Evolution is an elaborate fairy tale

J

Jet Black

Guest
bevets said:
I agree that the article (specifically the phrase I have italicized) is poorly worded and misleading. It is apparent that the writer did not receive the account first hand. I am SHOCKED that an evolution web site would misrepresent a creationist.
touche
Either[sic] do I. Meet Kurt Wise.
okay, if he did all that when he was 8, could you back that up?
 
Upvote 0

Pete Harcoff

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce
Jun 30, 2002
8,304
71
✟9,874.00
Faith
Other Religion
bevets said:
I assume you were citing this reference to a private email:

I count 4 sentences that have been quoted without possibility of verifying context. If you could cite a published account where Dr Wise has confessed that scientific evidence dictates an old earth, please do so. Here is the only published account I was able to find that relates to this question:

<snip>

Rather than going around hunting for quotes, why not just find out what he believes directly? Here's a page with his email address on it: http://www.bryan.edu/academics/faculty/wise.shtml
 
Upvote 0

Pete Harcoff

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce
Jun 30, 2002
8,304
71
✟9,874.00
Faith
Other Religion
bevets said:
I was his student.

That tells me nothing. Is what you are trying to tell me that Dr. Wise believes the geological evidence points to a young Earth? That that email quoted by the other poster was incorrect?

Rather than dance with you around this issue, I'm going to email him myself to see what he says.
 
Upvote 0
I'm glad that someone will listen to reason and finally realize that creationism, despite its claims is false because it can't produce evidence. When the EAC told me that creationism was on the down slide I couldn't believe it but now I realize that they are 100% correct.







Just wondering:
Assumptions:
1) Let's assume that there is in fact an EAC out to make christians atheists.

2) Let's assume evolution is a fairy tale. (Despite the evidence that points to
similarities between species and the fact that we can observe the
genetic changes over time...)
3) Let's also assume that there is in fact a large number of christians that
have been stripped of there belief. (Though I think you may have read a
few too many Chick Tracts...)
4)...n) Therefore Creationism is true.
I am confused on the steps 4)...n), What are they? And as a side note it would appear that you are making a fallacy of breaking this in to an either-or argument, but it isn't. (!(evolution) != Creationism) The problem is that in addition to evolution there are numerous types of creation myths, as well you have the problem of the two co-existing. However I await steps 4)...n).







I find it ironic that you use the fallacy of ad hominem in order to make an ad hominem attack, but I'm just some crazy weirdo... I, oddly enough, agree with you that Science can never actually reach a conclusion, but I must clarify that in this position I think that science can give the most probable soluion, just because you can't be 100% sure doesn't mean you are wrong. Again we come to the innerrancy of the bible, and I present a reductio:
Assumptions:
1) Humans have free will concerning their actions, and thus are able to
disobey God, and thus sin.
2) The Bible is divinely inspired, but is written by humans.
3) The bible is inerrant
Facts:
3) Humans have a tendency to make errors.
4) Free will is the ability to make choices.
5) God gave people the ability to ignore/misrepresent him.
Conclusion:
6) Either a) God gives us free will which allows for the possibility of human
error in the Bible.
b) God doesn't give us free will, which is against the idea of sin
c) God gives us partial free will, this brings me to ask, Wouldn't the
people God inspired be removed of the will to choose him, and
thus wouldn't their deeds and faith be minimized?
Therefore either the Bible isn't inerrant, God doesn't give man free will, or God plays favorites and all but guarantees some access to heaven. (The easiest way out is to accept the third one, but I think this makes God unjust...)

QED


PS Please forgive the manner in which I have quoted you, however CF is acting a bit odd... and thus I have put in TO standard
 
Upvote 0

bevets

Active Member
Aug 22, 2003
378
11
Visit site
✟581.00
Faith
Christian
All we can say about such beliefs is, firstly, that they are superfluous and, secondly, that they assume the existence of the main thing we want to explain, namely, organized complexity. ~ Richard Dawkins
Jet Black said:
I fail to see how he effectively uses evolution to explain away God.
superfluous

adj 1: serving no useful purpose; having no excuse for being

If a Creator is 'superfluous', what does this indicate about his existence?

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. ~ Richard Lewontin
Jet Black said:
again, this does not detract at all from a creator. It simply says "there isn't a God of the gaps"
Where did you read the phrase 'God of the Gaps'? What did your 'Creator' create?

What theistic evolutionists have failed above all to comprehend is that the conflict is not over “facts” but over ways of thinking... The specific answers they derive may or may not be reconcilable with theism, but the manner of thinking is profoundly atheistic.
Jet Black said:
no, the manner of thinking is agnostic at the most. you are trying to separate God and nature, and say that "nature = without God"
Would you say that the concept of 'nature = without Creator' is more consistent with theism or atheism?

bevets said:
Blood spatter experts invoke the scientific method by causing blood spatter and then observing the effects. These observations are then compared with blood spatters that the expert did not personally witness. Please explain how this is connected to evolution.
Jet Black said:
retroviral insertions would be a splendid example of this.
Please explain.

Jet Black said:
mind you, I had a funny feeling you would do this with the analogy anyway, so it doesn't really matter.
If we were discussing the sum of '2+2' would you have a 'funny feeling' I might say '4'? What is the relevance of your 'funny feeling'? Why doesnt it 'really matter'?

bevets said:
Please elaborate how 'the universe is closer to a literal, unblemished word of God' than the Bible aka The Word of God.
Jet Black said:
because God created it didn't he? notice how God "spoke" and the universe came into being... in a sense, the universe is the word of God. furthermore no-one has had the ability to get their sticky fingers on it and change bits.
Please explian what you mean by 'no-one has had the ability to get their sticky fingers on it and change bits'

Please explain why your interpretation is better than mine.
Jet Black said:
This is completely irrelevant to the point I made, so I'm not going to go off topic with it. Good interpretation of the bible will lead to God.. is this correct?
If the Bible contains a Creation account directly from the Creator, do you suppose that it would become relevant in a discussion about origins?
 
Upvote 0

Pete Harcoff

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce
Jun 30, 2002
8,304
71
✟9,874.00
Faith
Other Religion
bevets said:
superfluous

adj 1: serving no useful purpose; having no excuse for being

If a Creator is 'superfluous', what does this indicate about his existenc

*sigh*

bevets, in context it is clear that Dawkins is referring to the notion of God, precisely mimicking the results of natural selection, as superfulous as an explanation for the complexity of biological life with respect to evolutionary theory. Basically, he is saying that if you are going to invoke God as an explanation for complexity, it begs the question of the complexity of God Himself. You might as well just invoke complexity of life as being a solution unto itself.

Furthermore, he admits that the notion of God using evolution to shape biological life can't be disproven in the first place. Therefore, evolution can't disprove God.
 
Upvote 0

revolutio

Apatheist Extraordinaire
Aug 3, 2003
5,910
144
R'lyeh
Visit site
✟6,762.00
Faith
Atheist
Jet Black said:
I wonder if it is an advantage in cats, or whether this was just something that was present in the original felis domestica stock then....
It happens predominantly in inbred cats so it is a mutation. However I really wouldn't know how to look at that from an evolutionary point of view as to why a particular mutation is more common.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

bevets

Active Member
Aug 22, 2003
378
11
Visit site
✟581.00
Faith
Christian
bevets said:
Dr. Wise has expressed allegiance to scripture, and is confident that scienece will confirm Christian doctrine.
Bushido216 said:
And yet, you claim that we believe in Evolution despite all the evidence against it, and that that is wrong.
The crux of the issue is 'What is your final source of authority?'

For Dr Wise, the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. If the Bible makes a claim that is disputed by science, the bible wins -- no contest -- you do not 2nd guess God. You may not understand how the claims of the Bible can be resolved with scientific theories, but scientific theories come and go. Answers that dont seem obvious in one era become obvious with new discoveries.

Atheists will insist that this is bias and it is. What they will not tell you is that they are every bit as biased. By definition, no atheist can accept a theory that involves God. An atheist is not searching for the best possible theory. They are searcing for the best possible theory that does not involve God.

For the 'theistic evolutionist', if there is a conflict between scientific theory and the Bible, Science wins. They are not concerned with the best intrepretation of scripture -- they are concerned with the best interpretation that fits scientific theory. Its not that they disrespect scripture -- its that they are absolutely convinced by the 'scientific evidence'

No one seems bothered by the possibility that origins may be beyond the grasp of man's intellectual inquiry. Sometimes evolutionists concede that evolution may not be true, but its the best theory we have. Suppose someone tells you they have the best theory for the color of '4' -- They have 346 reasons for why '4 is blue' How do you respond? You could respond with 83 reasons why '4 is not blue' or you could come up with 72 reasons why '4 is red' OR you could say this is an absurd exercise -- no one can give definite proof for the color of '4'.

Science has provided many answers and benefits. I fully support mankinds investigation into the handiwork of God. We should also remember that science will never know the mind of God, but God can make his mind known to man. We sense God through nature, but we know God through his Word.
 
Upvote 0

Philosoft

Orthogonal, Tangential, Tenuously Related
Dec 26, 2002
5,427
188
50
Southeast of Disorder
Visit site
✟6,503.00
Faith
Atheist
If we allow that God can do things (like create a young earth that appears old), then science becomes fundamentally useless. You can call it whatever bias you like, but once we start assuming that immaterial beings are doing unobservable things in unfathomable ways, our ability to presume any naturalistic cause and effect is lost. And that includes the confidence one might have in reading Scripture.

Consider evolution - sure, it's possible to speculate that God created Archaeopteryx fully-formed. Then what? We have no experience with divinely created things, no mechanism to uncover, no motivation to seek, no way to understand anything beyond, "God did it at some time, by some means, for some reason." And that's being charitable. We can't even rule out the possiblity that God simply planted fossils of organisms that never even lived.

Your notion that mankind can investigate the "handiwork of God" is a big fat question-begging presumption. It's that simple.
 
Upvote 0

bevets

Active Member
Aug 22, 2003
378
11
Visit site
✟581.00
Faith
Christian
greatcogitator said:
1) Humans have free will concerning their actions, and thus are able to
disobey God, and thus sin.
2) The Bible is divinely inspired, but is written by humans.
3) The bible is inerrant
Facts:
3) Humans have a tendency to make errors.
4) Free will is the ability to make choices.
5) God gave people the ability to ignore/misrepresent him.
Conclusion:
6) Either a) God gives us free will which allows for the possibility of human
error in the Bible.
b) God doesn't give us free will, which is against the idea of sin
c) God gives us partial free will, this brings me to ask, Wouldn't the
people God inspired be removed of the will to choose him, and
thus wouldn't their deeds and faith be minimized?
Therefore either the Bible isn't inerrant, God doesn't give man free will, or God plays favorites and all but guarantees some access to heaven. (The easiest way out is to accept the third one, but I think this makes God unjust...)

Freedom can not be absolute. e.g. You may freely choose your actions, but you can not freely choose your consequences. No one can freely choose to be a butterfly.

The ability to fail does not imply the necessity to fail.

God is omniscient -- He is able to conceive of a method to communicate meaningfully.
God is omnipotent -- He is able to implement this method
God is benevolent -- He did implement this method.

Deuteronomy 18.18 I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers; I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him.

2 Samuel 23.2 The Spirit of the LORD spoke through me; his word was on my tongue.

Galatians 1.11 I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

2 Timothy 3.16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.

2 Peter 1.20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
 
Upvote 0

Cantuar

Forever England
Jul 15, 2002
1,085
4
69
Visit site
✟8,889.00
Faith
Agnostic
superfluous

adj 1: serving no useful purpose; having no excuse for being

If a Creator is 'superfluous', what does this indicate about his existence?

The direct actions of a Creator are superfluous to explain the transmission of infectious microorganisms from person to person during epidemics, since there are well-known mechanisms that can be explained entirely on the basis of naturally occurring events. Does the germ theory of disease therefore imply atheism, and is it therefore a false theory?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Pete Harcoff

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce
Jun 30, 2002
8,304
71
✟9,874.00
Faith
Other Religion
bevets said:
You may not understand how the claims of the Bible can be resolved with scientific theories, but scientific theories come and go. Answers that dont seem obvious in one era become obvious with new discoveries.

The irony is that this exact line of reasoning applies to creationism. Creationism (in various forms) existed long before evolution or the idea of an old Earth. Yet, creationism has come and gone as science, because the physical evidence in the Earth falsified it.

The same thing already happened with geocentrism and flat-Earthism. These ideas were shown to be wrong and they have long since been discarded.

Problem is, if you tie Christianity in with creationism, then you risk Christianity being discarded along with creationism. I've seen more than a few creationists say they would give up Christianity if they had to reject creationist ideas. It's rather frightening the bind their beliefs have got them in.
 
Upvote 0
J

Jet Black

Guest
bevets said:
Would you say that the concept of 'nature = without Creator' is more consistent with theism or atheism?
but no-one can make the statement nature = without creator without being unscientific. the truth of the matter is that science cannot tell you. Even if we came up with an all excompassing explanation for every single physical phenomenon, including the big bang et al, there could still be a creator underneath all that sustaining it.
Please explain.
Well there are many things that we actually see... morphological changes as a direct result of varying phenotypes. we know the alterations in the genotypes which cause the changes in these phenotypes. We also see viruses integrating their code into the genetic code of other organisms using reverse transcriptase. we see lumps of genetic material copying themselves around the genetic code (transposons, a kind of internal virus) This is the equivalent of the detective practising spattering blood to see the effects. Then we look at the organisms for all of these things, and knowing how they work already we see what they tell us about the organisms.
If the Bible contains a Creation account directly from the Creator, do you suppose that it would become relevant in a discussion about origins?
which creation account are we talking about here, I want to know if we are discussing Genesis 1 or 2.

(sorry I am cutting parts of the conversation out, I have got rather fed up of shredded conversations recently)
 
Upvote 0
bevets said:
Freedom can not be absolute. e.g. You may freely choose your actions, but you can not freely choose your consequences. No one can freely choose to be a butterfly.
So then you suggest that we do not have the free will over what we write, this still fails the free will method. In order for a person to have free will they have to be able to choose. Any of the prophets could just as easily chosen simply to disregard God then. That or you are admitting that God played favorites.
[QUOTE = bevets]

The ability to fail does not imply the necessity to fail.
[/QUOTE]True, but the ability to fail puts doubt in the inerrancy of a source, which was what I was proving. It doesn't have to fail, but it might have and thus we must look over it entirely and prove it verse by verse. In fact errors in translations have occurred, I am reminded of the "Thou shalt..." in the ten commandments.
bevets said:
God is omniscient -- He is able to conceive of a method to communicate meaningfully.
God is omnipotent -- He is able to implement this method
God is benevolent -- He did implement this method.

Deuteronomy 18.18 I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers; I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him.

2 Samuel 23.2 The Spirit of the LORD spoke through me; his word was on my tongue.

Galatians 1.11 I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

2 Timothy 3.16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.

2 Peter 1.20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
Then you freely admit that God takes away our free will and thus we can not sin because we can not choose to disobey God. Also you are admitting that God, which will judge us in the end plays favorites and chooses prophets, I don't know about you but I don't exactly agree with my deity both judging me and playing favorites and disregarding me in that game, don't you have problems with that? Even if the people were good all their lives God is taking away their ability to disbelieve.
 
Upvote 0

lucaspa

Legend
Oct 22, 2002
14,569
416
New York
✟32,309.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
bevets said:
The crux of the issue is 'What is your final source of authority?'

For Dr Wise, the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. If the Bible makes a claim that is disputed by science, the bible wins -- no contest -- you do not 2nd guess God.
Correction. Dr. Wise has as his authority himself. That is, his interpretation of the Bible. When there is a claim in his interpretation disputed by science, then Dr. Wise wins and you don't second-guess Dr. Wise.

Christianity has long felt differntly and disagrees with Dr. Wise:

"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, pg. 437

Dr. Wise's interpretation of the Bible can't be at fault. IOW, Dr. Wise can't be at fault. Sorry, Christians are supposed to worship God, not themselves.

You may not understand how the claims of the Bible can be resolved with scientific theories, but scientific theories come and go. Answers that dont seem obvious in one era become obvious with new discoveries.
However, theories that are falsified don't change. They remain falsified. Special creation and creationism are two scientific theories that have been falsified. That will never change. However God created, it was not by YEC.


For the 'theistic evolutionist', if there is a conflict between scientific theory and the Bible, Science wins. They are not concerned with the best intrepretation of scripture -- they are concerned with the best interpretation that fits scientific theory. Its not that they disrespect scripture -- its that they are absolutely convinced by the 'scientific evidence'
Not quite. The theistic evolutionist realizes that God really did create. That means that Creation has all the evidence of how God created. Creation is therefore a second book of God. Written directly by God without having to go thru humans and their limitations. So, if what we find by studying Creation (science) shows that a particular interpretation of scripture is wrong, then that interpretation is wrong. God can't contradict God. But God can contradict our interpretation of scripture.


No one seems bothered by the possibility that origins may be beyond the grasp of man's intellectual inquiry.
Oh, yes, we are all bothered by it. However, until we demonstrate that origins are beyond the limits of our intellectual inquiry, we keep looking. It turns out that the scientific theory of YEC is not beyond our grasp. We were able to show it to be wrong.


We should also remember that science will never know the mind of God, but God can make his mind known to man.
Whynot? Why can't science give us glimpses of the mind of God?

We sense God through nature, but we know God through his Word.
The problem is that creationists want to know that God exists thru nature. You just told us that creationism is a futile exercise. Thank you.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Mike Flynn

Well-Known Member
Sep 19, 2003
1,728
35
✟2,069.00
Faith
Christian
bevets said:
Deuteronomy 18.18 I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers; I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him.

2 Samuel 23.2 The Spirit of the LORD spoke through me; his word was on my tongue.

Galatians 1.11 I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

2 Timothy 3.16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.

2 Peter 1.20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
Are these scriptures supposed to justify a literal interpretation of scripture? All they really say is that the phrophets and the writers communicate God's word as it has been revealed to them by God. If God chose to communicate using metaphorical imagery to phrophets and writers, then these scriptures say nothing to invalidate this position.

Jesus Himself shows us that God is not above the use of metaphor. By adhering to a literal interpretation of scriptures its *possible* that some Christians have been interpreting the text incorrectly by mistaking metaphorical imagery communicated by God for historical events. Isn't this at least possible?
 
Upvote 0