Christian Evolutionists: How does that work? A Q&A session

Isn't it that chance of failure that makes it all the more glorious, though? I mean, if you drop 'em in by hand, you know for sure that they're going in. Where's the glory in that? Well, the germ theory of disease is still a theory, but you wash your hands when you use the bathroom, don't you? (I hope so.) Somehow I have a sense that you don't know what "theory" means. I prefer to use the term "model" - they're synonymous, but "model" is a lot less likely to be mistaken for "half-assed guess" by people like you with no familiarity to science.But actually, it is proven. To the same extent that the germ theory of disease is proven, or the kinetic theory of gases is proven.

Gloss it over and spin it however you like frog. A theory is UNPROOVEN. When it's prooven it's no longer a theory. No. Because God doesn't fail. I'm talking about God doing, you are talking about people doing. That right there is the main difference between you and me frog. I put my faith in God you put your faith in people. People always fall short of the glory....always. -ZThis message has been edited by Zachariah, 11-02-2004 12:10 AM

Z, crash is trying to teach you something. Have a listen, read carefully.Your understanding of the words "theory" and "proven" are not applicable here. Try substituting the words "model" and "has passed rigorus scrutiny and has no other explanations as of now".All major scientific explanations are "theories" (though some use of the word "law" still hangs around because of history). A theory in science is a very big deal. You know, like Einstein's theory of relativity. Big deals, well tested, no current competition as close to "proven" as something will ever get. Still subject to testing, possibly needing modification (but that's science for you).So in that arena the theory of evolution is rock solid, plenty "proven" (in the sense of tested) enough.That you don't understand the terms as used in science is an impediment to your learning. You may dismiss it as "spin" but if that is as much effort as you're going to put into learning then you will be dismissed casually too. Well, this just isn't true. Period!Einstein's special theory of relativity has been shown to be spot on accurate. Time really does dilate, mass really does increase with speed. But it is still a theory. If it hadn't been so accurate it wouldn't have been elevated to the exalted status of a theory. It would have remained as speculation, conjecture or hypothosis.That sentence of yours only show that you do, indeed, have much to learn.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 11-02-2004 12:35 AM

Says who? You? Did you think to look in a dictionary? I guess not.There's no "glossing over", and there's no "spin." Theories are theories because that word means "the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another", according to Mirriam-Webster (Dictionary by Merriam-Webster: America's most-trusted online dictionary). Theories are made of facts. Theories do not become facts, which is why the germ theory of disease is still a theory, even though you wash your hands after you use the bathroom.I don't want to hear that I'm "spinning" from the guy who didn't even open a dictionary before talking about what words mean, ok? So, if God has no chance of failure, how can anything he does be considered glorious? What possible success can God claim if success is guaranteed in his every endeavor? Once again, you've robbed God of glory. Good job.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 11-02-2004 12:53 AM

if you think plants animals people you haven't read genesis 2. here. i'll construct it for you2:7 god makes man
2:9 god makes plants
2:19 god makes animalsread it again, for the first time.

(you still ahven't read post 174 have you)
The glory doesn't happen because God can or can't fail. (Listen close here), we are the items which fail, His creation, and when WE do what He asks of us and study and try to be close to Him. When we try to fight the fight against those who don't believe and help others to understand Him against the pressure of the "world views" that glorifies Him. It has NOTHING to do with God. It has to do with US. And when we take UNPROVEN THEORIES and attempt to make them fact, and those theories help to undermine Gods will then they are WRONG - period! You guys (you and Ned) can't talk all you like about allllll the proof that attempts to show evolution to be fact but the true fact is, it's allllll speculation. That is all. There is NO proof and that is the only FACT there is or ever will be when it comes to evolution. Good enough? -zThis message has been edited by Zachariah, 11-02-2004 06:43 AMThis message has been edited by Zachariah, 11-02-2004 06:43 AM

OK - let's try and take this at a real simple level.If I ask you what "mobility" is - what would your answer be?(this is not a trick question and admins - I'll show how it is relevent)BTW it's "unproven" not "unproOven"This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 11-02-2004 06:34 AM

When you read about man being created in Gen 2:7 what do you think the "-" means after the word "ground". It means we are going to skip over to a side topic for a moment. It is like saying "since we are talking about ground, man was formed from the dust of the ground". I don't believe that because they refer to man before they refer to the plants and animals that they are saying they were created in different orders in 2 verses 1. The plants have to be before man or it is not going to be habitable for man or beast. I think that we focus too much on the word order in this case then on the actual grammar and tense of the wording. We don't write as correctly as they used to and we can blame that on the educational system. None-the-less that doesn't excuse us from getting it corrector attempting to. If you feel this is a stretch then when it is speaking about the plants and animals the word "had" as in "had planted a garden" and "had formed out of the ground the beasts of the field" means they have already been created. Before man. No change. When we think we have found a contradiction in the bible it may be time to go back and read it again carefully. Check out what I said and see if it makes sense to you. -Z

I would say the mobility is the ability to have a wide range of motion.

Right - ok - that's seems a perfectly valid description of mobility. however I work in the information sciences and the term "mobility" related to the the ability to access information across various time/space contexts.You can see at this stage, that a word can have two (equally valid) meaning and that, depending on our place in the community, (academic, man on the street etc) that people's understanding of a term or concept is different. So if you ask an information scientist what mobility is, you will get my answer, you ask the man on the street and you will get your answer.You with me so far?This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 11-02-2004 06:45 AM

continue

Your argument doesn't make an awful lot of sense - why skip to a future event as a "side topic" ? And it looks as if oyu are relying on a single translation - the NIV. Have a look at the NASB's version og Genesis 2:6-8:

quote:

---

6 But there went up a mist (fog, vapor) from the land and watered the whole surface of the ground--
7 Then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath or spirit of life, and man became a living being.
8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

---

Right - let's move on to the term "theory" - we are NOT discussing the theory of evolution or the theory of germs, we are just discussing the term Itself.If we ask the man on the street what a theory is, he will say that it is an idea or a concept - something that has not been proven. When people make guesses they say "well I have a theory what happened".However in the sciences - the term theory has a very particular meaning which differs from this. I repeat at this stage, we are not talking about evolution, you can believe or disbelive in that as you want, but it has no relevence to a discuss of terminology.Now check this page out:Scientific Theory, Law, and Hypothesis Explained | Wilstar.com

If you want a more detailed outline of how scientists use the term theory:Theory - Wikipedia

I don't see any change here. It is not saying that God made man then planted a garden then put man there. After Eden there is an [;] that means a seperate idea in the sentence does it not? If there was a (,) after Eden then it would be saying that "The garden was made and at that time I put man there" The useage of the ; tells me that He says "I made a garden for man and when man was created I put him there."He (Moses) was able to "skip to a future event" but still keep the same information there and in his same meaning because he had already written Gen1 this is going back over something he had previously said. Again, we can't forget that Moses was not so young when this was written. People that were not alive when he first spoke about Gen 1 were now needing to here what was said. This happens in Deuteronomy when Moses goes over the laws multiple times throughout the book. Alot of time had passed so he was restating previous events for the people. Just because the event of creation has to stories and they aren't written exactly the same doesn't mean they have diffent meanings or the events changed from one to the other. They are the same story one has more information than the other in some cases and vice-versa. -later. zThis message has been edited by Zachariah, 11-02-2004 07:34 AM