Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?

[The Barbarian]

You don't seem to understand what I said in my post.

Do you agree that if one want and seek for a richer and more complete understanding of God, that he need not look nowhere else, but to Jesus?

He's the Creator.  Obviously, there is nowhere else to look; he made everything.    Hence St. Paul's point:

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.

I'm a biologist; I spend a lot of time out looking at His creation.    It doesn't replace scripture; it enriches and illuminates it, as St. Paul tells you.    So there are times when I'm out in the middle of it, and there's a little epiphany for me, as His power and majesty are made clear to me in the things He has done.   Last summer, out on the Olympic Peninsula, I had just such a moment, and recorded the scene:


It may not look like much to you, but that light coming through the canopy, the tree, the land, and the living things there, all showed me His wisdom and power, and I was transfixed.

This is also the work of Jesus; His creation is for us, and as St. Paul says, to teach us about Him.   Learn from it.

[th1b.taylor]

Hey guys,
 I don't belong in this conversation/discussion, but do have a question. Maybe just a simple answer, but I wonder.
 Creation is a fact I'd say to everyone on this board, and without creation, evolution is a non issue. I just wonder if it weren't for evolution, could/would creation have survived oh these many years.
 The question is, why must they be mutually exclusive?
  Thanks and blessings.

This is not about mutual exclusivity. Evolution (i.e. macro evolution) is a non-option because it doesn't exist and it cannot happen.
One species does not evolve into another. Not in 100 years, not in 10,000 years, not in a million years and not in a billion years.
God could not have used something that does not exist and does not happen.

Amen!  In Barbs evidence, the Fly became another Fly.  That, they contend, evolved into another Fly that looks the same but some genetic marker(s) are different.  Ever had a child, Barb?

[Alan]

Hey guys,
 I don't belong in this conversation/discussion, but do have a question. Maybe just a simple answer, but I wonder.
 Creation is a fact I'd say to everyone on this board, and without creation, evolution is a non issue. I just wonder if it weren't for evolution, could/would creation have survived oh these many years.
 The question is, why must they be mutually exclusive?
  Thanks and blessings.

This is not about mutual exclusivity. Evolution (i.e. macro evolution) is a non-option because it doesn't exist and it cannot happen.
One species does not evolve into another. Not in 100 years, not in 10,000 years, not in a million years and not in a billion years.
God could not have used something that does not exist and does not happen.

What if science irrefutably proves evolution to be the truth within the next few decades? Will you still deny and stand on your above statement?

[AVZ]

So believing in both the God of the Bible and macroevolutionary theory necessarily involves a very awkward redefining of terms, and an anomalous merging of concepts.

No, that's wrong.   If you accept an omnipotent Creator, there is no conflict whatever.    Even Richard Dawkins, who hates religion, admits that our world is consistent with God.

Richard Dawkins denies God exists, how could he then ever admit that our world is consistent with God?

[AVZ]

Hey guys,
 I don't belong in this conversation/discussion, but do have a question. Maybe just a simple answer, but I wonder.
 Creation is a fact I'd say to everyone on this board, and without creation, evolution is a non issue. I just wonder if it weren't for evolution, could/would creation have survived oh these many years.
 The question is, why must they be mutually exclusive?
  Thanks and blessings.

This is not about mutual exclusivity. Evolution (i.e. macro evolution) is a non-option because it doesn't exist and it cannot happen.
One species does not evolve into another. Not in 100 years, not in 10,000 years, not in a million years and not in a billion years.
God could not have used something that does not exist and does not happen.

What if science irrefutably proves evolution to be the truth within the next few decades? Will you still deny and stand on your above statement?

Is this a serious question?
If science irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?

[avenger]

I believe that God is the creator of all things, but because the books of the Bible were written thousands of years ago for a largely illiterate group of people... I would not presume that the Genesis account of Creation was an accurate representation of how it transpired.

Why did Jesus speak in parables? 

[The Barbarian]

Amen!  In Barbs evidence, the Fly became another Fly.

Or in our case, a primate became another primate.   We are actually much loser in looks to a chimp than a housefly resembles D. miranda.   Closer genetically, too.   And we know genetic matches show relatedness, because we can check it on organisms of known descent.
 

[The Barbarian]

Richard Dawkins denies God exists

He admits that he can't do that:
Richard Dawkins: I can't be sure God does not exist
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102740/Richard-Dawkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-does-not-exist.html

 

[The Barbarian]

Is this a serious question?
If science irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?

