MOVED FROM OUTREACH: Scary Evolution O.O

[Key]

Well, gosh. I guess I must be promoting some kind of atheist theory of car repair, because I pretty much assume God hasn't acted supernaturally in any way related to the functioning of my car. And I go to a secular mechanic.

Well that might have something to do with the fact that "Man" made that Car, not God.

God Bless

Key

 

[Sharky]

Hi folks. Be aware debating is not allowed here so please get it back on topic otherwise we might need to move this to the GA.

 

[Colabomb]

Why do some Christians fear evolution so much? There are many forums online (And sites, and other things) that have only the specific use to try and dismantle Evolution. Why? I mean, if they believed that Evolution was wrong and stuff, why even feel threatened by it?

So, why do many Christians attack Evolution like its a plague?

God may have guided the creation of the world through processes similar to evolution.

However, purely atheistic evolution simply does not work.

I have no issue with the concept that God guided life through multiple stages up to its current position. But I cannot accept, logically, that existence is accidental.

 

[Edial]

Why do some Christians fear evolution so much? There are many forums online (And sites, and other things) that have only the specific use to try and dismantle Evolution. Why? I mean, if they believed that Evolution was wrong and stuff, why even feel threatened by it?

So, why do many Christians attack Evolution like its a plague?

Excellent point.

Many Christians are afraid of evolution.
As an atheist, we were taught evolution at school (USSR). Charles Darwin and the Origin of Species was it.

Even then we, as children, had an uncomfortable feeling when told that we are former apes.
Even as children, we were asking: "How come we do not have apes turning into men now?".
The answer was that such apes no longer existed.

Evolutions has no scientific basis, no proof, no scientific evidence, just a theory.
Why is it scary? Because it is big. It is propagated just because without it, God exists.

Then there is another extreme on the Chrisrtians' side that bends the stick the other way - Young Earth Creationists.

They do not have even ONE verse to prove that Earth was created in 6 24 hour days, yet they insist that this is so, that God can do this without even considering why would he do that, that day yom is 24 hours, while yom is just a period of time in the Bible, it is ignored that the Sun was not created until the 3rd day, and there are theological gymnastics to disprove the Hebrew statement that the Earth is olam (very, very ancient).
All the Bible says that there was an evening and the morning the first yom. That's all.

Evolution became popular, because regular folks simply do not believe that Earth is young.
Yet they also do not believe that people came out of apes and apes came out of ameba.

Both the evolutionists and the Young Earth creationists have not a shred of evidence to support their respective views.
The former lack scientific support, the latter lack the Scriptural support.

Yet both SCREAM and ATTACK that they are scientifically or Scripturally backed.

And, as we know, the louder one screams the more intimidated people get, instead of telling him to put up or shut up.

Each movement exists and prospers because of another.

Existance of evolution excludes God, and the opponent of evolution is the Young Earth theory.
And the YEC is propagated because if the earth is young, evolution cannot logically exist.
And this logic is used by many Christians.
YEC is not supported Scripturally, but promarily by a scare tactic that evolution is "gaining".

Why do Christians are afraid of evolutionists?
Because they really do not believe that Earth is young. .
And they are convinced by many "strong" Christians that this is the only way to be a Biblical and literal Christian.

They sense the falsehood, yet do not know how to handle it, since these "strong" YEC Christians seem to "know" what they are talking about.

It is a common "scare tactic" that I see at the YEC philosophy, that if one believes YEC this excludes evolution, since Young Earth limits the time needed for evolution to be realized.

. What a mess.

Good post.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[Calminian]

Then there is another extreme on the Chrisrtians' side that bends the stick the other way - Young Earth Creationists.

They do not have even ONE verse to prove that Earth was created in 6 24 hour days,

I hate being a bubble burster.

Ex. 20:9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work: .... 11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

BTW, it's not only young earthers who have this interpretation. Virtually all liberal hebrew scholars (who don't actually believe the text) agree this is what the author intended.

James Barr, Professor of the interpretation of the Holy Scripture, Oxford University, England, does not believe the Genesis account to be true. But he, like virtually all other liberal scholars, has no doubt what the author intended to say. He says,

… probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that:
1 creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience
2 the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story
3 Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark.

You were saying Ed?

 

[Edial]

I hate being a bubble burster.

Ex. 20:9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work: .... 11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

BTW, it's not only young earthers who have this interpretation. Virtually all liberal hebrew scholars (who don't actually believe the text) agree this is what the author intended.

The objective of that verse to show that one is to rest after 6 days.
The word for day, is yom (the lenght of it is dependant on the context).
Day for day interpretation is simplistic, since we have this -
2PE 3:8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

This indicates that one is not to interpret a day to day, or that the one is to be at least cautious in his interpretation.

James Barr, Professor of the interpretation of the Holy Scripture, Oxford University, England, does not believe the Genesis account to be true. But he, like virtually all other liberal scholars, has no doubt what the author intended to say.

Irrelevant to this conversation - verses.
There are none.

He says,
… probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that:
1 creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience
2 the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story
3 Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark.

You were saying Ed?

Noah's flood is stated to have covered the Earth.

Scriptures do not say that the Earth was created in 6 24 hour days.

Another support that you might have on your side when one goes into numerology and sees that 24 times 6 is 144 - a Biblical number.
Are you willing to take that as support?

I do not know of anything else that proves the YEC.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[Calminian]

The objective of that verse to show that one is to rest after 6 days.

Correct. After six literal days they are to rest one literal day.

The word for day, is yom (the lenght of it is dependant on the context).

Right again. Moses gives us the context for understanding what he means by "day." He gives us a frame of reference, the jewish work week. This is really basic stuff.

Day for day interpretation is simplistic, since we have this -
2PE 3:8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

Oy. So then he quotes another passage that has nothing to do with this passage from Moses nor creation. What happened to context?

This indicates that one is not to interpret a day to day, or that the one is to be at least cautious in his interpretation.

Cautious? How is rejecting every obvious reference to literal days in order to be in harmony with science cautious?

Irrelevant to this conversation - verses.
There are none.

First he says there is no evidence of a literal 6 day creation. Then he dismisses all liberal hebrew university professors as irrelevant. If anything this will give you insight into the opposition's mindset.

Noah's flood is stated to have covered the Earth.

You do realize that virtually all old earth creationists disagree with you here? But I'll take it.

Scriptures do not say that the Earth was created in 6 24 hour days.

No, it just says that it was created in 6 periods of time that consisted of a morning and evening. Oh and it calls them days. Oh and moses said they were the same kind of days that made up the jewish work week. Beside this there are maybe only dozens of other clear references to literal days. But beside that I suppose you are right.

Another support that you might have on your side when one goes into numerology and sees that 24 times 6 is 144 - a Biblical number.
Are you willing to take that as support?

I do not know of anything else that proves the YEC.

I think we can all safely assume now you are not trying very hard. Either that or you are very new to this debate.

 

[Edial]

Correct. After six literal days they are to rest one literal day.



Right again. Moses gives us the context for understanding what he means by "day." He gives us a frame of reference, the jewish work week. This is really basic stuff.



Oy. So then he quotes another passage that has nothing to do with this passage from Moses nor creation. What happened to context?



Cautious? How is rejecting every obvious reference to literal days in order to be in harmony with science cautious?



First he says there is no evidence of a literal 6 day creation. Then he dismisses all liberal hebrew university professors as irrelevant. If anything this will give you insight into the opposition's mindset.



You do realize that virtually all old earth creationists disagree with you here? But I'll take it.



No, it just says that it was created in 6 periods of time that consisted of a morning and evening. Oh and it calls them days. Oh and moses said they were the same kind of days that made up the jewish work week. Beside this there are maybe only dozens of other clear references to literal days. But beside that I suppose you are right.



I think we can all safely assume now you are not trying very hard. Either that or you are very new to this debate.

There is no debate, since there are no Scriptures.

What you are presenting is a suggestion that could be interpreted various ways.

You cannot prove YEC.

Comparison to the Jewish workweek is based on context to show that one is to rest the 7th day.
Because God rested on 7th yom.

If the translation reads "day", it does not mean day, but yom - a period of time that varies drastically in the OT from 24 hours to 6 months and so forth.

the literal interpretation of Genesis 1 is that there was an evening and morning the 1st yom.
To say that yom is 24 hours long, is not a literal interpretation at all.
Whether many believe that - no problem.
Many opinionated and believed that the Earth was flat due to 4 corners of the world, while the Scriptures presented that it was oval and round.

Scriptures please, no opinions.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[RealityCheck]

Maybe it's my imagination, but I see a lot of posts that continue the tired and over-used statement "Evolution is just a theory."

This is a complete and utter misuse of the word theory, especially in how it relates to scientific inquiry and processes.

A scientific theory is a model that fits observed evidence. A scientific theory is never, NEVER, proven. Always a theory is held in science to be something that can be supported by evidence, but never absolutely proven to be absolutely, 100$, inerrantly correct.

