a challenge for creationists

[Athlon4all]

I just posted Sinai. npetreley, Is that comment necessary? Please try not to make comments like that.

 

[sbbqb7n16]

The Bibles does say that it took God "a day" to make all creatures on earth. But it never specifies how long a day was or what time of that day each was created....plants were on a whole different day

 

[Cantuar]

In any case, even if there was all the "scientific" or "worldly" "evidence" for evolution, I wouldn't believe it because the word of God is truth, not man's opinion's and man's research.

Why not? If there was all that evidence for it (which there is, by the way) obtained by the same techniques used to obtain information about treating disease and predicting the weather (techniques I assume you don't object to and results which you're happy to use in your daily life), why would that evidence be wrong and the other evidence right? And if there's a chance that the evidence is right, then you're denying God's creation by refusing to accept the evidence of it. Really, if God spoke from heaven and said "I used evolution! Why is that so hard for you to understand?", He'd be met with all these shouts of, "but that's not what it says in the Bible!"

But, true science evidence points to creation, not microbes-to-man evolution.

Apparently true science and real science aren't the same thing.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Cantuar
Why not? If there was all that evidence for it (which there is, by the way) obtained by the same techniques used to obtain information about treating disease and predicting the weather (techniques I assume you don't object to and results which you're happy to use in your daily life)

I'm amazed that you folks continue to use this argument.

First of all, there is only one technique upon which evolution is based: IMAGINATION. Evolutionists use scientific techniques that are related to their imaginary evolution, such as genetics and biology, but those techniques would be identical whether or not evolution were true (and it isn't).

Second, the same scientific techniques that you are ascribing to evolution are also used to create super-diseases and other harmful agents for biological warfare, some of which may even be responsible for some of the horrible diseases we have to deal with today. So if you want to take credit for anything good, you'll also have to take the blame for all the bad.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by npetreley
First of all, there is only one technique upon which evolution is based: IMAGINATION.

Really?
Is the fundamental unity of life imaginary?
Is the nested hierarchy of species organization imaginary?
Is the independent convergence on a true phylogeny imaginary?
Is the morphology of common ancestors imaginary?
Is the chronology of common ancestors imaginary?
Are anatomical vestigial structures imaginary?
Are atavisms imaginary?
Are molecular vestigial structures imaginary?
Is ontogeny and developmental biology imaginary?
Is present biogeography imaginary?
Is past biogeography imaginary?
Is anatomical paralogy imaginary?
Is molecular paralogy imaginary?
Is anatomical convergence imaginary?
Is molecular convergence imaginary?
Is anatomical suboptimal function imaginary?
Is molecular suboptimal function imaginary?
Is protein redundancy imaginary?
Is DNA redundancy imaginary?
Are transposons imaginary?
Are endogenous retroviruses imaginary?
Is genetic change imaginary?
Is morphological change imagainary?
Is functional change imaginary?
Is the observed change over time in the fossil record imaginary?
Is speciation imaginary?
Are observed morphological rates of change imaginary?
Are observed genetic rates of change imaginary?

Clearly the only thing here that is imaginary is your understanding of evolutionary theory.

Second, the same scientific techniques that you are ascribing to evolution are also used to create super-diseases and other harmful agents for biological warfare, some of which may even be responsible for some of the horrible diseases we have to deal with today. So if you want to take credit for anything good, you'll also have to take the blame for all the bad.

No one made any moral claims for science, Nick. We only claim that it works. How people choose to use it is another matter.

 

[Athlon4all]

[qupte]Apparently true science and real science aren't the same thing.[/quote]You've got that right. Your "science" is taking advantage of what the public views science as totally unbiased, and people only seeking the truth).

Why not? If there was all that evidence for it (which there is, by the way) obtained by the same techniques used to obtain information about treating disease and predicting the weather (techniques I assume you don't object to and results which you're happy to use in your daily life), why would that evidence be wrong and the other evidence right? And if there's a chance that the evidence is right, then you're denying God's creation by refusing to accept the evidence of it. Really, if God spoke from heaven and said "I used evolution! Why is that so hard for you to understand?", He'd be met with all these shouts of, "but that's not what it says in the Bible!"

Why Not? Because the Bible is infallible, and is something the world has come up with contradicts it, then the Bible is true. The Bible is truth, not man's opinions. Again, I have prolly already gone too far when it comes to scientifically evolution vs creation. As I said, all scientist's are biased towards their personal belief's, "science" is only a puppet used by the devil in the evolutionist's to convince the public that they are right.

 

[blader]

Originally posted by Athlon4all
[qupte]Because the Bible is infallible, and is something the world has come up with contradicts it, then the Bible is true. The Bible is truth, not man's opinions. Again, I have prolly already gone too far when it comes to scientifically evolution vs creation. As I said, all scientist's are biased towards their personal belief's, "science" is only a puppet used by the devil in the evolutionist's to convince the public that they are right.

