Dismantling theistic evolution with 10 questions

[Nathan Poe]

Since when is literalism an unquestionable Christian belief?

Good eye, gluadys! I hadn't spotted the fallacy! Rep for you!

 

[Polycarp1]

Bwahahahah! You are aware that Genesis was written by my ancestors, right? And that Orthodox Judaism is creationist, right? Please tell me you are aware that the Bible (Old Testament) was a Jewish book before Christianity even existed.

------SHH

And your point is....?

BTW, while we're talking, I have a few words for your grandfather....

 

[Nathan Poe]

And your point is....?

BTW, while we're talking, I have a few words for your grandfather....

The point was that Rowell only wanted to discuss the Bible with TEs, not Jews.

After all, it's their book, why should they be involved with it?

 

[Rowell]

Okay, well I'm back from work and can finally respond fully to all the comments -- literalism isn't an unquestionable belief -- it is unquestionable that literal Christianity is Christianity. Some Christians, however, would say that a thiestic evolutionists is neither Christian nor evolutionist, and that is the point of what I was saying.

 

[Vance]

Okay, well I'm back from work and can finally respond fully to all the comments -- literalism isn't an unquestionable belief -- it is unquestionable that literal Christianity is Christianity. Some Christians, however, would say that a thiestic evolutionists is neither Christian nor evolutionist, and that is the point of what I was saying.

Careful, it is against the forum rules to challenge the validity of another Christian's faith.

Besides, it is insulting and judgmental. Were you aware that most Christians worldwide accept evolution? Would you say that they are not true Christians?

 

[GoSeminoles!]

Question 1 concerns the motive and fulfillment of your God:
"Presuming your God has volition and desire, and presuming he desired to create, how was such desire fulfilled in allowing matter to evolve through chance mutations? Would you find such an activity personally fulfilling yourself?"

I'm an atheist now, but I used to be Catholic so I have thought about such questions in the past and had no problem reconciling evolution and Christianity. So I will give it a shot.

One could say that God created the universe and its physical laws, including those governing evolution. Indeed, with the notion of an omnipotent creator, one can say God is so powerful that he was able to construct those physical laws so that humanity would be one of the by-products of the natural processes he set into motion.

Question 2

concerns the semantic of "creation" and is corollary to question 1:
"How is it that God can be attributed with creating what we see today, if he allowed matter to take its own course?"

Same answer as above. If we're positing an omnipotent God, then he is capable of creating physical laws he is certain will eventually produce humanity, even if to human eyes the process appears to be governed in part by random mutation.

Question 3

concerns the assurance of result, and is corollary to question 2:
"How is it that any result at all was guaranteed?"

Same answer as #2. Indeed, one could say this is theologically preferable to a "tinkering" God, that is, one that adjusts the evolutionary process periodically to get the result he wants. Who is more impressive: a clockmaker who constantly has to adjust his clock, or the clockmaker who built it right the first time so that it needed no further adjustments?

Question 4

concerns omniscience, and is counter-corollary to question 3:
"How is it that evolution can be said to have proceeded by chance, if the Creator knew the exact result before he began? Would not his beginning the process simply invoke a foreknown destiny, thus pre-nullifying the purpose of chance evolution?"

One can say that even though the process is deterministic from God's point of view, it is still random from humanity's perspective. If I select a card from the deck, look at it, and place it face down and ask you to guess at it, then from my perspective the value of the card is already determined. But from your perspective it's a random guess to get it right.

Question 5

concerns time and is partner to question 1:
"Given that time is irrelevant and a non-entity to an eternal God, what satisfaction did he derive from his waiting for things to take place? At what point in eternity did they take place? How much of eternity preceded their beginning? Given that eternity is undefined, how is it you are sure we are even here?"

The question destroys itself by first assuming that time is irrelevant to God and then suggesting God "waited." The action of waiting requires a time interval, yet you're assuming God is outside time. The question is meaningless.

Question 6

concerns the pinnacle of creation, man, and the incarnation of Jesus Christ:
"If evolution took its own course, then how is it that man is in God's image? For if that which has formed by chance is in God's image, then God is a necessarily undefined. How could God's Son be guaranteed of a predetermined ministry?"

You are assuming facts not in evidence. We do not know whether the author of Genesis meant that humanity was created to resembe God physically or spiritually.

