enoob57 Posted April 6, 2012 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 35 Topic Count: 100 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 41,393 Content Per Day: 8.00 Reputation: 21,566 Days Won: 76 Joined: 03/13/2010 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/27/1957 Share Posted April 6, 2012 I honestly have no idea what you are saying . I did not say God was not the creator nor do I deny the truth of Genesis or indeed the whole bible. So . Have you forgotten our PM? According to PM- I know your being pulled to make concessions for them because of their evident love for Christ! I'm trying to say when one says they love Jesus but takes on evolution as a model for the beginning of God's Word to Us we should be cautious as adopting them into the faith along with the rest of us... not referring that they are evil but something is definitely wrong! satan can deceive us if God would allow it and so I do not stand on my own ability and react with concern and caution when something so simple as Gen 1-3 is given us and for it to be so blatantly diffused into something else... I am sorry you took it personal it was meant in this vein of reasoning and it was meant in love! Your brother in Him, Steven Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~candice~ Posted April 6, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 955 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 11,318 Content Per Day: 1.89 Reputation: 448 Days Won: 33 Joined: 12/16/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted April 6, 2012 I honestly have no idea what you are saying . I did not say God was not the creator nor do I deny the truth of Genesis or indeed the whole bible. So . Have you forgotten our PM? According to PM- I know your being pulled to make concessions for them because of their evident love for Christ! I'm trying to say when one says they love Jesus but takes on evolution as a model for the beginning of God's Word to Us we should be cautious as adopting them into the faith along with the rest of us... not referring that they are evil but something is definitely wrong! satan can deceive us if God would allow it and so I do not stand on my own ability and react with concern and caution when something so simple as Gen 1-3 is given us and for it to be so blatantly diffused into something else... I am sorry you took it personal it was meant in this vein of reasoning and it was meant in love! Your brother in Him, Steven I'm not talking about those people here Steven. We are discussion the supposed philosophical naturalism of science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted April 7, 2012 Share Posted April 7, 2012 It is trivially obvious that not every major proponent of evolution says that evolution means everything came into existence by purely natural means wholly apart from God. People like Collins, Miller, Teilhard, Popes, and organizations like NCSE oppose your ridiculous definition of evolution. Seriously, how do you account that almost half of all scientists that accept evolution are also theistic evolutionists if evolution means that everything came into being by purely natural means without a creator? How do you account for the 10,000+ clergy that signed the statement saying they accept evolution as a scientific truth and God as theological truth? Sure they may, and probably do, have different theological stances than you, but that is irrelevant. You don't need to subscribe to Shiloh's understanding to reject or not accept philosophical naturalism. Heck, you don't even need to subscribe to theism to reject philosophical naturalism and accept the spiritual realm. But that is not an accurate method for determing truth. Truth is not determined by who believes or how many. Theistic Evolutionists is oxymoronic. It is an attempt to wed the Bible with a theory that contradicts the Bible at every point. There is a form of Christianity that does not have Christ in it. Sure you can find many "Christians" who subscribe to evolution. That does not make evolution true or compatible with the Bible. The way I account for it is simple. They are "Christians" from a cultural standpoint, or from a purely religious standpoint, but they are not authentic followers of Christ. The reason is that they have to deny the authority of the Bible and its inspiration, which are essential doctrines of the Christian faith. They simply have an impotent and meaningless view of the Bible that essentially allows them to view the Bible as expendable anytime the Bible becomes inconvenient to what they they are prepared to accept as truth. If what they want to believe and accepts doesn't jive with the Bible, they look for ways to intellectually justify rejecting the parts of the Bible that need to be rejected in order make them comfortable. These people are, unfortunately, only fooling themselves to think that they are authentic Chrstians. That you can find some "Christians" who accept evolution is not a refutation of the philosophical naturalism that animates the theory of Evolution. But I really don't get it. Gravity is wholly natural without any outside influence or design (at least none detectable by science, this