More on why I reject evolution

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,918
11,305
76
✟363,250.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
The similarities simply show there was a common designer.

That assumption falls apart on inspection. A "common designer" would not have "designed" a defective vitamin C gene that no longer works in humans. This makes no sense if we were made by a mere "designer", but it entirely understandable, if we evolved as intended by an omnipotent Creator.

Which directly contradicts the Bible. This ridiculous, corrosive notion that humans are animals

We are demonstrably animals. Primates to be precise. The key is, God says that's not all we are. We came from the earth like all animals, but then God directly gives us a living soul. We aren't a body. We are a soul, who has a body.

IMHO let to the mass murder of the last century, see 'From Darwin to Hitler', https://www.amazon.com/Darwin-Hitler-Evolutionary-Eugenics-Germany/dp/140397201X
https://www.amazon.com/Darwin-Hitler-Evolutionary-Eugenics-Germany/dp/140397201X

Turns out, Darwinians like Punnett and Morgan showed that Hitler's racial and eugenic ideas were not only evil, but scientifically unsupportable. Punnet showed that Hitler's and Tinkel's proposals would take hundreds of years to even begin to improve the human genome.

Creationists like ICR co-founder Wm. Tinkel were, like Hitler, enthusiastic eugenicists.
Dr. West, meet Dr. Tinkle, Creationist eugenicist

Such crimes were more or less sanctioned by Darwin's book,

You've been misled about that. Darwin condemned even allowing less fit humans to die, as an "overwhelming evil." (Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man)

On the other hand, as late as the 1990s, creationists like ICR co-founder Henry Morris was writing about the supposed intellectual and spiritual inferiority of black people:

Yet the prophecy again has its obverse side. Somehow they have only gone so far and no farther. The Japhethites and Semites have, sooner or later, taken over their territories, and their inventions, and then developed them and utilized them for their own enlargement. Often the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have become actual personal servants or even slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane matters, they have eventually been displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites.
Henry Morris,
The Beginning Of the World, Second Edition (1991), pp. 147

“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races.
― Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man

Darwin was here deploring what he was seeing being done by developed nations against native peoples. He scandalized creationists by opposing slavery and declaring that if a group from the "savage races" were to be brought to England, they would, in a few generations, be just like Englishmen.

It's no coincidence that creationism is most popular where racial discrimination and segregation were legally enforced.

This is not to say that all creationists are racists; many (perhaps a majority) are not. But YE creationism, at it's roots, is based on racism.

Admit what evolutionists have said in rare moments of honesty, that the great number of transitional fossils which Darwin predicted would be found and that his ideas depended on, haven't been discovered.

Well, let's see what a knowledgeable YE creationist has to say...

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species — include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series. 39Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

Instead we see new species appearing fully developed, as the Bible states.

Even YE groups like AIG and the ICR now admit that new species evolve from existing ones. Would you like me to show you that?
 
Upvote 0

East of Eden

Well-Known Member
Feb 20, 2021
1,073
342
64
Albuquerque
✟29,226.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
AIG is wrong; God didn't "imply" anything here. He unequivocally stated that Adam would die the day he ate from the tree.

No, it is quite equivocal. Did you read my link?

This is how we know it wasn't a physical death. If God tells the truth, it has to be a spiritual death. As your source admits, either God was in error, or man's interpretation of it is in error.

It's man's interpretation of it as a physical death that is faulty.

He didn't die spiritually that day either. There is no record of human death before Adam and Eve, or other humans before them.

Depends on whether you put more faith in God or in man's interpretations, I suppose.

The correct interpretation helps.

If you think the Bible is wrong as it has been translated in this case, what makes you think that there aren't other errors in it that we don't know about?

There are, for example the KJV says 'Thou shalt not kill', when the actual meaning is 'murder', not kill. In neither of these cases are the essentials of the faith impacted, as expressed in the Creeds, for instance.
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,918
11,305
76
✟363,250.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
AIG is wrong; God didn't "imply" anything here. He unequivocally stated that Adam would die the day he ate from the tree.