As you might have learned from this discussion, there is no possible way science can prove that God doesn't exist.   It's limited to the physical universe.   

I've been through "dark night of the soul" when my faith flickered and nearly died.    I made it back out, by being willing to face the truth, no matter what it turned out to be.     Staring into the abyss, I stepped over the edge and into it, an act of faith that there was something beyond me and the world.    And with the help of God and the young woman who has been at my side now for 51 years, I regained my faith.

When I was lost in that dark valley
where God is a distant "maybe,"
you did what you had to do.   

And it saved me
even though at the time
all I could see was betrayal.

[Michael2012]

You don't seem to understand what I said in my post.

Do you agree that if one want and seek for a richer and more complete understanding of God, that he need not look nowhere else, but to Jesus?

He's the Creator.  Obviously, there is nowhere else to look; he made everything.    Hence St. Paul's point:

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.

I'm a biologist; I spend a lot of time out looking at His creation.    It doesn't replace scripture; it enriches and illuminates it, as St. Paul tells you.    So there are times when I'm out in the middle of it, and there's a little epiphany for me, as His power and majesty are made clear to me in the things He has done. 

This is also the work of Jesus; His creation is for us, and as St. Paul says, to teach us about Him.   Learn from it.

I'm beginning to suspect that your being a biologist, a scientist that is, somehow put some veil over the clear and plain truths revealed by God in scriptures that Jesus is the express image of God, the exact representation of his being. That in Jesus, dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. These truths speaks loud and clear that nothing can offer and give you a richer and more complete understanding of God, other than the person of Jesus Christ.

Concerning what Paul said in Rom. 1:20, let me quote, including v.19:

19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

These verses talks about a revelation about God. Let me call it "natural revelation". Verse 19 states the fact of natural revelation, and verse 20 explains how. This revelation describes what everyone knows about God because of what God has revealed concerning Himself in nature. Now, we must not fail to consider the time when Paul said these things, and that this is in relation to people who has ever lived in the past up to the time of Christ. This natural revelation is that which may be known about God, that is immediately evident to every human being. Paul obviously was not referring to something that man has been able to discover through various scientific study, such as DNA. So, what God has made, the creation, bears testimony about His invisible qualities, even His eternal power and Godhead.

We see several characteristics of this revelation of God's invisible attributes:

1. It is clear, evident and plain, and all man is aware of (for God hath shewed it unto them).
2. It is understood by all man (so that they are without excuse) BY THE THINGS THAT ARE MADE (does not say by how things are made).
3. It has been there since the creation of the world (from the creation of the world are clearly seen).
4. It is not a full revelation, in the sense that it does not reveal everything about God, such as His mercy, His love and grace, but only some such as His power and Godhead.

It is wise for one to ponder about this. I won't be surprised if this will lead him to Christ, who is the express image, the exact representation of the invisible God, the Creator.

[AVZ]

Richard Dawkins denies God exists

He admits that he can't do that:
Richard Dawkins: I can't be sure God does not exist
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102740/Richard-Dawkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-does-not-exist.html

you should read his books.

[The Barbarian]

you should read his books.

I've read a couple of them.   Speaking as a biologist, his tendency to see selection everywhere, even where we can't really document it, bothers me.   And his somewhat irrational fear of faith is disturbing, although he tends to keep it out of his academic work.

[The Barbarian]

I'm beginning to suspect that your being a biologist, a scientist that is, somehow put some veil over the clear and plain truths revealed by God in scriptures

As one humble and perceptive Christian noted, truth cannot contradict truth.   If a person sets pride aside, and lets Him in, then it becomes clear that there is no contradiction.    Jesus is not just the best way to learn about God.   He is God, fully and completely.   

 

These verses talks about a revelation about God. Let me call it "natural revelation". Verse 19 states the fact of natural revelation, and verse 20 explains how. This revelation describes what everyone knows about God because of what God has revealed concerning Himself in nature. Now, we must not fail to consider the time when Paul said these things, and that this is in relation to people who has ever lived in the past up to the time of Christ. This natural revelation is that which may be known about God, that is immediately evident to every human being.

Yes, you're getting to the heart of this; he's saying that if you look at creation with an open and willing heart, you will see His power and Godhead.    Now this means that a hunter, for example, does not use faith in tracking game, but if he opens himself to what he has learned, it will tell him about God.

