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

[good brother]

If the first simple RNA replicator was created by God and then all the life you see now evolved from that first RNA replicator, how would the theory of evolution be any different than if that RNA replicator came about through abiogenesis?

Then I must ask, "Who's god?" Not mine. My God gave me a personal letter that says He created everything in six days and rested on the seventh. My God tells me that He made man on the fifth day of all creation, not after billions of years or after millions of years of evolution. My God says He made man in His image and in His likeness, not in the image of a unicellular organism then multi then fishy then amphibians then reptiles then mammal then.....

So I would ask you, "Who's god did it the way you suggest?" It most certainly is not the God of the Jews or the God of Christians or even the god of the Muslims.

 

[46AND2]

No, it's beyond that. Nobody denies the fact that life diversifies and has since it was created. Evolution denies the existence of God and treis to state that all of life began from one sinlg common progenitor, despite the fact there are a billion impossibilities between there and man. Nobody pretends that every lvinging thing currently on the face of the earth were nestled in the ark for a year.

You are simply wrong. What I accept about evolution is how we define it. YOU are trying to add to it. This means that you are arguing against a position we do not hold. That is called a strawman. If you want to argue against evolution, argue against what WE consider evolution to be, since that is our argument. It makes no sense to argue against something we don't accept. Why is this so hard to understand?

Your grandfather probably believed in God, as did your great grandfather and his father before him. Evolution states that he didn't know what he was talking about. Before Jesus came God used to physically talk to people. They had no doubt God was real. Evolution calls the teachings of the Bible false; yet doesn't answer all the questions which arise from removing the only explanation of how life came about.

What my ancestors believed is irrelevant to the veracity of evolution. Evolution does not teach that the Bible is wrong. It doesn't address it at all. It only conflicts with your interpretation of the Bible. I believe that IF a righteous God exists, then the nature that he created would be consistent with him. All evolution is, is an observation about nature, which even your Bible says you can do to know he is real.

It may not need to explain it to you, but to those who believe in God and believe that the Bible is His word, your sales pitch is incomplete and your science begins with the impossible.

Your belief begins in the same way. First there was nothing, then there was something. The difference is, we don't claim to know how that happened.

Or adaptation, if you accept that nothing in biology buoys the assumption that one species can begat another, even over billions of years.

Evolution is adaptation. Again, our definition. If you want to have a coherent argument, then argue against our position, not one that you create for us.

I never said evolution was a valid scientific theory.

No, but you were insinuating that I thought theistic evolution is. I'm not the only person who took it that way. If you didn't mean that, then speak what you mean.

If you don't believe in God then you can't support any theory that involves God; which means you have to believe in some form of abiogenesis, which is impossible. At least God's miracles have a supernatural foundation which supercedes that which is impossible in the physical world.

No, I don't have to believe in some sort of godless abiogenesis. If it is determined that God initiated abiogenesis, then I'm perfectly willing to accept that. The fact that I don't believe in God now says nothing about what I will believe in the future.

I am not opposed to someday being convinced of a God. I just am not convinced now, despite years and years of trying. It is not a conscious decision to reject any god, but an inability to believe in one.

 

[CabVet]

Evolution is a scientific theory that attempts to explain the diversification of all species in the absence of God.

Wrong, evolution has nothing to say about God. It is perfectly possible (as all proponents of intelligent design will tell you) that God directed every step of evolution. Of course, there is no evidence for that and that is not what I believe in, but it is a possibility.

It is presented by its prophets as not an alternative to religion, but a replacement of it. If in fact the world is billions of years old and man evolved from plankton, then every religion in the world is wrong. You cannot reconcile the tennants of it with any known religion, which takes it beyound theory for many people and elevates it to a religion of its own.

You have already clearly demonstrated that you know very little about evolution. Now you demonstrate you know very little about religion as well. There are hundreds of religions out there that have nothing to say about "creation", have no creation myths, and are completely neutral about evolution.

Now here is a fact for you: If in fact the Christian religion is correct and the world was created in 6 days and Jesus rose from the dead, then every other religion in the world is wrong.

 

[Loudmouth]

Then I must ask, "Who's god?" Not mine. My God gave me a personal letter that says He created everything in six days and rested on the seventh. My God tells me that He made man on the fifth day of all creation, not after billions of years or after millions of years of evolution. My God says He made man in His image and in His likeness, not in the image of a unicellular organism then multi then fishy then amphibians then reptiles then mammal then.....

So I would ask you, "Who's god did it the way you suggest?" It most certainly is not the God of the Jews or the God of Christians or even the god of the Muslims.

Obvioulsy, not the god of the creationists, but there are many Christians who see no problem with their God creating in such a fashion. Perhaps you can talk to them. I hear that you guys even use the same religious text.

Also, you are now avoiding the questions I was asking. How does the supernatural creation of the first RNA replicator some 4 billion years ago change the theory of evolution that describes how life diversified from that point? Please tell us how it changes the theory or retract your claim that one depends on the other.

 

[Loudmouth]

The answer to that lies in the fact that people want to be accepted and considered part of the "in" crowd, so they go along with things that others tell them without ever discovering the truth for themselves.

So what evidence led you to the conclusion that there was a recent global flood, and that the Earth is young? Or are you just going along with what others have told you?

I was an OEC for years until I acually READ Genesis and the verses that support it. Those who don't adhere to the verbiage of Genesis do so because of external influences, not because of anything they read in the Bible.

What does the evidence in the creation say?

 

[46AND2]

Why would we accept something that rejects the word of the Creator? It's not enough for evolutionists to contend that speciation happened since the great flood, they insist that everything in the Bible, including events verified by Christ, simply didn't happen because science doesn't believe in miracles.

I never said you had to accept our conclusions, I said that if you are going to debate against them, you should accept our definitions, and then argue against those, and not against definitions that we don't hold to.

 

[verysincere]

Then I must ask, "Who's god?" Not mine. My God gave me a personal letter that says He created everything in six days and rested on the seventh. My God tells me that He made man on the fifth day of all creation, not after billions of years or after millions of years of evolution. My God says He made man in His image and in His likeness, not in the image of a unicellular organism then multi then fishy then amphibians then reptiles then mammal then.....

Interesting. The Bible which I read says in Genesis 1 that God created everything in six YOM and ceased those activities on the seventh YOM.

The Bible I've read for years says absolutely nothing about the age of the earth or how long it took for the abiogenesis described in Genesis 2:7: from "the dust of the ground" to HADAM (Adam). Perhaps your Bible says that it took place "instantaneously" but my Bible doesn't.

I prefer what the Bible actually says to your TRADITIONS of your favorite sect.

(As to your repeated question asking me whether Adam and Eve were the first two people, I even did you the courtesy of posting it as a separate thread here in this forum but you ignored it. So I will also.)

 

[KWCrazy]

The Bible is the claim, not the evidence. Surely you can tell the difference between the two?
What evidence do you have that there was a real Noah's Ark came to rest in the mountains of Ararat?

The Bible is the claim, the map is the evidence. There is no way water could have risen to even 1,000 feet anywhere in the area because it would run off. A localized flood is not possible. The Bible states that the ark came to rest in the mountains of Ararat, which comparitively speaking is not too far to drift in a year. HOWEVER, a local flood should have carried the ark southward, to the sea. That it drifted northward would indicate that there was no natural current. The planet was flooded.

 

[Loudmouth]

The Bible is the claim, the map is the evidence. There is no way water could have risen to even 1,000 feet anywhere in the area because it would run off. A localized flood is not possible.

Then the area did not flood.

The Bible states that the ark came to rest in the mountains of Ararat, which comparitively speaking is not too far to drift in a year. HOWEVER, a local flood should have carried the ark southward, to the sea. That it drifted northward would indicate that there was no natural current. The planet was flooded.

Where is the evidence for these claims?

 

[Tomk80]

No, it's beyond that. Nobody denies the fact that life diversifies and has since it was created. Evolution denies the existence of God and treis to state that all of life began from one sinlg common progenitor, despite the fact there are a billion impossibilities between there and man. Nobody pretends that every lvinging thing currently on the face of the earth were nestled in the ark for a year.

So you actually are fully aware of the difference between evolution and abiogenesis. I thought you were just ignorant. I did not realize you were actually dishonest.

Your grandfather probably believed in God, as did your great grandfather and his father before him. Evolution states that he didn't know what he was talking about. Before Jesus came God used to physically talk to people. They had no doubt God was real. Evolution calls the teachings of the Bible false; yet doesn't answer all the questions which arise from removing the only explanation of how life came about.

My grandfather was a good physicist, but ignorant about biology. So what? My great-grandfather was absolutely ignorant about most of science, but from what I have heard a very capable captain of a sail boat. On the other hand,I 'm reasonably good at biology, but not very good at physics and I suck at sailing. I'm fine with my grandfather knowing more about some things than me and vice versa. Why do you think this is a bad thing?

Similarly, the knowledge we have now about the world is greater than the knowledge there was when my grandfather was young. And when I am old, this knowledge will hopefully have increased a thousandfold and things I thought were correct will have turned out to be wrong. Again, so what? Why do you think this is a problem?

And again, why are you so upset that we are not omniscient?

It may not need to explain it to you, but to those who believe in God and believe that the Bible is His word, your sales pitch is incomplete and your science begins with the impossible.

Well, that's just tough. We do not suddenly know something we don't know, just because you want to be convinced. Some things are just not known.

But again you seem to be perfectly capable of understanding the difference between abiogenesis and evolution. You just are not satisfied we do not know how abiogenesis happened yet. Which is fine, but then why lie? Why don't you just say that you are not satisfied with the fact that we do not know how abiogenesis happened? Why do you have this urge to be dishonest?

Or adaptation, if you accept that nothing in biology buoys the assumption that one species can begat another, even over billions of years.

We have observed one species "begatting" another, so why not accept that? Why ignore what happens before our own eyes?

I never said evolution was a valid scientific theory.

Irrelevant to the line of reasoning you started. Please keep up will you?

If you don't believe in God then you can't support any theory that involves God; which means you have to believe in some form of abiogenesis, which is impossible.

We can just not know something, nothing wrong with that. Why do you see this as a problem?

And it has not been shown that abiogenesis is impossible, as has already been explained to you. Why are you so dishonest?

At least God's miracles have a supernatural foundation which supercedes that which is impossible in the physical world.

Well, that is convenient. It's also a non-answer. Personally I prefer the invisible pink unicorn magicking everything in existence. That has as much validity, but at least invisible pink unicorns are cool.

 

[verysincere]

The answer to that lies in the fact that people want to be accepted and considered part of the "in" crowd, so they go along with things that others tell them without ever discovering the truth for themselves. I was an OEC for years until I acually READ Genesis and the verses that support it. Those who don't adhere to the verbiage of Genesis do so because of external influences, not because of anything they read in the Bible.

1) Exactly! "the in crowd" is exactly what I meant when I attributed your claims to TRADITION, not scripture! You like to belong to the tradition club!

2) I have my doubts that you ACTUALLY READ Genesis. Are you fluent in Hebrew *or* did you "read Genesis" in a particular English Bible translation produced by a group which already presupposed a six 24-hour day creation as THEIR CHERISHED TRADITION?

The more you post, the more you dig yourself in deeper. You keep proving my points!

 

[Split Rock]

No, the absentee creator award goes to theistic evolutionists or those who credit God with originally life but contend that everything in the Bible was a lie.

Theistic evolutionists do not claim the bible is a lie. Verysincere, for example does not claim the bible is a lie... he is saying your interpretation is wrong. The fact that you continue to repeat the lie that they do, just backs up his point.

Yes I can. He is eternal. time is a creation of His. Finite minds were not designed to comprehend things like eternity, which is why it's kind of mind boggling to all of us.

The universe is also eternal then. Time was created by the expansion of time and space by the Big Bang.

Have you ever heard me call creation a scientific theory?

You quote from "creation science" sources... are you finally admitting their gibberish is not science?

Your answers were incorrect.

That's it? Did you even bother to read any of the links I provided you?

Evolution is a scientific theory that attempts to explain the diversification of all species in the absence of God. It is presented by its prophets as not an alternative to religion, but a replacement of it. If in fact the world is billions of years old and man evolved from plankton, then every religion in the world is wrong. You cannot reconcile the tennants of it with any known religion, which takes it beyound theory for many people and elevates it to a religion of its own.

All scientific theories are "in the absence of God." There are no "prophets." Plenty of religious people like verysincere have no problem with both science and religion.

So, if your faulty religious dogma contradicts what we have discovered via science, then that means that scientists are replacing your religion with science?? Does that even make sense to you? Maybe if you stopped rejecting reality and tried to really understand what the biblical authors intended you wouldn't be this confused and wouldn't be here repeating lies you read on the internet.

 

[Tomk80]

Then I must ask, "Who's god?" Not mine. My God gave me a personal letter that says He created everything in six days and rested on the seventh. My God tells me that He made man on the fifth day of all creation, not after billions of years or after millions of years of evolution. My God says He made man in His image and in His likeness, not in the image of a unicellular organism then multi then fishy then amphibians then reptiles then mammal then.....

So I would ask you, "Who's god did it the way you suggest?" It most certainly is not the God of the Jews or the God of Christians or even the god of the Muslims.

There is a large number of Christians that do not believe in your literal six day creation. It is fine to disagree with them, but please do be honest about them.

 

[verysincere]

The Bible is the claim, the map is the evidence. There is no way water could have risen to even 1,000 feet anywhere in the area because it would run off..

1) Totally false. But whatever. (There are many places in the world, even in the ancient Near East, where 1000 feet of water could be gathered for a year. Whether it "runs off" or not is irrelevant. It only has to stay flooded for a year, but not necessarily at maximum height.)

2) In any case, the Hebrew text of Genesis says that the flood waters were no way near to 1000 feet. Based on the probably cubit size, the Bible states the flood was perhaps 24 feet deep.

At least I appreciate that you make my job very very easy.

 

[Split Rock]

Why would we accept something that rejects the word of the Creator? It's not enough for evolutionists to contend that speciation happened since the great flood, they insist that everything in the Bible, including events verified by Christ, simply didn't happen because science doesn't believe in miracles.

1. We don't make claims about anything happening since "the great flood," because there wasn't any such event. Moreover, science tells us that the type of evolution you are claiming since this supposed event (a few thousand yeas ago) is not even possible, because there would not have been enough time.

2. Scientists don't have anything to say about miracles that would not be expected to leave any evidence behind.

3. Jesus verified nothing in any book of the bible, since he didn't write any of it.

 

[RickG]

Evolution is a scientific theory that attempts to explain the diversification of all species in the absence of God.

That's much the same argument along the lines of, "I just read a book on how to grow turnips, but I don't believe they know what their talking about because there is an absence of God in it. Or perhaps, "An algebra text book is a bunch of bunk, it doesn't include God.

KW, the theory of evolution, or any scientific theory for that matter, doesn't include God because there isn't any physical testable evidence that can be included that explains any scientific theory. If there was, it certainly would be included. The absence of such evidence is not a deliberate exclusion of God as you seem to suggest. Scientific theories only include what can be explained and falsified.

 

[good brother]

Interesting. The Bible which I read says in Genesis 1 that God created everything in six YOM and ceased those activities on the seventh YOM.

The Bible I've read for years says absolutely nothing about the age of the earth or how long it took for the abiogenesis described in Genesis 2:7: from "the dust of the ground" to HADAM (Adam). Perhaps your Bible says that it took place "instantaneously" but my Bible doesn't.

In MY Bible God specifically says that we are to work for six YOM and rest on the seventh YOM. So, either we are to work six literal days (the clearest definition for YOM in the context for which it appears)and rest on the seventh literal day -as my Bible says, or we can go with your unsure definition of the length of time for YOM in both Genesis and Exodus 20 and just keep working for possibly millions of years before we take a day off. If you think about it, the two texts, Genesis 1 and Exodus 20, HAVE to mean the same thing as they both reference a single event. If they mean the same thing, then it is clear they are meant to be understood as literal days that contained one morning and one evening and was over. That is the only way that makes sense in light of the Exodus passage.

God bless you.

In Christ, GB

 

[KWCrazy]

What I accept about evolution is how we define it. YOU are trying to add to it. This means that you are arguing against a position we do not hold.

Do I need to re-post the quote from the science publication that connects evolution with the single progenitor?

If you want to argue against evolution, argue against what WE consider evolution to be, since that is our argument.

The problem is that you all have a different definiton and yet you all think yours is the scientific one.

What my ancestors believed is irrelevant to the veracity of evolution.

Either they lied to you or they didn't.

Evolution does not teach that the Bible is wrong.

Blatant lie. Evolution teaches that man evolved, the Bible teaches man was created by God.

It doesn't address it at all. It only conflicts with your interpretation of the Bible.

Last I knew there were about 7.5 BILLION Bibles in print. I bet each of them agree with my interpretation, although some use different words.

I believe that IF a righteous God exists, then the nature that he created would be consistent with him.

Babboon spit. If God created an adult tree a logger would say it's 100 years old. If God created a mature planet a geologist would say it's 4.5 billion years old. If God created a mature elephant a bilogist would talk about the two year gestation period... and by the way.... where's mama??

All evolution is, is an observation about nature, which even your Bible says you can do to know he is real.

The study of nature is possible. The study of origins can only be theoretical.

Your science begins in the same way. First there was nothing, then there was something. The difference is, we don't claim to know how that happened.

We don't claim it either. we know it. And we also know that it isn't science. No natural causation created the universe and all that live within it.

Evolution is adaptation. Again, our definition.

Adaptation is a conservative process. Evoution pretends magic mutations advance species over billions of years.

No, I don't have to believe in some sort of godless abiogenesis. If it is determined that God initiated abiogenesis, then I'm perfectly willing to accept that.

What if God created everything in its mature state, as He said He did?

I am not opposed to someday being convinced of a God. I just am not convinced now, despite years and years of trying. It is not a conscious decision to reject any god, but an inability to believe in one.

The problem is you let fools cloud wisdom. If you met someone who was standing in a park and had never left it, he might tell you that the park was the entire world. You know better because you've been outside it and you've seen more. He could say anything, but you know better. You also know that in time he will discover the world outside the park.

The world of the evolutionist isn't much bigger. It's a world in which the only things that exist are what can be seen, felt, touched, smelled and heard. If something could not beproven by these senses, then it must not exist. However, God does not exist in the physical world. The closest you will EVER get to God is the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit comes to you when you accept Jesus Christ as your savior and turn your life over to Him. It's not a miraculous overnight change with most people, but a long struggle where your closest friends are often the most critical of you. It's worth it at the end, though. The Kingdom of Heaven cannot be reached through science or lgic. You can only get there by faith.

 

[verysincere]

Originally Posted by KWCrazy

Evolution is a scientific theory that attempts to explain the diversification of all species in the absence of God.
​

That's much the same argument along the lines of, "I just read a book on how to grow turnips, but I don't believe they know what their talking about because there is an absence of God in it. Or perhaps, "An algebra text book is a bunch of bunk, it doesn't include God.

KW, the theory of evolution, or any scientific theory for that matter, doesn't include God because there isn't any physical testable evidence that can be included that explains any scientific theory..

Indeed. I will replace KWCrazy's "theory" which defines evolution as:

Evolution is a scientific theory that attempts to explain the diversification of all species in the absence of God.

....with my own summary of how I can describe evolution:

"Evolution is a scientific theory that explains the diversification of all species. Period." But I could also add to that: ".... apparently because God created the laws of physics in such a way that the universe developed over time to produce life and various diversifications of life because that is what God the Creator described in the Bible willed to happen." Creationists have long claimed that God exists outside of time (and I'm fine with that) and so why should God be confined to only doing things "instantaneously" or in a few thousands years. Wouldn't God do as he wills? Or is he like a human engineer who must watch and tweak and correct everything his machine does? Or is God such a brilliant and powerful engineer that his "machines" can function for billions of years and do exactly what he wants them to do?

 

[verysincere]

RickG,

I wonder if KWCrazy would say that GRAVITY is a theory which explains how any apple falls to the ground without God's involvement? After all, doesn't the Bible say that when an object falls to the ground, it is because God WILLED that object to move toward the earth?

If I were still a young earth creationist, I would be furious at KWCrazy, AV, and GB posting these dismal failures that make their traditional views look so vacuous.