Guineaster wrote:
Also, varelse1, I am DIGGIN' that pfp!
Thanks.
😊
Theistic Evolution -- Should Christians consider Evolutionary Creationism?
Sort:
May 7, 2020
0
#243
varelse1 wrote:
TruthMuse wrote:
varelse1 wrote:
Okay yes.
I have faith in Science.
I'm not saying it's right 100% of the time.
But it is way ahead of whatevers in second place.
You have faith in man? It isn't like you can separate man and science.
Well, certain men.
I have faith I am in no way qualified to contradict every PhD on the planet.
Doctors who have dedicated their lives to studying a particular field.
Even if they are all wrong, I am sure I am not the one to say it.
Usually.
(But for honesty's sake, I did once successfully outguess all the PhDs, as a teenager. But that was because I was lucky. Not because I am some sort of genius.)
But most the time, no.
If a Grandmaster tells me this new gambit just came out is unsound, I will bow to his expertise.
If you want to define that as faith, very well.
Most call it common sense.
I agree with you if we know someone who, for example, knows chess and plays at the level of a Grandmaster, we would do well to pay attention to what s/he has to say on the game of chess. That is not the case with abiogenesis; with that topic, the more we know the more elusive it seems to become concerning a viable theory as to how it could occur. If you watched the link from Dr. Edward Peltzer on Abiogenesis, you'd see some of the issues he sees as a Chemist.
May 7, 2020
0
#244
Abiogenesis, maybe not.
Not sure anybody is an expert on that.
But I am referring to Evolution here.
Can I say I know more than all the geologists, paleontologists, biologists, and geneticists of the world?
May 8, 2020
0
#245
varelse1 wrote:
Abiogenesis, maybe not.
Not sure anybody is an expert on that.
But I am referring to Evolution here.
Can I say I know more than all the geologists, paleontologists, biologists, and geneticists of the world?
Maybe not, but not all of them agree on all things, and you can find those that firmly disagree as well. We have to be able to look at things and reason them out. If they or anyone makes a claim we have to be able to validate it, if we are told to accept it just because they say so, then is that science or a cult?
varelse1 wrote:
Second, considering evolutionary creation aids the church in its gospel mission, including discipling young Christians in their faith. An anti-evolution attitude can harm Christian young people by presenting them with a false choice between pursuing science or holding to faith. One recent survey showed that a key factor in the evangelical church’s loss of credibility among young people is its assertion of anti-evolutionary creation models that contradict virtually all of the evidence we find in nature. Similarly, a hostile attitude towards evolution can hinder evangelism if seekers hear that they must reject evolutionary science before they can follow Christ. On the other hand, studying evolution as a God-ordained process helps Christians refute the argument that science leads to an atheistic worldview. By showing that the science of evolution is a description of God’s processes and not a worldview in and of itself, Christians can expose atheism as secular philosophy and not part of science.
Because today’s culture is saturated with science and technology—from the latest communication gadgets to new biomedical advances to discoveries of fundamental particles—engaging culture means engaging science. Since evolutionary science is integral to modern biology, the church must grapple with the evidence and implications of evolution in order to be an effective witness in the public square. Informed Christian voices are critical for leading bioethical discussions on issues such as stem cells and the use of DNA information in caring for the unborn, the aged, and the disabled. Today, evangelical Christians can show that we love God’s work in the created order by taking up full participation in cutting-edge research and advocating for science as a tool to protect rather than prey upon the helpless.
Science is a way of loving God with our minds. When we seek to understand the created order through science we bear witness to the Creator and glorify him through our work.
Well said v1 and I'm so glad you posted a link to BioLogos--a great organization with a lot of top notch scientists who are also religious as you noted. Proof that "faith and science" is not an "either-or" proposition, but can co-exist side-by-side and even complement one another.
I had the privilege of meeting the founder of BioLogos, Francis Collins, who also headed the Human Genome Project when he was the Director of the National Institute for Health (NIH). A brilliant scientist yet so very down to earth and humble. He is, of course, a scientist who recognizes that evolution (i.e., universal common ancestry) has been empirically established, yet he is also an evangelical Christian and sees no inherent conflict between the two.
Sep 12, 2020
0
#247
Evolution is founded on the principle of multiple generations dying, and changing into other species along the way. Death is at the heart. Now, if God used evolution, there would be death before the fall. Sure, if there was no death involved he could have make organisms through change. What use is that though? He could do it in a snap, so why go the long route? Evolution requires millions of years, and though I know there's some debate about the meaning of "day", but if the 6 days were 24 hour days, what does that mean for evolution?
The meaning of "day" (Hebrew yom) in Genesis has no affect on evolution. The evidence for evolution is extensive and independent of Genesis.
Sep 14, 2020
0
#249
From the viewpoint of Theistic Evolution, if the timeline was days instead of years, it would mean on a fundamental basis that from a Christan standpoint, evolution can't exist. We can argue if it was and is the process by which new species are created, but it is separate from religion and philosophy (except for the fact that evolution is based on materialism, but that's another conversation).