is a mirror image of ToE), and gravity is completely impersonal. I don't see the difference beyond one is compatible with a specific, narrow set of theological beliefs and the other is not. But this is true of heliocentricism as well, and really almost any and all scientific ideas. I'm not asking for ways that evolution is against your particular beliefs, or even Christianity or theism. That is wrong. Gravity was created by God. It is a law that He continues to sustain and guide. Gravity is a natural law, but it did not come into being by naturalistic means. It came into exitense through the creative power and implulse of God. You talked about how evolution is often paired up against the Bible therefore it is philosophically naturalistic. A parallel scenario would be the water cycle. My belief is that rain happens because God wills it, and gathers the rain from way up high and releases the heavenly ceiling to make it rain. The water cycle is in direct contradiction to my belief, therefore the water cycle is philosophically naturalistic. Seriously, that is the logic I'm getting from you, just replace 'my belief' with a 'holy text X'. Yes, when the Bible and the TOE are compared there is no way you can accept both. That is what I said. Your water cycle comparison is nowhere near parallel. God created the water cycle and the natural laws that govern it. Philosophical naturalism says that there is no God or intelligence of any kind that is guiding or sustaining the water cycle. You are still trying argue and either/or when it comes to something being natural or philosophical naturalistic. I think you are simply in a tragic state of denial. You apparently lack the ability to be honest about what the major proponents of Evolution and even what other atheists have to say about Evolution and its relationship to the Bible. You should talk to viole and read some of her posts on the topic and she is the ONLY Evolutionist on the board that is honest about the problems concerning the compabiitility with the TOE and the Bible. She has a science education and is far more competent than you are when it comes to this matter. She is really just about the most honest person on this board where this issue is concerned. It is about the only thing I agree with her about so far. Sorry, D=9, but you just don't know what you are talking about. Saying that ToE is incompatible with Christianity is not the same thing as saying ToE is philosophically naturalistic. TOE is incompatible with authentic Christdianity because the TOE is philosophcially naturalistic. It is that component of philosophical naturalism that makes it so attractive and acceptable to atheists. It is theory that rules out an intelligent Creator as the cause of all that is. To bounce off of Candice's post, evolution is a scientific theory. Science is neutral to the existence and influence of God and all things supernatural. Often science is used by atheists to prop up their beliefs and deny God. That is not science, and it is not part of evolutionary theory. Is evolutionary theory compatible with such notions, yes, again so is gravity and all else science. There is a big problem with that. If Evolution as a scientific theory were compatible with the Bible, there would be no reason to challenge the integrity of the Bible in the first place. Science is not anti-God, but Evolution as a scientific theory IS anti-God. It is designed to be anti-God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~candice~ Posted April 7, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 955 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 11,318 Content Per Day: 1.89 Reputation: 448 Days Won: 33 Joined: 12/16/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted April 7, 2012 There is a form of Christianity that does not have Christ in it. Sure you can find many "Christians" who subscribe to evolution. That does not make evolution true or compatible with the Bible. The way I account for it is simple. They are "Christians" from a cultural standpoint, or from a purely religious standpoint, but they are not authentic followers of Christ. The reason is that they have to deny the authority of the Bible and its inspiration, which are essential doctrines of the Christian faith. They simply have an impotent and meaningless view of the Bible that essentially allows them to view the Bible as expendable anytime the Bible becomes inconvenient to what they they are prepared to accept as truth. If what they want to believe and accepts doesn't jive with the Bible, they look for ways to intellectually justify rejecting the parts of the Bible that need to be rejected in order make them comfortable. These people are, unfortunately, only fooling themselves to think that they are authentic Christians. Do me a favour Shiloh, and never again pretend you have accepted that some TE'ers are saved. Because from what you say about, they are not followers of Christ. They are, according to you, "only fooling themselves to think that they are authentic Christians. " You said it is a form of Christianity with no Christ in it. You are so wrong and it pains me to see you so arrogantly denying the faith that so many