Evoloution is a true leap of faith

[Botz]

Fudgical..i think non-human primates act much more honarably towards their own kind than humans do to their own kind.

They are not encumbered with a sinful nature.

they also don't have a conscience. or morals.

Or free-will.

It has often been said that if G-d had not given us free-will, we would have been robots, but I think it is more reasonable to imagine that we would just be another form of animal....which we are not.

it depends on whether you believe that animals have free will or not. Saying that animals have no free will is saying that everything an animal does is causally predicted. Even if they dont have free will in the sense that we accept free will to be - they have some form of it. granted, a majority of an animals actions are controlled by the instinct to survive but surely if animals had no free will then an animal would not be capable of any irrational actions that could not be causally determined. if an animal was unable to have any choice within their lives then there would be no irrational actions within their societies. yes, there are casally determined actions within animals, as within humans, wwe both have the innate fear of death (please dont sidetrack onto the heaven and the afterlife here... im on about death as death...) and we all have a survival instinct. this is still here today and innateness leads to fears such as arachnophobia - behavioural theories are not the first to be accepted! but, accepting the fact that animals may not have such an 'evolved' amount of free will, surely you have to accept that there is a difference between some of their actions - and that they do have a choice?

(illustration, the fact that a pregnant rabbit can 're-absorb' the unborn kittens due to lack of food, and other envoronmental factors (causally determined), against the fact that an adult male gorilla pairing with a female gorilla that has an infant may or may not kill that infant, not dependant on anything in the environment, the male, nor the females position within the shrewd (group of apes), nor on the age of the infant in question.)

*****

and ive just noticed that anyone who believes that animals intelligence varies and has full belief in evolution and thus believes that apes are of a higher intelligence and thus may have more 'free will' than a rabbit, the above example doesnt exactly work, but rabbits can also commit infanticide with no interference from the outside world and to born kits, so yeah...

Let me be more specific so that we don't fudge the issue.

I mean a free will to choose whether to seek after G-d or not, and to live life as if He is irrelevant...thus instinctive...and apparently choosing to live like an animal, in the sense that they live and die content to do what their inherent nature dictates. If we live according to our sin nature and are not changed through rebirth we are not really that different from animals...we eat, we copulate, we work, we sleep, we have family, we have homes, we live and we die....but all without the saving knowledge and presence of G-d. The difference is animals do not need saving...but man does.

[fudgical]

Fudgical..i think non-human primates act much more honarably towards their own kind than humans do to their own kind.

They are not encumbered with a sinful nature.

they also don't have a conscience. or morals.

Or free-will.

It has often been said that if G-d had not given us free-will, we would have been robots, but I think it is more reasonable to imagine that we would just be another form of animal....which we are not.

it depends on whether you believe that animals have free will or not. Saying that animals have no free will is saying that everything an animal does is causally predicted. Even if they dont have free will in the sense that we accept free will to be - they have some form of it. granted, a majority of an animals actions are controlled by the instinct to survive but surely if animals had no free will then an animal would not be capable of any irrational actions that could not be causally determined. if an animal was unable to have any choice within their lives then there would be no irrational actions within their societies. yes, there are casally determined actions within animals, as within humans, wwe both have the innate fear of death (please dont sidetrack onto the heaven and the afterlife here... im on about death as death...) and we all have a survival instinct. this is still here today and innateness leads to fears such as arachnophobia - behavioural theories are not the first to be accepted! but, accepting the fact that animals may not have such an 'evolved' amount of free will, surely you have to accept that there is a difference between some of their actions - and that they do have a choice?

(illustration, the fact that a pregnant rabbit can 're-absorb' the unborn kittens due to lack of food, and other envoronmental factors (causally determined), against the fact that an adult male gorilla pairing with a female gorilla that has an infant may or may not kill that infant, not dependant on anything in the environment, the male, nor the females position within the shrewd (group of apes), nor on the age of the infant in question.)

*****

and ive just noticed that anyone who believes that animals intelligence varies and has full belief in evolution and thus believes that apes are of a higher intelligence and thus may have more 'free will' than a rabbit, the above example doesnt exactly work, but rabbits can also commit infanticide with no interference from the outside world and to born kits, so yeah...

Let me be more specific so that we don't fudge the issue.

