.

Your last comment makes no sense to me. Do you even know what circular reasoning mean? What does that have to do with your examples, or anything I have said? Don



For TrulyE. Here is that debate I told you about earlier between Hugh Ross(Theist) and Victor Stinger(Atheist) concerning science that you might find interesting.It is about two hours long so make sure you have enough time to watch it.Just see what you think about it because I think Hugh Ross won this debate but you can decide for yourself.
Hugh Ross(Theist) vs Victor Stinger(Atheist) concerning science.
https://youtu.be/Bzo1y95fs7g


Thank you for that. It was very entertaining. Maybe you can explain to me what the late Professor Stenger(the fifth horseman) means by, Quantum Tunneling, Quantum Vacuum, and Quantum Flux? Don

User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
Posts: 18809
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Kamino

Re: The Truth Surrounding the Theory of Evolution and its Rationale

Postby RickD » Sat Dec 09, 2017 8:23 am

neo-x wrote:
RickD wrote:
neo-x wrote:
RickD wrote:
neo-x wrote:I see but we are talking about evolution from molecules to man which doesn't necessitate a miracle. Christ's birth doesn't fall under evolution. I think I have said it before, I think miracles can happen.



If God created Adam that would be a miracle too, right?

You said "all humans", and "no exceptions".

I'm not sure how you can be consistent if you allow for the miracle of Christ's conception, but won't allow for Adam's miraculous creation. On one hand, you say if God had to step in to miraculously create Adam, that shows God had to correct a mistake. Yet, on the other hand, you allow for God stepping in for Christ's miraculous conception.

It seems inconsistent.

Maybe to you but to me these are two very different things. In the case for Adam, he could have come about from molecules to man, as everyone else. ToE answers that. In the case of Christ he could not have since it needed a miracle. In the case for Adam it didn't.

What?

Then you just contradicted what you said here:
It specifically says that all humans share common ancestry, no exceptions, no miracles needed or are allowed.

Which was what I was trying to ask you about in the first place.

Edit:

And there's this inconsistency. Again, since the inconsistency is in your belief, I'm assuming for the sake of discussion, that molecules to man evolution is true. You said:
Taking your premise that molecules to man evolution were possible and happening - I think that it is certainly possible that God could make Adam and Eve as special creations. But I would ask why?

It seems futile. If molecules to man evolution were successful then why make one separate pair? There isn't any need for it.

Also, your premise assumes that since macroevolution was happening that God indeed willed it or designed it or was somehow in control of it or its intended outcomes?

This alone defeats the very purpose for special creation as it means that whatever had God intended through evolution wasn't happening so he had to intervene to fix things. The only problem is it makes God a poor planner. The only way you intervene in something is when things are not going as you want them to be. And since evolution is happening already as God's intended it to be, then there is no need to make a special case.
In this scenario, God is either inefficient and unintelligent and that is something we both agree on, that God isn't both.

On one hand, God has no need to make a special case with the miraculous creation of Adam, because it makes God a poor planner if He had to intervene to fix things. Yet on the other hand, God intervened to fix things by the miraculous conception of Jesus Christ.

Both miracles. Both intervening by God. Only one makes God inefficient and unintelligent.

That's inconsistent.

Again. Not at all.
You are mixing two very different things. In Christ's case God didn't intervene to fix things.
In the context of evolution, if molecules to man is true, then God's intervention is inefficient or unneeded.

Christ's birth is not part of the process of evolution as when you say molecules to man you mean exactly that from the time life started evolving to the time where it got to humans. Miracles can happen but in the case of evolution to take place are unnecessary.

Neo,

That makes no sense. Adam's special creation isn't a part of evolution, just as Christ's conception isn't. In neither Christ's conception, nor Adam's creation, did God intervene to "fix things" that were broken with evolution. Both were "planned" by God and weren't an afterthought to fix anything that God screwed up.

You seriously can't see how your beliefs are inconsistent in this regard?
1 Corinthians 1:9
9 God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Audie wrote:
"Christianity is not a joke, but it has some very poor representatives."


