Evolution or not?

[Daisy]

But, I'm not disputing that...not really. There was a first homo sapien. At some point it switched. You assume our days are the same as God's days... You assume that because God did not give you the operating manual to the universe, that it must be as simple as he told his creation, that he would never summarize or attempt to play to his audience. I submit that it is neither heresy nor blasphemy to suggest that we don't know everything, and that looking into his creation to understand it's workings and coming up with theories based on our findings is theologically ok.

Basically, this isn't a scriptural debate. I can believe every word, and still be humble enough to accept that the findings of science fit could into God's design, whether I understand it or not.

I didn't say that...I do realize the creation account leaves out many details but to say that evolution was used by God certainly does undermine belief in that creation account in Genesis, thus undermining the very foundations of the Christian faith....imo evolution is the crutch for explaining what we don't know, instead of relying on God's Word to tell us what we need to know...if God had wanted us to know more, He would have told us more...but then there would be no need for faith in the creation account, would there? Maybe some day He will...I'll wait on Him instead of trying to explain it away with something crazy called evolution...

 

[watsup]

But, I'm not disputing that...not really. There was a first homo sapien. At some point it switched. You assume our days are the same as God's days... You assume that because God did not give you the operating manual to the universe, that it must be as simple as he told his creation, that he would never summarize or attempt to play to his audience. I submit that it is neither heresy nor blasphemy to suggest that we don't know everything, and that looking into his creation to understand it's workings and coming up with theories based on our findings is theologically ok.

Basically, this isn't a scriptural debate. I can believe every word, and still be humble enough to accept that the findings of science fit could into God's design, whether I understand it or not.

Are you humble enough to accept that it could all have just happened on its own and that any "God" is simply extraneous, redundant, and unneeded in the Big Bang and subsequent development of life and evolution?

 

[ecofarm]

I get all my science from Sherlock Holmes.

 

[watsup]

I get all my science from Sherlock Holmes.

A dog can't exist on its own, so a cat must be the explanation for a dog.

 

[OlNate]

Are you humble enough to accept that it could all have just happened on its own and that any "God" is simply extraneous, redundant, and unneeded in the Big Bang and subsequent development of life and evolution?

I'm not sure how to answer that question in a way that would satisfy an atheist. We look at the world from behind completely different filters, with our core truths around this topic being incompatible. I believe in God, and that it was God that created everything, despite being unable to comprehend or prove that statement - something quite common, and expected, for people of faith.

And that's ok, my dude. I don't come here to evangelize, which is why I am having my conversation with a fellow believer, not trying to debate atheists.

So, I suppose, I'll give you my standard response that I give to all my atheist friends: I don't know. Which I'm ok with, because it's in the job description.

 

[OlNate]

I didn't say that...I do realize the creation account leaves out many details but to say that evolution was used by God certainly does undermine belief in that creation account in Genesis, thus undermining the very foundations of the Christian faith....imo evolution is the crutch for explaining what we don't know, instead of relying on God's Word to tell us what we need to know...if God had wanted us to know more, He would have told us more...but then there would be no need for faith in the creation account, would there? Maybe some day He will...I'll wait on Him instead of trying to explain it away with something crazy called evolution...

That's fair, and I respect that. But I think it's ok to think beyond that. The parable of the three talents comes to mind.

 

[ecofarm]

A dog can't exist on its own, so a cat must be the explanation for a dog.

Truly only Sherlock Holmes, a fictional detective bent on manipulating his suspects, understood the nuance of biology. He's also my go-to expert on chemistry and physics. Who needs school, right?

 

[watsup]

I'm not sure how to answer that question in a way that would satisfy an atheist. We look at the world from behind completely different filters, with our core truths around this topic being incompatible. I believe in God, and that it was God that created everything, despite being unable to comprehend or prove that statement - something quite common, and expected, for people of faith.

And that's ok, my dude. I don't come here to evangelize, which is why I am having my conversation with a fellow believer, not trying to debate atheists.

So, I suppose, I'll give you my standard response that I give to all my atheist friends: I don't know. Which I'm ok with, because it's in the job description.

Sounds like an honest enough answer.

 

[Daisy]

That's fair, and I respect that. But I think it's ok to think beyond that. The parable of the three talents comes to mind.

What does the preaching work in the last days have to do with our discussion?

 

[OlNate]

What does the preaching work in the last days have to do with our discussion?

See, now, to me that parallel speaks to more than just what you have assigned to it. I can understand where you've landed on it, but it doesn't specifically say that, which means it's just an interpretation. The cool thing about parables is that their wisdom can extend over multiple topics. In this case, it could be evangelism, or it could be knowledge of God's creation. If we believe in an all powerful God, then we must assume that if he wanted to keep us out from under the hood, he would have made sure it stayed permanently closed....but science is a thing. God appears to encourage growth - demand it, even.

