Evolution is a lie because... (Split from "Scientific proof of flood.")

h2whoa · Apr 7, 2005

Randall McNally said:
I can say in no uncertain terms that the girl in BigToe's avatar is in fact BigToe. On a bad day, but hey.

You lie.

h2

JohnR7 · Apr 7, 2005

Irish_Guevara said:
That article clearly defines evolution,

Yes the artical clearly defines evolution. The artical also clearly shows how some a science dictionary gets teh definition wrong.

Evolution - a change in the frequency of alleles from one generation to the next in a population. It's not hard for the average person to understand, but it is hard for you to understand.

The average person does not know what a "alleles" is. If you think that the average person can understand this definition then you need to come down from your ivory tower every now and then and join us in the real world.

h2whoa · Apr 7, 2005

JohnR7 said:
Yes the artical clearly defines evolution. The artical also clearly shows how some a science dictionary gets teh definition wrong.

Perhaps you should lend them your dictionary?

You know the dicitionary that has an entry for the word "artical".

Blinder.

h2

Hydra009 · Apr 7, 2005

JohnR7 said:
Yes the artical clearly defines evolution. The artical also clearly shows how some a science dictionary gets teh definition wrong.

Yeah, the Oxford Concise Science Dictionary has a pretty poor definition of it. A lot of dictionaries have pretty screwed up definitions of evolution.

The average person does not know what a "alleles" is.

If they don't, it's not a hard concept to learn. Ok, let's say you have brown eyes. Your eye color is determined by an allele - a gene that codes for a specific trait.

If you think that the average person can understand this definition then you need to come down from your ivory tower every now and then and join us in the real world.

I think you are underestimating the intelligence of the public. Just because creationists generally do not understand these terms (usually because of a refusal to learn), doesn't mean everyone else can't learn and understand evolution.

Randall McNally · Apr 7, 2005

h2whoa said:
You lie.

Alright, alright. Maybe the photo wasn't taken on a bad day.

Girl_4_God · Apr 7, 2005

Arikay said:
A split from the Scientific proof of flood thread.

What is evolution?
Why is it a lie?
Why has it endured for so many years and helped science if it is a lie?

Here is the first part of my report:

Evolution vs. Creation

Since the publication of Charles Darwins book Origin of Species in 1859, there has been controversy between evolutionists and creationists. The controversy has been characterized as an argument between the bible and science, but the real argument is between science and evolution! Evolution interests everyone because of its impact on spiritual matters.

If evolution were true, the Christian concepts of sin, eternity, the atoning work of Jesus Christ, and all the truth of the bible would be able to be questioned. If man is nothing more than an advanced animal, then he can be congratulated for his great effort and is to be excused when he acts like an animal; but if man is the divinely created being the bible tells us he is, then man is a creature made in the image of God and a sinner in need of divine grace.

After the days of Noah pagan cultures arose with only indistinguishable memories of Gods truth. To satisfy their need to know, men devised myths to clarify how nature operates. No one but God was there at the beginning to survey the origin of the universe and of life! Evolution is a thought that many choose to believe in because they do not want to believe the alternative. The only logical alternative to the evolution of the universe and of man by chance from the forces of nature is the creation of the universe and of man by the direct act of an invincible God. One must logically believe in either evolution or direct creation. There is no third choice.

The Greeks explanation for the origin of life is called spontaneous generation, the faith that living things can arise from nonliving things. One Greek Philosopher taught that living creatures were produced by mud.

Many medieval people looked back to the Greek philosopher Aristotle for their ideas about science. They supposed, for example that the universes revolved around the earth, and they still believe in spontaneous generation. Frogs and fish they said, formed in the sky during storms and rained down upon the earth. Maggots and worms, according to medieval scientists, developed from rotten meat.

All evolutionists must confess that at least the first living things sprang from nonliving substances by spontaneous generation if their conviction is correct. Evolution is not science for the reason that none of its ideas can be observed or tested through experimentation. While the Bible is not a science text when it speaks of scientific matters it speaks beyond doubt and precisely:

1. Earth is a sphere suspended in space. Isa 40:22, Job 26:7

2. The water cycle keeps the land watered. Job 36:27-28; Eccles. 1:7; Amos 5:8

3. The universe is running down. Isa. 51:6; Ps. 102:26

4. Ocean currents flow through the sea. Ps. 8:8

5. Blood sustains life. Lev. 17:11

6. The universe is made of invisible things. Heb 11:3

7. The stars are incredibly distant from the earth and cannot be numbered.

Job 22:12, Gen. 15:5, 22:17, Jer. 33:22

8. The winds form a circulatory system. Eccles 1:6

9. Earth rotates on its axis. Job 38:12,14

10. Mans body composed of the same materials as the earth. Gen. 2:7, 3:19,

Ps. 103:14

I'll be posting more.

Jenny

JohnR7 · Apr 7, 2005

h2whoa said:
Perhaps you should lend them your dictionary?

They would have to learn how to read first. My dictionary would not be of any value to someone that is blind.

JohnR7 · Apr 7, 2005

Irish_Guevara said:
If they don't, it's not a hard concept to learn.

Oh yeah, the guy on the street is going to drop everything he is doing and run right out to learn what evolution is all about? Now I might believe he would check in on one of Dr Dino talks to get a bit of information on it.

I think you are underestimating the intelligence of the public.

Who was it that said that no one ever went broke underestimating the american public?

Asimov · Apr 7, 2005

Girl_4_God said:
Evolution interests everyone because of its impact on spiritual matters.

Or...supposed impact.

If evolution were true, the Christian concepts of sin, eternity, the atoning work of Jesus Christ, and all the truth of the bible would be able to be questioned. If man is nothing more than an advanced animal, then he can be congratulated for his great effort and is to be excused when he acts like an animal; but if man is the divinely created being the bible tells us he is, then man is a creature made in the image of God and a sinner in need of divine grace.

What? See...this is what I don't like. People equating animals with somehow being evil, or bad. Animal behaviour is much more sophisticated than human behaviour. Second, it doesn't make you any less responsible for your actions if you're an animal or not. Second, if you're going to go on about evolution being at odds with spiritual matters, then I guess you should also throw out every other science...such as Germ Theory, which kinda gets in the way of being "possessed" by devils.

Evolution is a thought that many choose to believe in because they do not want to believe the alternative

Fallacy of equivocation, IIRC.

The only logical alternative to the evolution of the universe and of man by chance from the forces of nature is the creation of the universe and of man by the direct act of an invincible God. One must logically believe in either evolution or direct creation. There is no third choice.

False dichotomy.

Many medieval people looked back to the Greek philosopher Aristotle for their ideas about science. They supposed, for example that the universes revolved around the earth, and they still believe in spontaneous generation. Frogs and fish they said, formed in the sky during storms and rained down upon the earth. Maggots and worms, according to medieval scientists, developed from rotten meat.

Yes, and many people using the bible thought that everything revovled around the earth.

All evolutionists must confess that at least the first living things sprang from nonliving substances by spontaneous generation if their conviction is correct. Evolution is not science for the reason that none of its ideas can be observed or tested through experimentation. While the Bible is not a science text when it speaks of scientific matters it speaks beyond doubt and precisely:

Fallacy of equivocation again, IIRC. Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis, which is NOT spontaneous generation.

1. Earth is a sphere suspended in space. Isa 40:22, Job 26:7

Uh...that says a circle, and it says hangeth upon nothing, not suspended in space.

2. The water cycle keeps the land watered. Job 36:27-28; Eccles. 1:7; Amos 5:8

vague interpretations.

3. The universe is running down. Isa. 51:6; Ps. 102:26

Vague interpretations.

4. Ocean currents flow through the sea. Ps. 8:8

Any culture with boats would know about currents.

5. Blood sustains life. Lev. 17:11

What an amazing discovery, if you bleed, you may die....

6. The universe is made of invisible things. Heb 11:3

Out of context, that whole chapter is about faith in God, who cannot be seen.

7. The stars are incredibly distant from the earth and cannot be numbered.

Job 22:12, Gen. 15:5, 22:17, Jer. 33:22

....so?

8. The winds form a circulatory system. Eccles 1:6

Once again, paying attention to the seasons and wind currents is important for agricultural peoples, not an amazing discovery.

9. Earth rotates on its axis. Job 38:12,14

???

10. Mans body composed of the same materials as the earth. Gen. 2:7, 3:19,

Ps. 103:14

Once again, vague interpretations.

I'll be posting more...

You mean copy and pasting?

Edx · Apr 7, 2005

Girl_4_God said:
The controversy has been characterized as an argument between the bible and science, but the real argument is between science and evolution!

No it isnt. Evoution is science. Creationism is denial.

If evolution were true, the Christian concepts of sin, eternity, the atoning work of Jesus Christ, and all the truth of the bible would be able to be questioned.

Depends on your interpretation.

For me the whole idea of Jesus is pointless with or without Genesis being correct, so I dont see why someone elses interpretation that encompasses science is any less valid.

If man is nothing more than an advanced animal, then he can be congratulated for his great effort and is to be excused when he acts like an animal;

Why is it Creationists refuse to think to any degree of depth? Since humans are animals, and since we have evolved a morality that means we are set apart from other animals that dont. Not all animals act the same. Insects have no moral compass, but dogs for a start do, which is why we have stories of dogs that so love their owners that save them from burning buildings and morn when a loved one dies.

but if man is the divinely created being the bible tells us he is, then man is a creature made in the image of God and a sinner in need of divine grace.

Which makes no sence whatsoever.

After the days of Noah pagan cultures arose with only indistinguishable memories of Gods truth

Sorry, how did you establish there was a flood or a Noah?

. To satisfy their need to know, men devised myths to clarify how nature operates.

You got that right.

No one but God was there at the beginning to survey the origin of the universe and of life!

And neither were those that wrote the Bible, obviously. Its faith that you choose to believe it is an accurate account. The difference is real science tries to find out what actually happend by following the evidence not by desperatly tying to make the evidence fit their beliefs.

Evolution is a thought that many choose to believe in because they do not want to believe the alternative. The only logical alternative to the evolution of the universe and of man by chance from the forces of nature is the creation of the universe and of man by the direct act of an invincible God.

Why is it Creationists refuse to think to any degree of depth? There are many ways the universe could have formed, but there are only a few probable ways. And Genesis is part of the impossible, since only total cosmic deception would mean it could be accurate.

And evolution is biological, not cosmological. If any scienitist uses the word to talk about anything other than biology he is talking simply about "change" not that its the same theory or works in the same way,

One must logically believe in either evolution or direct creation. There is no third choice.

and you dont think this is close-minded?

The Greeks explanation for the origin of life is called spontaneous generation, the faith that living things can arise from nonliving things.

I havent heard that before, so it would be interesting to see a source for that.

.

One Greek Philosopher taught that living creatures were produced by mud.

And Genesis says humans were created from dirt.

Many medieval people looked back to the Greek philosopher Aristotle for their ideas about science.

Wait... they looked to a "philosopher" for ideas about "science". ok...

-snip-

All evolutionists must confess that at least the first living things sprang from nonliving substances by spontaneous generation if their conviction is correct.

Spontaneous generation was disproved over a hundred years ago, and has nothing to do with the abiogenesis.

Evolution is not science for the reason that none of its ideas can be observed or tested through experimentation.

Yes it can. I know that if I were to ask you what you think evolution is it would show you dont understand what it actually is..

While the Bible is not a science text when it speaks of scientific matters it speaks beyond doubt and precisely:

So what? It doesnt mean its supported by the evidence, thats the only thing that matters not how certian someone speaks or writes.

<snip quotes>

I could also find references that show that they thought the earth was a flat circle suspended in the sky, with a firmament with water above it which has windows and that stars can fall to the ground and be stapped on. You'll say its poetry, but your examples are no different but somehow you think they knew better than others around that time. You can read anything into their primitive comments now we have science to show us how things reall work, but that doesnt mean thats what they meant. And Ive seen others with quotes that show the Bible talks of evolution. .

Ed

Arikay · Apr 7, 2005

A critique reply to your report part 1,

"Evolution vs. Creation "

Yes, already I have a problem. Technically it should be evolution vs creationism. The difference between creation and creationism is that creation is the belief that God created. Creationist is a theory trying to explain how God created (as is evolution). It is possible to believe that God created through evolution (more explained later, although I should point out we have plenty of christian evolutionists on this forum) and thus it isn't Evolution vs Creation but Evolution vs Creationism.

"there has been controversy between evolutionists and creationists."

It may be of interest to point out that the creationists in Darwins day were slightly different than those today. Young earth creationism was on it's way out when Darwin published origins. Christian geologists had found evidence that a global flood didn't occur and that the age of the earth was more so than 6000 years. A belief in a young earth was renewed in the 1950's-60's mainly by Henry Morris.

"If evolution were true, the Christian concepts of sin, eternity, the atoning work of Jesus Christ, and all the truth of the bible would be able to be questioned. If man is nothing more than an advanced animal, then he can be congratulated for his great effort and is to be excused when he acts like an animal; but if man is the divinely created being the bible tells us he is, then man is a creature made in the image of God and a sinner in need of divine grace."

This is incorrect. Evolution doesn't hurt the christian concepts of sin, eternity, or Jesus.
Do you believe God is a 5ft-6ft two legged ape like creature? Isn't it possible that God's "Image" is relating to a spiritual soul that he gave humans? God strikes me as someone who is more interested in the spiritual than the physical. If his image was a soul then we are more than advanced animals who have a spiritual image to live up too. That includes sin and the need for divine grace, since after all, Jesus doesn't save our body, he saves our soul.

"No one but God was there at the beginning to survey the origin of the universe and of life!"

Very true, but that doesn't mean as his creation aged it didn't leave signs behind of it's age and how it formed. We can study this evidence to build a picture of what happened in the past. In a similar way that a forensic scientist can figure out a crime with no witnesses.

"Evolution is a thought that many choose to believe in because they do not want to believe the alternative."

Incorrect. One of the most important things to remember is that evolution does not equal atheism. Many christians, and other faiths accept evolution and their belief at the same time. There are quite a few christians on this very forum you could talk to that could explain (Gluadys, Grmorton, Bushido, seebs, just to name a small few). Unfortunately there are many creationist groups that are quite happy misinforming people and telling them that they either must be a christian or an evolutionists. It may surprise you to know that even Darwin was a christians (at least when he wrote origins, he later became agnostic over generally unrelated reasons).

"One must logically believe in either evolution or direct creation. There is no third choice."

But remember, you can be a christian no matter which you choose.

"All evolutionists must confess that at least the first living things sprang from nonliving substances by spontaneous generation if their conviction is correct. "

Incorrect. Spontaneous generation is an outdated theory falsified by Pasteur (where pasteurization comes from). The current theory of abiogenesis (life from non life) is complicated and not complete yet, but it is not spontaneous generation. Modern abiogenesis says that chemicals can form the very basics of life. Extremely simple (compared to life today) self replicating chemicals. There are multiple hypothesis of how this occurs and some of had some success. The famous Miller Urey experiment is a good place to start, but it has grown so much from there.

Evolutionists also don't need to accept abiogenesis. Evolution assume life exists, how it got here isn't its problem. For all the theory of evolution cares, a magical flying unicorn could have sneezed and distributed life on earth.
Think of it like a car. When you learn how to drive a car you assume that a car exists. You don't need to know how a car is built or how it got in the driveway to learn how to drive it. Just with evolution, abiogenesis is a separate theory (so are the formation of planets and stars, the big bang and first cause).
Remember that evolution doesn't say God doesn't exist, so an evolutionist does not need to explain the creation of all the universe to accept evolution.

"Evolution is not science for the reason that none of its ideas can be observed or tested through experimentation."

Sure it's science. We can observe mutations, natural selection, speciation etc. The history of the diversity of life can be seen in the ground, just like other historical science (including forensics) the "experiment" has already been done, and it's the scientists job to find and piece together the pieces.

Conclusion thus far.

Good writing, well done, just bad/incorrect information, which isn't your fault but your sources.

Edx · Apr 7, 2005

Arikay, you are so polite.

Ed

Arikay · Apr 8, 2005

As the belief that evolution is atheism is often a huge stumbling block for creationists I thought I would expand on it even more. Some creationist groups base entire arguments around this false premiss. So here are some sources other than myself that provide evidence that you can be a christian and accept evolution.

First from Talk Origins,

"Q5. Does evolution deny the existence of God?

No. See question 1. There is no reason to believe that God was not a guiding force behind evolution. While it does contradict some specific interpretations of God, especially ones requiring a literal interpretation of Genesis 1, few people have this narrow of a view of God.

There are many people who believe in the existence of God and in evolution. Common descent then describes the process used by God. Until the discovery of a test to separate chance and God this interpretation is a valid one within evolution.

Q8. By denying creation, aren't you denying God's power to create?

No. Because God did not create the world in seven days does not mean that he couldn't. What did, or did not, happen is not an indication of what could, or could not, have happened. All evidence suggests that evolution is the way things happened. Regardless of what could have happened, the evidence would still point to evolution."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html

From Darwin,

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." C. Darwin, On the Origin of Species, pg 450.

Thanks to Lucaspa for the quote. A biologist, christian and evolutionist, who used to be a regular on the forum.

From G.R. Morton,

""Let the earth bring forth grass and herb yielding seed."
Where is God in that phrase? Who or what is bringing forth? A simple grammar teacher would tell you that the earth is the subject of that sentence and is the thing doing the action--which is, bringing forth.!!!! God didn't bring forth, the earth DID, but, anti-evolutionists never pay attention to that subtlety. Did the earth do it at God's command? Of course, but that doesn't mean God created the grass directly. He used the earth just like he uses us to spread the gospel. Both might be inefficient, but God seems to indicate that He isn't that interested in efficiency as we would judge it.

Now, look at the next verse. Genesis 1:12 It tells us what happened after God's command. What was it? Amazingly, God doesn't appear in this sentence either. Here it is: "And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself"

The Bible clearly says that the EARTH brought forth grass. It DOESN'T say, "God brought forth grass". The Bible is telling us that the earth was an active participant in creating the life forms. Yes, it was at Gods command, but then so are the laws of gravity which govern the motion of the planets."
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/plainreading.htm

Glenn Morton is a scientist and former Young Earth creationist who has since become an evolutionist while staying christian. Recently he has been on this forum and I'm sure you could ask him questions about his faith.

