A question to all Evolutionists- please answer

[artybloke]

It is quite another to say that the Bible is errant.

I don't understand. Why is it a problem to say that the Bible might contain what to anyone who knows the facts would be classified as "errors?" The bible is not a history book or a science book, and none of the writers were writing using scientific methodology.

The Bible isn't God, it isn't even "written by God." It was written by human beings a long time ago who wrote about their experience of, and relationship to, God. Sometimes the information they had available to them, which might have seemed reliable at the time, would not pass any test of reliability nowadays. They can't be blamed for that.

They also used their imaginations. They told stories, they elaborated on tales they'd heard, they altered stories to reflect the truth that had come to them, they wrote poetry.

I suspect that God inspired them to pass on their wisdom to us so that we could have a good starting point for discovering God for ourselves, not so that we could get stuck in a mire of literalistic, and largely unimaginative, interpretations that claims there is only one way of reading the Bible.

 

[Yahweh Nissi]

This is an area of the discussion that I find very troubling. I will not paint all TE with a broad brush as holding to this notion, but it seems to come primarily from that side. It is one thing to put forward the argument that God created via evolution and to subsequently try and assert an interpretation of the Bible to validate it, It is quite another to say that the Bible is errant. If this is the case, who decides what is truth and what is a lie? Man? If that is the case then man now holds all the answers to life. My God is certainly able to tell me what he wants me to know and I trust Him. It is man that I don't trust.

There is a word that describes someone who places his own wisdom above God but I dare not mention it.

As Karl said - there are factual errors in the Bible, to ignore this is actually putting a man-made theory, strict factual inerrancy, over the Bible - which by its own account is not inerrant.

2 Timothy 3
16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Note all this says. You will note that it says nothing about science, history or facts.

Matthew 27
1Early in the morning, all the chief priests and the elders of the people came to the decision to put Jesus to death. 2They bound him, led him away and handed him over to Pilate, the governor.
3When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty silver coins to the chief priests and the elders. 4"I have sinned," he said, "for I have betrayed innocent blood."
"What is that to us?" they replied. "That's your responsibility."
5So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself.
6The chief priests picked up the coins and said, "It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money." 7So they decided to use the money to buy the potter's field as a burial place for foreigners. 8That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day. 9Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: "They took the thirty silver coins, the price set on him by the people of Israel, 10and they used them to buy the potter's field, as the Lord commanded me."

Acts 1
15In those days Peter stood up among the believers[3] (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty) 16and said, "Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through the mouth of David concerning Judas, who served as guide for those who arrested Jesus-- 17he was one of our number and shared in this ministry."
18(With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. 19Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)

There are flat contradictions here. 1 - Matt says Judas hung himself, Acts says he burst open. 2 - Matt says Judas gave the money back to the chief priests and they bought a field, Acts says Judas kept the money and bought the field himself. 3 - Matt says it is called "The Field of Blood" because it was used as a burial place for foreigners, Acts says it is called that because Judas burst open their and his intestines spilled out.

The accounts contradict, therefore both cannot be true - i.e. one is in error, therefore the Bible is not inerrant.


John 1

Jesus' First Disciples

35 The next day John was there again with two of his disciples.
36 When he saw Jesus passing by, he said, Look, the Lamb of God!
37 When the two disciples heard him say this, they followed Jesus.
38 Turning round, Jesus saw them following and asked, What do you want? They said, Rabbi (which means Teacher), where are you staying?
39 Come, he replied, and you will see. So they went and saw where he was staying, and spent that day with him. It was about the tenth hour.
40 Andrew, Simon Peter's brother, was one of the two who heard what John had said and who had followed Jesus.
41 The first thing Andrew did was to find his brother Simon and tell him, We have found the Messiah (that is, the Christ).
42 And he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas (which, when translated, is Peter).

Jesus Calls Philip and Nathanael

43 The next day Jesus decided to leave for Galilee. Finding Philip, he said to him, Follow me.
44 Philip, like Andrew and Peter, was from the town of Bethsaida.
45 Philip found Nathanael and told him, We have found the one Moses wrote about in the Law, and about whom the prophets also wrote--Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.
46 Nazareth! Can anything good come from there? Nathanael asked. Come and see, said Philip.
47 When Jesus saw Nathanael approaching, he said of him, Here is a true Israelite, in whom there is nothing false.
48 How do you know me? Nathanael asked. Jesus answered, I saw you while you were still under the fig-tree before Philip called you.
49 Then Nathanael declared, Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the King of Israel.
50 Jesus said, You believe because I told you I saw you under the fig-tree. You shall see greater things than that.
51 He then added, I tell you the truth, you shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man.

