Why do creationists insist that the theory of evolution is inherently atheistic?

[OllieFranz]

You might want to fill your husband in on them then.

He's been starting fly-by threads asking question after question after question about what they believe.

Either that, or he's hiding behind question marks just to ridicule them.

Or he wants to be able to quote them exactly so that he does not accidently change what he says they believe into something they would vehemently disagree with.

 

[OllieFranz]

What does the creation week have to do with the Flood?

Although I find it difficult to believe that you don't know this already (and if you do, the question is likely to be a set-up), I'll bite.

Most people who believe in the six-day Special Creation also believe that Noah's Flood was a global flood and vice-versa. And on the other side of the coin, evidence that weakens the case for one is taken as evidence which weakens the case for both (even though it isn't, necessarily). So many advocates of both Special Creation and Evolution are as interested in discussing the Flood as in discussing whether the Flood was global as they are in discussing whether the Earth was created before the Sun, and count a victory in one discussionas a victory in both.

 

[MrsLurking]

Originally Posted by AV1611VET

You might want to fill your husband in on them then.

He's been starting fly-by threads asking question after question after question about what they believe.

Either that, or he's hiding behind question marks just to ridicule them.
​

Or he wants to be able to quote them exactly so that he does not accidently change what he says they believe into something they would vehemently disagree with.

Apparently AV1611Vet is so accustomed to quote-mining and using straw-man arguments that he just can't imagine an honest researcher carefully collecting the answers given by people using the own words. To him, such due diligence must surely be a sinister plot!

 

[AV1611VET]

Apparently AV1611Vet is so accustomed to quote-mining and using straw-man arguments that he just can't imagine an honest researcher carefully collecting the answers given by people using the own words. To him, such due diligence must surely be a sinister plot!

You're not an honest source? what with your vast knowledge and experience of being a YEC, I would have thought he would have you as a reference.

 

[KWCrazy]

Your obsessions with my husband's posts are of no interest to me. Why not put some energy into finding Biblical and material evidence (i.e., scientific evidence) which might suggest that your opinions have merit? (Oh, I just remembered. You are the guy whose slogan is "evidence can take a hike." That explains a lot . Never mind.)

So speaks a person who cannot and has not provided a single verse to support thier distortions of the Scriptures or the misrepresentations she espouses.

 

[KWCrazy]

You know, what I really don't understand about the Bible is why Hansel and Grettle didn't break branches or use tracking tape to find their way back home. They should have know that bread crumbs would be eaten.

How could Little Red Riding hood possibly mistake a talking wolf for her grandmother? She must have been real near sighted.

If Rumplestiltskin didn't want anyone to guess his name, why was he singing it in rhyme in an insecure location?

If so called Biblical scholars can tell wild stories about what the Bible actually sayss without ever providing any evidence, I can certainly proclaim that it's all about Aesop's Fables. After all. It's as accurate as proclaiming that the Bible supports evolution.

 

[ChristianT]

You know, what I really don't understand about the Bible is why Hansel and Grettle didn't break branches or use tracking tape to find their way back home. They should have know that bread crumbs would be eaten.

How could Little Red Riding hood possibly mistake a talking wolf for her grandmother? She must have been real near sighted.

If Rumplestiltskin didn't want anyone to guess his name, why was he singing it in rhyme in an insecure location?

If so called Biblical scholars can tell wild stories about what the Bible actually sayss without ever providing any evidence, I can certainly proclaim that it's all about Aesop's Fables. After all. It's as accurate as proclaiming that the Bible supports evolution.

Considering they deal with Hermeneutics, you are dealing with painting lava green. Hermeneutic and translation scholars don't do anything about twisting scriptures anymore than Matthew did in interpreting how Jesus fulfilled prophecies. Your examples are comical but not equivalent to what biblical scholars do, so called or not.

 

[KWCrazy]

Hermeneutic and translation scholars don't do anything about twisting scriptures anymore than Matthew did in interpreting how Jesus fulfilled prophecies. Your examples are comical but not equivalent to what biblical scholars do, so called or not.

If they were Biblical scholars and not charlatans posing as such and proclaiming wisdom that they do not possess, they could possibly point to actual verses which correlate to the absurdities they espouse. They do not. They make statements without backing. When they do provide a source of Scriptural reference it's a portion of a verse so twisted out of context that the original verse posted in its intirety semonstrates their false assertions.

I've been waiting for one of them to actualy give supporting evidence to something they claim, but they never do. We are left with the knowledge that there IS NO Scriptural basis for their claims; that it is a distortion of the word, not an interpretation of it. They simply have no credibility.

 

[TLK Valentine]

If so called Biblical scholars can tell wild stories about what the Bible actually sayss without ever providing any evidence, I can certainly proclaim that it's all about Aesop's Fables. After all. It's as accurate as proclaiming that the Bible supports evolution.

You just might have (accidentally, of course) made a good point: nobody quibbles over the gaping plot holes in Aesop's fables because nobody is trying to pass them off as literal truth -- rather, they understand that it is the message that the stories convey which teach people what is worth learning.

Now, if you guys would simply get it in your head that the Bible is not so different, you might actually learn something useful from it.

 

[mark kennedy]

If they were Biblical scholars and not charlatans posing as such and proclaiming wisdom that they do not possess, they could possibly point to actual verses which correlate to the absurdities they espouse. They do not.

As a matter of fact he did, he just didn't give you the references since you demonstrated that you haven't the slightest interest.

These are a list of some of the early fulfillments:

The slaughter of the innocents predicted in Jer 31:15; fulfilled in Mtt 2:16-18
Jesus being born of a virgin predicted in Isa 7:14 fulfilled in Mtt 1:18-25
Jesus being the seed of the woman predicted in Gen 3:15 , fulfilled in Matt 1:21

Here are some more in Matthew and elsewhere:

WAS JESUS THE MESSIAH SPOKEN OF IN THE PROPHECIES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT?

They make statements without backing.

Who makes what statements without backing?

When they do provide a source of Scriptural reference it's a portion of a verse so twisted out of context that the original verse posted in its intirety semonstrates their false assertions.

Who are 'they' and what passages are you talking in circles around?

I've been waiting for one of them to actualy give supporting evidence to something they claim, but they never do. We are left with the knowledge that there IS NO Scriptural basis for their claims; that it is a distortion of the word, not an interpretation of it. They simply have no credibility.

Ok, you would like something 'credible' Let's start with the short list of prophecies fulfilled in the early pages of Matthew and we can go from there. Still not sure who 'they' are or what they failed to 'interpret' properly but I'll play along and see how it goes.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Loudmouth]

If they were Biblical scholars and not charlatans posing as such and proclaiming wisdom that they do not possess, they could possibly point to actual verses which correlate to the absurdities they espouse.

Fine then. The Bible requires a literal Genesis that includes a lack of evolution, a young Earth, and a recent global flood. Now what?

Well, we look at the real world and find mountains of evidence for evolution, for an ancient Earth, and uninterrupted geologic processes that show no evidence for a recent global flood.

It would appear that the Bible is false. Good job.

 

[KWCrazy]

Originally Posted by KWCrazy

If they were Biblical scholars and not charlatans posing as such and proclaiming wisdom that they do not possess, they could possibly point to actual verses which correlate to the absurdities they espouse. They do not.
​

As a matter of fact he did, he just didn't give you the references since you demonstrated that you haven't the slightest interest.

These are a list of some of the early fulfillments:

No, I mean the "Biblical Schoalars" who continuously say that the Bible doesn't say what it clearly states; that the evening andf the morning could be thousands of years, that the flood was only a local flood, and that evolution is affirmed through the Bible. I could name a few names, but these people know who they are. They call themselves "Theistic evolutionists" because they want to hang with the "in" crowd but they still want to go to Heaven when they die. Professing to believe in the "truth" of the Bible and "facts" of evolution, they understand neither.

 

[Adaephon]

Originally Posted by KWCrazy http://www.christianforums.com/t7726720-56/#post62555710 If they were Biblical scholars and not charlatans posing as such and proclaiming wisdom that they do not possess, they could possibly point to actual verses which correlate to the absurdities they espouse. They do not.


No, I mean the "Biblical Schoalars" who continuously say that the Bible doesn't say what it clearly states; that the evening andf the morning could be thousands of years, that the flood was only a local flood, and that evolution is affirmed through the Bible. I could name a few names, but these people know who they are. They call themselves "Theistic evolutionists" because they want to hang with the "in" crowd but they still want to go to Heaven when they die. Professing to believe in the "truth" of the Bible and "facts" of evolution, they understand neither.

You do understand that the bible wasnt written in English, right?

 

[AV1611VET]

You do understand that the bible wasnt written in English, right?

What Bible?

 

[Loudmouth]

You do understand that the bible wasnt written in English, right?

No, he doesn't understand that. He really does think that the original authors wrote the original Bible in the King's English (i.e. King James english).

 

[ChristianT]

No, he doesn't understand that. He really does think that the original authors wrote the original Bible in the King's English (i.e. King James english).

Lol. That's not even true for English translations

 

[Adaephon]

What Bible?

Have you ever heard of the Septuagint? Masoretic scrolls? Can you guess what language they are in?

 

[AV1611VET]

Have you ever heard of the Septuagint? Masoretic scrolls? Can you guess what language they are in?

I know about the language; I've just never heard them referred to as Bibles.

 

[MrsLurking]

I know about the language; I've just never heard them referred to as Bibles.

There you have it, folks. He didn't know that the Hebrew Masoretic Text (aka Tanakh) and the Greek New Testament were Bibles of the ancient world. And he had no idea that the Septuagint (LXX) was the Bible often quoted in the New Testament. (He thought that they were quoting the King James Bible 1611 edition!)

This illustrates quite well the dangers of elevating a fallible work of man (a particular translation edition of 1611) above the original scriptures which they claim to revere. It also recalls the lessons of the Book of Proverbs about mocking instruction and knowledge.

 

[WisdomTree]

There you have it, folks. He didn't know that the Hebrew Masoretic Text (aka Tanakh) and the Greek New Testament were Bibles of the ancient world. And he had no idea that the Septuagint (LXX) was the Bible often quoted in the New Testament. (He thought that they were quoting the King James Bible 1611 edition!)

This illustrates quite well the dangers of elevating a fallible work of man (a particular translation edition of 1611) above the original scriptures which they claim to revere. It also recalls the lessons of the Book of Proverbs about mocking instruction and knowledge.

Harsh, but he had it coming...