Attention Christian Evolutionists

[Outspoken]

Creation is a supernatural event...and as any supernatural event, science is not the right MAIN tool for the job. Creation will never be falisified, because it is not false.

 

[wblastyn]

I agree with pudmuddle, creation is another miracle (the biggest) like Christs resurrection, one that cannot be falsified.

Christ's resurrection can be falsified, if we found His dead body then obviously he wasn't resurrected. Creationism can also be falsified because it claims the earth is young, life was created in it's full form, there was a global flood, etc and since we know the earth is ancient, life evolved over billions of years and there was never a global flood we know Genesis is not a literal event.

Those of you who say its false have yet to show me how to read Genesis in such a way as to derive evolution from it, or to falsify it.

We don't use the Bible as a science book, to do that would be heresy because God didn't inspire it to teach scienc ebut to teach us about our relationship with Him.

I see the philosophy, but where is the proof I asked for, and the breakdown of translation that supports your position?

Read, learn: http://www.talkorigins.org

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

So, in your veiw, creation was not a miracle? And how can it be an observable phenomena, when no one, but God was there to observe it? oh, yes we have a lot of old bones, but what they tell us is highly debatable.



"Whenever you find a man who says he doesn't believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later."

--The Case for Christianity

The past leaves evidence. One does not have to see a murder to know it occured. By examining evidence, one can show that a person was murdered and even figure out who did it. In the same way, by looking at a vast variety of sources (geological/fossil record, the light from stars, etc.) one can construct what happened in the past. An examination of the evidence leads to the conclusion that the Earth is older than six thousand years. This indicates that a literal, six day interpretation of Genesis 1 cannot be correct.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

I agree with pudmuddle, creation is another miracle (the biggest) like Christs resurrection, one that cannot be falsified.

Those of you who say its false have yet to show me how to read Genesis in such a way as to derive evolution from it, or to falsify it.

I see the philosophy, but where is the proof I asked for, and the breakdown of translation that supports your position?

I believe in the miracle of Creation. However, I believe that it occured about 13 billion years ago instead of 6,000.

 

[pudmuddle]

Christ's resurrection can be falsified, if we found His dead body then obviously he wasn't resurrected. Creationism can also be falsified because it claims the earth is young, life was created in it's full form, there was a global flood, etc and since we know the earth is ancient, life evolved over billions of years and there was never a global flood we know Genesis is not a literal event.


We don't use the Bible as a science book, to do that would be heresy because God didn't inspire it to teach scienc ebut to teach us about our relationship with Him.


Read, learn: http://www.talkorigins.org

We are back to my hypothetical question. If scientists were to say they found the body or Christ, and had very convincing proof, would you believe them? Over and over, I hear talk about evidence of macroevolution, but I have yet to see anything even remotely resembling proof. You say we know the earth is ancient, we know there was never a worldwide flood, etc. And yet your only proof is the word of fallible men who are fitting what they see in the natural world into a veiw that they have been taught their entire lives. Why do you think this generation has gotten it right? The idea of a old earth is a fairly new concept.

And I have asked this question before and never gotten an answer: Where do you draw the line? If Genesis is an allegory, is the rest of the history in the OT true? Did men live to be 900 years old? What purpose would God have for putting the story of the flood in the Bible if it is not true? What about the tower of babel? Another allegory? Once you start down the slippery slope of discounting scripture, where do you stop?

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

We are back to my hypothetical question. If scientists were to say they found the body or Christ, and had very convincing proof, would you believe them? Over and over, I hear talk about evidence of macroevolution, but I have yet to see anything even remotely resembling proof. You say we know the earth is ancient, we know there was never a worldwide flood, etc. And yet your only proof is the word of fallible men who are fitting what they see in the natural world into a veiw that they have been taught their entire lives. Why do you think this generation has gotten it right? The idea of a old earth is a fairly new concept.

