evolution definition and other issues

[Hawkins]

 

Candice many Christians also take the position that evolution is a godless model do they do this because of the scientists claim ? I'm not sure why we get defensive when scientists make anti God claims about this model because all non believers deny God. 

 

That's true, many Christians listen to scientists on philosophical matters that scientists are not experts on. 

 

 

Scientists don't actually know what science is in terms of the philosophy of science.

 

There's a reason why science can prove things beyond doubt where faith is considered having no bearing.

 

For a simplified example, water dissolves into hydrogen and oxygen. You can make such a prediction before each experiment that "water will dissolve into hydrogen and oxygen disregarding when and where you do the experiment". If your this prediction shall failed, you can get a Nobel Prize because this is the way how the formula is falsified. You make predictions which will never fail (or else you can get a Nobel Prize), this is what the nature of science is. A human brain will know for sure (without faith) that it is a truth because the endless repeatedly made predictions will never fail.

 

This is regarding to the predictability of science. Predictability depends on repeatability (things must be repeatable to make the predictions), and without predictability it's not a science. However, today's human call everything a science even that without any predictability.

 

For another example, if you try to conclude that cat is a result of evolution, you need to make a cat from a single cell repeatedly till you can predict that "if you follow these procedures, the single cell will certainly be turned to a cat (but not a dog)". And your this prediction never fail, then you are holding the truth. This is what science is.

 

However, humans (including scientists) know that the above (turning cell to cat) is not possible. That's why the scientists have already abandoned the true scientific approach. Instead of confirming a scientific truth by repeated predictions without failure, they start to use another approach to try to find out the truth of the origin of species. They try to look into the past to collect the so-called "evidence". However, this approach is hardly a science.

 

You need to know what limits humans are facing, before you draw your own conclusion.

 

Yet another example, why the Big Bang Theory is controversial because the Big Bang itself never repeats in front of humans. Strictly speaking it's not a science because you can never get the predictability out of it until it repeats. Subsequently, since it cannot be confirmed scientifically, you can have multiple theories about what it is. And you can choose one of them to believe with faith.

Edited September 6, 2013 by Hawkins

[Diatheosis]

I often wonder how does the names given to basic elements affect the way we understand reality. One thing is called hydrogen and the next one helium. Those names probably have some story as for some of them, but some were named merely due to the person who found them. What separates them is just the amount of electrons, otherwise they look the same. I wonder what names God has for all different things? If there are any language experts here I'd appreciate some analysis. Tongues and interpretation anyone?

 

I take this up because the words we use affect the way our brain functions, which has been discovered long ago and especially utilized in media. That way values can be reshaped to any wanted direction. So how does that work in the field of science?

 

Of course we need common language to communicate, but it is also good to understand how these words may affect our experience of reality. This problem is very alive in the debate mentioned in the thread as well. Who says and what, and especially how will many times already determine what we will make out of it.

 

I hope this does not cause even deeper blocking into two separate camps as believers don't want the scientific language affect their mind and nonbelievers want keep their intellect untouched by the religious/spiritual impact. Is there a chance for some mutual understanding in any way?

[Guest]

I hope this does not cause even deeper blocking into two separate camps as believers don't want the scientific language affect their mind and nonbelievers want keep their intellect untouched by the religious/spiritual impact. Is there a chance for some mutual understanding in any way?

 

~

 

Mutual

 

That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; Philippians 2:10

 

Understanding

 

He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. John 3:36

[Diatheosis]

If one considers the age of Genesis creation story, it will become an interesting question how the order of things being created matches pretty much the way science portraits what happened. How did the people possibly know of this so long ago? First the Earth, the sky, continents and waters. Then plants, animals and Man.

 

The biggest issue of course is, that we don't see no monkey business in that. It is simply stated God created Man, period. This causes the biggest schism. 

 

But the order of things whether in the evolution theory and origins of life and how the Earth became as it is, or Genesis. I find this interesting. What's the oldest measured age for Genesis academically thinking? How did they know so long ago?

 

Another issue is, if we really developed from the monkey man, at which point we received soul and God's Spirit? Was it gradual? Did something special happen so that God saw it was the time for that? Or do all living beings have something like soul, which is somehow related to the degree of self-awareness?

 

And still, if Adam was originally created to live forever with God, did he have soul? And what happened to it during the fall?

 

Am I asking too many questions? Are they rhetorical questions? God knows. Pick up the one that presses your buttons the most and shoot.

[Ninevite]

 

 

The biggest issue of course is, that we don't see no monkey business in that. It is simply stated God created Man, period. This causes the biggest schism. 

 

 

Indeed. No monkey business in the Bible.

 

The major problem with "theistic evolution" is that every aspect of the theory is exactly the opposite of the Bible. Evolution is designed to contradict the Bible and destroy it's credibility. Trying to reconcile the two world views is a fool's errand. It cannot be done. That doesn't stop people from trying though.

 

I'm not saying Christians that accept evolution are not truley faithful, I'm saying that they are being led astray. The atheistic evolutionist is laughing at the goofy Christian he got to buy into his stupid theory...he knows damn well it will plant the seeds of doubt.

 

If you tell an atheist you are a young earth creationist, he will become very antagonistic and cruel. Tell him you believe in evolution and he will suddenly become very polite and patronizing as he knows he is leading you down the path he wants you to go...away from God.

