-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
- Status
D
I am not agnostic; that is, I do believe in God, and I guess I am Christian because of all the religions, I believe that Christianity covers the most important topics in the best way. Plus, I am very open-minded and do not believe that there is one answer to life's questions. My own personal flavor of Christianity is that I take much of it with a grain of salt. I have witnessed so much stupidity done in Christ's name based on misinterpretations (and I'm sure you all have too) that I trust my own judgment, my father's, and my pastor's. And sometimes not even them. (Sometimes not even myself.) I was raised going to a Lutheran church, both my parents are religious, my father devoutly so. He is also a science professor at the University of Illinois, and a very good one. He raised me to love God, to know that God loves me, and to study the Bible. He also raised me to understand it as a book of parables. When I started asking questions, he emphasized the importance of the stories' meaning, and not of its historicity. As a result, I have an accurate perception of the world, and I really don't care if all of you disagree. I understand that your upbringings were different and I respect that. However, the creationism/evolution debate is something I am very passionate about because it is so misunderstood by so many people.
I also want to point out how sad it makes me to see so many obviously bright people questioning my religion just because I support a mainstream scientific fact. It should not be this way, folks.
I also want to point out how sad it makes me to see so many obviously bright people questioning my religion just because I support a mainstream scientific fact. It should not be this way, folks.
D
Sorry, I spoke prematurely. Before we get back on topic, I want to just say that I have a relationship with God, I pray, I read the Bible (although admittedly not as much as I think I should lately), and I grow in my faith. However, it is a private thing to me and I do not publicly label myself as Christian because I understand that the popular perception of Christians is that they are at best ignorant and intellectually passive, answering everything with a Bible quote. At worst, they are seen as dangerous. And I understand why the perception is this way. And I do not want to be associated with that.
That said, if someone is going through a hard time, maybe I will tell them to pray. Maybe I will direct them to a Bible passage that has particularly strong resonance. Maybe I will pray for them. Maybe I will do none of these things and help them out in a completely different way. It's what the situation calls for.
I know that most of you here were raised to believe the Bible stories as literally true, and are thus easily persuaded by creationists and Intelligent Design advocates. I will tell you right now (believe me or don't believe me) that all of their arguments and "facts" are either completely false or just misleading. There is no science behind anything they say. If you continue to believe that evolution is false, you're gonna have to do so on faith, because you cannot use science to discredit a fact of the natural world.
....So now lets get back on topic.
That said, if someone is going through a hard time, maybe I will tell them to pray. Maybe I will direct them to a Bible passage that has particularly strong resonance. Maybe I will pray for them. Maybe I will do none of these things and help them out in a completely different way. It's what the situation calls for.
I know that most of you here were raised to believe the Bible stories as literally true, and are thus easily persuaded by creationists and Intelligent Design advocates. I will tell you right now (believe me or don't believe me) that all of their arguments and "facts" are either completely false or just misleading. There is no science behind anything they say. If you continue to believe that evolution is false, you're gonna have to do so on faith, because you cannot use science to discredit a fact of the natural world.
....So now lets get back on topic.
D
Yes, I could. For hours I could talk about it. But here is the abridged version:
As far as the theories on how evolution started goes, I am somewhat ignorant. I'm pretty sure it involves single-celled organisms sharing DNA until over time, the mutations in their genes bring about more complex structures, eventually leading to life as we know it. However, the beginning of life remains a scientific mystery; one that may well never be solved. Did you know that a cell is the smallest possible living structure? It's made up of proteins, which are otherwise dead and inert, but if you put these proteins together, you have a living cell, capable of autonomy and carrying out its functions to the body. It's amazing. But anyways...
You can't take God out of the picture. Of anything. I know that evolution occurred because it has been proven to me beyond a reasonable doubt. Not all of its theories have, but the fact of evolution itself has. So I know it happened. Now, if I know something about the world, why would I give up my faith in light of its existence? What kind of sense does that make? God, my inspiration, my rock, my light... who obviously created the natural world to evolve constantly... would probably be very sad if I equated him with what the Bible says, literally, because that would mean that accepting evolution would cause a crisis of faith. The opposite is true for me. Understanding evolution (and other facts about the world, and universe) brings me closer to God by showing me His work (the world) and inspiring awe. Evolution is a beautiful thing. It is as beautiful as a sunset, or any other natural phenomena. But a lot (not all) of Christians are missing out on the awesomeness of this process because they label it "evil" it "wrong" before they know a thing about it. It's a tragedy.
And as far as the Adam and Eve story, well, it represents multiple things. Primarily, to me, it represents the process that everyone goes through whereby they lose their innocence (get kicked out of Eden) through an act of rebellion. However, the Adam and Eve story has layers upon layers of meaning, many of which are cultural and historical and are therefore lost on the average Joes today. But I won't get into that because I am not informed enough to deem myself an authority.
Science is a path to God. To understand God, to understand more of His mysterious ways (which are infinite), it helps to know as much as you can about how nature functions. This is discovered through science. You will find some of the most beautiful, startling, and faith-affirming things you will ever see by understanding how certain aspects of our universe function. No wonder many atheist or agnostic scientists become religious after working for a bit. It really is amazing. I wish everyone would get a science education and have that sense of wonder and awe at God's creation like I and others I know do.
Hopefully I answered your questions.
As far as the theories on how evolution started goes, I am somewhat ignorant. I'm pretty sure it involves single-celled organisms sharing DNA until over time, the mutations in their genes bring about more complex structures, eventually leading to life as we know it. However, the beginning of life remains a scientific mystery; one that may well never be solved. Did you know that a cell is the smallest possible living structure? It's made up of proteins, which are otherwise dead and inert, but if you put these proteins together, you have a living cell, capable of autonomy and carrying out its functions to the body. It's amazing. But anyways...
You can't take God out of the picture. Of anything. I know that evolution occurred because it has been proven to me beyond a reasonable doubt. Not all of its theories have, but the fact of evolution itself has. So I know it happened. Now, if I know something about the world, why would I give up my faith in light of its existence? What kind of sense does that make? God, my inspiration, my rock, my light... who obviously created the natural world to evolve constantly... would probably be very sad if I equated him with what the Bible says, literally, because that would mean that accepting evolution would cause a crisis of faith. The opposite is true for me. Understanding evolution (and other facts about the world, and universe) brings me closer to God by showing me His work (the world) and inspiring awe. Evolution is a beautiful thing. It is as beautiful as a sunset, or any other natural phenomena. But a lot (not all) of Christians are missing out on the awesomeness of this process because they label it "evil" it "wrong" before they know a thing about it. It's a tragedy.
And as far as the Adam and Eve story, well, it represents multiple things. Primarily, to me, it represents the process that everyone goes through whereby they lose their innocence (get kicked out of Eden) through an act of rebellion. However, the Adam and Eve story has layers upon layers of meaning, many of which are cultural and historical and are therefore lost on the average Joes today. But I won't get into that because I am not informed enough to deem myself an authority.
Science is a path to God. To understand God, to understand more of His mysterious ways (which are infinite), it helps to know as much as you can about how nature functions. This is discovered through science. You will find some of the most beautiful, startling, and faith-affirming things you will ever see by understanding how certain aspects of our universe function. No wonder many atheist or agnostic scientists become religious after working for a bit. It really is amazing. I wish everyone would get a science education and have that sense of wonder and awe at God's creation like I and others I know do.
Hopefully I answered your questions.
T
There is a big difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution that
you're glossing over; micro-evolution is an observable and reproducible
phenomena while macro-evolution requires supposition. With micro-evolution
(variation within a species) we have physical evidence in hand, while with
macro-evolution (evolution across species) we don't. If we did we might not be
having this conversation.
One of the reasons I don't believe evolution is likely (in terms of "amoeba to a
man") is because of the need for various organs in the body to have "evolved"
side-by-side. Take the circulatory system for instance. You don't really need a
heart if you don't have any blood to pump. And if blood "evolved" first it would
have been quite useless without veins and capillaries to carry it around the
body. But what good is blood, veins and capillaries without a respiratory system
to oxygenate the blood and kidneys to purify it? But purified, oxygenated blood
is useless without a heart to circulate it throughout the body. And without a
brain to tell the heart to pump, the kidneys, lungs, veins and capillaries would
all simply be useless masses of tissue. I'm just scratching the surface, but what
do you suppose the probability is of all of this coming together by "natural" means?
I'll let you decide for yourself, but here's one perspective.
Links appear to be okay by DJ
For me what I described above is reasonable evidence that a "design" was most
likely present BEFORE life was created. I think any sensible person that
considers this information would agree with me. Even Antony Flew, a leading
champion of the Atheist movement for several decades, now believes in intelligent
design after coming to the same realization as me. The alternative to design is
nothing more than a tenuous stack of theories piled 10 deep and 10 across. Is that
really a reasonable alternative? Yes DJ, I know your answer <g>.
From my perspective the only people that would NOT find intelligent design
reasonable are 1) people who were never presented with the information (like
Antony Flew prior to 2004), 2) individuals and groups that have a pecuniary
interest in perpetuating the theory of evolution (authors, publishers, and
educational institutions) and 3) people with an emotional need for there NOT to
be a creator.
you're glossing over; micro-evolution is an observable and reproducible
phenomena while macro-evolution requires supposition. With micro-evolution
(variation within a species) we have physical evidence in hand, while with
macro-evolution (evolution across species) we don't. If we did we might not be
having this conversation.
One of the reasons I don't believe evolution is likely (in terms of "amoeba to a
man") is because of the need for various organs in the body to have "evolved"
side-by-side. Take the circulatory system for instance. You don't really need a
heart if you don't have any blood to pump. And if blood "evolved" first it would
have been quite useless without veins and capillaries to carry it around the
body. But what good is blood, veins and capillaries without a respiratory system
to oxygenate the blood and kidneys to purify it? But purified, oxygenated blood
is useless without a heart to circulate it throughout the body. And without a
brain to tell the heart to pump, the kidneys, lungs, veins and capillaries would
all simply be useless masses of tissue. I'm just scratching the surface, but what
do you suppose the probability is of all of this coming together by "natural" means?
I'll let you decide for yourself, but here's one perspective.
Links appear to be okay by DJ
For me what I described above is reasonable evidence that a "design" was most
likely present BEFORE life was created. I think any sensible person that
considers this information would agree with me. Even Antony Flew, a leading
champion of the Atheist movement for several decades, now believes in intelligent
design after coming to the same realization as me. The alternative to design is
nothing more than a tenuous stack of theories piled 10 deep and 10 across. Is that
really a reasonable alternative? Yes DJ, I know your answer <g>.
From my perspective the only people that would NOT find intelligent design
reasonable are 1) people who were never presented with the information (like
Antony Flew prior to 2004), 2) individuals and groups that have a pecuniary
interest in perpetuating the theory of evolution (authors, publishers, and
educational institutions) and 3) people with an emotional need for there NOT to
be a creator.
L
Yes you did answer them, quite beautifully thank you. May I ask some more?
What is the link between a strong faith and a good understanding and acceptance of science? It doesn't even really have to be an unusually good understanding of science. We all know a bit about the dinosaur bones and ice age and such. Why is it that some people narrowly focus on and believe in creation OR evolution? What are they missing?
There's nothing like that sense of awe is there. With it a person can truly understand what God meant when He said it is good. All of it is, from the harmony of eco systems, to the huge orange harvest moon, to the harmony of the parts of our own body, and so forth. Not all of us are blessed with the ability or resources to obtain an education in science. What other ways are there for us to be able to make the connection between the beauty of this world and the maker of everything? What resources do we have at our very fingertips? Every one of us?
In your opinion, how far are we from knowing everything there is to know about God, nature and the universe? Will we ever know it all? Why does God have it be this way?
Thanks.
What is the link between a strong faith and a good understanding and acceptance of science? It doesn't even really have to be an unusually good understanding of science. We all know a bit about the dinosaur bones and ice age and such. Why is it that some people narrowly focus on and believe in creation OR evolution? What are they missing?
There's nothing like that sense of awe is there. With it a person can truly understand what God meant when He said it is good. All of it is, from the harmony of eco systems, to the huge orange harvest moon, to the harmony of the parts of our own body, and so forth. Not all of us are blessed with the ability or resources to obtain an education in science. What other ways are there for us to be able to make the connection between the beauty of this world and the maker of everything? What resources do we have at our very fingertips? Every one of us?
In your opinion, how far are we from knowing everything there is to know about God, nature and the universe? Will we ever know it all? Why does God have it be this way?
Thanks.
D
Truth4All
Thank you for rehashing the same creationist arguments I have heard a thousand times, rather than presenting actual compelling evidence for creationism. Makes my job here a lot easier.
Your first claim, that microevolution and macroevolution are different in that one is empirically proven, the other a theory is correct... But it is a half-truth because you fail to educate your readers on the definition of "theory" in scientific terms, as opposed to how we use it in everyday vernacular. Macroevolution has not been observed. It has not been replicated. How could it? Unless we are able to make a time capsule where millions of years can pass, and we can watch it, then no, macroevolution has not been proven. However, you make the mistake of thinking that "unobserved" = just as unlikely as the next theory. Macroevolution and common descent, the theory that all animal life originated from one common ancestor or gene pool, are two of the most accepted, understood theories of how life originated in the scientific community. The reason is that they provide a framework that answers questions that used to puzzle scientists, and it continues to bring new facts into light. Let me for a moment discuss the difference between "fact" and "theory." Facts are the raw, quantifiable, undisputed data of the world. They are things that we know, because we have observed, and which are the basic building blocks of theories. Theories, on the other hand, are conclusions drawn from these facts that make sense of them and the more correct a theory is, the more it helps scientists create falsifiable hypotheses which can be tested, which further confirm the theory. Macroevolution is a practically undisputed theory in the scientific community. It is the natural, logical conclusion which has been drawn from the raw data that we have. And yes, this raw data fills up books and libraries; fossil records, genetic similarities and differences, observed effects of influencing microevolution, not to mention all the evidence in fields otherwise not related to biology. The evidence is overwhelming. And the theory continues to confirm facts. Why do certain animals have organs or limbs they don't need? Inquiry confirms that these animals evolved from another form, when they did need them. I am an evolution amateur, so I am sorry I can't provide lists of hard facts that even you would be hard-pressed to deny. But they're out these, and I encourage you to seek them out.
As for your argument about how things needed to evolve side-by-side in order to function properly, this is another one that I can partially address. I believe this argument is called the "irreducible complexity" argument, Michae Behe's retarded brainchild. I will start off by saying that I do not know exactly how the circulatory system and the heart and other organs evolved, because I am not a walking encyclopedia. However, I do know that things evolve step-by-step and that a part which functions one way can and does evolve into a part that does something completely different. This is where my knowledge of evolution begins to get cloudy; like I said, I am an amateur. BUT... I remember glossing over a section in a book called "Only a Theory" which addressed this argument fully, right after it addressed the argument for irreducible complexity in the flagellum, which I did read. And it's the same deal. The form of your argument is this: "I don't believe evolution because I don't understand how this thing could have evolved, and in such synchronicity with the other parts. This means, of course, that it must have been intelligently designed." This is a fatal way to approach anything. Ignorance does not mean that the knowledge is not out there. I know that your issue has been explained in evolutionary terms, and I can even guess as to what it would say. If I had to guess, and I am going to right now, I would say that as organisms became more complex, by natural selection, organisms with nutrients being pumped through their body survived. It started off small, of course, but I'm glossing over. Then I would imagine, this nutrient-pumping mechanism became bigger as the organisms did, and eventually became the heart and the nutrients, blood. This is all complete guesswork, but even my retarded brainchild can partially address your issue. Truth4All, you have a lot of issues with evolution that any scientist could address for you, and more accurately than me. I am supposing that you have been spoonfed the creationist arguments that are very clever in deceiving unguarded minds, and I suggest you set away from that for a bit and take all your issues to a professional, AKA not me.
I mean, I know that when you misrepresent the truth, then ask your undereducated audience, "now what do you suppose the chances of THAT happening are?" you can sound convincing. But you will not for one second fool anyone who actually studies this stuff, I promise you.
As for Antony Flew, I suppose you might be talking about the following quotes (although I am of course not certain):
"My one and only piece of relevant evidence [for an Aristotelian God] is the apparent impossibility of providing a naturalistic theory of the origin from DNA of the first reproducing species ... [In fact] the only reason which I have for beginning to think of believing in a First Cause god is the impossibility of providing a naturalistic account of the origin of the first reproducing organisms." (Wikipedia)
"a deity or a 'super-intelligence' [is] the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature.", and "I now realize that I have made a fool of myself by believing that there were no presentable theories of the development of inanimate matter up to the first living creature capable of reproduction." (also Wikipedia)
Now, I am going to assume that these words are what you mistook for a full-fledged conversion to creationism as an alternative to evolution. If I am mistaken or uninformed, please let me know. But...
Notice what he really said... "the apparent impossibility of providing a naturalistic theory of the origin from DNA of the THE FIRST REPRODUCING SPECIES." This is the same thing I said in a couple posts back... The origins of life itself are mysterious, perhaps never to be answered. I agree with Flew that this phenomena may only ever be described except for in a deistic theoretical framework. Now, this is a flawed argument because it uses the "appeal to ignorance" tactic; we don't know and can't comprehend, therefore, it must have been [in this case, God]. However, it remains compelling nonetheless and I myself subscribe to it, until a better theory arises (and it may never).
This is not asn argument for Intelligent Design or creationism. Both of those beliefs (which are really the same belief, but that's a different discussion) are presented as MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE to evolution. Their purpose for existing is to provide fundamentalist Christians with a flawed boost in confidence in their beliefs. Like I said, not scientific. But Antony Flew did not say that evolutoion must be false. He merely said that it appears that no other explanation for the origin of life can be imagined by him, other than a supernatural act of creation of life. Matter of fact, his wuote even seems to support evolution by distinguishing "the first reproducing species" from "all species."
From your perspective, the only people to not find ID as the best answer are conspiracy-mongerers and uneducated folk. However, this is because you have heard one-sided information, and that one side is the one that is deceiving people.
Thank you for rehashing the same creationist arguments I have heard a thousand times, rather than presenting actual compelling evidence for creationism. Makes my job here a lot easier.
Your first claim, that microevolution and macroevolution are different in that one is empirically proven, the other a theory is correct... But it is a half-truth because you fail to educate your readers on the definition of "theory" in scientific terms, as opposed to how we use it in everyday vernacular. Macroevolution has not been observed. It has not been replicated. How could it? Unless we are able to make a time capsule where millions of years can pass, and we can watch it, then no, macroevolution has not been proven. However, you make the mistake of thinking that "unobserved" = just as unlikely as the next theory. Macroevolution and common descent, the theory that all animal life originated from one common ancestor or gene pool, are two of the most accepted, understood theories of how life originated in the scientific community. The reason is that they provide a framework that answers questions that used to puzzle scientists, and it continues to bring new facts into light. Let me for a moment discuss the difference between "fact" and "theory." Facts are the raw, quantifiable, undisputed data of the world. They are things that we know, because we have observed, and which are the basic building blocks of theories. Theories, on the other hand, are conclusions drawn from these facts that make sense of them and the more correct a theory is, the more it helps scientists create falsifiable hypotheses which can be tested, which further confirm the theory. Macroevolution is a practically undisputed theory in the scientific community. It is the natural, logical conclusion which has been drawn from the raw data that we have. And yes, this raw data fills up books and libraries; fossil records, genetic similarities and differences, observed effects of influencing microevolution, not to mention all the evidence in fields otherwise not related to biology. The evidence is overwhelming. And the theory continues to confirm facts. Why do certain animals have organs or limbs they don't need? Inquiry confirms that these animals evolved from another form, when they did need them. I am an evolution amateur, so I am sorry I can't provide lists of hard facts that even you would be hard-pressed to deny. But they're out these, and I encourage you to seek them out.
As for your argument about how things needed to evolve side-by-side in order to function properly, this is another one that I can partially address. I believe this argument is called the "irreducible complexity" argument, Michae Behe's retarded brainchild. I will start off by saying that I do not know exactly how the circulatory system and the heart and other organs evolved, because I am not a walking encyclopedia. However, I do know that things evolve step-by-step and that a part which functions one way can and does evolve into a part that does something completely different. This is where my knowledge of evolution begins to get cloudy; like I said, I am an amateur. BUT... I remember glossing over a section in a book called "Only a Theory" which addressed this argument fully, right after it addressed the argument for irreducible complexity in the flagellum, which I did read. And it's the same deal. The form of your argument is this: "I don't believe evolution because I don't understand how this thing could have evolved, and in such synchronicity with the other parts. This means, of course, that it must have been intelligently designed." This is a fatal way to approach anything. Ignorance does not mean that the knowledge is not out there. I know that your issue has been explained in evolutionary terms, and I can even guess as to what it would say. If I had to guess, and I am going to right now, I would say that as organisms became more complex, by natural selection, organisms with nutrients being pumped through their body survived. It started off small, of course, but I'm glossing over. Then I would imagine, this nutrient-pumping mechanism became bigger as the organisms did, and eventually became the heart and the nutrients, blood. This is all complete guesswork, but even my retarded brainchild can partially address your issue. Truth4All, you have a lot of issues with evolution that any scientist could address for you, and more accurately than me. I am supposing that you have been spoonfed the creationist arguments that are very clever in deceiving unguarded minds, and I suggest you set away from that for a bit and take all your issues to a professional, AKA not me.
I mean, I know that when you misrepresent the truth, then ask your undereducated audience, "now what do you suppose the chances of THAT happening are?" you can sound convincing. But you will not for one second fool anyone who actually studies this stuff, I promise you.
As for Antony Flew, I suppose you might be talking about the following quotes (although I am of course not certain):
"My one and only piece of relevant evidence [for an Aristotelian God] is the apparent impossibility of providing a naturalistic theory of the origin from DNA of the first reproducing species ... [In fact] the only reason which I have for beginning to think of believing in a First Cause god is the impossibility of providing a naturalistic account of the origin of the first reproducing organisms." (Wikipedia)
"a deity or a 'super-intelligence' [is] the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature.", and "I now realize that I have made a fool of myself by believing that there were no presentable theories of the development of inanimate matter up to the first living creature capable of reproduction." (also Wikipedia)
Now, I am going to assume that these words are what you mistook for a full-fledged conversion to creationism as an alternative to evolution. If I am mistaken or uninformed, please let me know. But...
Notice what he really said... "the apparent impossibility of providing a naturalistic theory of the origin from DNA of the THE FIRST REPRODUCING SPECIES." This is the same thing I said in a couple posts back... The origins of life itself are mysterious, perhaps never to be answered. I agree with Flew that this phenomena may only ever be described except for in a deistic theoretical framework. Now, this is a flawed argument because it uses the "appeal to ignorance" tactic; we don't know and can't comprehend, therefore, it must have been [in this case, God]. However, it remains compelling nonetheless and I myself subscribe to it, until a better theory arises (and it may never).
This is not asn argument for Intelligent Design or creationism. Both of those beliefs (which are really the same belief, but that's a different discussion) are presented as MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE to evolution. Their purpose for existing is to provide fundamentalist Christians with a flawed boost in confidence in their beliefs. Like I said, not scientific. But Antony Flew did not say that evolutoion must be false. He merely said that it appears that no other explanation for the origin of life can be imagined by him, other than a supernatural act of creation of life. Matter of fact, his wuote even seems to support evolution by distinguishing "the first reproducing species" from "all species."
From your perspective, the only people to not find ID as the best answer are conspiracy-mongerers and uneducated folk. However, this is because you have heard one-sided information, and that one side is the one that is deceiving people.
D
I noticed a couple of unclear statements or mistakes in my post, which I will address quickly so you have minimal excuses for questioning my judgment (and unfortunately, two-minute editing time limit ran out before I could correct them) :
"Macroevolution and common descent, the theory that all animal life originated from one common ancestor or gene pool, are two of the most accepted, understood theories of how life originated in the scientific community."
I meant how life DEVELOPED. I sometimes use the two terms interchangeably, even though they have different meanings. My bad!
"However, I do know that things evolve step-by-step and that a part which functions one way can and does evolve into a part that does something completely different."
I know I said earlier that evolution is NOT a step-by-step process. When I said that, I meant in terms of species changing from one to another. In that way, it's more like tree. However, in this sense, I meant that within a species, the development of new parts and organs is pretty much step-by-step and that parts of one function gradually turn into a part that performs a completely different function.
"Macroevolution and common descent, the theory that all animal life originated from one common ancestor or gene pool, are two of the most accepted, understood theories of how life originated in the scientific community."
I meant how life DEVELOPED. I sometimes use the two terms interchangeably, even though they have different meanings. My bad!
"However, I do know that things evolve step-by-step and that a part which functions one way can and does evolve into a part that does something completely different."
I know I said earlier that evolution is NOT a step-by-step process. When I said that, I meant in terms of species changing from one to another. In that way, it's more like tree. However, in this sense, I meant that within a species, the development of new parts and organs is pretty much step-by-step and that parts of one function gradually turn into a part that performs a completely different function.
D
lifetime...
"What is the link between a strong faith and a good understanding and acceptance of science? It doesn't even really have to be an unusually good understanding of science. We all know a bit about the dinosaur bones and ice age and such. Why is it that some people narrowly focus on and believe in creation OR evolution? What are they missing?"
Well, I'd say that there doesn't need to be any scientific knowledge in the mind of a strong believer. A beautiful sunset at a mountain range, lending a helping hand to the poor, praising God in your way; all of these are wonderful ways to live a full life with God. I would say that a lot of creationists and ID advocates have this life, and are completely satisfied. Now, a strong education in anything will enrich the life of anyone, so I encourage everyone to learn when the opportunity arises. But that's just me. My argument is not against people worshiping how they please; it is against any sort of efforts on the part of fundamentalists to suppress true scientific knowledge, a movement of which Truth4All seems to be an unwitting soldier. I think that what people are missing when they deny truths is just that... the truth. It is not fatal... They will live, and likely have good lives. But it is bad when they overstep their domain and begin making political movements to suppress the truth, ruining it for everyone else. Do you know how difficult it is to get ANYTHING about evolution in high school textbooks? This is a result of the Scopes trials (I think it was Scopes), and since then, the truth has been suppressed in PUBLIC EDUCATION. Think for a moment how messed up that is and you can begin to understand my anger at these creationists.
"There's nothing like that sense of awe is there. With it a person can truly understand what God meant when He said it is good. All of it is, from the harmony of eco systems, to the huge orange harvest moon, to the harmony of the parts of our own body, and so forth. Not all of us are blessed with the ability or resources to obtain an education in science. What other ways are there for us to be able to make the connection between the beauty of this world and the maker of everything? What resources do we have at our very fingertips? Every one of us?"
Books. There are tons of them and they are cheap. There are well-written ones. I am personally fascinated by quantum physics and the emerging string theory, which could answer the question of gravity, as well as alternate dimensions and even time travel (it's a stretch, but if anything is gonna answer it, it's string theory). But you can even just mess around on the internet and get a little education. Google searches, youtube movies, wikipedia... all are great resources for educating yourself in whatever you want. A real, formal education under a professor is of course a great resource, but it's costly and time-consuming. But if you're serious about it, you will learn a lot.
"In your opinion, how far are we from knowing everything there is to know about God, nature and the universe? Will we ever know it all? Why does God have it be this way?"
Science is great. It answers questions using logic and evidence, and enhances our appreciation of God. But it will never tell us about the character of God. It will never answer philosophical or theological questions because it can't. Science works for what it does, but it has nothing to say about morality, life after death, or anything that does not exist in the natural realm. Einstein said, "I want to know God's thoughts." Who doesn't? Einstein understood that as a scientist and mathematician, he could reach new heights of understanding and bring us with him. But ultimately, the world is mysterious because with new answers come a dozen new questions. I believe we will never reach the end of inquiry. In a constantly evolving world, with layers upon layers of possible inquiry, we will be asking and answering questions until we are gone. I don't know why God has it this way, but I am in awe, wonder, and fear of its grandness. It is terrible and beautiful. And I think it couldn't be any other way.
"What is the link between a strong faith and a good understanding and acceptance of science? It doesn't even really have to be an unusually good understanding of science. We all know a bit about the dinosaur bones and ice age and such. Why is it that some people narrowly focus on and believe in creation OR evolution? What are they missing?"
Well, I'd say that there doesn't need to be any scientific knowledge in the mind of a strong believer. A beautiful sunset at a mountain range, lending a helping hand to the poor, praising God in your way; all of these are wonderful ways to live a full life with God. I would say that a lot of creationists and ID advocates have this life, and are completely satisfied. Now, a strong education in anything will enrich the life of anyone, so I encourage everyone to learn when the opportunity arises. But that's just me. My argument is not against people worshiping how they please; it is against any sort of efforts on the part of fundamentalists to suppress true scientific knowledge, a movement of which Truth4All seems to be an unwitting soldier. I think that what people are missing when they deny truths is just that... the truth. It is not fatal... They will live, and likely have good lives. But it is bad when they overstep their domain and begin making political movements to suppress the truth, ruining it for everyone else. Do you know how difficult it is to get ANYTHING about evolution in high school textbooks? This is a result of the Scopes trials (I think it was Scopes), and since then, the truth has been suppressed in PUBLIC EDUCATION. Think for a moment how messed up that is and you can begin to understand my anger at these creationists.
"There's nothing like that sense of awe is there. With it a person can truly understand what God meant when He said it is good. All of it is, from the harmony of eco systems, to the huge orange harvest moon, to the harmony of the parts of our own body, and so forth. Not all of us are blessed with the ability or resources to obtain an education in science. What other ways are there for us to be able to make the connection between the beauty of this world and the maker of everything? What resources do we have at our very fingertips? Every one of us?"
Books. There are tons of them and they are cheap. There are well-written ones. I am personally fascinated by quantum physics and the emerging string theory, which could answer the question of gravity, as well as alternate dimensions and even time travel (it's a stretch, but if anything is gonna answer it, it's string theory). But you can even just mess around on the internet and get a little education. Google searches, youtube movies, wikipedia... all are great resources for educating yourself in whatever you want. A real, formal education under a professor is of course a great resource, but it's costly and time-consuming. But if you're serious about it, you will learn a lot.
"In your opinion, how far are we from knowing everything there is to know about God, nature and the universe? Will we ever know it all? Why does God have it be this way?"
Science is great. It answers questions using logic and evidence, and enhances our appreciation of God. But it will never tell us about the character of God. It will never answer philosophical or theological questions because it can't. Science works for what it does, but it has nothing to say about morality, life after death, or anything that does not exist in the natural realm. Einstein said, "I want to know God's thoughts." Who doesn't? Einstein understood that as a scientist and mathematician, he could reach new heights of understanding and bring us with him. But ultimately, the world is mysterious because with new answers come a dozen new questions. I believe we will never reach the end of inquiry. In a constantly evolving world, with layers upon layers of possible inquiry, we will be asking and answering questions until we are gone. I don't know why God has it this way, but I am in awe, wonder, and fear of its grandness. It is terrible and beautiful. And I think it couldn't be any other way.
D
A ten-minute long movie that everyone here should watch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-h9XntsSEro&feature=channel_page
And a shorter one that will inspire awe:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ptdbNUtpx4&feature=channel_page
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-h9XntsSEro&feature=channel_page
And a shorter one that will inspire awe:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ptdbNUtpx4&feature=channel_page
T
DJB--
See the thing about ending and beginnings is that you don't recognize that science can't and shouldn't suggest either...this includes a big bang theory and also evolution...are we the most evolved creatures? IT certain ways yes and certain ways no...life had no reason to arrive at us...fungus is a lot more versatile...what point is intelligence? It really has little function in the world verses animals who use the senses...but if you believe intelligence evolved it gets kind of rediculuos...how was it to? WOuld you claim it evolved part by part...
But then it also goes into the soul...The thing that allows man to create is "because he was made in God's image." There is truly nothing that would ever separate us from being enmeshed in evolution and able to come up with any theory (including evolution) if we were a part of it the same way animals are. As philosophy states we are a paradox, we are and are not part of this world...We have the unique ability to experience and also to contemplate outside of experiencing...
If you take evolution to far you become trapped in the physical...you see yourself as an animal with a lot of physical explanations for even things like love....
But love never evolved...Man's love is sooo much different in so many ways than any animals...Don't let the discovery channel fool you...Love can in its most tragic cases lead a person to their death, a cross or even suicide, something an animal would never see...Also animals never connect sex with love or as being love in the way that humans can since they are made in God's image.
I don't know if you'll ever understand me, because I think like my younger brother you are caught in a scientific realm that allows you to be only scientific in this realm...and then you also divide things into philosophy and other subjects that shouldn't transgress other sciences categories...both the truth is they are all entertwined...You have to see that man is made in God's image, or you wouldn't understand that our soul never evolved...neither did our love...
You kind of make me quixotic...
What would drive things to evolve...if I was a scientist, I would suggest the opposite of the big bang was also possible...why couldn't there have been 'everything that is proceeding to nothing' rather than 'nothing proceeding to everthing' neither philosophically makes any sense...
Its the same with outer space...if it is just space how do things move through it without becoming nothing? Do the things moving push the space in front of them?
What I am trying to show is when you base everything on what you see it becomes a rational contradiction...and you never will gain faith...
God's light
tony
See the thing about ending and beginnings is that you don't recognize that science can't and shouldn't suggest either...this includes a big bang theory and also evolution...are we the most evolved creatures? IT certain ways yes and certain ways no...life had no reason to arrive at us...fungus is a lot more versatile...what point is intelligence? It really has little function in the world verses animals who use the senses...but if you believe intelligence evolved it gets kind of rediculuos...how was it to? WOuld you claim it evolved part by part...
But then it also goes into the soul...The thing that allows man to create is "because he was made in God's image." There is truly nothing that would ever separate us from being enmeshed in evolution and able to come up with any theory (including evolution) if we were a part of it the same way animals are. As philosophy states we are a paradox, we are and are not part of this world...We have the unique ability to experience and also to contemplate outside of experiencing...
If you take evolution to far you become trapped in the physical...you see yourself as an animal with a lot of physical explanations for even things like love....
But love never evolved...Man's love is sooo much different in so many ways than any animals...Don't let the discovery channel fool you...Love can in its most tragic cases lead a person to their death, a cross or even suicide, something an animal would never see...Also animals never connect sex with love or as being love in the way that humans can since they are made in God's image.
I don't know if you'll ever understand me, because I think like my younger brother you are caught in a scientific realm that allows you to be only scientific in this realm...and then you also divide things into philosophy and other subjects that shouldn't transgress other sciences categories...both the truth is they are all entertwined...You have to see that man is made in God's image, or you wouldn't understand that our soul never evolved...neither did our love...
You kind of make me quixotic...
What would drive things to evolve...if I was a scientist, I would suggest the opposite of the big bang was also possible...why couldn't there have been 'everything that is proceeding to nothing' rather than 'nothing proceeding to everthing' neither philosophically makes any sense...
Its the same with outer space...if it is just space how do things move through it without becoming nothing? Do the things moving push the space in front of them?
What I am trying to show is when you base everything on what you see it becomes a rational contradiction...and you never will gain faith...
God's light
tony
T
Of course evolution claims 'survival' drives things to evolve...but why would anything ever want to survive? There are probably simple answers you have for this, but what I am trying to show is that you in your immediate experience seem to be experiencing this world before God and thus you see evolution as fashioning the world, and God, the Lord not actively there in anything...