Likewise, those of other avocations will, if they open themselves to the fact, learn about Him.   Not as hunters or scientists, or plumbers, but in the creation with which they work.   Science is no different than any other in this regard.

 

[Alan]

Hey guys,
 I don't belong in this conversation/discussion, but do have a question. Maybe just a simple answer, but I wonder.
 Creation is a fact I'd say to everyone on this board, and without creation, evolution is a non issue. I just wonder if it weren't for evolution, could/would creation have survived oh these many years.
 The question is, why must they be mutually exclusive?
  Thanks and blessings.

This is not about mutual exclusivity. Evolution (i.e. macro evolution) is a non-option because it doesn't exist and it cannot happen.
One species does not evolve into another. Not in 100 years, not in 10,000 years, not in a million years and not in a billion years.
God could not have used something that does not exist and does not happen.

What if science irrefutably proves evolution to be the truth within the next few decades? Will you still deny and stand on your above statement?

Is this a serious question?
If science irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?

Nice deflection, I guess you couldn't honestly answer the question.

[AVZ]

Hey guys,
 I don't belong in this conversation/discussion, but do have a question. Maybe just a simple answer, but I wonder.
 Creation is a fact I'd say to everyone on this board, and without creation, evolution is a non issue. I just wonder if it weren't for evolution, could/would creation have survived oh these many years.
 The question is, why must they be mutually exclusive?
  Thanks and blessings.

This is not about mutual exclusivity. Evolution (i.e. macro evolution) is a non-option because it doesn't exist and it cannot happen.
One species does not evolve into another. Not in 100 years, not in 10,000 years, not in a million years and not in a billion years.
God could not have used something that does not exist and does not happen.

What if science irrefutably proves evolution to be the truth within the next few decades? Will you still deny and stand on your above statement?

Is this a serious question?
If science irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?

Nice deflection, I guess you couldn't honestly answer the question.

Not a matter of deflection but a matter of relevance, and I honestly can't bother less about what you guess.
Your question is based on a hypothetical. A response would be hypothetical as well and therefore useless to this discussion.

[AVZ]

you should read his books.

I've read a couple of them.   Speaking as a biologist, his tendency to see selection everywhere, even where we can't really document it, bothers me.   And his somewhat irrational fear of faith is disturbing, although he tends to keep it out of his academic work.

If you have read his books then you also know that the man is an atheist who attributes nothing in this world to God or even considers God as a potential explanation of this universe.

[AVZ]

Richard Dawkins denies God exists

He admits that he can't do that:
Richard Dawkins: I can't be sure God does not exist
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102740/Richard-Dawkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-does-not-exist.html

Sad article.
What is even sadder is that there are Christians who give a solidly atheist Dawkins credit for lying that he considers himself an agnostic.
This topped by another denier who believes that humans evolved from non-human ancestors. And that man actually managed to become an archbishop.

Just shows how deep Christianity has sunk in some parts of our society if it can no longer discern where Satan is at work.

[The Barbarian]

If you have read his books then you also know that the man is an atheist who attributes nothing in this world to God or even considers God as a potential explanation of this universe.

As you see, Dawkins admits that he doesn't know that there is no God.   Hence, he's an agnostic.

[The Barbarian]

What is even sadder is that there are Christians who give a solidly atheist Dawkins credit for lying that he considers himself an agnostic.

Professor Richard Dawkins today dismissed his hard-earned reputation as a militant atheist - admitting that he is actually agnostic as he can't prove God doesn't exist.

The country's foremost champion of the Darwinist evolution, who wrote The God Delusion, stunned audience members when he made the confession during a lively debate on the origins of the universe with the Archbishop of Canterbury.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2105834/Career-atheist-Richard-Dawkins-admits-fact-agnostic.html

This topped by another denier who believes that humans evolved from non-human ancestors.

It stings the pride of some people, but of course, it is consistent with God's word and the evidence for it is overwhelming.  Would you like to see some of it?

Satan loves dividing God's people and setting them against each other.   While we may differ on exactly how God created our bodies, we should remember that it's not a salvation issue, and we should avoid making an idol of either evolution or creationism.

 

[AVZ]

If you have read his books then you also know that the man is an atheist who attributes nothing in this world to God or even considers God as a potential explanation of this universe.

