Do you accept evolution as a valid scientific theory?

[john crawford]

Yes, guilty as charged. Any response to any of your posts would be irrelevant to the topic of the thread.

Speak for yourself, since all other posters are equally entitled to respond, not only to the topic of the thread, but to all other respondants who are explaining why they accept evolution as a valid scientific theory or why they don't. If you think some posts are irrelevant to the topic, why not just ignore them and respond to those posts which you deem relevant?

 

[notto]

I didn't diagnose the person, but the problem.



All of them(nearly)! Duh think about it. Have you ever seen that chart before? I know my biology teacher was keen on pointing it out. And yes it is mostly do to apathy.

So you can't provide a current biology textbook that contains the drawing and show us that it uses it out of context.

Check.

I've seen the chart, along with a description of its historic position in biology. Sounds like you had a bad biology teacher if the teacher didn't do this.

What was the name of the textbook? What year was it published?

 

[david_x]

I've seen the chart, along with a description of its historic position in biology. Sounds like you had a bad biology teacher if the teacher didn't do this.

I don't think you can hear me, the description is wrong!

it's not one book it's the whole lot of em'

 

[notto]

I don't think you can hear me, the description is wrong!

it's not one book it's the whole lot of em'

What description is wrong? Can you be more specific?

I've heard creationists often make this claim but when it comes to backing it up, all I hear is bluster. No specifics, no examples, not book names or publishers, and not even an indication of what current biology textbooks say.

What specifically is wrong with how diagrams of embryonic development are represented in current biology textbooks? What textbooks have you looked at? Where did you see them? What is the context the diagrams are used in? What is the capation beneath them?

 

[LoG]

I don't think you can hear me, the description is wrong!

it's not one book it's the whole lot of em'

You are quite correct David. They are still using evidence in school books that was disproven over a century ago. These aren't old text books either. They are all books from 1990 and up. It really shows you that by having to rely on proofs that were disproven years ago they are desperately trying to prove a theory that is all but dead except to the gullible.

I will supply you with the proof you need to counter notto, but please understand that the evolutionists here will come up with some real funky arguments to negate the evidence or simply ignore it.

Survival of the Fakest

 

[notto]

They are still using evidence in school books that was disproven over a century ago.

Yes, Haeckels diagrams are exaggerations, and many current biology books point that out or use actual or current diagrams to show embryology development. As I said earlier, text book editors are slow on the uptake.

What I was wondering is where specifically these posters here have seen it. One claimed it was in a second grade science book, another claimed it recently and now the latest is that it is 'the whole lot of them'. That is an outrageous claim.

What I would like to know is if these posters have actually held the text book that had Haeckels drawing in it and what the context is out there for it. Why can't they name the books and publishers of these occurances if it is rampant?

There is nothing wrong with showing pictures of embryonic development and discussing them as aspects of biology. This is still done and should be done.

Good examples of the use of such pictures can be found in current biology textbooks. If books are still using Haeckels without proper attribution, it should be corrected. It is biologists themselves that push for such corrections.

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/embryos/Haeckel.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/haeckel.html

No evidence here that was disproven over a century ago.

 

[LoG]

No matter how ancient the interpretation, if it is wrong, it must eventually give way to truth.

Look at how many traditions Jesus destroyed: the traditional image of the Messiah, the traditional separation of Jew and Gentile, the traditional division of foods into clean and unclean, etc.

Jesus destroyed their interpretations of the Word. Not the Word itself.

In science, the ancient tradition of a flat earth gave way to that of a spherical earth, over the protests of early Christian scholars that the new Greek idea was unscriptural. And 1600 years later, the tradition of a motionless earth surrounded by crystalline spheres spinning around it to move the celestial bodies gave way to the evidence of an open solar system and a possibly infinite univers. (Of course 20th century science has given us still a new vision of an unbounded but finite universe.)

Here is a couple of links about who believed the "flat Earth".
Who invented the flat Earth?
Does the Bible Teach a Flat Earth

Jesus promised the Spirit would lead us into all Truth. He did not say all the traditions of 6,000 years ago were truth, nor that the Spirit would act within a decade. It took the Spirit 1800 years from Christ's resurrection to impress on Christians that slavery was wrong. There are Christians who are still convinced that women should be barred from some offices in the church.

You are correct. Traditions aren't always truth. The scriptures however, He said are truth.

It is important to honour traditional interpretations and not to be eager to overthrow them. But it is just as important to move when the Spirit says move, and leave obsolete interpretations behind.

The new interpretations still need to line up with the truth of the Word. We don't simply call parts of the Word "myth" because we now think we are smarter.

If you scroll down to "Reports" on
this page you will see some recent samples of my work. I edited all these reports and wrote parts of all of them.

Huh, didn't realize the church was involved with stuff like that. So why are you so up on the evolutionary theory?

 

[gluadys]

Jesus destroyed their interpretations of the Word. Not the Word itself.

We too are talking about interpretations of the Word, not the Word itself.

Here is a couple of links about who believed the "flat Earth".
Who invented the flat Earth?
Does the Bible Teach a Flat Earth

This Christian author of the sixth century would disagree with them.

