Replies

Couldn't have said it better myself. Everything above is perfectly compatible with both evolution as well as Christianity. Where is your problem?

The more I learn about TOE the more I find it less credible.

1-The majority of the proponents of TOE approach creation from either an atheist or agnostic viewpoint. This right there removes credibility.

2-When talking about mans evolution, Cromagnon man, Neandrethal man, and others, have been debunked as fabrications. Either for personal fame or promoting a personal view or agenda. Much like Dan Rathers memogate.

3-When so called steps in the evolution process are presented, there is generally only 1 or 2 examples of something. If there are more than 1 or 2 examples, they are in 1 area, and never other areas.

4-Something that is coming out more and more, is that creation is not as old as once thought. The accuracy of carbon dating has been proven wrongby too many people. Also scientists in the last 2-3 years are coming to the conclusion that the speed of light is not constant. That at one time it was faster. That the supposed big bang that everything started with might not have happened so long ago.

5-Evolution without God doesn't make sense. I mean a lung is just going to evolve without it being designed. The same with a heart or liver. Now every part of the body has to work together. If one doesn't work properly it affects all the others. This continues throughout creation. As humans we affect nature around us, and I'm not talking some "Force" thing. Our moon affects our planet. Our planet affects the other planets in our solar system. Our solar system affects the other solar systems in our galaxy. And our galaxy affects other galaxy.

Now your thinking what does this have to do with Evolution w/God. Not much, except it solidifies my belief in God creating the universe. But I see no reason, using my own reasoning, as to why God would use evolution. Especially since that evolution takes the glory away from God instead of giving it to him. Romans 1:18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. 21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. 24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

Lastly I'm not going to simply refuse evolution. I have only touched on a few things that I see. And like I said earlier, for me whether God used evolution or not really is ultimately unimportant. But as I learn more and more things, the more it drives me away from believing God using evolution.

1-The majority of the proponents of TOE approach creation from either an atheist or agnostic viewpoint. This right there removes credibility.

So you'd rather they look into creation by first assuming it to be true? Or perhaps you'd like them to approach from a Native American mysticism view.

You are aware that your religion's creation story isn't the only one out there, right?

When talking about mans evolution, Cromagnon man, Neandrethal man, and others, have been debunked as fabrications.

Citation please. There has been one genuine, bona fide humanoid fraud, and that was Piltdown Man. Other alleged frauds either are a case of creationists simply refusing to accept a real find or speculation that didn't pan out before any concrete claims were made (such as Nebraska Man, where creationists continue to dishonestly claim that it was a hoax of some kind).

3-When so called steps in the evolution process are presented, there is generally only 1 or 2 examples of something. If there are more than 1 or 2 examples, they are in 1 area, and never other areas.

Someone hasn't looked at examples of whale evolution.

4-Something that is coming out more and more, is that creation is not as old as once thought.

Eh? Citation please.

The accuracy of carbon dating has been proven wrongby too many people.

Citation for this? Or are you going to pull out the creationist standbys of examples of carbon dating on things where carbon dating should never be used. You are aware that carbon dating has known limitations and is not used when it is known that the sample doesn't fit within the limitations, right? And you do know that carbon dating is not the only dating technique out there, right?

Also scientists in the last 2-3 years are coming to the conclusion that the speed of light is not constant.

Wild-assed speculation, as yet unsupported by extensive research, that lightspeed might have been subtly different near the start of the universe is a "conclusion"?

The duplicity of creationists astounds me. Evolution should be treated with skepticism because it's "unproven theory", nevermind the mountains of fossil and DNA sevidence, while one man's speculation on the nature of lightspeed as yet unsupported by followup research is a solid conclusion, all because creationists can pretend that it somehow de-ages the universe to only 6000 years old (hint: even if the research pans out, it doesn't give you a universe as young as you want).

That at one time it was faster. That the supposed big bang that everything started with might not have happened so long ago.

Yeah. Might have been 14 billion years ago instead of 15.

It's rather hypocritical to attack evolution for allegedly having weak evidence behind it and then try to prop up your claims with a scientific finding that decidedly has far less substance behind it.

1-The majority of the proponents of TOE approach creation from either an atheist or agnostic viewpoint. This right there removes credibility.

First of all, the vast majority of evolutionary biologists don't deal with the question of creation. They just study evolution and don't even think about the theological implications. Some of them believe in God and some don't, but few believe their scientific work has anything to do with religion.

Second of all, the credulity of a scientific theory is in no way dependent on the religous beliefs of those who advance it.

I don't doubt your honesty, but from what you write above, I can see that you really haven't studied this issue beyond a few creationist books and/or websites. I really suggest you go read some books by real scientists on this topic because it is pretty clear you don't know what you're talking about.

