How Do Christians Reconcile Evolution?

[onlyrp]

haha ya love the circular reasoning there. Basically you are saying that if a scientist does not accept macro evolution then it proves they are not a scientist. By this logic it is impossible for any scientist to disagree with macro evolution. Many things scientists once thought were true have been proved by further examination to be false. By your logic, this could never have happend. A scientist questions a scientific theory and he is invalidated because he questions it. Thats the opposite of science.

is there anything that would disqualify a scientist, historian, or doctor of his opinions?

 

[otherone]

Basically you are saying that

A swing and a miss. et suppositio nil ponit in esse. Just because you say:

This is due the the increasing realization by them that evolution is mathematically impossible

Does not make it so.

Science explores evidence as it is discovered. An interesting field that may one day explain accelerated evolution is epigenetics. No aliens, involved, I'm afraid.
I'm hopeful that someday science will enable us to harness the gas that comes from both ends of people, as it will eliminate our dependence on foreign energy.

 

[Gary4Liberty]

No, it absolutely matters what branch we are on, nice strawman though.
How much of evolution do you actually accept? Do you accept that all humans living today share a common ancestor?
Do you accept that all humans living today share a common ancestor with chimpanzees? If so, tell me why, if not, then let's not get ahead about what happened prior to that.

It doesn't matter for the purpose of this thread. I know that soup to man is problematic for you and thats why you would rather talk about variations of human beings where its much more blurry. If you simply answer the bigger questions it renders moot the smaller questions. There can be no doubt that natural selection is true but honestly, random mutations that develop into whole new systems and major structural systems is ridiculous. Especially considering how many millions of years it would mathematically need to take, now consider that if the enivironment is doing the selecting of these traits it would have to stay the same for millions of years. Environments change all the time, they dont stay the same long enough to select out any long progression of gradual mutations over millions of years. You live in a fantasy world due to years of brainwashing in public school. Macro evolution is ridiculous even without any other plausible theory of origin. In other words, just because there is no other plausible theory for origin does not lend any credibility and should not be a reason to cling to evolution. Its a fairy tale even bigger than any spaghetti monster or clergyman that you may check for under your bed every night/

 

[gunnysmith]

Im not advancing the idea of extra terrestrials designing living things or trying to explain their origin. Im only saying that Ive noticed that more and more people of the academia are proposing theories of extra terrestrials starting life at least human life on this planet. This is due the the increasing realization by them that evolution is mathematically impossible. These are not my thoughts only my observations.

I wasn't suggesting you were, the question was rhetorical.
The concept was that , life had to begin at some time and in some place, be it here or on another planet.
There is a circular aspect to it all, Our past lies just as far ahead of us as our future.
The closer we get to discovering our past origins, the more we will control our own future.

 

[Gary4Liberty]

Science explores evidence as it is discovered. (unless it disagrees with you, then they arent scientists) An interesting field that may one day explain accelerated evolution is epigenetics. No aliens, involved, I'm afraid. because you say so. if you believed that, you wouldnt conclude now that extra terrestrials are not involved. but you already know. Very unscientific. and you speak of hypocrisy. you should take your own advice. Its comical you should listen to yourself. haha

 

[lilymc]

You can't reconcile the belief that man evolved "up" from a lower life form with the belief that man was created perfect, fell as a result of sin, and needed Christ to die to redeem us to a higher state. That Catholicism accepts evolution simply shows it is out of step with the Bible. And no, contrary to popular belief it is not just a few "fringe American fundamentalist churches" teach that.

That said, as the OP pointed out the sticking point is macro-evolution. Micro-evolution isn't a problem at all.

Exactly. And just to add, I always kinda laugh when I hear people say things like, "Well, the Catholic church believes in this..." (or that.) As if that proves something, other than what you just said, and what many of us know about certain churches who seem to look to man more than they look to God.

 

[onlyrp]

It doesn't matter for the purpose of this thread. I know that soup to man is problematic for you and thats why you would rather talk about variations of human beings where its much more blurry.

It's problematic for anybody who doesn't know what he's talking about. I would rather first understand what it is you don't buy, don't understand, and explain to the best of my ability, but I can't and won't if you're not interested or already decided. Now, you can keep making strawman claims if you wish not to learn.

