Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?

[Dave_UK]

Well, well - what do you think about this?  Extract from today's BBC internet news site : -

"The Neanderthals may have been extinct for thousands of years, but in 2010, advances in technology enabled geneticists to map the Neanderthal genome using DNA extracted from ancient bones. This led to a startling discovery: our ancestors interbred with other species after they migrated out of Africa.
So in the UK, most of us have a small percentage of Neanderthal genes in our DNA, and scientists have found traces of the Denisovans and other ancient hominid species too.

In short, as Prof Alice Roberts, an anatomist and anthropologist from the University of Birmingham explains, "We just really weren't clear about the level of shenanigans that went on in human evolution, and now we are."

Listen: Ancient DNA and Human Evolution (BBC Inside Science)"

[Amo]

I don't think a thread has reverted back to square one as many times as this one 

It all always leads back to square one, faith. Some people will always have more faith in God's word and eye witness account, others will always have more faith in fallen humanities observations and hypotheses. Both sides explaining the same evidence before them, as their faith dictates.

[Amo]

Well, well - what do you think about this?  Extract from today's BBC internet news site : -

"The Neanderthals may have been extinct for thousands of years, but in 2010, advances in technology enabled geneticists to map the Neanderthal genome using DNA extracted from ancient bones. This led to a startling discovery: our ancestors interbred with other species after they migrated out of Africa.
So in the UK, most of us have a small percentage of Neanderthal genes in our DNA, and scientists have found traces of the Denisovans and other ancient hominid species too.

In short, as Prof Alice Roberts, an anatomist and anthropologist from the University of Birmingham explains, "We just really weren't clear about the level of shenanigans that went on in human evolution, and now we are."

Listen: Ancient DNA and Human Evolution (BBC Inside Science)"

Yea, its all real clear now, until next time of course. I wonder just how many times "scientists" have to have been wrong, before they will stop saying and acting like they have it all figured out now.

[Alan]

Yea, its all real clear now, until next time of course. I wonder just how many times "scientists" have to have been wrong, before they will stop saying and acting like they have it all figured out now.

As has been said several times before, when science reevaluates it's position it is always a progression, they never revert back to 1000's of year old idealism and never will. A time will most certainly come when what is presented today as scientific theory will become irrefutable fact and that will be by any and all standards. 

[Amo]

As has been said several times before, when science reevaluates it's position it is always a progression, they never revert back to 1000's of year old idealism and never will. A time will most certainly come when what is presented today as scientific theory will become irrefutable fact and that will be by any and all standards.

A time has come many times already when what has been presented as scientific theory and even fact by some, has been proved wrong. Yes a time will come when all be understood properly, or opportunity will exist to understand all things as they really are. God will provide that opportunity, not fallen humanity.

[4WD]

God will provide that opportunity, not fallen humanity.

He has already done that.  It is called science.  God is actually the author of science.    The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork (Psa 19:1).  Though it would seem that some [e.g., YEC] are simply too myopic to notice.

[Alan]

A time has come many times already when what has been presented as scientific theory and even fact by some, has been proved wrong.

Name one of these times that science has been proven wrong that resulted in your theories being accepted as correct.

[Michael2012]

God is actually the author of science.

I think that's a lie. Science originated from man. Science was devised by man. 

[Alan]

I think that's a lie. Science originated from man. Science was devised by man.

Nope, science has always existed.

"The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."

It is simply man studying what God has created, a major part of our human characteristic by design. 

[Michael2012]

Quote from: Michael2012 on Today at 11:44:59
I think that's a lie. Science originated from man. Science was devised by man.

Nope, science has always existed.

"The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."

It is simply man studying what God has created, a major part of our human characteristic by design.

Firstly, not all scientist will agree with you that they are studying what God has created. For there are many scientist who do not believe that there is a God who created what they are studying.