people I know have. You have missed represented them so awfully it's not funny. It's a giant strawman but you don't want to look into it because your pet theory will fail. So in future please just say what you actually think instead of fluffing it up and making it look pretty. You think they are unsaved. You should talk to viole and read some of her posts on the topic and she is the ONLY Evolutionist on the board that is honest about the problems concerning the compabiitility with the TOE and the Bible. She has a science education and is far more competent than you are when it comes to this matter. She is really just about the most honest person on this board where this issue is concerned. It is about the only thing I agree with her about so far. Sorry, D=9, but you just don't know what you are talking about. No he shouldn't. Viole is unsaved, an "ex Christian" by her own admission. She WANTS for there to be no way to reconcile these issues accurately. Why? Because in the same breath she is asserting that there is so much evidence FOR evolution, that because evolution and Christianity are incompatible, she has disproved Christianity. She isn't saying what you want her to say and it is unwise to send a 'seeker' to an atheist for such an argument. Why do you only take HALF of what she says? She says that ToE and the bible are incompatible and you rave about how honest she is, and then she says evolution is fact and you don't believe that at all. So I really don't understand what on earth you are doing here talk about sending a fly into a spiders web. Saying that ToE is incompatible with Christianity is not the same thing as saying ToE is philosophically naturalistic. TOE is incompatible with authentic Christdianity because the TOE is philosophcially naturalistic. It is that component of philosophical naturalism that makes it so attractive and acceptable to atheists. It is theory that rules out an intelligent Creator as the cause of all that is. No. Shiloh why do you find it so hard to listen to scientists when they tell you that God is NOT in their field of study? You latch onto a few atheistic evolutionists and quote them to assert that evolution rules out an intelligent creator, but then you ignore the other half (or majority, in this case) who accurately say that "God" is not a scientific answer to anything and thus science makes no claims about God at all? It's quote mining, and it's bad. Quoting atheists who misuse science to disprove God does not help your argument in the slightest. It just shows that you do not understand the philosophy of science and will go to any lengths to prove what is not true, that evolution is inherently atheistic. You can keep stating it and asserting it all you like, but you've had to parrot the errant atheists to do so, which is really ironic. The ToE is no different to any other scientific theory in terms of it's underlying philosophy. To bounce off of Candice's post, evolution is a scientific theory. Science is neutral to the existence and influence of God and all things supernatural. Often science is used by atheists to prop up their beliefs and deny God. That is not science, and it is not part of evolutionary theory. Is evolutionary theory compatible with such notions, yes, again so is gravity and all else science. There is a big problem with that. If Evolution as a scientific theory were compatible with the Bible, there would be no reason to challenge the integrity of the Bible in the first place. Science is not anti-God, but Evolution as a scientific theory IS anti-God. It is designed to be anti-God. It wasn't designed to be anti-God at all. It was designed to explain what is observed. I'm sorry, but to quote you (since obviously you have no issue with this kind of strong language) "you just don't know what you are talking about" and using the same arguments as militant atheists who misuse science really doesn't prove anything other than desperation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted April 7, 2012 Share Posted April 7, 2012 shiloh357, on 06 April 2012 - 07:58 PM, said: But that is not an accurate method for determing truth. Truth is not determined by who believes or how many. Theistic Evolutionists is oxymoronic. It is an attempt to wed the Bible with a theory that contradicts the Bible at every point. I'm not talking about determining truth, that is a tangent and irrelevant to whether or not ToE is philosophically naturalistic. It is not irrelevant to it at all. Truth is what we are trying to arrive at. You are holding up the fact that so-called "Christians" and clergy assent to the TOE as if that lends credence to the theory. My point is that who believes a certain proposition is not how we arrive at whether or not that proposition is true. If I could find 100 million people who believe that life began through spontaneous generation, would that make it more true? Pasteur proved that life doesn't begin that way. It would not matter how many people believed that life can spontaneously generate out of thin air, it isn't true. Thousands of people CAN be wrong. So appealing to the number of clergy and scientists who believe in the TOE doesn't really amount to an effective argument. Secondly, the Bible is not inconsistent with the natural world. It is inconsistent with a worldview that says that this natural world is all there is. It's not some, it's entire waves of thousands upon thousands of people with education in the sciences and theology. Doesn't it seem just a little odd that all these people accept both God and evolution if the two were truly incompatible by definition It's not odd to me at all. I think it is sad that people choose to believe finite, fallible men over a infallible and eternal God who can't lie. They are more impressed with little men and their limited scople of knowledge than they are with the eternal, sovereign and omniscient God who created them and gives them permission to take another breath. The so-called "Christian" proponents of Evolution have to alter or ignore certain parts of the Bible in order to make it jive with the TOE. If they were truly compatible, they would not have to invent theories that essentially rewrite or explain away parts of the Bible as allegory or parables or myth in order to MAKE the Bible compatible. If The TOE and the Bible could be taken naturally side by side, there would be no reason to erase the literal, concrete historical nature of the Bible. The two would dovetail together seamlessly. But they don't. So scientists and liberal clergy are forced to alter the Bible and concoct a theology that allows them to alter the Bible in order to make it fit with Evolution. That in and of itself demonstrates that the Bible taken as written is completely incompatible with the TOE. You need to show me how evolution is incompatible with a spiritual world. I am speaking of the TOE not evolution as a process. The TOE states that Evolution is not the product of any God or other intelligence, that is is wholly natural from start to finish. Perhaps the simplest scenario is a deistic God that creates the natural world where evolution is a product of the natural forces shaping the material world. Such an ontological view of evolution is perfectly consistent with the scientific theory of evolution in all facets yet it still maintains that God exists and that there is a spiritual realm. Sure you can say that it is incompatible with scripture, I'll even grant you that so you stop going off on irrelevant tangents. See, you are trying to refute somethng I am not arguing. Deism is not biblical nor is it Christian. You seem to have this liberal secular delusion that all forms of deism are equal, and they are not. My argument is that the TOE is not compatible with the Scriptures and that it is defined by a naturalistic worldview. Those who are the major proponents of it are atheists. Those who define the theory are atheists and it is defined within the context of a philosophically naturalistic worldview. It is the naturalism that is built into the theory that deines the existence or involvement of any God or deity or intelligence that makes it attractive and acceptable to atheists. In the secular world, the TOE is held up as an alternative to the creation account in Genesis. I don't see any major proponent of Evolution hold it up as a supplemental or complimentary explanation to Genesis 1 and 2 ( and by major proponent, I am not referring to TE'ers). I have read the works of major Evolutionists. The ones I enjoy the most are Gould. And even he says that the TOE is entirely incompatible with Genesis 1. And that view of gravity is wholly and completely antithetical to the scientific conception of gravity. Gravity does not speak of God, it is explained in purely natural and mechanical means and language. It absolutely does speak of God. It's existence is testimony to an intelligent, logical Creator who has designed the universe to operate in an ordered manner. The laws of physics are the product of the mind and wisdom of God. All of creation is testimony to its Creator, including the physical laws He put in motion. You can't have it both ways, Shiloh, either both gravity and evolution are incompatible with a spiritual realm because they are explained in purely natural language. Or they both allow the possibility of a spiritual world where individuals can decide for themselves. I am talking about the TOE being incompatible with the Bible. Why are you arguing about the spiritual realm?? If God can create the laws that govern the water cycle why can't God create the laws that govern evolution? Very simply because evolution doesn't look like God, and doesn't act like God. It runs contrary to God's nature/character. God could not have created the process of Evolution because God is perfect and cannot create imperfection. The Bible tells us that God created a perfect world where there was no death, sin, sickness/disease,, etc. The TOE operates from a worldview that sees death and sickness/disease as a natural part of the world. The TOE assumes an imperfect world/order that must perfect itself through the process of natural selection. That which is unfit is removed/killed off so that what is stronger and more fit can survive and thrive. So you have a theory that assumes an imperfect world coming into being through wholly natural means, and you have the Bible