 

[TheViper]

Im not advancing the idea of extra terrestrials designing living things or trying to explain their origin. Im only saying that Ive noticed that more and more people of the academia are proposing theories of extra terrestrials starting life at least human life on this planet. This is due the the increasing realization by them that evolution is mathematically impossible. These are not my thoughts only my observations.

Actually, those few scientists considering extraterrestrial sources are doing so not because of mathematical impossibilities of abiogenesis but because of increases evidence of the likelihood of extraterrestrial life itself.

I believe the first sentence of the bible. Therefore, the rest is easy to swallow. If He created everything - why couldn't he do it again after the flood? Why couldn't He create a new species tomorrow?

Do you also know the astronomical odds of the earth's placement at *just* the right orbit from the sun?

1. Well, let's ignore that the flood timeline took place while other Humans lived elsewhere and somehow were untouched by the flood. The multiplicity factor of human reproduction and our recorded historical documents don't lend well to a population our size today springing forth from 2 people 4,000 years ago. What of the genetic factors? How do 2 people of fair skin create people of darker skin, hair colors, eye colors, bone structures, hair densities, and on and on and on? How did they diverse into thousands of different languages in fewer years than there are languages? How did they get from Turkey to South America? How did Noah live to be over 900 years old? Why is there no evidence of a world wide catastrophic flood? I could go on and on.

2. Of course I know those odds too. That was actually taken into account with my first point. The life zone is a pretty delicate location and set of circumstances but we've already identified dozens in the life zone with several thousands more candidates and an extrapolated estimate of up to 500 million just in our galaxy.

For the record, I'm agnostic. I don't doubt the plausibility of a God having created everything. But I do take a very dubious stance on what man says about God. A watch can never know its watchmaker. Hop then is a watch supposed to write a book about him and expect it to be accurate?

 

[hazek]

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 my invisible friend uses to instruct his flock, it was not meant to be interpreted literally.

Obviously my invisible friend 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 invisible friends or something that did it and thats why they got into so much doo doo.

A solid argument can be made that my invisible friend and my invisible enemy 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.

FYP

 

[hazek]

Natural selection? Sure.

Evolution? No.

Perhaps a believer in evolution could explain how a mutation is an overwhelmingly positive thing. (different thread maybe?)

And how very "fringe" of me to not limit the power of my all powerful invisible friend like the Vatican does. Why on earth would I be so backwards as to place the imaginary before the physical when talking about my invisible friend vs. a human physical "science"?

FYP

Also if you are really interested in answering your question I suggest you watch:

 

[hazek]

Exactly right. Darwinism is a religious belief.

Besides, science cannot prove anything to be true. At best, science can only disprove certain hypotheses. But science can only approximate.

Einstein said that his theory of relativity was false. He said it may be a better approximation than Newtonian physics, but it was not "true". Truth can't be discovered by science. Also, "false" theories work. Newton's theories worked for hundreds of years.

Why can't a scientific experiment give us truth?

1. Because all arguments based on scientific experimentation commit the fallacy of induction. A statement of universal truth cannot be constructed from subjective experience.

2. Arguments from scientific experimentation commit the fallacy of affirming the consequent. An hypothesis is NEVER logically proved from successful experimentation. Correlation does not imply causation.


Science is useful, but it can never be true. Science is technological, it is not cognitive. It doesnt give us truth nor can it do so. Science is meant to help man subdue his invisible friend's creation, but it is his invisible friend alone that gives men truth.

FYP

 

[hazek]

A interesting verse for non-believers to contemplate is that my invisible friend gave a hint to the deception of evolution 1800 years before it was suggested

2 Peter 3

3Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

4And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

5For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of my invisible friend the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

I believe my invisible friend gave the willfully ignorant a stumbling block of the perception that the world appears old to baffle there foolish fantasies.

1 Corinthians 27
27But my invisible friend hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and my invisible friend hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

FYP

 

[hazek]

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

 

[fisharmor]

Exactly. And just to add, I always kinda laugh when I hear people say things like, "Well, the Catholic church believes in this..." (or that.) As if that proves something, other than what you just said, and what many of us know about certain churches who seem to look to man more than they look to God.

I also chuckle at how the church body which believes in stigmata, healing relics, and weeping statues is always upheld as the exemplar of how to balance science and theology.

