Creation vs. Evolution

[IMJerusha]

Theory in science means something totally different. Gravity is only a theory, for example

That depends upon interpretation and use.

then you haven't looked.

One could say the same thing to atheists about God.

Gravity is a theory
Disease caused by microscopic organisms is a theory
Plate tectonics is a theory
relativity is a theory
Genetic inheritance is a theory

In order to understand this interpretation/use of the word "theory," it seems to me that one must first understand the meaning of the word "science." Wikipedia states is to be "a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe." In the instances of theory you have listed are tested explanations. This is not so with evolution. No one has witnessed or tested the evolution of "goo to you through the zoo," Tracer. It remains untested and I believe it always will because God's Word states otherwise.

 

[DavisBJ]

Actually, I can and Godly behavior requires I not add to the immense wrong already done.

What immense wrong is there is discussing a subject that has been already brought up in this thread before?

I have not witnessed any science (testable knowledge) in the proliferation of evolution. It is a theory, not a fact that has been proven.

If you understood the philosophy of science, you would know that theories are not things that are proven. In science, for an idea to be termed as a theory is a significant distinction only awarded to ideas that have been shown to be particularly successful at explaining a diverse set of observations, and at making predictions which were then verified. The meaning of “theory” in science is not nearly as casual as in common usage outside of science.

As for you not witnessing any testable knowledge relating to evolution, your ignorance does not bode well for your credibility in science. In my library I have multiple thousands of articles replete with data dealing with tests in the field of evolution.

Among believers there are numerous interpretations of Scripture regarding the Creation. TMPOV, believers should accept what is written plainly and look forward to the revelation of the details when our time on earth is done. We (believers) do have a tendency to want to argue the details but the truth is that none of us knows the whole of it.

Feel free to wait for some day when the ephemeral details of creation are made known, just don’t expect science to halt it’s studies in the meantime.

Again, I do not wish to add my voice in disrespect to Michael. Courtesy isn't a matter of faith so I'm hoping you'll start a thread for discussion of your question.

The discussion is already underway in this thread. Whether or not you choose to participate is up to you.

Not to be insulting as that is never my intention but the truth is that Scripture contains the answers you seek. I would consider it an honor to be used of God to help you find as many answers as He Wills you to receive. I will, of course, be submitting your queries and Scripture's answers to my husband for approval prior to posting. I hope you don't mind that.

Don’t mind at all. Include whatever ecclesiastical and scholarly help you want to enlist. I am interested in how you make the ordered killing of children into a Godly act.

 

[Kdall]

That depends upon interpretation and use.



One could say the same thing to atheists about God.



In order to understand this interpretation/use of the word "theory," it seems to me that one must first understand the meaning of the word "science." Wikipedia states is to be "a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe." In the instances of theory you have listed are tested explanations. This is not so with evolution. No one has witnessed or tested the evolution of "goo to you through the zoo," Tracer. It remains untested and I believe it always will because God's Word states otherwise.

So the only proof you'd accept would be to somehow compress 2.5 billion years of evolution into something observable in one lifetime?

 

[IMJerusha]

The evidence for evolution includes direct observation of it happening.

Really! Produce this observation of it happening! Pray, show me the living organism changing to a fish or a frog and that changing to homo habilis and then homo sapien.

But there is a huge and diverse body of evidence for it, including observed evolution,

Nnnnnnoooooo, I don't think so or God would have been dismissed and yet He is still with us and the scientific community is still grasping at straws.

...the nested hierarchy of taxa that only occurs in common descent, DNA data that can be tested on organisms of known descent, numerous transitionals in fossil records and in living taxa, and so on.

In order for something to be "nested" one must have the foundation. That foundation is sorely lacking and one can not nest in thin air as much as the scientific community would have us do that nowadays.

"Theory" is as strong as science can go.
When a hypothesis has enough evidence that doubt becomes unreasonable, it is considered a theory. Theories are stronger than scientific laws. Laws predict things. Theories predict and explain.
"Theory" in, informal use, has been degraded to something like "a guess." In science, it retains it's original meaning. Newton, for example, wrote that gravitation was his theory. He wrote that, intending to emphasize that it was demonstrated to be true.

Then gravity doesn't exist, eh? What is repeatedly testable with identical result is no longer a theory and Newton was correct to identify gravity as a theory in his time as science had not yet exceeded gravity. When we did, gravity exceeded theory and became as close to fact as science can get.

