Darwin Debunks himself? what did we miss?

[shernren]

You know if it's because of the dating methods used by many scientists "proving" how old the earth is.

Of course the dating methods used by scientists are horrible ways of investigating age.

Even if you've invited the pretty lady opposite you to a fancy candlelit dinner, you still aren't supposed to ask how old she is.

 

[lemmings]

I am not talking about the old arguments I am talking about any of them. There is so much proof showing the age of the earth isn't over a few thousand years.

Why can't the Earth be over a few thousand years old? Why are our lives so much shorter than the people who lived thousands of years ago?

 

[artybloke]

What is it that makes each of you believe TE? Why don't you believe that God created everything.

If you know that TE beliefs are not like this, and are in fact much more nuanced, why do you misprepresent these beliefs in such an absurdly oversimplified way? Are you really interested in what we have to say, or are you just trying to preach at us?

And, while I'm at it, why are you taking one sentence out of Darwin's Origin entirely out of context without even giving a reference to where in the Origin this is? You would at least give a reference for a Bible verse, why no reference here? Is it because you want to misrepresent what Darwin actually said in order to make your point?

The theory of evolution has, in any case, moved on since Darwin. As has the theory of relativity moved on since Einstein; the theories of quantum mechanics since Bohr & co; but that doesn't mean we can't still something wonderfully pioneering in their work. They were the people who changed the way we thought about the world. Scientists since have built on, consolidated and rejigged their work.

That's the way science is: it changes, as we get to know more.

 

[Mallon]

I guess I should refrase that. Why don't you believe God created us as humans and trees as trees directly?

For the same reason I don't believe God literally knit me together in my mother's womb (Ps 139:13-14). For the same reason I don't believe God literally forms the earth like clay under a seal (Job 38:14). For the same reason I don't believe that stars can literally fall from the sky and be trampled (Isaiah 14:12, Daniel 8:10, Matthew 24:29, Mark 13:25, Revelation 12:4).
If God's creation is trustworthy to the point that we can learn about Him by what He has made (Hebrews 3:4, Psalm 19:1, Romans 1:20), then we should not reject what His creation is telling us about its age and history. There is little doubt that the earth is old and that we are an evolved creation. God's creation testifies to this in many separate ways (multiple attestation). If we're willing to abandon the ancient views about the states of the earth and humanity that I cited above, based strictly on what science has taught us, then why do we cling so desperately to creation ex nihilo? It isn't a fundamental doctrine. It isn't in any of the creeds.
As the saying goes, the Bible was written to tell us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.

I am not talking about the old arguments I am talking about any of them. There is so much proof showing the age of the earth isn't over a few thousand years.

No. There is not. Again, take any "proof" that you will and check it against this list to see how well it holds up in the face of contradictory evidence:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
If you like, feel free to begin a new thread so that we can discuss the proofs you're talking about.

You might also check out Glenn Morton's story of why he no longer subscribes to a young earth:
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htm

 

[Bouke285]

For the same reason I don't believe God literally knit me together in my mother's womb (Ps 139:13-14). For the same reason I don't believe God literally forms the earth like clay under a seal (Job 38:14). For the same reason I don't believe that stars can literally fall from the sky and be trampled (Isaiah 14:12, Daniel 8:10, Matthew 24:29, Mark 13:25, Revelation 12:4).
If God's creation is trustworthy to the point that we can learn about Him by what He has made (Hebrews 3:4, Psalm 19:1, Romans 1:20), then we should not reject what His creation is telling us about its age and history. There is little doubt that the earth is old and that we are an evolved creation. God's creation testifies to this in many separate ways (multiple attestation). If we're willing to abandon the ancient views about the states of the earth and humanity that I cited above, based strictly on what science has taught us, then why do we cling so desperately to creation ex nihilo? It isn't a fundamental doctrine. It isn't in any of the creeds.
As the saying goes, the Bible was written to tell us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.


No. There is not. Again, take any "proof" that you will and check it against this list to see how well it holds up in the face of contradictory evidence:

If you like, feel free to begin a new thread so that we can discuss the proofs you're talking about.

You might also check out Glenn Morton's story of why he no longer subscribes to a young earth:

This has to be one of the most annoying statements I have ever heard. Your saying because scientists who have no beliefe i God think that they can measure the age of things billions of years old.

