To the past evolutionists posters:
I would ask that you address Todd's post and the Bible Prophecy/God breathed argument for the benefit of future posters to the string.
Sincerely,
Ken
Creationism - Why it is valid.
Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by kendemyer, Feb 4, 2004.
Page 2 of 7
-
Ken, Todd
You have posted a long list of links to creationist websites and a few quotes. Since that was the first post of the thread, I would like to keep it on that topic since it is the one you choose for the thread. But I will briefly address your questions.
I honestly do not feel that allowing for an old earth timescale introduces any errors into the Bible. I was once YEC myself and I am just going where the evidence leads as far as all this goes. Now, admittedly, I do not know how it all fits together as far as rectifying what I am convinced is the truth from the world of science with what I am convinced is the Truth of the Bible. I think that the creation story is given to us by God to establish God as the Creator, man as sinful and in need of saving grace and man as having a special relationship with God by being given a soul in the image of God. I think that death means that the curse of man's sinful nature is spiritural death, eternal seperation from God.
Sorry if I assumed wrong that you are "Ken." -
-
just-want-peace Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
As I see it, you can look at the evidence and come to 1 of 2 conclusions:
1) The evidence appears to condone evolution and/or an old earth, so I accept this "evidence" in lieu of God's version, or
2) The evidence appears to condone evolution and/or an old earth, but I accept God's word even though I don't understand it!
Sorry, but as I see it you either believe man,(science-man's interpretation of evidence) or you are believe God, just as He told us. :confused: -
evolution. -
evolution. </font>[/QUOTE]It is merely an arbitrary assumption that the death Paul writes of in Romans 5 is anything but the death of MEN. It is a perfectly consistent view to say that the death of MEN is the only death of which Paul is there speaking. -
That argument, Paul, is just too lame to stand. Have faith in God, not in the anti-God theory of evolution.
-
There is good reason why I cringe whenever YECers begin quoting scientists as evidence against evolution. The quotes seem to always be out of context. Every such one I come across makes me that more skeptical the next quote I see. You have given me a new one tonight.
"In several animal and plant groups, enough fossils are known to bridge the wide gaps between existing types. In mammals, for example, the gap between horses, asses and zebras (genus Equus) and their closest living relatives, the rhinoceroses and tapirs, is filled by an extensive series of fossils extending back sixty-million years to a small animal, Hyracotherium, which can only be distinguished from the rhinoceros-tapir group by one or two horse-like details of the skull. There are many other examples of fossil 'missing links', such as Archaeopteryx, the Jurassic bird which links birds with dinosaurs (Fig. 45), and Ichthyostega, the late Devonian amphibian which links land vertebrates and the extinct choanate (having internal nostrils) fishes. . ." from Evolution by Dr. Patterson (1978, Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.).
So I guess he believes in evolution after all. What he was actually saying is that it is not possible to assign a particular fossil as without a doubt the ancestor of some other creature. An example would be Archaeopteryx. We cannot know for sure whether it is directly ancestral to modern birds or whether it is actually a side branch that died out. This, however, in no way lessens its importance as a transitional fossil.
In direct response to YECers using his quote he says
-
Another out of context quote. Fun, I had not seen this one before either. You quoted
-
Originally posted by TODD:
Some of even your own readers on your side will be able to see that. Are you sure you want to keep on saying evolution is atheistic, contrary to all logic?
Secondly, the idea that a literal interpretation of scripture can be used to judge a scientific finding against all evidence has been tried and found wanting. All the clergy, Protestants, Catholics, whatever, opposed the discovery that the earth moves around the sun. They did this based on the literal interpretation of the scripture:
I urge you to stop claiming such a large share of their shame. It is not helping the cause of Christ to claim that we must deny good science in order to have good religion.
The science behind age of the earth and common descent of all life is so sound that those of us who have understood it are not psychologically capable of denying it. It would be like asking me to believe that the sky can't be blue or that water is an element instead of a compound of hydrogen and oxygen.
Its not a sweeping deduction based on one fact, either. Nor is it a conclusion only lately reached.
Proof in the ultimate sense is always impossible. You can't even prove the Bible is inerrant. But there are degrees of certainty. There are odds for and against given ideas. In the present state of uncertainty, I estimate the probability is about 90% now that no weapons of mass destruction will be found in Iraq. The probability that the earth is over 100,000 years old is 99.99 per cent or more. There are many, many lines of evidence that converge on an earth age of 4.5 billion years and a common descent of all life. It's not JUST the viral infections that left their marks in the genome. Its also about hundreds of other chemically indicated relationships, including for example vitamin C synthesis failure amoung related species. Its about common morphology. Its about a deeply consistent nested hierachy of relationships, first discovered in anotomy and fossils, then verified in analysis of protein relationships, then verified in dna patterns. Its about vestiges, both subtle and flagrant. Its about plainly differing epochs in the history of life shown by vastly different fossil records for different epochs.
I'm sorry for your interpretation of the Bible that the evidence is you've interpreted it incorrectly. That doesn't change the fact that it is possible to change the way the Bible is interpreted to be consistent with the known facts. It's not the first time in history that has happened. -
As i look through thequotes, you begin to understand why I detest the quote mining of YECers so much. Here is another out of context quote that I had not seen before. You quoted
So what was being said. It was not that the fossil record has problems as was being aledged by the quoter. It was that there are at least three better evidences for evolution than the fossil record and that those who build a good case tend to rely on these lines of evidence. Mark Ridley certainly accepts evolution and to quote him otherwise is to dishonestly quote him. -
There were several quotes in your first posting that have been shown to incorrect that you still left in your second posting. I think it would be nice to remove those quotes that are either shown to be false or that are shown to be misleading and out of context if you wish to maintain the integrity of the listing. I have been skipping the YECer quotes in your list because they require a different kind of response. I would need to know what the basis was for what they had to say. As it stands, their quotes are merely empty assertions without any backing evidence and therefore add nothing to the discussion. I think it would be less misleading to label the quotes from YECers as such since the list is presented as quotes from scientists. It could be confusing to the reader.
On with the quotes. You quoted:
-
UTEOTW,
I will agree that a quote out of context and used in opposition to what it originally said is wrong, and should never be used. But, then again, let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
We have had this shouting match before. You and Paul of Eugene are die-hard evolutionists, adn everyone who has been around the Board for a while know this. It is just that the vast majority of the rest of us are not. If you desire to deny what God has handed down to us in His word, that is your choice. Personally, I believe that the entire Bible is God's word, and that He knew what He was saying.
In Christ,
Trotter -
Dear Sirs:
I did not think the debate would still be going on. I thought Todd's comment would kill it. Along with God not inspiring error. As far as the quotes I clearly said they were of evolutionist in most cases. The YEC and certain brands of macroevolutionists do agree on some portions of the debate. Like the one quote of the evolutionist who said that evolutionists do not rely on the fosssil record in his opinion.
Carry on. But I think you should have more faith in God's word. The Bible declares, Cursed is the man who trust in man (paraphrase)."
Paul writes,"Where is the wise man? Where is the philosopher? where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?"
The bible also warns of putting your trust in knowledge that is falsely called knowledge. There have been a lot of isms but they died and withered away. Christianity lives on.
Let's take a look at the evolutionists. First there was darwinism. It failed. Then there was lamarkianism. It also failed. Then there was neo-darwinism. Another failure. We also had Goldschmidt's monster mechanism. Abysmal failure. Now we have Punctuated equilibrium which also is a failure. Using the inductive method of logic that science employs I predict the next macroevolutionary model will also fail.
There is nothing wrong with bulding on your failure if you are going somewhere. But when you go against the word of God you are building your house on sand. -
This leads me to a second and foundational thing that I want to address. As you and others have said throughout this string, it is not contradictory for a Christian to hold a macroevolutionary view of creation in which men are descendants of apes. I beg to differ though. Macroevolution is nothing more than an atheistic theory that has only gained any acclaim in the last 150 years since Darwin's "Origin of Species." If you don't believe me, do me a favor - look at all the great writings of men and women throughout Christian history and if you can find one renound theologian from yesteryear (before 1850) who will affirm any view of macroevolution, I will be much more receptive to your arguments. What I believe you will find though is that macroevolutionary arguments of creation were unheard of in Christian circles until the time of Darwin and others. As a result, some theologians attempted to make marcoevolution "fit" into a Christian worldview, but time and again they have failed because their attempts simply will not hold up to any trustworthy exegesis of Scripture.
Another glaring problem for the macroevolutionist seeking to make his view fit into the Bible is that the biblical Hebrew used in Gen. 1 simply won't allow it. The word used for day in Genesis 1 in the Hebrew is yom and anytime that word appears in the OT with a numerical qualifier (as it does throughout the creation account of Gen. 1) then it is ALWAYS a reference to a 24 hour period of time - any trustworthy OT word study will tell you that.
Further, how can macroevolution be true (apes to men) when the Bible clearly says that men were "created" (in Hebrew bara ) by God, created in His very "image?" (see Gen. 1:26) If men are descendants of apes, where along the way did men "pick up" the image of God? This is another glaring theological problem that the macroevolutionist must give an account for if he/she would seek to work their view of creation into the Scriptures. The way that macroevolutionists have been doing this for 150 years is by saying that the first 11 chapters of Genesis are allegorical or mythological. It's amazing how macroevolutionists will make that claim about the first 11 chapters of Genesis, yet I have never heard them make the same claims about the crucifixion or resurrection accounts!
From this, it's very plain to see that macroevolutionists seek to twist the clear and exegetically sound meaning of Scripture to fit into their own worldviews. Can a Christian believe in macroevolution? I will leave judgment to God on that one, but I will say this - no Christian seeking to be honest to the Scriptures can believe in macroevolution. All the above examples clearly demonstrate that macroevolution is a violation of Scripture, so if a Christian wants to believe in macroevolution, they can only do so in violation of the Bible - end of discussion! -
</font>[/QUOTE]Thank you for bringing our attention to Sripture. Let's actually check and see what it really says. Have you read 5:12?
And while Paul wrote that the creation participates in some sense in our pain, you will search in vain for a statement that animals did not die. You have to interpret that into the passage yourself. In view of the fact that the fossil record shows many whole species went extinct before the arrival of man, it is only reasonable to accept that for animals, death is not a curse in the same sense it is for mankind.
ALL ASSERTIONS THAT PAUL WROTE DEATH FOR ANIMALS NEVER CAME UNTIL ADAM SINNED ARE MAN'S INTERPRETATION.
It is a blessed truth that God condescended to become one of us and take on our flesh, as a necessary step in our redemption. This does not affect the fact that our flesh is not patterned after Him, but rather it is our spirit that reflects the image of God.
Once upon a time, the universal standard of interpretation was that it was the Sun that moved around the earth, and not the earth that rotated. Scripture was quoted to prove it was so. This is a historical fact you cannot deny. The new scientific findings reported by Copornicus and Gallileo and Kepler was falsely oppossed on the basis of that interpretation.
Then as evidence after evidence came in that this was a false interpretation, most gave way to the new findings of astronomy and conceded that the Bible was no longer to be interpreted literally as far as solar system dynamics is concerned.
But the scripture has not changed. Who among you is willing to join those few who are consistent enough to hold that the earth is truly flat and the sun goes around the earth?
If you believe as I do that the earth's rotation accounts for day and night, may I point out that you yourself are guilty of exactly the thing you accuse me of - reinterpreting literal scripture to accomodate new scientific knowledge. I merely point out it is manifestedly unfair for you to insist you get to do this when you choose and I can't do it when you choose to say I can't.
My friends, the light from a million galaxies testifies to the great ages of the stars. It is wrong to shut you eyes against the light, and call Him a liar who posted the stars as signs attesting to His truth. -
-
Paul, I'll take all your replies one at a time:
As for the appearance of dinosaur fossils in some lower levels of the earth than human remains (though you provided no examples), that could be explained any number of ways. As you know, the catastrophic effects of a global flood could have much to do with that. Unlike you though, I don't sense any great need to try and offer some type of great rebuttal to that objection because I already have the clear teaching of God's Word (which is what this whole issue is about anyway - you either accept the literal testimony of the Bible, or you don't).
Paul, I pray that you will give attention to these words of the Apostle Paul - "Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ" (Col. 2:8). If you really do believe in Christ, then you must believe His Word that clearly states time and again that macroevolution is an impossibility. If you want to continue to argue biblical theology, you will not win that argument as our discussions have shown. You may be able to make some persuasive scientific arguments, but you must answer this question for yourself - "Am I going to believe all the tenets of secular science or am I going to believe in a reasonable faith that is grounded in the Word of God?" Only you can answer that question. -
-
</font>[/QUOTE]Come, come, I'm merely saying that although I do not take them literally, what they literally say is indeed one day. When Christ said the kingdom of heaven is like leaven hid in dough, do you look for your church to be made from flour?
Page 2 of 7