No, it is quite equivocal.

Well, let's take a look...
Genesis 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Sorry, not equivocal at all.

Did you read my link?

I'll go with God's word, thank you.

He didn't die spiritually that day either.

God says otherwise. Even many YE creationists admit the fact:
And so Ross and Bradley are right to assert that the spiritual death of Adam occurred immediately when he ate the forbidden fruit
Spiritual Death
 
Upvote 0

East of Eden

Well-Known Member
Feb 20, 2021
1,073
342
64
Albuquerque
✟29,226.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
AIG is wrong; God didn't "imply" anything here. He unequivocally stated that Adam would die the day he ate from the tree.

Was there human death before that? The Bible says Adam and Eve were the first humans, for all we know they were quite old when the messed up.
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,918
11,305
76
✟363,250.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Was there human death before that? The Bible says Adam and Eve were the first humans,

Would you cite that verse that says they were the first humans?

for all we know they were quite old when the messed up.

1 Chronicles 1:4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters: 5And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.

So Adam lived on for a very long time after he left Eden. This is how we know it wasn't a physical death God was speaking of. Adam lived on for many years afterwards.
 
Upvote 0

East of Eden

Well-Known Member
Feb 20, 2021
1,073
342
64
Albuquerque
✟29,226.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Would you cite that verse that says they were the first humans?

Genesis 1:26-27

1 Chronicles 1:4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters: 5And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.
So Adam lived on for a very long time after he left Eden. This is how we know it wasn't a physical death God was speaking of. Adam lived on for many years afterwards.

You seem to pick and choose which parts of the Bible you believe. The point is, Adam did die, which was not the original plan when He was created. In light of eternity there is little difference between 80 and 800 years.
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,918
11,305
76
✟363,250.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Would you cite that verse that says they were the first humans?

Genesis 1:26-27

It doesn't even mention them, much less say that they were the first humans.
You seem to pick and choose which parts of the Bible you believe.

The point is, God told Adam that he would die the day he ate from the tree. Adam eats from that tree, but lives on physically for many years after. So, if we can count on God to tell the truth, we know it was a spiritual death, not a physical one, that Adam experienced that day.

The point is, Adam did die, which was not the original plan when He was created.

Apparently not. God, in Genesis, says that Adam was not created immortal. He even expresses concern that Adam might become immortal:

Genesis 3:22 And he said: Behold Adam is become as one of us, knowing good and evil: now, therefore, lest perhaps he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever.
 
Upvote 0

East of Eden

Well-Known Member
Feb 20, 2021
1,073
342
64
Albuquerque
✟29,226.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
It doesn't even mention them, much less say that they were the first humans.

Yes it does.

You seem to pick and choose which parts of the Bible you believe.

Pot, meet kettle.

The point is, God told Adam that he would die the day he ate from the tree. Adam eats from that tree, but lives on physically for many years after. So, if we can count on God to tell the truth, we know it was a spiritual death, not a physical one, that Adam experienced that day.

Already explained your faulty interpretation here. Note also in Gen. 3:3 Eve said if they ate of the tree they would die, she doesn't say on that day.

Apparently not. God, in Genesis, says that Adam was not created immortal. He even expresses concern that Adam might become immortal:

Genesis 3:22 And he said: Behold Adam is become as one of us, knowing good and evil: now, therefore, lest perhaps he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever.

That was AFTER the Fall, not as they were created to be. Death came into the picture after the Fall, just as did disease, sin and the mess that has been human history. Hence the need for a Savior.
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,918
11,305
76
✟363,250.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
It doesn't even mention them, much less say that they were the first humans.

Yes it does.

Well, let's take a look...

Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

So no. Your addition is not found in scripture.

Already explained your faulty interpretation here. Note also in Gen. 3:3 Eve said if they ate of the tree they would die, she doesn't say on that day.

Let's see what God said...

