Evolution, Science, and God

[rsc2a]

My problem with evolution is the way its presented. I am certain that things have "changed". Yet, the arrogant nature of a evolutionist refuses to acknowledge the possibility that he is wrong. As much as redgreen5 and rsca want to believe they change the teaching of "evolution" is compatible with the "Scriptures". It isn't. Its not even close. Yes, we can see change. Yes, we can see traces of natural selection. YET, these can not be readily used to reconcile the "unknowns" associated with The Creation account given in the Scriptures.

The lengths people such as redgreen5 go to "fill" in the gaps in the Creation Account is rather silly. Take for example what I mentioned concerning "morning and evening". They know the consistency of the solar and lunar cycles from what we know from "Science". YET, they refuse to acknowledge the morning and evening is a clear reference to these cycles.

When they find an inconsistency within their beliefs they do not choose the plain teaching of the Scriptures. THEY CHANGE THE meaning of the Scriptures to meet their agenda. If anything should change its Science.

You mean those "evenings" and "mornings" that happened before the creation of the solar system?

:

Sorry....you can't appeal to solar and lunar cyles to prove your point here because they didn't exist yet. That's probably a clue that you're reading the passage wrong (i.e. literary context).

 

[christundivided]

My problem with evolution is the way its presented. I am certain that things have "changed". Yet, the arrogant nature of a evolutionist refuses to acknowledge the possibility that he is wrong. As much as redgreen5 and rsca want to believe they change the teaching of "evolution" is compatible with the "Scriptures". It isn't. Its not even close. Yes, we can see change. Yes, we can see traces of natural selection. YET, these can not be readily used to reconcile the "unknowns" associated with The Creation account given in the Scriptures.

The lengths people such as redgreen5 go to "fill" in the gaps in the Creation Account is rather silly. Take for example what I mentioned concerning "morning and evening". They know the consistency of the solar and lunar cycles from what we know from "Science". YET, they refuse to acknowledge the morning and evening is a clear reference to these cycles.

When they find an inconsistency within their beliefs they do not choose the plain teaching of the Scriptures. THEY CHANGE THE meaning of the Scriptures to meet their agenda. If anything should change its Science.

You mean those "evenings" and "mornings" that happened before the creation of the solar system?

:

Sorry....you can't appeal to solar and lunar cyles to prove your point here because they didn't exist yet. That's probably a clue that you're reading the passage wrong (i.e. literary context).

You're entirely confused. I have already told you that I am a "gaper". Its not incompatible with such a belief.

Either way...... Please expand your statement to indicate WHEN the Scripture say the Solar system was created.

By the way.... HOW CAN YOU READ IT WRONG?

 

[rsc2a]

Either way...... Please expand your statement to indicate WHEN the Scripture say the Solar system was created.

It doesn't.

By the way.... HOW CAN YOU READ IT WRONG?

Seriously?

 

[christundivided]

It doesn't.

It doesn't...... Then how in the world can you say its says its before or after anything? Are you really being that dishonest?

By the way.... HOW CAN YOU READ IT WRONG?

Seriously?

Sure. How can you take morning and evening to be anything else? How can you read it wrong? Do you not understand what the word "morning" and "evening" means?

 

[rsc2a]

It doesn't.

It doesn't...... Then how in the world can you say its says its before or after anything? Are you really being that dishonest?

Using your hermeneutic method, the solar system was created on "day 4". This causes massive problems with your insistence that "evening" and "morning" are referring to solar cycles.

Using my hermeneutic method, the Bible doesn't "indicate WHEN the Scripture say (sic) the Solar system was created."

...which mostly likely means that you either forget what questions you ask or you don't read the passage in question before commenting on it.

By the way.... HOW CAN YOU READ IT WRONG?

Seriously?

Sure. How can you take morning and evening to be anything else? How can you read it wrong? Do you not understand what the word "morning" and "evening" means?

I just had an uncle kick the bucket.

Do you think that means his foot struck a roughly cylindrical open container, typically made of metal or plastic, with a handle, used to hold and carry liquids or other material?

 

[redgreen5]

[quote author=christundivided link]My problem with evolution is the way its presented. I am certain that things have "changed". Yet, the arrogant nature of a evolutionist refuses to acknowledge the possibility that he is wrong. [/quote]

Nobody is going to acknowledge error without proof of error.  The problem with science deniers is that they want to believe something *besides* science, because they have a pet belief that they have grown used to. But they cannot identify any error in science that would form the basis for rejecting the science.

They want to skip all the hard work - the experimentation, the data collection, the analysis, etc. - and jump right to their desired conclusion.  It's a case of bias and intellectual laziness, really.  A temper tantrum that wants to have its own way, but cannot provice any scientific basis for it.

As much as redgreen5 and rsca want to believe they change the teaching of "evolution" is compatible with the "Scriptures". It isn't. Its not even close.

Which you are utterly unable to judge, since your understanding of evolution is at the cartoon level.

The lengths people such as redgreen5 go to "fill" in the gaps in the Creation Account is rather silly. Take for example what I mentioned concerning "morning and evening". They know the consistency of the solar and lunar cycles from what we know from "Science". YET, they refuse to acknowledge the morning and evening is a clear reference to these cycles.

1. In point of fact, the solar and lunar cycles have only been consistent for recent history.  Earlier, there used to be 400 days in the solar year, as opposed to 365.25 that we have now.

2. Talking about solar and lunar cycles has nothing to do with evolution. The sun and the moon aren't living things.  See what I told you about not understanding evolution well enough to have any credibility when you reject it?

When they find an inconsistency within their beliefs they do not choose the plain teaching of the Scriptures. THEY CHANGE THE meaning of the Scriptures to meet their agenda. If anything should change its Science.

LOL
1.  It is only your poorly understood version of evolution that is in conflict here - and the conflict isn't with scripture; it's with your personal interpretation of the scripture.  Don't confuse the two.

2. Science doesn't change, because science is a reflection of the natural reality. 

 

[christundivided]

Using your hermeneutic method, the solar system was created on "day 4". This causes massive problems with your insistence that "evening" and "morning" are referring to solar cycles.

Using my hermeneutic method, the Bible doesn't "indicate WHEN the Scripture say (sic) the Solar system was created."

...which mostly likely means that you either forget what questions you ask or you don't read the passage in question before commenting on it.

I really wish you would pay attention to what I wrote. I said... I'm a "gaper". I do NOT believe Genesis 1 and 2 detail the original creation of all things. Please remember this the next time you respond to me. I've said this more than twice to you. Be honest with me and stop telling me what I believe. You have no idea how to handle a "gaper" when it comes to creation.

I just had an uncle kick the bucket.

Do you think that means his foot struck a roughly cylindrical open container, typically made of metal or plastic, with a handle, used to hold and carry liquids or other material?

You're use of an English Idiom doesn't mean that the author of Genesis is using a Hebrew Idiom. To say such is utter nonsense. You have no proof that the language used is an "idiom". None.

 

[redgreen5]

It doesn't.

It doesn't...... Then how in the world can you say its says its before or after anything? Are you really being that dishonest?

Using your hermeneutic method, the solar system was created on "day 4". This causes massive problems with your insistence that "evening" and "morning" are referring to solar cycles.

Using my hermeneutic method, the Bible doesn't "indicate WHEN the Scripture say (sic) the Solar system was created."

Yeah. It's kind of hard to insist that solar and lunar cycles represented in morning and evening, when the sun and moon weren't created until v14, on the fourth day.

...which mostly likely means that you either forget what questions you ask or you don't read the passage in question before commenting on it.

Be generous.  It could be that he does *both* of those things.

