Jesus didn't believe Evolution - neither should we

Discussion in 'Creation vs. Evolution' started by Gup20, Jun 25, 2004.

  1. The Galatian

    The Galatian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nothing can be proven scientifically. Science is not about proof, but about preponderance of evidence, as you observed. This might make science suspect to you, but it works very, very well.

    Nevertheless, we still can study history and learn about what happened.

    This is one reason science requires reproducibility. If someone claims to have found the fossil of a fish with legs, for example, he better be able to produce that fossil, and there better be legs to be found on it.

    If someone claims that he can show how homobox genes are essentially the same in all metazoans, other researchers will have to find the same thing, or that researcher is in considerable trouble.

    "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool." - Nobel Laureate physicist Richard Feynmann

    (I do not mean any person in particular, BTW)

    I hope we all enjoyed it and learned a little from it.
     
  2. Brett

    Brett
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2003
    Messages:
    586
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wrong. If you had read your post over before hitting the reply button, you'd have realized that the Bible itself has been misunderstood or been understood only partially! The debates we have here about calvinism vs arminianism, as well as other biblical issues, demonstrates this. Does this mean that the Bible lies?
     
  3. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,802
    Likes Received:
    4
    Credit where credit is due Gup20. The believers in evolutionism selectively 'ignore' hard evidence and "good science" in favor of "pure speculation" and "blue-sky-guesswork". It is that body of speculation-in-the-obscure that they call "physical evidence". It is in fact the ONLY kind of "physical evidence" that interests them.

    Notice that in the discussion on chiral distributions - UTEOTW was quick to claim that having ALL the good emperical science AGAINST abiogensis was what constituted "ALL the evidence in his favor" because he discounted science and appealed to what he admitted - was pure guesswork (plus some wet clay for good measure).

    In other words - it "demonstrates" that evolutionism will "gladly" hang its hat on "thin air" though it be contradicted by mountains of emperical evidence showing that all living cells are composed of L-amino acids.

    So it is not the "Simple case" that evolutionism's believers are "looking at all the physical evidence" while Gospel oriented Bible-believing Christians "ignore physical evidence and look at the Bible alone". (Though I think the evolutionists entertain themselves by telling that story.)

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  4. The Galatian

    The Galatian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    Barbarian observes:
    Your post lacks content. It's difficult for me to help you understand, if I don't know what's bothering you about it.

    I take it you aren't a biologist. Perhaps if you learned a bit about evolution and the evidence for it, you'd be less emotional in your aversion to it.

    Your complaints are very vague. If you could be more specific, we could probably address your concerns.

    There's still a little time left. If you have any specific concerns, it would be good to post them. Or if you don't have any, why are you posting?

    Dawkins doesn't get much credibility from most scientists because he keeps trying to use evolution as a means to bash God, or more accurately, to bash the idea of God. Gould, for example has repeatedly taken him to task for that.

    However, if we want to criticize the theory of evolution, we must criticize what it says, not what some people say it says.

    And "everything" is not part of evoutionary theory.

    Sounds like your problem is really with Dawkins, and not evolutionary theory.

    And, as was pretty well established here, there is no such contrast. It's really all in stuff like Dawkins anti-religious foolishness, and creationism adding material to Genesis.

    Barbarian observes:
    I have no idea what "evolutionism" means.

    So far, no one seems to be a devotee of evolutionism.

    Barbarian observes:
    but most Christians admit that scripture and evolutionary theory are compatible.

    They what? Good heavens. Mary has no altars. At least not for most Christians.

    The Communion of Saints? That doctrine comes from the Apostles, in the Creed they taught us so that we would know who was a Christian.

    Christianity is what Christians believe.
     
  5. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,802
    Likes Received:
    4
    A clear reference to the evolutionist ploy that says "the Bible does not detail the subject of eovlutionism". Certainly it does not detail the subject of easter bunnies either - since both are pure mythology.

    As we read earlier - Richard Dawkings is clear about the "claims of evolutionism" and explicitly states that it explains the origin of all life on this planet "starting from nothing".

    Again -- you simply ignore the details and repeat your assertion.

    The other clear fact - is that the Bible DOES address the origin of all life - NOT JUST a single living cell.

    So the claim that the Bible and evolution are NOT addressing the subject of the creation/origin of all species - all living things on earth - is bogus.

    Lets test that absurd claim - by something logical and consistent.

    Let's pick GOD's way of stating how it was.

    "FOR in SIX days the LORD made the heavens and the earth and ALL that is in them...
    So in SIX days YOU shall labor and do all your work".

    Same context, same author, same timeline. Exegetically impossible to obfuscate in favor of evolutionism's doctrines.

    Now lets see how often evolutionists like Richard Dawkings claim "that" as evolutionism "verbatim".

    When God gives us 6 "evenings and mornings" and describes events of EACH... events that do NOT reduce to "the big bang" or "creating just one cell" - He provides a model totally incompatible with evolutionism.

    Even Richard Dawkings admits it. And he is no creationist.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  6. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    " can keep posting it - but if you keep ignoring that detail -- it only increases my opportunity to "Show" that evolutionist (icons) themselves admit that the "Claim" of evolutionism is to start with nothing and then explain away life in such a way that the evolutionist (Dawkings in this case) has no need of inserting a "Creator" into the "story"."

    Yes Bob, please post it again. Then I can again point out that quoting Dawkins on matters of religion is a fallacious appeal to authority since he has no special expertice in religion. But, in his actual area of expertice, evolution, he says "Anybody who is not ignorant or a fool can see that evolution is true...The whole point -- the whole beauty of the Darwinian explanation for life is that it's self-sufficient. You start with essentially nothing -- you start with something very, very simple -- the origin of the Earth. And from that, by slow gradual degrees, as I put it "climbing mount improbable" -- by slow gradual degree you build up from simple beginnings and simple needs easy to understand, up to complicated endings like ourselves and kangaroos. Now, the beauty of that is that it works. Every stage is explained, every stage is understood."

    I can see why you have not posted the quote again since I pointed this out. Only threatened.

    The point of chalk is that you cannot explain where it came from. I am surprised that you bring attention to something you can't answer.
     
  7. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Notice that in the discussion on chiral distributions - UTEOTW was quick to claim that having ALL the good emperical science AGAINST abiogensis was what constituted "ALL the evidence in his favor" because he discounted science and appealed to what he admitted - was pure guesswork (plus some wet clay for good measure)."

    Why don't you address any of the real posts I have made on this subject? I mean, I have very well explained how catalyst makes the chiral problem a problem in your own mind. And if you notice, the catalysts I have mentioned are very common materials.
     
  8. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,802
    Likes Received:
    4
    This is another red herring. Evolutionism dies a horrible death in "SIX evenings and mornings". Every atheist evolutionist on the planet would admit that. They never state evolutionism in those terms and IT MATTERS NOT whether ALL the solar system or all the galaxy existed prior to those SIX evenings and mornings to evolutionism. Once you say ALL LIFE on earth came about in six days - in six real evenings and real mornings - you have killed evolutionism's doctrines - its temple crashes to the ground.

    We all know it.

    No you have confused evolutionism with science.
    They aren't the same thing.

    Actually -- "yes".

    IF there IS NO God - then ALL that the fool sees on earth -- he must account for by some "other means" than divine creation.

    And "obviously to all" this is what we see them doing.

    The fact that some Christians also seek to play that "game" with them - is amusing to the atheists (as Dawkings is quoted as saying on this thread) and so also do Bible believing Christians find it amusing at best.

    True enough.

    But even worse for evolutionism - good science flatly contradicts the speculative myths of evolutionism.

    We saw that with entropy. Even the evolutionists Isaac Asimov clearly admitted what science SEES (local INCREASEs in entropy) with what evolutionism "needs" -- (Massive DECREASES in local entropy).

    We saw that again with the lack of mono-chiral results in all experiments used today to produce proteins for cell "building blocks".

    The emperical evidence clearly contradicts what evolutionism "needs" so evolutionists turn to junk-science instead.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  9. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    "We saw that again with the lack of mono-chiral results in all experiments used today to produce proteins for cell "building blocks"."

    No, we saw that catalysts are fully capable of making non-racemic mixtures and of catalyzing and stabilizing the polymerization.
     
  10. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,802
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ok - lets "see" if it is as harddd to "get" what the text "says" as you claim.

    Nobody is "confused" so far about "what six days means". The listener standing at the foot of Sinai "knew" what a day was - much to evolutionist's great surprise.

    Notice – what follows will be a pointer BACK to Creation week, giving God's OWN summary of it.

    God's Word points us back in time to the 7th day of creation week. The day WHEN it was made the holy day of God.

    .

    The action commanded - the reason that establishes the commandment, the same unit of time applied to BOTH the timeline for Genesis 1 and the timeline for humanity at the foot of Sinai.

    Some are required by their evolutionist traditions to turn a blind eye to this. But many - many others see this text, read it just as it is written and accept its clear concise format.

    In that summary God "locks in" the "time unit" so that even the most blind can not miss "seeing" that the same author in the same context applies the same time unit to BOTH the people at Sinai and God in Genesis 1.

    Oh that everyone would embrace God's Word just as it reads.

    To believe Augustine over the Word of God ... hmm... hard choice.

    Notice that the argument of evolutionism is not scripture - it is "hokey guesswork"

    Indeed it shows rotation of the planet and a single sided light source -- but WHATTTT did God use as a light source??? hmmmmm... Let see... He is God.... Augustine is not.... so WHO knows how to rotate the planet with a single sided light source and who only guesses at what God was doing???

    That's a pretty tough puzzle I have to admit. No wonder Christians would want to dump the Word of God in favor of that little tiny puzzle.

    I think I see the point now.

    This is why it is so hard to take evolutionists seriously whenever they pretend to adress the integrity of their views in the context of scripture.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  11. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,802
    Likes Received:
    4
    This is a direct reference to the attempt previously made to pretend that the Genesis "Account" of the origin of ALL life forms on earth -- only "actually" addressed "man and God and our relationship,".[/n]

    Hmmm. "Pretend not to get the point"...

    I think I have already seen that one.

     
  12. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    "We saw that with entropy. Even the evolutionists Isaac Asimov clearly admitted what science SEES (local INCREASEs in entropy) with what evolutionism "needs" -- (Massive DECREASES in local entropy)."

    I'll give you one last chance before the thread closes.

    Give me one step, any step, in the evolution of man from a single celled organism prevented by entropy and why.

    I'd bet I still will not get answer. I don't feel like pointing the flaws in your reasoning out again, so I'll just leave it at that. A simple question which you will not answer.
     
  13. The Galatian

    The Galatian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    Barbarian observes:
    However, Genesis directly contradicts the "Ex nihilo" claims of young Earth creationism, because it says that the earth and waters brought forth living things.

    Nope. It's God's Word. You should accept it, reagardless of you personal desires. God says that the earth brought forth living things. YE creationism says that God created them from nothing. You can pick God's word that they were brought forth from the earth, or man's doctrine that they were created from nothing. Up to you.

    Fortunately, it's still quite vigorous. In fact, every so often, we get another prominent creationist like Michael Denton to see the light and accept God's creation.

    Atheists, like YE creationists, have an axe to grind. They want to make science incompatible with religion.


    Barbarian observes:
    You've confused atheism and science.

    Evolutionary theory, because it depends on evidence, is a science. Creationism, because it depends only on faith, is a religion.

    Science does not, and cannot account for the origin of nature itself. That is beyond the reach of science.

    Sorry. Science can't do that for you. For that, you need other ways of knowing. Science can only tell you about the physical universe, not how it came about. It can neither deny nor confirm God. Scientists who believe in God cannot use science to support their beliefs. It is too weak a system for that.

    Science can only use scientific means. But scientists can be theists, and most of them are. Science does not require one believe there is no God.

    THe vast majority of scientists disagree with you. You aren't a scientist, are you? Perhaps if you learned more about science, it would be useful for you.

    I see massive decreases in local entropy every day. Sometimes I wish it wasn't so massive. I would certainly appreciated the grass being less vigorous about decreasing local entropy.

    To establish your claim, you might consider answering UTEOTW's challenge above. Show what essential process of evoltution is ruled out by the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Show your work.

    In fact, we find that many of the naturally occuring amino acids in the Murchison meteorite have an excess of L-forms, just as abiogenesis predicted.

    Learning about the specifics would definitely help you in these debates.
     
  14. Gina B

    Gina B
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    16,944
    Likes Received:
    1
    Wrong. If you had read your post over before hitting the reply button, you'd have realized that the Bible itself has been misunderstood or been understood only partially! The debates we have here about calvinism vs arminianism, as well as other biblical issues, demonstrates this. Does this mean that the Bible lies? </font>[/QUOTE]The one thing we know is infallible doesn't go by the same laws, but it can very well mean things we don't realize that it means, or mean something we may not understand until it comes to pass, and then we will realize what that prophecy was speaking of.

    Now, I hate to do this to you and not give you a chance to reply, but the thread is now closed. Feel free to transfer what I said to another thread if you feel you have something to add to it, ok?

    Gina
     
  15. Marcia

    Marcia
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    11,139
    Likes Received:
    0
    I looked this up and the word Jesus used can be translated as sea monster, huge fish, or whale.
     
  16. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    11,029
    Likes Received:
    1,101
    Correct. Carl Linnaeus did not come up with his biological classification (taxonomy) of kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species until 1735, so, up to that time, if it lived in the water it was a fish. :)
     

Share This Page

Loading...