IF evolution is true,

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by jdcanady:
The most interesting thing I found was the quote at the beginning which basically said scientists defined "speciations" in many different ways, bascially according to what they were studying. Scientists cannot agree on a definition, and yet, we are to assume this (speciation events) is true, based on what the scientists say.

Yes that is true. The definition of what makes one "species" distinct from another "species" has been blurred by increased human understanding of genetics. This supports evolution because it shows commonalities between what we have historically classified as different species to the extent that common ancestry is difficult to deny.

Talk Origins : Claim CB801

Complaints about creationists not defining "kind" are unfair since evolutionists can't define "species" consistently.

Response:
Species are expected often to have fuzzy and imprecise boundaries because evolution is ongoing. Some species are in the process of forming; others are recently formed and still difficult to interpret. The complexities of biology add further complications. Many pairs of species remain distinct despite a small amount of hybridization between them. Some groups are asexual or frequently produce asexual strains, so how many species to split them into becomes problematical.

Creation, defining things as kinds that were created once and for all, implies that all species should be clearly demarcated and that there should be a clear and universal definition of kind or species. Since there is not, creationism, not evolutionary theory, has something to explain.


Different definitions of species serve different purposes. Species concepts are used both as taxonomic units, for identification and classification, and as theoretical concepts, for modeling and explaining. There is a great deal of overlap between the two purposes, but a definition that serves one is not necessarily the best for the other. Furthermore, there are practical considerations that call for different species criteria as well. Species definitions applied to fossils, for example, cannot be based on genetics or behavior because those traits do not fossilize.

Originally posted by jdcanady:
I did not see any article that claimed the DNA of a particular species had changed to form separate DNA and a separate species. Not in flys, or hybrid plants (sterile) or fish or anything else.

I'm not sure what you mean by "separate DNA" since my children will have different and separate DNA from myself. Could you clarify what your criteria is for "separate DNA"?

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by Gold Dragon:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by OldRegular:
The evolutionists talk about laws, but where did those laws originate? Did they evolve from nothing just like everything else?

As I quoted in an earlier post, scientific laws originate from scientific observation. Scientific laws do often "evolve" in that our descriptions of them change in light of new evidence.

Of course, the physical laws that govern the universe do not change. But our descriptions of them in the form of scientific laws do. </font>[/QUOTE]Where does the evolutionist say those physical laws originate.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by OldRegular:
Where does the evolutionist say those physical laws originate.

Which evolutionist?

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by OldRegular:
Where does the evolutionist say those physical laws originate.

I think you are asking me this question but I'm not too sure.

If you are, then my answer is obviously the God who created the universe, Elohim.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Gold Dragon:


But the reality is that evolution makes no statements about God, the Bible, Adam or Eve. To do so is beyond the scope of the theory. Just like trying to read Genesis like a science text is beyond its scope and intent.

That simply isn't true no matter who says it. Evolution "demands" a natural cause and denies a supernatural cause for everything that exists.

The theory's working premise is that the supernatural does not exist in a way that can effect the natural.

That is a statement on God, the Bible, etc. The statement is that they cannot be true because they record something and depend on things that are supernatural.

 

[Deacon]

Originally posted by OldRegular:
I repeat some thoughts by atheistic evolutionists on theistic evolution:

Nobel prize winning biologist Jacques Monod writes:

“Natural selection is the blindest most cruel way of evolving new species. .... I am surprised that a Christian would defend the idea that this is the process which God more or less set up in order to have evolution.”

Evolutionist A. J. Mattell is even more perceptive:

“Those liberal and neo-orthodox Christians who regard the creation stories as myths or allegories are undermining the rest of Scripture, for if there was no Adam there was no fall; and if there was no fall, there was no hell; and if there was no hell, there was no need of Jesus as Second Adam and Incarnate Savior, crucified and risen. As a result the whole biblical system of salvation collapses. .... Evolution thus becomes the most potent weapon for destroying the Christian faith.”

OldReg: the presumption as stated in the Opening Post was "IF evolution is true".

If evolution is true you would still call God blind and most cruel?
Would you turn down salvation through Jesus Christ because you couldn't reconsile how He created?

I WILL REPEAT MYSELF:
IF evolution is true:
the Scriptures would still be true, our way of interpreting it would change.