And I have asked this question before and never gotten an answer: Where do you draw the line? If Genesis is an allegory, is the rest of the history in the OT true? Did men live to be 900 years old? What purpose would God have for putting the story of the flood in the Bible if it is not true? What about the tower of babel? Another allegory? Once you start down the slippery slope of discounting scripture, where do you stop?

If someone was able to prove that they had found the body of Christ, I would be forced by intellectual honesty to believe it. However, both my faith and reason tell me that this won't happen.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

The historical accuracy of the Old Testament is difficult to establish in many places since the authors did not intend to write a modern history. They wanted to describe God's special relationship with the Isrealites and how the Isrealites must act to maintain this relationship. The authors chose to record the most theologically and morally significant events rather than the most historically significant, which is why it often describes minor figures in detail while ignoring some of the more historically siginificant kings.

 

[pudmuddle]

If someone was able to prove that they had found the body of Christ, I would be forced by intellectual honesty to believe it. However, both my faith and reason tell me that this won't happen.

This may seem logical on the surface, but I see a major danger here for Christians. There will be many supernatural events taking place in end times, orcanstrated by satan and the anti-Christ, and if we are to believe our eyes rather than our hearts, we will be decieved.
Of course this is only a problem if you happen to take prophecy to be truth, so you can always get around that by saying those parts of the Bible are allegorys.

Just a thought for those who deny a world wide flood-Jesus speaks very clearly or it in Matt-24:36-40
"But as in the days of Noah were.......For as in the days before the flood......until the day that Noah entered the ark....."
I don't see any way to deny it happened, unless you want to disagree with the Saviour of mankind.

 

[Revolution Cry]

and there was never a global flood we know Genesis is not a literal event.

That one is still up in the air really. Just to make my stance known, I don't take everything that happened in Gen. literally, I think God was giving us the basic stuff we needed to know, and it didn't matter to detail every last little bit out because it isn't a sticking point for faith. On the other side, I have a real problem with evolution. The way it is explained by a lot of 'christian evolutionists' (and I'm not pointing my finger at anyone here, just the way I've heard it in the past) sounds a lot more like diesim than anything else.
Evolution, the way that it is explained now, in my opinion, is clearly flawed. It cannot account for some of the more pressing questions, and crumbles when brought up against abiogenesis, and the Cambrian and Permian explosions. It is by far incomplete, but often taken as being a scientific paradigm. It is not.

As for the flood, of the 115 known different parent cultures, these are the orginal cultures that all the present and extinct cultures grew out of, each with different traits ... 89 have a record of a great flood within about 500 years of each other. That is a telling statistic, but one overlooked by most archeologists and evolutionists because it isn't your traditional hard evidence. It is cultural evidence and should not be throw away as easily as it currently is. Especially when these accounts come from as varying places as the middle east, the Olmecs from the Mexico region and as far away as aboriginal australia and japan.

something is amiss when you refuse to look at that.

 

[Crusadar]

deja vu

 

[troodon]

That one is still up in the air really.

The falsified part or the Genesis not being literal part?

sounds a lot more like diesim than anything else.

Why's that?

crumbles when brought up against abiogenesis

Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis. As far as evolutionary theory is concerned, God could have planted the first lifeforms on the planet. I don't think He did but whether He did or not has no bearing on biological evolution.

the Cambrian and Permian explosions.

There is nothing too extraordinary about either of these two events. There are actually two other equally impressive explosions, the Triassic and the Quaternary explosions. You see, here's what happened. Before each explosion there was a massive extinction (something like 95% before the Permian!). After these extinctions, there are lots of ecological niches open for exploitation. So, the few surviving types of animals are free to occupy those niches. Because these animals were not originally specialized for these niches, they adapt their old traits into new ones that assist them in their new niche. Like herbivorous dinosaurs adapting their reptile hip into a bird-like one for increased gut room.

Now, for the Cambrian, the reason this seems like such a huge explosion is hard-shelled organisms first became prevelant during this period. Organisms without hard body parts make very rare fossils so when these organisms become more abundant, their fossils become disproportionatly more abundant.

