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!

Jesus didn't believe Evolution - neither should we

Discussion in 'Creation vs. Evolution' started by Gup20, Jun 25, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    Basically they have already conceded the Bible argues for Creation not evolutionism.

    Yes, but only in the sense that Genesis established God as the Creator of the universe. This does not mean that I believe that He did it recently in 6 days. You have no problems taking other parts of the Bible non-literally when convenient for you and because of outside knowledge. Yet you condemn others who do so. The Creation itself speaks of great age and of common descent. I gave a few evidences of that above which you have not refuted.
     
  2. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    "BUT if you are a scientist observing LIVING systems then you SEE that "emperical science" is always showing evolutionism to be false "

    Give me you best places where the science shows evolution to be false. Start with the lines of evidence presented above.
     
  3. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Good science today "observes" that all living organisms use the levro chirality AND also "observes" that when incidentals occur the right-handed bond is eliminated by the correcting mechanism that is a part of the system...I guess that is the part where you "confess" that your blue sky speculation that "in the beginning living cells consisted of rasomized chiral distributions of amino acids" was pure fabrication stated only because you "need it" to be true for the myth of evolutionism - not because you (or anyone else on the planet) observes such a thing to be true."

    No. Did you read my posts?

    Proteins can be either right handed or left handed. They happen to be all left handed in life on earth. There is no reason for this to have always been the case. We do not know, the evidence is not preserved. Today they are left handed because a specific enzyme that is involved in the sequencing of all of the amino acids used on life on earth is left handed and therefore makes left handed amino acids. This enzyme, helping to make needed amino acids more easily, would have been a boon for early life and is preserved in all life that we see. Once life had this enzyme, then all proteins were left handed. It was advantageous. Before that, who knows. But, just because they are left handed today does not mean they were in the past. And that destroys the point the posted was trying to make about the long odds of making random chains with all the same chirality.
     
  4. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Dawkins claims that what is not understood... "

    Dawkins is not an expert in religion and quoting him on religious matters is the fallacy of an appeal to authority. He has no special expertise in religion and is therefore no more suited to discuss religion than the average guy on the street.
     
  5. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Certainly not biochemistry in this case. UTEOTW has already confessed that we do NOT abserve living systems to be composed of amino acids having a random distributions of Right and Left handed chirality. He also admitted he has no way of showing that any change from what is actually SEEN in biochemistry today - ever existed in all of time."

    But I did show why the change would have occurred. An enzyme developed, shared by all life, that helps make amino acids. It is left handed so the amino acids areleft handed.
     
  6. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Hmm. So why would an evolutionist WANT to get OFF the topic...by side stepping the point with each post?"

    I think that if you look back at the first page you will see that the first responses, mine included, were to address to issues raised. So there was not any side stepping there. Now, to justify my assertion that the Creation account is meant to be a non-literal account, I brought up some things from the Creation itself (enzymes that lead to chirality, families of genes with similar sequences, index fossils, retroviral DNA insertions, and homology to name a few) that I believe support my position. Now these have so far been side stepped. I brought them into this thread from the previous thread because they were being side stepped there also.
     
  7. Gup20

    Gup20 Active Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,570
    Likes Received:
    22
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    While I have great respect for your desire to see harmony and avoid division I would remind you that the Bible makes it a mandate for us to remove any ideology that exhalts itself against the knowledge of God.

    2Cr 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

    The ideology of evolution was popularized out of a man who rejected Christianity because his daughter who died trajicly and he blamed God for it (Darwin). Charles Darwin could no longer tolerate a God who created/allowed such pain, suffering, and death. Evolution is a humanistic religion, and it certainly qualifies in the 'exhalting itself against the knowlege of God' category. Darwin was so mislead about the world we live in and the death of his daughter.

    Jam 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

    Evolution seeks actively to remove God and his role as creator and author, as well as seeking to obscure the very reason we are here on earth - to be stewards of God to this creation. Created in his image to have dominion over this earth as He has dominion over us.

    Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
    Gen 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

    It is an attempt (as it seems are your comments, Johnv) to elevate Christian religion into a state of mind or ideology. This gives it this place of being lofty and pretencious, having no practicality and not involving or interacting with "the real world". Nothing could be farther from the truth. Christianity, unlike any other religion, is a living breathing relationship with the creator of the universe. It's practicality reaches far past the lofty ideological and into the daily real.

    Those who say that christianity is not science or vise versa are, in my opinion, those who do not live out their Christian walk with God as it was intended. The natural and supernatural go hand in hand daily. The natural does not exist except for the supernatural that placed it there and that continuously holds it there every second. How then is it some unreachable, unattainable goal for the supernatural to influence the natural? It is not. Faith the size of a mustard seed can move mountains.


    Evolution is a humanistic ideology based on the premise that millions of years of death and suffering (aka natural selection et al) caused simple cells to eventually form into man. Nevermind that the Bible directly states that God formed man - lets take this a step further.

    Look at Romans chapter 5. With a Creationism understanding these verses take on enormous power and life.

    Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
    Rom 5:10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

    PIONT 1 - Sin is the enemy of God.

    Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
    Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

    POINT 2 - Adam's disobedience in the Garden of Eden (know as 'The Fall') caused sin to enter the world.

    POINT 3 - Death entered the world because of Adam's sin.

    Therefore - with points 1-3 we can see that Sin is the enemy of God, sin entered the world because of adam's disobedience, and death entered the world because of sin.

    Gen 1:4 And God saw the light, that [it was] good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
    Gen 1:10 And God called the dry [land] Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that [it was] good.
    Gen 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, [and] herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed [was] in itself, after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.
    Gen 1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that [it was] good.
    Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.
    Gen 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.
    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.

    I want you to see how many times God declares his creation to be "Good". All throughout the creation ... after each day... after each step, God declares his creation Good.

    First, if sin didn't enter the world until Adam's disobedience, then neither did death. Death only reigned after Adam sinned (rom 5:14).
    Second, if there is no death leading up to Adam, then there are no fossils leading up to Adam. Moreover, Natural selection is the mechanism in evolution for directionally administrating mutational change upward according to evolutionary thought. If there was no death, there is no 'survival of the fittest'.
    Thirdly, God declared everything ... each step in the creative days ... Good. If sin is the enemy of God, and Death is the result of sin (as Romans 5 declares irrefutably), how then is a history built from and predicated on death and mutation declared 'Good' by God?

    THAT is what evolution ultimately teaches... THAT is the humanistic message... THAT is a high thing exhalting itself against the knowlege of God.

    [rhetorical]Lets keep this religious creation mumbo jumbo out of schools... lets teach our kids that the Bible is not practical or true - it's simply an ideology. There's no real world relevance to it - it's just a book we use to see where the concept of morals came from ... it's not really for today. [/rhetorical]

    HOGWASH!! The Bible is just as true today as it was when it was written. It is just as powerful today as "God's Word" as it was when God uttered the words to create our space, time, universe, and the earth. It is just as practical today as it was for Adam... and as it was for Jesus. It is just as true today as it was 6000 years ago when the earth was created.

    Now the evolutionists here can certainly choose to believe humanism over God's word. You guys can keep on taking what 'the world' tells you is true and trying to fit it into the Bible, or try to reconcile humanistic science with humanistic christianity - but I will stand on Truth. I will stand on the Word of God. I will take the approach that man's ideas are flawed and that God's ideas are right, and true. I will FIRST AND FOREMOST believe God's word in it's entirety, and take it as absolute truth. I will then interpret the world I see based on biblical truth, and not on the whims of a corrupted, sinful man.

    Pro 14:12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof [are] the ways of death.
    Pro 16:25 There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof [are] the ways of death.

    We were created perfect and entire wanting nothing, but we fell. Now we live in a dead and dying world full of corruption and death. This is a result of Adam's (and all of our) sin. All have sinned and are sinners.

    Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
    Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

    Eveything in the old testament points towards the cross. Everything in the new testament points back to the cross. This is the good news (gospel) of the Bible... this makes 10,000 times more sense with a proper understanding of Genesis and creation.

