Evolution vs. The Bible

Achilles6129 · May 6, 2014

Papias -

I am only going to respond to the new parts of your reply, as it is pointless for us to continue rehashing the same material over and over again. I've said what I needed to say and make it very clear - if you can't understand it, it's not my job to clarify it. I've clarified as much as I can.

Also, I seem to recall on another thread that you said that you believe that the sun goes around the earth instead of the earth going around the sun. Could you clarify your beliefs on this issue? Perhaps I simply misremembered.

Papias said:
Which is in no way indicted by the text, nor does it make sense anyway, since that would make the stars move across the sky (and the stars already move across the sky), not make them fall to earth.

It would appear as though the stars were falling to the earth if you lived on the night side of the planet. Stars move across the sky currently, but should the planet fall off of its axis they would move extremely fast across the sky and it would appear as though they were falling to earth. This would also cause the major earthquake where the mountains/islands move out of their places also prophesied of in the book of Revelation.

Papias said:
So then a figure of speech like "let the land produce vegetation" can be used literally to show the evolution of plants on Earth?

The problem is that the allegory needs to correspond to reality. In this case, no one has yet shown how the entire creation account in Genesis could be an allegory for evolution. The example you gave would hold true in one instance, but the problem is the order is all wrong for it to be an allegory to evolution. In this case you have grass before the sun!

Papias said:
Thanks for providing evidence. Could you do so from a non-biased source? AIG is known to lie repeatedly. Even so, you still haven't shown a vast majority.

AiG is known to lie repeatedly? That's a rather strong accusation. If they're so incorrect maybe you should write them and prove them wrong. I"m sure they would be happy to retract any errors on their website.

Also, you're not going to find an "unbiased source" when it comes to creation/evolution. Good luck with that one!

Papias said:
Irrelevant. In the case of diseases, no one interpreted any mention of disease in the scriptures as due to germs until germ theory came up in the 1800s. So by your own method, we should reject germ theory? The same goes for Gravity, gestation, and countless other modern learnings.

This is a really poor analogy. The Bible doesn't contradict germ theory anywhere; it does, however, contradict evolution!

Papias · May 9, 2014

Papias -

I am only going to respond to the new parts of your reply, as it is pointless for us to continue rehashing the same material over and over again.

Yes, it is pointless. I have explained to you many times the reasons why your positions were wrong and ignored scripture, but so be it.

Also, I seem to recall on another thread that you said that you believe that the sun goes around the earth instead of the earth going around the sun. Could you clarify your beliefs on this issue? Perhaps I simply misremembered.

Thank you for asking kindly for clarification. My position is not that the sun goes around the earth (geocentrism). My position is the same as current astronomers - that the earth goes around the sun (heliocentrism). You may have gotten the idea of geocentrism from a time I pointed out that a literal reading of most Bibles clearly refutes heliocentrism. In other words, a literal reading of the Bibles clearly states that the earth does not move, and that the earth is flat.

Originally Posted by Papias

Which is in no way indicted by the text, nor does it make sense anyway, since that would make the stars move across the sky (and the stars already move across the sky), not make them fall to earth.

Click to expand...

It would appear as though the stars were falling to the earth if you lived on the night side of the planet. Stars move across the sky currently, but should the planet fall off of its axis they would move extremely fast across the sky and it would appear as though they were falling to earth.

No, it wouldn't. Rotating the earth in any direction would simply make the stars appear to move across the sky, as they already move across the sky. Moving faster across the sky is simply that, not "falling to earth".

Plus, your statement of "falling off it's axis" makes no sense in itself. First - "falling"? Falling requires and up and a down, which don't exist in space.

The second part is problematic too "falling off it's axis"? "off" requires that it was sitting "on" it's axis beforehand, when of course the axis goes through the earth- the axis is not a pedestel the earth sits upon.

By "falling off it's axis", the best I can guess is that you mean it begins to spin around a new, different axis. Is that what you mean? Again, unless that causes it to rush over toward a star, it will only make the stars move across the sky, not fall to earth.

Originally Posted by Papias

So then a figure of speech like "let the land produce vegetation" can be used literally to show the evolution of plants on Earth?

Click to expand...

The problem is that the allegory needs to correspond to reality.

Allegories don't exactly corrrespond to reality. That's why they are called "allegories".

In this case, no one has yet shown how the entire creation account in Genesis could be an allegory for evolution.

Sure they have, ad nauseum. Each of the verses gives an allegory for the creation, by God, of part of creation, just as God "knitting" us together is an allegory for the gestation process. I can give you an example - verse Gen 1:24 allegorically gives the creation of most animals.

The example you gave would hold true in one instance, but the problem is the order is all wrong for it to be an allegory to evolution. In this case you have grass before the sun!

Why do you think allegories have to always be in exact chronological order? They don't. That's why seeing Genesis 1 as allegory solves all the obvious logical problems that so clearly show it isn't expected to be read literally. Even church fathers pointed that out, such as the creation of day and night before the sun was created. That's silly if read literally.

AiG is known to lie repeatedly? That's a rather strong accusation.

Are you actually unaware of how many people have pointed out their lies? Christians, in particular, have pointed it out, including other creationists. Also, many evidence based groups have done so as well. I could start listing them if you'd like.

If they're so incorrect maybe you should write them and prove them wrong. I"m sure they would be happy to retract any errors on their website.

After so many others have pointed out their lies (again, both creationists and evolution supporters), it's clear that they intend to keep lying and lying, regardless of whether or not I send them a letter.

Also, you're not going to find an "unbiased source" when it comes to creation/evolution.

There are sources that are based on the evidence, and sources that are not based on evidence. AIG is not based on evidence, as they have explicitly said on their website. I can give you the link, if you like. When discussing something, citing a source that isn't based on evidence is useless.

Originally Posted by Papias

Irrelevant. In the case of diseases, no one interpreted any mention of disease in the scriptures as due to germs until germ theory came up in the 1800s. So by your own method, we should reject germ theory? The same goes for Gravity, gestation, and countless other modern learnings.

Click to expand...

This is a really poor analogy. The Bible doesn't contradict germ theory anywhere; it does, however, contradict evolution!