Matthew 4

The Calling of the First Disciples

18As Jesus was walking beside the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers, Simon called Peter and his brother Andrew. They were casting a net into the lake, for they were fishermen. 19"Come, follow me," Jesus said, "and I will make you fishers of men." 20At once they left their nets and followed him.
21Going on from there, he saw two other brothers, James son of Zebedee and his brother John. They were in a boat with their father Zebedee, preparing their nets. Jesus called them, 22and immediately they left the boat and their father and followed him.

Totally contrasting accounts of how Andrew and Peter met Jesus and were called to be disciples.

And there are others - Peter's denials for example.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Electron flow ( or ion flow if you choose) is testable and repeatable. Evolution is not.

You missed the point. The electrons are governed by quantum theory.

 

[Ron21647]

<snip> didnt even darwin say his was only a theory? dont evolutionists believe that we are still avolving and one day we wont even have a little toe cause we have no use for it?? cause this is the **** i have learnt at school, and i did learn the big bang was tyhe start of the "evolution cycle" so if this is not part of evolution you can see why i think it is ridiculous

A theory is the best possible explanation for a group of facts. It does not mean something that has yet to be proved (as it seems to mean in common speech). That would be a hypothesis. A theory should be able to make predictions. Some predictions that evolution has claimed would be the existence of certain intermediate fossils of particular characteristics and age, which were subsequently found. Also, the prediction that chimpanzee and human DNA would turn out to be very similar, even in the unused parts. That prediction was made before DNA sequencing was possible.

As for the little toe, evolution doesn't work that way. If you suffered a mutation which caused your descendants to have no little toe, since it isn't needed, it would not cause your descendants to die out, but since it doesn't have a big advantage either, that mutation would probably disappear again because your descendants would probably intermarry with people without that mutation.

In the same way, giraffes did not grow long necks because they wanted to eat leaves instead of grass. Instead, they had a mutation that caused a longer neck, which enabled them to eat leaves. Since there were a lot of leaves around, this was a good thing, especially if the grass died every summer due to lack of rain. If there had been no leaves for them to eat, it would not have been a good mutation, and that line would probably have died out.

Ron

 

[Ron21647]

Tell me something - are the following numbers a random sequence?

12
24
26
30
34
36
37
45

Karl,

I agree with everything I snipped here. The sequence looks random to me, in that I can't come up with a way to predict the next value. I am guessing you can, otherwise you wouldn't have posted it. So, what is it?

Ron

 

[Lee Fey]

A couple of things, from Yahweh Nissi, those passages are not necessarily contradictory, but perhaps compimentary. The one with Judas, he could have hung himself, then, after he bloated and went through rigor mortus, the rope could have broken, sending his fragile, bloated body to the ground to burst. And the one with the disciples, all these accounts could be true. Just because one thing says he said one thing, and another said he said another thing, does not mean he could not have said all of them, or they all the things they said. They could be just different parts of the same conversation.

Also, all the historical information that we've been able to put to the test has passed those tests. Jericho, for example, has been dug up, and evidence there has supported the biblical claim. And in the new testament too, as Luke called certain govenment officials by a title that most of the contemporary world did not think came about untill after Luke's time, but evidence was found that the title was in use, even then. These are just a couple of examples.

Blood coagulation in animals do follow the creationist point of view. However, God did not originally put it in us, for there was no reason to. Many creationists believe that when Adam and Eve sinned, they invited death and pain into the world. This is why and when blood coagulation was introduced.

That brings up another question. Do any of the evolutionary advocates believe Adam and Eve existed? And if so, how do they resolve the two ideas, the theory of evolution and the existance of Adam and Eve?

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Karl,

I agree with everything I snipped here. The sequence looks random to me, in that I can't come up with a way to predict the next value. I am guessing you can, otherwise you wouldn't have posted it. So, what is it?

Ron

It's a list of the last octet of a series of IP addresses I happened to have on a piece of paper on my desk at the time.

The point I was making is that the sequence is apparently completely random, and to any test you could put it to from a scientific or mathematical sense, is completely random. On the other hand, if you have the piece of paper it's completely determined.

God has the piece of paper. Therefore, from a scientific frame of reference, mutation may be completely random. From God's viewpoint, it need not be.

