Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution for Dummies and Christians
johndcal
Inactive Junior Member


Message 1 of 299 (9300)
05-07-2002 2:47 AM


It's just common sense:
1. The scientific community would not accept evolution unless it were soundly proved. As a theory, evolution (Darwin) is on par with plate tectonics and the Big Bang. If origins of species were not understood, science would say so, just as it does concerning black hole singularities, time before the Big Bang, and life on other planets. Science is not scheming against Christians.
2. Evolution has no baring on the existence of God, because He could easily have created a universe complex enough to allow evolution to proceed by natural law. The presence and manifestation of God in the universe are not nullified by evolution.
3. Almost everything is evolving according to natural law: from the expanding universe, to the death of stars, to the changing chemistry of the Earth's atmosphere. Is life the only thing that doesn't evolve by natural law -- requiring the continual "tinker toying" of God?
Evolution is a simple, elegant theory, supported by the vast majority of scientists, an extensive fossil record, genetics, geology, biology, microevolution (laboratory and natural), and of course, common sense.
John D. Callahan
Christian theistic evolutionist
http://www.faithreason.org/

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by compmage, posted 05-07-2002 8:31 AM johndcal has not replied
 Message 3 by ksc, posted 05-10-2002 1:05 AM johndcal has not replied
 Message 23 by Siguiendo la verdad, posted 06-06-2005 12:44 PM johndcal has not replied
 Message 24 by Siguiendo la verdad, posted 06-06-2005 1:00 PM johndcal has not replied
 Message 25 by Siguiendo la verdad, posted 06-06-2005 1:02 PM johndcal has not replied
 Message 33 by arachnophilia, posted 06-07-2005 7:11 PM johndcal has not replied
 Message 78 by Phat, posted 09-26-2005 11:52 AM johndcal has not replied
 Message 79 by thure, posted 09-27-2005 12:51 PM johndcal has not replied
 Message 103 by david12, posted 09-28-2005 1:58 AM johndcal has not replied
 Message 183 by Carico, posted 12-06-2005 6:05 PM johndcal has not replied

compmage
Member (Idle past 5143 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 2 of 299 (9307)
05-07-2002 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by johndcal
05-07-2002 2:47 AM


quote:
Originally posted by johndcal:

1. The scientific community would not accept evolution unless it were soundly proved. As a theory, evolution (Darwin) is on par with plate tectonics and the Big Bang. If origins of species were not understood, science would say so, just as it does concerning black hole singularities, time before the Big Bang, and life on other planets. Science is not scheming against Christians.

Just to keep our terminology correct. The ToE has not been proven, nothing in science has. It does, however, have an enormous amount of supporting evidence.
------------------
compmage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by johndcal, posted 05-07-2002 2:47 AM johndcal has not replied

ksc
Guest


Message 3 of 299 (9449)
05-10-2002 1:05 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by johndcal
05-07-2002 2:47 AM


Message deleted by ksc
[This message has been edited by ksc, 05-12-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by johndcal, posted 05-07-2002 2:47 AM johndcal has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by compmage, posted 05-10-2002 1:57 AM You replied
 Message 5 by Philip, posted 05-10-2002 2:15 AM You replied

  
compmage
Member (Idle past 5143 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 4 of 299 (9452)
05-10-2002 1:57 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by ksc
05-10-2002 1:05 AM


quote:
Originally posted by ksc:
One problem John D. Callahan. God says He created in six days and rested on the 7th. God says He formed Adam from the dust then Eve from Adams side. This certainly doesn't sound like evolution to me.

No, but it does sound like a second rate fiction novel.
What independently verified evidence do you have that 'god' said any of these things?
------------------
compmage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by ksc, posted 05-10-2002 1:05 AM ksc has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by ksc, posted 05-10-2002 12:36 PM compmage has not replied
 Message 67 by b b, posted 09-25-2005 7:14 AM compmage has not replied

Philip
Member (Idle past 4713 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 5 of 299 (9453)
05-10-2002 2:15 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by ksc
05-10-2002 1:05 AM


quote:
Originally posted by ksc:
One problem John D. Callahan. God says He created in six days and rested on the 7th.
God says He formed Adam from the dust then Eve from Adams side. This certainly doesn't sound like evolution to me.

--Indeed, Does not Callahan make both sides look bad? Denies the YEC, that even the Christ of the Bible explicitly refers to. Then denies the ToE with belief in ID.
The weakest creationist and the weakest evolutionist would state that every random/selected beneficial mutation (if there be such a thing) was 'miracle' induced! This is a complete scientific cop-out and a complete violation of Creationistic faith, which identifies with the ex-nihilo version by the ID, and not the mutational.
[This message has been edited by Philip, 05-10-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by ksc, posted 05-10-2002 1:05 AM ksc has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by ksc, posted 05-10-2002 12:30 PM Philip has not replied

ksc
Guest


Message 6 of 299 (9474)
05-10-2002 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Philip
05-10-2002 2:15 AM


Message deleted by ksc
[This message has been edited by ksc, 05-12-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Philip, posted 05-10-2002 2:15 AM Philip has not replied

  
ksc
Guest


Message 7 of 299 (9476)
05-10-2002 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by compmage
05-10-2002 1:57 AM


