Creation vs Evolution

[Trust & Obey]

Evolution does not rule out design, any more than the fact that the apostles cast lots could rule out the fact that it was God's will Matthias be added to the twelve.

Fenwar

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, but it does rule out us being able to read the Bible the way God intended it and it sets up each individual reader to "interpret for themselves" what they think it means.

It calls God a liar and is completely unnecessary given the facts.

If you want to compromise your faith with men's philosophies...

Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

.... then go right ahead. But, be careful to whom you encourage to call God a liar.

Mat 18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

Mat 18:7 Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!

It is easy to respect someone like ScientificAtheist who is agnostic, intelligent, and committed to the truth. But, it is hard to take your arguments seriously because you are attempting to mix oil and vinegar and it just doesn't work.

The next thing you'll do is question whether or not Jonah lived in the belly of a great fish for 3 days, right?

[halifaxchristian]

Fenwar...you are in gravely dangerous territory...so far as your "Christian" faith is concerned. I can somewhat respect a man like Scientific Athiest. I can somewhat respect a Muslim being Muslim. I can somewhat respect a Humanist being a Humanist. But a "Christian" being...whatever you are??? I cannot and do not respect, accept, condone, nor understand what you are trying to prove?

If I'm trying to prove anything, I'm trying to prove that you are not required to suspend logic in order to accept the Bible as trustworthy or authoritative. I'd also like people to be able to recognise that evolution is not intrinsically atheist and Christianity is not intrinsically "creationist" (in the Young Earthism sense).

If you do not believe in Genesis as being a genuine, literal account in all its endeavors...then what do you make of your "Saviour" Jesus upholding Moses' words. What do you make of original sin, adam and eve, and the whole basis for the Christian faith??? Like David said, "If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?"

Absolutely Jesus upheld Moses and the Law. I haven't said he didn't, nor have I questioned or undermined Moses' authority myself. I'm simply saying that Moses' words don't imply what you think they imply in terms of how God created the world.

None of what I said has contradicted any key doctrine of Christianity, from original sin (Adam and Eve do not have to be actual historical figures in order to establish that doctrine!) to the death and resurrection of Jesus.

If the foundation of your faith is Biblical literalism, you are clinging onto something that was destroyed a long time ago. I'm not saying I have all the answers but my foundation is the fact of Christ's death and resurrection, as proclaimed by the community of believers for the last 2,000 years. As Paul said, if Christ has not been raised, our faith is in vain.

He said no such thing about "if God did not create the world in six days" and I think you are attaching far too much importance to that teaching. Why does it matter?

(Response to T&O in my next post - breaking it up because of the quote restriction)

Fenwar

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thankyou for clarifying. Although I am not calling you lost...I stand by my statement that you are surfing dangerous waters (or whatever I said!). I am relieved that you accept the doctrine of sin, the death and resurrection of Christ, etc. However, that said, it is nothing short of dangerous when people start to symbolically interpret the Word of God when the context does not suggest otherwise. If you are sincere in your heart...Jesus said that the seeker will find. If you do not come to a Biblical conclusion regarding this matter, I will definitely be calling into question your integrity....though you may say the same of myself. Good day.

[NITE OWL]

Another highly intelligent individual...welcome to the swamp.

I have to get this off my chest, it's killing me.

You said..." If there were holes it would not be a theory."

A word of advice...before you jump, you should know what you're jumping into.

Look up the word theory in your dictionary. But I suppose you're so smart you don't need one. Better yet, read my post's for this thread.

If you would like to go a round or two after that, I'm more then willing. Read the rest of this thread first, then we'll talk.

I don't think the evolutionists would want you speaking for them, but I could be wrong. It's happened a couple of times before.

Anyway...talk to you later

[Gerioke]

Out of my entire post all you can do is insult me. And not only are you insulting me you are doing it smugly on incorrect information derived from your overpowering ignorance of how science works..

The term "theory" has several different applications depending on it's usage. A theory in it's scientific context does not mean "a guess" like it does to a lay person. Scientific theories are based on observation, experimentation and research. Only after you gather evidence that cannot be falsified is a scientic theory born. So when someone says "theory of evolution" it means something that has been proven and is no longer a scientific hypothesis.

  Consider this your first round K.O.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think you've been smoking the four leafed clovers dude. Theory is short of fact.

[NITE OWL]

Out of my entire post all you can do is insult me. And not only are you insulting me you are doing it smugly on incorrect information derived from your overpowering ignorance of how science works..

The term "theory" has several different applications depending on it's usage. A theory in it's scientific context does not mean "a guess" like it does to a lay person. Scientific theories are based on observation, experimentation and research. Only after you gather evidence that cannot be falsified is a scientic theory born. So when someone says "theory of evolution" it means something that has been proven and is no longer a scientific hypothesis.

  Consider this your first round K.O.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Go back and read your first post. From your very first statement right down to the last. You did nothing but sling mud. But that's ok. It doesn't matter.

You didn't read this thread did you? If you did you have found that you're not alone in your belief's.

Neandertal man is your proof? Out of hundreds of millions of years of evolution, they could only find one humanlike skeleton? Out of the thousands of fossils and bones they dug up they could only find one manlike thing?

And before I forget, there's a post on this thread from someone called "scientific atheist". He gives the scientific definition for "theory". Read what he wrote then read my response. I really don't want to repeat myself. You see, I'm so uneducated that it's hard for me to type.

I'm not attacking you guys. You're the ones that are doing all the mud slinging and name calling. I put out a fact, you can't disprove it, so you call me names. I'm ok with that. It just makes my side of the argument stronger.

I mean do you guys do this everywhere? Call people names because they don't agree with you? If that what intelligence does to a person, I'm glad to be an idiot.

Go back and read this thread and if there are some things you would like to discuss with me, I am willing. If you don't come back, I'll know why. Or you could come back and call me some more names and then run away. Either way I'm ok with it.

Later

[Bread_of_Life]

The Scientific Method

1. Gather data/evidence

2. Create hypotheses to explain data

3. Test the predictions of these hypotheses, in so far as it is possible.

4. Re-test important results to make sure they're right

5. False hypotheses will not make consistently true predictions - they will make false predictions. Reject all hypotheses that make false predictions.

6. If you are left with no hypotheses, create some more and test their predictions.

7. If you are left with one hypothesis, whose predictions are constantly being proven right - this hypothesis becomes your "Scientific theory"

8. Keep on gathering evidence and testing the predictions of your new theory.

That's basically how science works. We make hypotheses to explain data. These are just "guess" (untested) explanations for evidence. We then test as many of the predictions of these hypotheses as possible (there are usually at least a few hypotheses to test). We reject all hypotheses that make false predictions. In the end, we're left with only the true hypothesis, and we call this our "theory".

A hypothesis cannot become a theory unless it has made successful predictions. Of course, sometimes some predictions can't be tested immediately - sometimes they rely on finding new stuff - sometimes they rely on better technology that we have now for testing. But usually there are at least a few predictions that we can directly test - and only a true hypotheses will make true predictions (we can't see into the future, as you rightly said NITE OWL).

So a theory isn't a guess - it's an explanation for evidence that has made true predictions. The more true predictions, the stronger the theory. People who dismiss theories out of hand have to explain how they made predictions that came true. Were the scientists behind the theory psychics? Was it just amazing luck? Or is there a lot of truth in those theories. Those are the options, you choose.

[Guest Jesus-lives]

I think that everyone should read this:

Marine Body Sizes Add Weight to Creation Model

By Fazale R. Rana

Evolution predicts change over time, not stasis; so researchers continue to search for an organism that shows significant evolutionary change. A recent analysis of marine creatures, however, revealed the unexpected: not the shift in body sizes predicted by evolutionary theory, but rather, an optimal body size unchanged for millions of years.

Biologists from the University of California at San Diego (UCSD) and the University of Chicago (UC) analyzed the range of body sizes for bivalves (two-shelled mollusks such as clams, oysters and mussels) found in the northeastern coastal waters of the Pacific Ocean (Kaustuv Roy et al.,

Edited August 19, 2005 by Jesus-lives

[Bread_of_Life]

Evolution predicts change over time, not stasis;

No, it doesn't. Depending on the situation, it can predict either.

For example, if you tested the alpha-haemoglobin protein of an animal 15 million years ago, an animal now, and an animal in 15 million years time, you would expect them to be the same in all functional parameters (which some change in non-functional parts). In the case of alpha-haemoglobin, because it is now maximally adapted in binding to oxygen, natural selection will now preserve it, not change it, by eliminating mutations in functional parts - all of which will now be harmful.

In fact, in all cases where a feature is maximally adapted, that is, it has reached the peak of adaptive fit - natural selection will act so as to preserve the best adaption - and therefore eliminate all non-synonymous mutations in functional parts of the DNA that codes for that feature. In these cases, evolution is preservative. In cases of poor adaption, evolution is change-inducing.

In other words, you're plain wrong.

[Bread_of_Life]

To be fair to Fenwar, I've now defined what a theory is in science, what a hypothesis is in science, and how they differ - twice now!

You can argue all you like - but those really are the definitions of theory and hypothesis in the scientific community - and that is what is meant by the "theory of evolution" and "theory of gravity". A theory is a hypothesis that has made predictions that have been tested through experiment and observation and proven true.

A theory is not just a guess - it is the best possible hypothesis that has made predictions about the future that have come true. It is also not "short of fact" - the theory of gravity is a fact - in that it has been so well evidenced, it is so strong, that it would be irrational not to give the assent of the mind to it. The theory of common ancestry is also a fact - it is so well evidenced that it would be perverse not to assent to it. Many well evidenced theories are thought of as fact - fact is a word in science which denotes a very well evidenced theory.

[NITE OWL]

Look here...nothing is being proved here, on my side or your's.

I can't prove to you that God exists. You can't see Him or reach out and touch Him. To the scientific mind, an invisible entity is not logical.

You can't prove to me that evolution is fact. Unless you can show me beyond a shadow of a doubt that we evolved from lower life forms, your theories are just that, theories. An educated guess.

If this means you win the argument, so be it. I can live with that. If you want to talk down to me and insult my inteligence. I can live with that too. I'm getting used to that on these boards. All we're doing is running in place.

Your beliefs require tangible evidence. My beliefs require faith. We can go back and forth all day long but in the end the results are the same. I put my trust in the Lord, you put your trust in science. These are individual choices that we have made for ourselves. I have no right to slam your beliefs, your have no right to slam mine.

We're both adults, let's act like it.

So with that I will take my leave. I truly hope you find what you're looking for. As for me...you know the answer to that one.

You have a nice day.

As always....In His name.