St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony

User avatar
neo-x
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3334
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:13 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Contact:

Re: The Truth Surrounding the Theory of Evolution and its Rationale

Postby neo-x » Sat Dec 09, 2017 8:47 am

RickD wrote:
neo-x wrote:
RickD wrote:
neo-x wrote:
RickD wrote:

If God created Adam that would be a miracle too, right?

You said "all humans", and "no exceptions".

I'm not sure how you can be consistent if you allow for the miracle of Christ's conception, but won't allow for Adam's miraculous creation. On one hand, you say if God had to step in to miraculously create Adam, that shows God had to correct a mistake. Yet, on the other hand, you allow for God stepping in for Christ's miraculous conception.

It seems inconsistent.

Maybe to you but to me these are two very different things. In the case for Adam, he could have come about from molecules to man, as everyone else. ToE answers that. In the case of Christ he could not have since it needed a miracle. In the case for Adam it didn't.

What?

Then you just contradicted what you said here:
It specifically says that all humans share common ancestry, no exceptions, no miracles needed or are allowed.

Which was what I was trying to ask you about in the first place.

Edit:

And there's this inconsistency. Again, since the inconsistency is in your belief, I'm assuming for the sake of discussion, that molecules to man evolution is true. You said:
Taking your premise that molecules to man evolution were possible and happening - I think that it is certainly possible that God could make Adam and Eve as special creations. But I would ask why?

It seems futile. If molecules to man evolution were successful then why make one separate pair? There isn't any need for it.

Also, your premise assumes that since macroevolution was happening that God indeed willed it or designed it or was somehow in control of it or its intended outcomes?

This alone defeats the very purpose for special creation as it means that whatever had God intended through evolution wasn't happening so he had to intervene to fix things. The only problem is it makes God a poor planner. The only way you intervene in something is when things are not going as you want them to be. And since evolution is happening already as God's intended it to be, then there is no need to make a special case.
In this scenario, God is either inefficient and unintelligent and that is something we both agree on, that God isn't both.

On one hand, God has no need to make a special case with the miraculous creation of Adam, because it makes God a poor planner if He had to intervene to fix things. Yet on the other hand, God intervened to fix things by the miraculous conception of Jesus Christ.

Both miracles. Both intervening by God. Only one makes God inefficient and unintelligent.

That's inconsistent.

Again. Not at all.
You are mixing two very different things. In Christ's case God didn't intervene to fix things.
In the context of evolution, if molecules to man is true, then God's intervention is inefficient or unneeded.

Christ's birth is not part of the process of evolution as when you say molecules to man you mean exactly that from the time life started evolving to the time where it got to humans. Miracles can happen but in the case of evolution to take place are unnecessary.

Neo,

That makes no sense. Adam's special creation isn't a part of evolution, just as Christ's conception isn't. In neither Christ's conception, nor Adam's creation, did God intervene to "fix things" that were broken with evolution. Both were "planned" by God and weren't an afterthought to fix anything that God screwed up.

You seriously can't see how your beliefs are inconsistent in this regard?

No. Because I don't see it that way you see it. Remember, if molecules to man evolution is true then creating Adam is unnecessary. But it is a different case when it comes to Christ, because there is no other way Christ could be born except a miracle.

You say Adam was a miracle. I say he wasn't. If anything the inconsistency is that you assume that molecules to man evolution was possible and then say God also made Adam. Which makes the process of evolution meaningless. Why not simply make Adam? Why so much death and destruction?

