Question for ya?

Discussion in 'Your Religion & Spiritual Center' started by GreatfulTed2, Sep 16, 2011.

ATTN: Our forums have moved here! You can still read these forums but if you'd like to participate, mosey on over to the new location.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. June-

    June- New Member

    There is lots of such evidence Henry. Why do people keep making this assertion?
     
  2. bulldogs

    bulldogs New Member

    what comes after humans if anything?
     
  3. bulldogs

    bulldogs New Member

    I will leave this thread, my mom always told me never argue about race, religion or sex. i will gracefully bow out. Everybody has their opinions on this and i will keep mine to myself.
     
  4. June-

    June- New Member

    I am always astounded that some believers feel threatened by the evidence of evolution rather than seeing it as more evidence of the glory of God just like the other wonders of the world.

    I finally had to speak up for myself and others who are as sincere in our belief in God as those who do not equate the wonders that science reveals with the greatness of God.


    For those who believe evolution is incompatible with their beliefs, fair enough, but please realize that is not the opinion of all Christians or people of faith.
     
  5. June-

    June- New Member

    Only God knows.
     
  6. Imnoscientist

    Imnoscientist New Member

    This thread is not cool. The non believers have 'done the right thing' and stayed out of this section of the forum - respecting the instructions of the moderator (see below). It is not cool for believers to bait and try and generate a debate when they were the ones who demanded it not occur.

     
  7. June-

    June- New Member

    This has not been a debate between believers and non believers, it has been a discussion between Christians who believe in evolution and Christians who don't. I do believe the title was insincerely posed as a question. Had the original poster wished to know the answer to the question, he would have posted it on the front porch not the religious section. It was not offered as support for those suffering but to preach a certain doctrine and mock those believers and non believers alike who do not adhere to their doctrine which opposes evolution. Many many many Christians and Christian denominations see nothing contradictory between their faith and evolution. I don't think this forum is meant to preach a particular doctrine or support a particular sect.
     
  8. Henrysullivan

    Henrysullivan New Member

    One shred, one example that science can point to that demonstrates that any one specie has EVER evolved into another specie, that is what I am asking for. Lot's of evidence? Please, if you say that there are lots of evidence, I would like for you to give me just one example of a specie that has evolved across to become another specie. Save yourself from looking, there are none. Darwinists claim that because there is evidence of microevolution, meaning evolution within a species for that species to adapt to its environment, which I certainly agree, then that proves that macroevolution across species' occurs. That claim does not automatically follow and is unsupportable with EVIDENCE.

    The problem Darwinist have is that there are genetic limits to microevolution. Dogs may, say, grow more hair to deal with a colder environment. Or over time dogs' features may change in other ways to deal with various aspects of an environment. And breeding dogs with other dogs, who are doing the same thing, can cause genetic changes to occur. Yes, that is true. Yet a line of dogs will always remain a line of dogs. There is no evidence to the contrary.

    As much as dog breeders keep creating new lines of dogs, they are always dogs. The science indicates that there are genetic limits to these changes. Similarly, as much as geneticists have tried to evolve fruit flies into something else, they remain fruit flies.

    And so, without any EVIDENCE, the key requirement to validate scientific theory, science contends that macroevolution from one specie to another occurs. In the same manner, with no EVIDENCE, science largely contend that life itself sprang from no life. How can a discipline such as science, which requires others to offer verifiable scientific evidence to consider any claim concerning the origin of life and creation, possibly claim, with no scientific evidence of its own to support it, that macroevolution has EVER occurred and that life sprang from no life?

    If one argues for the scientific explanation of the origin of species, or life, the nature of science requires that argument be accompanied with verifiable scientific evidence. And that is why I ask for evidence. And since there is no evidence, the fact of the matter is that science takes the truth of evolution on faith, not evidence. And because the available evidence supports that macroevolution cannot, and has not, ever occurred, it actually takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in divine creation. The available scientific evidence supports divine creation. And for the same reason, it seems to take more faith to be an atheist than to believe it God. The scientific evidence points to God.
     
  9. Henrysullivan

    Henrysullivan New Member

    What evidence do you have that some believers feel threatened by the evidence of evolution? I, for one, certainly don't feel threatened. There IS no evidence.
     
  10. bulldogs

    bulldogs New Member

    Henry is back!
     
  11. GreatfulTed2

    GreatfulTed2 New Member

    I must agree here
    Bad judgement on my part.
    I am not clever enough nor was it my intention to "bait" anyone but I do find the topic interesting.
    As much as I would like to hear what Everyone has to say this is not the place for it.
    Not been on for a while and had forgotten how these things get a mind of their own.

    Many thanks to those who sent messages.
    Your messages and encouragement are what this page should be about.
    I thank each and every one of you.
     
  12. June-

    June- New Member

    I know this is long and it is written by a Jesuit so perhaps that makes it verboten to some of you but this man is far more eloquent than I in explaining how evolution and Christianity and/or belief in God are in no way contradictory. I don't wish for anyone who doesn't want to read this to read it and I don't wish for anyone who doesn't want to change their mind about anything to change their mind about anything. I offer it so that those who are kind-hearted and open-minded may have an opportunity to know how other sincere people can arrive at a conclusion different than their own. For those who do believe in evolution and a higher being as well, it may be interesting too. I am not going to debate any points from here on out as that serves no purpose. This is strictly for those who want more information. I realize that may be 0 readers on this page.

    http://www.thinkingfaith.org/articles/20081007_1.htm

    Can God and Evolution Co-exist?

    Reflections of a Jesuit Scientist


    George Coyne SJ


    The debate regarding the teaching of creationism as an alternative to evolution has recently been re-ignited in the British and American education systems. However, evolution is not the atheistic worldview that it is often thought to be, argues George Coyne SJ. In fact, reflecting on our role in an evolutionary universe can help us to deepen our faith.


    download
    this article
    in PDF
    format


    Evolution as a scientific explanation of origins is often viewed as atheistic.

    It is not.

    Science, by its very methodology, is completely neutral with respect to religious considerations. But if one does believe in God, creator of the universe, can scientific knowledge be helpful in supporting and nurturing that belief?

    I would like to discuss how a believing scientist like myself views, based on scientific knowledge, the nature of God and the nature of the human being. Such knowledge is basic to any discussion of faith, and I hope such knowledge complements that derived from philosophy and theology. Several criteria exist to determine the veracity of scientific theories, such as predictability, repeatability of experiments, simplicity or economy of explanation. There is, however, a growing awareness among scientists of another criterion: “unifying explanatory power” – not only are the observations at hand explained, but the attempt to understand is also in harmony with all else that we know, even with that which we know outside of the natural sciences.

    It is this idea of unifying explanatory power that I would like to discuss, since it extends the epistemological nature of the natural sciences towards the realm of other disciplines such as religious thought, and therefore provides a basis for discussing such issues as faith and justice in Ignatian spirituality. This criterion is nothing else than a call for the unification of our knowledge. One could hardly be opposed to that. The problem arises with the application of this criterion. When is the unification not truly unifying but rather an adulteration of knowledge obtained by one discipline with the presuppositions inherent in another discipline? History is full of examples of such adulterations. Newton, for instance, argued from the universal law of gravity which he discovered, that nature exhibits a number of mechanical phenomena for which no scientific explanation could be found. He therefore constructed an argument for the existence of God whose direct intervention would explain the gaps in the scientific discourse. But within a bit more than a century, Laplace found just such scientific explanations within Newtonian mechanics itself. The gap that Newton’s God had filled no longer existed. So out went God! It is because of such adulterations as this that scientists have always hesitated to make use of this criterion of unification of our knowledge. And yet, if applied cautiously, it can be a most creative one for the advancement of our knowledge.

    The supposition is that there is a universal basis for our understanding and, since that basis cannot be self-contradictory, the understanding we have from one discipline should complement that which we have from all other disciplines. One is most faithful to one’s own discipline, be it the natural sciences, the social sciences, philosophy, literature, religious thought etc., if one accepts this universal basis. This means in practice that, while remaining faithful to the strict truth criteria of one’s own discipline, we are open to accept the truth value of the conclusions of other disciplines. And this acceptance must not only be passive, in the sense that we do not deny those conclusions, but also active, in the sense that we integrate those conclusions into the conclusions derived from our own proper discipline.

    So, what do we know in this regard from the sciences? It is clear from all of the sciences, including geology, molecular biology, paleontology, comparative anatomy, cosmology and others, that evolution is an intrinsic and proper characteristic of the universe. Neither the universe as a whole nor any of its ingredients can be understood except in terms of evolution. We human beings came to be through evolution, and evolution is a daily happening. As the universe expanded from the Big Bang and evolved, stars were born and stars died. Since stars are born and sustain themselves by creating a thermonuclear furnace whereby light elements are continuously converted into heavier elements, when they die the stars pour out to the universe these heavier elements. And then a second generation of stars is born, not now of pure hydrogen but of the enriched chemistry of the universe. The universe is being continuously enriched with heavier elements. This process continued until, through increasingly complex chemical combinations, the human being came to be. Our sun is a third generation star, and we are literally born of stardust.

    This process of being generated by and living with the universe continues every moment of our lives. We are constantly exchanging atoms with the total reservoir of atoms in the universe. Each year 98 percent of the atoms in our bodies are renewed. Each time we breathe we take in billions and billions of atoms recycled by the rest of breathing organisms during the past few weeks. Nothing in my genes was present a year ago. It is all new, regenerated from the available energy and matter in the universe. My skin is renewed each month and my liver each six weeks. Human beings are among the most recycled beings in the universe.

    All that I have presented thus far about the evolution in the universe of complex organisms, including ourselves, has occurred by natural processes intrinsic to a universe that is about 14 billion years old and contains about 1022 stars. But what relevance does all of this scientific knowledge have to our relationship to God and to faith?

    The religious believer is tempted by science to make God the “explanation.” We bring God in to try to explain things that we cannot otherwise explain. “How did the universe begin?” “How did we come to be?” We latch onto God, especially if we do not feel that we have a good and reasonable scientific explanation. He is brought in as the Great God of the Gaps. I have never come to believe in God by proving God’s existence through anything like a scientific process. God is not found as the conclusion of a rational process like that. I believe in God because God gave himself to me. That was not a miracle. It does make sense that there is a personal God who deals with me and loves me and who has given himself to me. I have never come to love God or God to love me because of any of these reasoning processes. I have come to love God because I have accepted the fact that he first made the move towards me. This is what faith is, a personal relationship of love with God, and it must be the source of our pursuit of justice.

    Although God transcends the universe, he is working in it through his providence and continuous creation. This stress on God’s immanence is not to place a limitation upon God. Far from it. It reveals a God who made a universe that has within it, through evolution, a certain dynamism, as seen by science, and thus participates in the very creativity of God. God emptied himself so that he could share his infinite love with his creation. Such a view of God’s relationship to his creation can be found in early Christian writings, especially in those of St. Augustine in his comments on Genesis.

    If they respect the results of modern science, religious believers must move away from the notion of a dictator God, a Newtonian God who made the universe as a watch that ticks along regularly. Perhaps God should be seen more as a parent or as one who speaks encouraging and sustaining words. Scripture is very rich in these thoughts. It presents, indeed anthropomorphically, a God who gets angry, who disciplines, a God who nurtures the universe. Theologians already possess the concept of God’s continuous creation. To explore modern science with this notion of continuous creation and of God’s emptying of himself would be an enriching experience for theologians and religious believers. God is working with the universe. The universe has a certain vitality of its own like a child does. It has the ability to respond to words of endearment and encouragement. You discipline a child, but you also try to preserve and enrich the individual character of the child and its own passion for life. A parent must allow the child to grow into adulthood, to come to make its own choices, to go on its own way in life. Words that give life are richer than mere commands or information. In such a way does God deal with the universe.

    This view of the evolutionary universe and our place in it, derived from the sciences and of God’s role in the universe, derived from the reflections of a religious believer upon that same science, may help us in a further understanding of faith. We share in the creativity that God desired the universe to have. I have not spoken above of the spiritual nature of the human being because that cannot be an object of scientific research. But the reflections of a religious believer upon the nature of God and his relationship to the universe bring us to a recognition of our spirituality. Such reflections are themselves an exercise of that spirituality.

    Ultimately, reflections upon our scientific knowledge of the universe bring us to a recognition of our role as co-creators, so to speak, in God’s continuous creation of the universe.


    George Coyne, SJ, is associate pastor at St. Raphael the Archangel Church in Raleigh, North Carolina, USA. He was formerly director of the Vatican Observatory.

    This article was originally published in the Spring 2007 issue of Ignatian Imprints, the magazine of the Maryland Province Jesuits.
     
  13. Henrysullivan

    Henrysullivan New Member

    Thanks, June. I do not begrudge anyone who believes in evolution. Heck, before I understood what it was and how there is no evidence to support it, I believed it too. But the author here states his conclusions first, and then offers no scientific evidence to back his conclusions, which is what evolutionists do. Without evidence to back his conclusions, he has only faith to back his conclusions, which was my point earlier, which is fine too. But we should recognize things for what they are. The author has more faith in his ability to make a rationale judgment of the cause of human existence, than he has evidence to back it. So whereas he speaks of the religious believer using God bridging the gap of knowledge, the author does the same thing, bridging his gap of knowledge solely with faith in his own ability to guess, given what he knows, to contemplate and extrapolate. Now he may be right, but there is no evidence that he is right, only conjecture, only faith, which is what he argues against. So it is a self-defeating argument.

    And because the evidence against his position is at least as formidable as the evidence for it, and because there is no natural science that can conceive of life without a supernatural cause, and because any supernatural cause that devised and implemented the laws of nature, can also override them, then regardless whether God chose evolution to create his human, or did it directly, science cannot confirm a conclusion until it can duplicate the conclusion. So whichever manner we choose to believe, it is a personal choice for us to believe it. That choice finds basis only in faith, and not compelling scientific evidence.

    Finally, the scientist believes in natural science until he uses that science to prove a supernatural God, which by definition he cannot do. So the scientist makes a cardinal error, discounting certain possibilities before he even begins his analysis. Any conclusion built on such a substantial error, is suspect from the beginning.

    I do not pretend to know the answer here, only believe an answer that I take on faith. The author ought to be as honest and say the same thing.

    Thanks for the article. I do like to read these things. As soon as someone comes up with something compelling, then I would certainly take note.

    Hank
     
  14. June-

    June- New Member

    I think you pretty much missed the point, but glad you enjoyed it.
     
  15. bulldogs

    bulldogs New Member

    As John Lennon said: Just sitting here watching the wheels go round and round.
     
  16. Henrysullivan

    Henrysullivan New Member

    I'm sorry I seemed to have missed something. What scientific evidence to support his conclusion did the author cite? I thought I read it pretty good, but I am not infallible.
     
  17. bulldogs

    bulldogs New Member

    Game over: Henry go back to your corner and June go back to your corner.

    Church is starting so both of you should be there if you claim to be who you are. Loving christian people with a deep fail in our savior Jesus Christ.

    i went to 7:30 mass at All Saints Catholic Church here in Dunwoody, Ga. and have asked for a clarification from the monsignor on this subject. We meet on Wednesday at 8:15 so we can discuss and so he can absolve my sins for the month of September.
     
  18. June-

    June- New Member

    Bulldogs, I am sure there are a lot of people on this forum who have the credentials to tell Henry and me not to be argumentative but you aint one of them.
     
  19. bulldogs

    bulldogs New Member

    what type of credentials sould someone have, if it is a phd in psychology than you are right. if it is common sense than i have loads of it.

    I am a witness to the kingdom of God. As they say, we will all find out one day what really happened if anything.

    If there was Evolution, Jesus would have said it in the bible and addressed it. I know because i have gotten to know Jesus over my life.
     
  20. June-

    June- New Member

    I mean you are the most argumentative of all. You stir the pot on any subject on any board so you are not in a position to advise the rest of us to go to be quiet as you just did.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page