why is creationism plausable?

[BannanaFish]

The idea of creationism is shortsighted and limiting.

Evolution is the only possible means of discerning the world's animals we have today.

cases have been documented proving evolution is real During Darwin's expedition to the Galapagos Islands, he bred birds, forcing their genes to change the look and characteristics of the offspring. If a simple experiment can show one species changing into that of another why is the idea of creationism valid in anyone's mind?

 

[gluadys]

The idea of creationism is shortsighted and limiting.

Evolution is the only possible means of discerning the world's animals we have today.

cases have been documented proving evolution is real During Darwin's expedition to the Galapagos Islands, he bred birds, forcing their genes to change the look and characteristics of the offspring. If a simple experiment can show one species changing into that of another why is the idea of creationism valid in anyone's mind?

There is plenty of evidence to support evolution, but this is not one of them. Darwin did not breed any of the Galapagos finches. He shot some to take home to England for study. He did breed birds in England though: pigeons.

 

[marktheblake]

If a simple experiment can show one species changing into that of another

Um, didnt he just observe the Finches growing different sized beaks?

 

[MattLangley]

It isn't.

 

[gluadys]

Um, didnt he just observe the Finches growing different sized beaks?

No, he wasn't there long enough to do that. He shot a few and sent them to an ornithologist in England. Darwin himself didn't even realize they were all finches (he thought some were warblers or larks) until he got the report from the ornithologist that they were all finches.


The people who observed the changes in the beak size were Peter and Rosemary Grant, who, together with their assistants studied the finches on Daphne Major (one of the Galapagos islands) every year from the early 1970s on for 30 years. They saw the population of finches plummet during a severe drought and noticed that the larger beaked birds survived better and the next generation had, on average, larger beaks that showed up in their earlier records. Later, they also saw the difference after a good rainy season that favored smaller birds with smaller beaks.

There's a good readable description of their work in a book called The Beak of the Finch by Jonathan Weiner. Look for it in the science section of your bookstore or library.

 

[marktheblake]

They saw the population of finches plummet during a severe drought and noticed that the larger beaked birds survived better and the next generation had, on average, larger beaks that showed up in their earlier records

Thanks for the clarification, so no species changing into another huh?

The idea of creationism is shortsighted and limiting

If a simple experiment can show one species changing into that of another why is the idea of creationism valid in anyone's mind?

who is shortsighted?

 

[Smidlee]

If a simple experiment can show one species changing into that of another why is the idea of creationism valid in anyone's mind?

The mind.

 

[Stryder06]

There is plenty of evidence to support evolution, but this is not one of them. Darwin did not breed any of the Galapagos finches. He shot some to take home to England for study. He did breed birds in England though: pigeons.

I'm sorry my friend, but you've been deceived! Pigeons aren't birds, they're evil rats with wings!

 

[Stryder06]

The idea of creationism is shortsighted and limiting.

Evolution is the only possible means of discerning the world's animals we have today.

cases have been documented proving evolution is real During Darwin's expedition to the Galapagos Islands, he bred birds, forcing their genes to change the look and characteristics of the offspring. If a simple experiment can show one species changing into that of another why is the idea of creationism valid in anyone's mind?

Honestly, I'd say that saying that God didn't do what He said He did is shortsighted and limiting. Genesis says 7 days, and during the seven days He created all that there is. For a Christian that should be case closed.

 

[WingsOfEagles07]

The idea of creationism is shortsighted and limiting.

Evolution is the only possible means of discerning the world's animals we have today.

cases have been documented proving evolution is real During Darwin's expedition to the Galapagos Islands, he bred birds, forcing their genes to change the look and characteristics of the offspring. If a simple experiment can show one species changing into that of another why is the idea of creationism valid in anyone's mind?

Here is an excerpt from R.Torrey's Commentary ; The Decadence of Darwinism. (blueletterbible.com)

BOLD = TORREY, RED = HUXELY


Professor Huxley makes a notable concession to truth and sanity when he says:

"It is quite conceivable that every species tends to produce varieties of a limited number and kind, and that the effect of natural selection is to favor the development of some of these, while it opposes the development of others along their predetermined lines of modification." (Britannica. Evolution). Taking the Professor's language as accurate, he surrenders natural selection. We were taught that it was as reliable as gravitation, but if we get the notion that some species improve, some are stationary and some deteriorate, agreeably with heredity and environment, we have no further use for it. To sum up the case for natural selection:

(1) It is poor morals. A theory of nature must be ideal to be true. Natural selection is a scheme for the survival of the passionate and the violent, the destruction of the weak and defenseless. To be true, black must be white, and wrong must be right, and God an Ivan the terrible.

(2) Its assumptions are false. It is false that unlimited attenuation of the steps of the process, and unlimited time for the accomplishment of it, assure us that it might have been possible. "Attenuation" and "time" would have been but conditions, not causes. They could prove nothing.
It is false that in the struggle for existence the "fittest" survive. The "fittest" is an ambiguous word. With natural selection it means the strongest and best armed. They do not survive; they degenerate and expire. They who bear arms challenge attack. This providence may be penal or corrective.
It is false that man is derived from a brute and a brute from a vegetable. One of the forces of human life makes for a recognition of God and a consciousness of sin against Him. This was not unfolded from anthropoid apes, for it is not in them. Brutes are distinguished from plants by self-consciousness, and this was not developed from plants, for it is not in them.

