Theistic Evolution questions.

Theistic Evolution questions. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins

Message

jfcbrian -> Theistic Evolution questions. (2/15/2008 9:26:06 PM)
I have some simple questions for anyone who believes in theistic evolution. This is not to put any one down but to help me understand how you view certain things. Some of these questions follow the assumption that you interpret your Bible according to what science says. 1. Do you believe in the Virgin birth when science says that this is impossible? This is a big one. 2. Do you believe in the resurrection of Christ without scientific proof. (I’m really curious about this one as I have heard that some churches getting rid of this teaching.) 3. Where does Adam and Eve fit into your theology? Were they real or stories made up to teach us lessons? 4. Evolution is the best answer for the evidence if there was no God. But You know that there is a God then why do you cling to a hypothesis that excludes God or any supernatural event out of hand?

iluvatar -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (2/15/2008 9:57:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jfcbrian I have some simple questions for anyone who believes in theistic evolution. This is not to put any one down but to help me understand how you view certain things. Some of these questions follow the assumption that you interpret your Bible according to what science says. 1. Do you believe in the Virgin birth when science says that this is impossible? This is a big one. 2. Do you believe in the resurrection of Christ without scientific proof. (I’m really curious about this one as I have heard that some churches getting rid of this teaching.) A young earth and a global flood should leave behind evidence that we can still see today. However, the evidence we find doesn't jive with those ideas - we find things that shouldn't be there and don't find things that should be there. Neither of the two events you gave left behind any (or enough) physical evidence for us to test, so they are outside the bounds of science. Were somebody to make these claims today, we'd be able to perform medical examinations on the mother and forensic examinations on the grave. quote: 3. Where does Adam and Eve fit into your theology? Were they real or stories made up to teach us lessons? I'm not sure. I'm inclined to believe that animals evolved and at some point God's creation of humans "in his image" had more to do with imbuing us with a spirit and a capability to have a relationship with him than it did just making us out of a bunch of carbon and water. quote: 4. Evolution is the best answer for the evidence if there was no God. But You know that there is a God then why do you cling to a hypothesis that excludes God or any supernatural event out of hand? Because it doesn't exclude God. -Dan.

drmark -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (2/16/2008 5:19:15 AM)
quote: Because it doesn't exclude God. So, expand on this a little, Dan. Are all mutations random, or does God select certain ones to promote evolution? How much control does He exert on the environment to accomplish natural selection? Are we more evolved than the hominids which God first "imbued with spirit"?

jfcbrian -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (2/16/2008 5:44:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: iluvatar A young earth and a global flood should leave behind evidence that we can still see today. However, the evidence we find doesn't jive with those ideas - we find things that shouldn't be there and don't find things that should be there. Neither of the two events you gave left behind any (or enough) physical evidence for us to test, so they are outside the bounds of science. Were somebody to make these claims today, we'd be able to perform medical examinations on the mother and forensic examinations on the grave. I think though that many scientist would say that these two events are not possible based on the available medical evidence that says these two events are impossible. I mean we can examine corpses today that have been in the grave for three days and say that resurrections are impossible. We know that it takes two people to make babies and I believe that this is a medical fact, quote: Because it doesn't exclude God. -Dan. Really! I think that the atheist who study evolution would disagree with you.

essentialsaltes -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (2/16/2008 10:17:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jfcbrian quote: Because it doesn't exclude God. Really! I think that the atheist who study evolution would disagree with you. I don't disagree with him. Algebra neither includes nor excludes any gods -- it just doesn't refer to them at all. The same is true of evolution. There are many Christian biologists who do not think evolution excludes their god.

drmark -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (2/16/2008 11:06:31 AM)
quote: We know that it takes two people to make babies and I believe that this is a medical fact Actually, with IVF and new cloning technology, only a lab tech is needed to make babies. But this is info for a different thread. quote: There are many Christian biologists who do not think evolution excludes their god. So they claim. I'm still waiting (patiently) for answers to my questions in post #3 from a Christian theistic evolutionist.