Rob

 

[OldRegular]

Deacon

The doctrine of evolution is that all that exists came, through time and chance, from nothing. Therefore, if evolution were true there would be no need for God.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

a) Evolution does not have doctrines. That is for religions.

b) Evolution does not deny that things other than natural can cause changes; for example, its perfectly reasonable to believe men can genetically alter a species.

c) Evolution does not deny God; it simply studies what God has done on a second hand basis through natural means.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by Scott J:
That simply isn't true no matter who says it. Evolution "demands" a natural cause and denies a supernatural cause for everything that exists.

Evolution cannot deny the supernatural. The entire field of science cannot deny the supernatural. The supernatural is beyond the scope of science which deals with the natural. Those who try to make science say something about the supernatural are abusing science.

Originally posted by Scott J:
The theory's working premise is that the supernatural does not exist in a way that can effect the natural.

I've never seen any definition of evolution from someone who supports evolution that requires this premise. Please cite a source.

 

[Deacon]

Originally posted by OldRegular:
Deacon

The doctrine of evolution is that all that exists came, through time and chance, from nothing. Therefore, if evolution were true there would be no need for God.

Given your definition NNE on the board would disagree with your conclusions...but I didn't believe that was the point of the opening post. Am I wrong???

The issues are not as black and white as you imply.
There are plenty of believers that accept the premise of evolution without denying the existence of God. Recognize them as legitimate brothers and learn how they reconcile their beliefs with the Scriptures, when you do, you will come a long way towards understanding Christian unity amidst diversity.

Rob

 

[Bro. James]

Christian unity amidst diversity: Jesus died as an atonement for sin; now let's beatify His mother and make her a co-redeemer.

The biggest problem I have with evolution is that it does not account for SIN and the fact that the world is permeated with SIN. SIN is why our minds are so befuddled when it comes to spiritual matters.

Evolution does not account for the revelation that God took the dirt, made a man, and breathed in him, making him a living soul.

The God of Creation is not a random God.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by Bro. James:
The biggest problem I have with evolution is that it does not account for SIN and the fact that the world is permeated with SIN. SIN is why our minds are so befuddled when it comes to spiritual matters.

Evolution does not say anything one way or another about sin. Sin is a theological concept. Evolution is a biological one.

Trying to make evolution say something about sin is beyond the scope of the theory.

Originally posted by Bro. James:
The God of Creation is not a random God.

Agreed. God is not a random God. But there is randomness in his creation. When you flip a coin, is God determining the outcome to have more heads than tails or is it random? Regardless, it is moot since evolution is not a random process.

PBS - Evolution FAQ

7. Is evolution a random process?

Evolution is not a random process. The genetic variation on which natural selection acts may occur randomly, but natural selection itself is not random at all. The survival and reproductive success of an individual is directly related to the ways its inherited traits function in the context of its local environment. Whether or not an individual survives and reproduces depends on whether it has genes that produce traits that are well adapted to its environment.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
a) Evolution does not have doctrines. That is for religions.

Yes it does... it simply doesn't call them doctrines.

b) Evolution does not deny that things other than natural can cause changes; for example, its perfectly reasonable to believe men can genetically alter a species.

And it is unreasonable to believe that a being as powerful as God could have created the natural order in a very short time period? It is unreasonable to look at scientific data and recognize that elements of design point to a designer as opposed to a natural process?

Evolutionists are adamently opposed to any other option being treated with critical respect. If they were as confident in the "truth" of evolution as they claim then they should have no objection whatsoever to critical review of the theory in classrooms or even the presentation of alternatives.... but they are totally opposed in a manner that aligns more with religious fanaticism than intellectual freedom/integrity/pursuit of truth.

c) Evolution does not deny God; it simply studies what God has done on a second hand basis through natural means.

Evolution doesn't deny God? Then why is its fundamental premise that everything must have a NATURAL CAUSE? BTW, that would include whatever "prime cause" it will allow to be theorized and suggested as scientific.

[ June 15, 2005, 05:22 PM: Message edited by: Scott J ]

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Gold Dragon:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
That simply isn't true no matter who says it. Evolution "demands" a natural cause and denies a supernatural cause for everything that exists.

Evolution cannot deny the supernatural. The entire field of science cannot deny the supernatural. The supernatural is beyond the scope of science which deals with the natural. Those who try to make science say something about the supernatural are abusing science.</font>[/QUOTE] When "science" has as its operating philosophy that everything must have a natural cause, it is making a statement about the supernatural. That is unavoidably apparent.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
The theory's working premise is that the supernatural does not exist in a way that can effect the natural.