 

[Yahweh Nissi]

A couple of things, from Yahweh Nissi, those passages are not necessarily contradictory, but perhaps compimentary. The one with Judas, he could have hung himself, then, after he bloated and went through rigor mortus, the rope could have broken, sending his fragile, bloated body to the ground to burst.

Possibly true, although it is rather stretching things. However, you did not answer the other two: "2 - Matt says Judas gave the money back to the chief priests and they bought a field, Acts says Judas kept the money and bought the field himself. 3 - Matt says it is called "The Field of Blood" because it was used as a burial place for foreigners, Acts says it is called that because Judas burst open their and his intestines spilled out."

In one case, Judas kept the money and bought a field with it, in the other he threw the money back at the priests and they bought the field. That is a total contradiction, you cannnot get around it. And there is no reason to wan tot get around it - as I said, the Bible does not claim to be factually inerrant, it claims to be "God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." - which I totally accept.

And the one with the disciples, all these accounts could be true. Just because one thing says he said one thing, and another said he said another thing, does not mean he could not have said all of them, or they all the things they said. They could be just different parts of the same conversation.

I realise that just because something is not mentioned does not mean it did not occur - but I am afraid these accounts cannot just be seen as different parts of the same conversation. In John's account, Andrew first meets Jesus when he is with John the Baptist. He then goes and gets Simon and brings him to Jesus and Jesus names him Cephas (Peter). In Matthew's account, Jesus sees them in a boat and calls them from there. Totally different. Both cases are presented as the first encounter they had with Jesus, and the things said would make no sense otherwise.

Also, all the historical information that we've been able to put to the test has passed those tests. Jericho, for example, has been dug up, and evidence there has supported the biblical claim. And in the new testament too, as Luke called certain govenment officials by a title that most of the contemporary world did not think came about untill after Luke's time, but evidence was found that the title was in use, even then. These are just a couple of examples.

Indeed. Please do not get me wrong, I am not doubting the basic historicity of most of the Bible.

Blood coagulation in animals do follow the creationist point of view. However, God did not originally put it in us, for there was no reason to. Many creationists believe that when Adam and Eve sinned, they invited death and pain into the world. This is why and when blood coagulation was introduced.

Not something I can comment upon.

That brings up another question. Do any of the evolutionary advocates believe Adam and Eve existed? And if so, how do they resolve the two ideas, the theory of evolution and the existance of Adam and Eve?

I am not sure. It is quite possible that once huminids had evolved to a certain point, God then imbued them with souls - making them people, in His image (and it had to be a spiritual image that was being refered to, as God is spiritual) - and the first two such were Adam and Eve. But they could also just be metaphores for humanity in general, which their names suggest. This, however, has problems as a lot of the theology developed in the NT writings seems to depend on a single space-time fall, so I think the Adam and Eve probably did exist.

 

[Lee Fey]

If God can create the universe in the first place, and if He did perhaps imbue Adam and Eve with souls, than why could He not have created the universe in six days? It seems six days is a long time for Him as it is. All His miracles happened very quickly, so why could His creation not have. The evidence, as it appears to me, can possibly be interpreted either way, so why not believe the way that is given in the Bible? If radiometric dating is the problem, there have been many recorded cases where that can be misleading, such as volcanic rock that was not more than two months old, but radiometric dating said it was millions of years old ( In Six Days ). The Bible also tells us that death did not enter the world until sin did, so saying Adam and Eve existed, but were products of evolution, seems to be counter intuitive to the Word.

I have looked at both sides for years, and have for great portions of my life believed in evolution, stretching my imagination to see how mutation could end up producing new species. As I recall though, all adaptions have been a reduction of information, not addition. Take for example antibiotic-resistant bacteria. That strain already existed. It was not prevalent, because that strain is less effecient at surviving under normal, not antibiotic environments. However, those strains, cannot compete with normal strains anymore without antibiotics to kill those other strains, because they don't have the genes to allow them to become as efficient again. However, the strains that are more effecient, do have the resistance genes, so could specialize into resistant strains.

The same is true with DEET resistant flies. Flies resistant to DEET cannot regain the genes lost when specialization came into effect, though other strains can become resistant to DEET. This is not evolution in the idea that this will eventually turn into another species. This is microevolution, the adaption of a species to an environment, but never outside what is already in the genes. The genes originally held much information, thanks to God, but now hold less, thanks to "evolution" or specialization through natural selection.

 

[Chi_Cygni]

such as volcanic rock that was not more than two months old, but radiometric dating said it was millions of years old

Why do people keep bringing nonsense like this up. Is this deliberate dishonesty or just plain lack of knowledge?

