Is Evolution A Lie?

[Tower Crane Driver]

And then when I ask something like "how did man breathe without fully developed lungs?" or "how did animals reproduce without fully developed sexual organs?"...the conversation tends to break down pretty quickly.

Of course the conversation will break down quickly. You're asking questions that make no sense.

There was never a point where man didn't have fully developed lungs and there wasn't a point that animals didn't have working sex organs.

If we met in the street and you asked questions like that to me I would soon lose interest. Similarly if I asked bad questions about your religion to try and trip you up I'm sure you'd lose interest.

Now I wouldn't dare ask a scientist these types of questions because there is probably some neat, slick technical answer which would leave me speechless and embarrassed.

Do you not think you should find the answers to these questions to avoid feeling embarrassed and left speechless?

However, it continues to prove my point that people accept and believe evolution on the basis of knowing very little about it.

True.

Now the difference between an understanding of evolution and an understanding of computers/ volcanism / mechanics etc is that I feel that a belief in evolution is both an intellectual and a moral choice.

There is nothing moral about it and the only choice is whether and individual choose to believe something supported by evidence or not.

Computers/ volcanism / mechanics - whilst interesting subjects I'm sure, do not really present us with this choice. I can ignore these subjects and not have to decide to "believe" in something else. There is no fundamental philosophical implication for not understanding volcanism. Evolution, I might suggest, tackles a far bigger issue....

But they are all interlinked. One leads to the other and relies on each other, like a house of cards.

Evolution cannot be true if other scientific subject do not support it.

Gravity and Physics shows us how our planet and solar system works and how old our universe is.

Volcanism/Tectonics proves how our Earth functions and its age and how our continents move and influence weather systems etc.

It's all part of one system.


Our DNA replicates and cells divide. That's how you and I can go from a baby to an adult. As DNA replicates, sometimes there are glitches in the copy, and the baby/adult might have a slight change to its body or behaviour.

Sometimes this change is bad and the baby dies young. Sometimes its good and helps the baby become a more capable adult.

This concept is so simple but because it happens so slowly, one tiny change every generation, it takes hundreds of thousands or millions of years to change one species into another.

Gravity, Relativity, Physics, Plate Tectonics, Volcanism etc etc gives us this time.

If we have the time, evolution happens.

 

[Celtic D]

Well said Tower Crane Driver, as you say his arguements are poor, in fact they are embarrassing and the surest way to put your average person off exploring the possibility that Christianity is true

 

[welshman]

I wouldn't say they are embaressing at all. That is his interpretation on how he thinks the world was created. I personally think God did it in Gen 1:1...Satan fell...then in Gen 1:2 and onwards it talks about how he finished off creation and re-made the world in literal days that was judged due to Satan rebelling. That is just one interpretation...and while I don't agree with yours...it's a bit harsh to call it embaressing.

 

[Tower Crane Driver]

I wouldn't say they are embaressing at all. That is his interpretation on how he thinks the world was created. I personally think God did it in Gen 1:1...Satan fell...then in Gen 1:2 and onwards it talks about how he finished off creation and re-made the world in literal days that was judged due to Satan rebelling. That is just one interpretation...and while I don't agree with yours...it's a bit harsh to call it embaressing.

To be fair, ianb321red had used the word embarrass himself.

Either way, this isn't interpretation. There is no scope for interpretation. The evidence shows what it shows.

If you believe God to be the first cause, that's fine, we can argue and discuss the merits for that. If you think he intervenes here and there, that's also fine, and we can discuss that too.

Or you can decide to through out the evidence and believe in a literal, biblical creation.

Whatever choice you make, whatever you believe to be real or true, doesn't alter the fact that the evidence we find proves that we live in an old, expanding universe and on a planet where life evolves over millions of year by natural selection.

 

[Celtic D]

I wouldn't say they are embaressing at all. That is his interpretation on how he thinks the world was created. I personally think God did it in Gen 1:1...Satan fell...then in Gen 1:2 and onwards it talks about how he finished off creation and re-made the world in literal days that was judged due to Satan rebelling. That is just one interpretation...and while I don't agree with yours...it's a bit harsh to call it embaressing.

I don't have a problem with his stance, although I must admit I actually give more credability to YEC than OEC, even though I don't agree with either. At least with YEC it is a straight literal agreement with the Bible and I can see where your point of view comes from. I just can't get my head round the concept of OEC - why make it like a literal creation per the Bible and throw in a few million years - the Bible doesn't say that.

What is embarasing is the arguements he is trying to use to convince folk of Christianity - your average person would laugh in his face IMHO.

As Tower Crane Driver has pointed out if he is going to discuss science with people he should know his facts - by his own admission he says he would not talk to scientists - that says to me the science he is trying to use is "false" science but he is trying to "blind with science" those he thinks know less about science than him.

Most people have studied at least basic science, and probably know that the questions he is asking are mince (especially if his above example is anything to go by), so why would they then choose to listen to any Gospel message from him. If I knew someone was trying to deceive me with science I wouldn't give them the time of day to listen to their "religious waffle"

 

[welshman]

Maybe that is where we would disagree. I don't believe the evidence does. You come and interpret the evidence depending on your worldview. Plus, I don't believe the original Hebrew allows for the earth to be millions of years old according to the Genesis account.

I would contend that natural selection only selects information from that which already exists. A dog will never produce a pig because the information is not there. That is why I believe the Bible is correct when it says things bring forth after their kind.

That's my take on it anyway.

To be fair, ianb321red had used the word embarrass himself.

Either way, this isn't interpretation. There is no scope for interpretation. The evidence shows what it shows.

If you believe God to be the first cause, that's fine, we can argue and discuss the merits for that. If you think he intervenes here and there, that's also fine, and we can discuss that too.

Or you can decide to through out the evidence and believe in a literal, biblical creation.

Whatever choice you make, whatever you believe to be real or true, doesn't alter the fact that the evidence we find proves that we live in an old, expanding universe and on a planet where life evolves over millions of year by natural selection.

 

[ianb321red]

Well said Tower Crane Driver, as you say his arguements are poor, in fact they are embarrassing and the surest way to put your average person off exploring the possibility that Christianity is true

That's an interesting comment! So my lack of knowledge on evolution put's people off exploring the truth of Christianity??

 

[ianb321red]

Ok, I think I find the general tone of the last few comments personally quite scathing - which is disappointing (I don't include Welshman here because I normally agree with 99% of his posts)...

To be absolutely ridiculed by someone who calls themselves a Christian on the topic of evolution is definitely something I've not experienced before..

As I've said earlier, I normally steer well clear of evolution "debates" because the same outcome ALWAYS happens: display the slightest bit of inferior knowledge of the topic and you get absolutely panned.

Tower Crane Driver - fair points that I suspect you've made, but I'm not about to spend hours researching whether you are right or not simply to perpetuate this thread...

So therefore it leaves me just having to rely on The Bible for the facts on creation - oh well

 

[ianb321red]

And one final point, and this may sound harsh - but I do think that Theistic Evolution is borderline heresy, therefore anyone believing in it is potentially in spiritual danger...

What can be more clearer than Matthew 19 and Mark 10:6 - Jesus didn't need to believe in evolution; he believed in the scriptures "for it is written" that In the beginning God created male and female. So in the beginning means just that. How can it mean anything else?

TE is just a modern/ 'pop' Christian attack on the authority of the bible for people who are afraid to not fit in with current modern thinking..The Genesis account of creation is not written with any symbolic leaning. It is simply the true account of creation. If you reject it, you are promoting an unorthodox view and profaning the eternal Word of God.

I'm sorry to say this but I believe this is true.

 

[non-religious]

[ianb321red]And one final point, and this may sound harsh - but I do think that Theistic Evolution is borderline heresy, therefore anyone believing in it is potentially in spiritual danger...

What can be more clearer than Matthew 19 and Mark 10:6 - Jesus didn't need to believe in evolution; he believed in the scriptures "for it is written" that In the beginning God created male and female. So in the beginning means just that. How can it mean anything else?

TE is just a modern/ 'pop' Christian attack on the authority of the bible for people who are afraid to not fit in with current modern thinking..The Genesis account of creation is not written with any symbolic leaning. It is simply the true account of creation. If you reject it, you are promoting an unorthodox view and profaning the eternal Word of God.

I'm sorry to say this but I believe this is true.

I'm more in the theistic evolutionist camp, than I am a creationist. I don't consider it heresy at all. Of all the stories in the Bible the creation account is the one where I find myself genuinely unsure. The more we learn about the planet the more skeptical I am becoming. There are a number of issues relating to the OT that I find deeply troubling (which for the sake of this thread I won't go into ) and the fact that I question them, yet still believe God is the author of creation, sits comfortably with me.

"profaning the Word of God" - No, just unsure and open to the possibility that many parts are clearly not to be taken as literal. I respect your opinion though


Just a quick question about the creation account. How do you distinguish between verses 3 (first day) and 14 (forth day) of the creation account in Genesis? What it seems to suggest is that there are two lights. Verse 14 clearly indicating the sun and verse 3, I'm not sure.. What was the first light? Because we know according to verse 14 it wasn't the sun?

 

[non-religious]

[ianb321red]
As I've said earlier, I normally steer well clear of evolution "debates" because the same outcome ALWAYS happens: display the slightest bit of inferior knowledge of the topic and you get absolutely panned.

Yeah me too... My knowledge of such matters is so vastly inferior to many who take the time to look into this issue, I tend to not get involved...

 

[theFijian]

A dog will never produce a pig because the information is not there.

Evolution doesn't say that a dog will produce a pig.

That is why I believe the Bible is correct when it says things bring forth after their kind.

Which is also what evolution says

 

[theFijian]

And one final point, and this may sound harsh - but I do think that Theistic Evolution is borderline heresy, therefore anyone believing in it is potentially in spiritual danger...

What can be more clearer than Matthew 19 and Mark 10:6 - Jesus didn't need to believe in evolution; he believed in the scriptures "for it is written" that In the beginning God created male and female. So in the beginning means just that. How can it mean anything else?

TE is just a modern/ 'pop' Christian attack on the authority of the bible for people who are afraid to not fit in with current modern thinking..The Genesis account of creation is not written with any symbolic leaning. It is simply the true account of creation. If you reject it, you are promoting an unorthodox view and profaning the eternal Word of God.

I'm sorry to say this but I believe this is true.

You can believe what you like but practically all of what you just wrote is demonstrably false. Shame you had to come out and prove that not only do you know very little about evolution but very little about your fellow christians and what they believe!

 

[theFijian]

Well said Tower Crane Driver, as you say his arguements are poor, in fact they are embarrassing and the surest way to put your average person off exploring the possibility that Christianity is true

I really don't think they are embarrassing, plenty of non-scientific people might find themselves asking similar questions about evolution, they just wouldn't have the same skeptical bias against it

 

[Celtic D]

That's an interesting comment! So my lack of knowledge on evolution put's people off exploring the truth of Christianity??

That was not what I said

 

[TemperateSeaIsland]

It would be a bit of a strange lie considering it being used in biological labs through out the world. Are scientists lying to themselves?

 

[welshman]

Well what does it do then? As far as I am aware, and according to Berlinski; scientists can't even agree on what a "species" is.

Evolution occurs in a micro form. You can breed different "species" of dog. They are all the same "kind" of animal though. However, you will never get a new "kind" of animal from another after reproduction (no matter how much time is involved) because the genetic information is not there.

Evolution doesn't say that a dog will produce a pig.

Which is also what evolution says

 

[ianb321red]

You can believe what you like but practically all of what you just wrote is demonstrably false. Shame you had to come out and prove that not only do you know very little about evolution but very little about your fellow christians and what they believe!

Go ahead - demonstrate me to be false..If you believe in the authority of The Bible then you'll find that nothing I've said in those last paragraphs isn't true?

The only way to get round what is says about creation in the Matthew & Mark passages is by using eisegesis.....

You might not agree what with my opinion, but the fact is that the majority of people posting on this thread have simply just stated either what they don't believe, or why other people's views are wrong. Right?

So why don't we continue this discussion with the TE's among us showing the literalists how their view on creation ties in with what Jesus said. I'm not interesting in what scientists say. I'm interested in what Jesus said.

 

[ianb321red]

..you know very little about evolution but very little about your fellow christians and what they believe!

...and for the record, I'm not interested in loyalty to faith/ religion(s) or The Church or Christianity or other Christians. My only loyalty is to Jesus Christ.

Therefore, it doesn't bother me that I know very little about evolution.
It doesn't particularly bother me that you think I know every little about "fellow christians" because anyone can label themselves as a "Christian" - doesn't mean that they are one..

Try reading Acts 20:29-30 as I think this is very applicable to TE's...

 

[Mr Dave]

...and for the record, I'm not interested in loyalty to faith/ religion(s) or The Church or Christianity or other Christians. My only loyalty is to Jesus Christ.

Therefore, it doesn't bother me that I know very little about evolution.
It doesn't particularly bother me that you think I know every little about "fellow christians" because anyone can label themselves as a "Christian" - doesn't mean that they are one..

Try reading Acts 20:29-30 as I think this is very applicable to TE's...

What, that we're savage wolves distorting the truth?
That's a nice thing to say about us.