In fact, gravity is a weaker theory than evolution. We know why evolution works. We still aren't quite sure why gravity works.

I don't know who the "we" is that you are referring to as the scientific community is fairly certain they understand gravity or they have risked the lives of many willy nilly. Not that the scientific community isn't above that now but life was still cherished at the time we sent astronauts into space. Did you skip school and hang out at Tim Horton's with Robin Sparkles?

 

[alwight]

Yes, actually, I do expect a QED. Don't you require that of God in order to believe in Him? What's the difference between your expectations and mine? As long as there are conjectures about the details, there is room for doubt.

Why would I need proof since that would not require belief or faith? If I were reasonably persuaded of any god then that would do, but I'm not.

Really? Weren't you raised in the faith? I seem to recall you telling me you were.

I went to Christian faith schools, which probably put me off if anything. I discovered that I could be thrown out of Religious/Christian knowledge classes without any consequences, so I went to the library instead and learnt something more useful instead.

You know as well as I do that God doesn't call for a supernatural faith, just the faith of a child is sufficient.

I don't think that God calls for anything.

There is only one Darwinian evolution but many religious beliefs to "choose" from. You can have both of course

.Ah, so it is a choice. Speak out of only one side of your mouth and you won't have these issues with confliction.

Sorry no gotcha, I put quotes around "choose", figure of speech only, nice try though.

And yet this is God's desire, that you simply choose this day.

I don't believe that God desires anything.

You're confused. It's not faith which leads one up the garden path but rather sin. In the Faith there will always be the challenge of sin to deal with. How can one grow in faith otherwise?

I don't feel particularly confused or see any need to grow faith.

 

[IMJerusha]

What immense wrong is there is discussing a subject that has been already brought up in this thread before?

Beyond courtesy, it has to do with TOL rules which I don't go around breaking right and left. It's no longer a theory that you will find yourself booted from these forums for unnecessary disruption of a thread. It has been tested and proven.

If you understood the philosophy of science, you would know that theories are not things that are proven. In science, for an idea to be termed as a theory is a significant distinction only awarded to ideas that have been shown to be particularly successful at explaining a diverse set of observations, and at making predictions which were then verified. The meaning of “theory” in science is not nearly as casual as in common usage outside of science.

I do understand the evolution of science in that it has changed the definition of the word "theory" to accommodate its bent on disproving God. Sadly, it's one aspect of evolution that can be proven as there was a time when most in the scientific community believed in Him.

As for you not witnessing any testable knowledge relating to evolution, your ignorance does not bode well for your credibility in science.

Well, I'm happy for you to produce what the scientific community has not as yet.

In my library I have multiple thousands of articles replete with data dealing with tests in the field of evolution.

And yet no announcement of conclusive evidence? How sad...or should I say, predictable.

Feel free to wait for some day when the ephemeral details of creation are made known, just don’t expect science to halt it’s studies in the meantime.

Seriously, some day comes for us all, Davis, and it's not ephemeral. When yer dead, yer dead. I want what comes after that and courtesy of Yeshua, I have that.

The discussion is already underway in this thread. Whether or not you choose to participate is up to you.

Don’t mind at all. Include whatever ecclesiastical and scholarly help you want to enlist. I am interested in how you make the ordered killing of children into a Godly act.

Ah, so neither TOL rules or courtesy mean much to you. Very well. It has nothing to do with ecclesiastical or scholarly help but rather with God's Headship but if you insist on discussing it here in defiance of TOL rules there will be no discussion at all on my part.

 

[DavisBJ]

… No one has witnessed or tested the evolution of "goo to you through the zoo," …

Agreed, nor will anyone ever witness most of the actual steps that happened in the emergence of man from what you choose to call “goo”. That is not because it didn’t happen, but simply that the process occurred long ago when (obviously) there was no person to do the witnessing. But that says nothing about not being able to study and learn the processes by which it likely happened, and see if ancient conditions on earth were conducive to those processes.

But equally important, even if how man came about is excluded, the Theory of Evolution is still a valid and productive field of study. You may be aware that even Charles Darwin, in his original book (Origin of Species) on evolution, did not discuss the origin of man (he published a separate volume on that later). A large number of the studies in evolution deal with how various animal species came to be, and do not depend on whether or not man evolved in a similar way (though in fact there is strong evidence man is just one more evolved species).

