Another challenge to Darwinists

[the sleep of reason]

zoe,
i think we've disconnected, or at least you're not understanding my stance. that must be my fault for being a sort of devil's advocate here...i dont think any of this, or the bible thing, is vital to salvation. that's just me, tho. i think you can believe you came from monkies and still believe in a creator God, too.

i've tried really hard to concisely answer all the questions you ask, so i'm persisting you answer mine. i think there's a mutual benefit from it. i do use the word "concede" in reference to evolution because it's the best i can find. to which i pose a question i hope you'll really answer:
do you deny that christians embracing any form of evolution is very recent and totally contengient on recent scientific data?
am i wrong in saying that prior to this recent data almost all christians vehimently denounced evolution in all forms?
is it negative for me to call this shift in acceptance of scientific data a concession?

i use the word under the pretense that christians have fought against evolution for so long and have recently started gradually accepting theories due to evidence. to concede to evidence, to shift from arguing against something to realizing it could be (or is) true.i ask about the hirax/elephant because to believe they have a common ancestor simply means you believe in speciation to some degree. i think it's an important question to ask, or to at least consider, if you think all animals that are now have always been, or if some have evolved over the course of human history. it's not that in saying you do believe some animals are were not directly created by God's hand but have evolved over the history of the planet--that i will be like "AHA God doesnt exist" or "you're wrong" or anything of the sort. i'm not trying to disprove anything or anyone, just opening the idea that God and science and co-exist without conflict.

as for the extreme christians: none of that has anything to do with what i believe, i wouldnt have even brought it up at all but it was a direct response to a quote where someone denounced islam and mormonism as being wrong based on racism and sexism, traits that are NOT fundamental to either religion, traits also wrongfully acted out in christianity. i know they are not fundamental to christianity, either--they do not sway my believe in scripture or act on my faith.
neither does science.
it's ok not to agree with mormans or muslims or to think they are just flat out wrong, but to say they are wrong because some extremists do wrong things like that has to be applied by the same people to christianity.

i think you have a 100% totally wrong impression about me. i 've said it many times over but i'll say it again for clarification: i believe in a Creator God almighty, and nothing can or will change that. i do not see anything about science conflicting with that believe, and every single post here and in the bible thread serve the SOLE purpose of trying to expose the belief
that God cannot exist if macro evolution does or God cannot exist if the bible is false.
i know there is a God. i do NOT know that we did or did not evolve from a single cell billions of eons ago. i do not know if the bible has been tainted by propaganda, time or politics. but no matter what i find in science or history, i know there is God Almighty. i've never ever even hinted at the idea that macro evolution or any other form of it would disprove God, nor have i even slightly hinted at the idea that a biblical untruth disproves God. again, someoen could come forward and say the bible was a total hoax and it still wouldnt affect my walk with God or my relationship with Him.

in a private session i told someone that i m here because over the years i find that the closer i commune with Him, the more i fail to understand the potential of a single right relgion. the more i focus on His will and try to be like Him, the more i lose faith in mankind. i do not think science is a product of man. i think science is the name given to our attempt to understand what He has done, and no matter what we find in science it will never be anything but that.

so. that's why i dont get why everyone seems afraid of macro or speciation. i'm not. science doesnt dictate my spirituality.

[jenna]

Ok, now you have me confused. How can a Christian POSSIBLY believe in a creator God and still believe that we came from monkeys? God created us in HIS image. Either you believe this or you don't, there is no inbetween. God did not make us from monkeys, nor does God have the image of a monkey.

[jenna]

Sorry, this was an accidental double post!