There are two verses that sum all of this up

5 God called teh light Day. and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day. 31 Then God saw everything that He had made. and indeed it was very good. So the evening and teh morning were the sixth day. Gen 1: 5,31

Do you ever wonder why the defenition of a Day is put as one of the first parts of genesis? so why would light and then darkness be called a day before everything else if a day actually means 55 million years, or whatever you have ammount of time you have tagged it with? If you read the 5th and 31 vs of revelations and still believe in ET then it is called ... . The Bible is a better source then some scientists who change their theorys every day saying that "Oh this ice core has more carbon in it then this core so that means the earth is billions of years old." They do this because if they admited the earth was only thousands of years old that would mean an all powerfull being had to be creator.

I will take your challenge and start a new thread

 

[Mallon]

This has to be one of the most ignorant statements I have ever heard.

How ironic because...

Your saying because scientists who have no beliefe i God think that they can measure the age of things billions of years old.

... CHRISTIAN geologists were the first to propose the earth is older than the Bible implies!
I have no idea why you think all scientists who subscribe to an old earth must necessarily be atheists. Many, and very probably most, Christian geologists alive today buy into deep time. And it's not because of a deep-seeded plot to deny God and hail Satan. They accept the modern interpretation concerning the age of the Earth because that's what God's creation is telling them!
(I should also point out that you daily make use of inventions and technologies that were developed by atheists, and that by using them, you are being a hypocrite.)

There are two verses that sum all of this up

5 God called teh light Day. and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day. 31 Then God saw everything that He had made. and indeed it was very good. So the evening and teh morning were the sixth day. Gen 1: 5,31

Do you ever wonder why the defenition of a Day is put as one of the first parts of genesis? so why would light and then darkness be called a day before everything else if a day actually means 55 million years, or whatever you have ammount of time you have tagged it with? If you read the 5th and 31 vs of revelations and still believe in ET then it is called ignorance. The Bible is a better source then some scientists who change their theorys every day saying that "Oh this ice core has more carbon in it then this core so that means the earth is billions of years old." They do this because if they admited the earth was only thousands of years old that would mean an all powerfull being had to be creator.

There you go misrepresenting my beliefs again. Why not take the time to learn about what it is I believe before you continue mischaracterizing me and all other evolutionary creationists?
I do not subscribe to the idea that the Genesis days represent millions or billions of years, as do some OECs.
I subscribe to the accommodationist principle which says, like the incarnation of Christ, the Bible is an accommodation of God to the limited minds of men, so that we might come to understand His plan of salvation for us. As such, the Genesis creation account is simply a narrative vessel, delivered in a timely manner to the ancient Hebrews, to tell of God's timeless message of faith and love. Therefore, any attempt to read science into the Bible -- or to force their concordance, as you do -- is to miss the forest for the trees and to completely misunderstand the fundamental reason why the Bible was given to us.
More on that here:
http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/3EvoCr.htm

 

[Bouke285]

(I should also point out that you daily make use of inventions and technologies that were developed by atheists, and that by using them, you are being a hypocrite.)

So there are some things that we can take literally and other things we can't? This is in my opinion the biggest misunderstanding of the Bible there is.

Oh and also since when is using a keyboard the same as saying we came from Creation rather than Evolution?

 

[theFijian]

So there are some things that we can take literally and other things we can't? This is in my opinion the biggest misunderstanding of the Bible there is.

So when Jesus said he was the bread of life he meant he was literally made from flour, yeast and water? Or perhaps some things we don't take literally in the bible...hmmm.

 

[Assyrian]

So there are some things that we can take literally and other things we can't? This is in my opinion the biggest misunderstanding of the Bible there is.

How about John 15:5 I am the vine you are the branches...
Matt 16:24 Then Jesus told his disciples, "If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.
Exodus 19:4 You yourselves have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles' wings and brought you to myself.
Rev 13:1 And I saw a beast rising out of the sea, with ten horns and seven heads, with ten diadems on its horns and blasphemous names on its heads. 2 And the beast that I saw was like a leopard; its feet were like a bear's, and its mouth was like a lion's mouth. And to it the dragon gave his power and his throne and great authority.
Gen 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens. How many days?

I know it is difficult to get you head around, but it is not more honouring to God and his word to take everything literally. What that is saying is that God cannot communicate in metaphors, parables and poetry. One thing we learn from Jesus is that he loves to speak in parables and spent three years teaching his disciple how to understand them. And he taught them to interpret figurative meanings in the Old Testament too. Luke 24:27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself. It is all part of being his disciples.