Actually, those few scientists considering extraterrestrial sources are doing so not because of mathematical impossibilities of abiogenesis but because of increases evidence of the likelihood of extraterrestrial life itself.

"Hey, there's something vaguely possible over here! Everyone come stab in the dark! And if you doubt it for a second, you lose your funding!!!!"

1. Well, let's ignore that the flood timeline took place while other Humans lived elsewhere and somehow were untouched by the flood. The multiplicity factor of human reproduction and our recorded historical documents don't lend well to a population our size today springing forth from 2 people 4,000 years ago. What of the genetic factors? How do 2 people of fair skin create people of darker skin, hair colors, eye colors, bone structures, hair densities, and on and on and on? How did they diverse into thousands of different languages in fewer years than there are languages? How did they get from Turkey to South America? How did Noah live to be over 900 years old? Why is there no evidence of a world wide catastrophic flood? I could go on and on.

So do you believe we live in a geocentric universe, or a heliocentric universe? Those are your only two options.
Oh, and bear in mind that publicly doubting the heliocentric theory means you're going to lose your funding. Also remember that most of the time evidence in favor of a geocentric universe is not going to be taken seriously enough even to shoot it down.

Hey, there's this remote possibility that someone could start collecting hard data at some point, and come up with a bulletproof third theory of elliptical orbits... but you know, we kind of like the people who have to come rearrange the museum displays every two years because we jumbled all the facts to fit the heliocentric narrative again, so let's not pursue that particular avenue.

2. Of course I know those odds too. That was actually taken into account with my first point. The life zone is a pretty delicate location and set of circumstances but we've already identified dozens in the life zone with several thousands more candidates and an extrapolated estimate of up to 500 million just in our galaxy.

The Miller-Urey experiment conclusively showed that Earth's (conjectured) early atmosphere could have produced amino acids.
This supposedly led to the formation of life.

That's like saying six consecutive meteor strikes on the same bed of clay could conceivably form a single brick... so the Great Wall of China was therefore built spontaneously.

Only I'm pretty sure my analogy is actually understating the complexity of the matter.

 

[Phil]

Lol, this whole discussion.

 

[hazek]

The Miller-Urey experiment conclusively showed that Earth's (conjectured) early atmosphere could have produced amino acids.
This supposedly led to the formation of life.

That's like saying six consecutive meteor strikes on the same bed of clay could conceivably form a single brick... so the Great Wall of China was therefore built spontaneously.

Your analogy couldn't be more flawed and shows you don't have a clue about chemistry and how organic matter (generally on Earth carbon based molecules) behaves as opposed to inorganic matter or any matter at all. You're just a lay person confused and making flawed lay observations that any scientist would not even laugh at.

 

[fisharmor]

Your analogy couldn't be more flawed and shows you don't have a clue about chemistry and how organic matter (generally on Earth carbon based molecules) behaves as opposed to inorganic matter or any matter at all. You're just a lay person confused and making flawed lay observations that any scientist would not even laugh at.

Sorry, didn't realize a priest was here. I forgot myself: I gues organic chemists have figured it out and we don't need to ask questions (and btw if you doubt it, you're going to lose funding).

Also, my organic chemist brother didn't think it was so outrageous, but then again he realized I was using an analogy to discuss odds.

If you'd like to, please tell me how it's a flawed observation.
Are amino acids not building blocks in cells?
Do cells not require millions of them of wildly varying types to do anything of consequence?
What is this mystical force that makes organic matter "behave" differently than inorganic matter? Is this behavior what makes them come together in ordered fashions of their own volition?
Form walls on their own? Sort out on their own which ones destroy the system and which ones build the system?

I have a low opinion of public schools, to be sure, but I'd like to know how organic compounds' behavior isn't what I learned in chem and bio classes... I'd also like to know why a college level bio class reinforced this idea too.

 

[hazek]

Also, my organic chemist brother didn't think it was so outrageous, but then again he realized I was using an analogy to discuss odds.

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.

And if you don't know why for one event they are 0% and for the other greater than 0% than you simply don't have a clue about chemistry and I'm not going to even attempt to teach you. If you really want to learn, use google, go to a library or pay someone to help you learn on your own.

 

[Sola_Fide]

FYP

What's fyp?

 

[hazek]

Fixed your post.