How?

[wblastyn]

vance:
This is false logic. While I personally believe it is more likely that the Jonah story is true, it is entirely possible that a real event can be equated with a allegorical event or a parable. Jesus himself used parables (which are events that did not literally happen) to describe events in the future that definitely WILL happen. There is no problem with these types of literal-to- non-literal comparisons at all.

when Jesus was telling a parable...the bible lets us know.
Jonah is presented as literal history....Sorry, no parable.

I suppose you believe in magical fire breathing sea serpents too then?

The Bible doesn't say the sky dome, geocentric solar syatem, flat earth, etc are all non-literal so why do you read it as such.

 

[Ark Guy]

wblasty....please get a clue.

 

[troodon]

(Jesus Speaking) Yeah, My resurrection will be based upon a parable...just like Noah was. 3 days in the tomb...nahhhh, I was only kidding.

Isn't it funny how guys like troodon filter everything through the religion of evolutionism.....now Vance, talk about dangerous. Yikes, this monkey to man stuff is frightening

Excuse me? You listen to me right here and right now, I'm sick of having my faith questioned and mocked by young earth creationists. I will no longer take this laying down. Ark Guy, here it is cold and real for you, no matter how much you try and belittle me and my faith in God and Jesus Christ it will not work! Do you understand me clearly? You will not deconvert me despite your perverse beliefs and your stinging accusations. It is not my fault that you belong to a belief system which has managed to turn itself into an enemy to Christianity.

When a literal reading of scripture conflicts with the real world there are 2 possible explanations.

1) We are interpreting the passage incorrectly.
2) Our understanding of the real world is incomplete.

Well, here are my reasons for believing that a literal reading of the first chapters of Genesis conflicts with the real world.

The organization of fossils spanning the American midwest

The world's biogeography showing that a global flood could not have occured

Features of the Grand Canyon that could not exist if a global flood occured

Lines of evidence revolving around the Hawaiian Islands which falsify a global flood

Further evidence from the Hawaiian Islands which falsify a global flood

The presence of angular nonconformities falsify a global flood

The presence of varves falsify a global flood

The sheer mathematical impossibility of a global flood falsifies it

Extensive salt deposits falsify a global flood

Massive volcanic events and large impact craters falsify a young earth

Here can be seen Frumious Bandersnatches analysis of massive, quick tectonic changes required to quickly raise mountains

Y chromosome DNA falsifies the theory that the MRCA for humanity lived 4,500 years ago

Useless features (such as my elephant bird's humerus) falsify an "intelligent" designer

Same with these whale hindlimbs

Same with these vestigial structures (genetic and otherwise)

Cultures extending through the proposed date of a global flood falsify it

The inability of YECs to determine which strata are pre, post, and flood strata make's their stance on scientific ground shaky

This set of dinosaur footprints falsifies a global flood

The cosmic microwave background falsifies a young universe

Stellar distances falsify a young universe

The following characteristics of certain genes, proteins, and endogenous retroviruses provide evidence for evolution and falsify a "non-deceptive" creator

The enormous amount of transitional fossils falsify special creation by anything but a creator looking to trick us

Corresponding dates arrived with radiometric dating falsify beyond a shadow of a doubt a young earth

Dendrochronology falsifies a young earth

There you go; my reasons for not believing the lie of a young earth and global flood. Go ahead and tell me why science is wrong and your interpretation is right regarding all of this evidence. If you choose to ignore this evidence or decide to believe in a God that is not afraid to deceive his followers (actually, I think minions would be a more accurate term for the followers of such a Deity) then I cannot stop you and I can only pray that you open your eyes to the world and that you stop treating your fellow Christians as if they were second rate merely because they are not blinded by their preconceived notions of what the Bible should tell them and (dare I say it?) it requires greater faith of them to believe in a Creator.

 

[Vance]

Sorry, Troodon, but all you will get is a lame one-liner showing little intelligence and no analysis. Arkguy regular breaks the primary rule of these boards, which is never to question another's faith as a Christian.

Ark, baby, are you saying then that EVERY time a passage in the Bible was meant to be taken non-literally, there is an explicit statement that it is not to be taken literally? Are you really saying that? I really, really hope you ARE saying that.

If you are not saying that, then what is the point of your reference to Jesus identifying His parables?

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Thanks, Troodon - I was quickly getting to the point where I'd have had to say something similar, and I doubt I could have done it with your restraint.

But I must add my 2p worth.

[mode=rant]

What ticks me off is the appallingly poor analysis fundamentalists seem to apply. I address a similar point to Ark's, where the fundies say "Ner ner ni ner ner if Genesis isn't true then you're saying Jesus lied you're going to hell how are you going to answer to him for that one I'm praying for you that you become a real Christian" etc. etc. here = http://freespace.virgin.net/karl_and.gnome/mark10.htm. I think the same points still stand with respect to this. Simple fact is, I don't think the Jonah story is literal. And guess what - I could still stand up in Church and say "Just as Jonah....., so......" without dishonesty.

Note the "isn't true" bit. This is a classic insight into the fundamentalist mindset. It is a black and white world of false dichotomies. Something is simply "true" or "false". If it's not literal, it's false. If it's not literal, you can't draw an analogy or any teaching from it. Consequently, those who don't take genesis literally, "don't believe" it. There is no room in the intellectually poverty-stricken fundamentalist worldview for any form of truth other than literal. So, in the very human way people do, they strike out against what they are intellectually incapable of understanding, accuse their brethren of not having faith, and p!$$ them off.

But what really, really fecks me right off is the way people who know absolutely jack $#!+ about science (evidenced by "bacteria aren't living" and "punk eek says a lizard laid an egg and a redstart hatched out" and other such bovine egesta) think they can (usually with poor grammar and even worse spelling) find the fundamental flaws in a hundred and fifty years of work by scientists who have made the study of the natural world their life's work. The arrogance here is breathtaking. I frankly don't think that most YECs on these boards bother to follow up the evidence we post, because they haven't got the basic scientific grounding to actually understand the evidence. If they did, they would probably not be YECs.

[/mode]

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

wblasty....please get a clue.

No. You get a clue. Read the links we post. Tell me why God put the same retri-viral insertions in my genome and that of the PG Tips chimpanzees. Tell me why He made my chromosome 2 out of joining together two chimpanzee chromosomes, and didn't even bother removing the old telomeres and chromosome termination sequences. Tell me why dinosaurs never ate grass, going by their fossilised droppings. Tell me how the flood deposited a layer of limestone (itself made of millions of tiny fossilised creatures) a few hundred feet thick, put millstone grit on top of it, then another layer of limestone, then another of millstone grit, then carved it into the classic shapes of the Yorkshire Three Peaks?

Once you can do all this, you are in a position to criticise scientists who have perfectly good explanations for it all. YEC does not. It is intellectual suicide.

 

[wblastyn]

wblasty....please get a clue.

Ok, well I'd really like to learn what evolution is, could you please explain it to me, and define it first please. Go on, it'll be funny.

Creationists are the most arrogant, elitist snobs I have ever met. "Oh we're so much more Christian than you because we take Genesis literally".

 

[Ark Guy]

define evolution...simple, the HOAX of the century.

 

[Ark Guy]

troodon, nice cut and paste job..perhaps if you knew anything about what you posted you would see your mistakes.

 

[wblastyn]

define evolution...simple, the HOAX of the century.

My opinion of you has now reached a new low...

...now can you tell us what scientists define evolution as?

 

[wblastyn]

troodon, nice cut and paste job..perhaps if you knew anything about what you posted you would see your mistakes.

Oh and I'm sure you understand it all just fine, now can I have the real definition of evolution?

