What's wrong with evolution?

[AV1611VET]

So.. basicaly what you are saying is this: It's obvious that some things should be taken literally while other things should not?

Correct.

It is obvious to me that genesis cannot be taken literally. A long time ago, before we humans has all the knowledge about the earth we have now, it might not have been obvious to them.

Let me give you an illustration:

Suppose you create a single beautiful rose inside of a pot, and you create it to rely on sunlight for photosynthesis. The next day, you create the sun. You then have a "secretary" document this in his own words.

6000 years later, people will look back and:

• reject you and your secretary and claim the rose had to have come after the sun
• believe you and your secretary, but claim the secretary wrote figuratively
• believe the rose came one day before the sun, taking both you and your secretary literally
• et cetera

But we know the history of the earth. We know how old the earth is. This cantradicts a literal interpetation of genesis.

I submit you don't know the history of the earth. Case in point: describe the earth on day four of its existence, from an evolutionary standpoint, then drop back five days and describe what's there.

 

[AV1611VET]

Hey AV...

I'm worried about statements like this, although I may well be imbuing it with meaning not really there. But does this mean you REFUSE to believe in evolution?

Yes --- I refuse to believe in evolution.

Or let me ask another way... can you think of specific evidence that could shift your conviction? Or is it a pure tennet of faith with you, like God is Trinity...

It's a pure tenet of faith. Even Einstein, as scientific as he was, described the universe incorrectly, thinking it was steady-state. It takes more faith to believe in evolution, than it does to believe in God.

Cos if its the second (and its great to meet people with strength to their conviction), I mean, based on faith and conviction rather than evidence, why are you still debating it?

All I really do is answer questions. I have one thread I created, but that's all.

 

[Elduran]

Correct.



Let me give you an illustration:

Suppose you create a single beautiful rose inside of a pot, and you create it to rely on sunlight for photosynthesis. The next day, you create the sun. You then have a "secretary" document this in his own words.

6000 years later, people will look back and:

• reject you and your secretary and claim the rose had to have come after the sun
• believe you and your secretary, but claim the secretary wrote figuratively
• believe the rose came one day before the sun, taking both you and your secretary literally
• et cetera

I submit you don't know the history of the earth. Case in point: describe the earth on day four of its existence, from an evolutionary standpoint, then drop back five days and describe what's there.

From an "evolutionary" stand point (which presumably means scientific, as evolution doesn't deal with formation of planets), the day before the earth was considered "fully formed" it would presumably be an almost fully formed planet.

 

[AV1611VET]

Anything in nature can violate these "principles of love and harmony" including gravity. I can drop a typewriter out of a window and kill someone which would clearly violate this love-and-harmony principle, thus disproving gravity.

I guarantee you, you wouldn't have done that prior to the Fall, even substituting a rock for a typewriter, and a cliff for a window.

This neatly shows that AV1611VET is talking nonsense.

Comparing the earth today to the earth on day seven of its existence, I supposed it would appear to be "nonsense".

This is the effect sin has on the universe ---- relegating it on its way to pure nonsense --- (maximum entropy).

 

[AV1611VET]

I've read the whole book (just like I read some others no one likes to touch), and for the sake of fairness I examined a number of contradictions in the book in more detail. What I found, I've elaborated in my above posting.

Funny, you left out a step. Did you just [examine and post], or did you [examine, try to resolve, then post]? Like I said, it's much easier to shout CONTRADICTION than it is to do a little research, isn't it?

If I'm wrong then you will be able to point out where I made my mistake.

I highly doubt I'll be able to do that, in light of you making this statement:

You may well be able to make some sense out of the contradictions, in your very own personal interpretation of the text, but that does not make the contradictions disappear.

...

Yes, this means that you lost.

Again, if I'm wrong (which is of course possible), show me my error.

Not a chance --- either way I lose --- so why try?

 

[LightHorseman]

Yes --- I refuse to believe in evolution.

really? There is no possible evidence that could sway you?

 

[AV1611VET]

Somehow I'm not convinced that he'll even try... but then, maybe there's a pleasant surprise ahead?

Like I said, no thanks. When you predict ahead of time that it can't be done, then I'll respect your prediction and save myself the trouble.

If I can't convince people on here that I'm not a YEC, even when Wikipedia backs me up, then something's wrong.

 

[Jase]

Like I said, no thanks. When you predict ahead of time that it can't be done, then I'll respect your prediction and save myself the trouble.

If I can't convince people on here that I'm not a YEC, even when Wikipedia backs me up, then something's wrong.

You are YEC by all definitions of it. You can't just arbitrarily make up definitions to describe yourself to pretend your views actually have some legitimacy.

 

[AV1611VET]

really? There is no possible evidence that could sway you?

None that I know of --- Jesus said that even geology would point to Him --- I have no reason to think otherwise.

[bible]Luke 19:40[/bible]

 

[LightHorseman]

None that I know of --- Jesus said that even geology would point to Him --- I have no reason to think otherwise.

Why do you think paleontological geology contradicts anything we know about Jesus?

 

[Opcode42]

You are, by the very definition of the term, a YEC.

You believe in a 6000 yeard old earth that has the appearance of age. You try to hide this fact by redifining words to fit your purpose, but it doesnt chagne the fact that you belive in a 6000 year old earth. Combine that with a literal Bible, and yup, you walk, talk, and look exactly like a YEC.

At leaast though you are an honest YEC when it comes to science. You don't care about wether its right or wrong. You don't like what it says so you reject it. Theres not much point arguning with you, or even talking with you. It would be more productive to explain evolution to a Chimp. At least in another million years the chimp's ancestors might have evolved enough to understand the concept.

 

[AV1611VET]

You are YEC by all definitions of it. You can't just arbitrarily make up definitions to describe yourself to pretend your views actually have some legitimacy.

By all definitions, huh? As I have posted before:

The defining characteristic of this belief is that the Earth is "young", on the order of 6,000 to 10,000 years old, rather than the age of 4.5 billion years estimated by a variety of scientific methods including radiometric dating.

Emphasis mine.

I have always said this earth is at least millions of years old, if not 4.5 billion.

 

[Opcode42]

By all definitions, huh? As I have posted before:

Emphasis mine.

I have always said this earth is at least millions of years old, if not 4.5 billion.

No, you ahve said, repeatedly, that the Earth was Created 4.5 years old only 6000 years ago. Unfortunately, the word age only works this way in your mind, as everywhere else would then classify the age of the earth as 6000 years old by your statement.

That you choose to redfine words to fit your needs does not change the fact that your statement clearly says the Earth is 6000 years old.

Thus YEC you be.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why do you think paleontological geology contradicts anything we know about Jesus?

Beats me --- what do you know about Jesus?

 

[AV1611VET]

You are, by the very definition of the term, a YEC.

Then you don't know the definition of a YEC.

(It would be nice if a YEC would chime in here and substantiate this. I'm tired of using Wikipedia to do it.)

You believe in a 6000 yeard old earth that has the appearance of age.

No I don't --- that's what you want to think I think.

You try to hide this fact by redifining words to fit your purpose...

I don't hide anything. I put what I believe right up in the storefront window for you to see. Whether it's ridiculed, believed, ignored, or whatever, it certainly isn't hidden.

...but it doesnt chagne the fact that you belive in a 6000 year old earth.

Cite one post from me where I said this earth is 6000 years old (w/o it being a typo), or please drop that accusation.

Combine that with a literal Bible, and yup, you walk, talk, and look exactly like a YEC.

Not hardly.

Theres not much point arguning with you, or even talking with you.

Good deal --- let's see you walk your talk now.

 

[LightHorseman]

Beats me --- what do you know about Jesus?

I'm assuming pretty much the same as you, having read the Gospels, the apocrypha, and studied the contemporary history of the time...

But I still don't find anything in evolutionary theory that conflicts with anything I believe about Jesus.

You apear to have this conflict. I'm trying to understand it. Please explain?

 

[AV1611VET]

But I still don't find anything in evolutionary theory that conflicts with anything I believe about Jesus.

Then try reversing it. Look for what you believe about Jesus that conflicts with evolutionary theory. Such as His remarks about "the creation".

You apear to have this conflict. I'm trying to understand it. Please explain?

Just reverse your priorities --- it should become clear then.

 

[Giant]

What's wrong with evolution?

uummmm like appart from no evidence, do you mean??

 

[Giant]

Evolution teaches NO creator....

Christians believe in a Creator

 

[theFijian]

I guarantee you, you wouldn't have done that prior to the Fall, even substituting a rock for a typewriter, and a cliff for a window.

I understand that in the face of logic your arguments are immediately exposed as ridiculous, but at least try to address what is being said. This obfuscation is easily spotted.

Comparing the earth today to the earth on day seven of its existence, I supposed it would appear to be "nonsense".

This is the effect sin has on the universe ---- relegating it on its way to pure nonsense --- (maximum entropy).

Aside from posting illogical nonsense which even has scant biblical support you seem to be suffering from the delusion that you are some kind of pedagogue. Believe me few people here are learning anything beneficial from you.