I've never seen any definition of evolution from someone who supports evolution that requires this premise. Please cite a source. </font>[/QUOTE]Why are evolutionists opposed to creation science and ID being taught comparatively with evolution? Why are they opposed to teachers having the freedom to point out logical and scientific flaws in evolutionary theory?

Are you telling me that you have never seen an evolutionist protest when someone invokes the Creator to explain something? Are you telling me that evolutionists approach evidence open to the idea that the supernatural as evidenced by design and complexity was the source rather than a natural process? Are you telling me that evolutionists do not assume evolution by natural process in every study of any natural phenomenon?

You don't need a quote. All you have to do is witness the way they demand that the philosophical presumption of naturalism must govern all discovery and study in science.

 

[OldRegular]

There are some people on this forum who support evolution yet do not understand what evolution teaches. I have stated that evolution is an atheist philosophy, perhaps religion would be a better word since it takes blind faith to believe in evolution.

The atheist tells us that there is no God, that everything that exists is the result of time and chance. What does the evolutionist who is an atheist tell us about the existence of God or for that matter intelligent design as some evolutionists fall back on? The following is an excerpt from a debate between evolutionist William B. Provine and creationist Phillip E. Johnson at Stanford University, April 30, 1994 and proves that evolution is the religion of atheists. The full debate can be read at:

http://www.arn.org/docs/orpages/or161/161main.htm

"ON THE THEORY OF INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED ADAPTATIONS, THE INTELLIGENT DESIGNER CLEARLY IS VERY SHORT-SIGHTED INDEED. VIRTUALLY ALL OF HIS CREATIONS ARE EXTINCT. ALL THE SPECIES ON EARTH ARE GOING TO BE GONE IN ONE BILLION YEARS, AND THE SAD THING ABOUT THAT IS THAT LIFE HAS BEEN AROUND FOR THREE AND ONE-HALF BILLION YEARS ALREADY, SO IT'S ONLY GOT A RELATIVELY SHORT PERIOD OF TIME. PHIL AND I HAVE ALREADY LIVED MORE THAN HALF OF OUR LIVES. LIFE ON EARTH FACES THE SAME DISMAL PROSPECT.

WHEN YOU DIE, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE SURPRISED, BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO BE COMPLETELY DEAD. NOW IF FIND MYSELF AWARE AFTER I'M DEAD, I'M GOING TO BE REALLY SURPRISED! BUT AT LEAST I'M GOING TO GO TO HELL, WHERE I WON'T HAVE ALL OF THOSE GRINNING PREACHERS FROM SUNDAY MORNING LISTENING.

LET ME SUMMARIZE MY VIEWS ON WHAT MODERN EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY TELLS US LOUD AND CLEAR -- AND THESE ARE BASICALLY DARWIN'S VIEWS. THERE ARE NO GODS, NO PURPOSES, AND NO GOAL-DIRECTED FORCES OF ANY KIND. THERE IS NO LIFE AFTER DEATH. WHEN I DIE, I AM ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN THAT I AM GOING TO BE DEAD. THAT'S THE END OF ME. THERE IS NO ULTIMATE FOUNDATION FOR ETHICS, NO ULTIMATE MEANING IN LIFE, AND NO FREE WILL FOR HUMANS, EITHER. WHAT AN UNINTELLIGIBLE IDEA.

CHRISTIAN HUMANISM HAS A GREAT DEAL GOING FOR IT. IT'S WARM AND KINDLY IN MANY WAYS. THAT'S THE GOOD PART. THE BAD PART IS THAT YOU HAVE TO SUSPEND YOUR RATIONAL MIND. THAT PART IS REALLY NASTY. ATHEISTIC HUMANISM HAS THE ADVANTAGE OF FITTING NATURAL MINDS TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE WORLD, BUT THE DISADVANTAGE OF VERY LITTLE CULTURAL HERITAGE -- AND THAT'S A REAL PROBLEM.

