On Evolution...

Are you asking if it is fair for animals to be equal with humans? I mean, since besides some DNA developments there is really no difference? - I would tell you there is a difference that some scientists will always try to deny similar to the Atheist who insist on physical evidence of the existence of God. Science is a study of observation through the building of hypotheses which they then ask you to disprove and attempts to separate its logic from anything other than physical evidence.

I’m not a Young Earther but think you put way too much credit into scientific hypotheses of Darwinistic Evolution theories while neglecting the spiritual aspect of humanistic traits that, frankly, science will never find or explain through DNA and be able to record in the wisdom of man.

You look in the wrong place for what separates us from monkeys. But I won’t argue to support creation against someone who believes science disproves the Bible while in effect putting their faith into the wisdom of men to explain the existence of the human spirit which separates us and differs from monkeys. I would present our God given spirit guides/has guided the DNA form, from divine creation rather than scientific chance, that set apart our being.

You seem to want to make a mockery of creation while accusing others of making a mockery of your scientific endeavor. Therefore, you win. I believe I came from God, and you believe you came from a monkey, and you’ve convinced me that you may be right.

- that you believe you came from a monkey.

 

You are confusing 2 entirely different concepts. Creation and "creationISM"

I have no issue with anyone who believes in a deity. I have no desire to convert anyone to atheism.
I'm simply addressing BAD SCIENCE.
Its one thing to claim you believe in a deity. Its quite another to make a claim that the planet is 6000 years old and that there is scientific evidence to support such a claim.

All i'm doing here is setting the SCIENCE straight..
Now if presenting scientific facts alters ones faith, then maybe that faith wasn't all that strong to begin with..?

 

To me it becomes "BAD SCIENCE" the instance it tries to overlook and/or deny divine creation. As with Young Earth Creationists I put faith in that the Bible trumps the science whenever the issue relates to the logical conclusion whenever it fails to factor in the divine aspects as evidence of the mportance of a greater truth to be maintained. How you get there is another story but you cannot discount or challenge the strength of one's faith while prioritizing science as what should be the leading factor, such a premise fails to maintain true faith from the start.

 

If that's the case, then you are NOT conducting "science" are you..?
If you say to me, "I believe the earth is 6000 years old because my Bible says so", i will rarely even address it.

But if you say to me, "i believe the earth is 6000 years old because SCIENCE shows it is"..?
Then you're going to get an earful.. lol

Science as a rule does NOT base its findings on your interpretation of your religious texts. It uses EVIDENCE ONLY.

Now, if you wish to believe that your religious texts are more reliable that tested evidence..?
Well that's certainly your prerogative..
Just don't expect that belief to hold any weight in a scientific discussion..

 

That's my point. My religion does hold weight, an important weight which is a priority to hold, in scientific discussion which is built of man made hypotheses compared to spiritual understanding and enlightenment.

It is one thing to argue logically how creation and evolution can both be true and quite another if prioritizing science as the basis of truth over the Bible when forming and weighing one’s conclusions.

 

Your religion may "hold weight" to YOU, but as a rule it can NOT in a scientific discussion.
As soon as you invoke a miracle from a deity, you have removed any possibility for science to test your claims validity.
Once you've gone down that road, you've left the realm of science and entered the domain of philosophy.

 

Do you realize that science falls under the greater umbrella of philosophy?

 

In a sense, sure.
But science has to be testable or its completely useless.
For example, lets say that i make a claim that God visited me last night, and told me that the universe and everything in it is only one week old. And the only reason it looks older is because he made it look that way.. And the only reason we all have memories past one week's time is because he artificially planted them in our minds.. But in reality, we've only really been here one week..
Now, how would one test that for confirmation..?

 

Not in a sense. Historically. Philosophy birthed science under its umbrella. Without philosophy you have a meaningless inductive method of observation.

