Theistic Evolution.

[ikester7579 19]

When adding evolution to God's creation, there are some things that need to be considered.

 

1) If evolution goes so well with God, why did Darwin have to recant his faith in order to write his theory? Can we do something the originator of evolution could not?

 

2) If evolution goes so well with God, then it should be used to bring people closer to God. And there should not be people losing their faith due to believing it.

 

3) Evolution should be used as a salvation tool, if it works so well with God. The preaching of it alone should draw people to the front of the church to get saved. But is this what we see?

 

4) Evolutionists argue that evolution is not a religion. But yet will accept someone who mixes both as one of their own. And will defend them in debates as well. Can a non-religous subject be combined with a religous one and work without turning the non-religous one into religion?

 

5) Evolution and God working together should not promote God hate sites like FSTDT.com

 

Added: 6) And if theistic evolution is ok, why is it such a problem that Darwin may have recanted it on his death bed so he could be right with God and go to heaven?

 

More direct questions for theistic evolutionists:

 

1) Do you hold theistic evolution bible studies?

2) Why are there not any theistic evolution cursades (like Billy Graham crusades)?

3) Where are the theistic evolution missionaries?

4) Do you stand on street corners preaching theistic evolution hoping to save souls?

5) Do you ever go door to door trying to save souls?

6) Do you hand out tracts?

7) Would you say that what Christ did on the cross, or what Darwin wrote, is your main driving force for being a Christian?

[Springer 5]

The problem with theistic evolution is that NDT always implicitly states that everyting evolved without intelligent design, i.e., there is no God. That is the crux of evolutionary theory. Chance and natural selection produced everthing. The evos on this forum are always denying the existence of ID. They talk out of both sides of their mouths. On the one hand, they adamantly deny that ID is necessary. On the other hand, they see no conflict with NDT and God.

[ikester7579 19]

The problem with theistic evolution is that NDT always implicitly states that everyting evolved without intelligent design, i.e., there is no God.  That is the crux of evolutionary theory.  Chance and natural selection produced everthing.  The evos on this forum are always denying the existence of ID.  They talk out of both sides of their mouths.  On the one hand, they adamantly deny that ID is necessary.  On the other hand, they see no conflict with NDT and God.

12573[/snapback]

It becomes a real slippery slope as one tries to defend them working together, but also tries to keep them separate enough to say one is religous, but the other is not. I'm debating the same subject at another forum. And they all fell down that slippery slope.

 

I suspect it's the reason they won't debate it here. The warning has gone out about the slippery slope of this subject, on the evolution debating creationists network.

 

I can just imagine the names I'm being called for making them slip up. The only thing I'm trying to show is that oxymorons do not work together.

[jason78 0]

The problem with theistic evolution is that NDT always implicitly states that everyting evolved without intelligent design, i.e., there is no God.  That is the crux of evolutionary theory.  Chance and natural selection produced everthing.  The evos on this forum are always denying the existence of ID.  They talk out of both sides of their mouths.  On the one hand, they adamantly deny that ID is necessary.  On the other hand, they see no conflict with NDT and God.

12573[/snapback]

I'm not a theistic evolutionist, but don't you see the same problem with every scientific theory?

 

You don't demand that other theories include a god, so why should the theory of evolution? Scientific theories describe the mechanisms behind the material world. Living creatures are material things and can be observed, theorised about, and tested. Science can't question anything it can't observe, and since a god can't be observed, it stands to reason that gods are not included in scientific theories.

 

Even people that have researched the big bang theory have had religious beliefs. It hasn't stopped work in that field, even though it puts the work of god a lot further back than it does for the theistic evolutionists.

[Springer 5]

I'm not a theistic evolutionist, but don't you see the same problem with every scientific theory?

 

You don't demand that other theories include a god, so why should the theory of evolution?

As I stated before, NDT demands that there is no God and those who profess otherwise are guilty of double talk. Let's have a little intellectual honesty here. Evos will cling to any explanation as long as it doesn't invoke ID.

 

Scientific theories describe the mechanisms behind the material world.  Living creatures are material things and can be observed, theorised about, and tested. 

NDT can do none of this.

 

Science can't question anything it can't observe, and since a god can't be observed, it stands to reason that gods are not included in scientific theories.

Evolution cannot be observed, so why are you calling it science?

You don't say god cannot be included in science, you say god doesn't exist because you can't observe him according to your predetermined criteria. Nature is replete with proof of intelligent design. The fact that you refuse to open your eyes is irrelevant.

[jason78 0]

As I stated before, NDT demands that there is no God and those who profess otherwise are guilty of double talk. Let's have a little intellectual honesty here.  Evos will cling to any explanation as long as it doesn't invoke ID. 

12607[/snapback]

I'm not equivocating here, but NDT makes no mention any god. If god does take a day to day interest in how life changes then those actions are indistinguishable from nature.

 

NDT can do none of this.

12607[/snapback]

There you have me. NDT doesn't make many "useful" predictions. It still fares better than the creationist theory.

 

Evolution cannot be observed, so why are you calling it science?

You don't say god cannot be included in science, you say god doesn't exist because you can't observe him according to your predetermined criteria.  Nature is replete with proof of intelligent design.  The fact that you refuse to open your eyes is irrelevant.

12607[/snapback]

Evolution is observed, hence the theory. Are you going to throw out gravity too because I can't hand a cup of gravity to you?

 

My eyes are open, and I am looking. You are going to have to trust me on that one. Show me something I can test. And, before you mention it, my faith isn't strong enough to use Mark 16:18.

[Springer 5]

I'm not equivocating here, but NDT makes no mention any god.

NDT adamantly denies any necessity of ID... therefore it denies God

 

 

There you have me.  NDT doesn't make many "useful" predictions.  It still fares better than the creationist theory.

In other words, NDT is the best theory because you don't believe in God.

 

Evolution is observed, hence the theory.  Are you going to throw out gravity too because I can't hand a cup of gravity to you?

Please give me an example of evolution being observed. And don't give me antibiotic resistence or industrial melanism, because that entirely begs the question.

 

My eyes are open, and I am looking.  You are going to have to trust me on that one.  Show me something I can test.  And, before you mention it, my faith isn't strong enough to use Mark 16:18.

The existence of life proves the existence of a creator. There is no viable theory of abiogenesis because it is impossible. The life of Christ proves the existence of God. If you don't accept him, why won't you listen to the testimony of so many witnesses found in the scriptures? Do you believe man has landed on the moon? Why? Because of so many witnesses? Why don't you believe in God? THere are far many more witnesses.

[ikester7579 19]

I have a good question:

 

When you mix non-religion with religion. What does the opposite become?

 

1) Does religion become science because science is now part of it?

2) Or does science become religion because religion is now part of it?

 

Opposites can't mix unless one changes. So which one changes to conform to the other? Religion or science?

[Springer 5]

I have a good question:

 

When you mix non-religion with religion. What does the opposite become?

 

 

12616[/snapback]

It's important to realize that NDT is not science. It is a religion that wears the garb of science.

[Al650 0]

The oft repeated comment made by evolutionists is that God is beyond the scope of science. However, the conclusions drawn by these people based on their reading of the evidence is always the same: there is no evidence of God, ergo no God. Repeating that Science does not study/cannot study the supernatural does not change that. There were atheists prior to the present evidence, and I see no reason why people would not continue as Atheists even if additional evidence overthrew evolutionary theory.

 

It would be nice if a civil discussion could be held between both groups, but the evidence is that those who disbelieve in God and believe in evolution are curently attempting to evangelize Christians to change their belief in Creation. It is pervasive, daily and its intent is clear.

 

I appreciate the efforts being made here to show that the Theory of Evolution is not a fact. And that all things were created by God and nothing was created without Him. Recently, I had a brief conversation with someone who said, "We're all just animals." I leave it to everyone reading this to discern what affect believing that would have on your perception of yourself, other people and decisions you would make.

 

 

God bless,

Al

[jason78 0]

There are a lot of good questions to answer here, so please forgive me if it takes a while for me to get around to them all. I know I'm supposed to be arguing the theistic evolution side of the arguement here, but I think these are important questions in their own right.

 

NDT adamantly denies any necessity of ID... therefore it denies God

12613[/snapback]

No thats a non-sequitur, just because it doesn't include god doesn't mean that it denies one. God doesn't enter into Maxwell's equations, but they don't deny god. I don't have to say a prayer to make the electric circuit I'm building work.

 

In other words, NDT is the best theory because you don't believe in God.

12613[/snapback]

That's pretty much it. Even if I aquired a belief in a god I don't believe I would have to abandon everything I've learnt about science.

 

Please give me an example of evolution being observed.  And don't give me antibiotic resistence or industrial melanism, because that entirely begs the question.

12613[/snapback]

It is rare for a living thing's offspring to be exactly identical to it's parent. Life has the capacity for change and it does.

 

The existence of life proves the existence of a creator.  There is no viable theory of abiogenesis because it is impossible.  The life of Christ proves the existence of God.  If you don't accept him, why won't you listen to the testimony of so many witnesses found in the scriptures?  Do you believe man has landed on the moon?  Why?  Because of so many witnesses?  Why don't you believe in God?  THere are far many more witnesses.

12613[/snapback]

Of course the existence of life proves a creator! I knew my creators personally, they raised me for 16 years of my life. But they were humans, not gods.

 

Even if I accepted Christ right now, I would not have to change my life one iota. I honestly don't see the conflict between science and religon unless you read the scriptures literally.

 

I do believe that men have walked on the moon. Not because Buzz Aldrin says he has, and not because other men have said so either. The space vehicle, the moon rocks, the video footage and the reflectors they left are proof enough for me. If you are still not convinced you can bounce a laser off the reflector yourself.

[jason78 0]

I have a good question:

 

When you mix non-religion with religion. What does the opposite become?

 

1) Does religion become science because science is now part of it?

2) Or does science become religion because religion is now part of it?

 

Opposites can't mix unless one changes. So which one changes to conform to the other? Religion or science?

12616[/snapback]

You are assuming that these are opposites. If religion is the ultimate truth and science is the quest to discover how the world around us works, then surely, the one should bolster the other.

[jason78 0]

The oft repeated comment made by evolutionists is that God is beyond the scope of science. However, the conclusions drawn by these people based on their reading of the evidence is always the same: there is no evidence of God, ergo no God. Repeating that Science does not study/cannot study the supernatural does not change that. There were atheists prior to the present evidence, and I see no reason why people would not continue as Atheists even if additional evidence overthrew evolutionary theory.

12618[/snapback]

If something overthrew evolutionary theory, then it would be a better explanation of how life changes over time. If it agree's with your religion, then that's a bonus for you.

 

I'm going to finish by quoting the Biblical Astronomer

 

"The first assume that God wrote two great books, the Bible and the book of nature, and that if any contradiction arises between the two books, then science dictates the interpretation in the book of nature, and the Bible in the spiritual realm. This, because the Bible is “not a textbook on science.†As Galileo phrased it, “The scriptures teach men how to go to heaven, not how the heaven goes.â€ÂÂ"

 

I maintain that religion and science can co-exist.

[Al650 0]

I maintain that whatever actually happened in the past is not the primary concern of some posting here. Step one: believe in evolution. And once that's accomplished. Step two: Throw away your ancient books and stop believing in the invisible man in the sky.

 

I've seen Dawkins on television using science to advance this idea. That doesn't mean I hate him or anyone who thinks along those lines, I just believe that he is profoundly wrong when he talks about God and the Bible.

 

 

God bless,

Al

[jason78 0]

I maintain that whatever actually happened in the past is not the primary concern of some posting here. Step one: believe in evolution. And once that's accomplished. Step two: Throw away your ancient books and stop believing in the invisible man in the sky.

 

I've seen Dawkins on television using science to advance this idea. That doesn't mean I hate him or anyone who thinks along those lines, I just believe that he is profoundly wrong when he talks about God and the Bible.

God bless,

Al

12627[/snapback]

What happened in the past is my primary concern as I believe it will give us a glimpse into our future.

 

Step One : Examine the world around you. Figure out how it works.

 

Step Two : Explain these things to other people so that they can either perform experiments that confirm or deny these things.

[Springer 5]

No thats a non-sequitur, just because it doesn't include god doesn't mean that it denies one.  God doesn't enter into Maxwell's equations, but they don't deny god.  I don't have to say a prayer to make the electric circuit I'm building work.

NDT denies God in the sense that it proclaims that creation took place without intelligent design.

 

That's pretty much it.  Even if I aquired a belief in a god I don't believe I would have to abandon everything I've learnt about science.

If by "science" you mean "evolution", then there would need to be a major paradigm shift.

 

It is rare for a living thing's offspring to be exactly identical to it's parent.  Life has the capacity for change and it does.

So you're saying that because species exhibit small changes from one generation to another, that eventually a microbe can evolve into a human? What sort of logic is that? It's certainly not even close to science.

My assertion remains... evolution has never been observed. It has been imagined... nothing more.