 

[busterdog]

This has to be one of the most ignorant statements I have ever heard. Your saying because scientists who have no beliefe i God think that they can measure the age of things billions of years old.

Lots of people think so. I dont. However, there are a number of pretty interesting arguments about why things do in fact SEEM billions of years old. Mallon and I have been going round and round on such matters. And though I am on your side, "ignorant" is the wrong word.

There are two verses that sum all of this up

5 God called teh light Day. and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day. 31 Then God saw everything that He had made. and indeed it was very good. So the evening and teh morning were the sixth day. Gen 1: 5,31

Do you ever wonder why the defenition of a Day is put as one of the first parts of genesis? so why would light and then darkness be called a day before everything else if a day actually means 55 million years, or whatever you have ammount of time you have tagged it with? If you read the 5th and 31 vs of revelations and still believe in ET then it is called ignorance. The Bible is a better source then some scientists who change their theorys every day saying that "Oh this ice core has more carbon in it then this core so that means the earth is billions of years old." They do this because if they admited the earth was only thousands of years old that would mean an all powerfull being had to be creator.

Yes, if "day" is defined where it is and in that place, I think it gives you a reasonable argument. It has always interested me that so much in Gen. 1,2,3 is "man-sized". Everything is scaled toward man, and of course, the Son of Man, who is present in every page. Now, God could have made the universe quicker than a 3 minute egg. He chose 6 days and a Sabbath, suggesting he was thinking of us, and the rest he wants to give us, from before day one.

[But please edit out the word "ignorance."]

A couple of creationists are working on a thread or two in creationism having to do with the reason none of this science ever measures up to Gen. 1. That is because Gen. 1 is, well, a chapter for the creation of everything. It is certainly straightfoward exposition. But, as you split hairs to try to define exactly how God did it, you are going to see the same problems TEs see in their models, which are rife with very improbable matters.

My feeling is that creation science is best at two things: 1. levelling the playing field and taking the wind out of the evolutionist sails, ie, it is better at debunking or challenging than proving a specific mode of creation; 2. it helps make literal scripture plausible, which is not the same as proof.

You are also being mislead about on what a metaphor is. For example, my Pastor asked me one time why I wasn't a one-handed, one-eyed man. I had been pressing a literal view of Isaiah 53. As you know, Jesus said, if you right hand offends you, cut it off. And I am like, D'uh!, my right hand doesnt offend me. My conscience, will and heart do. The time I spend with the wrong element offends me. The point is: the Bible TELLS you when it is using metaphor, parables, etc. If it were not so, they Fijian wouldnt believe that Jesus literally was born, since, he would have to apply his own rule: only one literary device can be applied in all 66 books. So, if Jesus is the metaphorical bread of life, his birth must also have been metaphorical and this is just a nice story we tell. So, dont get too lathered. And no, as many times as I have defended this point, few want to understand it.

 

[pgp_protector]

I like what you are saying I always think of the most basic particles we know about today. And how when our technology increases (if we are still here) we will find that there is another basic particle making up these basic particles. We will never fully understand everything.

Also think about why our lives were cut so much shorter after the flood. What would we have been able to figure out if we lived 400 years each?
There are some things God doesn't allow or want us to understand.

And what things are there that God doesn't allow us to understand ?

 

[Mallon]

So there are some things that we can take literally and other things we can't? This is in my opinion the biggest misunderstanding of the Bible there is.

Think about what you've said, Bouke. It shouldn't take more than a few seconds to realize that taking everything in the Bible literally is just silly. Mind the passages theFijian and Assyrian have cited here. Mind the Galileo affair. Mind your own signature!

Why are you so insistent that we read the Bible literally? What is it about a literal, concordist interpretation that makes you think we can understand God any better than through a non-literal or accommodationist interpretation? Please justify yourself.

Oh and also since when is using a keyboard the same as saying we came from Creation rather than Evolution?

1) As you've been told previously, saying that we are evolved does not equate to denying that we are also created.
2) When you imply that a particular theory must be wrong simply because it is espoused by atheists, and you reject that theory on that basis, you are acting hypocritically by using inventions and technologies that were created by atheists since, according to you, they must not work! And yes, that includes keyboards and whatever else you might think of.

 

[Bouke285]

And what things are there that God doesn't allow us to understand ?