 

History Lesson: Early 1600’s

The traditional common-sense interpretation: The Earth is the center of the universe

The Charge against Galileo: “You have rendered yourself vehemently suspect of heresy, namely of having held and believed a doctrine which is false and contrary to the Sacred and Divine Scriptures, that the Sun is the centre of the world and does not move from east to west, and that the Earth moves and is not the centre of the world; and that one may hold and defend as probable an opinion after it has been declared and defined contrary to Holy Scripture.” (From church documents of Galileo’s trial, Wednesday June 22, 1633)

What was the fuss back then?

1) Common Sense: It seemed proper that the Earth was the center of the world, humans were in a central place in God’s plan.

2) Biblical Inerrancy: If the Earth moved, a whole set of biblical passages would need to be reinterpreted.

3) Christian Philosophy: Thomas Aquinas’ contribution to theology was based upon Aristotle’s philosophical foundation (logic, metaphysics, mathematics, physics, biology). If Aristotle was wrong this would affect his achievements in Christian apologetics.​

• Did science or scientific discoveries change how the bible was interpreted?
• Did changing interpretations effect Biblical inerrancy?
• Was the Bible inerrant when people understood the Bible to say the Earth was the center of the universe?
• Was the Bible inerrant when it was believed that the earth moved and the Sun stood still?

Rob

 

Forgive me, but i'm not quite clear on what you are advocating for..?

 

I'm saying that science without philosophy is an empty observation. You made a comment about philosophy as though it was less than science when in fact philosophy is greater than science and defines the purpose and value of science.

 

You brought up logic to support your science led belief and this (logic) is inseparable from philosophy which is the “science” of drawing out the truth in a discussion through logic.

Perhaps your mission is to come on to a Christian board and pit your science against the faith of believers? If so, I believe your argument is the weaker logic for if it were of faith your mission’s focus would be to explain how some form of evolution and creation can both be true. My evidence is that you would want to build up faith rather than question its roots and tear it down and there are Bible believing guidelines for coming to such conclusions. I don’t see that as your goal, I’m perceiving weakness in your arguments for supporting Biblical truths and I simply don’t value your earthly knowledge near as much as you do. I have a greater truth to uphold as a priority and knowing God is not the author of confusion, I prayerfully look to reconcile any “earthly evidence (logic) of scientist” with the truth of God’s letter (logic) given to us.

There is much more logic to support creation than ANY CHANCE of evolution apart from creationism EVER developing into mankind as per the scientific hypotheses you seem to prefer to base your truths on.

 

Forget "logic" for a moment.. Stick purely to evidence.
What evidence do you have for creation..? Of course, you'd first have to lay out for us in detail what YOUR creation scenario even is (since it varies from individual to individual).

 

We also share 90+ percent with earthworms, so do not think that is really a good arguement to make for evolution!

 

The problem is that he accepts the lies of evolution over the inspired and infallible word of God!

 

How did life originate per evolutionists?

 

The current position from a scientific standpoint would be the process of abiogenesis.
Its essentially a process based in the science of organic chemistry. The basic premise is that organic chemicals bonded together on the primordial earth. After bonding, the existing energy in the environment induced the bonds to replicate into longer and longer molecules. Such molecules would later become encased in lipid spheres which are similar to cell walls which form in undersea thermal vents. Once the chain molecule was encased, it was protected and gave the molecule a safe place to grow until over time it developed into the first protocells.

 

Most Christians in the world do NOT consider it a "problem" to accept the reality of evolution nor do most think that evolution is a "lie".
It is only a minority subset of Christianity that takes issue with Evolution.

The Catholic Church for example came to grips with the reality of evolution years ago.
Once you free yourself from that minority interpretation of scripture, it allows one to accept evidence purely on its own merit, rather than trying to make all the evidence adhere to an incorrect interpretation.

 

Of course we share DNA with earthworms. Thats the entire point of common ancestry. That ALL LIFE is related.
The point is that we share more DNA with organisms like chimps, which we diverged from geologically speaking, rather recently.
If we didnt share DNA with earthworms, Evolution would be in serious trouble.