Both if these together just don't mesh and the reason why I have stopped trying to fit science in scriptures. It just ends up weird.
People treat facts as relevant more when the facts tend to support their opinions. When the facts are against their opinions, they don't necessarily deny the facts, but they say the facts are less relevant or insignificant. This is ofcourse because believing things that make you feel comfortable, takes a priority. And I think that should not be the case if one is after truth.

http://johnadavid.wordpress.com

User avatar
neo-x
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3334
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:13 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Contact:

Re: The Truth Surrounding the Theory of Evolution and its Rationale

Postby neo-x » Sat Dec 09, 2017 8:49 am

Rick, may be there are underlying assumptions from both of our points that makes us see things differently. I see what I am saying and carefully weighing it I can clearly see the difference and no internal inconsistency in my view but when you see it from your side with your underlying assumptions, you see a problem. I on the other hand see the same in what you are saying but I am sure you don't see it as odd.
People treat facts as relevant more when the facts tend to support their opinions. When the facts are against their opinions, they don't necessarily deny the facts, but they say the facts are less relevant or insignificant. This is ofcourse because believing things that make you feel comfortable, takes a priority. And I think that should not be the case if one is after truth.

http://johnadavid.wordpress.com

User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
Posts: 18809
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Kamino

Re: The Truth Surrounding the Theory of Evolution and its Rationale

Postby RickD » Sun Dec 10, 2017 8:20 am

Neo wrote:
No. Because I don't see it that way you see it. Remember, if molecules to man evolution is true then creating Adam is unnecessary. But it is a different case when it comes to Christ, because there is no other way Christ could be born except a miracle.


That seems to be the same argument that YECs use when they say billions of years is unnecessary.
1 Corinthians 1:9
9 God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Audie wrote:
"Christianity is not a joke, but it has some very poor representatives."


St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony

User avatar
neo-x
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3334
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:13 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Contact:

Re: The Truth Surrounding the Theory of Evolution and its Rationale

Postby neo-x » Sun Dec 10, 2017 8:58 am

RickD wrote:
Neo wrote:
No. Because I don't see it that way you see it. Remember, if molecules to man evolution is true then creating Adam is unnecessary. But it is a different case when it comes to Christ, because there is no other way Christ could be born except a miracle.


That seems to be the same argument that YECs use when they say billions of years is unnecessary.

With a key difference. I am saying if evolution happened creating a special Adam is unnecessary. Yec's say that evolution didn't happen at all.
People treat facts as relevant more when the facts tend to support their opinions. When the facts are against their opinions, they don't necessarily deny the facts, but they say the facts are less relevant or insignificant. This is ofcourse because believing things that make you feel comfortable, takes a priority. And I think that should not be the case if one is after truth.

http://johnadavid.wordpress.com

User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
Posts: 18809
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Kamino

Re: The Truth Surrounding the Theory of Evolution and its Rationale

Postby RickD » Sun Dec 10, 2017 9:53 am

neo-x wrote:
RickD wrote:
Neo wrote:
No. Because I don't see it that way you see it. Remember, if molecules to man evolution is true then creating Adam is unnecessary. But it is a different case when it comes to Christ, because there is no other way Christ could be born except a miracle.


That seems to be the same argument that YECs use when they say billions of years is unnecessary.

With a key difference. I am saying if evolution happened creating a special Adam is unnecessary. Yec's say that evolution didn't happen at all.

I'm making the comparison because both you and some YECs claim something as unnecessary because you're seeing it from your pov.


Unnecessary to whom? What if God wanted to create a special lineage from which the savior would come?

A special people set apart from the rest of humanity. Even if evolution were true, how else would God start this lineage, besides creating its "founder" anew?

Neo,

Is there any possibility whatsoever, in your mind, that what you see in DNA as evidence of a common ancestor, could be a creator using common building block (DNA) for life? Any chance at all that you're wrong?
1 Corinthians 1:9
9 God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Audie wrote:
"Christianity is not a joke, but it has some very poor representatives."


St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony

trulyenlightened
Established Member
Posts: 168
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2017 1:21 am
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Location: Qld. Australia

Re: The Truth Surrounding the Theory of Evolution and its Rationale

Postby trulyenlightened » Mon Dec 11, 2017 1:33 am

RickD wrote:
neo-x wrote:
RickD wrote:
Neo wrote:
No. Because I don't see it that way you see it. Remember, if molecules to man evolution is true then creating Adam is unnecessary. But it is a different case when it comes to Christ, because there is no other way Christ could be born except a miracle.


