1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Evolutionism vs the Gospel

Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by BobRyan, Jul 23, 2004.

  1. Gup20

    Gup20 Active Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,570
    Likes Received:
    22
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Which is more trustworthy - the Creator or the creation? Who's word do you trust as infallible - the Creator, or the creation?

    God says in His Word it did not happen over millions of years, but mere days. Even if the evidence in nature had been gathered in a non-biased or reliable manner (mind you evolutionary evidence has not), anything that disagrees with God Himself is wrong. It is the same mistake Eve made when God told her not to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowlege of good and evil, but the natural evidence, conbined with the lie of Satan convinced her otherwise.

    This evidence is tainted, however. It was collected with intentional disregard to the God's word or any possibility of supernatural influence. There was an a priori committment to a wholistically natural process that overshadowed all interpretations of the physical evidence. Any interpretation that upheld that naturalistic committment, not matter how improbable, was accepted over and above any evidence that could lead to the Bible being right... or there being any supernatural influences in our history.

    For example, the probability of one single cell forming and reproducing on it's own is FAR beyond the mathematical and chemical limit of possible. The probability for complex structures such as the human eye are FAR FAR beyond the realm of mathematical possibility. Yet the naturalistic process was accepted regardless of the impossibility because it was wholistically naturalistic - not because it was the most reliable or likely theory.

     
  2. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    That is a very good point.

    The Gospel writers themnselve "Appeal to the DETAILS" of the Gen 1-3 "Account" NOT just "the vague notion that if you go back to the big bang then God got every thing started".

    But as our evolutionist friends here have already admitted - GOD REALLY DID tell a Creationist story - (but of course they claim HE HAD to do that since God's people in Bible times were just not up to the task like the wonderful evolutionist Atheists of our day).

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  3. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Hmm - they are "antiknowledge" in fact.

    Objectivity and critical thinking don't seem to be welcome among some evolutionists.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  4. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
  5. Gup20

    Gup20 Active Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,570
    Likes Received:
    22
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    For those interested in the evidence (instead of the humanistic/atheisitc rhetoric on Talk Origins), here is a compillation of evidence proving beyond any shadow of doubt that the earth is young, and that biblical (literal) creation happened:

    www.biblegateway.com
     
  6. Gup20

    Gup20 Active Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,570
    Likes Received:
    22
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    This is a very good article on AiG about the literalness of Genesis:

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1231.asp


    I will paste it here, but it is much easier to read on the AiG site (all the HTML formatting is intact):

     
  7. Gup20

    Gup20 Active Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,570
    Likes Received:
    22
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Let me ask a quick question - is MAN the greatest and most advanced of ANY and ALL of creation? Is there any thing in the world more 'Evolved' than Man?

    I would imagine the answer is yes - man is the highest order of creature/being in creation.

    So then, if we are the highest and best in creation, and we make mistakes and get things wrong (aka - we are fallible), what makes us think that we can look to the rest of creation - things that are far less than us - as more infallible than we - or as less infallible than the Word of God in scripture?
     
  8. Mercury

    Mercury New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Messages:
    642
    Likes Received:
    0
    Regarding the AiG article, I encourage everyone who read it to also read footnote 9 at the bottom. It subtilely reveals the difference between what the person actually believes (that the consensus is that Genesis does not support concordist views) and what they've twisted his words to imply (that all professors of Hebrew or Old Testament think Genesis 1-11 is literal history). In this case, apparently the difference was so blatant that they felt the need to explain it. Kudos to them for at least doing that.

    No, there is no physical life in the world more evolved than man. There is also no currently living organism in the world that is less evolved than man. Evolution is about all life sharing a common ancestor in the distant past, so we are all the same distance away from that ancestor. In the same way, a grandson that is a spitting image of his grandfather is just as closely related to him as a granddaughter who has no discernable physical likeness to him. Similarly, all modern dogs are the same distance away from wolves, even though the physical differences and the amount of changes in DNA may be more severe in certain breeds.

    In that regard, I somewhat agree with you, but not for the reason you gave. Aside from the angels, humans are the highest creatures because we share the image of God. That's not evolutionary theory, that's Scripture. Evolution doesn't make claims about "more evolved" or "less evolved" in the sense of better or worse. Instead, it talks about earlier and later life forms, and simple and complex life forms. Evolution can't say whether bacteria are better than humans -- in some regards, bacteria are much more successful. The value judgments on these creatures need to come from a source outside of evolution, just as value judgments on things like nuclear weapons come from outside of physics, and value judgments on cloning come from outside of biology.

    Sin is present in humanity in a way that it is not present in the rest of creation. As Romans 5:12 says (speaking of humans), "death came to all men, because all sinned." Animals don't sin. Plants don't sin. Rocks don't sin. Stars don't sin. All of creation is bound and groaning due to human sinfulness, but this has not caused creation to become a false witness. Scripture itself declares that creation testifies of its Creator (Psalm 19:1-4a, Romans 1:18-20). As such, it is not possible to dismiss the witness of creation without also dismissing the witness of Scripture.

    [ August 19, 2004, 01:58 PM: Message edited by: Mercury ]
     
  9. Mercury

    Mercury New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Messages:
    642
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think this sentence of mine may have been incorrect. From what I've read since, it is not settled whether wolves were domesticated more than once, so it is possible that not all dog breeds are the same evolutionary distance away from modern wolves.

    Interesting that there's "missing links" even in the micro-evolutionary steps that most young-earth creationists accept.
     
  10. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Mercury -

    The evolutionists here have ALREADY ADMITTED that Gen 1-2:3 IS God NOT telling the "stories" of evolutionism AND IS God telling the Creation account - creationism NOT evolutionism!

    (Of course the evolutionists CLAIM that God came up with some reason for "lying" about His role and action in a literal 7 day creation WEEK - because the people of Bible times were so stupid as compared to the glorious atheist evolutionists of our day).

    In any case ONCE you go down THAT road - you can't back up with "HOW dare you read Genesis 1-2:3 and find creationism!!".

    (Why are the obvious points so hard for evolutionists??)

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  11. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Again - the "obvious response" is due here.

    #1. Evolutionists NEVER say "AND by evolutionism I MEAN that IN SIX DAYS God created the heavens and the earth and all that is in them and rested the 7th day".

    Evolutionists NEVER say "And evening and morning where the 4th day - WHEN God MADE TWO great lights in the sky".

    Evolutionists NEVER say "AND God said LET THERE BE... AND GOD CREATED.. and so EVENING and MORNING were the 5th day".

    So "the idea" that these are "other ways to say the TRUTH of evolutionism" fails at the start.

    #2. Evolutionists here ALREADY admit that the CREATION account is the OTHER story God told INSTEAD of the truth because the people of Bible times WERE NOT up to the standards of modern atheist evolutionists. This means that it is "not accident" that evolutionists DO NOT use the "details" God gives in HIS account as "THEIR way of teaching evolutionism".


    So "yes" evolutionists teach that the details God gave in HIS account "are not really true".

    It does not get any easier than that to understand.

    Just stating the obvious here.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  12. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    Reply re: BobRyan

    (sigh) same old inconsistency.

    Have you not read the scriptures in Psalm 19?

    Do you believe there is a tabernacle for the sun, used when it is not up in the sky? Or do you believe, contrary to scripture, that the sun simply sits out there in space, never going into a tabernacle? Because if you believe the latter, then you and I are doing the same thing - allowing science to inform our interpretation of scripture.

    If its legal for you when the science has convinced you, its legal for me when the science has convinced me.
     
  13. Gup20

    Gup20 Active Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,570
    Likes Received:
    22
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Those verses are obviously mythical/allegorical/non-literal though. What business do you have quoting that book of fairy tale or mythological history to support a logical scientific argument? There is nothing in nature to suggest that angels even exist. We don't find them in the fossil record, for example, so we can assume they are mythical allegorical creatures God used to teach us something rather than actual creatures (evolution doesn't predict any species from which angels evolved, for example). We can use the modern science and the evidence around us to see that Angels are mythological rather than literal. We can use real science to help us to explain the parts of the bible that God wants us to interpret as parable, myth, or allegory - and Angels are obviously a mythological representation of the inner struggle within our consciences.