(3) Natural selection is self-contradictory and impossible. Fifty years ago, Alfred Russel Wallace devised the scheme and wrote Charles Darwin about it. Mr. Darwin published the plan. He afterwards refers to Mr. Wallace as having. "an innate genius for solving difficulties". (Descent," p. 344). Two years ago, Mr. Wallace, in an address at the Darwin anniversary, before the Royal Institution in London, referring to Professor Haeckel said:
"These unavailing efforts seem to lead us to the irresistible conclusion that beyond and above all terrestrial agencies, there is some great source of energy and guidance, which in unknown ways pervades every form of organized life, and which we ourselves are the ultimate and foreordained outcome".

 

[gluadys]

I'm sorry my friend, but you've been deceived! Pigeons aren't birds, they're evil rats with wings!

LOL!

Here is an excerpt from R.Torrey's Commentary ; The Decadence of Darwinism. (blueletterbible.com)

BOLD = TORREY, RED = HUXELY


Professor Huxley makes a notable concession to truth and sanity when he says:

"It is quite conceivable that every species tends to produce varieties of a limited number and kind, and that the effect of natural selection is to favor the development of some of these, while it opposes the development of others along their predetermined lines of modification." (Britannica. Evolution).

Interesting to catch Huxley saying something like "their predetermined lines of modification." Most modern biologists would say there are no predetermined lines of modification for any species.

Taking the Professor's language as accurate, he surrenders natural selection. We were taught that it was as reliable as gravitation, but if we get the notion that some species improve, some are stationary and some deteriorate, agreeably with heredity and environment, we have no further use for it.

Sounds like Mr. Torrey didn't have the foggiest notion of what natural selection is. Perhaps he mistakenly thought that natural selection is always supposed to go in one direction--toward the improvement and survival of the species. But a logical consequence of any selection is that some things are not selected. So his description that "some species improve, some are stationary and some deteriorate, agreeably with heredity and environment" is basically a description of the natural selection he says "we have no further use for."

(However, it is still couched in language that would make a biologist wince. A species that survives is not necessarily "improved" nor the one that goes extinct something that "deteriorated". This is the language of the myth of perpetual progress that enjoyed a philosophical heyday in the 19th century and was often imposed on evolution, but is really not characteristic of evolutionary change.)

To sum up the case for natural selection:

(1) It is poor morals. A theory of nature must be ideal to be true. Natural selection is a scheme for the survival of the passionate and the violent, the destruction of the weak and defenseless. To be true, black must be white, and wrong must be right, and God an Ivan the terrible.

And this imposes a mystique of the Victorian ideal of ruthless laissez-faire capitalism on evolution that is really not characteristic of evolution either. It is simply not true that evolution has anything to do with passion or violence or the destruction of the weak and defenceless.

Also since science is basically a description of what happens in nature, it provides no real basis for moral behaviour which is about how conscious agents ought to behave. Evolution is not a conscious action on the part of individuals--or species--or genes.

(2) Its assumptions are false. It is false that unlimited attenuation of the steps of the process, and unlimited time for the accomplishment of it, assure us that it might have been possible. "Attenuation" and "time" would have been but conditions, not causes. They could prove nothing.

By the same token, if we know what the causes are, and we know those causes have had X amount of time to continue in operation, we can gauge how much change is possible in that time. It hardly seems likely that we can measure light years and the life-times of stars and not measure how much biological change can occur over a few hundred million years, based on measured changes observed within our life-time. We have seen such things as significant changes in the digestive system of lizards within 30 years. So what may we not expect over 30 million years? or 330 million years?

It is false that in the struggle for existence the "fittest" survive. The "fittest" is an ambiguous word. With natural selection it means the strongest and best armed. They do not survive; they degenerate and expire. They who bear arms challenge attack. This providence may be penal or corrective.

No, it doesn't mean that the strongest or the best armed survive. Biological fitness is reproductive. The fittest are those that have the most surviving offspring--or to take the "selfish gene" perspective, the fittest are those that have ensured the survival of the most copies of their genes in their offspring, and the offspring of their siblings and other near kin. That is why a sterile worker ant can be evolutionarily "fit"--because she is ensuring the survival of her genes into the next generation through the reproductive capacity of the queen to whom she is closely related.

It is false that man is derived from a brute and a brute from a vegetable.

I am sorely tempted to add the feminist perspective that man is a brute so why not consider him a descendant of brutes.

But enough with equivocation of meaning. Humans are animals (we are certainly not plants or fungi.) We may be unique animals and even something more than animals, but physically we are in all ways animals, so there is nothing inconsistent in saying our ancestors were animals.

Animals do not count vegetables among their ancestors---that's true. But animals and plants do share a common ancestor in some eukaryotic predecessor. The Ancestor's Tale is a wonderful account of our whole history as it connects to our nearer and more remote kin.

 

[WingsOfEagles07]

LOL!



Interesting to catch Huxley saying something like "their predetermined lines of modification." Most modern biologists would say there are no predetermined lines of modification for any species.







Sounds like Mr. Torrey didn't have the foggiest notion of what natural selection is. Perhaps he mistakenly thought that natural selection is always supposed to go in one direction--toward the improvement and survival of the species. But a logical consequence of any selection is that some things are not selected. So his description that "some species improve, some are stationary and some deteriorate, agreeably with heredity and environment" is basically a description of the natural selection he says "we have no further use for."