Veritas -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (2/16/2008 2:32:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jfcbrian quote: ORIGINAL: iluvatar Because it doesn't exclude God. -Dan. Really! I think that the atheist who study evolution would disagree with you. Evolution excludes God in the same sense that Newton's Laws of Motion, Germ Theory, and the study of weather patterns exclude God.

Jhud -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (2/16/2008 2:50:15 PM)
quote: Evolution excludes God in the same sense that Newton's Laws of Motion, Germ Theory, and the study of weather patterns exclude God. Hardly. There are processes occuring in our universe that regulate the way matter acts and interacts - these are quite different than process that are said to originate novel structures, systems, and information that didn't previously exist. In short, there is a difference between saying nature acts a certain way, and saying nature is capable of producing itself.

drmark -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (2/16/2008 2:59:12 PM)
It's a shame you cannot see the forest for the trees, Veritas! Celestial mechanics, "germ theory", and meteorology all demand an ordered, predictable universe to function. Evolution demands nothing but the suspension of reason to even suggest that ordered complex information results from random chance physical events. Which is where I guess God enters into the theistic evolutionary picture - I'm still waiting to see.

iluvatar -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (2/16/2008 5:56:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drmark quote: Because it doesn't exclude God. So, expand on this a little, Dan. Are all mutations random, or does God select certain ones to promote evolution? I'm inclined to believe that at a minimum, life was created with a sort of "front-loaded" potential to develop/evolve further. I have no problem believing that God provided direction along the way. As to exactly how much direction and when - I don't know. quote: How much control does He exert on the environment to accomplish natural selection? I don't know. I don't think we can know. IMO, this falls within the same scope as asking how much God manipulates the natural world to affect change in man's behaviors. quote: Are we more evolved than the hominids which God first "imbued with spirit"? That would depend on exactly who those individuals were and when they lived. Given the speed of human evolution, I'd guess maybe, but not much. quote: I think though that many scientist would say that these two events are not possible based on the available medical evidence that says these two events are impossible. I mean we can examine corpses today that have been in the grave for three days and say that resurrections are impossible. We know that it takes two people to make babies and I believe that this is a medical fact, We're talking about miracles, not every day processes. Science doesn't address historical miracles that leave behind no evidence for us to test. -Dan.

futuredocter37 -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (2/16/2008 6:04:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: iluvatar quote: ORIGINAL: drmark quote: Because it doesn't exclude God. So, expand on this a little, Dan. Are all mutations random, or does God select certain ones to promote evolution? I'm inclined to believe that at a minimum, life was created with a sort of "front-loaded" potential to develop/evolve further. I have no problem believing that God provided direction along the way. As to exactly how much direction and when - I don't know. quote: In other words organisms of the past were simple and the organisms of the future are evolving to be more complex, however you define complex. Becuase all of life is complex and to assume was simple in the past is not accurate with our assesment of life today. Life is not simple, the evolutionary assumption that cells are simple have been proven wrong, I dont understand how any one can say life was more simple in the past??

unclemonkey -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (2/16/2008 7:06:37 PM)
ORIGINAL:iluvatar quote: A young earth and a global flood should leave behind evidence that we can still see today. Like marine fossils on top of the highest mountains? quote: Neither of the two events you gave left behind any (or enough) physical evidence for us to test, so they are outside the bounds of science. Do you think the origin of the universe and the flood were less miraculous than the virgin birth and the resurrection? quote: I'm inclined to believe that at a minimum, life was created with a sort of "front-loaded" potential to develop/evolve further. I have no problem believing that God provided direction along the way. Sounds like ID. quote: Because it doesn't exclude God. Yet it makes it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. That’s a pretty good trick for something that doesn’t exclude God.

essentialsaltes -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (2/16/2008 9:02:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: Evolution excludes God in the same sense that Newton's Laws of Motion, Germ Theory, and the study of weather patterns exclude God. Hardly. There are processes occuring in our universe that regulate the way matter acts and interacts - these are quite different than process that are said to originate novel structures, systems, and information that didn't previously exist. In short, there is a difference between saying nature acts a certain way, and saying nature is capable of producing itself. Whatever the distinctions you're trying to make, the fact remains that none of those things (evolution, Newton's Laws of Motion, Germ Theory, and the study of weather patterns) include or exclude any gods.

