Science is hurting my faith.

[WMD]

[quote:3d0b2]While not neccesarely dealing with space, I find it hard to believe that we didn't evolve from monkey's, seeing how there is physical proof saying so.

Where is this physical proof? It has not been found nor proven. And if we evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys.

We didn't evolve from monkeys; that's a common misconception. We evolved from monkey-like creatures. The gorillas and monkeys around today also evolved from these creatures.

[/quote:3d0b2]

Okay then... if we evolved from so called "monkey like" creatures then where are the remains of these creatures? I still see no hard proof that we evolved from anything.

And why did gorillas and monkeys stop evolving there? Why would numerous creatures evolve from the same thing?

As far as your other responses to the universe and how we estimated everything, I will buy that.... but what does that do to hurt someones faith? God created a huge universe, whats wrong with that?

 

[soma]

If science is hurting your faith than your faith is not very strong. Science and faith are both concerned about what is true, they are not divorced of each other, but reinforce the truth.

 

[ArtGuy]

Okay then... if we evolved from so called "monkey like" creatures then where are the remains of these creatures? I still see no hard proof that we evolved from anything.

We've found a few fossils to bridge the gap, but fossils are rare in general. We can't simply state, "We wish to find a fossil for this creature at this period in time!" and have it be so.

And why did gorillas and monkeys stop evolving there? Why would numerous creatures evolve from the same thing?

They didn't stop evolving; they evolved in a different direction. They are much more suited to doing certain things than us, just as a fish is more suited towards swimming than we are. And we're more suited towards doing other things - like complex thinking. Whether you believe this is the case because God designed the evolutionary process to culminate with the human race, or whether you believe we're just a happy accident is irrelevant on this point. The upshot is that monkeys became specialized for their thing, and we became specialized for ours.

And numerous creatures can develop from the same specises because the species can exist in multiple areas. The creationist claim is that all modern races developed from Noah's offspring. How could one family produce all the different races? It's the same principle.

 

[soma]

If science hurts one's faith than that faith is not very strong because science and faith are both concerned about truth. They are both used to seek out the truth.

 

[Klee shay]

The creationist claim is that all modern races developed from Noah's offspring. How could one family produce all the different races? It's the same principle.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't that come via the Tower of Babel experience? Or am I getting my scripture time lines mixed up? :

 

[ArtGuy]

The creationist claim is that all modern races developed from Noah's offspring. How could one family produce all the different races? It's the same principle.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't that come via the Tower of Babel experience? Or am I getting my scripture time lines mixed up? :

Yes, that's the story. After man create the Tower, God created the various languages and forced the people to go in different directions. Over time, they grew to adapt to their climates and such, creating the races we know today. But they still all came from one family. If you can accept that all the races could've come from one source, then you should be able to at least accept in principle that one species could evolve into multiple species.

 

[Klee shay]

But they still all came from one family. If you can accept that all the races could've come from one source, then you should be able to at least accept in principle that one species could evolve into multiple species.

Completely different comparision however.

The many different races still originated from the one family - the human variety, while a physical transformation from animal to human is a change on the molecular level.

It's therfore easier to accept the many changes on a human level, than to accept we were never once human at all.

 

[reznwerks]

[

A lot of science does hurt our faith! So just remember that scientists are fallible human beings and when they agree with God they are always right and when they disagree with God they are always wrong.

Faith is the evidence of things not seen. Science is the evidence of things that are.

 

[ArtGuy]

Completely different comparision however.

The many different races still originated from the one family - the human variety, while a physical transformation from animal to human is a change on the molecular level.

What? No, that's completely wrong. The changes in both cases would have happened at the genetic level. The difference is solely one of magnitude, not one of type. In the race case, the DNA changes a little. In the evolutionary case, the DNA changes a lot.

You also seem to be supposing that an animal just suddenly changes into a human, or a lizard gives birth to a bird, or something, as opposed to the changes happening gradually over millions of years.