Now you say that it is man studying and that it is part of humanity. Is not science then man's activity and a human activity? That clearly puts science as originating from man and devised by man. Thus, it is a lie to say that God is the author of science. In the same sense that it is a lie to say that God is the author of sin.   

[4WD]

Now you say that it is man studying and that it is part of humanity. Is not science then man's activity and a human activity? That clearly puts science as originating from man and devised by man. Thus, it is a lie to say that God is the author of science. In the same sense that it is a lie to say that God is the author of sin.

Studying the Bible is man's activity and a human activity.  I guess you think that means that it is a lie to say that God is the author of the Bible.    More silly Michaelisms.

[Alan]

Firstly, not all scientist will agree with you that they are studying what God has created. For there are many scientist who do not believe that there is a God who created what they are studying.

Doesn't matter whether they believe in God or not, it's still God's creation that we walk upon and observe.

Now you say that it is man studying and that it is part of humanity. Is not science then man's activity and a human activity? That clearly puts science as originating from man and devised by man. Thus, it is a lie to say that God is the author of science. In the same sense that it is a lie to say that God is the author of sin. 

Something as simple as saying that "the tree in my back yard is an oak tree, they live to 300 years on average" is science. That is a human characteristic that God desired us to possess. My example is minute in the big picture of observation and I can only imagine that this would be a horrible place without man's knowledge of how things work. We would be primitive without science.


Try hard to think of some biblical events that would have been altered without science, or scientific methodology.

[Amo]

Name one of these times that science has been proven wrong that resulted in your theories being accepted as correct.

Who said anything about the result being creationist theories accepted as correct? The vast majority of the world will always reject this truth, along with the rest of scripture. My point was simple, I see no sense in people who have been wrong so many times, consistently acting like what they espouse is so correct, factual, and indisputable. Evolution does not have to be proved wrong, it has never been proved right. Those pretending and acting like it has, will never make it so, by doing so.

[Amo]

Studying the Bible is man's activity and a human activity.  I guess you think that means that it is a lie to say that God is the author of the Bible.    More silly Michaelisms.

2 Tim 3:14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Here we are, show scriptures endorsement of "science" as well please. Please do explain if you will, how the creation account of scripture not meaning what it says at all, is "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:". Can you explain what it really means according to your science, and and then show the same according to you explanation please? Or do you disagree with Paul on this one?

[Alan]

Who said anything about the result being creationist theories accepted as correct? The vast majority of the world will always reject this truth, along with the rest of scripture. My point was simple, I see no sense in people who have been wrong so many times, consistently acting like what they espouse is so correct, factual, and indisputable. Evolution does not have to be proved wrong, it has never been proved right. Those pretending and acting like it has, will never make it so, by doing so.

You're missing the point. When new theories are presented they are a progression of past theories, they weren't completely wrong, they just didn't have all the information yet. That's what science is all about. 

[Michael2012]

Quote from: Michael2012 on Yesterday at 14:00:48
Now you say that it is man studying and that it is part of humanity. Is not science then man's activity and a human activity? That clearly puts science as originating from man and devised by man. Thus, it is a lie to say that God is the author of science. In the same sense that it is a lie to say that God is the author of sin.

Studying the Bible is man's activity and a human activity.  I guess you think that means that it is a lie to say that God is the author of the Bible.    More silly Michaelisms.

To defend is one thing. But to a lie is another.

That's right, studying the Bible is man's activity and a human activity. But your guess of what I think is wrong. And your analogy is off by a zillion lightyears, which makes your unkind comments of "silly Michaelisms" pointing at you a zillion times too.

Studying the Bible and God as author of the Bible, with studying what God has created and God as the author of science, are apples and oranges.

Now, do you still defend and stand by your statement that God is the author of science? Everybody has a chance to repent, you know. 

[Michael2012]

Now you say that it is man studying and that it is part of humanity. Is not science then man's activity and a human activity? That clearly puts science as originating from man and devised by man. Thus, it is a lie to say that God is the author of science. In the same sense that it is a lie to say that God is the author of sin. 