SO THE QUESTION IS, CAN ATHEISTIC HUMANISM OFFER US VERY MUCH? SURE. IT CAN GIVE YOU INTELLECTUAL SATISFACTION. I'M A HECK OF A LOT MORE INTELLECTUALLY SATISFIED NOW THAT I DON'T HAVE TO CLING TO THE FAIRY TALE THAT I BELIEVED WHEN I WAS A KID. LIFE MAY HAVE NO ULTIMATE MEANING, BUT I SURE THINK IT CAN HAVE LOTS OF PROXIMATE MEANING. FREE WILL IS NOT HARD TO GIVE UP, BECAUSE IT'S A HORRIBLY DESTRUCTIVE IDEA TUR SOCIETY. FREE WILL IS WHAT WE USE AS AN EXCUSE TO TREAT PEOPLE LIKE PIECES OF CRAP WHEN THEY DO SOMETHING WRONG IN OUR SOCIETY. WE SAY TO THE PERSON, "YOU DID SOMETHING WRONG OUT OF YOUR FREE WILL, AND THEREFORE WE HAVE THE JUSTIFICATION FOR REVENGE ALL OVER YOUR BEHIND." WE PUT PEOPLE IN PRISON, TURNING THEM INTO LOUSIER INDIVIDUALS THAN THEY EVER WERE. THIS HORRIBLE SYSTEM IS BASED UPON THIS IDEA OF FREE WILL.

SINCE WE KNOW THAT WE ARE NOT GOING TO LIVE AFTER WE DIE, THERE IS NO REWARD FOR SUFFERING IN THIS WORLD. YOU LIVE AND YOU DIE. I'VE SEEN BUMPER STICKERS (VERY SEXIST ONES, ACTUALLY) THAT SAY "LIFE'S A BITCH, AND THEN YOU DIE." WELL, WHATEVER LIFE IS, YOU'RE GOING TO DIE. SO IF YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE THINGS BETTER FOR YOURSELF OR FOR THOSE YOU CARE ABOUT, YOU HAD BETTER BECOME AN ACTIVIST WHILE YOU'RE STILL ALIVE."

Additional information showing that evolution is an atheist philosophy is presented on the following site:

http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/cosmic_evolution/docs/fr_1/fr_1_site_summary.html

 

[Bro. James]

How can anyone look through a microscope or a telescope and come to the conclusion: there is no God? Only God can call them out of darkness--and He has. Atheism is curable--Jesus is the cure.

How do theistic-evolutionists understand Jesus being God--in the flesh? How does that sort of concept evolve? I seldom hear them refer to Jesus--the Lord, Saviour and Master of the universe.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by Bro. James:
How do theistic-evoltionists understand Jesus being God--in the flesh?

All Christian theistic evolutions believe that Jesus is God incarnate.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by Scott J:
And it is unreasonable to believe that a being as powerful as God could have created the natural order in a very short time period?

Is it unreasonable to believe that a being as powerful as God could make all of mankind sinless? Of course not. Just because God didn't choose to act a certain way, doesn't mean he is incapable of it.

Originally posted by Scott J:
Evolutionists are adamently opposed to any other option being treated with critical respect.

I will critically read and respect those who put the effort into presenting legitimate alternative theories. So far I'm half way through Behe's Darwin's Black Box which is the principle book describing Intelligent Design Theory.

The philosophy is nothing new to me since as a theistic evolutionist, I always implied a designer. The scientific ideas Behe uses to present it are new, complicated, and so far, unconvincing.

Originally posted by Scott J:
If they were as confident in the "truth" of evolution as they claim then they should have no objection whatsoever to critical review of the theory in classrooms or even the presentation of alternatives.... but they are totally opposed in a manner that aligns more with religious fanaticism than intellectual freedom/integrity/pursuit of truth.

As the husband of a high school science teacher, I know that it is difficult enough getting through the stuff that has been accepted for centuries in the scientific community without getting into all the latest pop-science that is out there.

Originally posted by Scott J:
Evolution doesn't deny God? Then why is its fundamental premise that everything must have a NATURAL CAUSE? BTW, that would include whatever "prime cause" it will allow to be theorized and suggested as scientific.

It isn't a fundamental premise of evolution that everything must have a natural cause. But the natural ones are the ones science is interested and capable of studying.

 

[OldRegular]

Paul aptly describes the so-called theistic evolutionists [I say so-called because theistic evolution is an oxymoron.] in his letter to Timothy:

2 Timothy 3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

 

[just-want-peace]

Originally posted by Scott J:
If they were as confident in the "truth" of evolution as they claim then they should have no objection whatsoever to critical review of the theory in classrooms or even the presentation of alternatives.... but they are totally opposed in a manner that aligns more with religious fanaticism than intellectual freedom/integrity/pursuit of truth.

Originally posted by Gold Dragon:
As the husband of a high school science teacher, I know that it is difficult enough getting through the stuff that has been accepted for centuries in the scientific community without getting into all the latest pop-science that is out there.

Nice stutter-step, but it doesn't address the question!

"--all the latest pop-science--" So you're saying that Genesis is simply "pop-science"?