What Do We Really Know About Our Beliefs?

[RiverJordan]

RosaVera,

It seems you're not really interested in a conversation. That's fine. All I can tell you at this point is that you've been massively misinformed on the subject of evolution and the sciences. Whoever you're relying on for your information is either deliberately misleading you, or has no idea what they're talking about.

As Christians, we are to be truthful in all things. So when I see a Christian parroting the sort of falsehoods you posted, it saddens me deeply.

 

[RosaVera]

RosaVera,

It seems you're not really interested in a conversation. That's fine. All I can tell you at this point is that you've been massively misinformed on the subject of evolution and the sciences. Whoever you're relying on for your information is either deliberately misleading you, or has no idea what they're talking about.

As Christians, we are to be truthful in all things. So when I see a Christian parroting the sort of falsehoods you posted, it saddens me deeply.

Not sure where i have failed to discuss and i hope we can... i merely stated my opinion. Here is what Webster says about evolution and they are quoting 'biology':

'evo·lu·tion

biology : a theory that the differences between modern plants and animals are because of changes that happened by a natural process over a very long time

: the process by which changes in plants and animals happen over time

: a process of slow change and development'

and :

'a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also : the process described by this theory '

Actually this whole discussion is about whether man evolved from an amoeba or created by God... Scientists want to enforce their theory that we 'evolved' from an amoeba which evolved into and so on... theory which is based on givens by scientists and they themselves admit is not proof behind any doubt, for it all goes back to the 'big bang theory' and who created it and it is up to scientists to prove this for this is the reason they call themselves scientists. i am just simply stating that i don't believe we came from sludge as per my reference in my previous post, but if scientists say we do then they must prove it and if they can't behind any doubt they they cannot tout it as absolute truth... if you look at the Webster meaning of 'evolution' they are stating ''origin in other preexisting types'' and this is what scientists are trying to tell us who we are, humans that have origin in other life preexisting millions of years ago.

Please let me know where i have said something that is not Christian... thanks.

 

[Glomung]

Too much misinformation/disinformation in this thread.
One of the main problems with this discussion IMNSHO is the lack of definition of terms.
What is a "man"?
A man is body and soul.
The soul was created by God at some point before the person's birth.
The body is a natural creation which has developed within the body of the mother.

All matter was created by God (at some point in the distant past).
All souls are created by God.
So, no matter how you cut it, all things physical or spiritual have their root in God.

Whether the physical characteristics that the body of any particular species has were developed
over ages by natural causes (which the evidence supports) or all at once by a Creator (who for some odd
reason designed creatures with built in design flaws) is really not of any practical importance.

 

[RiverJordan]

Not sure where i have failed to discuss and i hope we can... i merely stated my opinion.

It was just an impression I was getting, mainly from you not really responding to some of the questions I asked.

Here is what Webster says about evolution and they are quoting 'biology':

Notice that there are different definitions. That's because "evolution" means different things in different contexts, like many other words.

biology : a theory that the differences between modern plants and animals are because of changes that happened by a natural process over a very long time

That is a description of "the theory of evolution", which includes concepts like universal common ancestry (all life is related) and specific evolutionary histories (like reptiles-birds). The theory of evolution also includes the mechanisms by which evolution occurs, such as mutation, genetic drift, and various types of selection.

: the process by which changes in plants and animals happen over time

That is "evolution", which is what we see happen with our own eyes, all the time. That populations evolve is an observed fact.

'a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also : the process described by this theory '

Pay close attention to that. It describes how "evolution" is both a theory and a fact. Putting together what we described above....evolution is a fact. We see it happen. How evolution takes place--its mechanisms and how it played out over history--is the theory of evolution.

It's just like the difference between "gravity" and "gravitational theory". Gravitational theory seeks to explain how gravity (fact) occurs.

Actually this whole discussion is about whether man evolved from an amoeba or created by God

Why does it have to be one or the other? Scripture also says God created the mountains (Amos 4:13), but we know of at least two natural ways mountains are formed (volcanoes and plate tectonics). Does that mean in order to be Christians, we have to deny what we see happen with our own eyes?

Scientists want to enforce their theory that we 'evolved' from an amoeba which evolved into and so on... theory which is based on givens by scientists and they themselves admit is not proof behind any doubt,

Nothing in science is proven beyond all doubt.

for it all goes back to the 'big bang theory' and who created it and it is up to scientists to prove this for this is the reason they call themselves scientists.

The big bang model has nothing to do with biological evolution. Even if God directly created our universe, right down to the last subatomic particle, and even hand-molded the very first life forms on earth, the theory of evolution would still explain how those populations subsequently evolved.

i am just simply stating that i don't believe we came from sludge as per my reference in my previous post, but if scientists say we do then they must prove it and if they can't behind any doubt they they cannot tout it as absolute truth

As I said, nothing in science is "absolute truth". Do you hold everything to the standard of "absolute truth"?

Please let me know where i have said something that is not Christian... thanks.

I didn't say you said anything unChristian. I said that we are to be truthful in all things. So when you copy and paste things that are patently false like in your post 118, (for example, Darwin didn't say anything about the big bang) and do so under the banner of Christianity, it gives the impression that Christians are less concerned with being accurate and truthful than they are about attacking science.

That sort of thing doesn't do any of us any good.

 

[RiverJordan]

Glomung,

Overall, I agree. Except with...

Whether the physical characteristics that the body of any particular species has were developed
over ages by natural causes (which the evidence supports) or all at once by a Creator (who for some odd
reason designed creatures with built in design flaws) is really not of any practical importance.

Our understanding of the evolutionary history of various taxa, as well as understanding how evolution works is vital in several branches of science. It's the basis for the entire field of comparative genomics, which is a big factor in figuring out how things work at the genetic level.

 

[RosaVera]

It was just an impression I was getting, mainly from you not really responding to some of the questions I asked.


Notice that there are different definitions. That's because "evolution" means different things in different contexts, like many other words.


That is a description of "the theory of evolution", which includes concepts like universal common ancestry (all life is related) and specific evolutionary histories (like reptiles-birds). The theory of evolution also includes the mechanisms by which evolution occurs, such as mutation, genetic drift, and various types of selection.

That is "evolution", which is what we see happen with our own eyes, all the time. That populations evolve is an observed fact.

Where do we see how populations evolve, please explain what you mean we can observe evolution of populations...? Right in front of our eyes...


Pay close attention to that. It describes how "evolution" is both a theory and a fact. Putting together what we described above....evolution is a fact. We see it happen. How evolution takes place--its mechanisms and how it played out over history--is the theory of evolution.
It's just like the difference between "gravity" and "gravitational theory". Gravitational theory seeks to explain how gravity (fact) occurs.

The key word here is origin in other 'preexisting types' meaning that from one very different type such as a plant or animal humans can evolve from... thus from an amoeba humanity came on the scene, eventually... isn't this what scientists are touting as truth...? and they want us to believe that from mere chance an amoeba made a human, eventually of course...



Why does it have to be one or the other? Scripture also says God created the mountains (Amos 4:13), but we know of at least two natural ways mountains are formed (volcanoes and plate tectonics). Does that mean in order to be Christians, we have to deny what we see happen with our own eyes?

i have not seen anything to change from one being to another... have you?

Nothing in science is proven beyond all doubt.

Because it is all a theory, as they themselves coin this phrase...

The big bang model has nothing to do with biological evolution. Even if God directly created our universe, right down to the last subatomic particle, and even hand-molded the very first life forms on earth, the theory of evolution would still explain how those populations subsequently evolved.

Sorry but when it comes to God there are no ''ifs'' unless you don't believe that God did create it all...?

As I said, nothing in science is "absolute truth". Do you hold everything to the standard of "absolute truth"?
When it comes to creation of our universe and man, yes...


I didn't say you said anything unChristian. I said that we are to be truthful in all things. So when you copy and paste things that are patently false like in your post 118, (for example, Darwin didn't say anything about the big bang) and do so under the banner of Christianity, it gives the impression that Christians are less concerned with being accurate and truthful than they are about attacking science.

That sort of thing doesn't do any of us any good.

i agree with this statement of yours that the truth is what edifies Christians, but you did accuse me of being un-Christian because i copied and pasted someone else's word on this... i don't think the author was trying to say he believed that Darwin coined the phrase of evolution but used it to explain his writing... i used to be in a different forum years ago with Christian scientists, they did say the earth was old, but man was made by God and not very old on the scene... wish i could still have access to that forum, these were humble peace loving scientists that explained all with patience and love and never accused anyone , the discussions were lively for sure...

 

[RiverJordan]

Rosa,

Your last post is a good example of what gives me the impression you're not very interested in a discussion. I took the time to respond to your entire post, and you don't even acknowledge any of it.

And again, I didn't accuse you of anything. I specifically said that whoever wrote what you copied was the one being dishonest, and that seeing you propagate it further saddened me. I've dealt directly with creationist organizations, and confronted their staff with some of their material that is demonstrably false, and some that is deliberately dishonest (quote mines). Not one of them ever acknowledged any of it, and either ignored me or tried to turn the subject to "you either believe the Bible or you don't". Of course the problem is, whether "you believe the Bible or not" is irrelevant to someone taking one part of one sentence and smashing it together with another part of a completely different sentence to make it look like they're saying the opposite of what they actually said. It's simply dishonest, no matter what.

I don't expect someone like you to be aware of that. You're just relying on someone you trust to help you reach a conclusion. The problem is, some of the people you trust aren't being truthful with you. So the question is, do you continue to rely on dishonest sources, or do you look elsewhere?

 

[RosaVera]

River said:
"I don't expect someone like you to be aware of that."

Of course River... you have taken my statement and have repeated it time and again... but, thank you for your compliment to someone ''like me'' ... of course, someone with your IQ must know everything.

But you still have not answered whether you actually believe as a person of knowledge that we humans evolved from amoeba... and when you use the work "if' referring to God if you actually think that He did not create it all... since science seems to state that their theory must be truths then, yes, i do hold them to prove what they are stating especially since they push the idea that their theory is truth, and, they seem to think that we evolved out of nothing but yet can't seem to make anything out of nothing... what happens before our eyes, such as the mountains as you used as an example, has nothing to do with the origin of the mountain or the action that goes on under the earth today to make one level of earth go up and become a mountain, do you call this evolution...? ... and it has nothing to do with the origin of humans, how did humans come to have such complicated yet perfect bodies by chance...?

The way it seems is that scientists are scrambling to prove that the Bible is wrong, but according to this, yes i am going to copy and paste, (but i have you do it also) it may be they can't...
http://evidencebible.com/witnessingtool/scientificfactsintheBible.shtml
or:
http://www.eternal-productions.org/101science.html

But here is something that was just discovered, an ancient spear tip which confounds evolutionists:
http://christiannews.net/2013/12/02...-evolutionists-raises-questions-on-evolution/

Anyway have a good day... <><

 

[RiverJordan]

you have taken my statement and have repeated it time and again... but, thank you for your compliment to someone ''like me'' ... of course, someone with your IQ must know everything.

I'm sorry if you took offense at that, because I certainly didn't intend any. You made it clear in an earlier post that you are not an expert in this subject, and that's what I mean by "someone like you". I don't think it's fair to expect a person who hasn't studied a subject and admits that they're not at expert in it, to be able to spot all the flaws in creationist organization materials. It'd be like me reading two papers on particle physics. One says A, the other says Not A. Is it fair to expect me to figure out which one is right?

So again, please accept my apologies. I never meant to insult you.

But you still have not answered whether you actually believe as a person of knowledge that we humans evolved from amoeba

I'm going to assume that you're referring to the idea that humans share a common ancestry with all other life. Yes, I do recognize that as scientifically valid.

and when you use the work "if' referring to God if you actually think that He did not create it all

You misunderstood my point. I was trying to point out that no matter how the first life came to be on earth, be it by direct creation by God, natural means, or anything else, the theory of evolution would still explain it's subsequent evolution.

since science seems to state that their theory must be truths then, yes, i do hold them to prove what they are stating especially since they push the idea that their theory is truth,

They don't "push the idea that their theory is truth" any more than they do with erosion, chemical bonding, or that germs cause disease. Biologists generally view evolutionary theory as accurate, even though some of the details are still hotly debated.

But let me ask you this....does it matter to you what the scientific evidence is? If say, human-primate common ancestry were able to be scientifically proven beyond a reasonable doubt, would you accept it as true? If so, what evidence is lacking that would convince you?

they seem to think that we evolved out of nothing but yet can't seem to make anything out of nothing

No scientist says we evolved out of nothing.

what happens before our eyes, such as the mountains as you used as an example, has nothing to do with the origin of the mountain or the action that goes on under the earth today to make one level of earth go up and become a mountain, do you call this evolution...?

You misunderstood my point. Forget about evolution for a second and just focus on this....The Bible says that God creates mountains. Yet we know for a fact that some mountains are created by volcanoes. How do you reconcile those two things?

how did humans come to have such complicated yet perfect bodies by chance...?

First, our bodies are hardly perfect (that's why we have medical science). Second, overall evolution doesn't happen "by chance". If I flip 50 coins, the result of each coin flip is by chance. But if after each set of 50, I keep all the heads and re-flip all the tails, eventually I'll end up with 50 coins that are heads. Did I get that result by chance? Nope, I selected the ones that came up heads. That process is analogous to natural selection, except that in evolution the selection is done via survival and reproduction.

The way it seems is that scientists are scrambling to prove that the Bible is wrong, but according to this, yes i am going to copy and paste, (but i have you do it also) it may be they can't...
http://evidencebible.com/witnessingtool/scientificfactsintheBible.shtml
or:
http://www.eternal-productions.org/101science.html

Honestly, those are ridiculous websites. Atoms are invisible? No they aren't. And the Bible also says the earth sits on pillars, I Samuel 2:8. And....well, I'll just stop there. Those sorts of sites may help bolster the faith of believers who don't know too much about science, but to anyone who is even the slightest bit objective they're embarrassingly ridiculous.

But here is something that was just discovered, an ancient spear tip which confounds evolutionists:
http://christiannews.net/2013/12/02...-evolutionists-raises-questions-on-evolution/

Now that's a great example of what I'm talking about. Christian News, a source you trust, tells you that this is a huge problem for evolution, right? But read the paper (LINK). There's nothing like that at all in there. In fact, it says things like, "There is indirect/circumstantial evidence for the presence of projectile technologies prior to 200 ka, but conclusive evidence has not, thus far, come from the period predating, 80 ka. Our study shows that it was present by at least 280 ka."

IOW, scientists had already suspected from indirect evidence that such technology was in use at that time, and this find appears to confirm that. *shrug* That's not exactly what "Christian News" would have you believe, is it?

 

[RosaVera]

I'm sorry if you took offense at that, because I certainly didn't intend any. You made it clear in an earlier post that you are not an expert in this subject, and that's what I mean by "someone like you". I don't think it's fair to expect a person who hasn't studied a subject and admits that they're not at expert in it, to be able to spot all the flaws in creationist organization materials. It'd be like me reading two papers on particle physics. One says A, the other says Not A. Is it fair to expect me to figure out which one is right?

So again, please accept my apologies. I never meant to insult you.

Thank you... no problem we two are okay... i just am of the opinion that one does not keep repeating the same many times to make their point, true i am no scientist but then most people aren't, does it mean they do not have the means to extrapolate truth ...


I'm going to assume that you're referring to the idea that humans share a common ancestry with all other life. Yes, I do recognize that as scientifically valid.

No, i did not state that all life shares common ancestry... i specified if you actually think we as humans evolved from an amoeba millions of years ago...?


You misunderstood my point. I was trying to point out that no matter how the first life came to be on earth, be it by direct creation by God, natural means, or anything else, the theory of evolution would still explain it's subsequent evolution.


They don't "push the idea that their theory is truth" any more than they do with erosion, chemical bonding, or that germs cause disease. Biologists generally view evolutionary theory as accurate, even though some of the details are still hotly debated.

But let me ask you this....does it matter to you what the scientific evidence is? If say, human-primate common ancestry were able to be scientifically proven beyond a reasonable doubt, would you accept it as true? If so, what evidence is lacking that would convince you?

They can't ... i can use the same hypothetical question about anything and try to have you answer it...


No scientist says we evolved out of nothing.

Okay... then where did the amoeba evolve from...? and where did the big bang evolve from...? It all goes back to the same first spark that according to evolutionists made everything else evolve from it...


You misunderstood my point. Forget about evolution for a second and just focus on this....The Bible says that God creates mountains. Yet we know for a fact that some mountains are created by volcanoes. How do you reconcile those two things?

God created the earth and all in it thus He also created the forces under the earth that unearth mountains. What we see is the result of what God created and when mountains reveal themselves from under the earth they were always there...


First, our bodies are hardly perfect (that's why we have medical science). Second, overall evolution doesn't happen "by chance". If I flip 50 coins, the result of each coin flip is by chance. But if after each set of 50, I keep all the heads and re-flip all the tails, eventually I'll end up with 50 coins that are heads. Did I get that result by chance? Nope, I selected the ones that came up heads. That process is analogous to natural selection, except that in evolution the selection is done via survival and reproduction.

God made us in His image and Adam was perfect and would have lived forever if he did not get booted out of Paradise ... those that lived after him lived for hundreds of years but still they eventually died... what scientists cannot really explain is why at a certain time in our life our cells stop to produce the youth cells and start dying off...the mechanism is in us but at the cellular level it stops functioning at a certain time.



Honestly, those are ridiculous websites. Atoms are invisible? No they aren't. And the Bible also says the earth sits on pillars, I Samuel 2:8. And....well, I'll just stop there. Those sorts of sites may help bolster the faith of believers who don't know too much about science, but to anyone who is even the slightest bit objective they're embarrassingly ridiculous.

i don't think there is anyone that can see atoms with their eyes, they are visible if one had an STM to carry around with them, but i don't think the average person has that... i don't see the air but i know it is there... i feel the wind but i don't see it... hence they are all invisible, but with atoms unlike the air we breathe and the wind we feel one needs a powerful microscope to see them...

Now that's a great example of what I'm talking about. Christian News, a source you trust, tells you that this is a huge problem for evolution, right? But read the paper (LINK). There's nothing like that at all in there. In fact, it says things like, "There is indirect/circumstantial evidence for the presence of projectile technologies prior to 200 ka, but conclusive evidence has not, thus far, come from the period predating, 80 ka. Our study shows that it was present by at least 280 ka."

IOW, scientists had already suspected from indirect evidence that such technology was in use at that time, and this find appears to confirm that. *shrug* That's not exactly what "Christian News" would have you believe, is it?

nice... they always suspected and now this proves their suspicion... Okay...

 

[Panda]

And on that note...topic closed.

I'm sorry guys, but if you can't play nice and treat each other with respect despite your differences in opinion, this is what happens.

 

[Panda]

Note : I believe I may have been a bit hasty about closing this topic. After some of the personal attacks I've seen over the years, my spidey sense may be a bit hyperactive at the moment.

 

[RiverJordan]

Rosa,

true i am no scientist but then most people aren't, does it mean they do not have the means to extrapolate truth

I agree, but with a highly technical subject like evolutionary biology, a certain amount of familiarity with the subject is pretty important. Do you agree?

No, i did not state that all life shares common ancestry... i specified if you actually think we as humans evolved from an amoeba millions of years ago...?

Oh....well, then no, I do not think humans evolved from an amoeba millions of years ago. I don't think any scientist thinks that.

They can't ... i can use the same hypothetical question about anything and try to have you answer it...

Ok, forget the hypothetical and focus on what I asked.

Does the scientific evidence for evolutionary theory matter to you? If so, what data is lacking that would convince you of its validity?

Okay... then where did the amoeba evolve from...? and where did the big bang evolve from...? It all goes back to the same first spark that according to evolutionists made everything else evolve from it...

That's why I explained earlier that to evolutionary theory, it doesn't matter how the first life or the universe started. No matter how those things happened, the theory of evolution still explains what happened after that.

Think of it this way. In chemistry, we know what causes atoms to bond and molecules to behave as they do. Does any of that change if the universe was created by God or if it came about by some other means? Nope. No matter how the universe came to be, we still know what makes atoms and molecules combine.

God created the earth and all in it thus He also created the forces under the earth that unearth mountains. What we see is the result of what God created and when mountains reveal themselves from under the earth they were always there...

I don't understand. Are you saying you believe that say, when a volcano erupts, or two tectonic plates collide, they're just "revealing" mountains that were already created by God, and were just hiding under the earth's crust?

God made us in His image and Adam was perfect and would have lived forever if he did not get booted out of Paradise ...

I understand what you said there, but I'm not sure how that relates to my attempt to help you understand how evolution doesn't occur "by chance". Could you help me understand?

i don't think there is anyone that can see atoms with their eyes, they are visible if one had an STM to carry around with them, but i don't think the average person has that...

Right, that's my point. Atoms aren't invisible. They can be seen. That and the other reasons I listed, are why the arguments put forth by those websites are rather silly. I mean, would you argue that your DNA is invisible? You can't see it with your eyes, right?

nice... they always suspected and now this proves their suspicion

I guess I don't understand the problem with that. The point is, the "Christian News" made it seem as if this discovery called all of human evolution into question, when the truth is nothing like that at all. Why would a Christian news source do that?

 

[ixoye_8]

when circular reasoning is used, and false claims are made, and when pressed to supply non-existent evidence it is ignored or more circular reasoning applied, then I am wasting my time, and as the bible states in 2Ti 2:16 &Ts 3:9, I should exit this thread .. have fun ..

 

[ixoye_8]

when circular reasoning is used, and false claims are made, and when pressed to supply non-existent evidence it is ignored or more circular reasoning applied, then I am wasting my time, and as the bible states in 2Ti 2:16 &Ts 3:9, I should exit this thread .. have fun ..

 

[RiverJordan]

when circular reasoning is used, and false claims are made, and when pressed to supply non-existent evidence it is ignored or more circular reasoning applied, then I am wasting my time, and as the bible states in 2Ti 2:16 &Ts 3:9, I should exit this thread .. have fun ..

Why are you accusing a fellow Christian of such unethical behavior? At least can you show where I did those things?

 

[JoeKash]

We know just what is needed. Its like pieces of a puzzle that has been distributed all over the world. The puzzle is large so it has different colours and shapes. but mind us, its still one puzzle. We will never know all if we keep dividing ourselves. Religion must be understood as one body with different parts. We can't call the arm an eyeball Just as we can't call the Muslims Christians. So rises the lovely question WHAT IS RELIGION?

 

[RosaVera]

YES... River Jordan that is exactly what i am saying... there is nothing that scientists are 'discovering' that was not already created by God ... YES mountains do exists under the water and they do emerge but it is not because all of a sudden out of nothing something evolved and a mountain evolved under the water... one plate goes up and another goes down, but they were always there... scientists, biologists, chemists, are all 'uncovering' not 'discovering' what God has already created and is there to be found... something like the Easter egg hunt...

There is a lot that scientists do that benefits human kind, could it not be that God is just directing them to find the cure, to find the new world, to find that skull, to be the first to create the light bulb or a microscope or to make the vessel to go to the moon... is it not possible that God has a hand in all of this and we are just finding it...?

 

[JoeKash]

YES... River Jordan that is exactly what i am saying... there is nothing that scientists are 'discovering' that was not already created by God ... YES mountains do exists under the water and they do emerge but it is not because all of a sudden out of nothing something evolved and a mountain evolved under the water... one plate goes up and another goes down, but they were always there... scientists, biologists, chemists, are all 'uncovering' not 'discovering' what God has already created and is there to be found... something like the Easter egg hunt...

There is a lot that scientists do that benefits human kind, could it not be that God is just directing them to find the cure, to find the new world, to find that skull, to be the first to create the light bulb or a microscope or to make the vessel to go to the moon... is it not possible that God has a hand in all of this and we are just finding it...?

little do they know that we are finding God himself... For the bones and the water themselves are all part of The Lord our God. The Highest Authority. In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God... Therefore; ALL IS GOD.

 

[RiverJordan]

Rosa,

Again you ignored almost everything I posted to you, including some questions I asked. That's not how a discussion works, and is why I figured a while ago that you weren't really interested an open conversation on this subject. So, I don't see much reason for me to spend a lot of time with you on this.