As you see, Dawkins admits that he doesn't know that there is no God.   Hence, he's an agnostic.

Right. The man who wrote a book called "The God Delusion" is not an atheist.

[The Barbarian]

Right. The man who wrote a book called "The God Delusion" is not an atheist.

Yep.   He says he's an agnostic, and can't prove that there is no God. 

[AVZ]

Right. The man who wrote a book called "The God Delusion" is not an atheist.

Yep.   He says he's an agnostic, and can't prove that there is no God.

That's what liars do...they lie.
If you, after reading his books, can't see what Dawkins is then I feel sorry for you.

[Michael2012]

The earth bringing forth creatures AFTER THEIR OWN KIND, is a God designed plan, not the earth doing the creating.

Of course.   God created all things.   He just used nature to create the diversity of life we see.    My inclination is that attributing "design" to God is giving Him less credit than an omnipotent Creator deserves.    The IDers suggest that the "designer" might be "a space alien."    I don't think so.

What Jaime is emphasizing is on the phrase "The earth bringing forth creatures AFTER THEIR OWN KIND" which speaks against any teaching that God created the different kinds of living things by the evolution that you speak about. Jaime explains too that the phrase "The earth bringing forth creatures" does not mean that the earth does the creating. And that is certainly not what it means.

Let me share to you a bit of my study of some verses of the Genesis scriptures, in relation to this important point.

On the 5th day:
KJV
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

The Hebrew scripture translated in English as "bring forth" in v.20 is "sharats" which means swarm or teem. It does not denote any sort of creation process at all. In v.21, the Hebrew scripture translated in English as "brought forth" is the same "sharats".

We can see this meaning clearly in the NKJV version:

20 Then God said, “Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens.” 21 So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

Further, in v.20, it says "and fowl that may fly above the earth" (KJV). By your take on evolution which you tie up with the phrase "bring forth", that would mean that the waters brought forth fowl, would it not?

Further still, v.20 states what God said, and v.21 states what God did, that is, He created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. "created"~ meaning past and done.   

What is your comment on this?

[Michael2012]

Is this a serious question?
If science irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?

As you might have learned from this discussion, there is no possible way science can prove that God doesn't exist.   It's limited to the physical universe.   

I've been through "dark night of the soul" when my faith flickered and nearly died.    I made it back out, by being willing to face the truth, no matter what it turned out to be.     Staring into the abyss, I stepped over the edge and into it, an act of faith that there was something beyond me and the world.    And with the help of God and the young woman who has been at my side now for 51 years, I regained my faith.

When I was lost in that dark valley
where God is a distant "maybe,"
you did what you had to do.   

And it saved me
even though at the time
all I could see was betrayal.

What if the question was:

If scientists irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?

[Michael2012]

Hey guys,
 I don't belong in this conversation/discussion, but do have a question. Maybe just a simple answer, but I wonder.
 Creation is a fact I'd say to everyone on this board, and without creation, evolution is a non issue. I just wonder if it weren't for evolution, could/would creation have survived oh these many years.
 The question is, why must they be mutually exclusive?
  Thanks and blessings.

This is not about mutual exclusivity. Evolution (i.e. macro evolution) is a non-option because it doesn't exist and it cannot happen.
One species does not evolve into another. Not in 100 years, not in 10,000 years, not in a million years and not in a billion years.
God could not have used something that does not exist and does not happen.

What if science irrefutably proves evolution to be the truth within the next few decades? Will you still deny and stand on your above statement?

Is this a serious question?
If science irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?

Nice deflection, I guess you couldn't honestly answer the question.

Let me take that for the sake of Alan, even while I feel the same way as AVZ on the question.

If science irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?

NO.

Alan, let me modify your question and let me know your answer:

If scientists irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?

[AVZ]

Hey guys,
 I don't belong in this conversation/discussion, but do have a question. Maybe just a simple answer, but I wonder.
 Creation is a fact I'd say to everyone on this board, and without creation, evolution is a non issue. I just wonder if it weren't for evolution, could/would creation have survived oh these many years.
 The question is, why must they be mutually exclusive?
  Thanks and blessings.

This is not about mutual exclusivity. Evolution (i.e. macro evolution) is a non-option because it doesn't exist and it cannot happen.
One species does not evolve into another. Not in 100 years, not in 10,000 years, not in a million years and not in a billion years.
God could not have used something that does not exist and does not happen.

