Does Evolution Really Contradict the Bible?

Author: Jarrett_Ludolph

Posts

Total: 132
#61
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@ethang5
Anyone who seriously thinks this is so hubristic he is probably beyond logic.
I don't see what overconfidence or excess pride has to do with stating facts.

Whether a design is "flawed" or not depends on the designer's purpose. A car is a "flawed" boat to one who thinks sailing off his doomed island is purpose.
So what's the purpose of, say, a pharynx that is used for both ingestion and respiration? What benefit does it grant compared to having separate pathways for food and air (which would drastically decrease, if not outright eliminate the risk of choking)?

The people looking at the human bodies and saying it is apparent that there are many flaws have not been able to make a single cell. Not even one.
So... artificial organs aren't a thing? You know... the thing that people get when their biological ones fail?

#62
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,977
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
God made the universe in six days and rested on the ( sabith )
#63
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@fauxlaw
Do you always operate at 100%? No, you don 't have to do that. What makes you think God does? I saying that God in omniscient in no way implies that he must always act thereby.
Him being omniscient means he knows which designs are good and which are not. At the VERY least, he should be able to see the flaws that mere humans can point out. 

Tell me one thing about creation that was perfect. Nothing. However, the problem with the view that everything should have been perfect disregards that creation continues today, and Darwin admitted that. Evolution is the continuation of the extended creation event. Or, did you imagine that God created for 6 days, and rested, then retired?
Nope. Even survival of the fittest is a testament to the ongoing progress from imperfection to perfection. It's a process, not a single event.
Why would God create flawed beings and then a subsequent process that goes through many iterations (some of which were defective) when he already knows what the endstate — "perfection" as you put it — looks like?

#64
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,977
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
Im guessing The Sabith means 185 Sundays.  
#65
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,977
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
Spending a Eternity in hell.  
An eternity has to be like 20 ,  25 years right?
#66
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,307
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@fauxlaw
Well stated.

#67
janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,049
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
-->
@fauxlaw
Probably because he couldn't think of a mechanism for the "start" of life.
#68
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@fauxlaw
English units of measure
Was what you claimed they were, I said, "English translations" stop. 


For the other thing, prove it, cite something. Because unless otherwise demonstrated everything you've said in your second paragraph is assertions
#69
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,146
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
Isn't the 8.7 million species presently on Earth proof of no God and no world wide flood?
How did Noah get the Pygmy three-toed sloth on his Arc?
#70
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,146
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@fauxlaw
It's an interesting thing that Darwin was a Christian when he wrote Origin of Species. He became an agnostic later in life
because of the damage the loss of his daughter at a young age did to his belief in a loving God. 
#71
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
he knows which designs are good and which are not. 
Yes, but it's not as easy as that.The flaws of mortality are because of mortality, a process we must go through in order to become perfect. perfection is not an immediate, nor even an interim goal. Reaching perfection is the whole design conclusion of mortality, not its initiation. And, it is a mater of personal choice, not divine compulsion. If we are designed with perfection already intact, what is the purpose of mortality? If perfection is our state from the beginning of mortality, what purpose is there in having free agency; the God-given right to choose? After Adam is created at the conclusion of Genesis 1, and before he creates Eve, Adam is given charge to tend the Garden, and he is told by God that he may eat of every tree in Eden [Genesis 2: 16]. However, of one tree, that of the Tree of Knowledge, he may not freely eat; he is given the choice to do so, or not. It is the only tree in the garden that carries a condition on eating from it: "...for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Adam is given a choice. There will be a dire consequence to eat of that tree before he has experienced mortality. Experience first, mortality. Experience first, dominion over the earth [Gen. 1: 26]. Then, only then, in that proper order, comes perfection. It is a goal to be accomplished, not a skill to be had immediately. IOt is accomplished by making correct choices. It is hindered by making poor choices. The Tree of Knowledge is the figurative representation of the proper order of mortal tasks toward perfection, not to be had all at once and from the beginning.

That's... "Why would God create flawed beings and then a subsequent process that goes through many iterations (some of which were defective) when he already knows what the end state — "perfection" as you put it — looks like?" Because God knows what that end state looks like and is, but man does not yet know. He must learn it, step by step, having both success and failure along the way. Hopefully, more and more success rather than more and more failure as we progress. It is a matter of our choice by free agency.
We complain that because God gave us free agency, there is misery in the world. But what misery is there that we, collectively, do not cause ourselves? War is our doing. God commanded us to love. Pestilence is our doing, God commanded us to be clean. Disease is our doing, by introducing things to our bodies we should not when God commanded a proper diet, such as avoiding the fruit of the tree of knowledge until we are ready and prepared to eat of it properly. Drinking, smoking, drugs, even fast food and all the rest. Does anyone force us to consume these things? Nope. Our choice. And such things introduce foreign matter into our bodies that do the body no good whatsoever. The CDC says that 60% of cancer and diabetes would be prevented just by our making better consuming choices. 80% of heart disease obliterated, just by making better choices. So, why do we blame God for our choices? Why do we blame God for these miseries and others? He is not the cause. We are by our own poor choices. Who knows by what miracles great storms would cease if we were more obedient to God's laws than slaves to our own petty choices? Want to be perfect? Then be perfect by making proper choices. Yes, it;'s hard. It was meant to be. Satan's path is the easy path, and the reward is like unto it. He is the counterfeit, not God.
#72
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@zedvictor4
Thank you.
#73
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@janesix
No, it is we who cannot think of how to properly choose our way through life. Gd has already been through this experience. It is why he is God, and we are just beginning the process of becoming like him. We're not there by a long shot, but it is a process we must endure.
#74
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
proof: Do we have the sense of echo location? Do we have the sense of earth's magnetic field? Do we have the sense of exact location of blood vessels without seeing or touching them through skin? Do we have the sense of see beyond our limited spectrum of light, or hearing beyond our limited scope of sound? Touch of matter so gossamer-like, it has too delicate nature to touch? Yet other animals among us have these senses. Why not us? Do we merely lack the knowledge of how to apply them? Is itmerely a matter of lack of exercise in them. We are, after all, the paragon of animals, yet we fail in so many ways that are second nature to other animals.
#75
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@FLRW
Yes, so who was cause of Darwin's loss of faith? God? Nope. His daughter? Nope. Darwin, alone, by his choice. Faith requires its exercise; jst like all other senses. Stop exercising, that skill is lost, just like refusing to see. We do, you know.
#76
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Barney
therefore various flaws like cancer, birth defects, etc.
Are such things really just a matter of random chance? The CDC says the 60% of cancer and diabetes cases could be prevented in the first place, and 80% of heart disease as well. Prevention by our choice of applying the notion of Genesis 2: 16, 17, wherein we are told that Adam could eat of every tree in the Garden, but that the choice to eat of the tree of knowledge would have a dire consequence; the only choice among all the fruit that had such a consequence. Add further Doctrine & Covenants 89: 1-21; a suggestion of healthy eating from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Compare these scriptures  to CDC's warning that prevention of the maladies noted could actually be prevented, just by making proper consumption choices. Smoking, drinking, drugs, fast food, prepared, manufactured food. All the food that is in the middle of virtually every grocery store. Their layouts are identical. All the fresh food, the food most full of nutrients, is around the outside rim. Al the processed foods are in the middle. Choose to eat from just the outside rim, and ignore the middle. Our choice. Who but us chooses to stuff what down the pie hole? Who knew that grocery stores could be as insidious as the tree of knowledge only because it is a matter of personal choice? I personally grow about 30% of the food I eat. A matter of choice.
#77
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,343
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@PressF4Respect
Why would God create flawed beings 
God did not make flawed beings.  A being with the potential to make choices is not a flawed being. 




#78
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Jarrett_Ludolph
@Sum1hugme
must show that there is a designer and that the designer is intelligent, both of which are impossible.

Well to focus on perfection or imperfection is not useful, because for one the physical world was never created to be a model of perfection, rather a model of cause and effect which incidentally begets imperfection. I focus on processes more than "design" per say, because there could be imperfections of each process or even in the grand system of cause and effect so the "design" begins to look flawed, therefore ID might be rejected if the design has imperfections.

I believe it's easy to show intelligence in the processes of the universe though. And I do that through correlation which serves as strong indicator or evidence. When we observe the universe as a whole from the beginning (not literal beginning) it's easy to see there is a succession of events that have a desired outcome, a production if you will. Since we know that processes are associated with intelligence or agency, we can make a case for creation as a proposition.

I don't think it is a long shot to correlate such processes with intelligence, because it is somewhat absurd to accept that inanimate forces and inanimate materials could begin to produce anything, let alone processes that have specific results. What results? the results we observe as processes occur within the universe as materials come together is what I'm referring to. It is no stretch to make the claim that there must first be forethought or mind for a process to occur, and understand what materials are needed to accomplish the results of that process.
Evolution is very much included as a production of this system of processes to bring about desired outcomes. So to say that ID denies evolution is stupid, not denying that proponents of ID deny it of course but not as a concept. Mainly, it's an opposition of worldviews namely atheism vs theism, or more accurately materialism vs creationism. The reason why there is opposition to evolution is because it is associated with materialism or proponents of atheism. In other words people like Darwin for example assert that such a process occurs naturally without the need for any intelligent influence and while he is perfectly within his rights to interpret it that way it's not the only option.
Having said that there's really only two options involved which makes this choice much easier to determine individually. Only one option is valid or true, either God created the universe or God did not.

as for Intelligent design, since it denies evolution, it is very unlikely to be true.

The proposition of ID does not deny evolution rather proponents of ID may deny it. ID denies materialism and atheism not evolution as a process..at least not from my understanding. And that's usually due to the fact that evolutionists deny such a process as having correlation with a Creator. So what we have is a battle of worldviews, as proponents of evolution are mostly proponents of atheism. That's why Theism and evolution have any beef to start with, and it is unfortunate TBH because no worldview or proponent of atheism gets to claim scientific observations, because science is a neutral study not a worldview. Same goes for Theists, there's no need to deny or oppose scientific discoveries or observations because God uses processes to bring things into existence and those processes can be studied in various ways. And through science is how we understand the processes of creation!

Evolution fits within the category of an intelligent process, one that produces desired results. I don't know if it's just me, but in order that God creates something there must be a process to bring about such results. In other words God doesn't just poof things into existence (despite what religious sources may or may not claim), there must be an idea, materials gathered and then a process that produces that idea. We can correlate that with anything we observe being created in our own world and extend that same premise to the universe. It's just the Creator does it on a much larger scale but the principal is the same.

#79
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@EtrnlVw
Natural Processes =/= Intelligent design nor intention.

  Nothing you've said so far indicates that there is a designer besides your assertion that processes correlate to intelligence. This feels like an allusion to the watchmaker argument. Also, if the designer needs natural processes to design things, then why assume a designer? The designer in your examples remains superfluous to otherwise working models of reality.





#80
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Sum1hugme
Natural Processes =/= Intelligent design nor intention.

Who said natural? I did not indicate that processes occur naturally on their own. That is your assertion not mine. 

  Nothing you've said so far indicates that there is a designer besides your assertion that processes correlate to intelligence.

That's right, perhaps read that again. I explained why I don't use the "designer" claim. Read that again. 

This feels like an allusion to the watchmaker argument. Also, if the designer needs natural processes to design things, then why assume a designer?

I explained why there needs to be intelligence for there to be a process. 

The designer in your examples remains superfluous to otherwise working models of reality.

Lol, I never even used the term designer. Read all that again and then respond to my content as I wrote it. 

#81
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Sum1hugme
 Nothing you've said so far indicates that there is a designer besides your assertion that processes correlate to intelligence.

The fact that processes are associated with intelligence IS the indicator of a Creator. 

Also, if the designer needs natural processes to design things, then why assume a designer? 

That makes no sense, perhaps because you're adding the word "natural". I'm saying the very processes themselves are used to brings about results. So in other words they don't occur naturally, and cannot occur naturally or by themselves. Rather the processes are the results of intelligent cause or intervention. 
#82
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@EtrnlVw
  You're just claiming that processes that would otherwise be naturally occuring, are being directed, simply because you find it absurd that "...inanimate forces and inanimate materials could begin to produce anything, let alone processes that have specific results." Yet, this feeling is just a baseless assertion. Electricity is a naturally occurring phenomenon, and it is superfluous to assume that an intelligence guides the electrons along the lattice., simply because humans use electricity to power things with intent.

#83
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Theweakeredge
Debunk these claims or no dice.
When I get the memo that someone died and left you king, I'll think about it.

Wrong answer,...
Keep dreaming you're validating my answers. Eh.
#84
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Stephen
If the bible says very little, then it isn't ambiguous. Learn what the words you want to use mean.
I know what it means,
Not if we consider what you wrote.

...and if these scriptures weren't so ambiguous may be people wouldn't need Christians or  the  church or Priests or Pastors or Chaplains to try explain them or defend them.
People need Christians or  the  church or Priests or Pastors or Chaplains to try explain them and defend them because of people like you.

Just like you are attempting and failing to do on this thread. 
It's amazing how many times you claim people are failing while never offering a single logical argument. You must think you win by simple self-declaration.

Ambiguous doesn't mean vague.
#85
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,343
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@ethang5
Totally amazing the self-delusion of people like some of the posters on here. They come on here - and offer completely novel and unproven commentary on their own personal doctrines - and then wonder why other people look at their words - scratch their heads and look back to their own understandings. We have our own David Koresh on this forum - let's hope that the readers have good enough sense to discern properly. 


#86
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@PressF4Respect
Anyone who seriously thinks this is so hubristic he is probably beyond logic.

I don't see what overconfidence or excess pride has to do with stating facts.
Like I said, you wouldn't.

Whether a design is "flawed" or not depends on the designer's purpose. A car is a "flawed" boat to one who thinks sailing off his doomed island is purpose.

So what's the purpose of, say, a pharynx that is used for both ingestion and respiration?
I call trick play. Don't ask me for the purpose of a part of a design. The entire design goes to the purpose. What does a windshield have to do with moving passengers from point A to point B?

What benefit does it grant compared to having separate pathways for food and air (which would drastically decrease, if not outright eliminate the risk of choking)?
The value of good designs not only involve benefits or reduced risks, but things like efficient use of space, multi functioning parts, and scalable structures. Everything gained in a design sacrifices some other thing. Want a fast car? You will lose fuel efficiency. Want a spacious car? You will lose aerodynamics. But hubristic armchair creators never have to deal with reality. Which is probably why their "better" designs never make it past their talk phase.

The people looking at the human bodies and saying it is apparent that there are many flaws have not been able to make a single cell. Not even one.

So... artificial organs aren't a thing? You know... the thing that people get when their biological ones fail?
Is what I said true or false? Has anyone made a single cell? And tell us, which artificial organ is better designed than the natural one? Hmmm?

The hubris on display here makes it difficult to stay civil.
#87
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@zedvictor4
A few thousand years ago, a day was a day, one rotation of the Earth marked by sunrise and sunset. How this period of duration was measured is irrelevant.
Let's unpack this shall we?

...a day was a day, one rotation of the Earth marked by sunrise and sunset.
What if there was "no sun" to mark the day by? Do you know the sun existed long before it became luminescent? How long would a "day" be if it was not marked by sunrise and sunset?

A few thousand years ago, a day was a day,...
Do you mean that a few thousand years ago the word "day" could be used with only one meaning? Here are 3 verses using the word "day". Tell which one signifies a 24 hour period. (Note that all the verses below were written at least 6 thousand years ago.)

Gen 5:1 - This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;

Deu 34:6 - And he buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Bethpeor: but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day.

Isa 11:16 - And there shall be an highway for the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria; like as it was to Israel in the day that he came up out of the land of Egypt.

How this period of duration was measured is irrelevant.
But what was that period of time? We aren't saying that the period of time changes, but that the meaning of the word used to describe the period of time changes.

The seven "Days" spoken of in the creation account in Genesis could not possibly be 24 hour periods. Atheists just like to insist it was because then that allows them to claim contradiction. The meaning of any word comes from its context. The context here is that the days were not measured by the sun.
#88
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Tradesecret
They come on here - and offer completely novel and unproven commentary on their own personal doctrines...
Insisting those novel and unproven doctrines are superior to God's tried, tested, and true doctrines.

What do you say to someone who thinks he has a better design than LIFE?
#89
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@ethang5
Like I said, you wouldn't.
So you think that human bodies don't have any physical flaws in them whatsoever?

I call trick play. Don't ask me for the purpose of a part of a design. The entire design goes to the purpose. What does a windshield have to do with moving passengers from point A to point B?
The pharynx and accompanying windpipe are as essential to a human as an air intake valve is to a car. Without oxygen, neither the car nor the person would function at all.

The value of good designs not only involve benefits or reduced risks, but things like efficient use of space, multi functioning parts, and scalable structures. Everything gained in a design sacrifices some other thing. Want a fast car? You will lose fuel efficiency. Want a spacious car? You will lose aerodynamics. But hubristic armchair creators never have to deal with reality. Which is probably why their "better" designs never make it past their talk phase.
How would increased spatial efficiency, multifunctionality, and scalability outweigh a greatly increased risk of dying of asphyxiation, for example?

Is what I said true or false? Has anyone made a single cell?
Ultimately, this point is a red herring. Humans not being able to replicate life wouldn't in any way defeat the point that human anatomy has flaws in it.


 And tell us, which artificial organ is better designed than the natural one? Hmmm?
Why does it have to be "better designed"? Artificial organs are designed to replicate the functions of the biological ones that have failed. This alone proves that human bodies are flawed. 
#90
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,307
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@ethang5
A. What if?

B. As correctly pointed out by Fauxlaw... A a few thousand years ago an Earth day was marked by sunrise to sunrise.....Give it whatever name you prefer.

C. Bible mythology is what it is.