Evolution: The Doctrine of Delusion

[Jet Black]

This works on so many levels:

1. This whole "man's theories is a lie"-theory is a theory of man.
2. Man's theories are lies.
3. Help help, this post is caught in a forum vortex of doom, and can't get out.

self defeating logic is the funniest sort.

 

[Dal M.]

If all man-made theories (as opposed, I assume, to weasel-made theories) are lies, then why single out evolution? It's obvious you're unable to find fault with any specific aspect of evolution, since the only thing you harp on is the fact that it was conceived of by humans and is therefore wrong and probably Satanic too. So why is the theory of evolution your sole target?

Why not Euclid's Fifth Postulate, the Square-Cube Law, or Bernoulli's Equation? Note that all these theories were conceived of by human beings, and "started with man and not with God." So go get 'em, tiger!

 

[JohnR7]

So why is the theory of evolution your sole target?

Because that is what this forum is for: a debate between creation and evolution.

 

[Ryal Kane]

Is it just me or do Johns posts seem to be gettign less articulate. I seem to remember, when I first came to these boards (long time lurker) that while the science was debatable, at least the arguements were sound. Quoting scripture is limited enough in a science debate but to do so out of context with such a blatant bias seems a far cry from what I seem to remember of his old posts.

My memory could be wrong. Just a frail human being.

Ryal Kane

 

[Jet Black]

Is it just me or do Johns posts seem to be gettign less articulate. I seem to remember, when I first came to these boards (long time lurker) that while the science was debatable, at least the arguements were sound. Quoting scripture is limited enough in a science debate but to do so out of context with such a blatant bias seems a far cry from what I seem to remember of his old posts.

My memory could be wrong. Just a frail human being.

Ryal Kane

he goes through phases. at the moment he is on the "everything I say is right and evolution is a lie, but I can't back either statement up" phase. he's not worth talking to at the moment because he just ignores everything you say or misrepresents you.

 

[Obertray]

Still got him on ignore there Jet Black?

 

[Aron-Ra]

Genesis 1:2
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

These are the facts, that the earth was without form and void.

The fact is that the Earth was roughly spherical. What is being discussed in Genesis is the belief that the land [Earth] was without form, not the whole planet. The authors of the Bible, (most of it anyway) were unaware of the whole planet, and regarded the "Earth" only as the land above the sea.

Now according to the OEC the earth was in this condition million or billion of years ago. This is not a literal interpertation of the Bible though. In order to have a literal interpertation then a day in Genesis must be 1000 years. Unless someone can show that a day in Genesis is anything other than 1000 years.

Actually, the days in Genesis were never supposed to be time periods of any duration. They were successive stages. Originally, before the old Hebrew tradition was altered, these were generations. Each stage of creation was completed by a different generation of gods. Men were created by the sixth generation so that the seventh generation could rest.

This does not falsify the OEC that is still true.

Well, yes, it does.

Often the Bible talks about two or more things at one time. So, if you eliminate the YEC, then the only thing left is the GAP.

Don't forget theistic evolution. I know of at least one world-famous, respected and peer-reviewed paleontolgist who is also a fiery Pentecostal preacher, and he goes into some considerable historic detail defending the Bible and evolution.

Now according to the GAP Genesis 1:2 took place 12,000 to 14,000 years ago. Now, if you look to science they have some interesting things to say about what happened during this time frame. The ice was melting, the ocean level was rising and there was something going on called the late Pleistocene Extinctions

True. But the first vestiges of this tale are estimated to have been conceived at some point between 3700 BCE and 2200 BCE. The only mammoths left anywhere at that time were stuck on islands in the North Pacific that no one in the Middle-East would have known about.

Now, you can try to deny the facts all you want, but your denyal of the truth is not going to change the truth one tiny little bit.

That's good advice. I never deny any fact, so I am able to see what is true. How about you?

As the Bible says: Let God be true and every man a liar.

But in this case, it isn't God you're talking about but the Bible, which was written by men, not God. To believe otherwise, and to worship it the say you say here, (where anything and everything which contests it must be execrated) constitutes idolatry.

That is exactly the condition that fallen man is in. He has bought into Satan lies. The devil is a liar and the father of all liars.

Actually, "the Devil" you're talking about is a weird twist on Satan, (Shaitan in Hebrew). The word simply means "opposer", and specifically, "one who opposes faith". The idea seems to have come from Zoroastrian belief in Ahriman, "the opposer" who rules the kingdom of the lie.

John 8:44
You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it.

The only reason "one who opposes faith" is considered a liar is because 'faith' demands you consider all men liars who oppose your sacred dogma. Of course if the dogma is the lie, your faith will prevent you from ever realizing that. What John is arguing against is not some malevolent spirit or demon; he is arguing against cognitive reason which stands against the blind faith he demands.

So, if you do not abide in the truth, then the only thing that remains is a lie

This much is true.

and man's theory of evolution is a lie.

If you are capable of participating in a formal debate where we each must answer every direct question to the best of our ability within reason, and we each must properly address every point of evidence levied against us. That means if you can't defend any point, you will be expected to concede it. If you can do abide by that, then I can prove that evolution is at least basically true, and considerably more accurate than any other competing concept including Genesis. I can prove that to your satisfaction, not mine, and I can prove it so conclusively, that you will admit it publicly, and be some form of 'evolutionist' from that point on. Whaddya say?

Man's theorys are always going to be a lie, because they start with man and not with God. All truth comes from God.

That's dogmatism, and dogmatism itself is a lie; a lie which eminates from the auto-deceptive nature of faith. I don't have that, so I am able to see any truth that presents itself, even if it isn't one I wanted to see. Its very liberating to live without faith.

As you say, the facts are consistant and you can not change them. You can not change the fact that the would went though radical changes 12,000 years ago.

This much is true.

The facts support the Bible.

Nope. Sorry. The Bible is not supported by anything other than itself, and even that is not consistently true.

Your opinions about the facts do not really mean anything at all, if it does not line up with the truth.

True enough. But yours is not truth. Yours is only the dogma of religious faith, defined as a stubborn conviction held in lieu of, or (as we see here) even in spite of, evidence or logical proof. So you will probably just ignore me, and refuse my challenge, and go on pretending that everything we know is a lie and your fabulous fables are unasailable. But I really can prove otherwise.

If you accept, include your opening challenges or questions along with your counterarguments for each point I made here, and we will consider that the beginning of the 2nd mutual exchange.

Remember, you can't simply snip or ignore anything, and neither can I. Within 12 mutual exchanges, (24 total posts or less) you will concede that biological evolution is a fact, and that it is the truest, best explanation there is for the origin of our species. As a bonus, you will also concede that Genesis is not an accurate historic account in any way. The only way I can win is by your admission of defeat, unless you drop out early, allowing me (yet another) victory by default. How easy is that? Does that sound fair? Do you accept?

 

[Freodin]

Short question (forgive me if it has already been asked - I only read to page three):

If the mentioned "delusion" refers to the Theory of Evolution - why did God wait 1800 years until he send it? Were there no "deniers of the truth" around at the time the letter was written? What did the Thessalonicians have to do with Evolution?

 

[JohnR7]

Short question (forgive me if it has already been asked - I only read to page three):

If the mentioned "delusion" refers to the Theory of Evolution - why did God wait 1800 years until he send it? Were there no "deniers of the truth" around at the time the letter was written?

Yes, we did cover that along the way. We talked about how evolution has it's roots in beliefs that go back even before Christ. We talked about how the early church father argured against some of the very things that creationists argue against today.

 

[JohnR7]

Don't forget theistic evolution.

Theistic evolution does show a large number of people in the polls. But remember there is a harlot apostate church out there.

If you are capable of participating in a formal debate where we each must answer every direct question to the best of our ability within reason, and we each must properly address every point of evidence levied against us. That means if you can't defend any point, you will be expected to concede it. If you can do abide by that, then I can prove that evolution is at least basically true, and considerably more accurate than any other competing concept including Genesis. I can prove that to your satisfaction, not mine, and I can prove it so conclusively, that you will admit it publicly, and be some form of 'evolutionist' from that point on. Whaddya say?

The problem here is what you mean by: "defend a point". If I have to use science to argue against science, then I would say that your working with a stacked deck of cards. While I do believe in true science, what we know as science has been far to often corrupted by man.

I could use the Bible, but then it would be far to easy for you to say that the scripture is taken out of context or does not apply to that situation. So, while you may not deny the Bible, you would be denying the use of the Bible as a way to defend a point.

I can prove that to your satisfaction, not mine, and I can prove it so conclusively, that you will admit it publicly, and be some form of 'evolutionist' from that point on. Whaddya say?

That I would like to see. Of course man's theory of evolution has been falsified by science. They have basicly replaced it with a theory of decent, But they still call it evolution.

 

[PhantomLlama]

That I would like to see. Of course man's theory of evolution has been falsified by science. They have basicly replaced it with a theory of decent, But they still call it evolution.

What was this theory of evolution that was falsified, in what way does it differ from this 'theory of decent' you mention, and in what way is modern evolutionary theory not evolution?

 

[JohnR7]

What was this theory of evolution that was falsified, in what way does it differ from this 'theory of decent' you mention, and in what way is modern evolutionary theory not evolution?

According to man's hyper theory species may evolve, they may degenerate or they may stay the same, they only make a natural change. But they still call it evolution. Also, from what I understand about it, changes take place between the generations. So if you do not descend or have a descendant, then no "evolution" or change can take place.

 

[Nathan Poe]

According to man's hyper theory species may evolve, they may degenerate or they may stay the same, they only make a natural change. But they still call it evolution. Also,from what I understand about it, changes take place between the generations. So if you do not descend or have a descendant, then no "evolution" or change can take place.

Which is what the theory of evolution has said all along. So what exactly has been falsified?

 

[Aron-Ra]

Theistic evolution does show a large number of people in the polls. But remember there is a harlot apostate church out there.

Theistic evolutionists represent approximately 40% of the United States population. So the only 1st world nation where there are also a significant number of creationists is still divided pretty much half-and-half with theistic evolutionists. Throughout the rest of the Christian world, theistic evolutionists tend to be the majority, and this is especially true across Europe. What polls were you referring to? Because I want to see their figures.

The problem here is what you mean by: "defend a point". If I have to use science to argue against science, then I would say that your working with a stacked deck of cards. While I do believe in true science, what we know as science has been far to often corrupted by man.

What I mean is simply this; if you cite any claim or evidence supposedly supported by "real science" you will be expected to explain and defend that claim with "real science". If you make a claim based on logic, you must defend that point with logic. In other words, you must use reason. If you don't give me some reason to believe you, there will be no reason to believe you. Get it?

You will also need to concede all points lost. I have made several challenges to your earlier allegations that you have done nothing to refute. Do you really want to concede all these points without making any effort to defend them? Or do you already know they are indefensible, and therefore wrong?

When I ask you questions, you cannot simply snip and ignore them. All questions must be answered, and all points of contention must be properly addressed. You haven't done that yet.

I could use the Bible, but then it would be far to easy for you to say that the scripture is taken out of context or does not apply to that situation. So, while you may not deny the Bible, you would be denying the use of the Bible as a way to defend a point.

I don't mean to mislead you. The Bible is a storybook, nothing more. It is a compilation of the elder fables of Hebrew tradition, and is no more an authority than the Bhagavad-Gita, the Zend Avesta or any other compilation of fables promoted as the "one true word of God". Quoting your scriptures to me would be as meaningless as me quoting Probhupada, Aesop, Shakespear or Lovecraft to you.

That I would like to see. Of course man's theory of evolution has been falsified by science. They have basicly replaced it with a theory of decent, But they still call it evolution.

As I am a college-level student of evolutionary biology, I know for a certain fact that it has not been falsified. This is one of those claims I was talking about where you will be expected to defend it with real science. So, how was it falsified, and by whom? And why do the whole of mainstream science still attest that evolution is an observed fact? With something of this magnitude, you should certainly be able to cite the peer-reviewed journal(s) this was published in. But if not, that's fine. Because with news THIS big, everyone with a television should already know all about it.

Funny, I know a whole bunch of scientists, including some famous ones; and this would be news even to any of them. Darwinian selection has been significantly modified, and other whole new concepts (like Punctuated Equilibrium and Genetic Drift) have been added to it. But it has never been disproved. In fact, Ernst Mayr, the world's foremost authority on all evolutionary Theories, recently stated in the article celebrating his 100th birthday; "It would seem justified to assert that, so far, no revision of the Darwinian paradigm has become necessary as a consequence of the spectacular discoveries of molecular biology. "
["80 Years of Watching Evolutionary Scenery"
Science, Vol 305, Issue 5680, 46-47 , 2 July 2004]

So if none of the experts are even aware of this disproof you claim, then you're going to have to validate such a bold assertion, and I'm eager to hear it. If you can't, then it was just a baseless assertion that even you know isn't really true.

 

[EvolvEarth]

Okay, John, I've found out a trap you can't get out of:

1. The Bible was written by man and is supposedly inspired by God
2. We know the Bible is errant because God gave man "free will."
3. Empirical evidence is the closest we can get to discovering God's creation
4. You are rejecting God's true word by rejecting empiricism over man's word (The Bible is man's word)

You simply failed, and many others have pointed it out long before me.

 

[Buttermilk]

Theistic evolution does show a large number of people in the polls. But remember there is a harlot apostate church out there.

And we theistic evolutionists are NOT members of it !!!

 

[Dal M.]

Because that is what this forum is for: a debate between creation and evolution.

Ah. So you only avoid attacking those theories because it'd be off-topic?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Theistic evolution does show a large number of people in the polls. But remember there is a harlot apostate church out there.

Assuming there is, which one is it? So many churches; so hard to tell...

The problem here is what you mean by: "defend a point". If I have to use science to argue against science, then I would say that your working with a stacked deck of cards.

Not at all. If you're going to compete on a football field, play football, not hockey.

While I do believe in true science, what we know as science has been far to often corrupted by man.

Some of whom did so with a Bible in their hand.

I could use the Bible, but then it would be far to easy for you to say that the scripture is taken out of context or does not apply to that situation. So, while you may not deny the Bible, you would be denying the use of the Bible as a way to defend a point.

Christians would be denying the misuse of the Bible. Is there something wrong with that?

Scientists would be denying the substitution of mythology for methodology. Can you understand why?

And of course, scientists who are also Christians would slam you for both reasons.

That I would like to see. Of course man's theory of evolution has been falsified by science. They have basicly replaced it with a theory of decent, But they still call it evolution.

Because it is.

Johnny, you really don't know what you're talking about, do you?

There's no shame in admitting you need to learn...

 

[Freodin]

Yes, we did cover that along the way. We talked about how evolution has it's roots in beliefs that go back even before Christ. We talked about how the early church father argured against some of the very things that creationists argue against today.

Call me stupid, call me deluded or anything you like - but even after reading the whole thread - I cannot find anything of what you just mentioned. Perhaps you could point me to a post-number?

 

[Tomk80]

*snap for the sake of the thread*