Evolution is, yes, a theory. As is gravitation. As are the laws of electromagnetism, the laws of thermodynamics. Atomic theory is, well, a theory!

Gravitation, like many other theories, has the benefit of countless experiments that verify that it is an accurate model of how matter interacts with other matter, purely on the basis of having mass (not counting other forces in the picture). It doesn't mean it is a "fact".

The same is true of other scientific theories. They are accepted because they work, and continue to produce results that match observed evidence.

Evolution is trickier because it depends largely on observation of static things, such as fossils. The very nature of the theory makes it nearly impossible to actually witness natural selection. However, micro-evolution has been observed... in fact it is one of the key principles in the medical and pharmaceutical field, as you well know from the fact that no doctor will prescribe penicillin for any infection beyond staph or strep (and even then, doctors are now shying away from it because most strains of these bacteria have evolved to the point where penicillin does not affect them).

That such mirco-organisms have evolved, and in direct response to a threat to their continued survival, is evidence that supports the principle of natural selection. That is, organisms that have traits that enable to survive in their environment will pass on their genetics to succeeding generations, while those that do not possess such traits will die off, and their progeny will not survive long because they also lack this trait, and eventually those traits will disappear from the genetics of that species.

And like any theory, evolution is subject to change based on observed evidence. This is true of ANY scientific theory. Gravitation, for example, has been found to be incorrect when dealing with sub-atomic particles moving at relativistic speeds (quantum field theory realm). Does this mean gravity is tossed out the window? No, it is simply recognized that it works on a certain scale because, beyond the atomic realm, it is accurate and does predict accurate results and measurements. To attempt to apply quantum mechanics or quantum field theory to objects larger than an atom is technically accurate but too complex to be of any use. Gravitation gives the right results to the desired accuracy, when used and applied correctly.

(Note that creationism does NOT work this way. Creationsim starts with a desired answer - put most simply as 'goddidit' - and picks and chooses the evidence that supports it, and dismisses any evidence that does not support it.)

 

[MariaRegina]

Mod Hat Notice

This thread will have to be moved into the debate area.

Have fun and follow the rules.

 

[Edx]

Okay, what's next, the solid dome sky?

You dont know what your fellow Creationists really say Calminian. Theres one right now on this forum that told me in Noahs time there was a literally a solid firmament in sky that had windows to keep the water out. But apparently this is just a strawman Evolutionists made up, right...

And geocentrism, another Evolutionist strawman? Really Calminian, isnt it funny how even your favourite Creationist site argues against these mythical believers!

"Some creationists believe that the scientific assault on the Bible did not begin with biological evolution, but with the acceptance of the heliocentric (or more properly, geokinetic) theory centuries ago. These people believe that the Bible clearly states that the Earth does not move, and hence the only acceptable Biblical cosmology is a geocentric one. Modern geocentrists use both Biblical and scientific arguments for their case. We examine these arguments, and find them poorly founded. The Scriptural passages quoted do not address cosmology. Some geocentrists draw distinctions that do not exist in the original autographs or even in translations. In short, the Bible is neither geocentric nor heliocentric. While geocentrists present some interesting scientific results, their scientific arguments are often based upon improper understanding of theories and data. Much of their case is based upon a misunderstanding of general relativity and the rejection of that theory. While geocentrists are well intended, their presence among recent creationists produces an easy object of ridicule by our critics"
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/geocentrism.asp

 

[OdwinOddball]

What are the odds that any of the previous posters of this thread actually come down here to continue discussing it?

 

[Jase]

God may have guided the creation of the world through processes similar to evolution.

However, purely atheistic evolution simply does not work.

I have no issue with the concept that God guided life through multiple stages up to its current position. But I cannot accept, logically, that existence is accidental.

What is atheistic evolution? Did you make that up?

 

[Skaloop]

Evolution is, yes, a theory. As is gravitation. As are the laws of electromagnetism, the laws of thermodynamics. Atomic theory is, well, a theory!

I fully agree with everything you wrote, but just to be nitpicky, the laws you mention are not theories; they're, well, laws.

A law defines an observed phenomenon. It is a fact that objects attract each other. It is a fact that gasses expand when heated (and pressure is kept constant). And we have mathematical laws to explain those relationships.

A theory generally attempts to explain laws, and as you mentioned, must fit with the observed evidence. But even more than that, it must fit with all evidence that may ever be observed. A theory could explain billions of bits of evidence, but if just one thing comes along that goes against the theory, then the theory, as is, is incorrect.

But like I said, I'm just being nitpicky. Otherwise, great reply!

I think one of the strongest parts of the Theory of Evolution is that fits in perfectly with modern genetics and DNA research that was unimaginable in Darwin's time. We've discovered a whole new branch of biology, and evolution works within it perfectly.

 

[Skaloop]

What is atheistic evolution? Did you make that up?

Atheistic evolution is the idea that the evolutionary explanation for the diversity of life is correct and no supernatural power is involved.

Theistic evolution is the idea that the evolutionary explanation for the diversity of life is correct but that it is a process put in place by a supernatural power. It's generally the idea that God created the first bit of life with the ability to evolve and then let natural selection do the rest. Some also suggest the God guided natural selection to produce us.

 

[Edx]

Atheistic evolution is the idea that the evolutionary explanation for the diversity of life is correct and no supernatural power is involved.

Theistic evolution is the idea that the evolutionary explanation for the diversity of life is correct but that it is a process put in place by a supernatural power. It's generally the idea that God created the first bit of life with the ability to evolve and then let natural selection do the rest. Some also suggest the God guided natural selection to produce us.

Scientifically though there is no difference between theistic evolution and atheistic evolution.

 

[Skaloop]

Scientifically though there is no difference between theistic evolution and atheistic evolution.

Agreed. Good point.

 

[michabo]

I fully agree with everything you wrote, but just to be nitpicky, the laws you mention are not theories; they're, well, laws.

Not quite. They're "laws" because of a shift in language over the last few hundred years. Nothing differentiates these laws from theories of today, and it's worth noting that these "laws" aren't even true outside of a narrow range of observation. For example, Key gives the example of the Law of Gravity and then gives Newtonian gravity. While a very successful theory in its range, it is not accurate in general. We keep it because the range in which it is successful matches the range in which we live, and it is a relatively simple equation.



Second, Key goes on to describe facts versus theories. He uses gravity as an example again. He correctly says that gravity is a fact (he uses the word "law"), but then incorrectly states this as Newtontian gravity. The problem here is that, while we may agree that we know a phenomenon exists, our theories are likely to just be approximations. We can't know that even GR is a perfect description. I think his willingness to state that his pet theories are fact, but the ones that he dislikes are "just theories" is a sign of hubris. More laughable since he has picked a theory that he knows to be false!


Worse, after making his incorrect points about the difference between Laws and Theories, he ends with an assertion about evolution, offering nothing to back it up:

Unless we are talking about Evolution, that particular Theory seems to be outside of the realm of Facts, Like, Dinosaurs go from being reptiles to birds, and the Theory of Evolution is undaunted, as if that had no impact on it at all. Funny that, don’t you think?

Ugh. But of course this is stuffed in a forum which forbids debate, so he gets away with it. Now that it has moved out into public, what's the chance that Key will be back to defend himself? Much easier to get away with twaddle if there are big, scary mods around to prevent anyone from disagreeing with you.

 

[Split Rock]

Geocentrism is also a joke. In its heyday it was pushed primarily by "scientists", not by theologians. It was the scientists of his day that drove Galileo into seclusion. The theologians of then were much like the theologians of today, they caved to whatever scientists told them to believe. And even then they were split on the issue of geocentrism.

Not true. It was the church that percecuted Galileo. Even when fellow scientists disagreed with the heliocentric model, it was because of religious reasons.

Pope Paul, V solemnly rendered a decree that ``the doctrine of the double motion of the earth about its axis and about the sun is false, and entirely contrary to Holy Scripture''; and that this opinion must neither be taught nor advocated. The same decree condemned all writings of Copernicus and ``all writings which affirm the motion of the earth.''

http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/White/astronomy/war.html

There is nothing in scripture to remotely suggest the sun and stars orbited the earth. Orbits have to do with gravity, inertia and centrifugal force—concepts the biblical writers weren't even remotely aware of. The best one can possibly do is point to terms like sunset and sunrise—terms that even astrophysicists use today. And they use them correctly, I might add.

There are passages that suggest the sun (along with everything else) travels around the earth.

From the shadow of the Cathedral of Antwerp, the noted theologian Fromundus gave forth his famous treatise, the Ant-Aristarchius. Its very title-page was a contemptuous insult to the memory of Copernicus, since it paraded the assumption that the new truth was only an exploded theory of a pagan astronomer. Fromundus declares that ``sacred Scripture fights against the Copernicans.'' To prove that the sun revolves about the earth, he cites the passage in the Psalms which speaks of the sun ``which cometh forth as a bridegroom out of his chamber.'' To prove that the earth stands still, he quotes a passage from Ecclesiastes, ``The earth standeth fast forever.'' To show the utter futility of the Copernican theory, he declares that, if it were true, ``the wind would constantly blow from the east''; and that ``buildings and the earth itself would fly off with such a rapid motion that men would have to be provided with claws like cats to enable them to hold fast to the earth's surface.'' Greatest weapon of all, he works up, by the use of Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas, a demonstration from theology and science combined, that the earth must stand in the centre, and that the sun must revolve about it. Nor was it merely fanatics who opposed the truth revealed by Copernicus; such strong men as Jean Bodin, in France, and Sir Thomas Browne, in England, declared against it as evidently contrary to Holy Scripture.

http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/White/astronomy/war.html

All movement is relative. From our frame of reference, the heavens do go around the earth. This has nothing to do with orbits, nor geocentrism. When you tell your kids to be still in the back seat, are you speaking of their movement relative to the inside of the car, or to the road you are traveling 60 mph on? Sunset is not figurative language.

While it is true that all motion is relative, that is not the point of either model.

Okay, what's next, the solid dome sky?

Isn't that what the bible says?

 

[MewtwoX]

Hello again. I see you like this topic.



We don’t fear it, the problem arise when people (You yourself were duped before I explained some thing to you) are lead to believe this is “Absolute Truth” that this is “Fact” as opposed a “Theory”

Evolution is both Fact and Theory. It's certainty comes from the sheer amount of evidence in support of it. It sounds like (as many have said already) you confuse "Theory" with its popular terminology today as an "educated guess". The Generic Theories and Laws are equal in their reliability in the Scientific Method and specific Theories and Laws will vary in reliability and strength depending on the evidence they possess.

As has been shown time and again, Evolution has a veritable wealth of evidence in support of it. Some of which can be shown below:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

A Theory I might add which may or may not be true(This is almost never explaiend or ever presented),

It is always explained in debates... what kind of Evolution debates are you having?

but is an assumption we have generated from the limited evidence we have found, working within the confines that our technology will allow us, and using other theories and hypothesis (Like the Constant Earth Theory) to assume this is correct.

It is a conclusion we derive from the numerous sources of data from varying fields of biology and archaeology. Propositions of Science such as Methodological Naturalism can be very easily defended as they only state the only useful claims are those of natural cause, as supernatural claims cannot be tested and quantification of possibilities leads into absudrity.
I might also add that much of the data that we have already was gathered using outdated and questionable methods, but is still held as viable evidence.

But in the end, I believe it stems from the idea that is generated by the Skeptic / Atheist communities that feel that “If Evolution is True, then Christianity Wrong”. Many of them cling to Evolution Dogma so strongly in their faith in this “Theory” is the “Truth” that they would put the pope to shame.

If you stick around here a while longer you'll see the intellectual bankruptcy of your claim that Evolution = Atheism...

Also, very few Atheists hold that if Evolution is true that Christianity is disproven. Again, something you would find out if you stay in the debate sections a while longer.

Is it fear, No, it is a desire to inform the public that this is “Just a Theory”

You claim makes as much sense as saying "Evolution is just a banana". It has nothing to do with the veracity of Evolutionary Theory.

a Theory that I might add is nothing more then the product of one mans imagination (Charles Darwin). Now many people have added to this theory, but it is still a man made product.

Study it a little bit more and you'll find quite a wealth of info on this subject, again I've already put a link in my post. Check around here as well for the Creation & Evolution Archive as well. Many Insightful posts noted:

http://www.christianforums.com/t2580923-ce-thread-archive.html

I view it as a work of fiction, a grand a great story, that is impressive and almost has a life of it’s own, (I like to joke that the only thing Evolving is the Theory itself).

You need to review the evidence again, it appears you havent read the many documented cases of Speciation and even appear to doubt "Microevolution" (which is odd, given that most YECs that come here accept "Microevolution").

Because it is a plague that corrupts minds, into accepting this “Story” as “The Truth”, look at how adamantly scientific societies and communities defend it, as if it is their Holy Grail. How do they do this, why this Vigor and Vanguard for a this “Theory” is Newton’s Theory of Universal Gravitation so defended?

Was Newton's Theory attacked so thoroughly on so many flawed reasons? This is a problem only because it confilicts with a literal interpretation of Genesis, which is key in the Fundamentalist Movement in America.

I' m sorry, but scientists will not let dogma overthrow 150 years of solid research to appease the masses.

Funny this Theory, it as if it is a Religion onto itself.

Only if you completely ignore many aspects of Science and corrupt the definition of Religion so thoroughly that being a fan of Pepsi products could be called a religion as well...