Ok, hmmm maybe how to turn invisible, or how the light from stars is visible now when in theory the light would take far longer to reach the earth making the earth far older than you or I say it is. How to morph into a cat how God has always been here, How God is out of time, What does heaven truely look like. You can't say we know everything.

 

[Bouke285]

Think about what you've said, Bouke. It shouldn't take more than a few seconds to realize that taking everything in the Bible literally is just silly. Mind the passages theFijian and Assyrian have cited here. Mind the Galileo affair. Mind your own signature!

Why are you so insistent that we read the Bible literally? What is it about a literal, concordist interpretation that makes you think we can understand God any better than through a non-literal or accommodationist interpretation? Please justify yourself.


1) As you've been told previously, saying that we are evolved does not equate to denying that we are also created.
2) When you imply that a particular theory must be wrong simply because it is espoused by atheists, and you reject that theory on that basis, you are acting hypocritically by using inventions and technologies that were created by atheists since, according to you, they must not work! And yes, that includes keyboards and whatever else you might think of.

As busterdog said. You clearly don't understand the definition of a metaphor and when a metaphor is used in the Bible it is clearly stated. In Genesis there is no hint or reason anyone should think a metaphor, or a comforting story for the Jews is being used. For example the opening verse. God created the heavens and the Earth. This sounds pretty straight forward to me. it doesn't say and a void burst colors like a rose or like the evening sky. Taking the Bible literally is the most important thing to learn. If the Bible couldn't always be taken literally then how would anyone of this time know how to reach eternal life? "Oh kids that's just a story don't listen to it" That is the danger of TE when you deny one thing clearly printed you have to deny something else clearly printed. You may not realize the effect TE has on Christianity as a whole.

1)&2)
I'm not saying everything an athiest has invented, or every theory an athiest has given is wrong, you are putting words in my mouth. I am saying when it comes to the scientific discoveries that anybody makes somebody is going to twist it to show no God. That is how the devil works. Everybody will always find a way to twist everything. That is why you can only go by what you know is true.

THE WORD OF GOD!!!

 

[Melethiel]

As busterdog said. You clearly don't understand the definition of a metaphor and when a metaphor is used in the Bible it is clearly stated. In Genesis there is no hint or reason anyone should think a metaphor, or a comforting story for the Jews is being used. For example the opening verse. God created the heavens and the Earth. This sounds pretty straight forward to me. it doesn't say and a void burst colors like a rose or like the evening sky. Taking the Bible literally is the most important thing to learn. If the Bible couldn't always be taken literally then how would anyone of this time know how to reach eternal life? "Oh kids that's just a story don't listen to it" That is the danger of TE when you deny one thing clearly printed you have to deny something else clearly printed. You may not realize the effect TE has on Christianity as a whole.

1)&2)
I'm not saying everything an athiest has invented, or every theory an athiest has given is wrong, you are putting words in my mouth. I am saying when it comes to the scientific discoveries that anybody makes somebody is going to twist it to show no God. That is how the devil works. Everybody will always find a way to twist everything. That is why you can only go by what you know is true.

THE WORD OF GOD!!!

Just a question for you before I go on. Do you believe that, in Communion, the bread and wine literally become the Body and Blood of Christ?

BTW, Mallon never mentioned "metaphors". There is a very specific meaning to the term, and neither of us believe Genesis is a metaphor for anything.

I'm not saying everything an athiest has invented, or every theory an athiest has given is wrong, you are putting words in my mouth. I am saying when it comes to the scientific discoveries that anybody makes somebody is going to twist it to show no God. That is how the devil works. Everybody will always find a way to twist everything. That is why you can only go by what you know is true.

True enough. That still doesn't make the underlying science wrong. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

 

[Bouke285]

Just a question for you before I go on. Do you believe that, in Communion, the bread and wine literally become the Body and Blood of Christ?

BTW, Mallon never mentioned "metaphors". There is a very specific meaning to the term, and neither of us believe Genesis is a metaphor for anything.
quote]

Sure he did he gave an extensive list along with others of verses that they say we can not take literally you just gave another metaphorical example above. This was a physical metaphor to help the desciples and all of us understand the spiritual significance.

Oh and if you don't think Genesis is a metaphor than why are you a TE? You can't be both a creationist and a TE unless you decide to switch off every other day.

 

[Mallon]

As busterdog said. You clearly don't understand the definition of a metaphor and when a metaphor is used in the Bible it is clearly stated.

