Why creationists reject evolution

[re:pit]

ATTENTION ALL CREATIONISTS

Well I don't think there is much to improved your theory as it is not falsifiable. No one can proove it wrong. So you guys are very safe in that way.

But the theory of evolution can help. According to your bible (which i do not believe in but nevermind that for now) we are all decsendants from Adam and Eve. All animals are decsendants of those in Noah's ark. Eg - I assume there would have only been one pair of dogs in the ark. The theory of evolution helps you explain the diversity of dogs we see today. You guys need to borrow some evolutionary theory to explain diversity... otherwise you would need to explain how there are so many breeds of dogs around today. Scientists have seen new species been created (never mind breeds), so you cannot deny that happens either.

Now what you need to do is borrow parts of evolutionary theory that support your beleifs. You can pick and choose. You do not have to accept evolutionary theory in its entirety. You just pick the bits you like, just like you pick the bits out of the bible that you like. As for the other bits - easy! Just debunk them with some psuedoscience, or ignore them and say that god made it like that to test your faith. Remember - no one can proove you wrong when you have god on your side! Evolution as a means of the origin of life on the other hand - can be disproven! So really you don't have to do much, just be careful of what real science you do use, and science you don't use. And if you make a mistake - don't worry, you can change your mind later and pick some different science or a different part of the bible to fix up your mistake.

 

[RightWingGirl]

It depends RWG, if anything you see can't be a contradiction due to a priori assumption.

I can have an assumption I cannot back up. In the case of the "flat earth" those verses are well known to not be indicating a "flat earth", and indeed this conlcusion is backed by Hebrew scholars. I have an assumption, but I also have proof to back it up.


In Job 38:1,31 it says; "Can you bind the chains of the Pleiades, or loose the cords of Orion?"
Now how did Job, 4000 years ago, know about gravitational effects on star clusters?



The Pleiades cluster is unusual, because unlike most clusters, its stars are gravitationally held together in the group instead of dispersing. Hyde (in "The Night Sky", Hodder & Stoughton, 1993, p 61) estimates this cluster will survive one billion years before it breaks apart.

Many of the stars of Orion belong to an `open star cluster' - a group of similar stars travelling through space together about 1500 LY away. However the cluster is "loose" - the stars of the group are dispersing in different directions, and eventually the cluster will be no more. The gravity of the cluster is not enough to bind the group together.

 

[Grengor]

I can have an assumption I cannot back up. In the case of the "flat earth" those verses are well known to not be indicating a "flat earth", and indeed this conlcusion is backed by Hebrew scholars. I have an assumption, but I also have proof to back it up.

I was talking about when you asked for examples of contradictions in the Bible.

In Job 38:1,31 it says; "Can you bind the chains of the Pleiades, or loose the cords of Orion?"
Now how did Job, 4000 years ago, know about gravitational effects on star clusters?

Simple, because he didn't. You're reading into it too much. AIG also advises against this, as it can lead to using Bible verses incorrectly.

 

[RightWingGirl]

Simple, because he didn't. You're reading into it too much. AIG also advises against this, as it can lead to using Bible verses incorrectly.

Was it just a lucky guess that The Orion open star cluster is loose and disintegrating and the Pleiades cluster stars are gravitationally bound?

 

[RightWingGirl]

Were these also lucky guesses?



Bible passage: Ezekiel 26:12
Written: between 587-586 BC
Fulfilled: 333-332 BC
In Ezekiel 26:12, the prophet said that Tyre's stones, timber and soil would be thrown into the sea. That probably would have been a fitting description of how Alexander the Great built a land bridge from the mainland to the island of Tyre when he attacked in 333-332 BC. It is believed that he took the rubble from Tyre's mainland ruins and tossed it - stones, timber and soil - into the sea, to build the land bridge (which is still there).
- Copyright AboutBibleProphecy.com and 100prophecies.org
Ezekiel 26:12
They will plunder your wealth and loot your merchandise; they will break down your walls and demolish your fine houses and throw your stones, timber and rubble into the sea.



