Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by ffreeloader View Post
    You didn't answer my question. Did Jesus bring both Lazarus and the widow of Nain's son back to life?
    Yes. Next question?
    “We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.



    - The science and faith of theistic evolution explained.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Stripe View Post
      You've taken a contrary stance. I wasn't making a judgement of the content of your ideas, but on the strong implication that to reject your beliefs is to reject science.
      It's certainly rejecting a core scientific idea of biology. Mind you many of the same people want to reject other aspects of science, such as climate science.

      If you're such an expert, you should instantly recognize that the assertion of your belief as science is problematic.
      It's not simply *my* assertion it's thousands of textbook and scientific papers for 150 years. It's also super obvious if you understand what science is and how it works. The only people that make your kind of claim are the specific kind of Christians that reject evolution purely because of religious belief AND hold science up as highly valuable. That perverse combination means any science they disagree with becomes "not science". It's quite a convoluted position. :P
      “We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.



      - The science and faith of theistic evolution explained.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
        Yes. Next question?
        So, you acknowledge that Jesus has the ability to speak life into existence and yet deny He performed the miracle of speaking life into existence at creation. Seems to me that if you truly love the Biblical Jesus you would acknowledge that it was His creative power exercised in creation and you would do so enthusiastically. The Bible tells us specifically that it was Jesus who created everything by His word, and that He created the earth and everything in it in six days. Seems to me that you might love a Jesus (a hayzoos that just crossed the US border illegally) but deny even the existence of the Biblical Jesus for you deny what the Bible clearly says about Him. You deny His authority and power, and claim feeble human beings are wiser and more knowledgeable than Jesus is for Jesus quoted the OT constantly and said that Moses testified of Him. As it was Moses who wrote the creation story, and Jesus took the OT literally, your supposed loving of Jesus rings extremely hollow.
        “Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith.”
        ― Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

        “One and God make a majority.”
        ― Frederick Douglass

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
          ...scientific idea...
          And this is a weasel term — an attempt to sneak past the criticism you face.

          How about instead of rewording "theory" as "scientific idea" to cover up the fallacious opener you posed, that of begging the question, you just concede that it is incorrect to assert that your ideas are rejected only by those who also reject science.

          Many of the same people want to reject other aspects of science, such as climate science.
          Therefore, something.

          Rational dialogue. It helps.

          It's not simply *my* assertion.
          Appeals to popularity are another Darwinist staple.

          The only people that make your kind of claim are the specific kind of Christians that reject evolution purely because of religious belief AND hold science up as highly valuable.
          Evidence.

          That perverse combination means any science they disagree with becomes "not science". It's quite a convoluted position. :P
          Projection. You opened this thread with the strong implication that an idea you disagree with is not science, whereas I said nothing to deny your idea a seat at the table.
          Where is the evidence for a global flood?
          E≈mc2
          "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

          "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
          -Bob B.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Stripe View Post
            And this is a weasel term — an attempt to sneak past the criticism you face.

            How about instead of rewording "theory" as "scientific idea" to cover up the fallacious opener you posed, that of begging the question, you just concede that it is incorrect to assert that your ideas are rejected only by those who also reject science.



            Therefore, something.

            Rational dialogue. It helps.



            Appeals to popularity are another Darwinist staple.



            Evidence.



            Projection. You opened this thread with the strong implication that an idea you disagree with is not science, whereas I said nothing to deny your idea a seat at the table.
            A barbarian twin.
            “Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith.”
            ― Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

            “One and God make a majority.”
            ― Frederick Douglass

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Stripe View Post
              And this is a weasel term — an attempt to sneak past the criticism you face.

              How about instead of rewording "theory" as "scientific idea" to cover up the fallacious opener you posed, that of begging the question, you just concede that it is incorrect to assert that your ideas are rejected only by those who also reject science.
              Evolution is a well supported scientific theory, among the best in biology and science in general. Rejecting it means rejecting science. Theories are the strongest scientific ideas we have.

              Dictionary definition of scientific theory

              scientific theory
              noun
              a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation:
              the scientific theory of evolution.



              The National Academy of science defines a scientific theory as:

              The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics)...One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed.



              Other scientific theories:

              Atomic Theory
              Germ Theory of Disease
              Cell Theory
              The Big Bang Theory
              Theory of General Relativity
              Plate Tectonics Theory


              All of the great scientific bodies of knowledge are founded on theories. If you think theory is, "stuff that's not really right", you're rejecting all of science.

              Appeals to popularity are another Darwinist staple.
              Expert opinion is not popularity. Do you go to the doctor and follow their advice?
              “We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.



              - The science and faith of theistic evolution explained.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
                ...it is unfortunate that many Christians insist on rejecting science.
                It is unfortunate that many people, such as yourself, insist on calling nonsense "science".
                All my ancestors are human.
                PS: All your ancestors are human.
                PPS: To all you cats, dogs, monkeys, and other assorted house pets whose masters are outsourcing the task of TOL post-writing to you (we know who you are )– you may disregard the PS.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
                  Rejecting it means rejecting science.
                  Nope.

                  It's just a theory.
                  Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                  E≈mc2
                  "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                  "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                  -Bob B.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
                    Rejecting it means rejecting science.
                    Also, theories have to be falsifiable. Your assertion makes evolution not scientific.

                    Congratulations.
                    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                    E≈mc2
                    "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                    -Bob B.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                      Also, theories have to be falsifiable. Your assertion makes evolution not scientific.

                      Congratulations.
                      Falsifying requires evidence, and in the case of a theory, a LOT of evidence. Have you provided any in this thread? No. So you are rejecting without evidence, which means rejecting science without evidence.
                      “We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.



                      - The science and faith of theistic evolution explained.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        For someone who loves Jesus, this is what was written about Him:
                        All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.
                        John 1:3 NKJV

                        And this is what He said:
                        And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’
                        Matthew 19:4 NKJV

                        As you've given up on the scientific approach, it's time to show that the Bible also explicitly denies evolution as a possibility.
                        Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                        E≈mc2
                        "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                        "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                        -Bob B.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post
                          It is unfortunate that many people, such as yourself, insist on calling nonsense "science".
                          Namecalling a well supported idea as "nonsense" doesn't actually further the discussion.
                          “We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.



                          - The science and faith of theistic evolution explained.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                            As you've given up on the scientific approach, it's time to show that the Bible also explicitly denies evolution as a possibility.
                            Do you not think that God is eternal?


                            He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the human heart; yet no one can fathom what God has done from beginning to end.



                            Ecclesiastes 3:11

                            Also, humans were male and female from the beginning. Your point is?

                            And . . . I'm not the one who gave up on science.
                            “We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.



                            - The science and faith of theistic evolution explained.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
                              Evolution is a well supported scientific idea attested by a wide variety of scientific data and Jesus Christ is a singular figure in human history with strong evidence of being different from every other person that has ever lived. His death burial and resurrection are unique and leads me to believe His claims of Godhood. I believe both of these things are true, and it is unfortunate that many Christians insist on rejecting science. This creates a stumbling block for many Christians where there need not be one.

                              Science is simply the study of the natural world that God has given us with the minds God has given us. Evolution is supported by four major types of evidence:

                              Fossils

                              DNA evidence

                              Biogeography

                              Anatomy and Development (Evo-devo)
                              I don't have a problem with those who love the Lord Jesus Christ who believe in Evolution. For the most part, it doesn't interfere with core doctrines but it does question the veracity of Genesis and a few other scriptures, at least as they are understood to mean.

                              Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
                              So here's a piece of evidence here:



                              A Gray whale skeleton. For those that reject evolution, why do whales have fingers in their flippers?



                              Dorudon skeleton. Why do fossil whales have hind legs?





                              Note that the title of this post is also the title of a book I have enjoyed:

                              I Love Jesus & I Accept Evolution: Paperback – March 4, 2009
                              by Denis O. Lamoureux

                              Also of interest: Nothing in Biology makes sense except in the Light of Evolution.
                              Noticed a few odd things about the dorudon: 1) The skeletal hindlegs are suspended rather than connected in all skeletons by a stick. It means its odd (often bones found in the same hole are from different species). 2) it's teeth do not look like a whale, not even a killer whale. It is more reptilian/crocodilian.
                              My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
                              Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
                              Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
                              Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
                              No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
                              Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

                              ? Yep

                              Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

                              ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

                              Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Lon View Post
                                I don't have a problem with those who love the Lord Jesus Christ who believe in Evolution. For the most part, it doesn't interfere with core doctrines but it does question the veracity of Genesis and a few other scriptures, at least as they are understood to mean.
                                It all depends on how they are interpreted, and generally reading an ancient text with a lot of symbolic implications as if it's a news report is probably going to lead to misunderstandings.

                                Noticed a few odd things about the dorudon: 1) The skeletal hindlegs are suspended rather than connected in all skeletons by a stick. It means its odd (often bones found in the same hole are from different species).
                                That can happen, but even modern whales have the remnants of a pelvis which similarly floats (see the skeleton I posted). Also, a related species, Basilosaurus has also been found with tiny hind limbs (Basilosaurus is the larger skeleton on top).



                                Even more evidence along these lines is dolphins and other cetaceans are sometimes born with larger "hind fins".



                                2) it's teeth do not look like a whale, not even a killer whale. It is more reptilian/crocodilian.
                                Reptiles are typically homodonts - meaning all the teeth look the same. Most mammals are heterodonts, meaning the teeth are specialized. Modern whales have either lost teeth or acquired near homodonty.

                                Shown below is a closeup of the skull which shows the more primitive heterodont condition in Dorudon.


                                Killer whale skull below. I think the front teeth of Dorudon look more like the Orca's teeth. Perhaps the more complex teeth in the back were lost during evolution.


                                Also, it's very clear the skull is a mammalian one based on the opening in the skull - the synapsid opening. Most reptiles have a second opening and are termed diapsids.
                                “We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.



                                - The science and faith of theistic evolution explained.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X