That seems to be the same argument that YECs use when they say billions of years is unnecessary.

With a key difference. I am saying if evolution happened creating a special Adam is unnecessary. Yec's say that evolution didn't happen at all.

I'm making the comparison because both you and some YECs claim something as unnecessary because you're seeing it from your pov.


Unnecessary to whom? What if God wanted to create a special lineage from which the savior would come?

A special people set apart from the rest of humanity. Even if evolution were true, how else would God start this lineage, besides creating its "founder" anew?

Neo,

Is there any possibility whatsoever, in your mind, that what you see in DNA as evidence of a common ancestor, could be a creator using common building block (DNA) for life? Any chance at all that you're wrong?


There are so many assumptions and "ifs" here, it can make your head spin. Why don't we stick to what we DO KNOW for certain? We DO KNOW that all species on the planet today have evolved from lesser species from the past, when we follow the DNA and fossil trail alone. We DO KNOW that DNA is a self replicating macromolecule, and therefore can only have limited physical and chemical parameters. We DO KNOW that DNA has evolved, through trial and error, from a more simplistic molecule to the more complex form we see today. We DO KNOW that we are composed of atoms and molecules, but it is a fallacy that we ARE atoms and molecules. We DO KNOW for certain that all matter must obey the natural laws of Nature. There are NO recorded or known exceptions. We DO KNOW that there have never been any experimentally valid, supernatural, metaphysical, or miraculous occurrence within our physical reality. We DO KNOW that there is no residual evidence, to indicate that either a theist or deist God has ever violated, or circumvented any of the natural laws in Nature. We DO KNOW that there has never been a dead relative returning from the ground(or ashes), and explaining his experience. We DO KNOW that all mammals reproduce sexually(haploid and diploid), therefore no immaculate conception is possible. This would be a miracle, therefore another violation of natural law.

YEC's simply state that according to their Biblical reference, the earth and the Universe are only 6-10,000 years old, period. They simply dismiss or try to discredit any scientific evidence that says otherwise. They just don't care if they are wrong, anymore than than members of the Flat Earth Society. Just another cult, that hides behind any claims that are unfalsifiable. I certainly agree with you, that if evolution DID happen, then the creation of Adam(Eve would have been the first evolved), would definitely be unnecessary. He would have evolved naturally. YEC think that evolution is a myth, therefore only the intervention of a God could explain the created Adam. Special Creation or not, you both claim that a God created Adam, therefore the belief is still the same. The guesstimate as to WHY is irrelevant. So the creation of adam(fully formed) from dust, is indeed a miracle and as such a violation of natural laws. It doesn't matter what a God wants, what a God can do, how a God may think, or what a God is. All that matter is the evidence that supports your reasoning, not just the reasoning ITSELF.

If evolution is true, there can only be one lineage. Only one ancient ancestor for all lifeforms on the planet. It would have existed billions of years ago. All hail the first self-replicating molecule, that became the precursor to RNA, DNA, and eventually amino acids. Is there a chance that YOU are wrong? How did you determine that it is YOUR Creator that may be using DNA as the building blocks for all life? Is there a special creator "litmus test" within the molecule, that would indicate as belonging only to your Creator? So again, what if YOU are wrong? Don

PaulSacramento
Board Moderator
Posts: 8151
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:29 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: The Truth Surrounding the Theory of Evolution and its Rationale

Postby PaulSacramento » Mon Dec 11, 2017 5:54 am

I think that Neo is stating that, evolution as we know it does NOT require any SPECIAL intervention from God.
And He is correct about that.
It still requires He sustain the process of course BUT no special intervention on His part is require din the process to get us from a single celled organism to homo sapiens.

Genesis 1 doesn't state that God made a special creation in Man since it simply says that God commanded the earth to bring forth life. It also states that God then made man in His image.
The wording doesn't state that God MADE man in His Image ( created man looking like Him) but that God took Man and made man His Image barer in the world.