(However, it is still couched in language that would make a biologist wince. A species that survives is not necessarily "improved" nor the one that goes extinct something that "deteriorated". This is the language of the myth of perpetual progress that enjoyed a philosophical heyday in the 19th century and was often imposed on evolution, but is really not characteristic of evolutionary change.)




And this imposes a mystique of the Victorian ideal of ruthless laissez-faire capitalism on evolution that is really not characteristic of evolution either. It is simply not true that evolution has anything to do with passion or violence or the destruction of the weak and defenceless.

Also since science is basically a description of what happens in nature, it provides no real basis for moral behaviour which is about how conscious agents ought to behave. Evolution is not a conscious action on the part of individuals--or species--or genes.





By the same token, if we know what the causes are, and we know those causes have had X amount of time to continue in operation, we can gauge how much change is possible in that time. It hardly seems likely that we can measure light years and the life-times of stars and not measure how much biological change can occur over a few hundred million years, based on measured changes observed within our life-time. We have seen such things as significant changes in the digestive system of lizards within 30 years. So what may we not expect over 30 million years? or 330 million years?








No, it doesn't mean that the strongest or the best armed survive. Biological fitness is reproductive. The fittest are those that have the most surviving offspring--or to take the "selfish gene" perspective, the fittest are those that have ensured the survival of the most copies of their genes in their offspring, and the offspring of their siblings and other near kin. That is why a sterile worker ant can be evolutionarily "fit"--because she is ensuring the survival of her genes into the next generation through the reproductive capacity of the queen to whom she is closely related.




I am sorely tempted to add the feminist perspective that man is a brute so why not consider him a descendant of brutes.

But enough with equivocation of meaning. Humans are animals (we are certainly not plants or fungi.) We may be unique animals and even something more than animals, but physically we are in all ways animals, so there is nothing inconsistent in saying our ancestors were animals.

Animals do not count vegetables among their ancestors---that's true. But animals and plants do share a common ancestor in some eukaryotic predecessor. The Ancestor's Tale is a wonderful account of our whole history as it connects to our nearer and more remote kin.

LOL, Note to self, TORREY = BOLD BLACK, HUXLEY = RED.

Plus, Later today, I will explain to you how you cannot preach the Gospel because of Theistic Evolution. LOL, it is 12:17 now, I will wake up around 8-9 to type it up.

 

[Assyrian]

As far as I can work out, that was written by someone called Henry H. Beach, not by R. A. Torrey, who was the editor as well as a major contributor of the 12 volume series The Fundamentals. It is worth pointing out Torrey is a problematic writer for Young Earth Creationists to quote as he was quite rude about the literal interpretation of the Genesis days and said that it "displays a hopeless ignorance of the Bible", link .

 

[WingsOfEagles07]

As for Assyrian and Gluadys, You cannot effectively preach the Gospel to anyone. You can but then you would have to deny evolution. Because the God who sent the Son to die on this Cross is the creator God of all the earth.

1) The foundational teachings: Jesus Christ is the Creator and He made man; man rebelled against God, and sin therefore entered the world; God placed a curse upon man the curse of death.

2)The power of the gospel and what is central to the gospel: Jesus Christ, the Creator, came and suffered the same curse of death on a cross and was raised from the dead (thus conquering death); all those who came unto Him in repentance for their sin (rebellion) can come back to the perfect love relationship with God that was forfeited in the Garden of Eden.

3) The hope of the gospel: the whole creation is suffering the effects of sin and is slowly running down; all things are to be restored (the consummation of all things) when Jesus Christ comes to complete His work of redemption and reconciliation (Col.1:2, 2 Pet.3).

A lot of people tend to make the gospel in the beginning of 1 Corinthians 15 and say it only talks about Jesus Christ died on the cross and the resurrection. However if you read 1 Corinthians 15:12-14, What about the people who do not believe the resurrection? What will you do then? Say he started evolution? No. In 1 Corinthians 15:21-22, Paul goes back to Genesis and explains the origins of sin.

21For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
22For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.


When and Who did GOD create that death came by? If Adam is nothing but a symbolic or a non-literal being then how did sin, death, etc.. Enter the world? Who did the devil deceive to make it enter in the world? Right here GOD's word says as in Adam (because he was 'man') all shall die. Tell how come we die from Man kind decides truth worldview. In verse 21, He sets the foundational reason as to why Jesus Christ came and died on the cross. Therefore, to preach the gospel without the message of Christ as the Creator and the entrance of sin and death is to preach the gospel without a foundation. To preach a gospel without the message of Christ and His crucifixion and resurrection is to preach a gospel without power. To preach a gospel without the message of the coming kingdom is to preach a gospel without hope. You have to understand all aspects to understand the gospel properly. In Acts 14 & 17, Paul preaches God's creation to the greeks.



If there was no literal 'first' Adam, how can there be a 'last' Adam? If Genesis is just a non-literal poetic story then Where would be the Basis of marriage in Mark 10:6 ? If Genesis is just a non-literal poetic story, how could John 1:1-3 be true? Much less the death and resurrection of Christ? If the account of Genesis is a non-literal poetic story then How can you say that killing someone is murder? Exodus 20:11 says;


11For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

How can the laws of God be true if the Creation is not true? It says He made the HEAVEN and EARTH, the SEA and ALL THAT IN THEM. If he did not but are merely just evolved animals over time by the assumptions of scientists who love darkness more than light, and serve the creature more than the Creator how are the Ten Commandments applicable to you? Murder should not be killing since we are just animals. Some doctors say to women during abortion not to worry because the baby is during its fish stage of developing. Therefore it is not murder; killing that human baby. (John 3:19, Romans 1:25) Evolution has its own morality system. How?