The lavas dated were supposed to give old dates because they were dating the crystalline inclusions in the lava called xenoliths.


What does it take to get through to people?

 

[Lee Fey]

I was aware that the lavas in question were dated by the amount of nitrogen in the rock itself. I don't actually know a lot about this, but it sounds unrelated to what you are referring to. Apparently, one way of dating something is by testing the amount of a certain kind of nitrogen in cooled lava. It just so happened that the lava in question had started out with a large amount of said nitrogen, and it is because of this that the test said it was older than it was. The test, I believe, was to see how old the rock was, not to test the xenoliths, as you call them. I'm sorry if I come off as ignorant, I really don't study everything to the extent I should.

As it is anyway, that was only one example. If it is flawed, I'm sorry for using it, but there are others as well. Also, I was wondering if anyone was aware of the theory of catastrophism, or the layering of sediment due not to prolonged periods of normal laying of sediment, but due to large amounts of material dropped by large amounts of water in a very short amount of time. Also, this reminds me, I do wonder how evolution advocates see the Flood of Noah, and how they reconcile how they see the fossil record to it if they do believe it as the Bible says it happened.

 

[Chi_Cygni]

I believe you are referring to the Argon in the lava. Lavas are often dated with either K/Ar dating or Ar/Ar dating.

The well known so called problem of dating modern lavas is from a study where the olivine xenoliths were being dated and some Creationist (as usual) quoted out of context and started the whole rumour that 'the young lava dated old and thus dating is false'.

Actually the lavas themselves dated as less than 2 million years (as expected) which is all that K/Ar dating can say - it is not a method that can date something much less than that.

Which is why geochemists know not to use it incorrectly and why Creationists do use it out of context to further their agenda.

 

[Ron21647]

I was aware that the lavas in question were dated by the amount of nitrogen in the rock itself. I don't actually know a lot about this, but it sounds unrelated to what you are referring to. Apparently, one way of dating something is by testing the amount of a certain kind of nitrogen in cooled lava. It just so happened that the lava in question had started out with a large amount of said nitrogen, and it is because of this that the test said it was older than it was. The test, I believe, was to see how old the rock was, not to test the xenoliths, as you call them. I'm sorry if I come off as ignorant, I really don't study everything to the extent I should.

As it is anyway, that was only one example. If it is flawed, I'm sorry for using it, but there are others as well. Also, I was wondering if anyone was aware of the theory of catastrophism, or the layering of sediment due not to prolonged periods of normal laying of sediment, but due to large amounts of material dropped by large amounts of water in a very short amount of time. Also, this reminds me, I do wonder how evolution advocates see the Flood of Noah, and how they reconcile how they see the fossil record to it if they do believe it as the Bible says it happened.

I can't post links, but if you look at the Talk Origins web site, there are articles that answer your questions. Look under their main site, slash indexcc.

Ron

 

[Curt]

The most stupid people as claimed on one post that people are stupid, are those who would take the theory of a man who revealed that there was no veracity to the theory, over the word of The God of this universe who created all things by the words of His mouth.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

The most stupid people as claimed on one post that people are stupid, are those who would take the theory of a man who revealed that there was no veracity to the theory

If you're referring to Darwin's supposed death-bed admission, you know full well by now that it's a fabrication.

over the word of The God of this universe who created all things by the words of His mouth.

No. The most stupid (if we're going to play insult games, which I reserve for those who denigrate the faith of others) are those who completely ignore what God tells us through the natural world in favour of a minority-held extremist literal interpretation of a 3000 year old theological text.

 

[Ron21647]

<snip>... Also, this reminds me, I do wonder how evolution advocates see the Flood of Noah ... <snip>

In order to reconcile a supposed world wide flood at the time of Noah, I would expect there to be a world wide geologic layer of flood sediment of the correct age. This has not been found.

Fossil plants and animals have an age range of from very recently to over 500 million years ago. This does not agree with a flood lasting only a few years. And unless you can come up with the physical mechanism, I won't believe that they settled "sorted by age", or whatever.

In contrast, the meteorite which possibly killed the dinosaurs 65 million years ago was first discovered by a world wide layer of the element Iridium, in particular an isotope which is rare on the earth's crust, but common in meteorites. this has been verified by the discovery world wide of a thin layer of this Iridium, at an age of 65 million years. The probable crater was subsequently found on the north coast of the Yucatan Peninsula, in Mexico.


so, all of you world wide flood advocates, where is your physical evidence?

