quote:Evolution in and of itself is very anti "christian". The bible clearly states that "GOD" created the heavens and the Earth. Evolution states that "nothing" exploded billions and billions of years ago. That is what ultimately created the heavens and the earth. Evolution tends the completly take God of the equation. I don't see how anyone could expect a God fearing christian to believe "nothing" took the place of "God" creating the universe.
For someone that claims to be seeking the truth, you sure have a lot of falsehoods about evolution. Apparently, you also can't use the keyboard properly.
quote:How exactly am I related to a tree? The bible states God created plants first, then animals, then Man. Nowhere in there does it state we all came from some type of primordial good that miracously transmuted into trees, monkees and then man. If you ask me, evolution takes a whole lot more faith to believe in than the bible.
At this point, I would like to ask for your credentials in biological science. After all, in order to claim that evolution takes a lot of faith, you must have studied it rigorously, correct? Coiuld you give us an insight into your years of hardwork in biological research programs?
quote:I have just one question to this statement. Where is the proof? If evolution and science is all about proof, where is it? There is nothing you or anyone can produce showing a genetic link between a man and a tree. There is nothing out there proving we all came from "nothing". If we are going to expect our children to believe in this there should at the very least be some type of proof to back it up.
For someone that claims a lot of non-facts, you sure have a lot of strawman arguments to make.
quote:Seriously? Do I really need to say anything?
quote:lol... like that matters, you all try to hide behind empty credentials and self absorbed titles. They mean nothing. Trying to tear down a person does not prove your point.. stay on topic please.
Nobody is trying to tear anyone down. It just that I have to question your background in this stuff because what you have said so far have been so off the wall I don't even know where to begin. You said in a later post that we like to use the word strawman a lot. Well, that's true. But it doesn't negate the fact that so far I have not seen anything from you but strawman.
If you're going to criticize something, at least get to know it a little before criticizing it. Otherwise, you're just demonstrating the typical Christian attitude, and I say this as a faithful believer in Christ.
A few months ago, I read an article that reported on a survey on people's perception of Christianity nowadays. A significant portion of people out there have the impression that Christianity walks hand-in-hand with ignorance, arrogance, and hypocrisy. I don't blame them for thinking that way. So many people nowadays who claim to believe in Christ also exhibit all of those traits.
quote:If you read the article, which I believe you did, then your conclusion that 40% believe that naturalistic evolution resulted in life's diversity is dishonest.
Percy didn't say 40% believe in naturalistic evolution from your article. He said, and I quote
quote:Your study said that 55% "hold a naturalistic and atheistic position on the origins of man", while 40% are theistic evolutionists. That means that 95% of scientists accept evolution as the explanation for life's diversity.
Percy didn't say 95% of scientists believe in naturalistic evolution. Theistic or not, evolution is evolution. That's from your own article.
Re: God "guided" evolution is accepted scientific theory?
quote:Are you making this comment based upon a religious perspective, or a scientific perspective?
quote:It seems that people keep telling me there is no place for God in science. They say there is no place for the supernatural in scientific theories, laboratories, or classrooms.
Yes and no. Science is a natural tool whose only purpose is to investigate the natural processes. It cannot say one way or the other if there is a supernatural force behind the natural process under investigation.
This is why many people would object to introducing a supernatural element into the laboratory. Science is unable to probe the supernatural element at all and thus nothing is achieved from inserting the supernatural into the laboratory.
For example, when chemists first discovered the organic compound benzene, they couldn't figure out why the damn thing had 6 carbons and 6 hydrogens. Physical properties of carbon did not allow a molecule that has 6 carbons and 6 hydrogens to remain stable for long! This was a stumbling block for chemists at the time and it seemed to some people that the whole field of chemistry was about to be overturned. This was a very good time for some people to have pronounce that the reason benzene only had 6 carbons and 6 hydrogens was because of supernatural causes. And I'm sure some people did accept that it was God that allowed benzene to exist in a stable form.
People eventually figured out that this was an aromatic compound. Progress was made not because we decided to insert a supernatural element. Progress was made because we decided to not give up with our natural explanations!.
Personally, I believe in Christ. Does this mean that I absolutely have to attribute everything to "god-did-it"? Of course not. For all I know, God created the process of evolution and chemical properties for us (his children) to ponder about and figure out everything ourselves. God obviously created this vast universe with vast amounts of information for us to figure out. I believe that the moment we stop exploring possibilities (scientifically) and decide to use the "god-did-it" explanation is the moment we stop celebrating God's creation.
quote:Are you saying that there is a supernatural "God guided" evolution, and a natural evolution, and the two of these together make up the accepted theory of evolution?
No, I'm saying that faith in God and acceptance of a naturalistic evolutionary process doesn't have to be exclusive. My faith in God is strong enough that I don't need to delude myself that everything must have a supernatural cause in order for me to believe in God.
Evolution is inevitable whether you like it or not. We have a natural explanation for the whole process. The theory of evolution has made stunningly accurate predictions. Anti-biotics is produced straight from proposed mechanisms of evolution. All of this has absolutely no bearing on my belief in God. Again, my faith is not so weak that I need to delude myself to believe that God has to have a hand in everything and that anti-biotics was produced by miracles rather than hard working scientists.
Added by edit-
Kepler was reportedly to have comment that if God was as great as He is suppose to be then his creation must be even greater than we can possibly imagine. How, then, do we reconcile with our over-simplified version of creation and at the same time attribute it to the God who is suppose to be all powerful and all knowing? If you look closely, you will notice that creationism as a movement is based on ignorance. They have an over-simplified version of creation. God poofed everything into existence as-is with his magic wand in 6 days and that's that. What exactly can we get from this model of creation except more ignorance?
As a follower of Christ, I encourage you to take a step back and try to learn what you can the scientific progress that we've been able to make the last 150 years rather than continue to dwell on the over-simplified, ignorance based version of creation. The purpose of life isn't to remain ignorant. The purpose of life is to try to figure out God's works and wonders. Your choice, really.
quote:All it would take would be a little supernatural intervention.
Here is my problem with what you are proposing. I believe that God is the ultimate engineer. I believe that He is the ultimate clock maker. What you are proposing is that He is not the ultimate engineer and that he has to get involved and use His magic wand to correct some things every once in a while.
If God created the universe and all the laws of nature that govern the behavior of everything, and if He is the ultimate engineer of all these things, then everything that he created should be sufficient to explain everything that we observe.
On the other hand, if God has to get involved and use His supernatural powers to fix up some things or influence our lives, then He is not perfect.
This is the reason why Kepler pursued to come up with a better model for planetary motion. He reasoned that the church's model made God out to be too much of an impotent god because He had to constantly get involved in order to keep his creation going. Kepler believed that since God was the creator of all things and that what He created should be perfect then there should be some laws or behaviors that everything should follow and that no supernatural intervention should ever be needed.
Wumpini, your image of God is extremely limited. You imagine God to be this incompetent engineer that has to constantly jury rig His creation to keep things running. Do you not see how some of us might have a problem with your limited view of God?
quote:More likely it was because however bad this book is, it's writers weren't dumb enough to believe that dinosaurs and humans ever co-existed.
Have you considered that perhaps the author of whatever book that was only wanted to visually demonstrate the size of a dino compared to human? Authors do this all the time. They'd draw out something ilke an airplane and then a man next to it to show people how big the airplane is.
I know that creationists are nortorious for taking things out of context. Perhaps this is one instance?