What if science irrefutably proves evolution to be the truth within the next few decades? Will you still deny and stand on your above statement?

Is this a serious question?
If science irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?

Nice deflection, I guess you couldn't honestly answer the question.

Let me take that for the sake of Alan, even while I feel the same way as AVZ on the question.

If science irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?

NO.

Alan, let me modify your question and let me know your answer:

If scientists irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?

There is no need to modify the question, it's intent is totally irrelevant to the discussion, and besides that it is inconsistent.
Science has already irrefutably proven that a virgin cannot give birth. It has also irrefutably proven that something that is dead for 3 days cannot come back to life.

Alan is attempting to set up a straw man argument; if science irrefutably proves that evolution is true...I MUST accept its premise.
If Alan is consistent he therefore must accept himself that Jesus could not have been born or resurrected from death because science has irrefutably proven both cannot happen.

This whole discussion is about where a person puts his faith. It's either science or the Word of God.
Either God created everything and evolution did not happen...or evolution happened and the account in Genesis is a false testimony of events.

[RB]

This whole discussion is about where a person puts his faith. It's either science or the Word of God. Either God created everything and evolution did not happen...or evolution happened and the account in Genesis is a false testimony of events.

AVZ's analysis is absolutely true. To a confess measure of faith in evolution is a sign of a measure of unbelief that is not much different to a staunch God-hating atheist. Evolution is an idea from the old serpent, the enemy of God and truth.  It's the doctrine/god of Mystery Babylon, both commercial and the great whore~who portrays as a daughter of Jehovah, but who are in truth from the generation of the wicked.

[RB]

Yep.   He says he's an agnostic, and can't prove that there is no God.

NO MAN CAN OR CANNOT~to know is a GIFT given, ONCE given, then we know by many infallible proofs that ONLY children of faith CAN SEE.

Acts 1:3~"To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:"

Faith is free gift given to the seed of Jesus Christ, that he secured FOR THEM. The word of God has many, many truths, where faith must be used to believe, the list is long, beginning with a serpent TALKING to a woman! The faith that Jesus Christ had is the VERY FAITH that every child of promise lives by~which men like Dawkins mock and make fun of...but one day, we shall laugh, and he shall mourn to see just how delusional he was!

Galatians 2:20~"I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me."

You see, it takes FAITH to believe that we were crucified WITH CHRIST and that the very life we now live is by the FAITH OF CHRIST that has been freely imparted to us. The battle is not so much over evolution, but EVERY SOUND DOCTRINE that's recorded for us to believe...CREATION just happens to be one of them. It is the very first truth that one must believe and hold fast to, or the others hidden truths will never be seen and understood.

[RB]

2nd Peter 3:16-18~"Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own steadfastness.But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen."

We are exhorted to watch for the errors and false ideas of men in Christ's name, that we are not led astray by them. But Theologians today seem to think that there can be no errors of teaching, and we can question everything in scripture, each one of us interpreting personally or privately to suit whatever the scientists declare is true. But in doing so, we fall from our own stedfastness in the faith of the gospel. We must be diligent, careful not to become corrupted and unbelieving wherein we have our mind and conscience defiled. For then we will be professing we know God, while in works denying him. Remember, Christ said, "A tree is known by its fruits." Can men have faith in God's word, and yet every time man says it cannot be literally true, they start looking around to find what else it could possibly mean besides what it said? Isn't that the very essence of putting faith in man's word over God? We can call it Theistic Evolution, Progressive Evolution, Evolutionary Creation, Christian Intellectualism, or any other name, but changing the title doesn't make it a new phenomenon. It's the same old worldly non-belief that has plagued the Church since the beginning.

2 Corinthians 4:13~ "We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak;"

We believe because we have the spirit of faith, which as we said above~is the faith of Christ.

[Alan]

Hey guys,
 I don't belong in this conversation/discussion, but do have a question. Maybe just a simple answer, but I wonder.
 Creation is a fact I'd say to everyone on this board, and without creation, evolution is a non issue. I just wonder if it weren't for evolution, could/would creation have survived oh these many years.
 The question is, why must they be mutually exclusive?
  Thanks and blessings.

This is not about mutual exclusivity. Evolution (i.e. macro evolution) is a non-option because it doesn't exist and it cannot happen.
One species does not evolve into another. Not in 100 years, not in 10,000 years, not in a million years and not in a billion years.
God could not have used something that does not exist and does not happen.