As for the flood, of the 115 known different parent cultures, these are the orginal cultures that all the present and extinct cultures grew out of, each with different traits ... 89 have a record of a great flood within about 500 years of each other.

I find it to be much more telling that some cultures have written histories extending back farther than the alleged flood; but that's just me.

As to the flood legends, the reason they are so abundant is because most ancient civilizations arose in river valleys, which are very good at flooding.

My question is, if all of these cultures got so much right about a world wide flood, how could they forget the whole part about one, all-powerful God being behind it. If the flood was so present in these ancient people's minds, why did every single one of them with the exception of the Hebrews switch to very different flavors of polytheism? They were more worried about remembering the date of the flood than the cause? Are you joking?

 

[wblastyn]

This may seem logical on the surface, but I see a major danger here for Christians. There will be many supernatural events taking place in end times, orcanstrated by satan and the anti-Christ, and if we are to believe our eyes rather than our hearts, we will be decieved.

Actually, the heart lies.

Of course this is only a problem if you happen to take prophecy to be truth, so you can always get around that by saying those parts of the Bible are allegorys.

Do you believe a monster is going to rise from the sea with horns?

Just a thought for those who deny a world wide flood-Jesus speaks very clearly or it in Matt-24:36-40

Do you believe "all the world was taxed" like the Bible says? That verse obviously means all the known world was taxed. Same thing for the flood, all the known world was flooded, but not the entire world.

 

[Revolution Cry]

The falsified part or the Genesis not being literal part?

It's not falsified.

Why's that?

God sets things in motion with laws to govern everything ... and then what? Goes and picks his ear while everything unfolds?

Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis. As far as evolutionary theory is concerned, God could have planted the first lifeforms on the planet. I don't think He did but whether He did or not has no bearing on biological evolution.

Evolution has everything to do with abiogenesis. It's the trigger event. at some point, nonlife has to move into life. The chances of this are very, very slim.

There is nothing too extraordinary about either of these two events. There are actually two other equally impressive explosions, the Triassic and the Quaternary explosions. You see, here's what happened. Before each explosion there was a massive extinction (something like 95% before the Permian!). After these extinctions, there are lots of ecological niches open for exploitation. So, the few surviving types of animals are free to occupy those niches. Because these animals were not originally specialized for these niches, they adapt their old traits into new ones that assist them in their new niche. Like herbivorous dinosaurs adapting their reptile hip into a bird-like one for increased gut room.

The permian was the largest explosion, as you said, the extinction before it was massive, and the wipe-out was probably around 98%. Life *almost* quit completely. And while you did a pretty good job of explaining how critters move in to fill the gaps ... the problem isn't the number of animals, as it is the species and in how little time they had to diversify. Now science says that around a thousand years is a decent amount of time for small change ... but to shift into a completely differerent species? nope.

Now, for the Cambrian, the reason this seems like such a huge explosion is hard-shelled organisms first became prevelant during this period. Organisms without hard body parts make very rare fossils so when these organisms become more abundant, their fossils become disproportionatly more abundant.

again, the problem here is a bit different than with the Permian era. With the Cambrian era, the problem is the number of species. In the permian, the problem is the number of phyla.
For those who don't follow, mammals, reptiles, birds, fish ... all those fit into the same phyla, with snails and such in another one, and so on.
Right now, there are 7 major phyla, and 17 minor. During the cambrian era, we had single celled organisms burst into literally 100s of different phyla. The number of different kinds of life is astounding, and evolution cannot account for so many different phyla in such a short amount of time, even with the lack of variation in species.

I find it to be much more telling that some cultures have written histories extending back farther than the alleged flood; but that's just me.

written, no. the stories got passed down generation to generation, but you can follow the age of the stories back according to how long it's taken for the cultures to disseminate through the regions in the same way we trace the orginal cultures back in on themselves. usually through the language branch of cultural anthropology, or through a common form of architecture or art. If you have two cultures that share a similar story, and say ... a similar form of architecture, then you can start trying to locate when, and how long before those two cultures split from each other, and what the parent culture was.