 

[Daisy]

it could be evangelism, or it could be knowledge of God's creation.

What do you think is more important to God? Would it not be what brings salvation? We can have all eternity to learn more about God's creation...

"Pay constant attention to yourself and to your teaching. Persevere in these things, for by doing this you will save both yourself and those who listen to you." 1 Timothy 4:16

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Mudskipper's are a type of fish that can walk on land for a time. They are also able to absorb oxygen from the lining of their mouth and throat allowing them to stay out of water for some periods of time. In fact, it has been discovered that they spend up to three quarters of their life on land.

What do you suppose this fish is transitioning into ..what would your common sense tell you.

An atheist?

 

[watsup]

What do you think is more important to God? Would it not be what brings salvation? We can have all eternity to learn more about God's creation...

"Pay constant attention to yourself and to your teaching. Persevere in these things, for by doing this you will save both yourself and those who listen to you." 1 Timothy 4:16

Speaking for God.

 

[Daisy]

Speaking for God.

No, the Bible speaks for God...you can read it anytime...

 

[Variant]

On the contrary your own post is almost a self contradiction, you say "fossils are exceedingly rare" then talk about trilobites, but these fossils are not rare, some 50,000 specimens have been found of at least one variant.

You don't seem to understand. I am saying that having 50,000 specimens of a variant of trilobites would still be exceedingly rare. They probably numbered in the multiple trillions at any given time and lasted for hundreds of millions of years (about half of the time complex life has existed on earth). You've basically picked one of the most commonly found fossils to make a case.

Your case though doesn't make sense because you don't understand the basic idea. Fossilization is exceedingly rare, and the rule is true for trilobites as well. We have very few examples of any of their species compared to how many of them there were.

Just because when we get a hunk of prime fossilized earth from any time during the era of the trilobite it seems likely we find one or more trilobite fossils in it, what that tells us is that the earth was teaming with them.

 

[OlNate]

What do you think is more important to God? Would it not be what brings salvation? We can have all eternity to learn more about God's creation...

"Pay constant attention to yourself and to your teaching. Persevere in these things, for by doing this you will save both yourself and those who listen to you." 1 Timothy 4:16

Oh, I know what's most important... But does that mean it's the only important thing? God gave us these brains, with which to think and discover. Why would he do that? Our entire tenure on this planet has been a continuous effort to understand his creation better. It's in our nature. Why would God make us this way, if he didn't want us to appreciate his work? Further to that, wouldn't it make sense that gaining some understanding into his work allow us to better appreciate his glory? Can we not glorify him better, if we have a better idea of what he's done? Do we not read the Bible for exactly that purpose?

 

[Daisy]

Oh, I know what's most important... But does that mean it's the only important thing? God gave us these brains, with which to think and discover. Why would he do that? Our entire tenure on this planet has been a continuous effort to understand his creation better. It's in our nature. Why would God make us this way, if he didn't want us to appreciate his work? Further to that, wouldn't it make sense that gaining some understanding into his work allow us to better appreciate his glory? Can we not glorify him better, if we have a better idea of what he's done? Do we not read the Bible for exactly that purpose?

No, I read the Bible to understand God's purpose for mankind better...to understand what His desire is for us...

 

[RAMOSS]

No, I read the Bible to understand God's purpose for mankind better...to understand what His desire is for us...

It seems you are listening to more of Paul's opinions, rather than Gods.

 

[Phys251]

Sorry, but wouldn't you assume the sun will rise tomrrow like it has the last x years of your life whether scientists know about the space or not? But then why do you think you will continue to be alive tomorrow? The scientists have no idea what creates life.

False equivalence. There is a 99-point-something percent chance that the Sun will rise tomorrow. The probability that it won't is minuscule.

Meanwhile, the probability of a god existing is extremely small, maybe even zero.

 

[Phys251]

I didn't say that...I do realize the creation account leaves out many details but to say that evolution was used by God certainly does undermine belief in that creation account in Genesis, thus undermining the very foundations of the Christian faith....imo evolution is the crutch for explaining what we don't know, instead of relying on God's Word to tell us what we need to know...if God had wanted us to know more, He would have told us more...but then there would be no need for faith in the creation account, would there? Maybe some day He will...I'll wait on Him instead of trying to explain it away with something crazy called evolution...

Evolution is no more anti-religion than physics and math are. You can read an entire textbook in either of those subjects without reading a single reference to a divine being, yet neither subject falsifies religion, either.

