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

[verysincere]

You have comprehension issues. I defer to the word of God in my posts, not any interpretation whatever. "The evening and the morning" is pretty darn specific, I think.

Yes, it is a Hebrew idiom meaning "from start to finish." We have similar constructs in English: "The launches of the first true astronauts was the SUNSET of the age of sailing ships exploring the world and the DAWN of a new space age exploring the cosmos."

And if you are fluent in Hebrew, yes, it is "pretty darn specific."

Yes, I prefer to defer to God's Bible rather than your cherished traditions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

KWCrazy, from looking at your posts it is clear that you have no idea what science or the scientific method is.

Now you may never believe the theory of evolution, some people don't believe the theory of gravity. That's fine. As long as you keep your beliefs to you and yours I really have no problem. But don't try to say that evolution is not science. The only websites that I have ever seen make that claim are lying creationist sites.

Now if you want to learn how it is science and how all scientific evidence supports evolution only I would be happy to try to teach you. I know I won't convince you, all I want to do is for you to change some of your untrue posts about evolution and science in general.

 

[Loudmouth]

You miss the point. I was challenged by a person who identified himself as a devout Christian, son of a missionary, and an authority on the Bible. He accused me of misinterpreting the Bible, so I challenged him to prove it.

It would seem to me that if Genesis is supposed to be the account given by the Creator that the evidence in the Creation should match up with the account, don't you agree?

There are scientific issues with evolution, as with all theories.

The evidence supports evolution, and that evidence is found in the Creation. Are you saying that God planted that evidence just to make it look like evolution occurred?

However, science is limited to the physical world.

Evolution occurs in the physical world.

However, since it cannot study the past, . . .

Science can most assuredly study the past. It does so all of the time. The genomes of species are direct records of their ancestry, just as one example.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You miss the point. I was challenged by a person who identified himself as a devout Christian, son of a missionary, and an authority on the Bible. He accused me of misinterpreting the Bible, so I challenged him to prove it. My contention has never been that the Bible is a scientific text, nor have I insinuated that creationism is a scientific theory. The physical world and the spiritual world coexist without being codependant. There are scientific issues with evolution, as with all theories. However, science is limited to the physical world. It cannot prove or disprove the spiritual world because such things are not reliably testable. Science can tell us much about the world around us. However, since it cannot study the past, only make assumptions based on the evidence. It cannot invalidate or support creation. It all comes down to faith, which was as it was always intended.

No,creationism is not a scientific theory. There is no "Theory of Creationism".

And you are wrong, of course science can study the past. Why would you make such a foolish statement? It seems that you don't even understand the nature of time, much less the nature of science.

Lastly science is not based upon faith. At least not the same meaning of faith that Christians use.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Why would you make such a foolish statement?

Oh, I think we all have a fair idea of the answer to that one.

 

[KWCrazy]

You're a fundamentalist set in your ways to sufficient degree to deny reality itself because it fits better with your delusion.

False. Show how the Scriptures support your conclusions and invalidate mine and I'll give your position credance. I do not put so high a value on science as to think that the physical world is all that exists, especially after I have already experienced things which are non physical.

You can read for example Origen (1st century). He basically said that he thought no-one would be dumb enough to read genesis or the flood story literally

Apparently Jesus did, since He mentioned Noah and the flood specifically. The first three chapters of Genesis are referenced in the New Testament over 200 times. Apparently others believed it as well. As for Origen, I don't know much about him. However, if he didn't believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ then he was the biggest fool of all.

Augustin is another example, who said that when an interpretation conflicts with reality, the interpretation is wrong. NOT the universe.

I would put it this way. When the science of man conflicts with the truth of God, then man is wrong.

Thing is you read the bible with your eyes.

Actually, I use my toes. I love the way the words make them tingle.

Your cultural perception.

False. I read the Bible for myself. I never relied on anyone else's interpretations.

And other factors like upbringing,

My mom was OEC.

irrational fear of the world around you

Foolish, unbiased speculation.

You fail to realize it wasn't written by or for you.

What an ignorant statement. Do you REALLY think anyone believes that they wrote the Bible? Or that it was written for them alone? Do you even read this stuff you write?