[the sleep of reason]

Ok, now you have me confused. How can a Christian POSSIBLY believe in a creator God and still believe that we came from monkeys? God created us in HIS image. Either you believe this or you don't, there is no inbetween. God did not make us from monkeys, nor does God have the image of a monkey.

im not sure but i think it's blasphemous to go around saying waht God did or didnt do or what God is capable of. i sure dont know what He did or didnt do.

and man, i dont mean to be rude but i have to do a heck of a lot of repeating myself here. i know the posts get wordy but i've answered this exact question in two threads several times. i will again, tho.
here's how a christian can believe in anything in science and anything in the bible:
in hebrew, the bible is literally translated as saying 'in the beginning" was not created from nothingness but was rather a modification of a preexisting GOD made earth from a previous time. so anything and everything is possible from that point.

are you saying you know what God looks like? no one knows what God looks like, and people dont all look the same, not even basically the same. ok i take that back, we do look basically the same just as a monkey looks basically the same as a human.

but i dont think we came from monkies. i'm just saying which part of the bible uses the word evolution? none. so who knows. we made that word up. if we found out we DID come from swamp crud, then to monkies then to us, it doesnt mean the bible isnt true, because again the literal hebrew translation says the earth was here any number of eons before man. cavemen could have been a previous master of this world God created, or we could have come from them, who knows. i dont know. all i know is 'to be made in the image of God' doesnt mean he looks like anglo american human people. where in the bible does it say God has two eyes, a nose, a mouth, arms, fingers, or any other human traits?

[zoegirl]

zoe,

i've tried really hard to concisely answer all the questions you ask, so i'm persisting you answer mine. i think there's a mutual benefit from i. i do use the word "concede" in reference to evolution. to which i pose a question i hope you'll really answer:
do you deny that christians embracing any form of evolution is very recent and totally contengient on recent scientific data?

No, I do not deny this at all. But why is this a bad thing, necessarily? I see this arguement of macro/micro as non-religious in nature from my point of view. I agree with you 100% that God could have used a mechanism (scripturally though, this is still with HIm being involved and retaining soverengty). I've said that all along. But personally, I don't regard macroevolution as anything but extrapolation. That is all.

That being said; however, and to be fair to many Christians out there...
70 years ago btw, there WAS FAR less evidence for microevolution out there, and the vast majority of "evidence" WAS purely speculative. And much of the research was "Adaptive storytelling" and not really true research. Many scientists looked at correlation studies and used these to propose models. Much of the research in the 70's underwent dramatic change when they realized that these correlation studies were simply that, adaptive storytelling. (fascinating seminar, that was).

Do you really then want to criticize us for resisting the urge to simply fall for extrapolation and speculation?!? And then when the research DID show selection and microevolution at work, there were Christians who understood and examined and responded intelligently and reasonably to this evidence. And so when we DO say "yeah, you HAVE shown this to be the case" we are criticized for being reasonable?! So no, I don't see this as the huge barrier you do.

Especially when, philosophically, you see that fact that evolution HAS BEEN used to defend the rejection of God. You had Hitler, Stalin, and communists, Freud, and many, many atheist scientists who loved to proclaim evolution as their sole property (and some even now) and their foundation for rejecting God. Do you really find it hard to believe that there has been a huge stigma to this model? And there exists STILL a huge stigma for even theistic evolutionists who accept macroevolution as the method God used (see below with Francis COllins)

am i wrong in saying that prior to this recent data almost all christians vehimently denounced evolution in all forms?
is it negative for me to call this shift in acceptance of scientific data a concession?

i use the word under the pretense that christians have fought against evolution for so long and have recently started gradually accepting theories due to evidence.