Bible passage: Isaiah 45:1
Written: perhaps between 701-681 BC
Fulfilled: 539 BC
In Isaiah 45:1, the prophet said God would open the gates of Babylon for Cyrus and his attacking army. Despite Babylon's remarkable defenses, which included moats, and walls that were more than 70-feet thick and 300-feet high, and 250 watchtowers, Cyrus was able to enter the city and conquer it. Cyrus and his troops diverted the flow of the Euphrates River into a large lake basin. Cyrus then was able to march his army across the riverbed and into the city.
- Copyright AboutBibleProphecy.com and 100prophecies.org
Isaiah 45:1
"This is what the Lord says to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I take hold of to subdue nations before him and to strip kings of their armor, to open doors before him so that gates will not be shut:









Bible passage: Isaiah 14:23
Written: perhaps between 701-681 BC
Fulfilled: 539 BC
In Isaiah 14:23, the prophet said that Babylon, which had been a world power at two different times in history, would be brought to a humble and final end. It would be reduced to swampland. After Cyrus conquered Babylon in 539 BC, the kingdom never again rose to power. The buildings of Babylon fell into a gradual state of ruin during the next several centuries. Archaeologists excavated Babylon during the 1800s. Some parts of the city could not be dug up because they were under a water table that had risen over the years.
- Copyright AboutBibleProphecy.com and 100prophecies.org
Isaiah 14:23
"I will turn her into a place for owls and into swampland; I will sweep her with the broom of destruction," declares the Lord Almighty.

 

[Brennin]

Creationist, "I believe God created man in His image."
Scientist, "Here's the evidence that shows man evolved."

.
​

The two are not mutually exclusive, if "image" is interpreted as "spiritual image" (or one could believe, as the Mormons do, that God is a celestial superman).

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

I can have an assumption I cannot back up. In the case of the "flat earth" those verses are well known to not be indicating a "flat earth", and indeed this conlcusion is backed by Hebrew scholars. I have an assumption, but I also have proof to back it up.

What you have is a new understanding of the world obtained via science. You then take this scientific knowledge and desperately try and interpret your arcane text with reality.

take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it

Tell me how you grab the edges of a ball RWG? Keepin mind that FSTDT has already shown here that there were distinct words availavle to differentiate ball (sphere) from circle (disc).

The earth takes shape like clay under a seal.

What shape does a malleable material make once it’s pressed under a seal RWG? Does a relief map come to mind?

The devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them

Tell me how you can see the entire world, at any height, if it is a globe.

The visions of my head as I lay in bed were these: I saw, and behold, a tree in the midst of the earth; and its height was great. The tree grew and became strong, and its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the end of the whole earth.

Same here. If the writers thought you could actually see the entire world if you could view it from a high altitude then it’s blatantly obvious that the world they envisioned is like the one Dragar has posted.

Once theists realized that there is an overwhelming amount of evidence supporting the fact that the earth is spherical and not the center of the universe they went back an changed their interpretation of the bible to reconcile the text with reality and save face.

The amazing part is how modern religious leaders are able to produce followers that think they are biblical literalists while teaching them some strongly interpreted parts of the bible. It’s almost as amazing as the fact that these followers don’t even realize that they are taking parts literally and other parts under extreme interpretation as their religious leaders see fit.

These poor fundies unwittingly become pawns in a religious war on science. To date science has shown the bible to be in error on the earth being the center of the universe, the world being flat, the universe being 6000 years old, man being created instantaneously, and probably more that escape me now. Why they choose to take a stand on evolution and old age and not flat earth and heliocentricity can only be explained by personal motivation as explained in the OP.

I only hop that one day you wake up and try and see the big picture by processing all the information you have obtained objectively. At that point talking snakes and such may be put back in their proper place as childhood fairy tales.

