Do Baptists appear to be intellectually challenged baboons...?

[Mikecpking]

I just got back home. I've been on the run today. To make my response shorter, two articles on your question appear below. Basically, the entire Holy Bible rests on its foundational teachings.

The importance of foundations

Importance of foundations

Does Creation Really Matter?

Does creation really matter?

This website's arrogance is insulting to Christians who believe the word of God in a different way to what you proport.

I have studied Geology and see a very different record in earth history to what you push as 'foundational', but you will find us here who argue against you with the charge that you bring Christianity into disrepute by making Christianity into a club where 'unless you believe the same as us, you cannot be saved'.

 

[phoenixdem]

"you bring Christianity into disrepute by making Christianity into a club where 'unless you believe the same as us, you cannot be saved'."

Are you having a tough day there, Mike? I don't remember saying anything like that. In fact, here is an article from the same source that states differently.

Can Christians Believe Evoluton?

Can Christians believe evolution

 

[Mikecpking]

"you bring Christianity into disrepute by making Christianity into a club where 'unless you believe the same as us, you cannot be saved'."

Are you having a tough day there, Mike? I don't remember saying anything like that. In fact, here is an article from the same source that states differently.

Can Christians Believe Evoluton?

Can Christians believe evolution

I believe that evolution happened ansd I believe it is the way God creates. The fossil record confirms this despite your rantings to the contrary and your websites attack on fellow believing Christians who think the same as I do.

God tells us not to bear false witness. Your website claims I don't believe in the resurrection. Well, I do. The bible is the word of God and I believe every word is true. But not the same as youdo

What is the value of pi according to the bible?

Do you talk to trees?

What do you think a soul is?

How can we see a galaxy with our own eyes that is 2.5 million light years away which God created billions of years ago after he spoke the universe into existence from nothing (the big bang)?

 

[Hupomone10]

I believe that evolution happened ansd I believe it is the way God creates. The fossil record confirms this despite your rantings to the contrary and your websites attack on fellow believing Christians who think the same as I do.

Mike, please send me references or any knowledge you have of fossils of transitional forms, fossils with transitional limbs rather than fully functional ones would be preferable. Pictures of the fossils preferably also.

I'm only aware of fossils with fully functional completed parts, whether a simple creature, or complex.

For instance, a fossil showing partially-formed feathers, an inter-evolutionary stage,from a non-feathered ancestor would be nice. I'm sure if it happened, by now they should have tons of these transitional form fossils.

Thanks,
H.

 

[Mikecpking]

Mike, please send me references or any knowledge you have of fossils of transitional forms, fossils with transitional limbs rather than fully functional ones would be preferable. Pictures of the fossils preferably also.

I'm only aware of fossils with fully functional completed parts, whether a simple creature, or complex.

For instance, a fossil showing partially-formed feathers, an inter-evolutionary stage,from a non-feathered ancestor would be nice. I'm sure if it happened, by now they should have tons of these transitional form fossils.

Thanks,
H.

Here is a good place to start:

List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here is another

Transitional fossil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

One site I studied was the ammonited in the cliffs at Lyme Regis which shows a progression of species appearing and tghen disappearing only to be replaced with other species of ammonites..no mixing up of the species represented in the formation if you insist on a one time flood event to explain all geological features.

 

[phoenixdem]

Here is a good place to start:

List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here is another

Transitional fossil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

One site I studied was the ammonited in the cliffs at Lyme Regis which shows a progression of species appearing and tghen disappearing only to be replaced with other species of ammonites..no mixing up of the species represented in the formation if you insist on a one time flood event to explain all geological features.

Wikipedia? Isn't that the encyclopedia that anyone has access to, i.e. anyone can post an article without verification?

Where is the missing link, Mike? Also, does science call the evolution of man a theory or established fact?

 

[Mikecpking]

Wikipedia? Isn't that the encyclopedia that anyone has access to, i.e. anyone can post an article without verification?

Where is the missing link, Mike? Also, does science call the evolution of man a theory or established fact?

I would say to you, study geology, do some field work. And see what you come up with. I was a YEC once, not anymore, biut it does not mean I disbelieve any part of the bible.

 

[phoenixdem]

I would say to you, study geology, do some field work. And see what you come up with. I was a YEC once, not anymore, biut it does not mean I disbelieve any part of the bible.

My Master's Degree is in English, not geology. There is no missing link and Evolution is a theory. Using the Scientific Method, Evolutionists haven't proven anything except in their imagination. I believe in the literal translation of the Holy Bible.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

My Master's Degree is in English, not geology. There is no missing link and Evolution is a theory. Using the Scientific Method, Evolutionists haven't proven anything except in their imagination. I believe in the literal translation of the Holy Bible.