In science evolution is widely accepted, it is those who feel their religious dogma being threatened that stoop to the use of silly “goo to zoo to you” type soundbytes.

 

[DavisBJ]

Pray, show me the living organism changing to a fish or a frog and that changing to homo habilis and then homo sapien.

I see that for you, the proof of the theory of evolution must be seeing one animal evolve into some dramatically different animal. I had hoped the discussion would be on a more honest level than this. A core tenet of evolution is that changes are small, and usually take a long time to embed themselves in a population. But you want it to all happen here and now. If I were equally disdainful of Christianity, I would simply demand that you chop someone’s arms or legs off, and then turn right around and use God’s healing power to restore them to full health in front of me, else I would not believe. But in fact, though I am not a believer, yet I choose not to employ such cheap theatrics to justify my unbelief. Sorry you don’t actually abide by the standards of conduct you espouse.

 

[Jose Fly]

Soooooooo funny watching people trying to explain science to a person who has a definite vested interest in staying ignorant of it.

 

[6days]

In science evolution is widely accepted, it is those who feel their religious dogma being threatened that stoop to the use of silly “goo to zoo to you” type soundbytes.

Perhaps you would agree that there is just as much (I think more) religious dogma from atheists and evolutionists here in TOL?

Speaking of zoo.....
Evolutionists have a pretty horrible past of killing aborigines to stuff their bodies and put in museum displays.... and even putting one black man in the "monkey" cage as evidence of evolution.

https://answersingenesis.org/charles-darwin/racism/ota-benga/

 

[Jose Fly]

Speaking of zoo.....
Evolutionists have a pretty horrible past of killing aborigines to stuff their bodies and put in museum displays.... and even putting one black man in the "monkey" cage as evidence of evolution.

https://answersingenesis.org/charles-darwin/racism/ota-benga/

Again I have to ask what your point is with stuff like this? Should I be posting examples of horrible things done by Christians in the 1800's and early 1900's?

 

[DavisBJ]

I don't know who the "we" is that you are referring to as the scientific community is fairly certain they understand gravity or they have risked the lives of many willy nilly. Not that the scientific community isn't above that now but life was still cherished at the time we sent astronauts into space. Did you skip school and hang out at Tim Horton's with Robin Sparkles?

“I” was part of the “we” you are asking about. I see that your understanding of gravity is amateurish enough that you blabber about things you don’t understand. In simple terms, Newton, nearly 400 years ago, came up with his Law of Gravity, which still serves us well today. But that Law of Gravity is only a mathematical formulation of how to compute the gravitational force, and is crucial for the design of numerous things – aircraft, bridges, spaceships, buildings, chairs, etc. etc. It does not explain the “why” of gravity – how can the earth pull on the moon when they have no physical contact with each other? Newton himself was perplexed by how this “action at a distance” could be explained.

There are a lot of studies addressing this. Far, far above the level of the readership of these forums is a graduate-level textbook simply titled “Gravitation”, by Misner, Thorn, and Wheeler. It is a mathematically intensive treatment of Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity as it relates to gravity. Maybe Robin Sparkles can explain it to you.

 

[DavisBJ]

Beyond courtesy, it has to do with TOL rules which I don't go around breaking right and left. It's no longer a theory that you will find yourself booted from these forums for unnecessary disruption of a thread. It has been tested and proven.

If a thread is tightly focused on a subject, then I have no qualms with asking the participants to respect that focus. This thread, if you actually looked back over it, has covered numerous ideas apart from evolution or creation.

I do understand the evolution of science in that it has changed the definition of the word "theory" to accommodate its bent on disproving God.

I don’t intend to cater to your perceive persecution complex of science being dedicated to disproving God. You will have to deal with that infantile problem yourself.

Sadly, it's one aspect of evolution that can be proven as there was a time when most in the scientific community believed in Him.

That is not unique to evolution. A reasonable portion of the scientific community are faithful believers, though clearly there is a much lower percentage of believers in the world of science that in the public at large. Would you prefer that those scientists lie to themselves about what they have learned about how well the Bible comports with science?

Well, I'm happy for you to produce what the scientific community has not as yet.

If the scientific community has not as yet produced the any knowledge relating to evolution, then how come I have hundreds of issues of “Science” magazine, each with several detailed studies directly dealing with evolution? Go down to your local library and look for yourself.

And yet no announcement of conclusive evidence? How sad...or should I say, predictable.

Again you display your ignorance. Once again, “conclusive” means proof, and you do not prove theories. As we find more and more evidence that the theory correctly predicts things, our confidence increases that it is correct. Capiche?

Seriously, some day comes for us all, Davis, and it's not ephemeral. When yer dead, yer dead. I want what comes after that and courtesy of Yeshua, I have that.

What you have is a comforting belief that allows you to avoid what otherwise you would be faced with – you own mortality.

Ah, so neither TOL rules or courtesy mean much to you. Very well.

If you are so consummately convinced that there is some egregious violation underway in the subject matter covered in this thread, I presume you know how to report it to the moderators.

.It has nothing to do with ecclesiastical or scholarly help but rather with God's Headship

Ok, Ok, I give you permission to have God edit your posts before you bring them here.

… if you insist on discussing it here in defiance of TOL rules there will be no discussion at all on my part.

Oh darn, after all that, and now you are bugging out? Well, at least you have given me a new reason to add to my list of why believers have abandoned a thread. Have a nice day. :wave:

 

[6days]

Again I have to ask what your point is with stuff like this? Should I be posting examples of horrible things done by Christians in the 1800's and early 1900's?

Sure... Post away! But try stay on topic.

I can think o0f one example for you. Some Christians compromised on what God's Word tells us about humanity, and bought into evolutionary ideas. This lead to racism and slavery. Fortunately other Christians did not buy the lie... and fought to end slavery and racism.

 

[TracerBullet]

are there any other references like that anywhere else in the Bible ? atrol:

Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him." Deuteronomy 13:13-19


"Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, "Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple." So they began by killing the seventy leaders. "Defile the Temple!" the LORD commanded. "Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!" So they went throughout the city and did as they were told." Ezekiel 9:5-7


Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children. Isaiah 13:15-18

 

[6days]

If the scientific community has not as yet produced the any knowledge relating to evolution, then how come I have hundreds of issues of “Science” magazine, each with several detailed studies directly dealing with evolution? Go down to your local library and look for yourself.

We have knowledge of mutation rates, genetic drift, sexual selection, adaptation, so called "junk DNA, so called 'vestigial organs, 'Psuedogenes' and more.
And then we have BELIEFS about our common Designer... or common ancestor.

 

[TracerBullet]

One could say the same thing to atheists about God.

we aren't talking about atheists. we are talking about evidence for scientific theories

In order to understand this interpretation/use of the word "theory," it seems to me that one must first understand the meaning of the word "science." Wikipedia states is to be "a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe." In the instances of theory you have listed are tested explanations.

I previously posted a link regarding just what a scientific theory is. you really need to go read it.

This is not so with evolution. No one has witnessed or tested the evolution of "goo to you through the zoo," Tracer. It remains untested and I believe it always will because God's Word states otherwise.

you are incorrect. Evolution is one of the most tested and explored theories in science. I'm sure you don't like the fact that it is so and I'm sure you don't like the results but pretending that evidence doesn't exist won't make it go away.

 

[DavisBJ]

Perhaps you would agree that there is just as much (I think more) religious dogma from atheists and evolutionists here in TOL?

No I don’t agree. There are a limited number of religious ideas that atheists disagree with, and those may get a lot of press, but there is a far broader spectrum of beliefs that are held by Christians that seldom come to the fore.

Speaking of zoo.....
Evolutionists have a pretty horrible past of killing aborigines to stuff their bodies and put in museum displays.... and even putting one black man in the "monkey" cage as evidence of evolution.

https://answersingenesis.org/charles-darwin/racism/ota-benga/

Is this really where you want to go with this discussion – “your history is uglier than my history”? Is the truth or falsity of Christianity dependent on how dirty or clean it is compared with other belief systems?

 

[6days]

I do understand the evolution of science in that it has changed the definition of the word "theory" to accommodate its bent on disproving God. Sadly, it's one aspect of evolution that can be proven as there was a time when most in the scientific community believed in Him.

True... Good post.

 

[6days]

Is this really where you want to go with this discussion – “your history is uglier than my history”? Is the truth or falsity of Christianity dependent on how dirty or clean it is compared with other belief systems?

Nope... not really. But when you mention goo to zoo... It made me think of desperate and sad measures some have gone to trying to prove their common ancestry beliefs... even putting a black man in the zoo.