A Question for those who Deny Evolution

[SandRose]

Welcome back Key!

Their are two Schools.

Old Earth Centers on: That God made Everything, but God is not bound by our Solar Cycles, as such a Day, can be any length of time. This if the universe is 13.4 Billion Years, or 157.6 Trillion Years, makes no difference, as it is a "day" to God.

Young Earth: Centers on the Idea that a God meant a Day as per our Solar Cycle, or a Human Day. As such, the Earth is 6000 years old.

As I understood it though, FriarErasmus described something a bit different than either of these... sort of combining them somehow? (I'm not sure about this, so sorry if I misread his post.)

 

[SandRose]

SandRose,

I would appreciate it, if when you are referring to me, not to mingle it with someone else's response. It gives the impression that I said something supporting theistic evolution, and anyone that would believe that should clean their glasses.

I didn't realize I had given this impression -- as I understood it, both of your posts openly spoke out against the idea of theistic evolution, and so it seemed reasonable to address them together.

But my apologies if it seemed like I was putting words in your mouth -- it certainly wasn't my intention.

 

[Key]

SandRose,

I would appreciate it, if when you are referring to me, not to mingle it with someone else's response. It gives the impression that I said something supporting theistic evolution, and anyone that would believe that should clean their glasses.

Do I need to clean the shot glasses or the brandy glasses

(Yes.. this is a joke... )

God Bless

Key.

 

[Key]

I understand what you're saying, but I guess it's just not as hard for me to accept. There's a large difference between saying that dogs will give birth to something other than dogs, and saying that dogs as a species will change over time. Given enough generations, maybe those changes will be significant enough that it would be more fitting for us to call them something else... but that doesn't imply that one day a dog must have given birth to something other than a dog.

But see, even by this, think for a moment, I just want you to look at what is said, see I am not going to say "Your Wrong" here, Believe as you believe, but you asked me why I don't. This is something I want to put to again, so you can see why I just can not accpet this.

If a Dog will only give birth to a dog, then a that which is a Dog, be a single common derivative of a "Dog" type. had to have always been.

There had to be this "Dog" from the start, it could not be something that is not a Dog, when it was conceived.

I heard an interesting analogy to language not too long ago, which may be fitting here... It went something like, people never just stop speaking the language of the previous generation. But we may have some new slang that they didn't use, or a few words with subtly changed meanings. Over only one or two generations, these changes don't mean much -- we can still easily understand our parents and grandparents. But over longer time periods, these changes add up. If you read Shakespeare, written only 500 years ago, it certainly isn't easy for a casual reader to understand, even though it's still English. If you go back another 500 years, you have Old English and works like Beowulf -- things that require translation to be comprehensible to us.

This is not quite true.

Now if I use an analogy of say: Switching from Standard to Metric.

The system goes to Creation, not Evolution.

You're right, this has been a wonderful exchange -- thanks again for your long and thoughtful responses, and for continuing to participate in this thread.

I hope and pray that each and every one of our exchanges is a joyous one, and that we grown and learn from each other. I hope that I have treated what you have said with respect that it deserves, as always.

God Bless

Key.

 

[FriarErasmus]

As I understood it though, FriarErasmus described something a bit different than either of these... sort of combining them somehow? (I'm not sure about this, so sorry if I misread his post.)

Not to get on my "soapbox" again, but just wanted to clarify my faith in this regard:

Yes, the concept is in some ways a combination of the two theories. It proposes that there was an original creation that either was created billions of years ago, or was created in an already "old" state. There is left open a whole wide set of options of how the world was prior to the first catastrophic Adamic flood. The scriptures do not speak too heavily of the Earth prior to Adam, just as it does not speak too heavily of the future new Earth (though there is more on that than on Earth prior to Adam). This makes sense because we live in the current Earth, and what happened before is only important insomuch as it helps explain the current state of things: Lucifer used to be king of this earth and was charged with the care of all people on this earth in the preadamite era (possibly guiding natural selection to bring about cromagnum man from a lesser creature over billions of years, so that allows for some of what you might call evolution, though this is more natural selection, but we will never know exactly what happened during this time), but he was dethroned for attacking the gates of heaven. This gives him jealousy of Adam as a reason to undermine Eve, as Adam had supplanted him as God's favorite, God's friend, and King over Earth.

One key difference from the Old Earth concept - I still feel the account in Genesis is a literal one, as the gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 allows for infinite time prior to the restoration of earth and the creation of Adam in the image of God. So basically, God literally created everything in the beginning. A time period we can never determine from scripture happens. Somehow during that time period, the earth is utterly destroyed and made formless, is covered entirely in dark clouds, and waters flood the earth. The Spirit of God hovers over the waters, and the Triune God decides that it finally has been long enough to completely wipe out all living things on the earth so He can start again. Verse 2 begins the literal restoration of every thing (explaining how there could be light, night, and day even though the sun, moon, and stars were not "made" or restored until the 4th day).

Anyone interested in more details or just wanting to talk, pm me, and we can start a new discussion on this in another forum.

Disclaimers: INTTCY and IANAF
(I'm not trying to convert you and I am not a friar)

 

[Zeena]

I understand that not all Christians reject evolution, but this question is geared toward the ones who do:

What has been the single most compelling reason or piece of evidence that has convinced you to believe that evolution is not true?

I ask this because, while I do have some preconceived ideas of what responses might be, I'm wondering if could improve my understanding of why some people reject this scientific theory. Thanks in advance.

Because God is the creator, not time nor chance =P

 

[Paisley]

I reject evolution for more than one reason. I will have to think up a good response to this question and get back to you. This may take some time.

 

[SandRose]

Key: I don't believe there's anything wrong with the language analogy (aside from the obvious differences in how languages and genes work). But on a whole, I think our exchange already reflects my best attempt to explain my understanding of evolution, how it generally works, what it claims and what it doesn't claim, etc. In terms of answering my question, of course, you've already gone far above and beyond the call of duty, so I appreciate that -- even though we don't exactly agree, I do think I understand where you're coming from and why you believe the way you do.

FriarErasmus: Thanks for the followup post. I don't have any other particular questions at the moment, though for some reason this strikes me as an interesting interpretation of Genesis.

Medley: By all means take your time if you need to collect your thoughts on the matter -- even though the original question asks for a single reason, you're welcome to add as many to this thread as you like.

 

[TheCosmicGospel]

Is this the same Science that could not determine whether or not a human embryo was anything but golbula fit for the trashcan but yet is going to discern where all life comes from? Kind of a major contradiction in my book. And it shows how politically motivated Science is. It is not neutral but comes with its own social agenda. And this is the maiden of our education system. Oh joy. Learning for learning's sake. Gimmie a break. Little wonder our school syste is ranked just above Mexico on the international scale. We have removed God, common sense, and decency is not far behind.

And as far as evolution, there is nothing to deny. It is not real.

Cheers,
Cosmic

 

[Zeena]

Praise God!

 

[LuvAslan]

The world we live in is FAR too complex to happen by chance. Even the tinyest detail is perfect for life to be possible. Also, it's been proven that life can not came from non-life. Thus, the only reasonable explanation is God. He designs perfectly.

 

[SandRose]

Is this the same Science that could not determine whether or not a human embryo was anything but golbula fit for the trashcan but yet is going to discern where all life comes from?

Thanks for your response. Since you asked this... I would respond that the desire to declare a human embryo sacred and soulified is far less objective than looking at it for what it is -- a blob of cells. In the case of both embryos and evolution, science looks at what's there, not what people may wish is there.

 

[divine137]

I understand that not all Christians reject evolution, but this question is geared toward the ones who do:

What has been the single most compelling reason or piece of evidence that has convinced you to believe that evolution is not true?

I ask this because, while I do have some preconceived ideas of what responses might be, I'm wondering if could improve my understanding of why some people reject this scientific theory. Thanks in advance.

Science. Science is the "main" reason why I dont believe in the myth of evolution. Nature shows us "proof" that evolution not only never happened. But isnt happening and never can happen.

Genetics proves this. History proves this. And Mathematics proves this. Nuff said?

 

[divine137]

Thanks for your response. Since you asked this... I would respond that the desire to declare a human embryo sacred and soulified is far less objective than looking at it for what it is -- a blob of cells. In the case of both embryos and evolution, science looks at what's there, not what people may wish is there.