Regarding human ancestry, there was one fraud, Piltdown man, that was exposed by an evolutonary biologist over 50 years ago. It has been pretty well-established that Neanderthal man is not a human ancestor, and no, it is not a fraud. Cro-magnon man is simply fancy term for the earliest members of our species. No one claims they were any different from you or I. You really have some reading to do.

3-When so called steps in the evolution process are presented, there is generally only 1 or 2 examples of something. If there are more than 1 or 2 examples, they are in 1 area, and never other areas.

I don't follow you. There are thousands of examples of transitional speices. There are mountains of evidence documenting evolution of amphibians from fish, reptiles from amphibians, and mammals and birds from reptiles, for example. There are coutless more examples. You really need to do some reading. I suggest Ken Miller's book, "Finding Darwin's God."

4-Something that is coming out more and more, is that creation is not as old as once thought. The accuracy of carbon dating has been proven wrongby too many people.

First of all, Carbon dating is only realiable to about 14,000 years, so it can't be used to date the earth. Second of all, I don't know of a single instance where it was proven "wrong." Care to give a citation?

Also scientists in the last 2-3 years are coming to the conclusion that the speed of light is not constant. That at one time it was faster. That the supposed big bang that everything started with might not have happened so long ago.

The speed of light might have changed a little, but the amount it is postulated to have changed is not even close to the among needed to be consistent with a 10,000 year old universe. It might change our estimate of the age from 14 billion to 13 billion. Big deal.

5-Evolution without God doesn't make sense.

That's fine. You don't have to be an atheist to accept evolution.

I mean a lung is just going to evolve without it being designed. The same with a heart or liver. Now every part of the body has to work together. If one doesn't work properly it affects all the others. This continues throughout creation.

This is a version of Michael Behe's argument from irreduceable complexity. Ken Miller answers it extremely well in the chapter, "God the Mechanic" in the book I cited above.

Especially since that evolution takes the glory away from God instead of giving it to him.

I don't see why evolution should take away God's glory.

The majority of the proponents of TOE approach creation from either an atheist or agnostic viewpoint. This right there removes credibility.

1. Provide statistics or a link for your claim.

2. State how it invalidates research into TOE by Christians.

3. Point out how the theory of evolution would differ is a scientist of an acceptable religion did the research.

When talking about mans evolution, Cromagnon man, Neandrethal man, and others, have been debunked as fabrications. Either for personal fame or promoting a personal view or agenda. Much like Dan Rathers memogate.

Okay, many people on any side of an argument are out for themselves, to sell books, go on speaking tours, or to gain fawning admiration. Point out where the entire concept of Cromagnon man, Neanderthal man, and others have been debunked as fabrications. Individual examples won't do ... as you phrased it as the entire group.

When so called steps in the evolution process are presented, there is generally only 1 or 2 examples of something. If there are more than 1 or 2 examples, they are in 1 area, and never other areas.

... but when more than a couple examples are presented on these threads, it's called an "info dump" or dismissed for other reasons.

Something that is coming out more and more, is that creation is not as old as once thought. The accuracy of carbon dating has been proven wrongby too many people. Also scientists in the last 2-3 years are coming to the conclusion that the speed of light is not constant. That at one time it was faster. That the supposed big bang that everything started with might not have happened so long ago.

As has been pointed out before, evolution theory is unconcerned with creation of the world ... you may think it begs the question, but that's an interpretation of the theory, and not what it states.

Evolution without God doesn't make sense. I mean a lung is just going to evolve without it being designed. The same with a heart or liver. Now every part of the body has to work together. If one doesn't work properly it affects all the others. This continues throughout creation. As humans we affect nature around us, and I'm not talking some "Force" thing. Our moon affects our planet. Our planet affects the other planets in our solar system. Our solar system affects the other solar systems in our galaxy. And our galaxy affects other galaxy.

So, unless you understand or comprehend something, it can't possibly exist or have happened? When I was five, I couldn't comprehend how an airplane could fly, other than by magic. Did this disprove aerodynamics?

As for the rest, about how things in the universe effect one another ... that's part of what the theory of evolution tries to understand.

But I see no reason, using my own reasoning, as to why God would use evolution

I'm sure God understands His reasons ... how are we to know his plan or the reason for His methods? Just because you can't comprehend God's reason for doing something is no reason for humanity to not try to understand how nature works.

Fantastic ... but if the opinions of those support evolution that are shaded by atheism should not be counted, why should yours?

(In a broader scale, why should we let ANY science be judged by opinions and misunderstanding and faith or lack therof ... shouldn;t we let science be determined by, well, science? If you choose to think the theory of evolution is a complete crock, go ahead. By don't try to press your opinions on science as science ...)

(Of course, maybe you aren;t trying to do so. I may be confusing you with other posters. If so, I thank you for your thoughts.)