"All scientists?" Even the Christian ones?

What about your person beliefs? If you think the Bible is to be interpreted 100% literally, then where does that put you? If some one shows you evidence for evolution that contradicts the Bible, what would you do? That's right, the same thing you're doing now: ignore it, because you've already decide that it's just an evil evolutionist lie from Satan. Talk about unscientific.

 

[Athlon4all]

Yep. Every person hasw a bias that influences all of their thinking (Including me). What about personal beliefs? They will use all evidence they see to support their belief's. Evolutionist's and Creationist's both have the exact same evidence, they just interperate it according to their personal bias. The Bible is the final authority for Creationist's (and should be for all Christians), while for Evolutionist's man's opinion's and research are the final authority.

Again I think that your "science" is not true science, at least its not my science, which is observing what we can see. But again,, even if creationists and evolutionist's do the same science, they would still be seeing the exact same evidence and would interperate it according to their bias.

You may call me unscientific, but I shall say the same about yourself if "unscientific" means someone who blatently rejects "scientific" evidence in exchange for their personal belief's. The majority of Evolutionist's are no different.

 

[Jerry Smith]

You may call me unscientific, but I shall say the same about yourself if "unscientific" means someone who blatently rejects "scientific" evidence in exchange for their personal belief's. The majority of Evolutionist's are no different.

I beg differ. I think that you would see this much differently if you were aware of the scientific evidence.

In fact, I think you might even modify your interpretation of the scripture if you were aware of the scientific evidence. That is what many believers have done, when faced with the evidence. Ask Kenneth Miller, Keith Miller, Denis Lamoureux, Michael Denton, and many others (including people who post to this board) whether or not they feel that a strictly literal interpretation of Genesis is necessary, and whether or not a strictly literal interpretation of Genesis conflicts with strong scientific evidence.

 

[Cantuar]

I'm amazed that you folks continue to use this argument.

I'm not "you folks"; there's only one of me.

Evolutionists use scientific techniques that are related to their imaginary evolution, such as genetics and biology, but those techniques would be identical whether or not evolution were true (and it isn't).

Of course they wouldn't. Biology (which is a little more than just a technique, by the way) would be quite different without evolution. Since it takes evolution into account and is still producing useful results and verifable (and verified) predictions, that says rather clearly that evolution isn't imagination. Just look at a year's worth of articles from a recent volume of a mainstream journal like Journal of Bacteriology or Molecular and General Genetics, and you'll see how much the work depends on evolution. If the whole of evolution is imaginary, then so is the whole of modern biology, including, which is what you were objecting to, a lot of the work on diseases and their remedies done in the last few decades.

Second, the same scientific techniques that you are ascribing to evolution are also used to create super-diseases and other harmful agents for biological warfare, some of which may even be responsible for some of the horrible diseases we have to deal with today. So if you want to take credit for anything good, you'll also have to take the blame for all the bad.

No problem there.

 

[Cantuar]

Because the Bible is infallible, and is something the world has come up with contradicts it, then the Bible is true. The Bible is truth, not man's opinions.

The Bible said that God sends plagues and infestations. The Bible says that God sends floods and earthquakes. Do you still prefer to believe that epidemics are the direct work of God and that there's no natural cause? Do you seek medical help when you have pneumonia as well as praying about it, or do you just pray about it?

As I said, all scientist's are biased towards their personal belief's, "science" is only a puppet used by the devil in the evolutionist's to convince the public that they are right.

Could you explain the motivation and the biases of Christians who are scientists and who accept and do research on evolution? And the biases of Christians who aren't scientists but accept the existence of evolution and its mechanisms? When a school in England was found this spring to be teaching creationism in its science classes, seven Anglican bishops joined a number of eminent scientists in writing a letter to the Prime Minister to protest the teaching of creationism and declare that evolution should be taught. Do you think the Church of England is a Christian organisation?

 

[Athlon4all]

In fact, I think you might even modify your interpretation of the scripture if you were aware of the scientific evidence. That is what many believers have done, when faced with the evidence. Ask Kenneth Miller, Keith Miller, Denis Lamoureux, Michael Denton, and many others (including people who post to this board) whether or not they feel that a strictly literal interpretation of Genesis is necessary, and whether or not a strictly literal interpretation of Genesis conflicts with strong scientific evidence.