Question 7

concerns spiritual accountability:
"At what point in the evolutionary chain is a creature considered accountable to God? Why is an ape not accountable? What determines the line to be drawn? When was the line drawn? When the line was drawn, was it drawn unilaterally?"

You will have to ask God that. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that evolution is acceptable, but that a follower must still believe that God at some point infused a human ancestor with a soul, creating a spiritual Adam and Eve. Exactly which humanoid ancestor that was cannot be known since a soul cannot be detected scientifically.

Question 8

concerns the composite fabric of man and is companion to question 7:
"At what point did man receive a spirit? What was the point of receiving a spirit if he was alive without one? If you say he has no spirit, then how can you also declare that he has an afterlife ahead of him? If you say he has no afterlife, then what is the point of his current life, and what is the point of your debating?

No one can know when God gave our humanoid ancestors a spirit. Obviously, organisms can be alive without a spirit, as my dogs are currently demonstrating.

Question 9

concerns your motive:
"What is your deepest motive for rejecting a short, direct, creation, given that such is possible for God to have done? If you say "the evidence", if it were in fact true that God did create in 7 days, how would things look any different?"

My motive for rejecting young earth creationism is that the scientific evidence from multiple independent sources is overwhelmingly in favor of an ancient Earth and ancient universe. Rational individuals must adapt their worldviews to the facts. If God did create the universe in 7 days, then he also created it with the appearance of great age. Indeed, he was very thorough in this regard. In that case, he could hardly blame anyone for believing his scientific senses and concluding the universe is very old.

This prompts its own question. If the world is really only 10,000 years old and simply appears to be ancient, then what was God's purpose in creating such a deception? To trick us? Why would anyone subscribe to such a malevolent theology?

uestion 10

will sound familiar:
"How do you know there is a God"?

I don't know. No one does.

Again, I answered these questions as my former theistic evolutionary self would have answered them, not as my current atheistic evolutionary self would. Had today's me answered, the responsed would have been much the same, minus the speculation about what God may or may not have done.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Okay, well I'm back from work and can finally respond fully to all the comments -- literalism isn't an unquestionable belief -- it is unquestionable that literal Christianity is Christianity.

The Ku Klux Klan is unquestionably Christianity.... at least, they don't bother to question it. Your point?

My point is that there are hundreds of sects and denominations of Christianity; each one claiming to be the real McCoy; most claiming that the others are wrong.

What makes Biblical Literalism special?

Some Christians, however, would say that a thiestic evolutionists is neither Christian nor evolutionist, and that is the point of what I was saying.

And those Christians probably need to concern themselves more with their own status under God before poking their noses into how others sit with Him.

Also, it should be noted that accusing or implying that another Forum Member is not a "True" Christian (whatever that is) is a violation of Forum Rule #1, so those Christians tend not to last long around here.

And I've yet to meet an evolutionist who claimed that Theistic Evolutionists were not "True" evolutionists.

 

[Rowell]

I won't give you people fodder to attempt to get me kicked, but I know of many a Christian who thinks like that. Now, the idea that we shouldn't be "judgemental" and should instead question our own status with God is nice thinking, but people don't do that -- everybody thinks they're fine with God in their own mind, others might not. Sorry, that's how it is. It may be judgemental, but isn't society so in general?

And yes, I do know the majority of Christians are thiestic evolutionists. Just an example of the saddness of how theory and other faith masquerading as scientific fact can affect so many. But if you don't believe what the Bible says in one book, how can you be sure that anything else that author says, like Moses, is a lie? And furthermore how do you decide what is truth in the Bible and what is not? It becomes pick and chose religion. How can you really trust in Christianity if you don't believe the fundamentals and leaders that first enlightened the world to it? Can you be Christian?

Many great ideas, maybe better for the theology section, but that's my point.

 

[Vance]

"But if you don't believe what the Bible says in one book, how can you be sure that anything else that author says, like Moses, is a lie? And furthermore how do you decide what is truth in the Bible and what is not? It becomes pick and chose religion. How can you really trust in Christianity if you don't believe the fundamentals and leaders that first enlightened the world to it? Can you be Christian?"

Who says we don't believe Genesis just because we don't take it literally. That is a silly statement. And to say that we think Moses lied? Again, where are you coming up with this stuff?