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/awiesner/cosmas.html

You are correct. Traditions aren't always truth. The scriptures however, He said are truth.


The new interpretations still need to line up with the truth of the Word. We don't simply call parts of the Word "myth" because we now think we are smarter.

We are not smarter. But we do have more information and more accurate information about God's creation.

Since the revelation of God's creation is also a part of God's Word to us, we hold that apparent contradictions between God's Word in creation and God's Word in scripture must be reconciled through more accurate interpretations of God's Word in both creation and scripture.

 

[pastorkevin73]

This the first of two posts which are my final words on the subject of evolution and TE. This post is about the science and lies of evolutists. Some TEs have labelled creatists as liars. According to these facts the "science" of evolution is not trustworthy. With that said here are the facts.

1. Evolution is not law, but a theory which was based on an idea not on any hard evidence to support such an idea. Darwinism, weather believed or not today by evolutionist and TEs is still the beginning and foundation of this “scientific theory”.



2. Evolutionists are not trustworthy due to lies, deceits and cover-ups which have been exposed. Examples of this are:

The Miller Experiment - Miller used elements which were never a part of our atmosphere to “prove” his theory of how life came into being. Not only that but part of his theory was that life could be created out of non-living materials.

Darwin’s Tree of Life – Scientist have discovered through the fossil record what is called the Cambrian explosion, the sudden appearance of all living species all at the same time.

Haeckel’s Embryos – Even die-hard evolutionist admit that this evidence for evolution were doctored images of embryos of fish, salamander, tortoise, chicken, hog, calf, rabbit and a human. These images are fake.

Archaeopteryx – A bird that evolutionist believed was a link between reptilian and modern birds. Paleontologists agree that this is not the case, but that this bird is a part of a group of extent birds.

Archaeorapter – It apparently had the tail of a dinosaur and the forelimbs of a bird, thus being a link between flying birds and dinosaurs. Problem here is that this “bird” is a fake. A Chinese paleontologist proved that someone glued a dinosaur’s tail to a primitive bird.

Bambiraptor – Another bird. In this case some scientists said that this chicken-like dinosaur had feathers, but no feathers were found with the fossil.


3. For every species all organs and function has to be in place from the beginning. There are some organs that without them would be impossible to live. There are also functions unique to each species that are imperative for survival that had to be there from the beginning. For more information on this see the Creatures That Defy Evolution video series.



4. Science has to many disciplines to touch on each one. Please refer to the following list of disciplines with a name of a scientist who is an expert in their discipline.

Physics – Robin Collins PHD

Astronomy – Guillermo Gonzalez, PHD and Jay Welsey Richards, PHD

Biochemistry – Michael J. Behe, PHD


My next post will be from a theological perspective.

 

[pastorkevin73]

Remembering that this is a theology board and theology requires the use of Scripture. Therefore, here is the theological and Scriptural base for the Genesis account to be true and evolution false. In this post I am giving the scriptural bases for Scripture to being true. Then I give Scriptural bases for the creation account. Finally I give a list of passages which refer to Adam or the creation of Adam.



On the Word of God, Scripture

1. Truth comes from God (Job 38-40:1; Ps 25:4-5; 26:2-3; Dan 9:13) and that He is the only source where truth originates (Jn 1:14,17; 16:13; 2 Tim 3:16).

2. We can know the truth about God based upon what He has revealed of Himself through his Word, the Bible (Gen 1:26; 2 Tim 3:16).

3. God discloses Himself through the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments (Jn 1:1,14; 2 Tim 3:16-17; Heb 4:12).

4. The Scriptures were fully inspired and originated by God, hence being named, “The Word of God” (2 Pet 1:19-21).

5. Old Testament claims to be Scripture (Jer 30:4).

6. The New Testament claims the Old Testament to be Scripture (2 Tim 3:16; Lk 3:17-21; Lk 4:4,8,12).

7. The New Testament claims to be Scripture (Lk 4:17-21; Jn 1:1; 1 Th 4:2,8; Eph 2:20).

8. The Scriptures have a divine purpose and are useful for answers and guidance to God as He has revealed Himself (2 Tim 3:16).

9. The Scriptures are inerrant (2 Sam 22:31; Pr 30:5).

10. The Scriptures are the final and ultimate authority in faith and in practice (Is 40:8; Jn 10:35).

11. The understanding of Scripture is dependant upon the illumination of the Holy Spirit (Jn 14:26; 16:13-14; 1 Cor 2:10-12).

12. The Scriptures are unified and will not contradict itself in any way or form (Pr 30:5; 2 Tim 3:16).

13. The Holy Spirit illuminates the Scriptures so that we might be able to understand the things of God and without His illuminating the Scriptures we would not have any understanding of what God meant in His Word (1 Cor 2:10,12-14).



On Creation

14. God is the only one who created the universe out of nothing (Gen 1:1; Heb 11:3; Rev 4:11).

15. God is continually in the act of creation (Gen 4:1; Ps 139:13; Eph 2:10; Rev 4:11).

16. Creation by God was a one stage act (Gen 1:1-2:2).

17. God is the originator of all humankind by creating the first male (Adam) out of the dust and female (Eve) out of the rib of the male (Gen1:26-27; 2:7,21-23).

18. God has created humankind uniquely to the rest of His creation (1 Cor 15:39; Eph 2:10).

19. The creation of Adam and Eve was an immediate act of God (Gen 1:26; 2:7)



Here are some passages regarding Adam. This is evidence that the belief of Christians and Judaism was that the Genesis is true and literal. Note that Luke 3:38 is the end of the genealogy of Jesus.

Hos 6:7 But like Adam they transgressed the covenant; there they dealt faithlessly with me.

Luk 3:38 the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

Rom 5:14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.

1Co 15:45 Thus it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

1Ti 2:13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve;

1Ti 2:14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.

Jud 1:14 It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, "Behold, the Lord came with ten thousands of his holy ones,



20. To deny any of the above not only denies Scripture, God’s very Word, but also denies about 2000 years of Church history.

 

[shernren]

Why should I bother to refute these points when I know you won't read my refutations with an open mind? ... Well, I can only pray that you will continue to display "works of faith, labor of love, and patience of hope" (1 Thess) and find someone you will be willing to listen to, to tell you the truth about these things creationists have been telling you.

God bless.

 

[invisible trousers]

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

 

[notto]

Darwin’s Tree of Life – Scientist have discovered through the fossil record what is called the Cambrian explosion, the sudden appearance of all living species all at the same time.

Pastorkevin, you really need to find better sources. You are the one spreading lies with statements like this. It shows that you don't really understand (and apparently have no interest in understanding) the topic you rail against.

 

[Numenor]

Darwin’s Tree of Life – Scientist have discovered through the fossil record what is called the Cambrian explosion, the sudden appearance of all living species all at the same time.

Can you cite a source for this so we know just who exactly has been lieing to you? It is so wrong it's not funny.

 

[pastorkevin73]

I will pray for all of you TEs that God will open your eyes to THE TRUTH. Until then I will not answer any posts from anyone who will not accept God's Word. Again, this is a theology board, it requires the use of God's Word, the final and only truth.

1Ti 4:1 “Now the Spirit explicitly says that in the later times some will desert the faith and occupy themselves with deceiving spirits and demonic teachings,”

 

[The Lady Kate]

I will pray for all of you TEs that God will open your eyes to THE TRUTH. Until then I will not answer any posts from anyone who will not accept God's Word. Again, this is a theology board, it requires the use of God's Word, the final and only truth.

Except that this is the Christian section.... we all accept God's word here... just not in the same way you do.

Of course, if you insist on cutting yourself off from your Christian bretheren over a few trivial doctrinal differences, that's your business...

 

[david_x]

Pastorkevin, you really need to find better sources. You are the one spreading lies with statements like this. It shows that you don't really understand (and apparently have no interest in understanding) the topic you rail against.

No, that really is true. Give me some time i'll find it.

-guess i was beat to disproving Haeckei's embryos.

(way to be pastorkevin)

 

[notto]

No, that really is true. Give me some time i'll find it.

-guess i was beat to disproving Haeckei's embryos.

(way to be pastorkevin)

Let's remember the specific claim.

all living species all at the same time

Good luck!

 

[notto]

I will pray for all of you TEs that God will open your eyes to THE TRUTH. Until then I will not answer any posts from anyone who will not accept God's Word. Again, this is a theology board, it requires the use of God's Word, the final and only truth.

Yes, yes, you've already made it clear before that you really don't come to this discussion board to discuss. You've said you were leaving, you present stuff and expect it to go unchallenged, and then when it is, you refuse to discuss or support your ideas.

This is a theology board, not your personal pulpit.

 

[ProDeoEtVeritate]

It's funny. This thread is under theology and yet there isn't much talk of theology, just science. I see that pastorkevin as done a lot of work for the benifit of all here to know what God's Word says regarding this topic. And yet no one from the TE side is willing to discuss scripture. Frankly, there is no truth but God's truth and it can be found in His Word, the Holy Bible. You cannot dispute scripture. You can't use the arguement, "Well that's your interpretation," because it is a copout. Pastorkevin mentioned about dening 2000 years of church history. If you do not believe in the Bible then you truly do not believe in God, because the Bible is special revelation; words God inspired the Biblical writers so that we could have relationship with Him. So that we would know Jesus Christ as Messiah. So that we can know that Jesus has died for all of our sins so that we can have the free choice to accept the Truth and Salvation. If you so choose to believe God to be who he revealed Himself to be through scripture and accept Jesus' free gift of forgiveness for your sins, including the sin of disbelief, He will forgive you and you then will be GOd's child, free from eternal death and damnation.

One question comes to mind: If Darwin did not come up with the idea of evolution, would any of this discussion take place? Before you get all redfaced about evolution being and 'idea', it is just that. As far as I understand Darwin had zero evidence to start his "theory" with. It was an idea straight from Satan. Yes that means a lie. Satan has done well with this lie.