 

[thessalonian]

I was driving to my boys party at school today and noticed the beautiful lialacs on the side of the road. My mind started thinking about all the beautiful flowers in the world and how brightly colored they are. Did this get colored by accident. Did a bunch of green and brown flowers happen and they just died off because they couldn't attract bees to polinate them and get the recipricol benefit of nector? Why would the flower even think about attracting the bee anyway? How could the two come together in the amazingly complimentary manner? A bird flew accross the car and I started imagining hundreds of lizards jumping off cliffs to their grave until one came along that had the right curvature in his arms and was able to glide to the ground. Hopefully they would not go extinct before this amazing genetic mutation took place or it would be another 100 million years before it happened again. They kept gliding until wouldn't you know it one sprouted feathers and he found he could fly. Of course then he had the problem of finding another lizard who could fly to mate with. Being the first he might have died off before this happened and the next such lizard wouldn't come around for another 10 million years. If he was lucky another might sprout feathers at that time. Thinking about all of this I simply have to ask. Why God? Why NOT! All creation cries out to the glory of God. We simply have to open our eyes.

If science does anything but help your faith it is simply bad science. God is good and has given us a rich world in which to admire the beauty and the wonder of his creation and simply give thanks to him. We are certainly given a curiosity to understand it better but not in 100 billion worlds would the diveristy of life exist on this earth by accident. Not to mention the great order and complexity in the Math and Physics and chemisty that all go with it. Creation is truly incredible. It reflects God's love for you. Don't let it be a burden to your faith young man. God loves you very dearly.

 

[ArtGuy]

I was driving to my boys party at school today and noticed the beautiful lialacs on the side of the road. My mind started thinking about all the beautiful flowers in the world and how brightly colored they are. Did this get colored by accident. Did a bunch of green and brown flowers happen and they just died off because they couldn't attract bees to polinate them and get the recipricol benefit of nector? Why would the flower even think about attracting the bee anyway? How could the two come together in the amazingly complimentary manner? A bird flew accross the car and I started imagining hundreds of lizards jumping off cliffs to their grave until one came along that had the right curvature in his arms and was able to glide to the ground. Hopefully they would not go extinct before this amazing genetic mutation took place or it would be another 100 million years before it happened again. They kept gliding until wouldn't you know it one sprouted feathers and he found he could fly. Of course then he had the problem of finding another lizard who could fly to mate with. Being the first he might have died off before this happened and the next such lizard wouldn't come around for another 10 million years. If he was lucky another might sprout feathers at that time. Thinking about all of this I simply have to ask. Why God? Why NOT! All creation cries out to the glory of God. We simply have to open our eyes.

Kudos, thess. Most people would let a lamentable lack of understanding about a topic keep them from publicly commenting on it for fear of sounding silly. But not you. I admire your guts, if not your scientific acumen.

Kidding aside, were you just being silly there, or is that actually how you think evolution is supposed to work?

If science does anything but help your faith it is simply bad science.

Or else it's bad faith. If I told you that I had faith based on my reading of the Bible that the earth was flat, would you tell me to disregard all of the scientists who say otherwise? Or would you tell me to alter my interpretation of the Bible?

 

[thessalonian]

Kidding aside, were you just being silly there, or is that actually how you think evolution is supposed to work?

Silliness with a point. There is far too much intelligence in nature and it isn't coming from one celled ameba's thinking, I wanna be a two celled ameba.

Or else it's bad faith. If I told you that I had faith based on my reading of the Bible that the earth was flat, would you tell me to disregard all of the scientists who say otherwise? Or would you tell me to alter my interpretation of the Bible?

I would site prov. 3:5. Trust not in your own understanding but rely on the Lord. In other words your last sentence.

 

[ArtGuy]

Silliness with a point. There is far too much intelligence in nature and it isn't coming from one celled ameba's thinking, I wanna be a two celled ameba.

That's still not how it works, though. The amoeba doesn't just say, "Gee, it'd be cool if I had an extra cell." It's just that when it replicates itself, it does so imperfectly, and so there's a mutation that causes there to be an extra cell in there. If the mutation is of a sort that's easily transferrable, it'll stick around through successive generations. And if there's also a tangible advantage to there being two cells, then that mutation will come to dominate, because amoebas that have it will be more likely to survive than those without it, until ultimately all you have left is two-celled amoebas.

At least in that area. It could be that in another region, there's no advantage - or even a disadvantage to having two cells. If this is the case, you'll see one area with one-celled amoebas, and another area with two-celled amoebas. This is how species diverge.

It's also worth pointing out that you don't need to find two things with the same mutation in order for the mutation to propogate. Just like you don't need two people with brown eyes in order to have a kid with brown eyes. Two creatures don't need identical DNA to mate, obviously.

[quote:10438]Or else it's bad faith. If I told you that I had faith based on my reading of the Bible that the earth was flat, would you tell me to disregard all of the scientists who say otherwise? Or would you tell me to alter my interpretation of the Bible?

I would site prov. 3:5. Trust not in your own understanding but rely on the Lord. In other words your last sentence.[/quote:10438]

So you would, in this case, tell me to alter my interpretation. Why? Why should I alter my interpretation in that case, but you should keep your Creationist interpretation of the Bible and alter the scientific findings? Unless God came down personally and told you that evolution was bunk, you're still just relying on your own interpretation of the Bible. You can say that you simply looked in your heart and saw the fallacy of evolution, but I could say the same of Creationism.

 

[thessalonian]

As I said, I know how evolution works. Once again i am being silly about the ameba. Yes, I understand dominance in gentics. But if the lizard accidently develops a useful feature that is not dominant gentically then you have to go back to the waiting until another such lizard comes along and happens to like him with his feathers. Hopefully they are brightly colored feathers and dominant. :-D I guess male birds do have brightly colored feathers. What a coincidence.


I see no reason to altar and interpretation that embraces creationism. God created the earth and it's plants and animals. There is nothing in the scientific evidence that causes me any sort of alarm in that regard. Personally I am not a seven dayer but a creationist. I do take literary type in to account. Yet I do not have a problem with a seven dayer because an all powerful God could make creation look exactly as it does. I've looked at the scientific evidence. I have a geology degree. The case for macroevolution is incredibly weak. My opinion is not just for religous reasons by any means.


Blessings

 

[ArtGuy]

As I said, I know how evolution works. Once again i am being silly about the ameba. Yes, I understand dominance in gentics. But if the lizard accidently develops a useful feature that is not dominant gentically then you have to go back to the waiting until another such lizard comes along and happens to like him with his feathers. Hopefully they are brightly colored feathers and dominant. :-D I guess male birds do have brightly colored feathers. What a coincidence.


I see no reason to altar and interpretation that embraces creationism. God created the earth and it's plants and animals. There is nothing in the scientific evidence that causes me any sort of alarm in that regard. Personally I am not a seven dayer but a creationist. I do take literary type in to account. Yet I do not have a problem with a seven dayer because an all powerful God could make creation look exactly as it does. I've looked at the scientific evidence. I have a geology degree. The case for macroevolution is incredibly weak. My opinion is not just for religous reasons by any means.


Blessings

Fair enough. I would disagree that the case for macroevolution is weak, and I held this opinion even when I was a Creationist. I appreciate that you've done your homework, and it's nice to find a Creationist who doesn't try to claim that evolutionists are saying that Bongo the chimp gave birth to a fully-formed human. *glances at certain individuals on the forums*

Given that I've still never, never met someone who opposed evoluton and wasn't devoutly religious, I'm skeptical that you've really separated religion from science as well as you might think. I'm not saying you're being dishonest, or anything - I respect your position, as much as I disagree with it. It's just that it's hard to be really objective on matters where faith is concerned. To be honest, if I believed that Genesis was to be taken literally, I would be less likely to endorse evolution, even in spite of the great body of evidence that supports it. You don't argue with God if you expect to win.

May I ask if you think that Genesis necessarily argues against evolution, or if you simply think it's mute on the matter?

 

[thessalonian]

It's just that it's hard to be really objective on matters where faith is concerned.

Is one being objective if he discounts God, i.e. faith? If God is a part of the equation, God is infinite and all powerful and therefore beyond our capacity as humans and real, can one who does not believe in him be objective? I think this objectivity that your talking about is a two way street. Objectivity has to include God as a possible solution to the problem that clearly is not solved yet by any means, yet much of science has thrown it out as a possible solution to the problem. Evolution without God is one theory and clearly in my view no more than that. Evolution with a God is another theory. Once again there is a lack of evidence that provides a satisfactorially certain conclusion. There of course are various forms of creatoin such as mine and the 7 day theory. Of course then we could all be wrong as another possible solution. It seems that science and government throw out God as an invalid consideration and therefore objectivity is truly lost. In my opinion, which I am hardly expecting will convince anyone of anything I think I am more objective because of my belief in God. I am not frieghtened by considering the possibility that he does not exist and have at times in my life, though have not come close to embracing it, per preponerance of evidence. The other side however seems to have difficulty putting him in to the equation and allowing me to do so without questining my objectivity. :-? If I believe in God I must not be objective. Not pointing the finger at you here. It's just a general statement.