I think you need to realize that this issue is a whole lot more complex than simply bull-headed Christian fundamentalists reluctantly giving in when the evidence is insurmountable. Society, philosophies, Christian politics (and a few VERY strong YEC personalities) out there made it, especially in the 1940's to even the present a virtual heresy to even accept the study of evolution. (and sadly there are still a few who make this claim) There are few more terms out in society that have an immediate emotional response to them than evolution. And there is just reason for this. Many atheists (and my apologies for any confusion, I didn't mean to lump you into this crowd) used this model in the past to justify their atheism. I used Freud, for example, and leaders that leapt at this model to establish their worldview without a creator. Is it any wonder that evolution became equated with atheism? I think what you are really seeing for the first time is the last several generations of Christians that have lived without this mantle of evolution equating with atheism. I think you have to give many theologians and Christians credit who have studied and examined this and HAVE realized the dogma that has been out there. I think you would be pleasantly surprised at the book list in the godandscience site. There are more OEC's out there and more progressive creationsists out there than you perhaps realize.

to concede to evidence.i ask about the hirax/elephant because to believe they have a common ancestor simply means you believe in speciation. i think it's an important question to ask, or to at least consider, if you think all animals that are now have always been, or if some have evolved over the course of human history.

I have already answered this. I support the progressive creationist model at this time. Under this model, God is sovereign and yet in His sovereignty used a process to develop His creation. With thi model, it wouldn't be a surprise to see evidence of modeling animals after previous ancestors, such as similar DNA and similar bone structure. I only hesitate to use the term theistic evolution BECAUSE 1) there is so much emotional baggage out there revolving around the term and 2) many theistic evolutionists take away God's involvement throughout the creation process, which I reject because of scripture.

as for the extreme christians: none of that has anything to do with what i believe, i wouldnt have even brought it up at all but it was a direct response to a quote where someone denounced islam and mormonism as wrong based on racism and sexism, traits that fundamental to either religion, traits also wrongfully acted out in christianity. i know they are not fundamental to christianity, either--they do not sway my believe in scripture or act on my faith.

neither does science.


i think you have a 100% totally wrong impression about me. i 've said it many times over but i'll say it again: i believe in a Creator God almighty, and nothing can or will change that. i do not see anything about science conflicting with that believe, and ever single post here and in the bible thread serve the SOLE purpose of trying to expose the believe that God cannot exist if macro evolution does or God cannot exist if the bible is false.

Personally I have not worried about this. I have (and Canuckster as well, I believe) said that macroevolution is still and always will be extrapolation and speculative by its very nature. I believe right now that this is more the nature of the study and not religious. I have said before that it doesn't bother me if they find a new evolutionary pathway. I also believe macroevolution, by itself, is not a reason to dismiss God. (I argue against it more as a model, not as a religious treatise....I simply dislike the ease with which they say and use that magic phrase "over time").

I wish that more scientists did not treat their belief in macroevolution as a reason to dismiss God. Francis Collins, the author of "The Language of God" who is very much more so of a theistic evolutionist than I am, has been WIDELY denounced from his fellow peers, jeered at, scorned and mocked at, because he looked at creation, accepted macroevolution and STILL believed in a creator.

My apologies for misinterpreting your belief in God. I am mixing up your questions about the Bible as being the sole inspired wird of God and did some extrapolating myself !!

i know there is a God. i do NOT know that we did or did not evolve from a single cell billions of eons ago. i do not know if the bible has been tainted by propaganda, time or politics.

I DO find it interesting, however, that you blithely talk about the bible as being tainted and yet willingly believe evolution to this degree of defense. Out of curiousity, how much study have you done with evolution as compared with biblical studies? Have you studied them with equal fervor? I admire your passion and your zeal to seek the truth. I would be interested to know what books you have read on Biblical authenticity.

but no matter what i find in science or history, i know there is God Almighty. i've never ever even hinted at the idea that macro evolution or any other form of it would disprove God, nor have i even slightly hinted at the idea that a biblical untruth disproves God.

Good for you.

again, someoen could come forward and say the bible was a total hoax and it still wouldnt affect my walk with God or my relationship with Him.

Not here I must say this answer is totally unsatisfying for me How can you say this? You have spent multiple postings addressing the questions you have about the fallibility of the scripture and then you can say that your walk is unaffected? With respect, I would encourage you to examine and define your walk with God. You find it mind-boggling that we would question some mere science. I find it mind-boggling that you wouldn't seek after the answers concerning the scripture BECAUSE to not do so must certainly affect your walk with God. If you don't know who He is or have any idea of HIs Holy word, HOw CAN you have a walk with him?

in a private session i told someone that i m here because over the years i find that the closer i commune with Him, the more i fail to understand the potential of a single right relgion. the more i focus on His will and try to be like Him, the more i lose faith in mankind. i do not think science is a product of man. i think science is the name given to our attempt to understand what He has done, and no matter what we find in science it will never be anything but that.

I do think you need to do a lot more study on the subject as well as pray about it.

so. that's why i dont get why everyone seems afraid of macro or speciation. i'm not. science doesnt dictate my spirituality.

I am not afraid of either one. Currently, at our level, I have absolutely no problem with speciation, merely with 1) the extrapolation of speciation with regards to its power in producing large scale changes (the blithe "ah yes, well, over time") and 2) with its use (not referring to you) in rejecting GOd.

PEace, and God bless. Thanks for asking for clarification. Hope you are enjoying your break.

[jenna]

You don't know what He did or didn't do? The proof of what He did is plainly stated in the bible. I do agree with the statement of the creation of the earth, but not humans or animals. It plainly states that animaks are made after their own kind, and humans are made in God's image. That's how I know what He did and didn't do.

[zoegirl]

You don't know what He did or didn't do? The proof of what He did is plainly stated in the bible. I do agree with the statement of the creation of the earth, but not humans or animals. It plainly states that animaks are made after their own kind, and humans are made in God's image. That's how I know what He did and didn't do.

Jen, if someone says to you that they built that car....does specualting on HOW they did it doubting that they did?

Why is the idea that GOd could have used a process out of line? Humans are still in His image and animals and plants are still made after their kind (by the way, the Hebrew word for kind does not directly translate into species, this is a very hard word to pigeonhole)

[jenna]

All I'm saying here is that God created man. From the dust. He did not create monkeys or what have you, and then let them evolve into man.

[zoegirl]

All I'm saying here is that God created man. From the dust. He did not create monkeys or what have you, and then let them evolve into man.

Ah, but what does the Hebrew word for dust imply?

Also I agree with you with regards to the word "let". I don't think anything that happened was simply "allowed" to happen. I think Genesis IS very clear that HOWEVER God did it, He did it intentionally, willfully, and He accomplished what He wanted to accomplish.

God simply didn't just add some ignrediets into some grand mixing bowl and sit back and say "wow, look what happened!"

[jenna]

Agreed. He said it "was very good". Answer one question for me, though. How long did it take for God to create man, in your opinion?

[the sleep of reason]

But why is this a bad thing, necessarily? I see this arguement of macro/micro as non-religious in nature from my point of view. I agree with you 100% that God could have used a mechanism (scripturally though, this is still with HIm being involved and retaining soverengty). I've said that all along. But personally, I don't regard macroevolution as anything but extrapolation. That is all.

hmm. i see your point, but i never really considered evolutionist as being inherently athiest. i actually solidified my conclusion that God and science can work together by discussing it with an agnostic friend. he is the one that brough it up, actually, that evolutionary proof isnt necessarily antiGod proof. i guess he's rare, but i dont cohort with many atheists. i find them disgusting because they are so hypocritical. they PREACH anti-God. they are as zealous and fanatical as snake handling penticostles (ok i admit i'm penticostle, seriously.) they just preach non-belief. it's still 'religion' it's just negative regligion, based on the same faith structure. so i just dont really deal with them for that reason.

That being said; however, and to be fair to many Christians out there...
70 years ago btw, there WAS FAR less evidence for microevolution out there, and the vast majority of "evidence" WAS purely speculative.

i dont know, im not even interested in biology. HA! but seriously i really dont know and i really dont have a vested interested in this part of science, i just meant by all that that i couldnt come up with a better word than concession to display 'going from arguing against something then agreeing once there is evidence."

see, i dont know about evoltuion, i dont care all that much, i dont seek it out the way i do biblical truths. i know what i sponge up and dont really seek much past that, because i have a solid reliability in the idea that nothing is going to falter my walk with GOd due to science. more on this in a second---

Do you really then want to criticize us for resisting the urge to simply fall for extrapolation and speculation?!? And then when the research DID show selection and microevolution at work, there were Christians who understood and examined and responded intelligently and reasonably to this evidence. And so when we DO say "yeah, you HAVE shown this to be the case" we are criticized for being reasonable?! So no, I don't see this as the huge barrier you do.

nah not criticizing, just saying that's my basis of the word choice for concession. i think over time if we could just see the data and be the people we are now we'd accept macro once we understood it more and everything woul function spiritually as we are. that's all.

My apologies for misinterpreting your belief in God. I am mixing up your questions about the Bible as being the sole inspired wird of God and did some extrapolating myself !!

no worries, no worries.

I DO find it interesting, however, that you blithely talk about the bible as being tainted and yet willingly believe evolution to this degree of defense. Out of curiousity, how much study have you done with evolution as compared with biblical studies? Have you studied them with equal fervor? I admire your passion and your zeal to seek the truth. I would be interested to know what books you have read on Biblical authenticity.

ok. this bible thing is something i've sought out for ten years, all of my adult life. and i mean dilligently. i talk to God everyday. now, you said the bible is how you know Him. i have to say that if i only read the bible and didnt seek communion and oneness with Him ouside of just reading the word, i wouldnt know HIm at all. i know God because of my walk with him and my seeking to be more like Him, my seeking to live in His will, and all of that, for me, comes from prayer, meditation, communion and fellowship. the bible has never, no matter how hard i've tried (and i cant stress enough how HARD i have tried!!!!) has never been fulfilling to me. it's always raised more questions than answers. i've begged God for peace on this issue, and i've really found it (i think) which is why i 'm asking if it's ok to just not really have all that much emphasis on a holy text but rather spend your time on the line directly with the man.

that being said, i'm studying the word in Hebrew now, as to circumvent any rhedoric. i dont know how else to, and i cant express what hard work this has been. i find that if anything the pentatuech (sp?) seems to be the most untainted--

what is religion? it's semantics made up by some people as to how they think people how to work. what is salvation? to me it is walking with Thee and trying to be like Thee, under His blessing because we accept Him as the Almighty and our Saviour. i have been to about 50 churches (literally) trying to find

[the sleep of reason]

All I'm saying here is that God created man. From the dust. He did not create monkeys or what have you, and then let them evolve into man.

how can you be so certain of this?

[jenna]

Again, how long, in your opinion, did it take God to create man?

[zoegirl]

Agreed. He said it "was very good". Answer one question for me, though. How long did it take for God to create man, in your opinion?

can you be more specific? What are you asking. In what "day" did He create man and woman?

how many years? Days? did it take? Dunno... Can you narrow down what you are asking for?

(btw, might get the answer tomorrow....I really should be asleep right now....I ahev GOT to go to bed)

[the sleep of reason]

All I'm saying here is that God created man. From the dust. He did not create monkeys or what have you, and then let them evolve into man.

Ah, but what does the Hebrew word for dust imply?

Also I agree with you with regards to the word "let". I don't think anything that happened was simply "allowed" to happen. I think Genesis IS very clear that HOWEVER God did it, He did it intentionally, willfully, and He accomplished what He wanted to accomplish.

God simply didn't just add some ignrediets into some grand mixing bowl and sit back and say "wow, look what happened!"

so then do we not have free will?

do bees not pollinate flowers? doesnt the world work in a systematic way? isnt that a group of ingredients working together on their own?
if not, why then do we pray? if we 're not in some way controlling things here, how could God intervien after prayer?
He would already be running things, so that would render prayer useless, no?

i think God did step back and let us do our own thing. how else could adam have sinned?