Young-earth creationism and evolution through natural selection are both theories. The former is based upon ignorance of the Hebrew Old Testament and other ancient oriental literature, the life and earth sciences, and the methodology and philosophy of science. The later is based upon an in-depth knowledge of the life and earth sciences and the methodology and the philosophy of science. Moreover, the theory of evolution through natural selection is completely in harmony with the last two hundred years of research on the Hebrew Old Testament and other ancient oriental literature by hundreds of Old Testament scholars. Furthermore, the theory of evolution through natural selection is completely in harmony with the understanding of the inspiration of Scripture as described by Luke in his gospel.

Luke 1:1. Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us,
2. just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word,
3. it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus;
4. so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught. (NASB, 1995)

Where in the Bible does it say that Moses did not “compile an account” of creation based upon the information that was “handed down” to him? Where in the Bible does it say that your understanding of the inspiration of the Bible is more accurate than Luke’s understanding of it?

I believe that Moses (or the final redactor of Genesis) “compile[d] an account” of creation based upon the information that was “handed down” to him, and that God, in the person of the Holy Spirit, through Moses (or the final redactor of Genesis), wove together the information, giving us the first eleven chapters in the Book of Genesis. What kind of information was available to Moses for him to compile those eleven chapters? Hundreds of years of research have given to us the answer to that question. He had available to him many legends, myths, and epic tales of the creation, the fall of man, the wrath of God, and mans salvation from the floodwaters, all of which were handed down by peoples who preceded him and his people.

If you disagree, please quote from the Bible where it says that Moses compiled the Book of Genesis any differently than Luke compiled his gospel. My understanding is based upon what the Bible says about itself, rather than upon what some “creationists” incorrectly say about the Bible.

 

[phoenixdem]

Young-earth creationism and evolution through natural selection are both theories. The former is based upon ignorance of the Hebrew Old Testament and other ancient oriental literature, the life and earth sciences, and the methodology and philosophy of science. The later is based upon an in-depth knowledge of the life and earth sciences and the methodology and the philosophy of science. Moreover, the theory of evolution through natural selection is completely in harmony with the last two hundred years of research on the Hebrew Old Testament and other ancient oriental literature by hundreds of Old Testament scholars. Furthermore, the theory of evolution through natural selection is completely in harmony with the understanding of the inspiration of Scripture as described by Luke in his gospel.

Luke 1:1. Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us,
2. just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word,
3. it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus;
4. so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught. (NASB, 1995)

Where in the Bible does it say that Moses did not “compile an account” of creation based upon the information that was “handed down” to him? Where in the Bible does it say that your understanding of the inspiration of the Bible is more accurate than Luke’s understanding of it?

I believe that Moses (or the final redactor of Genesis) “compile[d] an account” of creation based upon the information that was “handed down” to him, and that God, in the person of the Holy Spirit, through Moses (or the final redactor of Genesis), wove together the information, giving us the first eleven chapters in the Book of Genesis. What kind of information was available to Moses for him to compile those eleven chapters? Hundreds of years of research have given to us the answer to that question. He had available to him many legends, myths, and epic tales of the creation, the fall of man, the wrath of God, and mans salvation from the floodwaters, all of which were handed down by peoples who preceded him and his people.

If you disagree, please quote from the Bible where it says that Moses compiled the Book of Genesis any differently than Luke compiled his gospel. My understanding is based upon what the Bible says about itself, rather than upon what some “creationists” incorrectly say about the Bible.

For starters, the Holy Bible was written through the divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit. That is true of the OT and the NT. Moses was born centuries after the events on the beginning of Genesis. Luke lived during the time of the events that he wrote about and had eyewitness accounts to depend on. You say that Moses had epic tales, legends, and myths handed down to him. If you are trying to say that Moses wrote from unreliable story-tellings, you forget that the Holy Spirit is credited with inspiring all of the writers of the Holy Bible. The Holy Spirit was intimately involved with the events from the beginning of Creation up through the events of the New Testament. While human writers without divine inspiration can err, the Holy Spirit cannot.

You say your understanding is based on what the Bible says about itself, rather than on what some "creationists" incorrectly say about the Bible. That seems to be a very arrogant attitude, which is understandable from someone who talks about Christians looking like intellectually challenged baboons suffering from dementia.

Show me the verses in the Holy Bible that support your idea of evolution. Will you tell me that Adam and Eve had long black hair all over their bodies and didn't walk on the ground, but swung from vines like Tarzan and Jane? Did the deceiving serpent run Jane, excuse me, Eve to a tree branch to entrap her where she couldn't escape? Fine. Show me the verses in the Holy Bible that support your ideas.

Hint for you: The missing link is still missing and Evolution is still only a theory. The Holy Bible is not a theory. The Scripture is accepted as fact, even by its enemies who constantly try to tear it down without success. Christianity has been going strong and dependable for the last two thousand years while scientific theories and facts have changed with the tide as soon as some other theory or finding is touted as the latest scientific craze. The proponents of Darwin's theory have been trying to prove the accuracy of Darwin's writings without success. Sorry, it just isn't there.

The Holy Bible stands as a beacon of light to sinful mankind, filled with the words of God as He reveals Himself to mankind and gives fallen man the way to come back to Him while prideful mankind is trying its best to wriggle out from under the rules and laws of God. But when all scientific notions and theories are done at the end of the day, it is still God who comes out on top. It will always be that way.

 

[EdMa]

Natural selection and the theory of Evolution doesn't go hand to hand, because natural selection actually lose genetic information overtime, by keeping the trait that is best for survival and it loose everything else - where evolution claim that through out time, new genetic information is added. That's same as saying I have a business that is losing money, but overtime I will gain money.

An interesting read.

Is Natural Selection the Same Thing as Evolution? - Answers in Genesis

 

[Hammster]

The former is based upon ignorance of the Hebrew Old Testament and other ancient oriental literature

Or it could be that you just disagree with the findings of some who might not be so ignorant.

Statistical Determination of Genre in Biblical Hebrew: Evidence for an Historical Reading of Genesis 1:1-2:3

 

[Hupomone10]

Here is a good place to start:

List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here is another

Transitional fossil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thank you brother.

For anyone reading this, you've confirmed my suspicion that there aren't any examples of true transitional forms, only completely formed examples more complex than other ones.

The source you gave defines, or rather re-defines the term and then shows evidence of their re-defined term:
"Since all species are in transition due to natural selection, the very term "transitional fossil" is essentially a misconception. But the fossils listed represent significant steps in the evolution of major features" - Wikipedia source.

There is only evidence of different fully formed creatures, simple and complex, which the evolutionist assumes are "steps" in the process, the creationist assumes are different designs.

The laser cutter that performs intricate operations on the human eye didn't evolve by natural processes from the knife; only in the progression of intelligent humans learning more each succeeding generation. We still have knives, we also have laser cutters.

A future robot culture such as the Transformers would interpret archaeological evidence on earth to support the evolution of themselves from simple to complex, shaped by matter and energy through pure chance. Or maybe the Creator-Robot was behind the scenes on earth watching it while it happened?

Again: they, like we, will find no true transitional forms (except incomplete designs made by finite creatures). They will find simple ones, complex ones; and we can only hope they will be more intelligent with the evidence than we are.

If you want to believe in evolution, I have no problem with that. I have no problem with you as a person or as a believer. But please do me the courtesy of not trying to portray yourselves as the intellectual superiors in this matter, but just as different opinions based on the evidence we've found thus far. I will do the same. "Knowledge makes arrogant, but love edifies."- 1 Cor. 8:1

“All temptation is primarily to take our eyes off the Lord and to take account of appearances. Faith is always meeting a mountain, a mountain of evidence that seems to contradict God’s Word, a mountain of apparent contradiction in the realm of tangible fact – of failures in deed, as well as in the realm of feeling and suggestion – and either faith or the mountain has to go. They cannot both stand. But the trouble is that many a time the mountain stays and faith goes. That must not be. If we resort to our senses to discover the truth, we shall find Satan’s lies are often enough true to our experience; but if we refuse to accept as binding anything that contradicts God’s Word and maintain an attitude of faith in Him alone, we shall find instead that Satan’s lies begin to dissolve and that our experience is coming progressively to tally with that Word.”
– Watchman Nee, "The Normal Christian Life"

Although not written with regards to evolution vs. scripture, the above idea is true of any area of life, including our views toward these subjects.

Blessings,
H.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

For starters, the Holy Bible was written through the divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit. That is true of the OT and the NT. Moses was born centuries after the events on the beginning of Genesis. Luke lived during the time of the events that he wrote about and had eyewitness accounts to depend on. You say that Moses had epic tales, legends, and myths handed down to him. If you are trying to say that Moses wrote from unreliable story-tellings, you forget that the Holy Spirit is credited with inspiring all of the writers of the Holy Bible. The Holy Spirit was intimately involved with the events from the beginning of Creation up through the events of the New Testament. While human writers without divine inspiration can err, the Holy Spirit cannot.

