"It's Magic"

[Isaiah 6:8]

I think we have to understand that science doesn't include God into its explanations. Science tries to explain things naturally, not supernaturally. Science at its core is agnostic to the existence and intervention of God(s).

I will agree. But this does create a problem with evolution. I would say, all non-theoretical science has no issues with this. I would say most 80-90% of Theoretical science also does not have this as an issue. The reason being is two fold. One of which is that God even as an explanation would not make a difference in the outcome. For instance the Theory of gravity, which from what I have seen is a favorite one for evolutionists to point to to show how ignorant Christians are to what a Theory is is a good one to use here.

We could say that God controls gravity, for instance. However the end result would be the same theory of gravity, for if God was involved or not. The end result would be the same. Which, I know is one of your main points on this threads about evolution. The other reason is when they are looking at something like gravity, I would say most would not have a reason to try to disprove God as proving how gravity works, does not automatically prove or disprove God. So in this setting God simply does not cross their minds about the issue.

However when it comes to evolution, if you bring God into the mix, it alters everything drastically. The most important reason is this. If evolution is proved, unbiased then God does not need to exist, and most likely does not exist. This means that there is no consequence for any actions. Eat, Drink and be Marry, for tomorrow we die! The flip side if evolution was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, then their would have to be a God, and many would be in shear terror of what that meant when they realized the way they were living there lives. Also If God was allowed as a possible factor it would alter the results. I would also hazard a guess to sat that a good deal of evolutionary scientist are determined to disprove God, not just explain how the universe was created. You being one of the few exceptions. Although since it seems that you have determined in your heart that it is truth. this makes you biased on seeing all the evidence point towards evolution, with out, apparently even considering that perhaps, it could be false!

Scientists can have opinions, the problem becomes when the biases cloud judgment etc. The scientific method tries to eliminate as much of this as possible, and I think it does a very good job at it. A good example is the steady state vs. expanding universe. Many scientists had a bias towards steady state and against the big bang. Several conducted experiments to disprove the big bang and such. However once the tests were in and the data conflicted with their preconceived notions, they changed their views because of the evidence and now every astronomer accepts an expanding universe and the big bang theory. Just because there is a bias, there is almost always a bias in everything (geologists used to laugh at the idea of plate tectonics, now it is universally accepted among geologists), doesn't mean science isn't being conducted. When the evidence is there scientists will change their views as part of the self correcting process.

Well then from what you have said several scientist and schoolers have done the same, and turned from staunch atheism and evolutionist to strong Christians who are creationists.

I would have to say this. Big bang or no big bang, as long as its an explanation that is not in direct contrast to ones views of faith, is easily accepted when the evidence proves otherwise. However, if the evidence was in direct violation of their core belief system, you will find they will not as readily change their views. Case in point, I have had many evolutionists show me facts that "prove" there point. Because of my core beliefs I do not readily give up on them. I then research it, and low and behold, it appears to be untrue and I am yet again convinced.

On this subject, bias is impossible to counterbalance. I shall start a new thread on the following question so don't reply here if you don't mind.

I would like to see, one piece of evidence that evolution is true. Now this evidence has to be beyond all interpretation. It has to be purely objective. Such as you may doubt gravity but that is not open to being subjective, if you drop a rock it will fall. You can not choose to disbelieve it and simply float off. I wish you could because I would fly off to see my wife.

[Isaiah 6:8]

It may be from a pro evo site, but it uses the terms incorrectly as they are used by working scientists today...

I know of evolution Berkeley and have read some of their stuff, but it's been too long to recall anything specific. Much of what I know about the theory comes from school, and some things like fitness planes, epigenetics and ERVs are from my own studies.

This is an anti-creation website (Talkorigins.org), yet they define micro and macro evolution as I've been taught in college and as it's used by every single biologist I've run across, so:

Yes but I cannot accept a definition that is defined by someone with an agenda when the definition of the word is changing and apparently subjective. Thats like asking a politician if he feels his opponent lied. Of course he will say yes!

you see this is dodging the question and trying to force us to be saying that we accept all of evolution, just by accepting part. This is not true.

