To the evolution deniers

[Nihilist Virus]

As this is not a debate forum I'm not going to try to defend the theory of evolution. I'm not even educated enough to do so. But I do have two questions for those of you who deny evolution.

Question 1

Why is evolution universally accepted among biologists?

a) All biologists from all nations are conspiring together to advance the lie of evolution for some reason, presumably under the influence of Satan.

b) All biologists from all nations are mistaken, but are not knowingly lying or under Satanic influence. Somehow, the idea of evolution became popular and the scientific community is unable to see that which is obvious to uneducated laymen.

c) Other (please explain).

Question 2

If you accept that evolution is false despite being universally accepted among biologists, why accept the idea that the earth is a sphere? Universal acceptance of this notion should be irrelevant, and the idea of a spherical earth is counter-intuitive. Also, a plain reading of the Bible, together with knowledge of ancient Hebrew cosmology, strongly indicates a flat earth, as shown below. Why do you not believe in a flat earth? If you do believe in a flat earth, please just say so.

Google "ancient hebrew model of earth" to see many images like this.

 

[RGW00]

As this is not a debate forum I'm not going to try to defend the theory of evolution. I'm not even educated enough to do so. But I do have two questions for those of you who deny evolution.

Question 1

Why is evolution universally accepted among biologists?

a) All biologists from all nations are conspiring together to advance the lie of evolution for some reason, presumably under the influence of Satan.

b) All biologists from all nations are mistaken, but are not knowingly lying or under Satanic influence. Somehow, the idea of evolution became popular and the scientific community is unable to see that which is obvious to uneducated laymen.

c) Other (please explain).

Question 2

If you accept that evolution is false despite being universally accepted among biologists, why accept the idea that the earth is a sphere? Universal acceptance of this notion should be irrelevant, and the idea of a spherical earth is counter-intuitive. Also, a plain reading of the Bible, together with knowledge of ancient Hebrew cosmology, strongly indicates a flat earth, as shown below. Why do you not believe in a flat earth? If you do believe in a flat earth, please just say so.

Google "ancient hebrew model of earth" to see many images like this.

To answer your question, I am in right in the middle of evolution and creation. There are aspects of evolution I do agree with and there are parts with creation I agree with.

(But first, Question 1: A. Question 2: There is plenty of proof that the earth is spheric, how would days exist the way they are if the earth wasn't?)

For example, in evolution I believe in natural selection. That is a fact. In creation, I believe
God created the world through His mouth and the words that He spoke.
But in evolution, I do not believe we evolved from apes because that is very unbiblical. In creation, I do not believe that the Earth is 6000 years old. The truth is, I don't know, it very well could be. But God doesn't state the Earth's age in the Bible except through certain lineages of generations. However, we have no idea how much time in between He left out of the Bible so there is no way to prove that. It could billions of years old or just as simple as a few thousand.

 

[Small Fish]

I would say God gave them what they wanted. How God engineered it He knows. And why do I believe the earth is not flat? Because I don't believe that is what the Bible teaches but is wrong interpretation due to ignorance. Anyway, here is something for you evolutionists...

2 Thessalonians 2:10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

 

[tstor]

Why is evolution universally accepted among biologists?

It isn't. Here are several biologists who reject the theory of evolution:

• Fazale Rana
• David Berlinski
• Michael Behe
• Paul Chien
• Michael Denton
• Nathaniel Jeanson
• David Menton
• etc.

The majority of biologists accept evolution, yes. I believe that this is because evolution provides the best natural explanation for the development of life. When one rejects the possibility of a supernatural development of life then they must adhere to the theory of evolution out of necessity.

Why do you not believe in a flat earth? If you do believe in a flat earth, please just say so.

The Bible does not state the shape of the earth. As a result, I accept that it is spherical because it has been proven to be spherical.

 

[SeventyOne]

Question 1: I reject the idea that "all" biologists believe in evolution. Those who do have likely been educated within the framework of that lie and know no other paradigm, yet.

Question 2: It just might be flat.

 

[Tree of Life]

Why is evolution universally accepted among biologists?

While it is not universally accepted, it is an ingenious theory that explains the diversity of life in a naturalistic way. If one is already committed to naturalism it's really the only game in town.

If you accept that evolution is false despite being universally accepted among biologists, why accept the idea that the earth is a sphere? Universal acceptance of this notion should be irrelevant, and the idea of a spherical earth is counter-intuitive. Also, a plain reading of the Bible, together with knowledge of ancient Hebrew cosmology, strongly indicates a flat earth, as shown below. Why do you not believe in a flat earth? If you do believe in a flat earth, please just say so.

There is no good reason to deny that the earth is an oblate spheroid. The physical evidence suggests this and nothing in the Bible teaches contrary to this.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

It isn't. Here are several biologists who reject the theory of evolution:

• Fazale Rana
• David Berlinski
• Michael Behe
• Paul Chien
• Michael Denton
• Nathaniel Jeanson
• David Menton
• etc.

Please don't give me that line unless you care to admit that Jesus was wrong when he said that the mustard seed is the smallest of ALL seeds.

If you tell me, "Well, you know what Jesus meant there..." and then you list some of the 0.1% of biologists who deny evolution, then I will not take you seriously and it will be no one's fault but your own.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

To everyone else: thanks for the responses, keep them coming.

 

[Eryk]

Please don't give me that line unless you care to admit that Jesus was wrong when he said that the mustard seed is the smallest of ALL seeds.

If you tell me, "Well, you know what Jesus meant there..." and then you list some of the 0.1% of biologists who deny evolution, then I will not take you seriously and it will be no one's fault but your own.

This is a forum where non-Christian Seekers are encouraged to ask questions about those aspects of the Christian faith which seem hard to understand or accept, and where Christians can enter into discussion with them on these questions. The primary focus of this forum is Christian evangelism and discipleship, not to debate Christian Theology or challenge, attack, or argue against, Christianity. If any non-Christian member would like to challenge Christianity, they may do so in the Christian Apologetics forum.

 

[tstor]

Please don't give me that line unless you care to admit that Jesus was wrong when he said that the mustard seed is the smallest of ALL seeds.

If you tell me, "Well, you know what Jesus meant there..." and then you list some of the 0.1% of biologists who deny evolution, then I will not take you seriously and it will be no one's fault but your own.

Why have you become so hostile? I fail to see the significance of your comparison to the mustard seed example and my list of biologists. You stated that evolution is "universally accepted among biologists." This is an empirically false statement, which is what I indicated.

Regarding the mustard seed example, what would you expect Jesus to say? Would you expect him to name some seed that the local farmers would never have heard of? As far as the locals were concerned, the mustard seed was indeed the smallest seed they knew of. Jesus was not going to give them an example which they could not relate to.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

This is a forum where non-Christian Seekers are encouraged to ask questions about those aspects of the Christian faith which seem hard to understand or accept, and where Christians can enter into discussion with them on these questions. The primary focus of this forum is Christian evangelism and discipleship, not to debate Christian Theology or challenge, attack, or argue against, Christianity. If any non-Christian member would like to challenge Christianity, they may do so in the Christian Apologetics forum.

Well Mr Future Mod, I'm not arguing about Christianity. For the purposes of this thread, I'm taking it as true. I'm saying that his response was counterproductive and violated the principle of charity. I then explained why. But don't worry, due to his doubling down in his next post I've placed him on ignore and thus this will not occur again.

Now, do you have comments on the OP? Do you accept or reject evolution?

 

[redleghunter]

As this is not a debate forum I'm not going to try to defend the theory of evolution. I'm not even educated enough to do so. But I do have two questions for those of you who deny evolution.

Question 1

Why is evolution universally accepted among biologists?

a) All biologists from all nations are conspiring together to advance the lie of evolution for some reason, presumably under the influence of Satan.

b) All biologists from all nations are mistaken, but are not knowingly lying or under Satanic influence. Somehow, the idea of evolution became popular and the scientific community is unable to see that which is obvious to uneducated laymen.

c) Other (please explain).

Question 2

If you accept that evolution is false despite being universally accepted among biologists, why accept the idea that the earth is a sphere? Universal acceptance of this notion should be irrelevant, and the idea of a spherical earth is counter-intuitive. Also, a plain reading of the Bible, together with knowledge of ancient Hebrew cosmology, strongly indicates a flat earth, as shown below. Why do you not believe in a flat earth? If you do believe in a flat earth, please just say so.

Google "ancient hebrew model of earth" to see many images like this.

I have a question. Why do people believe what biologists say about evolution but don't when it concerns procreation?

 

[xianghua]

As this is not a debate forum I'm not going to try to defend the theory of evolution. I'm not even educated enough to do so. But I do have two questions for those of you who deny evolution.

Question 1

Why is evolution universally accepted among biologists?

a) All biologists from all nations are conspiring together to advance the lie of evolution for some reason, presumably under the influence of Satan.

b) All biologists from all nations are mistaken, but are not knowingly lying or under Satanic influence. Somehow, the idea of evolution became popular and the scientific community is unable to see that which is obvious to uneducated laymen.

c) Other (please explain).

Question 2

If you accept that evolution is false despite being universally accepted among biologists, why accept the idea that the earth is a sphere? Universal acceptance of this notion should be irrelevant, and the idea of a spherical earth is counter-intuitive. Also, a plain reading of the Bible, together with knowledge of ancient Hebrew cosmology, strongly indicates a flat earth, as shown below. Why do you not believe in a flat earth? If you do believe in a flat earth, please just say so.

Google "ancient hebrew model of earth" to see many images like this.

as for the first question: i think that many biologists just believe in evolution because they never heared about the evidences against it. even prof behe admit that he never heared about the problems with evolution untill he read the book "evolution, a theory in cryeis" by dr michael denton.

by the way; do you have a real survey that can show us what are the real number for believing in evolution among biologists?

 

[Hawkins]

In a nutshell, this is because humans do what they can, they won't what they can't. Science are experiment based. In the case of evolution lab cannot be established as the proposed evolution will take million years to occur. Scientists thus need to find the alternative to prove the point. This alternative is never used in any other science. It's way of proving a truth is never proven.

However, as long as they can't bring the process up as a lab case, all they can do is to draw conclusions from this alternative which is never applicable to any other science. To put it another way, this alternative can be universally accepted in the circle of biologists simply because there's not a better alternative out there as long as the bottom line is not to introduce God into the formula! It however by no means says that it's it truth! It by no means says that "God created it" cannot be a truth, either! This is so because the focus of science is more about how a process will repeat in the future, instead of how a process occurred in a long past!

 

[xianghua]

In a nutshell, this is because humans do what they can, they won't what they can't. Science are experiment based. In the case of evolution lab cannot be established as the proposed evolution will take million years to occur. Scientists thus need to find the alternative to prove the point. This alternative is never used in any other science. It's way of proving a truth is never proven.

However, as long as they can't bring the process up as a lab case, all they can do is to draw conclusions from this alternative which is never applicable to any other science. To put it another way, this alternative can be universally accepted in the circle of biologists simply because there's not a better alternative out there as long as the bottom line is not to introduce God into the formula! It however by no means says that it's it truth! It by no means says that "God created it" cannot be a truth, either! This is so because the focus of science is more about how a process will repeat in the future, instead of how a process occurred in a long past!

we also have evidences that nature designed too. so the claim that nature were designed is a scientific claim.

 

[Hawkins]

we also have evidences that nature designed too. so the claim that nature were designed is a scientific claim.

It's rather a common fallacy to equate science with evidence. Evidence is almost exclusively rely on human interpretation to stand. While science relies on its predictability to stand.

"Water dissolves into hydrogen and oxygen" is a scientific truth simply because we can predict the result before each and every chemical experiment. If our this prediction fails, we deserve a Nobel Prize. This is what science is, examining evidence inside the test tubes post experiment basically has no bearing on how true the formula is!

 

[Nihilist Virus]

as for the first question: i think that many biologists just believe in evolution because they never heared about the evidences against it. even prof behe admit that he never heared about the problems with evolution untill he read the book "evolution, a theory in cryeis" by dr michael denton.

OK.

by the way; do you have a real survey that can show us what are the real number for believing in evolution among biologists?

It didn't occur to me that this would be a point in question.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

In a nutshell, this is because humans do what they can, they won't what they can't. Science are experiment based. In the case of evolution lab cannot be established as the proposed evolution will take million years to occur. Scientists thus need to find the alternative to prove the point. This alternative is never used in any other science. It's way of proving a truth is never proven.

However, as long as they can't bring the process up as a lab case, all they can do is to draw conclusions from this alternative which is never applicable to any other science. To put it another way, this alternative can be universally accepted in the circle of biologists simply because there's not a better alternative out there as long as the bottom line is not to introduce God into the formula! It however by no means says that it's it truth! It by no means says that "God created it" cannot be a truth, either! This is so because the focus of science is more about how a process will repeat in the future, instead of how a process occurred in a long past!

So, to be clear, you do not believe that there is some massive conspiracy?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Question 1: I reject the idea that "all" biologists believe in evolution. Those who do have likely been educated within the framework of that lie and know no other paradigm, yet.

Question 2: It just might be flat.

Like I said to someone else here, don't pick on my use of "all." Or do you believe that the mustard seed is the smallest of "all" seeds?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

While it is not universally accepted, it is an ingenious theory that explains the diversity of life in a naturalistic way. If one is already committed to naturalism it's really the only game in town.

So you are saying that biologists are committing the "well how else could it have happened?" fallacy and that no one has noticed this or pointed it out, or that they are aware but "suppress the truth in unrighteousness" perhaps?

There is no good reason to deny that the earth is an oblate spheroid. The physical evidence suggests this and nothing in the Bible teaches contrary to this.

I can't debate you here, but it's not a point in question that the authors of the Bible believed in a flat earth.