First, a human being's body, "IS" a blob of cells ...so what, murder should be tolerated? you made no sense there.

then, you are calling a "human baby" an "embryo". You dont go to a pregnant woman and tell her "How's your embryo doing?" Hopefully, she'll slap you silly. LOL!!!

 

[divine137]

Is this the same Science that could not determine whether or not a human embryo was anything but golbula fit for the trashcan but yet is going to discern where all life comes from? Kind of a major contradiction in my book. And it shows how politically motivated Science is. It is not neutral but comes with its own social agenda. And this is the maiden of our education system. Oh joy. Learning for learning's sake. Gimmie a break. Little wonder our school syste is ranked just above Mexico on the international scale. We have removed God, common sense, and decency is not far behind.

And as far as evolution, there is nothing to deny. It is not real.

Cheers,
Cosmic

This is exactly correct. There is NOTHING to deny. It must "PROVE" itself, first. How can you "DISprove" something that never "PROVED" itself to begin with? LOL!

But you did make "one" mistake. Science isnt biased. Evolutionism is.

Science actually proves creation. And science is also history, math, and so forth...BIOLOGY is "a" science. And it actually proves creation.

Most evolutionists are just people who are either attempting in a justification for their sins. Example: Adolph Hitler.

Or just people who are so bitter that they are attempting to make God angry. Example: Homosexuals.

Anyone with an "intellectually honest" mind....knows evolution is nothing more than "modern day mythology".

 

[TheCosmicGospel]

Thanks for your response. Since you asked this... I would respond that the desire to declare a human embryo sacred and soulified is far less objective than looking at it for what it is -- a blob of cells. In the case of both embryos and evolution, science looks at what's there, not what people may wish is there.

You obviously missed the contradiction so I will try once more. Maybe others will begin to see it too. Science is able to tell when life began from the universe but when it comes from a woman's body now all of a sudden it is mute and unknowing? Wow. Science is not bare of politics nor is it ever neutral just "looking at cells" and unable to idenitify their greater whole or origin but at the same time telling us of the origin of the universe. What a magician Science has become!

Now the globula is being harvested for what - stem cells? You can't use stem cells from mice for humans? Really? So you have to use stem cells from what - humans? So much for the globula theory. Now both theories will be used as politically necessary, or should I say, convenient. Even if they are - contradictory.

When does the bunny come out of the hat?

Cheers,
Cosmic

 

[SandRose]

First, a human being's body, "IS" a blob of cells ...so what, murder should be tolerated? you made no sense there.

Considering the structure of a developed human's body, I don't think "blob of cells" is the most apt description of it. But just to clarify: I don't consider sperm or egg cells sacred, and I don't believe that they suddenly become so when you mix them together.

then, you are calling a "human baby" an "embryo". You dont go to a pregnant woman and tell her "How's your embryo doing?" Hopefully, she'll slap you silly. LOL!!!

"Embryo" was TheCosmicGospel's choice of words. But aside from that, embryo is what you typically call us "blobs of cells" when we're in the very early early stages of development.

You obviously missed the contradiction so I will try once more. Maybe others will begin to see it too. Science is able to tell when life began from the universe but when it comes from a woman's body now all of a sudden it is mute and unknowing? Wow.

I think you're confusing two completely different things here, because when you weed out the rhetoric your question makes no sense. For it to make the point you're trying to make, it would have to be rephrased to "science is able to tell when life began from the universe but when it comes from a woman's body now all of a sudden it is not life?" and no one is claiming that. Science is a method of obtaining knowledge, not a method of developing ethics -- it may well be that it is wrong to destroy an embryo in order to save a suffering child or adult (even though I would personally disagree), but that isn't a question that the scientific method purports to answer.

Also, just to clarify way this thread has been unfolding: I didn't come here to debate, but for every question that has been asked of me, I have tried my best to respond. If you are just trying to make a point with a rhetorical question, you might consider rephrasing it, since I have a hard time telling when you guys aren't actually seeking my feedback.

 

[Spudgrandma]

Closed for staff review.

Edited 02/27/07 @10:06

This thread will remain closed.​