As to the flood legends, the reason they are so abundant is because most ancient civilizations arose in river valleys, which are very good at flooding.

With so much of the story being so similar? that's very, very convient and quite a coincidence.

My question is, if all of these cultures got so much right about a world wide flood, how could they forget the whole part about one, all-powerful God being behind it. If the flood was so present in these ancient people's minds, why did every single one of them with the exception of the Hebrews switch to very different flavors of polytheism? They were more worried about remembering the date of the flood than the cause? Are you joking?

LOL ... you ask me if I'm joking after saying that the hebrews didn't go polytheistic?
Oh man ... the hebrews went through a number of gods. at one point, they even claimed a 'wife' for Yahweh Elohim. they most certainly believed in (and in many cases worshiped) multiple Gods, and continued to do so up until the time of Isaiah. But being God's chosen people, He reminded them time and time again of just who was in charge.

Orginally Posted by Crusader:
deja vu

Yeah, I know, but no one was willing to butt heads with me in the other one. I really didn't think that anyone even bothered to read what I had typed ... but I guess you did at least ...

 

[Lotar]

Creation is a supernatural event...and as any supernatural event, science is not the right MAIN tool for the job. Creation will never be falisified, because it is not false.

Evolution is a scientific event...and as any scientific event, the supernatural is not the right MAIN tool for the job. Evolution will never be falisified, because it is not false.

 

[Jet Black]

It's not falsified.

it is

God sets things in motion with laws to govern everything ... and then what? Goes and picks his ear while everything unfolds?

well it is alot less time to wait than all that eternity he was waiting before he decided on a whim to create the universe. besides, he might have been enjoying how his physical creation unfolded. it certainly is very beautiful.

Evolution has everything to do with abiogenesis. It's the trigger event. at some point, nonlife has to move into life. The chances of this are very, very slim.

evolution is not abiogenesis. how life came ablut is an important, but independent question. life is here now, as it has been for millions of years, and it is evolving all the time. that is a fact.

Now science says that around a thousand years is a decent amount of time for small change ... but to shift into a completely differerent species? nope.

in a scenario where there is not much competition, a much larger variety of offspring would survive as they would be more likely to fit into a niche

 

[Jet Black]

Creation is a supernatural event...and as any supernatural event, science is not the right MAIN tool for the job. Creation will never be falisified, because it is not false.

creation won't, but creationism was falsified over a hundred years ago. the people who falsified craetionism were not evil scientific conspiritors, but the very people who were trying to look for evidence of a young earth, flood and 6 day creation.

 

[wblastyn]

It's not falsified.

It was flasified by Christian geologists over 100 years ago, before Darwin wrote the Origin.

 

[troodon]

Sorry it took so long for me to reply. I had a post nearly finished yesterday but I hit the back button

It's not falsified.

Then, if you would be so kind, please go to the 3 links I inserted into the word "falsified" and explain why they don't falsify a global flood.

God sets things in motion with laws to govern everything ... and then what? Goes and picks his ear while everything unfolds?

So special creation of the earth and its life is the definition of a Christian? Funny, I always thought it had something to do with Jesus being the son of God and dying for our sins

Evolution has everything to do with abiogenesis. It's the trigger event. at some point, nonlife has to move into life. The chances of this are very, very slim.

Like I said before, even if God planted the first organism on the planet, it would do nothing to the validity of biological evolution.

The permian was the largest explosion, as you said, the extinction before it was massive, and the wipe-out was probably around 98%. Life *almost* quit completely. And while you did a pretty good job of explaining how critters move in to fill the gaps ... the problem isn't the number of animals, as it is the species and in how little time they had to diversify.

These "explosions" aren't immediate events; they last several million years. That's plenty more than enough time for speciation to occur.

Now science says that around a thousand years is a decent amount of time for small change ... but to shift into a completely differerent species? nope.

If these explosions did occur over a time period of a thousand years, you would be right. But, they occur over a time period of several million (thousands of thousands ) of years.

again, the problem here is a bit different than with the Permian era. With the Cambrian era, the problem is the number of species. In the permian, the problem is the number of phyla.