 

I have seen this on many a forum...test the theory for yourself. Sign up for one forum as a young earther and yet again as a theistic evolutionist on another. I have done this. I was treated like a retard as a YEC, but spoon fed lies as a theistic evolutionist.

 

The atheistic evolutionist views the theistic evolutionist as a man on the ropes and benignly goes in for the knock out.

[Ninevite]

Hello Alpha I agree mostly. There is the glaring problem though that if you attempt to allegorise Adam the people who speak of him in the bible, and genealogies including him,  are mistaken.imo What do you think about this ? I am reasoning on progressive creation atm ( which up to recently I held as OEC ) and  this is the main stumbling block. It is important that Adam was the first man created in God's image to accept the story of sin and redemption. 

 

And this, the rope-a-dope, is the exact same line used by the atheist...once he has you believing Adam was not real, you have no need for Christ. He can then tempt you to deny the deity of Christ and the fight is over.

 

Atheist wins.

 

If you believe the world is billions of years old, you have a weakness in your defense from the get go. The godless will exploit that weakness. One can go to their death bed believing in God and evolution, though that may very well be a difficult task and I commend those that do, but my point is not about the strength of faith of a man, but the motives of those that are teaching him lies.

[RobbyPants]

The atheistic evolutionist views the theistic evolutionist as a man on the ropes and benignly goes in for the knock out.

And this, the rope-a-dope, is the exact same line used by the atheist...once he has you believing Adam was not real, you have no need for Christ. He can then tempt you to deny the deity of Christ and the fight is over.

 

Atheist wins.

 

If you believe the world is billions of years old, you have a weakness in your defense from the get go. The godless will exploit that weakness. One can go to their death bed believing in God and evolution, though that may very well be a difficult task and I commend those that do, but my point is not about the strength of faith of a man, but the motives of those that are teaching him lies.

I wouldn't say that. I know plenty of Christians who believe in evolution, and they don't seem to be in danger of losing their faith. If anything, I think it helps a lot of them keep their faith. Cognitive dissonance is a pretty powerful thing to deal with, and different people will deal with it differently. For some, the path of psychological least resistance is to keep God and keep science, and try to find a way to reconcile them.

Basically, you're dividing people into three groups (I'll use the terms fundamentalist Christian, evolutionary Christian, and atheist for purposes of this post), and saying that if a fundamentalist Christian becomes an evolutionary Christian, that they are much more vulnerable to becoming atheist. While that does happen, many people comfortably settle into evolutionary Christianity, many fundamentalists Christians jump straight to atheism, and atheists that find God may settle into either of the other groups. It's more complicated than you are making it.

[Ninevite]

The truth is not complicated robby, it is quite simple. The truth is in the Bible. If you are not for Jesus, you are against Him. I have divided no one into any group. Jesus did that and He was quite clear.

 

You would like people to think the world is complicated, when it is very simple. There are those for Christ and those opposed to him. You attempt to make the world seem complicated because you are confused yourself and you want others to be confused as well.

 

Jesus is Lord. Simple. You fight against God, not me or any other man, but God himself and you think you can win?

[alphaparticle]

If one considers the age of Genesis creation story, it will become an interesting question how the order of things being created matches pretty much the way science portraits what happened. How did the people possibly know of this so long ago? First the Earth, the sky, continents and waters. Then plants, animals and Man.

 

The biggest issue of course is, that we don't see no monkey business in that. It is simply stated God created Man, period. This causes the biggest schism. 

 

But the order of things whether in the evolution theory and origins of life and how the Earth became as it is, or Genesis. I find this interesting. What's the oldest measured age for Genesis academically thinking? How did they know so long ago?

 

Another issue is, if we really developed from the monkey man, at which point we received soul and God's Spirit? Was it gradual? Did something special happen so that God saw it was the time for that? Or do all living beings have something like soul, which is somehow related to the degree of self-awareness?

 

And still, if Adam was originally created to live forever with God, did he have soul? And what happened to it during the fall?

 

Am I asking too many questions? Are they rhetorical questions? God knows. Pick up the one that presses your buttons the most and shoot.

I suspect that at some point God gave humans special souls, hypothesis on my part but it seems to make the most sense out of the information. I suspect that it happened about the time our cognitive development was sufficient for certain things.

[alphaparticle]

 

Hello Alpha I agree mostly. There is the glaring problem though that if you attempt to allegorise Adam the people who speak of him in the bible, and genealogies including him,  are mistaken.imo What do you think about this ? I am reasoning on progressive creation atm ( which up to recently I held as OEC ) and  this is the main stumbling block. It is important that Adam was the first man created in God's image to accept the story of sin and redemption. 

 

And this, the rope-a-dope, is the exact same line used by the atheist...once he has you believing Adam was not real, you have no need for Christ. He can then tempt you to deny the deity of Christ and the fight is over.

 

Atheist wins.

 

If you believe the world is billions of years old, you have a weakness in your defense from the get go. The godless will exploit that weakness. One can go to their death bed believing in God and evolution, though that may very well be a difficult task and I commend those that do, but my point is not about the strength of faith of a man, but the motives of those that are teaching him lies.

 

A non literal adam means we aren't sinful and in need of salvation? That doesn't follow at all. The fact that humans are sinful is something that is confirmable aside from the question of Adam's literal historical existence (which is also why I don't lose sleep over that particular question). What does the age of the universe have to do with anything?