which teaches that God created the world and all that is in it in a perfect and complete state. According to the Bible, God created the world exactly the way He wanted it and it was the sin of mankind that wrecked creation and opened the door to siickness/disease, death, etc. These things were not hardwired into creation, but are the product man's sin. In evolution, the unfit must die. In the Scripture, the Creator gives His live to redeem the unfit and make the unfit, fit. Evolution is a cruel and impersonal process that gives no intrinsic value to any living thing. In the Bible, God all of life has intrinsic value. In Evolution, man is just another cog in the wheel, a higher animal, with no more value than a garden slug where natural selection is concerned. But in the Bible, man is a special creation, created apart from the rest of the natural world and made in the image and likeness of God. God can't do what is contrary to His nature to do. He can't deny Himself. Evolution simply runs contrary to the essential nature and character of God and that is why God cannot and would not create the laws that govern evolution. Your logic seems to be that because evolution is incompatible with the Bible it is therefore philosophically naturalistic. No, its the other way around. Because the TOE is philosophically naturalistic, it is incompatible with the Bible. I'm saying that I can apply the same logic/argumentation to demonstrate that the water cycle must therefore be philosophically naturalistic as well. It's not my fault your argument is just weak, and saying I don't know what I'm talking about or am dishonest is not helping you. LOL, all you have done is misstate my argument over and over. My argument isn't weak. You simply not competent to or are unwilling to frame my position correctly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted April 7, 2012 Share Posted April 7, 2012 You're ignoring the central substance of said subject; it isn't about the Bible but the compatibility of evolution and a spiritual something. No YOU are ignoring the central subject. It IS about the Bible and my argument has only ever been centered around the primcacy of the Bible in this discussion. YOU are the one who is trying to take this off into another direction and trying to debate with me about the spiritual realm. If the Bible is true and can be trusted, I don't have to make an argument about the spiritual realm. From the very beginning I've been challenging you to demonstrate your claim that evolution is philosophically naturalistic, NOT how evolution is incompatible with the Bible. I have answered the question over and over. I will answer it again. It is a theory which says that evolution is a wholy naturalistic process. It is unguided, it is unplanned, and it is impersonal. Natural selection operates with no outisde influence or the involvement of any deity or intelligence. It is comopletely naturalisitic. Philosophically, it means that God has no place or influence in the beginings or development of life. You are simply unwilling to accept that as philosophical naturalism, but that is what it is. You can continue to believe what you want but will I get my information about evolution from seasoned, experienced scientists who are genuine evolutionists and not fomr a 20-something who knows just enough about science to be dangerous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted April 7, 2012 Share Posted April 7, 2012 Do me a favour Shiloh, and never again pretend you have accepted that some TE'ers are saved. Because from what you say about, they are not followers of Christ. They are, according to you, "only fooling themselves to think that they are authentic Christians. " You said it is a form of Christianity with no Christ in it. You are so wrong and it pains me to see you so arrogantly denying the faith that so many people I know have. You have missed represented them so awfully it's not funny. It's a giant strawman but you don't want to look into it because your pet theory will fail. So in future please just say what you actually think instead of fluffing it up and making it look pretty. You think they are unsaved. In most cases, they are not saved. There are some who hold to Evolution in theri naive ignorance and I believe God winks at ignorance. The bottom line is that there are NO ardent, committed, orthodox evolutoinists who can believe the Bible. You cannot consciously and from a position of knowledge, ascribe to both, any more than you could ascribe to both Christianity and any other faith. No he shouldn't. Viole is unsaved, an "ex Christian" by her own admission. She WANTS for there to be no way to reconcile these issues accurately. So far viole has been the only HONEST atheist when it comes to this issue on these boards and she is right. The Bible and Evolution are incompatible entirely. It is the atheists who are trying to wed the Bible and evolution and telling Christians that they can be Christians and believe in a godless theory without contradiction that are the dangerous ones. It is the atheists who try to sing us to sleep that we can have God and Evolution that bring people one more step closer to atheism. No. Shiloh