iluvatar -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (2/16/2008 10:19:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: unclemonkey ORIGINAL:iluvatar quote: A young earth and a global flood should leave behind evidence that we can still see today. Like marine fossils on top of the highest mountains? No, not really. quote: quote: Neither of the two events you gave left behind any (or enough) physical evidence for us to test, so they are outside the bounds of science. Do you think the origin of the universe and the flood were less miraculous than the virgin birth and the resurrection? No, not necessarily, however, those events are much more likely to leave behind a body of evidence that we'd be able to examine today. A mile-deep global flood 4000 years ago would leave massive, fresh scars all over the earth that we don't see. A recently created universe would not leave behind the evidence that we do see. quote: quote: I'm inclined to believe that at a minimum, life was created with a sort of "front-loaded" potential to develop/evolve further. I have no problem believing that God provided direction along the way. Sounds like ID. Perhaps. quote: quote: Because it doesn't exclude God. Yet it makes it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. That’s a pretty good trick for something that doesn’t exclude God. ? -Dan.

drmark -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (2/17/2008 4:57:15 PM)
quote: Whatever the distinctions you're trying to make, the fact remains that none of those things (evolution, Newton's Laws of Motion, Germ Theory, and the study of weather patterns) include or exclude any gods. Then please share with us, es, some rational explanation based solely on natural phenomena for the existence of "Laws of Motion" and our ability to detect, analyze, and apply them on an essentially 100% consistent basis.

essentialsaltes -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (2/17/2008 6:20:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drmark quote: Whatever the distinctions you're trying to make, the fact remains that none of those things (evolution, Newton's Laws of Motion, Germ Theory, and the study of weather patterns) include or exclude any gods. Then please share with us, es, some rational explanation based solely on natural phenomena for the existence of "Laws of Motion" and our ability to detect, analyze, and apply them on an essentially 100% consistent basis. The Laws of Motion are simply descriptions of certain regularities that have been discovered in the external world. Where regularities exist, we discover these regularities (or at least as many of the regularities as we've been able to notice and figure out). Where regularities don't exist (e.g. there is no Law of Tornadoes) we don't find them. Why do these regularities exist? Who knows? Maybe there's only one set of self-consistent laws of physics. Maybe Amen-Ra wrote these laws of physics down on a big papyrus scroll. Neither choice (nor any of a host of others you might propose) is either required or excluded by science.

RCC -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (2/17/2008 7:10:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jfcbrian 4. Evolution is the best answer for the evidence if there was no God. But You know that there is a God then why do you cling to a hypothesis that excludes God or any supernatural event out of hand? How does evolution differ from modern chemistry or physics in this respect? Can you find discussions of supernatural interventions in a modern chemistry textbook?

futuredocter37 -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (2/17/2008 8:10:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RCC quote: ORIGINAL: jfcbrian 4. Evolution is the best answer for the evidence if there was no God. But You know that there is a God then why do you cling to a hypothesis that excludes God or any supernatural event out of hand? How does evolution differ from modern chemistry or physics in this respect? Can you find discussions of supernatural interventions in a modern chemistry textbook? Well the problem here is the distinction between where science ends and where unproven suppositions begin. Modern chemistry and physics are based on for the most part our understanding of matter and its behavior. However when it comes to origins, this is where science is limited to its unproven suppositions. Origins of the species is not proven. All we have is what we have observed so far in nature.

drmark -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (2/17/2008 8:20:56 PM)
quote: Why do these regularities exist? Who knows? Obviously, atheists do not know. However, we Christians have "inside information"! [:)]

jfcbrian -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (2/18/2008 11:41:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RCC quote: ORIGINAL: jfcbrian 4. Evolution is the best answer for the evidence if there was no God. But You know that there is a God then why do you cling to a hypothesis that excludes God or any supernatural event out of hand? How does evolution differ from modern chemistry or physics in this respect? Can you find discussions of supernatural interventions in a modern chemistry textbook? Chemistry unlike evolution is hard science ie… it is testable and repeatable. Evolution is neither testable of repeatable, you can’t turn a fish or lizard into a bird nor is there any evidence of this happening in the past except for the opinions of most scientist. (This is not science) Futerdoctor has a better answer than mine. Sorry but I saw it too late.

essentialsaltes -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (2/18/2008 1:04:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: futuredocter37 quote: ORIGINAL: RCC quote: ORIGINAL: jfcbrian 4. Evolution is the best answer for the evidence if there was no God. But You know that there is a God then why do you cling to a hypothesis that excludes God or any supernatural event out of hand? How does evolution differ from modern chemistry or physics in this respect? Can you find discussions of supernatural interventions in a modern chemistry textbook? Well the problem here is the distinction between where science ends and where unproven suppositions begin. Modern chemistry and physics are based on for the most part our understanding of matter and its behavior. However when it comes to origins, this is where science is limited to its unproven suppositions. Origins of the species is not proven. All we have is what we have observed so far in nature. quote: jfcbrian - Chemistry unlike evolution is hard science ie… it is testable and repeatable. Evolution is neither testable of repeatable, you can’t turn a fish or lizard into a bird nor is there any evidence of this happening in the past except for the opinions of most scientist. (This is not science) The question is not whether biology is a hard science or not, or whether evolution is proven or not (for the last time, science is not math or logic, stop talking about proof). The question is whether biology excludes gods any more or less than chemistry excludes gods. It doesn't. Chemistry and physics don't mention any gods. Algebra doesn't mention any gods. A screwdriver doesn't mention any gods. If chemistry is acceptable, despite its lack of mention of any gods, then biology cannot be faulted for doing the same thing.

Jhud -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (2/18/2008 2:05:56 PM)
quote: Whatever the distinctions you're trying to make, the fact remains that none of those things (evolution, Newton's Laws of Motion, Germ Theory, and the study of weather patterns) include or exclude any gods. Certainly not - but in a universe governed by laws which are observable and testable, some things are amenable to experimentation and prediction (Newton's laws, germ theory) and some less so (weather patterns, evolution). Some are part of ongoing processes that we can continue to observe (Newton's Laws of Motion, Germ Theory, and the study of weather patterns) and some are the result of unique events that will never occur again (evolution). Some claim to be uniquely responsible for all our capabilities as humans (evolution) and some are only peripheral or irrelevant to such abilities (Newton's Laws of Motion, Germ Theory, and the study of weather patterns). So one can't categorize them as being the same in terms of scientific investigation - and only one specifically impinges on who humans are, and where they came from - and that is a spiritual, moral, social, and philosophical question by definition - and so evolution certainly overlaps those other magisteria .

drmark -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (2/18/2008 2:12:33 PM)
quote: The question is not whether biology is a hard science or not, or whether evolution is proven or not (for the last time, science is not math or logic, stop talking about proof). Perhaps you need to send a note to the disillusioned scientists at TalkOrigins. They seem quite content to claim evolution is a proven fact; only the mechanisms are under theoretical consideration at present.

essentialsaltes -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (2/18/2008 3:21:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drmark quote: The question is not whether biology is a hard science or not, or whether evolution is proven or not (for the last time, science is not math or logic, stop talking about proof). Perhaps you need to send a note to the disillusioned scientists at TalkOrigins. They seem quite content to claim evolution is a proven fact; only the mechanisms are under theoretical consideration at present. As I've said before, evolution is both a fact and a theory. Neither facts nor theory are subject to proof in the same way that the Pythagorean Theorem is proven in Euclidean geometry. Did you even read the page you linked to? quote: Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Contrary to your statement, Talk Origins does not claim that evolution is a 'proven' fact, just that it is a fact. i.e. "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent."

Jhud -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (2/18/2008 3:42:36 PM)
quote: Contrary to your statement, Talk Origins does not claim that evolution is a 'proven' fact, just that it is a fact. i.e. "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." They seem to hold it as proven as much as anything can be proven in human experience, which would be, with the exception of some semantic nits, to be 'proven'.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI