evolution vs creation vs Intelligent Design

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hybridTHEvibe @ May 20 2006, 05:46 PM) [snapback]258655[/snapback]</div>

I'm sorry.... its tough to convey spiritual issues and matters into a carnal physical realm that makes perfect sense.
Its usually best done with similitudes and parables, since God made this world parallel in many ways to the other world to come "so we could understand it".

I'm not trying to talk over anyones head.. its more like its a different frequency, so you miss it.

Not that I am anything like Jesus, but His spirit does guide and speak to me as my pitiful ability to hear allows, but Jesus had the same problem as he tried to explain about heaven and spiritual issues.

(John 3:12 NKJV) "If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?

This quote was from the book of John.. he was also allowed to see many marvelous revelations and it was hard to get any of them across.

Most of what he saw, he was forbidden to speak of as it would only gender confusion, fear, and misinterpretation.

Rather than trying to mock me and poke holes in what I say, you should be thankful I'm trying to explain any of this... as you can see by the replies.. most people have already written you off as a heckler and non-teachable.

If you don't take advantage of my poor attempts to get through to you, you may never have another chance.

There is a difference between talking about God to someone who is genuinely trying to understand and a heckler who has made up his mind its all bunk and will not hear.

Getting unbelief, getting mad, intense conversation, and being upset is no big deal to me... thats not what bothers me or God...

God has no problem with those who do not know or understand, but He does have problems with those who are given answers and "see" the truth and then reject it because they would rather cling to thier darkness.

So far, I am giving you the benifit of a doubt.

(Mat 7:6 NKJV) "Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces.

 

All of this just reconfirms why I think Calvinism explains the difficulties the best. It and modern sociology can make the same statement:

Some people are just wired to believe spiritual things, and some are not.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ May 21 2006, 11:27 AM) [snapback]258880[/snapback]</div>

Yea.. we keep looking for other life beyond the stars... too bad we can't see everything thats right here among us.

 

An ultimate truth here... whether or not god or some creator or supernatural force or in whatever form exists ... is this:

Man created God in his image. (or shall I say Man creates Gods in his image? because certainly every religion portrays a different image of it... let alone inconsistencies within religious texts)
---

-windstrings, did you know that there are people who believe in the concept of God/creator, yet don't follow any dogma? How does that factor into your views?


----------

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(windstrings @ May 21 2006, 12:40 PM) [snapback]258862[/snapback]</div>

What a lovely thing to say! My interpretation is that you think I'm a dog or a swine. Tis ok, you are only going by what you've been taught to believe... how can I fault you for that?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mirza @ May 21 2006, 07:20 PM) [snapback]259032[/snapback]</div>

Yes - FWIW, many of the primary, founding fathers of America considered themselves deists and avoided church dogma in their personal lives.

 

(Mat 7:6 NKJV) "Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces.


First off, windstrings, thank you so much for contributing this quote... you have given me a revelation of sorts.

This quote could be utilized as a justification for violence against anyone who doesn't follow your creed. Think about it this way... Typically, it's a moral wrong to kill another human. Also typically, it is not morally wrong to kill an animal. So by referring to "nonbelievers" (or "infidels"... the same term) as animals, it is not at all a leap of logic to say you don't apply to the same moral constructs to a dog or swine as say a human ("believer"). Thus, it wouldn't be so wrong to kill a swine/dog (nonbeliever) because... after all... they are just animals.

-Thanks for the insight begreen!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mirza @ May 21 2006, 07:26 PM) [snapback]259032[/snapback]</div>

God made man to worship him..... when they cannot find God, they will take a substitute to satisfy that need.

 

That was a time in Gods plan when Gods favor was first reserved to the Jews and only later would be given to the Gentiles "non jews". Any non-jew was considered a dog.

Jesus did not endorse this but rather came from a pride thing the jews had created over the years.

Why did God have to pick a nation?.. it was a type and shadow of what was to come. Gods people now are still the jews, but they are "as a nation" temporarily blinded to seeing him as thier savior or messiah to give a window for the gentiles.

Gods favor is now resting on the spritual jews.. "the church" which is actually composed of jews and gentiles together.

When he said not to throw pearls before swine and don't give that which is good to the dogs.. that mean't thats Gods revelation was not resting on the gentiles, so they wouldn't see or recieve what you had to say anyway and would rather turn and attempt to destroy you for appearing to be superior to them.

Today that statement simply means that when a person is asking real questions its ok to speak God things to them because there is a high likelihood that God's spirit is moving upon them to find him. But that those who cannot and will not see God, it is fruitless to pursue discussion and can only lead to harm.

(John 6:44 KJV) No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

No one has any way of knowing who God is really moving upon to find him verses not.
Its not about fair.... its about a sovereign will and wisdom.

(Rom 9:21 KJV) Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
(Rom 9:22 KJV) What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
(Rom 9:23 KJV) And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

Someone said that some seem to wired to understand spiritual things and others aren't.
Some can see the Father working and some cannot. Some are hungry and find and others love thier sin and never find?
But this is impossible for us as mere men to judge because many who appear evil are actually waiting to mature and find God.

(Mat 13:24 NKJV) Another parable He put forth to them, saying: "The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field;
(Mat 13:25 NKJV) "but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat and went his way.
(Mat 13:26 NKJV) "But when the grain had sprouted and produced a crop, then the tares also appeared.
(Mat 13:27 NKJV) "So the servants of the owner came and said to him, 'Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?'
(Mat 13:28 NKJV) "He said to them, 'An enemy has done this.' The servants said to him, 'Do you want us then to go and gather them up?'
(Mat 13:29 NKJV) "But he said, 'No, lest while you gather up the tares you also uproot the wheat with them.
(Mat 13:30 NKJV) 'Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, "First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn."' "

Some people who appear as evil now, will bear the best testimony of Gods saving power later... how do we know?

Its scary to be dealing with a soverign God. This god loves and is tremendously longsuffering, but yet to others he seems to be short and full of wrath.... like the pharoh of egypt in mose's time.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Begreen @ May 21 2006, 07:27 PM) [snapback]259037[/snapback]</div>

You understand that there was no conflict with being a Deist and being a member of any of the Christian denominations around at that time, right?

There were very few of the founders that espoused views like we see here, either the conservative religious ones or the anti-religious ones. The only ones I can think of, offhand, who were non-Christian specifically were Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine, and possibly James Monroe (there is another one I can't place right now). And there were a couple of Jewish men you would have to consider among the founders (one helped finance the Revolution). Ben Franklin is often mentioned as a non-Christian since he identified himself as a Deist, but he also was a tithes paying member of Christ Church in Philadelphia, where he "sponsored" the front pew for him and his family, and he is buried in the consecrated ground behind the church. He was a Christian.

The founders were not conservative, fundamentalist or evangelical Christians, since the theology that sets them apart today had not appeared on the scene yet. But they -- with few exceptions -- were Christians in good standing in their churches. Some devout, like John Adams, and others more casual about it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mirza @ May 21 2006, 08:23 PM) [snapback]259080[/snapback]</div>

You couldn't make that conclusion under any theological system in Christianity today, and would be hard pressed to make it even during the so-called "dark ages".

There is one close example in Christian history, the re-establishment of the practice of slavery (it had been eradicated by the Christian church in the western world as the concept of universal human rights grew out Christian theology. By 1000 CE, slavery was non-existant (in the Christian world; it still was rampant elsewhere). But in the 1430s and later, the Spaniards reinstituted it first in the Canary Islands. The pope issued a decree against it, ordering the release of all slaves within 15 days upon threat of excommunication, but because of agreements making the social government primary over the church, the decree could not be issued in Spain without the King's permission. As the king did not allow it to be issued within Spain, it had no effect. The next two popes also opposed it.

But there were justifications based on the idea that the slaves were "savages", and that the Bible recognized slavery as a valid social structure. This became especially widespread toward the end of slavery in America, as many churches either decreed that they couldn't be involved, or justified it by scripture.

The other examples you may be thinking of, such as the expulsion of the Jews from Spain, or the forced conversions, etc., were not justified by careful theology but by political expediency.

 

First off fshagan, I appreciate the very intelligible response. Though I would disagree with the first part and point out to the Crusades. BUT that would seem to be more a religious war between Muslims and Christians at the time. As you are, I am an open-minded and willing to listen to a different viewpoint (being both reasonable and intelligible, of course).

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(windstrings @ May 21 2006, 11:50 PM) [snapback]259097[/snapback]</div>

Hmmmm... I don't recall ever having swine or dog idols in my house. But nevertheless it's interesting that you bring it up because of this link (though you will misconstrue it and say that God has used his human hands to place those genes in humans or something like that):

http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0...-725072,00.html

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mirza @ May 22 2006, 08:59 AM) [snapback]259229[/snapback]</div>

I have to admit I have not studied the Crusades in any detail to be able to comment in any kind of authoritative manner. But I don't think there was a real scriptural justification for them among the populace (they occurred before the Bible was studied by lay people the way it is now ... at that time, the Church held that scripture was too difficult to understand for the common man, and too easy to be misinterpreted). The contemporary justifications I have always heard were based more on hubris and superstition: the holy lands should not remain in the hands of the Muslims, and (or because!) they would have access to the relics, which carry tremendous power (the Knights Templar would carry relics into battle with them, believing that the power of the saints somehow inhabited the relics .... this theory held until they got a giant can of Muslim Whoop-nice person dumped on them).

There are probably plenty of examples where a particular interest has used a scripture to justify some action. But not a single Christian theological "school" would allow de-humanization to justify wholesale killing.

Its actually one reason I don't like the sentiments of many of my Christian brothers when they say "I don't follow a religion, I'm a Christian!" They don't understand how scary that is ... its like saying "I hear voices in the night and they tell me what to do!" In reality, they are a part of a very well defined segment of Christianity with a very stable theology. The "Its not a religion!" kind of statements are a marketing tactic, and I think it actually pushes people away.

 

Humm.. well I can only submit an opinion about that.
As curses can follow generations, so can blessings.

When one man submits himself to God and then has offspring.. I believe for the sake of the one who was faithful, the son or daughter benifits from that and God gives favor.

(Gen 26:24 KJV) And the LORD appeared unto him the same night, and said, I am the God of Abraham thy father: fear not, for I am with thee, and will bless thee, and multiply thy seed for my servant Abraham's sake.
(2 Ki 20:6 KJV) And I will add unto thy days fifteen years; and I will deliver thee and this city out of the hand of the king of Assyria; and I will defend this city for mine own sake, and for my servant David's sake.



We still get hung up in the physical too much... the physical follows spirit, not the other way around.
The egg does not come before the chicken... even so, physical is first conceived in spirit.

The ability to see God and tap into spiritual things pertaining to Heaven is not genetic per se... its deeper than that.....
(John 3:3 KJV) Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

This verse many think talks about the great by and by when we get to heaven, but its talking about the kingdom of heaven thats in our midst right now.

(Luke 17:21 NRSV) nor will they say, 'Look, here it is!' or 'There it is!' For, in fact, the kingdom of God is among you."....or as some translations say "within you".

We still want to explain the ability to hear God based on genetics or things we cannot control...
anything to take away our accountability gives us something to hide behind and make excuses.

Its quite amazing how we invent reality and create our own doctrine to justify.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ May 20 2006, 03:56 PM) [snapback]258541[/snapback]</div>

If speaking the truth to you is "egotism" I plead guility as charge. Just as the man that has made a "prior commitment that the State of Florida does not exist" may get very upset with me and call me all kinds of names when I tell him that I have been to the State of Florida. But, rationally and logically I can not accept his claim that he is truly neutral and open minded about the State of Florida when he acts this way.
I can tell you by personal experience that in the Bible Romans 10:20 is true. Which is "I was found by those who did not seek Me; I was made manifest to those who did not ask for Me."
Can you explain to me why the apostles of Jesus willingly laid down their lives to die a cruel death for the testimony of their words if it was not the truth (1 John 1:1-5)? Can you give me a good explanation concerning Saul (who later changed his name to Paul) why he had such as tremendous and drastic change of heart concerning Christianity? Going from being one of the biggest persecutors to being one of the biggest advocate of Christianity (Acts 9). He states the reason in Acts 26 and 1 Corinthians 15 as seeing the resurrected Jesus Christ as being the cause of such a dramatic change. He also willingly laid down his own life to die a cruel death for this testimony. He also mentions in 1 Corinthians 15 that the resurrected Jesus was see by over 500 people at once. This certainly can also explain why so many early christians willingly laid down their own lives to die a cruel death rather than deny the Lord Jesus Christ.
Do you have a good answer why so many christians through out the ages willingly laid down their own lives to die a cruel death if it is not true? Can you explain to me why people risked their own lives of being burned at the stake just so that we can have the Bible be translated in our English language?

 

Crusades History quick read. . .

http://www.crisismagazine.com/april2002/cover.htm

http://www.christian-community.org/library/crusades.html

http://www.ewtn.com/library/CHISTORY/ZCRUSADE.HTM

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/006413.php

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Randy @ May 22 2006, 11:45 PM) [snapback]259597[/snapback]</div>

Your absolute certainty that you know the mind of god (assuming there is a god) is the egotism. Your own Bible says that god is mysterious and unknowable, and yet you are convinced you know him and exactly what he wants of us. And a thousand other religions are just as convinced of their versions, and each is convinced that god will punish all the others for getting it wrong. (With a few notable exceptions where tolerance is the order of the day.)

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Randy @ May 22 2006, 11:45 PM) [snapback]259597[/snapback]</div>

Oh, come on now!!! This argument is not only poppycock, it is downright idiotic: Do you really believe that if people are willing to die a horrible death for what they believe, it must be true? Throughout history people have given their lives for every sort of foolishness. Of course, a profound belief in a reward after death is a great motivator for giving one's life. But your argument amounts to "If someone really really believes something, it must be true." Muslims believe they'll have twenty virgins in heaven, and they're as willing to die for that belief as any christian has ever been for his. So those Muslims must be right also, according to your logic!

A good example is the Maya culture. While the Aztecs (much later!) captured people from neighboring tribes to sacrifice, the Maya sacrificed only volunteers. It was a relatively rare occurance, when they felt the need to send a message to the gods. For example, if there was a drought and they wanted to ask the gods for rain, they would sacrifice a volunteer to be a messenger. The sacrifice was done on an image of the god Chocmool. Chocmool is always portrayed as lying, propped up on his back, with a tray on his belly. He usually has his head turned to the left, but occasionally he is facing right. The victim's heart is cut out with an obsidian knife and, still beating, is placed on the tray on Chocmool's belly.

Your christian martyrs faced the possibility of being killed, but could always hold out the hope that maybe they'd get away with their preaching. However, the volunteers for Maya sacrifice knew for an absolute certainty that they were to be killed. So by your logic, the Maya religion must be even more true than christianity.

Now if you tell me that those Mayas' willingness to die was not proof of the truth of their religion, then your own argument falls apart.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priusguy04 @ Apr 6 2006, 09:17 AM) [snapback]235829[/snapback]</div>

There is one thing that can be said for sure about evolution: it is a polarizing topic. People on different sides of the issue seem to only harden their stance against opposing views. No matter which side of evolution you’re on, “your side†is guilty of this. Both scientists and religious scholars have been equally dogmatic and closed-minded about this issue, in my opinion.

One problem in the never-ending debate about evolution is the misunderstanding of the role of science. Science will never explain why we are the way we are. Science also cannot give us the full story of the history of life on earth. At best, we can use science to piece together fragments of history in order to come up with theories about how life has changed over the last few billion years on earth.

That said, given what we know now about the fossil record, evolution is by far the best scientific theory that explains how life has life has changed from single-celled organisms floating in the sea to modern humans. In fact, evolution is the only scientific theory that I know of that can explain it. It should also be noted that science does not yet have a good theory about how life originated on earth. Unlike biologic evolution, biologic creation has never taken place in a laboratory.

In my opinion, the various “controversies†of evolution are due to an “all or nothing†approach to the various theories. Evolutionary scientists are just as guilty of this as religious leaders. Each want his or her theory to be the correct one, and thus falls victim to the idea that there can only be one answer; either there is evolution (random chance mutations leading to natural selection over long periods of time) or creation (non-random changes to a species over a time that follow a pattern, e.g. divine intervention, the universal life force, morphogenic fields, or other non-scientific explanations).

One mistake that scientists make when proselytizing evolution is the idea that non-scientific theories cannot be true. There are many things that most people regard as true that can never be proven in any strict sense. Most scientists who are married would say that they love their spouse, but few could write a scientific paper to prove it. They could try to base it on evidence (gifts given, physical affection shown, etc.), but these are just arbitrary measurements. There are no scientific criteria that you can meet in order to prove that you love someone. You just do. We hold these truths to be self-evident, to quote our founding fathers.

A mistake that anti-evolutionists make is adherence to the dogma of their particular religion or belief, even when it blatantly contradicts what is accepted as scientific fact (e.g. the fossil record). What we have seen in recent times is the “bending†of religious beliefs into new forms that more closely fit the scientific evidence, one of the recent examples being the concept of Intelligent Design.

A mistake that both sides make is the idea that evolution (as described above) and other non-evolutionary theories are incompatible. Science tells us with near certainty that evolution has happened (and is happening now, confirmed by numerous experiments and observations). But it does not disprove any other theories, by any means. There could be any number of “helpers†to evolution that do not include random mutations and natural selection. Science cannot say anything about these theories, because there is no evidence for or against them. Science is (or, should be) completely agnostic toward Intelligent Design.

The rationale for Intelligent Design goes like this: “The natural world is so elegant and complex in its diversity that it could not have been created by random chance, and therefore must be guided by a higher powerâ€. This explanation is flawed, however, in one major way – it presumes that something can’t be true because we don’t comprehend it. I should say at this point that I don’t disbelieve Intelligent Design. But I would change the argument for it slightly: “The natural world is so elegant and complex in its diversity that I would not be surprised at all if there were a guiding life force that affects the process of evolutionâ€.

 

The term "mind-boggling egotism" actually seems to fit more for the ideology that there is no God. To think we are our own Gods and we were created our our own conciousness or some hoobaloo is about as egotistacal as you can get.

But God programmed man to be willing to lay down his life for a cause, and also to pick sides and team up to win against the other side.

Isn't it funny how you can pick a side in volleyball and play with passion and fevor against the other side and then move to the other team and play the same way agains't the team you were just on?

Just because someone lays down his life is absolutely no indication of the authenticity of the cause.... look at the suicide bombers?
It only shows "belief" on the part of the believer.

Deception is "decietful"... it makes the decieved feel like they are in the right and the others are wrong!

The religious can be the most dangerous, because they wear a cloak of righteousness while they are really completely off the mark.

True religious does not try to look like "the rest of the religious"... even as Jesus didn't, but there are fruits that follow and even signs and wonders that follow thier words and their ministry.

Without supernatural evidence God is underwriting the believer.. its just words... or else its a believer who is not yet walking in his full authority or even a part of it...

This is going to become an even more confusing issue as in the last days, there will be lying wonders appearing as miracles confusing the true from the fake... even as in mose's day.

The ancient arts of satanism will become more open and evident as will technology that intermingles with it.

Without an ability to see God moving and know his heart and his voice, it will be very confusing for those who witness fantastic wonders such as calling fire down from the sky and will most likely mistake it as an act of God rather than evil.

Even now, God is blamed for many of the acts of nature in play.
Even as in moses day.... God can be responsible for witholding blessing by allowing drought and the natural forces to take over and of even bringing and altering the forces of nature to do his bidding... but those times are reserved for the last days as we are in the times of the gentiles as the bible describes it and it is the day of salvation.. but as that time is over, the other elements that have been held back will come back into play as well as greatly amplified more than ever in history.

Never be decieved by the passion of someone as to whether thier cause is genuine... it's better judged by the fruits of thier work... "is the hand of God in what they do?"
Good luck trying to figure out the difference, if you cannot see the hand of God working.

 

OY: My favorite new quote re: intelligent design.

"The idea of there being a, you know, a little mud hole and two mosquitoes get together and the next thing you know you have a human being is completely at odds with, you know, one of the laws of thermodynamics." --Mark Sanford, governor of South Carolina

 

Fshagan and wildkow... I'll take at a look at the information and links you two provided when I get the chance.
-----------

And here's my stance on Creationism/Intelligent Design
-Normally there is no conflict between science and religion.
-However, when religionists propose Creationism, "New Earth," Intelligent Design, etc... they are essentially proposing ideas that negate this idea of "non-conflict" between religion of science
-These ideas, thus, directly conflict science... and since science is about evidence... science wins out
-Thus, creating these ideas counter to scientific theories such as evolution only hurts religion.