God and Evolution

Stands to Reason ^ | Gregory Koukl

[Khepera]

You are correct but in the mean time lets have fun shall we?

[Dimensio]

Er, so your argument is then that either evolution is true or the God as described in the Old and New Testaments is true?

That's definitely a false dilemma. You've completely ignored the possibility of any other deities from other religions or even a deity not described by any existing religion, not to mention the falsity of the "either evolution or God" proclamation.

[f.Christian]

Evolution god...father fossil-chest thumpers---bone-whack heads!

Mutants--no design/intelligence!

[whattajoke]

I'm HOPING you are joking. How can one be "conceited" when one accepts science over supernatural silliness? That is, supernatural silliness that tells its followers that in all the vast universe, of all the planets, of all the species, of all the 6.5 billion humans, of all the billions of religion-followers, of all the millions of christians, that only the tiny fraction of fundamentalist literalists can have ever lasting life and happiness? By my figuring, your INCREDIBLE conceit is absolutely glaring, not the evil evolutionists!

[Khepera]

In-fisherman is just used as a prop to begin the line of reasoning given in the rest of the article. It is not the intention of the author to imply it is a scientific or evolutionary authority.

[cracker]

The use of "purpose" in the article is a recognized shorthand for a more complex argument about the likelihood of certain forms appearing or not appearing. It does not imply agency.

Any free-marketer understands this. The invisible hand of the economy is not a real invisible hand, it is merely an abstration to describe how the behavior of millions of disparate, self-interested agents can create ordered systems from their own separate actions. The market is not God, and the fact that some companies thrive and others fail, that some industries rise and others fall, is not a reflection that God has made a choice. The "invisible hand" of natural selection is no different. God chooses species no more than he chooses buggy whips and widgets.

[ppaul]

You've completely ignored the possibility of any other deities from other religions or even a deity not described by any existing religion, not to mention the falsity of the "either evolution or God" proclamation.

You are 100 percent right.
I have.
I have chosen to believe and follow Jesus the Messiah.
He proclaimed,

I am the way,
I am the Truth,
I am the Life.
No man comes to the Father (God) except by me.

Either he was a screwball, or he was who he said he was.
They crucified him for claiming that he was God.
Some believed him, most did not.
But the many who believed him, he said would inherit eternal life.
I believe him.

[f.Christian]

the tiny fraction of fundamentalist literalists can have ever lasting life and happiness

Is this from the ozarks--hollow?

[RonF]

"In-fisherman is just used as a prop to begin the line of reasoning given in the rest of the article. It is not the intention of the author to imply it is a scientific or evolutionary authority."

The author uses, and quotes, statements from writers in fishing magazines and books, and describes their writers as "evolutionists". He then uses that to try to demonstrate inconsistiences in scientific evolutionary theory. That's ridiculous, and misleading. He's representing these writers as discussing evolutionary theory. If you want to try to find inconsistencies in evolutionary theory, use statements from scientists, not a bunch of guys talking about fishing.

[RonF]

There is no need to renounce God to study and appreciate the mechanisms he chooses to use.

[Dimensio]

Either he was a screwball, or he was who he said he was.

Or he was lying, you forgot that part. It's "liar, lunatic or Lord".

Of course, that leaves out the other two possibilities of "made up" or "misquoted".

[ppaul]

Q: How can one be "conceited" when one accepts science over supernatural silliness?

A: When one accepts a "theory" as fact and calls it "science", and then impugns those who disagree and believe in a Creator.

Those who believe in a Creator, as well as those who "belikeve" in science, do so out of religious conviction, nothing more. Neither is able to produce conclusive "proof" for the skeptic.

[RonF]

"Evolution god...father fossil-chest thumpers---bone-whack heads!
Mutants--no design/intelligence!"

Am I the only one who can't figure out what this guy is saying?

Must be a product of home schooling....

[f.Christian]

Evolution is spam--turkey....garble-garble!!

[ppaul]

It's "liar, lunatic or Lord".

You are right, my friend.
I have chosen "Lord".
It's a choice I'll have to live with, eh?
Before I made that choice, "living" wasn't that great.

[concerned about politics]

As I've stated repeatedly, never ceases to amaze me how creationists repeatedly claim to be more religious than those Godless evolutionists, yet it's the creationists that are repeated bald-faced liars. Somehow, I think you're more likely to burn in Hell for being a liar to that degree, than for daring to suggest that Genesis not be taken literally.

Prove creation is a lie. Prove Darwinism is truth.

To an athiest, no amount of proof is sufficient, not even their own lack of it!
To a Godly believer, no proof is even necessary.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

I seen no conflict between evolution and theology. They are completely unrelated.

Evolution, as a physical science, should only look at empirical evidence.

Theology, as a metaphysical science, doesn't care about empirical evidence.

There should be no surprise when the two disciplines disagree.

The real problem is that there is a cultural war being waged against Christianity, and one of its manifestations is to say that if evolution is true than the Bible must be a lie.

That in itself is a false proposition, and if you accept it you have already lost the argument.

[RonF]

Hm. Well, I do like the original Spam fried, but I don't like the turkey version either. Good for you.

Say, what do you think of evolution?

[Tourist Guy]

I gotta tell you, I read these threads often, but shun posting on them because it always turns into the same old battle (we win by the way, but you know that!)

If there were evolution, my dog would evolve to do some useful purpose, such as taking the trash out to the curb. The cats would figure out how to use the can opener by now AND humans would evolve so that we could scratch our own backs.