Charles Darwin book

[KeilanS]

Right, and that's the point I'm getting at - both theories require that God was involved every step of the way. To me, this is the bigger point to prove. The 6 day creation debate can happen another day when everyone agrees that God caused it all...when this is finally proven beyond a doubt and believed we can then enter into an internal debate on the issue.

Agreed. While I prefer the 6 day creation theory, simply because I like the literal translation of the bible, I would not debate against the God-guided evolution theory. I think that in debates like this we just have to ask if our opinion on creation really affects salvation. If it doesn't, why argue?

[georgesbluegirl]

I wasn't saying that I didn't believe God wasn't involved in evolution. I was saying that from a purely logical standpoint (i.e. if one did not believe in God), the idea of evolution itself makes sense. What I was asking is where you thought the flaw would be that an atheist would recognize, not someone who believed in God. Where would there be a "gap" in evolution, in the development of species or in the actual origin of life? Subsequent posters have elaborated on this, but I wanted to make sure that you understood what I was asking and what I was saying.

For the record, I reconcile the two (God/evolution) in my own system of belief.

Natural selection has shown that it can kill off species but has not shown it can actually aid in the growth of species.

The mechanism itself is "survival of the fittest," but to say that evolution "kills off species" is a lopsided view of things. Mutation is the underlying substrate for evolution. What becomes more advantageous survives within the species, and may come to dominate the gene pool. See: Darwin's finches.

[Candi770]

I heard an extremely educated Christian woman (Ann Coulter) give a wonderful discussion concerning the matter-on focus on the family radio.

The Consequences of Godless Politics Part 2 of 2 (Ann Coulter) Click here- She has an excellent arguement against the evolution theory!!

candi770

[Pizzaguy]

I heard ...

I like Ann, too. Smart. Conservative. And a babe to boot!

Anyway, like I said in another thread, we'v been telling kids that they are NOTHING more than evolved animals who started out as a convienient accident millions of years ago. Given that, I don't see how we can expect them to value human like ANY MORE than the life of a deer they might shoot for sport.

[apothanein kerdos]

It is possible to believe in both God and evolution.

It is possible to believe in both God and the Big Bang.

It is not possible to believe in God and that these things just happened without His authority & power.

It is very possible to believe in certain tennets of evolution and God. I would say you need to provide a criteria for how this cannot be possible. I will not debate 6 day creation but I will stand for the right to believe in both evolution and God.

Agreed. While I prefer the 6 day creation theory, simply because I like the literal translation of the bible, I would not debate against the God-guided evolution theory. I think that in debates like this we just have to ask if our opinion on creation really affects salvation. If it doesn't, why argue?

This is the attitude I wish everyone held on the issue. You would be a joy to discuss the issue with because you hold the opposite view I do but we both realize it doesn't matter. A lot could be learned in such a situation. Unfortunately, others want to nullify your salvation if you believe in one or the other.

I wasn't saying that I didn't believe God wasn't involved in evolution. I was saying that from a purely logical standpoint (i.e. if one did not believe in God), the idea of evolution itself makes sense.

This is still methodological naturalism - though it is not metaphysical it is equally dangerous because it assumes we do not need God in order to exist. The problem with it is that evolution, in order to progress, needs a teleological explanation which can only be satisfied through supernatural means.

What I was asking is where you thought the flaw would be that an atheist would recognize, not someone who believed in God. Where would there be a "gap" in evolution, in the development of species or in the actual origin of life? Subsequent posters have elaborated on this, but I wanted to make sure that you understood what I was asking and what I was saying.

I would say a number of things - the metaphysical beginings of everything (the cosmological argument), the teleological argument, the anthropological argument, and the ontological argument, in my mind, all provide ample evidence. The fact that a bacterial flagellum is complex at its most base level, something Darwin in Chapter 6 (I think) of Origin of Species argued would nullify his theory. He argued that if it could be proven that base level cells are complex, the entire idea of naturalistic evolution would collapse as an "unmoved mover" would need to exist in order to create the complexity at the lower level.

For the record, I reconcile the two (God/evolution) in my own system of belief.

I do to a certain extent as well. I cannot adopt common ancestory because there is a lack of evidence that this really occured.

The mechanism itself is "survival of the fittest," but to say that evolution "kills off species" is a lopsided view of things. Mutation is the underlying substrate for evolution. What becomes more advantageous survives within the species, and may come to dominate the gene pool. See: Darwin's finches.

The finches only proved adaptability, not species mutation. THey mutated in cycles - if there was a drought they would have longer beaks, if there was a rainy season shorter beaks. They never evolved into a different species of finches, therein lies the problem. Furthermore, there is no proof that survival of the fittest, which is what guides the evolutionary process, actually cosses progress. We see entropy and regress with this theory but we do not see progress. I ask that you provide an instance where it provides for an actual leap forward.

[CallMeBernard]

It is possible to believe in both God and evolution.

It is possible to believe in both God and the Big Bang.

It is not possible to believe in God and that these things just happened without His authority & power.

It is very possible to believe in certain tennets of evolution and God. I would say you need to provide a criteria for how this cannot be possible. I will not debate 6 day creation but I will stand for the right to believe in both evolution and God.

What I mean is that to believe in God means, essentially, to believe in an omnipotent & omniscient Being (otherwise, without those two abilities he wouldn't be a god at all). How he created Life, the Universe & Everything may be debatable (Big Bang & evolution vs 6-days & creationism etc) but if you don't believe God did start the ball rolling (let loose the Big Bang/ said 'Let there be Light') then I'm not sure how you can be called christian.

...............

Agreed. While I prefer the 6 day creation theory, simply because I like the literal translation of the bible, I would not debate against the God-guided evolution theory. I think that in debates like this we just have to ask if our opinion on creation really affects salvation. If it doesn't, why argue?

This is the attitude I wish everyone held on the issue. You would be a joy to discuss the issue with because you hold the opposite view I do but we both realize it doesn't matter. A lot could be learned in such a situation. Unfortunately, others want to nullify your salvation if you believe in one or the other.

Seconded

The mechanism itself is "survival of the fittest," but to say that evolution "kills off species" is a lopsided view of things. Mutation is the underlying substrate for evolution. What becomes more advantageous survives within the species, and may come to dominate the gene pool. See: Darwin's finches.

The finches only proved adaptability, not species mutation. THey mutated in cycles - if there was a drought they would have longer beaks, if there was a rainy season shorter beaks. They never evolved into a different species of finches, therein lies the problem. Furthermore, there is no proof that survival of the fittest, which is what guides the evolutionary process, actually cosses progress. We see entropy and regress with this theory but we do not see progress. I ask that you provide an instance where it provides for an actual leap forward.

Indeed. Survival of the fittest doesn't cause change, it merely eliminates that phenotype which is no longer optimum in the changing environment. Mutation is the change of genetic code, which causes changes in genotype & eventually phenotype.

Evolution, to cut a long story short, is the combination of both- not just one or the other.

[apothanein kerdos]

What I mean is that to believe in God means, essentially, to believe in an omnipotent & omniscient Being (otherwise, without those two abilities he wouldn't be a god at all). How he created Life, the Universe & Everything may be debatable (Big Bang & evolution vs 6-days & creationism etc) but if you don't believe God did start the ball rolling (let loose the Big Bang/ said 'Let there be Light') then I'm not sure how you can be called christian.

Whew.

I was worried you were saying evolution in general. I agree 100% that those who do not believe God started and more importantly was invovled in the creation process would have difficulty in calling themselves Christians.

Indeed. Survival of the fittest doesn't cause change, it merely eliminates that phenotype which is no longer optimum in the changing environment. Mutation is the change of genetic code, which causes changes in genotype & eventually phenotype.

Evolution, to cut a long story short, is the combination of both- not just one or the other.

Correct. I would advocate though that generally mutation is not a good thing as it generally makes a species weaker to the point of non-function. Similar to the four winged fruit fly, it gained an extra pair of wings that actually hampered any growth and placed the new mutated species at a significant disadvantage.