Creation and evolution debate

[djconklin]

I'm working on getting a short article published on the creation-evolution debate; see what you think:​

A Short Note on a Long Debate
​

A lot of energy has been spent on the Creation-Evolution Debate. But, both parties have made a fundamental flaw, which if they had not made it, it would have eliminated much of the resulting noise. The first thing that one should do when having a debate is to carefully define one’s terms. If both sides had done so they would have realized a long time ago that they are talking right past each other. Both creation and evolution are concerned with life. But, where creation is about how life began, evolution is mostly about how life changes. Creation tells us that it began, evolution tells us about the process. The debate has given us more heat than light because both parties have approached it differently. To use on old analogy: both sides are looking at a coin. But, instead of looking at different sides of the same coin, creation is telling us that the coin came to be, while evolution focuses on telling us about how it rolls down an incline.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Yes I would reject that note for any publication for the simply fact that even if you say evolution is talking about a process and Creation is not talking about a process the debate would continue because evolution says there is a process and Creationist (excluding theistic evolution concepts) says there was no process things were just made that way.

Remember the whole scientifically developed idea of evolution as such began with Darwin visiting the Galapagos islands and seeing that they were much more recent then the rest of the land and yet they had vastly different animals, they could not have been created with the creation account in Genesis. The creationist idea's of Darwin's time was that all the animals were created and placed upon the land forum they showed up on.

 

[djconklin]

Creationist (excluding theistic evolution concepts) says there was no process things were just made that way.

Creation doesn't say anything one way or another about process.

The creationist idea's of Darwin's time was that all the animals were created and placed upon the land forum they showed up on.

Thinking has evolved a bit since then. You need to catch up.

 

[Larmore]

Technically, evolution is not about beginnings but about change as a result of natural and explanable phenomenon. I fully accept micro-evolution because it's irrefutable in the biota. Macro-evolution on the other hand is not sustained by the available evidence even though many say it is.

I believe the debate should be about fiat creation and unassisted abiogenesis ( which is a fancy term for spontaneous generation). That is really what the debate should be about. If you want to talk beginnings then lets discuss beginnings. Both sides take faith, boths sides are essentially unexplained.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

I believe the debate should be about fiat creation and unassisted abiogenesis ( which is a fancy term for spontaneous generation). That is really what the debate should be about. If you want to talk beginnings then lets discuss beginnings. Both sides take faith, boths sides are essentially unexplained.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

That will never be the debate because it does not answer any scientific questions. It does not explain the fossils or the geology. It is not any more fair to ask the scientist to give up his observations then it is to ask the creationist to give up his sacred writings.

 

[TrustAndObey]

The doctor that teaches my Anatomy & Physiology II class (today was my first class) said today that he always believed in Darwin's theory of evolution until he studied Red Blood Cells. Now he believes absolutely in Intelligent Design.

He didn't elaborate. I don't think he can in a state-funded college.

Anyway, I thought it was quite interesting.

Guess I should look into RBCs a little closer than I have in the past.

Peace out.

 

[Larmore]

That will never be the debate because it does not answer any scientific questions. It does not explain the fossils or the geology. It is not any more fair to ask the scientist to give up his observations then it is to ask the creationist to give up his sacred writings.

Observations with an open mind are what science should be about. That is not what happens most of the time. Most come to the arena with pre-drawn suppositions of what they are looking at. Fossils are easily explained within the global flood dynamic, so is the geological stratas. I invite anyone who is truely interested in studying these things with an open mind to visit Dr. Walter Browns website. He is not adventist , he is a Ph.D mechanical engineer who taught at MIT for years.

What he teaches and it is confirmed by experiment and observation is the hydroplate and liquifaction theories to explain most of the stratas and geology. Fossils are a slam dunk for a world wide catastrophic flood.

Click on this:
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/HydroplateOverview2.html


God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[longhair75]

I have been reading this debate on a couple of dozen message boards across the spectrum of the internet. I don't think I have ever seen anyone from either side persuade anyone from the opposing side to change their mind.

 

[TrustAndObey]

I have been reading this debate on a couple of dozen message boards across the spectrum of the internet. I don't think I have ever seen anyone from either side persuade anyone from the opposing side to change their mind.

That's true of most any debate.

The Holy Spirit is the only way a person will be convicted about most subjects anyway.

Plus, it's really not easy to admit when you're wrong about something. I read the bible just to prove my mother-in-law wrong about death.

In the end I just couldn't prove her wrong, and it was pretty shocking considering I had believed one way my entire life.

 

[Larmore]

I have been reading this debate on a couple of dozen message boards across the spectrum of the internet. I don't think I have ever seen anyone from either side persuade anyone from the opposing side to change their mind.

I agree with what you say here. I don't debate or discuss to change my oppositions side but to inform those who lurk on the side lines. Those who may not be totally persuaded one way or the other but have the ability to look at things from an alternative perspective from the mainstream paradigm.

On a side note since I am responding to a moderator maybe you could help me. Recently, I was unable to log in on my old user name which is JimLarmore because I have forgotten my password. I would just let windows log me in every time I came to the CF web-site but something happened either on your end or mine and now I have to have my password to log in on my old name. I went thru the steps to get it but have not received it from your end yet and it's been since monday.

When it says on the response that when you visit the web-site your password will be e-mailed to you what do you have to do when you visit it? I have tried several things and nothing seems to work.

I have also sent an e-mail to the administrator and have not gotten a response either.

Thanks in advance for you help.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[Telaquapacky]

Debate isn't about changing someone's mind. It's about weakening their position and strengthening yours. In the process, you learn more about yourself and the other person than you do about the issue.

Anything that is debatable is by virtue of that, uncertain- not able to be proven. Otherwise there would be no debate.

What the creation-evolution debate reveals about the debaters is their attitudes toward God and science. The subject poses a lot of questions. Does God exist at all? If God exists, how powerful or involved is He? Can science answer the question of our origins at all, or should we trust only divine revelation? If science is a trustworthy revealer about our origins, how accurately is the scientific community interpreting the evidence? If the Bible is more trustworthy, how accurately are believers interpreting what it says about our origins? How do we know whether we are overlooking valid facts to avoid weakening our chosen point of view, or whether we are weeding out inaccurate, misinterpreted or contrived data? To what degree is our present existence a random circumstance, or a divine appointment- and what does that mean to our privileges and duties as human beings?

 

[longhair75]

Friend Jim,

I do not have access to the passwords. I will bring this to the attention of the administrative tech people and see if I can get an answer for you.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

I have been reading this debate on a couple of dozen message boards across the spectrum of the internet. I don't think I have ever seen anyone from either side persuade anyone from the opposing side to change their mind.

Maybe not at the time but the influence of those conversations do affect the beliefs on some. I personally have changed many of my beliefs. Including the idea of evolution. I did not used to be a believer in theistic evolution but with the greater knowledge of the evidence I have been convinced. The literal Creationists are forced to put all their trust in idea of a worldwide flood and many speculations about how it happened and what it did. Unfortunately it does not work so the proviso is always used well if you look at it with an open mind and disregard your presuppositions and accept our presuppositions then you will see it.

 

[Larmore]

Friend Jim,

I do not have access to the passwords. I will bring this to the attention of the administrative tech people and see if I can get an answer for you.

Thank you sir , and if you can just pm me with my old one at your convenience if they say it's ok that would be great.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[Larmore]

Maybe not at the time but the influence of those conversations do affect the beliefs on some. I personally have changed many of my beliefs. Including the idea of evolution. I did not used to be a believer in theistic evolution but with the greater knowledge of the evidence I have been convinced. The literal Creationists are forced to put all their trust in idea of a worldwide flood and many speculations about how it happened and what it did. Unfortunately it does not work so the proviso is always used well if you look at it with an open mind and disregard your presuppositions and accept our presuppositions then you will see it.

I came from an agnostic background and belief system and came to the exact opposite conclusion as you have. I've been a amatuer geologist for years exploring the earth nearly every where now. I have spent a lot of time with agnostic and now christian geologist who look at the same evidence and come to totally different conclusions. The fossil evidence if viewed from the mainstream paradigm does strongly suggest a very old earth and biota but when viewed from the hydroplate perspective then the biota is very young. There is a load of evidence that the mainstream geologist just pass over and dismiss because it refutes what they believe.

I am not saying I don't think what we are standing on here i.e. terra firma is very old. The earth in some form could have been here for millions even billions of years however there is really no credible evidence that totally confirms life has been here for more than 10,000 years give or take 2- to 4 thousand.