But if you're going to hang onto a whimsical belief in the onset of the universe that isn't even testable, let alone plausible, that's on you.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

You don't seem to understand. I am saying that having 50,000 specimens of a variant of trilobites would still be exceedingly rare. They probably numbered in the multiple trillions at any given time and lasted for hundreds of millions of years (about half of the time complex life has existed on earth). You've basically picked one of the most commonly found fossils to make a case.

Your case though doesn't make sense because you don't understand the basic idea. Fossilization is exceedingly rare, and the rule is true for trilobites as well. We have very few examples of any of their species compared to how many of them there were.

Just because when we get a hunk of prime fossilized earth from any time during the era of the trilobite it seems likely we find one or more trilobite fossils in it, what that tells us is that the earth was teaming with them.

How do we distinguish then between fossilization being rare and the animals which could have been fossilized never existing?

Declaring the fossil record is evidence that things existed yet at the same time dismissing the absence of fossils as only apparent is illogical, the fossils are not found because the purported animals did not exist - tell me why is this not an equally valid interpretation of the evidence?

Evolution implies continuity, so how can a discontinuous record support the claim of continuity?

It cannot, this is the the obvious conclusion.

 

[watsup]

How do we distinguish then between fossilization being rare and the animals which could have been fossilized never existing?

Declaring the fossil record is evidence that things existed yet at the same time dismissing the absence of fossils as only apparent is illogical, the fossils are not found because the purported animals did not exist - tell me why is this not an equally valid interpretation of the evidence?

Evolution implies continuity, so how can a discontinuous record support the claim of continuity?

It cannot, this is the the obvious conclusion.

Wrong, as usual.

 

[OlNate]

No, I read the Bible to understand God's purpose for mankind better...to understand what His desire is for us...

Which would be part of the overall picture I'm talking about. As Christians, we believe that all of this, everything around us and in us, is part of God's design, correct? That includes everything from the placement of the smallest pebble to our part in the plan. I guess this becomes a question of how much do you believe in that plan - legit question, not some aggressive challenge, or something you can answer to be deemed less than, in case that sounded leading... I just don't know where JW's land on this. If you do believe that everything serves God's purpose, then we have a responsibility to understand as much of "everything" as we can - don't forget, our original role, before Eve screwed it all up, was to be caretakers over God's creation. This is an interesting read:

Genesis 1:26-28 and Environmental Rights - Right Now

By Liz Jakimow. This article is part of our February 2013 focus on Religion and Human Rights. Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the...

rightnow.org.au

I'm not sure we were relieved of that charge. If that is our role, then it is our responsibility to understand as much as possible about his creation, in order to do our jobs. Science and Christianity are not mutually exclusive, they are symbiotic. If one stops at just what's encapsulated in the Bible, aren't they the first guy in the talents story?

 

[watsup]

Which would be part of the overall picture I'm talking about. As Christians, we believe that all of this, everything around us and in us, is part of God's design, correct? That includes everything from the placement of the smallest pebble to our part in the plan. I guess this becomes a question of how much do you believe in that plan - legit question, not some aggressive challenge, or something you can answer to be deemed less than, in case that sounded leading... I just don't know where JW's land on this. If you do believe that everything serves God's purpose, then we have a responsibility to understand as much of "everything" as we can - don't forget, our original role, before Eve screwed it all up, was to be caretakers over God's creation. This is an interesting read:

Genesis 1:26-28 and Environmental Rights - Right Now

By Liz Jakimow. This article is part of our February 2013 focus on Religion and Human Rights. Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the...

rightnow.org.au

I'm not sure we were relieved of that charge. If that is our role, then it is our responsibility to understand as much as possible about his creation, in order to do our jobs. Science and Christianity are not mutually exclusive, they are symbiotic. If one stops at just what's encapsulated in the Bible, aren't they the first guy in the talents story?

You do know that "Eve" and the talking snake weren't real but just a myth, right?

 

[OlNate]

You do know that "Eve" and the talking snake weren't real but just a myth, right?

Hi, Watsup. We're having a theological discussion...I already explained to you that I don't debate theology with atheists, for all the reasons I specified in the last text. I know we're not going to agree, and I fully admit I have nothing in the way of proof that would satisfy you. But, it's ok, I have a response I give to my atheist friends for this kind of question as well.

Whether it happened, or was simply a teaching metaphor, or parable, the spirit of the message it is designed to deliver is more important that whether or not the event actually happened. We don't study these stories for their historical accuracy, but rather what they say about how to live our lives. This phenomenon exists in secular culture. We all know there was no boy and no wolf...but we all know what the story of the little boy who called wolf says about how we should live our life.

As for any question regarding the accuracy of the supernatural about what I do or do not know, I always answer: I do not know. That's faith for ya...