Mssage deleted by ksc
[This message has been edited by ksc, 05-12-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by compmage, posted 05-10-2002 1:57 AM compmage has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by joz, posted 05-10-2002 1:15 PM You replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 299 (9477)
05-10-2002 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by ksc
05-10-2002 12:36 PM


quote:
Originally posted by ksc:
You seem to forget that this "second rate novel", as you put it, has been a best seller for years
Yes but you have to remember that dame Barbara Cartlands books outsold the Sears and Sallinger Thermodynamics text I have. I would turn to the latter rather than the former for an idea about the way the physical world works though....
Ammount of copies sold is not any sort of validation of a work of fiction....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by ksc, posted 05-10-2002 12:36 PM ksc has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by ksc, posted 05-10-2002 2:23 PM joz has not replied

ksc
Guest


Message 9 of 299 (9483)
05-10-2002 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by joz
05-10-2002 1:15 PM


message deleted by ksc
[This message has been edited by ksc, 05-12-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by joz, posted 05-10-2002 1:15 PM joz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by joz, posted 05-10-2002 4:18 PM You replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 299 (9488)
05-10-2002 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by ksc
05-10-2002 2:23 PM


quote:
Originally posted by ksc:
I never claimed that the amount of copies sold is a validation of the work. (the contents do)
On the other hand, the sales records strongly indicate the Bible is not "second rate" as you and others would have us believe.

Actually the OT is a fairly interesting (if fanciful) read, its only the NT that drags on and is 2nd rate....
Also Dame Barbara Cartlands sales records also strongy indicate that her work is not second rate....
Problem is that that indication is misleading as her books are absolutely gash.....
I personally never said that the bible is second rate, theres some really good material in the OT, but it is fiction none the less and is not validified by any number of copies sold....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by ksc, posted 05-10-2002 2:23 PM ksc has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Percy, posted 05-10-2002 4:43 PM joz has not replied
 Message 12 by ksc, posted 05-11-2002 12:17 AM joz has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 11 of 299 (9490)
05-10-2002 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by joz
05-10-2002 4:18 PM


I personally own about 10 Bibles, but that says nothing about how I regard it. For me it is one of the foundations of western Christian culture, and that's why I believe familiarity with it is important. To not know the Bible is to not know where we came from culturally.
One of the original questions for Karl was how he knew that God had spoken the words attributed to him in Genesis, and he replied that it is history. But it is not history, for the very definition of historic periods, as opposed to prehistoric, is that written records were kept. Since Genesis wasn't written down until about the 6th century BC, the six days of Creation are a part of the prehistoric period.
Of course, that is just a picky, technical answer based upon using the proper definitions of words. Just because an event is prehistoric doesn't mean it didn't happen, but it *does* mean that the evidence cannot come from contemporary sources.
In the case of the events in chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis, indeed in much of Genesis, particularly Noah's flood, there is no evidence that the stories aren't mythic, and much evidence that they are scientifically not possible.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by joz, posted 05-10-2002 4:18 PM joz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by ksc, posted 05-11-2002 12:27 AM Percy has not replied

ksc
Guest


Message 12 of 299 (9496)
05-11-2002 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by joz
05-10-2002 4:18 PM


message deleted by ksc
[This message has been edited by ksc, 05-12-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by joz, posted 05-10-2002 4:18 PM joz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by joz, posted 05-11-2002 12:57 PM You have not replied

  
ksc
Guest


Message 13 of 299 (9497)
05-11-2002 12:27 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Percy
05-10-2002 4:43 PM


message deleted by ksc
[This message has been edited by ksc, 05-12-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Percy, posted 05-10-2002 4:43 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Joe Meert, posted 05-11-2002 1:32 AM You have not replied
 Message 15 by Percy, posted 05-11-2002 1:42 AM You replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5670 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 14 of 299 (9502)
05-11-2002 1:32 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by ksc
05-11-2002 12:27 AM


quote:
Considering Noah, The world wide flood was real. There are "geological scars" all over the world that demonstrate this historical event.
JM: Actually that is a false statement. There is no geological evidence, anywhere, that supports the notion of a global Noachian deluge. Creationists showed this 200 years ago.
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by ksc, posted 05-11-2002 12:27 AM ksc has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 15 of 299 (9503)
05-11-2002 1:42 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by ksc
05-11-2002 12:27 AM


ksc writes:

Everyone understand that miracles were performed to create the world. Adam was create from the dust, a miracle, Eve was created from his rib, another miracle. The creation fiat in itself was a miracle. That is not the argument. I can't prove nor disprove a miracle.
My interest in the debate stems primarily from concern about the Creationist threat to science education. If the above quote is an accurate statement of your position then it doesn't bother me at all. It is an honest and legitimate religious viewpoint on origins that is not a threat to science education, since not even the Kansas Board of Education would advocate teaching miracles as science.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by ksc, posted 05-11-2002 12:27 AM ksc has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by ksc, posted 05-11-2002 10:43 AM Percy has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024