And how do YOU choose your interpretation? There are dozens of denominations who believe that are just following the "plain, literal" text and still come up with wildly varying viewpoints.

Again, who said we don't believe the fundamentals? Which fundamentals do you think we deny?

You have some strange ideas about what theistic evolutionists believe.

 

[Philosoft]

But if you don't believe what the Bible says in one book, how can you be sure that anything else that author says, like Moses, is a lie? And furthermore how do you decide what is truth in the Bible and what is not? It becomes pick and chose religion. How can you really trust in Christianity if you don't believe the fundamentals and leaders that first enlightened the world to it? Can you be Christian?

Whether you admit it or not, however, you engage in interpretation of Scripture as much as the next guy. Foremost, unless you're versed in ancient Hebrew, you're reading a translation of a translation. Often, translating idiomatic speech is little more than guesswork when the source material is basically dead.

More tellingly, you probably don't believe rabbits chew cud and you probably don't believe insects have only four legs and you probably don't think bats are birds, regardless of what it says in Leviticus. So, consider how you know those things are not true and you might begin to understand the TE position.

 

[Magnus Vile]

I won't give you people fodder to attempt to get me kicked, but I know of many a Christian who thinks like that. Now, the idea that we shouldn't be "judgemental" and should instead question our own status with God is nice thinking, but people don't do that -- everybody thinks they're fine with God in their own mind, others might not. Sorry, that's how it is. It may be judgemental, but isn't society so in general?

And yes, I do know the majority of Christians are thiestic evolutionists. Just an example of the saddness of how theory and other faith masquerading as scientific fact can affect so many. But if you don't believe what the Bible says in one book, how can you be sure that anything else that author says, like Moses, is a lie? And furthermore how do you decide what is truth in the Bible and what is not? It becomes pick and chose religion. How can you really trust in Christianity if you don't believe the fundamentals and leaders that first enlightened the world to it? Can you be Christian?

Many great ideas, maybe better for the theology section, but that's my point.

Where does it say in the Bible that you have to interpret scripture in a particular way to be Christian? Because even the literalists interpret scripture to fit their beliefs. The YEC looks at the bible and tries to fit the universe into it, and the TE looks at the world and tries to fit the bible into it. Both are interpreting the book. Why is it that the YEC is so certain that they are correct, when all the evidence says they are wrong? The evidence doesn't disagree with the TE's, so do the YEC's believe that god is lying to us through the Universe?

If, and I assume you believe this, God created the world personally, then how is looking at the World not looking directly at gods work? Why is it a YEC values a book over Gods creation? What is it about this book that tells you god values it and put more truth into it than he did the universe? The Bible he inspired, but the universe he created personally. So, why do you trust a book written by humans, even if it was inspired, over gods personal creation?

 

[Rowell]

There is no contradiction between God's creation and the Genesis book. Thank you for letting me point this out. Most evidence points against evolution occuring, however. I was on the road to being an evolutionists when I started looking at it myself, instead of listening to what my teachers told me, and found out that science points against evolution. It is because of science that I am fully a Christian.

 

[Vance]

There is no contradiction between God's creation and the Genesis book. Thank you for letting me point this out. Most evidence points against evolution occuring, however. I was on the road to being an evolutionists when I started looking at it myself, instead of listening to what my teachers told me, and found out that science points against evolution. It is because of science that I am fully a Christian.

That first sentence is correct, but then it goes downhill from there. Please provide the evidence that points against evolution. Then provide the actual scientific evidence that supports the universe, the earth and every species being created within the last 10,000 years.

You can't get away with bald, conclusory statements until after you have provided the evidence to support your position at least once.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I won't give you people fodder to attempt to get me kicked, but I know of many a Christian who thinks like that.

IOW, you're going to follow the rules. No need to be a martyr about it.

Now, the idea that we shouldn't be "judgemental" and should instead question our own status with God is nice thinking, but people don't do that -- everybody thinks they're fine with God in their own mind, others might not. Sorry, that's how it is. It may be judgemental, but isn't society so in general?

So isn't that an incentive to set a better example, or would there be no point in trying?

And yes, I do know the majority of Christians are thiestic evolutionists. Just an example of the saddness of how theory and other faith masquerading as scientific fact can affect so many.

You've just described YEC: Religious faith masquerading as scientific fact.

And here we go sliding down the slippery slope...

