Alas, at least two of the claims in the second link are incorrect: the one about Dubois hiding human skulls for 30 years, and the one about Mary Leakey finding "human" footprints.
Dubois never hid the skulls: he published on them in European journals that were available (and still are, though not widely). The footprints Leakey's team found were not human, and neither she nor any other paleoanthropologist has ever claimed they were.
Evolutionary Propoganda - A True Story
Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Mark Osgatharp, Oct 9, 2003.
Page 14 of 17
-
Allow me to quote the next post.
-
If not, using the Bible only prove that it is not literal.
Not mans scientific evidence of world (evolution) which is a theory.
Why have the evolutionist ignore the fact the Jesus referred the old testament as actual events?
To say Jesus did no mean what he said is bearing false witness against him even though you disguise it by saying “I interpret the Bible differently than you”. -
But Matthew, you have no problem accepting a nonliteral interpretation based on extrabiblical evidence when it suits you. The classic example is that geocentrists can do a good a job with geocentricity and pulling out verses to support themselves as you can with requiring a literal creation. But you do not accept that. Periodically the example is posted about the four legged, winged insects. That never causes much of a stir. But here's another one.In Matthew 4:8 :"Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them." Surely you do not think that the devil showed Him every kingdom just by taking Him to a high mountain. The highest mountain of the region is less than 10000 ft tall. From 10000 feet you can only see about [1.17 * (10000)^0.5 = ] 117 miles. So you cannot see Rome, nor Greece, nor Egypt, nor India, nor China, nor any American Indians. So though the text says he was shown "all the kingdoms of the world" by going up a "high mountain" you know that there is something more to the story. Either it was the local kingdoms (the kingdoms of the world they knew) and not the "whole world" or there was a supernatural means of showing the "whole world" and not simply because they were on a "high mountain." But that is not what the literal reading says.
God does not lie and the record he has given us in nature shows an ancient creation. Therefore just maybe the creation as told in Genesis is trying to get accross some spiritural truths, such as God the Creator and sinful man, and is not necessarily a blow by blow literal account. As you quoted me, you are consistently unable to deal with the evidence presented for an old earth. The recent links were a nice try, but they were woefully inadequate and full of untrue and incomplete (I think deliberately. If you do enough research to put the level of writing together of some of the links, then you knew about the things that were left out. That is sometimes called a lie of omission. I often feel that YECs are purposely leaving stuff out. I do not ever feel like I have to suppress anything.) material. -
Personally I am still not persuaded that your opinions are valid just because you say they are.
Neither do I accept your assertion of "misleading information".
Your own opinion is supported by what you believe is accurate information. I don't doubt your sincerity, neither do I believe you have lied.
But I don't accept the speculation that just because a creature had ear bones surrounded by fat, this proves the existence of a walking whale.
We are all subjective and prejudicial in our ground of being and its defense, that should be a given.
That it "developed" vertebrae "For swimming" shows an intelligent decision based upon a need does it not?
HankD -
DHK -
-
HankD -
But DHK, your explanation shows that you do not accept the passage as literally wrtitten. Satan was unable to show him ALL the kingdoms simply by taking Him to a high mountain. Either there was some supernatural goings on or it was not the whole world. Quite different than the literal reading.
-
And these are not exactly my opinions, though I agree with them. These are the opinions of the guys who have studied the material, dug up and examined the bones, and who have access to all the relevant material. It is not enough to dismiss their opinion because you disagree with it. If you have a different opinion, show how your opinion fits the available data better. That is what I have been doing in the preceding posts. Someone posted some links so I dug up the information that shows them to be wrong. If you have go the data and the interpretations to disprove what has been discovered, great! I would love to hear it. It would be great for you to be right and end the debate. But, alas, thus far the evidence is against you and the alternative interpretations, when even available, are wanting. -
just-want-peace Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
It's your interpretation that's causing the conflict here, not what the scripture says. -
Which comes first - Evidence or Bible?
Does anyone ever come to believe in the Bible without any evidence to cause them to do so?
How could that ever possibly be so? If God's Spirit asks you to trust in the Bible, that is evidence. If your church suggests you should trust the Bible, that is evidence. If you find that Biblical prophecies are fulfilled, that is evidence. If you find that the Bible message has the power to transform lives, that is evidence.
Nobody ever turns to believing the Bible without first having some evidence in favor of doing that.
This means it is illogical to decide that extra biblical evidence is of no value. Since the extra biblical evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of an earth 4.5 billion years of age, it is unreasonable to reject the evidence. -
just-want-peace,
The fact that said event took place on a very tall mountain directly implies that the reason Jesus could see the entire world was because he was on top of the mountain.
By your logic, Satan used his power to show the entire world, and the fact that they were on top of a tall mountain was just a coincidence. Right. -
Brett gets what I was trying to say. I am not questioning the account. I think DHK at least may have thought it was some sort of inerrancy question the way he responded. Just-want-peace, you again back up what I was saying without realizing it. If He saw all the kingdoms of the world, it was not because He was on a high mountain. I know this, you know this. So you do not take the passage literally.
-
Actually there is no solid empirical evidence just fossil remains and speculation when it comes to the several views of the Theory of Evolution.
If this theory is correct, no one with intelligence was there to document the behavior of these transitory (if indeed they were) creatures. So faith is the deciding factor.
I am glad that you finally introduced God into the equation (somehow I knew you would).
Personally my faith is founded on a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3. Yours must be founded on an allegorical view.
After all faith is the evidence of things unseen.
Neither of us was there to see the creation.
As I said before, I (unlike others) do not doubt your spirituality.
But I have lived long enough to know that I could come up with a more credible rebuttal from a more reliable source to refute your argument.
But what is the point? No will change their mind. My view is that just airing our differences is healthy as long as there is no name calling.
But, if folk want to believe that they descended from baboons, so be it.
Just kidding!!
HankD -
Good post. We need more like it. Bring the tension down a bit. Thanks! -
DHK -
I was a "cradle" Catholic and stayed in the RCC for 2 years. At the time I was an adherent to theistic evolution (Henri Bergson brand). Formerly I was agnostic/atheistic with a secular view of origins.
After I left the Church of Rome my view of origins changed to a 24/6 literal view a few years later.
HankD -
-
Hi UTEOTW,
Following this quote I have repeated it with my comments interspeersed in it.
Member
Member # 3409
posted November 10, 2003 08:43 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello dawna! Welcome to the fray.
You do not have many posts to your name, yet you have already found this thread and posted a couple of times. I take that to mean you are interested in this subject. Our moderators have recently promised that the forum dedicated to this subject will be back up and running shortly and I would like to invite you to come participate when it happens. There are a few related threads floating around, but I and others seem to be avoiding most of them until the proper forum reopens.
On to your post. I have to be honest and say I did not read them in entirety simply because long copy and pastes don't really interest me. But I did muddle through enough to get the gist of the first post. Ham's main point seems to be that the different interpretations of the data comes from differing presuppositions.
It is my opinion that there is a fatal flaw in his reasoning. The flaw is that it does nothing for explaining how people come to accept evolution who do not have a presuppostition that it is true.
My Response:
>>>Ken Ham is not talking about the presupposition of assuming evolution is true. If you will read the articles carefully, you will find that Ken Ham mentions the presupposition beliefs of no god, naturalism, and materialism. I believe one should add to the list the presupposition belief of uniformitarianism. Starting with these presuppositions leads people to the development of the evolutionary interpretation of the data.<<<
The first example has to be the first people to see the evidence for an old earth or for an old universe or for evolution were challenging the paradigm of the day. They did not have a preconceived notion of billions of years, they had quite the opposite. It was the data that led them to their conclusions despite the presuppositions of the day.
My Response:
>>>You are correct about them not having a preconceived notion of billions of years. They started with the presuppositions of not wanting god to be real, naturalism, materialism, and uniformitarianism. I believe many of them, secret non-Christians, secretly wanted something to give them an intellectual sounding excuse to get out from under the moral constraints of Christianity. Again, it was these starting presuppositions that lead those people to develop the evolutionary interpretation of the data, which included the need for an extremely long period of time to gives a semblance of possibility to the evolutionary hypothesis.<<<
Second, you do nothing to explain enigmas like myself. I grew up and entered adulthood with the belief in a young earth and a strong suspicion of these people who proclaimed an old earth. But when I, even with my strong bias towards the YEC position, looked at the evidence I was quickly conviced of the reality of an old universe and of the overwhelming evidence for evolution to be a fact. There are many people like me. People who are Christians and yet come to accept the evidence when examined. And plenty of people who are Christians who actually work in the fields of biology amd paleontology and astonomy and geology and who accept the paradigms of their field.
My Response:
>>>I have talked to many Christian that give the same testimony that you gave above. I usually question them to try to find out what presuppositions they were holding before they abandoned the Bible YEC hypothesis. These presuppositions include their beliefs and secret desires, if they are willing to reveal their secret desires. I do not have any idea about the details of your beliefs and secret desires before you abandoned the YEC hypothesis. Some of the presuppositions that I found in many of them, that were willing to reveal that much detail, were elements of naturalism, elements of materialism, uniformitarianism, that Genesis chapters 1-10 is allegorical, not literal; and I also found that they had a very strong desire not to have their intellect ridiculed by the large non-Christian crowd of evolutionists. I often suspected that the strong desire to not have their intellect ridiculed was so strong that it caused them to accept many of the elements of naturalism, elements of materialism, uniformitarianism, and that Genesis chapters 1-10 is allegorical, not literal.<<<
Ham made a startling confession in what you posted. "Once the Bible is eliminated in the argument, then the Christians' presuppositions are gone, leaving them unable to effectively give an alternate interpretation of the facts." From my perspective, the same thing happens once you accept the creation story as true but not literal. At that point you have no evidence for a young earth! What an addmission by Ham. He tries to dismiss it, but the truth is that the acceptance for an old earth falls out of the evidence. If you are unable to provide a better interpretation of the evidence, which Ham admits cannot be done, then all the protestations are meaningless and useless.
My Response:
<<< I believe the old earth interpretation only falls out when you have accepted additional presuppositions like many of the elements of naturalism, many elements of materialism, uniformitarianism, along with a strong desire not to have you intellect ridiculed by the large non-Christian crowd of evolutionists. You have to have more presuppositions then just the presupposition of the Bible creation account being allegorical, non-literal.<<<
A brother in Christ,
David C. Geminden
davidgeminden@yahoo.com and davidgeminden@netscape.net
"Jackelope Logic" & "Weak Conscience Christians and Legalism"
http://www.geocities.com/davidgeminden/index.html
Page 14 of 17