Genesis 2, however, is a different story and there is no way around it.
Genesis 2 is all about a special creation that leads us, eventually, to a special lineage from which The Saviour will come.

trulyenlightened
Established Member
Posts: 168
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2017 1:21 am
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Location: Qld. Australia

Re: The Truth Surrounding the Theory of Evolution and its Rationale

Postby trulyenlightened » Mon Dec 11, 2017 8:30 am

PaulSacramento wrote:I think that Neo is stating that, evolution as we know it does NOT require any SPECIAL intervention from God.
And He is correct about that.
It still requires He sustain the process of course BUT no special intervention on His part is require din the process to get us from a single celled organism to homo sapiens.

Genesis 1 doesn't state that God made a special creation in Man since it simply says that God commanded the earth to bring forth life. It also states that God then made man in His image.
The wording doesn't state that God MADE man in His Image ( created man looking like Him) but that God took Man and made man His Image barer in the world.


Genesis 2, however, is a different story and there is no way around it.
Genesis 2 is all about a special creation that leads us, eventually, to a special lineage from which The Saviour will come.



How does scripture account for a "1st and 2nd Adam"? That is, were there ancient Hominids(per-historic man) roaming the earth before man? If so, is man descended from them(therefore Christ), or was there a second mankind specially created by a God, to provide a different lineage to accommodate the birth of Christ? Don

PaulSacramento
Board Moderator
Posts: 8151
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:29 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: The Truth Surrounding the Theory of Evolution and its Rationale

Postby PaulSacramento » Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:13 am

Don,
Scripture doesn't really address that at all.
Scripture simply says that Man came from the Earth as all life did, brought forth By God.
The HOW is not mentioned.
Scripture then says that a distinct creation even happened in a specific local ( The Garden in Eden) and that event brought forth Adam and Eve.

These two creation events have brought forth various doctrines that have attempted to address things like"
Are all people related to Adam and Eve?
Are all people subject to the "original sin" of Adam and Eve?

PaulSacramento
Board Moderator
Posts: 8151
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:29 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: The Truth Surrounding the Theory of Evolution and its Rationale

Postby PaulSacramento » Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:18 am

Trying to reconcile evolution with genesis is, to say the very least, a challenge.
Genesis is a theological book and we also have to look at the flood too.
IF the flood was global then re population of the world is based on the survivors of the flood.
Less of an issue, of course, if the flood was local.

trulyenlightened
Established Member
Posts: 168
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2017 1:21 am
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Location: Qld. Australia

Re: The Truth Surrounding the Theory of Evolution and its Rationale

Postby trulyenlightened » Mon Dec 11, 2017 11:21 am

PaulSacramento wrote:Trying to reconcile evolution with genesis is, to say the very least, a challenge.
Genesis is a theological book and we also have to look at the flood too.
IF the flood was global then re population of the world is based on the survivors of the flood.
Less of an issue, of course, if the flood was local.


I think that there are very few of us that could resist the temptation of immortality and acquiring all knowledge, just by eating a piece of fruit. So I think forgiveness was certainly in order, from a benevolent God. Why tempt your own creation in the first place? Why was this temptation in anyway necessary for a God? Especially since a God would know its outcome in the first place. In either case why should I suffer for the sins of the Father? If my father was a racist and a bigot, should I be labeled the same, or carry the guilt? Of course not! There may have been many local floods, but there is certainly no evidence to support a global flood. I also doubt the possibility of creating a population of 8 Billion people, populating all corners of the earth, in only a few thousand years. Especially when life span, disease, food, death, environment, clean water, war, stillborn, etc., are factored into the equation.

I appreciate your honesty, but there is no way one can reconcile this slippery slope. You either believe(as most Americans do) that the two creation myths are real and historical, or you believe that all life on the planet was descended from a common ancestor. One is a mental construct based on Belief, and the other is a physical construct based on physical evidence. Don


Return to “God and Science”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests