[_ Old Earth _] Evolution and Christianity

[RND]

You are setting up something of a strawman. The theory of evolution as such says nothing about beginnings.

And you are obfuscating. The fact of the matter is that in order to believe in evolution you must first believe there was a source of life for things to "evolve" from. Correct?

Unless you believe things also "evolved" from nothing?

There is ample evidence that supports evolution; the arguments around evolutionary theory tend to focus more on mechanisms rather than whether or not the theory is soundly based. Many Christians believe in the creative force of God, but see evolution as an expression of that creative force.

And? Should I be persuaded by a bunch of Christians that have given up their faith in the truth of the scriptures? Maybe this explains why the road to destruction is wide and the road to life narrow.

 

[lordkalvan]

You are setting up something of a strawman. The theory of evolution as such says nothing about beginnings.

And you are obfuscating.

hen show me how and where the theory of evolution defines the causes of the origin of life.

The fact of the matter is that in order to believe in evolution you must first believe there was a source of life for things to "evolve" from. Correct?

The evidence supporting evolutionary theory is extensive and comes from different fields of research. The 'source of life' that you speak of appears to have been very simple. The theory of evolution does not depend on a particular explanation for the origin of life, although there are several promising lines of research that provide naturalistic explanations.

Unless you believe things also "evolved" from nothing?

Why the scare quotes? What is your definition of nothing?

[quote:361y3sp3]There is ample evidence that supports evolution; the arguments around evolutionary theory tend to focus more on mechanisms rather than whether or not the theory is soundly based. Many Christians believe in the creative force of God, but see evolution as an expression of that creative force.

And? Should I be persuaded by a bunch of Christians that have given up their faith in the truth of the scriptures? Maybe this explains why the road to destruction is wide and the road to life narrow.[/quote:361y3sp3]
So in addition to strawman arguments, you support your position with the 'No true Scotsman' fallacy as well. The Bible says nothing about evolution because it was beyond the knowledge of those who wrote it.

 

[RND]

hen show me how and where the theory of evolution defines the causes of the origin of life.

Why not just honestly answer the questions posed instead of obfuscating?

The evidence supporting evolutionary theory is extensive and comes from different fields of research. The 'source of life' that you speak of appears to have been very simple. The theory of evolution does not depend on a particular explanation for the origin of life, although there are several promising lines of research that provide naturalistic explanations.

So then the bottom line is that in order to believe in evolution one must first believe that something had to "evolve" from something.

Why the scare quotes? What is your definition of nothing?

Scare quotes? You deem questions as "scare quotes." Are you bothered when people ask you about the weather? My definition of nothing is related to it's opposite. Something. Nothing means nothing. Nonexistence; nonentity; absence of being; nihility; nothingness.

So in addition to strawman arguments, you support your position with the 'No true Scotsman' fallacy as well.

Not at all. My suggestion was quite clear. Getting on a bus headed over the cliff is just something I choose no to do.

The Bible says nothing about evolution because it was beyond the knowledge of those who wrote it.

Or it was a divinely inspired work that had no need to perpetuate the fallacy of something coming from nothing. The fact that the Bible hints at molecular physics should be of interest to even the most learned.

 

[lordkalvan]

hen show me how and where the theory of evolution defines the causes of the origin of life.

Why not just honestly answer the questions posed instead of obfuscating?

Pointing out that the theory of evolution is not directly concerned with abiogenesis is not 'obfuscating'. Just because you ask a question demanding a particular answer does not mean that that is the answer you are going to get.

[quote:29wjvvhx]The evidence supporting evolutionary theory is extensive and comes from different fields of research. The 'source of life' that you speak of appears to have been very simple. The theory of evolution does not depend on a particular explanation for the origin of life, although there are several promising lines of research that provide naturalistic explanations.

So then the bottom line is that in order to believe in evolution one must first believe that something had to "evolve" from something.[/quote:29wjvvhx]
No, the understanding (based on the best available evidence) is that the complex variety of life we see on earth evolved from very simple origins. Naturalistic theories of abiogenesis do not suppose that life evolved from nothing as you define it below.

[quote:29wjvvhx]Why the scare quotes? What is your definition of nothing?

Scare quotes? You deem questions as "scare quotes."[/quote:29wjvvhx]
No, I was referring to your positioning of quotation marks around the words evolve and evolved, for example, as if this is all you have to do to cast doubt on the robustness of evolution as a scientific concept.

Are you bothered when people ask you about the weather?

I am rarely bothered if people ask me about anything.

My definition of nothing is related to it's opposite. Something. Nothing means nothing. Nonexistence; nonentity; absence of being; nihility; nothingness.

In which case, why are you putting forward the misleading suggestion that life developed from this state of nothingness?

[quote:29wjvvhx]So in addition to strawman arguments, you support your position with the 'No true Scotsman' fallacy as well.

Not at all. My suggestion was quite clear. Getting on a bus headed over the cliff is just something I choose no to do.[/quote:29wjvvhx]
You made no suggestion: you quite unequivocally implied that anyone who reconciled their Christian faith with a scientific understanding of evolution had in fact given up their faith, thereby indicating that they were not Christians at all. What grounds do you have for persuading me that your understanding is more soundly based than theirs?

[quote:29wjvvhx]The Bible says nothing about evolution because it was beyond the knowledge of those who wrote it.

Or it was a divinely inspired work that had no need to perpetuate the fallacy of something coming from nothing.[/quote:29wjvvhx]
The Bible's inspiration is moot; it is undoubtedly the case, however, that whatever its inspiration it was written down according to the imperfect knowledge of infallible men. Again, evolutionary theory does not suppose that 'something' came from 'nothing'.

The fact that the Bible hints at molecular physics should be of interest to even the most learned.

A pity it doesn't do any more than hint, then.

 

[RND]

Pointing out that the theory of evolution is not directly concerned with abiogenesis is not 'obfuscating'. Just because you ask a question demanding a particular answer does not mean that that is the answer you are going to get.

Well, according to your beliefs as stated elsewhere in your answer you do in fact believe life came from something. Now, how did that something come about?

No, the understanding (based on the best available evidence) is that the complex variety of life we see on earth evolved from very simple origins. Naturalistic theories of abiogenesis do not suppose that life evolved from nothing as you define it below.

But that wasn't in question was it? Whether you believe life started as a complex or simple organism is irrelevant in the discussion. In fact this is where the 'evolutionist' has to begin to obfuscate and their position fails in that one holding such a position has to believe that in order for something to evolve it had to evolve from something. A source of some kind. That 'something' had origin.

No, I was referring to your positioning of quotation marks around the words evolve and evolved, for example, as if this is all you have to do to cast doubt on the robustness of evolution as a scientific concept.

Your argumentation casts doubts on the validity of your position.

I am rarely bothered if people ask me about anything.

That's good!

In which case, why are you putting forward the misleading suggestion that life developed from this state of nothingness?

Because when it gets down to brass tacks the evolutionist generally believes that life indeed came from nothing. I clearly stated that in order to believe in evolution you must first believe there was a source of life for things to "evolve" from. You would rather quibble about the complexity of that life as opposed to just admitting I'm correct.

You made no suggestion: you quite unequivocally implied that anyone who reconciled their Christian faith with a scientific understanding of evolution had in fact given up their faith, thereby indicating that they were not Christians at all. What grounds do you have for persuading me that your understanding is more soundly based than theirs?

In order for one to have complete 'faith' in the word of God one must have 'faith' in the word of God. My suggestion was that just because most Christians believe an error doesn't mean I have to believe them and their error. Belief in scripture is not a popular vote.

The Bible's inspiration is moot;

For most this is certainly true. Spiritual things are spiritually discerned.

it is undoubtedly the case, however, that whatever its inspiration it was written down according to the imperfect knowledge of infallible men.

You mean 'fallable' men?

Which hasn't changed regarding your point. Man is still imperfect, has imperfect knowledge and fallable.

Man is still Again, evolutionary theory does not suppose that 'something' came from 'nothing'.

Evolution has to believe that in order for something to evolve that something had to evolve from something are you know willing to admit I was correct?

A pity it doesn't do any more than hint, then.

Faith tells us that indeed the things that are are made with things that are not seen. Man did not discover this Bible truth was real until nearly 2,000 years later!

 

[Barbarian]

Lord Kalvan writes:
You are setting up something of a strawman. The theory of evolution as such says nothing about beginnings.

And you are obfuscating. The fact of the matter is that in order to believe in evolution you must first believe there was a source of life for things to "evolve" from. Correct?

Yes, evolutionary theory assumes living things came to be, without making any claims as to how that happened. Seems like a safe assumption to me.

Lord Kalvan continues:
There is ample evidence that supports evolution; the arguments around evolutionary theory tend to focus more on mechanisms rather than whether or not the theory is soundly based. Many Christians believe in the creative force of God, but see evolution as an expression of that creative force.

And?

Most Christians accept that evolution is consistent with our faith. It's been that way since the beginning.

Should I be persuaded by a bunch of Christians that have given up their faith in the truth of the scriptures?

Not all creationists deny the Sciptures. YE denies Genesis (God says that He created life by natural means, not "ex nihilo") but there are forms of creationism that are as compatible with Scripture as evolution is. Keep in mind, evolution would be perfectly compatible with a God Who magically poofed the first living things into existence. Indeed, Darwin suggested such a thing happened, in the last sentence of The Origin of Species.

Maybe this explains why the road to destruction is wide and the road to life narrow.

Fortunately for YE creationists, God doesn't care if they accept the way He did it. That is not a salvation issue, unless creationism becomes more important to you than His salvation.

 

[RND]

Yes, evolutionary theory assumes living things came to be, without making any claims as to how that happened. Seems like a safe assumption to me.

Which is the point. Creation believes that God created life on earth, evolution believes it just happened - a random event. In fact it appears that this method is akin to the "I don't know" method. Creationist are at least genuine enough to give God Himself the credit.

Not all creationists deny the Sciptures.

Never suggested they did.

YE denies Genesis (God says that He created life by natural means, not "ex nihilo") but there are forms of creationism that are as compatible with Scripture as evolution is. Keep in mind, evolution would be perfectly compatible with a God Who magically poofed the first living things into existence. Indeed, Darwin suggested such a thing happened, in the last sentence of The Origin of Species.

I'd love to see where Genesis states that God created life any other way than "ex nihilo." How can you possibly twist the scriptures to suggest that a YE view denies scripture is anyone's guess.

Fortunately for YE creationists, God doesn't care if they accept the way He did it.

Are you sure? How do you know that God doesn't care whether His creation account is accepted? Satan knows that if a shadow of doubt can be cast upon one part of the word of God then it a shadow can be cast on other parts as well. Don't accept YE? Then why accept the account of Jesus rising from the tomb? I think this is one reason why God said, "It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."

That is not a salvation issue, unless creationism becomes more important to you than His salvation.

If one can accept conjecture ahead of the Biblical account then it is certainly possible the acceptance of that conjecture could cause one to question other aspects of the Bible record which could possibly lead to discounting the scriptures. So yes, this can become a salvation issue. I think if one took the time to properly understand the absolute complexity in the Genesis account they'd be less likely to follow evolutions rabbit holes.

 

[lordkalvan]

Well, according to your beliefs as stated elsewhere in your answer you do in fact believe life came from something. Now, how did that something come about?

The thread is about evolution and Christianity, not abiogenesis and Christianity. The origins of life lie in the origins of the beginning of our Universe and the chemical components required for life. The evidence for the Universe's beginnings lead to the theory popularized as the Big Bang. I do not know what caused the Big Bang; this does not mean that the theory of evolution is thereby invalidated.

[quote:196csv28]No, the understanding (based on the best available evidence) is that the complex variety of life we see on earth evolved from very simple origins. Naturalistic theories of abiogenesis do not suppose that life evolved from nothing as you define it below.

But that wasn't in question was it?[/quote:196csv28]
I understood the question to pertain to the 'nothingness' from which life supposedly sprang. Life did not spring directly from 'nothingness'. And, even if it did, this still says nothing about the evidence that supports the theory of evolution.

Whether you believe life started as a complex or simple organism is irrelevant in the discussion.

I agree. The question of the origin of life is not directly relevant to the theory of evolution.

In fact this is where the 'evolutionist' has to begin to obfuscate and their position fails in that one holding such a position has to believe that in order for something to evolve it had to evolve from something. A source of some kind. That 'something' had origin.

There is no obfuscation. Either there is evidence to support evolutionary theory or there is not. If the evidence exists - which it does - unless you can provide an equally plausible theory that consistently explains that observed evidence, then your argument about origins seems designed only to attract attention away from that evidence.

[quote:196csv28]No, I was referring to your positioning of quotation marks around the words evolve and evolved, for example, as if this is all you have to do to cast doubt on the robustness of evolution as a scientific concept.

Your argumentation casts doubts on the validity of your position.[/quote:196csv28]
How is that? Evolutionary theory is evidentially supported. Arguments against evolution depend upon a particular interpretation of pre-scientific writings that are not shared by most followers of those writings and that actually run counter to the observed evidence in multiple, independent fields of study.

[quote:196csv28]In which case, why are you putting forward the misleading suggestion that life developed from this state of nothingness?

Because when it gets down to brass tacks the evolutionist generally believes that life indeed came from nothing.[/quote:196csv28]
Where is your evidence for this? By the way, what do you mean when you use the word 'evolutionist'? You are aware that there are both theistic and creationary evolutionists who do not believe that life came from 'nothing'?

I clearly stated that in order to believe in evolution you must first believe there was a source of life for things to "evolve" from. You would rather quibble about the complexity of that life as opposed to just admitting I'm correct.

Show me where I disagreed with this? Again, the source of life is not immediately relevant to whether or not evolutionary theory is evidentially supported. There is nothing inherently contradictory in the idea that God could have used naturalistic processes in the act of creation.

[quote:196csv28]You made no suggestion: you quite unequivocally implied that anyone who reconciled their Christian faith with a scientific understanding of evolution had in fact given up their faith, thereby indicating that they were not Christians at all. What grounds do you have for persuading me that your understanding is more soundly based than theirs?

In order for one to have complete 'faith' in the word of God one must have 'faith' in the word of God. My suggestion was that just because most Christians believe an error doesn't mean I have to believe them and their error. Belief in scripture is not a popular vote.[/quote:196csv28]
A fair point, but first of all you have to establish that your assertion of 'error' is soundly based and that your understanding of 'the word of God' is more correct than theirs. So far I do not see you doing this.

[quote:196csv28]...it is undoubtedly the case, however, that whatever its inspiration it was written down according to the imperfect knowledge of infallible men.

You mean 'fallable' men? [/quote:196csv28]
Indeed I do. Nice catch and sorry for the sloppy attention to detail that let than prefix slip in. Typing too late at night!

Which hasn't changed regarding your point. Man is still imperfect, has imperfect knowledge and fallable.

So why is an understanding derived from an imperfect text superior to an understanding derived from studying the natural world?

[quote:196csv28]Again, evolutionary theory does not suppose that 'something' came from 'nothing'.

Evolution has to believe that in order for something to evolve that something had to evolve from something are you know willing to admit I was correct? [/quote:196csv28]
Life developed from pre-existing constituents, yes. However, this says nothing about the validity of evolutionary theory, which is the point of this thread.

[quote:196csv28]A pity it doesn't do any more than hint, then.

Faith tells us that indeed the things that are are made with things that are not seen. Man did not discover this Bible truth was real until nearly 2,000 years later![/quote:196csv28]
If this is a 'hint' about molecular physics, it is a very abstruse one. One might just as well interpret it as referring to God's invisible, magical fairy dust. In other words, you can read into it whatever you want to read into it.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Yes, evolutionary theory assumes living things came to be, without making any claims as to how that happened. Seems like a safe assumption to me.

Which is the point. Creation believes that God created life on earth, evolution believes it just happened

You've been misled about that. Evolutionary theory makes no claims about how it happened. It just assumes it happened. Darwin thought perhaps God just made the first organisms, but the theory doesn't depend on it. It could have been by natural means, as God says in Genesis.

Barbarian observes:
Not all creationists deny the Sciptures. YE denies Genesis (God says that He created life by natural means, not "ex nihilo") but there are forms of creationism that are as compatible with Scripture as evolution is. Keep in mind, evolution would be perfectly compatible with a God Who magically poofed the first living things into existence. Indeed, Darwin suggested such a thing happened, in the last sentence of The Origin of Species.

I'd love to see where Genesis states that God created life any other way than "ex nihilo."

Gen. 1:24And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

Assertion of "ex nihilo" creation of life is a rejection of God's word.

How can you possibly twist the scriptures to suggest that a YE view denies scripture is anyone's guess.

Perhaps you don't understand what the YEers have done with you. "Ex nihilo" means "from nothing." Poofed into existence. Which God could certainly do, if He liked, but He chose to do it otherwise. YE does not approve of His choice.

Barbarian observes:
Fortunately for YE creationists, God doesn't care if they accept the way He did it.

Are you sure?

Yes. God tells us what we must do to be with Him for eternity. Accepting the way he produced living things is not on His list.

How do you know that God doesn't care whether His creation account is accepted?

If it was important to salvation, He would have told us about it.

Satan knows that if a shadow of doubt can be cast upon one part of the word of God then it a shadow can be cast on other parts as well.

He got you to doubt part of Genesis, after all. It's a wedge, but you don't have to let it go any further. Many YE creationists will be saved, even if they don't approve of the way He started life on Earth.

Don't accept YE? Then why accept the account of Jesus rising from the tomb?

Because, as you see, YE is contrary to Scripture, and has nothing to do with Jesus rising from the tomb.

I think this is one reason why God said, "It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."

All the more reason you should accept all of it, not just the parts you like.

If one can accept conjecture ahead of the Biblical account then it is certainly possible the acceptance of that conjecture could cause one to question other aspects of the Bible record which could possibly lead to discounting the scriptures.

That's not just a possibility. I know people who lost their faith because of YE creationism. It's an effective atheist-maker. Don't let that happen to you.

 

[RND]

The thread is about evolution and Christianity, not abiogenesis and Christianity. The origins of life lie in the origins of the beginning of our Universe and the chemical components required for life. The evidence for the Universe's beginnings lead to the theory popularized as the Big Bang. I do not know what caused the Big Bang; this does not mean that the theory of evolution is thereby invalidated.

So in other words "it just happened." Couldn't have involved a creator.

I understood the question to pertain to the 'nothingness' from which life supposedly sprang. Life did not spring directly from 'nothingness'. And, even if it did, this still says nothing about the evidence that supports the theory of evolution.

You are saying that the creation of life was mere happenstance. So in a sense you believe it came from nothing. My original point still stands.

[quote:359tedw6]Whether you believe life started as a complex or simple organism is irrelevant in the discussion.

I agree. The question of the origin of life is not directly relevant to the theory of evolution.[/quote:359tedw6] You missed the point I was making. Whether you believe life started as a complex or simple organism is irrelevant in the discussion of what created life in the first place. In order to believe in evolution one has to believe there was life that something could evolve from.

There is no obfuscation. Either there is evidence to support evolutionary theory or there is not. If the evidence exists - which it does - unless you can provide an equally plausible theory that consistently explains that observed evidence, then your argument about origins seems designed only to attract attention away from that evidence.

That question is best answered in gaining some understanding about what life forms supposedly evolved! It is a point most evolutionist's obfuscate and deflect.

How is that?

You are evasive and obfuscate consistently. Direct points of conversation are never addressed.

Where is your evidence for this? By the way, what do you mean when you use the word 'evolutionist'? You are aware that there are both theistic and creationary evolutionists who do not believe that life came from 'nothing'?

See above. My evidence is in your answers (or lack of answers). BTW, the life that you don't believe it came from nothing was it created or did it just 'happen?'

Show me where I disagreed with this? Again, the source of life is not immediately relevant to whether or not evolutionary theory is evidentially supported. There is nothing inherently contradictory in the idea that God could have used naturalistic processes in the act of creation.

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=42029&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=75#p513670

Your answer to my point that, "The fact of the matter is that in order to believe in evolution you must first believe there was a source of life for things to "evolve" from. Correct?" was pure obfuscation.

In order for something to have evolved it had to evolve from something.

A fair point, but first of all you have to establish that your assertion of 'error' is soundly based and that your understanding of 'the word of God' is more correct than theirs. So far I do not see you doing this.

Again, faith isn't a popularity contest - if it was most everyone would believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

So why is an understanding derived from an imperfect text superior to an understanding derived from studying the natural world?

It comes from faith which is belief in the word of God. I can't explain everything in the natural or supernatural world accept by my faith in the word of God. In fact, neither can science.

Hbr 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

Scientist are now of the understanding that quantum leaps of the same quark can and does happen, that it can be in two places at the same time. So if scientists are just discovering this then we can be certain it existed before it was discovered.

Just as the Bible states.

[quote:359tedw6]Again, evolutionary theory does not suppose that 'something' came from 'nothing'.

Evolution has to believe that in order for something to evolve that something had to evolve from something are you know willing to admit I was correct? [/quote:359tedw6]

Life developed from pre-existing constituents, yes. However, this says nothing about the validity of evolutionary theory, which is the point of this thread.

Wow, finally! That's what happens when one obfuscates. They have to finally admit that life indeed was "pre-existing" in order for evolution to occur. Now, what was the cause of this "pre-existing" life? In your belief system it "just happened" something from nothing. In my belief system God created all things.

If this is a 'hint' about molecular physics, it is a very abstruse one.

None the less the Bible is clear that things are made out of things that are not seen. Science discovered this fact long after the Bible was compiled.

One might just as well interpret it as referring to God's invisible, magical fairy dust.

Oh, sure...if you're inclined to ignore the plain language of the scripture! Your sarcasim in light of the plain meaning of the words means more than you know because it just simply reveals your denial.

Hbr 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

Before science confirmed this notion it was something that could only be taken by faith. Since science has confirmed this it is confirmation of the faith needed to believe the word of God. What else can we suppose that science confirms about the Bible!

In other words, you can read into it whatever you want to read into it.

Or we can do as you do....ignore the obvious.

 

[Barbarian]

Wow, finally! That's what happens when one obfuscates. They have to finally admit that life indeed was "pre-existing" in order for evolution to occur.

That's always been the way it was with evolutionary theory. From the start. You didn't know that? One of the important requirements for talking intelligently about a subject, is to be knowledgable about it.

Now, what was the cause of this "pre-existing" life?

Evolutionary theory is indifferent as to the cause, but if you can believe God, the earth brought forth living things. Scientists are beginning to see evidence indicating that He was right.

 

[RND]

Barbarian observes:
Yes, evolutionary theory assumes living things came to be, without making any claims as to how that happened. Seems like a safe assumption to me.

You know what the say happens when one assumes?

[quote:33574eb1]Which is the point. Creation believes that God created life on earth, evolution believes it just happened

You've been misled about that. Evolutionary theory makes no claims about how it happened. It just assumes it happened. Darwin thought perhaps God just made the first organisms, but the theory doesn't depend on it. It could have been by natural means, as God says in Genesis.[/quote:33574eb1] Right. More obfuscation. Science is convinced life evolved. When pressed how that life came about it, "We don't know." Something from nothingism!

Gen. 1:24And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

If you read the next verse you get your answer:

Gen 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.

God made....

Assertion of "ex nihilo" creation of life is a rejection of God's word.

Or the failure of some to actually read it.

Perhaps you don't understand what the YEers have done with you. "Ex nihilo" means "from nothing." Poofed into existence. Which God could certainly do, if He liked, but He chose to do it otherwise. YE does not approve of His choice.

God made.....

Yes. God tells us what we must do to be with Him for eternity. Accepting the way he produced living things is not on His list.

Well, I read that "eternal life" is a by product of knowing God and His Son. So wouldn't knowing Him include believing His word and what He said?

Jhn 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

That He made everything?

Pro 16:4 The LORD hath made all [things] for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.

Jhn 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

If it was important to salvation, He would have told us about it.

He did.

He got you to doubt part of Genesis, after all.

I have no doubts about Genesis. Stop projecting!

It's a wedge, but you don't have to let it go any further. Many YE creationists will be saved, even if they don't approve of the way He started life on Earth.

Remember? God made....

Because, as you see, YE is contrary to Scripture, and has nothing to do with Jesus rising from the tomb.

Look, the bottom line is that if a man' minds and heart can be changed into believing the creation account (earth created in 6 literal days) other parts of the Bible can just as easily be questioned and doubted. This is what "evolutionary theist's" really teach.

All the more reason you should accept all of it, not just the parts you like.

Remember? God made....

That's not just a possibility.

It's a reality. That's why people such as Darwin, that grew up in a Bible believing home can come to question the scriptures.

I know people who lost their faith because of YE creationism.

:rolling Oh, I'm certain you have.

It's an effective atheist-maker. Don't let that happen to you.

:rolling OK, I won't.

 

[RND]

That's always been the way it was with evolutionary theory. From the start. You didn't know that?

I was unable to deduce that from all the obfuscation.

One of the important requirements for talking intelligently about a subject, is to be knowledgable about it.

Then why all the obfuscation and deflection from the evolutionist's?

Evolutionary theory is indifferent as to the cause,

Or unwilling to admit the obvious? Anything but give God the credit.

but if you can believe God, the earth brought forth living things.

Funny, my Bible tells me that God made all things. What Bible are you reading? One with holes in it or missing pages?

Gen 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.

The NLT says it in a way you may better understand: "God made all sorts of wild animals, livestock, and small animals, each able to reproduce more of its own kind. And God saw that it was good."

Scientists are beginning to see evidence indicating that He was right.

I'd agree, just not in your interpretation of how "God made."

 

[RND]

[youtube:3ti3ga9o]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFWHHKKFKcc&feature=related[/youtube:3ti3ga9o]

 

[RND]

[youtube:19b0d2hk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mrPagzdJAs&feature=related[/youtube:19b0d2hk]

 

[RND]

[youtube:2q0aeh9m]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Abf1CgLj4Xc&feature=related[/youtube:2q0aeh9m]

 

[RND]

[youtube:2fvlj1ly]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHU6CMNcwyY&feature=related[/youtube:2fvlj1ly]

 

[RND]

[youtube:1e7ux94o]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTkrxjp3cvE&feature=related[/youtube:1e7ux94o]

 

[RND]

[youtube:21kdnex4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RgSsb_ePRE&feature=related[/youtube:21kdnex4]

 

[lordkalvan]

So in other words "it just happened." Couldn't have involved a creator.

I did not say this. The question of how life originated says nothing about the evidential support that underlies the theory of evolution. Again, if a conscious creative force was involved in the origin of life, that force could have used naturalistic processes to cause life to begin and evolution is part of that process.

[quote:lfu1s23v]I understood the question to pertain to the 'nothingness' from which life supposedly sprang. Life did not spring directly from 'nothingness'. And, even if it did, this still says nothing about the evidence that supports the theory of evolution.

You are saying that the creation of life was mere happenstance.[/quote:lfu1s23v]
I do not know how you take this understanding from what I wrote; your comment bears no relation to the two sentences you are responding to.

So in a sense you believe it came from nothing.

No, let me say again that I do not believe that life came from 'nothing'.

My original point still stands.

Which I appear to have lost. Sorry. What was it, again?

You missed the point I was making. Whether you believe life started as a complex or simple organism is irrelevant in the discussion of what created life in the first place. In order to believe in evolution one has to believe there was life that something could evolve from.

I do not disagree with this, except to say that belief in evolutionary theory is based on evidential support which does not require an explanation of how life originated.

[quote:lfu1s23v]There is no obfuscation. Either there is evidence to support evolutionary theory or there is not. If the evidence exists - which it does - unless you can provide an equally plausible theory that consistently explains that observed evidence, then your argument about origins seems designed only to attract attention away from that evidence.

That question is best answered in gaining some understanding about what life forms supposedly evolved! It is a point most evolutionist's obfuscate and deflect. [/quote:lfu1s23v]The evidence suggests that all life-forms that we are familiar with evolved from ancestral species. Where is the obfuscation and deflection in this observation? Your arguments would be more persuasive if you provided some examples of 'evolutionists' obfuscating and deflecting around this matter.

[quote:lfu1s23v]How is that?

You are evasive and obfuscate consistently. Direct points of conversation are never addressed.[/quote:lfu1s23v]
Requesting clarification is neither evasion nor obfuscation (is this your favourite word, by the way, as you seem to use it a lot, almost as if it presents an irrefutable argument all by itself?). You stated that my 'argumentation casts doubts on the validity of [my] position'; I failed to understand how this was so and hoped you might explain your meaning further..

[quote:lfu1s23v]Where is your evidence for this? By the way, what do you mean when you use the word 'evolutionist'? You are aware that there are both theistic and creationary evolutionists who do not believe that life came from 'nothing'?

See above.[/quote:lfu1s23v]
See what above? Where is your evidence that 'the evolutionist generally believes that life indeed came from nothing.' Repetitive assertion is not evidential.

My evidence is in your answers (or lack of answers).

Then you have misread my answers. To the best of my recollection I have never said that life came from nothing.

BTW, the life that you don't believe it came from nothing was it created or did it just 'happen?'

I think that life most likely originated by naturalistic processes.

[quote:lfu1s23v]Show me where I disagreed with this? Again, the source of life is not immediately relevant to whether or not evolutionary theory is evidentially supported. There is nothing inherently contradictory in the idea that God could have used naturalistic processes in the act of creation.

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=42029&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=75#p513670[/quote:lfu1s23v]
I have read my post that you linked to. I am unable to see where, in that post, I disagreed with your statement to the effect that 'I clearly stated that in order to believe in evolution you must first believe there was a source of life for things to "evolve" from.'

Your answer to my point that, "The fact of the matter is that in order to believe in evolution you must first believe there was a source of life for things to "evolve" from. Correct?" was pure obfuscation.

The point is that the source of that life is not directly relevant to whether or not evolutionary theory is evidentially sound. This is not obfuscation; it is a simple statement of the situation as I understand it. I'm sorry if you don't like the answer, but just because you don't like it does not make it obfuscation.

In order for something to have evolved it had to evolve from something.

Yes. And?

[quote:lfu1s23v]A fair point, but first of all you have to establish that your assertion of 'error' is soundly based and that your understanding of 'the word of God' is more correct than theirs. So far I do not see you doing this.

Again, faith isn't a popularity contest - if it was most everyone would believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.[/quote:lfu1s23v]
Supporting an assertion of 'error' on the part of other Christians is not a matter of popularity; either you can show how and why they are in 'error' or you can't. I have no idea what you mean by your latter comment. What makes you think 'the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob' would win a global popularity contest?

[quote:lfu1s23v]So why is an understanding derived from an imperfect text superior to an understanding derived from studying the natural world?

It comes from faith which is belief in the word of God. I can't explain everything in the natural or supernatural world accept by my faith in the word of God. In fact, neither can science.[/quote:lfu1s23v]
Except that science uses testable hypotheses to validate its ideas. Those testable hypotheses seem to continually narrow the gap into which God can find room to influence the natural world.

Scientist are now of the understanding that quantum leaps of the same quark can and does happen, that it can be in two places at the same time. So if scientists are just discovering this then we can be certain it existed before it was discovered.

Just as the Bible states.

I was not aware that the Bible made reference to quarks. Perhaps you can provide a citation?

[quote:lfu1s23v]Again, evolutionary theory does not suppose that 'something' came from 'nothing'.

Evolution has to believe that in order for something to evolve that something had to evolve from something are you know willing to admit I was correct? [/quote:lfu1s23v]
That you were correct about what? That the evolution of life cannot occur in the absence of that life? Where is the argument in this?

[quote:lfu1s23v]Life developed from pre-existing constituents, yes. However, this says nothing about the validity of evolutionary theory, which is the point of this thread.

Wow, finally! That's what happens when one obfuscates. They have to finally admit that life indeed was "pre-existing" in order for evolution to occur.[/quote:lfu1s23v]
I don't think you can have been paying attention to my posts if this comes as such a surprise to you. I do not see why you would think that I believe that the evolution of life could take place in the absence of life itself.

Now, what was the cause of this "pre-existing" life?

This is not relevant to the understanding of whether or not evolutionary theory is evidentially sound.

In your belief system it "just happened" something from nothing.

No, let me say again that I am of the opinion that the evidence tends to support the understanding that life originated as a result of naturalistic processes.

In my belief system God created all things.

You are entitled to believe what you like. I am entitled to point out that your belief has little or no evidence to support it.

[quote:lfu1s23v]If this is a 'hint' about molecular physics, it is a very abstruse one.

None the less the Bible is clear that things are made out of things that are not seen. Science discovered this fact long after the Bible was compiled. [/quote:lfu1s23v]
Insofar as the idea that matter is made up of tiny, indivisible particles probably originated with Leucippus of Miletus and Democritus of Abdera in the 5th century B.C., your assertion is not entirely correct, notwithstanding the possibility of confirmation bias in the understanding you take from reading the Bible. How many other religious books make reference to unseen things?

[quote:lfu1s23v]One might just as well interpret it as referring to God's invisible, magical fairy dust.

Oh, sure...if you're inclined to ignore the plain language of the scripture! Your sarcasim in light of the plain meaning of the words means more than you know because it just simply reveals your denial.[/quote:lfu1s23v]
Please show me how the one understanding is superior to the other. Your assertion alone is unpersuasive and is more suggestive of reading into the Bible that which you want to read into it.

Before science confirmed this notion it was something that could only be taken by faith. Since science has confirmed this it is confirmation of the faith needed to believe the word of God. What else can we suppose that science confirms about the Bible!

It depends on how loose your definition is of what constitutes science in the Bible. What do you suppose science can confirm about the holy books of Hinduism or Sikhism? What about the creation myths of Dynastic Egypt, the Mayans and the Incas? Would you regard such 'confirmations' as validations of those beliefs?

[quote:lfu1s23v]In other words, you can read into it whatever you want to read into it.

Or we can do as you do....ignore the obvious.[/quote:lfu1s23v]
You have yet to demonstrate that this is obvious beyond your own wish that it be so.