How Do Christians Reconcile Evolution?

[Sola_Fide]

Are you guys starting to see how funny you sound when I read your posts?

Will you please do me the pleasure of refuting what I said so I can find out where I'm wrong?

 

[mosquitobite]

Will you please do me the pleasure of refuting what I said so I can find out where I'm wrong?

Yeah - same here.

Still haven't had any of these "experts" explain to me about the amino acids & chain reactions necessary for a simple blood clot? Without ONE of them - we are hemophiliacs. How did the species survive those millions of years prior to AAAAALLLL the necessary components "evolving"?

 

[hazek]

Will you please do me the pleasure of refuting what I said so I can find out where I'm wrong?

I already fixed your post. If you want to see what I fixed compare it to the original and to how it looks like in the quote. I bet if you give it a read you'll notice right away.

 

[Napolitanic Wars]

Dr. William Craig explains how evolution doesn't prove or disprove Christianity, although it is hard to scientifically take evolution seriously.

 

[otherone]

Dr. William Craig explains how evolution doesn't prove or disprove Christianity, although it is hard to scientifically take evolution seriously.

How does being a theologian give one "science cred"?

 

[Eagles' Wings]

Interesting discussion. You make me laugh and enjoy this topic. Peace to all!

Louise

 

[Sola_Fide]

I already fixed your post. If you want to see what I fixed compare it to the original and to how it looks like in the quote. I bet if you give it a read you'll notice right away.

What? "Invisible friend"? Well that is not a reply to the arguments in my post. God is immaterial, yes....so what? Since when is materiality a condition for existence? I can list off a bunch of things you, as an atheist, believe are immaterial but still exist, like laws, concepts, thoughts, etc. There are any number of immaterial realities.

1. and 2. are things that I'd like replies to.

 

[specsaregood]

Anything in between?

I'm fairly certain that an all powerful God can do whatever he wants. He could simultaneously make both evolution and creationism true.

 

[fisharmor]

Yes, by painting an example where for one event we know the odds are 0% and where for another event we know the odds are greater than 0% and pretending both events have similar odds. Good job.

We "know" that the odds of amino acids spontaneously assembling themselves in multiple meaningful ordered systems which interact and depend on each other has a greater than 0% probability?

You sound an awful lot like a Keynesian economist.

 

[hazek]

What? "Invisible friend"? Well that is not a reply to the arguments in my post. My imaginary friend is immaterial, yes....so what? Since when is materiality a condition for existence? I can list off a bunch of things you, as an atheist, believe are immaterial but still exist, like laws, concepts, thoughts, etc. There are any number of immaterial realities.

1. and 2. are things that I'd like replies to.

FYP and:

Laws don't exist, only the thought of laws does. Concepts don't exist, only the thought of concepts does. Thoughts exist as chemical processes in your brain. Scientists only believe something exists 100% sure when they can prove with empirical evidence the rest are merely hypothesis and theories about what may exist and is material. There is nothing I believe exists that is immaterial, nothing.

EDIT: Materiality is a condition for existence because that is what it means for something to exist in our shared reality. As soon as you claim something exists for both you and me, materiality is the condition, since how can something exist for you and me but I can't find any proof, or evidence or experience a consequence for it and only you can? Scientist always, always want to make theories that others can also verify through their own tests.

 

[hazek]

I'm fairly certain that an all powerful invisible friend can do whatever he wants. He could simultaneously make both evolution and creationism true.

FYP

 

[Eagles' Wings]

I'm fairly certain that an all powerful God can do whatever he wants. He could simultaneously make both evolution and creationism true.

+rep

As I told specs, this is so simply true.

 

[hazek]

We "know" that the odds of amino acids spontaneously assembling themselves in multiple meaningful ordered systems which interact and depend on each other has a greater than 0% probability?

Given that scientists were able to artificially start life by combining organic material, I'd say yes, we know the odds of amino acids spontaneously assembling themselves in multiple meaningful ordered systems which interact and depend on each other is greater than 0%. Btw this process probably took around 500.000.000 years through a number of "attempts" so big you can't even imagine how many "attempts" there probably were so even a probability of 0.0000000000000001% or even smaller than that would have been enough for life to emerge eventually.





The way I personally see all life is just some atoms and molecules spontenously reacting to each other in such a way that it caused a chain reaction which caused more chain reactions which caused more chain reactions which caused more chain reactions that managed to fuel each other perpetually. That is what I think life is, a long long long string of many many many chain reactions of certain kind of mater.

Think about it. Think about how many chemical processes happen in your body every second. Interrupt one of the more important ones and it all falls apart. Interrupt any of them for a longer period of time it all falls apart. When you eat you're adding fuel to these perpetual chemical chain reactions, when you breathe you're adding fuel to these perpetual chain reactions, when you drink you're adding fuel to these perpetual chain reactions, when you have sex your current chain reactions are starting new ones, when you grow your current chain reactions are starting new ones.

Have you seen this yet:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GigxU1UXZXo (This is the same video but with a narration of what is being shown.)

Do you even understand what it is that is your body?

You sound an awful lot like a Keynesian economist.

Of course when facts don't support your babel a nice little ad hominem is always helpful.

 

[jmdrake]

Given that scientists were unable to create an artificial cell since we all know that creation is impossible therefore the cell must have evolved from a bunch of chemicals on the lab floor and this lying scientist is just trying to take credit to confuse the masses.

FYP

 

[hazek]

Riiiight, obviously you got me good there since I claimed they created something... FAIL

 

[jmdrake]

Riiiight, obviously you got me good there since I claimed they created something... FAIL

The title of the video you posted is Scientist CREATE first synthetic cell. But that's irrelevant. Whatever you want to call it, it was done by intelligent design. Unless, of course, you think these scientists weren't intelligent. So the failure is all yours.

 

[Sola_Fide]

FYP and:
Laws don't exist, only the thought of laws does.

1. You just refuted yourself by using the law of identity.

2. Also you committed the fallacy of induction because you are making a universal statement based on your subjective experience (your brain). Since you do not have universal knowledge and experience, you cannot use it to make a universal statement of truth. Universal statements must be deductive.

Concepts don't exist, only the thought of concepts does.

Self-refuting. What you just stated is a concept.

Thoughts exist as chemical processes in your brain.

How do you know this?

And what is a chemical reaction and how did you come to know about it? By sensation?

How have you seen or heard a chemical reaction?


How do you know that you have a brain?

Scientists only believe something exists 100% sure when they can prove with empirical evidence the rest are merely hypothesis and theories about what may exist and is material. There is nothing I believe exists that is immaterial, nothing.

A confirmed hypothesis says nothing about the truth of the hypothesis. Correlation does not imply causation. This is the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

Do you think that because laws of logic are only in your brain, you can break them and still be rational?

That's an interesting concept (wait, how did I just understand your concept if concepts are only "thoughts" in your brain, Hazek? Did I just reach into your brain and feel one of your chemical reactions?) Man, your epistemology and your ontology doesn't make sense bro!

EDIT: Materiality is a condition for existence because that is what it means for something to exist in our shared reality.

1. That is a circular argument. "Our existence is only material because existence is defined by what is material."

2. What is "reality"? How did you come to know about it? Through sensation? If you only have your sensations to tell you what "reality" is, how can you ever test your sensations against the "reality"? By another one of your sensations? But all that shows is that all you have are your sense perceptions.

As soon as you claim something exists for both you and me, materiality is the condition, since how can something exist for you and me but I can't find any proof, or evidence or experience a consequence for it and only you can?

What is the proof that you and I do not exist in a purely non-material world?

 

[newbitech]

Having been a Christian my whole life, I have often wondered this same thing, like how can you logically deny the existence of dinosaurs and prehistoric man.

So I figured out that while the Bible is the tool God uses to instruct his flock, it was not meant to be interpreted literally.

Obviously God created man through an evolutionary process, every once in a while He through his Agents would come and do some genetic
modifications to the 'Man experiment'.

Lots of arguments can be made from this point about who started what and who made who, like it was the fallen angels or something that did it and thats why they got into so much doo doo.

A solid argument can be made that God and The Devil are working together to get a desirable outcome for both.
Like, how can a created creature understand why doing good is preferable over doing evil?
You can plain out tell them why or you can show them.

There is this expanding earth (edit: not universe but it's still a function of expansion) theory. The only problem is carbon dating, but I think even that is being called in to question.

So my preserved bones are going to expand as the universe stretches out "relative" to its infinite starting point. So in 6000 years, by 2 foot long humorous bone doubles with the stretching of the universe. The life force works against this stretching so that when something is "alive" our perception is still tied to the infinite.

There is more to it obviously and it's certainly not proven, any more than the big bang is proven, but it makes for interesting research.

(Edit: There is the time aspect as stretching out too, which I am not getting into but it's all relative etc..)

 

[jkr]

PROOVE IT.

this is science, right?

 

[newbitech]

PROOVE IT.

this is science, right?

or religion?

I think both have elements of the same. I am also sure that there is an intelligent source. I am sure overtime that things change. My proof? Look in the mirror and wait.