Actually all vertebrates evolved from the Cambrian period about 550 million years ago, hardly billions. If you are interested in talking about bird evolution we can do that. I would also like to ask for a definition of "kind"; what makes a kind a kind, and how do you tell what animal is in what kind?

This is the point of our debate. the real debate is what changed. I used the term billions as thats what the page said that found. Over the billions of years everything evolved. Maybe only millions for some but the over all picture.

As far as Kind. I would use the classification of Family. Deer family, etc..

[Fez]

Ok I think the definiton of "magic" is what I have a problem with. To me magic has a negative connotaion.

mag

[Isaiah 6:8]

One question. D-9.

Do you think that it is possible that God did create as it is reported in Genesis?

[nebula]

I don't remember saying Jesus isn't the truth above all. I just said my priority is the truth in response to whether or not I'm following God or looking to be wise in the eyes of the world. From my perspective as someone who has studied evolution enough to know that it is real science supported by evidence, you make it sound as if we have to chose between God and science/evidence. By simply saying "truth", I am saying you can acknowledge Jesus as the truth and comfortably pursue the truths of nature as well.

If pursuit of the knowing truth of this world interferes with your pursuit of knowing God and knowing His ways, then there is a problem.

If interpreting science through the eyes of Scripture is foolish in your eyes, why are you OK with interpreting Scripture through the eyes of science?

Science is a man-made invention to make sense out of the natural world. It is man's tool, not God's.

[Isaiah 6:8]

I suppose anything is possible.

I am open to the idea that such really did happen. However the evidence against it is so strong that I don't see it as a possibility without invoking weird theology, philosophy or understanding of the universe; like God fabricating all this evidence to test us, or this is all a dream etc.

Then try going to a creationist website, with the view point of God did create, for a moment,, and see if you see the evidence.

[j102]

i dont see how one can say they believe in the bible but also say they believe in evolution too..... the 2 directly contridict each other

evolution teaches that ALL LIFE was descended from a single one celled organisim that evolved to other complex life forms including humans.

the bible teaches that "IN THE BEGINING WAS GOD" and god made all life special and unique...... there is even a geneology in the bible from the first man ADAM all the way to JESUS CHRIST.

Evolution, and every science, is agnostic to the existence of God. So evolution cannot say God wasn't in the beginning. Most Christian evolutionists see Genesis as either a text dealing with spiritual things and not the physical history of the universe, or understand each day to be long periods of time. For us, it isn't whether or not God created, but "how". Theistic evolutionists believe that God created life through a lot of complex natural pathways that He set up from the beginning. The dissenting view is, as far as I can tell, God created life through incantations and/or some other magic. In any case, treating Genesis as non-literal to the physical universe doesn't necessarily invoke a contradiction between the Bible and evolution.

As for the genealogies, again theistic evolutionists see them as non-literal. They'd have to be, at least partially, if Genesis is non-literal as Adam would also be non-literal.

but jesus is a literal person, as were other people that were listed in his geneology such as david. so that line of thinking just does not add up, it contradicts what scripture says.

[j102]

If pursuit of the knowing truth of this world interferes with your pursuit of knowing God and knowing His ways, then there is a problem.

Indeed, you are on the wrong track for at least one.

If interpreting science through the eyes of Scripture is foolish in your eyes, why are you OK with interpreting Scripture through the eyes of science?

This might be a little hard to explain, but I think both are foolish - yet we must combine the two to create a working model of how the universe and beyond operates. To go through scripture with the lens of scientific concordism is to severely handicap your spiritual self; there's some verse in the OT that states that if you put a stripped stick in front of livestock their children will be stripped. Many atheists use that verse to show how idiotic the ancient Hebrews were. Yet they completely ignore the spiritual significance, the point of the story wasn't to teach people how to make stripped livestock, but to show how having faith in God and keeping His commandments are important. Likewise we cannot go around in science and use scripture to back up or make claims regarding the workings of the natural/normal providence.

