Evolution Is Not Atheism

[chickenman]

Thankyou. That is precisely why I reject man's speculative attempts to explain Creation and accept the truth of the Creator.

thats probably why most christians reject your attempts to interpret scripture correctly

 

[lucaspa]

Yesterday at 09:37 PM Praxiteles said this in Post #7

On a serious note, I don't think that I'd be too far off the mark in saying that scientific findings have made it easier to be an atheist.

Lacking a belief in the supernatural is one thing, but I'm the sort of person that likes to have explanations for things. I don't know whether I'd be an atheist or not in the absence of modern science - possibly I would be - but I would have a hard time explaining my own existence without it.

You do accept one creation story: mainstream science!   You just believe there is no deity and that the natural processes all work on their own.

Your post illustrates what I said to Pete about discussing the relationship of evolution to atheism.

Before Darwin, there was no answer to the Argument from Design. Since biological organisms obviously have designs, and the only known (at that time) way to get design was manufacture by an intelligent entity, then the inference was that biological organisms were made by an intelligent entity. Since human intelligence wasn't up to the job, it had to be supernatural intelligence -- God.

The Argument from Design was proof of God.  To be an atheist before 1859 was not only to believe without reason or evidence, it was to believe in the face of contradictory reason and evidence.  Atheism was obviously a faith, and an irrational one at that.

Darwin's discovery of natural selection changed all that.  While Darwin thought (legitimately) that natural selection can be viewed as the method by which a Creator works, atheists could now believe that natural selection (like all natural processes) did not require a deity. For the first time, an atheist could be intellectually fulfilled (to use Dawkins' phrase).  For the first time, it was reasonable to be an atheist.  Evolution didn't "prove" atheism, but it made it possible.

 

[JohnR7]

Yesterday at 09:56 PM Praxiteles said this in Post #12 Scientific enquiry had its beginnings in Classical and Hellenistic Greece, after the OT was written, and of course modern science wasn't developed until after the Renaissance.

What is it that you mean?

Science had it's beginings with the Greeks? Your kidding me right? Science even goes back further than Egypt to Babylon and even further back than that to Mesopotamia. It began in the furtile cresent in the cradle of civilization. They had some very nice and furtile land there, but it seems the area kept having floods that would wipe out whole groups of people. That is just the way it is, flood plans make very nice farm land, but they keep flooding. This is a problem today along the Mississippi river. Great farm land, but it tends to flood. The flooding leaves sediment and that is what makes the soil so rich.

One man Noah had a rather ingenious idea, he built a big boat and survived the floods that way. The people laughed at him the whole time he was building it. But when it began to rain and the flood began, they were not laughing anymore. Finally later on some men came along with: science and figured out a way to control the flooding and they then lived rather productive lives and civilization had it's beginning. Then in Egypt, they had some very furtile land at the delta of the nile river, but that was rather limited. When they began to figure out a way to irrigate the land, then they could produce more food. Also it took science to be able to build the prymids that they had there.

I'm unsure of what you mean when you say that they had a 'showdown with established science'.

Back in the beginning, people wanted to appoint leaders. So they usually would appoint a king who was a good warrior and rather big in size. So he could lead the nation in battle. All of the measurements in a kingdom was based on the king. A span was about 18 inches or the distance from the tip of his fingers to his elbow. A foot was the size of the kings foot. So everyone in the kingdom would know how big the king was. That is normal size for us today. But back then it would be considered big, sense most people were smaller than that.

The king then would surround himself with the most learned men as advisors. It was a very nice job to have so there was a lot of competition. You had to prove yourself to be better than all of the other people who wanted to be an advisor to the king.

In Egypt they actually had a Pharaoh. Moses was raised as a prince or a son of the pharaoh at that time. So he had the best education available. Moses was trained under Egyptian schools then when he was 40 he went to live with the Medians and learned theology from them. He even married the daugher of Jethro a Median priest, who would from time to time come along and advise him. Usually what happened was that Moses would get tired of his wife and send her home to daddy, and her daddy would bring her back and get it all straightened out between them.

When Moses was 80 years he wanted to advise the pharaoh of Egypt. Actually someone who would be kinda like a brother to him, but there were a lot of princes. So Moses had to prove himself and the contest was on. The first thing Moses did was throw his staff down on the ground and it turned into a snake. He picked the snake up by the tail and it turned back into a staff again. So Pharaoh called all his wise men, sorcerers and magicians, and they could do the same thing Moses did. But then the staff of Moses swollowed up theirs, so Moses was the winner. That was just the beginning, he did other things also, like he turned the Nile river red, and things like that.

Another time there was a contest was with Daniel in Babylon. He was the top advisor for the King of Babylonians and that was a position that he had to win the competition to get. In the case of Esther, she was a queen and she had to compete with other women to become the queen to the king. She had a good advisor thought who knew just what the king liked.

Then another show down was a prophet Elijah who had a contest with the priests of baal. But that was more of a religious thing.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Today at 07:52 AM Micaiah said this in Post #20

Over recent months I've heard several testimonies along the lines of your own. In each case, it seems doubts raised over the matter of Creation precipitated the loss of faith. In a few cases, the person involved related how they cannot regain their faith now it is lost.

Would it be correct in assuming the reason you reject things like evolution, an old Earth, etc, is because you're worried about losing your faith? (By accepting those, I mean.)

 

[lucaspa]

[Today at 07:52 AM Micaiah said this in Post #20

Your own experience sadly proves the two beliefs are logically exclusive. To seek to marry the popular views of man on origins and Scripture undermines the truth of God. 

The only thing your experience proves is that you have terrible logic.   

Over recent months I've heard several testimonies along the lines of your own. In each case, it seems doubts raised over the matter of Creation precipitated the loss of faith.

Micaiah, you didn't read carefully. It was the doubts raised by creationism and the insistence that God can create ONLY by creationism.   You have just confirmed the danger of creationism to Christianity.  You equate Creation with creationism.  Then you equate your interpretation of the Bible to the words of God.  No wonder people lose faith.  You are asking them to believe in you, not in God.  And, of course, they don't believe in you.  They shouldn't!

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 11:11 AM Pete Harcoff said this in Post #24



Would it be correct in assuming the reason you reject things like evolution, an old Earth, etc, is because you're worried about losing your faith? (By accepting those, I mean.)

It's a correct conclusion.  Micaiah has made a terrible logical error.

See if this doesn't fit Micaiah to a "T".

"Creationists are telling a story about our beginnings which is rooted solely in the first two chapters of the book of Genesis.  When we look at the Genesis account, we see that there is both a God story ("In the beginning God created. . .") and a story about the order and timing of creation.  The first story is inherently untestable, whereas the second story is quite testable. ...
"Creationists have set themselves apart from other Christians by intimately interweaving their story of the "who" of creation with the "how" of creation.  For them, it is the flat earth problem all over again.  Creationists have taken a theory of creation which is testable and tied it to an inherently untestable story about God.  In the process, they have declared a testable theory to be also inherently untestable.  As was pointed out earlier, this works fine, if the testable story is verified.  Controversy has arisen because evolution has not verified the creationist's story.  At best, research has shown the Genesis account of the "how" of creation to be incomplete.  Because the creationists have tied their story of the "how" of creation to their story of the "who" of creation, any doubt cast upon the "how" also casts doubt on the "who." Creationists follow a predictable pattern as they find it easier to deny physical evidence than to deny God.  Physical evidence, no matter how overwhelming, can be dismissed as the work of the devil.  Christians who find evolution acceptable, or at least not threatening, are those who have managed to keep their stories of the "how" of creation separate from the "who" and "why' of creation.
"In simplest terms, creationists reject the theory of evolution not because evolution is bad, in and of itself, but because for them it threatens, indirectly yet potently, the very existence of God."  Richard W. Berry, The Beginning, in Is God a Creationist? Edited by Roland Frye, pp. 44-50.

 

[gladiatrix]

JohnR7 in Post 23
One man Noah had a rather ingenious idea, he built a big boat and survived the floods that way. The people laughed at him the whole time he was building it. But when it began to rain and the flood began, they were not laughing anymore. Finally later on some men came along with: science and figured out a way to control the flooding and they then lived rather productive lives and civilization had it's beginning. Then in Egypt, they had some very furtile land at the delta of the nile river, but that was rather limited. When they began to figure out a way to irrigate the land, then they could produce more food. Also it took science to be able to build the prymids that they had there.

The Biblical flood didn't happen. This is a falsifiable date.The Bible gives the date of the flood as beginning 2345 B.C. and ending in 2344 B.C. If this were really the world-wide gig claimed by creationists then the civilizations of the world would all show a disruption in their history or at least take note of such an event, but does the rest of archeology/history corroborate the Biblical account===> NO!!!

• The city of Ur of the Chaldees (ancient Sumer, location of the "plains of Shinar", hangout of Noah) was the leading city from about 2400 B.C. until about 2,285 B.C. and its history is not broken by any flood in this period.
• Babylon was rising to power from about 2,400 B.C. on and reached a great height of civilization under the famous King Hammurabi, who would have been a contemporry Hebrew patriarch Abraham (about 2,250 B.C.), and again there is no break in this history due to a flood.
• In Egypt, the Eleventh Dynasty, which began to reign about 2,375 BCE, was followed by the Twelfth Dynasty, which ruled to about 2000 BCE. This time-period is very well-documented and there was no disruption during the Eleventh Dynasty at the time of Noah's flood, 2,345 BCE, with he nation remaining strong and powerful throughout these dynasties
• The Harappan Civilization(2300 - 1900 BCE) in India shows no disruptions at the time of the Flood and, ironically, appears to have ended because of a region-wide drought! (some used to think that an invasion was the cause, but the evidence points away from this earlier scenario).
• Chinese history begins nearly 3,000 BCE. The Shu-King historic record of China, shows that King Yao came to the throne in 2356 BCE and ruled China for many years after the flood. Incidentally, durring the reign of Yao, the Shu King reports that the Hwang Ho River flooded on a number of times, for three generations, again with NO break in history.
• Ancient civilizations in India which predate the Bible entirely and show no evidence that such an event ever happened ( appearance of the oldest book of the Hindu religion, the Rig Veda pre-dates the Bible considerably, according to astronomical dating provided by astronomical events listed in the Rig Veda)

The Bible loses another one as a history book (based on the conflicts with the archeological record)....

 

[gladiatrix]

JohnR7 in Post 23Back in the beginning, people wanted to appoint leaders. So they usually would appoint a king who was a good warrior and rather big in size. So he could lead the nation in battle. All of the measurements in a kingdom was based on the king. A span was about 18 inches or the distance from the tip of his fingers to his elbow. A foot was the size of the kings foot. So everyone in the kingdom would know how big the king was. That is normal size for us today. But back then it would be considered big, sense most people were smaller than that.

Noah's boat was not a seaworthy craft and would have broken up if built as described in Genesis, here's why:

FROM Noah's Ark-the Construction Problems

Returning once again to the procedural difficulties involving Noah's Ark, based on the work of Robert Moore in "Creation/Evolution", issue XI, we have the assurance of Tim LaHaye and Henry Morris that Noah and his three sons could have easily constructed the ark in only 81 years (it being a good thing that the average lifespan at the time was several hundred years). According to Moore, the construction "... includes not merely the framing up a hull but: building docks, scaffolds, workshops; fitting together the incredible maze of cages and crates; gathering provisions for the coming voyage; harvesting the timber and producing all the various types of lumber from bird cage bars to the huge keelson beams -- not to mention wrestling the very heavy, clumsy planks for the ship into their exact location and fastening them. What's worse, by the time the job was finished, the earlier phases would be rotting away -- a difficulty often faced by builders of wooden ships, whose work took only four or five years."

For waterproofing, we are told that God instructed Noah to coat the ark with pitch inside and out with the naturally-occurring hydrocarbon pitch, which causes a bit of a problem since, according to Whitcomb and Morris, all oil, tar and coal deposits were formed when organic matter was buried DURING the flood.

In addition, the structural soundness of the ark was extremely questionable since, according to ship-building authorities, there was an upper limit of about 300 feet on the length of wooden ships, beyond which they were subject to 'hogging' or 'sagging'. Moore again,

"The largest wooden ships ever built were the six-masted schooners, nine of which were launched between 1900 and 1909. These ships were so long that they required diagonal iron strapping for support; they "snaked" or visibly undulated, as they passed through the waves, they leaked so badly they had to be pumped constantly, and they were only used on short coastal hauls because they were unsafe in deep water."

The longest six master, the U.S.S. Wyoming, was only 329 feet long, yet we are presented with the image of an ark well over 100 feet longer having to cope with the most severe conditions imaginable.

The Bible loses again as a book of "science".

 

[Cantuar]

In each case, it seems doubts raised over the matter of Creation precipitated the loss of faith. In a few cases, the person involved related how they cannot regain their faith now it is lost.

Yes, well, considering that the biblical literalist notion is that the matter of Creation involves accepting, against all scientific evidence to the contrary (and this scientific evidence was beginning to be recognised many years before Darwin published his theory), that God created the universe 6000 years ago and that all the geological features on earth, along with many biological ones, must be explained by Noah's flood as described in scripture, that's hardly surprising.

It's biblical literalists who are demanding that people swallow all these scientific impossibilities as a necessary part of being Christian. When people really look at the science behind biology and geology and realise that they can't swallow the impossibilities, it's the all-or-nothing demands of biblical literalists that turn them away from Christianity. And that's a shame, because even fundamentalists and many biblical literalists say that accepting the creation story literally isn' tnecessary for salvation. You'd never know it to hear creationists attack evolution as the work of the devil, though.

There is no way - NO WAY - I would ever become a Christian if it required signing on to all this young-earth rubbish. Liberal Christian, maybe. Biblical literalist Christian, never. When you blame evolution for turning people away from Christianity, you aren't looking in quite the right place.

 

[Micaiah]

Unlike some of the people on this thread, many would be Christians have the insight to recognise that the evolutionists view of origins and the plain teaching of Scripture in Genesis are mutually exclusive. This presents difficulties for some, which is why those who accept the plain teaching of Scripture on Creation (APTOSOC's) point out the inconsistencies of the theory and how scientific evidence confirms Scripture.

Lucaspa has identified himself as a Christian who accepts the statements below. Lucaspa and others could share with us what they consider to be essential truths of Scripture, and the criteria they use to determine what is truth, and what is not truth.

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, light from light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary
and became truly human.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father [and the Son],
who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.
We believe in one holy [universal] and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

For example, the creed asserts
- God made evrything, both seen and unseen.
- Jesus was born of a virgin.
- Jesus died by crucifixion and rose from the dead after three days.
- One day people will rise from the dead
- On day Jesus will judge all prople

In judging the Creation story, theistic evolutionists TEV's choose to accept that the weight of scientific evidence contradicts the Genesis account and therefore ignore the plain teaching of Scripture on this matter. Athiests would argue that there is a great deal of evidence to refute the assertions made in the creed above. If TEV's were consistent in their mode of interpretation, they would also reject these assertions of Scripture summarised in this creed.

I will leave them to explain their inconsistency in beliefs and interpretation.

 

[Micaiah]

Today at 06:28 AM gladiatrix said this in Post #28



Noah's boat was not a seaworthy craft and would have broken up if built as described in Genesis, here's why:

Are you a Christian? How do you decide what is and isn't truth in Scripture?

According to Scripture, Noah's boat was a very seaworthy vessel. It ensured the continuity of animals and humans after a global flood.

 

[Micaiah]

Today at 12:11 AM Pete Harcoff said this in Post #24

Would it be correct in assuming the reason you reject things like evolution, an old Earth, etc, is because you're worried about losing your faith? (By accepting those, I mean.)

I wouldn't say my defence of Scripture was motivated by fear. Consider the following from 1 Corinthians 10.

. 4The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. 5We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.

The picture here is of a battle in which Christians are seeking to destroy the fortresses of the enemy. That doesn't suggest fear to me.

 

[Micaiah]

Yesterday at 09:46 PM chickenman said this in Post #21



thats probably why most christians reject your attempts to interpret scripture correctly

Chickenman since you have also identified yourself as a Christian, you could view the questions posed above and provide a response. Thankyou.

 

[Arikay]

Micaiah: Not to bring up old things, but have you ever given any evidence for any of the statements for creationism you have made?

 

[Arikay]

You should read my post about the new post on the global flood that I made down below.

Today at 06:21 PM Micaiah said this in Post #31



Are you a Christian? How do you decide what is and isn't truth in Scripture?

According to Scripture, Noah's boat was a very seaworthy vessel. It ensured the continuity of animals and humans after a global flood.

 

[Stormy]

Yesterday at 08:37 PM Praxiteles said this in Post #7

On a serious note, I don't think that I'd be too far off the mark in saying that scientific findings have made it easier to be an atheist.

Lacking a belief in the supernatural is one thing, but I'm the sort of person that likes to have explanations for things. I don't know whether I'd be an atheist or not in the absence of modern science - possibly I would be - but I would have a hard time explaining my own existence without it.

I may accept some creation story or other; I just don't know.

Oh? And you think that you can explain it now? I don't think so.

 

[seebs]

Today at 08:17 PM Micaiah said this in Post #30

Unlike some of the people on this thread,

... and then goes on to show that the only honest completion of this sentence is "... I, Micaiah, will never respond to any questions about my beliefs, preferring to insult, deride, and cast aspersions on those people greatly inferior to myself who do not believe exactly what I do, while subtly implying that they aren't *real* Christians".

You're still dodging questions. Don't you get it? This is ABSOLUTELY THE WORST WITNESS I CAN IMAGINE! You are showing that Christians can be judgemental, derisive, intellectually dishonest, and utterly unwilling to actually *discuss*; you're just *lecturing*, while refusing to answer any questions that might allow us to conclude that you are qualified to lecture.

I trust God just fine, but I don't trust your claims to personal authority to interpret the Bible.

 

[Arikay]

I would have to say I basically agree with seebs here.

 

[Micaiah]

Today at 11:04 AM seebs said this in Post #37



... and then goes on to show that the only honest completion of this sentence is "... I, Micaiah, will never respond to any questions about my beliefs, preferring to insult, deride, and cast aspersions on those people greatly inferior to myself who do not believe exactly what I do, while subtly implying that they aren't *real* Christians".

You're still dodging questions. Don't you get it? This is ABSOLUTELY THE WORST WITNESS I CAN IMAGINE! You are showing that Christians can be judgemental, derisive, intellectually dishonest, and utterly unwilling to actually *discuss*; you're just *lecturing*, while refusing to answer any questions that might allow us to conclude that you are qualified to lecture.

I trust God just fine, but I don't trust your claims to personal authority to interpret the Bible.

Thankyou for your reassurance that you do not trust my judgement. If it makes you feel more assured, neither do I. I recognise that in comparison to God, my knowledge of science and the universe amounts to nothing, and my views on what happened during creation built up from 'evidence' are at best distorted and incomplete. That is precisely why I choose to trust the plain teaching of Scripture.

You will find my response to your other questions on another thread in the christian science forum.

As I have stated before, I am not in a position to judge your standing before God. That is between you are your Maker. I seek to point out the inconsistency on the one hand of claiming to be a Christian and disregarding the plain teaching of Scripture on Creation. Since you also have posted on the Christian science forum, I assume you aslo accept the statements in the creed listed above. Please respond to the questions posted in that context.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Today at 09:30 PM Micaiah said this in Post #32

I wouldn't say my defence of Scripture was motivated by fear. Consider the following from 1 Corinthians 10.

<snip>

It's not an issue of fear. It's an issue of uncertainty. Does a 4.5 billion year old Earth make God any less real? Does God using evolution to shape the diversity of life on this planet make God any less real?

Basically, what does your faith hinge on?