Does Evolution and Science draw people away from God?

[Audie]

Audie wrote:
Thought you were not talking to me? Glad to see you changed your mind.

Technically, I wasn't talking to you. I was just clearing that up for Annette.

Audie wrote:
Thanks for the clarification, I didnt know anyone dated Adam to that long ago.

The main reason that Young Earth Creationists go with the 6000 years ago date for Adam, is that they take the biblical chronology as having no gaps, or little gaps. But as far as creationists go, that's usually just YECs. Old earth creationists and Theistic evolutionists(both technically creationists) don't assume there are no gaps in the geneaology. The bible doesn't set a date on Adam. It's just human interpretation of chronology that sets dates.

What would you mean by first "real" human?

Sorry. Modern human. Homo sapiens sapiens. If Adam wasn't the first modern human(with a spirit), then it becomes a problem biblically, because of the whole "sin, and need for a redeemer" deal. Although some Theistic Evolutionists don't believe Adam was the first modern, spiritual human. But I've yet to hear a good argument as to how those TEs deal with the problem of original sin, and the need for a redeemer. Which if can't be addressed properly, makes the whole message of the bible worthless. (And to clarify, I'm not saying those TEs don't deal with the issue. I'm just saying that I personally, haven't sen a satisfactory answer).

I can go along with "dust" as long as a lot of water is added. And maybe a couple other provisos.

Yes, It's like "instant human". Just take the dust of the earth, and add water.

Humans bodies aren't made up of any elements that are any different than other animals. I know you know that. I'm just saying it to explain that what humans are made of physically, isn't what make us different from the animals, especially other bipedal animals.

Despite being unconvinced, btw, with phil. arguments to prove that there has to be a god, I could go along with it.. assuming I got convinced... and be a creationist myself.

It's not really a big step Audie. Technically, all you'd have to do to be a creationist, is believe God or a god created the building blocks for life, then life evolved from there.

Ive seen it proposed that Adam was the first human given a soul. There were, after all, humans, H sapiens, deeply predating any date for Adam.

I guess Im half way to being a creo. What a thing to discover! Im blaming you for this.

[PaulSacramento]

The bible does NOT state when Adam was created or even when Adam left the Garden in Eden or even how long He and Eve were there for.
We also need to member that the bible is only addressing the genealogy of the Hebrew people and NOT all the peoples of the whole world ( nor does the bible claim to do that).

[PaulSacramento]

As for the original sin thing, that is a thread of it's own, but:
http://biologos.org/blog/evolution-and- ... ins-part-1

and the parts that go with it.

[PaulSacramento]

or:

http://drmsh.com/2009/08/05/paul-origin ... -theology/

[RickD]

Audie wrote:
Ive seen it proposed that Adam was the first human given a soul. There were, after all, humans, H sapiens, deeply predating any date for Adam.

I guess Im half way to being a creo. What a thing to discover! Im blaming you for this.

Yes Audie. I believe homo sapiens are known to predate homo sapiens sapiens. Some "creationists" believe homo sapiens sapiens evolved from homo sapiens. While others believe each was created differently. There's a HUGE range of beliefs just within Theistic Evolution.

And Audie, I'd be careful who you tell that you're halfway to being a creationist. Some of your evolutionist friends might think you're an idiot.

[Audie]

Audie wrote:
Ive seen it proposed that Adam was the first human given a soul. There were, after all, humans, H sapiens, deeply predating any date for Adam.

I guess Im half way to being a creo. What a thing to discover! Im blaming you for this.

Yes Audie. I believe homo sapiens are known to predate homo sapiens sapiens. Some "creationists" believe homo sapiens sapiens evolved from homo sapiens. While others believe each was created differently. There's a HUGE range of beliefs just within Theistic Evolution.

And Audie, I'd be careful who you tell that you're halfway to being a creationist. Some of your evolutionist friends might think you're an idiot.

If I said it that way, yes. I know nobody who'd say its impossible that there is a god.

BTW, you accused me of dishonesty, and I challenged you to back it, or take it back.
I dont seek conflict, but I cannot pretend you didnt accuse me so. Please deal with it.

[RickD]

Audie wrote:
Ive seen it proposed that Adam was the first human given a soul. There were, after all, humans, H sapiens, deeply predating any date for Adam.

I guess Im half way to being a creo. What a thing to discover! Im blaming you for this.

Yes Audie. I believe homo sapiens are known to predate homo sapiens sapiens. Some "creationists" believe homo sapiens sapiens evolved from homo sapiens. While others believe each was created differently. There's a HUGE range of beliefs just within Theistic Evolution.

And Audie, I'd be careful who you tell that you're halfway to being a creationist. Some of your evolutionist friends might think you're an idiot.

If I said it that way, yes. I know nobody who'd say its impossible that there is a god.

BTW, you accused me of dishonesty, and I challenged you to back it, or take it back.
I dont seek conflict, but I cannot pretend you didnt accuse me so. Please deal with it.

Yes Audie, you were being dishonest when you said:

W/o getting into microquibble, the micro / macro thing in a creationist canard.

I showed you that noncreationists use the terms micro and macro evolution. AND, the person who the terms originated with, was an evolutionist.

So for you to say that it's a creationist canard(An unfounded rumour or story), is dishonest, IMO.

[Audie]

Audie wrote:
Ive seen it proposed that Adam was the first human given a soul. There were, after all, humans, H sapiens, deeply predating any date for Adam.

I guess Im half way to being a creo. What a thing to discover! Im blaming you for this.

Yes Audie. I believe homo sapiens are known to predate homo sapiens sapiens. Some "creationists" believe homo sapiens sapiens evolved from homo sapiens. While others believe each was created differently. There's a HUGE range of beliefs just within Theistic Evolution.

And Audie, I'd be careful who you tell that you're halfway to being a creationist. Some of your evolutionist friends might think you're an idiot.

If I said it that way, yes. I know nobody who'd say its impossible that there is a god.

BTW, you accused me of dishonesty, and I challenged you to back it, or take it back.
I dont seek conflict, but I cannot pretend you didnt accuse me so. Please deal with it.

Yes Audie, you were being dishonest when you said:

W/o getting into microquibble, the micro / macro thing in a creationist canard.

I showed you that noncreationists use the terms micro and macro evolution. AND, the person who the terms originated with, was an evolutionist.

So for you to say that it's a creationist canard(An unfounded rumour or story), is dishonest, IMO.

If an "evolutionist" coined the terms, fine. It hardly matters. Who thought of the words was not at all what I was talking about, nor is it dishonest of me to have thought it was a creationist. I was talking about the use of the words.

Did you read my reply?

That people may use the same terms does not remotely imply that they mean the same thing by it.

The micro / macro "thing" that I refer to as a creocanard is the assertion there is micro, variation within an (undefined) "kind", but that macro is impossible.

As a rule, it is the fair minded thing to inquire as to what someone means, or, read more carefully before making accusations, dont you think?

[RickD]

Audie wrote:
If an "evolutionist" coined the terms, fine. It hardly matters. Who thought of the words was not at all what I was talking about, nor is it dishonest of me to have thought it was a creationist. I was talking about the use of the words.

Did you read my reply?

That people may use the same terms does not remotely imply that they mean the same thing by it.

The micro / macro "thing" that I refer to as a creocanard is the assertion there is micro, variation within an (undefined) "kind", but that macro is impossible.

As a rule, it is the fair minded thing to inquire as to what someone means, or, read more carefully before making accusations, dont you think?

Of Course. But it looks like you've been saying that only creationists differentiate between micro and macro. That's just not true. Sure, the terms are defined differently depending on who is defining.

And if anyone said "macro is impossible", I think they're wrong. But I don't think most honest creationists are saying that. I think most creationists are just saying that macro is not knowable. And afaik, evolutionists assume macro from micro, because that's how evolution should work, if theres no other explanation.

