Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
bcbsr

Intelligent Design, Science & Religion

Recommended Posts

44 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

I'm saying that it is much more plausible when one is really informed of the facts.

Plausibility is not good science.

45 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

I believe

Belief is not good science

46 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

It is widely believed among scientists that the primary advantage of sexual reproduction is the inherent genetic diversity.

Concensus of belief is not good science

47 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

one can easily imagine mating types developing over time into progressively less-and-less similar organisms, finally developing into male and female versions of a species like we see today.

Imagination is not scientific methodology

48 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

this is not a valid question.

Proclaiming something invalid is not how science is done, All criticism must be considered...

26 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

This question suggests that you believe a fully-formed vertebrate organism one day did not have a heart or blood vessels, and then the next day had a fully functional cardiovascular system. It is a caricature that is far-removed from evolutionary theory.

It is common sense... Even questions that are unscientific must be considered by good science....

26 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

shows a level of scientific competence I would expect in a middle-school student, yet believes that they know more then experts in these specific fields.

Again, Criticizing a person is not answering, or being able to answer a common sense question. I do not care if a middle schooler asks a Question about Creation, I will answer them respectfully rather than nullifying their question.

27 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

It is no stretch to actually see how these organisms developed.

But it is a stretch unless the specifics are not explained fully...

28 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

but there is no reason to believe that this could not happen by a slow, steady development of the heart into the more efficient version.

More belief required to imagine that evolution is probable and true...

28 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

A very similar progression can be inferred for all of our organ systems just by observing and studying other organisms on the planet today.

Science is not done by inferring anything, but by proving everything.

Conclusion of this debate. 

It takes as much faith to believe in evolution, if not more so than to believe in God. I admire your faith, though it is misplaced. I have selected these comments from your words here, to show you that evolution is a religion, nothing more, Yes there are very imaginative and smart people known as scientists that believe in evolution, But that does not make them Wise, nor does it make evolution True. Paul the apostle states that People that deny the common sense evidences of the creation, which God has given us "think they are wise, but are fools" Please take the time to read Romans 1:18-23 at the link...

https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/rom/1/18/ss0/s_1047018

And continue reading the rest of the chapter to show you where this mindset CAN lead one.

I Have tried to show you several examples here, where Science is leading to conclusions which verify scripture. Undoubtedly there are many counterclaims to what I have said here, and natural explanations that can be implied to explain these supernatural events, and You are free to make and consider those counter claims as I obviously cannot stop you from doing so. Supernatural acts of a creator God are just that, Supernatural. They are beyond natural explanations. Though the Bible speaks of a worldwide flood, Science can deny it, or try to explain it naturally, or say it was a localized flood, etc, but When evidence comes out of a worldwide flood by science itself, or the mapping of the Ocean floors reveals a rip in the ocean floor that runs around the globe (Fountains of the deep opening), Or science starts to consider that speed of light was near instantaneous, and is not a constant but is decelerating...Then You need to sit back and Give Glory to the God who authored the Word of God. You can make all the fancy terms for this you want such "punctuated Equilibrium" or You can Give Glory to God And His Wisdom. 

Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? there is no searching of his understanding. (Isa 40:28)

  • Thumbs Up 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

Plausibility is not good science.

Your argumentation is growing desperate if you are ignoring the facts I am presenting and focusing on word choice. It may be about time to wrap this up. When the available evidence repeatedly points to evolution as the most plausible explanation, that is doing good science.

3 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

Science is not done by inferring anything, but by proving everything.

Sometimes, scientific answers must be inferred. Unless you propose an experiment by which a researcher collects data for 30 million years to test the Cambrian explosion. The best available evidence is carefully analyzed (in the case of the Cambrian explosion, this is the fossil record) and most plausible explanations are drawn. The plausibility of large-scale evolution is based on smaller-scale evolution that can be observed by direct experimentation. Thus, some science is done by inference.

20 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

It takes as much faith to believe in evolution, if not more so than to believe in God.

Here is something I can actually agree with. Growing up in a Christian home with parents that taught me well about my Savior, belief in God came quite easily for me. The evidence surrounding the resurrection of Jesus Christ and the development of the early church support my belief in the one, true God. My belief in evolution as a tool of the Creator came much harder. I grew up as a Young Earth Creationist and it took roughly a decade of education in Biology (I earned a PhD about 20 years ago) for me to accept evolution. This is not because the evidence is weak, but because I was wrongly taught that a non-literal view of Genesis was accepting the word of man over the Word of God. All truth is God's truth - the truth of His Word and the truth of His might works. When evidence is clear that a literal interpretation of the Bible doesn't match the evidence of His works, then there was a fundamental misunderstanding of His Word. Historically we have seen this as Christians have come to accept that the earth revolves around the sun, and not vice versa, as well as several other misunderstandings about nature that began with an overly literal interpretation of the Bible. You may argue that science is the work of man, but I would counter that interpretation of the Bible is also the work of man and both of these can be in error.

27 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

I have selected these comments from your words here, to show you that evolution is a religion, nothing more

This is another desperate argument that does not deal with the information I have shared with you. I can understand why you may not want to face the real evidence for evolution, rather than the easily-discredited "proofs against evolution", such as those you have supplied. I was in the same position one day.

Thanks for the conversation, but I agree this has probably wound to a close. Respond if you like, but I suspect that this will be my last post on this thread. I look forward to a day when fellow believers in Christ can agree to disagree on such issues and focus on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, one.opinion said:

This is another desperate argument that does not deal with the information I have shared with you. I can understand why you may not want to face the real evidence for evolution, rather than the easily-discredited "proofs against evolution", such as those you have supplied. I was in the same position one day.

Thanks for the conversation, but I agree this has probably wound to a close. Respond if you like, but I suspect that this will be my last post on this thread. I look forward to a day when fellow believers in Christ can agree to disagree on such issues and focus on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Thank You as well for being cordial and actually taking the time to debate and present the facts. Science is not the enemy of the church, though some have used it as such, and without the church, science would not exist as we know it for science is built on the foundation of discovering the Truth, And Jesus is the truth Personified. (John 14:6). One day we will know the truth, and I will then nudge you on the shoulder and tell you "I told you so" 

I Myself began as a YEC, became a TE proponent, Till I had my eyes opened to what the theological ramifications of that position entailed. So there is hope for you yet. All Kidding aside, Thank you for the cordial debate, again. I Have had some nasty debates before about these topics that descend into name calling and your character shows in how you handled yourself.

God Bless. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

I Have had some nasty debates before about these topics that descend into name calling and your character shows in how you handled yourself.

God Bless. 

Ok, I will respond to this :-) I have also had some experience with ugly debates and I have come away from a thread or two that forced me to ask my Lord for forgiveness. Thank you for the pleasant exchange and for the kind words.

I greatly appreciate your ability to stand firmly on what you believe without resorting to vilifying my position.

Grace and peace, my brother.

  • Thumbs Up 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for my delay in getting back to the topic. I was on vacation and tend not to do things online if I can avoid it when spending time with family. It seems like one.opinion has been dealing with some of the objections presented by dbchristian. It seems like the debate has come to a close. I am glad that we could come to a peaceful resolution of respectful disagreement. Grace and peace to all my brothers in Christ that have contributed to this conversation. 

  • Thumbs Up 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/21/2019 at 8:49 AM, Justin Adams said:

I see we are no longer encouraged to think much. So easy to latch onto something that requires little imagination. Can you imagine God using so-called evolution over millions of years of natural selection? All those partly formed animals etc as He 'experimented'. The one legged goat. How did it survive to breed? Especially if its eyes were only partly formed. It is mass ugliness of gargantuan proportions to imagine this 'progress'. I mean; the amoeba in the swamp... how did it get fins? How can it know to swim? How would it know what land was? Millions of years is a cop out - it means LESS than zero.

Evolution often equates to godlessness. Or the other extreme of Gnostic thought - we are all gods etc. The theology of the Nachash. (הָֽאִשָּׁ֖ה אֶל־ הַנָּחָ֑שׁ מִפְּרִ֥י עֵֽץ־)

Just think. 

Where did the amoeba come from? did it just appear and developed into multitudes of life forms. Plants animals trees insects.  Why do they leave out the point zero of everything. what was before point O ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Mike Mclees said:

Where did the amoeba come from? did it just appear and developed into multitudes of life forms. Plants animals trees insects.  Why do they leave out the point zero of everything. what was before point O ? 

YAHWEH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Justin Adams said:

Where did the amoeba come from? did it just appear and developed into multitudes of life forms. Plants animals trees insects.  Why do they leave out the point zero of everything. what was before point O ? 

Actually, an amoeba is a rather complex organism.    Complex, even compared to some other simple eukaryotes.    The evidence shows that the first living things were much, much simpler; bacteria-like prokaryotes.    From where did they come?   God says that the earth, water, and atmosphere brought forth living things, which is remarkably similar to the things scientists are discovering about the origin of living things.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Actually, an amoeba is a rather complex organism.    Complex, even compared to some other simple eukaryotes.    The evidence shows that the first living things were much, much simpler; bacteria-like prokaryotes.    From where did they come?   God says that the earth, water, and atmosphere brought forth living things, which is remarkably similar to the things scientists are discovering about the origin of living things.

 

You got your quote wrong. I did not say that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Justin Adams said:

You got your quote wrong. I did not say that.

I see that now.   Sorry.

 

Edited by The Barbarian
  • Well Said! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...