I guess my biggest problem with you brother is your rejection of the literal accounts of fiat creation and the flood portrayed in the Bible. To me if you reject that you are questioning foundational truths that make the Bible either real or a total myth with every thing that entails.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Jim do you believe that God was literally that God was sorry that He made mankind. Literally that is what the Bible says:

Gen 6:6 The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. 7 So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them."
[SIZE=-0] (NKJV) Genesis 6:6 And the LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. [/SIZE] [SIZE=-0] (NASB) Genesis 6:6 The LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. [/SIZE] [SIZE=-0] (KJV) Genesis 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. [/SIZE] [SIZE=-0] (TEV) Genesis 6:6 he was sorry that he had ever made them and put them on the earth. He was so filled with regret[/SIZE]

If you did it would destroy your whole Great Controversy motiff where God reveals His character through His relationship with mankind and ultimately God is vindicated.

What about the verses in the Old testament which contain statements about how God had shut a woman's womb so she could not have children, such as in the lesson study for this week on Hannah. Do you accept that literally that those people could not have children because of an action God had taken? The problem with the fundamentalist view is that it begins with presuppositions about the purpose of the Bible and that leads to the assumptions that even though the evidence is against a position we much accept that position as literally true. That is what you do with the Genesis creation story where it suits your tradition and when it does not you ignore it. You can see this by the way the fundamentalist retell the story to show that they were cast out for sinning yet the story says they were cast out because they were like God knowing good and evil and they must not be allowed to eat from the tree of life.

Gen 3:[SIZE=-0][SIZE=-0] 22 Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"-- 23 therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken. NASB[/SIZE][/SIZE]

The Creation view you have is merely your method of interpreting the story it is not the only method of interpreting the story. Nor is it any more correct because you choose to take it literally in some places and not in other. For another example the first day is defined not as we define days by the sun but by the light of which we have no idea what is being referred to. Yet that seems not to trouble people who take the story literally they just pretend it is not there because they choose to only accept the things as literal that fit their previously held traditions.

 

[Larmore]

Jim do you believe that God was literally that God was sorry that He made mankind. Literally that is what the Bible says:
If you did it would destroy your whole Great Controversy motiff where God reveals His character through His relationship with mankind and ultimately God is vindicated.

I don't understand your rationale here. God is expressing sorrow for the attrocities and results of sin. He saw that man had become so wicked that He had to kill nearly every man woman and child to make a new start again. I can see why He would say He was sorry that He had made man given those circumstances. The relationship God had with some men at that time allowed an escape and delivery tool called the ark to be made. So God's character was vindicated and man lived on after the flood.

What about the verses in the Old testament which contain statements about how God had shut a woman's womb so she could not have children, such as in the lesson study for this week on Hannah. Do you accept that literally that those people could not have children because of an action God had taken?

Absolutely, why wouldn't I? If I accept God as being an Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent Being it would be obsurd to think that keeping a woman from conceiving was out of His reach. If God stands outside of time and can see the end from the beginning for us He would make things happen that we won't understand until He makes it clear to us after we have a glorified mind capable of comprehending it.

The problem with the fundamentalist view is that it begins with presuppositions about the purpose of the Bible and that leads to the assumptions that even though the evidence is against a position we much accept that position as literally true.

This is where you stray my friend. You say the evidence is against what the Bible says but that is not true. The evidence if viewed from the proper perspective completely supports the Bible and it's literal stories of a flood. This is not to mention the prophecies which came true exactly as they predicted.

That is what you do with the Genesis creation story where it suits your tradition and when it does not you ignore it. You can see this by the way the fundamentalist retell the story to show that they were cast out for sinning yet the story says they were cast out because they were like God knowing good and evil and they must not be allowed to eat from the tree of life.

You read more into a statement like "they are like us and know good from evil" than what is warranted. This statement did not mean that suddenly when they ate the fruit they became omniscient etc. Read the whole thing. It says they hid themselves from the one who was omniscient because they were afraid. Fear is a product of sin. God cast's out fear. Man had only become like God in that he now knew what sin was after violating God's commands, before that he didn't know sin. God knew it from the experience of Lucifer and his fall to sin.

The Creation view you have is merely your method of interpreting the story it is not the only method of interpreting the story. Nor is it any more correct because you choose to take it literally in some places and not in other.

Alternate and false interpretations of the Bible abound. Truth is truth and God gives us the ability to discern what the truth is. Much of what the genesis account tells us demands we have a modicum of faith, however, even with my limited mental capabilites I can tell when the story line is to be taken as literal and when it should be taken figuratively or symbolically.

For another example the first day is defined not as we define days by the sun but by the light of which we have no idea what is being referred to. Yet that seems not to trouble people who take the story literally they just pretend it is not there because they choose to only accept the things as literal that fit their previously held traditions.

Light is light my friend. What is so mysterious about it? God is the source of all light , literal or spiritual. Even with my limited capabilities I can understand how there could have been an evening and a morning on the first day without a sun being in existence. God was the source of the light and He could have remained stationary over the planet as it rotated on it's axis producing the evening and morning.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

p.s. I feel sorry for you brother. In your mind if you truly believe that the Bible's stories are not literal for the most part you would have a big problem reconciling Christianity or salvation. What part of the gospel do you believe to be purely myth and or symbolic?

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

I don't understand your rationale here. God is expressing sorrow for the attrocities and results of sin. He saw that man had become so wicked that He had to kill nearly every man woman and child to make a new start again. I can see why He would say He was sorry that He had made man given those circumstances. The relationship God had with some men at that time allowed an escape and delivery tool called the ark to be made. So God's character was vindicated and man lived on after the flood.

Well I don't have time now to go over each one but if you can't follow the simple logic that if God was sorry for creating man yet God knows the future and the horror and death that have filled mankinds existence for thousands of years then you have really destroyed the Great Controversy idea, the whole struggle of good and evil, as if that is something that took God by surprise and He was sorry He ever created man. fortunately for man there were a few people good enough to keep the race alive so they could become more evil and destructive again.

You may feel sorry for me but that is probably because you are afraid to look at the things that you believe, you are content with the anthropomorphic way of seeing God, you paint Him just as a fallible human rather the the all knowing all powerful God, or at least you do that when it suits your purpose. The typical method of the fundamentalist.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Light is light my friend. What is so mysterious about it? God is the source of all light , literal or spiritual. Even with my limited capabilities I can understand how there could have been an evening and a morning on the first day without a sun being in existence. God was the source of the light and He could have remained stationary over the planet as it rotated on it's axis producing the evening and morning.

This is so absurd, it says nothing about God being the light. Your statement is that God is the source of all light, but by that reasoning He would also be the source of all darkness. You assert God is omnipresent yet you station him above the earth so that it rotates around Him as He remains fairly stationary to the earth so that it equals a 24 hour period.

Then you say you can tell the difference between literal and symbolic. Well that is certainly questionable. Is the serpent in the story literal or symbolic. No you can't tell you only take tradition and you will then say that it is both, a literal talking snake who is symbolic of Satan because it was actually Satan.

It is interesting to see the fundamentalist who always assume that there is not need for Christ or salvation if one does not believe all the Old Testament stories are literal. It amounts to their arrogance that their own view is the only possible view. It is silly. I was writing an article on the subject you can read the first two parts at this link.
http://newprotestants.com/ecc.html

 

[Jimlarmore]

Well I don't have time now to go over each one but if you can't follow the simple logic that if God was sorry for creating man yet God knows the future and the horror and death that have filled mankinds existence for thousands of years then you have really destroyed the Great Controversy idea, the whole struggle of good and evil, as if that is something that took God by surprise and He was sorry He ever created man. fortunately for man there were a few people good enough to keep the race alive so they could become more evil and destructive again.

I never indicated the fact that man becoming evil took God by surprize that is your words. My statement was
about God saying He was sorry He ever made man. This experiment in sin was known by the all knowing mind of God from the start of it to the finish. Many times things are said and written down for man's benefit. Please don't presume to understand the mind of God my friend.

You may feel sorry for me but that is probably because you are afraid to look at the things that you believe, you are content with the anthropomorphic way of seeing God, you paint Him just as a fallible human rather the the all knowing all powerful God, or at least you do that when it suits your purpose. The typical method of the fundamentalist.

An old preacher said it correctly a long time agao. He said God said in the Bible and I believe it. You on the other hand try to mix the Bible with the false paradigm that the Bible is a myth and that God didn't tell it like it really happened in the Bible. You have to be doing this because you are having trouble justifying it with the falsely interpreted evidence the mainstream paradigm trumpets.

YOU can't have it both ways my friend. You will have to choose God and His word or man and his corrupted interpretations.

God Bless
Jim Larmore