Why creationists reject evolution

[Joman]

Only one writer, uh of whom are you talking Joman?

The Holy Spirit.

Joman.

Ps. God uses faithful men like we use pens. God uses hearts like we use letters.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

I cannot reconcile ToE because it attacks the lineage of Jesus of Nazareth by attacking the lineage of Adam. Many might think this not important but, it's important to me because the logic leads to blaspheme by concluding that Adam (and thus Jesus of Nazareth) is the "son of a beast".

Unless, as other TEs have pointed out, Adam is a metaphor for all of mankind. Adam even translates as man does it not?

I think of evolution, in it's true sense, as being well fit to the text of the Bible. But, the idea of macro-evolutionary change is nonsensical to me. I think that if macro-evoluionary change were the norm that there wouldn't be any debate since many examples of such change would have been witnessed.

I know this has been done to death here but macro is no different than micro. It’s the same process. Just like a crime scene investigator was not there to see what happened, we can take evidence and make a strong case for evolution. All it takes is some research and the willingness to listen.

As to the idea of a spherical earth. I haven't interpreted any verse as saying that the earth is spherical (which of course we all know it's not a perfect sphere) I understood one verse to mean that the circle of the earth is the circle it makes about the sun by it's orbit (although we all know it's not a perfect circle). Which, is a circle when viewed from high above.

Yet the church of antiquity certainly thought the world was flat by reading the very same text. You are just beter equipped to interpret it now through the knowledge science has given you.

 

[Erock83]

Objection: “Evolution goes against the bible”
Although this may or may not be true depending on your interpretation of said myth there are plenty of other scientific theories and discoveries that “go against the bible”. The fact that there aren’t creationists railing against a heliocentric solar system or a round Earth shows that the “goes against the bible” objection is a selective excuse to oppose evolution and not the true reason.

The idea that the world is a round rock spinning around the sun does not go against the bible. It goes against the language in which the bible was written in. In ancient Hebrew and Greek, there is not a word which describes the earth as being a sphere. Last time I checked when we discover new things we tend to create word to describe that new thing so we can communicate it to others.

Objection: “Evolution isn’t supported by the evidence”

Although there are many poor creationists that have been fed a false version of evolution and may believe this at first too many creationists continue to hold this position long after they have been shown the evidence. This means, once again, that this objection is just an excuse to rail against evolution and not the genuine reason.

Or it shows a faith in something that they believe in. While you and I can disagree with the conclusions they make. It is still a testament to there faith in the mystery in God.

After looking at all the creationist arguments and, more importantly, the creationists conduct themselves, I am starting to realize that the motivation to rail against evolution is personal and selfish.

As are the attacks we have seen or made on the part of what we believe on this subject.

If the creationists really cared about defending the bible then they would be against round-earthers, and those that support heliocentricity just as fervently as evolutionists. The only reason to single out evolution is because it takes away one of their favorite things about being a creationist… being made specially by their god. All they want is to maintain their warm fuzzy feeling of superiority over everything else in the universe. They aren’t defending the bible or even god. They are defending their own selfish feelings.

Seeing how must fundamental Christians see ToE as an atheist concept, sure they are going to argue it. All go back to my old stand by point here again. If you describe ToE in a why that does not attack the bible then you would find more allies then enemies.

One Love

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

The idea that the world is a round rock spinning around the sun does not go against the bible.

You are correct as long as the bible is interpreted properly.

It goes against the language in which the bible was written in. In ancient Hebrew and Greek, there is not a word which describes the earth as being a sphere. Last time I checked when we discover new things we tend to create word to describe that new thing so we can communicate it to others.

A good argument as to why it needs to be interpreted.

Seeing how must fundamental Christians see ToE as an atheist concept, sure they are going to argue it. All go back to my old stand by point here again. If you describe ToE in a why that does not attack the bible then you would find more allies then enemies.

The ToE is an atheist concept in the strictest sense of the word, “a-theistic”, without theism. The ToE is not anti-theistic. That is what their religious would like them to believe so that the can fuel the controversy.

Tell me how you think the ToE attacks the bible.

 

[Joman]

Objection: “Evolution goes against the bible”
Although this may or may not be true depending on your interpretation of said myth there are plenty of other scientific theories and discoveries that “go against the bible”. The fact that there aren’t creationists railing against a heliocentric solar system or a round Earth shows that the “goes against the bible” objection is a selective excuse to oppose evolution and not the true reason.

You haven't shown the Bible to be in error concerning the solar system. You've only shown examples of men who where mistaken in their understanding of what the Bible says.

Objection: “Evolution isn’t supported by the evidence”
Although there are many poor creationists that have been fed a false version of evolution and may believe this at first too many creationists continue to hold this position long after they have been shown the evidence. This means, once again, that this objection is just an excuse to rail against evolution and not the genuine reason.

I'am unaware of any indisputable evidence for the occurence of any macro-evloutionary change in any biological system.

After looking at all the creationist arguments and, more importantly, the creationists conduct themselves, I am starting to realize that the motivation to rail against evolution is personal and selfish.

I'm not against macro-evolution for any selfish reason. I think it is simply not in accordance with true science.

If the creationists really cared about defending the bible then they would be against round-earthers, and those that support heliocentricity just as fervently as evolutionists.

I debated a priest of the "order of ST John" who believed in the heliocentric theory. I would debate it still today. But, it's not a serious (to my mind) issue. As I've stated already...macro-evolution leads to blaspheme against Jesus Christ. It also, is contrary to the staight forward understanding of the Genesis text.

The only reason to single out evolution is because it takes away one of their favorite things about being a creationist… being made specially by their God.

I love truth. That mankind is nobler by far than any other creature is to me...self evident. Without evidence to the contrary why should I believe otherwise? You claim there is evidence. I have looked at the evidence presented to me and have found it to be utterly unconvincing. The main thing to recognize being that the arguments used to support macro-evolution rely on assumptions that cannot be proven correct.

It is a more complicated fact obfuscated by religious propaganda, but a fact none the less.

In my world (America) there isn't any religious propaganda. I turn off any lunatic preacher I come across. I have made up my own mind thus far. I'm not afraid of some science data coming along and upsetting the apple cart of my pet theories. I'am convinced that God wrote the Bible and that what appears to be proven against it (in the thinking of others) will with objective investigation be proven false.

Follow the TEs lead and find a new interpretation for creation of man because you might as well be arguing for a flat Earth at this point.

I think the TE's are simply compromising due to their inability to withstand the attack against the Bible that the false science of macro-evolution is. I know of no reason to concede anything to the false science of the ToE.

Joman.





Joman.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

[/color]

The idea that the world is a round rock spinning around the sun does not go against the bible.

There are certainly those who disagree with your interpretation. Consider the Biblical Astronomer. Geradus Bouw who is a geocentric as is Marshall Hall who maintains the Fixed Earth web site as is Malcolm Bowden who also writes for True Origins. They base their geocentrism on clear and obvious intrepretation of scripture while non geocentric literalists have to dance around a lot of verses to reinterpret them as not geocentric or maybe you should read (emphasis added)

Cardinal Bellarmine's Letter to Foscarini (1615

My Very Reverend Father,

I have read with interest the letter in Italian and the essay in Latin with Your [Reverence] sent me; I thank you for the one and for the other and confess that they are full of intelligence and erudition. You ask for my opinion and so I shall give it to you, but very briefly, since now you have little time for reading and I for writing.

First, . . . to want to affirm that in reality the sun is at the center of the world and only turns on itself without moving from east to west, and the earth . . . revolves with great speed about the sun . . . is a very dangerous thing, likely not only to irritate all scholastic philosophers and theologians, but also to harm the Holy Faith by rendering Holy Scripture false. For your [Reverence] has well shown many ways of interpreting Holy Scripture, but has not applied them to particular cases; without a doubt you would have encountered very great difficulties if you had wanted to interpret all those passages you yourself cited.

Second, I say that, as you know, the Council [of Trent] prohibits interpreting Scripture against the common consensus of the Holy Fathers; and if Your [Reverence] wants to read not only the Holy Fathers, but also the modern commentaries on genesis, the Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Joshua, you will find all agreeing in the literal interpretation that the sun is in heaven and turns around the earth with great speed, and that the earth is very far from heaven and sits motionless at the center of the world. Consider now, with your sense of prudence, whether the Church can tolerate giving Scripture a meaning contrary to the Holy Fathers and to all the Greek and Latin commentators. Nor can one answer that this is not a matter of faith, since if it is not a matter of faith "as regards the topic," it is a matter of faith "as regards the speaker"; and so it would be heretical to say that Abraham did not have two children and Jacob twelve, as well as to say that Christ was not born of a virgin, because both are said by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of the prophets and the apostles.

Third, I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun is at the center of the world and the earth in the third heaven, and that the sun does not circle the earth but the earth circles the sun, then one would have to proceed with great care in explaining the Scriptures that appear contrary, and say rather that we do not understand them than what is demonstrated is false. But I will not believe that there is such a demonstration, until it is shown to me . . . . and in case of doubt one must not abandon the Holy Scripture as interpreted by the Holy Fathers. I add that the one who wrote, "The sun also riseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose," was Solomon, who not only spoke inspired by God, but was a man above all others wise and learned in the human sciences and in the knowledge of created things; he received all this wisdom from God; therefore it is not likely that he was affirming something that was contrary to truth already demonstrated or capable of being demonstrated.
​

 

[Joman]

Unless, as other TEs have pointed out, Adam is a metaphor for all of mankind. Adam even translates as man does it not?

They haven't any scriptural basis for their interpretation do they?

I know this has been done to death here but macro is no different than micro. It’s the same process.

I disagree. That evolution is the change that leads to diversity within a kind of creature; is acceptable. But, that isn't the same as saying that the power to diversify within a kind can lead to a new kind. Therefore, a delineation is appropriate.

Yet the church of antiquity certainly thought the world was flat by reading the very same text. You are just beter equipped to interpret it now through the knowledge science has given you.

It doesn't matter what silly notions others past or present have does it? How does their silliness help your debate? The world is swamped with falsehoods. Scientists are not immune to silliness and yet we all continue to respect the true scientists.
When you use arguments like this it leads a person to think that you don't mind being unfair. I'd like to think better of you.

Joman.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

You haven't shown the Bible to be in error concerning the solar system. You've only shown examples of men who where mistaken in their understanding of what the Bible says.

That is the same thing as saying that the bible shouldn’t be read literally. You are defending an interpreted view of the text. That’s the important thing to understand.

I'am unaware of any indisputable evidence for the occurence of any macro-evloutionary change in any biological system.

I’m not sure anything is indisputable, but if you do some honest reading about ERVs you’ll find some VERY compelling evidence.

I'm not against macro-evolution for any selfish reason. I think it is simply not in accordance with true science.

What is “true science”? Science that does not conflict with your particular interpretations of the bible? Honestly.. I want to know.

I debated a priest of the "order of ST John" who believed in the heliocentric theory. I would debate it still today. But, it's not a serious (to my mind) issue. As I've stated already...macro-evolution leads to blaspheme against Jesus Christ. It also, is contrary to the staight forward understanding of the Genesis text.

”Straight forward” meaning literal? Don’t you realize that a “straight forward” reading of the text is what brought the flat earth and geo-centric universe?

I love truth. That mankind is nobler by far than any other creature is to me...self evident. Without evidence to the contrary why should I believe otherwise? You claim there is evidence. I have looked at the evidence presented to me and have found it to be utterly unconvincing. The main thing to recognize being that the arguments used to support macro-evolution rely on assumptions that cannot be proven correct.

Nobody claims to “prove” anything. There is, however, a vast amount of overwhelming evidence. ERVs are just one of the most convincing. You may only find the evidence unconvincing because of your literal reading of the bible. In other words, you are severly biased and don’t know it.

In my world (America) there isn't any religious propaganda. I turn off any lunatic preacher I come across. I have made up my own mind thus far. I'm not afraid of some science data coming along and upsetting the apple cart of my pet theories. I'am convinced that God wrote the Bible and that what appears to be proven against it (in the thinking of others) will with objective investigation be proven false.

I’d honestly like to hear why you thing the ToE has been proven false. What knowledge do you have that all the biologists of the world do not?

I think the TE's are simply compromising due to their inability to withstand the attack against the Bible that the false science of macro-evolution is. I know of no reason to concede anything to the false science of the ToE.

I think you are about to hear from a lot of TEs that will testify otherwise.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

They haven't any scriptural basis for their interpretation do they?

The fact that you, and other creationists here, have pointed out parts of the bible that must be interpreted and not taken literally is basis for genesis to be interpreted.

I disagree. That evolution is the change that leads to diversity within a kind of creature; is acceptable. But, that isn't the same as saying that the power to diversify within a kind can lead to a new kind. Therefore, a delineation is appropriate.

But your delineation exists only to preserve your current interpretation of the bible. Can you define kind? Can you tell me how exactly the delineation is applied?

It doesn't matter what silly notions others past or present have does it? How does their silliness help your debate? The world is swamped with falsehoods. Scientists are not immune to silliness and yet we all continue to respect the true scientists.
When you use arguments like this it leads a person to think that you don't mind being unfair. I'd like to think better of you.

I’m not being unfair. The fact that the church used to think the world was flat is EXACTLY the same as your church thinking the ToE is false. I’m using it to try and make you realize that previous “truths” held by the church due to a particular literal reading of the bible are flat out wrong. I’m trying to open your mind to the possibility that your current belief about what is “truth” may be subject to the same flaw theirs was.