I mean a free will to choose whether to seek after G-d or not, and to live life as if He is irrelevant...thus instinctive...and apparently choosing to live like an animal, in the sense that they live and die content to do what their inherent nature dictates. If we live according to our sin nature and are not changed through rebirth we are not really that different from animals...we eat, we copulate, we work, we sleep, we have family, we have homes, we live and we die....but all without the saving knowledge and presence of G-d. The difference is animals do not need saving...but man does.

haha, fudge...

overall, completely, branch of, specify earlier... haha.

and ok *shrugs*

[mikerunk]

Some of you keep saying that Evoloution is a fantasy. Yet there is tons of evidence that support the theroy of Evoloution. We know certain animals are decendents of certain dinosaurs. They only way that could happen is if certain dinosaurs adapted and changed to meet the demands of there new enviorment. Does evoloution have all the answers, of course not, but he let you in on a little seceret the bible doesn't have all the answers either.

When you read Genesis it says that God created the world in six days. Christians take that at face value, they believe whole heartly that it means six days. Yet what is six days to God. Genesis in my opinion is writen from Gods point of view (in a weird sort of way) so it begs the question what is Six days to God. God does not see time the way we doe and it would be arrogant of use to try and say that god percieves time the same as we do.

The second problem with the belief that God created the world is that the time line, according to the bible (if we go by the fact the world was created in six days) is only about 10,000 years old. This does not track with science, we know for a fact that the world is at least 5 billion years old. We know the dinosaurs roamed the world for at least 64 million years before man ever came along.

However if we change are perception of time a bit and see six days as Six billion years old it tracks with what how old the world is based on Science. Now God says he created the animals and all life on this planet, yet he doesn't explain how. Maybe thats because to him it's not important, the process he used is not what matters. When you bake a cake you start off with different ingredents right, yet you don't consider that the cake, why because its not the final product. Once you pull it out of the oven and put all the bells and whistles on it is when you call it a cake. In my opinion that is how I think God looked at creation. It didn't matter the process because it was not the final product. So if you take in to account that there was some sort of process and the fact the world is 6 billion years old then evoloution is very much possible. Just because we don't have all the answers doesn't make it wrong.

Not long ago Scientist discovered a group of penguins that can fly. I believe that the reason for this is that they have evolved to adapt to the changes going on in are envoriment. I believe that we will see more of this as time goes on.

I'm not saying that evoloution theroy has all the answers, yet. That doesn't mean that it is pure fantasy. Think of how much history has been lost, why would science be any different. There are things that we may never figure out, there will always be unaswered questions. There is enough scientific evidence to Support Evoloution, which is why it is still explored by scientist.

[Botz]

...and don't forget the oft repeated observation that Adam was created in an instant from the dust of the ground, but although just seconds old, he would have appeared years older.

G-d created what is from what wasn't.

Something out of nothing.

Who knows what strange readings such a godly evolution of creative inspiration will reveal.

Man can't even create a single cell, no one can create something out of nothing, but many so-called wisemen want to display their wisdom and explain how the world came into existence about 4.5 billion years ago...as if they really have enough clues or evidence to do so, and G-d is completely side-lined as irrelevant. The strange thing is that we have all been so ready to swallow the bait until an encounter with the Creator.

[nebula]

Not long ago Scientist discovered a group of penguins that can fly.

Really?! I never heard of this. Can you elaborate?

[nebula]

Not long ago Scientist discovered a group of penguins that can fly.

Really?! I never heard of this. Can you elaborate?

I can guarantee that this is false. I fear mikerunk has been the victim of a hoax.

If a species of penguin had undergone the kind of adaptation necessary to fly it would no longer be called a penguin.

OK, I looked it up -

It appears to have been an April Fools joke by the BBC.

[mikerunk]

Let me be straight up with you guys, is there God yes. Did he create the heavens and the earth, yes. Does that mean the bible explains how he went about doing it no, not by a long shot. The bible just says he created the heavens and the earth, it says he created all life on this planet, not the process he used in that creation.

While I believe in the bible I also understand one thing, the bible doesn't have all the answers. There are question that are left unanswered, I'll give you an example. The bible says that Cain and Able were the first two children. Cain killed Able and then God sent Cain in to exhile. Now later on the bible says Cain took a wife, were did this women come from? Now there is no mention of other children other then Cain and Able. So were did this women come from, I mean she didn't fall out of the sky. Now there are two train of thoughts, the first is that Cain and Able were not the first two children born from Adam and Eve, they had other children before them. However Cain and Able were the first two children born after Adam and Eve sinned. The other though is that God created other Humans on top of him creating Adam and Eve. That the women Cain took as a wife was not a decendent of Adam and Eve. There s many question that are never truly explained, and maybe we will never get them answered. I don't claim that science nor the bible have all the answers, only some of the answers.

To those of you who say the bible is fact and that we have proof and evidence, I say that is only half true. We have found evidence that support certain historical elements of the bible, but not everything in the bible. We have evidence that back up certain historical accounts that are claimed in the bible. However we don't have evidence of the more spiritual claims made by the bible. We have some evidence that Christ existed, but no evidence that backs up the bibles claims of death and ressurrection. The evidence helps the bibles credibility but doesn't mean it is a fact. Now am I saying the bible is a lie, no. What trying to make you understand is that there still a massive chunk of the bible that is still left with no shred of evidence what so ever. As a Christian you believe in the bible not because of the evidence or because there is proof but because of Faith. No one here can say they have proof of Christ death and ressurrection. Christians believe in death and ressurrection because of faith. Faith is belief in something when there is no real proof or very little evidence.

Science and Religeon go hand in hand when combined the can complement one another. Even then they still don't have all the answers. God did not give use the bible to give use all the answers to the universe, but to help guide use in are lives.

I don't have all the answers, I don't believe Science has all the answers. I also don't believe the bible has all the answers. I think that somethings we will come to learn and others we won't. Somethings we may never understand. However one thing that I do believe is that while Faith is important, believe that the bible is the word of God it doesn't mean it gives use the answer to every answer to the every question.

I believe in my heart that God could create the universe in such a way that there would be no science behind it. However I believe he went about the creation of the universe so that there was so that we would ask question, and in hope that those questions when you dig deep enough would always lead back to him. I also believe that somethings he wanted use to learn for are selves.

Is evoloution real, I believe so. As pointed out before the bible doesn't explain how God created life, only that he created it. To God the method used was not important only the final product was important.

I said it once and I will say it again, Science and Regligeon go hand in hand.

[MorningGlory]

Do you really not see how circular this argument is? You are saying that the evidence backing up the Bible is in the Bible. This kind of logical fallacy severely damages the credibility of your argument.

Not speaking for RG but.....Christians know that the Bible both interprets and explains itself. It is not one book, after all, but 66. Not circular at all and the books contained therein can, in some instances, be cross referenced with other writings. Not understanding this severely impairs your ability to argue these points with anyone.

[Sir Gareth]

Joesephus and Tacitus, both non-biblical, non-Christian historians have attested to facts in the new testament.

The missing body has, as running gator pointed out, never been attested by anyone. The 1st century Jewish leaders said that the body was stolen from well trained roman guards by a handful of fisherman, thats like me saying that a couple of guys with no millitary experience hijacked a prisoner from a squadron of Navy SEALS.

There are literally thousands of copies of the NT dated from within 30-70 years from the events described which we have to study and work with, thats more manuscript assertation than we get with Alexander the Great or Homer (the first attempt to write down what Alexander did came hundreds of years later, yet we acceot it as history without a problem)

The remaining 11 apostles all deserted and denied Jesus, left him to die at the hands of the Romans and left their lives as aspostles behind to go back to fishing and the like; Paul was a 1st century persecutor of the church who had people killed and arrested for beleiving in Christ, yet both the apostles and Paul had life changing encounters with the risen Jesus which took them from doubting/hating to devout worshippers of Christ that were willing to not only live as poor, sometimes destitute people but also die horrible deaths for what they beleived in.

Now it's understandable that you could say I am dying for a story that I don't know is true if I were to die for Christ, but Peter was there, he knew for sure if Christ was risen or not, why would he die if he was not absoloutly sure that Christ had indeed risen from the dead?

This and so much more attests to the facts of Christ, and if we can prove that Jesus is who he says he is, is it much harder to beleive that God created the heavens and the earth in 6 days?

[Guest shiloh357]

Do you really not see how circular this argument is? You are saying that the evidence backing up the Bible is in the Bible. This kind of logical fallacy severely damages the credibility of your argument.

It not circular reasoning at all. The claims the Biblemakes are rooted in geographical and historical fact. The apostles' claim of Jesus resurrection is based on statements of fact, not faith.

They did not die for something they believed in. They died for their testimony to being eyewitnesses of the resurrected Jesus. They ate with him and talked with him and touched him, and they witnessed his acension into heaven.

No one endures torture nor is willing to die for something they KNOW is a lie. Had this been a made up story, the disiples could have easily evaded torture and death by simply admitting that they made the whole thing up. Instead, they stuck to their story that Jesus had been with them after his resurrection and they died for it.

These were not brave men and only something as dramatic as a ressurrection would have been sufficient to change them from cowards who were afraid for their lives, to men who suddenly did not see death as the threat they once did. Only an encounter with the risen Jesus is sufficient to explain why they were willing to die for him when previously, they were not.

The apostles did not benefit from their testimony. It made them targets for vilification, persecution and martyrdom. They did not endure those hardships for a "belief."

The onus is on the skeptics to disqualify and discredit their eyewitness testimony.