Yes, many phyla appear to have evolved during the Cambrian. However, think about some of the major ways you classify different phyla. You can't tell from a fossil whether an animal was a coelomate or not. You don't always get the whole animal (Anomalocaris's different body parts were originally assigned to 4 different phyla!) so identification can become difficult. Also, when you get to the branching point of two major taxa (especially something as huge as phyla) taxonomy becomes very difficult. Pikaia, for example, is basically a worm with legs but because it has a notochord (not even a backbone) it's called a chordate.

Right now, there are 7 major phyla, and 17 minor. During the cambrian era, we had single celled organisms burst into literally 100s of different phyla.

Firstly, there were many types of multicelled organisms around before the Cambrian. Secondly, all the websites I've seen put the total at about 38 new phyla. The number of different kinds of life is astounding, and evolution cannot account for so many different phyla in such a short amount of time, even with the lack of variation in species.

written, no.

Writting extends back further than the supposed date for the flood. As does the Chinese calender. Why would the Chinese assign the first year of their calender to a random date that existed before a huge global flood?

the stories got passed down generation to generation, but you can follow the age of the stories back according to how long it's taken for the cultures to disseminate through the regions in the same way we trace the orginal cultures back in on themselves. usually through the language branch of cultural anthropology, or through a common form of architecture or art. If you have two cultures that share a similar story, and say ... a similar form of architecture, then you can start trying to locate when, and how long before those two cultures split from each other, and what the parent culture was.

With so much of the story being so similar? that's very, very convient and quite a coincidence.

No, this is quite a coincidence. People living in a river valley, who are used to near annual floods, coming up with a flood myth is not too impressive of a fact.

LOL ... you ask me if I'm joking after saying that the hebrews didn't go polytheistic?
Oh man ... the hebrews went through a number of gods. at one point, they even claimed a 'wife' for Yahweh Elohim. they most certainly believed in (and in many cases worshiped) multiple Gods, and continued to do so up until the time of Isaiah. But being God's chosen people, He reminded them time and time again of just who was in charge.

This proves my point even further. Why would 89 of the major 115 parent civilizations (as you said) remember all these facts about a flood (that it was global, its date, that animals had to be protected from it) and yet forget the one important part; that a single, all powerful God did it! If I were telling the story of Noah's ark to someone, I think I would remember to tell them that part. So, why did these civilizations (all of them if the Hebrews went polytheistic too) remember these pointless details and miss probably the most important point?

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

That one is still up in the air really. Just to make my stance known, I don't take everything that happened in Gen. literally, I think God was giving us the basic stuff we needed to know, and it didn't matter to detail every last little bit out because it isn't a sticking point for faith. On the other side, I have a real problem with evolution. The way it is explained by a lot of 'christian evolutionists' (and I'm not pointing my finger at anyone here, just the way I've heard it in the past) sounds a lot more like diesim than anything else.
Evolution, the way that it is explained now, in my opinion, is clearly flawed. It cannot account for some of the more pressing questions, and crumbles when brought up against abiogenesis, and the Cambrian and Permian explosions. It is by far incomplete, but often taken as being a scientific paradigm. It is not.

As for the flood, of the 115 known different parent cultures, these are the orginal cultures that all the present and extinct cultures grew out of, each with different traits ... 89 have a record of a great flood within about 500 years of each other. That is a telling statistic, but one overlooked by most archeologists and evolutionists because it isn't your traditional hard evidence. It is cultural evidence and should not be throw away as easily as it currently is. Especially when these accounts come from as varying places as the middle east, the Olmecs from the Mexico region and as far away as aboriginal australia and japan.

something is amiss when you refuse to look at that.

The existence of flood stories in multiple cultures is interesting, but a five hundred year disparity is a tad large to be indicative of a historical event, especially when other lines of evidence do not support it.

 

[OldBadfish]

So wheres my scripture? I can read philosophy and theory all day, throw me a bone here, lets have some scripture, I really want it, I'm a Christian and need some scripture.