BIBLE = GOD DECIDES TRUTH = THE TEN COMMANDMENTS = OBJECTIVE MORALITY

EVOLUTION = MAN DECIDES TRUTH = MAN DECIDES WHAT IS RIGHT AND WRONG = SUBJECTIVE MORALITY

Evolution denies the Genesis account of Creation which is the foundation of the Bible and has replaced it with what MAN HAS DECIDED TO BE THE TRUTH! They believe we are evolved animals over the course of millions of years. So is it logical to say that GOD is infallible and died on the Cross but since the "experts" who are fallible decide that we have came from these previous creatures Genesis is wrong and mankind is right? These presuppositions are fallacious. They cannot prove that we have came from the animal forms. We were not there to see the past in order to explain it in the present. But GOD was there in the Beginning, because in (Revelation 22:13, John 1:1-4, Genesis 1:1)

13I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. (Revelation 22:13)

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2The same was in the beginning with God.
3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

(John 1:1-4)


1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
(Genesis 1:1)

You see, the literal account of Genesis is the foundation of the Bible. If it was non-literal then the rest of the Bible would not be true. If the "promise" of God in Revelation 22:3 promises there will be no more curse, and the Genesis account was not true. Where did the 'curse' come from?

3And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:

What is the curse? Death as provided in Genesis account of Creation. (Gen. 3:17-19) You see, you guys who are Theistic evolutionists are trying to tell God what the account of Genesis says, instead of letting the WORD of GOD talk to you. We all live in the same universe, same planet, same fossils, same plants and animals, same evidence, same everything. The only difference is how we "interpret" the evidence. When the Bible is set by the Foundation of Truth and base it upon the evidence it makes sense. Take dogs as a tree. The very seed is just two dogs; male and female. They reproduce over the years then the tree begins to grow and branches start to grow those branches are results of variation in a kind. You can do that with every single animal. But evolution teaches, everything started with just one tree and from that seed the Father and mother of all things (Man decided this) is this single-celled organism that made all animals branched off from the same tree. JESUS said all the animals reproduce after their "own kind" .. If you take the Dog example it perfectly fits with the Bible. Not Evolution that mad has decided is true. Take the fossil record, it is logical enough to say the "flood" made these fossils because that much water pressure at once and then all that time for the water to sink down burying the animals is able to be fossilized. And many other things. But as you can see you cannot account believe in Evolution and Christianity at the same time, because God was in the beginning. Genesis is the literal account of creation in which is the foundation of the Bible.

 

[Dark_Lite]

If there was no literal 'first' Adam, how can there be a 'last' Adam? If Genesis is just a non-literal poetic story then Where would be the Basis of marriage in Mark 10:6 ? If Genesis is just a non-literal poetic story, how could John 1:1-3 be true? Much less the death and resurrection of Christ? If the account of Genesis is a non-literal poetic story then How can you say that killing someone is murder?

What happens when there's theistic evolution and a literal Adam and Eve included in that belief system? Your argument specifically revolves around the lack of a literal Adam and Eve. Believe it or not, it is possible for there to be theistic evolution with a literal Adam and Eve.

As for the actual argument itself, poetic does not necessarily equate to untruth. There are several different non-literal interpretations. One example is where Adam represents all of humanity, and the references to the creation event in later centuries are hearkening back to old cultural knowledge of the ancestors. There are also several other versions of non-literality, but I'm sure someone else would be able to expand on them better than I.

BIBLE = GOD DECIDES TRUTH = THE TEN COMMANDMENTS = OBJECTIVE MORALITY

EVOLUTION = MAN DECIDES TRUTH = MAN DECIDES WHAT IS RIGHT AND WRONG = SUBJECTIVE MORALITY

You keep saying this. But no matter how many times you say it, it's not ever going to be correct.

Evolution denies the Genesis account of Creation which is the foundation of the Bible and has replaced it with what MAN HAS DECIDED TO BE THE TRUTH!

I want to make a distinction here. Evolution does not describe the origination of life. It describes how life, which already existing, has changed over millions of years. The origination of life is explained by completely separate things such as abiogenesis or God starting life directly.

Secondly, I would argue that the foundation of the Bible is Jesus. After all, that's what CHRISTianity is all about. Or at least, so I thought. You say that because of sin entering the world via a literal Adam's first sin, that is what caused Christ to become necessary. This is true. Christ was necessary to redeem humanity from sin. However, what you fail to consider is the possibility that much like Christ's victory over death was spiritual (obviously, we still physically die), that the original death brought on by sin could have very much been spiritual as well.

They cannot prove that we have came from the animal forms. We were not there to see the past in order to explain it in the present.

This is a weak point. If you're going to reject any knowledge you weren't there to specifically see, then I sure hope you're ready to reject almost the entirety of human knowledge. Furthermore, this point is easily turned against you. You weren't there when the Bible was written or compiled. You weren't there when Jesus was alive. How do you know any of that is real? It works both ways, you see.