 

[rsc2a]

2. Talking about solar and lunar cycles has nothing to do with evolution. The sun and the moon aren't living things.  See what I told you about not understanding evolution well enough to have any credibility when you reject it?

To be fair, YEC has been lumped into this topic as well, and YEC does address cosmology.

 

[christundivided]

They want to skip all the hard work - the experimentation, the data collection, the analysis, etc. - and jump right to their desired conclusion. 

You're the one interjecting "experimentation" into the text with your view of Science. Please don't "skip" the fact the texts themselves have long proven to sole indicator of Truth. Not your "experiments".

1. In point of fact, the solar and lunar cycles have only been consistent for recent history.  Earlier, there used to be 400 days in the solar year, as opposed to 365.25 that we have now.

Based on what? Provide the evidence.

Either way you're not applying what I said. I used it in reference to morning and evening on earth. A 400 day solar year won't have changed anything to do with "morning and evening".

2. Talking about solar and lunar cycles has nothing to do with evolution. The sun and the moon aren't living things.  See what I told you about not understanding evolution well enough to have any credibility when you reject it?

The earth hasn't "evolved" ? Every heard the term... atmospheric evolution?

You expect me to take you seriously when you make such statements...

2. Science doesn't change, because science is a reflection of the natural reality.

What a blathering IDIOT. The only thing that doesn't change is God. EVERYTHING else changes. EVERYTHING. You have placed "SCIENCE" on a level plane with God.

Scientific methods are refined. Do you know what the word "refined" means?

I give up.....

 

[christundivided]

2. Talking about solar and lunar cycles has nothing to do with evolution. The sun and the moon aren't living things.  See what I told you about not understanding evolution well enough to have any credibility when you reject it?

To be fair, YEC has been lumped into this topic as well, and YEC does address cosmology.

Why are you both being so DISHONEST with me. I have told you both before that I'm a "gaper". I do not believe that Genesis 1 details the original acts of creation. Do you get it?

Are you purposely ignoring this so you can bash me?

 

[redgreen5]

[quote author=rsc2a]
To be fair, YEC has been lumped into this topic as well, and YEC does address cosmology.
[/quote]

Sort of.  It addresses it basically by ignoring science and repeating a (relatively late) Protestant view of Genesis that was first espoused by Seventh Day Adventists. 

In the 1700s, people used to believe that Ben Franklin's new invention (the lightning rod) was a sin.  Churches didn't put them on their steeples, because "scripture" told them that they should trust God who controls all the weather and wouldn't possibly let their church get hit.  And they insisted that such a position was solid and sure, because they were "standing on the word of God".

After a number of churches *were* struck by lightning and burned to the ground, they eventually decided that their interpretation of scripture could be modified after all (gee; imagine that  :  ). 

http://evolvefish.com/freewrite/franklgt.htm

The first major blow against these biblical superstitions about storms and lightning was struck in 1752 when Benjamin Franklin made his famous electrical experiments with a kite. The second and fatal blow was struck later in the same year when he invented the lightning rod. With Franklin's scientific explanations of lightning, the question that had so long taxed the minds of the world's leading theologians-"Why should the Almighty strike his own consecrated temples, or suffer Satan to strike them"-could finally be answered rationally.
Thunder and lightning were considered tokens of God's displeasure. It was considered impious to prevent their doing damage. This was despite the fact that in Germany, within a span of 33 years, nearly 400 towers were damaged and 120 bell ringers were killed.

In Switzerland, France and Italy, popular prejudice against the lightning rod was ignited and fueled by the churches and resulted in the tearing down of lightning rods from many homes and buildings, including one from the Institute of Bologna, the leading scientific institution in Italy. The Swiss chemist, M. de Saussure, removed a rod he had erected on his house in Geneva in 1771 when it caused his neighbors so much anxiety that he feared a riot.

In 1780-1784, a lawsuit about lightning rods gave M. de St. Omer the right to have a lightning rod on top of his house despite the religious objections of his neighbors. This victory established the fame of the lawyer in the case, young Robespierre.

In America, Rev. Thomas Prince, pastor of Old South Church, blamed Franklin's invention of the lightning rod for causing the Massachusetts earthquake of 1755.

In Prince's sermon on the topic, he expressed the opinion that the frequency of earthquakes may be due to the erection of "points invented by the sagacious Mr. Franklin." He goes on to argue that "in Boston more are erected than anywhere else in New England, and Boston seems to be more dreadfully shaken. Oh! There is no getting out of the mighty hand of God."

It took many years for scientists to convince the priests to attach a lightning rod to the spire of St. Bride's Church in London, even though it had been destroyed by lightning several times.

The priests' refusals prompted the following letter from the president of Harvard University to Franklin: "How astonishing is the force of prejudice even in an age of so much knowledge and free inquiry. It is amazing to me, that after the full demonstration you have given . . . they should even think of repairing that steeple without such conductors."

In Austria, the Church of Rosenburg was struck so frequently and with such loss of life that the peasants feared to attend services. Several times the spire had to be rebuilt. It was not until 1778, 26 years after Franklin's discovery, that church authorities finally permitted a rod to be attached. Then all trouble ceased.

A typical case was the tower of St. Mark's in Venice. In spite of the angel at its summit, the bells consecrated to ward off devils and witches in the air, the holy relics in the church below, and the Processions in the adjacent square, the tower was frequently damaged or destroyed by lightning. It was not until 1766 that a lightning rod was placed upon it-and the tower has never been struck since.

Had the ecclesiastics of the Church of San Nazaro in Brecia given in to repeated urgings to install a lightning rod, they might have averted a terrible catastrophe. The Republic of Venice had stored in the vaults of this church several thousand pounds of gunpowder. In 1767, 17 years after Franklin's discovery, no rod having been placed on the church, it was struck by lightning and the gunpowder exploded. One-sixth of the city was destroyed and over 3,000 lives were lost because the priests refused to install the "heretical rod."

The situation is similar here.

 

[redgreen5]

[quote author=christundivided]
They want to skip all the hard work - the experimentation, the data collection, the analysis, etc. - and jump right to their desired conclusion. 

You're the one interjecting "experimentation" into the text with your view of Science.[/quote]

LOL no, you're the one trying to skip the heavy lifting.  It won't work.
All I'm doing is  looking at the evidence, assuming it doesn't contradict scripture, and work slowly through the details.

Please don't "skip" the fact the texts themselves have long proven to sole indicator of Truth. Not your "experiments".

Except that your YEC and Gap views have never been shown to be true.  In fact, you cannot even explain the contradictory evidence that blocks those views from being credible.

So you can either
(a) say that the text is wrong; or
(b) admit that scripture isn't the problem; its YOUR interpretation causing the conflict.

1. In point of fact, the solar and lunar cycles have only been consistent for recent history.  Earlier, there used to be 400 days in the solar year, as opposed to 365.25 that we have now.

Based on what? Provide the evidence.

http://www.thesilo.ca/unique-haldimand-norfolk-maritime-fossil-reveals-ancient-400-day-year/

Either way you're not applying what I said. I used it in reference to morning and evening on earth. A 400 day solar year won't have changed anything to do with "morning and evening".

No, you're just ignoring your own claim. I don't blame you; the claim was wrong. But you most certainly did say:
They know the consistency of the solar and lunar cycles from what we know from "Science".

I'm point out that the consistency you claimed is known from "science" is simply another of your misunderstandings.

2. Talking about solar and lunar cycles has nothing to do with evolution. The sun and the moon aren't living things.  See what I told you about not understanding evolution well enough to have any credibility when you reject it?

The earth hasn't "evolved" ? Every heard the term... atmospheric evolution?

You can also say that the Chevy Camaro has evolved.  But neither the Camaro or the atmosphere actually "evolve". Both have changed, and the  term "evolve" gets borrowed as a shorthand way to express that thought. However, "evolve" is a biological term.  Neither the earth nor the atmosphere evolve because evolution involves reproduction. Last time I checked, the rocks, wind, rain, etc. don't have offspring.

Duh.

You expect me to take you seriously when you make such statements...

I don't care if you take me seriously or not.  There are two statements I think of when talking with people like you:

1. You can lead a horse to water...
2. You can't fix stupid.

At a minimum, you serve as a useful example to anyone reading as to why people who reject science can be safely ignored.

2. Science doesn't change, because science is a reflection of the natural reality.

What a blathering IDIOT. The only thing that doesn't change is God. EVERYTHING else changes. EVERYTHING. You have placed "SCIENCE" on a level plane with God.

A surpassingly stupid comment by you.  The fundamentals of reality around us, the natural world, doesn't change.  If you think it does, then identify the changes in the law of gravity.  Identify the changes in heat transfer. Identify the change in the entropic principle.

Individual things (rocks, creatures, weather) will vary and change.  But the foundation of reality around us is constant.

This has nothing to do with any attempt to put science on God's level. You can stop trying to put words in my mouth.

Scientific methods are refined. Do you know what the word "refined" means?

The scientific tools are refined. But the science they are measuring does not change. You're so utterly clueless that you can't tell the difference between the yardstick and the thing being measured.

I give up.....

If only.

 

[rsc2a]

Please don't "skip" the fact the texts themselves have long proven to sole indicator of Truth. Not your "experiments".

So when I throw rocks in the air and they fall down, it's not really happening?

What a blathering IDIOT.

How Christ-like.

Why are you both being so DISHONEST with me. I have told you both before that I'm a "gaper". I do not believe that Genesis 1 details the original acts of creation. Do you get it?

Are you purposely ignoring this so you can bash me?

Then why in the world are you arguing with yourself?

[quote author=rsc2a]To be fair, YEC has been lumped into this topic as well, and YEC does address cosmology.

Sort of.  It addresses it basically by ignoring science and repeating a (relatively late) Protestant view of Genesis that was first espoused by Seventh Day Adventists.  [/quote]

Agreed. That's why I keep asking YEC proponents to address the non-scientific problems with their interpretation. I think it will get to the real problem with their hermeneutic philosophy.

 

[Castor Muscular]

They want to skip all the hard work - the experimentation, the data collection, the analysis, etc. - and jump right to their desired conclusion.  It's a case of bias and intellectual laziness, really.  A temper tantrum that wants to have its own way, but cannot provice any scientific basis for it.

That's similar to the problem with evolutionists.  They want to skip all the hard work.  Since they can't actually test macroevolution, they start with the conclusion and then interpret all the evidence as support for that conclusion. 

When faced with contrary evidence, they make up a fairy story to explain it away (punctuated equilibrium, for example).  When it's not propped up with fairy stories, it's propped up with arbitrary definitions (speciation, which doesn't apply to many, if not most forms of life), errors (the appendix being a vestigial organ, the "broken" vitamin C gene, etc.) and deliberate hoaxes (the recapitulation "theory").

It is the ultimate irony that evolutionists treat everyone else as though they rely entirely on faith instead of facts.

 

[redgreen5]

[quote author=Castor Muscular]
They want to skip all the hard work - the experimentation, the data collection, the analysis, etc. - and jump right to their desired conclusion.  It's a case of bias and intellectual laziness, really.  A temper tantrum that wants to have its own way, but cannot provice any scientific basis for it.


That's similar to the problem with evolutionists.  They want to skip all the hard work.  Since they can't actually test macroevolution, they start with the conclusion and then interpret all the evidence as support for that conclusion.  [/quote]

In point of fact, the distinction of macro-evolution vs. micro-evolution is pretty well abused. Educate yourself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

And you apparently haven't bothered to read anything about testing macroevolution. Google has 2,180,000 hits for the term.  If only 1/100th of the hits are actual articles about testing macroevolution, that's over 2000 articles on the topic, including  several examples of tests performed to validate macroevolution:
http://www.google.com/search?q=test+macroevolutino&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=&oe=#hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&sa=X&ei=OqlXT-rQO6fkmAXAppSnDw&ved=0CB4QvwUoAQ&q=test+macroevolution&spell=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=4563521ff87c6957&biw=1920&bih=1037

When faced with contrary evidence, they make up a fairy story to explain it away (punctuated equilibrium, for example).

1. Feel free to point out any contrary evidence.
2. Given how you've misused other terms of science, the probability that you understand punctuated equilibrium is pretty small.

It is the ultimate irony that evolutionists treat everyone else as though they rely entirely on faith instead of facts.

As usual, you've stated no "facts".  But you're doing a great job of handwaving and tossing claims around.

 

[christundivided]

Except that your YEC and Gap views have never been shown to be true.  In fact, you cannot even explain the contradictory evidence that blocks those views from being credible.

What contradictory evidence? You've provided absolutely none. NONE.

No, you're just ignoring your own claim. I don't blame you; the claim was wrong. But you most certainly did say:
They know the consistency of the solar and lunar cycles from what we know from "Science".

You ignored what else I wrote. Don't ignore the context. I never said is was an absolute. Not to mention the fact you're accepting ancient mineral deposit made from variable tide patterns to indicate a longer year. What a buffoon.

You can also say that the Chevy Camaro has evolved.  But neither the Camaro or the atmosphere actually "evolve". Both have changed, and the  term "evolve" gets borrowed as a shorthand way to express that thought. However, "evolve" is a biological term.  Neither the earth nor the atmosphere evolve because evolution involves reproduction. Last time I checked, the rocks, wind, rain, etc. don't have offspring.

It doesn't get borrowed you Moron. The word "evolve" and "evolution" covers changes in the atmosphere. Here.... Let me give a textbook definition. Will you accept it....?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evolve
b : to produce by natural evolutionary processes

A surpassingly stupid comment by you.  The fundamentals of reality around us, the natural world, doesn't change.  If you think it does, then identify the changes in the law of gravity.  Identify the changes in heat transfer. Identify the change in the entropic principle.

The "law" of Gravity has even changed....

Newton's law of Gravity has been superseded by general relativity..... IDIOT....

But the foundation of reality around us is constant.

Ever heard of the "Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope". Obviously you haven't. Many scientist expect to find that the speed of light has changed over time by viewing "older" parts of the galaxy. You're not all you're cracked but to be "red".

The scientific tools are refined. But the science they are measuring does not change. You're so utterly clueless that you can't tell the difference between the yardstick and the thing being measured.

Sure... the tools just change... Get a life. You have to be a freshman in college who loves to think he's got a handle on everything.

 

[rsc2a]

That's similar to the problem with evolutionists.  They want to skip all the hard work.  Since they can't actually test macroevolution, they start with the conclusion and then interpret all the evidence as support for that conclusion. 

"That's why I keep asking YEC proponents to address the non-scientific problems with their interpretation. I think it will get to the real problem with their hermeneutic philosophy"

 

[christundivided]

How Christ-like.

1Co 15:36  Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die:

Then why in the world are you arguing with yourself?

I'm not. Tell me how I am.

Agreed. That's why I keep asking YEC proponents to address the non-scientific problems with their interpretation. I think it will get to the real problem with their hermeneutic philosophy.

Pot....

 

[christundivided]

That's similar to the problem with evolutionists.  They want to skip all the hard work.  Since they can't actually test macroevolution, they start with the conclusion and then interpret all the evidence as support for that conclusion. 

"That's why I keep asking YEC proponents to address the non-scientific problems with their interpretation. I think it will get to the real problem with their hermeneutic philosophy"

There is no "think" with you. There's only "is".