Creation Vs. Evolution

[Linda]

Adam wrote: Linda, are you ignoring my posts too???

I am not as proficient at this as you are and didn't know that I was ignoring your posts.

I understand that scientists are theorizing possibilities. I also understand that their willingness to say that life was seeded from space is placing the problem's source somewhere else. Each time scientists run into a difficulty in their evidence, the universe gets older. But the calculations for the beginning have to be finite because the rate at which the universe is expanding, run in reverse makes time finite.

If I had a bicycle lock with 10 possible digits on 10 tumblers, the correct combination would be 1 in 10,000,000,000. Anything but the right combination would be gibberish so to speak.

Dr. Stephen Meyer explained the chances of the right combination of amino acids coming together into a usable sequence are 1 in 10 to the 164th power. What has had to transpire since the beginning is difficult for me to believe logically without the hand of our Creator. I don't think that you completely understand the significance of the universe not being eternal. How do you account for the diversity we see in the time since the beginning? I'm sorry but I have a difficult time not smiling at what scientists are saying with a straight face.

[Linda]

Lauren wrote: "Attributing everything to a Creator is lazy. It's intellectually lazy. You said, "Well, I dunno how this all happened, and I don't want to bother figuring it out, so let's just say God did it because that's easy."

Your disparaging remarks are unbecoming. Are you here just to throw stones? Or would you actually like to have a discussion?

[Adam]

Linda wrote: "Lauren wrote: "Attributing everything to a Creator is lazy. It's intellectually lazy. You said, "Well, I dunno how this all happened, and I don't want to bother figuring it out, so let's just say G..."

Her remarks are entirely on point though. This is precisely what you will get if you say "god did it all!" Basically you allow for crazy scientists like Dr. Behe to say "well, I can't figure this out, and since I am the smartest around no one else will ever be able to solve this, so God must have done it." That is basically what Dr. Behe says in the entire "Darwin's Black Box" book, which I just finished reading. He further had the audacity to deny that people solved the problems he couldn't solve after he published that book!

[Adam]

Linda wrote: "Adam wrote: Linda, are you ignoring my posts too???

I am not as proficient at this as you are and didn't know that I was ignoring your posts.

I understand that scientists are theorizing possibi..."

I do not think you are asking the right questions in terms of probabilities. Richard Dawkins addressed this quite well in his book "The God Delusion".

Meyer may say that it takes 10^164 chances for amino acids to form usable sequences, but do you know what the population of amino acids is in the entire universe? Even on earth it is probably quite a bit higher. Also people don't seem to realize that we live in a universe where time exists. So, how often do these chances take place? Is this 10^164 a day? 10^164 a year? 10^164 in 13.7 billion? Does the probability reset?

Lots of people do not understand probabilities at all, they're absurdly complicated and people just throw numbers around, even scientists are guilty of this. If I roll a 6 sided die then my chances of getting a 4 are 1 out of 6. You can roll the die as many times as you want, your chances of getting a 4 are 1 out of 6, because each time it resets. People that say "well, I'm due to roll a 3 soon" are WRONG. Your chances of rolling a 3 after rolling a 4 one thousand times is still 1 out of 6! So when scientists start throwing around crazy high probabilities you need to start asking where did that number come from? You need to understand the numbers and what they mean.

I once read a book called the "Science of God" and that was written by a physicist and there's all kinds of probabilities thrown around. Like what are the chances the universe exists? It's 100%, obviously. But then he quotes this minute number... and I can't help but ask, "so, what is your population of universes?"

It's the same idea of figuring out how likely it is that there is an Earth like planet. Obviously 100%! But lets say the chances are one in a billion for an earth like planet. There are some 200 billion stars estimated in the Milky Way alone. If we assume 8 planets is average per star, then there would be 1600 billion planets! That means 1600 earth like planets in JUST the Milky Way. If we extend that to the entire universe which has billions of galaxies with billions of stars with likely billions of planets!

Do you see what I'm getting at? Just because something has remote chances, they may not be remote at all. It depends on the population.

[Lauren]

"recording of the four horsemen, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett and Christopher Hitchens. I know that these men have an agenda. I am learning about what is being said in opposition to Christianity and Intelligent Design. I do understand their side of the discussion and why they are working so hard to eliminate those who believe in God."

btw anyone who knows what's going on doesn't call them the Four Horsemen. And how exactly do you know they have an agenda, and how is it that you are magically the only person to notice that out of millions of people who agree with them.

"I know that the physical laws are the most stable of all science. There is strength in knowing that these laws are close to indestructible. When something "breaks" one of these laws, science is left to imagine how it could have happened."

Good thing you already admitted you're not a scholar. To what break are you referring to?

"So what do you do with the Cambrian explosion? The fossil record itself records simultaneous and strongly varied forms of life that appear at one time, all over the earth, in the same strata. Each life form is extremely different from another. That doesn't sound like a gradual adaption as Darwin's tree of life indicates.
"
The explosion happened over millions of years. Hardly overnight, really. Actually, quite gradual. Plus, we didn't have bacteria turn into animals in the Cambrian Explosion. I don't know where you got the idea it was so drastic a change, but you are incorrect.

[James]

Arrgh just mistakenly destroyed my long post I spent 40 minutes writing :'(. Okay from the top (sob).

Linda wrote: "I am not a scholar. What I have done is listened to debates between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox. I have listened to the 2 hour recording of the four horsemen, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Dan..."

Well I can understand your feelings, I would say all of those 4 do have an ideology separate from atheism that is very opposed to organised religions they see them as divisive, damaging and that religions shouldn't be immune to criticism as some of their practitioners believe they are. I have more than some sympathy for the viewpoint actually but don't see the point in being as rude as Hitchens or can be or as Dogmatic as Dawkins. I think one can be firm and polite (much like Sam Harris actually). Adam I believe the 4 horsemen label was the name of that one video Lauren watched, the name was merely a joke but it was created by Dawkins and seems to have stuck.

Linda wrote: "I know that the physical laws are the most stable of all science. There is strength in knowing that these laws are close to indestructible. When something "breaks" one of these laws, science is left to imagine how it could have happened."

Firstly, Physical Science is an encompassing term for the branches of natural science and science that study non-living systems, as a contrast to the life sciences. However, the term "physical" is a somewhat arbitrary distinction, since many branches of physical science also study biological phenomena (biochemistry for example).

Secondly, all accepted theories in modern science are remarkably 'stable' while scientists may point out inconsistencies on the fringes of an accepted theory they really just clear up a minor element of the main idea, it is highly improbable that any of the present accepted theories (such as gravity, evolution, germ theory etc) will be overturned or 'broken' as you put it. If an established theory were overturned and it was proven by peer review then it would be celebrated by scientists everywhere. The whole point of science is not to perpetuate an ideology but to gain better understanding and truth of how the universe operates.

Meanwhile religions work on the basis that they have the truth and then seek any evidence to validate that truth ignoring or decrying anything that appears to support an alternative. Science is the opposite and works from observation; scientists make observations about speed of falling, bones and taxidermy, radiation, DNA etc. and then use these observations to come up with a hypothesis, this is then tested to extremes by the creator and the scientific community until it is accepted as the leading theory of what it is explaining. Not always through choice but simply through strength of argument and evidence.

These theories can make predictions and explain all the evidence available, it is rooted in fact not opinion or belief, and is very immune to bias even from 'celebrities'. Let us take for example Einstein vs Newtonian physics.

Einstein didn't disprove Newton's laws of physics. He did show though that they were not complete and needed to be adjusted in some extreme cases. For instance if you have objects moving close to the speed of light, or if you have objects in strong gravitational fields.

When this is not the case Einstein's relativity theory can be approximated with Newton's laws. So Newton's laws can give a very good approximation to the planetary motions in our solar system for example, but they cannot explain the slow decay in the orbits caused by gravitational radiation, here we need to use relativity theory.

However, he was strongly opposed to the new version of quantum mechanics developed by Heisenberg and Schroedinger, Einstein led the opposition to quantum mechanics and was a major critic of quantum theory. Despite his Nobel prize and the huge respect people had for him in the three decades prior to his death, Einstein's distrust of quantum theory isolated him from the mainstream developments in physics. All of his greatest contributions to science had been made by 1926.

Meanwhile Quantum mechanics has gone on to be the most proven science in history. You see we can prove it works and repeat tests endlessly and get extremely accurate prediction of results but much like Gravity we don't really know why it works. But not knowing 'why' something happens actually doesn't stop you from predicting or creating a theory. Plus, if a luminary like Einstein disagrees we follow the evidence not the fame. In the case of evolution the evidence is even stronger than gravity because we understand the "why" as well as the "process".

Linda wrote: "Now I will return to the philosophy of interpretation. Your suppositions point to evolution because you are interpreting the fossil evidence to fit evolution. So what do you do with the Cambrian explosion? The fossil record itself records simultaneous and strongly varied forms of life that appear at one time, all over the earth, in the same strata. Each life form is extremely different from another. That doesn't sound like a gradual adaption as Darwin's tree of life indicates."

I would disagree, Darwin's initial theory came from observing animals in the Galapagos Islands it wasn't until later he realized fossils aided his theory. Upon creating a hypothesis he attempted at great length to disprove it until finally he relented and stated evolution explains all life that he had observed in his 30+ years of study. Now the Cambrian explosion did cause a close inspection from scientists as a mystery but it doesn't 'break' evolution and it certainly doesn't mean creationism works either. Even with an large number of new species they only grew in complexity in order and over time it didn't just 'jump' nor was the life all that wildly different from it's neighbors, not to mention it occurred over a million or so years not long in evolutionary terms but a very, very long time.

Linda wrote: "At the discussion I spoke of in my previous post, ... [snip] ... Darwin's tree of life. The gentleman replied that it was not a tree but rather a bush. And again, I thought of the Cambrian explosion."

Without knowing the credentials or name of the man who said it, I'm afraid it's not a good indicator, get me his name and we'll find his credentials and where he got them from. Also saying a bush rather than a tree seems a shallow argument. Do read Talk Origins. for a full discourse on evolution and some of the rebuttals to the many of the common disagreements you are mentioning. You seem quite open to reading the opposition as it were so it's a great site to look at.

Linda wrote: "Since I am learning, I would prefer not to get into a discussion regarding Genesis at this time. There is nothing like discussion to sharpen ones understanding."

Unfortunately this is creationism vs evolution we need to know what you believe to argue counter to that, it's like saying I know the answer but I'm not telling you ;). Otherwise we go way off topic trying to prove something that you already believe in and ignoring the things that you don't accept.

peace

J

[yojharobed || I have no sword. I don't need a sword. Because I am the Doctor and this is my spoon. En garde!]

So basically Evolution says: "Once upon a time, billions of years ago, there was an empty universe. then suddenly, there was a big BANG! and guess what? look, there's Earth! on earth, there was a monkey. And the monkey one day 'decided', 'Hey, I'm bored with being a monkey, I think that I will start slowly evolving into a man', so he did. Because he wanted to. So millions of years later, he was finally a man. Because he decided to be. BOOM! there was the Man. WOW!! GUESS WHAT PEOPLE? MY GRANDPA WAS A MONKEY!!! Isn't that a heritage to be proud of!!!"

Sorry, that just doesn't cut it for me. I would rather believe the Truth, in a God who cares about us, made us in His image, DIED for us, and wrote down our history so that we would know the truth. Instead, we have decided to believe that we came from a monkey? Do we even have brains anymore, or have they just "evolved" out of our heads?

Sorry if I have offended anyone, but it just doesn't make sense to me how supposedly intelligent human beings can believe such utter nonsense.

[Adam]

Deborah... intelligent human beings do NOT believe that nonsense. Evolution does NOT say that at all. Where in the world did you hear this complete nonsense? No one in Evolutionary Biology believes that man was descended from a Monkey.

You're offensive in the sense that you know absolutely nothing about Evolution since you think it has something to do with the Big Bang.

[yojharobed || I have no sword. I don't need a sword. Because I am the Doctor and this is my spoon. En garde!]

So then, explain to me please.

[James]

Deborah wrote: "Sorry if I have offended anyone, but it just doesn't make sense to me how supposedly intelligent human beings can believe such utter nonsense. "

Don't worry you haven't offended anyone, you have rather disappointed everyone. I don't usually pity anyone with an opinion but in order to know what your viewpoint is you would have to articulate one.

I assume you're a Christian by the statement 'God died for us' I also assume by your language you believe the bible is factual and the infallible truth given to us through the prophets and the word of Yaweh/Jehovah. Let me just get the answer to these two yes/no questions.

1) Do you believe the entire Bible is accurate?
2) Have you read the entire Bible from cover to cover?

Deborah wrote: "So then, explain to me please."

So often people believe that in a debate it is up to the other side to educate them on the subject, in fact you should walk into a debate having researched the alternative view thoroughly. Judging by your statements I concur with Adam, you know nothing about or are willfully misrepresenting the theory of evolution. Please go to either Truth Saves or Talk Origins both are good introductions to the topics you mention.

For example, I imagine you thought long and hard and studied Islam, Judaism (Jesus was a Jew remember), Christianity, Buddhism and Hinduism before you decided that Christianity was the truth. You certainly studied the Bible thoroughly I hope and agreed to all within before realizing "yes, this is the path to salvation!".

well just answer the 2 questions and do some reading then give us your opinion then.

Peace

James

[Adam]

Deborah(AndIfOurGodIsForUsWhoCouldEverStopUs) wrote: "So then, explain to me please."

The Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution have nothing to do with each other. Big Bang Theory is a Physics idea and the Theory of Evolution is a Biology idea. Big Bang Theory is NOT proved scientifically yet, there is just strong evidence to suggest it is true. Theory of Evolution HAS been proven scientifically and it has been observed in nature. The Theory of Evolution has NOTHING to do with the origin of life right now, it is only about speciation. The Theory of Evolution is entirely dependent on life ALREADY existing. From there it sets up the system with which life forms species, by things like natural selection.

Humans are NOT descended from monkeys we are "descended" from Apes and we are, in fact, STILL an Ape. Thus "descend" is kind of a misnomer. That is our species taxonomic classification. What evolution says is that apes and monkeys share a common ancestor, this is entirely different from being descended from something.

Something can't "decide" to evolve, it's entirely dependent on the environment they are in. The speciation process also has to do with sexual selection, such as when a certain group finds itself in a different environment and is cut off from breeding with the main group, thus they start to adapt to a new environment.

That's the little bit I know, I am not an expert on the subject.

[yojharobed || I have no sword. I don't need a sword. Because I am the Doctor and this is my spoon. En garde!]

Adam wrote: "Deborah(AndIfOurGodIsForUsWhoCouldEverStopUs) wrote: "So then, explain to me please."

The Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution have nothing to do with each other. Big Bang Theory is a Phys..."

Oh sorry, I was politically incorrect. We were not descended from monkeys, we were descended rom apes. BIG difference, I'm sure :)

[yojharobed || I have no sword. I don't need a sword. Because I am the Doctor and this is my spoon. En garde!]

James wrote: "Deborah wrote: "Sorry if I have offended anyone, but it just doesn't make sense to me how supposedly intelligent human beings can believe such utter nonsense. "

Don't worry you haven't offended an..."

To answer your questions:

1) Do you believe the entire Bible is accurate? Yes, because every word of God is right and true.

2) Have you read the entire Bible from cover to cover?
Yes, several times.


I was born and raised in a Christian home, so therefore I have had the advantage that so many people have not had: Being educated in the Truth my whole life. No I have not studied all of those religions. I don't need to. I know that what I believe is right. Jesus is the Truth, the Way and the Life, and no man will come to the Father but through Him. I have accepted that Jesus is the way to salvation and given Him control of my life.

I gtg right nnow, but will be back later.

[Adam]

Deborah(AndIfOurGodIsForUsWhoCouldEverStopUs) wrote: "Adam wrote: "Deborah(AndIfOurGodIsForUsWhoCouldEverStopUs) wrote: "So then, explain to me please."

The Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution have nothing to do with each other. Big Bang The..."

What does being "politically correct" have to do with anything?

Is this the only thing you got out of my post???

[Adam]

Deborah(AndIfOurGodIsForUsWhoCouldEverStopUs) wrote: "James wrote: "Deborah wrote: "Sorry if I have offended anyone, but it just doesn't make sense to me how supposedly intelligent human beings can believe such utter nonsense. "

Don't worry you haven..."

This sounds like a "I have the truth because I said so..." That's not a lot to go on.

[yojharobed || I have no sword. I don't need a sword. Because I am the Doctor and this is my spoon. En garde!]

I have the Truth because I have accepted the Lord Jesus Christ as my Savior and He lives in me. John 8:32 says
"And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." I know the truth, so I am set free from the lies of the world and satan.
I'm sorry that I am not very good at explaining but I DO have the truth.

[James]

Deborah wrote: "I have the Truth because I have accepted the Lord Jesus Christ as my Savior and He lives in me. John 8:32 says
"And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." I know the truth, s..."

Well as your so well versed in the Bible I have a quote for you...

"But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." 1 Timothy 2:12

So really you should stop debating with me and Adam and accept our authority, as we are men.. According to your bible you should never argue with or try to teach. It is after all the truth

Furthermore, Have you ever worn jeans or a t-shirt? Or something vaguely masculine because then you are an abomination.

"The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God." - Deuteronomy 22:5.

Also you agree that soldiers can take women captives as slaves, rape them and then throw them away if not satisfied. Deuteronomy 21:11-14.

There are so many horrors in the bible and you by your own standards shouldn't even be talking about your opinion on here. You accept slavery, polygamy, the death penalty for rude children, that women are essentially chattel and less important and that's only scratching the surface.

The fact that you were raised in something does not make it true, you were raised I assume that Santa gave you presents and you don't believe that right? Just do one thing for me please, just like Thomas Jefferson did and when you next read a bible if you see something immoral or something bad cross it out. See how much is left at the end.

Don't get me wrong I think Jesus said some good things, but that doesn't make him real, or right about everything he said, I think Buddha and Confucius said everything about morality much better and hundreds of years earlier.

Even Jesus admits he entered the world to create war "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. " Matthew 10:34

The truth is rarely black and white it is always complicated and I don't trust anything anyone says, I use my ability to reason and assess the evidence. You are not debating with us you are claiming you are right and there is nothing that will convince you otherwise that is proselytizing.

Kindly stop, and 'turn the other cheek'

Peace

James

[Adam]

Deborah(AndIfOurGodIsForUsWhoCouldEverStopUs) wrote: "I have the Truth because I have accepted the Lord Jesus Christ as my Savior and He lives in me. John 8:32 says
"And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." I know the truth, s..."

This is hardly evidence that Evolution is false though. All you have said is "Jesus is the truth"... What in the world does that have to do with observations made in studies of Evolution anyway?

Unless you're trying to say that Evolution is Satan, from which you must be freed? I don't even think that makes any sense...

[Andrew Eddy]

James wrote: "Also you agree that soldiers can take women captives as slaves, rape them and then throw them away if not satisfied. Deuteronomy 21:11-14."
You left out the part about her becoming your wife and that it says: "you shall not treat her brutally".

James wrote: The fact that you were raised in something does not make it true, you were raised I assume that Santa gave you presents and you don't believe that right? Just do one thing for me please, just like Thomas Jefferson did and when you next read a bible if you see something immoral or something bad cross it out. See how much is left at the end.

Just because there is immorality in the Bible does not mean it is condoned. The fact is, God gives us many examples of the bad consequences of immorality (and other things) in the bible. The point is (and I could show you this in any example you wish to bring up) that immorality (etc.) is declared to be evil and it is shown to ONLY lead to problems and judgement from Genesis to Revelation.

James wrote:Furthermore, Have you ever worn jeans or a t-shirt? Or something vaguely masculine because then you are an abomination. "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God." - Deuteronomy 22:5.
You can't take that from that passage. To say this means that women can't wear jeans is absurd. Tell me where in the Bible it says that women can't were jeans?
Tyndale sums up how this verse should be considered today in his Commentary:
This law is probably not merely a prohibition of unseemly dress, although the people of Israel abhorred everything that was unnatural (cf. verses 9–11; 14:1, 2). It has been suggested that some association with the religion of Canaan made this practice an abomination to Yahweh. Later writers, such as Lucian of Samosata and Eusebius, speak of the practice of masquerading in the worship of Astarte. Apparently women appeared in male garments and men in women’s garments. Even this reversal of the natural order was offensive, for a distinction between male and female in the matter of dress is universal. Not even the cloak of religion could make it acceptable. While this law in its original setting has no direct implication for modern life, there are some indirect implications. There are positive values in preserving the difference between the sexes in [Vol 5: Deut, p. 257] matters of dress. The New Testament instruction in Galatians 3:28, that there is neither male nor female, but that Christians are all one in Christ Jesus, applies rather to status in God’s sight than to such things as dress. Without being legalistic some attempt to recognize the relative difference of the sexes, within their common unity as persons, is a principle worth safeguarding.120

This verse is talking about not trying to act like the other sex- not what clothes you wear. Today jeans and T-shirts are perfectly acceptable for females.

[Andrew Eddy]

James wrote: So before I continue to debate just let me explicitly ask:

1. How you think the Universe began and how old is it?
God spoke it into being ex nilo (out of nothing) in 6 24 hour days according to Genesis 1. It is approxiamtely 6015 years old.
2. When did life form after that and as what?
Plant life was created on the third 24 hour day. Fish and birds were created on the fifth 24 hour day. Animals (first) and mankind (second) were created on the sixth 24 hour day.
3. When did mankind arrive on the scene?
Answered above.

[Andrew Eddy]

Adam wrote: "Deborah(AndIfOurGodIsForUsWhoCouldEverStopUs) wrote: "I have the Truth because I have accepted the Lord Jesus Christ as my Savior and He lives in me. John 8:32 says
"And you shall know the truth, a..."
There is evidence that evolution is false but you won't listen to it because you have already made up your mind.

[Linda]

James wrote: "Arrgh just mistakenly destroyed my long post I spent 40 minutes writing :'(. Okay from the top (sob)."

Thank you so much for writing out your answer twice. It was interesting and helpful the second time. :-)

I am taking a worldview class at a Christian institution that at this time is focusing on science. It is new to me to reason out what I believe in a classroom, though I have been working out what I believe all my life. We are encouraged to read and watch everything. In an effort to understand, I have joined in this discussion and am currently reading, The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. This evening we watched the debate between William Lane Craig and Peter Atkins. I highly recommend it to you all.

One of my first reactions to Dawkins’ book was a desire to apologize to Lauren. The book is written with an insulting air. I began reading it when Adam suggested that Dawkins had illustrated an argument very well in the book. My father always said that a fruit never falls too far from the tree and a student will be like his teacher.

Dawkins and his ilk paint with a broad stroke, those who believe in God. There is no difference to him between a Muslim and a Hindu and a Christian. He neglects the preponderance of evidence for Christianity.

James wrote: religions work on the basis that they have the truth and then seek any evidence to validate that truth ignoring or decrying anything that appears to support an alternative. Science is the opposite and works from observation;...

James, I beg to differ with you. The scientist, once attached to a worldview, expects to see evidence in support of his/her view. He will not allow himself to see God. He cannot. He will refuse to notice bias in this matter. Those who have stepped out and declared that there is evidence pointing to a Designer have been thrashed. I would suggest that you read The Privileged Planet by Guillermo Gonzalez.

I was very unhappy with Dawkins’ treatment of Jesus and the evidences for His existence. I don’t believe in just any God. I believe in the God who proved His existence by sending me a Savior and raising Him from the grave. Let’s deal with the irrefutable evidence of the resurrection. If it is possible for God to supernaturally raise Jesus from the dead, then He can "break" physical laws and also create time and space and a universe for them to exist in. It is not lazy to believe in God. It is living with reality.

[Adam]

Andrew wrote: "There is evidence that evolution is false but you won't listen to it because you have already made up your mind. "

Okay, thanks for letting me know Andrew. I'm glad "evidence" is just an opinion of mine. I'm going to try to opine that gravity isn't real and maybe I will fly. Since you know SO much more about what I think than even I do.

[Adam]

Andrew wrote: "James wrote: "Also you agree that soldiers can take women captives as slaves, rape them and then throw them away if not satisfied. Deuteronomy 21:11-14."
You left out the part about her becoming yo..."

Funny... it doesn't say anything about "acting" like a woman in the verse, it specifically uses the word "wear". Or did you miss out on that.

Oh and I like your suggesting that we cross out anything immoral in the Bible. Under what subjective ideas of morality should we follow? 4,500B.C. societal morals? Damnit... that's right, the world didn't exist then despite written documents from Sumer...uhm... how about 3,000B.C. to be safe? What region? Asia? Northern Europe? The Americas?

You really don't give much of a thought about your statements when you say them do you? You should read more of what Linda says and how she says it, she clearly thinks about thing.

[Adam]

Linda wrote: "James wrote: "Arrgh just mistakenly destroyed my long post I spent 40 minutes writing :'(. Okay from the top (sob)."

Thank you so much for writing out your answer twice. It was interesting and he..."

Yeah, I forget, which argument I said was well done at the moment. But I just finished this book last week and I do agree with some of your complaints. I don't think he organizes his book very well, while I do personally agree with his assessment of God, I don't think he will convince many believers. Unless that believer is already basically an atheist and has already thought of all the things Dawkins did.

He starts his book off with describing God with some very nasty adjectives, this will undoubtedly shut down any believer. It would make more sense to phrase the argument with that at the END and have a believer introduced to his argument gently. Instead he comes off looking a little more forceful than he probably intends. I don't think he's the raving anger machine Christians have described him, but I probably read the book in a softer tone of voice. People accuse me of being raving mad too, but I do not understand why. Since in real life people marvel at how patient and calm I am, even in very frustrating situations.

As for the scientific "worldview", I'm not sure that's true. The scientist would surely believe in God if God presented himself unequivocally to the scientists and was willing to undergo tests. Even Dawkins would immediately become a believer, he says so. Like any good scientist I would also become a believer. I'm not sure you understand the scientific worldview if you think they are unwilling to do this thing.

Yes, those who said there's a "designer" have been thrashed, because their evidence was nonsense. It wasn't a scientific conclusion, just read Behe's "Darwin's Black Box". All the things he complains about science not knowing in there have basically been solved. Gonzalez was thrashed for a sort of different reason, but the movie "Expelled" would have you believe something else for some reason. It has been documented that his participation in university research greatly decreased for a period of time around when he got into ID. THEN he had the audacity to present that book you recommended into his tenure review. He has no business teaching that stuff to students. Students should only be taught what we know and we don't know that there is a designer. They keep using mechanical examples for "designed" objects, of course there is a designer we can observe people building them!

[James]

Andrew:

Just before I start I concur with Adam that Linda makes a much better debater than you at present. You should moderate your absolutes and answer with more thought and actually justify your comments not just repeat them with capitals.

Andrew wrote: “Just because there is immorality in the Bible does not mean it is condoned. The fact is, God gives us many examples of the bad consequences of immorality (and other things) in the bible.”

Okay that’s just flat out wrong let’s take one example of Lot who was a just and righteous man.

“And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked: (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds;) 2 Peter” 2:7-8

He was the only man that God saved from the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah.

“...the angels hastened Lot, saying, Arise, take thy wife, and thy two daughters, which are here; lest thou be consumed in the iniquity of the city”. Genesis 19:15

He got drunk and impregnated his virgin daughters. Honestly I drink a lot of wine here in France and i don’t think there’s enough wine in the world to be drunk enough to sleep with your own daughter. Let alone twice.

“Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father. “
Genesis 19:32-36


Yet elsewhere incest is condemned.

“None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness”. Leviticus 18:6

And, at least in some cases, is punishable by death.

And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. Leviticus 20:11

And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them. Leviticus 20:12

And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you. -- Leviticus 20:14

so... Where are the bad consequences of his immoral actions? Remember the bible as you say is perpetually true so it can’t be different for different cultures what is considered immoral now must be the same as back then.

Slavery is considered normal by the Bible as is polygamy in both the old and new testaments. So you’re telling me you think slavery is a good thing?! If so you disgust me. You even condone the beating of those slaves.

And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money. Ex.21:20-21

Andrew wrote: “You can't take that from that passage. To say this means that women can't wear jeans is absurd. Tell me where in the Bible it says that women can't were jeans?
Tyndale sums up how this verse should be considered today in his Commentary:...”

Well now that can be debated; Other scholars say that’s exactly what it means biblical perspectives for instance says “Christians must recognize today’s attempts to abolish male and female distinctions, especially through the popularity of genderless clothing, as Satan’s effort to destroy the order and beauty of God’s creation.”

I would call Jeans genderless clothing wouldn’t you?

The problem you have is everyone can interpret what they want from the Bible, there are lots of cases of immortality going unpunished. From slavery, abuse, rape up to sanctioned genocide.

Now onto your points about the forming of the earth:

1. How you think the Universe began and how old is it?
Andrew wrote: “God spoke it into being ex nilo (out of nothing) in 6 24 hour days according to Genesis 1. It is approximately 6015 years old.”

you do realise we have archaeology that dates back older than that date. By thousands of years actually. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5th_mill.... but even if we put aside the archaeological evidence that claims that. Why did god spend so long with the earth and just a day with every star in the rest of the universe? All kinds of science is used to show the age of the universe and even if it were off by a factor of a million it would still be much older than you claim. Now let’s bare in mind that science is usually a lot more accurate than opinion otherwise you’d find your computer wouldn’t work and planes and cars would generally fail. Age of the earth

2. When did life form after that and as what?
Andrew wrote: “Plant life was created on the third 24 hour day. Fish and birds were created on the fifth 24 hour day. Animals (first) and mankind (second) were created on the sixth 24 hour day.”

Maybe... depends which creation myth in the bible you follow.

Genesis 1:25-27
“And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and the cattle after their kind ... And God said, Let us make man ... So God created man in his own image.”

Animals -> Man.

Genesis 2:18-19
“And the Lord God said it is not good that man should be alone; I will make a help-meet for him. And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them.”

Man -> Animals

Even the bible seems confused on this point. So how can you take anything it says literally? It also draws up some problems about why he created things like plants that are dependant on sunlight before he created the sun. Or animals that hunt people like lions tigers (dinosaurs as well one assumes) and then created mankind. Doesn’t sound very much like paradise if there are T-rex chasing down animals and Adam.

Once again, peace

James

Linda I'll reply to you later tomorrow okay :)

[Andrew Eddy]

Adam wrote: "Andrew wrote: "There is evidence that evolution is false but you won't listen to it because you have already made up your mind. "

Okay, thanks for letting me know Andrew. I'm glad "evidence" is j..."
No, the evidence is still the same but you see it through your "glasses" of your opinion while I see it through "glasses" of my opinion.

[Andrew Eddy]

Adam wrote: "Andrew wrote: "James wrote: "Also you agree that soldiers can take women captives as slaves, rape them and then throw them away if not satisfied. Deuteronomy 21:11-14."
You left out the part about ..."
I'll do a short expositional study for you. Firstly let us look at why this was written. The name Deuteronomy means "to give the law agian". They had just finished wandering in the wilderness for 40 years and now this new generation was receiving the law of God FOR THEM. Aha! this law was given at a specific time for a specific set of people under specific circumstances. That is not to say that it does not apply today. But you can't say that they whole Bible directly applys to YOU or you'd soon be fretting over the commands about the virgin birth TO MARY. See my point, some part of the Bible are for certian groups of people and not necessarily for others. Just because it is in the Bible doesnot mean it directly applies to you. To figure out who it applies to you MUST look at context.

To answer your second question: No we use the universal moral laws as written out in the Bible. These are not stuck to any one time period. MORAL laws unlike CIVIL laws (as discussed above) are for all people under all circumstances in all times. Any and all Moral laws apply to you and me.

[Adam]

Andrew wrote: "Adam wrote: "Andrew wrote: "There is evidence that evolution is false but you won't listen to it because you have already made up your mind. "

Okay, thanks for letting me know Andrew. I'm glad "e..."

That's not true, I don't have an opinion on the topic.

[Adam]

Andrew wrote: "Adam wrote: "Andrew wrote: "James wrote: "Also you agree that soldiers can take women captives as slaves, rape them and then throw them away if not satisfied. Deuteronomy 21:11-14."
You left out th..."

I don't see how you can make a contextual claim in the case of women dressing like men. If you're saying this doesn't need to apply today, then wouldn't that mean some parts of the Bible don't need to be followed? At this point wouldn't you worry about people suddenly stop following the Bible explicitly. I mean, where do we stop following the Bible and where do we begin? If I don't have to worry about this law where women dress like men, then I don't see why we should worry about the law that says homosexuals should be stoned or that we should shun them. In fact, we should question whether it is sinful at all.

Wouldn't you rather be safe than sorry about following this stuff? What if God really does care about women wearing pants, but then you go to Heaven and say "well... I didn't think it was that important, because you said it so long ago." God's probably going to say he doesn't care about your petty excuses.

[James]

Andrew wrote:"Aha! this law was given at a specific time for a specific set of people under specific circumstances."

Fair enough... But you seem to have ignored the contradictions in Genesis about who gets created first, also you've conveniently ignored Lot committing incest in Genesis which you accept as fact and completely true and infallible due to your previous posts on the subject.

The rules on killing incestuous people are in Leviticus not Deuteronomy. So... Ultimately you haven't really dealt with any of my arguments. Also if you could explain the fact that if the bible is contextual it isn't objective and therefore it isn't the basis of morality at all, I can find good or bad morals for anything in the bible.

Finally on the moral front most of the worst things (like slavery) are mentioned by the prophet Moses in Exodus right after the 10 commandments check out Exodus 21. You are cherry picking the things which defend the morality you want to believe in watch this short video Can't Have It Both Ways.

Now on the beginning of the Universe/Genesis contributions (which you ignored my posts against); you state the world is 6000 years old based on the Usher calendar but then you state that we shouldn't accept that all the bible is relevant/correct today; nor should we should follow all the rulings or accept that God's morality is unchanging.

How can you a mere mortal decide which parts of the bible are real and unreal, correct morality or not needed anymore, on the basis you believe the bible is the word of god then you or your vicar/priest/rector are trying to decided what God meant. Don't you think that's a little arrogant of you?

Peace

James

[Linda]

Adam wrote: Yeah, I forget, which argument I said was well done at the moment. But I just finished this book last week and I do agree with some of your complaints.

In Dawkins' book and also in the presentation of the Four Horsemen, Dawkins talks about those who are in religious institutions who have lost their faith but have so much to lose if they admit their unbelief in God. Isn't this also true of scientists?

You say that Dawkins would immediately become a believer if he could test for God. In the Four Horsemen, Dawkins says that the most compelling argument for God is the fine tuning of the universe. It is this evidence that is turning scientists to Intelligent Design. There is no test for God since God is immaterial and science deals with the natural world. But there is, like any investigation, evidence to follow and conclusions that can be drawn.

If following evidence could cause a scientist to lose his job, it might be just as difficult to admit Intelligent Design. It is easy to go along with the status quo. There are those who have decided that there is valid evidence for the existence of God and to teach evolution does not line up with their own research and conscience. You must look at www.dissentfromDarwin.org to see the numerous scientists who have added their names to this statement: We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.

In science, this is not only NOT encouraged, but like Guillermo Gonzalez, men have been ousted from positions for their adherence to their core beliefs against evolution.

The evidence for God exists. It is compelling, but each scientist must decide for himself whether he will really follow the evidence wherever it leads or if he will ignore the possibility because it follows a taboo in science.

[Adam]

On what page does he mention the fine tuning being the most compelling evidence? I don't remember this and I'm fairly sure you must have misread something. The universe is NOT fine tuned at all. It may appear that way to some people on a surface level, but when you study the real nature of things that is never actually seen. Things are incredibly chaotic we just attempt to categorize that chaos, so then people perceive things as being "fine tuned", even some scientists have come to believe this and "marvel" at it or whatever.

I understand the Christian claim that God is immaterial. BUT he can clearly become material, because Christians also claim that Jesus was God. All God needs to do is to do this again in the alleged "second coming". That will be more than sufficient for us to go through some tests. All Jesus needs to show is that he can manipulate the material world at will defying all laws of physics, chemistry, and biology. This would not be a difficult thing for God to accomplish. I know the Christians say "but then we wouldn't have faith", well faith didn't seem very important to God in the first place and it is surely convenient that he chose a time when we couldn't test for these things and a time when our ability to transmit knowledge to all the world instantly didn't exist.

As for dissentfromDarwin. I'm going to try saying this again. Look at the way they word this. "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life." Find me a scientist that is NOT skeptical of this. This has NOT been proven, Evolution does not explain the origin of LIFE. Natural Selection and Random Mutation explain speciation. Do you see the difference now?

The reason there is such a back-lash against people that don't believe in evolution is because evolution has physically been observed. If a scientist says he is unwilling to believe in evolution, then what he is saying is that "I am unwilling to believe things that are observed in the real world". This person is clearly NOT a scientist.

I will say that it does take a long time for science to change it's mind about things. But that's because they need to be very careful with everything they do and yes some scientists can be hard brained and really be harsh to colleagues. This happened to Mandelbrot when he wrote about Fractals, and that was a shame. But Mandelbrot's thesis was founded on very logical claims. Intelligent Design is NOT founded on anything logical.

Again, I have read nothing and no one has really told me much about this "evidence" for God. Other than people start throwing scripture at me. Or they make really bizarre claims like Andrew about hills that are 1.3 Miles high and a tectonic drift that is very rapid. This is no better than reading a fantasy novel, because you'll find the same amount of evidence for the truth behind "Lord of the Rings" as you would about that nonsense.

[James]

Good scientists change when they are proved wrong as Dawkins has said previously:

“I do remember one formative influence in my undergraduate life. There was an elderly professor in my department who had been passionately keen on a particular theory for, oh, a number of years, and one day an American visiting researcher came and he completely and utterly disproved our old man's hypothesis. The old man strode to the front, shook his hand and said, "My dear fellow, I wish to thank you, I have been wrong these fifteen years". And we all clapped our hands raw. That was the scientific ideal, of somebody who had a lot invested, a lifetime almost invested in a theory, and he was rejoicing that he had been shown wrong and that scientific truth had been advanced.” Dawkins -The root of all evil (Part 1, 00:13:32).

Dawkins has said that the title “The Root of All Evil?“ was not his preferred choice, but that Channel 4 had insisted on it to create controversy.

Linda said: "If following evidence could cause a scientist to lose his job, it might be just as difficult to admit Intelligent Design."

Scientists follow the evidence not the status quo otherwise Galileo wouldn’t have pointed out the heliocentric model. In fact it was through hard observation and harder work (and at risk of his own life!) he came up with something we all now readily accept readily. That the sun is the centre of the solar system, there are numerous other areas like slavery where humanism rose up and said this is wrong, how medicine came along and cured things that were called possession. The last 500 years have seen the retreat of religion into the gaps left by science. Let’s not forget Darwin who was looking for creationism proof and found evolution, we don’t manipulate facts to fit a theory we build theories based on what fits facts.

Linda said: "but like Guillermo Gonzalez, men have been ousted from positions for their adherence to their core beliefs against evolution.“

He works in Physics & Astronomy not biology I wouldn’t trust a doctor near my car anymore than I’d trust an engineers opinion on my spleen. The university in not a pulpit he was preaching outside his remit in an institution that is state funded and does not pander to theological rhetoric he deserved to be let go.

I then looked at the dissent from Darwin award; The opening quote on the dissent page:
"Darwin’s theory needs to be questioned, challenged, and examined in order to maintain its scientific integrity and to protect it from becoming dogma." - Dr. Rebecca Keller, Biophysical Chemistry

If you go to her website while she says she has some doubts about evolution she also rejects Christianity and say that creationism is completely untenable. But even then that quote doesn’t imply her disbelief I’d say the same thing about gravity or entropy. It’s what science does it questions everything.

Another person on the list is Joel Adams Professor of Computer Science. Meaning he teaches, about I.T. his opinion on genetics and science is no stronger than a music teacher. There are many many names on that list that are similar and just padding. I would look into the additional names that are related to the bio-sciences and check their actual credentials. I’m a scientist at heart I don’t trust any exceptional claims without exceptional evidence.

There’s a lot of scientists that have been co-opted by creationists without their knowledge in other similar ways: Scientists Rejecting Evolution. Have a watch of this video.

Linda said: “There is no test for God since God is immaterial and science deals with the natural world. But there is, like any investigation, evidence to follow and conclusions that can be drawn.”

Well that’s not really true. If it’s the Christian god we can check records in Egypt for fire raining from the sky, death of the first born, whenever god touched reality we should have a record. Like parting the sea, moving mountains constructing life all simultaneously or creating the sun after the earth. Those are things science can say, no, not true. Even if something isn’t material like gravity we can both study it through it’s effects right?

The problem is what version of the bible to look at to decide what to test for. To take an example in older versions there were many different opinions like Jesus’ older brother James or the lack of resurrection etc
Ancient disagreements in the bible versions. also check out this BBC documentary about writing the bible by a theologian Who wrote the bible

Almost invariably, any discussion with Creationists or their thinly disguised fashionable version, Intelligent Design advocates, will revolve around their challenge to explain how something happened. Popular subjects are:

1) How could matter come from nothing
2) How could ‘life’ come from non-life
3) How could an eye evolve
4) Who created the law of gravity
5) Any other gap in understanding/knowledge/education

But there are three huge and inescapable assumptions here, even if we allow that some questions have not been fully answered yet by science.
1) Because science hasn’t explained something it never will be able to explain it.
2) A natural explanation (in our belief) is impossible therefore the only possible explanation must be supernatural.
3) ONLY the god in question could have caused it; no other god could possibly have done it, therefore it is proof of [insert whichever god you require].

It’s a poor, disappointing argument, gaps in knowledge is not proof of anything it’s the need to continue striving for knowledge that’s important, we used to think that lightning in the sky was a god, we know now it’s natural phenomenon.

I’ll write more on William Lane Craig and Peter Atkins later.

Peace James

[yojharobed || I have no sword. I don't need a sword. Because I am the Doctor and this is my spoon. En garde!]

James wrote: "Deborah wrote: "I have the Truth because I have accepted the Lord Jesus Christ as my Savior and He lives in me. John 8:32 says
"And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." I k..."


Ok, so about wearing "mans clothes". God was not referring to 'jeans or t-shirts' when He said that. Men in the Bible did not wear those kinds of clothes. They wore robes, and women wore dresses. It wasn't until later that men started wearing pants for ease of movement, and not long after that when woman started wearing them as well.


and about this:
"Also you agree that soldiers can take women captives as slaves, rape them and then throw them away if not satisfied. Deuteronomy 21:11-14. "

Deuteronomy 21:10-14 ACTUALLY says this:

10 "When you go out to battle against your enemies, and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take them away captive, 11 and see among the captives a beautiful woman, and have a desire for her and would take her as a wife for yourself, 12 then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and trim her nails. 13 "She shall also remove the clothes of her captivity and shall remain in your house, and mourn her father and mother a full month ; and after that you may go in to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. 14 "It shall be, if you are not pleased with her, then you shall let her go wherever she wishes ; but you shall certainly not sell her for money, you shall not mistreat her, because you have defiled her."


It does NOT say that you can rape someone and throw them away. It says you can take her as your wife, AFTER she has been in mourning for a month, and if she does not please you, she can leave and go back to her family. But you can NOT sell her or mistreat her, because you have defiled her.

[Adam]

Deborah... it DOES say you can rape her. If you take someone from the captives YOU can take them and have sex with them after a month. It says NOTHING about the woman agreeing with you. If the woman does NOT want this then it is rape. God does NOT care what women think, they are merely chattel.

If the woman displeased the person you can get rid of her, but you can't sell her. Also you have to understand that "mistreat" is in the context of Hebrew law (i.e. go back to all the other books like Leviticus and look what you can do with women). Maybe you don't understand that "defiled" means that you've already had sex with her before you sent her on her way.

Also, the fact that men wore robes in the past is inconsequential. It is dependent on them being men's clothes. I would think your omniscient God would have accounted for how fashion trends would change over the years... or are you saying that God didn't know how fashion would progress? Maybe he should have consulted with someone like Armani.

[James]

Deborah wrote :It does NOT say that you can rape someone and throw them away."

Well if a 'captive' that you decide to have sex with denies you then she probably would die. But what about Judges 21:10-24 or Numbers 31:7-18 Deuteronomy 20:10-14 or Exodus 21:7-11, All these passages suggest that rape is acceptable, even selling your daughter to slavery.

Even if you can try to explain some things away you can't imagine that the bible expects equality for women and men.

Deborah wrote :"Ok, so about wearing "mans clothes". God was not referring to 'jeans or t-shirts' when He said that.
So now you're telling me you know what god meant how arrogant of you. You're saying that the bible is correct and you should follow it but in this particular case god meant something different? You have no idea what god meant or didn't you must either follow the bible as fact or not. You read things in a way that you accept you do not accept the reality of what you read.

Look at the evidence, women are strong, confident and more intelligent individuals in my experience and yet in the bible they are regulated to second class citizens. How can you condone this!?

Peace

James

[Linda]

Adam wrote: "On what page does he mention the fine tuning being the most compelling evidence? I don't remember this and I'm fairly sure you must have misread something..."

Either you misread what I wrote or I was wrong to include this as a statement from the book. It is however, in the Four Horsemen video. One of the four of them asks which evidence for Intelligent Design is most compelling and Dawkins replies “the fine tuning of the universe”. I was very impressed with that. I wondered if I had overlooked the value of the universe’s fine tuning since Dawkins immediately gave this answer. I’m sorry I can't give you the quote verbatim; I would have to watch the video again.

Adam wrote: The universe is NOT fine tuned at all. It may appear that way ... we just attempt to categorize that chaos...

I don't think you understand what is meant by the fine tuning of the universe. There are so many things that we take for granted since the universe supports life, what does it take for life to exist? Each of the constants that exist in the universe has far reaching implications for life on earth. I am not truly a science person so for this purpose I am copying and pasting a single example:

The strong force: the force that binds nucleons (protons and neutrons) together in a nucleus, by means of meson exchange)
• If the strong force constant were 2% stronger, there would be no stable hydrogen, no long-lived stars, and no hydrogen-containing compounds. This is because the single proton in hydrogen would want to stick to something else so badly that there would be no hydrogen left!
• If the strong force constant were 5% weaker, there would be no stable stars, few (if any) elements besides hydrogen. This is because you would not be able to build up the nuclei of the heavier elements, which contain more than 1 proton.

So, whether you adjust the strong force up or down, you lose stars that can serve as long-term sources of stable energy or you lose chemical diversity, which is necessary to the existence of living beings.

*** Adam wrote: I understand the Christian claim that God is immaterial. BUT he can clearly become material, because Christians also claim that Jesus was God...

I think we might want to look at the person of Jesus of Nazareth. The only way that Jesus could be God is if the things He did in the New Testament are true. Now let’s see – He claimed to speak as the authority for the Kingdom of God. He healed various diseases, walked on water, healed a man blind from birth, raised His friend Lazarus from the dead, turned ordinary water into the finest wine, and so much more. He was then crucified, died and was buried. Jesus was resurrected. Hundreds of believers, non-believers and enemies were witnesses to his resurrection. We have Biblical and extra-biblical writings beginning within 40 years of His resurrection.

This little band of men, from fishermen to tax collectors, to the sages of the age, all agreed on one thing, that Jesus was the Messiah, was resurrected and is returning at the end of the age.

*** All God needs to do is to do this again in the alleged "second coming". That will be more than sufficient for us to go through some tests...

Let’s face it. That sounds a little too much like a Science Fiction novel. Do they ever end with total and absolute belief in aliens? No, they usually end up dissecting the specimen in the name of science. ;-) Jesus told a parable about a man who was suffering in hell. He calls to Abraham and asks him to send Lazarus to his five brothers so that they will repent and not have to come to this place. In the parable Abraham refuses but the man continues to plead: “No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.” But Abraham replies “If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.”

Unbelief is like that. Once you are in it, it’s pretty hard to extricate yourself.

If evolution has been observed and unequivocally proven, then why is it not a Law rather than a Theory? I know that scientific minds are supposed to be unbiased, but you have to admit that it is possible that we see what we want to see, even in science. Let me give you a couple of relatively recent examples:

"Ontogeny recapitulates Phylogeny;” this is the brainchild of Ernst Haeckel and is saying that the human child goes through all the stages of evolution in the womb. (Single cell to gills to tail to human baby) Haeckel was an avid supporter of Darwinian evolution and it was found years later that the “pictures” of his embryos were intentional distortions. The tragedy of this is that these so called “proofs of evolution” have not only been proved incorrect, but they still appear in text books!

Then there is the Piltdown man. A jawbone and a part of a skull were found. The skull looked ape-like and the jaw did not contain the kind of teeth usually found on an ape jaw. For 40 years students looked at this evidence, calling it the missing link. But when a fluoride test was discovered it was determined that the skull was only 2000 years old rather than 500,000 years old and under a microscope they determined that the teeth had been filed down to look like human teeth. It had been artificially stained to look old. It was a hoax.

In a lot of cases, there is a solitary bone or a couple of bones, and from those a wonderful evolutionary story is written with the use of much imagination.

So let’s face it. Science is capable of being rather – dishonest with the evidence, even to the point of making things look the way they want them to look. There is an agenda among those who don’t believe in God to incite the label of non-professionalism on those scientists who claim Intelligent Design. It was difficult for any scientist through the ages to step forward and say something different than what the world of science is saying is true. I suggest that you read a book called I Don’t have Enough Faith to be an Atheist by Geisler and Turek or The Case for the Creator by Lee Strobel.

[Linda]

James wrote: "Good scientists change when they are proved wrong as Dawkins has said…

James, I have no doubt that there are honest men in science who adhere to their integrity. The problem is that the zeal of men who want an excuse to believe that “God is dead” (Nietzsche) have left false evidence as fact for many years. (I put two examples into my response to Adam.) But here is another: The Miller Experiment. Miller tried to recreate the earth’s early environment and the result with electrical charges was amino acids. The problem with the experiment is that it is not the type of atmosphere that would have been present in order for life to exist at all. The chemicals present in his experiment did produce amino acids. He chose a hydrogen rich mixture of methane, ammonia, and water vapor, which was consistent with what scientists thought back in the 50s.

Current thinking on the early atmosphere is that there was very little hydrogen because it would escape into space. It was too light. Instead the atmosphere probably consisted of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and water vapor. Science has corrected its thinking, but the problem is that textbooks still present the Miller experiment as though it reflected the earth’s early environment. If you replay the experiment with the correct chemicals you do not get amino acids, but cyanide and formaldehyde.

It’s not that scientists are dishonest when something is proven untrue. The politics of the day keep the lies perpetuated by not removing them from text books. Children are taught that evolution is a fact based on faulty evidence. There are numerous “Icons of Evolution” that have been proved untrue, yet they remain in text books. It is these sources that have led an entire generation astray into thinking that their “theory” reflects the absolute truth.

If all the actual so-called evidence for evolution were in one spot, it would probably be no more than a shoebox full. To think that fertile imaginations and a few bones have propagated the worldview with which we live! Think about it. Most of what we read or see about evolution is computer generated animation.

You say that scientists follow the evidence, not the status quo, but I wonder what difficulties Galileo encountered when he introduced his heliocentric model.

…If it’s the Christian god we can check records in Egypt for fire raining from the sky, death of the first born, whenever god touched reality we should have a record…

Why don’t we look at the New Testament, rather than reaching all the way back to the Pentateuch. Maybe we could start at the life of Jesus of Nazareth. You can watch a short video at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSaaSx....

Evidence for the authenticity of scripture is ubiquitous. You just have to be determined to look for it. If you are looking for reasons not to believe, I am certain that you will find them as well. Personally, I think that life is too meaningless without God. But that is not the reason I believe in Him. I believe in Him because He has changed my life profoundly and I will never be able to forget it. The reason I decided to take the worldview class was to be able to put into words what my heart believes. I heard this quote, and I can’t remember who said it (I have a miserable memory…) but it crystallizes what I think. “The heart cannot exalt in what the mind says is not true.” To be able to counter arguments against God is not only my goal, but it is a promise to me from the Bible. Isaiah 54:17

[James]

Linda said:"James, I have no doubt that there are honest men in science who adhere to their integrity. The problem is that the zeal of men who want an excuse to believe that “God is dead" (Nietzsche) have left false evidence as fact for many years."

Many scientific men do believe in a god but not the Judaic-Christian god, a deistic entity that is beyond the scope of mankind's understanding or writing. When Nietzsche said “God is dead" it was primarily aimed at the Christian one, which he despised for existential reasons that are nothing to do with evolution. If there are false/incorrect/incomplete theories still out there it means they should be discovered and removed/solved by the next generations of scientists. Scientists, unlike their religious counterparts, have never claimed to be perfect infallible or know the answers to everything. We do a lot of things now, hence the reason we can have this conversation over the Internet whilst listening to the radio and enjoying the luxuries and opulence of modern agriculture. That’s all thanks to the hard work of science, not religion.

Linda said:"Why don’t we look at the New Testament, rather than reaching all the way back to the Pentateuch."

Well probably due to the fact that we’re looking at creation vs evolution not the life of Jesus I will briefly say on the Jesus matter that even if we had multiple, contemporaneous, first-hand accounts of the miracles of Jesus, this would still not constitute sufficient support for the central tenets of Christianity. Indeed, first-hand accounts of miracles are extremely common, even in the 21st century. I’ve met and read about scores of educated men and women who are convinced that their favorite Hindu or Buddhist guru has magic powers, and many of the miracles that they describe are every bit as outlandish as those attributed to Jesus. Stories about yogis and mystics walking on water, raising the dead, flying without the aid of technology, materializing objects, reading minds, foretelling the future are circulating right now, in communities where the average levels of education, access to information, and skeptical doubt are far higher than we would expect of first century fishermen and goatherds.

In fact, all of Jesus’ powers have been attributed to the South Indian guru Sathya Sai Baba by vast numbers of eyewitnesses who believe that he is a living god. The man even claims to have been born of a virgin. Your faith is predicated on the claim that miracle stories of the sort that today surround a person like Sathya Sai Baba, which you’ll notice do not even merit an hour on the Discovery Channel, somehow become especially credible when set in the pre-scientific religious context of the 1st century Roman Empire, decades after their supposed occurrence, as evidenced by discrepant and fragmentary copies of copies of copies of ancient Greek manuscripts.

Linda said:"Evidence for the authenticity of scripture is ubiquitous. You just have to be determined to look for it."

But we are talking about creation of life how can it be authentic if it contradicts itself consistently. As I said to Adam.

Genesis 1:25-27
“And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and the cattle after their kind ... And God said, Let us make man ... So God created man in his own image."

Animals -> Man.

Genesis 2:18-19
“And the Lord God said it is not good that man should be alone; I will make a help-meet for him. And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them."

Man -> Animals

Even Genesis contradicts the order of events so how can it be factual. Also many theologians debate the authenticity of scripture but perhaps you should create a new topic on the forum about the historicity of Jesus, if you want to debate that it has no place in this topic.

Now let us move on to the rather larger problem, your apparent lack of knowledge on the subject of evolution and of scientific endeavor.

Linda said:"It’s not that scientists are dishonest when something is proven untrue. The politics of the day keep the lies perpetuated by not removing them from text books. Children are taught that evolution is a fact based on faulty evidence. There are numerous “Icons of Evolution" that have been proved untrue, yet they remain in text books. It is these sources that have led an entire generation astray into thinking that their “theory" reflects the absolute truth."

Well it’s nice to see that you assume it is the publishers and not the scientists who are at fault at least. I think all scientists would be horrified if they found unscientifically proven facts in a textbook, unfortunately scientists aren’t always the best at articulating an explanation of a complex theory to a child or teenager so you have education publishing groups that have reviewed texts to dumb down their ideas to the point that kids can understand, sometimes with disastrous results.

I do find your statement amusing though, let me try to rephrase what you said with a few minor alterations:
“It’s not that Christians are dishonest when something disagrees with their faith. The politics of the church and the religion keep the lies perpetuated by not removing the errors from the bible. Children are taught that, slavery, genocide and subjugating women are acts condoned by God which clearly aren’t morally accepted by all modern Christians".

As to the “Icons" being proved untrue I’m assuming you are referring to the book “Icons of Evolution" by James Wells? I have to say I’m surprised by you using this as an issue. Firstly you are attacking the education of science in the modern era, which has nothing to do with evolution really. But I can suggest you go to talk origins again Talk Orgins: Icon of Obfuscation . This gives a pretty good overview of the manipulations quote mining and misquotations that Wells has used to get his point across. Now while there may have been errors in textbooks in the past they weren’t deliberate lies like your fellow believer Wells.

Linda said:"If all the actual so-called evidence for evolution were in one spot, it would probably be no more than a shoebox full. To think that fertile imaginations and a few bones have propagated the worldview with which we live! Think about it. Most of what we read or see about evolution is computer generated animation."

This is just a statement that cannot be reconciled with reality. Honestly, where did you get that idea about a shoebox? You might as well say there’s no evidence for Gravity or that the moon isn’t there. Did you know that evolution as a theory comes not just from a book by darwin but thousands of pieces of collaborative evidence from all areas of science? Fossils, Taxidermy, Biogeography, Vestigal organs (historical constraint), Geological succession, Genetics and the incredible thing is all of these all align and show us collaboratively that there is such a thing as evolution. There is far more physical evidence of evolution and the methods by which it works than that of Gravity. Go to natural history museums and wander through their vast archives of bones and fossils, we can’t even display all the information as there’s so much most of it is held in vast warehouses for scientific / public reference.

If you wonder why we use graphics to demonstrate evolution it’s the same reason you use art to draw Jesus (with misplaced nails and all), speciation takes a long time to occur and long beyond a human lifespan, if you saw an animation about wolves being bred into pit-bulls would you say it was misrepresenting reality? Hopefully not.

Linda said:" Personally, I think that life is too meaningless without God."

That’s upsetting life is a fantastic thing and should be treasured you shouldn’t need a deity to give it more meaning. Even so in a rather cold manner I must say again your feelings have nothing to do with the facts of evolution. Nor positive evidence in favour of your theory.

Peace

James

[Linda]

James, I am on my way to work. But I have created a quick list to tell you my thoughts regarding your reply:

1. We believe that the Bible is the word of God. We may have interpretation errors through history, but not transcription errors. If there is fault, it belongs to the believers and not to God.
2. The life of Jesus is intrinsic to this argument since he is the embodiment of all scripture. If he is proved false, then so is scripture.
3. The mimickers of Jesus prove the truth. Why do they do what Jesus did? As the magicians in Pharaoh’s court mimicked Moses, so false Messiahs mimic the truth and have come to entice those who are weak in their faith.
4. Contradictions listed here are versions of the same story. God wrote the first chapter of Genesis to explain one truth and the second to explain another. There is no contradiction - correct interpretation is necessary.
5. I never said that I was a scientist. By the way, you failed to knock down the strength of the Craig debate against Atkins. It sure blesses me to see a man so articulate defending the faith.

I really don’t have time to write out all that I am thinking but that’s what I wanted to say briefly.

[James]

Okay I too have things to do but here are my quick thoughts on yours.

Linda wrote: "1. We believe that the Bible is the word of God. We may have interpretation errors through history, but not transcription errors. If there is fault, it belongs to the believers and not to God."

'We' apparently isn't 'everyone' if you go to the christian site "thedevineevidence.com" scribal errors It's clear there were many transcription errors in writing the bible other sources like the codex I linked earlier show completely different biblical stories.

Linda wrote: "2. The life of Jesus is intrinsic to this argument since he is the embodiment of all scripture. If he is proved false, then so is scripture."

Nonsense we are discussing creation, and all that mentions creation is at least in biblical circles is contained in the old testament, I am not arguing that every facet of the bible is wrong just that Genesis is clearly an incorrect version of how all the species of life occurred. You are welcome to start another topic on a separate matter.

Linda wrote: "3. The mimickers of Jesus prove the truth. Why do they do what Jesus did? As the magicians in Pharaoh’s court mimicked Moses, so false Messiahs mimic the truth and have come to entice those who are weak in their faith."

What?! So following your rather large jump of logic, people who dress up as Harry Potter prove that Harry Potter might be real? How do you know Jesus was anymore real than the fakes? Once again, you're avoiding the facts that your faith is predicated on the claim that miracle stories become especially credible when set in the pre-scientific religious context of the 1st century Roman Empire, decades after their supposed occurrence.

Linda wrote: "4. Contradictions listed here are versions of the same story. God wrote the first chapter of Genesis to explain one truth and the second to explain another. There is no contradiction - correct interpretation is necessary."

Okay you're telling me that you can accurately decipher the truths from both these passages but in other cases state that they are fundamental facts and aspects of truth. So ultimately you can pick and choose what you prefer to see of the bible. I assumed there was only one truth in creation, if you could enlighten me on the differences.

Linda wrote: "5. I never said that I was a scientist. By the way, you failed to knock down the strength of the Craig debate against Atkins. It sure blesses me to see a man so articulate defending the faith. "

I never said I was a theologian but it doesn't take much study to come to a good understanding of the fundamental flaws in theism, it does I'll admit take a long time to be versed in the fundamentals of science. It's called faith because it's not knowledge.

I am sorry I haven't given my analysis of that debate between Dr. William Lane Craig and Dr. Peter W. Atkins. Although that debate has sadly very little to do with this debate on evolution it's a debate about the existence of God, in fact William Craig say's he's not really got an opinion on Evolution at all; William Lane Craig's View on Creation and Evolution and here he clearly articulates that he does accept mainstream science on the earth over creationism:Christianity and the Age of the World.

I'm glad you appreciate his opinion I hope you'll accept his view on evolution and the age of the earth as well. right got to go going to be late!!

Peace

James

[Adam]

Linda wrote: "James, I am on my way to work. But I have created a quick list to tell you my thoughts regarding your reply:

1. We believe that the Bible is the word of God. We may have interpretation errors t..."

I have to agree with James commentary here. What does this have to do with Evolution vs. Creationism. I'm sorry, but this sounds like a bit of rambling to me.

Part 3 outright makes no sense, who is mimicking Jesus? You've just made this really arbitrary blanket statement here.

Part 4 is outright false. God did NOT write anything in the Bible. I would have thought Christians knew that. Even the Jews agree the Bible was written by humans around 600 B.C.E. in Babylon.

[Adam]

Linda wrote: Either you misread what I wrote or I was wrong to include this as a statement from the book. It is however, in the Four Horsemen video. One of the four of them asks which evidence for Intelligent Design is most compelling and Dawkins replies “the fine tuning of the universe”. I was very impressed with that. I wondered if I had overlooked the value of the universe’s fine tuning since Dawkins immediately gave this answer. I’m sorry I can't give you the quote verbatim; I would have to watch the video again.

I have never seen that video. I find it hard to believe some of them would support that stuff, especially Dawkins. I'll go watch it sometime.

***I don't think you understand what is meant by the fine tuning of the universe. There are so many things that we take for granted since the universe supports life, what does it take for life to exist? Each of the constants that exist in the universe has far reaching implications for life on earth. I am not truly a science person so for this purpose I am copying and pasting a single example:

The strong force: the force that binds nucleons (protons and neutrons) together in a nucleus, by means of meson exchange)
• If the strong force constant were 2% stronger, there would be no stable hydrogen, no long-lived stars, and no hydrogen-containing compounds. This is because the single proton in hydrogen would want to stick to something else so badly that there would be no hydrogen left!
• If the strong force constant were 5% weaker, there would be no stable stars, few (if any) elements besides hydrogen. This is because you would not be able to build up the nuclei of the heavier elements, which contain more than 1 proton.

So, whether you adjust the strong force up or down, you lose stars that can serve as long-term sources of stable energy or you lose chemical diversity, which is necessary to the existence of living beings.

I think I understand the fine tuning hypothesis perfectly, because that's what I was thinking of. As for your example, the response I have is "so what?" Seriously, what's the big deal, so you need a specific force to hold protons together in a nucleus. You also need a specific force for electrons to jump the different shells, and each shell has a different force needed to do that. Planck's constant is also a specific number, which is the length of a photon. There are all kinds of specific numbers for specific things. I have a TV that has a 52" screen, what does that mean? My cell phone accepts a specific range of bandwidth for it to work, what does that mean? Jupiter has a specific radius right now, does that mean life on earth wouldn't exist if it was smaller? People put way too much stock in numbers and measurements.

Here's why the logic is faulty. Just because something has a specific number associated with it, and that number enables a specific thing to do this other thing that later creates life as we know it, doesn't mean that under different conditions a DIFFERENT number couldn't yield similar results. I don't even think we know why the Strong Nuclear force works the way it does, so we really can't jump to too many mystical conclusions about how it's SO amazing that it's this one way at this point in time. It may not have always been that way, it may not be that way in the future, it may not be that way in a totally different universe and that universe could also support life, albeit a different kind.

***I think we might want to look at the person of Jesus of Nazareth. The only way that Jesus could be God is if the things He did in the New Testament are true. Now let’s see – He claimed to speak as the authority for the Kingdom of God. He healed various diseases, walked on water, healed a man blind from birth, raised His friend Lazarus from the dead, turned ordinary water into the finest wine, and so much more. He was then crucified, died and was buried. Jesus was resurrected. Hundreds of believers, non-believers and enemies were witnesses to his resurrection. We have Biblical and extra-biblical writings beginning within 40 years of His resurrection.

This little band of men, from fishermen to tax collectors, to the sages of the age, all agreed on one thing, that Jesus was the Messiah, was resurrected and is returning at the end of the age.

This doesn't mean anything. So what if he and others have claimed to do all this stuff. Hundreds of people claim Jim Jones did miracles, but that was all rubbish and that happened in more modern times. I am hardly inclined to believe a more ancient text where people believed that fire hurt when you touched it because it was made up of triangles...

I don't really care if Jesus wrote the thing autobiographically, what I do care about is the fantastical claims. And if God REALLY wants us to believe as bad as Christians claim he does, then he would come to Earth again, subject himself to our scientific method and vindicate ANY doubt. If you respond with "well then we wouldn't have faith", then I don't think you understand what even the story of Jesus was trying to do... faith CLEARLY is not important to God.

***Let’s face it. That sounds a little too much like a Science Fiction novel. Do they ever end with total and absolute belief in aliens? No, they usually end up dissecting the specimen in the name of science. ;-) Jesus told a parable about a man who was suffering in hell. He calls to Abraham and asks him to send Lazarus to his five brothers so that they will repent and not have to come to this place. In the parable Abraham refuses but the man continues to plead: “No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.” But Abraham replies “If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.”

That just outright isn't true of real science, that's obviously not what would really happen.

***Unbelief is like that. Once you are in it, it’s pretty hard to extricate yourself.

This also isn't true at all. It is only hard to extricate yourself because there is NO evidence to support your claims. All we ask for is evidence, you give us ancient texts, which is irrelevant in the face of today's research methods.

***If evolution has been observed and unequivocally proven, then why is it not a Law rather than a Theory? I know that scientific minds are supposed to be unbiased, but you have to admit that it is possible that we see what we want to see, even in science. Let me give you a couple of relatively recent examples:

Because Laws and Theories are fundamentally different things. Laws can explain relationships, like Newtons Law of Gravity. That's a specific relationship between objects, however the Law of Gravity does NOT explain why it works that way. The Theory of Gravity discusses this and we know much less about the Theory of Gravity than we know about the Theory of Evolution. The Theory of Evolution explains WHY speciation is taking place.

http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemist...

***"Ontogeny recapitulates Phylogeny;” this is the brainchild of Ernst Haeckel and is saying that the human child goes through all the stages of evolution in the womb. (Single cell to gills to tail to human baby) Haeckel was an avid supporter of Darwinian evolution and it was found years later that the “pictures” of his embryos were intentional distortions. The tragedy of this is that these so called “proofs of evolution” have not only been proved incorrect, but they still appear in text books!

Please provide references of text book editions printed after 1990 showing these things? (And not as a historical reference). It has been well known that these were false for many decades.

***Then there is the Piltdown man. A jawbone and a part of a skull were found. The skull looked ape-like and the jaw did not contain the kind of teeth usually found on an ape jaw. For 40 years students looked at this evidence, calling it the missing link. But when a fluoride test was discovered it was determined that the skull was only 2000 years old rather than 500,000 years old and under a microscope they determined that the teeth had been filed down to look like human teeth. It had been artificially stained to look old. It was a hoax.

Even before the final evidence that proved it was a hoax, the credibility of the specimen was always controversial. Compare to Homo erectus; similarly controversial specimens but able to withstand the tests of legitimacy. Piltdown man would only be evidence against science if it had never been found out or distinguished from legitimate specimens.

***In a lot of cases, there is a solitary bone or a couple of bones, and from those a wonderful evolutionary story is written with the use of much imagination.

This is perfectly plausible from a trained scientist with understanding of anatomy. Teeth and skulls especially are very descriptive to experts, who can tell the difference between a vole, mouse, mole, rat, or squirrel based on a SINGLE molar. It might seem odd to nonexperts, but comparative anatomy is a very straightforward and reliable approach.

***So let’s face it. Science is capable of being rather – dishonest with the evidence, even to the point of making things look the way they want them to look. There is an agenda among those who don’t believe in God to incite the label of non-professionalism on those scientists who claim Intelligent Design. It was difficult for any scientist through the ages to step forward and say something different than what the world of science is saying is true. I suggest that you read a book called I Don’t have Enough Faith to be an Atheist by Geisler and Turek or The Case for the Creator by Lee Strobel.

I really don't think you have even remotely engaged the scientific community to even begin to understand what science is doing. You cannot argue science from the 1800's, they didn't even have Peer Review back then. They didn't even have that in the early 1900's. No one is saying that someone can't fabricate data or be dishonest, but we have tried to put things into place that stop these things from happening. I recommend you read the book Graduate Research: A Guide for Students in the Sciences if you want to get an idea of how scientists are trained and what they are trained for, because I really don't think you know this. You don't need to be a scientist to learn what science says and why it says it.

I see you make a lot of accusations about political climates in science, or the lack of data, and frankly it is clear you have not engaged this community much. Have you ever discussed things with a scientist? Or do you just read creationist literature by people like Ken Ham on what science is doing? Even scientists that have gone over to the dark side proclaiming "creationism is true", distort greatly what science says. They are extremely dangerous in terms of confounding people, these people clearly are not ethical in their reporting or their research.

I read "A Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel and it was terrible. It offered no evidence of anything. His books should be re-titled to "How much it takes for me to Believe". Because that's really all he did, was go and talk to some people until he personally felt convinced it was true. He didn't really prove anything and he really didn't think about the stuff very deeply.

[Linda]

I have never seen that video. I find it hard to believe some of them would support that stuff, especially Dawkins. I'll go watch it sometime.

I briefly read your response, but I just wanted to say that in the video they didn't support it, but rather they said it was the most compelling argument for Intelligent Design.

I'm exhausted this evening. I'll try to get back to you and James by the end of the week.

L.

[Adam]

Alright, that sounds good. I'll try to watch the video before then. I just want to hear exactly what they said about it. It is "compelling" in the sense that specific numbers are needed, so maybe that's what they mean. It could give someone the illusion of design, but it doesn't have to mean design.

Usually scientists are pretty careful about the words they choose to discuss something, so that's why I want to see exactly what they said.

[Adam]

Girl4beluga wrote: "Well Hello everyone, im slightly confused on how this group is ran, but im just gonna add mt two cents here. The idea that the Universe was created by a Divine creature isnt mutually exclusive from..."

Could you explain further? Are you saying that some divine intelligence creating the universe can account for evolution?