Another great recommended read (among many) by Glenn can be found here.
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/mortonsdemon.htm

From NCSE,

"WHAT IS NCSE'S RELIGIOUS POSITION?

NONE! The National Center for Science Education is not affiliated with any religious organization or belief. We and our members enthusiastically support the right of every individual to hold, practice, and advocate their beliefs, religious or non-religious. Our members range from devout practitioners of several religions, to atheists, with many shades of belief in between. What unites them is a conviction that science and the scientific method, and not any particular religious belief, should determine science curriculum.
http://www.ncseweb.org/more_about_ncse.asp

This is just a small handful of statements by christians who accept science and evolution. Furthermore there is nothing in the theory of evolution that says God doesn't exist or didn't create. Unfortunately some creationist groups have decided that they would create their own, false, definitions of evolution and then claim that is what evolutionists believe. For example, the claim that the theory of evolution says the universe was created from nothing that exploded, is a creationist fabrication.

Other creationists have decided that their personal interpretations of the bible are correct or christianity is false, putting their fallible interpretation ahead of God's creation. Not only is it poor theology but it is not science. Here we can see AiG requires all it's members to agree that they are right no matter what the evidence says,

"6. By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp

Thus according to AiG their interpretation of the scriptural record is not wrong no matter what evidence is found. Of course, if God created the earth, then the evidence found in it should be included in our understanding of the bible (just like different books and verses help us to understand previous books and verses), it is just written in a different language.

"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault" ( Christian Observer [1832], p. 437; quoted by Stephen Neill, Anglicanism [Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1960], p. 240)"
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/2245_review_of_michael_denton39s_6_1_1987.asp

Girl_4_God · Apr 8, 2005

Arikay said:
Sure it's science. We can observe mutations, natural selection, speciation etc. The history of the diversity of life can be seen in the ground, just like other historical science (including forensics) the "experiment" has already been done, and it's the scientists job to find and piece together the pieces.

Have you ever seen a cow give birth to a robin?

Conclusion thus far.

Good writing, well done

Thank you.

Jenny

Arikay · Apr 8, 2005

Nope, and if I did it would be one of the largest pieces of evidence against evolution ever found. Evolution doesn't happen that way, and if that is how it was explained to you then you need to find a different source for scientific information.

The big question is whether you will continue believing the same things even after being shown they are wrong.

Girl_4_God said:
Have you ever seen a cow give birth to a robin?

Thank you.

Jenny

Girl_4_God · Apr 8, 2005

Arikay said:
Q8. By denying creation, aren't you denying God's power to create?

No. Because God did not create the world in seven days does not mean that he couldn't. What did, or did not, happen is not an indication of what could, or could not, have happened. All evidence suggests that evolution is the way things happened. Regardless of what could have happened, the evidence would still point to evolution."

Why is it soo hard for you to even consider that God can do amazing things?

Jenny

Arikay · Apr 8, 2005

Where do you get that idea?

The quote says that God can do anything he wants, but the evidence says that he used evolution to create the diversity of life.
Just like God could have created the earth as the center of the universe and not part of a solar system that is part of a gallaxy, but the evidence says he didn't.

Girl_4_God said:
Why is it soo hard for you to even consider that God can do amazing things?

Jenny

Randall McNally · Apr 8, 2005

Girl_4_God said:
Have you ever seen a cow give birth to a robin?

The good news is you're young enough that such colossal misrepresentations of evolution don't have to take permanent hold in your brain.

But you must quit Hovind cold turkey. And get some professional help - in the form of popular books written by actual evolutionary scientists like Dawkins, Eldridge and Diamond.

It's not too late.

armed2010 · Apr 8, 2005

Girl_4_God said:
Have you ever seen a cow give birth to a robin?

We should make some sort of ticker that counts the number of evolution strawmen that are said on this board.

Girl_4_God · Apr 8, 2005

Asimov said:
You mean copy and pasting?

I wrote that I did not copy it from anyone! And i'm working on more.

Jenny

Evolution is a lie because... (Split from "Scientific proof of flood.")

Ace2whoa - resident geneticist

Well-Known Member

Ace2whoa - resident geneticist

bel esprit

Secrecy and accountability cannot coexist.

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Objectivist

Senior Veteran

HI

Senior Veteran

HI

Active Member

HI

Active Member

HI

Secrecy and accountability cannot coexist.

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency