Posted on 03/26/2009 7:20:22 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Again you are confusing observation with circumstantial evidence. There is absolutely no observational evidence that man was brought into being by some evolutionary process. None. Were you there? Did you witness it?
No what we have is a scientific method that from the outset excludes the possibility of intelligent design or creation and then after making the a-priori assumption that God could not possibly have actually created man or life or frogs or anything else, attempt to fathom an explanation for how it all got here.
In that sense Evolutionary science categorically denies God's role in his own creation.
Now I freely admit that my analysis starts with the a-priori assumption that God created the heavens and the earth and that we are a product of supernatural intelligent design and not chance.
But I think I can prove both scientifically and statistically that creatures evolving from slime to man is an impossibility beyond our wildest comprehension.
The honest Evolutionist will admit that life itself is a statistical impossibility, but then they claim that EVOLUTION MUST HAVE HAPPENED because we are here. When a Christian claims that CREATION MUST HAVE HAPPENED because we are here, they are ridiculed and referred to as Neandrathals or fanatics.
One moment you’re declaring that we cannot ust the Bible as science; the next you’re demanding that God’s word conform to your definition of terms for science sake.
Hypocrisy is the word that comes to mind.
I think you have already been given the cites.
The reason I asked whether or not it would make any difference before providing the cites is because I wanted to know if you would actually be willing to modify your beliefs if you were presented with evidence that God himself had made the claim that he created the heavens and the earth in 6 days.
If not, then the cites were irrelevant.
If so, then I would have provided them.
But now I see that you were provided with the cites even before you answered the question. Cest la vie.
Now that you have the cites, does it help you?
Are you willing to reconsider your position?
“Don’t believe your lyin’ eyes” ;o)
By the requirements of its use.
Scientific method, by necessary and self-imposed rules is valueless. It is not equipped to answer questions of purpose or absolute values. It's useless for this.
Why either side keeps trying to make science speak on something that it is most purposefully mute about is the mystery.
Actually, my post stands. You seem to believe that “evolutionists” are monolithic in all attributes, including their atheism. That’s simply not true. This Christian “evolutionist” (to use your term) beleives that Christianity and evolution are perfectly compatible. In a sense, evolution provides the “how” to the bible’s “what”.
And yes, there is plenty of observational evidence for evolution. Science collects data and draws conclusions. Most importantly, science will change or abandon a theory as the evidence or analysis demand. The fact that creationism will never duplicate that part of the process will forever keep it from the realm of science.
Not much of a mystery.
People recognize that science has POWER.
Some wish to utilize that power in areas that it is not at all applicable in order to ‘score points’.
Creationists are not content to call themselves Creationists. They think that by criticizing Science that they do not understand they are “Creation Scientists”.
Similarly militant atheists are not content to have a reasonable explanation whereby things can form from natural processes; they must claim that the existence of these natural processes somehow exclude the possibility of God.
The fact that stars and planets form by gravitational attraction in no way removes God as the creator of the heavens and the Earth.
Similarly the fact that species diverge from one another by natural selection of genetic variation in no way removes God as the creator of all living things.
Though I did find this interesting citation, perhaps you are familiar: Exodus 20:16
No hypocrisy is promoting a standard I don’t believe applies to me. This applies in all logical and scientific endeavor.
The “demand” is a basic logical and scientific requirement.
If you say evolution contradicts kind reproducing with kind, you have to first say what kind means in evolution theory or vice/versa. Else there’s not enough common terminology to use.
What is my position?
Atheisim is the end of the road. Theistic Evolutionists are merely traveling on the slippery slope to Godless atheism. Maybe not all of them will end up there, but IMHO they are all on that road.
And yes, there is plenty of observational evidence for evolution.
You are confusing circumstantial evidence for observational evidence.
Name one person who was actually present at the creation or evolution of man and we will ask him whether or not man evolved or was specially created on the 6th day of a creation week.
Keep on squirming!
You’re your own worst enemy in debate.
You tell me.
I gathered from your posts that you did not believe that God created the heavens and the earth in 6 days?
Am I misinformed?
Cute, but irrelevent to the question.
Now that you’ve read the results of your search, and found no avenue of further attack, what next?
Based on your Christian scorecard, I guess I failed the Christian test.
And I am confusing nothing.
It could be more enjoyable if you would join me.
My kids had a Wack-a-Mole game.
I found it depressing to watch.
If you’re offering to switch to Doin’ the Dozens, I’m not good at it.
The offer of continued discussion and debate is still open, however.
We all backslide my FRiend. We all need Christ to keep us on the narrow road.
And I am confusing nothing.
Do you understand the difference between circumstantial evidence and observed (eyewitness) evidence?
Here, I try again, to illustrate.
What in evolutionary theory do you see as a violation of kind reproducing with kind?
Other than artificially I’m not aware of any kind not mating with kind - in fact it doesn’t work if their not kind enough. (double entendre intended).
Trying to parse a word like ‘kind’ just doesn’t rise to the level of debate. If that’s debate, then greasing a wheel bearing with a power ram is a grand global conversation.
You made a specific assertion and yet cannot not support it with a single citation, much less the “more that 100” that you claim.
There is no attack - you made a wild claim and got called on it.
We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God,
begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven:
[bow during the next two lines:]
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered, died, and was buried.
On the third day he rose again in fulfillment of the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.
Yea, right - After their own kind is a perfect fit with evolution
That is a good start.
Now do you believe that he made it the way Moses wrote that he made it? Remember, Jesus said that you can't be expected to believe His words if you don't believe the words of Moses.
salvation directed to you through a proxy, eh?
I’m glad that I got mine direct!
I think “after their own kind” more than supports the theory of evolution, since reproduction necessarily involves variance, occasional random chance (with both good and bad outcomes) and adaptation.
Thank you for pointing this out to me.
It's agreement of terms. If I came to you as a surveyor and said survey that land over there a ways...
You use "kind" as a variable descriptor; evolutionary sciences uses taxonomy. You get nowhere in any worthwhile discussion until you map terminology and agree on terms.
If you want to do science, you have to use science.
You refer to “circumstantial evidence” as though it is invalid and uncorroborated.
And my scorecard comment was meant to be sarcastic.
Here, I’ll try to illustrate. Let’s examine what gives us the closest map to Scripture.
If we read it to say Kind reproduces with Kind, we are close to a scientific description:
This defines species fairly closely. Those animals who mate and whose mating produces offspring are of the same kind.
But how is species determined? By the ability to reproduce successfully within it.
So we have a tautology: A specie consists of only those who can mate and successfully reproduce among individuals. Those who can mate and reproduce successfully are called a species.
By definition evolutions says species (kind) reproduce with kind.
So we haven’t gained much here, other than to see how the two could map onto each other.
I do understand your mapping is different. I’d appreciate hearing it, if you wish. My statements previously on the perils for both of us notwithstanding.
What Genesis 1:2 states describes an untold unnumbered amount of 'days' literal or figuratively.
Specie, as you define it is simply not a reasonable nor scientific term. You have very subjectively, arbitrarily, and capriciously chosen a parameter of cross reproduction that is not necessary for “replenishment” of the ‘kind.’
Perhaps it was God’s will that cross reproduction be limited. I can think of several possible reasons, preservation of the ‘artistic’ quality of fur patterns being the one that came immediately to mind.
Which if it means theology determines scientific result, they are not scientists. It's the same in the other direction.
Scientists who infer religion from science, Scientistic Religionists, do not understand they've disqualified themselves.
You can't reduce God to science. Whatever science says is "scientifically known to be God" is by definition false. Proper science cannot see God.
One side abuses their knowledge by trying to reduce it to science; the other abuses logic by saying what it cannot see does not exist.
You have very subjectively, arbitrarily, and capriciously chosen a parameter of cross reproduction that is not necessary for “replenishment” of the ‘kind.’
I believe a more precise description of the term specie will solve this. And I didn't choose it capriciously.
We're looking at what successfully mates and reproduces. I believe this is the intent and the letter of the biological science term "specie".
If your analysis supports a different taxonomy, which would it be?
"groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations, which are reproductively isolated from other such groups"
Here's the idiomatic or common use definition:
Idiom:
in specie
1. In coin.
2. In a similar manner; in kind: repaid the offense in specie.
3. Law In the same kind or shape; as specified.
I’m saying that the commonly used definition is unscientific, due to its subjectivity. Its designed to turn something into “evolution” when it clearly is not.
Anyone foolish enough to claim that there can be a scientific determination either for or against the existence of God are engaging in shoddy theology and definitely not science.
That is my main objection to the Incompetent Design conjecture, it attempts to remove faith with certitude by engaging in unsupported postulation about things being irreducibly complex.
Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen.
Heb 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
Ok, I think I understand your objections more.
I think this is the micro vs. macro debate, perhaps.
With reference to the commonly used definition for specie - I think the focus on defining by ability to reproduce aligns almost surprisingly well with kind, in both scientific and common usage.
We have to bear in mind that there isn’t a unique flag on each different specie. Science can’t agree on the number of different specie. So for science this is an ongoing attempt at the best classification system.
But in the general sense, both science and Scripture seem to be talking describing the same thing: successful sexual reproduction.
Beyond this example, I think your quarrel may be more similar to mine that you think: My pet peeve is science pontificating about religion.
No I don't. Circumstantial evidence can be very good evidence... depending on the circumstances. :-)
But circumstantial evidence is not observational evidence. You have to be there when it happens to collect observational evidence.
And my scorecard comment was meant to be sarcastic
Nobody beats me at sarcasm.
Well.... maybe enat.
The one thing that unites all human beings, regardless of age, gender, religion, economic status or ethnic background, is that, deep down inside, we ALL believe that we are above average.
Thanks for the exchange—it’s been fun.
FWIW, if someone were to ask me how old the earth is, I would have to say “I don’t know”. And if someone were to ask me how long it took God to create the heavens and the Earth and all that is within then, I can confidently say “SIX DAYS.”
I just knew we'd end up FRiends.
Yeah, I always find it interesting that the literalists are so selectively literalist. I mean how much clearer could God be than “But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day”?
“I always find it interesting that the literalists are so selectively literalist” [excerpt]Its called hermeneutics.
2 Cor 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.Isn't the spiritual man the second man?
From Gerald Schroeder's website, emphasis mine:
(In case you want to know, this exponential rate of expansion has a specific number averaged at 10 to the 12th power. That is in fact the temperature of quark confinement, when matter freezes out of the energy: 10.9 times 10 to the 12th power Kelvin degrees divided by (or the ratio to) the temperature of the universe today, 2.73 degrees. That's the initial ratio which changes exponentially as the universe expands.)
The calculations come out to be as follows:
* The second day, from the Bible's perspective lasted 24 hours. From our perspective it lasted half of the previous day, 4 billion years.
* The third day also lasted half of the previous day, 2 billion years.
* The fourth day - one billion years.
* The fifth day - one-half billion years.
* The sixth day - one-quarter billion years.
But there's more. The Bible goes out on a limb and tells you what happened on each of those days. Now you can take cosmology, paleontology, archaeology, and look at the history of the world, and see whether or not they match up day-by-day. And I'll give you a hint. They match up close enough to send chills up your spine.
Another example of the effect of space/time on our perception of time would be a star a billion light years away sending a photon to us at the speed of light which we do not receive until ten billion light years later. The photon did not slow down, for it no time elapsed (null path) but space/time itself expanded while it was en route. Many stars observed via telescope no longer exist.
As another example, a person near the edge of a black hole might experience a week passing while on earth forty years elapse.
That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. - John 3:5-7
I understand this to be not merely physical death, but the second death as well. In other words, the penalty was not just physical death for Adamic man (all of us) but also the second death.
And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. - Matthew 10:28
For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night. – Psalms 90:4
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. - 2 Peter 3:8
And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. - Genesis 2:7
For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected [the same] in hope, Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. - Romans 8:19-22
2. ruach - the self-will or free will peculiar to man (abstraction, anticipation, intention, etc.) – by Jewish tradition, the pivot wherein a man decides to be Godly minded or earthy minded.
For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded [is] death; but to be spiritually minded [is] life and peace. - Romans 8:5-6
3. neshama - the breath of God given to Adam (Genesis 2:7) which may also be seen as the “ears to hear” (John 10) - a sense of belonging beyond space/time, a predisposition to seek God and seek answers to the deep questions such as “what is the meaning of life?"
And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice. And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers. – John 10:4-5
4. ruach Elohim - the Holy Spirit which indwells Christians – the presently existing in the “beyond” while still in the flesh. This is the life in passage : "In him was life, and the life was the light of men..." (John 1)
But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. - Romans 8:9
For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. - Colossians 3:3
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.