Ron

 

[Yahweh Nissi]

If God can create the universe in the first place, and if He did perhaps imbue Adam and Eve with souls, than why could He not have created the universe in six days? It seems six days is a long time for Him as it is. All His miracles happened very quickly, so why could His creation not have.

Of course God could have created in six days. But as the Bible never claims to be a litteral, scientific text there is no reason one must believe that; various things in the text itself suggest it should not be taken litterally - e.g. contradictions, if the text is assumed to be litteral, between the accounts of creation in Gen 1 and 2, having God, as in the LORD, Yahweh, an infinite, incorpereal being strolling through the garden (and no, it was not a pre-incarnate vision of Jesus - he is never refered to as the LORD, that refers either to the Father or the triune God as a whole), etc; and so when the evidence soundly contadicts a litteral interpretation, which the text itself suggests may be incorrect, we conclude that it is not a litteral account.

The evidence, as it appears to me, can possibly be interpreted either way, so why not believe the way that is given in the Bible? If radiometric dating is the problem, there have been many recorded cases where that can be misleading, such as volcanic rock that was not more than two months old, but radiometric dating said it was millions of years old ( In Six Days ).

The specific point about radiometric dating has already been answered. But in general, if the evidence were not conclusive, then the current theory would not have the support of all non-Christian scientists and the large majority of Christian scientists. Sure, athiests would not want the evidence to back up the Bible, but people will always find excuses not to believe, and they would not all agree on one theory if it were not well suported. Scientists love to argue, and disproving a widely accepted theory is a sure track to greatness.

The Bible also tells us that death did not enter the world until sin did, so saying Adam and Eve existed, but were products of evolution, seems to be counter intuitive to the Word.

There was physical death before the Fall - plants were eaten, and there is nothing fundamentally different between a plant and an animal cell. It is very common in the Bible for death to refer to spiritual death:

As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient.(Eph 2:1-2) [NIV]

having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead. When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.(Col 2:12-14) [NIV]

Paul refers to people being 'dead in their sins' - but he is not meaning these people were physically dead.

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.(John 3:16) [NIV]

What 'eternal life' is this that people gain? It certainly does not mean they will not suffer physical death - all believers, except those around when Christ comes again, will die physically. Nor does it even mean eternal existence - everyone will exist for ever, but those that reject Jesus will be rejected by Him and will spend eternity outcast from God's presence. So by 'gaining eternal life', Jesus is talking about people's spiritual fate.

So too, could the death refered to regards the Fall be talking about spiritual death.

I have looked at both sides for years, and have for great portions of my life believed in evolution, stretching my imagination to see how mutation could end up producing new species. As I recall though, all adaptions have been a reduction of information, not addition. Take for example antibiotic-resistant bacteria. That strain already existed. It was not prevalent, because that strain is less effecient at surviving under normal, not antibiotic environments. However, those strains, cannot compete with normal strains anymore without antibiotics to kill those other strains, because they don't have the genes to allow them to become as efficient again. However, the strains that are more effecient, do have the resistance genes, so could specialize into resistant strains.

The same is true with DEET resistant flies. Flies resistant to DEET cannot regain the genes lost when specialization came into effect, though other strains can become resistant to DEET. This is not evolution in the idea that this will eventually turn into another species. This is microevolution, the adaption of a species to an environment, but never outside what is already in the genes. The genes originally held much information, thanks to God, but now hold less, thanks to "evolution" or specialization through natural selection.

As said, most Christians and all non-Christians interpret the data differently.

God bless,
YN.

 

[mindfull]

Teleology threatens the knowledge
of the Christian god.

 

[Bushido216]

Why does one have to stretch one's belief in God's word, warping the meaning around a theory, when one can just find a theory to match what we already know is true: God's Word? The theory of the six-day creation (and again, I say that because He rested on the seventh day), is a valid one, and the evidence supporting it isn't that bad. May I suggest In Six Days? It's a book, a collection of essays by fifty scientists who believe in a literal translation of Genisis Chapter One.

Warping science to fit a pre-concieved notion is not good science. For effect, it is BAD science.

 

[Bushido216]

Im sorry i cant believe what evolution is saying, we all are here by chance not a purpose because earth was created as a fluke and we are just a higher form of animals???? that is not a Christian principle how can you believe in the Bible that there is a purpose in lie and creation and evolution in saying its all chance , one contrdicts the other, and if we are evolving then why isnt there half man half apes around

I'm thinking of a word. It begins with "H" and ends in "-ubris".