Seeming contradictions in Scripture

[Vance]

This is a forum to discuss Creationism and Theistic Evolution. This will necessarily involve a discussion of science. My point is that you have been attacking a scientific theory not just as being contrary to Scripture, but also not supported by the evidence. This you can not do (really, neither can be done) without an understanding of the theory. How can you possibly say that evolution is not believable when you don't even know what it says? Your would have to agree that it would be a monumental waste of time and energy to debate the scientific aspects of evolution with someone who knows so little about it.

The Biblical arguments for and against have been made numerous times on this forum. This thread was not started to discuss this concept, but if you look through the threads you will find tons on it.

 

[Josh1]

Again you can assume what you want. I can post what I want. You admit defeat from a biblical perspective, that is all I wanted to hear. I know quite a bit about evolution, but don't care to learn more. There are certain aspects of evolution that do change coming from another person. All I wanted to hear is that evolution is not biblical and it is just a theory. You have admitted both. Creation is just as plausible if not more than evolution. I believe it is more plausible ( you are entitled to your opinion like I am mine ). Why do they teach it in schools as a fact, when it is just a theory? Why don't they teach them both, since they are both theories? Any answers coming? God Bless.

 

[Chi_Cygni]

Josh1,

You can live your life NOT undertanding what theory means but don't keep on perpetuating the error to others.

It just shows a lack of education and/or knowledge.

 

[Josh1]

Chi_cygni

You can live your life NOT undertanding what the Bible says but don't keep on perpetuating the error to others.

It just shows a lack of education and/or knowledge.

 

[Chi_Cygni]

But the Bible is not a science/history/biology/geology text, nor is it meant to be.

 

[Josh1]

Disagree, the Bible is your everything, it is how God speaks to his children. It is never wrong in the areas you mentioned and never will be contradicted. If it says that God created the earth in 6 days, I believe it, if it says there was a worldwide flood, I believe it. I would guess that your a christian, since you are participating in these forums. How does God speak to you? I know he should live in your heart and speaks in a still small voice sometimes, but on a day to day basis he uses his word to communicate. God and His word are one. John 1:1. God Bless.

 

[Buck72]

In answer to your last question, the scientific evidence (or even cogent theory) would be one which shows exactly WHY the accepted "microevolution" would not, given enough time and selection pressures, produce macro changes, even changes large enough that we would call it a change in "kind".

Okay, "Canine"; Wolf, Dog, Coyote, Dingo, etc. They are still the same kind of animal. Variations within these will never produce a Bear, nor can a Bear produce a Canine. The vehicle for adaptations is strangely missing.

The bio-evolutionary process to change something into something that it is not is not observable.

I bolded a statement of yours (a bold statement...oh I did not intend that to be a pun, but it is funny!) because it is noteworthy.

Time is the essential variable in evolution. Without time, the evolution theory dies a quick, painless death.

YEC challenges that fourth dimension, that it is grossly overused to bury supposed methods of turning a monkey into a man; "...given enough time."

I say hogwash. It is flimsy and unsubstantiated Biblically.

 

[Vance]

Of course time is a necessary ingredient. Where you have it wrong is that it is flimsy. It is very simply one of the most substantiated theories in science, as you would know if you bothered to read a book on the subject, like "What Evolution Is", rather than Creationist sources.

As for the process not being observable, THAT is hogwash, since we observe it everyday. It is micro-evolution. Something everybody agrees happens. This process given enough time (yes, time) will produce macro changes. All the evidence is there if you would look at it.

And, not a dog can not change into a bear. Good thing evolution does not say this can happen.

 

[Vance]

Josh, I am not sure what you are talking about. I did not "admit defeat from a Biblical perspective". The Bible does not contradict evolution, it is as simple as that. It is not explicitly laid out, of course, but then neither is a wide variety of other scientific processes God created for the running of this universe.

Evolution and an old earth DO contradict a literal "plain readin'" of Genesis 1 and 2, that is true, but that does not mean in any way, shape or form that Scripture is wrong, only that a "plain readin'" is not the proper interpretation.