Genesis 2:16 And he commanded him, saying: Of every tree of paradise thou shalt eat: [17] But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat. For in what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death.

So there you are. In the day Adam eats from that tree, God says he will die.

God, in Genesis, says that Adam was not created immortal. He even expresses concern that Adam might become immortal:

Genesis 3:22 And he said: Behold Adam is become as one of us, knowing good and evil: now, therefore, lest perhaps he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever.

That was AFTER the Fall, not as they were created to be.

That is your addition to His word. It's not what God says in Genesis.

The need for a Savior was for our spiritual death. If Jesus came to save us from physically dying, He failed. We will all die physically some day. It was to save us from that spiritual death that God told Adam about in the Garden.

Notice that the serpent took advantage of Eve's misunderstanding of God's word. He said that she would not die that day and that it would make her like God. The serpent was a Biblical literalist who pretended that God meant a physical death, and used that lie to deceive her. And he told her a half-truth to make it more effective.

As God says, knowing good and evil did indeed make Adam like God. But that was the Fall. By knowing good and evil, Adam and Eve were potentially capable of fellowship with God, but being unable to be truly good, they estranged from Him in a way they never could have been, when they were innocent. This is why a Savior was necessary.


 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: Andrewn
Upvote 0

East of Eden

Well-Known Member
Feb 20, 2021
1,073
342
64
Albuquerque
✟29,226.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married


What 'addition' do you imagine?


Let's see what God said...

Genesis 2:16 And he commanded him, saying: Of every tree of paradise thou shalt eat: [17] But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat. For in what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death.

So there you are. In the day Adam eats from that tree, God says he will die.

God, in Genesis, says that Adam was not created immortal.

No it doesn't, you just made that up.

He even expresses concern that Adam might become immortal:

Genesis 3:22 And he said: Behold Adam is become as one of us, knowing good and evil: now, therefore, lest perhaps he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever.

AFTER the fall, there was no death before that. I know you have to go through a lot of contortions to fit the Bible in your evolutionary theories, but that's what is says.


That is your addition to His word. It's not what God says in Genesis.

Wrong

The need for a Savior was for our spiritual death. If Jesus came to save us from physically dying, He failed. We will all die physically some day. It was to save us from that spiritual death that God told Adam about in the Garden.

And we are saved from eternal death as the lost will experience in Hell. We will have resurrected bodies as Jesus did. His sacrifice was for both our bodies and spirits.

Notice that the serpent took advantage of Eve's misunderstanding of God's word. He said that she would not die that day

No, he said she would not die, period. Satan's tactics haven't changed, we aren't to put a question mark where God put a period.

and that it would make her like God. The serpent was a Biblical literalist who pretended that God meant a physical death, and used that lie to deceive her.

LOL, how is telling Eve she wouldn't die being a Biblical literalist?

As God says, knowing good and evil did indeed make Adam like God. But that was the Fall. By knowing good and evil, Adam and Eve were potentially capable of fellowship with God, but being unable to be truly good, they estranged from Him in a way they never could have been, when they were innocent. This is why a Savior was necessary.

Wrong again, they were in fellowship with God before the Fall, which is when the sin nature entered the picture, even Mary had a sin nature.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,918
11,305
76
✟363,250.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Let's see what God said...

Genesis 2:16 And he commanded him, saying: Of every tree of paradise thou shalt eat: [17] But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat. For in what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death.

So there you are. In the day Adam eats from that tree, God says he will die.

God, in Genesis, says that Adam was not created immortal. He expresses concern that Adam might become immortal:
Genesis 3:22 And he said: Behold Adam is become as one of us, knowing good and evil: now, therefore, lest perhaps he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever.

No it doesn't, you just made that up.

Sorry, that's God's words.

AFTER the fall, there was no death before that.

That is your addition to His word. It's not what God says in Genesis.

The need for a Savior was for our spiritual death. If Jesus came to save us from physically dying, He failed. We will all die physically some day. It was to save us from that spiritual death that God told Adam about in the Garden.