Something as simple as saying that "the tree in my back yard is an oak tree, they live to 300 years on average" is science. That is a human characteristic that God desired us to possess. My example is minute in the big picture of observation and I can only imagine that this would be a horrible place without man's knowledge of how things work. We would be primitive without science.

Try hard to think of some biblical events that would have been altered without science, or scientific methodology.

We are talking about the lie that God is the author of science. The human characteristic that you say God desired us to possess is not even science sir. 

Biblical events that would have been altered without science or scientific methodology?  It seems you want to impress that science is some kind of  force, which is not. Now, if you are alluding to the construction of the tower of Babel for instance, and say that that is science or scientific methodology, just try to analyze what had become of them.

This is what they said:

Genesis 11:4 And they said, "Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower whose top is in the heavens; let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth."

And this is what the Lord said:

Genesis 11:5 But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower which the sons of men had built. 6 And the Lord said, "Indeed the people are one and they all have one language, and this is what they begin to do; now nothing that they propose to do will be withheld from them.

And this is what the Lord did because of that:

Genesis 11:7 Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another's speech." 8 So the Lord scattered them abroad from there over the face of all the earth, and they ceased building the city. 9 Therefore its name is called Babel, because there the Lord confused the language of all the earth; and from there the Lord scattered them abroad over the face of all the earth.

Can't you see where man's knowledge of how things work leads man to? And that was even in ancient times. God saw it. We ought to see it too. 

[4WD]

Please do explain if you will, how the creation account of scripture not meaning what it says at all, is "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:". Can you explain what it really means according to your science, and and then show the same according to you explanation please? Or do you disagree with Paul on this one?

I believe the creation account in Genesis means what it says.  And therefore it is just as Paul declared in 2 Timothy 3:16. I just don't believe the creation account in Genesis means what you think it means.

[Amo]

You're missing the point. When new theories are presented they are a progression of past theories, they weren't completely wrong, they just didn't have all the information yet. That's what science is all about.

No, I understand that very well. Your missing my point, that being the case, why do so many scientists act and speak as though their observations concerning their theories are above questioning, treating those who disagree as though they are ignorant for doing so.

Nor is all supposed evidence presented by "scientists" even somewhat correct or based upon limited information. Some have purposely faked, fudged, or do regularly ignore contrasting evidence. Others have just simply been totally wrong, trying to make evidence what it is not to support their own theories. As is the case very often concerning supposed missing links. The theory is there, and those who believe it do of course search exactly for missing links to support their pet theory, often jumpingg the gun and being completely wrong. Much is assumed in the war to be right.

[Amo]

I believe the creation account in Genesis means what it says.  And therefore it is just as Paul declared in 2 Timothy 3:16. I just don't believe the creation account in Genesis means what you think it means.

No, you do not think it means what it literally says, and the fourth commandment spoken by the mouth of God and written with His own finger testifies that it says. You think it represents something other than what it literally says, though you cannot or will not explain exactly what that is. Correct me if I am wrong, and please do explain your position according to the scriptures which specifically address the issue of creation. Thank you.

[4WD]

No, I understand that very well. Your missing my point, that being the case, why do so many scientists act and speak as though their observations concerning their theories are above questioning, treating those who disagree as though they are ignorant for doing so.

Nor is all supposed evidence presented by "scientists" even somewhat correct or based upon limited information. Some have purposely faked, fudged, or do regularly ignore contrasting evidence. Others have just simply been totally wrong, trying to make evidence what it is not to support their own theories. As is the case very often concerning supposed missing links. The theory is there, and those who believe it do of course search exactly for missing links to support their pet theory, often jumpingg the gun and being completely wrong. Much is assumed in the war to be right.

That actually sounds a lot like your version of the Genesis account of creation and other Scriptures.  Change the word "scientists" to "Christians" in what you just wrote and it is right on target with much of what you post here.