 

[Ark Guy]

Just who do these bible twisting theo-evos think they are?

Hey, this verse disagrees with evolutionISM...so it MUST be a parable. Yeah that's it.

Science has corrected the bible...except for the resurrection issue. We know that's scientifically impossible and should be thrown out..but I might lose my salvation if I try to change the bible too much.

Lets teach mans uncle was a monkey, you know, lets forget that the bible says Jesus created Adam from the dust then Eve from his side. We can twist the bible around a little to make it a parable so evolutionISM sort-of fits in.

Then we can demonize the Young Earth Creationist. Well type mesages and present our post like were all angry and bent out of shape. Then we'll pat each other on the back for telling off the YEC's

EvolutionISM says that the days MUST be ages...it's the only way our parable scientific filter works. Screw what the bible really says. We'll just gather a few ear ticklers to tell us how Genesis..ah, er, really isn't real.

Do you think that these bible twisting old earth evolistic...christians...really are christians? Heck the mormons think they are..so do the JW's.

The God of the bible tells us he created in six days, forming Adam from the dust then Eve from his side...the theo-evo SECT..perhaps CULT..is a better term..denies what the bible teaches..perhaps they are following a false god....sorry just thinking out loud. If I upset you theo-evos..to stinking bad.

Theo-Evo theology follows these rules..if you don't believe it because of your scientific biblical filter...make it an allegory....except for the resurrection. Can't touch that....Despite the FACT that it too is scientifically impossible.

 

[Ark Guy]

wblastyn:
Oh and I'm sure you understand it all just fine, now can I have the real definition of evolution?

Evolution is part of the dangerous belief system that says we don't need Jesus Christ.

 

[wblastyn]

Just who do these bible twisting theo-evos think they are?

Hey, this verse disagrees with evolutionISM...so it MUST be a parable. Yeah that's it.

No, if a verse disagrees with Creation it cannot be literal. We let the evidence interpret for us.

Science has corrected the bible...except for the resurrection issue. We know that's scientifically impossible and should be thrown out..but I might lose my salvation if I try to change the bible too much.

Science cannot comment on the resurrection, you have been told this before so now you are just lying.

 

[wblastyn]

wblastyn:
Oh and I'm sure you understand it all just fine, now can I have the real definition of evolution?

Evolution is part of the dangerous belief system that says we don't need Jesus Christ.

Yes, but what is the scientific definition of evolution? It's a simple question.

 

[wblastyn]

The God of the bible tells us he created in six days, forming Adam from the dust then Eve from his side...the theo-evo SECT..perhaps CULT..is a better term..denies what the bible teaches..perhaps they are following a false god....sorry just thinking out loud. If I upset you theo-evos..to stinking bad.

That "cult" makes up most of Christianity, so if anyone is a cult it would be YEC's.

 

[Vance]

Arkguy, you really are doing a very good job on this "pretending I am a YEC and being as idiotic as possible in order to make the YEC's look bad" schtick, but you have to be careful not to cross the line of the forum rules.

In your post above, you stated that Old Earth Creationists and Theistic Evolutionists are not true Christians. This type of thing can get you banned.

If you are going to the cause of anti-YEC-ism any good with your inane ravings, you have to make sure you don't get booted out of here.

In the meantime, keep up the good work! You are the easily the most damaging thing to the YEC theories on this board.

 

[troodon]

troodon, nice cut and paste job..perhaps if you knew anything about what you posted you would see your mistakes.

Hey, Ark Guy, I wrote two of them (and a portion of a 3rd). Forgive me for not coming up with all of the global flood falsifications before others do.

Nice dodge though. I commend you and your Teflon-like ability to avoid facts from sticking to you. "If knew anything about what posted would see [my] mistakes", eh? Well, what is it exactly that I'm missing about the fact that the segregation seen in the fossil record is impossible given a global flood? Or the fact that 250 years after the alleged global flood the Egyptians had completely forgotten about it and made up their own, intricate historical record? Or the fact that there is no possible way for a flightless Dodo to have gotten to the island of Mauritius? Or the fact that there are rediculous mistakes seen in animal anatomy? How am I not understanding the fact that an elephant bird had a humerus laying underneath its skin? Or the fact that radioactive isotopes with completely different decay constants have consistantly correllated with each other on tested items?

It is you who know nothing about these falsifications because you are afraid that you are wrong about the nature of the world around us. If this evidence does not falsify a global flood then explain why.

Put up or shut up

Hey, this verse disagrees with evolutionISM...

You are not reading what has been said. These verses disagree with the universe. Like the verses that say, clearly, plain as day, that the earth rests on pillers. We know that is wrong, just like we know the universe isn't 6,007 years old (in a couple of weeks).

We know that's scientifically impossible and should be thrown out..but I might lose my salvation if I try to change the bible too much.

Yay! Questioning our Christianity wasn't enough for you, eh? Now our intentions are questioned! Yes, I am very obviously an atheist who is just afraid of hell so I pretend to be a Christian. I mean, after all, how would God know?

(Before you actually accuse me, no, I am not a terrified atheist)

Lets teach mans uncle was a monkey

Thank you for showing your ignorance of evolution with this sentence. wblastyn, you had him figured

Then we can demonize the Young Earth Creationist.

Yes, I demonize YEC. It's the reason a third of my high school thought Christianity was rediculous and the reason why talking to an unbeliever about Christ invariably turns into a science lesson. It's the reason why some of my friends (jokingly) call me a Darwin-hater, the reason my old best friend called Christianity a "cult" (you can guess why I stopped talking to him), and the reason why my brother's best friend has so many family troubles with his YEC relations. I demonize YEC because it destroys Christianity and is detrimental to our educational system and society.

Well type mesages and present our post like were all angry and bent out of shape

Yep, there was a lot of anger vented off in that post. There was a lot of evidence supplied in it as well; but don't worry, if you don't read it it doesn't exist, right?

EvolutionISM says that the days MUST be ages...

The universe says that the days MUST be ages. Evolution hasn't got a thing to do with the age of the earth or why a global flood couldn't have happened.

Do you think that these bible twisting old earth evolistic...christians...really are christians? Heck the mormons think they are..so do the JW's.

Whether or not God accepts theistic evolutionists as Christians is up to God, not you. Then again, you seem to think your interpretation of the Bible is infallable so maybe you want to take that from God as well.

The God of the bible tells us he created in six days, forming Adam from the dust then Eve from his side...the theo-evo SECT..perhaps CULT..is a better term..denies what the bible teaches..

The Bible says that the earth is on pillars! All people who disagree are heretics. The Bible says that grasshoppers walk on 4 legs! All people who disagree are heretics. The Bible says the whole world was taxed! All people who disagree are heretics. When the sheer amount of evidence falsified those ideas I doubt you were adamant that the evidence was wrong. Is YEC a lastditch stand?

perhaps they are following a false god....

A false God of love and compassion who wouldn't desire to fool people into following a sect revolving around the evidence he supplied to us in the universe?

Theo-Evo theology follows these rules..if you don't believe it because of your scientific biblical filter...make it an allegory....except for the resurrection. Can't touch that....Despite the FACT that it too is scientifically impossible.

You don't actually read these posts do you? We do not change our interpretation because it's impossible. We change it because it has been falsified. A global flood created using supernatural means by a supernatural entity who wanted to cover it up occuring 4,000 years ago is not impossible. It is impossible for this entity to also be the Christian deity because God is not a deceiver. Our Lord wants people to believe in Him and would not plant false evidence trying to make it look like His holy book is incorrect and would not lie to His believers through His creation.

 

[lucaspa]

wblastyn:
Oh and I'm sure you understand it all just fine, now can I have the real definition of evolution?

Evolution is part of the dangerous belief system that says we don't need Jesus Christ.

The real definition of evolution is below. Before I get to that, evolution says nothing about needing Christ. When Darwin wrote Origin of the Species, he was a devout Christian. While his beliefs changed, he constantly reassured people that evolution did threaten Christianity. If Darwin thought that evolution negated Christianity, then why did he include these passages in Origin? Please address the issue.

"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.

Also: "To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual." pg. 449.

Now, the definition of evolution. It's a bit long, but stick with it.

"Thus, evolution, in a broad sense is descent with modification, and often with diversification. Many kinds of systems are evolutionary ... In all such systems there are populations, or groups, of entities; there is variation in one or more characteristics among the members of the population; there is HEREDITARY SIMILARITY between parent and offspring entities; and over the course of generations there may be changes in the proportions of individuals with different characteristics within populations. This process consitutes descent with modification. Populations may become subdivided so that several populations are derived from a COMMON ANCESTRAL POPULATION. If different changes in the proportions of variant individuals transpire in te several populations,the populations DIVERGE, OR DIVERSIFY. ... All these properties of an evolutionary process pertain to populations of organisms, in which there is hereditary transmission of characteristics (based on genes, composed of DNA or, in a few cases, RNA), variation owing to mutation, and sorting of variation by several kinds of processes. Chief among these sorting processes are CHANCE (random variation in the survival or reproduction of different variants), and natural selection (consistent, nonrandom differences among variants in their rates of survival or reproduction). It is natural selection that causes adaptation -- improvement in function. Thus biological (or organic) evolution is change in the properties of populations of organisms , or groups of such populations, over the course of generations. ... Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportions of different forms of a gene within a population, such as the alleles that determine the different human blood types, to the alterations that led from the earliest organisms to dinosaurs, bees, snapdragons, and humans." Douglas Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, (1999) pg 4.

 

[lucaspa]

Check you reding there lucaspa (Luke 2:1 - In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world.) also it says census not taxes.

Check the reading. The word "Roman" isn't in there. Yes, Caesar Augustus issues the decree, but Luke says the whole world, not just the Roman one.

1st reason I belive God doesn't work like that if he is soverign and speaks things into creation then why would he go through along drawn out process?

Circular reasoning. We are trying to establish whether God speaks things into existence. Therefore you can't use the conclusion to justify itself. Besides, Genesis 2 says God did not speak Adam and the animals into existence, but formed them from the ground. So even the Bible disavows your reason. As to why God used the evolutionary process, aren't we not supposed to question the motivation of God? God did it by evolution because He wanted to. Why isn't that a sufficient answer?

2nd reason evolution is only a theory and until its a proven fact I will belive this way.

This is just denial. What is more, it is not using the word "theory" correctly. Theories in science are not just wild guesses. They are explanations based on facts, supported hypotheses, and laws. Valid theories are theories that have withstood numerous attempts to falsify them. So numerous that it is perverse to with hold provisional acceptance of them as true.

Tell me, mattes, you are aware that gravity and round earth are also theories, aren't you? So, since gravity is only a theory, would you allow your sister to believe that she could fly and let her jump off a 10 story building? Since gravity is not "a proven fact", shouldn't she believe that way?

I don't belive all of Genesis' first chapters are literal I just belive that God created us instantly not over years.

IOW, you want instantaneous direct creation of humans by God. Now you have to ask yourself: Why? What does that do for me? I suggest that it is your human pride that wants this, and pride is a sin, isn't it?

Can you start using just one post instead of 3?

Nope. Two of the posts were to two separate posts of yours and one was to Alessandro.

"Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable." -Sir Arthur Keith (he wrote the forward to the 100th anniversary edition of Darwin's book, Origin of Species in 1959)

I have the 100th anniversary edition of Origin. And I can't find that phrase in the forward anywhere. Can you please quote the entire paragraph to help me find it?