We all live in the same universe, same planet, same fossils, same plants and animals, same evidence, same everything. The only difference is how we "interpret" the evidence. When the Bible is set by the Foundation of Truth and base it upon the evidence it makes sense.

There's only so many different ways to "interpret" the evidence. You have to do an awful lot of reinterpreting to get the evidence of the physical universe to fit into a Young Earth framework. Indeed, you have to rewrite almost the entirety of scientific knowledge. Astronomy, geology, biology, chemistry, physics. All point towards an old Earth/universe and an evolutionary model. Are you prepared to do that?

Take dogs as a tree. The very seed is just two dogs; male and female. They reproduce over the years then the tree begins to grow and branches start to grow those branches are results of variation in a kind. You can do that with every single animal. But evolution teaches, everything started with just one tree and from that seed the Father and mother of all things (Man decided this) is this single-celled organism that made all animals branched off from the same tree. JESUS said all the animals reproduce after their "own kind" .. If you take the Dog example it perfectly fits with the Bible. Not Evolution that mad has decided is true.

Qualify a "kind." What is a "kind?" How do you differentiate between "kinds?" Please, give a qualified scientific definition. What I tend to glean from "kinds" is that animals cannot genetically go outside of their "kind." If that is the case, then why do we have fossils and different species that are indicative of evolutionary transition? Why are there vestigial limbs and organs?

I will give you credit in that you have recognized that evolution is more of a tree model rather than the typical creationist view of evolution being a chain ("if humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still humans?"). However, even the tree model is a simplified view. Also, why couldn't animals have evolved from a single cell?

Take the fossil record, it is logical enough to say the "flood" made these fossils because that much water pressure at once and then all that time for the water to sink down burying the animals is able to be fossilized. And many other things.

It's not logical because the geological evidence doesn't agree with any sort of worldwide flood. The strata indicate different layers from different time periods and they independently agree with other dating methods. Such layering would not be possible if there was a singular global flood.

 

[WingsOfEagles07]

What happens when there's theistic evolution and a literal Adam and Eve included in that belief system? Your argument specifically revolves around the lack of a literal Adam and Eve. Believe it or not, it is possible for there to be theistic evolution with a literal Adam and Eve.

As for the actual argument itself, poetic does not necessarily equate to untruth. There are several different non-literal interpretations. One example is where Adam represents all of humanity, and the references to the creation event in later centuries are hearkening back to old cultural knowledge of the ancestors. There are also several other versions of non-literality, but I'm sure someone else would be able to expand on them better than I.



You keep saying this. But no matter how many times you say it, it's not ever going to be correct.

I want to make a distinction here. Evolution does not describe the origination of life. It describes how life, which already existing, has changed over millions of years. The origination of life is explained by completely separate things such as abiogenesis or God starting life directly.

Secondly, I would argue that the foundation of the Bible is Jesus. After all, that's what CHRISTianity is all about. Or at least, so I thought. You say that because of sin entering the world via a literal Adam's first sin, that is what caused Christ to become necessary. This is true. Christ was necessary to redeem humanity from sin. However, what you fail to consider is the possibility that much like Christ's victory over death was spiritual (obviously, we still physically die), that the original death brought on by sin could have very much been spiritual as well.

This is a weak point. If you're going to reject any knowledge you weren't there to specifically see, then I sure hope you're ready to reject almost the entirety of human knowledge. Furthermore, this point is easily turned against you. You weren't there when the Bible was written or compiled. You weren't there when Jesus was alive. How do you know any of that is real? It works both ways, you see.

There's only so many different ways to "interpret" the evidence. You have to do an awful lot of reinterpreting to get the evidence of the physical universe to fit into a Young Earth framework. Indeed, you have to rewrite almost the entirety of scientific knowledge. Astronomy, geology, biology, chemistry, physics. All point towards an old Earth/universe and an evolutionary model. Are you prepared to do that?

Qualify a "kind." What is a "kind?" How do you differentiate between "kinds?" Please, give a qualified scientific definition. What I tend to glean from "kinds" is that animals cannot genetically go outside of their "kind." If that is the case, then why do we have fossils and different species that are indicative of evolutionary transition? Why are there vestigial limbs and organs?

I will give you credit in that you have recognized that evolution is more of a tree model rather than the typical creationist view of evolution being a chain ("if humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still humans?"). However, even the tree model is a simplified view. Also, why couldn't animals have evolved from a single cell?


It's not logical because the geological evidence doesn't agree with any sort of worldwide flood. The strata indicate different layers from different time periods and they independently agree with other dating methods. Such layering would not be possible if there was a singular global flood.

No it is not possible to have Adam and Eve in theistic evolution. The 'main' reason being is that since we 'supposedly' come from animals of previous life forms that means there was 'death' before Adam. And there was no 'death' before Adam. Therefore there cannot be a belief in both. Everything was brought onto a curse by Adam. There was no death before Adam like evolution states it to be.

If I am wrong about "man deciding truth" then why have you all replaced the biblical account of creation with evolution? If it is not "man's opinion" tell me what is it? It is definitely not 'facts' because if they were 100% facts there would be no need for this argument to be going on. You also cannot prove to anyone that evolution is 100% totally correct about the origin of life (in which it is not.) GOD decides the truth, but MAN KIND HAS CAME UP WITH EVOLUTION. They CLAIM IT TO BE TRUTH! YOU CLAIM IT TO BE TRUTH! Therefore Man decides what is truth. If you cannot see this; then become a consultant to observe evolution teachers in the schools today and tell me they do not teach this to students.