I have all the proof I need, the Word of God. Those men, so sad. They believe Science can give them answers, which in reality it can't, and also, they reject the authority of the word of God. So much of the Church has fallen to Evolution, and they don't realize that it so much compromises Christianity. Why believe what the Bible teaches about Jesus Christ as savior by grace through faith, but not what it treaches about Creation. Belief in the Literal Genesis is essential to the Christian Faith. If it isn't believed, then many questions come up. Like, why have hope for a better life when there has always been death on destruction? Why do we need a Savior if we all aren't all desendants of Adam and thus under the curse of Adam that all are sinners? And there's so many more.

The Bible said that God sends plagues and infestations. The Bible says that God sends floods and earthquakes. Do you still prefer to believe that epidemics are the direct work of God and that there's no natural cause? Do you seek medical help when you have pneumonia as well as praying about it, or do you just pray about it?

God has total control over everything in the world. I do not ignore what science has accomplished, and God does not want us to ignore the medical advances. But, God is in control, and all things work in for his will. The reason death and suffering have entered into the world is because man rebelled against God, and this world became not perfect as a result of it, and now the Devil is rampent through the earth, tempting people to give into sin, that is why this earth is such a wretched place.

Could you explain the motivation and the biases of Christians who are scientists and who accept and do research on evolution? And the biases of Christians who aren't scientists but accept the existence of evolution and its mechanisms? When a school in England was found this spring to be teaching creationism in its science classes, seven Anglican bishops joined a number of eminent scientists in writing a letter to the Prime Minister to protest the teaching of creationism and declare that evolution should be taught. Do you think the Church of England is a Christian organisation?

Again, see what I said above. Many Christians are decieved regarding Evolution vs Creation, the Devil has gotten to them. So sad, they really have many inconsistancies. People speak of tolerance of all belief's, but they are actually intolerant of the true view, Creation/Christianity, while imposing Humanism/Evolution. This is what has happened in the Church, Christian College's and the Public and Christian Schools. Satan has really hit Christianity at the right places, and the Church needs to come back to taking the Bible as the infallible word of God that it is, and that they think they feel it is.

 

[Jerry Smith]

They believe Science can give them answers, which in reality it can't, and also, they reject the authority of the word of God.

You might want to back up a little bit on this one. Of the scientists I listed, Keith Miller and Denis Lamoureux are evangelical Christians who do not reject the authority of the Bible.

It may be sad to you, but it isn't because they reject the authority of the Bible. Perhaps it is because they reject the Authority of your interpretation of the Bible.

 

[Athlon4all]

You might want to back up a little bit on this one. Of the scientists I listed, Keith Miller and Denis Lamoureux are evangelical Christians who do not reject the authority of the Bible.

It just doesn't fit. They may not think they reject the authority of the Bible, but Jesus Christ himself in a verse (dunno which one) confirms creation and plus, all in the bible must be taken into context and evolution just does noyt fit with the rest of the Bible. They are errant.

 

[seebs]

There is a vast gap between not agreeing with you on interpretation, and not accepting the authority of the Bible.

Christ spoke frequently in parables, and *always* in terms of the way the people He was speaking to saw the world.

Evolution fits just fine with the rest of the Bible.

 

[Athlon4all]

There is a vast gap between not agreeing with you on interpretation, and not accepting the authority of the Bible

I disagree.

Christ may have talked in parables, but he specifically says out right about Creation. Evolution does not fit with the rest of the Bible, and no non-believer can treuly understand it.

 

[Jerry Smith]

So, Athlon, correct me if I am wrong. You are telling me that these people are wrong when they say they accept the authority of the Bible? They really don't accept it, they just think they do? Because you don't see any way for evolution to fit with the Bible? Perhaps it is your own inability to see, and not their rejection of the Bible that is at issue... Did that occur to you?

Christ specifically confirmed creation, but He never, ever denied evolution. Likewise, these Christians accept creation, but do not deny evolution. I don't think you have a case.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by Athlon4all
I disagree.

Christ may have talked in parables, but he specifically says out right about Creation. Evolution does not fit with the rest of the Bible, and no non-believer can treuly understand it.

So? He says lots of things directly which Christianity takes as figurative, such as the claim that the second coming would be within the lifetime of those present when he announced it.

I'm a believer. Christ washed away my sins, although I am sometimes amazed that He has enough blood to keep up with me. And yet... I don't see any reason for evolution not to fit with the Bible, and neither do a number of other Christians.

 

[Jerry Smith]

To the attention of Athlon,
We Believe in Creation, position statement of the American Scientific Affiliation, a "fellowship of men and women in science and disciplines that relate to science who share a common fidelity to the Word of God and a commitment to integrity in the practice of science."

 

[Jerry Smith]

So? He says lots of things directly which Christianity takes as figurative

seebs, I don't think Jesus' confirmation of creation was intended figuratively. At the same time, His confirmation of creation was not a denial of evolution, so it has no bearing on this debate.