Why does "15 Questions for Evolutionists" brochure confuse the meaning of "evolution?

[Split Rock]

Yes. Genesis and the theory of evolution agree 100% on this:

1) Organisms produce more organisms after their own BARAMIN. That is, they produce more organisms (usually called "young") which are much like them.

2) If ever "a dog gave birth to a cat", the event would deny both the Genesis text and the theory of evolution.

What so many traditional English Bible translations miss is the fact that "each after its own kind" and "of every kind" in the Noah's Flood account and other Genesis passages, it is using Hebrew idioms which are quite similar to English phrases such as "of every variety" and "all kinds of animals". [The Genesis text does NOT say that Noah took onboard the Ark every nephesh animal of the planet. It says that he took onto the ark "all sorts of animals", as in "all varieties of animals." Those animals didn't come from throughout the PLANET, they came from the ERETZ, the LAND known to Noah. The "circle of the earth" in Hebrew is "the disk of land" which is defined by simply looking to the horizon in all directions! The ancients didn't think in terms of "planet earth" and a "globe". They thought of their "world" as "the circle of the earth", all that they could see to the horizon. They also called it "everything under heaven"----which in Hebrew is the same as saying, "everything under the dome of the sky". Their "world" was a DISK of land covered by a dome called THE SKY! Now if someone can demonstrate to me that the Hebrew text of the Old Testament says anything else, I'll voluntarily renounce my hard-earned Near Eastern Languages & Literature degree and declare that I can't read Hebrew.]

This is a very good point, and another example how modern creationists project their own thinking on the biblical authors. Nowadays one thinks of the entire globe as "the world." That wasn't the case back when GEN was being written down, but that hardly matters to "literalists" like KWCrazy who couldn't care less what the intent of the authors actually was.

 

[verysincere]

This is a very good point, and another example how modern creationists project their own thinking on the biblical authors. Nowadays one thinks of the entire globe as "the world." That wasn't the case back when GEN was being written down, but that hardly matters to "literalists" like KWCrazy who couldn't care less what the intent of the authros actually was.

The #1 reason I left the "creation science" movement of the 1960's and 1970's was for reasons of ethics and basic integrity. (I couldn't handle the violations of the 9th Commandment about bearing false witness.) But the #2 reason was that I was constantly embarrassed by my colleagues' lack of knowledge of both the scientific evidence and the scriptural evidence.

All of these issues are much more serious today and as I described above, it is a sad commentary that those who proudly claim that they have THE correct interpretation for Genesis (and speak for God) are the ones who have the LEAST idea what the Hebrew text actually says.

(At least in the case of AV, he simply dismisses the Hebrew text of the Bible and declares the 1611 KJV the final authority---as long as one agrees with his interpretations of course!)

 

[KWCrazy]

What we have is the twin-nested hierarchy. Nested hierarchies are only created by vertical genetic descent.

You can't use the word created. Also, you can't prove that anything is exclusive to genetic descent because you can't disprove a Creator.

And do these reproduce? No? Then it is no analogy.

There's no evidence to prove that fossils ever reproduced either. In the context in which I used it, it was a good analogy. Same ingredient, better pizza.

Not if all life is descended from a common ancestor, or more likely group of ancestors all sharing genetic materal.

If that life form would have a remote descendant with a trunk, one with wings and one with gills, it either had to have the genetic information for all three or there must be a process that invents the information. Both alteratives are impossible.

This is falsified by the fact that we see co-evolution all the time.

Bogus. We see adaptation; a conservative process. Evolution has never been observed.

Btw, did your god create parasites?

Yep.

Did he create malaria?

Yep.

 

[KWCrazy]

BLAH, BLAH, BLAH!

Once again VS fails to produce any chapter and verse to validate his lie that the Bible is consistent with evolution. Therefore, nothing he says can be believed. Distorting the Bible to promote a false religion that holds the word of God in contempt is blasphemy. He pretends to be an expert in Biblical translation and yet the truth is not in him. Distorting the Bible and lying about its content is not the conduct I would expect from someone who professes his alleged knowledge.

 

[verysincere]

You can't use the word created.

Now KW has declared himself the lexicon police! The word "create" now has just ONE definition and he has claimed it for his sect only!

Such equivocation fallacies are among the dishonest practices that convicted me of my error of helping launch the YEC movement in the American Evangelical world back in the 1960's. Fortunately, I was able to renounce the sin without discarding the Bible in the process. KW's behaviors are readily disclaimed by most Bible-affirming Christians.

 

[CabVet]

You can't use the word created. Also, you can't prove that anything is exclusive to genetic descent because you can't disprove a Creator.

There's no evidence to prove that fossils ever reproduced either. In the context in which I used it, it was a good analogy. Same ingredient, better pizza.

If that life form would have a remote descendant with a trunk, one with wings and one with gills, it either had to have the genetic information for all three or there must be a process that invents the information. Both alteratives are impossible.

Bogus. We see adaptation; a conservative process. Evolution has never been observed.

Yep.

Yep.

Oh, so that's the new strategy now, no debate, just plain denial. Good to know, this one is even easier to refute.

 

[KWCrazy]

This is a very good point, and another example how modern creationists project their own thinking on the biblical authors. Nowadays one thinks of the entire globe as "the world." That wasn't the case back when GEN was being written down, but that hardly matters to "literalists" like KWCrazy who couldn't care less what the intent of the authors actually was.

GENESIS 7:
17 Then the flood came upon the earth for forty days, and the water increased and lifted up the ark, so that it rose above the earth.
18 The water prevailed and increased greatly upon the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water.
19 The water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered.
20 The water prevailed fifteen cubits higher, and the mountains were covered.
21 All flesh that moved on the earth perished, birds and cattle and beasts and every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth, and all mankind;

Matthew 24:
37 "For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah.
38 "For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark,
39 and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be.

Luke 17:
26 "And just as it happened in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man:
27 they were eating, they were drinking, they were marrying, they were being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all.

2nd Peter 3:
5 For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water,
6 through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water.

1st Peter 3:
20 who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water.

Very clearly it was a global flood and very clearly it destroyed all life. The flood covered the mountains to a depth of 15 cubits. You may not know this but there is this thing called gravity which keeps water in an enclosed area at an even level relative to the center of gravity. If you had a perfectly round planet and covered one part to a depth of ten feet, the water would run off until it was all ten feet under water. Now if that planet was not perfectly smooth and you wanted to go over a 10,000 foot mountain, you would have to raise the water to a depth of 10,000 feet on the entire surface. If the mountains were much lower, say 5,000 feet, you still would have to elevate water to the depth of the highest mountain peak to cover it in water.

So, to pretend there was a LOCAL flood, you have to deny that gravity exists or contend that the flood never happened; which completely falsifies the words of Jesus Christ.

Let’s look at motive. If the flood never happened, what motive would Jesus have to confirm that it had? If the flood DID happen, then evolution could never have occurred. That every animal taken aboard the ark was “after its kind” is explained, as well as their commandment to multiply after. That multiplying is validated by adaptation and natural selection. It completely disproves evolution because it involves a God-based causation. Evolution is a lie wrapped in distortions of science and is pushed by people who deny the accuracy of the Scriptures. Anyone who tries to weaken your faith by telling you that there is no disagreement between the Scriptures and evolution is either painfully misinformed or flat out lying.

 

[Person of]

Try this one:

Q: Where did the hamburger come from?

A: It came from a process known as ameatgenesis.

No.

Q: Why don't you believe that hamburgers magically appear?

A: Well, it has cheese, that's dairy; ground beef, from cow; tomatoes, vegetables; onions, vegetables. It was obviously cooked.

Q: Lol, you believe in cooking?

A: Believe? What the hell are you talking about? Cooking is something that happens.

Q: You have no evidence of this.

A: *facepalm*

 

[Loudmouth]

You can't use the word created. Also, you can't prove that anything is exclusive to genetic descent because you can't disprove a Creator.

We don't have to disprove claims that have no evidence. You are now shifting the burden of proof, another logical fallacy. It would do you some good to read about Russel's Teapot:

Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.--Bertrand Russell
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
​

This goes back to my discussion on God planting fingerprints at crime scenes. Do we have to disprove this before we can use fingerprints in a court of law? If not, then why do we have to disprove your unevidenced claims before we accept what we can observe and test?

There's no evidence to prove that fossils ever reproduced either. In the context in which I used it, it was a good analogy. Same ingredient, better pizza.

But you are wrong. We are using the morphology of the fossils to test the theory of evolution. You are quite right that we can not know if a fossil has any living ancestors or descendants. What we can know is what the creature looked like. The theory of evolution makes very specific predictions about what life would have looked like in the past, and we use fossils to test those predictions. For example, the theory predicts that we should find fossils with a mixture of basal ape and modern human features in sediments that are between 7 million years old and the present. What do we find? Exactly those fossils. We find fossils that have a mixture of modern human features and basal ape features just as the theory of evolution predicts. This test is also falsifiable in that the theory predicts we should NOT find fossils with a mixture of ape and derived canine features, and we don't.

If that life form would have a remote descendant with a trunk, one with wings and one with gills, it either had to have the genetic information for all three or there must be a process that invents the information. Both alteratives are impossible.

Or those features evolved in each of the lineages after they split from the common ancestor. I guess you never considered that option?

Bogus. We see adaptation; a conservative process. Evolution has never been observed.

Evolution has been observed in these peer reviewed publications:

http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/access/BBABFJ.pdf

http://www.esp.org/foundations/genetics/classical/holdings/l/slmd-43.pdf

You will notice that these papers are from the 1940's and 50's. We have had observations of evolution in progress for 60 years now. Your knowledge of biology is so poor that you are 60 years behind the curve.

 

[Loudmouth]

If the flood never happened, what motive would Jesus have to confirm that it had?

If the Prodigal Son actually didn't exist, why did Jesus confirm that he did?

If a turtle and a hare never actually had a race, why did Aesop confirm that they did?

Evolution is a lie wrapped in distortions of science and is pushed by people who deny the accuracy of the Scriptures.

Go through this entire thread and find a single lie that I have told. Just one. I dare you. If you refuse or can not find a lie, then please retract your accusations.

Secondly, there are many christians who both accept scripture and evolution. Perhaps this essay will help you understand their position a little better:

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2003/PSCF9-03Collins.pdf

 

[AV1611VET]

First of all, you do accept evolution.

That's right ... to a point.

Secondly, how does the theory of evolution change if your god created the first life on earth?

It's history changes big-time.

For example:

Life on Earth originated and then evolved from a universal common ancestor approximately 3.8 billion years ago.

SOURCE

 

[verysincere]

Noah's Flood deluged the entire ERETZ ("land"). Nowhere does the Bible say that the entire globe or "planet earth" was flooded.

Even today, ERETZ ISRAEL means "The Land of Israel" or "The Nation of Israel", not "Planet Israel"!

Any good Bible commentary (that wasn't published or promoted by a Young Earth Creationist ministry) will explain to you the Hebrew exegesis behind the Flood pericope. I'm retired from the classroom so I don't have the time to tutor you on Bible basics and how you've led the cherished TRADITIONS of some English translations confuse you. (Yes, the "earth" was flooded---as long as you know which of the definitions of "earth" in English is indicated by the Hebrew original.)

 

[46AND2]

Noah's Flood deluged the entire ERETZ ("land"). Nowhere does the Bible say that the entire globe or "planet earth" was flooded.

Even today, ERETZ ISRAEL means "The Land of Israel" or "The Nation of Israel", not "Planet Israel"!

Any good Bible commentary (that wasn't published or promoted by a Young Earth Creationist ministry) will explain to you the Hebrew exegesis behind the Flood pericope. I'm retired from the classroom so I don't have the time to tutor you on Bible basics and how you've led the cherished TRADITIONS of some English translations confuse you. (Yes, the "earth" was flooded---as long as you know which of the definitions of "earth" in English is indicated by the Hebrew original.)

Out of curiosity, I'm interested in what you consider to be the geological evidence in that area of the local flood? Also, how do you interpret the building of the ark. Did it take Noah 120 years to build?

 

[KWCrazy]

If the Prodigal Son actually didn't exist, why did Jesus confirm that he did?
If a turtle and a hare never actually had a race, why did Aesop confirm that they did?

One was a parable, the other was a fable. Neither were put forward as the inerrant word of God. Jesus spoke of the days of Noah as a teacher descriing a true event, not a if it were mythology or parable.

Go through this entire thread and find a single lie that I have told. Just one. I dare you. If you refuse or can not find a lie, then please retract your accusations.

Evolution is a lie. You are promoting the lie. In your case at least you're not pretending to be a Christian. People have the right to believe anything, even if it's wrong. However when they call themselves a Bible affirming Christian while denying everything in the Bible it's quite simply a lie. I'm sure you actually believe that everything which exists came from a single magical cell which festered in a swamp and then became every living plant and animal. I don't share your belief.

Secondly, there are many christians who both accept scripture and evolution.

If one professes to believe in two conflicting philosphies, the depth of either his belief or his understand should be questioned.

 

[AV1611VET]

Noah's Flood deluged the entire ERETZ ("land"). Nowhere does the Bible say that the entire globe or "planet earth" was flooded.

Even today, ERETZ ISRAEL means "The Land of Israel" or "The Nation of Israel", not "Planet Israel"!

Perhaps you could give us the word used for 'planet earth' then?

Genesis 9:11 And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.

Isaiah 66:1a Thus saith the LORD, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool:

Why does 'eretz' mean 'land' in Genesis 9:11, but '[planet] earth' in Isaiah 66:1?

Or are you the one picking and choosing the definition that fits your mindset?

(Oh, my! Am I speaking in tongues now! )

 

[CabVet]

[/color]
One was a parable, the other was a fable. Neither were put forward as the inerrant word of God. Jesus spoke of the days of Noah as a teacher descriing a true event, not a if it were mythology or parable.

Evolution is a lie. You are promoting the lie. In your case at least you're not pretending to be a Christian. People have the right to believe anything, even if it's wrong. However when they call themselves a Bible affirming Christian while denying everything in the Bible it's quite simply a lie. I'm sure you actually believe that everything which exists came from a single magical cell which festered in a swamp and then became every living plant and animal. I don't share your belief.

If one professes to believe in two conflicting philosphies, the depth of either his belief or his understand should be questioned.

 

[Split Rock]

You can't use the word created. Also, you can't prove that anything is exclusive to genetic descent because you can't disprove a Creator.

Fine...you cannot use the word "adaption," "evolution," "organism," "biology," "science," or "fossil." Hey, this is fun!

Show me any process that builds nested hierarchies other than genetic descent. And no, you cannot make up a process and label it "The Creator did it."

There's no evidence to prove that fossils ever reproduced either. In the context in which I used it, it was a good analogy. Same ingredient, better pizza.

First of all, fossils don't reproduce. Secondly, every fossilized individual represents a reproducing population, therefore it is irrelevant if the individual reproduced itself or not. Your pizza cannot reproduce. Period.

If that life form would have a remote descendant with a trunk, one with wings and one with gills, it either had to have the genetic information for all three or there must be a process that invents the information. Both alteratives are impossible.

Unless your god did it, right? My point was that given that all life shares a common ancestor, it makes no sense to claim that shared DNA sequences would be unexpected.

Bogus. We see adaptation; a conservative process. Evolution has never been observed.

Adaption is evolution. You aren't allowed to steal terminology from biologists and redefine it whenever you like!

Yep.

So, why did your god create parasites?

Yep.

So, why did your god create malaria?

 

[Person of]

I'm calling Poe now. This is unbelievable.

 

[sfs]

So, why did your god create malaria?

I'd like to know when God created HIV. And SARS and avian flu.

 

[verysincere]

I'm calling Poe now. This is unbelievable.

Indeed! I'm amazed that there's not been any Young Earth Creationists come along and disclaim him as an imposter. He's not doing the YEC cause any favors. (If KW *is* actually for real, I wonder if he's Ray Comfort or Eric Hovind filling in for his father, you-know-who. After all, wasn't he defending Kent Hovind earlier? I mean, what YEC would want to defend Hovind's "creation science" gaffes?)