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

[KWCrazy]

That is because I follow the evidence while you cling to religious dogma.

I have no evidence that your evidence trumps my "religious dogma." After 50 years I KNOW that God is real. I'm not prepared to call Him a liar.

 

[Tomk80]

I have no evidence that your evidence trumps my "religious dogma." After 50 years I KNOW that God is real. I'm not prepared to call Him a liar.

Seems to me that by not looking at the evidence and instead posting the absolute nonsense you post, you are doing exactly that.

 

[KWCrazy]

Although, I'm not too sure that Crazy is actually as crazy as he's letting himself out to be. I think he's trolling, but who know?

You're on a Christian website attacking Christianity and you have the audacity to call one who actually believes in it a troll?

 

[Tomk80]

You're on a Christian website attacking Christianity and you have the audacity to call one who actually believes in it a troll?

Critizing you is not equal to attacking Christianity. Arrogance much?

Edited to add: You are also basically stating that verysincere is not a Christian, which I think is not allowed on this forum.

 

[verysincere]

Instead of bluffing and blustering, why don't you just do so? Tell us what multivariate analyses you performed, what the results where and how those measurements and characteristics "show transition".

I still am prone to wonder ---after reading KWcrazy's most preposterous statements---if he is simply playing a game on us. I've wondered if he is perhaps a former fundamentalist who left his church with a lot of bitterness towards his strict background and he enjoys making creationists look silly. (There's certainly no YECs here singing his praises and thanking him for elevating the quality of the YEC anti-evolution arguments.) I make a lot of room for the Kruger-Dunning Effect but even so, KWCrazy overloads one reality-meter after another. It is just so hard to take him seriously---and I say that as someone who spent YEARS within the YEC movement as a speaker/debater. (And as someone who still attends church with a LOT of great young earth creationist friends who are wonderful people, I admit to having a certain amount sensitivity towards those who unmercifully mock them. They are NOT all Kent Hovinds and Ken Ham types. Many are sincere and good people who simply don't know much about science [and sometimes not a lot about the Bible either as to origins topics] and they simply go along with church traditions. We all have a tendency to go with the flow at times. So I don't like seeing them mocked as KWCrazy seems to be doing.)

The truly clueless usually will eventually avoid various topics (even while clinging to their YEC position) after being trounced again and again. They don't understand the science but they DO understand humiliation---and so they go silent on at least those subjects. KWCrazy has a suspicious lack of that kind of caution.

Perhaps I just sincerely want to have a higher opinion of him. (And I certainly admit to having been fooled in the past.) After all, whimsical playacting on an Internet forum is a kind of role-playing that some people truly enjoy. And I would much rather think that he is practicing his method-acting here than to assume that he actually believes what he is writing. Otherwise, it would mean that we are watching some kind of masochism obsession at work and I don't want to think that.

At least I can HOPE that we will all have a good laugh someday when he finally posts, "Gotcha! You all fell for it hook, line, and sinker!" And perhaps on that day I will realize that I can be more gullible than I thought.

 

[RainbowDashIsBestPony]

You're on a Christian website attacking Christianity and you have the audacity to call one who actually believes in it a troll?

No one here is attacking Christianity. We are simply debating against the historical accuracy of Genesis. If you wish to make the claim that one can not be Christian without taking all of the Old Testament literally, please be able to back it up.

 

[Split Rock]

I still am prone to wonder ---after reading KWcrazy's most preposterous statements---if he is simply playing a game on us. I've wondered if he is perhaps a former fundamentalist who left his church with a lot of bitterness towards his strict background and he enjoys making creationists look silly. (There's certainly no YECs here singing his praises and thanking him for elevating the quality of the YEC anti-evolution arguments.) I make a lot of room for the Kruger-Dunning Effect but even so, KWCrazy overloads one reality-meter after another. It is just so hard to take him seriously---and I say that as someone who spent YEARS within the YEC movement as a speaker/debater. (And as someone who still attends church with a LOT of great young earth creationist friends who are wonderful people, I admit to having a certain amount sensitivity towards those who unmercifully mock them. They are NOT all Kent Hovinds and Ken Ham types. Many are sincere and good people who simply don't know much about science [and sometimes not a lot about the Bible either as to origins topics] and they simply go along with church traditions. We all have a tendency to go with the flow at times. So I don't like seeing them mocked as KWCrazy seems to be doing.)

The truly clueless usually will eventually avoid various topics (even while clinging to their YEC position) after being trounced again and again. They don't understand the science but they DO understand humiliation---and so they go silent on at least those subjects. KWCrazy has a suspicious lack of that kind of caution.

Perhaps I just sincerely want to have a higher opinion of him. (And I certainly admit to having been fooled in the past.) After all, whimsical playacting on an Internet forum is a kind of role-playing that some people truly enjoy. And I would much rather think that he is practicing his method-acting here than to assume that he actually believes what he is writing. Otherwise, it would mean that we are watching some kind of masochism obsession at work and I don't want to think that.

At least I can HOPE that we will all have a good laugh someday when he finally posts, "Gotcha! You all fell for it hook, line, and sinker!" And perhaps on that day I will realize that I can be more gullible than I thought.

The guy clearly isn't taking the subject matter very seriously is is clearly very arrogant. Nontheless, he is hardly atypical of the sort of YEC we tend to see here. I've seen YECs come here and call us "evo-loopies," and demand "absolute proof," in order to sway their position. They also had no real interest in any intelligent discussion. He also has that typical streak of defensiveness when his beliefs are challenged.

 

[verysincere]

After 50 years I KNOW that God is real. I'm not prepared to call Him a liar.[/color]

It is PRECISELY because I believe that God is real (and that the Bible is truth) that I am deeply disturbed when someone insists that God would make statements about science in the Bible which totally contradict what that same Creator God has told us in his creation. Why would an honest God fill his creation with CONTRADICTIONS? I don't believe God did that. You are expecting me to believe that God plays games with us and that he is a DECEIVER. You expect me to think that he would fill his created universe with evidence for billions of years and evolutionary processes while demanding in the Bible [in texts which none of us can find!] that the earth is actually just thousands of years old and evolutionary processes don't happen. No, I don't believe in a lying deity who creates contradictions like that.

I believe the CONFLICTS arise from man-made TRADITIONS which are IMPOSED upon the Bible. God, as author of both the Bible and Creation, doesn't contradict himself. No I believe in an honest Creator who provides theological truths in the scriptures and answers our scientific questions with the evidence he provides in creation. I have little patience for those who MOCK the God of the Bible by insisting he plays tricks on us through "embedded age" (a "doctrine" impossible to find in the Bible) and "instantly created forests" (which the Bible never claims) and a long list of creationist fabrications of human traditions which no one will EVER be able to find in the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts of the Bible.

No, I have little patience for those who try to make Bible-believing Christ-followers like myself look foolish and anti-evidence. I believe in a rational God who created a rational universe using the processes which we observe all around us. I don't believe in a deceptive, trickster God who plays games with us. So in a choice between your man-made traditions and what the Bible actually states, you lose and the Bible wins as far as I'm concerned. Until you can establish that your TRADITIONS fits the Biblical evidence and the scientific evidence from creation, your traditions are in no way superior to those of the first century Pharisees who likewise favored their interpretations over what the Bible actually stated.

I also disdain the entire "Lying for Jesus" strategy which has led to 369,000 hits on Google. The flagrant violations of the 9th Commandment on countless websites deserves the condemnations received. The Bible and the teachings of Christ are not honored by this "the ends justifies the means" strategy. Now that the Internet makes fact-checking so easy, dishonest quote-mining and denial of the scientific evidence has horribly backfired on ALL Bible-believing Christians, unfortunately, despite the fact that the bad behaviors are coming from a minority. Christians and non-Christians alike see the dishonesty and are appalled. Indeed, as has been mentioned, even Young Earth Creationists leaders like Dr. Todd Wood get attacked by their YEC colleagues for daring to plead with their fellow creationists to quit spouting nonsense like "there is zero evidence for evolution" and lying about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics denying evolutionary processes. (He also condemns the lies about Pasteur demonstrating that abiogenesis was impossible. Indeed, the Bible clearly describes abiogenesis in Genesis 2:7----so why deny scripture as well as science?)

 

[KWCrazy]

No one here is attacking Christianity. We are simply debating against the historical accuracy of Genesis. If you wish to make the claim that one can not be Christian without taking all of the Old Testament literally, please be able to back it up.

Many people here have attacked Christianity, either directly or by lying about what the Bible clearly states. The person to which this was directed has made three posts so far (that I remember without checking all the way back) and each of them has been insulting. Coming to a thread to insult is the mark of a troll. Another person has professed to be a "Bible affirming Christian" who constantly lies about the verbiage of the Bible and hes neither the guts nor the integrity to back his accusations with the "correct" Biblical text. There are some with whom I simply do not and will not ever agree, but at least they are somewhat reasonable in their approach.

As for your statement regarding whether someone could be a Christian without taking Genesis literally, as I pointed out my mother was on EOC who, at least in her earlier years, considered the world to be very old. In her case, like in the case of probably a majority of people, origination was never anything they studied much or cared much about. There is a difference, however, between not studying a text and studying a text to subsequently misrepresent it.

Genesis states that the world was created in six days. In Exodus Moses was given the 10 Commandments, the fourth of which was to honor the seventh day because in six days God created the world and on the seventh He rested. Our calendar is based on the six day creation and the day of rest. The generations from Adam to Noah are listed, as well as the generations from Noah to Jesus. If this had no significance, why include it? The events of the first 11 chapters of Genesis are mentioned over 100 times in the New Testament alone. There are 165 direct quotes and 200 references to Genesis in the New Testament. Jesus Christ credited Moses as the primary author as dictated by God. He also spoke of the first man and woman and He mentioned Noah by name.

Clearly Jesus, who was there, would be considered a YEC today. The more you study the Bible the more inescapable that conclusion becomes. To call the Bible a book of mythology is blasphemy. If a one seriously believes that Jesus was lying when He affirmed that the events they deny happened, then how could they willingly follow a liar?

"Jesus consistently treated the historical narratives of the Old Testament as straightforward records of fact. He referred to Abel (Luke 11:51), Noah (Matt 24:37-39), Abraham (John 8:56), Sodom and Gomorrah (Matt 10:15, 11:23-24), Lot (Luke 17:28-32), Isaac and Jacob (Matt 8:11), the manna (John 6:31), the wilderness serpent (John 3:14), David (Matt 22:43), Solomon (Matt 6:29, 12:42), Elijah (Luke 4:25-26), Elisha (Luke 4:27), Jonah (Matt 12:39-41), and Moses (Matt 8:4), among others. Nowhere is there the slightest hint that he questioned the historicity or accuracy of the accounts."
source

Before you simply attack the source, you might try reading the acutal verses. Of course, some people here will tell you that everything that conflicts with their belief in evolution must have been mistranslated. Serious, with all the errors they claim, why would they even READ the Bible?

 

[46AND2]

Many people here have attacked Christianity, either directly or by lying about what the Bible clearly states. (snip)...

I can't comment on the first part of this statement, but the latter is not true. The attacks, at least in this thread in which you are commenting, are not on what the Bible says, but what you interpret them to say.

 

[Loudmouth]

I have no evidence that your evidence trumps my "religious dogma." After 50 years I KNOW that God is real. I'm not prepared to call Him a liar.

So what evidence would trump your religious dogma? What genetic markers would humans and chimps need to share in order for you to accept that they share a common ancestor? What features would a fossil need in order for you to accept it as evidence that humans and chimps share a common ancestor?

My contention is that there is no evidence that will trump your religious dogma. That is why it is called a dogma.

The real question is why you insist on an interpretation of Genesis that makes God a liar. Care to explain that?

 

[Tomk80]

I can't comment on the first part of this statement, but the latter is not true. The attacks, at least in this thread in which you are commenting, are not on what the Bible says, but what you interpret them to say.

In fact, most of the posts weren't even about that, but about non-biblical evidence kwcrazy claimed existed, or did not exist. Which is an entirely different ball game. Might I suggest that this shows crazy is flat out lying in his last post?

 

[AV1611VET]

What genetic markers would humans and chimps need to share in order for you to accept that they share a common ancestor?

None.

We don't believe humans and chimps share a common ancestor (kind); we believe they share a Common Designer (God).

 

[Loudmouth]

Many people here have attacked Christianity, either directly or by lying about what the Bible clearly states.

I would say that you are the one attacking the Bible by requiring an interpretation that is directly contradicted by reality. You are doing more damage to christianity than any evil atheist scientist could ever do.

Guess what? I am echoing what other christians are saying on the matter. For example, Dr. Francis Collins specifically addressed this topic in the essay I linked for you earlier. I am guessing that you didn't even bother to open the link, much less read it. Here is a little excerpt:

I mentioned the ancient repeats we share with mice in the same location showing no conceivable evidence of function, diverging at a constant rate just as predicted by neutral evolution. One could only conclude that this is compelling evidence of a common ancestor or else that God has placed these functionless DNA fossils in the genome of all living organisms in order to test our faith. I do not find that second alternative very credible. After all God is the greatest scientist. Would he play this kind of game?-- Dr. Francis Collins, "Faith and the Human Genome"​

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

​

Who is Dr. Francis Collins, you may ask? He RAN the NIH funded Human Genome Project, and he also a devout christian. The evidence is clear. Evolution did happen. So again, why do you insist on interpretting the Bible in a way that makes it wrong?

The person to which this was directed has made three posts so far (that I remember without checking all the way back) and each of them has been insulting. Coming to a thread to insult is the mark of a troll. Another person has professed to be a "Bible affirming Christian" who constantly lies about the verbiage of the Bible and hes neither the guts nor the integrity to back his accusations with the "correct" Biblical text. There are some with whom I simply do not and will not ever agree, but at least they are somewhat reasonable in their approach.

The sad part is that you wil never look at the EVIDENCE, but instead argue over semantics.

Genesis states that the world was created in six days.

Aesop stated that a tortoise and a hare had a race. Does this mean that the race actually happened?

 

[Loudmouth]

None.

We don't believe humans and chimps share a common ancestor (kind); we believe they share a Common Designer (God).

What evidence would demonstrate that your beliefs are false?

 

[AV1611VET]

I would say that you are the one attacking the Bible by requiring an interpretation that is directly contradicted by reality.

Like walking on water? the triune nature of the Godhead? the Resurrection?

 

[AV1611VET]

What evidence would demonstrate that your beliefs are false?

I think you can answer that better than I.

Since evidence can be [and is] interpreted, I assume standard evolution evidence would suffice.

But as I have said before, refuting evolution will not occur in this dispensation; that is a task that Jesus, Himself will refute when He comes back.

The Antichrist is going to put on one doosey of a display of abiogenesis, during the Tribulation.

 

[Loudmouth]

I think you can answer that better than I.

I am more curious as to what would convince you. If your dogma is so strong as to deny all evidence, then how would you ever know if you are wrong?

You are like the mother of a suspect in a murder trial that will proclaim that her son is innocent no matter what the evidence is, even if there are mountains of evidence demonstrating that her son is guilty.

 

[Loudmouth]

Like walking on water? the triune nature of the Godhead? the Resurrection?

Like a young earth, a recent global flood, and special creation. These are directly contradicted by evidence found in the Creation.

 

[KWCrazy]

The real question is why you insist on an interpretation of Genesis that makes God a liar. Care to explain that?

If you read post 349, you'll see that Jesus Christ, the son of God, who actually WITNESSED the accounts, never disputed a word of the Scriptures and in fact believed them to be accurate. I don't pretend to know more about Science than Jesus, to know more about the word of God than Jesus, or to harbor any assumption that Jesus would participate in a lie. Since I believe the words of Christ to be the very definition of truth, I have no reason to doubt that if it was all alegory that He would have told us so. Further, the only reason I could see why you or anyone else would contradict the Scriptures is to pretend that nature is somehoe greater than God or that the laws of the science which He created have more validity that God Himself. Unlike some, I understand as Genesis teaches that everything was created in its mature state. Are there things that Genesis does not cover; questions that could be raised? Certainly. However, you don't ask those questions. You take the assumption that the only truth is what you can see, feel, hear, taste or smell. What about those things that are not physical; which every culture in the history of man has recorded?

Suppose you had a conversation with an angel. I did not see the angel or hear the angel, and the angel left no physical evidence of its presence. I might contend that it never happened; that angels have never been proven to exist; that lacking any conclusive proof I can't believe your story. Does that make it any less true or any less real? For you who had seen and experienced the presence, could what you know later be swayed by a non-believer who said there was no scientific evidence it ever happened?