AThats's what I just told you.


And we are saved from eternal death as the lost will experience in Hell. We will have resurrected bodies as Jesus did. His sacrifice was for both our bodies and spirits.

As you now realize, Jesus did not save us from physical death. We will all die someday. We are saved from a spiritual death.

Notice that the serpent took advantage of Eve's misunderstanding of God's word. He said that she would not die that day

No, he said she would not die, period.

As you know, God said that Adam would die the day He ate from the tree. The serpent is denying that. And the serpent said that it would make her like God. The serpent was a Biblical literalist who pretended that God meant a physical death, and used that lie to deceive her.

LOL, how is telling Eve she wouldn't die being a Biblical literalist?

Because she thought that it was a physical death. The serpent took advantage of that misunderstanding.

As God says, knowing good and evil did indeed make Adam like God. But that was the Fall. By knowing good and evil, Adam and Eve were potentially capable of fellowship with God, but being unable to be truly good, they estranged from Him in a way they never could have been, when they were innocent. This is why a Savior was necessary.

Wrong again, they were in fellowship with God before the Fall

That's not what Genesis says. In fact, God says that it was only after they ate from that tree, that they became like Him.

Before that, they were innocent like other creatures, not knowing good and evil.


 
Upvote 0

East of Eden

Well-Known Member
Feb 20, 2021
1,073
342
64
Albuquerque
✟29,226.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Let's see what God said...

Genesis 2:16 And he commanded him, saying: Of every tree of paradise thou shalt eat: [17] But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat. For in what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death.

So there you are. In the day Adam eats from that tree, God says he will die.

God, in Genesis, says that Adam was not created immortal. He expresses concern that Adam might become immortal:
Genesis 3:22 And he said: Behold Adam is become as one of us, knowing good and evil: now, therefore, lest perhaps he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever.

Sorry, that's God's words.


At least we agree on that, death came with the Fall.

That is your addition to His word. It's not what God says in Genesis.

The need for a Savior was for our spiritual death. If Jesus came to save us from physically dying, He failed. We will all die physically some day.


And we will live eternally with Him.

It was to save us from that spiritual death that God told Adam about in the Garden.

AThats's what I just told you.


And I rejected your opinion.

As you now realize,

Did you miss what I said? I reject your opinion.

Jesus did not save us from physical death. We will all die someday. We are saved from a spiritual death.

Notice that the serpent took advantage of Eve's misunderstanding of God's word. He said that she would not die that day

As you know, God said that Adam would die the day He ate from the tree. The serpent is denying that. And the serpent said that it would make her like God. The serpent was a Biblical literalist who pretended that God meant a physical death, and used that lie to deceive her.


LOL, how does a Biblical literalist (Jesus was one of those) say Eve wouldn't die?

Because she thought that it was a physical death. The serpent took advantage of that misunderstanding.

As God says, knowing good and evil did indeed make Adam like God. But that was the Fall. By knowing good and evil, Adam and Eve were potentially capable of fellowship with God, but being unable to be truly good, they estranged from Him in a way they never could have been, when they were innocent. This is why a Savior was necessary.



That's not what Genesis says. In fact, God says that it was only after they ate from that tree, that they became like Him.

Before that, they were innocent like other creatures, not knowing good and evil.

Not true, they were in fellowship with God, and in the habit of walking with God in the Garden. After the fall they hid themselves.

Gen. 3:8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the garden. 9 But the Lord God called to the man, “Where are you?”
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,918
11,305
76
✟363,250.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
LOL, how does a Biblical literalist (Jesus was one of those)


That assumption is not supported in scripture.

say Eve wouldn't die?

The serpent was telling her she wouldn't die physically. And she didn't die physically that day. God said she would die the day she ate from the tree, but He was speaking of a spiritual death, not a physical one.

Not true, they were in fellowship with God, and in the habit of walking with God in the Garden.