Evolution came up with the idea of the 'BB' and Abiogenesis. Which are not validated. No one can prove these things. You also totally missed my point. The foundation of the Bible is not 'just' Jesus. It is based on Genesis. You failed to address any of the statements I made which are true that you cannot answer for yourself. Like Revelation 22, Where he states, He is the Alpha and the omega, THE BEGINNING AND THE ENDING....And where he says the curse of death will be no more. Well, If the curse of Death was set by Adam but there was death before Adam this promise is invalid and would go against God's nature therefore Evolution is not correct in the Biblical sense. With the literal interpretation, this Promise is invalid to those who believe in Evolution. Without the literal interpretation, then where did the curse of death set in? One can biblically show evolution does not fit with the Bible. How about whenever JESUS addresses marriage in Mark ?? At the beginning of creation God made them Male and Female. With the literal interpretation this cannot be for the promise of no more curse would be invalid. Without the literal interpretation, Who did God set the basis for marriage to if they were not a literal being? How about whenever the Apostle Paul preached 'Creation' in Acts 14 & 17 ?? What about how JESUS shows in 1 Corinthians the origins of sins? With the literal interpretation of Genesis their had to be sin before Adam which cannot be according to Romans 5:12. (For by one man SIN entered the world and death by sin). Therefore evolution makes the promise in Revelation 22 invalid. Without the literal interpretation. Where did sin start for God to die for? And Who sinned?
Physical or Spiritual it does not matter. This will still make Revelation 22 promise by God false and make him a Liar and as you said GOD cannot lie.

About the point of "You weren't there to see it." You missed my point Dark. I am saying literally there was NO ONE THERE to see this happen to explain this in the future. But even though I was not there back then, SOMEONE was there to see the Bible written. SOMEONE was there at the beginning. And that was and is JESUS CHRIST ... So you see, NOT ONE PERSON that has ever lived has documentation of the ORIGINS of everything except the Biblical creation. GOD was there to see it and there is documentation. I have justification for my belief of SOMEONE who is INFALLIBLE and was there in the Beginning. Just like I have stated from Genesis 1:1, John 1:1-4, and Revelation 22.

////////There's only so many different ways to "interpret" the evidence. You have to do an awful lot of reinterpreting to get the evidence of the physical universe to fit into a Young Earth framework. Indeed, you have to rewrite almost the entirety of scientifics knowledge. Atronomy, geology, biology, chemistry, physics. All point towards an old Earth/universe and an evolutionary model. Are you prepared to do that?///////////

Okay first off, No we do not have to do a lot of interpreting because we have justification for our evidence, a.k.a. the Bible. Evolutionists have to make interpretations based on their own belief system. Whether you believe it or not, Man decides truth. How does one decide from Creation or evolution? You either choose to believe WHAT GOD SAYS AS TRUTH: CREATION or WHAT MAN SAYS AS TRUTH: EVOLUTION. And it has been proven by biblical standards as I have already shown, not to mention the other promises that evolution invalidates that I have not shown yet. On what basis do evolution make their claims? There is nothing behind it. Except a "belief system" it is whether sad that you turn to man made opinionated beliefs for knowledge than the God who created you and gave you your own conscience. Evolutionists cannot even account for why and where we got Melanin from to protect us from the sun.

"Kind" = a certain type of species that remains within the same species. Not evolved. Kind = Dog, Kind = Elephant, Kind = Cat, These animals cannot reproduce over time to form other animals. For they reproduce after there own kind.

Every time I mention "Flood" you talk about Strata rock layers, but I found an article on Strata layers which proves it wrong, but JUST BECAUSE it is from a "creation" site it is totally wrong because these scientists must not know what they are talking about since it goes against the TRUE THEORY OF EVOLUTION. So why would I even bother if your not going to read it? Since by arbitrary claims they are wrong because the opinions of evolutionists are of higher regard than a "creationist." Seems very illogical. Yet again, Evolution and Christianity does not go together as proved above.

 

[sfs]

Humans are animals (we are certainly not plants or fungi.)

I'm not sure about this. I'm beginning to suspect that one of my children is some sort of potato.

 

[gluadys]

I'm not sure about this. I'm beginning to suspect that one of my children is some sort of potato.

Couch potato, perhaps?

 

[Assyrian]

As for Assyrian and Gluadys, You cannot effectively preach the Gospel to anyone. You can but then you would have to deny evolution. Because the God who sent the Son to die on this Cross is the creator God of all the earth.

1) The foundational teachings: Jesus Christ is the Creator and He made man; man rebelled against God, and sin therefore entered the world; God placed a curse upon man the curse of death.

2)The power of the gospel and what is central to the gospel: Jesus Christ, the Creator, came and suffered the same curse of death on a cross and was raised from the dead (thus conquering death); all those who came unto Him in repentance for their sin (rebellion) can come back to the perfect love relationship with God that was forfeited in the Garden of Eden.

3) The hope of the gospel: the whole creation is suffering the effects of sin and is slowly running down; all things are to be restored (the consummation of all things) when Jesus Christ comes to complete His work of redemption and reconciliation (Col.1:2, 2 Pet.3).

