Would you allow evolutionists to teach Sunday School?

"You have been unnable to show even one case of that so far -- how do you explain that?"

Nothing to explain because your statement is false. Take just your Simpson quote. You say he says the horse series never existed. Then in the sentences immediately following what you quote us, he goes on to describe trends in the evolution of the horse and concludes that the horse series represents a "classic" case of evolution in action. Quite a strange turn of the tongue if your quote were truthful, don't you think.

"Note the term the author uses "discarded". Note what it refers to "the Horse Series" note the reason WHY the discredited horse series must be "discarded". Note that "discarded" is the AUTHORS choice of terms - not mine."

Your ignoring the word modified. You also ignore the explanation even though it is in your quote and even though I have been repeatedly pointing it out to you. Let's look...Again. He says that examples of changes in the fossil record "have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information. What appeared to be a nice, simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic."

In true young earther form you are changing the meaning. He is saying that as we have found more and more data that the simple ideas of orthogenic evolution have been discarded and the various series modified because of the increased data showing bushy and jerky transitions instead of the smooth that were expected one hundred or so years ago.

 

"I quote YOUR ICONs and you completely FAIL to come to the SAME level of objectivity as if you could make YOUR salient points quoting MINE."

There is nothing to quote of yours. They do not tell the truth. As far as my references, for you to quote them, you have to quote them in a manner that dishonestly changes the meaning of what they said for you to even try and make a point. When the context is added, your point falls apart.

"Notice how you are trying to have it both ways now?

You want to argue that the "opinion" of the evolutionist ICON I quote - is the opinion that evolution is true and I have misinterpreted what "discarded" means."

Nope. First you have shown that you cannot quote them correctly. Second, quoting is akin to hearsay. I want you to attempt to make a factual presentation. Use your brain to give us some facts instead of plagerizing out of context quotes from some lying YE webpage.

Again you go through the false quotes. You have been shown the truth many times and yet you choose to perpetuate lies. Eldredge says that is lamentable to present the old outdated version of the horse series. Simpson talks in the sentences immediately following your quote about trends and horse evolution and concludes that the horse series is a "classic: example of evolution in action. Patterson is merely saying that you cannot know ancestor / descendent relationships for sure.

 

Below is a link to some “Monkey Music” from the archives at Bryan College in Dayton, Tennessee:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/monkeytrial/sfeature/sf_music.html#

Fundamentalists may find these songs fun to listen to, perhaps even inspiring.

 

Anti-evolutionists today are making a mockery of the Bible, just like Bryant did in 1925!

But much worse than that, they are telling millions of young people that they must chose between evolution and the Bible, and the vast majority of these young people are choosing evolution over the Bible with the understanding that the Bible is therefore a book that cannot be trusted.

The truth, however, is that evolution is a perfectly harmless theory of science. Reading about dinosaurs and saber tooth tigers have inspired thousands of young people to study science, and because of science most of you were born in a sterile hospital delivery room and have since then been treated by physicians, everyone one of whom was taught and trained by scientists. When your children get sick, most of you take them to a physician whose education included several courses in biology, physics, and chemistry. And the very large portion of these physicians believes in evolution, but you still take your children to them for treatment. Does the fact that these physicians believe in evolution in any way detract from their ability to provide your children with the health care that they need? And many of these doctors are Christians! Evolution is a theory of science; it is not a religious doctrine.

My high school biology teacher was a Christian who believed in and taught evolution, and he inspired me to become a scientist. In order to do that, I had to go to some very good schools, and God by His grace opened the doors for me to go to those schools and He proved the money to pay for them. In those schools I was taught to think, and to not stop thinking! As a scientist I was taught to question everything and to demand proof before coming to conclusions. One university student witnessed to me about Christ, but because of my scientific education, I chose not to believe the witness because the student had no proof.

About three years passed and I found myself in an Assembly of God Church. They all very quickly learned that I was an evolutionist and that I did not believe in Jesus any more than I believed in Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny, but I was very welcome there, and the people in the church couldn’t wait to share with me what Christ had done for them and their families. They were mostly simple people without a lot of education, but they knew better than to tell me that evolution was a lie! They shared the love of Jesus with me, read to me from the Bible about salvation, and one Sunday night they held a spontaneous prayer meeting for my salvation that lasted till midnight. Never in my life had I encountered such loving, self-sacrificing people and I learned for the first time that “sin” is not just a word used by religious fanatics, but that it was a very serious reality in my life! After three month of intensive care from these Christians, I got saved.

I continued, as a scientist, to question everything, including, of course, the details of many theories that come under the umbrella of the theory of evolution, but the reality of my transformed life was a reality that was beyond question, for it was obvious to everyone. The Bible became for me the most intriguing and fascinating thing that I had ever studied, and I couldn’t get enough of it.

But before long I became very sensitive to the fact that many people around me were still in their sins and needed to know what Christ had done for them on the cross. I began speaking to these people about Christ and His gospel . . . and the people listened! I stayed up three nights in a row in the very heart of a large city sharing the gospel with young people who were thirsty for the message of the cross. I personally witnessed people being delivered from prostitution, homosexuality, alcohol, narcotics, lying, stealing, and cheating. Indeed, I eventually became the pastor of a church in the very heart of that city.

Evolution is not the problem! Sin is the problem! Condemning evolution and the people who teach it is not just a waste of time, it is highly destructive to the cause of Christ. If you have a burden for the souls of the lost, love them and give your life to them. Throw away your messages of hate and contempt, and give yourself to others who need you.

 

Craig, what bothers me the most about you is that you not only pride yourself in being rude (as your slam against Tennesseans proved), but you have no real regard for the fact that macro-evolution is completely contrary to the Word of God. And what's worse, you slam guys like me as being ignorant just because we call you on it. It's really pretty sad.

You may think that you can just dodge the whole "Scripture issue" by saying that the Bible is not a book of science, but that is nothing more than a liberal mantra that is chanted routinely by those who don't like being men/women of the Book. You can't just accept the plain exegesis and exposition of Scripture when it gels with your a priori viewpoints - you've either go to accept it all or you've got to reject it all. To do otherwise is nothing more than attempting to have your cake and eat it too.

I would have no problem with what you're saying about macroevolution if you could somehow make it work with Scripture, but the simple fact is that you can't make it work at all - that's why you've simply chosen to say that the Bible has nothing literal to say about matters of science. Here's just a few of the reasons why you have no biblical ground to stand on:

1. You can't interpret the days of the creation account in Gen. 1-2 as aeons - they must be viewed as 7 24-hour days. The reason is because everywhere else in the OT that the word translated day (yom) appears with a numerical qualifier as it does throughout the creation account, all honest Bible scholars will tell you that it is ALWAYS a reference to a literal 24 hour day. You can't make an exception for the creation account just because you don't like what it says.

2. If you accept macroevolution, you have a situation in which death entered the world before the Fall of man. You may have no problem with that, but the Apostle Paul would take strong exception with such a position. If you don't think so, read Rom. 8:20-22 - death to all creation clearly entered the world only after the Fall of man (cf. Rom. 6:23). To argue otherwise is to say that God created Adam and Eve and then placed them in an imperfect world that was already full of death, disease, and utter chaos. Faithful exegesis and exposition won't allow such a heretical position.

3. The Bible plainly states that Adam and Eve were created in the image of God (Gen. 1:26). If Adam and Eve were nothing more than the products of macroevolutionary survival of the fittest, at what point did this creation in God's image take place? The image of God demands that men were not the products of some macroevolutionary scheme as you say they are.

I won't belabor this discussion because just the few reasons are more than enough biblical evidence to demonstrate that macroevolution simply won't jive with the plain exegesis of Scripture.

And by the way, trying to say that we need to get about the business of missions and evangelism and drop all the fuss about how God created the Earth and everything else is nothing more than an attempt at ducking the command to be faithful to God's Word. Would you not agree that what we believe about God and His creative work has a lot to do with the content of the Gospel that we preach and teach? Liberals have been using your "missions/evangelism" argument for years in their attempts at downplaying the importance of God's inerrant Word in the lives of all Christians. They claim their allegiance to the "Living Word" and say that all discussions about the "written Word" are only secondary. Of course, the obvious problem is that we would know nothing of the Living Word were it not for the Written Word (accept of course that He exists - creation testifies to that)! Back to macroevolution: If you say that it matters not what someone thinks about how God created things as long as they believe that He created it, you deceive yourself! Either ours is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, or he is the chaotic god of deism that simply wound the clock and now allows it to run out of control (which by the way is the law of entropy isn't it - everything moves from order to disorder).

My challenge to you is to either support macroevolution by arguing its validity from the Bible, or to accept the plain teaching of Scripture in regard to creation. You can't have it both ways if you are going to be faithful to God. (By the way, it doesn't surprise me that the Assembly of God folks took you right in - a commitment to sound doctrine has never been one of their chief characteristics)

 

That's a false premise. Scripture was not written to lend support to the scientific method. One cannot use scripture to support Mendelian genetics theories, relativity theories, electromagnetism theories, plate tectonics theories, precipitation theories, convection theories, or germ theories. All of those, btw, are currently valid scientific theories that are not scientific law, yet we incorporate many of them in our daily lives.

At one time, the Christian community said that natural selection was false and against scripture. Natural selection has since been observed. The Christian community said that microevolution was false and against scripture. Natural selection has since been observed. The Christian community said that Mendel's genetics claims were false and against scripture, yet they have been since accepted.

Most arguements against evolutionary theories (there are several) are often not based on science. I personally welcome arguments, both pro and con, if they are supported with data. It's been my observation that, generally, those on this board who favor evolutionary theories have done better at supporting their claims than those who favor a 6000 year-ago, 6 day creation. If those folks would do a better job of presenting evidentiary support, instead of just posting tirades against the opposition, I think most would welcome it.

 

No.

Genesis is foundational and goes to the core of who we believe God is and what we believe about His character and attributes.

One who superimposes evolution over the biblical account has adopted the view that a theory designed by fallible men (operating on the assumption that all that exists must have an explanation not dependent on the supernatural) provides necessary limits to the omniscience and omnipotence of God.

The Bible teaches of a God that can speak reality into being and is not limited by natural law to any degree.

I am far less concerned about the belief in a theory than I am the limitations one might place on God's creative ability. I am not saying that there are not other possible interpretations of natural history and the Bible. I just see no compelling reason, scientific or otherwise, to accept the limitations placed on God by evolution.

 

Todd:

Dear brother,

Perhaps you are not carefully reading my posts. I certainly did not slam Tennessee! Chattanooga has a very special place in my heart , and immediately before reading your message, I was on the NET viewing properties for sale in Chattanooga . But as for Dayton . . . that is another story all together!

Some people think that my humor is drier than a parched desert, but that is the humor that God has given to me. I am sorry that it has offended you.

 

This makes about as much sense as telling me that I can't park both a Ford and a Chevy in the same two car garage!

 

I find it most unfortunate that you equate the commandments of our Savior with unsound doctrine!

Perhaps I should rethink buying that vacation home in Tennessee!

 

This makes about as much sense as telling me that I can't park both a Ford and a Chevy in the same two car garage!

</font>[/QUOTE]Exactly... considering that one of them is a school bus.

The Bible says that man's sin brought death to the world, Romans 5:12. Evolution says that death existed prior to man's arrival on the scene. These are mutually exclusive things. The bigger problem is that the doctrine of original sin as presented in Romans is absolutely critical to salvation by grace.

There are several others if you want them. If you insist on believing the theory of evolution, you are left explaining how the Bible cannot mean what it says.

 

Craig, Hypothetical question.

Imagine that an artist made a sculpture and that it was lost. Later, someone found the sculpture and since no one was known to have ever inhabited the are where it was found, they assumed that it occurred naturally.

Assuming only the forces of current natural law, would they surmise that the sculpture was very old or very young? Even though erosion could account for the detail it would certainly take many years. The materials also might take years to naturally occur in the form that a sculptor might accomplish in a matter of minutes.

My point is that when we create things, we create them fully "mature" and ready for use. Depending on the endeavor, our efforts can make something "appear" old if natural forces could account for the same work over a long period of time.