My dog has the habit of walking in the park with me daily. But we do not have fellowship. Our relationship with God is different than that they had in the garden.
 
Upvote 0

East of Eden

Well-Known Member
Feb 20, 2021
1,073
342
64
Albuquerque
✟29,226.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
That assumption falls apart on inspection. A "common designer" would not have "designed" a defective vitamin C gene that no longer works in humans. This makes no sense if we were made by a mere "designer", but it entirely understandable, if we evolved as intended by an omnipotent Creator.

He didn't design us with defects, that happened from the fall, just like cancer, alcoholism, sexual perversities, etc.

Turns out, Darwinians like Punnett and Morgan showed that Hitler's racial and eugenic ideas were not only evil, but scientifically unsupportable. Punnet showed that Hitler's and Tinkel's proposals would take hundreds of years to even begin to improve the human genome.

Why would that matter, Hilter planned a thousand year Reich.

Creationists like ICR co-founder Wm. Tinkel were, like Hitler, enthusiastic eugenicists.
Dr. West, meet Dr. Tinkle, Creationist eugenicist

Link doesn't work, but I doubt it.

You've been misled about that. Darwin condemned even allowing less fit humans to die, as an "overwhelming evil." (Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man)

On the other hand, as late as the 1990s, creationists like ICR co-founder Henry Morris was writing about the supposed intellectual and spiritual inferiority of black people:

Yet the prophecy again has its obverse side. Somehow they have only gone so far and no farther. The Japhethites and Semites have, sooner or later, taken over their territories, and their inventions, and then developed them and utilized them for their own enlargement. Often the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have become actual personal servants or even slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane matters, they have eventually been displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites.
Henry Morris,
The Beginning Of the World, Second Edition (1991), pp. 147

Where does he say they are spiritually inferior? Are you disputing that they have been slaves or what? I know Hitler criticized Christian missionaries who evangelized blacks.

“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races.
― Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man

Darwin was here deploring what he was seeing being done by developed nations against native peoples. He scandalized creationists by opposing slavery and declaring that if a group from the "savage races" were to be brought to England, they would, in a few generations, be just like Englishmen.

I'm not saying Darwin himself favored these murderous policies, but they were used (dog whistle?) by Hitler and others to justify their mass murder based on the 'science' of Darwinism. Darwinism wasn't the sole reason for Hitler's crimes, but it was a necessary one. The following link has a lot of quotes showing the 'scientific' basis for Hitler's program. Note the German Ernst Haeckel, he of the fraudulent evolutionary embryo drawings, is also discussed here:

Darwinism and the Nazi Race Holocaust

Please read in full, it isn't that long. Here is a representative sample:

As Clark concluded, Adolf Hitler:

‘ …was captivated by evolutionary teaching—probably since the time he was a boy. Evolutionary ideas—quite undisguised—lie at the basis of all that is worst in Mein Kampf -and in his public speeches …. Hitler reasoned … that a higher race would always conquer a lower.’20

Terms such as ‘superior race’, ‘lower human types’, ‘pollution of the race’, and the word evolution itself (Entwicklung) were often used by Hitler and other Nazi leaders. His race views were not from fringe science as often claimed but rather Hitler’s views were:

‘ … straightforward German social Darwinism of a type widely known and accepted throughout Germany and which, more importantly, was considered by most Germans, scientists included, to be scientifically true. More recent scholarship on national socialism and Hitler has begun to realize that … [their application of Darwin’s theory] was the specific characteristic of Nazism. National socialist “biopolicy,” … [was] a policy based on a mystical-biological belief in radical inequality, a monistic, antitranscendent moral nihilism based on the eternal struggle for existence and the survival of the fittest as the law of nature, and the consequent use of state power for a public policy of natural selection….’ 24


It's no coincidence that creationism is most popular where racial discrimination and segregation were legally enforced.

By Democrats. Liberals are always falsely calling others racist, when it was their party that launched the Civil War to defend slavery and enforced Jim Crow. The KKK was basically the military wing of the Democratic Party.