 

[awstar]

You mean people who say that the sky is not, in fact, made of "firmament" with holes in it for rain and people who say that it's impossible to make "night and day" and "plants" before making "the sun"? That's just common sense.

I don't know what you mean by "holes in the firmament for rain" since the Bible doesn't say that. But it does imply that rain never happened prior to Noah' flood. But I do know by observation that I have a plant here in my study that grows just fine, thank you very much, without being exposed to the sun or night and day. It does get light, however, which you'll notice was created prior to night and day and the sun. -- that is if you ever read Genesis. But if you're stuck on the idea that all the universe was contained in a dried pea before the big bang exploded it into all the order it exists in now -- well there's common sense indeed!

Those who have true faith will be able to accept that god exists without having to engage in some silly and ultimately futile exercise in attempting to retrospectively rationalise the Bible, when it quite clearly doesnt work.

Here's true faith:

And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him. -- Hebrews 11:6

 

[awstar]

ATTENTION ALL CREATIONISTS

The theory of evolution helps you explain the diversity of dogs we see today. You guys need to borrow some evolutionary theory to explain diversity... otherwise you would need to explain how there are so many breeds of dogs around today. Scientists have seen new species been created (never mind breeds), so you cannot deny that happens either.

A creationist doesn't need to borrow from evolution theory when it comes to natural selection. Natural selection is better explained by the breeding out of existance traits that used to be universal from the time of Noah, which had been encoded in the inherent design of the "kind" to begin with. A design God put there when wrote DNA into existance and is expressed as diversity and variety as animals and man migrated further and further from the ark.

 

[ImmortalTechnique]

why do all egyptian pictures from that time show varieties of animals similar to today's instead of generic kinds then?

 

[awstar]

Just for the record, here are the relevant verses:



From the same book of the Bible, only a few verses away:



So, there you have it: two distinct words used in two distinct ways. One means round, and the second means disk.

Actually, the Hebrew Lexicon you refered us to says "a circle, sphere used of the arch or the vault of the sky, Proverbs 8:27, Job 22:14; of the world, Isaiah 40:22"

No matter how you read it, though, it doesn't deny that God created the earth and every kind of living thing in it for His purpose, which is the main objection Creationists have with the position evolutionists hold.

 

[ImmortalTechnique]

evolution doesn't say anything one way or another about god's purpose

 

[awstar]

evolution doesn't say anything one way or another about god's purpose

It implies that man's mind evolved from matter. This contradicts God's purpose of creating man with a mind who can know Him.

Evolutionists sequence of reality = matter -> information -> mind -> god

Creationists sequence of reality = God -> mind -> information -> matter

 

[caravelair]

It implies that man's mind evolved from matter. This contradicts God's purpose of creating man with a mind who can know Him.

that makes no sense. who says an evolved mind cannot know god? why not? why can't god have created through evolution? are you saying there's something your god cannot do?

 

[TheInstant]

It implies that man's mind evolved from matter. This contradicts God's purpose of creating man with a mind who can know Him.

Evolutionists sequence of reality = matter -> information -> mind -> god

Creationists sequence of reality = God -> mind -> information -> matter

It does no such thing. Why couldn't God have created man through evolution? This would not take away from God's "purpose of creating man with a mind who can know Him." It's just a different method of creation, and the point is that the theory of evolution doesn't haven't anything to say about it either way.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

I know what GOD means as four corners and I feel most people accept the same understanding ---- we now know what the Bible means as a circle but some want to make an issue.

So what is it exactly that causes you to interpret what god “means” for things like the world not being flat in spite of all the various excerpts that I have shown in this thread and yet take a hard line literalist approach to the creation of man? I’d honestly like to know. By what criteria do you decide what is literal and what is not?