[4WD]

No, you do not think it means what it literally says....

And neither do you.

[Amo]

That actually sounds a lot like your version of the Genesis account of creation and other Scriptures.  Change the word "scientists" to "Christians" in what you just wrote and it is right on target with much of what you post here.

Wrong! The scriptures are there for everyone and anyone to examine. There is no question about what they literally say, the evidence is all in. No one has to guess work or theorize about what the literal meaning is. All the guess work is only for those who do not and or will not believe what the scriptures plainly state. Then and only then, does theorizing become necessary.

[4WD]

Wrong! The scriptures are there for everyone and anyone to examine. There is no question about what they literally say, the evidence is all in. No one has to guess work or theorize about what the literal meaning is. All the guess work is only for those who do not and or will not believe what the scriptures plainly state. Then and only then, does theorizing become necessary.

Oh really??  Please give me your literal interpretation of "....cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life;  thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field" (Gen 3:17-18)  What specifically is the "curse" spoken of here?

[Alan]

Something as simple as saying that "the tree in my back yard is an oak tree, they live to 300 years on average" is science. That is a human characteristic that God desired us to possess. My example is minute in the big picture of observation and I can only imagine that this would be a horrible place without man's knowledge of how things work. We would be primitive without science.

Try hard to think of some biblical events that would have been altered without science, or scientific methodology.


We are talking about the lie that God is the author of science. The human characteristic that you say God desired us to possess is not even science sir. 

Biblical events that would have been altered without science or scientific methodology?  It seems you want to impress that science is some kind of  force, which is not. Now, if you are alluding to the construction of the tower of Babel for instance, and say that that is science or scientific methodology, just try to analyze what had become of them.

This is what they said:

Genesis 11:4 And they said, "Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower whose top is in the heavens; let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth."

And this is what the Lord said:

Genesis 11:5 But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower which the sons of men had built. 6 And the Lord said, "Indeed the people are one and they all have one language, and this is what they begin to do; now nothing that they propose to do will be withheld from them.

And this is what the Lord did because of that:

Genesis 11:7 Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another's speech." 8 So the Lord scattered them abroad from there over the face of all the earth, and they ceased building the city. 9 Therefore its name is called Babel, because there the Lord confused the language of all the earth; and from there the Lord scattered them abroad over the face of all the earth.

Can't you see where man's knowledge of how things work leads man to? And that was even in ancient times. God saw it. We ought to see it too.

That's ludicrous! Do you really believe that man was not created to progress socially? It is science that paves the way for progression from tents to dwellings, boats, clothing, hygiene, medicine, lamps, etc, etc, etc. In your version we should still be living according to instinct rather than gathering the knowledge to make things better.

[Michael2012]

That's ludicrous! Do you really believe that man was not created to progress socially? It is science that paves the way for progression from tents to dwellings, boats, clothing, hygiene, medicine, lamps, etc, etc, etc. In your version we should still be living according to instinct rather than gathering the knowledge to make things better.

I can see that you are jumping out of the issue. The issue is that it is a lie to say that God is the author of science.

So what does your argument have to do in proving that it is not a lie to say that God is the author of science?

Now, on the issue you brought up, obviously you believe that man was created to progress socially and that science is the way.  You believe that the progression from tents to dwellings, boats, clothing, hygiene, medicine, lamps, etc, etc, etc, makes things better. Well, most may naturally agree with you. But then, that is because perhaps most have forgotten that they are in a world corrupted by sin and where death reigns. Nothing gets better in this corrupted world. Don't be deceived into believing that man, by their science, makes things better. This is why my hope for a better world is not in man, not even the most brilliant of scientists, that but is in God. For only God can make things better for man.

[Alan]

I can see that you are jumping out of the issue. The issue is that it is a lie to say that God is the author of science.

So what does your argument have to do in proving that it is not a lie to say that God is the author of science?

Now, on the issue you brought up, obviously you believe that man was created to progress socially and that science is the way.  You believe that the progression from tents to dwellings, boats, clothing, hygiene, medicine, lamps, etc, etc, etc, makes things better. Well, most may naturally agree with you. But then, that is because perhaps most have forgotten that they are in a world corrupted by sin and where death reigns. Nothing gets better in this corrupted world. Don't be deceived into believing that man, by their science, makes things better. This is why my hope for a better world is not in man, not even the most brilliant of scientists, that but is in God. For only God can make things better for man.

You're so far out in left field here that I cannot even attempt to reason with you. Things that are blatantly obvious zoom right over your head and you return the same old unintelligible dribble. 

[Michael2012]

Quote from: Michael2012 on Yesterday at 09:58:44

I can see that you are jumping out of the issue. The issue is that it is a lie to say that God is the author of science.

So what does your argument have to do in proving that it is not a lie to say that God is the author of science?

Now, on the issue you brought up, obviously you believe that man was created to progress socially and that science is the way.  You believe that the progression from tents to dwellings, boats, clothing, hygiene, medicine, lamps, etc, etc, etc, makes things better. Well, most may naturally agree with you. But then, that is because perhaps most have forgotten that they are in a world corrupted by sin and where death reigns. Nothing gets better in this corrupted world. Don't be deceived into believing that man, by their science, makes things better. This is why my hope for a better world is not in man, not even the most brilliant of scientists, that but is in God. For only God can make things better for man.

You're so far out in left field here that I cannot even attempt to reason with you. Things that are blatantly obvious zoom right over your head and you return the same old unintelligible dribble.

Well, because we apparently have a very different view about science.

My view is that science originates from man and devised by man. On the other hand your view is that God is the author of science.

Your view is that man was created to progress socially and that science is the way. That science paves the way for progression from tents to dwellings, boats, clothing, hygiene, medicine, lamps, etc, etc, etc. that make things better. On the other hand my view is that nothing gets better in this corrupted world. And that only God can make things better for man, and that, through Christ.

I believe that the children of God are not citizens of this corrupted world, even of this modern world that was built by man through science, with all the skyscrapers and all. As scriptures say, the children of God are citizens of heaven, where things are far far better than this corrupted world which you take as had been made better by science. 

If this is what you say as being far out in left field, perhaps it's because we are not on the same field.

[Alan]

You're so far out in left field here that I cannot even attempt to reason with you. Things that are blatantly obvious zoom right over your head and you return the same old unintelligible dribble.


Well, because we apparently have a very different view about science.

My view is that science originates from man and devised by man. On the other hand your view is that God is the author of science.

Your view is that man was created to progress socially and that science is the way. That science paves the way for progression from tents to dwellings, boats, clothing, hygiene, medicine, lamps, etc, etc, etc. that make things better. On the other hand my view is that nothing gets better in this corrupted world. And that only God can make things better for man, and that, through Christ.

I believe that the children of God are not citizens of this corrupted world, even of this modern world that was built by man through science, with all the skyscrapers and all. As scriptures say, the children of God are citizens of heaven, where things are far far better than this corrupted world which you take as had been made better by science. 

If this is what you say as being far out in left field, perhaps it's because we are not on the same field.

Well, in that case we should not be an intelligent species and should have remained in our most primitive state. You can't have semi-progression or place limits upon man's progression, it is our inherit nature as history including the Bible clearly shows.

[bbyrd009]

Well, in that case we should not be an intelligent species and should have remained in our most primitive state. You can't have semi-progression or place limits upon man's progression, it is our inherit nature as history including the Bible clearly shows.

yes.

http://www.abarim-publications.com/index.html#.W1YbltJKiUk

[Michael2012]

Quote from: Michael2012 on Mon Jul 23, 2018 - 09:48:00

You're so far out in left field here that I cannot even attempt to reason with you. Things that are blatantly obvious zoom right over your head and you return the same old unintelligible dribble.

Well, because we apparently have a very different view about science.

My view is that science originates from man and devised by man. On the other hand your view is that God is the author of science.

Your view is that man was created to progress socially and that science is the way. That science paves the way for progression from tents to dwellings, boats, clothing, hygiene, medicine, lamps, etc, etc, etc. that make things better. On the other hand my view is that nothing gets better in this corrupted world. And that only God can make things better for man, and that, through Christ.

I believe that the children of God are not citizens of this corrupted world, even of this modern world that was built by man through science, with all the skyscrapers and all. As scriptures say, the children of God are citizens of heaven, where things are far far better than this corrupted world which you take as had been made better by science. 

If this is what you say as being far out in left field, perhaps it's because we are not on the same field.

Well, in that case we should not be an intelligent species and should have remained in our most primitive state. You can't have semi-progression or place limits upon man's progression, it is our inherit nature as history including the Bible clearly shows.

And here you seem to forget that mankind has a nature that was corrupted by sin. Anything coming out from what is corrupted, be it good in your eyes and mind, does not make it good. It is well intimated that nothing good dwells in man. Paul said, "For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells". As the saying goes "Every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit." and "A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit."

Think also about this. Is not science about the wisdom of man? Yes it is. But has God not exposed the foolishness of this world's wisdom? Is not science about the things of this world? This is admitted, I suppose by the scientists themselves. They have love for the things in this world. Their deep interest about the things of this world and their supposed knowledge of it testifies to that. But scriptures says this to the Christians, "Do not love the world or the things in the world." And do you not know that the world is passing away?   

Now the Christians are saved from this corrupted world, but not by science nor by the scientists, who thinks they make things better, and the world a better place. Rather, they are saved by Christ from this corrupted world, them now made to be no longer citizens of this world, but of heaven.   

[Alan]

You're failing to address my point that without science, man would remain in a primitive state.  Without science you wouldn't have a Bible to read.


Science is NOT about the wisdom of man. News flash, science happens with or without man's intervention. We are blessed to observe it's intricacies but that does in no way establish that without man, the things of science would not or do not occur. Just because you cannot see deep into the forest doesn't mean it isn't rife with activity.

[Michael2012]

A question to the scientists in this forum:

Do you believe that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible?

[Michael2012]

You're failing to address my point that without science, man would remain in a primitive state.  Without science you wouldn't have a Bible to read.


Science is NOT about the wisdom of man. News flash, science happens with or without man's intervention. We are blessed to observe it's intricacies but that does in no way establish that without man, the things of science would not or do not occur. Just because you cannot see deep into the forest doesn't mean it isn't rife with activity.

And you failed to see my point relative to that. Even while science may well be what to you made man and things rather primitive to be better, man remains to be with a corrupted nature and in a corrupted world. And that only God can make man and make things better for man, and that, through Christ. 

And you are beginning to sound like you easily forgotten that the Bible is a work of God. And that being the truth, science had nothing to do with that, nor science is needed for the Bible to exist. 

And it seems that you are beginning to redefine what science is. Perhaps you can tell us your definition of science.

[Texas Conservative]

You're failing to address my point that without science, man would remain in a primitive state.  Without science you wouldn't have a Bible to read.


Science is NOT about the wisdom of man. News flash, science happens with or without man's intervention. We are blessed to observe it's intricacies but that does in no way establish that without man, the things of science would not or do not occur. Just because you cannot see deep into the forest doesn't mean it isn't rife with activity.

I would say yes and no.  Science in its loosest terms meant knowledge.

Modern science is a methodology of explanations and predictions about the universe.  Science doesn't happen without man's intervention.  What science explains happens without man's intervention.

I make my living by science.  While I am not a sold out old earth creationist, I don't understand the representation that scripture and the nature of God and science are opposed.

Of course some scientists and God are opposed, but that's not entirely the same thing.