[Audie]

Audie wrote:
If an "evolutionist" coined the terms, fine. It hardly matters. Who thought of the words was not at all what I was talking about, nor is it dishonest of me to have thought it was a creationist. I was talking about the use of the words.

Did you read my reply?

That people may use the same terms does not remotely imply that they mean the same thing by it.

The micro / macro "thing" that I refer to as a creocanard is the assertion there is micro, variation within an (undefined) "kind", but that macro is impossible.

As a rule, it is the fair minded thing to inquire as to what someone means, or, read more carefully before making accusations, dont you think?

Of Course. But it looks like you've been saying that only creationists differentiate between micro and macro. That's just not true. Sure, the terms are defined differently depending on who is defining.

And if anyone said "macro is impossible", I think they're wrong. But I don't think most honest creationists are saying that. I think most creationists are just saying that macro is not knowable. And afaik, evolutionists assume macro from micro, because that's how evolution should work, if theres no other explanation.

The creationist differentiation between micro and macro is the canard.

If you are satisfied that you misunderstood me rather than thinking I was being dishonest, fine.

Ive seen the "micro yes / macro no way" argument from creationists so often, that I thought it pretty universal.. and, if one accepts that macro does happen, then, what are they arguing about at all?

Regarding the assumption of macro, good that you said its as far as you are (k)oncerned. Its so far from an assumption.

I dont know what you meant with the second half, the "because..." but I sure dont think the word "should" fits into ToE anywhere.

[RickD]

The creationist differentiation between micro and macro is the canard.

I'm assuming you mean the way they differentiate, not the differentiation itself, correct? Because again, evolutionists differentiate as well.

If you are satisfied that you misunderstood me rather than thinking I was being dishonest, fine.

While it's possible that I misunderstood you, I still think you weren't being honest. But if you were, then I apologize.

Ive seen the "micro yes / macro no way" argument from creationists so often, that I thought it pretty universal.. and, if one accepts that macro does happen, then, what are they arguing about at all?

The "now way" may come from the interpretation of the facts. Like the fossil record. The lack of transitional intermediates in the fossil record. I believe the lack of transitional intermediates points to Progressive Creation, not evolution.

Regarding the assumption of macro, good that you said its as far as you are (k)oncerned. Its so far from an assumption.

afaik-as far as I know. Ok, how about assumption based on interpretation of genetics and the fossil record, etc.

Evolutionists see genetics pointing to a common ancestor. Many creationists see genetics pointing to a common designer, who used the same or similar chemicals to design different life forms.

I dont know what you meant with the second half, the "because..." but I sure dont think the word "should" fits into ToE anywhere.

I was referring to :

because that's how evolution should work, if theres no other explanation.

because of the lack of intermediates in the fossil record for example. Evolutionists assume evolution even though the fossil record shows otherwise, IMO.

Maybe I'm wrong and some evolutionists really do think the lack of transitional intermediates still shows evolution.

[Audie]

The creationist differentiation between micro and macro is the canard.

I'm assuming you mean the way they differentiate, not the differentiation itself, correct? Because again, evolutionists differentiate as well.

Yes.

If you are satisfied that you misunderstood me rather than thinking I was being dishonest, fine.

While it's possible that I misunderstood you, I still think you weren't being honest. But if you were, then I apologize.

If you dont think Im being dishonest now, then, I wasnt then either.

Ive seen the "micro yes / macro no way" argument from creationists so often, that I thought it pretty universal.. and, if one accepts that macro does happen, then, what are they arguing about at all?

The "now way" may come from the interpretation of the facts. Like the fossil record. The lack of transitional intermediates in the fossil record. I believe the lack of transitional intermediates points to Progressive Creation, not evolution.

The thing about a lack of intermediaries is also, sorry, as bit of a creationist canard.

Look at it this way. We don not have a complete record of WW2. Far less complete record of the Roman Empire. There are gaps, and mysteries in abundance.

There are many organisms known from a single incomplete specimen, sometimes a single bone fragment.

Of course there are gaps in the fossil record. A single dinosaur bone can cost thousands of dollars from discovery to museum. Its not like there is a lot of money or a lot of people working on fossils. One paleo put it that its a grand sport for rich gentlemen.

Overlooking the sequences and intermediate forms that are known, and concentrating on where the record is missing is not reasonable or, (ahem) honest.

Regarding the assumption of macro, good that you said its as far as you are (k)oncerned. Its so far from an assumption.

afaik-as far as I know. Ok, how about assumption based on interpretation of genetics and the fossil record, etc.

The use of the word "assumption" is inappropriate. Kinda like you have the bloody knife, the corpse, the footprints, etc, and say its an assumption that murder took place.

Evolutionists see genetics pointing to a common ancestor. Many creationists see genetics pointing to a common designer, who used the same or similar chemicals to design different life forms.

That is fine. The designer, tho, is a conclusion before data, and non negotiable.

Its not just genetics anyway. There are many lines of evidence, as you know.

Are you of the school of thought that a designer kept doing unique creations over the aeons? And doing what has the appearance of a sequence, from fish with the basic bone structure of limbs, thro amphibians, reptiles...?

I dont know what you meant with the second half, the "because..." but I sure dont think the word "should" fits into ToE anywhere.

I was referring to :

because that's how evolution should work, if theres no other explanation.

because of the lack of intermediates in the fossil record for example. Evolutionists assume evolution even though the fossil record shows otherwise

,

A proper study on your part would show otherwise. There are a great many fine examples of intermediate forms. To say the fosssil record does not show evolution is rather an extraordinary statement, not consistent with the record as it exists.

Maybe I'm wrong and some evolutionists really do think the lack of transitional intermediates still shows evolution.

I will go with the second and third words of that sentence.

[1over137]

I think I have resigned to fix Audie's quotes anymore. The above post, the post here

[RickD]

I think I have resigned to fix Audie's quotes anymore. The above post, the post here

Yes Hana, I know what you mean. It must be because her posts are evolving. Because, if there were any intelligent creator of those quotes, they would make more sense.

[Philip]

DanielTwenty wrote: "Based on the available evidence, yes life evolves. That's what all the historical evidence says. If you can provide an alternative explanation of the evidence that can make predictions we can test for and has a better explanatory power than evolution then I am all ears. Until that time ACB I dismiss your assertions, because that's all they are, nothing you have said is based on any fact."

Dan, are you familiar with this book of old earth creationist and astronomer Hugh Ross?: http://www.amazon.com/Creation-As-Scien ... tion+model

It's a great book.

Evolutionists are making an obvious mistake, that the similarities between species in the fossil record aren't necessarily connected. IF God created, He could have created species individually and designed each for the then-present conditions they would inhabit. Then He allowed earlier forms to go extinct as He made new species that began to thrive as other species began to decline. God has the DNA for all creatures. He has the blueprints. He doesn't need a factory. He is UNLIMITED in what He is capable of. And yet evolutionists that believe in God insist that what they are seeing in the fossil record HAD to have been connected, that species evolved into new ones. Of COURSE they are similarities because certain designs and mechanism are cross functional to a wide variety of animal body types.

God made a gazillion animal species - is it surprising that he also made monkeys and apes that have high cognition and intelligence? Why is man the only species that can think abstractly about a huge variety of things, compose music, create art, do mathematics, astronomy - all these things that ONLY man is capable of. We don't see such sophistication (art, religion, etc) amongst the hominids. We must admit, out of all the species that have lived, man stands alone and is totally unique in his intelligence and abilities. I'd say if evolution were true, it would have produced other species of such higher functioning. Oh, I forgot - evolution is just dumb, random luck - we're lucky to have become men. I knew a few guys in high school for whom that designation is highly questionable!