My point is that regardless of how you interpret "day" it has no bearing on the scientific fact of evolution. Also, theistic evolution is not incompatible with the view that "day" = 24 hours. It is only incompatible with certain young earth creationist interpretations that insist on making Genesis what it is not--a scientific account of origins. Genesis provides theological teaching, not scientific mechanics. The two are apples and oranges and don't speak to each other. It is only by forcing Genesis to say something that it doesn't that a conflict between science and the Bible is created.
Oct 6, 2020
0
#251
The evidence that the universe is over 13 billion years old, is overwhelming at this point.
If Creationism hinges on a 6,000 year-old universe (I believe it does not) then it is already disproven.
varelse1 wrote:
The evidence that the universe is over 13 billion years old, is overwhelming at this point.
If Creationism hinges on a 6,000 year-old universe (I believe it does not) then it is already disproven.
*This
Dec 13, 2020
0
#253
varelse1 wrote:
The evidence that the universe is over 13 billion years old, is overwhelming at this point.
If Creationism hinges on a 6,000 year-old universe (I believe it does not) then it is already disproven.
Our interpretation of the evidence suggests it's as old as we think it is, regardless of what the age actually is. Too many people think what they think is all the facts required for a bulletproof truth statement. If you declare it so and it isn't, what does that say about you?
TruthMuse wrote:
varelse1 wrote:
The evidence that the universe is over 13 billion years old, is overwhelming at this point.
If Creationism hinges on a 6,000 year-old universe (I believe it does not) then it is already disproven.
Our interpretation of the evidence suggests it's as old as we think it is, regardless of what the age actually is. Too many people think what they think is all the facts required for a bulletproof truth statement. If you declare it so and it isn't, what does that say about you?
Baloney. At one time scientists thought the universe could be a 100 billion years old. Now they calculate it at around 13.7 billion. So scientists just whimsically decided on 13.7 billion not primarily because of the evidence but primarily because 13.7 billion is arbitrarily how old they think the universe should be? Ridiculous. So the real question is what does your statement show about you? It shows that you haven't studied the matter in depth (something you've admitted before), so perhaps you should before making unfounded assumptions of your own.
Dec 13, 2020
0
#255
tbwp10 wrote:
TruthMuse wrote:
varelse1 wrote:
The evidence that the universe is over 13 billion years old, is overwhelming at this point.
If Creationism hinges on a 6,000 year-old universe (I believe it does not) then it is already disproven.
Our interpretation of the evidence suggests it's as old as we think it is, regardless of what the age actually is. Too many people think what they think is all the facts required for a bulletproof truth statement. If you declare it so and it isn't, what does that say about you?
Baloney. At one time scientists thought the universe could be a 100 billion years old. Now they calculate it at around 13.7 billion. So scientists just whimsically decided on 13.7 billion not primarily because of the evidence but primarily because 13.7 billion is arbitrarily how old they think the universe should be? Ridiculous. So the real question is what does your statement show about you? It shows that you haven't studied the matter in depth (something you've admitted before), so perhaps you should before making unfounded assumptions of your own.
It shows that I admit I don't know how old the universe is and I think anyone who claims what they think is about that is a fact--- Well, there isn't a kind word that works here.
I can't help your ignorance on the subject
Dec 23, 2020
0
#257
TruthMuse wrote:
varelse1 wrote:
The evidence that the universe is over 13 billion years old, is overwhelming at this point.
If Creationism hinges on a 6,000 year-old universe (I believe it does not) then it is already disproven.
Our interpretation of the evidence suggests it's as old as we think it is, regardless of what the age actually is. Too many people think what they think is all the facts required for a bulletproof truth statement. If you declare it so and it isn't, what does that say about you?
Okay fair enough.
I am all for new, cutting-edge theories.
But I do require that they match the evidence. I don't like being treated like I am an idiot.
We have used many telescopes to oeer into the Heavens, most notably the Hubble and WMAP, and have observed celestial bodies, going as far as 13B light years away
So if you have a new theory for the birth of the Universe nobody else thought of yet, fine. I'll listen.
But we have to start there.
Dec 26, 2020
0
#258
I can accept something is 13 billion light-years away, as I also accept that the universe is expanding and the rate of expansion is getting faster. When I look at rates, that doesn't always tell us how long something has been going; it only shows the rate at the moment. You cannot look at a car, measure its speed, and know where it was an hour ago by the speed it is currently traveling.
But when multiple, INDEPENDENT lines of evidence give you the same result, then that is strong, compelling evidence that those results are correct
Dec 30, 2020
0
#260
tbwp10 wrote:
But when multiple, INDEPENDENT lines of evidence give you the same result, then that is strong, compelling evidence that those results are correct
Seeing a rate and distance doesn't tell you how long ago the universe began; it tells you the rate and the distance. Depending on what it looked like at its formation and no one knows the answer to that, how could anyone properly judge the beginning of time? People want to assume a singularity, but what if it wasn't like that? What if it wasn't a tiny piece containing everything in something we cannot wrap our minds around when it was created? Again if it were millions or billions of years ago, how can you know? You may believe what you will, but saying something like the universe's age is a hard fact; you are basing that on pure faith, nothing else, even faith in your INDEPENDENT lines of so-called evidence is what you think they are showing you.
I have questions for when I get on later.