Have you ever read through the gospel proclamations the apostles gave in Acts or the description of the gospel message in the epistles, and then compared them to our modern versions? I don't know of any of the apostles who preached a message of a six day creation, Adam and Eve, original sin or the fall. Paul does mention Adam in his epistles, but that is in writing to believers, not proclaiming the gospel to non Christians. More on Paul later. I think that down through the centuries people's interpretation of Genesis has been incorporated into their understanding of the cross and redemption, we understand redemption in terms of how we understand the fall, but that is just tradition and man's limited attempts to understand a work of redemption that goes beyond anything we can see or imagine. If some of our concepts are misunderstandings, the Gospel is still the power of God for salvation. It doesn't change.

A lot of people tend to make the gospel in the beginning of 1 Corinthians 15 and say it only talks about Jesus Christ died on the cross and the resurrection. However if you read 1 Corinthians 15:12-14, What about the people who do not believe the resurrection? What will you do then? Say he started evolution? No. In 1 Corinthians 15:21-22, Paul goes back to Genesis and explains the origins of sin.

21For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
22For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

That is an interesting verse there, have you ever noticed the tense Paul uses? In Adam all die, die is present tense, Paul is not talking about everyone dying in Adam back at the fall, but something that is still going on, the human race is still 'in Adam' and continues to die in Adam today. It is worth considering if Paul might be speaking figuratively here, he is taking the story of Genesis yes, but he is interpreting it as a picture of the human race today. We are all Adam, that is what the name means, man or mankind, and in Adam we all sin and die.

When and Who did GOD create that death came by? If Adam is nothing but a symbolic or a non-literal being then how did sin, death, etc.. Enter the world? Who did the devil deceive to make it enter in the world?

You are missing the point, if Adam and Eve are symbolic then the things you take from a literal interpretation are not what the story is really on about, but is describing how we all sin. Do you see the echo of the Genesis story in Paul's description of how he fell, Rom 7:9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. Paul was alive, he learned God's command, disobeyed and died. Who did the devil deceive? The whole world. Look at how the book of Revelation reads the serpent in Eden Rev 12:9 And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world--he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.

Right here GOD's word says as in Adam (because he was 'man') all shall die. Tell how come we die from Man kind decides truth worldview. In verse 21, He sets the foundational reason as to why Jesus Christ came and died on the cross. Therefore, to preach the gospel without the message of Christ as the Creator and the entrance of sin and death is to preach the gospel without a foundation.

Yet that is how the apostles preached the gospel.

To preach a gospel without the message of Christ and His crucifixion and resurrection is to preach a gospel without power. To preach a gospel without the message of the coming kingdom is to preach a gospel without hope. You have to understand all aspects to understand the gospel properly. In Acts 14 & 17, Paul preaches God's creation to the greeks.

Creation is very important, but Paul was tellign them god was the creator of all, not telling them how long creation took or how God made everything, neither was he talking about how Adam and Eve were tempted and the fall.

If there was no literal 'first' Adam, how can there be a 'last' Adam?

Again, is Paul speaking literally here or figuratively? How was Jesus the last Adam, what about Adam Smith, Adam Faith or Adam Ant? Look at the passage. 1Cor 15:45 Thus it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
46 But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual.
47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. Was Jesus the second man? Not if you take the bible literally, the second man was Cain and there were probably millions of other men after that. Jesus was hardly the second man, not literally. But Paul is is spaeaking allegorically, apocalyptically even, the whole human race summed up as two men Adam and Christ and everyone on earth is 'in Adam' or 'in Christ'.

If Genesis is just a non-literal poetic story then Where would be the Basis of marriage in Mark 10:6 ?

Because while God did not literally make Adam out of mud (a very common biblical image that, 'you are the potter we are the clay'), God still made the human race, and he made the human race as Jesus said, male and female. Notice how Jesus never even mentions Adam and Eve. Jesus is also using the story of Genesis as if it was meant as a lesson about marriage. That is an allegorical interpretation of the passage.

If Genesis is just a non-literal poetic story, how could John 1:1-3 be true? Much less the death and resurrection of Christ?

Why shouldn't it? Just because Genesis is a poetic description of God's creation, it is still a description of God's creation and proclaims God as creator. Jesus said he was the good shepherd who lays down his life for his sheep. Was Jesus a literal shepherd? No. Was he protecting sheep? No. It is a figurative picture of Jesus dying for us on the cross. It is a figurative picture of the cross, but that does not mean cross wasn't real.

If the account of Genesis is a non-literal poetic story then How can you say that killing someone is murder? Exodus 20:11 says;
11For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

You can find the ten commandments again in Deuteronomy, where it says: Deut 5:13 Six days you shall labor and do all your work,
14 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter or your male servant or your female servant, or your ox or your donkey or any of your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates, that your male servant and your female servant may rest as well as you.
15 You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the LORD your God commanded you to keep the Sabbath day.
Did God literally use a mighty hand and an outstretched arm to rescue the Israelites? No, it is a figurative description. They still had to keep the commandments.

How can the laws of God be true if the Creation is not true?

Creation is true, it is just described figuratively.

It says He made the HEAVEN and EARTH, the SEA and ALL THAT IN THEM. If he did not but are merely just evolved animals over time by the assumptions of scientists who love darkness more than light, and serve the creature more than the Creator how are the Ten Commandments applicable to you? Murder should not be killing since we are just animals. Some doctors say to women during abortion not to worry because the baby is during its fish stage of developing. Therefore it is not murder; killing that human baby. (John 3:19, Romans 1:25) Evolution has its own morality system. How?

What has how we were made got to do with the rights and wrongs of murder? Genesis says we are made of mud, does that mean there is nothing wrong with squishing a bit of mud? Does anybody seriously try to justify abortion by claiming the fetus is in a fish stage? I googled it and all I found were creationist sites claiming it is used as a justification. It is certainly bad biology and I can't imagine anyone with a decent understanding of biology using the argument.

You should google 'ensoulment'. In the medieval church they believed a fetus has not actually got a soul until you feel it moving and that it went through a vegetable and animal stages before it actually received a human soul. Don't blame evolution for the 'the fetus isn't fully human yet' argument.

BIBLE = GOD DECIDES TRUTH = THE TEN COMMANDMENTS = OBJECTIVE MORALITY

EVOLUTION = MAN DECIDES TRUTH = MAN DECIDES WHAT IS RIGHT AND WRONG = SUBJECTIVE MORALITY

A false dichotomy I am afraid. We do have an objective moral code in the bible, and people who don't believe the bible have to work out their own moral code, often doing a very good job too. But it has nothing to do with evolution or any other science we have been studying for the last few thousand years deciding what is true about the world and what is not. Even with the moral code of the bible, we have still had to do a lot of work deciding for ourselves what is right and what is wrong, just look at slavery or divorce.

Evolution denies the Genesis account of Creation which is the foundation of the Bible and has replaced it with what MAN HAS DECIDED TO BE THE TRUTH!

No different from what Copernicus did when he showed the traditional literal interpretation was wrong when it said the sun went round the earth. It just meant we misunderstood those passages. Truth does not change. We cannot actually decide what is true or not. We can get a better understanding of what the truth actually is. That is what science does, why should that be a problem?

To be continued...

 

[Assyrian]

...continued.

They believe we are evolved animals over the course of millions of years. So is it logical to say that GOD is infallible and died on the Cross but since the "experts" who are fallible decide that we have came from these previous creatures Genesis is wrong and mankind is right? These presuppositions are fallacious. They cannot prove that we have came from the animal forms. We were not there to see the past in order to explain it in the present. But GOD was there in the Beginning, because in (Revelation 22:13, John 1:1-4, Genesis 1:1)

13I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. (Revelation 22:13)

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2The same was in the beginning with God.
3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

(John 1:1-4)


1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
(Genesis 1:1)

You see, the literal account of Genesis is the foundation of the Bible. If it was non-literal then the rest of the Bible would not be true.

Interesting you should quote Genesis and Revelation. Why does the beginning of the bible have to be literal when it can end in such deep allegory? Why not say if the completion of the bible is non literal then the rest can not be true? It simply does not follow. What it does tell us though is we have a God who love to communicate with us in picture images metaphor and allegory and we should not be surprised to see it cropping up all over the bible.

If the "promise" of God in Revelation 22:3 promises there will be no more curse, and the Genesis account was not true. Where did the 'curse' come from?

Sin?

3And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:

What is the curse? Death as provided in Genesis account of Creation. (Gen. 3:17-19)

What about the curse as provided in Gen 2:17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die. But Adam didn't die the day he ate the fruit, not physically anyway. So was the curse specifically speaking of physical death? There is spiritual death too. Remember Paul said he died when he sinned though he had been alive before it. In Gen 3, what was the reason God gives for Adam dying? It is because Adam was dust. Adam could have lived forever if he had not sinned because God provided the tree of life. When Adam sinned he died spiritually and was cut off from the tree of life. Because he was cut off form the everlasting life that is in God, his own mortality would catch up on him in the end.

You see, you guys who are Theistic evolutionists are trying to tell God what the account of Genesis says, instead of letting the WORD of GOD talk to you.

Only insofar as any interpretation tells God what the bible says, including literal interpretations.

We all live in the same universe, same planet, same fossils, same plants and animals, same evidence, same everything. The only difference is how we "interpret" the evidence. When the Bible is set by the Foundation of Truth and base it upon the evidence it makes sense. Take dogs as a tree. The very seed is just two dogs; male and female. They reproduce over the years then the tree begins to grow and branches start to grow those branches are results of variation in a kind. You can do that with every single animal. But evolution teaches, everything started with just one tree and from that seed the Father and mother of all things (Man decided this) is this single-celled organism that made all animals branched off from the same tree. JESUS said all the animals reproduce after their "own kind" .. If you take the Dog example it perfectly fits with the Bible. Not Evolution that mad has decided is true. Take the fossil record, it is logical enough to say the "flood" made these fossils because that much water pressure at once and then all that time for the water to sink down burying the animals is able to be fossilized. And many other things. But as you can see you cannot account believe in Evolution and Christianity at the same time, because God was in the beginning. Genesis is the literal account of creation in which is the foundation of the Bible.

Heb 1:1 Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets,
2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.
Lets stick to ascribing passages to Jesus when Jesus actually said them. Even if the a passage in Genesis was not actually spoken by Jesus, it is still scripture. Anyway the bible does not say animals reproduce after their kind. God commanded the earth to produce animal after their kind Gen 1:24 And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds". God commanded the earth to produce all the different types of animals, and what does evolution say happened? Natural processes in the earth produced all the different kinds of animals. Where is the contradiction?