Does evolution, contained within the teachings/textbooks, mention a Creator even as a possibility? - Or does it attempt instead to bypass the creator, as though it's all a result of coincidental occurances?
Does the germ theory of disease mention the Creator as the source of our healing even as a possibility? Does it mention the fall as the source of the germs? Does it mention the demon of sickness as the instigator of sickness through the use of those germs? You seem to have no problem with that theory...or do you?
If it's unscientific to attribute this to a creator and include the idea in a science textbook, do you as an evolutionist find it scientific to exclude a creator? Surely to attribute this to blind chance/coincidence takes an even greater leap of faith to believe than a creator God? And from a standpoint of evolution, do they have the scientific proof to back up any exclusion of a creator and give the credit to blind chance/random processes and time?
The theory doesn't mention the existence of a Creator because the evidence doesn't indicate that existence within the bounds of the causes of evolutionary change. Mutations and recombination occur following the rules of chemistry and physics, with changes that are statistically random. Natural selection also follows those same rules along with rules discovered about population dynamics. The changes in the environment that change the selection criteria are also following the rules of physics, chemistry, climatology and geology. There is no appearance of control over these events unless you believe that the existence of the rules is a form of control.
The point is that geology, chemistry, physics....etc don't mention the Creator as the source of the rules. Are their evidences and conclusions also invalid?
Since evolution is taught in science classrooms and textbooks - the burden of proof again lies on the evolutionist.
If you mean that evolutionist have the burden to prove that God doesn't exist, then I have to ask why. Can you name one scientifically accepted theory that mentions the Creator? Are all of the scientists that operate under those theories also required to prove that God doesn't exist? Can you name one scientifically accepted theory that states that God doesn't exist?
Since the world around us dictates life comes from life, I'd say that any theory excluding such, is unscientific until proven otherwise.
Your form of creationism dictates that life came from non-life.
As has also been mentioned, even if man could create life in a lab - this would also prove it takes outside intelligence and life to bring forth the same. Therefore, something much greater than us would need to be at work to bring forth all of creation, with all its balance and mathematical precision.
Since we can create lightening in a lab that must mean that it takes outside intelligence to bring forth lightening.
Since we can create crude oil in a lab, that must mean that it takes outside intelligence to bring forth oil.
Since we can make fire in a lab, that must mean that it takes outside intelligence bring forth fire.
Doing something in a lab doesn't eliminate the possibility of that same thing occurring in the natural world.
All things are set up for life, survival/sustainance. One only has to look around and consider it all and it is indeed mind blowing.
How does the balance in nature and its awesomeness eliminate evolution? Please be specific in your answer.
He has revealed Himself in His creation. The evidence is all around us:
Romans 1:20 - For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
"The heavens declare the glory of God, and the skies declare the work of His hands" (Psalm 19:1). "I will praise Thee for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Thy works are wonderful and my soul knows this full well" (Psalm 139:14).
Some people believe that the balance and resilience of life to evolve and respond to massive environmental changes really does showcase the intelligence and mighty power of God.
You have frequently accused us of calling all scientists/biologists liars on this forum and you have been answered about this time and time again. You then repeat the same defensive accusations - when instead you could (or should) be presenting the scientific evidence to convince us of why we should place our trust in such a theory and not challenge or dispute it.
Russ' response to my accusation was that scientists will lie in order to save their jobs. How is that something other than saying that the scientists who support the theory of evolution are liars?
I have no problem with you challenging or disputing the theory of evolution. If it is incorrect then it is incorrect. I have no allegiance to the theory. It would be great if someone could challenge it with something that doesn't mischaracterize it.
So I'll repeat - It is not science and biology itself that people take issue with - it the theory of evolution. I'll give an example of where such beliefs can lead a person and how truly ludicrous it gets:
Quote taken from:
Here Fish oil is now considered an essential nutrient, even for vegetarians. Recent research also revealed, that the transformation humans underwent when apes became intelligent and turned into humans happened only in coastal regions, where the apes started to consume large amounts of fish.
Now whether a person reads this and rolls around the floor laughing, or sits in disbelief shaking their heads is one thing, but consider that this is put across by somebody in the medical arena. He not only believes this as a fact, he's put it across as such in a medical/health article as though it is. Sadly there maybe members of the unsuspecting public that read this in blind faith without question. Others more clued up would probably challenge it a bit more
Personally, I had to read it more than once to believe that anybody could state such a thing, let alone assume people would accept it in blind faith without checking it out.
So how did it make you feel about the conclusions from the rest of his paper?
Since he provides no reference to the fish story, I am inclined to pass it off as hearsay. However, doctors recommend diets higher in proteins, fats and oils for babies and small children to help in their brain development. Children in famine conditions, even when given a lot of carbs, but little fats and oils, have poor brain development in their younger years.
Would that change a particular individual and cause that individual to evolve a bigger brain? No, because evolution is not about changes within an individual. Rather it is concerned with heritable traits passed on to offspring.
We (creationists) are not obligated to accept all the evolutionary claims in blind faith - they are not gods, they are flawed human beings, as are those in the medical profession (all of us are). If people like this with their claims are never challenged or tried, regardless of concerns - it would be even more disastrous! It's thanks to those that do, that many of us are able to help ourselves (if we can repair the damage done). Yet, according to Linear's mindset, anybody who does challenge them are calling them all liars.....He should then not be surprised if the same kinds of accusations are employed towards himself!
Russ did call them liars. Regardless of their motivation to maintain the evolution lie (Russ' categorization, not mine), it still makes them liars.
Next - The study of Science and biology itself is commendable and very helpful. But it does not depend upon evolution, nor is it based in evolution.
Says you. However, most all biologists agree that most of biology makes no sense without the theory of evolution. According to them, there is no framework for how things operate within the sphere of life, without evolution.
What do you think...liars or really hard working smart people that don't understand the real way biology works?
Evolution is simply a theory. And theories are just that "ideas". There is no reason why anybody is obligated to believe in evolution, especially through lack of substantial evidence to back it up as being clear cut.
Special Relativity is only an idea. The Atomic Theory of Matter is only an idea. There is no reason why anybody is obligated to believe them either.
Next - evolutionary scientists are not the only scientists. There are creation scientists who challenge the claims of evolution scientists - even though the majority wins in regards to having the loudest voice, there is another voice and one in which has every right to be heard.
The majority wins because the experiments and predictions regarding evolution have been repeated. This isn't a beauty contest. The theory of evolution went through the same trials that Special Relativity did and both are still going through.
It would appear from Linear's perspective, that it is ok to challenge/dispute/question the claims of Creation scientists and Genesis, but almost blasphemy if one dares to challenge the claims of mainstream evolutionary scientists/biologists
.
Creation "scientists" have scientific claims? Point me to one and to the experiments that have been done to support such claims.
Challenge away all you want. My asking you for supporting evidence for your challenge is not me leveling charges of heresy. If you won't support your challenge then why should I consider it to have any validity whatsoever?
Yet, ironically, Linear has no problem questioning/challenging scripture at it's very foundation - the word of the living God via inspiration of the Holy Spirit - as though the evolutionary scientists/biologists should be accepted on blind faith without questions/challenges (or we're calling them all liars) but God should not. Since it is God's statements (ultimately) that Linear is disputing/challenging, I'll apply Linear's accusations towards others back to himself - Since Linear questions what the Holy Spirit has revealed to us in Genesis about creation to mankind through his chosen instruments - Linear must therefore be calling God a liar, and all those who believe in His word from the beginning as stated in Genesis.
Do you believe that the statements are incorrect in Genesis, yet you profess them to be correct? I don't think so. Lying requires intent to deceive. Most people who support a literal Genesis creation actually believe in a literal Genesis creation so they are not liars. They may be incorrect but they are not trying to deceive.
Is God's intent by providing a simple story regarding creation to be considered an attempt to deceive? The story provides a demonstration of His power over the universe and His accessibility to each person. That is no more an intent to deceive than Jesus' use of stories to provide insight into ultimate truths. So, I guess I am not calling God a liar either, unless you consider the use of stories by Jesus as a form of lying.
Luke 12:10 And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven,
but anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.
Since it is the inspiration of the Holy Spirit via men that has given us the written truth within Holy scripture (Starting with Genesis) and that He is the ultimate author - I'd be very careful where one treads in this area and the statements they are making. Be careful about interpreting and symbolising scripture to the detriment of the literal. Any twists/ommissions/additions to scripture is a dangerous position to put oneself and could be a heretical one. We were warned about being a cause of scandal/doubt to others.
I hope you remember that when someone asks you for your cloak. Make sure you give them your shirt too.
This is why fear of the Lord is the beginning of all wisdom. Job 28:28 "And to man He said, 'Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom; And to depart from evil is understanding.'"
Psalm 111:10 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom; A good understanding have all those who do His commandments; His praise endures forever.
Proverbs 1:7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; Fools despise wisdom and instruction
Those who think they can treat His word as being second place to the flawed theories of man (which they appear to uphold as infallible truths) could very well be insulting God Himself. God is the source of all wisdom/knowledge, not an evolutionary scientist.
Could be insulting God, himself? Strangely, your assessment of the situation doesn't really scare me.
Maybe it is your lack of faith in God, shown by going to doctors and buying healing drugs and cures, that keeps you from being completely healed. Maybe it is your lack of belief in Christ as the healer that makes your walk fraught with struggles to curb your anger.
What parts of the Bible do you consider as parable, symbolism, or metaphor? What evidence do you have that supports your assessment that those portions are not literal history or completely factual? God made the universe. If there is something in that universe that seems to contradict our interpretation of His Word, then our interpretation is wrong.