You say your understanding is based on what the Bible says about itself, rather than on what some "creationists" incorrectly say about the Bible. That seems to be a very arrogant attitude, which is understandable from someone who talks about Christians looking like intellectually challenged baboons suffering from dementia.

Show me the verses in the Holy Bible that support your idea of evolution. Will you tell me that Adam and Eve had long black hair all over their bodies and didn't walk on the ground, but swung from vines like Tarzan and Jane? Did the deceiving serpent run Jane, excuse me, Eve to a tree branch to entrap her where she couldn't escape? Fine. Show me the verses in the Holy Bible that support your ideas.

Hint for you: The missing link is still missing and Evolution is still only a theory. The Holy Bible is not a theory.

I am not being arrogant and claiming that today’s scholars of the Hebrew text of Genesis have it all wrong—I am humbly agreeing with the conclusions that they have drawn based upon 200 years of research. I am not being arrogant and claiming that Luke was mistaken about the process of divine inspiration—I am humbly agreeing with him because I have found him to be a reliable source of information.

The Holy Bible is not a theory, but the theory of young-earth creationism is a theory.

The Scripture is accepted as fact, even by its enemies who constantly try to tear it down without success.

No, it is not!

Christianity has been going strong and dependable for the last two thousand years while scientific theories and facts have changed with the tide as soon as some other theory or finding is touted as the latest scientific craze. The proponents of

Darwin's theory have been trying to prove the accuracy of Darwin's writings without success. Sorry, it just isn't there.

Scientists began teaching that the earth was a sphere rather than a flat plane about 2,500 years. For 1,500 years, Christian fundamentalists insisted that the earth is a flat plane rather than a sphere based upon their literal interpretation of the Old and New Testaments. Whom do you believe—the scientists or the Christian fundamentalists? Do you believe in a literal interpretation of the Old and New Testaments that tell us that the earth is flat; or do you believe in a figurative interpretation of the Bible that allows the scientists be right? Do you believe with thousands of other Christian fundamentalists today who believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible and therefore believe in geocentrism; or do you believe in a figurative interpretation of the Bible that allows the scientists be right?

Every one of the few score scientists who reject the theory of evolution through natural selection rejects the theory based upon his interpretation of Genesis 1-11. Not even one of them first rejected the theory for scientific reasons and subsequently believed in an interpretation of Genesis 1-11 that agreed with the conclusions from science.

The Holy Bible stands as a beacon of light to sinful mankind, filled with the words of God as He reveals Himself to mankind and gives fallen man the way to come back to Him while prideful mankind is trying its best to wriggle out from under the rules and laws of God. But when all scientific notions and theories are done at the end of the day, it is still God who comes out on top. It will always be that way.

Up until the first part of the 19th century, the Holy Bible stood as a beacon of light to mankind, but since that time, the light has become dimmer and dimmer as Christian fundamentalist have become increasingly militant in their vicious and unwarranted attack upon scientists and the theory of evolution based upon an archaic and academically indefensible interpretation of the first eleven chapter in Genesis. Consequently, the Bible is rapidly losing its credibility in the eyes of our young people, and every year we find thousands upon thousands of young people saying yes to evolution and no to the gospel. Nonetheless, some militant creationist have become so blinded by their obsession with their interpretation of the Bible that they do not realize that it is their interpretation of the bible rather than the theory of evolution that is damning our young people by the thousands to the fires of hell.

The theory of evolution is not a threat to the gospel message unless the gospel message is commingled with an archaic and academically indefensible interpretation of the first eleven chapters in Genesis. When the first eleven chapter in Genesis, along with the rest of the bible, are taught based upon a contemporary and academically defensible interpretation, the theory of evolution becomes irrelevant to the gospel message and the Holy Spirit is no longer in competition with science. Consequently, our young people are much more inclined to receive the gospel. Moreover, many more of these young people are inclined to study science with unfettered minds and make discoveries that not only bring glory to God, but which improve the quality of life for God’s most noble creation—man.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

If you want to believe in evolution, I have no problem with that. I have no problem with you as a person or as a believer. But please do me the courtesy of not trying to portray yourselves as the intellectual superiors in this matter, but just as different opinions based on the evidence we've found thus far. I will do the same. "Knowledge makes arrogant, but love edifies."- 1 Cor. 8:1

Whether a maple tree is prettier than an oak tree is a matter of opinion. Whether the data pertinent to the theories of creation and evolution support the theory of creation or the theory of evolution is not just a matter of opinion, it is much more a matter of one being qualified to arrive at an objective and educated conclusion. Therefore, 99.99% of scientists today who have earned at least one Ph.D. agree with the conclusion that the data pertinent to the theories of creation and evolution support the theory of evolution; and not even one scientist specializing in the field of evolutionary biology agrees with the conclusion that the data pertinent to the theories of creation and evolution support the theory of creation.