why do you find it so hard to listen to scientists when they tell you that God is NOT in their field of study? You latch onto a few atheistic evolutionists and quote them to assert that evolution rules out an intelligent creator, but then you ignore the other half (or majority, in this case) who accurately say that "God" is not a scientific answer to anything and thus science makes no claims about God at all? It's quote mining, and it's bad. Quoting atheists who misuse science to disprove God does not help your argument in the slightest. It just shows that you do not understand the philosophy of science and will go to any lengths to prove what is not true, that evolution is inherently atheistic. You can keep stating it and asserting it all you like, but you've had to parrot the errant atheists to do so, which is really ironic. The ToE is no different to any other scientific theory in terms of it's underlying philosophy. Theistic Evolution is late to the party. The TOE was clearly defined LONG before TE came along. It is a relatively new idea that we can wed the Bible and Evolution and the two are mutually compatible. I am deferring to the TOE that existed before TE came long and tried to alter both the TOE and the Bible in order to make the two compatible. Why am I deferring to atheistic evolutionists?? Because that is the original context of the TOE. I decided that I could not adequately address the theory of Evolution unless I could frame it properly within the standard orthodox and most widely accepted definition of the term. I studied the works of atheistic eovlutionists because I can't refute what I don't understand and can't frame properly. I am not allowing myself to be emotionally manipulated by those who might be offended by the truth that the TOE is an naturalistic and atheistic theory. It is shielded by the cloak of science, but Evolution is not Christian friendly at all. It is in completely opposition to the biblical creation account at every point. It might feel good emotionallly to be so accepting of every Tom, Dick and and Harry who professes to be a Christian and an Evolutionist but I have found that when you dig beneath the surface, you discover an entire theological framework that is hostile to a literal and historical view of Scripture. Why do you only take HALF of what she says? Because she is right in only half (if that much) of what she says. I affirmed viole in what I agree with her on. That does not suddenly obligate me to accept everything she says. It wasn't designed to be anti-God at all. It was designed to explain what is observed. I was desiigned to be anti-God. It is impersonal, it is unplanned and unguided. It is the product of no oustide intelligence and is a wholly naturalistic process. Ask anyone how that isn't anti-God. Those who accept the TOE, view Genesis as a myth, a parable or an allegory, but never as literal, historial truth. They reject the plenary inspiration and the absolute inerrancy of Scripture in the way those doctrine are traditionally understood. And yes, I know what I am talking about. You really don't want to go around and around with me on this again. You can't make a biblical case for your positon and I can make a very solid biblical case for mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enoob57 Posted April 7, 2012 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 35 Topic Count: 100 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 41,393 Content Per Day: 8.00 Reputation: 21,566 Days Won: 76 Joined: 03/13/2010 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/27/1957 Share Posted April 7, 2012 Candice Shiloh's work here is very pin point to the Truth of God! Creation itself is formed from God's Word and is said to point all men, whether the assent to it or not, to Him Rom 1:21-23 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man — and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. NKJV This presentation 'IS' made perfect by His Son Who came and displayed God The Father (Who 'IS' , 'WAS' and 'FOREVER WILL BE SPIRIT)... His embodiment showed clearly what it Truly was to Be Spirit over flesh and it was intensely personal as He lived 24-7 with His beloved disciples for 3 1/2 years and then gave His Life up for all of us that we might understand His Words posessed life away from this unredeemed creation! Away to the degree that He stretches out the heavens so we can never see the borders of the cosmos we are began in but to the infinite this is still simply nothing to be considered yet the finite cannot even begin to go there! I have been praying for your discernment in this and to simply know that all combined knowledge that we are in now passes away 1 Cor 13:8-10 8 Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part. 10 But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away. NKJV and all things will be made new Rev 22; so new in fact God can give us no actual description for we cannot relate in anyway to the event of the New Heaven and Earth that of eternity and how we shall be! 1 John 3:2-3 2 Beloved, now we are children of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is. 3 And everyone who has this hope in