Evolution and atheism

[fragmentsofdreams]

Hello all! The Lord's blessings to all!

lucaspa

I am very confused with how you approach this issue. Obviously, you are not a literalist but The Bible does clearly state that God, The Lord, made the world in 7 days. Why am I honouring the Sabbath Day if this is inaccurate? I refuse to believe that The Lord would instruct us so very clearly in the fourth commandment if He did not accomplish His miracle of creating life.

'Evolution' - the unfounded claptrap that it is - proves absolutely nothing. Let the Word of God instruct you. He has taught you that He created in 7 days. With the endless evidence for the inaccuracy of C-14 dating that has been proven over and over again, I fail to see why you place such importance in the bones of creatures clearly killed by the Flood.

Biology, geology, and physics all show that the Genesis account cannot be literal. An ancient Universe is highly embedded into all three sciences. If it was false, none of their experiments would function, but they do.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Wood was cut out of living, growing trees. Although only a few days dead, it was dated as having existed 10,000 years ago (*B. Huber, "Recording Gaseous Exchange Under Field Conditions," in Physiology of Forest Trees, ed. by *K.V. Thimann, 1958).

This one I cannot explain. I suppose that the fact that Carbon dating had only been discovered a few years prior and the fact that the wood was freshly cut might be the reason. Also, I would wager that the part of the tree dated matters. I admit to being stumped on this one

​

It's an old study isn't it? I'm intrigued by the title - the study actually being about gaseous exchange. I wonder why they carbon dated the tree when they knew it had just been cut? Something smells fishy about the creationist interpretation. Anyone in a position to dig up forty year old books?​

 

[lucaspa]

Hello all! The Lord's blessings to all!

lucaspa

I am very confused with how you approach this issue. Obviously, you are not a literalist but The Bible does clearly state that God, The Lord, made the world in 7 days. Why am I honouring the Sabbath Day if this is inaccurate? I refuse to believe that The Lord would instruct us so very clearly in the fourth commandment if He did not accomplish His miracle of creating life.?

1. You honor the Sabbath because God commanded it in the 4rd Commandment. The day structure in Genesis 1 was done to give an unnecessary justification for the Commandment. God doesn't need creation to justify telling you to obey the Sabbath, does He? Unfortunately, some humans thought that there needed to be a justification, and therefore made one.

2. Genesis 2:4b clearly states that what God did in 6 days in Genesis 1 He did in one day.

'Evolution' - the unfounded claptrap that it is - proves absolutely nothing. Let the Word of God instruct you. He has taught you that He created in 7 days.

He also taught us He created in one day! Both can't be right. Do we pick one? Or do we read Genesis 1 and Genesis 2-3 for the theological messages that they were intended to convey?

With the endless evidence for the inaccuracy of C-14 dating that has been proven over and over again, I fail to see why you place such importance in the bones of creatures clearly killed by the Flood.

1. Troodon already noted the paucity of evidence for the inaccuracy of C-14 dating.
2. C-14 dating isn't necessary for evolution. After all, Darwin didn't have it when he wrote Origin of the Species.
3. There are lots of fossils that hypothesis of the Flood simply can't explain. That is, fossil sequences showing smooth transitions not only from one species to another, but going from species to species across genera, families, orders, and even to a new class in the taxonomic scale.
4. Many fossils show that animals and plants that died were buried in blowing sand. How could they clearly be killed by the Flood?
5. Frozen mammoths were clearly killed by falling into a snow covered ravine, breaking their bones, and then being covered by snow and ice. How can you say they were clearly killed by the Flood?

There are many other falsifications of the Flood being able to account for the fossil record. We can go into them in as much depth as you would like.

 

[lucaspa]

evolution-facts.org/c06b.htm

Should give you a start.

Placing your trust in anything but the Lord is wrought with folly. Seeking to explain by science or any means of man is seeking to second guess the Word of the Lord.

Before I get to the web page, I need to ask you: Who created the universe?

I thought the Lord created the universe. You apparently don't, since we can't put our trust in the universe. So who do you think created?

We are not second guessing the "Word of the Lord", but the word of Biblical literalists. The second is permissible, since Biblical literalists are not the Lord, are they? They just try to pretend they are.

Now, on to the web page.

It first takes a quote out of context that most samples for radiocarbon dating are discarded. Then it lists 13 conditions (what they call "assumptions") for the radiocarbon dating system to work.

The reason the majority of samples are discarded is they don't meet the criteria!! Duh!

I really hate to see people like you conned by whoever the author of the website is. Did you notice that the author is never mentioned?

Now, if you want to read more about C-14 dating, here are some sites for you:

3. http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/carbon.html
4. http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

The second is a website of evangelical Christians.

 

[lucaspa]

Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented. ~ William Provine

Only because Christians let atheists like Provine get away with outrageous unscientific statements. Also because creationists accept the basic atheistic statement of faith: natural = without God.

As I noted, before evolution atheists had no counter to the Argument from Design. There was no other way to get design than by an intelligent entity. Since Darwinian selection is an algorithm to get design, the AfD is no longer "proof" of God.

Now, Provine looks at evolution and, from his statement of faith that natural = without God, concludes that since he has a "natural" explanation, God is absent.

What Provine should do is go back and look at Origin of the Species. Specifically the Fontispiece:

"But with regard to the material world, we can at least go so far as this -- we can perceive that events are brought about not by insulated interpositions of Divine power, exerted in each particular case, but by the establishment of general laws" Whewell: Bridgewater Treatise.

"The only distinct meaning of the word 'natural' is stated, fixed, or settled; since what is natural as much requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so, i.e., to effect it continually or at stated times, as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once." Butler: Analogy of Revealed Religion

That shows that Provine's basic faith is still faith. But with the help of creationists, he can con people into accepting his basic premise as true. And thus make the statement you quoted.

If he didn't have the help of creationists, it would be a lot easier to expose Provine's error.

 

[lucaspa]

Wood was cut out of living, growing trees. Although only a few days dead, it was dated as having existed 10,000 years ago (*B. Huber, "Recording Gaseous Exchange Under Field Conditions," in Physiology of Forest Trees, ed. by *K.V. Thimann, 1958).

</I>

This one I cannot explain.​

​

​

Because it doesn't exist. I've just done a Google search on the book and the chapter. The book exists but the chapter doesn't. This seems to have been started by Ronald Powell in "Evolution, The Truth?", 1994. It has been picked up by several creationist sites, including the one here. However, there is no reference to that chapter in any discussion of gaseous exchange in trees.​

Made up out of whole cloth.​

</FONT></FONT>​