Evolution as conspiracy

[Vance]

I don't. I read both from creationist and 'evolutionist' sources. I have put down stuff written by Ken Ham and his ilk. (I think there is perhaps a lack of humility, or fearfulness, in admitting that they might be wrong, and then to doubt the truth of the Bible, whereas it might be that they need to reexamine their interpretation of the Bible).There is some merit in the theology of young-earth creationism, but it is not correct (in my opinion). The young-earth theory can be disproved by a host of experts. And the evidence for it, such as dinosaurs and modern mammals appearing in different fossil layers, disproves young-earthism also. Although at the same time there is evidence to suggest that dinosaurs did survive into the middle ages. Some of the post'ers before-hand have mentioned that universe and life origins is not part of evolutionary theory. I was thinking that it's probably not evolutionary theory now, because they've given up on it, they know they have lost the argument, so have moved onto other areas where evolutionary theory is stronger, such as human evolution.

The first half of that paragraph was very good. :0)

No, evolutionary theory has always been about biology and will always be about biology. It is simply an explanation about how life has developed on this planet that fits all the evidence and is compelled by the evidence. The study of how life originated is the study of biogenesis (or abiogenenesis, depending on how you look at it). There is no real theory for how that happened. The best theory for the beginning of the universe is the Big Bang, of course, and that was first presented by a Christian scientist, and the scientific community was skeptical at first because it sounded too much like "and God said . . .", so they figured he might be presenting a view based on his religious beliefs. They then came to see that it fit scientifically, even if it also fit religiously.

 

[BeforeTheFoundation]

I didn't say it was right. I don't like the sound of you as a person. I will not be talking to you in future.

Wait. You accuse my deep felt beliefs as that of a conspiracy call people on the forum stupid, and question whether we are Christians and I point out that this statement

How can I be traced for plagiarism? No one knows who I am, I am but a humble goldfish.

sounds like you are excusing yourself from plagiarism and I am the mean one?

Huh?

This might be a bit harsh.

Harsh I can handle.

I don't understand what gravity's got to do with anything.

My gravity example was a demonstration which is no longer needed because you said this...

No it doesn't matter if I agree with it or not. And so I am now mistaken to think that evolution has anything to do with the origin of the universe and the beginning of life.

and so therefore, I am not going to beat a dead horse because then I would be being mean.

So what did he say then.. not that I'm interested in his opinion, he's demonstrated to me his anti-religious agenda.

He answered this in his most recent post and so I am not going to answer this.

How do you know what my interpretation is?

I would not presume to know what your intentions are. That is why I asked you...

And why did you bring the prophets into this. As a student in Old Testament prophets I am really interested in why you think this is relevant.

I didn't say it was right. I don't like the sound of you as a person. I will not be talking to you in future.

I actually cannot get over how offensive this is.

The best theory for the beginning of the universe is the Big Bang, of course, and that was first presented by a Christian scientist, and the scientific community was skeptical at first because it sounded too much like "and God said . . .", so they figured he might be presenting a view based on his religious beliefs. They then came to see that it fit scientifically, even if it also fit religiously.

I am so glad that someone else pointed this out. People don't realize that the Big Bang theory actually scared many atheist scientists because it means that there was a beginning to the universe and if there is a beginning it is not that far to leap to the conclusion that something started it. You don't have to make that leap mind you, but it did sound dangerous to them.

 

[BeforeTheFoundation]

By the way. On a side note @ hiscosmicgoldfish.

In order to a quote push the button that looks like a speech bubble on the top of the little box that you are typing in. That will give you the word QUOTE printed twice with brackets around each of them. Put the text in between the two words so that it looks like this...

TEXT

Then in order to say who it is from put an equals sign after the first word quote INSIDE the brackets and type the persons name. The first quote word should look like this...

Also, all of the words 'quote' will be capitals I left them lower case so the computer didn't think that I actually wanted a quote box there.

 

[pgp_protector]

By the way. On a side note @ hiscosmicgoldfish.

In order to a quote push the button that looks like a speech bubble on the top of the little box that you are typing in. That will give you the word QUOTE printed twice with brackets around each of them. Put the text in between the two words so that it looks like this...

[quote]TEXT[quote]

Then in order to say who it is from put an equals sign after the first word quote INSIDE the brackets and type the persons name. The first quote word should look like this...


[quote=NAME]

Also, all of the words 'quote' will be capitals I left them lower case so the computer didn't think that I actually wanted a quote box there.

Actually you can use [quote]text[/quote] or [Quote]text[/Quote] or

text[ /QUOTE]
But you must close the PHPBB Tags with the "/"

 

[BeforeTheFoundation]

But you must close the PHPBB Tags with the "/"

oops, knew I was forgetting something. Well, if you push the quote box button it will appear as it needs to be.

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

I would like to apologise for any insult taken and hurt feelings. I'll be careful what I say in future. When I said people were being stupid, I was referring to that comment about satan dropping fossils about to confuse christians. I was on this forum 3 years ago and heard the same comment. And Mallon yes I cant spell and I went to a crap school, I think we've established that, lets move on. regarding this.."There was mention of a certain astrologer who wanted to prove that the earth moves and not the sky, the sun, and the moon. This would be as if somebody were riding on a cart or in a ship and imagined that he was standing still while the earth and the trees were moving. [Luther remarked] "So it goes now. Whoever wants to be clever must agree with nothing that others esteem. He must do something of his own. This is what that fellow does who wishes to turn the whole of astronomy upside down. Even in these things that are thrown into disorder I believe the Holy Scriptures, for Joshua commanded the sun to stand still and not the earth [Jos. 10:12]."
Luther was wrong of course, but that's because he interpreted the Bible wrongly. How am I interpreting the Bible wrongly? There really was a book that referred to australopithecines as people, you'll just have to trust that I'm telling the truth, because I can't be bothered searching the internet to try and find it again. The Hobbit was on a TV show over here about it. They interviewed the local people. So what if I accept that there have been hominids in the geological eras? I still have to find out for sure about Turkana Boy. Whether it really did have extra vertebrae. Can we cut a bit of slack here, regarding my crap spelling and school and so forth? We'r supposed to be christians (and I am not saying that any of you are not).
What would you call it? And how does it differ from magic?
I'd call it creation by God. Magic is different from creation. You either beleive God is capable of creating stuff into existance, or you dont'. You know I'm not going to read 'origin of species', that Darwin was an amature by the way.
Do you not detect any anti-religious bias in Dawkin's books? Just out of interest, how do you interpret Genesis? As far as I can see it, you'd have to chuck Genesis out, because Genesis is not about evolution. (I'm not putting words into your mouth, I'm just observing a conclusion). Genesis would be convenient if it were not there. I am a day-age old-earth creationist, and I'm open to evolution, but don't believe that it is caused by mutation. I know it's an old argument, but can you show mutation to generate a new species? other than viruses? I am open to evolution, if it is possible, but I have a strong feeling that it is not so, from the accumulation of books that I've read about it. 9not all creationist) I am open to Rupert Sheldrake's idea about 'morphogenic fields' but that's not acceptable either I suppose. How does a deer in England know to fear African Lions dung, in a line up with wolf dung? When Lions have been extinct in England for 10000 years.. As regarding the conspiracy, I notice this in the media, where religion is compared to the evolutionary theory and then derided. If they didn't keep going on about religion. Evolution is the one thing in science that harms religion, (so does young-earth creationism). It is a challenge to creation.

 

[sfs]

Some of the post'ers before-hand have mentioned that universe and life origins is not part of evolutionary theory. I was thinking that it's probably not evolutionary theory now, because they've given up on it, they know they have lost the argument, so have moved on to other areas where evolutionary theory is stronger, such as human evolution.

I haven't been following this whole thread, so I'll just comment on this one point. The origin of life is not part of evolution because it is a different field of science, done by different people using very different approaches. The origin of life is mostly chemistry, while evolution is part of biology. I study one very particular piece of evolution (the genetics of very recent evolution), but I can recognize and could figure out how to use the techniques used by any evolutionary biologist. On the other hand, I haven't got a clue what origins of life researchers do, and don't understand what they're talking about. It's just a different subject.

On the subject of evolution itself (meaning common descent), I would have to say that it is just about as well supported in biology as the age of the earth is in geology. Really, no genetic comparison between species makes any sense without it.

 

[BeforeTheFoundation]

I haven't been following this whole thread, so I'll just comment on this one point. The origin of life is not part of evolution because it is a different field of science, done by different people using very different approaches. The origin of life is mostly chemistry, while evolution is part of biology.

Yeah, we already covered this.

I would like to apologise for any insult taken and hurt feelings. I'll be careful what I say in future.

Fair enough, it happens when people think that people are ganging up on them.

How am I interpreting the Bible wrongly?
[...]
Just out of interest, how do you interpret Genesis?

Have you ever heard of the Framework Hypothesis? It is rather difficult to explain on a forum and so if you have heard of it I am not going to right it all out. If you haven't heard of it I would be happy to explain it.

Do you not detect any anti-religious bias in Dawkin's books?

Yeah, Dawkins is definitely anti-religious. He is certainly bias. I think that we (as Christians) can and should gain information from people who are not Christians but I can certainly see you point about him. However, I wouldn't use Dawkins as a typical scientist. He pretty much makes his living off of being an atheist not being a scientist. That doesn't mean that he is not intelligent but it certainly puts a spin on things.

Genesis would be convenient if it were not there. I am a day-age old-earth creationist

Again, the Framework Hypothesis is great in this respect. It allows for a solidly biblical interpretation of Genesis with an old earth and evolution.

As regarding the conspiracy, I notice this in the media, where religion is compared to the evolutionary theory and then derided. If they didn't keep going on about religion. Evolution is the one thing in science that harms religion, (so does young-earth creationism). It is a challenge to creation.

I see your point but let me put it from a different view. (and let it be known that I am not talking about you). I have seen a lot of Christians (mainly YECs though not all YECs are like this and some Christians that are not YECs do this as well) who lambaste science for denouncing religion. In that sense, religion does harm to itself and to science because it makes Christians think that they cannot believe in science and it makes scientists think that they cannot believe in God. I don't think either of these phenomena (my example and yours) are actual conspiracies I think it is because people don't understand other people's points of view.

 

[Mallon]

Luther was wrong of course, but that's because he interpreted the Bible wrongly.

How do you know Luther interpreted the Bible wrong? How was Luther to know? This is an important question to ask and has great bearing on your next question "How am I interpreting the Bible wrongly?"

Can we cut a bit of slack here, regarding my crap spelling and school and so forth? We'r supposed to be christians (and I am not saying that any of you are not).

If you feel like you're being slighted, just keep in mind that you're the one who came in here accusing evolutionists of being conspiratory and brainwashed. And if you're going to call people "stupid", then you had better have the brains to support yourself. Because, as I think you're beginning to understand, we're not all as stupid or as brainwashed as you thought.

I'd call it creation by God. Magic is different from creation. You either beleive God is capable of creating stuff into existance, or you dont'.

I call evolution "creation by God" as well. So what's the difference between our positions? I hold that God created the universe by blessing it with the natural ability to bring about complexity and life according to His good will. You seem to think God 'poofed' everything into existence, as-is. Is this not akin to 'magic'? (Call it a miracle, if you will. But really, what's the difference?)

You know I'm not going to read 'origin of species'

Why not? If you're going to insist the theory of evolution is wrong, then you should at least have the gumption to read about its foundation. Do you really think it's fair to call other people -- who have read Darwin's book -- brainwashed, when you yourself haven't even educated yourself on the matter?

that Darwin was an amature by the way.

All establishers of new scientific fields are ("amateurs").

Do you not detect any anti-religious bias in Dawkin's books?

Of course. Dawkins is a self-righteous bigot who abuses evolutionary theory to promote an atheist agenda. But the problem isn't with evolution. It's with Dawkins' atheist agenda.
Hitler appealed to the Christian God in order to support his reign of terror. But that doesn't somehow make Christianity wrong. The situations are exactly analogous.

Just out of interest, how do you interpret Genesis?

I use an accomodationalist approach, similar to the understanding outlined here:
http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/3EvoCr.htm
I think the Framework hypothesis mentioned by BeforeTheFoundation is an excellent working model.

As far as I can see it, you'd have to chuck Genesis out, because Genesis is not about evolution.

So what? I never claimed it to be. Genesis is about monotheism, creation (not Young Earth Creationism), sin, and salvation.

I know it's an old argument, but can you show mutation to generate a new species? other than viruses?

Sure. It happens all the time. Just Google 'speciation'. I'll get you started:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

I am open to evolution, if it is possible, but I have a strong feeling that it is not so, from the accumulation of books that I've read about it.

Now you're open to evolution? Just a few posts ago, you were claiming it was a conspiracy. Why would you be open to a conspiracy? I don't think you're being very consistent. Do you?

Sorry if I come across as short-fused in all this, hiscosmicgoldfish, but these same erroneous characterizations of evolution and evolutionary creationists come up all the time and I'm frustrated by it.

 

[BeforeTheFoundation]

So what? I never claimed it to be. Genesis is about monotheism, creation (not Young Earth Creationism), sin, and salvation.

Thank you so much, Mallon. This gets to the actual point of Genesis 1. Of course the 'overall' message is that God created everything but it actually goes much deeper than that. Gen 1 is about monotheism. It directly contradicts the ideas of the surrounding nations by saying that God created all of the things that the other people worshiped as gods. That is the main point.

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

I've read through some of the article about the evolution-creationist view.
I want to try and get a balanced view so I'm not going to read any more books showing problems wiith evolution. I was just on talk origins and I am going through the various hominids in slow time. I've just noticed OH24 1.85myo and KNM-ER 1470 1.9myo, and even I can see that they are two separate species, but they are both described as Homo Habilus. So these two individuals separate .5 million years are looking the way they are because of .5 million years of evolution? It's going to take me a long while to investigate all this, again. I'll use the talk origins site.