I would say it is a coincidence, racial discrimination was the result of people not taking the Bible seriously, much like evolutionists.

This is not to say that all creationists are racists; many (perhaps a majority) are not. But YE creationism, at it's roots, is based on racism.

Absolute nonsense, a baseless smear, I've never heard a YE creationists say anything like that.

Well, let's see what a knowledgeable YE creationist has to say...

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species — include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series. 39Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

So why is he a creationist?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,918
11,305
76
✟363,250.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
That assumption falls apart on inspection. A "common designer" would not have "designed" a defective vitamin C gene that no longer works in humans. This makes no sense if we were made by a mere "designer", but it entirely understandable, if we evolved as intended by an omnipotent Creator.

He didn't design us with defects, that happened from the fall, just like cancer, alcoholism, sexual perversities, etc.

Sorry, that excuse is not supported by scripture. And God is no mere "designer"; He is the omnipotent Creator, Who has no need to figure anything out.

I'm not saying Darwin himself favored these murderous policies, but they were used (dog whistle?) by Hitler and others to justify their mass murder based on the 'science' of Darwinism.

No, that won't work, either. Dawinists like Punnett and Morgan, in the 1930s, showed that the eugenic idea of Hitler and creationists like Morris and Tinkle were not only morally objectionable, but scientifically wrong.

Why would that matter,

Because it wouldn't work.

As Clark concluded, Adolf Hitler:

‘ …was captivated by evolutionary teaching

As you just learned, Hitler's ideas were refuted by evolutionary theory.

Terms such as ‘superior race’, ‘lower human types’, ‘pollution of the race’, and the word evolution itself (Entwicklung) were often used by Hitler and other Nazi leaders.

And by ICR co-founder Henry Morris.

It's no coincidence that creationism is most popular where racial discrimination and segregation were legally enforced.

By Democrats.

By conservatives. Conservative republicans worked with them to maintain segregation. That's why the KKK held a parade to celebrate Donald Trump's win in 2016.

I would say it is a coincidence

No coincidence. He was their guy.

This is not to say that all creationists are racists; many (perhaps a majority) are not. But YE creationism, at it's roots, is based on racism.

Absolute nonsense, a baseless smear, I've never heard a YE creationists say anything like that.

The founders of the Institute for Creation Research (who spread the Adventist docrine of YE to evangelicals) were both advocates of eugenic ideas and the notion of black inferiority. Would you like me to show you?

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species — include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series. 39Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

So why is he a creationist?

Because he prefers his interpretation of scripture to the evidence.

Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young Earth, I am a young age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate.
Kurt P Wise, geology (In Six Days) - creation.com

He's just honest enough to admit that the evidence supports evolution. He does express his belief that eventually, creationists will develop theories that are supported by evidence.

At present creation theory has no good explanation for the fossil record of whales. On the other hand, clues that an alternative solution might be forthcoming...
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf




 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

East of Eden

Well-Known Member
Feb 20, 2021
1,073
342
64
Albuquerque
✟29,226.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
That assumption falls apart on inspection. A "common designer" would not have "designed" a defective vitamin C gene that no longer works in humans. This makes no sense if we were made by a mere "designer", but it entirely understandable, if we evolved as intended by an omnipotent Creator.

In both cases God is at work in your worldview, correct?

Sorry, that excuse is not supported by scripture. And God is no mere "designer"; He is the omnipotent Creator, Who has no need to figure anything out.

Who said He has to figure anything out? Disease and death entered the world with the fall.

No, that won't work, either. Dawinists like Punnett and Morgan, in the 1930s, showed that the eugenic idea of Hitler and creationists like Morris and Tinkle were not only morally objectionable, but scientifically wrong.

How can random chance care about morals one way or another? Survival of the fittest was what motivated Hitler. I also think Darwinism motivated the SCOTUS decision that upheld the forced sterilization of the handicapped. Nazi war criminals on trial for forced sterilizations cited that case in their defense.