 

[jonesdon]

Perhaps, the wrong question is being asked -- whether our human origin is either science (evolution) or religion (creation)? Why not use the complete complement of our human capability for understanding & knowledge -- which includes, also, philosophy (logic), creative arts (e.g. poetry & painting via esthetics), and spiritual (mystical) -- to arrive at a more complete result? So what are "facts" and/or "reality"? I'm wondering if, actually, the Renaissance men knew better! Today, we seem overwhelmed by the details in specialized disciplines.

DJ from San Jose

 

[Erock83]

Tell me how you think the ToE attacks the bible.

I don’t think that ToE attacks the bible. I believe ToE to be amoral. My point is that when an Evoist is disputing the creation story they do so in an abusive and condescending way(not all the time but it does seem to happen a lot especially here on CF). My point was simply to say there are more tactful and respectful ways to get your point across. The above is not directed personally to your, aside from our difference in opinion about the connotation of the word myth I would say that you address the debate in a very professional and respectful manner.

One Love.

 

[Praxiteles]

I don’t think that ToE attacks the bible. I believe ToE to be amoral.

And you're absolutely correct; it is amoral.

Is that an observation only, or is there more to it than that for you?

My point is that when an Evoist is disputing the creation story they do so in an abusive and condescending way(not all the time but it does seem to happen a lot especially here on CF). My point was simply to say there are more tactful and respectful ways to get your point across. The above is not directed personally to your, aside from our difference in opinion about the connotation of the word myth I would say that you address the debate in a very professional and respectful manner.

One Love.

Often we are, but in the great majority of cases it depends upon the attitude of the person with whom we're debating.

So frequently someone comes in here with a high handed attitude, and naturally that gets people's hackles up. Especially since these people are always firing blanks - it's all noise and no substance.

You have a look at those responses to people with genuine questions - they are answered genuinely.

 

[nogodknowpeace]

It amazes me that there is so much debate about evolution.
Its like debateing if the earth is flat.
Anyone who says the earth is no more than 6000 years old is not worthy of debate.

 

[Praxiteles]

It amazes me that there is so much debate about evolution.
Its like debateing if the earth is flat.
Anyone who says the earth is no more than 6000 years old is not worthy of debate.

Some people know no better, since it's been all they've ever taught. Those who come in here with an enquiring mind deserve civility. Those that come in here with a supposed magic bullet, and little else but bluster, deserve to have a big shoeprint on their gluteus maximus.

 

[Nightson]

Perhaps, the wrong question is being asked -- whether our human origin is either science (evolution) or religion (creation)? Why not use the complete complement of our human capability for understanding & knowledge -- which includes, also, philosophy (logic), creative arts (e.g. poetry & painting via esthetics), and spiritual (mystical) -- to arrive at a more complete result? So what are "facts" and/or "reality"? I'm wondering if, actually, the Renaissance men knew better! Today, we seem overwhelmed by the details in specialized disciplines.

DJ from San Jose

...

What?

 

[Erock83]

It amazes me that there is so much debate about evolution.
Its like debateing if the earth is flat.
Anyone who says the earth is no more than 6000 years old is not worthy of debate.

Any idea no matter how much you disagree with it is worthy of discussion. My suggestion is that you respect others ideas even if you know or believe them to be wrong.

One Love

 

[nogodknowpeace]

Some people know no better, since it's been all they've ever taught. Those who come in here with an enquiring mind deserve civility. Those that come in here with a supposed magic bullet, and little else but bluster, deserve to have a big shoeprint on their gluteus maximus.[/QUOTE

Thank god for humour

 

[nogodknowpeace]

Any idea no matter how much you disagree with it is worthy of discussion. My suggestion is that you respect others ideas even if you know or believe them to be wrong.

One Love

You are treading on dangerous ground asking me to respect other peoples ideas if someone decides to kill in the name of god do you expect me to respect their idea i dont think so.

I agree in freedom of speech but i dont have to respect other peoples ideas.(but even freedom of specch has its limits like here in the uk you are not alowed to preach terrorism which is good)

 

[Praxiteles]

You are treading on dangerous ground asking me to respect other peoples ideas if someone decides to kill in the name of god do you expect me to respect their idea i dont think so.

I agree in freedom of speech but i dont have to respect other peoples ideas.(but even freedom of specch has its limits like here in the uk you are not alowed to preach terrorism which is good)

Methinks someone has been watching Richard Dawkins on the telly.

 

[nogodknowpeace]

Methinks someone has been watching Richard Dawkins on the telly.

You are right i never get involved in these debates but after watching dawkins tonight i am a bit worried about some of the preachers that are out there. Also the london bombing in july must have started something in me as well.