10 Dangers of Theistic Evolution

Discussion in 'Science' started by Gup20, Jun 7, 2005.

  1. Gup20

    Gup20
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,184
    Likes Received:
    1
    It's much easier to read on AiG: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1305.asp

    10 Dangers of theistic evolution
    Werner Gitt
    First published in:
    Creation Ex Nihilo 17(4):49–51,
    September–November 1995

    The atheistic formula for evolution is:

    Evolution = matter + evolutionary factors (chance and necessity + mutation + selection + isolation + death) + very long time periods.

    In the theistic evolutionary view, God is added:

    Theistic evolution = matter + evolutionary factors (chance and necessity + mutation + selection + isolation + death) + very long time periods + God.

    In this system God is not the omnipotent Lord of all things, whose Word has to be taken seriously by all men, but He is integrated into the evolutionary philosophy. This leads to 10 dangers for Christians.1

    Danger No. 1 – Misrepresentation of the Nature of God
    The Bible reveals God to us as our Father in Heaven, who is absolutely perfect (Matthew 5:48), holy (Isaiah 6:3), and omnipotent (Jeremiah 32:17). The Apostle John tells us that 'God is love', 'light', and 'life' (1 John 4:16; 1:5; 1:1-2). When this God creates something, His work is described as 'very good' (Genesis 1:31) and 'perfect' (Deuteronomy 32:4).

    Theistic evolution gives a false representation of the nature of God because death and ghastliness are ascribed to the Creator as principles of creation. (Progressive creationism, likewise, allows for millions of years of death and horror before sin.)

    Danger No. 2 – God becomes a God of the Gaps
    The Bible states that God is the Prime Cause of all things. 'But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things ... and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him' (1 Corinthians 8:6).

    However, in theistic evolution the only workspace allotted to God is that part of nature which evolution cannot 'explain' with the means presently at its disposal. In this way He is reduced to being a 'god of the gaps' for those phenomena about which there are doubts. This leads to the view that 'God is therefore not absolute, but He Himself has evolved - He is evolution'.2

    Danger No. 3 – Denial of Central Biblical Teachings
    The entire Bible bears witness that we are dealing with a source of truth authored by God (2 Timothy 3:16), with the Old Testament as the indispensable 'ramp' leading to the New Testament, like an access road leads to a motor free way (John 5:39). The biblical creation account should not be regarded as a myth, a parable, or an allegory, but as a historical report, because:

    Biological, astronomical and anthropological facts are given in didactic [teaching] form.

    In the Ten Commandments God bases the six working days and one day of rest on the same time-span as that described in the creation account (Exodus 20:8-11).

    In the New Testament Jesus referred to facts of the creation (e.g. Matthew 19:4-5).

    Nowhere in the Bible are there any indications that the creation account should be understood in any other way than as a factual report.

    The doctrine of theistic evolution undermines this basic way of reading the Bible, as vouched for by Jesus, the prophets and the Apostles. Events reported in the Bible are reduced to mythical imagery, and an understanding of the message of the Bible as being true in word and meaning is lost.

    Danger No. 4 – Loss of the Way for Finding God
    The Bible describes man as being completely ensnared by sin after Adam's fall (Romans 7:18-19). Only those persons who realize that they are sinful and lost will seek the Saviour who 'came to save that which was lost' (Luke 19:10).

    However, evolution knows no sin in the biblical sense of missing one's purpose (in relation to God). Sin is made meaningless, and that is exactly the opposite of what the Holy Spirit does - He declares sin to be sinful. If sin is seen as a harmless evolutionary factor, then one has lost the key for finding God, which is not resolved by adding 'God' to the evolutionary scenario.

    Danger No. 5 – The Doctrine of God's Incarnation is Undermined
    The incarnation of God through His Son Jesus Christ is one of the basic teachings of the Bible. The Bible states that 'The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us' (John 1:14), 'Christ Jesus ... was made in the likeness of men' (Philippians 2:5-7).

    The idea of evolution undermines this foundation of our salvation. Evolutionist Hoimar von Ditfurth discusses the incompatibility of Jesus' incarnation and evolutionary thought: 'Consideration of evolution inevitably forces us to a critical review ... of Christian formulations. This clearly holds for the central Christian concept of the 'incarnation' of God ... '.3

    Danger No. 6 – The Biblical Basis of Jesus' Work of Redemption Is Mythologized
    The Bible teaches that the first man's fall into sin was a real event and that this was the direct cause of sin in the world. 'Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned' (Romans 5:12).

    Theistic evolution does not acknowledge Adam as the first man, nor that he was created directly from 'the dust of the ground' by God (Genesis 2:17). Most theistic evolutionists regard the creation account as being merely a mythical tale, albeit with some spiritual significance. However, the sinner Adam and the Saviour Jesus are linked together in the Bible - Romans 5:16-18. Thus any the logical view which mythologizes Adam undermines the biblical basis of Jesus' work of redemption.

    Danger No. 7 – Loss of Biblical Chronology
    The Bible provides us with a time-scale for history and this underlies a proper understanding of the Bible. This time-scale includes:

    The time-scale cannot be extended indefinitely into the past, nor into the future. There is a well-defined beginning in Genesis 1:1, as well as a moment when physical time will end (Matthew 24:14).

    The total duration of creation was six days (Exodus 20:11).

    The age of the universe may be estimated in terms of the genealogies recorded in the Bible (but note that it can not be calculated exactly). It is of the order of several thousand years, not billions.

    Galatians 4:4 points out the most outstanding event in the world's history: 'But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth His Son.' This happened nearly 2,000 years ago.

    The return of Christ in power and glory is the greatest expected future event.

    Supporters of theistic evolution (and progressive creation) disregard the biblically given measures of time in favour of evolutionist time-scales involving billions of years both past and future (for which there are no convincing physical grounds). This can lead to two errors:

    Not all statements of the Bible are to be taken seriously.

    Vigilance concerning the second coming of Jesus may be lost.

    Danger No. 8 – Loss of Creation Concepts
    Certain essential creation concepts are taught in the Bible. These include:

    God created matter without using any available material.

    God created the earth first, and on the fourth day He added the moon, the solar system, our local galaxy, and all other star systems. This sequence conflicts with all ideas of 'cosmic evolution', such as the 'big bang' cosmology.

    Theistic evolution ignores all such biblical creation principles and replaces them with evolutionary notions, there by contradicting and opposing God's omnipotent acts of creation.

    Danger No. 9 – Misrepresentation of Reality
    The Bible carries the seal of truth, and all its pronouncements are authoritative - whether they deal with questions of faith and salvation, daily living, or matters of scientific importance.

    Evolutionists brush all this aside, e.g. Richard Dawkins says,

    'Nearly all peoples have developed their own creation myth, and the Genesis story is just the one that happened to have been adopted by one particular tribe of Middle Eastern herders. It has no more special status than the belief of a particular West African tribe that the world was created from the excrement of ants'.4

    If evolution is false, then numerous sciences have embraced false testimony. Whenever these sciences conform with evolutionary views, they misrepresent reality. How much more then a theology which departs from what the Bible says and embraces evolution!

    Danger No. 10 – Missing the Purpose
    In no other historical book do we find so many and such valuable statements of purpose for man, as in the Bible. For example:

    Man is God's purpose in creation (Genesis 1:27-28).

    Man is the purpose of God's plan of redemption (Isaiah 53:5).

    Man is the purpose of the mission of God's Son (1 John 4:9).

    We are the purpose of God's inheritance (Titus 3:7).

    Heaven is our destination (1 Peter 1:4).

    However, the very thought of purposefulness is anathema to evolutionists. 'Evolutionary adaptations never follow a purposeful program, they thus can not be regarded as teleonomical.'5 Thus a belief system such as theistic evolution that marries purposefulness with non-purposefulness is a contradiction in terms.

    Conclusion
    The doctrines of creation and evolution are so strongly divergent that reconciliation is totally impossible. The theistic evolutionists attempt to integrate the two doctrines, however such syncretism reduces the message of the Bible to insignificance. The conclusion is inevitable: There is no support for theistic evolution in the Bible.

    References
    This article has been adapted from chapter 8 'The Consequences of Theistic Evolution', from Prof. Dr. Werner Gitt's book, Did God use Evolution?, Christliche Literatur-Verbreitung e.V., Postfach 11 01 35 . 33661, Bielefeld, Germany.
    E. Jantsch, Die Selbstorganisation des Universums, Munchen, 1979, p. 412.
    Hoimar von Ditfurth, Wir sind nicht nur von dieser Welt, Munchen, 1984, pp. 21-22.
    Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, Penguin Books, London, 1986, p. 316.
    H. Penzlin, Das Teleologie-Problem in der Biologie, Biologische Rundschau, 25 (1987), S.7-26, p. 19.
    What does Theistic Evolution involve?
    The following evolutionary assumptions are generally applicable to theistic evolution:

    The basic principle, evolution, is taken for granted.
    It is believed that evolution is a universal principle.
    As far as scientific laws are concerned, there is no difference between the origin of the earth and all life and their subsequent development (the principle of uniformity).
    Evolution relies on processes that allow increases in organization from the simple to the complex, from non-life to life, and from lower to higher forms of life.
    The driving forces of evolution are mutation, selection, isolation, and mixing. Chance and necessity, long time epochs, ecological changes, and death are additional indispensable factors.
    The time line is so prolonged that anyone can have as much time as he/she likes for the process of evolution.
    The present is the key to the past.
    There was a smooth transition from non-life to life.
    Evolution will persist into the distant future.
    In addition to these evolutionary assumptions, three additional beliefs apply to theistic evolution:

    God used evolution as a means of creating.
    The Bible contains no usable or relevant ideas which can be applied in present-day origins science.
    Evolutionistic pronouncements have priority over biblical statements. The Bible must be reinterpreted when and wherever it contradicts the present evolutionary world view.
    * This section is adapted from Werner Gitt's, Did God Use Evolution?, pp. 13-16, 24.
     
  2. Travelsong

    Travelsong
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Yay! Another copy and paste job! Do you YEC's ever have an original thought of your own?

    It's like, duh, all of this stuff has been addressed so many times but you've never responded to it. How many threads have you abandoned now?
     
  3. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    Copy and paste is easy. If you learn enough about the subjects to have an informed debate, you tend to not be YE anymore.

    All you have to do is look down the list of threads on this section to see what you have said played out before you. The basic pattern is that Gup or someone else spams a copy and paste job on us, the errors are pointed out, and the spammer never comes back to defend his original assertions. If one of us starts a new thread, if there is not a handy FAQ on AIG to copy and paste, it gets ignored. Often even the copy and paste jobs are merely things that they found with some general keyword search and not something that actually addresses any of the points being made.

    I am convinced that even the YEers know the weakness of their position. Their unwillingness to enter into factual debate is an admission of their inability to do so. There simply are not any facts for a young earth.
     
  4. mareese

    mareese
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    It's true that there aren't many well studied YEC's on here.
    It's true that there are a number of weaknesses in the position, as well as yours.
    These are questions that have been asked online since the internet began, asked in books before that, and asked by mouth before the printing press.
    It's rather silly to believe that they'll all be answered here on the BB right now.
    There are and always will be unanswered questions all around. For one side to claim complete victory is about as senseful as announcing have found all the secrets of the ocean from studying one drop of rain.
     
  5. Mercury

    Mercury
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Messages:
    642
    Likes Received:
    0
    The problem is that when one side mainly copy-and-pastes what has been said (and responded to) before, the conversation isn't furthered.
     
  6. Gup20

    Gup20
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,184
    Likes Received:
    1
    I don't see any actual scientists here debating... just us amateurs. I don't see you, travelsong, posting any of your research papers here, for example. Why? This board is not peer review, it's ranting of the masses.

    I have posted several PhD scientists in their own words - and THIS is the argument I get from the humanists here: "All you do is copy and paste - see how ignorant your arguments are... they are not even your own arguments".

    Well that's the point isn't it? That I post the words of people much more eloquent and learned than I am? And why? Because you have no real arguments. Your arguments consist of ad hominem, straw man, and the 'creationism isn't science' equivalent. You mix in the occasional "no smart people believe in creation" for good measure. But as my posting has demonstrated there are quite a few PhD's who believe creation and defend it with real science. Their science not only makes sense in the physical world, but it agrees with scripture. Whereas evolution is entirely contradicted by scripture, creation is both scientifically and scripturally sound.

    Clearly evolutionary scientists are in the majority. But truth is not a popularity contest, and is not decided by majority vote. The Bible says narrow is the way and few there be that find it. We live in a lost world marred by sin and death. We are all born into death. Clearly, the unsaved are the majority of human beings on the earth - does that make it right? Clearly all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God... does that make sin right? Look at the Jesus Seminars, for example. You get all these "Biblical Scholars" together and they vote with marbles about which parts of the BIble are true. You end up with a only a few scriptures they believe is actually accurate or inspired.

    The problem is not one of science, but of faith. Had they spent as much time and energy on reading and understanding scripture as they did trying to undermine it they WOULD be much better off. The first thing you should do if you are a christian (in my opinion) is wholely accept all scripture as the direct Word of God - as if He Himself had penned it (in the original Hebrew and Greek anyway). Let everything you believe be a reflection of that absolute. You have to let the Bible interpret the Bible, not man's outside ideas.

    Why will I never accept evolution? Because I can show you reason after reason where, why, and how it contradicts scripture. I take the Bible by faith. No ammount of arguing can dissuade me from believing what is clearly presented in scripture.

    The problem is that the evolutionists here refuse to listen. I have to keep reposting information because they never read it in the first place - which is evident by their arguments. I have presented a vast case from scipture that undeniably refutes the majority of evolutionary ideas. My arguments are hermeneutically sound, contextually sound, and consistent with the rest of scripture.

    Moreover, the only areas I "copy and paste" on are areas outside my knowledge - or where something is stated more eloquently or authoritatively than I could say or do (for example, the words of a PhD geologist that touches on a subject we are discussing rather than my words). I don't claim or pretend to be a scholar or a scientist (unlike others on this board who are great pretenders).
     
  7. Travelsong

    Travelsong
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    I'll tell you why. I don't pretend that this is a central doctrine of the faith. I have tested the wisdom in both sides and I understand the difference between the realm of faith and the realm of evidence.
     
  8. Gup20

    Gup20
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,184
    Likes Received:
    1
    You don't think that Genesis is foundational to scripture?

    1Cr 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit.

    Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
    15 But not as the offence, so also [is] the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, [which is] by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

    The Bible consistently equates the roles of Adam and Jesus. Because of Adam, everyone dies - because of Jesus they can live. The two are intrinsicly linked! Why did Jesus come? To save us. Save us from what? From the death we are all a part of because of Adam.

    If Genesis is allegorical, then so can be Jesus. If death is only spiritual, then Jesus would not have needed to physically die - so can we say then that the death a resurrection of Jesus is not actual? No we cannot. Why? Because we all die! How do we know the Bible is literal in Genesis? Because we all die. How do we know Jesus' resurrection in scripture is literal? Because we all die. We can see literal death in the world, therefore we know that Jesus has literally come to give life.

    Take away Genesis 1-11 and you have no basis for Christ coming to earth to die. You have no basis for the need for a virgin birth. You have no basis for the need for a literal resurrection. You have no basis for healing. You have no basis for any scriptural doctrine. You have no basis for man being anything more than a stepping stone in the evolution of creation.

    Genesis is foundational to Biblical authority. It is also foundational to ALL biblical doctrine. The whole of the Old Testament Law is founded on Genesis being true. The whole of Jesus' purpose and life is predicated on Genesis being true. The whole of all scriptural doctrine in the New Testament is based on Jesus' purpose for being here.... which is based on a literal Genesis.

    So I would argue that the issue is absolutely a central doctrine of the faith.

    Look at Hebrews 11 - it is perhaps the 'hall of fame' where faith is concerned.

    Hbr 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
    2 For by it the elders obtained a good report.
    3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
    4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.
    5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.
    6 But without faith [it is] impossible to please [him]: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and [that] he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
    7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

    Even here... the descriptive basis of "faith" we see it is rooted and founded in a literal rendering of Genesis 1-11.
     
  9. Travelsong

    Travelsong
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    I think revelation is foundational to doctrine.

    The age of the earth does not affect my salvation.

    Therefore, there is no mandate for me to force a 10,000 year old earth on myself.
     
  10. Gup20

    Gup20
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,184
    Likes Received:
    1
    I am not suggesting that it does. However, it involves the very reason you need salvation. What you have essentially said is that "I take for granted that there is sin and death, and I don't care how it came to be, I just know that it exists and I want to be saved from it".

    The Bible doesn't say that you have to believe in a young earth to be saved... but it says you need to believe in Jesus for eternal life. It says you don't have that eternal life because of Adam. It says just as Adam lost eternal life, Jesus has redeemed eternal life. The reason for believing in Jesus (the only pre-requisite to salvation) is because he will save us from the death introduced because of Adam. To disbelieve in a literal Adam opens the door to disbelieving in a literal Jesus. Perhaps not to you who is already convinced... but certainly to anyone who is genuinely seeking who would reject scripture on the basis that science teaches us that Genesis is a fairy tale. To be genuine and honest with scripture is to see the blatent incompatibility between Genesis and evolution. It sends the message that man ultimately determines truth where the Bible and evolution conflict. This undermines scripture and ultimately - if you honestly deal with scripture - undermines Jesus as well. THAT is what damns a person convinced that man's science is truth instead of scripture.

    It's causational. It is no different from being convinced that a stoplight on a street corner has RED=Go and Green=STOP. When you cross the road and a car splatters your guts all over the hiway one might argue that the color of the stoplight isn't what killed the person, but rather the oncoming traffic. While it may be true, it isn't fundamentally, or foundationally true. It was the wrong belief about the light that lead the person to make the choice of when to cross.

    A lot of people ask the Answers in Genesis ministry why they go on and on about creation when there are more important issues like abortion, homosexuality, etc they could be dealing with. Their response (and I think it is the right response) is that those are high level issues while creation is a foundational issue. Correcting the foundation will have an effect on the whole structure.

    Why would you need to force a 10,000 year old earth on yourself? If you go strictly from scripture you get an age for the earth close to 6,000 years. No where in scripture does it give any indication that the earth is older than this. Therefore, if you take the Bible by faith as you claim to, it is not a young earth you have forced upon yourself, but old earth views which are foreign to scripture. What you are doing is forcing man's ideas and opinions onto yourself and in doing so replacing God's Word.
     
  11. Magnetic Poles

    Magnetic Poles
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    10,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bishop Usher's 6k year old ideas were just his calculations. The Bible does not say how old the earth is at all.
     
  12. Gup20

    Gup20
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,184
    Likes Received:
    1
    So you can't go in and add up the dates of the geneologies (so and so begat so and so)? Moreover it's continually giving time frames of reference... for example:

    2Ki 25:1 And it came to pass in the ninth year of his reign, in the tenth month, in the tenth [day] of the month, [that] Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came, he, and all his host, against Jerusalem, and pitched against it; and they built forts against it round about.

    2Ch 16:13 And Asa slept with his fathers, and died in the one and fortieth year of his reign.

    Gen 5:3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat [a son] in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:
    4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:
    5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.
    6 And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:
    7 And Seth lived after he begat Enos eight hundred and seven years, and begat sons and daughters:
    8 And all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years: and he died.
    9 And Enos lived ninety years, and begat Cainan:
    10 And Enos lived after he begat Cainan eight hundred and fifteen years, and begat sons and daughters:
    11 And all the days of Enos were nine hundred and five years: and he died.

    With statments like this all throughout scripture, are you telling me that these aren't true? That we should not use this information to develope a time frame for the purpose of developing Biblical doctrine? Because that idea is directly refuted by scripture:

    2Ti 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

    Those 'begats' are certainly not inspiring reading or spiritually profound for doctrine - yet the Word says that ALL scripture is inspired by God and profitable for doctrine. Therefore, we should use them as they were intended... to give us record of the earth's literal history and the righteous - and the literal lineage of Christ. Ad them all up and you get ~ 6000 years.

    So the Bible does indeed say how old the earth is by giving us an unbroken history from the creation of the earth through the time of Jesus.
     
  13. Travelsong

    Travelsong
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    I am not suggesting that it does. However, it involves the very reason you need salvation. What you have essentially said is that "I take for granted that there is sin and death, and I don't care how it came to be, I just know that it exists and I want to be saved from it".

    The Bible doesn't say that you have to believe in a young earth to be saved... but it says you need to believe in Jesus for eternal life. It says you don't have that eternal life because of Adam. It says just as Adam lost eternal life, Jesus has redeemed eternal life. The reason for believing in Jesus (the only pre-requisite to salvation) is because he will save us from the death introduced because of Adam. To disbelieve in a literal Adam opens the door to disbelieving in a literal Jesus. Perhaps not to you who is already convinced... but certainly to anyone who is genuinely seeking who would reject scripture on the basis that science teaches us that Genesis is a fairy tale. To be genuine and honest with scripture is to see the blatent incompatibility between Genesis and evolution. It sends the message that man ultimately determines truth where the Bible and evolution conflict. This undermines scripture and ultimately - if you honestly deal with scripture - undermines Jesus as well. THAT is what damns a person convinced that man's science is truth instead of scripture.

    It's causational. It is no different from being convinced that a stoplight on a street corner has RED=Go and Green=STOP. When you cross the road and a car splatters your guts all over the hiway one might argue that the color of the stoplight isn't what killed the person, but rather the oncoming traffic. While it may be true, it isn't fundamentally, or foundationally true. It was the wrong belief about the light that lead the person to make the choice of when to cross.

    A lot of people ask the Answers in Genesis ministry why they go on and on about creation when there are more important issues like abortion, homosexuality, etc they could be dealing with. Their response (and I think it is the right response) is that those are high level issues while creation is a foundational issue. Correcting the foundation will have an effect on the whole structure.

    Why would you need to force a 10,000 year old earth on yourself? If you go strictly from scripture you get an age for the earth close to 6,000 years. No where in scripture does it give any indication that the earth is older than this. Therefore, if you take the Bible by faith as you claim to, it is not a young earth you have forced upon yourself, but old earth views which are foreign to scripture. What you are doing is forcing man's ideas and opinions onto yourself and in doing so replacing God's Word.
    </font>[/QUOTE]Again, my salvation is not affected or dependant upon a ten thousand year old earth, genealogies, or the manner in which God chose to bring his creation the it's current state.

    It really is as simple as that. How I regard the creation days is irrelevant, as is animal death before the fall.

    I do not and will not ever feel a need to fit creation into the small box you want me to. It ain't gonna happen.
     
  14. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    "I have posted several PhD scientists in their own words - and THIS is the argument I get from the humanists here: 'All you do is copy and paste - see how ignorant your arguments are... they are not even your own arguments'."

    Because copy and paste jobs are not discussion. You refuse to discuss the issues!

    It would be nice if you would show an ability to formulate your own arguments. As is, we have no idea if you even understand what you are posting. And when valid criticsms are pointed out and you do not respond, it reinforces the opinion that you do not possess enough knowledge of the subject matter to judge the validity of an argument from either side.

    And if you cannot begin to judge whether an argument is sound or not, then your copy and paste jobs lose any credibility that they might have had.

    If you do not even know if they are good arguments, why should we even pay attention? If you cannot or will not respond to criticisms of your spamming, then what reason do we have to pay attention?

    "Well that's the point isn't it? That I post the words of people much more eloquent and learned than I am? And why? Because you have no real arguments. Your arguments consist of ad hominem, straw man, and the 'creationism isn't science' equivalent. You mix in the occasional "no smart people believe in creation" for good measure."

    I beg your pardon!

    I believe that most of my posts are thoroughly based in fact. I think I generally support my assertions with references and links that you can go check out for yourself. Please demonstrate that the majority, or any, of my posts fall into the category of personal attacks or straw men.

    And if you value the opinion of those more leaned than you, then why do you reject the experts in every field of science and instead side with those who are at best a tiny majority in their own field and who are more often criticizing a field in which they are not even an expert?

    "But as my posting has demonstrated there are quite a few PhD's who believe creation and defend it with real science. ... [C]reation is both scientifically and scripturally sound."

    But it, creation "sceince" is not real science. It makes no predictions. It has no data. It is not falsifiable. It disagrees with reality.

    You spammed pieces have been repeatedly ripped to shreds and you cannot even begin to defend them from the criticisms. And this is just a bunch of amateurs. Real sceintists would not be as kind as we have been. THey would be much more thorough.

    "Moreover, the only areas I "copy and paste" on are areas outside my knowledge..."

    If it is outside of your knowledge then how do you judge whether it is valid or not? Since different YE groups twist and try to explain the same thing if different ways, you cannot simply fall back on saying you judge by whether they argree with your predetermined interpretation. This is because even in those that share your interpretation of creation, there are contradictory reasons given to explain what we see.

    So how do you sort it out with enough confidence to tell us repeatedly that there are better explanations for the data if judging the explanations is admittedly beyond you?

    "Those 'begats' are certainly not inspiring reading or spiritually profound for doctrine - yet the Word says that ALL scripture is inspired by God and profitable for doctrine. Therefore, we should use them as they were intended... to give us record of the earth's literal history and the righteous - and the literal lineage of Christ."

    Make up your mind. You quote a scripture that points out that all scripture is suitable for teaching and then you tell us that this means that is always literal history and science. That's not what it says.
     
  15. Gup20

    Gup20
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,184
    Likes Received:
    1
    Indeed - it is a side issue to salvation. Just as a virgin birth is irrelevant... just as believing that Jesus healed people irrelevant... just as homosexuality is irrelevant... just as abortion is irrelevant... just as murder is irrelevant... just as the trinity of the Godhead is irrelevant... just as prayer is irrelevant... just as prophecy is irrelevant- none of these things effects your salvation - just like creation vs evolution doesn't effect your salvation.

    However:
    2Ti 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

    If you wish to worship a God whom you believe uses evil to accomplish His will on the earth - by all means you are free to do so. As long as you believe that Jesus came, and died on the cross and rose from the dead so that you could have eternal life, then you will have salvation.

    Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

    However, if yow wish to worship him properly, you will do so in spirit and IN TRUTH!

    Jhn 4:23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
    24 God [is] a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship [him] in spirit and in truth.

    But again... for your salvation that is irrelevant, isn't it.

    Satan tempted Eve with these words as well.

    Gen 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
    5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
    6 And when the woman saw that the tree [was] good for food, and that it [was] pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make [one] wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

    Satan got Eve to do 3 things: First, he questioned the Word of God. Then, he contradicted the Word of God. Then, Eve acted on her false belief.

    In Genesis, we have God's Word - God's own account of how the world and all life upon it came to be. You need not take my word for it - it's right there in Genesis. Go read it for yourself! But I warn you - don't make the same mistake Eve made in questioning the plain, straight forward Word of God. Questioning leads to contradicting, which leads to sin and disobedience. Rest assured, you may still escape with your salvation - but how many will you lead astray as a false teacher? I think it best to align your teaching with God's Word as oppose to evolution which contradicts God's Word.

    The only issue that matters is scripture, UTE. It is you who refuses that line of discussion. You continue to operate under the false pretense that evidence is "impartial fact". However, all evidence must be interpreted under someone's presuppositional bias before it means anything. I have shown you on many occasions where evolutionists and creationists look at the same piece of "evidence" and arrive at exactly the opposite conclusions. Your arguments center around proving a disparity in knowledge between creationists and evolutionists - trying to infer that the evolutionary presuppositional bias is somehow superior to using scripture as one's presuppositional bias. You use ad hominem, straw man, and down-right mocking as your arguments. Then you introduce evidence interpreted under a false presupposition and expect us to buy it? I'm not buying it, UTE. I choose to believe God's Word - which never changes - over man's word (science) which undergoes severe revision constantly. The account of a six day creation has remained consistent truth for thousands of years. It is just as true today (exactly as it is written) as it was 6000 years ago. Why? Because history is exact. There is only 1 way things happened. The Bible is the true account of what happened.

    My opinions are irrelevant. My knowledge is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that I parrot the words of my Creator accurately. I am a puppet for Him, nothing more. If I do my job properly, then you shouldn't notice my contribution, but rather be able to focus on my master.

    I judge your arguments according to scripture. If what you say is consistent with scripture, then great. If not, you'll get an argument or refutation. Sometimes I know enough to make that refutation myself... most often it has been refuted before by someone much wiser than I - so a copy+paste is in order.

    For example, if you make a post that supports the idea that the earth has been here for millions of years we can obviously see this contradicts the history of scripture. Therefore, a response is required.

    You aren't interested in truth, you are interested in arguing. You are not interested in discovering what is right, so much as you love to "hear your own voice". I choose not to enable your fantasy.

    Instead of reading this information solely for the purpose of response (aka - solely for the purpose of arguing) perhaps you should prayerfully consider the scriptural arguments. Then ask yourself how to fit evolution into Genesis 1-11.

    I have shown you from scripture how your presuppositional basis for interpreting evidence as fact is biased and wrong. For example, the Bible's history adds up to ~6000 years, so "facts" that support millions of years have been mis-interpreted. For example, lava rocks from 20 years ago dated to 2 million years, or billion fold decay rate acceleration observed in a lab to refute uniformitarian mindsets.

    When the conclusion conflicts with what is clearly written in scripture, it doesn't matter how well you have documented your argument... it's still wrong because it contradicts scripture.
     
  16. Gup20

    Gup20
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,184
    Likes Received:
    1
    Well lets take a look at part of THIS post shall we?

    You have basically used ad hominem saying that I am too unintelligent to figure things out for myself, then used strawman to say "therefore my assertions are correct".

    If you look at your initial response to the topic of this thread (your only other post in this thread) it reads:

    So in 2/2 posts in this thread (100%) you responded to exactly 0 of the points made in the opening post and used ad-hominem and strawman arguments.

    Science is science. Creation is History. Evolution is history. The ability to build cars and computers in the present is operational science. Looking at fossils and making guesses about the past is not science, but history. All of these statements can be made equally for evolution - it has no data, is not falsifiable, and makes incorrect predictions. For example, how many eye witness records do we have of dinosaurs under evolutionary paradigms? Oh that's right... under evolution dinosaurs died out millions of years before man. So you would predict that no man would have ever seen anything resembling a dinosaur, right? Wrong. You see cave drawings of dinosaurs... you see rock carvings of dinosaurs... you see literature with descriptions of dinosaur like creatures (such as Job 40 for example). We see literature of dinosaur like creatures called dragons in many cultures as well - just as a creationist paradigm would predict.

    Well I am sure glad you asked!! This is something you have been missing since the first day I met you on this board.

    You have to look at the conclusions drawn and compare them with scripture. If they are consistent with the Bible, then feel free to agree with them. However, if they are contradictory to scripture, you can know with certainty (having never studied the subject or done the science yourself) that the conclusions are wrong.

    Well by rejecting ideas that blatantly contradict scripture, for starters. For example, when humanists say we have common ancestry, we can show them how the Bible describes our creation, purpose, and how we are not all the same flesh.

    Strawman argument. I never said anything about that meaning that all scripture is literal history. My question is what allegory uses pages and pages of genealogies? Since all scripture is inspired and profitable for doctrine, and that is clearly written as historical record, we should use this historical record to influence our historical doctrine - a.k.a. origins doctrine.
     
  17. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think we first need to properly define Ad Hominem and Strawman for the audience.

    http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/index.html#index

    Ad Hominem

    Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

    An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

    1. Person A makes claim X.
    2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
    3. Therefore A's claim is false.

    The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

    Strawman

    The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

    1. Person A has position X.
    2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
    3. Person B attacks position Y.
    4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

    This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.

    ----------------------------------

    Now we have a basis for judging whether your accusations are true or not. And I, personally, do not see any of your labels above sticking.
     
  18. Faith Fact Feeling

    Faith Fact Feeling
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2003
    Messages:
    231
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is an overstatement. There are many knowledgable and accomplished scientists that are YE. After 150 years of building upon naturalistic viewpoints, there is a great deal to chew on for a YE, but things may change, especially in light of all the recent challenges. Neither position is perfect, but I believe honest scientific inquiry will resolve these issues if the Lord tarries.

    There is error and bias on both sides. What you may be witnessing is the effect of 150 years of biased research and an educational system geared toward full indoctrination in it. Maybe it is just time for a few brave Christian scientists to challenge things. Just a thought.

    There are weaknesses, but there are Christian scientists that are working on these problems, and they are making some headway. Case in point, the ICR RATE team research on helium diffusion and carbon 14 in diamonds. But weaknesses are also present in the OEC position. The discovery of T-Rex soft tissue recently is going to be a hard one for OE folks.

    I was at a debate a month ago in open forum at Tennessee Tech in Chattanooga. The evos refused to participate if it was video taped. What does that indicate? An evangelist with my organization, Dr. Charles Jackson was there, as well as Dr. John Baumgardener of ICR fame, and a creationist with the Abington, Virginia creationist group, Dr. Alan White. Dr. White has a doctorate in organic chemistry from Harvard and 36 patents in polymers through his employment at Tennessee Eastman Chemical, the largest company in Tennessee. All of these guys are YEC. The evo side was represented by 3 TTU evo profs. The debate did not go well for them, and 300 students were there to see. All subsequent invitations for discussions with students off line were turned down by the evo profs. I can arrange a debate with Dr. Jackson for any of you that are interested. He travels the U.S. speaking and debating, so I don’t thing you have to be concerned with his “unwillingness.” Let me know.
     
  19. Gup20

    Gup20
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,184
    Likes Received:
    1
    Here is my definition, UTE - we are already on the 2nd page of this topic and you have YET to address a single point of it's opening post.

    Instead, you are busy trying to convince everyone to ignore the post on a different basis - on the basis of the poster instead of what was posted.
     
  20. Travelsong

    Travelsong
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Here is my definition, UTE - we are already on the 2nd page of this topic and you have YET to address a single point of it's opening post.</font>[/QUOTE]You can't be serious. All UTEOTW ever does is address the nuts and bolts of the science. All you ever do is submit huge copy and paste jobs as if they present a counter argument.

    How many times has he asked you to go back and respond to the science in threads you've long since abandoned? Yet you still continue to start new copy and paste threads with the same information that's already been discussed and ultimately ignored by you?

    Why don't we put an end to this silly finger pointing session and get a resolution out of you to discuss the facts until your silence can openly be taken as admission of defeat?

    You believe the evidence will point to a young earth so why not tackle the evidence already?

    Of course we all know the answer to that question.
     

Share This Page

Loading...