Him purifies himself, just as He is pure. NKJV 1 Cor 2:9 9 But as it is written: "Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, Nor have entered into the heart of man The things which God has prepared for those who love Him." NKJV I say this because knowledge puffs up (where you work is one big inflation factory ) and to know the truth of it's future helps keep away from the bloat! I have said this before but once again The Son came and told us My Father can do anything and the whole of this cosmos is just one of infinite choices He had to build to His Pleasure... all of combined effort in learning even the allowance of the great increase here at the end we shall never know the completeness of the finite - how much more shall we be humbled by the Infinite of Him! It is good to love! It is not when we have to give up truths that He has died for that we might hold in our being... Shiloh is 'spot on' in this and I think if you remove your emotion a little and re-examine the actual foundation of what he presents you will agree! Love, Steven Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawkins Posted April 12, 2012 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 289 Content Per Day: 0.05 Reputation: 45 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/25/2008 Status: Offline Share Posted April 12, 2012 (edited) I'm just saying that science (and evolution by default) are (supposed to be, if used correctly!) neutral about the existence of God and all things spiritual. Science is a tool. Is that tool sometimes misused by some atheists to make it reach the conclusion against God? Yes it is. But is that the tools fault, or the person using it? The scientific method isn't flawed, what is flawed is people inferring spiritual truths from something naturalistic, when they shouldn't. The only thing that cannot be flawed is God and His Word, everything else is subject to flaws, science makes no exception especially the false science such as ToE. While you have absolute faith on the scientists (men) and their science, I question them. On the other hand, I questioned God too, and that's when I was an atheist. Now I have absolute faith on Him. The flaw of your "science" has been pointed out time and again, that's not hard anyway. But your absolute faith may still argue with the faith statement that "how can the scientists be wrong". ======= 2H2O = 2H2 + O2 This is science. Science is the claim of existing repeating patterns following rules. You have to demonstrate how it repeats predictably if you declare that something repeats. You have to do a lab to demonstrate, and more importantly you have to predict correctly about the result before the lab. In the formula above, you have to do the lab itself and to predict beforehand that H2 and O2 will be the result. If in the infinitive number of repeated lab tests of the equation, your theory will be falsified or rejected even when you failed once (as long as your lab setup isn’t an issue). This is evolution. You don’t do the lab itself. Instead, you collect evidence from test tubes used in yesterday’s labs. And you use high precision equipment (such as DNA analyzer?) to examine the residues left in the test tubes. Then you claim that evidence shows that water dissolves into H2 + O2. When you came across a test tube doesn’t support this view, you said new evidence suggests something else. And you call this science?! Scientists buy into this because you don’t have an alternative. It’s a political correctness to choose ToE because scientists won’t introduce God into their research that lightly. And actually this is yet another fallacy to conclude that “because a lot of scientists buy into ToE so that ToE must be a truth”. This is a fallacy in terms of science. However, you can claim that if you consciously admit that ToE is a faith and a religion, because the claim itself is a religious statement. The approach employed by ToE is totally different from any other science. Any other science will have to rely on the predictability and falsifyability to confirm a scientific truth (a repeating pattern). That is, you have to do the lab itself and predict beforehand. ToE abandoned this approach because it is impossible by far to do a lab covering the time frame needed for an evolution to occur. On the other hand, how credible ToE is if it is the only “science” using the “without doing a lab” approach. I speculate that there are tons of flaws using this approach and it actually opens a can of worms to the field of science. ========= The 2 applied most misconception of evolution of which the whole ToE is built on are 2 fallacies. Fallacy 1 Because I observed one thing evolves, such that every species now and in history must have evolved. Yet observable evidence shows that certain species never changes or there's no observable changes can be obtained. So in order to claim that every known (and unknown) species must have evolved, you need to observe or provide evidence of each species now and in history. Since not all species in history can be known to humans, thus no conclusion can be drawn to say that all species evolved. How ever "all species must have evolved" is already used and applied as fact. Fallacy 2, Because all species have evolved (in accordance to fallacy 1), such that all species must have evolved from a single cell (or whatever simplest life form). Even all species "evolve" (subject to mechanisms assumed by today's humans), it by no means says that 1) we already figured out all possible mechanisms, and 2) they have been evolved from simplest life forms (i.e., single cells). Because no evidence ever existed about how a single cell turns into, say, an elephant. There are other fallacies of which the ToE is based heavily on. For example, when it is observed that A, B, C, D, E and F appear to be looked alike. People will draw the fallacious conclusion that evolution must occur in the sequence that A->B->C->D->E->F. They never consider the possibility that A, B, C, D, E, F are of totally different species, as they appeared to be alike by no means says that they must have relation to each other, they can still be totally independent of each other. Moreover, they also never consider other combinations such as CBDAEF instead of ABCDEF, it is also possibly BDCAFE and so forth. So what conclusion ToE can draw? It's none. Do every species evolve? ToE pretends to provide an answer yet it is a fallacy saying that "because one or a bunch of species evolves such that all species now and in history must have evolved". Do all species evolve from a single cell (or whatever simple life form)? Again, ToE pretends to give answer which turns out to be a fallacy of "because all species evolves, such that must have been evolved from a single cell. If you are willing to think deeper you'll notice that ToE is fundamentally built on fallacies, and with the deceptive and fallacious implication that all species evolves and evolved from a single cell. =========== As for biblical account. I believe mostly it's talking about how it originally was. Bible never says anything about what have been going on after the completion of the 6 day creation. God may have created thousands of species then put them in the nature the let the nature continue to impact and make change to the existing species. Moreover, hybridization is also possible biblically speaking, as it is said that God' sons mate with men's daughters. It is possible in ancient times that the Jews called whatever with the shape of a man the son of man while creature which were not human beings, say, other homo erectus the sons of God. As a result, even when it could be evident that the nature impacted and made certain changes to certain species, it by no means says that this is the way how species were originated. Just like I said, "because I observed the nature making changes to certain species, such that all species must be a result of natural selection" is a fallacy applied by the evolutionists. ========== Edited April 12, 2012 by Hawkins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawkins Posted April 12, 2012 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 289 Content Per Day: 0.05 Reputation: 45 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/25/2008 Status: Offline Share Posted April 12, 2012 (edited) In science, a hypothesis can be wrong before it is verified by the predictability and falsifiability of science. For example, the Big Bang theory is a hypothesis. It is not "well tested" simply because you can't observe or experiment on a repeatedly exploiding universe. It is thus a hypothesis can hardly be confirmed. As a result, it won't be considered a truth even though scientists in majority may buy into it. They buy into it because it is weighed among the various theories regarding to the origin of the universe, including Big Bang, resonance theory and so forth. With these given alternatives, they believe that the Big Bang theory shall be more closer to the truth. But in the end, this is a belief, this is not a confirmed truth scientifically speaking. On the other hand, if the Big Bang theory is confirmed to be the truth, other theories will not be able to exist, as you can't have two different truth regarding to how the universe was originated. As a sign, the different theories exist simply because none of them is confirmed scientifically through the predictability and falsifiability of science. Even after the verification of predictability and falsifiability, a theory will usually be claimed to work under a certain paradigm. This is because even scientific laws are imperfect. A lot of them are waited to be perfected. You might already heard of the Newtonian laws only work under a certain paradigm. And humans have not yet discovered the true nature of gravity, so any law about gravity possibly is not perfect, they may subject to corrections when we know more about its true nature. To humans, we know of totally 4 field forces, but the 4 theories related to these forces are independent theories working for each forces (paradigm) but incompatible with each other. Top scientists (I heard that including Albert Einstein) were/are still working towards a "super theory" to resolve this incompatibility. You shall see that even science is limted and relative. Edited April 12, 2012 by Hawkins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts