Evolutionism vs the Gospel

Bob,

"It would have been nice if as the YEC student - you had stopped to read some of Philip Johnson's work to discover the "politics and propaganda" that have historicaly mixed together to form what we call "the science of evolutionism" today. Seeing the weaknesses from behind the scenes might have been "instructive" at that early stage."

You're right there are politics and propaganda behind it. Remember I worked in the 'biz!

I'm sure you guys do alot of good and help alot of people - but I just think there is a group who will see the holes in the YEC science.

And like I said I'm not advocating ditching the YEC stance - I'm just saying that for now science says OEC. We don't have to agree with science, which is inherently theoretical, but we cannot pretend it doesn't exist.

 

"The smoller/temple paper is not intended to be a support of Humphrey's cosmology, but in fact it does support the very theories Humphreys has been talking about for a decade. The main poits of such is that the universe has a center and an edge... current thought on the "Big Bang" is the opposite. Unwittingly (perhaps), this paper lends much credibility to Humphrey's model. Yet again, we see science being lead by creationists science toward truth. Your call for me to withdraw my assertion is from ignorance. However, your ability to search the internet to find any instance where atheists and non-christians argued with me is commendable. By the way - ... the guy I was arguing with on the YouDebate forum didn't believe the Bible either - so it seems you guys have something in common beyond the fact that you are arguing with me."

Where to begin?

The first part is that I was not looking for posts by you. I was simple Googling the paper name and Humphrey's name to see if I could find places where the idea was either supported or rejected. It just so happened that the first hit I got was the forum where you tried this before. I could not pass up the opportunity to copy from there when I saw that the authors themselves had contributed an email rejecting the claims.

Second, quit saying I do not believe the Bible. It is simply not true as I have pointed out to you many times before. I merely disagree with you. Big difference. Or do I need to lace all my posts with accusations that you do not believe the Bible since you do not agree with me?

The key part of Humphrey is the time dialation part. The letter from the authors reject that idea at the very first of their email, I beleive. Humphrey is lacking in cosmology and relativity knowledge and it shows in his paper. Why do you choose to believe someone with no training in these areas when people who are trained in them find the ideas so laughable? He may be an excellent engineer in his area, but that does not mean he is an expert in the other areas. It is the fallacy of an appeal to authority since he has no expertice in these areas.

I fail to see how this paper supports Humphrey except that they claim a finite mass instead of an infinite mass which leads to a finite universe. That is like saying baseball and basketball are the same game because they both use a round ball. Maybe you could make a case for us.

Also, important to recognize is that his whole attempt is because the universe is so clearly old that he must try and find a way to have an old universe and a young earth created at the same time.

"No, I cannot find anyone who hates God and disagrees with evolution"

Who said anyhing about hating God? Are you saying that everyone who accepts evolution hates God? That is quite a charge! No, I am simply looking for that person who believes the earth is young based solely on physical evidence.

 

"In the Evolutionism appeals to Junk Science thread I show where evolutionism "dances around" rather than holding to strict line with good science. But as you say - this is not always the case. Particulary in cases where the research is "a work in progress" they simply "extrapolate" to points favorable to evolutionism. Then they attempt to cloud over the "guesswork" and with a little handwaiving "call all of it science" when in fact there is a serious "mix" going on there."

Just where over there have you shown this? I believe I have been the one showing where the YEC leaders out and out lie and misrepresent while you dance around trying to selectively quote people as saying that entropy is a problem for evolution while all of your sources in context actually say that it not only is not a problem but is a driving force towards evolution.

 

Bob Ryan disses Augustine:

Among the orthodox, Augustine has a much better reputation than you do. Better in fact, than almost any other theologian.

"Augustine’s doctrinal approach was also to survive the Reformation, influencing both sides of the argument. Martin Luther was part of the Augustinian order of the Roman Catholic Church, and during the Reformation he continued the teachings of the famed bishop with respect to faith and sin. Even John Calvin was deeply indebted to Augustine. Today, Christian existentialism and even evangelical Christianity owe a debt to Augustine in their approach to Scripture and doctrine."

Peter Nathan

And this is a church historian who disagrees with Augustine.

In Augustine's time, in the Roman empire, literacy was widespread, to the point that we can find graffiti almost everywhere. And there seem to have been numerous letters written by rank and file soldiers, if the remains we have found are any indication.

In Augustine's time, the entire Mediterranian coast of Africa was settled and urban and there were both private and public schools of various kinds.


You've been misled.

 

Bob, you still haven't clarified your position on whether the stars were created during the six days of creation. Can you answer this question? I think it is quite a valid question since you have accused many of us of not taking Exodus 20:11 literally (which is true) and as such of not taking the Bible seriously (which is false), and yet it appears that you also don't take this verse literally either! At least, whenever you've been confronted about this you either answer obliquely or don't answer at all.

I already have. If you've forgotten, you can read some of my comments on this verse [here]. In fact, after answering the questions you posed to me in that last incarnation of this topic, you were nice enough to say that you appreciate that I've "been kind enough to at least respond to the point" [from here]. I'd love to return the compliment to you, Bob. But first, you need to respond to the point.

Do you believe the stars were created during the six days of creation, as a plain reading of Exodus 20:11 indicates?

 

Surely he did answer it, for I read it myself and agree with the answer. The world, the universe, and all that is therein (including all the stars) were created in six days just as Exodus 20:11 tells us. I take the statement just as it says--literally. Does God lie?
DHK

 

DHK

The issue is that Bob says that the stars were not created on day 4, if I am remembering correctly. He has some other theory.

 

Wrong. Augustine, who was entirely convinced of God and the supremacy of scripture over science, pointed out that the text was inconsistent with literal days.</font>[/QUOTE]Yet again, you are willing to take man's word over Gods Word. In fact, we have shown you repeatedly from Genesis... from Exodus... From Romans... from 1Corinthians... from the Gopsels... how and why the text is literal. You continue to lack any sort of credible Biblical evidence whatsoever.

We didn't say that the entire text was literal... we said that Genesis 1 is literal and the Flood is literal. Furthermore, we have shown you repeatedly scripture that supports that - including Christ quoting Genesis as literal, Paul quoting Genesis as literal, Exodus quoting Genesis as literal (in the 10 commandments, for example). The whole of scripture treats Genesis 1 as a literal account. We have shown you this repeatedly. Your claim here is un-credible. You continue to present your case without any evidence whatsoever. Your argument is based on the ideas of man which clearly contradict scripture.

Actually, you have yet to show us where the text says it cannot be literal. YOu have shown us that YOU (or other men) say it cannot be literal, but no where have you shown scripture stating or implying that Genesis was not literal.

We have shown you repeatedly where the Bible confirms that it is indeed literal.

The problem with that is we have no idea what question was posed to them. In fact, I would imagine that Temple would deny it because it's been part of creationist cosmology for a decade. He wants credit for the idea.

Keep in mind that we have repeatedly shown you where and why the text is literal. You guys have yet to show us scripture that supports your case. Therefore, we can safely assume that it does not exist. Therefore, it is a fair deduction that you do not believe the Bible - as you are not able to show us what part of the Bible you DO beleive. You are only to take what we show you and say you don't believe it. Unfortunately, we have shown you why this text is literal so the only logical conclusion then is that you do not believe the Bible. Again, YOU have given us no reason not to come to this conclusion.

His paper? I don't remember talking about any humphrey's paper. Hrm... Humphreys did write a book on it, is that what you mean?

Humphreys has a PhD in physics. He has worked for Sandia National Laboratories since 1979 in nuclear physics, geophysics, pulsed power research, theoretical atomic and nuclear physics, and the Particle Beam Fusion Project.

http://www.icr.org/creationscientists/humphreys.html

No... I simply stated that anyone who hates God believes in evolution. Why? Because this is precisely the origin of the belief system of evolution - it is from Satan. Evil begets evil... good begets good. The belief system of evolution was born out of evil. Each step along the way to evolution was propagated by someone who wanted to explain the universe WITHOUT God, or someone who rebelled against the Bible.

For example, Darwin rebelled against God when his daughter died of an illness and became a humanist.

It seems to me like he has answered that question twice. He said that, yes, the stars were also created during the six days in Genesis.

 

"Yet again, you are willing to take man's word over Gods Word."

Since we are all men here, it seems to be a reasonable idea to seek the opinion of respected theologians. It is no more taking the word of man over God than it would be for me to accept your interpretation. No disrespect, but I imagine that you are not as well respected as St. Augustine.

"The problem with that is we have no idea what question was posed to them."

Apperently the key part because they deny the possibility of time dialation up front. That is the key part for Humphrey.

"His paper? I don't remember talking about any humphrey's paper. Hrm... Humphreys did write a book on it, is that what you mean?"

Paper, book, whatever. You know what I meant.

"Humphreys has a PhD in physics. He has worked for Sandia National Laboratories since 1979 in nuclear physics, geophysics, pulsed power research, theoretical atomic and nuclear physics, and the Particle Beam Fusion Project."

Hmmm. Nothing in that resume about cosmology or relativity. So why again is he qualified to write a book on such topics? Why again should we accept his word on the matter when those who are trained in those areas completely reject his notions?

The key point is that the paper you cited in no way supports Humphrey. It is a superficial resemblance at best. Humphrey's cosmology does not work and has no basis in fact nor any observational evidence. The most important thing to gain from it is to see that even Humphrey knows that the universe is actually billions of years old and is trying to do some serious twisting to have a young earth created at the same time.

 

Barbarian observes:
Wrong. Augustine, who was entirely convinced of God and the supremacy of scripture over science, pointed out that the text was inconsistent with literal days.

No, I'm taking Augustine's opinion over yours. You aren't God.

I know you claimed this, but each time I looked, none of them say that Genesis is literal. I asked you to show me that mentioning an allegory makes it litearl, and you declined to do it.

As you learned, the text itself says that it cannot be literal. Indeed, as you demonstrated, literalists have to add material to the text to make it more acceptable to them.

Barbarian on the notion that if some of the Bible is figurative, it all must be:
Nowhere did you show us where it says it is in all parts literal. So that argument crashes, too.

The text itself rules that out.

I know you want us to believe that, but in each case, they don't say it's literal. They just cite it without saying one way or the other. And since the text itself shows that it cannot be literal, that leaves you no wiggle room.

You're now assuming what you proposed to prove.

See above. You repeatedly added material to Genesis to make it more acceptable. That seems unwise to me.

I and others showed you how Genesis cannot be literal, since a literal interpretation gives you logical contradictions.

We've been over that before. You have seen that the text cannot support a literal interpretation, but you rely on the opinion of men who think it's all right to add material.

We have repeatedly shown you how and why the text cannot be literal. You guys have yet to show us scripture that supports your case. Therefore, we can safely assume that it does not exist. Therefore, it is a fair deduction that you do not believe the Bible - as you are not able to show us what part of the Bible you DO beleive. You are only to take what we show you and say you don't believe it. We have shown you why this text cannot be literal so the only logical conclusion then is that you do not believe the Bible. Again, YOU have given us no reason not to come to this conclusion.


Who said anyhing about hating God? Are you saying that everyone who accepts evolution hates God?

Do you think some Muslims hate God? Some of them don't believe in evolution. More to the point, people who love God also accept evolution. In fact people of all opinions on God accept evolution. That's because evolution is a science.

Oh, my... evolution is just the way God does some things in our world. Satan has no say in it at all.

How sad that you have to attribute evil to science, and to the Christians who first understood evolution. If you are a Christian, you have nothing to fear from the truth.

Darwin, when he wrote his book was a Christian. Wallace remained a Christian all his life.

Nope. Darwin, late in life, said he was "leaning toward" agnosticism. This had nothing to do with his theory however, since he was a believer when he wrote it.

 

Let me ask you evolutionists a question -

What is your stance on homosexuality? Do you believe it is OK if a priest/minister/pastor is a homosexual, for example? Do you believe it is acceptable behavior for a Christian?


The reason I ask is because this issue is directly related to this debate about the literalness of Genesis.

 

Gup,

I'm not a complete evolutionist but I'll answer anyway.

No. Homosexuality is not OK; it is very much a sin.

I don't see a problem here with literalness. The NT was written for the purpose of witness - it is making a case for Christ. Genesis was written over 1000 years earlier for nomadic Semites whose frame of mind and writing style were quite different than Eastern Mediterranean Greek speakers. I think, knowing what we do about near eastern epic writing, and other creation accounts that Genesis should not be seen as literal - but then that's a whole different topic.

 

When I asked again about whether BobRyan believes the stars were created during the six days of creation, two people responded:

This shows the reason I am interested in Bob answering this question directly. His statements on the issue to date have been unclear, leading some of us to think he means the stars were created long before the six days of creation, and others (including DHK and Gup20) to think that Bob agrees with them and takes Exodus 20:11 literally. Bob, can you confirm whether or not DHK and Gup20 got the right impression from your posts about what you believe on this issue?

 

Then if Genesis shouldn’t be taken literal, then using your logic, it’s safe to say that if there was no literal Adam and Eve, then there was no literal Fall and if there’s no literal Fall, then there’s no literal Hell and if there’s no literal Hell, what’s the point of Christ dieing for the sins of the whole world?

 

That logic greatly exaggerates the position Charles stated.
In a non literalist view of the OT, there still is a creation, there still is a fall, but is presented in parable form.
He stated this is completely different from the New Testament in style and meaning. The NT is written as testimony to what was literally seen and/or experienced, by humans who had seen or experienced it. The OT was not.
Gina

 

I beg to differ Gina, when we see verses in Genesis such as Gen 2:4 These are the generations of… Gen 5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; Gen 6:9 These are the generations of Noah… etc…

The history of the heaven and earth comprises the things regarding creation that no man witnessed (Gen 1 through Gen 2:4), and therefore was given by revelation to either Adam or Moses. This history ended at Genesis 2:4 and from there to Genesis 5:1 is Adams direct account, meaning he literally seen and/or experienced these events that transpired, which was preserved and eventually passed down to Moses who acted as an editor.

The same applies to Gen 6:9, this is Noah’s direct account, meaning he literally seen and/or experienced the events that transpired during his time on earth.

 

What a bizarre question. There is no "evolutionist" take on homosexuality. In my experience scientists vary all the way from a few homophobes to a few homsexual activists, with the vast majority somewhere in between.

There is no consensus among scientists on homosexuality, although most now acknowledge that sexual orientation is probably set very early in life.

My take on it is that while homosexual behavior is a sin, a celibate homosexual is as blameless as a celibate unmarried heterosexual.

No problem as far as I'm concerned, but remember I'm Catholic, so I would expect him to be celibate. I would have the same concerns about a recovering alcoholic. If he abstains, he doesn't sin.

I don't think the behavior is acceptable for anyone. But merely being a celibate homosexual is quite acceptable. A person who is tempted but does not sin is doing as God wishes.

Not that I can see.

 

Yet still YOU are personally responsible for what YOU personally believe. Would you rather believe what God says, or what other men say that God says? You should never trust the opinion of any person who puts knowlege, academia, or human intelligence before scripture.

We have SHOWN you why - based on scripture - we believe what we believe. You have said that you believed something else and based that on man's observation, and man's opinion OF the scripture, yet you still have given no scriptural basis for your belief.

In fact, they do not deny the possibility of time dialation as you suggest. They state that time dialation has nothing to do with their paper - that it is a factor they have not at all considered. You have tried to portray it as a factor they considered and dismissed. In fact, that is not true.

I pointed out that their paper supports humphrey's cosomology... not that it was identical to humphrey's cosmology.

So are you granting me free lincense then to interpret your mistakes any way I see fit, or would you rather attempt to be correct, or say what you really mean?

I notice there continues to be no Biblical verses to back up these claims... I expect there never will be, as the Bible paints a very different picture from start to finish. So it is your 'word of man' against our quoted scripture.

No, I am not God... I am simply quoting God to you - something which you are unable to do in support of your argument.

You should probably go back and read it again. For example, Mat 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made [them] at the beginning made them male and female,. Jesus quotes Genesis 1 as a literal text. He says "haven't you read this?" His entire reasoning for what he was preaching was because what was written there was real. He says "haven't you read the Bible says that God created a man and a woman". For THIS REASON, the institution of marriage came to be. The religous leaders of Jesus' day were trying to redefine marriage and ask Jesus if divorcing your wife was ok for any reason.

We see the definition of marriage being challenged today as well. Many Biblical principles are being challenged. Like marriage, many of them have their foundation in literal interpretation of the scripture. For example, if Genesis is not literally true, then God didn't really create a man and a woman distinctly, and anything regarding marriage is ok - including homosexual marriage - because God didn't create a man and a woman... God created a bowl of lively primordal soup. On the other hand, if God created a man and a woman distinctly, then we have pretty good reason for marriage to be between one man and one woman.

Many issues, like this one, stem from a literal or non-literal Genesis in conjunction with the whole of scripture.

As you have learned... repeatedly... no where in the text does it say that it cannot be literal. As a matter of fact, the text shows time and time again why it is indeed literal (for example, Jesus and Paul quoting it as literal. Your interpretation that the 'text itself' says it's not literal is based on a naturalistic judgment of the validity of scripture. You have decided for yourself what God can and cannot do. For example, you say that Noah's flood couldn't have happened because the boat would be leaky. Yet the scriptures say that God himself sealed it. So then, you disblelieve that God has the capability of sealing the ark, despite the fact that the scriptures clearly describe this. You are attempting to rationalize a supernatural event based on purely naturalistic criteria.

What it always seems to boil down to is that you do not believe what God says in His Word. You do not beleive God is capable of what he says he did. You do not believe that God did what he says he did. You, rather, beleive in an agnostic view of the earth... that God set everything in motion and nature took over from there.

Gal, we have not added anything. I sure hope you will get this and acknowledge it. You see, the scripture says six days... it confirms it self... it repeats itself. We echo that it was six days, and suddenly you cry that we have added something. No, Galatian, we have added nothing. We have simply echoed scripture to you.... quite a bit of it, in fact. You pretend like you are arguing with us, but we are simply echoing the clearest, plainest reading of scripture.... so then it is not US you are arguing against, it is God's Word.

Is it not hard to 'kick against the pricks'?

It does no such thing. It declares that is exactly what happened. YOU have ruled out the possibility, not the scripture. In fact, you still have shown us no scripture that advocates your position, or affirms that the 'text rules itself out'. As I stated previously, you are applying your human knowledge of NATURE to a supernatural (divinely influenced) event and are trying to judge the validity of the supernatural even by it's natural probability. You are wrong.

In fact the scripture describes creation and the flood as actual events. The rest of the word confirms that they are to be treated as actual events, yet you claim they were not actual events. You give no scriptural basis for your claim other than to say 'it is not possible' (which is what you are saying when you state that the text rules itself out). You have no scriptural or Biblical basis for your claim. Your claim is based on a humanistic reading of scripture - that because know what happened there doesn't happen in nature it couldn't have happened in scripture.

You are using humanism to prove the Bible doesn't mean what it says. You are using the ideas of man (evolution did not originate from scripture) to trump scripture! You are using man's word as absolute, and God's word as flexible, allegorical, fairy tale, non-literal, or whatever else you want to call it. In fact, however, the opposite is true. Man's ideas are fallible, God's word is Absolute. Man's ideas must flex and bend when they come in conflict with God's Word. Man is wrong when he says millions of years because God says six days.

Lets look at the scripture -

Gen 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, [it was] very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Day here clearly means literal day (by the context of Morning, Evening, number).

Exd 20:9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
Exd 20:10 But the seventh day [is] the sabbath of the LORD thy God: [in it] thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that [is] within thy gates:
Exd 20:11 For [in] six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them [is], and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

From the context of Ex 20:11 we see that they are referring to literal six days (a literal week) and a sabbath. The six days of creation mentioned there are literal just as they are literal in Genesis 1.

Mat 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made [them] at the beginning made them male and female,
Mar 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

Gen 1:27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Looks like a pretty literal translation to me - if God din't create them distinctly as Genesis says, then this makes no sense. If it isn't literal, then Adam and Eve are no different from any other animals. That suggests then that we should mate with as many females as possible to insure the survival of our genes. Yet Jesus says "they Two shall be one flesh". Two for life has never been the model of 'survival of the fittest'.

2Pe 2:5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth [person], a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;

Hrm... that sounds pretty literal - like he actually believed in Noah and the flood.

Mat 24:38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
Mat 24:39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Here the Bible says that the 2nd coming of Christ is 'as was the flood'. Hrm.... if the flood wasn't literal, then the 2nd coming of christ must not be literal either, eh?

And I will continue doing so because I am keenly aware that you will not be able to show me any scriputre to the contrary of a literal Genesis. I have indeed read it all, and there is nothing that contradicts a literal Genesis in scriputre.

You, however, have been soundly defeated in this debate, as you (and any other evolutionists) have been unable (and will be unable) to produce scriptural evidence showing that Genesis is not literal. We have produced a large ammount of scripture showing you how/why it is indeed literal, while you guys haven't shown even one verse that says otherwise.

You're now assuming what you proposed to prove.

IN fact, we have scripturally proven what we proposed because you have offered nothing from scripture with which to disprove it.

And how logical is it to contradict God? He says he did it a certian way... he says he influenced it supernaturally... what natural argument can you give that can logically disprove that the God who created the universe didn't do what he said He did? I choose to beleive God rather than man. God says He did X. Man says X is impossible. I believe God.

Luk 1:37 For with God nothing shall be impossible.

You have yet to show me a single scripture that supports a non-literal interpretation, I have shown you many that insist you do take a literal interpretation. Furthermore, you have not demonstrated where we have added material to scripture. We have shown you at great length much scripture that supports our position. You have shown us no scripture that supports your position.

I get what you are doing here, Galatian, and it's a pretty lame debating tactic. You are simply repeating everything I say and twisting it to support your own position. However, in this case, it can't work because we actually HAVE shown you quite a bit of scripture that agrees with our position, whereas you have shown none. As a matter of fact, the ONLY time you have ever brought up scripture was to say that you didn't believe it.

The only time I can remember you bringing up any scripture was to bring up verses that speak about Noah and say that they contradict themselves because no one has ever built a boat that size that didn't leak. So you didn't even use the scripture to advance your point, but you used it as a whipping post example to tear apart and show how untrue it is. You never showed scripture which describes Genesis as non-literal. You never showed scripture which described the flood as a non-real event. You never showed Jesus or Paul speaking about Genesis as though they were 'good stories of non-literal events'.

In contrast, we showed you how Genesis portrays itself as literal by linguistic and grammatical rules. We showed how Genesis potrays itself as literal by logic reasons (for example the day referred to in Genesis is described as the period of time which the sun was created to rule). We showed how God Himself (in giving the 10 commandments) gave us a literal time frame in the commandment about the Sabbath in Exodus 20:11. We showed how Jesus, Peter, and Paul all quoted Genesis as literal events in their teachings.

Tough question. I guess my statement needs some qualification -

Those who actually know who God is, and hate him, all believe in evolution (the group I had in mind is atheists). While Muslims do hate God, they do so because they mainly are decieved into believing Satan (or one of his representatives) is God.

Let me give you this perspective:

All atheists say there is no God. The Bible says "the fool has said in his heart there is no God". All atheists believe in evolution. Therefore we can mathmatically prove that "All those who believe in evolution are fools".

Lets check my math...

Atheist = X
evolutionist = E
fool = F

So then, if all X = F, and all X = E... then all E = F!

Ok... that was for entertainment purposes folks... don't take it personally.

I didn't say science was evil... I said the religion of Humanism (and it's subdoctrine 'evolution') is evil.

Yet we all agree that evolution doesn't come from scripture... therefore evolution didn't come from truth... it came from 'something else other than truth'.

Darwin rebelled against God because he thought God cruel and merciless for the death of his daughter. He decided then that God was not a loving, caring, or present God... therefore he went down the path to believing in Millions of years and developing his 'origin of racism' book.