Actually, it's not. The Bible often uses metaphor and other forms of imagery to convey spiritual messages without explicitly stating as much. The serpent in Genesis 3 is a perfect example. The text never "clearly states" just what that serpent is, if it is anything more than just a talking snake. Ditto the body and blood of Christ.
I just love it when neocreationists say the imagery of the Bible is "obvious", as though the Church has not struggled to understand it for the past 2,000 years. I guess some people never learn.

In Genesis there is no hint or reason anyone should think a metaphor, or a comforting story for the Jews is being used. For example the opening verse. God created the heavens and the Earth. This sounds pretty straight forward to me.

Sounds pretty straightforward to me, too. Then again, I'm not arguing that the creation account is a metaphor for anything. I am arguing that it is a story, understood quite literally by the Hebrews, that has been accommodated by God to their context and culture in order to convey a message about God's sovereignty and His plan for us. A metaphor, on the other hand, is "a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance" (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/metaphor).
Perhaps it is you who does not understand what a metaphor is. Perhaps it's you who is putting words in peoples' mouths.

Taking the Bible literally is the most important thing to learn. If the Bible couldn't always be taken literally then how would anyone of this time know how to reach eternal life?

That's a non sequitur. It does not follow that in order to be saved, we must read the entire Bible literally. Christ saves, Bouke. Nothing else.

"Oh kids that's just a story don't listen to it" That is the danger of TE when you deny one thing clearly printed you have to deny something else clearly printed.

Have you honestly ever heard a TE here say that, Bouke?
In fact, stories can teach us many important lessons regardless of whether they literally happened or not. Remember Jesus' parables? If you were one of Christ's apostles, would you have replied to his parable of the faithful servant by saying, "Oh, that's just a story. Don't listen to it"?

You may not realize the effect TE has on Christianity as a whole.

TE doesn't make people lose their faith in God. But the positivism you unwittingly espouse does. By insisting that the Bible MUST be literal and scientifically accurate to be true, you set green Christians everywhere up for failure every time they observe for themselves the evidence for the age of the earth. As such, they are left with two choices: either reject their faith or turn off their God-given brains and ignore the evidence from creation. Both choices are undesirable, and completely unnecessary given the accommodationist hermeneutic aligns much better with God's character.

1)&2)
I'm not saying everything an athiest has invented, or every theory an athiest has given is wrong, you are putting words in my mouth. I am saying when it comes to the scientific discoveries that anybody makes somebody is going to twist it to show no God. That is how the devil works. Everybody will always find a way to twist everything. That is why you can only go by what you know is true.

THE WORD OF GOD!!!

How do you know the devil isn't twisting your mind, Bouke? How do you know Christian geologists aren't right about the old age of the earth and that your equally human and fallible hermeneutic is correct? You're no less prone to interpretation than the scientists are.

 

[artybloke]

You clearly don't understand the definition of a metaphor and when a metaphor is used in the Bible it is clearly stated.

This is the dumbest thing I've heard in a while. I don't see Jesus ever saying when he said, "I am the Vine. But don't take it literally, it's only a metaphor."

 

[Melethiel]

Sure he did he gave an extensive list along with others of verses that they say we can not take literally you just gave another metaphorical example above. This was a physical metaphor to help the desciples and all of us understand the spiritual significance.

There are several things here. First of all, there are more categories than "metaphor" and "literal". "Metaphor" has a very specific meaning - think back to your high school English classes. Interestingly, you just debunk one of your own arguments in the phrase I highlighted above - just because something is not literal, doesn't mean it's not significant.

I also find it interesting that you think the Body and Blood of Christ is "a metaphor" - I, in fact, don't. I think the fact that it is NOT, and that this is one of the instances where Christ was speaking literally, is a doctrine much more central than whether the world was really created in 6 24-hour days. There were many controversies in the Church over this - Luther, in fact, was famous for insisting that Christ was speaking quite literally, and that "IS means IS."

So is it really that clear cut and straight forward to know whether Scripture is speaking literally, in story, or in metaphor (or in one of the myriad of other literary functions) that easy?

 

[busterdog]

This is the dumbest thing I've heard in a while. I don't see Jesus ever saying when he said, "I am the Vine. But don't take it literally, it's only a metaphor."

Be arty. You obviously know how to make the analysis. Lets not pretend, please.