    In the mythological stories of Genesis we see allegorical stories of Jacob fighting with an angel all night for example. This is obviously non-literal as the text itself rules out the very possibility of the literal existance of angels. It says they wrestled all night and then at the end of that the angel just reached out and broke Jacob's hip. Obviously, if this had been literal, and the angel had the ability to break a hip with a single touch... there would have been no need to wrestle "all night". The very notion of wrestling with someone for hours on end is rediculous, therefore it is an obvious inferance that this is some kind of dream or 'inner struggle' within Jacob's mind.


    I don't know if it is obvious to you evolutionists here... but this has all of been rhetorical. However, this is the exact argument you are making. You are proposing to invalidate the scripture as literal by use of a discipline (science) that has a strict adherence to physical ONLY - ignoring by design any possible supernatural possibility - regardless of how clear the Bible is in describing it as literal.

    IF there were no adherance to the theory of evolution... and the Bible were interpreted on it's own - we ALWAYS come to the conclusion that Genesis is literal, and real - but you will never believe it because it couldn't have happened if you believe Evolution more than you believe the Word of God.
     
  14. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gup

    Science cannot speak to the existance of angels. It could never authoritively claim whether they exist or not. It CAN make authoritive claims on what the evidence from the fossil record or from genetics or from geology or from astronomy are telling us. And they tell us that the earth and universe are ancient and that all life is related through common descent.

    You are making the mistake of making a rhetorical statement based on something that science cannot address and using it to argue argainst things that can be addressed. It does not work.

    And if you were to leave science completely out of it and just go blindly through the Bible, there are many things that you would believe that you in reality do not. Or, in the latest example, do you think there is an actual temple for the sun to go into when not above our heads?
     
  15. Mercury

    Mercury New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Messages:
    642
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not at all, but I think this is a core misunderstanding. Science only speaks about the natural. The Bible speaks about both the natural and the supernatural. So, when studying the natural, we have two sources of information. As they both have the same ultimate source (God, who is Truth), they will not conflict. You follow the same approach for the science you accept, as shown in the literalists vs science thread. When studying the supernatural, aside from direct experience and the Holy Spirit, we have one source: the Bible.

    While the creation event itself was supernatural, the creation that resulted is natural, and as such both science and the Bible can inform us about it. Angels, on the other hand, are entirely supernatural: science cannot examine them to prove or disprove their existence. That is the reason why I don't discount angels (or the resurrection, or other miracles), and accepting evolution and other aspects of science has in no way led me to do so. Your confusion over this is the reason why your attempts to mimic my reasoning generally lead to statements I disagree with.

    Edit: Looks like UTEOTW beat me on a lot of that! [​IMG]

    Before the theory of evolution, science had already shown that the earth was at least millions of years old. If evolution were totally dismissed, that would not remove the evidence for an ancient earth and an even more ancient universe. The science is so compelling because so many fields, so many results, all converge on the same answer: our universe is ancient, and its development has not been static.
     
  16. Gup20

    Gup20 Active Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,570
    Likes Received:
    22
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Tabernacle means 'dwelling place'. Yes, I believe there is an ordained place of residence for our sun in the universe.

    Since the text is clearly poetic, we do not have to infer an actual tent surrounds the sun... but simply that there is a place for it in all of creation. As we saw in the AiG article, Genesis is clearly not poetry as is Psalms.
     
  17. Helen

    Helen <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    2
    Before the theory of evolution, science had already shown that the earth was at least millions of years old.

    No, Mercury, that is wrong. Lyell presumed the earth was millions of years old since he also presumed that the rate of deposition/sedimentation had always been the same. This is a far cry from 'proving' anything.
     
  18. Gup20

    Gup20 Active Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,570
    Likes Received:
    22
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    What you are saying is that you belive the Bible unless you have a humanistic reason not to.

    Let me ask you again - should you believe the creation or the creator? God had enough wisdom to create life when there was no life... yet you believe the word of a geneticist who has bearly scratched the surface of understanding life over God's word. That is truely pathetic. You are basically chowing down hard on the fruit of tree if the knowlege of Good and Evil. You are supposing your knowledge (or man's knowledge) to be equal or superior to God's knowledge. This is the definition of foolishness.

    THE BIBLE (GOD'S WORD) IS THE SUPREME AUTHORITY ON ALL THINGS IT TOUCHES UPON... WHETHER IT BE SPRITUAL MATTERS, PHYSICAL MATTERS, HISTORICAL MATTERS, GEOLOGICAL MATTERS, BIOLOGICAL MATTERS OR OTHERWISE!!

    Man is the authority on NOTHING compared to God's Word. Your statment that man can make 'authoritative claims' that contradict the word of God is rediculously absurd.

    The Bible QUITE AUTHORITATIVELY claims that the God created the earth in six literal days... and man came into being on this planet within 3 literal days of the first ocean life... and on the same day as ALL land animals, including monkeys.

    I find it entirely consistent with your intellectual honesty and Biblical exegesis for you to insist that Genesis is non-literal, yet insist that Psalms is literal. Both notions are wrong.

    Yeah... there must have been a good 50 years of thought on that before Darwin wrote his 'preservation of favored races' origins book. Meanwhile... back at the ranch... God has been telling us since the 6th day of creation the real story. There are those who sought to rebell against mainstream science and God and figure out a way to exclude Him in Darwin's day. Thus, the theories of millions of years and evolution came to be. Clearly it directly contradicts the most straight forward exegesis of scripture.

    This is actually false. Up until recently (within the last few hundred years) the theory of millions of years had no evidence or credibility. It wasn't until atheists and humanists started creating evidence by interpreting it within an a priori commitment to naturalism and materialism (also uniformitarianism) that this so called 'evidence' came into existance. If you ASSUME the earth is millions of years old.... and that God didn't create it as the Bible describes... THEN and only then is there evidence for millions of years. For example - if you assume that there was never a global catastrophy such as noah's flood, then one could interpret strata as being laid down at the rates we see occuring today. However, if you know that a global catastrophic event did in fact occur, then you realize that there is an alternate explaination for the strata we see other than it has always happened at the exact same rate in the exact same way for billions of years. You now have a mechanism - a door way - to an alternate interpretation.

    In fact this WAS the interpretation of the evidence... millions or billions of years did not begin to dominate until the humanists were able to get people's focus removed from scripture and have them start looking at things from their own perspective. It wasn't until evidence started being interpreted under a uniformitarian perspective, for example, that Lyell's geological theories came to be accepted.

    You're statement is so very wrong. In fact, if evolution and millions of years were removed as the basic pre-supposition to interpreting evidence, ALL of the evidence would again point to the Bible's version of history. How do I know? Because that is exactly what YEC do every single day. We assume the Bible is true and everywhere we look we see evidence that supports it. You obviously cannot see it because you start with the assumption that the Bible is wrong. You start with the assumption that evolution and man is the greatest authority of knowledge in this world. I am here to tell you that is not the case.
     
  19. Gup20

    Gup20 Active Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,570
    Likes Received:
    22
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Exactly!
     
  20. Mercury

    Mercury New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Messages:
    642
    Likes Received:
    0
    Note that the sun leaves and returns to this "dwelling place" daily. Still believe it literally?

    I think it's dangerous to be as dismissive of poetry as AiG is. Some of the most compelling prophecies fulfilled by Jesus come from Psalms that are obviously poetic! Should we likewise write off Psalm 22 as being beneath Genesis just because it is poetry? The fact that psalms and other portions of Scripture contain poetic imagery does not make their statements any less true. However, they need to be read with respect to their genre, and also in a way that does not conflict with the general revelation of God's creation.

    In verses 4-6 of Psalm 19 we see that the author had a different idea of the sun than we do today, and this different idea is found in his plain statements (about the tabernacle and the sun's circuit from end to end of the heavens) and not just his similes (comparing the sun to a bridegroom and a strong man). However, God inspired the author in writing this the same way he inspired the authors of Psalm 22 and Genesis 1. If some think they're too advanced to benefit from stories and poetry with imagery that we now see is nonliteral, then I think they're really at a disadvantage compared to earlier students of the Bible.

    "Proving" and "presumed" are your words, and I didn't use either specifically because they are more loaded. My point was that the evidence for the age of the earth and our universe is not dependent on evolution -- indeed, many Christians accepted an older age for the earth even before evolution became an issue. If you'd like to discuss uniformitarianism with someone, I'm probably not the right person, and this probably isn't the right thread.
     
Loading...