Evolution/Creation Poll -- Please Vote!

The whole controversy aside, you bring up an interesting point. If God makes something, and then makes it look like something it's not, is that not the quality of a deceptinve and lying God? That certainly does not sound like the God of scripture, does it?

Again, I'm not applying that to the C/E debate, just making an observation. After all, this is the 300th post in this thread, and so far, this thread has produced no fruit. The topic never does.

 

The whole controversy aside, you bring up an interesting point. If God makes something, and then makes it look like something it's not, is that not the quality of a deceptinve and lying God? That certainly does not sound like the God of scripture, does it?</font>[/QUOTE] If God says something that read contextually leaves even primitive people with a false understanding is that not the quality of a deceptive and lying God.

Why would anyone conclude or even surmise that if human interpretations that something is old were incorrect then God is a liar?

If someone dug a ditch that was subsequently washed out... giving it the appearance of more age than it actually had, would that make the digger a liar if someone interpretted what they saw incorrectly?

This is very simple but I hope you can make the connection. The appearance of age is not proof of age nor does it render someone a liar if someone thinks it "appears" old.

I reject the core assumptions of evolution for both biblical and philosophical reasons. I personally could not believe in evolution as taught by secular science without being an atheist. But I could not be an atheist because I could not believe evolution even without the influence of Christian/biblical faith. It fails on logic and fails to explain important realities that lie outside the strict parameters of natural science. Hate, love, genuine creative thought, miraculous healing,... plus all things spiritual.

But I acknowledge that evolution remains within the realm of possibility. What has not been explained does not mean that the derived explanations are false.

I believe that OEC remains within the realm of possibility however I have never been shown that it is necessary biblically or to explain observation (if a supernatural Creator is stipulated). I could be convinced of OEC but one would probably have to do it with the Bible or else answer God's question to Job (Were you there?) in the affirmative.

 

Maybe... maybe not. The versions debate includes alot of jousting and the fruit is hard to see but some people have been helped by it.

I suspect the same is possible here.

If I could just get some folks here to acknowledge that the existence of God makes YEC a possibility that cannot be discounted and that therefore evolution should not be taught as factual science with Christian approval, I could gain a degree of satisfaction.

Evolutionists say that God or creationism is not falsifiable... but neither are evolution's explanations of natural history. If for no other reason, they are not falsifiable because history cannot be tested. Testing the mechanisms btw is not the same as testing the comprehensive theory. In other words, the sum of the components may not add up to the expected result since we can never know whether we are adding the right components.

 

"I would propose that we are now genetically set to a great degree so that we have very limited adaptability when compared to our ancestors."

Should have been "now" rather than "not". The system wouldn't let me correct this oversight.

[spelling corrected per request]

[ January 07, 2005, 09:45 PM: Message edited by: Dr. Bob ]

 

Johnv sez:

JWP sez:

The above from me was taken from this page: http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/3/2657/11.html?#000155

Until man realizes that ANY evidence he interprets is subject to fallible judgement and trusts God in the event of "APPARENT" conflict, his wisdom(?) is always going to be lacking!!

Same principle re: OEC vs YEC! What do you (generic "YOU", not you specifically Johnv) know that you haven't been taught? Somebody in the past had calculated that the earth was only 6,000 (+/-) years old using the geneology charts etc. Have been taught that many times the charts totally ignored some of the generations due to un-importance of individuals, so earth may be much older than 6k years.

Which is correct? I sure don't know, but even if you make the assumption that only 1/2 of the generations were listed, that still yields only a 12k year old earth.

This again is if you take the book of Genesis literal which I do.

Anyway, the point is that your past "learning" determines much of your present-day beliefs.

Unless you have had a direct revalation from God, then you have to accept that your "learnings" just may be flawed!

So I repeat: "Until man realizes that ANY evidence he interprets is subject to fallible judgement and trusts God in the event of "APPARENT" conflict, his wisdom(?) is always going to be lacking!!"

 

I disagree that the evidence is incontrovertible. In fact, when you said "appears" you acknowledge as much.

 

Of those of you who argue for evolution, do you believe that scripture provides the best guide for interpretting scripture?

 

I seriously doubt tha ESP is considered legitimate science. pseudoscience, may be. What is next, UFOs, Big Foot, Chupacabras, Astrology?

Two things: 1 - The methodolofical limitations os the scientific method.
2 - The Nature of Gos as revealed in the Bible.

No, he is outside nature.

In science we base our "equations" in the regularity of nature, we cannot take into consideration, things that God could do.

That is why I study science and Scriptures.

Yes

That is how science works.

I love science, because it helps me to understand God's creation and to glorify him.

That is false, scince cannot tell anything about the ultimate source, it is otside its possibilities.

GOD IS NOT A VARIABLE!, he is eternal.

I am noy limiting God in any way, we are not having a debate about what God can do, but about how hw did what he did.

If you want to know it, basically read the Bible, you can read a book on general christian theology, and you can check "Baptist Faith and Message" of 1963

Luis

 

Did he give us infallible perceptions or abilities to understand? Is God being deceptive if our understanding is not correct?

Did God give us Genesis 1 and 2 to deceive us? The text itself does not show that it is allegorical. Cross references tend to support a literal reading.

Special revelation is much more specific and directed than general revelation. IOW's, while scripture is open to interpretation, it is much less so than nature. Obviously, some view nature and conclude that there is no God or that we are all god.

 

That is false, scince cannot tell anything about the ultimate source, it is otside its possibilities.</font>[/QUOTE] Then how can it conclude that whatever the ultimate source was only acted once? How can it deny that even within its own framework an outside, ultimate force frequently caused things? How can evolution even conclude that what we observe is not the result of a great many actions of the ultimate source within the last 10K years that caused things to appear just as they do?

By the way, logic dictates that all effects have a cause. To make a logical argument, you MUST identify or assume a prime cause. The fact that evolution will not and cannot do this within the realm of naturalism renders it ultimately illogical.

I am noy limiting God in any way, we are not having a debate about what God can do, but about how hw did what he did.</font>[/QUOTE] For heaven's sake Luis, that is exactly what this debate is all about.

You cannot reasonably claim that you are looking for the method God used if the first assumption made by the theory you espouse is that everything that exist could exist without God. Evolution starts out by discounting the necessity of a Creator. Don't try to come back and say that it does not or can not evaluate the existence of God... I know that because it assumes the absence of God.

It doesn't attempt to disprove Him. It attempts to ignore Him. Do you think one is more favorable to God than the other? Neither can ever give Him glory but at least one acknowledges that He is to be refuted.

 

What we say is that we have no scientific way to prove it.

Paul in Romans said: "God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made"

Evolution is just the scientific theory that explains how God created the diversity of life we see in our planet

NO

First the gaps only exist in our knowledge, not in reality, and second I believe that God is Lord, even of chance.

Yes, your side pressuppose a (wrong) reading of Genesis, and then try to find evidence to support that reading.

Luis

 

Please respond to my answer above.

 

Dear UTEOTW,
My questions can be found on page 6 top 1/3rd of the page and page 15 again top 1/3 of the page.
I don't really get into a lot of things but I am mostly curious about the DNA for all of the species.You see I have read in several places that the information in just one human DNA molocule contains enough information to fill either 1,000 college text books or 1,000 volumes of encyclpedia Britannica type volumes. That is a lot of information. Now when we think of all of the different land,air,and sea animals,plus all if the insect world each with thier own DNA coding it is amazing.How could that happen randomly or in herky jerky patterns as evolution claims.Again I have read that there a 1 time 10 to the 80th power electons in the entire known universe. I have also read that the stastistical probability for one human molecule to form randomly as evolution suggests is 1 time 10 to the 284rth power. That's really bad odds for poker if you know what I mean.Then we take that same proposition and create a DNA molocule for A male and a female who just happemn to meet each other in the jungle somewhere and mate.We have'nt even gotten to the land,air,and sea life yet let alone insects each needing thier own DNA coding male and female and then meeting somewhere to mate.That sounds like a fantastic proposition to my mind. If you could answer this and when and how life started other than how it is taken by creation people I would be most interested.

 

First the gaps only exist in our knowledge, not in reality, and second I believe that God is Lord, even of chance.</font>[/QUOTE] That is an oxymoron. If God is sovereign (Lord) then there is no such thing as chance.

Yes, your side pressuppose a (wrong) reading of Genesis, and then try to find evidence to support that reading.

Luis </font>[/QUOTE]I do presuppose a reading of Genesis. One that allows what is said to mean what it means without trying to conform it to a human theory. Sorry if that offends you but you have not and cannot prove it wrong.

In fact, your own presuppositions lend credence to my belief and leave you in no position to declare it "false". You presuppose that the supernatural events recorded in the creation account are false but that the supernatural events recorded in the Gospels are true.

 

God bless you Scott J.

 

Because we lack evidence for that "Intervention" and we have evidence for the evolutionary process.

Moreover that suppossition goes against yaears of biblical scholarship.

Science cannot tell you anything about ultimate causes, it cannot tell you why the universe exists.

We are not having a debate about what God can do, but about how he did what he did. This is exactly what this debate is all about, the method of creation.

But that is not my assumption, or the theory of evolution assumption.

FALSE

NO it doesn't.

Does not ignore him. Only studies his creation.

NO

People glorify God due yo their faith in him, in a Christian's eyes, God is Lord and worthy of praise, not a propposition to be refuted.

In Christ,

Luis

 

For our limited minds.

You read Genesis as you want to read it, to conform it to your human theory, without paying attention to its literary genre.

No, I do not, I presuppose the Bible is true, and that "All Scripture is Godbreathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness"

Blessings,

Luis

 

And not me?