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

[RickG]

KJ English ≠ Elizabethan English

KJ English = Jacobean English

AV, I too prefer reading the KJV because I like the way it reads. However, I am aware of the translation problems, therefore, I am not bound by a complete literal translation. There is absolutely no doubt that in the word earth should be understood to be land. The people of that time had absolutely no concept of the planet earth, much less its size. Replace earth with land and genesis makes much more sense.

 

[mathetes123]

Yeah, light without the sun. That's another problem, isn't it, unless you provide a non literal explanation which then means abandoning a literal translation.

Nevertheless, the point missed is the fact that land plants did not appear in the geologic record until Ordovician, 450 million years ago; well after marine plants and animals. Flowering plants, i.e. fruits, did not appear until the Triassic 200 million years ago. These are facts known to be true.

The only argument I am making is that with this knowledge, I see no problem in seeing the evolution of not only all life, but man as well.

Of course you are free to put your faith in man or God's word. In either case, don't fool yourself into thinking it is anything more than faith. Unless we have the ability to go back 450 million years to calibrate these dating methods, we have no way of knowing if they are accurate.

 

[ThouShaltNotPoe]

I do interpret Genesis 2:7 LITERALLY. And we should begin by acknowledging that "literal" doesn't demand only ONE possible interpretation.

In ancient Hebrew language, how would one say "the basic chemical elements of the earth's crust"? After all, there are no technical terms for it.

Does it not make sense to simply say that the non-living ingredients from which Adam was made was "the dust of the ground" or "soil"?

And does Genesis 2:7 say WHEN Adam was formed from the dust of the ground? No. Does it say how many intermediate processes were involved? No.

So there is NO REASON why Genesis 2:7 is not compatible with millions of years between the FIRST "dust of the ground" (that is, the formation of the earth's crust, its erosion, and its utilization by plants, etc.) and the eventual evolution of humans from earlier forms of life.

Moreover, as VerySincere posted here many times and in his BSF forum articles, Gen. 2:7 describes ABIOGENESIS. The living human was formed from non-living ingredients: the dust of the ground (chemical elements.)

The ancient Hebrews weren't focused on timelines and processes. They were focused on WHICH GOD they would recognize and worship. Genesis 1 is about WHO (God), not the when (timelines) and the how (intermediate processes.)

So that is why I strongly believe in LITERAL INTERPRETATION of the Hebrew Bible while rejecting the TRADITIONS which Bible-deniers and science-deniers wish to impose upon the Bible text.

 

[Tellastory]

Neither has germ theory, atomic theory or gravitational theory. You clearly don't know what 'theory' means, in the scientific context.

Totally different than what has been established as laws of science.

'The world' (read: scientifically literate people) is talking about it as if it's among the best supported scientific theories. Which it is.

Well, if you trust the world more than God's word, then nothing I can say will change that.

Modifying a theory does not invalidate it.

No, but a work in progress is hardly a proven fact.

Virtually no one in the relevant scientific fields has 'recanted' the ToE. Those that do have terrible reasons for doing so.

In your opinion.

Accumulating knowledge in new areas of study does not invalidate the ToE.

Again, a work in progress mean that it is not proven yet.

You are speaking out of ignorance.

And yet so many are taking the evolution theory as gospel.

It's like a homicide detective squad when after reading a fictional novel wherein the butler was the murderer, goes to a fresh crime scene and declares that the butler did it while some lone private eye interjected that the deceased does not have a butler employed, but the squad is writing up the final report anyway.

Meanwhile, the crime scene is yet to be processed by the forensics team still........ and because the matter is settled, the forensics team has to cater to the squad's final report as case closed or lose their jobs...... and strangely enough, no butler was ever arrested, but the media never reports the obvious.

And the lone private eye is heckled and ridiculed for saying otherwise.

That's the world for you.

That is how I see it, but I reckon when it comes to hearing His words, it is on God to cause the increase as He is the One that is ministering.

 

[AV1611VET]

AV, I too prefer reading the KJV because I like the way it reads. However, I am aware of the translation problems, therefore, I am not bound by a complete literal translation. There is absolutely no doubt that in the word earth should be understood to be land. The people of that time had absolutely no concept of the planet earth, much less its size. Replace earth with land and genesis makes much more sense.

Right.

And while we're at it, replace Red Sea with Reed Sea?

Replace badger's skins with porpoise skins?

Replace leviathan with alligator? behemoth with hippopotamus?

Replace Mark with Q?

Drop the last sixteen verses of Mark?

Replace "his" with "her" in Colossians 4:15?

JEHOVAH with YAHWEH?

Just to name a few?

And it'll all make sense -- right?

 

[ThouShaltNotPoe]

Virtually no one in the relevant scientific fields has 'recanted' the ToE. Those that do have terrible reasons for doing so.

In your opinion.

No. It is NOT just an opinion. Some things are facts.

Show me what you believe is the #1 BEST EVIDENCE against the theory of evolution. Evaluating that evidence is NOT a subjective opinion. In fact, I've found that in most cases it comes down to debunking a LIE or manipulating evidence by focusing on some discredited data or NOT UNDERSTANDING the evidence.

I was a young earth creationist speaker and debater for years. (I did not have the high profile that VerySincere did. I didn't personally know the big shots of the movement like he did. But I have every "creation science" book and went to all of the conferences. And for campus debates, even after I hadn't been a student there in years, he'd call on me to help with campus events as a panelist.) I first began to repent of my position when God convicted me of the rampant lying with our movement. I also began to study the Hebrew text of GEnesis and eventually realized that there was NO DENIAL of evolutionary processes nor of billions of years. I also found there was nothing but TRADITION supporting a GLOBAL flood.

So I prefer God's BIBLE and God's CREATION when I want answers to my questions. God has never let me down and he doesn't contradict himself. But the traditions some promote fail often.

 

[AV1611VET]

I was a young earth creationist speaker and debater for years. I first began to repent of my position when God convicted me of the rampant lying with our movement.

You don't have to answer this, but would I be correct if this god you are talking about -- his name is YAHWEH?

 

[ThouShaltNotPoe]

And the lone private eye is heckled and ridiculed for saying otherwise.

The ol' conspiracy theory tactic combined with playing-the-victim. All rolled into one.

When you don't have evidence, drama tactics are a last resort.

Poor heckled private eye!

That's the world for you.

As a former anti-evolution, YEC crusader, I can tell you that that is the "creation science" industry for you. It was a sad, sad world of "Lying for Jesus." But we were gullible and trusted what the liars told us. We all had our Henry Morris books.

[I do NOT claim to have the extent of background that VerySincere had. But I was very active through my Campus Crusade group on the university campus.]

That is how I see it, but I reckon when it comes to hearing His words, it is on God to cause the increase as He is the One that is ministering.

Amen. God rescued me from the evolution-deniers of the young earth creationist movement. But I'm guilty of helping to deceive many.

 

[AV1611VET]

God rescued me from the evolution-deniers of the young earth creationist movement.

YAHWEH rescued you from the evolution-deniers, did he?

 

[RickG]

Of course you are free to put your faith in man or God's word. In either case, don't fool yourself into thinking it is anything more than faith. Unless we have the ability to go back 450 million years to calibrate these dating methods, we have no way of knowing if they are accurate.

By what scientific evidence do you have to the contrary?

 

[mathetes123]

I do interpret Genesis 2:7 LITERALLY. And we should begin by acknowledging that "literal" doesn't demand only ONE possible interpretation.

In ancient Hebrew language, how would one say "the basic chemical elements of the earth's crust"? After all, there are no technical terms for it.

Does it not make sense to simply say that the non-living ingredients from which Adam was made was "the dust of the ground" or "soil"?

And does Genesis 2:7 say WHEN Adam was formed from the dust of the ground? No. Does it say how many intermediate processes were involved? No.

So there is NO REASON why Genesis 2:7 is not compatible with millions of years between the FIRST "dust of the ground" (that is, the formation of the earth's crust, its erosion, and its utilization by plants, etc.) and the eventual evolution of humans from earlier forms of life.

Moreover, as VerySincere posted here many times and in his BSF forum articles, Gen. 2:7 describes ABIOGENESIS. The living human was formed from non-living ingredients: the dust of the ground (chemical elements.)

The ancient Hebrews weren't focused on timelines and processes. They were focused on WHICH GOD they would recognize and worship. Genesis 1 is about WHO (God), not the when (timelines) and the how (intermediate processes.)

So that is why I strongly believe in LITERAL INTERPRETATION of the Hebrew Bible while rejecting the TRADITIONS which Bible-deniers and science-deniers wish to impose upon the Bible text.

Genesis does give the who, what, when and where, you just cannot accept them because they don't fit with your faith in evolution.

 

[OllieFranz]

KJ English ≠ Elizabethan English

KJ English = Jacobean English

I'm enough of a pedant that the first time he wrote "Elizabethan English" in regard to the language of the AV was to say out loud "Jacobean English!" But I did not post it because I realized that the English itself did not change in that short a time. There is no huge discernible difference between the language in Shakespeare's early plays (written in Elizabeth's reign) and his last plays (written in James' reign). Similarly there was no major change in 1952 when "The King's English" (George VI) became "The Queen's English (Elizabeth II).

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Totally different

Exactly the same, actually. The ToE is a theory in the exact same sense that germ theory, atomic theory and gravitational theory are theories.

than what has been established as laws of science.

Was anyone talking about laws? No.

Do you know the difference and relationship between law and theory? Clearly not.