However, I think we can use the natural world to understand the natural world. Even if one of our ideas from religion about the natural world is wrong, doesn't mean everything else is wrong as well; and there is precedence in Judaism for casting out an old idea of how the physical world works in place of a new one (a pagan one at that).

It is like looking at the universe with two different windows, if one oversteps their bounds there is bound to be disagreement. I think we should learn where those boundaries are so we don't cross it.

Science is a man-made invention to make sense out of the natural world. It is man's tool, not God's.

Yet we are commanded to subdue (take over, understand) the Earth/universe. As the early scientific philosophers proposed, we have this intellect from God, so lets use it to understand the natural world in a systematic way - God designed the universe with laws, the universe is intelligible, so let us discover those laws and understand nature to do good and wonderful things.

Then try going to a creationist website, with the view point of God did create, for a moment,, and see if you see the evidence.

I've been to many before, debated many creationists, in my earlier years I tried my hardest to accept creationism. Decided that I would have to see all of the evidence from their viewpoint, which I did for a few weeks. Unfortunately their arguments simply can't hold water under scrutiny. Will hopefully get to your thread tonight if I don't pass out and sleep for 12 hours straight.

but jesus is a literal person, as were other people that were listed in his geneology such as david. so that line of thinking just does not add up, it contradicts what scripture says.

Just because London is a real place doesn't mean that Harry Potter is real. Part of the intriguing nature of near-eastern religions, including ancient Judaism, is their style of mixing historical fact and fiction together into one story (I think Noah's flood is a prime example). It wasn't the historical facts that mattered, it is the meaning of the story told that is chief.

somebody's flip-flopping more than john kerry did when he was running for office.

[Isaiah 6:8]

God is just not part of science. To me evolution simply doesn't disprove God, and to many biologists who accept evolution also take this position. I'll agree that evolution disproves the creationist world view, but it simply doesn't disprove deities all together. 95% of scientists accept evolution, and about 50% believe in a God who answers prayers; theism. Even the honest scientists that are atheistic, like Eugenie Scott who's executive director of the National Center for Science Education, says that evolution doesn't disprove God.

You missed what I said, I said, with evolution, God is not needed. there is no need for God to create, and also therefore shows a possibility that there is no God.

Also I agree that God is not a part of science I belive him to be the inventor of science. Like one builds a house, he is not part of the house but he did make it, and he lives apart from the structure of the house.

Also where do you get your stats?

Maybe for you, but for many the idea that there is no God is not grounds to do whatever you like. If I remember correctly, several studies have shown that atheists and agnostics obey the law better (statistically) than theists. That is something that has intrigued me for some time.

I am not talking about laws. I am talking about behavior. If there is no God why shouldn't you have sex with as many girl's/guys as you want. Why shouldn't you get drunk, curse and be greedy? Why should you be honest, if lying does not hurt anyone etc.. thats my drift. I am not talking about following the laws of a country.

Also with the Stats, remember stats are very subjective, if you look at my thread on stats, they do not prove anything. Besides that is very broad brush you paint, theists with. This means, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhist, Christians etc... since there is a huge number more theists then atheists this could be right because there just are less atheists then otherwise. Also Since most of the people within religious systems that are doing it because its what they have to do as a culture, (Muslims, Hindus etc..) don't really follow the tenants of their religions, they just mouth the words. So they are not really devoted to keeping the rules of their own religion how do they keep the laws of the land?

I'll have to re-find it. But there is an ex-YEC who was trained as a geologist at a YEC school, got his PhD or masters (can't remember now) and went to work in the oil industry and his peers also went out to work in the field. After working in the field he noticed that nothing he learned in school that went against standard modern geology turned out to be true. He then had a crisis in his faith, almost become an atheist and eventually ended up as a theistic evolutionist. He contacted his peers from school to learn that most (I believe it was in fact all of them, just don't want to say "all" when it's not), have become pure atheists after working in the field.