But if you don't believe what the Bible says in one book, how can you be sure that anything else that author says, like Moses, is a lie?

Moses wrote Genesis? Says who?

And furthermore how do you decide what is truth in the Bible and what is not? It becomes pick and chose religion.

I believe the word is "discernment."

How can you really trust in Christianity if you don't believe the fundamentals and leaders that first enlightened the world to it? Can you be Christian?

Depends on what you define as "Christian."

If you define it as someone who believes that Jesus Christ was the son of God, come to Earth to forgive man of their sins, then yes, it's actually quite simple.

If you want to get bogged down in each and every chapter and verse of the Bible as an absolute requirement, well..... other people might not appreciate the legalistic roadblocks.

Many great ideas, maybe better for the theology section, but that's my point.

"If you can't believe one book..."

Why stop there? We're not even talking about the Book of Genesis, we're talking about part of it: Chapters 1-3, to be exact. Does not accepting this as literal truth bring your faith crashing down?

Perhaps we need to get more specific: Is the a certain verse that is the key? Perhaps a specific translation of a word from Hebrew to Greek to Latin to English?

Gee.... and all this time I thought it was about some guy named Jesus.
My bad.

 

[Magnus Vile]

There is no contradiction between God's creation and the Genesis book. Thank you for letting me point this out. Most evidence points against evolution occuring, however. I was on the road to being an evolutionists when I started looking at it myself, instead of listening to what my teachers told me, and found out that science points against evolution. It is because of science that I am fully a Christian.

Uh. Most evidence?

Seriously, do you really believe that all the scientists (many of them Christians)that researched this and came up with the age of the universe (among other things) were lying?

And what evidence have you found against evolution? What papers have you published? Or is the evidence you found not the type that gets published? Because if the universe is young then god is certainly lying to us. Starlight, and Supernovas tell us that, for a start.

 

[Rowell]

Would you like me to write you an essay? The amount of evidence pointing against evolution is a lot, its not something you can go "Oh, well blah blah blah blah blah." and sum up in a sentence. How can I possibly summarize it?

Evolution claims that each animal evolved into another from another previous animal, slowly, gradually, over millions of years. If this were true, we'd be able to look into the fossil record and see where a fish fin sloowwwwlly, gradually, evolved into a paw. In fact, we should at least see something that looks like an inbetween fin/paw. But we don't. Not only do we not see one instance of it, but for darwinian evolution to be true we'd need to see billions of these things -- we ought to be able to stick each fossil one by one and make, almost, a motion picture will the subtle changes shown. This should occur for every evolved change. In fact, we ought to find it nearly impossible to tell where one animal begins and another ends -- it should be a growing tree of many variations leading back to one universal animal (if he still existed in the fossil record, of course, which would be highly improbable I know). Nontheless, instead we see clearly defined, individual species of animals that we can actually categorize because of their distinctness, appearing abruptly and apparently out of no where. Darwin himself to say "The proof of evolution lies in the fossil record," but that he had no proof -- he believed the fossil record was incomplete, and hoped that in the future we'd discover examples of evolution. A modern day evolutionist, however, has been quoted saying we have fewer examples of evolution now than we did in Darwins day. For Darwin to say he had none, and for that scientist to say we had fewer ... isn't promising. The evidence of the fossil record points away from evolution.

I could get into each "caveman" and explain him, but there's something like 8 of those guys ... and I'm too lazy to cover them all. You have Neathderthal man who they found hunched over and with tools, so they said "He must be an ape man!". Closer examination of them shown that they were racked with severe arthritist that made them hunch over -- human, but the people were very sick, possibly due to inbreeding perhaps. Piltdown man was faked by filing a chimpanzee and human skull together and making a cast of it -- it was later admitted to being one. Lucy was assembled using remnants of a chimpanzee skeleton and a human skeleton found in a different layer of soil in an different immediate location; Nebraska Man was completely fictional, the result of a concept artists rendition of cave men to be used in a trial to support evolution based on a single tooth -- that tooth later being found to come from a pig.

Then you got your laws of thermodynamics. The second one, aka entropy, states that the universe is basically decaying. These a laws, uncontested. We can even prove it -- by sticking a car out in the middle of a field and watching it rot away. We even know that genetic information is lost when new life is created (childbirth). So in this universal law that says, and proves, that everything is falling apart, how do we then rectify a theory that says life is improving for the better, striving for further complexity and perfection? They're conflicting doctorine -- one's been proven, one has evidence pointing against it. I'll trust Lord Kelvin, eh?

