Your thoughts on this story....

[Assyrian]

Please note -- I am making a careful distinction between the theory of evolution and people who agree with it.

I appreciate that. Though I think we have seen pretty clearly lately the cancerous effect this 'science is of the devil' doctrine has on the church. I am surprised to see such a gracious believer as you coming out with the same doctrine that produced so much bitterness and bigotry. I would have though such bitter fruit, from a non biblical tree, would leave a bad taste in you mouth.

And it is an unbiblical doctrine. There is nothing in the bible that says evolution is a lie of the devil, it is simply the unsupported assumption made by people to explain why modern science contradicts their interpretation of scripture.

The theory of evolution is a subtle lie from the father of lies. It is designed to replace the understanding of the direct actions of God with a fairytale that needs no God, that admits no God, that desires no God. It is the same lie as in the Garden of Eden -- men can have all understanding and be like God -- taken to a new level.

Again there is the assumption that it was designed for a purpose other than giving a scientific explanation for the world around us. This also contradicts a couple of millennia of theology that has seen the hand of God at work both in natural phenomena and in the miraculous.

Don't forget that the great move away from God in Europe took place long before Darwin, it followed Copernicus overturning the geocentrism everyone had beleive the bible taught clearly, and moved the earth from the centre of creation. It came as Galileo and Newton demonstrated the laws of mechanics and showed a universe that ran on natural laws without any obvious supernatural input. Of course Copernicus Galileo Newton and Darwin were right and this is simply the way God made the universe. But science has been used as the basis for infidelity and excluding God for a lot longer than just since the time of Darwin.

The people who hold the TOE are not "bad" people. They are not (for the most part) liars, con men, charlatans, etc. (Of course there are some classic examples of charlatans in the midst who were accepted for a long time because they reported what others wanted to hear) However, people who accept the TOE are wrong. They are deceived by the lie. They may be precious wonderful brothers and sisters in Christ, but they've got this point wrong.

Again I appreciate the grace, but it is still an unsupported assumption.

The TOE is a poison, which infects many many other things. It affects the worldview -- the lens through which we interpret reality. The part that bugs me the most is that it affects the view of Scripture. It is inconsistent to hold to a literal view of the flood if one supports the TOE. Yet a literal view of the flood is a big part of understanding God's plan/purpose/hatred of sin, etc.

There is nothing in a literal interpretation the flood account that says it was global flood. Jesus used both the flood and the destruction of Sodom to teach God's judgment on sin. Apparently the lesson can be taught from a local catastrophe too.

The TOE has affected how people view archeology, geology, sociology, etc. It is a cancer upon the body of science, corrupting the viewpoints, and replacing them with a progressive climb toward secular humanistic nirvana.

I think the myth of progress predated Darwin and didn't survive the world wars. I do not see how it effects geology while archaeology and anthropology I think would reject any value judgments of one culture being superior to another.

There is nothing wrong with science that explores and seeks to understand how God's creation works. There is much that I have no problem accepting and using. But it is when "Science" (i.e. the popular consensus view) becomes more authoritative than the revelation of God Himself that I reject it.

That would be science from the 5th century on then, because it was Augustine who first said how disgraceful and dangerous it was for Christians to contradict known science with their interpretation of scripture. Certainly from the time of Copernicus, science has been seen as a much more authoritative source on astronomy and cosmology than the bible.

My point about the flagellum was not a discussion of the ID argument. (as an aside, Dr. Behe shows in his latest book why the ID argument still stands strong in the case of the flagellum) Rather, it was pointing out that the standard of proof used in developing evolutionary theory is amazingly low -- as demonstrated in the posts responding to me. One must only show what "might" have happened to be accepted as truth. No direct evidence is required.

I don't see a point in bringing up the flagellum except in discussion of its discredited use as an argument for ID. I don't know how Behe reworked his argument in his new book but we will see about that when it comes up. What more evidence is needed to disprove irreducible complexity that the the existence of form with reduced complexity?

Another classic example is the trilobite eye, part of the cambrian explosion of life. One need not have fossils to demonstrate progression, only a fairytale of what might have been.

I don't think science ever considers something demonstrated without evidence, though it is quite happy to hypothesize. However instead of looking at a soft tissue development in an unknown ancestor of the trilobite, wouldn't it be better to deal with the progression we do have plenty of evidence for, the development of the mammalian 2 boned jaw from the five boned jaw we shared with the ancestor of reptiles, or the continuum of skull development from of our early ape ancestors to modern man. There is such a gradual change between the different hominid species that even YEC writers cannot agree which to label human and and which to label ape.

The fossil record does not record a gene by gene change from one critter to another. The fossils show fully developed animals, adapted for their environments.

Although our shared DNA does show the record of when in our evolution we got the different endogenous retroviral insertions we share with some apes and not others, or the broken vitamin C gene we share with the great apes.

But the fossils do show fully adapted animals, and it is only in a YEC strawman that we get the idea of transitional species with half an eye or an unhinged jaw.

Duane T Gish, D. T. Evolution? The Fossils Say No!

The two most easily distinguishable osteological differences between reptiles and mammals, however, have never been bridged by transitional series. All mammals, living or fossil, have a single bone, the dentary, on each side of the lower jaw, and all mammals, living or fossil, have three auditory ossicles or ear bones, the malleus, incus and stapes. In some fossil reptiles the number and size of the bones of the lower jaw are reduced compared to living reptiles. Every reptile, living or fossil, however, has at least four bones in the lower jaw and only one auditory ossicle, the stapes.

There are no transitional fossil forms showing, for instance, three or two jawbones, or two ear bones. No one has explained yet, for that matter, how the transitional form would have managed to chew while his jaw was being unhinged and rearticulated, or how he would hear while dragging two of his jaw bones up into his ear.

Compare this with the transition listed in http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex2
While the transition can be seen in retrospect, there is no suggestion that each of these animal were anything but fully developed and well adapted to their environment.

Goddidit -- the intellectual putdown of saying that it is somehow childish to say that God acted in accordance with how He said He did. I prefer a childish faith, accepting God at His word over the fairytales of men.

The problem with Goddidit is that it is invoked to explain any and every hole in the YEC scheme. Why do we share 98% or whatever it is DNA with chimps if we are a separate creation? Goddidit. Why have we the same endogenous retroviral insertions in a nested hierarcy with other apes? Goddidit. Why are there species with transitional forms of jaw between the mammal form and reptile? Goddidit. How did the earth keep from melting with the massively higher rates of radioactive decay YEC propose (without a shred of evidence) Goddidit. You complain about unsupported evo arguments. YEC science is built entirely on unsupported speculation and Goddidits, and they are not even the works of God mentioned in the bible, however much you misinterpret them. The bible does not say we share ERVs with apes or that he made us using a modified chimp blueprint.

"Its just your interpretation of the Bible" is another common refrain. However, this is not even close. God gave us the Scriptures that we might know Him. The Scriptures are written, not for "scholars" that reject all supernaturalism,

You are confusing TE with liberal theology. Understandable given the liberal tend to be TE. But conservative theology has been reconciling and reinterpreting scripture with science since the time of the Reformation, when they had to deal with Copernicus, while at the beginning of the 20th century The Fundamentalist had all reinterpreted Genesis in the light of modern geology and were beginning to open up to evolution too. Archie brought up a Methodist theologian and bible scholar of the period J A Beet, who it turns out accepted Evolution and the age of the earth and interpreted Genesis in that light.

but for the general population.

The same God who says my thoughts are not your thought nor my ways your ways...

Yes, they are deep, and have meaning upon meaning, and plumbing their depth is always a rewarding thing to do. But we must not put ourselves in a place of judging the Scriptures. God is the God of Noah, Isaac, Abraham, Jacob, etc. He is real, and has acted in real history, not just spiritual tales. The Hebrew people are totally unique in this regard. Their memorials, altars, wells, etc. commemorated real events, not stories.

See my last post.

It is when they forgot this and accepted the lies of the deceiver as equal to the Truth of God that they fell into error -- for which they were punished.

May the God of creation enlighten your heart and mind in Christ Jesus.

I thought they were punished for idolatry, immorality and injustice?

 

[Mickey1953]

Of course you're not suggesting that revising a theory in the light of new evidence is wrong in some way are you.

If you are asking me, I could not argue or debate science if I tried....
I was sharing story....

 

[laptoppop]

I'll try to respond to most of you tonight (~12 hours from now). I must admit, sometimes I feel like the scene from the movie Karate Kid where the two Sensei are discussing the gang beating up on Daniel:

Kreese: What's the matter, the boy can't take care of his own problems?
Miyagi: One to one problem, yes. FIVE to one problem, too much ask anyone.

 

[gluadys]

laptoppop, as per your request I have selected one article from the global flood archive for comment. This one is on fossil forests.

http://www.christianforums.com/t90596

A number of the links in the post are no longer valid. Here is a better article commenting on 6 fossil forests with links to additional material.

http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/forests.htm

 

[USincognito]

How did I miss this gem earlier. It's one of the more perfect written examples of the Gish Gallop I've seen on here (some are more concise but they ramble and don't include everything pop does).

Don't worry -- the evolutionists will come up with a new fairytale to describe why this fits just fine.

Start with a smart*** comment, this from someone who complains about civility and verbiage constantly.

I find it fascinating -- over and over they don't find it necessary to understand, but rather to postulate how things might have been.

Feigned bemusement matched with empty verbiage - note how he doesn't actually address the find at all.

The *DATA* supports us.

Bald assertion.

Their speculations and stories do not.

Diminuation, just like his "fairtale" comment in the first sentence.

A great example is the bacterium flagellum.

Tangental topic not related to hominid fossils.

They accept the wildest speculative stories as "proof" that it evolved -- despite no physical evidence to support it in all its complexities.

Diminuation, specious use of quotes, bald claim, value adding - "all its complexities".

The best story they come up with (TTS/TT3) has been shown to be a degredation of the flagellum, not its precursor.

Arcane reference.

Oh well -- their mind is made up, don't confuse them with facts.

Insult.

Let he who has ears to hear understand that the one True God, who created heaven and earth, does not lie, and understands all things. Praise His Name!

Preaching.

-------------
Magnificent work pop. You've outdone yourself in this one short paragraph. You only failed to do one thing...

...address the OP.