Because it wouldn't work.

To Hitler, a few hundred years to achieve his Darwinist goals didn't matter in the context of a 1,000 year Reich.

As you just learned, Hitler's ideas were refuted by evolutionary theory.

What, they recanted survival of the fittest?

And by ICR co-founder Henry Morris.

Nonsense, I suspect just another tired case of liberals name calling those they can't refute in an effort to silence them, it is quite fascist.

By conservatives.

No by Democrats, who never let the Constitution get in the way of their notions. When FDR imprisoned the Japanese one of his advisors when asked about the Constitution said, "That's just a scrap of paper." Much like they ignore the right to life and due process to justify the criminal genocide of abortion. Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the reasoning on Roe was faulty to say the least.

Conservative republicans worked with them to maintain segregation.

The Republican Party was founded to end slavery, hundreds of thousands of them died in the effort. A Democrat ended up killing Lincoln. More Republicans than Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Going back to the Dred Scot decision, all seven majority justices were Democrats, the two dissenting justices were Republican.

That's why the KKK held a parade to celebrate Donald Trump's win in 2016.

I must have missed that. I do know the Revolutionary Communist Party endorsed Biden, and was not repudiated by his campaign. Revolutionary Communist Party Endorses Democrat Joe Biden For President

As I said before, the KKK was the military wing of the Democratic Party, much like the Antifa/BLM thugs today. The KKK was quite active at the 2024 Democratic Convention, which could not even pass an anti-Klan resolution. Probably the same attitude as when the Revolutionary Communist Party endorsed Biden, anyone supporting their guy is welcome.

This is not to say that all creationists are racists; many (perhaps a majority) are not. But YE creationism, at it's roots, is based on racism.

Nonsense, but certainly true of Darwinism. Would the Holocaust have happened without it?

The founders of the Institute for Creation Research (who spread the Adventist docrine of YE to evangelicals) were both advocates of eugenic ideas and the notion of black inferiority. Would you like me to show you?

Yes. Are you aware Hilary Clinton is an admirer of Margaret Sanger, an open supporter of those ideas? No wonder the KKK loved Sanger. See Margaret Sanger was a racist eugenics advocate who shouldn't be honored

Here's a sample pearl of wisdom from Hilary's gal:

"We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro
population"

Because he prefers his interpretation of scripture to the evidence.

Certainly true of evolutionists and their Darwinist scripture.
 
Upvote 0

Andrewn

Well-Known Member
CF Ambassadors
Supporter
Jul 4, 2019
5,801
4,309
-
✟678,402.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
As God says, knowing good and evil did indeed make Adam like God. But that was the Fall. By knowing good and evil, Adam and Eve were potentially capable of fellowship with God, but being unable to be truly good, they estranged from Him in a way they never could have been, when they were innocent.

In fact, God says that it was only after they ate from that tree, that they became like Him. Before that, they were innocent like other creatures, not knowing good and evil.

My dog has the habit of walking in the park with me daily. But we do not have fellowship. Our relationship with God is different than that they had in the garden.
Why did God create the TKGE? Did He ultimately want humans to eat its fruit even though He warned them of the consequences?
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,918
11,305
76
✟363,250.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Why did God create the TKGE? Did He ultimately want humans to eat its fruit even though He warned them of the consequences?

Well, that's a good question.

God shows Adam around the Garden:
"It's great here, Adam. I put in everything you'll need. Water, food, great climate and comfortable places to be. Enjoy all of it. Except for that tree over there. No, not that one, that one right by the path. Don't eat anything from that tree. If you do, something terrible will happen."

You don't need God's omniscience to know what was going to happen next. You only need a slight acquaintance with human nature.

So long as Adam remained like the other animals, not knowing good and evil, he was not like God and so was unable to have fellowship with him. But after he knew, he was still not able to be truly good. This is why we need a Savior.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Andrewn
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,918
11,305
76
✟363,250.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
In both cases God is at work in your worldview, correct?