Yes, the Bibles do contradict germ theory if read literally. Whenever a cause of a disease is mentioned, it is either and evil spirit or God himself. A literal reading thus contradicts the idea that God (or evil spirits) use germs as their tool, just as a literal reading of Genesis 1 contradicts the idea that God uses evolution as a tool. Some verses that contradict germ theory just as much as Gen 1 contradicts evolution include Deut 7:15, Dt 28:27, Ex 9:6, and dozens more.

The upshot of this along with the Rev stars, knitting in the womb, the flat earth, and so many others is that those who insist on a literal reading of Genesis are simply picking and choosing when it comes to scripture, as shown by the many examples where they already know better than to insist on a literal reading.

This is why Genesis is even more clearly allegorical than these other instances - there were church fathers who pointed out that Gen 1 was allegorical, while there were not church fathers who realized the same thing about the disease, gravity, and other such verses.

That's one, of many, reason why a Christain pointing out the Genesis is not to be read literally is on firmer ground than a Christian saying that the earth goes around the sun, is round, or that diseases are caused by germs.

In Jesus' name-

Papias

Achilles6129 · May 10, 2014

Papias said:
No, it wouldn't. Rotating the earth in any direction would simply make the stars appear to move across the sky, as they already move across the sky. Moving faster across the sky is simply that, not "falling to earth".

Again, it would look like they were in fact falling to the ground to a person on the night side of the earth. Perhaps you need to look at some astronomy software where you can actually speed up the motion of the stars going across the sky.

Papias said:
Plus, your statement of "falling off it's axis" makes no sense in itself. First - "falling"? Falling requires and up and a down, which don't exist in space.

The second part is problematic too "falling off it's axis"? "off" requires that it was sitting "on" it's axis beforehand, when of course the axis goes through the earth- the axis is not a pedestel the earth sits upon.

By "falling off it's axis", the best I can guess is that you mean it begins to spin around a new, different axis. Is that what you mean? Again, unless that causes it to rush over toward a star, it will only make the stars move across the sky, not fall to earth.

It means the earth is tipped off of its axis and in fact falls off of its axis. And yes, the earth can tip off of its axis:

Japan Earthquake Shortened Days, Increased Earth's Wobble

That doesn't mean shockwaves from the event somehow knocked Earth off its north-south axis, around which the planet revolves.
Instead the quake shifted what's called Earth's figure axis, an imaginary line around which the world's mass is balanced, about 33 feet (10 meters) from the north-south axis.

Papias said:
Sure they have, ad nauseum. Each of the verses gives an allegory for the creation, by God, of part of creation, just as God "knitting" us together is an allegory for the gestation process. I can give you an example - verse Gen 1:24 allegorically gives the creation of most animals.

In this case, then, you've provided no evidence for any sort of good allegorical interpretation of Genesis 1.

Papias said:
Why do you think allegories have to always be in exact chronological order? They don't. That's why seeing Genesis 1 as allegory solves all the obvious logical problems that so clearly show it isn't expected to be read literally. Even church fathers pointed that out, such as the creation of day and night before the sun was created. That's silly if read literally.

Really? They don't have to be in exact chronological order? That's kind of a dishonest allegory, wouldn't you agree?

Oh, and the day/night were relative to the light that was created on day 1.

Papias said:
Are you actually unaware of how many people have pointed out their lies? Christians, in particular, have pointed it out, including other creationists. Also, many evidence based groups have done so as well. I could start listing them if you'd like.

Well start citing some sources!

Papias said:
After so many others have pointed out their lies (again, both creationists and evolution supporters), it's clear that they intend to keep lying and lying, regardless of whether or not I send them a letter.

If you point out a factual error on their website I'm sure they'd be thankful.

Papias said:
There are sources that are based on the evidence, and sources that are not based on evidence. AIG is not based on evidence, as they have explicitly said on their website. I can give you the link, if you like. When discussing something, citing a source that isn't based on evidence is useless.

Again, start citing some sources! I'm interested to see these "unbiased" sources when it comes to creation/evolution.

Papias said:
Yes, the Bibles do contradict germ theory if read literally. Whenever a cause of a disease is mentioned, it is either and evil spirit or God himself.

That's not true in the slightest. In order for the Bible to contradict germ theory it would have to say that *all* diseases are caused by evil spirits or God himself, and even that statement wouldn't contradict germ theory because God/the evil spirits could use germs to strike someone with disease!

Papias said:
just as a literal reading of Genesis 1 contradicts the idea that God uses evolution as a tool. Some verses that contradict germ theory just as much as Gen 1 contradicts evolution include Deut 7:15, Dt 28:27, Ex 9:6, and dozens more.

Glad to know you admit Gen. 1, if read literally, contradicts evolution

Now please explain to me why the theistic evolutionist interpretation of Gen. 1 is better.

mark kennedy · May 11, 2014

Achilles6129 said:
Papias -

I am only going to respond to the new parts of your reply, as it is pointless for us to continue rehashing the same material over and over again...

...This is a really poor analogy. The Bible doesn't contradict germ theory anywhere; it does, however, contradict evolution!

Good to see Papias hasn't lost his charm, arguing relentlessly for the irrelevant. I don't think germ theory is going to do much for you, try the Mendelian Laws of Inheritance, there are two. Then compare that to the naturalistic assumptions of Darwinism. Notice, Creationists don't argue with Mendelian genetics, that's because they don't have a problem with science.

Anyway, have fun with Papias, he means well...

Grace and peace,
Mark

Assyrian · May 12, 2014

Hi Mark

mark kennedy said:
Good to see Papias hasn't lost his charm, arguing relentlessly for the irrelevant. I don't think germ theory is going to do much for you, try the Mendelian Laws of Inheritance, there are two. Then compare that to the naturalistic assumptions of Darwinism. Notice, Creationists don't argue with Mendelian genetics, that's because they don't have a problem with science.

It is the sciences Creationist disagree with that make them anti science, not the other sciences they don't have a problem with. You are still phobic if you have an irrational fear of spiders, no matter how many clowns, mice, enclosed spaces or heights you aren't afraid of.

KWCrazy · May 12, 2014

Assyrian said:
It is the sciences Creationist disagree with that make them anti science, not the other sciences they don't have a problem with.

Evolution is not science.
Evolution is a scientifically unsound theory of universal origin beginning with a single common progenitor that could not have come into existence by any process known to man. It's only driving force is increasing complexity derived from benevolent mutations; a process which has never been observed or demonstrated. Experiments designed to force evolution by radiating fruit flies over many generations only demonstrated that was no evolution.

Anyone who says that a rejection of evolution is a rejection of science is clearly lying. It's a rejection of an unfounded theory which we know to be false. We also reject alchemy.

Calminian · May 12, 2014

Papias said:
...In other words, a literal reading of the Bibles clearly states that the earth does not move, and that the earth is flat.

Where does the Bible say the earth is flat? God defined earth as "land" in Genesis 1:10, and we see the land has mountains and valleys. I never see it described in the Bible as flat, but cite your verses.

Papias, are you making the mistake of mixing modern and ancient nomenclature?

mark kennedy · May 12, 2014

KWCrazy said:
Evolution is not science.

Actually it's a phenomenon that no Christian, creationist or otherwise, denies happens. What you are running into are problems with the definition.

Anyone who says that a rejection of evolution is a rejection of science is clearly lying. It's a rejection of an unfounded theory which we know to be false. We also reject alchemy.

It's the change of alleles (traits) in populations over time. We are chasing the wind because we are using a term with no real meaning. It's not a theory, it's a phenomenon, the only reason it is an issue in these discussions is because it's often mistaken for Darwinism.

Assyrian · May 13, 2014

KWCrazy said:
Evolution is not science.
Evolution is a scientifically unsound theory of universal origin beginning with a single common progenitor that could not have come into existence by any process known to man. It's only driving force is increasing complexity derived from benevolent mutations; a process which has never been observed or demonstrated. Experiments designed to force evolution by radiating fruit flies over many generations only demonstrated that was no evolution.

Anyone who says that a rejection of evolution is a rejection of science is clearly lying. It's a rejection of an unfounded theory which we know to be false. We also reject alchemy.

Thanks for the illustration. Of course people who are anti science will claim the science they reject isn't real science. Experminent on fruit flies have actually show that genetic isolation ie speciation occurs very easily, as the theory of evolution predicted. You missed out the driving force behind evolution natural selection. Meanwhile scientists have been studying evolution for 150 years and the evidence has only got stronger and stronger, while people who want to deny evolution for religious reasons have had 150 years to come up with a decent argument, and now like Ken Ham in the debate, have to rely on dismissing all the evidence we have for live evolving over hundreds of millions of years by insisting the only evidence they will accept is 'observational' evidence. If you have to ignore all the evidence to make your case you have got a case.

Assyrian · May 13, 2014

mark kennedy said:
It's the change of alleles (traits) in populations over time. We are chasing the wind because we are using a term with no real meaning. It's not a theory, it's a phenomenon, the only reason it is an issue in these discussions is because it's often mistaken for Darwinism.

Sorry Mark there is more to evolution that the phenomenon described by the change in allele frequency definition. There is the history of evolution on earth over billions of years that science has uncovered, as well as the theory of evolution explaining how this process happens. Like KWcrazy excluding the sciences he doesn't like, you are being anti science by excluding all the aspects of evolution you don't like.

KWCrazy · May 13, 2014

Assyrian said:
Of course people who are anti science will claim the science they reject isn't real science.

Seriously, you do more damage to the reputation of science every time you irrevocably link it to Darwinism.

Experminent on fruit flies have actually show that genetic isolation ie speciation occurs very easily, as the theory of evolution predicted.

The experiment with fruit flies was a colossal FAILURE. Thousands of generation later fruit flies remain fruit flies. No evolution was recorded. The only notable change was disfigurement to the point where the flies couldn't fly. Removing them from radiation eventually removed this maladaptive and deleterious mutation.

You missed out the driving force behind evolution natural selection.

The fact that anything that must happen for evolution to be true is deemed to have happened so as to support the nonsensical theory?

Meanwhile scientists have been studying evolution for 150 years and the evidence has only got stronger and stronger, while people who want to deny evolution for religious reasons have had 150 years to come up with a decent argument, and now like Ken Ham in the debate, have to rely on dismissing all the evidence we have for live evolving over hundreds of millions of years by insisting the only evidence they will accept is 'observational' evidence.

Good heavens! Invest in a period, would you?

Evolution has a 150 year history of fraud, bogus claims and "missing links" fabricated from the fantasy of the researchers.

We don't dismiss the evidence. We dismiss your interpretation of the evidence. We dismiss your claim that the universe is controlled exclusively by physical laws, and your assertion that those physical laws can be suspended whenever it benefits your belief. Your theories of origination in defiance of natural law are most amusing.

Life, you see, did NOT evolve over hundreds of millions of years. Your theory is utter foolishness. Every time one of you guys speaks the earth ages another million years. By the way. Aren't you people the ones who demand observational evidence of God? How is it that we are supposed to provide observational evidence of a supernatural being and yet you don't have to provide observational evidence of a process you claim is universally happening every day? Evolution is not a deity. It is supposed to be the natural tendency of all living beings. Why can't you demonstrate it?

Assyrian · May 14, 2014

KWCrazy said:
Seriously, you do more damage to the reputation of science every time you irrevocably link it to Darwinism.

I agree the reputation of science has been damaged by all the anti evolution rhetoric in the church. Hence creationists are much more likely to dismiss the warnings about climate change as a hoax. The consequences of that will be disastrous. And of course you have the damage to the witness of Christianity by linking it with anti science.

The experiment with fruit flies was a colossal FAILURE. Thousands of generation later fruit flies remain fruit flies. No evolution was recorded. The only notable change was disfigurement to the point where the flies couldn't fly. Removing them from radiation eventually removed this maladaptive and deleterious mutation.

If you get you science from creationist sources you will be taught a bogus version of science (the bogus version being th eonly one creationism can disprove). Evolution never expected fruit flies to be anything other than fruit flies, different kinds of fruit flies, but still fruit flies. After hundreds of million of years mammals are still mammals. We are still primates though we no longer scamper through the trees.

The fact that anything that must happen for evolution to be true is deemed to have happened so as to support the nonsensical theory?

Good heavens! Invest in a period, would you?

Click to expand...