As for it being "just a theory", this is where your ignorance of science comes in. Should they not teach the theory of gravity or the theory of relativity because they are "just theories"? Should they teach the previously held beliefs on these points just so that the students can have a choice?

Science uses theories to explain the data. When there is a significant debate in the scientific community (Christian and non-Christian scientists alike), then both should be taught. When there is a consensus of greater than 99% among scientists in relevant fields, as there is with evolution, then why should anything else be taught?

Now, having said that, I will say that because of the vocal minority of Christians in this country making so much noise about Creationism, I think it should be pointed out that some Christians do believe that the earth is very young and that evolution can not be true because it contradicts their interpretation of Scripture, but that even this is not the view held by most Christians. That would be both accurate and honest, what more could you ask for?

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Disagree, the Bible is your everything, it is how God speaks to his children. It is never wrong in the areas you mentioned and never will be contradicted. If it says that God created the earth in 6 days, I believe it, if it says there was a worldwide flood, I believe it. I would guess that your a christian, since you are participating in these forums. How does God speak to you? I know he should live in your heart and speaks in a still small voice sometimes, but on a day to day basis he uses his word to communicate. God and His word are one. John 1:1. God Bless.

In John 1:1, the Word is Jesus, not the Bible.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Gravity is demonstrative. Sir Newton worked that out very well for us (a creationist BTW). Theory is accepted in order to fill the "why gap". Check it out:

Experiement #1 -- You walk into an empty room and see a candle burning. When was it lit?

Empirical Science:

1. Measure the candle.
2. Measure its rate of burn

Assumptions:

1. Its original height
2. It's burn rate has always been constant

__________________________________________________________________

Experiement #2 -- Find a fossil in the gound, how old is it?

Empirical Science:

1. Carbon date it
2. Carbon date the soil samples

Nope. Absolutely not. Carbon dating is completely inappropriate for anything more than 50,000 years old, or any fossil. It only works on original organic material.

(non-objective scientists will auto date the fossil according to its geologic strata, based on Lyell's curious assumptions about the non-existant "geologic column"...more on that later).

You've asserted the geological column doesn't exist, but produced no evidence that you are correct.

Assumptions:

1. The C14 found within the fossil is relavant to today's C14 measurements
2. The rate of C14 decay is constant with today's rates of decay

There is no evidence to support the idea that C14 decay rates have changed.

** Note on Carbon Dating: It is a bent process,

Unsupported assertion. Not particularly strong when 99%+ of scientists working in the field disagree with you.

massively inconclusive and holds to a uniformitarianism that does not exist, nor has it existed. It is like looking for mathmatical predictibility in the Lotto.

[Tangent]C14 atoms decay randomly. Taken together, they are very predictable. Bit like the lottery - the numbers come up randomly, but give it long enough and you would expect the numbers to come up with equal frequency, unless it's bent.[/Tangent]

Falsifies the theory? The theory was never proven, so now it has to be falsified to be disproven?

That is how theories are disproven. With evolution it's terribly easy. Find a modern mouse bone in a 100 million year old dinosaur coprolite and you've pretty much done it. If evolution is false, and dinosaurs co-existed with modern animals, it shouldn't be too hard.

What benefit to medicine, genetics, biology, or any field of science has evolution brought forth?

Why is this indicative of the correctness of the theory?

Gravity is demonstrative, evolution is an assumption, a conclusion of non-empirical data...gravity in greater doubt than evoltution!?

Comparing like for like - yes. Models of how gravity works are far more tentative than the models of how evolution works. Both are demonstrable - in the case of gravity by dropping things (although of course it could be intelligent grappling), and in the case of evolution by the fossil record, twin-nested hierarchy, retro-viral insertions etc. etc.

If the evolutionary process here means: adaptations WITHIN the kinds, okay, agreed. A Great Dane and a Chihuahua are two completely different dogs, but they are still dogs, not monkeys, ferns, starfish, or parameciums. Dogs only produce dogs.

"If the linguistic change process here means: dialects WITHIN the language, okay, agreed. Yorkshire and Devonian are two completely different dialects, but they are still English, not German, Icelandic, Danish or Dutch. Children of English speakers always speak English"