 

[thessalonian]

This I will handle separately.

May I ask if you think that Genesis necessarily argues against evolution, or if you simply think it's mute on the matter?

I can reconcile MACROevolution with genesis to be honest but I find it a strech. Evolution to me does not have to be aethistic. In all honesty though I do not believe we have figured out how God created life yet. We may not know on this side of the grave. I am still open to there being other solutions. Possibly within the seven day time frame. Maybe not.

 

[Klee shay]

Completely different comparision however.

The many different races still originated from the one family - the human variety, while a physical transformation from animal to human is a change on the molecular level.

What? No, that's completely wrong. The changes in both cases would have happened at the genetic level. The difference is solely one of magnitude, not one of type. In the race case, the DNA changes a little. In the evolutionary case, the DNA changes a lot.

You also seem to be supposing that an animal just suddenly changes into a human, or a lizard gives birth to a bird, or something, as opposed to the changes happening gradually over millions of years.

So we know that much about DNA to make the assessement above, proof beyond reasonable doubt?

We haven't unravelled the mystery of the DNA strand yet to claim any such leap in evolution. At what point do you know the DNA changes a lot in the evolutionary case?

We are talking about evolutionary "theory"...it's not scientific fact even though we like to portray it as such. There is always more theory than fact but as the dominant species, we can draw logical conclusions from fundament elements we do know about.

 

[reznwerks]

proof

[

So we know that much about DNA to make the assessement above, proof beyond reasonable doubt?
The short answer is yes. Whatever evidence there is , it is far more than making the claims of the alternative solution.

We haven't unravelled the mystery of the DNA strand yet to claim any such leap in evolution. At what point do you know the DNA changes a lot in the evolutionary case?
The fact that we do know it changes at all should be sufficient evidence.

We are talking about evolutionary "theory"...it's not scientific fact even though we like to portray it as such. There is always more theory than fact but as the dominant species, we can draw logical conclusions from fundament elements we do know about.
The term "evolutionary theory" is a worn out and misunderstood term. Evolution occurs and that is a fact. I have provided several instances where evolution has and is occurring during our lifetime and the nail in the coffin is the yearly evolution of the flu bug. What is not totally understood is the process on how and why it occurs. These are answers waiting to be answered not proof of a supernatural being with a plan.

 

[army_of_juan]

As I said, I know how evolution works. Once again i am being silly about the ameba. Yes, I understand dominance in gentics. But if the lizard accidently develops a useful feature that is not dominant gentically then you have to go back to the waiting until another such lizard comes along and happens to like him with his feathers.

If you actually understood how evolution worked, it clearly doesn't show in any of your post.

A single lizard didn't pop up with feathers one day. Feathers slowly evolved from scales that took thousands of generations to get to be full feathers. This happen to an entire population too, evolution doesn't deal with individuals so this "needed to find a mate" thing is irrelevant.

Hopefully they are brightly colored feathers and dominant. :-D I guess male birds do have brightly colored feathers. What a coincidence.

It's not a coincidence at all. Some birds probably started out pretty bland and if one had a mutation that caused it's color to be slightly different (and more attractive) then it would have more offspring and they would spread the color trait. Over a long enough time you would expect colorful birds like we have now.

I see no reason to altar and interpretation that embraces creationism. God created the earth and it's plants and animals. There is nothing in the scientific evidence that causes me any sort of alarm in that regard. Personally I am not a seven dayer but a creationist. I do take literary type in to account. Yet I do not have a problem with a seven dayer because an all powerful God could make creation look exactly as it does. I've looked at the scientific evidence. I have a geology degree. The case for macroevolution is incredibly weak. My opinion is not just for religous reasons by any means.


Blessings

There's no supporting evidence for creationism which is why the scientific community ignores it.

There really is no micro/macro evolution, it's just plain old evolution. Macro is just micro + time and we have much evidence for it. There is no imaginary barrier that separates micro and macro.

I'd like to re-enforce what was said earlier, only religious fundamentals have a problem with evolution. There is no scientific evidence that conflicts with it, only religious dogma.