Furthermore, there is a very high degree of correlation between belief in evolution and the amount of education that one has. Indeed, studies have shown that only about 20% of the people in the United States who have completed no more than a high school education believe in the theory of evolution. Among the people in the United States who have earned a bachelor’s degree, slightly over 50% of them believe in the theory of evolution. Among the people in the United States who have earned a graduate degree, nearly 75% of them believe in the theory of evolution.

Moreover, studies have shown that there is a very high degree of correlation between church attendance and ones views regarding evolution. For the more detailed results of one such study, see here:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/21811/american-beliefs-evolution-vs-bibles-explanation-human-origins.aspx

 

[phoenixdem]

How about showing me a verse that states the Earth is flat.

"an archaic and academically indefensible interpretation of the first eleven chapters in Genesis"

Feel free to reject any portions of the Holy Bible. That is your choice. Life is a series of choices. Believe in God's words or not is also a choice. Do as you wish, but there will always be those who take God at His word and never look back.

How scientific is it to teach a theory as fact? Is that your interpretation of handling scientific facts or have others shown you the way? You know the Scientific Method, I know.

God's "most noble" creation is a fallen creation and is sold to sin and rebellion to God. How far man has fallen is shown in how man thinks he knows better than God about how He created His Universe.

"Christian fundamentalist have become increasingly militant in their vicious and unwarranted attack upon scientists and the theory of evolution "

This would be funny if it weren't quite a serious thing as rewriting the Holy Bible even if it involves "only the first 11 Chapters of Genesis."
Have the Bible believers attacked scientists with pitchforks? You say we have attacked science and the Theory of Evolution in an unwarranted and vicious way.

I posted references to two articles that talk about attacks on the Scripture as a whole when they say that we must reinterpret and change Scripture. My belief is the Scriptures are true even though there are many "brilliant" people who say Scripture must be reinterpreted to fit their theories. The below quoted verse doesn't say with the exception of the first eleven chapters of Genesis.

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for

doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:​

Must the verse above also be changed? If you are correct that we have a serious problem with the first eleven chapters of Genesis, we can't keep 2Ti 3:16 as it is. What else has to go on the chopping block?

So it is the Bible believers who are responsible for the children not being interested in the gospel? Have you ignored other factors? Surely, you know about how christianity is under fire in our institutions now like school for instance that molds the minds of the young? You know about the collapse of morality not only in the young, but in the adults who teach them about life, right? Well, I won't go into all of the factors that have brought us to where we are today. You should be able to see those things for yourself. It's a "no-brainer."

Where is the missing link and has the scientific community changed the Theory of Evolution to established scientific fact?


You seem to be impressed with college degrees. The Holy Bible talks also about the wisdom of man. 1Co 1:19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

 

[phoenixdem]

PrincetonGuy, if Scripture must agree with findings in Science, i.e. Science is always right and Scripture is wrong if it contradicts findings in Science, how far would you carry that belief? If Science said that people cannot be raised from the dead, would you believe the Holy Bible or Science?

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Or it could be that you just disagree with the findings of some who might not be so ignorant.

Statistical Determination of Genre in Biblical Hebrew: Evidence for an Historical Reading of Genesis 1:1-2:3

Did you read the article? It is nothing more than a dishonest ploy to deceive the public by arguing that Genesis 1:1-2:3 is written in a narrative genre rather than a poetic genre and therefore (but not really!) an accurate account of historic events. Of course Genesis 1:1-2:3 is written in a narrative genre rather than a poetic genre, and any bright high school student can readily see that for himself by simply reading the text. That is not the issue—the issue is which narrative genre Genesis 1:1-2:3 is written in. Genesis 1:1-2:3 is written in the same narrative genre as that the whole of the first eleven chapters of Genesis—but nowhere else in the Bible!

As has already been posted more than once in this thread, and can be easily verified by reading the contemporary literature on the Hebrew text of Genesis, today’s scholars of Genesis agree that the narrative genre of the whole of the first eleven chapters of Genesis is one of three types: a series of myths, legends, or epic tales. For a discussion of these three forms of the narrative genre, and why none of them contradicts the inspiration of Scripture, see my posts above in this thread.

The Institute for Creation Research knows this, but they do not want you to know it. Therefore, they have employed the dishonest and deceptive tactic of arguing against the proverbial straw man hoping that their readers will fall for it instead of studying the Hebrew text of Genesis for themselves.

 

[Hammster]

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

 

[phoenixdem]

/