    Jesus paid the ultimate price for us so that we didn't have to be ruled by death.

    John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotton son that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish but have everlasting life.

    Do you realize that Jesus' resurrection was the PHYSICAL NATURAL result of what he did on the cross? He took the keys to hell away from Satan. JESUS CONQUERED DEATH! It was a real physical action, just as it was a real physical action for death to enter the world by Adam's sin.

    Christian's ask the question then, why don't people who get saved lived forever? The answer is - they do, just not in the same temporal body. Remember, Jesus calls 'getting saved' getting 'born again' or the new birth. Jesus had a new body waiting for him on the other side of death.

    Romans Chapter 6 describes this.

    Rom 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
    Rom 6:5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also [in the likeness] of [his] resurrection:
    Rom 6:6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with [him], that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
    Rom 6:7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.
    Rom 6:8 Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:
    Rom 6:9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.
    Rom 6:10 For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.

    So then, the penalty for sin is death. Death is a result of sin. Jesus essentially condemned death to die with our natural bodies. Our 'spirit' lives on for eternity in a new body just as Jesus' did. Our new bodies are no longer bound by death. They are eternal.

    This takes on a whole new meaning and light when you realize that the Bible is scientifically true, and what is being talked about here is real. The whole Bible is enlivened and amplified by the realization that Adam was real, what is written about him is absolutely true, and it has a DIRECT EFFECT on YOU! Evolution tries to remove the direct effect on you of Genesis - it tries to elevate christianity into some unrealistic ideological place where it never comes in contact with reality. The opposite is true. Adam was real, the Bible is true, Jesus came for exactly the reason Genesis describes (to redeem us from the fall).


    Lets take a lesson from Paul. He knew the difference between speaking to Jews and speaking to Greeks.

    1Cr 1:22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
    1Cr 1:23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

    Here we see that the Jews knew who and what the Messiah (Christ) was. Paul had only to tell them who Jesus was for them to believe and be saved. Their entire culture is based on the Old Testament. They knew The Word and who God was. they had a tremendously solid foundation in scripture. However the Greeks did not. When Paul spoke of Jesus and the resurrection and the messiah the Greeks just thought this was foolishness. Why would anyone want to 'get saved' if they don't know they are lost? The Bible says the Greeks seek after wisdom or knowlege (reason, ideology).

    If you read Acts 17 you will see that he went to the synagogue and proclaimed Jesus as the Christ (the messiah prophesied to come). The Jews searched the scriptures to see if what Paul was saying was so and many of them believed and were saved (accepted Jesus).

    He then went to Athens (a Greek City) and spoke to Jews there. Greeks heard this and called him a babbeler and said he spoke of strange things.

    Paul had to completely revisit his strategy when speaking to Greeks. These people knew nothing of Adam - they didn't know the creation account of Genesis. They didn't know about the fall of man and that they were sinners. They didn't know they needed a Savior. What did Paul do?

    Act 17:22 Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, [Ye] men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.
    Act 17:23 For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.
    Act 17:24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
    Act 17:25 Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;
    Act 17:26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
    Act 17:27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:
    Act 17:28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
    Act 17:29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
    Act 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
    Act 17:31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by [that] man whom he hath ordained; [whereof] he hath given assurance unto all [men], in that he hath raised him from the dead.
    Act 17:32 And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked: and others said, We will hear thee again of this [matter].

    We see first he connected to their culture. He then asserted Biblical authority (that God is utimate and supreme owner of all - his word and law are final). He then laid the foundation for belief by telling them about Creaiton. He needed to let them know the significance of Jesus' visit to earth. He needed to tell them WHY they need a savior before convincing them that Jesus was that savior. He included physical evidence that showed why THEY were included - they were all ONE BLOOD and all from Adam, therefore Adam's sin covered them as well. (Young Earth Creationism is the best message against racism that there could ever be) Then, finally, when he had laid all that foundation, he told them about Jesus and about the resurrection.

    Now let me ask you a question - is the culture in the USA increasingly more like the Jews or increasingly more like the Greeks? If we say Jesus is the Messiah, do people here automatically know what that means? If we say Jesus died for your sins, does that mean anything to people? If we tell people they are a sinner they just think you're foolish.

    I would submit that the USA and Western culture is increasingly more and more like the Greeks. Paul gives us a clear example of how to minister Jesus to these people.

    Note that back in the 1950's 'Turn or Burn' revival tent meetings met with some success. These days, the 'turn or burn' attitude is scoffed at and 'bible thumpers' are ridiculed by the Western Culture to no end. Why is this? Because increasingly the culture doesn't identify or understand the basic scirptures. Prayer and Creation are no longer acceptable in our public schools.

    Our schools now teach evolution as fact. This paints a 'history' that is a legacy of death and struggle for millions of years - instead of a recent and direct creation by God as the Bible describes.

    Who said this: "Change a people's history and you can make them into anything." That was Carl Marx - the one who wrote the Manifest of the Communist Party.

    JohnV - one result of your post is that it did make me take a look at the way I was arguing the 'creation vs evolution' debate. We are all Christians here (presummably). We need to come at this issue from the Bible's perspective, and not worry so much about trying to refute the science. Afterall - operational science is much different from historical or origin science. Operational science is exactly the same for the most part when it comes to creationists and evolutionists. In fact, most YEC these days used to be evolutionists and have come to the realization of the truth as revealed in the Bible.

    Deu 30:19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, [that] I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:

    Jos 5:13 And it came to pass, when Joshua was by Jericho, that he lifted up his eyes and looked, and, behold, there stood a man over against him with his sword drawn in his hand: and Joshua went unto him, and said unto him, [Art] thou for us, or for our adversaries?
    Jos 5:14 And he said, Nay; but [as] captain of the host of the LORD am I now come. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and did worship, and said unto him, What saith my lord unto his servant?

    The story of Joshua always rings true in my mind. In debate, there is always two sides. However, we should try to remember that 'reality' is on God's side. Sometimes this falls a little into both sides, sometimes neither. If we FIRST take the Bible as absolute truth, and believe that foremost then let our observation be based on that framework - we should land closer to truth in our conclusions.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    You are correct - according to God's Word - plants came along 3 whole days prior to man and birds one whole day before.

    God's word says that our day - our weekly cycle day is in fact locked in as the same as the Genesis 1-2 day.

    Notice what HE says... (as opposed to what evolutionists speculate)

    Notice - No mention of "I hereby make a holy day - the 7th day will now be a holy day" – since it was already made holy and blessed in Gen 2:1-3.

    Rather we are already to "Remember it" and then are pointed back in time to when it was made the Holy Day of God. This command demands that the listener “understand” that the 7 day cycle of Creation Week – is the same 7-day cycle at the foot of MT Sinai 1000 years after the flood. Mankind is to follow God’s example “on the very day” of the week He points to.

    Again notice past tense action of blessing the Sabbath of God and making it Holy in Gen 2:1-3. .

    Note The Action commanded -
    Note The reasonthat establishes the commandment

    Oh that everyone would embrace God's Word just as it reads – evolutionism would not be so well accepted among Christians – if they did.
    </font>[/QUOTE]In Christ,

    Bob
     
  9. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Again UTEOTW - you are misdirecting the point away from what it says. Darwin was not speaking of religion but of the science and physical process of abiogenesis.

    The point remains (side stepping noted however)

    As I said -- your misdirection here is noted.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  10. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    From the opening post

    Jesus on creation
    by Charles Taylor

    ‘But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female’ (Mark 10:6).

    In these words of Jesus we find He teaches that Adam and Eve were created in ‘the beginning of the creation’—not billions of years after the beginning!


    The point is clear - CHRIST is the one making this claim and it is NOT in an evolutionist form talking about natural selection, or killing, or starvation, or carnage, or predation (and yes the supposedly "stupid people" of the Bible ages knew about killing and starvation).

    Rather Christ states that the event is God HIMSELF MAKING mankind - and MAKING both genders FROM the very start - from the actual 7 days of actual creation week.

    And as alreay noted here - a point consistently sidestepped and diverted away from by evolutionism's faithful.

    (At least so far on this thread).

    The last thing they want to do is discuss "What the Bible says".

    The reason is that although Christian - they have already "admitted" that the Bible uses Creationist models - not evolutionism.

    And so Bob said ...

    But then amazingly UTEOTW claims..

    I think I did miss that come to think of it. In fact - I was hoping this was where you would post your own statement that God used creationist models/language/text because the people of that day were not skilled in creating living planets. You know dealing with the point of the quote of Christ in Mark 10!

    Ahhh yes - the side stepping again.

    My point has been that you keep jumping off the thread with each post - hoping to make it a discussion about chirality in amino acids that you "hoped" would have been "in the beginning" if "only you had the science to see that" -- instead of sticking with the point of Mark 10.

    Do you see the point?

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  11. Gup20

    Gup20 Active Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,570
    Likes Received:
    22
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    I would imagine the 7 day period of creation could be considered 'the beginning'. Once everything was there, it would be 'the continuation' you would think, eh?

    The bible says:

    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.

    So it would seem they were both created on Day 6 of the creation week.
     
  12. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Again you are trying to obfuscate the point.

    I never argued that you said God created the World in 6 days. Your statement does not address the point.

    Also the point YOU made in the earlier evolutionism threads - was that the REASON God used creationist models to explain the entire origin of this World, life, sun and moon etc IS that the people of that day were ignorant and supertitious. (So basically you say God was speaking in creationist models that a superstitious people would understand - but NOT speaking in scientifically true - or accurate terms).

    NOW you are misdirecting the point as if to say that all God said to them was that in some unknown way HE is stil the creator.

    But when we see how that twist and turn compares with your earlier "AND He said this because they were too ignorant to know the truth accurately" - you are saying that God is NOT really the creator He only says that to stupid ignorant people.

    When the "truth is" we all know that you think that IT IS accurate and correct to say that God is the creator - as long as He does not ACTUALLY create anything.

    Claiming that "God is the Creator" is the big compromise/symbolism/poetic truth - of scripture because people were too stupid to know the REAL truth - is not what you believe - though your message-spinning now has you painted into the corner of saying that very thing. (when combining your statement above with your earlier "HE only said that because they are too supertitious to know the truth"..)

    You see UTEOTW - when you have to make stuff up to prop up the myths and fables of evolutionism THEN it only makes the situation worse - because you have to remember the arguments you made up in the past.

    Sticking with the Mark 10 subject -- lets see how fast you jump off the subject of that quote ... again.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  13. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Not in living cells - stick with the point please.

    Sure there is - you can't "make a cell" with right-handed amino acids comprising the proteins.

    Your statement is like saying "There is no reason for gravity to attract objects -- perhaps it used to repel objects at one time - though we have no evidence of that and have never seen it".

    You continually "demonstrate" evolutionism flying the face of "good science".

    My hat is off to you for believing in evolutionism "anyway".

    Great faith!

    Notice how your "faith" in evolutionism is based on pure "hopeful speculation"

    How sad - to abandon what science SEES every day for the 'wishfull hopeful monsters of evolutionism".

    Then - in classic evolutionism "logic" your own "Speculation" becomes your "proof" for evolutionism - as IF speculation on your part meant something.

    There it is - point "refuted by blue-sky fact-less speculation" and that is "more than enough" for evolutionism's faithful to "believe it".

    Your post is worth framing as the poster child for evolutionism's methods and practices - for what it will accept as "proof".

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  14. Gup20

    Gup20 Active Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,570
    Likes Received:
    22
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    One other thing regarding Jonah and the word 'fish' opposed to the word 'whale'.

    The greek word ketos us used by Jesus - one of the definitions of that word is 'huge fish' or sea monster - not simply just whale.
     
  15. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Classic "I can't see" defense of evolutionists when confronted with a blatant problem in their mythologies.

    In this case - UTEOTW has already admitted that he has NO evidence of living cells comprised of right-handed proteins (proteins comprised of amino acids with right-handed chirality). Not even one. AND UTEOT has also admitted that he has no "ancient evidence" that this EVER was the case.

    So -- no where to go there but pure blue-sky speculation for UTEOTW while he "pretends not to see" the problem.

    Then we notice that all experiements to intelligently FORM amino acids result in random distributions of right and left handed chirality -- that all agree are LETHAL to life-building proteins. Not ONE of those amino acid chains would contribute to a living cell's protein.

    The "Obvious" problem here is that this points to a DIVINE source an ENGINEERED solution for the start of life - not a "just so happened" start. This is WAYYY too much God for evolutionists so they simply "speculate" that there was an easter bunny solving this problem a long time ago - though we have no evidence that easter bunny's exist.

    And then UTEOTW confusingly makes the argument above -- of the form "I still can't see a problem".

    This is why confessions be well known evolutionists - like ASIMOV on the fact that entropy IS seen in living systems pulling them into disorder and decay - is so devastating to evolutionism's faithful. IT is because their classic defense has been "lets all close eyes hold hands and pretend we don't see it". But hen someone breaks ranks. IN the case of Asimov - we had an evolutionist "seeing" that the 2nd law of thermodynamic WAS apparent and obvious in biological systems by observing how it constantly degrades them.

    But again - the evolutionist can only respond "well then Asimov may see but the REST of us don't see".

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  16. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Notice the taxonomy that the OT Bible writers used? It used the term "fish" to represent ALL that swam in the sea.

    Mark 10 disproves evolutionism - but the point above does not. However when evolutionists THEMSELVE leap on to straw man arguments about whales not being fish - then the texts above simply show the lengths and futility to which evolutionists will cling in order to hold their faith in evolutionism's mythologies rather than the Word of God.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  17. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Moreover, Natural selection is the mechanism in evolution for directionally administrating mutational change upward according to evolutionary thought. If there was no death, there is no 'survival of the fittest'."

    I disagree with you on what "death" means here. I think to take it as simply physical death, and the the physical death of all life at that, is to miss the point. To quote "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Now, they did not suffer physical death on the day that they ate of the tree, did they? No. "Death" here is something more. With this difference of opinion, the rest of the argument falls apart.

    "[rhetorical]Lets keep this religious creation mumbo jumbo out of schools... lets teach our kids that the Bible is not practical or true - it's simply an ideology. There's no real world relevance to it - it's just a book we use to see where the concept of morals came from ... it's not really for today. [/rhetorical]"

    HOGWASH!! The Bible is just as true today as it was when it was written. (Sorry to keep quoting you there but to attribute it to me.) The Bible is true. It is relevent. But not every word is literal. You do not take everything in it to be the literal truth. Things can be true without having to be factual. There is a difference.

    "We need to come at this issue from the Bible's perspective, and not worry so much about trying to refute the science."

    But for you to refute the science is at the heart of the matter. This, to me, seems to be an admission that the facts are not on your side so you had just as soon talk about something else. There are many issues where believers have differing opinions on interpretation. Nothing wrong with that. In this case, we have a clear advantage in that it is possible, simply by looking at the Creation itself, to see what the correct interpretation is. And the evidence, from God's own Creation, is overwhelming that the universe is ancient. If you disagree, then there is a whole lot of refuting you have to do. Starting with the topics above.
     
  18. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    "I think I did miss that come to think of it. In fact - I was hoping this was where you would post your own statement that God used creationist models/language/text because the people of that day were not skilled in creating living planets... Also the point YOU made in the earlier evolutionism threads - was that the REASON God used creationist models to explain the entire origin of this World, life, sun and moon etc IS that the people of that day were ignorant and supertitious. (So basically you say God was speaking in creationist models that a superstitious people would understand - but NOT speaking in scientifically true - or accurate terms). Claiming that "God is the Creator" is the big compromise/symbolism/poetic truth - of scripture because people were too stupid to know the REAL truth - is not what you believe - though your message-spinning now has you painted into the corner of saying that very thing. (when combining your statement above with your earlier "HE only said that because they are too supertitious to know the truth"..)"

    Was the initial audience ignorant? Yes, at least in these matters. Were they stupid? Of course not. And there is a difference between the two. I am a reasonably smart guy, but there are many areas in which I am ignorant. (You may have a few in mind.) But that is not a strike against me. The initial audience did not have the prior knowledge necessary to get a blow by blow account. And it was unneeded. God managed to communicate everything they needed, and thet we need, to know in a succinct narrative. That it is not meant to be literal does not take away from the fact that it is true. God is the Creator.

    "Ahhh yes - the side stepping again. My point has been that you keep jumping off the thread with each post - hoping to make it a discussion about chirality in amino acids that you "hoped" would have been "in the beginning" if "only you had the science to see that" -- instead of sticking with the point of Mark 10. Do you see the point?"

    I see your point. Now do you see mine?

    We can go back and forth till eternity claiming that each other's interpretation is wrong. But, unlike many other areas where good people have differences of interpretation, we have the unique ability in this debate to look at the Creation itself and get the answer to who is right. I am not sidestepping anything. We differ on our interpretation. Nothing wrong with that. Now let's settle the issue. Look at all the facts and see who is right. I think all the facts come down on the side of an old earth and of the common descent of all life on earth. You disagree. Let's go to the Creation and see who is right.
     
  19. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    I hope we are not about to go down the same black hole that we did with entropy...

    "Not in living cells - stick with the point please... Sure there is - you can't "make a cell" with right-handed amino acids comprising the proteins... Then we notice that all experiements to intelligently FORM amino acids result in random distributions of right and left handed chirality -- that all agree are LETHAL to life-building proteins. Not ONE of those amino acid chains would contribute to a living cell's protein."

    Bob

    I have been clear. All life today has left handed proteins because the enzyme that makes the amino acids (well, their precusor, at least)that make the proteins is left handed. This results in all the other products, all the way to the final proteins being left handed.

    But there is no reason for one to suppose that this was always the case. And that is the problem with the initial reference. It calculated long odds that a long, left handed protein could form from a mixture of right and left handed amino acids. The problem with the statement is that there is no reason to suppose that had to happen. The left handedness today is a result of how the amino acids are synthesized. Before this helper enzyme came along, there is no reason to suppose that was the case.

    You can make proteins today with mixed left and right handed amino acids. But they would not be useful to life because it uses all left handed. But, what about before this enzyme? If the the amino acids were mixed, life could still make proteins. And size it was making proteins that were mixed, it could have used coumpounds that were mixed. You cannot demonstrate that all all points in history that only lefthanded proteins were used. For that matter, I cannot prove my assertion either, because the evidence is lost to time. But I do have that enzyme on my side. You are left with only assertions.

    You are trying to make hay on how things are today when the situation was different at the time we are discussing. An that, is where things fall apart for you.

    Now, quit side stepping the issues. Where did all those retroviral LTRs in the genome come from? Why do familes of genes show evidence that they evolved from a single gene through duplication and mutation? Why do we have index fossils in the first place, everything should be all jumbled up? Why do we share so many traits with other animals that are useless to us today but that would have benefitted our ancestors? Why do we share mutations and pseudogenes with the apes and primates?
     
  20. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    100% correct. Survival of the fittest relies (as in lies and re-lies) on the idea that new more faviorable traits result in more offspring and better chances of survival. It relies on the extinction of all the various flavors of less-favorable traits to explain away the fact that we don't see those transitional forms any more. (Otherwise we would be seeing smooth step-wise transitions from one species to another instead of hunting for "missing links".)


    Marvelous misdirection. Comparing the spiritual death of mankind in moral disobedience to the carnage, death, extinction, starvation and predation that evolutionism's god uses to "CREATE" new species.

    Fascinating misdirection.

    IN Christ,

    Bob
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...