What if science irrefutably proves evolution to be the truth within the next few decades? Will you still deny and stand on your above statement?

Is this a serious question?
If science irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?

Nice deflection, I guess you couldn't honestly answer the question.

Let me take that for the sake of Alan, even while I feel the same way as AVZ on the question.

If science irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?

NO.

Alan, let me modify your question and let me know your answer:

If scientists irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?

Utter foolishness, you and AVZ are denying a very conceivable possibility and creating an impossible premise in an attempt to make your point. 

[The Barbarian]

There is no need to modify the question, it's intent is totally irrelevant to the discussion, and besides that it is inconsistent.
Science has already irrefutably proven that a virgin cannot give birth.

It's called "parthenogenesis."   And there's no absolute bar to it happening in humans, although it's so unlikely that we will almost certainly never see a documented case other than the one God produced miraculously.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2007/12/can_a_virgin_give_birth.html

Happens in other organisms, though; just not mammals, unless there's a series of rather unlikely events.

It has also irrefutably proven that something that is dead for 3 days cannot come back to life.

Humans anyway.   But why would it surprise you that Jesus could produce a miracle?

Alan is attempting to set up a straw man argument; if science irrefutably proves that evolution is true...I MUST accept its premise.

Actually, he asked if you would accept it.   Couple of caveats:
1. science never actually proves things; it just gathers evidence to the point that it's foolish to believe otherwise.   The way you depend on most things you find to be true in your daily life.

2. Evolution, including speciation, has been directly observed.   So not really a concern.

If Alan is consistent he therefore must accept himself that Jesus could not have been born or resurrected from death because science has irrefutably proven both cannot happen.

That might be a problem for an atheist, but I'm guessing that Alan knows that God can do miracles.

This whole discussion is about where a person puts his faith. It's either science or the Word of God.

Science depends on evidence alone.    It can't involve faith, because it has no way to evaluate faith as a way of knowing.

Either God created everything and evolution did not happen...or evolution happened and the account in Genesis is a false testimony of events.

No, you're wrong about that.   God created everything, and evolution is just one of the ways he did it.

[Michael2012]

Hey guys,
 I don't belong in this conversation/discussion, but do have a question. Maybe just a simple answer, but I wonder.
 Creation is a fact I'd say to everyone on this board, and without creation, evolution is a non issue. I just wonder if it weren't for evolution, could/would creation have survived oh these many years.
 The question is, why must they be mutually exclusive?
  Thanks and blessings.

This is not about mutual exclusivity. Evolution (i.e. macro evolution) is a non-option because it doesn't exist and it cannot happen.
One species does not evolve into another. Not in 100 years, not in 10,000 years, not in a million years and not in a billion years.
God could not have used something that does not exist and does not happen.

What if science irrefutably proves evolution to be the truth within the next few decades? Will you still deny and stand on your above statement?

Is this a serious question?
If science irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?

Nice deflection, I guess you couldn't honestly answer the question.

Let me take that for the sake of Alan, even while I feel the same way as AVZ on the question.

If science irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?

NO.

Alan, let me modify your question and let me know your answer:

If scientists irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?

Utter foolishness, you and AVZ are denying a very conceivable possibility and creating an impossible premise in an attempt to make your point. 

I gave you my answer to what to you is a very conceivable possibility. Now, what is your answer to the question:

If scientists irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?

Or would you like me to say what you said to AVZ, "Nice deflection, I guess you couldn't honestly answer the question"?

[Alan]

Hey guys,
 I don't belong in this conversation/discussion, but do have a question. Maybe just a simple answer, but I wonder.
 Creation is a fact I'd say to everyone on this board, and without creation, evolution is a non issue. I just wonder if it weren't for evolution, could/would creation have survived oh these many years.
 The question is, why must they be mutually exclusive?
  Thanks and blessings.

This is not about mutual exclusivity. Evolution (i.e. macro evolution) is a non-option because it doesn't exist and it cannot happen.
One species does not evolve into another. Not in 100 years, not in 10,000 years, not in a million years and not in a billion years.
God could not have used something that does not exist and does not happen.

What if science irrefutably proves evolution to be the truth within the next few decades? Will you still deny and stand on your above statement?

Is this a serious question?
If science irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?

Nice deflection, I guess you couldn't honestly answer the question.