Um.. okay Josh McDowell is one of those I was talking about. I am sure that there are cases of it going both ways, my point is, because there are cases going both ways, this must mean that the evidence is inconclusive!

I would have to say this. Big bang or no big bang, as long as its an explanation that is not in direct contrast to ones views of faith, is easily accepted when the evidence proves otherwise. However, if the evidence was in direct violation of their core belief system, you will find they will not as readily change their views. Case in point, I have had many evolutionists show me facts that "prove" there point. Because of my core beliefs I do not readily give up on them. I then research it, and low and behold, it appears to be untrue and I am yet again convinced.

I agree with everything but the last sentence.

If it appears to me to be untrue. Just like you, if the evidence appears to be untrue to what you belive you accept it as untruth.

Well sure the rock falls, but it may not be gravity that is making it fall. I think the ancient Greeks had a theory on why things fall that is different from the theory or law of gravity. Perhaps God just continually provides a force of acceleration equal to 9.8m/s^2 down to the ground and the theory of gravity is false. My point is that nothing is "purely objective" despite that the scientific method works to eliminate as much subjectivity as possible.

Playing with semantics, I think you understand what I mean by now. Although by what you just said, evolution is not purely objective therefore its tenants are held by faith, rather then fact.

I assure you that is how macroevolution is defined by working biologists today. The problem is similar to the problem with the word "theory". It has a technical meaning, but it also is used in propaganda with the technical definition distorted if present at all. I'm not trying to force you into saying that you accept all of evolution, merely that in academia macroevolution is evolution at the species level or higher. Many creationists today accept speciation (technically part of macro evolution) but not the major transitions as you do. And if you want to say that there is no macro evolution or there is no evidence of macro evolution, you need to be more specific in what you mean as you do accept part of macro evolution.

I mean that a dog, will have different breeds of Dogs. Not changing family just changing basic characteristic such as size, weight and color. You do not see dogs replacing skin with scales etc...

What I mean is that all life has been evolving for roughly 3.8 billion years, possibly longer, yet it didn't take 3.8 billion years to go from dinosaurs to birds, or Australopithecus to humans. More semantics than anything right now I think.

Agreed.

As to the idea of Kind, I think you can see the problem with it - it puts humans in with the same kind as chimps, gorillas and orangutans. As for a definition, I suggest you look up "holobaramin".

Shalom

Thank you a holbaraamin is exactly my definition of kind. I replied on 4 hours of sleep within 40 hours. I had an issue of figuring out what the best scientific definition of what I meant as kind.

A dog = wolf, husky, golden retriever, poodle, toy poodle(really a dog? or some absurd genetic experiment to breed toys for rich blond girls..) ( I don't like small dogs!)

So with that cleared up we may continue.

[Isaiah 6:8]

God is just not part of science. To me evolution simply doesn't disprove God, and to many biologists who accept evolution also take this position. I'll agree that evolution disproves the creationist world view, but it simply doesn't disprove deities all together. 95% of scientists accept evolution, and about 50% believe in a God who answers prayers; theism. Even the honest scientists that are atheistic, like Eugenie Scott who's executive director of the National Center for Science Education, says that evolution doesn't disprove God.

You missed what I said, I said, with evolution, God is not needed. there is no need for God to create, and also therefore shows a possibility that there is no God.

Also I agree that God is not a part of science I belive him to be the inventor of science. Like one builds a house, he is not part of the house but he did make it, and he lives apart from the structure of the house.

Also where do you get your stats?

Maybe for you, but for many the idea that there is no God is not grounds to do whatever you like. If I remember correctly, several studies have shown that atheists and agnostics obey the law better (statistically) than theists. That is something that has intrigued me for some time.

I am not talking about laws. I am talking about behavior. If there is no God why shouldn't you have sex with as many girl's/guys as you want. Why shouldn't you get drunk, curse and be greedy? Why should you be honest, if lying does not hurt anyone etc.. thats my drift. I am not talking about following the laws of a country.

Also with the Stats, remember stats are very subjective, if you look at my thread on stats, they do not prove anything. Besides that is very broad brush you paint, theists with. This means, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhist, Christians etc... since there is a huge number more theists then atheists this could be right because there just are less atheists then otherwise. Also Since most of the people within religious systems that are doing it because its what they have to do as a culture, (Muslims, Hindus etc..) don't really follow the tenants of their religions, they just mouth the words. So they are not really devoted to keeping the rules of their own religion how do they keep the laws of the land?

I'll have to re-find it. But there is an ex-YEC who was trained as a geologist at a YEC school, got his PhD or masters (can't remember now) and went to work in the oil industry and his peers also went out to work in the field. After working in the field he noticed that nothing he learned in school that went against standard modern geology turned out to be true. He then had a crisis in his faith, almost become an atheist and eventually ended up as a theistic evolutionist. He contacted his peers from school to learn that most (I believe it was in fact all of them, just don't want to say "all" when it's not), have become pure atheists after working in the field.

Um.. okay Josh McDowell is one of those I was talking about. I am sure that there are cases of it going both ways, my point is, because there are cases going both ways, this must mean that the evidence is inconclusive!

Also from what I have heard most pure atheist started out with some religious upbringing and had something change to destroy the faith they had. The ones who grow up with out a religious upbringing seem to readably accept god, they may have been agnostic, but only because they were ignorant of what faith was. The atheists who are most against God understood something about him to begin with.

I actually heard that some seminary's produce more atheists then they do pastors. I think it has to do with only head knowledge and no real relationship with God.

I would have to say this. Big bang or no big bang, as long as its an explanation that is not in direct contrast to ones views of faith, is easily accepted when the evidence proves otherwise. However, if the evidence was in direct violation of their core belief system, you will find they will not as readily change their views. Case in point, I have had many evolutionists show me facts that "prove" there point. Because of my core beliefs I do not readily give up on them. I then research it, and low and behold, it appears to be untrue and I am yet again convinced.

I agree with everything but the last sentence.

If it appears to me to be untrue. Just like you, if the evidence appears to be untrue to what you belive you accept it as untruth.

Well sure the rock falls, but it may not be gravity that is making it fall. I think the ancient Greeks had a theory on why things fall that is different from the theory or law of gravity. Perhaps God just continually provides a force of acceleration equal to 9.8m/s^2 down to the ground and the theory of gravity is false. My point is that nothing is "purely objective" despite that the scientific method works to eliminate as much subjectivity as possible.

Playing with semantics, I think you understand what I mean by now. Although by what you just said, evolution is not purely objective therefore its tenants are held by faith, rather then fact.

I assure you that is how macroevolution is defined by working biologists today. The problem is similar to the problem with the word "theory". It has a technical meaning, but it also is used in propaganda with the technical definition distorted if present at all. I'm not trying to force you into saying that you accept all of evolution, merely that in academia macroevolution is evolution at the species level or higher. Many creationists today accept speciation (technically part of macro evolution) but not the major transitions as you do. And if you want to say that there is no macro evolution or there is no evidence of macro evolution, you need to be more specific in what you mean as you do accept part of macro evolution.

I mean that a dog, will have different breeds of Dogs. Not changing family just changing basic characteristic such as size, weight and color. You do not see dogs replacing skin with scales etc...

What I mean is that all life has been evolving for roughly 3.8 billion years, possibly longer, yet it didn't take 3.8 billion years to go from dinosaurs to birds, or Australopithecus to humans. More semantics than anything right now I think.

Agreed.

As to the idea of Kind, I think you can see the problem with it - it puts humans in with the same kind as chimps, gorillas and orangutans. As for a definition, I suggest you look up "holobaramin".

Shalom

Thank you a holbaraamin is exactly my definition of kind. I replied on 4 hours of sleep within 40 hours. I had an issue of figuring out what the best scientific definition of what I meant as kind.

A dog = wolf, husky, golden retriever, poodle, toy poodle(really a dog? or some absurd genetic experiment to breed toys for rich blond girls..) ( I don't like small dogs!)

So with that cleared up we may continue.