It is how long creationism has had to disprove evolution.

Evolution has a 150 year history of fraud, bogus claims and "missing links" fabricated from the fantasy of the researchers.

Click to expand...

You should read the real history, not the wishful thinking of creationists. Piltdown 1912 certainly was a hoax but geniune fossils had already discovered, our cousins the Neanderthals in 1829, homo erectus in Java 1891, Homo heidelbergensis in Germany in 1907. further erectus specimens were found near Peking 1924 and the first Australopithecus was found in 1924. Archeoraptor was a fraud too, but carried out by a chinese farmer who stuck two genuine fossils together to a larger and more valuable composite. It was ound out by scintists studying it, but not before National Geographic jumped the gun and published it. The fossils that archaeoraptor was composed o are still genuine as are all the the other transitional fossils coming out of that area. But if you only read creationist reports, all you will hear are their handwaving attempts to dismiss genuine fossils by concentrating on a handful of hoaxes.

We don't dismiss the evidence. We dismiss your interpretation of the evidence. We dismiss your claim that the universe is controlled exclusively by physical laws, and your assertion that those physical laws can be suspended whenever it benefits your belief. Your theories of origination in defiance of natural law are most amusing.

Click to expand...

No its not about different interpretations of the evidence. That is just an excuse. Creationism doesn't have a coherent explanation of the evidence, evolution does.

Life, you see, did NOT evolve over hundreds of millions of years. Your theory is utter foolishness. Every time one of you guys speaks the earth ages another million years.

Click to expand...

By the 1930's estimates of the age of the earth were between 3 billion and 4.6 billion. By 1956 the date was calculated at 4.5 ± 0.3 billion years, pretty close to the current estimate 4.54 ± 0.05 billion. But even if you were right, I don't see why increasing accuracy in measuring the age of the earth is an argument against it. Unless you really want to believe science has it wrong.

By the way. Aren't you people the ones who demand observational evidence of God? How is it that we are supposed to provide observational evidence of a supernatural being and yet you don't have to provide observational evidence of a process you claim is universally happening every day? Evolution is not a deity. It is supposed to be the natural tendency of all living beings. Why can't you demonstrate it?

Click to expand...

You realise you are talking to Christians here?

KWCrazy · May 14, 2014

Assyrian said:
I agree the reputation of science has been damaged by all the anti evolution rhetoric in the church.

Science damaged its own reputation.
I would hardly call the Scriptures anti-evolution rhetoric. If anything, evolution is anti-Scriptural rhetoric. Moses wrote Genesis long before Darwin was born.

Hence creationists are much more likely to dismiss the warnings about climate change as a hoax.

Do you believe every lie told to you by people who wear white coats?
1. Every model used by global warming alarmists has failed. This is not even debatable.
2. Global warming alarmists conspired to doctor evidence to support their unprovable claims. That is an indisputable fact. The emails prove it.
3. Even the most rabid of the global warming alarmists have to admit that if man has any contribution at all it's minimal.

They had to stop calling it global warming and change to "climate change" because for the last 17 years we've been in a cooling cycle. Hysteria is fueled by those who want to increase government regulation and take freedom away from others.

The consequences of that will be disastrous.

The world will END if we don't destroy American industry!!!

And of course you have the damage to the witness of Christianity by linking it with anti science.

The people who say that Christianity is anti science are just plain lying. Christians who believe the Scriptures know that God created the world and it will pass away at HIS command. They know that He created man from the dust of the earth on the sixth day of creation, and that Neither Adam nor Eve evolved from anything.

In short, they know evolution is a lie and evolutionists are lying.

If you get you science from creationist sources you will be taught a bogus version of science.

If you get your science from evolutionist sources you will be taught a bogus version of science. You will be taught that the world is governed only by natural law; that miracles can't happen; and that everything came from nothing without assistance form any God.

Evolution never expected fruit flies to be anything other than fruit flies,

Wrong! The purpose of the experiment was to greatly increase mutations to show how new species could from by mutation. However, evolution did not happen. Deformed mutations which couldn't live outside of the lab didn't validate evolution. Rather, it illustrated the fact that most mutations are neutral or deleterious. There wasn't a single case of fruit flies being better suited to survive because they developed new and better characteristics. New information was never produced, but existing information was lost.

After hundreds of million of years mammals are still mammals.

SACRILEGE! You DO realize that evolution claims that humans and daffodils share an ancestor, right?

Piltdown 1912 certainly was a hoax

So was the Nebraska Man.
So was the Java Man.
So was the Orce Man.
So was the Neanderthal.

The Scriptures give us the approximate edge of the earth by means of the generations recorded. One of the most significant events in the Scriptures would be the great Flood, which I'm quite sure you also reject. It's interesting how some people can pick and choose which verses of the Scripture they accept and which they reject. What guidepost do you use, if not for the word of God.

Creationism doesn't have a coherent explanation of the evidence, evolution does.

Ri-i-i-ight, which is why the coherent and universally accepted explanations in science change with each new discovery. Creation scientists are scientists as well, they just understand that the word of God is the basis of all truth.

I don't see why increasing accuracy in measuring the age of the earth is an argument against it.

You call it increasing accuracy, I call it moving progressively further from the truth. Do I believe science has it wrong? ABSOLUTELY! How do I know this? Because God doesn't lie. There are NO passages of Scripture consistent with evolution. In fact, God has made it abundantly clear that the manner in which He created the universe could only further prove His supremacy because it violates all natural law.

You realise you are talking to Christians here?

I am talking to evolutionists; those who proclaim the word of God to be false and the science of man to be true. How you label yourself is your business. What you write is no less in opposition to the Scriptures whether you're a clergyman or demon. Advocating Christians to reject their faith and embrace evolution is false teaching regardless of the persona of the teacher. Christ taught that the Scriptures were God inspired and could be relied upon. Respectfully, I value His opinion greater than yours.

Calminian · May 15, 2014

KWCrazy said:
And of course you have the damage to the witness of Christianity by linking it with anti science.

Click to expand...

...The people who say that Christianity is anti science are just plain lying. Christians who believe the Scriptures know that God created the world and it will pass away at HIS command. They know that He created man from the dust of the earth on the sixth day of creation, and that Neither Adam nor Eve evolved from anything.

In short, they know evolution is a lie and evolutionists are lying.

I would concur and add that I think the witness affect is just the opposite. How is it we're supposed to tell people the gospels are true, while denying Genesis is true? How do we completely spiritualize Genesis and yet tell people they have to take the Resurrection and other N.T. miracles literally? If I'm an outsider looking in, and someone is telling me, "hey, believe the middle and end of this book. oh, but that first part, never mind, it's just a story." That to me is a terrible witness, and I believe we're seeing the church decline as a result.

And BTW, Assyrian, do you even believe the entire N.T.? Do you support say, gay marriage, abortion, things like that? Literal hell, and some of those others non-politically correct issues?

mark kennedy · May 15, 2014

KWCrazy said:
Science damaged its own reputation.
I would hardly call the Scriptures anti-evolution rhetoric. If anything, evolution is anti-Scriptural rhetoric. Moses wrote Genesis long before Darwin was born.

Science has very little to do with it, if you think he care about actual science your misunderstanding the word. He wants you to argue against science but the actual problem is Darwinism, a fundamental naturalistic assumption, that's all this comes down to.

Do you believe every lie told to you by people who wear white coats?
1. Every model used by global warming alarmists has failed. This is not even debatable.
2. Global warming alarmists conspired to doctor evidence to support their unprovable claims. That is an indisputable fact. The emails prove it.
3. Even the most rabid of the global warming alarmists have to admit that if man has any contribution at all it's minimal.

Science in this sense has little to do with the actual issues here.

The people who say that Christianity is anti science are just plain lying. Christians who believe the Scriptures know that God created the world and it will pass away at HIS command. They know that He created man from the dust of the earth on the sixth day of creation, and that Neither Adam nor Eve evolved from anything.

In short, they know evolution is a lie and evolutionists are lying.

Evolution has very little to do with it.

If you get your science from evolutionist sources you will be taught a bogus version of science. You will be taught that the world is governed only by natural law; that miracles can't happen; and that everything came from nothing without assistance form any God.

Close, the actual lie here is that the material world is the sum total of reality. Natural law sure but only because it's the only source for actual phenomenon because it's the sum of all that is real. My biggest problem is that they never come right out and say it.

Wrong! The purpose of the experiment was to greatly increase mutations to show how new species could from by mutation. However, evolution did not happen. Deformed mutations which couldn't live outside of the lab didn't validate evolution. Rather, it illustrated the fact that most mutations are neutral or deleterious. There wasn't a single case of fruit flies being better suited to survive because they developed new and better characteristics. New information was never produced, but existing information was lost.

That's an easy case to make in most cases. Random mutations have to be the worst possible explanation and yet they insist on it. There is a simple reason for that, it's because mutations account for the bulk of the diversity in the natural world and they are strongly associated with adaptive evolution. A mutation is never really defined but it can be as general as any change in the molecular instructions, the DNA. So if a population is going through an adaptive process the genetic code has been changed somehow. So hundreds of years later they test two groups, the one that adapted and the one that remained static, lo and behold there are different alleles.

The Darwinian assumption that it was from random mutations, that's a false assumption. One of the things that really has me puzzled is they are never interested in actual adaptations.

SACRILEGE! You DO realize that evolution claims that humans and daffodils share an ancestor, right?

They do that without ever having to explain how.

So was the Nebraska Man.
So was the Java Man.
So was the Orce Man.
So was the Neanderthal.

Don't forget Piltdown.

The Scriptures give us the approximate edge of the earth by means of the generations recorded. One of the most significant events in the Scriptures would be the great Flood, which I'm quite sure you also reject. It's interesting how some people can pick and choose which verses of the Scripture they accept and which they reject. What guidepost do you use, if not for the word of God.

It doesn't matter how old the earth is but your right about the genealogies, there is an important history there.

You call it increasing accuracy, I call it moving progressively further from the truth. Do I believe science has it wrong? ABSOLUTELY! How do I know this? Because God doesn't lie. There are NO passages of Scripture consistent with evolution. In fact, God has made it abundantly clear that the manner in which He created the universe could only further prove His supremacy because it violates all natural law.

What exactly do you think, 'evolution', is? The scientific definition is the 'change of alleles in populations over time', it's a naturally occurring phenomena. While you are chasing this ridiculous line of evidence in circles your opponent can watch and laugh. The problem is with the naturalistic assumptions of Darwinism, evolution as defined scientifically has very little to do with any of this.

I am talking to evolutionists; those who proclaim the word of God to be false and the science of man to be true. How you label yourself is your business. What you write is no less in opposition to the Scriptures whether you're a clergyman or demon. Advocating Christians to reject their faith and embrace evolution is false teaching regardless of the persona of the teacher. Christ taught that the Scriptures were God inspired and could be relied upon. Respectfully, I value His opinion greater than yours.

There is no issue with evolution, the single biggest thing to realize is that it has little to do with the genuine article of science. This comes down to naturalistic assumptions and if you don't make them another assumption kicks in automatically, you must be ignorant of science.

He is running you in circles, he doesn't care about science. Do you think he is any more knowledgable about science then he is about the Scriptures? Don't let him equivocate evolution and science with Darwinian naturalistic assumptions and there is only one way do to that.

Define science, evolution and Darwinism. What you will find is that natural history whether it was created 6,000 years ago or evolved over billions of years it had to evolve. With a Creationist scenario it would have even been a lot more adaptive evolution in a far shorter space of time. Wouldn't it be cleaver if 'evolutionists' could figure out how to get you to argue against the only scientific argument that could support a Creationist scenario?

They don't care about science, they just don't want you using it. How many creatures on the Ark? How many species now? How long did that take? How do you explain something like that without evolution? The problem isn't the science, it's the presupposition.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Assyrian · May 16, 2014

KWCrazy said:
Science damaged its own reputation.
I would hardly call the Scriptures anti-evolution rhetoric. If anything, evolution is anti-Scriptural rhetoric. Moses wrote Genesis long before Darwin was born.

The bible isn't anti science and science isn't anti bible. The damage is from people who hate evolution because it disagrees with their interpretation of Genesis and attack science with every distortion deception and pseudo science they can dream up

Do you believe every lie told to you by people who wear white coats?
1. Every model used by global warming alarmists has failed. This is not even debatable.
2. Global warming alarmists conspired to doctor evidence to support their unprovable claims. That is an indisputable fact. The emails prove it.
3. Even the most rabid of the global warming alarmists have to admit that if man has any contribution at all it's minimal.

Again falsehood and distortions. You should read the actual science. Your love of anti science creationist rhetoric leaves you wide open to denialist rhetoric.

They had to stop calling it global warming and change to "climate change" because for the last 17 years we've been in a cooling cycle. Hysteria is fueled by those who want to increase government regulation and take freedom away from others.

You realise the last 17 years include all 10 of the hottest years on record? Don't mistake natural fluctuations for the threat is over. In fact if you include warming around the poles

The world will END if we don't destroy American industry!!!

Ah yes the conspiracy theory funded by the oil industry with experts from the tobacco. You realise the American military considers that global warming is increasingly threatening US security?

You realise the world is going to blame right wing American Christianity for all the sea level rise, droughts, mass starvation and death caused by their refusal to listen to the warning of real science and their loyalty to gas guzzling suvs rather than the truth.

The people who say that Christianity is anti science are just plain lying. Christians who believe the Scriptures know that God created the world and it will pass away at HIS command. They know that He created man from the dust of the earth on the sixth day of creation, and that Neither Adam nor Eve evolved from anything.

When Christians hate peer reviewed biology, geology, astronomy and climatology, that is being anti science. Not all Christians do thank God, but the anti science sections are very vocal and bring the gospel and Christianity into disrepute.

In short, they know evolution is a lie and evolutionists are lying.

i.e. they call science a lie and scientists liars.

If you get your science from evolutionist sources you will be taught a bogus version of science. You will be taught that the world is governed only by natural law; that miracles can't happen; and that everything came from nothing without assistance form any God.

You either get you science from scientific sources or it isn't science. And science doesn't say that miracles don't happen or tell us anything about God.

Wrong! The purpose of the experiment was to greatly increase mutations to show how new species could from by mutation. However, evolution did not happen. Deformed mutations which couldn't live outside of the lab didn't validate evolution. Rather, it illustrated the fact that most mutations are neutral or deleterious. There wasn't a single case of fruit flies being better suited to survive because they developed new and better characteristics. New information was never produced, but existing information was lost.

Scientific experiments produced new fruit fly species.

SACRILEGE! You DO realize that evolution claims that humans and daffodils share an ancestor, right?

Yes so? Bible says God made you from clay. You still have ancestors even you recognise.

So was the Nebraska Man.
So was the Java Man.
So was the Orce Man.
So was the Neanderthal.

Nebraska man was hyped by the popular press before it could be peer reviewed by science. It was scientists who recognised it as coming from an evolutionary ancestor of pigs. But what has the media hype about Nebraska man got to do with all the genuine hominid fossils?

Java man was genuine, homo erectus. But there is an awful lot of lies and misinformation going around creationist circles about the Trinil discovery. Ask yourself if Java man was a hoax why it looks like all the other home erectus skull found around the world since.

The Ocre fragment is too small to identify properly, they still haven't decided if it is equine or hominid, it makes a great story for creationists but it has had no influence whatsoever on our understanding of human evolution.

Neanderthal are genuine fossils too, we thought at first they were direct ancestor but now know they were our cousins sharing a lot of primitive traits with the common ancestor of humans and Neanderthals, Homo heidelbergensis.

But you haven't answered my point that creationist is use hoaxes to distract from all the real evidence we have for human evolution.

The Scriptures give us the approximate edge of the earth by means of the generations recorded. One of the most significant events in the Scriptures would be the great Flood, which I'm quite sure you also reject. It's interesting how some people can pick and choose which verses of the Scripture they accept and which they reject. What guidepost do you use, if not for the word of God.

Same as the church used when it abandoned its traditional literal interpretation of passages like Joshua 12 and Eccl 1:5, science showed the sun doesn't go round the earth so the literal geocentric interpretation were simply wrong.

Ri-i-i-ight, which is why the coherent and universally accepted explanations in science change with each new discovery.

That how science works, look at astronomy plate tectonics, atomic theory. Creationism isn't willing to change with new evidence that is why it isn't science.

Creation scientists are scientists as well, they just understand that the word of God is the basis of all truth.

If they rely on their interpretation of the bible to reach their conclusions rather than the evidence they aren't being scientists.

You call it increasing accuracy, I call it moving progressively further from the truth. Do I believe science has it wrong? ABSOLUTELY! How do I know this? Because God doesn't lie. There are NO passages of Scripture consistent with evolution. In fact, God has made it abundantly clear that the manner in which He created the universe could only further prove His supremacy because it violates all natural law.

Its funny accurate measurement of the universe God created don't get increasingly closer to creationist interpretation of God's word. Maybe they misunderstand what God is saying and how he is saying it, just like geocentrists.

I am talking to evolutionists; those who proclaim the word of God to be false and the science of man to be true. How you label yourself is your business. What you write is no less in opposition to the Scriptures whether you're a clergyman or demon. Advocating Christians to reject their faith and embrace evolution is false teaching regardless of the persona of the teacher. Christ taught that the Scriptures were God inspired and could be relied upon. Respectfully, I value His opinion greater than yours.

May God bless you KWcrazy and peace in you heart instead of anger and bitterness to your fellow believers.

MKJ · May 16, 2014

Assyrian said:
Ah yes the conspiracy theory funded by the oil industry with experts from the tobacco. You realise the American military considers that global warming is increasingly threatening US security?

Yes, I don't get this - when I was military global warming was taken extremely seriously as a future planning issue. It is totally weird to me that particular administrations and political types deny it while at the same time their military considers it to be pretty much proven and in fact well on its way.

Here in Canada, arctic effects of climate change are not something to sneeze at.

Papias · May 17, 2014

Originally Posted by Papias

No, it wouldn't. Rotating the earth in any direction would simply make the stars appear to move across the sky, as they already move across the sky. Moving faster across the sky is simply that, not "falling to earth".

Click to expand...

Again, it would look like they were in fact falling to the ground to a person on the night side of the earth. Perhaps you need to look at some astronomy software where you can actually speed up the motion of the stars going across the sky.

There are two things here.

First - speeding up the motion of the stars across the sky still makes them look like they move across the sky. You yourself said it.

Second, and also important - that's not what Rev. says anyway. Rev. doesn't say that they just "looked like" they fell to earth (but actually didn't), but that they DID fall to earth. Just as the Gospels don't say that Jesus just "looked like" he rose from the dead (but actually didn't), but they say that he DID rise from the dead. By insisting on a literal reading, and saying that the words saying something happened could mean "Just looked like it", you are saying that Jesus may not have actually risen from the dead.

Originally Posted by Papias

Plus, your statement of "falling off it's axis" makes no sense in itself. First - "falling"? Falling requires and up and a down, which don't exist in space.

The second part is problematic too "falling off it's axis"? "off" requires that it was sitting "on" it's axis beforehand, when of course the axis goes through the earth- the axis is not a pedestel the earth sits upon.

By "falling off it's axis", the best I can guess is that you mean it begins to spin around a new, different axis. Is that what you mean? Again, unless that causes it to rush over toward a star, it will only make the stars move across the sky, not fall to earth.

Click to expand...

It means the earth is tipped off of its axis and in fact falls off of its axis.

"in fact falls off it's axis"? That makes no sense. Where would it fall to? Where would it land? You are again mistaking a figure of speech, not intended to be taken literally, as literal speech. I guess you don't confine that to scripture.

And yes, the earth can tip off of its axis:

Japan Earthquake Shortened Days, Increased Earth's Wobble

First, I see your switch from "fall" (which makes no sense literally) to "tip", which does.

Secondly, your own reference says it didn't "fall"., so thanks for posting it.

Originally Posted by Papias

Sure they have, ad nauseum. Each of the verses gives an allegory for the creation, by God, of part of creation, just as God "knitting" us together is an allegory for the gestation process. I can give you an example - verse Gen 1:24 allegorically gives the creation of most animals.

Click to expand...

In this case, then, you've provided no evidence for any sort of good allegorical interpretation of Genesis 1.

Sure I did, back several pages on this thread, and referenced it a second time for you. I pointed out that theologians, Bible scholars, whole churches, and even Jewish commentaries support the allegorical interpretation of Genesis 1. Did you miss that?

Originally Posted by Papias

Why do you think allegories have to always be in exact chronological order? They don't. That's why seeing Genesis 1 as allegory solves all the obvious logical problems that so clearly show it isn't expected to be read literally. Even church fathers pointed that out, such as the creation of day and night before the sun was created. That's silly if read literally.

Click to expand...

Really? They don't have to be in exact chronological order? That's kind of a dishonest allegory, wouldn't you agree?

That's not dishonest - that's allegory. Just as if you said that an allegory was "dishonest" for using an animal when it meant a human, or whatever. Allegories, by nature, aren't exact literal descriptions.

Oh, and the day/night were relative to the light that was created on day 1.

Which causes all kinds of worse theological problems. Why don't we see that light now, and have no nights? Oh, because the sun is brighter? But then the light of God is nothing compared to the light of a measly star. Or is it because that light's gone? So then God is gone? etc.

Originally Posted by Papias

Are you actually unaware of how many people have pointed out their lies? Christians, in particular, have pointed it out, including other creationists. Also, many evidence based groups have done so as well. I could start listing them if you'd like.

Well start citing some sources!

OK. It is always fair to ask for sources.

Here's an article on how AIG "can't tell the simple truth", by a Christian Creationist:
Creation Science Rebuttals, Answers in Genesis Daily Feature, Ham Can't Tell the Simple Truth! (They Can't Allow It)

More of the AIG distortions are pointed out here:

Reasons To Believe : Dinosaur Blood Revisited, Part 1 (of 2)

That's probably enough for discussion.

Originally Posted by Papias

After so many others have pointed out their lies (again, both creationists and evolution supporters), it's clear that they intend to keep lying and lying, regardless of whether or not I send them a letter.

Click to expand...

If you point out a factual error on their website I'm sure they'd be thankful.

As I've already said (and now provided examples of), their errors have been pointed out repeatedly to them. They don't fix them.

Originally Posted by Papias

Yes, the Bibles do contradict germ theory if read literally. Whenever a cause of a disease is mentioned, it is either and evil spirit or God himself.

Click to expand...

That's not true in the slightest. In order for the Bible to contradict germ theory it would have to say that *all* diseases are caused by evil spirits or God himself, and even that statement wouldn't contradict germ theory because God/the evil spirits could use germs to strike someone with disease!

As before, applying your own rule to Genesis 1 allows for evolution. In this case, you are saying that God may have created some plants or animals by poofing them into existence, while many other plants and animals evolved, since Genesis doesnt say that God created all creatures without using evolution.

Originally Posted by Papias

just as a literal reading of Genesis 1 contradicts the idea that God uses evolution as a tool. Some verses that contradict germ theory just as much as Gen 1 contradicts evolution include Deut 7:15, Dt 28:27, Ex 9:6, and dozens more.

Glad to know you admit Gen. 1, if read literally, contradicts evolution

Now please explain to me why the theistic evolutionist interpretation of Gen. 1 is better.

There are many reasons. First and foremost is the text itself, which as pointed out many times on this thread, with examples, has many features that show it to be poetic speech. Second is the better theology, which removes problems such as the stupid designs we see in nature as being God's direct micromanaged design. As pointed out before, this, along with the Rev stars, knitting in the womb, the flat earth, and so many others is that those who insist on a literal reading of Genesis are simply picking and choosing when it comes to scripture, as shown by the many examples where they already know better than to insist on a literal reading.

There are plenty of other reasons too, as the Christians here explain:

BioLogos: Science and faith in harmony

In Christ -

Papias

*************************
Assyrian wrote:

Hi Mark ....
It is the sciences Creationist disagree with that make them anti science, not the other sciences they don't have a problem with. You are still phobic if you have an irrational fear of spiders, no matter how many clowns, mice, enclosed spaces or heights you aren't afraid of.

Yep.

Achilles6129 · May 17, 2014

Papias said:
First - speeding up the motion of the stars across the sky still makes them look like they move across the sky. You yourself said it.

You're not getting it: it can also look like they are moving up and down, depending upon which way you're standing and/or which way the earth falls off of its axis.

Papias said:
Second, and also important - that's not what Rev. says anyway. Rev. doesn't say that they just "looked like" they fell to earth (but actually didn't), but that they DID fall to earth.

That's like saying the rivers and springs have to become literal blood because it says they became blood in Revelation 16:4. No literalist that I know of would hold to such an interpretation.

Literal speech can still be literal when it conveys what something looks like. Examples abound, but one very good example is a statement such as "the sun rises" or "the sun sets" even though the sun doesn't literally do either of these things. Then again, theistic evolutionists have shown their inability to comprehend such statements as these on this thread and elsewhere.

You're not understanding the meaning of the word "literal," and this has actually been a huge obstacle in your hermeneutic of Scripture. Literal statements can convey what something literally looks like (but not literally how it is) and still be correct. No literalist that I know of would reject such an interpretation.

Papias said:
"in fact falls off it's axis"? That makes no sense. Where would it fall to? Where would it land?

It would simply be knocked off of the axis it now rotates around and have an entirely new axis. The earth now rotates at an approx. 23.5 degree tilt on its axis: in the future it will have a totally different tilt.

Papias said:
"First, I see your switch from "fall" (which makes no sense literally) to "tip", which does.

Secondly, your own reference says it didn't "fall"., so thanks for posting it.

Please.

Papias said:
"That's not dishonest - that's allegory. Just as if you said that an allegory was "dishonest" for using an animal when it meant a human, or whatever. Allegories, by nature, aren't exact literal descriptions.

Allegories have an exact literal depiction in reality, or they are simply dishonest allegories!

Papias said:
"Which causes all kinds of worse theological problems. Why don't we see that light now, and have no nights? Oh, because the sun is brighter? But then the light of God is nothing compared to the light of a measly star. Or is it because that light's gone? So then God is gone? etc.

Please. It's objections like these that make you sound as if you don't really want to accept any sort of reasonable explanation whatsoever.

Papias said:
"OK. It is always fair to ask for sources.

Here's an article on how AIG "can't tell the simple truth", by a Christian Creationist:
Creation Science Rebuttals, Answers in Genesis Daily Feature, Ham Can't Tell the Simple Truth! (They Can't Allow It)

I didn't really see any info on AiG lying in that article.

Papias said:
"More of the AIG distortions are pointed out here:

Reasons To Believe : Dinosaur Blood Revisited, Part 1 (of 2)

That's probably enough for discussion.

Those sorts of articles have been answered in full by Creation Ministries International:

Search - creation.com

Dinosaur soft tissue - creation.com

Papias said:
"There are many reasons. First and foremost is the text itself, which as pointed out many times on this thread, with examples, has many features that show it to be poetic speech.

The text has no features of Biblical poetry. Hebrew poetry and such is contained in Psalms and Job is clearly much different from the account in Genesis which shows that the Genesis account is not poetical at all.

https://bible.org/seriespage/poetical-books

Papias said:
Second is the better theology, which removes problems such as the stupid designs we see in nature as being God's direct micromanaged design.

Remember the effects of the fall which totally changed nature. Also, how is evolution not micromanaged by God? I thought that God was supposed to have guided evolution.

gluadys · May 18, 2014

Achilles6129 said:
You're not getting it: it can also look like they are moving up and down, depending upon which way you're standing and/or which way the earth falls off of its axis.

That's like saying the rivers and springs have to become literal blood because it says they became blood in Revelation 16:4. No literalist that I know of would hold to such an interpretation.

Literal speech can still be literal when it conveys what something looks like. Examples abound, but one very good example is a statement such as "the sun rises" or "the sun sets" even though the sun doesn't literally do either of these things. Then again, theistic evolutionists have shown their inability to comprehend such statements as these on this thread and elsewhere.

You're not understanding the meaning of the word "literal," and this has actually been a huge obstacle in your hermeneutic of Scripture.

No, I am sorry, but it is YOU who do not understand the meaning of the word "literal" The first and primary definition of "literal" is:

"in accordance with, involving, or being the primary or strict meaning of the word or words; not figurative or metaphorical: the literal meaning of a word."
Literal | Define Literal at Dictionary.com

Literal speech can only be about what something looks like when it actually looks like that, as when one says "The stop sign is red" because it really is red. When a metaphor is used to convey what something looks like, then that is not the literal meaning. The literal meaning of "fall" is to drop from a high place (like the sky) to a lower place (like the surface of the earth). If the word is to be understood in any other way, e.g. "his face fell" it is not literal. It is not literal if it only applies to an appearance that is not real. It could only apply to stars appearing (but not really) to fall to earth in a non-literal way.

Yes, a literal meaning of Rev. 16:4 would be that the water in the rivers and springs became actual blood---not just that the rivers took on a reddish colour like blood. The latter would be a figurative meaning.

The literal meaning of "the sun rises" or "the sun sets" is that the sun actually moves across the horizon in a vertical direction. And that is actually the way it was understood from the time the phrase was first invented until less than 500 years ago. (Which means that the biblical authors intended every phrase referring to sunrise, sunset or any other motion of the sun and stars across the sky to be understood as real, literal motion of those bodies. Equally, they meant it literally when they spoke of the earth NOT moving. They knew nothing of an orbit of the earth and would think it nonsensical.)

We never use the words "sunrise" and "sunset" literally anymore because we know the phenomenon is produced by a motion of the earth not of the sun. Just because a word or phrase is common and familiar doesn't make it literal.

Literal statements can convey what something literally looks like (but not literally how it is) and still be correct. No literalist that I know of would reject such an interpretation.

This is the problem with making a fetish out of literal meaning. In one's zeal to be true to a literal meaning when the meaning cannot be literal, the very understanding of what it means to be literal gets distorted. If a statement conveys what something looks like but not how it literally is, then the statement is figurative, probably a simile; it is not literal.

Evolution vs. The Bible

Veteran

Listening to TW4

Veteran

Natura non facit saltum

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)

Newbie

Senior Veteran

Natura non facit saltum

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)

Newbie

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)

Newbie

Senior Veteran

Natura non facit saltum

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)

Contributor

Listening to TW4

Veteran

Legend

Similar threads