No, what I'm saying is that GOD used selective human terms to discribe what really happened, and that some of those terms are misunderstood by moderns who don't really appreciate anything the Bible has to say regardless... Those that love GOD's Word will study and investigate and research to find the entire truth and not just convenient answers and the determinations of men.

And yet when TEs use a similar argument you use for a spherical earth in the bible to reconcile the fact of evolution with the bible you reject it. Again, by what logic do you differentiate these things?

It is a long established practice that once science reveals the truth about the universe we live in, religion reinterprets it’s arcane scripture to reconcile the text with the new revelations of science. Evolution is as true as the earth is spherical. If you want to believe in the existence of god then fine… few will fault you for it. The more out of sync your religious beliefs get with reality the more you will find yourself on the fringe.

 

[Nightson]

Were these also lucky guesses?


Bible passage: Ezekiel 26:12
Written: between 587-586 BC
Fulfilled: 333-332 BC
In Ezekiel 26:12, the prophet said that Tyre's stones, timber and soil would be thrown into the sea. That probably would have been a fitting description of how Alexander the Great built a land bridge from the mainland to the island of Tyre when he attacked in 333-332 BC. It is believed that he took the rubble from Tyre's mainland ruins and tossed it - stones, timber and soil - into the sea, to build the land bridge (which is still there).
- Copyright AboutBibleProphecy.com and 100prophecies.org
Ezekiel 26:12
They will plunder your wealth and loot your merchandise; they will break down your walls and demolish your fine houses and throw your stones, timber and rubble into the sea.

You got to be joking.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2026&version=31

7 "For this is what the Sovereign LORD says: From the north I am going to bring against Tyre Nebuchadnezzar [a] king of Babylon, king of kings, with horses and chariots, with horsemen and a great army. 8 He will ravage your settlements on the mainland with the sword; he will set up siege works against you, build a ramp up to your walls and raise his shields against you. 9 He will direct the blows of his battering rams against your walls and demolish your towers with his weapons. 10 His horses will be so many that they will cover you with dust. Your walls will tremble at the noise of the war horses, wagons and chariots when he enters your gates as men enter a city whose walls have been broken through. 11 The hoofs of his horses will trample all your streets; he will kill your people with the sword, and your strong pillars will fall to the ground. 12 They will plunder your wealth and loot your merchandise; they will break down your walls and demolish your fine houses and throw your stones, timber and rubble into the sea. 13 I will put an end to your noisy songs, and the music of your harps will be heard no more. 14 I will make you a bare rock, and you will become a place to spread fishnets. You will never be rebuilt, for I the LORD have spoken, declares the Sovereign LORD.

The prophecy is talking about Nebuchadnezzer, not Alexander. Nebuchadnezzer never conquered the city.

And as for never being rebuilt....

 

[HairlessSimian]

Touché !

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Nightson again.

 

[RightWingGirl]

take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it

THis couls be better translated "That it might take hold of the ends of the earth" One can easily take hold of the ends of a sphere.

The earth takes shape like clay under a seal.

Clay under a seal is usually flat. But what is being described here is the earth taking shape; The seal is clearly a metaphor, and therefore any physical properties that the earth would have to have to be stamped by a seal are of no account.



I have to get off now, but I hope to look up the others later.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

THis couls be better translated "That it might take hold of the ends of the earth" One can easily take hold of the ends of a sphere.

Clay under a seal is usually flat. But what is being described here is the earth taking shape; The seal is clearly a metaphor, and therefore any physical properties that the earth would have to have to be stamped by a seal are of no account.

I have to get off now, but I hope to look up the others later.

It doesn’t matter what your answers are, the point of the OP still applies. You are in the same boat as LittleNipper an the same questions apply.

So what is it? Where is the point where you stop interpreting the bible through the wisdom of scientific knowledge (shpereical earth, heliocentric solar system) and start denying science because of the literal words of an ancient text that has been translated, recompiled countless times, and proven to be in need of interpretation (as you have shown in this case with the spherical earth issue)?