Difference between "atheistic evolution" and "christian evolution?"

[Gilbert_Keith]

Montalban

*The classic response to this is that Newton lived before anyone knew about Darwinism.
*
We don’t know that it would have made any difference to Newton, since evolution shows as much evidence of intelligent design as the orbits of the planets around the Sun. And probably shows **more **evidence when you get right down to it.

Newton was far and away a greater intellect than Darwin, and would not have been taken in by the agnosticism that followed in Darwin’s train.

Read his writings on OT and NT prophecies, and it’s clear he saw more substance in the truth of those prophecies than Darwin & Co. could ever have seen because they allowed Evolution to obscure the truths to be found in Genesis, truths some of which have been illuminated by more modern science: such as that the universe was created; that the early phase of the universe was brilliantly illuminated; and that life appeared at different stages, culminating at last in the creation of humankind.

 

[Hubriss]

Alright…

While in fact, Christian’s have a responsibility to locate the scientific understanding of the universe within a Christian vision of creation. It is in my belief wrong for them to ignore the truth and makes it even harder for them to bring more into the fold. It is our responsibility to help them understand these truths.

-Deus Vult

It is also their responisbility to question their supposed truths. The whole point is that we really don’t know what the truth is.

While acknowledging that some experts do see a providential design in biological structures, such development might also be contingent, or dependant on chance. True contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence. In other words, God’s plan allowed for all kinds of variables to play out. Or, any evolutionary mechanism that is contingent can only be contingent because God made it so. But is the emergence of man one of these chance results? Or did God play creationist in this instance?

-Deus Vult

You cannot argue that God let random variables play out, but he still intended us to be created all along. Contradiction.

We must insist that man was not just a link in the evolutionary chain. The emergence of man marked an ontological leap … the moment of transition to the spiritual that cannot fully be explained in scientific terms.

-Deus Vult

Not only can this be explained scientifically, but it can’t even be know. You must not insist that man was purposely created, because you’ll get nowhere if you do.

Expanding on that argument, the appearance of the first members of the human race must be attributed to some form of divine intervention. It speaks of God acting through causal chains from the beginning of cosmic history to prepare for the special creation of the human soul. God is a personal creator, not an impersonal force or energy. Man is the only creature on earth that God willed for his own sake. Well, are humans forced by revealed, religious truth to accept a dualistic view of the origins of the human person evolutionist with respect to the material dimension, creationist with respect to the spiritual dimension? And could a case be made for a type of divine creation that did not pre-ordain human beings, or which might have even produced thinking beings different than humans? Does that contradict religious truth? Not, as it appears to me , if theologians can develop a more profound understanding of God’s continuous creation that allows for freedom at all levels of the evolutionary process maybe…but there is only one right and that is what I speak of.

-Deus Vult

But how do you come to know all this? You just said, we cannot explain the spirit or God or faith scientifically. That also means that you can’t experience it because science is based on experiences.

The term creation, for example, is about existence itself, not the chain of events which bring about a specific kind of being.

-Deus Vult

Creationism refers to the genesis account of creation.

The topic at hand is not the validity of creation but the difference between evolution and theistic evolution. Furthermore, you know as well as I that examples, examples, and more examples would avail us nothing. Haven’t you learnt to avoid those pointless discussions?

Of course, check out a good creation science journal.

-Whiggamore

What are you talking about? Pointless discussions? Learn nothing? The only reason our species is so different is that we can learn through discussion and presenting examples! How the hell did you come to be a Christian? Did you just suddenly become one all by yourself in the middle of the night while you were sleeping? Examples avail us much. We don’t get anywhere without discussion because we are taught through discussion and EXAMPLES. How did you learn what a noun was in gradeschool? Did your teacher just give you a definition? Or did she give you examples?

These discussions on these boards only seem pointless because they are not fast paced dialogue, we just have to wait for responses. But they are dialogue none the less. But you know what was really ironic for you to say? You say examples and these discussions avail us nothing, and then you point me to a creation science journal? You make me lol.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Montalban

Evolution, as it is taught, whilst not claiming that there is no God, certainly minimalises His role in our story, because for them, our becoming men happened with no supernatural help whatsoever.

So they would like to think!

And it’s only the atheist/agnostic evolutionists who would like to think so. Not all scientists are atheists. And even if the majority are, that proves nothing more than that they are myopic about this world as opposed to the next.

 

[Hubriss]

That is your assumption and demonstrates my point: we both observe natural selection happening amongst ‘kinds’, reconcile this fact with our previous understandings, and draw certain conclusions. Beyond that scientific evidence it is a matter of theory, and theory is not in the realm of empirical science but that of reason and the liberal arts.

-Whiggamore

How can you say that theories are not in the realm of science? What do they have to do with liberal arts? Theories are based on scientific evidense while using logic and reason to draw correlations between the evidense.

There is no experiment to prove the account of Genesis and there is no experiment to prove the conjecture of Origin of Species. We can only guess. Educated guesses, yes, but guesses nonetheless.

You have to accept that much or else any kind of fruitful discussion would be absolutely impossible. If a man can not accept that then he is not interested in truth but in winning… and it is a shallow victory at that.

-Whiggamore

Dude, you totally stole my thunder. Why the hell are you even Christian? You should totally be agnostic, like me . In fact, those statments you made are about as agnostic as you can get. I take the atheistic view when I talk with religious people like you guys on these forums, in order to kind of persuade. But I also take the religious standpoint when I’m talking to atheists, especially recently since I’m going to a state college.

But you know… I have come to a realization that there is truth, there are absolutes, but likely not moral ones. The question is whether or not we can know these truths. I think we can know some of them, but likely not the absolute truth (god) if there even is one.

Certainly this is true of some believers, but just as certainly it is not true of others. If evolution is true, I welcome it as a revelation of the mind of God at work. I am not the least bit threatened by it, though I know it has been used as a weapon by atheists against the existence of God. Evolution does nothing in a rational way to support the atheist position. They would be shallow thinkers who think it does. If anything, evolution suggests a wonderfully designed creation not the least likely to be the result of blind chance. Even the creation of the universe is a signpost to the existence of an omnipotent and omniscient God.

-Gilbert Keith

Yes, evolution does support atheism in two big ways (there are others though). 1. It shows that all the creation and origin of humanity stories that have been conjured up by religious people were wrong. Points out the Bible was wrong all along. 2. It shows that a personal god is not absolutely necessary in order for human life to have come about.

Answer me this. Do you think there would be more of a reason to believe in a omniscient omnipotent god if evolution is true, or if everything suddenly appeared 6,000 years ago?

My personal thoughts would be the DNA code is controlled by certain light frequencies.

-mich2

Nnnnnnnnoo… DNA is formed by the electromagnetic forces between atoms.

But, during the Archean Era,from about 3.8 to 2.5 billion years ago,approximately 70% of the world’s landmasses were created .
However, I’ve read that oceans existed even before this period…

-mich2

Okay, in order for there to be no land, the Earth would have to be completely covered in water right? So was it completely covered? Don’t know, but likely not. In order for it to be completely covered, the crust would have to be almost completely uniform and flat, which it probably wasn’t since it was being constantly bombarded by meteors even when it was cooling. And also all the volcanoes during the Hadean era caused land differentiation.

 

[Hubriss]

“Oceans formed early, between 4,400 and 3,900, from condensation of atmospheric water vapour”.

Rain fell to form a proto-ocean 4.3 to 4.4 billion years ago. All terrestrial planets had a similar process in their early histories.

While I do find this odd indeed, it seems that science claims the oceans came into existance before the landmasses we presently know…therefore “agreeing” not disagreeing with scriptures.

-mich2

The oceans formed early. So what was there before the oceans formed? Land. What did the rain fall on to cover up? Land.

No, it does not agree with scriptures. Listen. As the rain fell to form the oceans, the oceans covered up the lower elevated earth right? So the high earth was never covered in water as the basins of the oceans were filled. The landmasses were already in existence, and the water just surrounded them. Furthermore, “the landmasses we presently know,” still didn’t form until millions of years later. Haven’t you ever heard of Pangea or techtonic plate movement? More things you can look up. The continents are constantly moving, ever slowly, and mountains are constantly growing, some shrinking. So no, it does not agree with scriptures.

At first, falling on incandescent rock, the rain evaporated, but the evaporation gradually cooled the crust until the water could accumulate in the depressed regions of the Earth’s surface, forming the first oceans. On the primordial continents, the first river networks were created, and they transported detritus torn from elevated regions and then deposited on the bottom of the primordial seas

…so, by gravity, the waters acumulated into lower regions.

-mich2

Right, now where do scriptures talk about this? There was land before the oceans existed.

The upper response was directed to the question "what is the source of light in the statement “Let there be light”? I cannot accept the author simply wrote such a statement without any thought as to where the light came from.I personally believe the very first verse of the creation very simply meant to speak of God creating the earth along with everything else in the universe…the simpless of all of solutions…unless you can show me otherwise.

-mich2

Most people back then really weren’t that smart. The writer likely didn’t try to make every single part of his story symbolic of something.

Your condescending style of writing is uncharitable, quite tiresome, and discouraging to honest discussion.

Like most recent high school graduates I am familiar with the basics of the DNA; I also spent time at Ag Canada’s DNA testing labs. With DNA, the fossil record, etc. we can say that there are similarites between two distinct species, across all scientific classifications, but it becomes theory when we say they share a common ancestor. And again, that theory is not simply science; it is a smattering of other understandings, concepts, and all that.

-Whiggamore

What do you mean honest discussion? You don’t think anything can come out of it, so why bother?

And again, that theory is not simply science; it is a smattering of other understandings, concepts, and all that.

-Whiggamore

Heh, care to tell us what these other “understandings, concepts, and all that” are?

The discussion of the origins of life is not in the arena of science. To claim it is, to claim that your theory is ‘science’, is dishonest and concerned not with Truth but with victory… and as I said before, it is a shallow victory. Nothing is achieved and humankind’s common destiny, whether it be theist or atheist, is not furthered.

-Whiggamore

You seem to think science is some kind of evil or deception.

Michael John Denton ”An Anti-Darwin Intellectual Journey”, in Dembski, W. A. (ed) “Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals who Find Darwinism Unconvincing”, p172.

-Montalban

Haha! I love how they put “intellectual” in those titles. It’s like, “Oh yeah, we’re the smart ones, we’re intellectuals.”

gtg for now.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Hubriss

*Yes, evolution does support atheism in two big ways (there are others though). 1. It shows that all the creation and origin of humanity stories that have been conjured up by religious people were wrong. Points out the Bible was wrong all along. *

Evolution does nothing of the sort. Genesis points out that Light was created in the beginning. If you know anything at all about the BB, you would know this is strangely consistent with the BB. The early stage of the universe, about the first 400,000 years, was flooded with light, but not sunlight. How is it that scientists never figured this our until the 20th century? Genesis also points out that animal evolution commences in the ocean and moves to the land and the air. How is it that was not pointed out by science until modern times? Genesis also points out that the creation of man was saved for last. This certainly was not known by science until the time of Darwin. Why is that? So your statement is flatly false. Not all of the statements in Genesis are contradicted by science. In fact, the uauthor of Genesis got to some of these truths before science did. How do you explain that?

2. It shows that a personal god is not absolutely necessary in order for human life to have come about.

***Evolution shows nothing of the sort. You are trying to make science the exclusive route to knowledge of every kind. If there is a reality beyond the reality of this world, science could neither prove nor disprove it. Nor can science assume that such a world does not exist, since such a world does not operate according to the laws of science. **

Answer me this. Do you think there would be more of a reason to believe in a omniscient omnipotent god if evolution is true, or if everything suddenly appeared 6,000 years ago?

There would be more of a reason to believe God exists if evolution is true. The vastness of the universe, and the length of time it has existed, suggest the vastness and eternity of God. The process of evolution would show the order of intellect at work, patiently creating wonders for us to enjoy and admire. The notion that the existence of God would be more believable if God had done all this in 6 days rather than 12 billions years holds no water except for shallow minds who think that God’s sense of time and power must be the same as a child’s … **I want it … and I want it now!!! Waaaaa! **

Atheism is not supported by evolution. Nothing supports atheism except that childish fantasy to become God. Eve started the ball rolling in that direction, and it has not stopped rolling that way since.

 

[Montalban]

Montalban:

Evolution, as it is taught, whilst not claiming that there is no God, certainly minimalises His role in our story, because for them, our becoming men happened with no supernatural help whatsoever.

So they would like to think!

And it’s only the atheist/agnostic evolutionists who would like to think so. Not all scientists are atheists. And even if the majority are, that proves nothing more than that they are myopic about this world as opposed to the next.

The materialists have hi-jaked the debate. They deem only their version of evolution to be evolution

 

[Montalban]

-Montalban

Haha! I love how they put “intellectual” in those titles. It’s like, “Oh yeah, we’re the smart ones, we’re intellectuals.”

gtg for now.

I like the way you ignored the bulk of the post to concentrate on a single word in the title of one of the books I quoted. And then your sole criticism seems to be one that is itself unconnected with the argument. As if that addresses anything.

Take your time. There’s no obligation to reply when you have nothing to say.

 

[mich2]

-Whiggamore

Nnnnnnnnoo… DNA is formed by the electromagnetic forces between atoms.

…and electromangentic forces involves the exchange photons…light. I believe that such processes involves quantum effects, which identifies reality in terms of probabilities in multidimentional parallel spacetime probable realities collapsing into one single objective reality. Consciousness might be reasoned in such a way as well.

subtleenergies.com/ormus/research/research.htm

. . . But what is consciousness? According to the principles of OR (Penrose, 1994), superpositioned states each have their own space-time geometries. When the degree of coherent mass-energy difference leads to sufficient separation of space-time geometry, the system must choose and decay (reduce, collapse) to a single universe state, thus preventing “multiple universes” (e.g. Wheeler, 1957). In this way, a transient superposition of slightly differing space-time geometries persists until an abrupt quantum classical reduction occurs and one or the other is chosen. Thus consciousness may involve self-perturbations of space-time geometry.

Okay, in order for there to be no land, the Earth would have to be completely covered in water right? So was it completely covered? Don’t know, but likely not. In order for it to be completely covered, the crust would have to be almost completely uniform and flat, which it probably wasn’t since it was being constantly bombarded by meteors even when it was cooling. And also all the volcanoes during the Hadean era caused land differentiation.

The land of Genesis is the land which brought forth land life, formed during the Archean Era (3.8 to 2.5 billion years ago).Oceans existed prior to this. The surface which existed during the Hadean period, if you want to call it “land”, was made of rocks which cannot even be found today.As for the water completely covering the earth, I do not think of this in terms of “earth floods” but simply the surface of the earth being continuously wet due to water either in the state of condensation (rain), or water already condensed on earth,forming lakes and seas, not yet oceans.Just think of the ealy earth…most of the ocean water were in the atmosphere constantly being condensing on earth and evaporating in the atmosphere. Imagine the global storm in such a scenario…I would fing it hard to think of a place on earth which could be dry.

Andre

 

[mich2]

-mich2

The oceans formed early. So what was there before the oceans formed? Land. What did the rain fall on to cover up? Land.

However, the land, the crust,or whatever it was, was “not” the land mentioned in Genesis, which eventually gave rise to land life.

No, it does not agree with scriptures. Listen. As the rain fell to form the oceans, the oceans covered up the lower elevated earth right? So the high earth was never covered in water as the basins of the oceans were filled.

They were saturated with water…they were “wet”…they didn’t have to be “submerged” into water in order to be wet.However, I can’t see how it could have been dry.

The landmasses were already in existence, and the water just surrounded them.

The landmass that gave rise to landlife did not seem to exist
during the time when the first oceans were created…

again…

But, during the Archean Era,from about 3.8 to 2.5 billion years ago,approximately 70% of the world’s landmasses were created .
However, I’ve read that oceans existed even before this period…

…and…

Oceans formed early, between 4,400 and 3,900, from condensation of atmospheric water vapour".

Furthermore, “the landmasses we presently know,” still didn’t form until millions of years later. Haven’t you ever heard of Pangea or techtonic plate movement? More things you can look up. The continents are constantly moving, ever slowly, and mountains are constantly growing, some shrinking. So no, it does not agree with scriptures.

If the landmasses we presently know still didn’t form until millions of years… from what? …the time the oceans formed?How does this “not agree” with scriptures?

Right, now where do scriptures talk about this? There was land before the oceans existed.

…Was it dry land? If yes, show me some documents which confirms this…Was such land responsible for bringing forth land life? It seems that the present theories do not agree.

Most people back then really weren’t that smart. The writer likely didn’t try to make every single part of his story symbolic of something.

…according to you…However, you also believe people back then thought that rain came from beyond the regions of stars and the sun…The known cosmological understanding of that time greatly disagrees with your personal point of view.

Andre

 

[simbagizmo]

This discussion is interesting to me on this point. If we thow out God’s literal account of the miracle of creation, which of God’s miracles does the Catholic Church teach as literally true as written in the Bible?

Creation of Adam and Eve?
The Fall of Adam and Eve?
Cain and Abel?
Noah’s Ark?
Tower of Babel?
Moses and the Red Sea?
Moses and Ten Commandments?
Jonah and the big fish?
Elijah and the Chariot of file?

I am just curious.

 

[Montalban]

This discussion is interesting to me on this point. If we thow out God’s literal account of the miracle of creation, which of God’s miracles does the Catholic Church teach as literally true as written in the Bible?

Creation of Adam and Eve?
The Fall of Adam and Eve?
Cain and Abel?
Noah’s Ark?
Tower of Babel?
Moses and the Red Sea?
Moses and Ten Commandments?
Jonah and the big fish?
Elijah and the Chariot of file?

I am just curious.

Without a real Adam causing a real sin to come into creation, we’d also have no reason for Jesus.

 

[simbagizmo]

Without a real Adam causing a real sin to come into creation, we’d also have no reason for Jesus.

I understand that, but what does the Catholic Church teach as the Creation of Adam and the Fall of Adam? But reading through this thread, does the Catholic church teach that Adam was created by evolution from the water or something else? Also with the other stories, which ones do the Catholic Church teach as literally true accounts?

I am not looking for an argument or debate on this, just curious.

 

[Montalban]

I understand that, but what does the Catholic Church teach as the Creation of Adam and the Fall of Adam? But reading through this thread, does the Catholic church teach that Adam was created by evolution from the water or something else? Also with the other stories, which ones do the Catholic Church teach as literally true accounts?

I am not looking for an argument or debate on this, just curious.

I’ll tell you what I know as a non-Catholic. The RCC teaches that God created “Man”.

 

[mich2]

I understand that, but what does the Catholic Church teach as the Creation of Adam and the Fall of Adam? But reading through this thread, does the Catholic church teach that Adam was created by evolution from the water or something else? Also with the other stories, which ones do the Catholic Church teach as literally true accounts?

I am not looking for an argument or debate on this, just curious.

Very good question, simbagizmo. The straight answer is what Montalban has written :

I’ll tell you what I know as a non-Catholic. The RCC teaches that God created “Man”.

That is the only thing the Church teaches; from that, we speculate. Some believe that Adam was taken from the evolutionnary tree,and God breathed into his nostril to give him Spiritual Life, and Adam was transformed in the image of God. This would coincide with the sixth Day of creation where God said:"Let us make man in our image and likeness.
I personally disagree with this particular theory. I actually believe that “all forms of Life” was given by God,breathed into Adam, and through Eve, “somehow”, was begotten the first lifeforms that we know and understand as being life .
The reason being that, in the second creation story, it reads

In the day that the Lord God (7) made the earth and the heavens, when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up-for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no one to till the ground; but a stream would rise from the earth, and water the whole face of the ground-then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

It seems that Adam was created on the first Day, not the sixth; He is created with a nature capable of living in Paradise (Heaven).He is therefore a spirit being, an angel of some kind. As a Spirit being, he could have lived billions of “earth years” in Paradise. I also notice that Eve is called the “mother of all living”
as opposed to only the mother of all humans. She is also named Eve because she “already was” the mother of all living at the time she received her name. Therefore, I believe that “all” Life was given by God, given to Adam,and expanded through Eve. We also believe in something similar for that New Life we receive in Christ is also given by God, in Jesus, through the Spirit. I agree, that such a theory seems to lead to what may seem to be pagan theology where we find a “mother goddess” and where Adam could be seen as being some type of a god of some sort. I personally believe that this may be true and such pagan theology ought not to be followed as a religion, however, not because it is false, but because such a theology comes from a “failed” attempt to life, having been separated from God through the Fall of Humanity.I personally read the epic of Gilgamesh as having “something” in common with the Genesis account.

Andre

 

[simbagizmo]

Thanks Andre. So the RCC teaches that Adam and Eve were actual people, or does it teach that they were symbolic characters, or that it does not know? This can be answered by any RC here. Again, I am just curious on what the priests teach during studies or services on this? No debate intended. Also on the other topics I have mentioned as well.

Creation of Adam and Eve?
The Fall of Adam and Eve?
Cain and Abel?
Noah’s Ark?
Tower of Babel?
Moses and the Red Sea?
Moses and Ten Commandments?
Jonah and the big fish?
Elijah and the Chariot of file?

Does the RCC teach these as literally true as written in Genesis, symbolic and not true, or unknown?

Thanks in advance.

 

[mich2]

Thanks Andre. So the RCC teaches that Adam and Eve were actual people, or does it teach that they were symbolic characters, or that it does not know? This can be answered by any RC here. Again, I am just curious on what the priests teach during studies or services on this? No debate intended. Also on the other topics I have mentioned as well.

Creation of Adam and Eve?
The Fall of Adam and Eve?
Cain and Abel?
Noah’s Ark?
Tower of Babel?
Moses and the Red Sea?
Moses and Ten Commandments?
Jonah and the big fish?
Elijah and the Chariot of file?

Does the RCC teach these as literally true as written in Genesis, symbolic and not true, or unknown?

Thanks in advance.

Yes, the Catholic Church teaches that Adam and Eve were definitely real. However, their nature must have been different from ours, since they were capable of living in Paradise. All of the other events that you’ve written are also believed to having been true historical events.

Andre

 

[simbagizmo]

Andre, when you say “different nature”, “spirit beings or angels of someking”, are you saying that the RCC teaches that they were not man and woman?

 

[mich2]

Andre, when you say “different nature”, “spirit beings or angels of someking”, are you saying that the RCC teaches that they were not man and woman?

No. The Catholic Church teaches they were humans; my personal belief would be that they would have ressembled the risen Christ…He ate with the apostles; they could touch and handle Him physically…however, He could disappear at will, and He ascended into Heaven with His Body…such a body seems to ressemble that of an angel.

Andre

 

[simbagizmo]

Thank Andre. This is helpful