Also I don't think you see the fallacy in using human reason for a time when humans were not....What I am trying to show is that theis theory that your mind is using to explain things wouldn't be here so that reality philosophy affirms couldn't exist...What world is there for a human to understand before him--even dinosaurs are confusing--we take symbols and analogies from our lives and apply them to a place where man can never had been, and thus his logic could not have been...Either you accept that the Lord God was there or nothing reasonable ever had to happen then...It could have been all non-sense.
So why would God not write ecolution into the Bible? YOu seem to think it is just a myth the way a lot of professors teach relegion is now and days...but thats because you don't seem to follow what Jesus says to see if what he says is true...then you would spritually see something very different even physically...
Do you think Jesus was an incopotent first century scientist that didn't really understand how this physical universe worked?
He wasn't and he saw farther than you do, if you only humbled yourself.
Also I don't think you see the fallacy in using human reason for a time when humans were not....What I am trying to show is that theis theory that your mind is using to explain things wouldn't be here so that reality philosophy affirms couldn't exist...What world is there for a human to understand before him--even dinosaurs are confusing--we take symbols and analogies from our lives and apply them to a place where man can never had been, and thus his logic could not have been...Either you accept that the Lord God was there or nothing reasonable ever had to happen then...It could have been all non-sense.
So why would God not write ecolution into the Bible? YOu seem to think it is just a myth the way a lot of professors teach relegion is now and days...but thats because you don't seem to follow what Jesus says to see if what he says is true...then you would spritually see something very different even physically...
Do you think Jesus was an incopotent first century scientist that didn't really understand how this physical universe worked?
He wasn't and he saw farther than you do, if you only humbled yourself.
D
thefightinglamb... you forget that since all things are intertwined (as you yourself said; you can't divorce philosophy from the natural world), understanding the natural world in the most accurate, materialistic, scientific way is how you will evolve in your understanding of the world, and thus grow spiritually. I was personally offended when you implied that my mind was too scientific to see the spiritual, mysterious side of things. I understand that so much of our existence is influenced by abstract, non-tangible things that we can't even begin to comprehend them, thus the mystery. However, do not mistake my strict fact-based rhetoric as the words of a man who is a materialist. One of my biggest interests is spirituality, religion, mythology, and art (I am an artist), and I am very aware of the interconnectedness of all realms of life.
Your "arguments" against evolution are of course all completely ignorant and thus flawed, but before I address a couple of them, I want to further discuss one of my biggest issues with your perspective: you think that a strict fact-based understanding of science and the natural world leads to a loss of soul and a warping of the individual into some kind of heartless computer-like humanoid. This could not be further from the truth. Diving in and understanding things with a no-BS policy will open doors of understanding that you never imagined. These ENHANCE spiritual experience, not kill it.
One more thing... "So why would God not write ecolution into the Bible? YOu seem to think it is just a myth the way a lot of professors teach relegion is now and days...but thats because you don't seem to follow what Jesus says to see if what he says is true...then you would spritually see something very different even physically...
Do you think Jesus was an incopotent first century scientist that didn't really understand how this physical universe worked?
He wasn't and he saw farther than you do, if you only humbled yourself."
Jesus was a spiritual teacher. As such, he was the best that ever existed. Son of God? Why not. Understand this: the scientific method was not created until (I think) about 1,500 years after the bible was written. When the bible was written, people's minds were tuned differently. They learned through stories and myths. Again, the Garden of Eden: one of the best myths ever created. Inspired by God? Sure.
BUT. The bible is not a history book. It is not a science book. It is not a fact book. It is a spiritual guide, and contains a rich history of mythology that was derived from earlier Pagan mythology in order to compete (back when Christianity was being established). The cosmology (their ideas on how the world began) was COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. This is reflected in The Bible. You know how other cultures create stories to explain the cosmos? Native Americans, for instance, had many mythological explanations for the properties of animals, plants, the stars, etc. The Bible is no different, believe that. Now where the bible differs is in the New Testament. A supposed historical account of the world's savior... and with conviction and power. It is a revolutionary message, and one that I (and all of you) happen to believe in. Now, you made a mistake right off the bat... God did not write the Bible. Men wrote the Bible, inspired by God. Now, how could they possibly write in anything about evolution when not only was the scientific method not in the general public's repertoire of knowledge, but classification and understanding of the natural world in general was severely underdeveloped? If the Bible was written today, I have no doubt that all of these issues would be addressed. But it was not. It was written 2,00 years ago for a different people with different history and a completely different culture. The Bible made sense to them. As we progressed, with multiple revolutions in thought and technology, we have lost most of the background information that we would ned to correctly decipher the meaning of many of the Bible's passages.
I find it ironic that you call me too scientifically minded, when you are the one who is missing the point because you have unwittingly been conditioned by centuries of logical, scientific-based Western thinking, which causes you to read the Bible in a literal fashion. Know this -- The Bible is full of metaphor and symbolism, as well as many other literary devices that I don't even know about. It also draws on knowledge of prior religions and history that I can't even begin to dig into. It's like an inside joke sometimes -- a burning bush is mentioned and instead of understanding the roots of this story, we see it as an account of fact. It's ignorance-based interpretation.
I admit, there are times when I've thrown my hands up and said, "what's the point? The Bible is full of syuff that you can't even get unless you're a scholar." I was then reminded (by my father) that "well, that's not true for all of them. And for the ones that it is, You can still get the gist." And I reminded myself that knowledge of the Bible is key if I want to ever really understand the deeper messages through further research, or just take it how I want, and still get meaning out of it.
Now... you talked about how science can never understand the beginning or the end... and that is true and I addressed this several times in my posts. I said that science is impotent in discovering how life came about in the first place (at least so far). What it does do, however, is provide the information on how life developed, and how it continues to develop.
You also asked "how did love come about" and other such questions. Well, I don't know. That's a really good question, as are all of the ones you posted. I would speculate with you if I had the time, but for now I am just going to point out that none of these in any way challenge evolution. They are simply unrelated questions which there may or may not be an evolutionary answer for, but which remain unthreatening to it regardless.
Your "arguments" against evolution are of course all completely ignorant and thus flawed, but before I address a couple of them, I want to further discuss one of my biggest issues with your perspective: you think that a strict fact-based understanding of science and the natural world leads to a loss of soul and a warping of the individual into some kind of heartless computer-like humanoid. This could not be further from the truth. Diving in and understanding things with a no-BS policy will open doors of understanding that you never imagined. These ENHANCE spiritual experience, not kill it.
One more thing... "So why would God not write ecolution into the Bible? YOu seem to think it is just a myth the way a lot of professors teach relegion is now and days...but thats because you don't seem to follow what Jesus says to see if what he says is true...then you would spritually see something very different even physically...
Do you think Jesus was an incopotent first century scientist that didn't really understand how this physical universe worked?
He wasn't and he saw farther than you do, if you only humbled yourself."
Jesus was a spiritual teacher. As such, he was the best that ever existed. Son of God? Why not. Understand this: the scientific method was not created until (I think) about 1,500 years after the bible was written. When the bible was written, people's minds were tuned differently. They learned through stories and myths. Again, the Garden of Eden: one of the best myths ever created. Inspired by God? Sure.
BUT. The bible is not a history book. It is not a science book. It is not a fact book. It is a spiritual guide, and contains a rich history of mythology that was derived from earlier Pagan mythology in order to compete (back when Christianity was being established). The cosmology (their ideas on how the world began) was COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. This is reflected in The Bible. You know how other cultures create stories to explain the cosmos? Native Americans, for instance, had many mythological explanations for the properties of animals, plants, the stars, etc. The Bible is no different, believe that. Now where the bible differs is in the New Testament. A supposed historical account of the world's savior... and with conviction and power. It is a revolutionary message, and one that I (and all of you) happen to believe in. Now, you made a mistake right off the bat... God did not write the Bible. Men wrote the Bible, inspired by God. Now, how could they possibly write in anything about evolution when not only was the scientific method not in the general public's repertoire of knowledge, but classification and understanding of the natural world in general was severely underdeveloped? If the Bible was written today, I have no doubt that all of these issues would be addressed. But it was not. It was written 2,00 years ago for a different people with different history and a completely different culture. The Bible made sense to them. As we progressed, with multiple revolutions in thought and technology, we have lost most of the background information that we would ned to correctly decipher the meaning of many of the Bible's passages.
I find it ironic that you call me too scientifically minded, when you are the one who is missing the point because you have unwittingly been conditioned by centuries of logical, scientific-based Western thinking, which causes you to read the Bible in a literal fashion. Know this -- The Bible is full of metaphor and symbolism, as well as many other literary devices that I don't even know about. It also draws on knowledge of prior religions and history that I can't even begin to dig into. It's like an inside joke sometimes -- a burning bush is mentioned and instead of understanding the roots of this story, we see it as an account of fact. It's ignorance-based interpretation.
I admit, there are times when I've thrown my hands up and said, "what's the point? The Bible is full of syuff that you can't even get unless you're a scholar." I was then reminded (by my father) that "well, that's not true for all of them. And for the ones that it is, You can still get the gist." And I reminded myself that knowledge of the Bible is key if I want to ever really understand the deeper messages through further research, or just take it how I want, and still get meaning out of it.
Now... you talked about how science can never understand the beginning or the end... and that is true and I addressed this several times in my posts. I said that science is impotent in discovering how life came about in the first place (at least so far). What it does do, however, is provide the information on how life developed, and how it continues to develop.
You also asked "how did love come about" and other such questions. Well, I don't know. That's a really good question, as are all of the ones you posted. I would speculate with you if I had the time, but for now I am just going to point out that none of these in any way challenge evolution. They are simply unrelated questions which there may or may not be an evolutionary answer for, but which remain unthreatening to it regardless.
D
Also, I know my writing style is very logical and fact-based. However, I am a very passionate, emotional person and I take great joy in "letting go" and experiencing life in all its richness and wonder. I praise God for it and reflect on Bible passages when contemplating the world. Please don't think I'm one of those dry, humorless robot-like people with no sense of soul. If you met me, you would know what I am like. But for now, you will just have to take my word for it: Trust me. I feel deeply.
DJB I liked what you said about the bible not being a science book. I agree it isn't but mainly a spiritual book to tell us how to be saved and live, a guide book for living.
But the problem I have is that whilst Jesus was a spiritual teacher, He also was the Son of God as you seem to admit to and came down from heaven. Jesus admitted that Himself that He was with the Father and came down from heaven. That makes Him different from any other spiritual teacher. The bible says Jesus was actually there when the world was created and it was Jesus who created it (see Col 1:16 ), so Jesus knew exactly how the world and even the universe came about.
And yet Jesus never denied the creation account of Genesis, ever. He even referred to it at times as if it were literal fact (Mark 10:6, Matt 19:5, ) I would have thought that Jesus would have corrected His disciples understanding of creation, if it were ever wrong in the first place.
How can you explain that?
And what implications does a non literal account of Genesis have upon
a) Jesus's teachings on marriage where he quoted Genesis (eg Mark 10:6)
b) The rest of scripture which says Jesus created the world (not evolution)..eg Col 1:16
But the problem I have is that whilst Jesus was a spiritual teacher, He also was the Son of God as you seem to admit to and came down from heaven. Jesus admitted that Himself that He was with the Father and came down from heaven. That makes Him different from any other spiritual teacher. The bible says Jesus was actually there when the world was created and it was Jesus who created it (see Col 1:16 ), so Jesus knew exactly how the world and even the universe came about.
And yet Jesus never denied the creation account of Genesis, ever. He even referred to it at times as if it were literal fact (Mark 10:6, Matt 19:5, ) I would have thought that Jesus would have corrected His disciples understanding of creation, if it were ever wrong in the first place.
How can you explain that?
And what implications does a non literal account of Genesis have upon
a) Jesus's teachings on marriage where he quoted Genesis (eg Mark 10:6)
b) The rest of scripture which says Jesus created the world (not evolution)..eg Col 1:16
- Status