Thats my summary essay. Took a while, but hey. Yah asked.

 

[Magnus Vile]

Ah, now I understand why you haven't published.

And as for something halfway between paw and a fin? Ever looked at a seal?

And the second law of thermodynamics doesn't say anything like that. It says, (with thanks to Jet Black, The Second Law: There is no process for which the unique effect is the removal of positive heat from a reservoir and the production of positive work.

Do you really think that in all these years, no one ever asked that before, and that they were never answered? If the 2nd law worked that way, babies would be impossible.

 

[Rowell]

What do you mean "no ones asked that before?" Been asked a lot.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-thermodynamics.html

 

[Philosoft]

Evolution claims that each animal evolved into another from another previous animal, slowly, gradually, over millions of years. If this were true, we'd be able to look into the fossil record and see where a fish fin sloowwwwlly, gradually, evolved into a paw. In fact, we should at least see something that looks like an inbetween fin/paw. But we don't.

A-hem.

Eusthenopteron, Sterropterygion (mid-late Devonian) -- Early rhipidistian lobe-finned fish roughly intermediate between early crossopterygian fish and the earliest amphibians. Eusthenopteron is best known, from an unusually complete fossil first found in 1881. Skull very amphibian-like. Strong amphibian- like backbone. Fins very like early amphibian feet in the overall layout of the major bones, muscle attachments, and bone processes, with tetrapod-like tetrahedral humerus, and tetrapod-like elbow and knee joints. But there are no perceptible "toes", just a set of identical fin rays. Body & skull proportions rather fishlike.

More where that came from: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html

Not only do we not see one instance of it, but for darwinian evolution to be true we'd need to see billions of these things -- we ought to be able to stick each fossil one by one and make, almost, a motion picture will the subtle changes shown. This should occur for every evolved change. In fact, we ought to find it nearly impossible to tell where one animal begins and another ends -- it should be a growing tree of many variations leading back to one universal animal (if he still existed in the fossil record, of course, which would be highly improbable I know). Nontheless, instead we see clearly defined, individual species of animals that we can actually categorize because of their distinctness, appearing abruptly and apparently out of no where.

You don't have any idea how rare a fossilization event is, do you?

Darwin himself to say "The proof of evolution lies in the fossil record," but that he had no proof -- he believed the fossil record was incomplete, and hoped that in the future we'd discover examples of evolution. A modern day evolutionist, however, has been quoted saying we have fewer examples of evolution now than we did in Darwins day. For Darwin to say he had none, and for that scientist to say we had fewer ... isn't promising. The evidence of the fossil record points away from evolution.

May I see the full quotation from "that scientist"?

I could get into each "caveman" and explain him, but there's something like 8 of those guys ... and I'm too lazy to cover them all.

A very prescient statement, sez I.

You have Neathderthal man who they found hunched over and with tools, so they said "He must be an ape man!". Closer examination of them shown that they were racked with severe arthritist that made them hunch over -- human, but the people were very sick, possibly due to inbreeding perhaps.

False, of course. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC051_1.html

Piltdown man was faked by filing a chimpanzee and human skull together and making a cast of it -- it was later admitted to being one.

By whom? Scientists, you say?

Lucy was assembled using remnants of a chimpanzee skeleton and a human skeleton found in a different layer of soil in an different immediate location;

Utterly false. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_piths.html

Nebraska Man was completely fictional, the result of a concept artists rendition of cave men to be used in a trial to support evolution based on a single tooth -- that tooth later being found to come from a pig.

And uncovered by... scientists, you say?

Thats my summary essay. Took a while, but hey. Yah asked.

Now I shall ask for the real evidence.

 

[Rowell]

Ha, I found all this funny because as I scrolled down, one of the sponsered links under all this was "Darwin's Missing Links". I can do nothing short of publishing a book and giving it to you people with full citation before you believe about 4 years of my research on the arguement.

A great site is sixdaycreation.com. The videos are mighty fine.

Now, the futility of the agruement has made itself evident, and I'm leaving this discussion. I bid thee all you sad evolutionists, fairwell. Till next time, of course.