Let me take that for the sake of Alan, even while I feel the same way as AVZ on the question.

If science irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?

NO.

Alan, let me modify your question and let me know your answer:

If scientists irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?

Utter foolishness, you and AVZ are denying a very conceivable possibility and creating an impossible premise in an attempt to make your point. 

I gave you my answer to what to you is a very conceivable possibility. Now, what is your answer to the question:

If scientists irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?

Or would you like me to say what you said to AVZ, "Nice deflection, I guess you couldn't honestly answer the question"?

Nice try, but don't try holding me to the wall when neither of you have answered my question, the path of deflection is persisting 


BTW, many scientists have indeed stated that creation and intelligent design are irrefutable fantasies, that stands as opinion though rather than observable data, so not bite there.

[Michael2012]

Hey guys,
 I don't belong in this conversation/discussion, but do have a question. Maybe just a simple answer, but I wonder.
 Creation is a fact I'd say to everyone on this board, and without creation, evolution is a non issue. I just wonder if it weren't for evolution, could/would creation have survived oh these many years.
 The question is, why must they be mutually exclusive?
  Thanks and blessings.

This is not about mutual exclusivity. Evolution (i.e. macro evolution) is a non-option because it doesn't exist and it cannot happen.
One species does not evolve into another. Not in 100 years, not in 10,000 years, not in a million years and not in a billion years.
God could not have used something that does not exist and does not happen.

What if science irrefutably proves evolution to be the truth within the next few decades? Will you still deny and stand on your above statement?

Is this a serious question?
If science irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?

Nice deflection, I guess you couldn't honestly answer the question.

Let me take that for the sake of Alan, even while I feel the same way as AVZ on the question.

If science irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?

NO.

Alan, let me modify your question and let me know your answer:

If scientists irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?

Utter foolishness, you and AVZ are denying a very conceivable possibility and creating an impossible premise in an attempt to make your point. 

I gave you my answer to what to you is a very conceivable possibility. Now, what is your answer to the question:

If scientists irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?

Or would you like me to say what you said to AVZ, "Nice deflection, I guess you couldn't honestly answer the question"?

Nice try, but don't try holding me to the wall when neither of you have answered my question, the path of deflection is persisting 


BTW, many scientists have indeed stated that creation and intelligent design are irrefutable fantasies, that stands as opinion though rather than observable data, so not bite there.

Okay, so I won't have to guess that you couldn't honestly answer the question. You have shown me that you can't.

You asked "If science irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?". And my answer is NO. And you say that I have not answered your question?   

[Alan]

Hey guys,
 I don't belong in this conversation/discussion, but do have a question. Maybe just a simple answer, but I wonder.
 Creation is a fact I'd say to everyone on this board, and without creation, evolution is a non issue. I just wonder if it weren't for evolution, could/would creation have survived oh these many years.
 The question is, why must they be mutually exclusive?
  Thanks and blessings.

This is not about mutual exclusivity. Evolution (i.e. macro evolution) is a non-option because it doesn't exist and it cannot happen.
One species does not evolve into another. Not in 100 years, not in 10,000 years, not in a million years and not in a billion years.
God could not have used something that does not exist and does not happen.

What if science irrefutably proves evolution to be the truth within the next few decades? Will you still deny and stand on your above statement?

Is this a serious question?
If science irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?

Nice deflection, I guess you couldn't honestly answer the question.

Let me take that for the sake of Alan, even while I feel the same way as AVZ on the question.

If science irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?

NO.

Alan, let me modify your question and let me know your answer:

If scientists irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?

Utter foolishness, you and AVZ are denying a very conceivable possibility and creating an impossible premise in an attempt to make your point. 

I gave you my answer to what to you is a very conceivable possibility. Now, what is your answer to the question:

If scientists irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?

Or would you like me to say what you said to AVZ, "Nice deflection, I guess you couldn't honestly answer the question"?

Nice try, but don't try holding me to the wall when neither of you have answered my question, the path of deflection is persisting 


BTW, many scientists have indeed stated that creation and intelligent design are irrefutable fantasies, that stands as opinion though rather than observable data, so not bite there.

Okay, so I won't have to guess that you couldn't honestly answer the question. You have shown me that you can't.

You asked "If science irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?". And my answer is NO. And you say that I have not answered your question?   

What are you talking about? I NEVER asked that question.