In one, a limited "designer" planned out humans and goofed some things. In the other, an omnipotent Creator created nature to produce man as He intended. So signs of evolution in our genes are not signs of faulty design, they are just artifacts of the process by which He made us.

Who said He has to figure anything out?

That's what "design" means. Limited creatures design. God creates.

To Hitler, a few hundred years to achieve his Darwinist goals didn't matter in the context of a 1,000 year Reich.

Wrong. As you see, Hitler's eugenic ideas, like the eugenic ideas of the founders of YE in America, were refuted by Darwinists. And his racism was shared by ICR founder Henry Morris.

How can random chance care about morals one way or another?

The problem is the YE conception of God as being limited

as we are. This is not true. He isn't just bigger and better than we are; He is an entirely different sort of being, eternal and unique.
The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow; but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the plan of divine providence conceives to happen from contingency.
St. Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologia #22

Regarding the racism of YE founder Henry Morris:

Nonsense, I suspect just another tired case of liberals name calling those they can't refute in an effort to silence them, it is quite fascist.

Well, let's take a look...
Yet the prophecy again has its obverse side. Somehow they have only gone so far and no farther. The Japhethites and Semites have, sooner or later, taken over their territories, and their inventions, and then developed them and utilized them for their own enlargement. Often the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have become actual personal servants or even slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane matters, they have eventually been displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites.

Henry Morris The Beginning of the World, 1992

If you think attributing intellectual and spiritual inferiorty to black people isn't racism, we've located the problem. This is not to say that all creationists are racists; many (perhaps a majority) are not. But YE creationism, at it's roots, is based on racism.

Nonsense,

See above. The founder of YE creationism in evangelicals. No point in denial.

Again, more recently, many YE creationists, perhaps a majority of them, have rejected that doctrine of YE creationism, as they have rejected the YE claim that new species do not evolve. But there it is.







 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,918
11,305
76
✟363,250.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Barbarian observes:
That's why the KKK held a parade to celebrate Donald Trump's win in 2016.

I must have missed that.

The Loyal White Knights, a Ku Klux Klan group based in North Carolina, held a parade convoy in the city of Roxboro on Saturday to celebrate the presidential election victory of Donald Trump.
The KKK Held A Parade In North Carolina Celebrating Trump's Win


As I said before, the KKK was the military wing of the Democratic Party

When democrats were conservatives. When they became liberal and endorsed civil rights for all, the Klan departed and eventually joined the republican party. This is why the Klan is now allied with republicans, and denounces democrats. Over time, things change. This is why loyalty to a party is foolish. At one time, republicans backed equal rights for all. And not surprisingly, they got most of the minority vote. And it's not surprising that when republicans ceased to support equal rights, minorities fled the party and became democrats.

(Regarding evolution)

Would the Holocaust have happened without it?

About 90% of Hitler's final solution can be found in Martin Luther's The Jews and their Lies. The Nazis were proud of this and cited Luther as a great German patriot. It's in testimony at the Nuremberg trials.
Martin Luther - "The Jews & Their Lies"

Read it and learn. This is not to tar all Protestants as racists or monsters; Luther himself obviously loved God and was courageous in asserting what he felt to be truth. But he had flaws, and this monstrous evil was one of those flaws, which inspired the Nazis. Compare to the plans for the final solution...
The Wannsee Protocol

Are you aware Hilary Clinton is an admirer of Margaret Sanger, an open supporter of those ideas?

I didn't know Clinton was running for anything. (checks) No. She lost. Get used to it. But do show us that she admired Sanger.

No wonder the KKK loved Sanger.

As ICR founders Henry Morris and William Tinkle did. Tinkle even advocated sterilizing "inferior" people, perhaps without their consent. Racism is a basic part of their ideology.

As I said, many YE creationists have abandoned the racism of their founders. But many have not.












 
  • Informative
Reactions: Andrewn
Upvote 0