Even if I bothered to drop you a few links or even schedule appointments with theologians to talk with you, you'd find some way to wrest yourself free from rational thought and continue on as before.

If you're going to talk about the Scriptures, the ultimate authority on theological veracity would be God Himself. Why is it that your side can never seen to post verses to support your DISTORTIONS of the truth? I'm not interested in man's misrepresentation. Show me where it is written.

Angry, uninformed and un-christ-like.

So states the person who insinuates that Christ lied.

The problem is your foundation, it's way off. You insist that your interpretation is infallible.

False. I insist that the word of God is infallible.

No matter what I show you will change that. Not the conflict that arises between Genesis 1 and 2.

There is no conflict between Genesis one and two, only differing descriptions of the same creation. What about Exodus 20:11? Where is your answer to that?

I can show you how others read the bible

Irrelevant. Show the text.

But I do not think, given the way you argue, that you'll change.

Show me the text.

Or stop calling me a liar either.

When you lie, I'm not going to call you a hairdresser.

I'm an atheist after all, and atheists always lie, isn't that so?

Yes, and mostly to themselves when they deny that there is a God. Besides. Why would an atheist put credence in the interpretations of others about a Bible they reject or a God in whom they do not believe? You arguments make no sense.

Just like whoever does something wrong - like condone slavery - is not a true christian, even though the bible condones it.

The Bible acknowledges it. If you want to see how God really feels about it, read the Exodus.

I do not think you have the prerequisite self-insight to see that other perspectives exist.

Nonsense. They exist. They just aren't accurate.

You deny empirical knowledge after all, so I should think as hard evidence goes in your 'rejected' bin rational thought or other perspectives go out the window even faster.

There is no hard evidence for evolution. It's a theory of origins that cannot be replicated, observed or falsified. There is no hard evidence for God because He demands that we come to Him through faith. It all depends on where you put your beliefs; in the rocks or in the one who Created them.

I think I'll add you to my ignore list actually, I've had it with your anger and hatred.

More falshoods. I'm not angry and I don't hate anyone. You're the one making false statements about me when you don't even know me. You're the one misrepresenting my arguments when I base them on specific verses, which I cite and use in context.

Awesome way to show the world who Jesus is.

Yes, by quoting Jesus?

 

[Subduction Zone]

And another:

So states the person who insinuates that Christ lied.

This is a glaring logical fallacy. Stating that something in the Gospels allegedly said by Christ is wrong is not saying that Christ lied.

Were you there when he supposedly said what he said? It is fairly certain that none of the Gospels were written by eye witnesses. Why couldn't they have gotten some facts or details wrong? The stories are all second hand at best.

 

[Split Rock]

Fortunately, "The evening and the morning" leaves no need for interpretation.

Wrong. Every single sentence in the bible requires some kind of interpretation. Even more so when considering the O.T. The O.T. is based on the Hebrew bible which was originally written in old Hebrew... a dead language that no one today speaks. The phrase "The evening and the morning" that you claim is obvious is actually an idomatic phrase. Idiomatic phrases cannot be translated literally. Without someone who speaks the language, one can never be sure of the meaning of such phrases. Even so, verysincere has told us that the phrase actually means something akin to "from start to finish." Whether you agree or not with this translation, you cannot be certain either way.

You may have noticed that I support my argument by Scriptures, which means I am re-stating what God has said. These aren't my words. You're arguing with God. You don't have a different interpretation, you simply say they are false. Here's what you cannot comprehend. God made the universe (at least our universe) in six days. We know this because God said so.

No he is arguing with your interpretation, not with God. First of all, God didn't write any part of the bible. It was written by Men. Transcribed by Men. Translated by Men. And now, interpreted by you... a Man. Regardless of whether you believe scripture was inspired by God, he never actually wrote any of it himself. The presumption that God wrote the Bible is the biggest mistake that Fundamentalist/Evangelical Christians make today.

Science cannot disprove this because science cannot study the past nor can science prove or disprove God.

While I agree with the latter, you are wrong on the former. We can study the past because the past has left its mark on the present. Indeed, the present is made up of that which occurred in the past. We can thus study the past by examining the rocks of the earth, the DNA of our bodies and the light from distant stars.

Speciation is the adaptation of an organism to different surroundings. Evolutiion is the changing of an organism to a more advanced organism; klike when you erradiate fruit flies and they morph into house flies. The trouble is, all you ever have is messed up fruit flies. Evolution has been proven NOT to happen.

Wrong. Evolution does not produce an "advanced" organism. This is an out-dated idea, though we still sometimes talk of "primitive" and "advanced" features. In reality these are ancestral vs. derived features. If you can prove that evolution has not happened as you claim, then I would suggest that you write a paper and claim your Nobel prize.

God's opinion. He wrote it. I just read it.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. MEN wrote it, and YOU interprete it. YOU can be wrong!

We call ourselves "Christians" because we nelieve, like Christ did, that the Bible is the inpired word of God.

Inspired does not mean "written by."

. I know that God exists and that His laws rules the universe, not the laws of science.

Science is used to understand and explain the laws of nature. If you believe these laws were created by God, then you can say that science is used to explain the laws of God. Why would God create such laws, just to violate then later?

 

[KWCrazy]

Even so, verysincere has told us that the phrase actually means something akin to "from start to finish." Whether you agree or not with this translation, you cannot be certain either way.

Whenever "day" is modified by a number, like second day or six days, it can only mean a true solar day. There are no exceptions in Hebrew. Evening to morning ends a single day; a single rotation of the earth.

It was written by Men. Transcribed by Men. Translated by Men. And now, interpreted by you... a Man. Regardless of whether you believe scripture was inspired by God, he never actually wrote any of it himself. The presumption that God wrote the Bible is the biggest mistake that Fundamentalist/Evangelical Christians make today.

Matthew 15:
3 Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’[a] and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’[b] 5 But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is ‘devoted to God,’ 6 they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7 You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:
8 “‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
9 They worship me in vain;
their teachings are merely human rules."

We can study the past because the past has left its mark on the present.

No, we study the present and make assumptions about the past, basing what think happened on what we know. It's called inductive reasoning.
More later.

 

[keith99]

Whenever "day" is modified by a number, like second day or six days, it can only mean a true solar day. There are no exceptions in Hebrew. Evening to morning ends a single day; a single rotation of the earth.

Except it is not until the 4th day that God makes the Sun.

Ooops

 

[AV1611VET]

Except it is not until the 4th day that God makes the Sun.

Ooops

One rotation of the earth will do.

 

[CabVet]

One rotation of the earth will do.

Since there is no way the earth could rotate without the gravitational pull of the sun, your argument is flawed (but reality can take a hike, right?).

 

[AV1611VET]

Since there is no way the earth could rotate without the gravitational pull of the sun, your argument is flawed (but reality can take a hike, right?).

Let's put it this way, since according to your standards, there's no way the universe could consist of just the earth at the time, your point can take a hike.

 

[AV1611VET]

CabVet, qv please:

That may be for some, but those who try and defend the Creation from a scientific standpoint usually --- if not always --- get pwned.

As they should, in my opinion.

There is no science in Genesis 1, and as Thaumaturgy pointed out: Genesis 1 is roughly 71% "God did it".

(Thank you, Thaumaturgy.)

 

[Split Rock]

Whenever "day" is modified by a number, like second day or six days, it can only mean a true solar day. There are no exceptions in Hebrew. Evening to morning ends a single day; a single rotation of the earth.

Baseless assertion on your part. You know there are no exceptions? Do you speak old Hebrew???

[Matthew 15:
3 Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’[a] and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’[b] 5 But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is ‘devoted to God,’ 6 they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7 You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:
8 “‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
9 They worship me in vain;
their teachings are merely human rules."

You are the one using tradition over what the bible actually says and does not say.

[No, we study the present and make assumptions about the past, basing what think happened on what we know. It's called inductive reasoning.
More later.

Tell me this: Is the present created from past events or not. Yes or No, please.

 

[OllieFranz]

No, we study the present and make assumptions about the past, basing what think happened on what we know. It's called inductive reasoning.
More later.

If we can only "study the present and make assumptions [with an implied "which may not be true"] about the past," then how can we know anything about the past? How can I know that you wrote the passage quoted above? How can you know that the Book in your hands contains a copy (of a translation of many, often fragmented copies) of the actual letter Paul sent to Rome? How can you know that Paul sent a letter to Rome? How can you know that Peter said we can trust Paul's writings? (I can take this line of questions much, much further, but if you haven't gotten the point by now, you'll never get it.)

The fact of the matter is that at some point (and sooner rather than later), we have to have faith in our evidence from the past. And that evidence is abundant.

 

[CabVet]

Let's put it this way, since according to your standards, there's no way the universe could consist of just the earth at the time, your point can take a hike.

Then your mention of "earth's rotation" can take a hike.

 

[KWCrazy]

One rotation of the earth will do.

They forget that light was created on day one. If light existed, one rotation = one day regardless of distance.

 

[KWCrazy]

Baseless assertion on your part. You know there are no exceptions? Do you speak old Hebrew???
No, I was quoting someone who does. Believe it or not there are actually people who study that stuff in the seminary.

You are the one using tradition over what the bible actually says and does not say.

Blatant falsehood. When talking about the Scriptures, everything I say is based on the Scriptures and backed up by chapter and verse.

Tell me this: Is the present created from past events or not. Yes or No, please.

No. The present is not "created" at all. It's a snapshot in history that we see passing by at 16 frames per second. Time was created many years ago. "In the beginning..." was the beginning of time as we know it. Nothing related to time has been "created" since. Things that exist have two sorces; they were created, or they came from other things. We can use various methods of dating things, but much of that is subjective because it presumes static conditions that we can't validate. A fossil can form in a few thousand years. It can also form in days. Without knowing the conditions, we can only speculate as to formation. That's why it's all theory. That's why bones that are supposed millions of years old have sooft tissue. Nobody knows what the condition of the earth was like before the flood.

 

[verysincere]

Whenever "day" is modified by a number, like second day or six days, it can only mean a true solar day. There are no exceptions in Hebrew.

Nonsense.

1) There is NO SUCH SYNTACTICAL RULE in Hebrew.

2) There are not only MANY exceptions to your imagined "rule" in ancient Hebrew texts, one can even find an exception in the Old Testament. Check out Hosea 6:1-2. It clearly is NOT referring to 24 hour periods.

3) It is obvious why MOST of the Biblical contexts of an ordinal+YOM are going to refer to 24hour days: Narratives about humans are naturally going to tend to deal with human-scale time periods, such as days, weeks, and years and not eons and ages. If more of the Bible contexts were about ASTRONOMY and the history of the cosmos, we would expect there to be far fewer references to 24hour days!

But these are obvious common sense conclusions one can reach even without sharing my life-long career in Biblical studies and Biblical languages. KWCrazy is simply repeating the popular myths he's been told.

Evening to morning ends a single day; a single rotation of the earth.

No. As I explained in a previous post:

1) "And the evening and the morning...." would define a single NIGHT, not a 24hour day ----if "literalness" is your measure.

2) In fact, the formulaic expression is a Hebrew idiom which meant "from start to finish", similar to what we use in an English expression like "The launch of astronauts into space marked the SUNSET of a receding age of ocean exploration and the DAWN of a new age of exploring the heavens. Yes, a new DAY had come."

KW, you have zero knowledge of Biblical Hebrew and yet you throw about bombastic claims devoid of personal knowledge. If you believe your scholarship is correct and my colleagues and I are all wrong, you are welcome to subject your "theory" to a peer-reviewed academic journal and see how your evidence-less claims are processed. (I would suggest the Journal of the Society of Biblical Literature or perhaps even write a paper for the next American Academy of Religion Conference. How about it? I could even help you by being first reader---and if I find it meets basic scholarly standards, I can endorse it personally to the Editor. I assume you are not a member of either society so you will need my help in getting a quick notice for your "research". Of course, if your scholarship shows no merit, there is no point in my referring it to anyone else. That is how peer-review works. You have to find knowledgeable people who find your work COMPETENT, even if they don't happen to agree with your positions. On multiple occasions I got approved for publication even though editors strongly disagreed with my scholarship as an evangelical Christian.)