Can you actually name a single established scientific law that invalidates the ToE?

Go ahead. Try it.

[HINT: No, you can't.]

Well, if you trust the world more than God's word,

You don't have 'God's word'. You have an imagination, which you've anthropomorphized and deified. There is zero indication that this 'god' exists anywhere outside the confines of your skull.

then nothing I can say will change that.

Actually, a critically robust body of evidence would change that.

A coherent definition of 'god' would change that.

A workable epistemology for your assertions about God could change that.

A reliable means of discerning 'God's word' from something you may merely be imagining would change that.

I am prepared to amend what I believe in light of logic, reason, evidence and/or a combination thereof. I believe things for good reasons, not stupid ones, you see.

Any of the things I just mentioned would cause me to change my beliefs regarding your assertions. An indication that you have the slightest clue what you're talking about would be a good place to start.

No, but a work in progress is hardly a proven fact.

Was anyone talking about facts? No.

Do you know the difference and relationship between fact and theory? Clearly not.

In your opinion.

No, in reality. The number of YEC's in relevant scientific fields is miniscule. This is not up for debate.

Again, a work in progress mean that it is not proven yet.

Again, you have no clue what you're talking about.

Gravitational, germ and atomic theories are all 'works in progress'. The fact that we don't know everything about a particular subject does not mean we don't know anything.

And yet so many are taking the evolution theory as gospel.

Absolutely no one is doing that. In reality, the people who accept the ToE, like myself, are the ones who have bothered to study it, and understand the evidence.

Conversely, YECs don't even know what the ToE is, let alone what a refutation of it would look like.

It's like a homicide detective squad when after reading a fictional novel wherein the butler was the murderer, goes to a fresh crime scene and declares that the butler did it while some lone private eye interjected that the deceased does not have a butler employed, but the squad is writing up the final report anyway.

Meanwhile, the crime scene is yet to be processed by the forensics team still........ and because the matter is settled, the forensics team has to cater to the squad's final report as case closed or lose their jobs...... and strangely enough, no butler was ever arrested, but the media never reports the obvious.

And the lone private eye is heckled and ridiculed for saying otherwise.

That's the world for you.

That's an extremely crappy analogy for you. I can't imagine what you think this is supposed to illustrate.

That is how I see it, but I reckon when it comes to hearing His words, it is on God to cause the increase as He is the One that is ministering.

I believe you believe that.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Genesis does give the who, what, when and where, you just cannot accept them because they don't fit with your faith in evolution.

I find it endlessly hilarious when the faithful invoke 'faith' as a negative criticism.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I find it endlessly hilarious when the faithful invoke 'faith' as a negative criticism.

This.

 

[KWCrazy]

. There is zero indication that this 'god' exists anywhere outside the confines of your skull.

Not true at all.

The testimony of those who have had encounters with God, His angels or demons are evidence as witness testimony is evidence.

God doesn't reveal Himself to those who deny Him, but He DOES reveal Himself to those who seek Him. Aguments from incredulity regarding a deity for whom you have never searched does not constitute evidence that He does not exist.

The universe itsself shows signs of design and order, not the random chaos that comes from disorder.

Actually, a critically robust body of evidence would change that.

All will have irrubutable proof of God's existence in the moment that it is too late for faith to save you from damnation.

A coherent definition of 'god' would change that.

We have a coherent defintion of God, but the incredulous mind of the atheist can neither understand nor accept it.

I am prepared to amend what I believe in light of logic, reason, evidence and/or a combination thereof.

What evidence do you have that logic and reason alone are the governing factors of the universe? What evidence do you have that the incredible complexity of even one simple cell could happen by itself in a hundred trillion years? What evidence do you have that random amino acids could somehow assemble the required proteins to form life, and that that life would contain the information required to subsequently form every living thing in the universe? What evidence do you have that the physical laws of the universe are the absolute governors; that there is no greater force which can supersede them? What evidence do you have that everything which exists could have somehow defied the very laws of physics that govern it and somehow come into existence from absolute nothingness? You MUST either believe this foolish notion or the even more foolish notion that somehow matter is eternal but God is not.

The arrogant ignorance of some people is beyond me. Why do you assume that peolpe who reject your theory do not understand your theory? Can your mind not grasp that someone could look at the same data and come to a different conclusion? Is your grasp on reality so tenuous that any challenge to your interpretation makes you lash out and attack others as ignorant and unaware? Do you not know that the ToE is rammed down people's throats by educators the entire time they are in school, and by so-called documentaries when they are not?

I don't think there is anyone over 15 with at least average cognitive skills who doesn't have a good working knowledge of your molecules-to-man dogma. Not understanding this makes yo sound like a grade school child. Grow up. People can understand your theory and still reject it. You don't have to act like a nine year old about it.

Do you know the difference and relationship between fact and theory? Clearly not.

Yet another statement of ignorance. You have no way of knowing what anyone else knows, so you ASSUME that they are ignorant. It says more about you than it does about anyone else.

I'm spectacularly unimpressed by your inability to articulate a pursuasive argument without personal attacks and faulty reasoning. Please try to speak intelligently with others and they will consider you more mature and rational.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Not true at all.

Great. Let's see what you have to offer,

The testimony of those who have had encounters with God, His angels or demons are evidence as witness testimony is evidence.

No it isn't. Not without a reliable means of discerning that testimony from imagination, or misinterpretation, or lies. And even then, all you would have is eye witness testimony, which I don't accept as evidence for extraordinary claims.

Neither do you. You don't believe Joseph Smith was visited by the angel Moroni. You don't believe Muhammad had visions of Jehanna. You don't believe Hindu mystics on the streets of Calcutta can cure disease through 'chakra alignment'.

Only when it comes to your beliefs does 'eye witness testimony' (which you can't substantiate in the first place) magically become an acceptable standard of evidence.

God doesn't reveal Himself to those who deny Him, but He DOES reveal Himself to those who seek Him.

Naked assertion.

Aguments from incredulity

Are nowhere to be found in anything I typed.

regarding a deity for whom you have never searched does not constitute evidence that He does not exist.

I don't need evidence of his non-existence. You are the positive claimant. The burden of proof is yours. You haven't met it.

All will have irrubutable proof of God's existence in the moment that it is too late for faith to save you from damnation.

I can imagine these fantasy scenarios right along with you. In the end, I'm still left with no indication that this has any referent in reality.

We have a coherent defintion of God,

Present it.

What evidence do you have that logic and reason alone are the governing factors of the universe?

I never made that claim.

What evidence do you have that the incredible complexity of even one simple cell could happen by itself in a hundred trillion years?

I never made that claim.

What evidence do you have that random amino acids could somehow assemble the required proteins to form life, and that that life would contain the information required to subsequently form every living thing in the universe?

I never made that claim.

What evidence do you have that the physical laws of the universe are the absolute governors; that there is no greater force which can supersede them?

I never made that claim.

What evidence do you have that everything which exists could have somehow defied the very laws of physics that govern it and somehow come into existence from absolute nothingness?

I never made that claim.

You MUST either believe this foolish notion or the even more foolish notion that somehow matter is eternal but God is not.

No, I am under no obligation to do that.

The arrogant ignorance of some people is beyond me.

Says the guy who just spouted off an avalanche of straw men.

Why do you assume that peolpe who reject your theory do not understand your theory?

Firstly, I don't assume it. I've concluded it, based on years of interaction with YECs.

Secondly, it's not 'my' theory. It's the cornerstone theory of biology.

Can your mind not grasp that someone could look at the same data and come to a different conclusion?

I could count the number of YECs I've met who have actually studied the ToE on one hand. Most of them betray their ignorance at a very basic level from the very start, so there is no indication they've studied the data to begin with.

Is your grasp on reality so tenuous that any challenge to your interpretation makes you lash out and attack others as ignorant and unaware?

No, the fact that they display a lack of rudimentary understanding makes me 'lash out'.

Do you not know that the ToE is rammed down people's throats by educators the entire time they are in school, and by so-called documentaries when they are not?

It isn't 'rammed down your throat', any more than germ theory is. It only feels that way because you've made a religious adversary of it.

I don't think there is anyone over 15 with at least average cognitive skills who doesn't have a good working knowledge of your molecules-to-man dogma.

You are welcome to think that. You are wrong.

Yet another statement of ignorance. You have no way of knowing what anyone else knows,

Actually, I do. It's called 'observing'. What people say about a topic reveals their level of understanding.

so you ASSUME that they are ignorant.

No, I conclude that based on what they have to say about a particular topic.

I'm spectacularly unimpressed

I never have these exchanges for the benefit of YECs. I consider exposing ignorance, logical fallacies and blatant falsehoods in a public forum to be a social obligation. This is not for me, and it's absolutely not you.

by your inability to articulate a pursuasive argument without personal attacks

Pointing out ignorance is not a personal attack.

and faulty reasoning

You made numerous logical fallacies in your response here. You are hardly in a position to critique my reasoning skills.

 

[mathetes123]

I find it endlessly hilarious when the faithful invoke 'faith' as a negative criticism.

The criticism is not in the faith in evolution, but the object of the faith.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

I find it endlessly hilarious when the faithful invoke 'faith' as a negative criticism.

All kidding aside, at the point they resort to calling science, "faith," is the point they concede reasonable argument.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

The criticism is not in the faith in evolution, but the object of the faith.

Which is why we don't have "faith" in ToE, in the religious sense of the word.
Faith is not a virtue.